Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SMantzas

2013 NHL Draft

1,243 posts in this topic

The Rangers don't have any legitimate defense prospects, so them trading Del Zotto or Girardi would be a nightmare for them.  They are already down Sauer and quite possibly Staal

 

 

Because GMs also don't know how to think probabalistically.  Josh Bailey probably represents the 50th percentile or so of 9th overall picks.  Here, I'll extend a band between 7 and 11, and go over the drafts since 1998 to 2009:

 

1998:  Malhotra, M. Bell, Rupp, Antropov, Heerema (1 out of 5 became a 'top 6 forward' - Bell was very briefly, maybe)

1999:  Beech, Pyatt, Lundmark, Mezei, Saprykin (0 of 5 became a top 6 F/top 4 D)

2000:  Jonsson, Alexeev, Krahn, Yakubov, Vorobiev (0 of 5)

2001:  Komisarek, Leclaire, Ruutu, Blackburn, Sjostrom (I'll be generous and call this 3 of 5)

2002:  Lupul, Bouchard, Taticek, Nystrom, Ballard (Again, generous, 3 of 5)

2003:  Suter, Coburn, Phaneuf, Kostitsyn, Carter (5 of 5, again, being generous)

2004:  Olesz, Picard, Smid, Valabik, Tukonen (1 of 5, generous)

2005:  Skille, Setoguchi, Lee, Bourdon, Kopitar (2 of 5, generous)

2006:  Okposo, Mueller, Sheppard, Frolik, Bernier (jury's out on Bernier, I'm calling this 1.5 out of 5)

2007:  Voracek, Hamill, Couture, Ellerby, Sutter (2 of 5)

2008:  Wilson, Boedker, Bailey, Hodgson, Beach (Generously giving 3.5)

2009:  Kadri, Glennie, Cowen, Paajarvi, Ellis (2.5 out of 5)

 

So that's 24.5 out of 60 players who became top 4 D or top 6 Fs, and I pretty much gave everyone who was marginal a pass.  This draft is supposed to be stronger, but again, you really can't go overrating a pick this high, it is by no means a sure thing, and if the Devils come out of it with a 2nd/3rd line player, it's not a disappointment, nor is it a triumph.

 

 

The problem with your logic is that from year to year there are varying strengths to each draft class.  As you see with 2003, 5 of 5.  This draft is talked about in similar fashion to 2003, maybe not as many stars, but certainly deeper into the top 40. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if this is a less top heavy, but deeper 2003 draft then the Devils should move down, not up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with your logic is that from year to year there are varying strengths to each draft class.  As you see with 2003, 5 of 5.  This draft is talked about in similar fashion to 2003, maybe not as many stars, but certainly deeper into the top 40. 

 

2008 was supposed to be like 2003.  Look at those 5 players - none of them is a top line player, it doesn't look like any will become one, and one of them is already a straight up bust.  The other 4 are decent players and guys you'd like to have on your team, but none of them are going to turn the franchise around.  That's why the hyperbole around here has to be checked, even with the presumed strength of the draft class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2008 was supposed to be like 2003.  Look at those 5 players - none of them is a top line player, it doesn't look like any will become one, and one of them is already a straight up bust.  The other 4 are decent players and guys you'd like to have on your team, but none of them are going to turn the franchise around.  That's why the hyperbole around here has to be checked, even with the presumed strength of the draft class.

 

This is why I'd have no problem with taking Ristolainen or Nurse if Conte thought they were the best player available and and the Monahan/Lindholm guys were gone and it wasn't worth trading down even if I'd rather have a forward. Just get the guy you think's gonna be better (even if forwards admittedly project more easily) and don't worry about need unless there's a tie 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Rangers don't have any legitimate defense prospects, so them trading Del Zotto or Girardi would be a nightmare for them. They are already down Sauer and quite possibly Staal

Now you are talking nonsense. A team that drafts consistently in the 10 to 6 range that only has a bunch of players that are "capable of playing in the NHL" to show for it will always be drafting there because that team won't be any good. Steve Bernier and Ryan Carter are capable of playing in the NHL. Even if you don't take into account plausible alternatives, any GM that told you he wasn't disappointed because he got one of those players at number 9 would be considered a clown.

Or how about this, imagine if Lou traded the number 9 pick for, I don't know, Cal Clutterbuck, a perfectly capable NHL player. You can tell me how much he "drives play" all you want, but, if you were being honest at all, you would be screaming that Lou has lost his mind.

