2013 NHL Draft

[Triumph]

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

 

I don't like this analysis, because that's not really what we're looking at.  Past results don't guarantee future outcomes.  I know I did a similar analysis, but I looked at players drafted from 7-11.  What I'd do in this case is look at players drafted at 5 versus 7-11.  

 

But the premise that Greene is replaceable is just not a sure thing at all.  It won't happen, so I'm not really going to fight about it.

[Daniel]

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

 

Again, all drafts are different.  We are told anyway that each of the first five picks could be the number 1 or 2 pick in a lot of draft years.  It depends on what you project the player you're targeting to be.  So yeah, Colorado, the Devils or Florida would not give up all that much to move up to number 1 in 2011.  RNH might still turn out to be a very good player, but Landeskog, Huberdeau and Larsson are not that far behind.  And at the time, a lot of people felt that Larsson was the best of the bunch.

 

Ultimately, you're targetting a player, not a pick.  And to reiterate, number 5 could turn out to be a bust.  From what you hear though, the risk of that is relatively low.

[Daniel]

 

 

But the premise that Greene is replaceable is just not a sure thing at all.  It won't happen, so I'm not really going to fight about it.

 

For fear of belaboring the point, what do you guage the chances of Greene being sufficiently replaceable, one way or the other, within, say, the next two years?  (You are the person that believes in probability uber alles).  I would say the chances are pretty good, or good enough that I'd be willing to take the risk.  And it could turn out to be a great reward if it turns out right.

[Devilsfan118]

 

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

 

 

 

But again, as Daniel said, this is draft-specific stuff.  While a trend may show this-and-that, here there is clearly likely to be a distinction in this draft between the #5 spot and the #9 spot.  

Edited June 27, 2013 by Devilsfan118

[DH26]

 

But again, as Daniel said, this is draft-specific stuff.  While a trend may show this-and-that, here there is clearly likely to be a distinction in this draft between the #5 spot and the #9 spot.  

 

If I was toronto there's no chance in hell I'd trade Phaneuf straight up for Vanek. Just because the Leafs brass is dumb enough to run him out of town isn't convincing me.

 

But I think that's a fallacy. Every draft is either deep or shallow or whatever on the surface but you don't really know for years. Like Tri said earlier, 2008 was supposed to be like 03 but it wasn't anything close. There are problems after the top 4 guys. THe Russian's far from a sure thing and wouldn't have been a #1 pick or anything another year. Every draft is different yeah but as a general trend even though the guy at #5 is presumed to be better going in, it's far from turning out that way consistently

 

Is Lindholm really that much more awesome than Shinkaruk? Maybe but I don't think it's really worth giving up a ton of assets to find out. I don't think the chances are that much better that he is and when you only have 4 picks, those chances aren't worth trading up for

Edited June 27, 2013 by DH26

[NJDevs4978]

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.

Key word is 'hope'...you're trading someone you know is a solid NHL player (with several good years left) AND a top ten pick for someone that might be a good forward in a couple years. None of the guys in this draft are really can't miss.

There are a bunch of defensemen on our roster that are 'replaceable', Greene isn't one of them right now. Saving Greene's $3 million in salary (really $2.25 million if you have a younger replacement) shouldn't be a high priority since at the rate we're going we'll struggle to be much above the floor.

[SterioDesign]

the thing is its sooo damn risky cause you never know really how players will develop. Lets take for example that the players from this year would be the guys from 2003.

 

we're picking 9 and we REALLY need a forward... but the ranking goes...(ill just put it as it went in real life back then)

 

1-Fleury

2-Staal

3-Horton

4-Zherdev

5-Vanek

6-Michalek

7-Suter

8-Coburn

9-Phaneuf

 

now lets forget what we know now about those guys... then lets say reports from scouts are saying that there's a drop after Michalek... next would be kostitsyn, Carter and Jessiman...

 

Do you trade Colin White or something to try to move up 3 spot hoping to land Michalek or Vanek? Cause at that point and in our situation now thats what we'd likely want

 

But how do we know that there's not guys in this draft projected later who will/could turn out like the Parise, Getzlaf, Perry, Bergeron, Eriksson, Richards, Kesler, Brown of 2003 ? 

