2016 NHL Entry Draft Discussion - June 24, 25 (Not a Matthews-Laine Thread)

[Duffman955]

i don't really see that being the case. I would think that we all know eventually one (or two) of the players will have to be traded off. I don't know why people are so very adamant that it can't happen. I think that if you are a proficient enough prospect you'd make a package that help benefit your team. The end. i mean Drouin comes to mind. I mean ultimately Yzerman didn't trade him (and now Drouin removed his trade request), but the offers (or rumours to be fair) coming in for him weren't all players of the same height. (if they were - then I stand corrected and your (and ernie's) point can stand.

I would say that it takes a blend. Even if you want to say that Dubas's comment was talking out of his butthole - that's fine - he also stated several times along with Hunter that they aren't against sized, and they will draft size when it makes sense - they want skill before anything else. Now. considering we were devoid of skill period - maybe they didn't see any at the time that would have boom/bust, or what not. If we go through this entire draft and only one player is over 6 feet tall (Matthews) - then I think people have a legitimate bone to pick.

i figure if our only problem really is that we're skilled and small - i'd take that to where we were before. and I would also wait and see how we move past it before thinking that's how we're going to be a team, or we're going to be like Montreal.

Problem is that if you draft a bunch of very similar prospects, you will not be able to play them all in the same lineup.

When Marner, Nylander and a few of the others make the team, there will be no space for other small wingers, while leaving glaring holes elsewhere in the lineup.

You definitely have to draft to build a team, not just overload on similar prospects. Look at oilers, bunch of small wingers and nothing else.

 

[Nithoniniel]

The bottom end is that the philosophy Dubas is talking about, and that I support, is really not about anything else than getting as good prospects as possible first, worry about what a hypothetical future lineup might need second.

 

[Duffman955]

His words were twisted. He never said we'd trade small skilled players for big skilled players. He said that it's easier to acquire intangibles and size rather than skill. That's what it boils down to.

Essentially, he's saying that you don't look at the size of a player when you draft. You look at what he can do now and what kind of impact he has. It's really that simple.

Drafting and NHL roster needs are two complete seperate entities. You don't draft to fill needs. You draft to acquire talent whether that player is 7' or 5'.



I mean, your basically contradicting and making it up as you go. You want size but not only that, physical size. JVR has skill and size but it doesn't count because he doesn't play like you want him too? OK? He was traded because Philly needed a defender and the Flyers had lot's of forwards. I'm pretty sure they regret that move quite a bit and the Leafs capitalized on their stupidity.

I mean I get it, people like physical players and a balance is definitely not a bad thing. Do we care if Komarov is 5'11"? No. Should we care Marner is 6'? No. It's what they do on the ice that matters.

We're talking about the draft though and you will find a lot more success finding players all over the draft if you focus on the hockey aspect of a player, but what a scale or bench press says. You will eventually find big players that have that top skill level, you will find smaller players with top skill level. It will even itself out. If two players are about the same, then go for the bigger or more physical player, sure.

I really don't understand what's so hard to understand. It's mind blowing how people judge a player... truly amazing.

You act as if size is completely irrelevant in hockey. Size and power is a skill.

Players that drive to the net and use board play to their advantage are absolutely necessary for a possession based game. If you have a bunch of small players, therr will be no one to battle in front of the net or retrieve pucks along the boards.

 

[SprDaVE]

You act as if size is completely irrelevant in hockey. Size and power is a skill.

Players that drive to the net and use board play to their advantage are absolutely necessary for a possession based game. If you have a bunch of small players, therr will be no one to battle in front of the net or retrieve pucks along the boards.

I never said it was useless? I said it's secondary, especially at the draft table.

And players of all size can play a possession game, along the boards or not. It doesn't matter if you're 6'5" or 5'8". Some of the best puck possession players are under 6'. I fail to see how size makes you better here... probably because it doesn't.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Problem is that if you draft a bunch of very similar prospects, you will not be able to play them all in the same lineup.