Because GMs also don't know how to think probabalistically. Josh Bailey probably represents the 50th percentile or so of 9th overall picks. Here, I'll extend a band between 7 and 11, and go over the drafts since 1998 to 2009:

1998: Malhotra, M. Bell, Rupp, Antropov, Heerema (1 out of 5 became a 'top 6 forward' - Bell was very briefly, maybe)

1999: Beech, Pyatt, Lundmark, Mezei, Saprykin (0 of 5 became a top 6 F/top 4 D)

2000: Jonsson, Alexeev, Krahn, Yakubov, Vorobiev (0 of 5)

2001: Komisarek, Leclaire, Ruutu, Blackburn, Sjostrom (I'll be generous and call this 3 of 5)

2002: Lupul, Bouchard, Taticek, Nystrom, Ballard (Again, generous, 3 of 5)

2003: Suter, Coburn, Phaneuf, Kostitsyn, Carter (5 of 5, again, being generous)

2004: Olesz, Picard, Smid, Valabik, Tukonen (1 of 5, generous)

2005: Skille, Setoguchi, Lee, Bourdon, Kopitar (2 of 5, generous)

2006: Okposo, Mueller, Sheppard, Frolik, Bernier (jury's out on Bernier, I'm calling this 1.5 out of 5)

2007: Voracek, Hamill, Couture, Ellerby, Sutter (2 of 5)

2008: Wilson, Boedker, Bailey, Hodgson, Beach (Generously giving 3.5)

2009: Kadri, Glennie, Cowen, Paajarvi, Ellis (2.5 out of 5)

So that's 24.5 out of 60 players who became top 4 D or top 6 Fs, and I pretty much gave everyone who was marginal a pass. This draft is supposed to be stronger, but again, you really can't go overrating a pick this high, it is by no means a sure thing, and if the Devils come out of it with a 2nd/3rd line player, it's not a disappointment, nor is it a triumph.

Re the Rangers, you could probably pencil in McIlrath as a guy that can be a legitimate NHL defenseman in the next couple of years.

Otherwise, I get it, you can always do worse than a solid NHL player at number 9. You could always do worse at number 1. And if we were talking about last year's draft, which was fairly pedestrian, you could take your lumps if that's all it turns out to be. But as you noted, not all draft classes are created equal, and this one is supposed to be very good. Considering the position the Devils are in, coming away with a third line forward or a second pairing defensemen would be disappointing. We have plenty of those types of players. In fact, virtually every team has those kinds of players. Getting another one doesn't advance the ball very far.

(Btw, there also appears to be a trend of picks in that range getting better, especially when compared to the late 90s, where you probably had less in the way of scouting resources and international play to rate European players, but that's just an off the cuff observation).

But this also brings me back to the original discussion of whether it makes sense to trade to number 5 and at what cost. Lou mentioned, when asked about the Avs noting that they would listen to offers, that they would "probably want our house". Now, you have Carolina evidently saying that they would trade their pick, who will land you someone that is not that much further off from MacKinnon, for a top four defenseman and a pick somewhere in the vicinity of what the Devils have. Playing it safe, will mean the Devils are probably going to be an on again off again playoff team. I could live with that, I suppose. If you trade Greene, the 9 and other things you can live without, the Devils are probably not much worse than that even if whoever you get at 5 fizzles. I mean, it might get worse next year, but as I said, with all of the defensemen that are in the system, you should expect at least one of them to be a decent replacement for Greene. In the meantime, if you end up getting 80 percent of the potential out of the number 5 pick, the Devils are a top seed caliber team on a year in, year out basis.

Frankly, I'm actually starting to not throw up at the idea of taking Fucale at 9. It assumes a lot of things of course, that the forwards available aren't going to be second line caliber, that Fucale is actually better than your typical first round goalie prospect, which some are suggesting he is, and that he won't be around at a later pick the Devils already have or might trade into. We all know that the problem or perceived problem with drafting a goalie is the difficulty of predicting their success. But if you get it right, it does you a whole a lot more good than a second line forward or top four defenseman.

That's what makes this fun I guess

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One interesting caveat to the Canes trade scenario is that Johnny Mac has, for better or worse, some familiarity with our lesser known "assets."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chill. It wasn't a ringing endorsement of the idea.

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re the Rangers, you could probably pencil in McIlrath as a guy that can be a legitimate NHL defenseman in the next couple of years.