Edited June 27, 2013 by SterioDesign

[Daniel]

Regarding the 2003 and 2008 drafts.  While I didn't follow them nearly to the extent I do now, I looked back at various commentaries leading up to them.  For purposes of whether and how much you would give up to move to number 5, those drafts were a different kind of animal.  At the time 2003 was thought to be very deep, but without safely projected superstars at the top.  In 2008 the consensus was that you had two can't misses at the top -- Doughty and Stamkos, and then a lot of players that were thought could safely turn out to be very good players. 

 

In this draft, each of MacKinnon, Barkov, Jones and Drouin, and maybe Nischuskin, we are told by people who tend to know about this stuff, could each be number 1 picks in a lot of draft years.  I think it's pretty safe to say that each of them -- save Nischuskin -- would have been number 1 in 2011 and 2012 (2011 being the first draft that I followed closely), and probably number 1 by a healthy margin. 

[Daniel]

Key word is 'hope'...you're trading someone you know is a solid NHL player (with several good years left) AND a top ten pick for someone that might be a good forward in a couple years. None of the guys in this draft are really can't miss.

There are a bunch of defensemen on our roster that are 'replaceable', Greene isn't one of them right now. Saving Greene's $3 million in salary (really $2.25 million if you have a younger replacement) shouldn't be a high priority since at the rate we're going we'll struggle to be much above the floor.

 

MacKinnon is certainly a can't miss, or about as close to it as you can get without being Sydney Crosby.  Jones is the closest you can get to a can't miss defenseman.  Barkov and Drouin shall we say very safely project to be second line forwards. 

 

And again, I get it.  Alexander Daigle was thought to be can't miss too. 

 

Finally, getting back to Greene, it's a pretty good bet that he's not replaceable this year.  But at the same time, you shouldn't expect the Devils to be going very far this coming year.  In two years, when he's 32, the analysis changes.  People tend to be ignoring that in responding to my posts.

 

EDIT:  Should read that Barkov and Drouin project safely to be "at least" second line forwards.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Daniel

[CMONPETEYD]

MacKinnon is certainly a can't miss, or about as close to it as you can get without being Sydney Crosby.  Jones is the closest you can get to a can't miss defenseman.  Barkov and Drouin shall we say very safely project to be second line forwards. 

 

And again, I get it.  Alexander Daigle was thought to be can't miss too. 

 

Finally, getting back to Greene, it's a pretty good bet that he's not replaceable this year.  But at the same time, you shouldn't expect the Devils to be going very far this coming year.  In two years, when he's 32, the analysis changes.  People tend to be ignoring that in responding to my posts.

 

I am agreeing with everything you are saying. I should be +1ing your posts but i am a little lazy!

[NJDevs4978]

Finally, getting back to Greene, it's a pretty good bet that he's not replaceable this year. But at the same time, you shouldn't expect the Devils to be going very far this coming year. In two years, when he's 32, the analysis changes. People tend to be ignoring that in responding to my posts.

EDIT: Should read that Barkov and Drouin project safely to be "at least" second line forwards.

That's a rebuilding mentality. If we were truly rebuilding (which Lou's not doing), I'd rather keep 9 and draft a d-man if we have to, trade one of our pipeline d-men for a young forward and then flip Greene for other assets like a 1 next year.

But it's moot because again, Lou won't go the rebuild move. And trading a proven NHL player (who's not a UFA) to get younger is rebuilding.

[Triumph]

MacKinnon is certainly a can't miss, or about as close to it as you can get without being Sydney Crosby.  Jones is the closest you can get to a can't miss defenseman.  Barkov and Drouin shall we say very safely project to be second line forwards. 

 

And again, I get it.  Alexander Daigle was thought to be can't miss too. 

 

Finally, getting back to Greene, it's a pretty good bet that he's not replaceable this year.  But at the same time, you shouldn't expect the Devils to be going very far this coming year.  In two years, when he's 32, the analysis changes.  People tend to be ignoring that in responding to my posts.

 

EDIT:  Should read that Barkov and Drouin project safely to be "at least" second line forwards.