When Marner, Nylander and a few of the others make the team, there will be no space for other small wingers, while leaving glaring holes elsewhere in the lineup.

You definitely have to draft to build a team, not just overload on similar prospects. Look at oilers, bunch of small wingers and nothing else.

Oilers, where three of their four most important players are centers?

Honestly, it feels that the topic has changed half a dozen times over since it started. It started about drafting the most skilled player over a lesser player who has the size, and now you are talking about whether or not we should only draft small wingers. It makes it hard to discuss.

 

[hotpaws]

His words were twisted. He never said we'd trade small skilled players for big skilled players. He said that it's easier to acquire intangibles and size rather than skill. That's what it boils down to.

Essentially, he's saying that you don't look at the size of a player when you draft. You look at what he can do now and what kind of impact he has. It's really that simple.

Drafting and NHL roster needs are two complete seperate entities. You don't draft to fill needs. You draft to acquire talent whether that player is 7' or 5'.



I mean, your basically contradicting and making it up as you go. You want size but not only that, physical size. JVR has skill and size but it doesn't count because he doesn't play like you want him too? OK? He was traded because Philly needed a defender and the Flyers had lot's of forwards. I'm pretty sure they regret that move quite a bit and the Leafs capitalized on their stupidity. Ironically, they traded for a physical player with size and we got the "soft" player. Speaking of which, Flyers also traded Mike Richards (5'11") for Simmonds (6'2") and Schenn (6'1"), while traded Carter (6'4") for Voracek (6'2").

I mean I get it, people like physical players and a balance is definitely not a bad thing. Do we care if Komarov is 5'11"? No. Should we care Marner is 6'? No. It's what they do on the ice that matters.

We're talking about the draft though and you will find a lot more success finding players all over the draft if you focus on the hockey aspect of a player, rather than what a scale or bench press says. You will eventually find big players that have that top skill level, you will find smaller players with top skill level. It will even itself out. If two players are about the same, then go for the bigger or more physical player, sure. Like Hunter said, what's the point of drafting a big player if he can't play?

I really don't understand what's so hard to understand. It's mind blowing how people judge a player... truly amazing.

His statement was clear and if I remember correctly it was in direct response to the number small players we selected so the only one twisting his words are the people trying to defend them.

This is the same crap that use to go on whenever Burke opened his mouth before thinking. Lucky for us LL has pretty much muzzled the kid and will teach him that actions speak much much louder than words.

 

[Daisy Jane]

The bottom end is that the philosophy Dubas is talking about, and that I support, is really not about anything else than getting as good prospects as possible first, worry about what a hypothetical future lineup might need second.

agreed.

 

[Nithoniniel]

His statement was clear and if I remember correctly it was in direct response to the number small players we selected so the only one twisting his words are the people trying to defend them.

This is the same crap that use to go on whenever Burke opened his mouth before thinking. Lucky for us LL has pretty much muzzled the kid and will teach him that actions speak much much louder than words.

I agree that his statement was clear. Half the discussion here isn't really based on that statement though, hence some of the reactions.

 

[SprDaVE]

His statement was clear and if I remember correctly it was in direct response to the number small players we selected so the only one twisting his words are the people trying to defend them.

This is the same crap that use to go on whenever Burke opened his mouth before thinking. Lucky for us LL has pretty much muzzled the kid and will teach him that actions speak much much louder than words.

Ah I see, you hate Kyle Dubas. Makes a lot of sense now.

Hunter essentially said the same thing as Dubas, by the way. You should hate him too.

Here's exactly what he said.

Asked if the Maple Leafs would consider passing up on Mitch Marner in the draft because they already have smallish forwards like William Nylander and Connor Brown, Dubas disagreed.

“Here’s the way I look at it,” he said. “Right now, we aren't good enough to be picky about smaller players. We need as many elite players as we can. If we get into playoffs and are too small, or overwhelmed, it’s easier to trade small for size than draft for size and trade for skill.”