 

I don't see why.  Impossible to judge defensive D by stats, but I certainly wouldn't judge him by draft position either.  He's 21. Time is getting short - if he hasn't made his NHL debut by next year, or isn't doing well in that debut, his future is dim.

 

 

Otherwise, I get it, you can always do worse than a solid NHL player at number 9. You could always do worse at number 1. And if we were talking about last year's draft, which was fairly pedestrian, you could take your lumps if that's all it turns out to be. But as you noted, not all draft classes are created equal, and this one is supposed to be very good. Considering the position the Devils are in, coming away with a third line forward or a second pairing defensemen would be disappointing. We have plenty of those types of players. In fact, virtually every team has those kinds of players.

 

They really don't.  That's why there are good and bad teams in the NHL - it isn't star players that separates them.  Star players are great, but they cost a lot of money right away typically.  Star players separate the best teams from the good teams.  But it's guys in the middle that separate the teams who can make the playoffs from the teams that don't.

 

 

Getting another one doesn't advance the ball very far. (Btw, there also appears to be a trend of picks in that range getting better, especially when compared to the late 90s, where you probably had less in the way of scouting resources and international play to rate European players, but that's just an off the cuff observation).

 

The drafts from 1996-2002 are almost universally bad, it's not like talent was found in the later rounds either.  There just wasn't that much talent.

 

 

But this also brings me back to the original discussion of whether it makes sense to trade to number 5 and at what cost. Lou mentioned, when asked about the Avs noting that they would listen to offers, that they would "probably want our house". Now, you have Carolina evidently saying that they would trade their pick, who will land you someone that is not that much further off from MacKinnon, for a top four defenseman and a pick somewhere in the vicinity of what the Devils have.

 

The Hurricanes have not said anything like this.  The journalists have.  And I think it's quite silly to list the 5th overall with MacKinnon, MacKinnon is crushing junior hockey, barring injury he will be an excellent player in the NHL.  There's a reason why he is going 1st overall, and that no one thinks he will slip to 5th.  The 5th has a lot more risk.

 

 

Playing it safe, will mean the Devils are probably going to be an on again off again playoff team. I could live with that, I suppose. If you trade Greene, the 9 and other things you can live without, the Devils are probably not much worse than that even if whoever you get at 5 fizzles. I mean, it might get worse next year, but as I said, with all of the defensemen that are in the system, you should expect at least one of them to be a decent replacement for Greene. In the meantime, if you end up getting 80 percent of the potential out of the number 5 pick, the Devils are a top seed caliber team on a year in, year out basis. Frankly, I'm actually starting to not throw up at the idea of taking Fucale at 9. It assumes a lot of things of course, that the forwards available aren't going to be second line caliber, that Fucale is actually better than your typical first round goalie prospect, which some are suggesting he is, and that he won't be around at a later pick the Devils already have or might trade into. We all know that the problem or perceived problem with drafting a goalie is the difficulty of predicting their success. But if you get it right, it does you a whole a lot more good than a second line forward or top four defenseman. That's what makes this fun I guess

 

You wrote this out on an ipad?  Anyway, Fucale would be a horrendous pick (doesn't mean he can't be successful, it's just a bad pick), but that aside, it's much harder to replace Greene-level players than you think, and that's what seperates the good and bad teams in this league - it's not that the bad teams don't have enough star players (though this contributes), it's that they don't have enough Andy Greenes.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hurricanes have not said anything like this. The journalists have. And I think it's quite silly to list the 5th overall with MacKinnon, MacKinnon is crushing junior hockey, barring injury he will be an excellent player in the NHL.

Anyway, Fucale would be a horrendous pick (doesn't mean he can't be successful, it's just a bad pick), but that aside, it's much harder to replace Greene-level players than you think, and that's what seperates the good and bad teams in this league - it's not that the bad teams don't have enough star players (though this contributes), it's that they don't have enough Andy Greenes.

Dreger mentioned the Carolina rumor a few times. He's fairly reliable journalist when it comes to these sorts of things. Ultimately, we'll see how it plays out, but it comes from a reliable enough source that it's worth bringing up as opposed to if it were the usual hockeybuzz nonsense.

Re Greene, it would be one thing if we had the Rangers prospect pool at defense, where they are extremely thin. McIlrath is the only one who projects right now to be in the NHL for something more than a cup of coffee. Skej evidently had an awful freshman year at Minnesota. However, the Devils have 3 prospects who could challenge for a roster spot this year (Urbom, Gelinas and Merrill), another one who will in two years (Severson), and another that you might get real lucky with (Scarlett). Out of that lot, it's a safe bet that one of them is as good as Andy Greene eventually. Merrill especially.