 

The Devils don't get better by getting worse next year because they don't have a draft pick.  There's no incentive to lose, so they shouldn't be getting rid of good players on purpose.  A defense of Salvador, Fayne, Tallinder, Volchenkov, Larsson could be pretty dire, and then the year after, Tallinder and Fayne are UFAs, so the only guys you have under contract are Salvador, Larsson, and Volchenkov.

[njdevsftw]

How about moving Greene (or Fayne?) to somewhere that needs D straight up for their 1st round pick? (Keeping our own 9th.) Calgary and Columbus have like a hundred picks.. Seems to me like there will still be some solid offensive talents available from 10-17 as well..?

Edited June 27, 2013 by njdevsftw

[Devilsfan118]

How about moving Greene (or Fayne?) to somewhere that needs D straight up for their 1st round pick? (Keeping our own 9th.) Calgary and Columbus have like a hundred picks.. Seems to me like there will still be some solid offensive talents available from 10-17 as well..?

 

Only way I'd be willing to move Greene is to move up into the elite prospect range.  Anything less than that, for Greene, would probably not be worth it.

 

And there's no way Greene fetches a top-5 pick alone.

[CarpathianForest]

I would trade our 9 pick and maybe another pick for Columbus' 14th pick and Cam Atkinson.

[sokar]

I wonder if we can get both of Columbus 1st rd picks

[thefiestygoat]

I wonder if we can get both of Columbus 1st rd picks

I'd be thrilled if the Devils could swing a deal with Columbus for 2 1st. They have the 14th, 19th, and 27th picks.

[Daniel]

Since I think it's been an interesting discussion, I feel like making one post that discusses my rationale for trading 9, Greene and something the Devils could do without if Carolina insists, for Carolina's number 5 and perhaps something they can do without, and also addresses the counterarguments I've been getting. 

 

First though, let's get my assumptions and disclaimers out of the way.  Except for J. MacIsaac, who's been MIA lately, none of us are scouts, so far as I know.  I am going on what I've read about the prospects in this draft.  And what I've read is that the players you could end up with at 5 -- Drouin, Barkov and Nischuskin -- would all have probably been number 1 overall picks in at least 2011 and 2012, which is when I started following the draft with something more than a passing interest.  That's not sure thing territory, of course, but it creates a reasonable assumption that any of those three are future all-star top line forwards.  No one can quantify the risk that they turn out not to be that, and how far from that they turn out to be.  That's ultimatley in the eye of the beholder, and there's no sense in debating that point, other than to disagree with what you believe the potential is.  As an off the cuff guestimate, I'll say that there's 30 percent chance they're in the territory of Pavel Datsyuk/Giroux/2012 Kovalchuk range, 40 percent that they're in the Kopitar/Nash/Parise range, 20 percent that they're MIke Richards/Jeff Carter and 10 percent that they turn out to be solid NHL players or something worse, which is what you would conclude is a bust. 

 

Now, let's get to my team building philosophy as an armchair GM.  The goal is to build a team that can be a consistent Stanley Cup contender sooner rather than later.  That does not mean that if you're not that at the present time, you're rebuilding, but at the very least it does mean that you're missing a few significant pieces that you can't pull off the scrap heap, but pieces that are reasonably obtainable either from within or without.  I put the Devils, from an organizational standpoint, in the latter category.

 

If we leave things as they are and keep the number 9 pick, the Devils are around as good or bad, depending on your point of view, for the next two years.  Let's say that we can loosely predict the number 9 pick, if it's a forward, will have Mike Richards upside, Henrique/Josh Baiely (just to make Tri happy) potential in the middle range, and Steve Bernier or worse downside, each scenario being roughly a 33 percent probability.  If it's a defenseman, let's say the reasonable prediction is Karl Azner, who I'm told is better than I'm giving him credit for.  All things being equal, and giving realistic predictions for the prospects, I would say going into the foreseeable future, you might end up being as good as the Caps.  A team you can always pencil in to make the playoffs, that might win a round two, and if everything goes absolutely right might win a Cup, a la Carolina in 2006.  That's not a bad place to be, but it's not ideal either.