What Hunter said very recently:

“Size will come around,” he said. “I still believe you need size. But you need skill with the size. There’s no sense in having a big guy that can’t play.”

Therein lies the essence of Hunter’s draft-day mantra: Don’t draft for position or stature. Draft for superiority.

“I believe you take the best player, regardless of position. I believe in that. And every time I’ve done differently (as junior owner), I never liked the outcome.”

 

[TheDoldrums]

Nothing we didn't already know, but the Leafs are entering the draft with by far the most valuable group of selections. That's a pretty big gap over 2nd place.

 

[hotpaws]

Ah I see, you hate Kyle Dubas. Makes a lot of sense now.

Hunter essentially said the same thing as Dubas, by the way. You should hate him too.

Here's exactly what he said.




What Hunter said very recently:

Hunter didn't say the same thing nor did he brush off the size factor as irrelevant and easily attainable like Dubas did.

All hunter basically said is he isn't going to draft big unskilled players, which I belive we all agree with.

 

[SprDaVE]

Hunter didn't say the same thing nor did he brush off the size factor as irrelevant and easily attainable like Dubas did.

Dubas never said it was irrelevant either. He's mentioned that in other interviews that a team needs balance. He talked about the Marlies having the need for more strength, which is why he added some through the year. Talk about putting words in his mouth.

He's talking about the draft. You draft for the skill and potential. Do not disregard a player because he's 5'10" or a position your NHL team has plenty of. Exactly what Hunter said. That's it, that's all.

We can go on and on about this, it all ready has, but I think it's pretty simple what Hunter and the Leafs mantra about the draft is and I think it's the right approach. Whether it works or not is to be seen and we're only a year into this regimes long-term building. Let's get back to talking prospects.

 

[Mess]

You act as if size is completely irrelevant in hockey. Size and power is a skill.

Players that drive to the net and use board play to their advantage are absolutely necessary for a possession based game. If you have a bunch of small players, therr will be no one to battle in front of the net or retrieve pucks along the boards.

Little players require other players to do the heavy lifting for them, while bigger players can do their own.

You have to insulate smaller players and surround them with bigger players because they can't do all the things a bigger player can, just to take advantage of their skills.

 

[SprDaVE]

Little players require other players to do the heavy lifting for them, while bigger players can do their own.

You have to insulate smaller players and surround them with bigger players because they can't do all the things a bigger player can, just to take advantage of their skills.

Embarrassing.

Kane needed someone to do the heavy lifting? Conn Smythe trophy winner Crosby too? Karlsson? Interesting. I'm pretty sure Kane would carry the jockstrap and the lunch bag of any "big" player you throw on his line by a country mile. The HBK line, which was the best line of the playoffs, are an average height of 6'.

 

[Porn*]

Always go bpa as per scouts and tinker later. Unless 2 players are of similar rating.

 

[Duffman955]

Embarrassing.

Kane needed someone to do the heavy lifting? Crosby too? Karlsson? Interesting. I'm pretty sure Kane would carry the jockstrap and the lunch bag of any "big" player you throw on his line by a country mile.

Lets not pretend that Kane didn't need Toews/Seabrook, and Crosby didn't need Malkin. And what exactly has Karlsson's team won?

 

[LaPlante94]

I wonder if Cam Morrison will be available with our Washington 2nd round pick or our 3rd round pick.

 

[SprDaVE]

Lets not pretend that Kane didn't need Toews/Seabrook, and Crosby didn't need Malkin. And what exactly has Karlsson's team won?

So why attribute any positivity to the "big" player and the "smaller" player receiving all the negativity and the need to have someone do "heavy lifting"? You really think Malkin makes Crosby better, especially this year? You really think Kane needed Toews to win his scoring title? Why not mention Norris trophy winner Duncan Keith, who's 6'1"? Maybe because it would go against your narrative?