As I noted already, I wasn't endorsing the idea of drafting Fucale at 9, just that I'd be slightly less nauseated about it than had you asked me a few days ago.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like moving one of our Dmen to aquire even a 13-17 range 1st rounder would be a good idea considering the utterly impotent offense we had last year. We could probably get Horvat, Mantha, Lazar or Shinkaruk in there..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buzzing the Net: Scouts Preview the Top 10 Prospects

 

Interesting read but all the quotes they give are pretty positive so it's not a complete critique of those prospects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More I see the mock drafts, the more I tend to believe that one of the elite forwards won't fall to 9, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More I see the mock drafts, the more I tend to believe that one of the elite forwards won't fall to 9, unfortunately.

 

Nobody really knows what's gonna happen w/ Edmonton's pick with MacT shopping it all over the world and Carolina's pick if they decide ot trade it. Someone could trade up bc they love Nurse or something and then one falls.  You never know. Parise wasn't supposed to be there in 03 but there he was

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More I see the mock drafts, the more I tend to believe that one of the elite forwards won't fall to 9, unfortunately.

 

Mock drafts, unless they're by someone like McKenzie who talks to lots of scouts, have absolutely no clue what's going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On NHL radio, I believe Custance mentioned that the Flames offered its three first round picks to Colorado for number 1 overall.  I I'm Colorado, I say no thanks.  Always go with the sure, or at least the most sure thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Jones could conceivably drop to 4 or 5.

 

Would be bad if he dropped to 5 for anyone that wanted to trade into Carolina's pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading your best defenseman to move up four spots in the draft is a bit irresponsible. If the Devils don't like what's at 9, they can trade down and recoup later round picks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Jones could conceivably drop to 4 or 5.

 

Inconceivable!

 

(but yeah, pretty crazy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading your best defenseman to move up four spots in the draft is a bit irresponsible. If the Devils don't like what's at 9, they can trade down and recoup later round picks.

I'm riding shotgun on the Bo Horvat train, so id be ok with this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading your best defenseman to move up four spots in the draft is a bit irresponsible. If the Devils don't like what's at 9, they can trade down and recoup later round picks.

 

You're not just "trading up four spots".  You're trading into a spot where you hope to land a guy who can be a first line forward in the near future, and in light of the fact that the drop off in talent is said to be significant after around pick 6 or 7. 

 

To take an extreme example to illustrate the principle, if you held even the number 2 pick in 2005, you would trade your best defenseman, and probably a lot more, to move up one spot to get Sydney Crosby. 

 

Ultimately, Greene is replaceable with what's in the system, if not this year, perhaps the following year.  It should also be noted that you'd be saving yourself at least $4 million in salary for the next two years.

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not just "trading up four spots".  You're trading into a spot where you hope to land a guy who can be a first line forward in the near future, and in light of the fact that the drop off in talent is said to be significant after around pick 6 or 7. 

 

To take an extreme example to illustrate the principle, if you held even the number 2 pick in 2005, you would trade your best defenseman, and probably a lot more, to move up one spot to get Sydney Crosby. 

 

Ultimately, Greene is replaceable with what's in the system, if not this year, perhaps the following year.  It should also be noted that you'd be saving yourself at least $4 million in salary for the next two years.

 

ok, ther'es a difference between the 5th pick and the first pick. You don't get Crosby caliber guys at 5 usually, and there's probably not that much of a difference between the 5th and 9th pick. There might be the perception now, but I doubt long term there's a huge difference looking back.

 

2003: Phaneuf at 9, Vanek at 5, wash I'd prefer Phaneuf for health.

 

2004: Wheeler at 5, Smid at 9. Smid probably wins

 

2005: Price at 5 Lee at 9 5 wins

 

2006: Kessel at 5 Jshepphard at 9: 5 wins

 

2007: 5 is Alzner 9 is Couture. 9 probably wins

 

2008: 5 is L Schenn 9 is Bailey. Probably a wash

 

2009: 5 is B. Schenn, 9 is Jared Cowen 5 wins slightly I guess maybe

 

2010: 5 is Nino from NYI and 9 is Granlund. 9 wins

 

2011: 5 is Strome 9 is Hamilton. As of now 9 wins.

 

So really not much difference bt 5 and 9 and I wouldn't give up assets to trade up unless you could get Barkov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0