 

Now, let's assume that we make the trade.  We are not going to be a better team next year, or at least I'll concede the point for purposes of the discussion.  However, I do believe that one of Urbom, Gelinas and Merrill can step in next year and be a reasonably competent defenseman right off the bat.  And, if all goes well, one of them, this coming year, can be about as good as Mark Fayne was towards the end of 2011.  I'm not concerned with looking like a fool and missing out on a very high draft pick next year.  That's water under the bridge.  In two to three years though, you're back to having a defense corps that's at least as good as this past year's.  And I think you can reasonably predict your forwards are much better than what you have now when you put together the sum of the parts.  Elias will either be nearing the end, but still effective, Kovalchuk will have a 35 goal per year ceiling, and Zajac a 45 point ceiling.  But Henrique ought to be better, Josefson might actually learn to score goals every so often, Matteau could give you a Brad Marchand upside, and you'll have a stud first liner with whoever you draft at 5, and maybe Reid Boucher can be a guy who you can pencil in for 15 goals.  Or, it could go horribly wrong in the short term, but you'll have a good pick in 2015, and can start a steady improvment after that.

 

In the end, maybe it comes down to getting a number 1 pick type talent in exchange for a 30 year old Andy Greene and a guy with a 50/50 of being a second line forward.  I think you have to do it, if someone will take it.

[CarpathianForest]

Apparently Calgary offered Colorado all three of their first round picks for Colorado's first overall. That's a pretty big offer.

[Devilsfan118]

Apparently Calgary offered Colorado all three of their first round picks for Colorado's first overall. That's a pretty big offer.

 

Still wouldn't take it if I were Colorado.

[SterioDesign]

Still wouldn't take it if I were Colorado.

 

must be so hard to be a GM and having to make those decisions... like who knows really? youre constantly gambling. imagine if Flyers would have offered their 2 first round pick in 2003 cause they needed a goalie desperately and were going hard for Fleury. 

 

I can't say in 2003 if i would have had to make that trade or not based on the scouting reports at the time. But i can assure you that in 2013 looking back at it i would have kept Carter and Richards 110% sure lol

Edited June 27, 2013 by SterioDesign

[Triumph]

I don't like the level of certainty exhibited by this piece, but there's a lot of truth to it nonetheless:  http://thats-offside.blogspot.ca/2013/06/defense-defensemen-and-draft.html

[RizzMB30]

I don't like the level of certainty exhibited by this piece, but there's a lot of truth to it nonetheless:  http://thats-offside.blogspot.ca/2013/06/defense-defensemen-and-draft.html

Very interesting piece, I enjoyed the writing, but can't argue the certainty.  Although it would detract from his main thesis, it would interesting to see guys who made the NHL as regulars without having the near .5 ppg average.

Edited June 28, 2013 by RizzMB30

[Daniel]

(Grrrr, Tapatalk making me mad)

I was going to say that the big problem with this article is that the writer considers anyone drafted in the first three rounds to be an "early" pick. Usually we think of anything past the 16th pick to not be an early pick. If he wanted to do something more useful, he should have confined it to the first round selections, maybe the second round, but no further than that. Or better yet, compare high point second rounders to low point first rounders and see if there's anything to it. Thats especially the case since he's making a pretty bold prediction that Jordan Subban will be a better NHLer than Zadorov.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Daniel

[Triumph]

(Grrrr, Tapatalk making me mad) I was going to say that the big problem with this article is that the writer considers anyone drafted in the first three rounds to be an "early" pick. Usually we think of anything past the 16th pick to not be an early pick. If he wanted to do something more useful, he should have confined it to the first round selections, maybe the second round, but no further than that. Or better yet, compare high point second rounders to low point first rounders and see if there's anything to it. Thats especially the case since he's making a pretty bold prediction that Jordan Subban will be a better NHLer than Zadorov.

 

That is casting a wide net, but it eats up plenty of 1st rounders as well.  Like I said, I don't like the certainty, because one junior season has plenty of variance in it, and a player can have a rough season by the percentages.  But it's something that I always say - while offense may not make it to the next level, it is always a good sign.  If you're not putting up points in junior, you probably don't have much skill with the puck, and it's hard to develop that outside of junior.  Indeed, there are guys like Chara who developed it later on, but they are the exception.  I think with a lot of these big players, the idea is that he has to grow into his body or something like that, but it's just not often that it happens.