Marner is 6' now, and that's literally only 2 inches short of "big" player Jonathan Toews.

Karlsson is a franchise defenceman. Let me guess, you wouldn't want him on your team because he hasn't won a cup?

Absurd reasoning. Absolutely absurd. I don't even know what to say anymore.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Embarrassing.

Kane needed someone to do the heavy lifting? Conn Smythe trophy winner Crosby too? Karlsson? Interesting. I'm pretty sure Kane would carry the jockstrap and the lunch bag of any "big" player you throw on his line by a country mile. The HBK line, which was the best line of the playoffs, are an average height of 6'.

or 1/2 the engine that is the TBL offense that is...
wait for it.
Under 6 feet.

holy smokes talk about biases.


you get the best bunch of talent and skill - figure out what works for your team, trade some assets to get other pieces. let everything (including the height) work for itself.

 

[Duffman955]

So why attribute any positive to the "big" player and the "smaller" player receiving all the negativity? You really think Malkin makes Crosby better, especially this year? You really think Kane needed Toews, who's not even that "big", to win his scoring title? Why not mention Norris trophy winner Duncan Keith, who's 6'1"? Maybe because it would go against your narrative?

I didn't know winning was an individual effort? Karlsson is a franchise defenceman. Let me guess, you wouldn't want him on your team because he hasn't won a cup?

Absurd reasoning. Absolutely absurd.

So you think Crosby and Kane win multiple cups without Malkin and Toews respectively?

Did I ever say those players are not elite? You are making up statements and arguing with yourself.

 

[SprDaVE]

I wonder if Cam Morrison will be available with our Washington 2nd round pick or our 3rd round pick.

I mean, he's taller than 6'. He's 200 lbs. Sounds good I guess!

 

[SprDaVE]

So you think Crosby and Kane win multiple cups without Malkin and Toews respectively?

Did I ever say those players are not elite? You are making up statements and arguing with yourself.

I'm saying it's irrelevant. Malkin doesn't win without Crosby. Toews doesn't win without Kane. So Mess' argument was total garbage.

Back to draft talk!

 

[nuck]

You're dealing in too much of a hypothetical absolute. I was responding to Mess' point of taking the lower ceiling player in the draft over the higher ceiling player because of organizational need. IMO you always take the BPA - an in the view of Hunter the BPA has the highest ceiling. If BPA is that close then of course you look to need.

I don't think it's smart to overlook skill for size just because the Leafs have some good skilled forwards now - because they're not all going to pan out. And even if some become NHLers, others may become better NHLers.




Trading up to grab a 'safe' player is how the Leafs ended up with Tyler Biggs. I disagree with that philosophy.

No Biggs was considered a project and a gamble for sure, although not really a reach where he was taken. I think that was an awful year to trade up based on the relative success of the first rounders. IMO Burke was trying to make a splash to take the spotlight off of Boston's 2nd high pick at his expense. If the Leafs wanted to trade up for some winger size this year it would maybe be Jones who was the player at 17 that Biggs was at 19. They are similar enough that the Biggs comp kind of scares me, but one would assume the Hunters know enough about him not to consider him if he is "iffy". If they wanted to trade up for a potential shutdown D man I don't see a player within reach with that skill set, but McAvoy, Fabbro, and Bean might have the potential to be better than Gardiner with a similar game.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

I wonder if Cam Morrison will be available with our Washington 2nd round pick or our 3rd round pick.

Probably not. I wouldn't be surprised if he went in the 1st round. He put up excellent numbers in Youngstown. He did a little bit worse than Kyle Connor, but he also had worse linemates than Kyle Connor too.

 

[Defense]

Are there any Andrew Shaw lite prospects?

Brad Ross and Tyler Biggs didn't turn out for us

We do have Komarov and Kadri, but I think we could use an Andrew Shaw who can play all lines and special teams