Prospect Info: 2018 NHL Entry Draft Discussion: Final Countdown! Tomorrow is the big day!

[LeafGrief]

I'm totally on board with the idea of swinging for the fences. Pick the guy with the most upside. I love offensive defenders and am happy to go with small guys (I am also happy with big guys). But Merkley really doesn't have anything in his toolkit that says he has #1D upside other than he ostensibly plays the position. The offensive element is undeniable, but there are other wickedly talented defenders like Addison or Beaudin available who are much, much better defensemen. Merkley needs a quantum leap in development if he wants to be passable as a top4 defender at the NHL level. If we apply that same quantum leap in development to Addison or Miller, they end up as much more valuable players overall.

 

[Fonzieleaf]

I think we should snag McLeod in the first round and then draft Lundkvist in the second round. Fills a centerman need and a defensive need

 

[93LEAFS]

I think we should snag McLeod in the first round and then draft Lundkvist in the second round. Fills a centerman need and a defensive need

Lundkvist won't slip to our 2nd. Plus, its already out there we don't like McLeod in a Dubas piece by Mirtle.

 

[Drew311]

Akil Thomas.

That is all.

 

[Kiwi]

Just got my black book

It's a brilliant read

 

[Green Snow Storm]

Merkley has elite puck skills, is a seamless skater with high offensive iq. I’ve seen very few defenceman in junior walk the blueline as well as him, if any. I’m a fan, but I’m not sure he will ever be able to play top 4 minutes in the NHL, and this is the major issue for me.

He has Top 5 pick tools, he needs commitment and desire to get better in his own end, getting his defence from where it is currently to even being able to play sheltered minutes in the NHL is worlds away. If he can do it he will be one of the best players from this draft.

I wouldn’t mind taking him at 25 depending on who else is there, but I might also defer to a safer pick that also has great upside if available. I really like Dellandrea at this point.

 

[acrobaticgoalie]

with our history lately of grabbing goalies in the 3-5th rounds would anyone be upset if we took a flyer on Alexis Gravel in the 4th or 5th round he was projected as one top goalies in the q but he has a bit of a lul this past year. he has decent size at 6-2 he is also a rh glove.

I watched I think 2 games of his this year and I wasn' really a fan. I didn't like his movement in the crease, his glove hand or his ability to track pucks. He always seemed to be behind the play and didn't use his edges well enough to recover on rebounds or passes.

 

[Community]

If hes available, I would be happy to take Merkely at 25. I dont care if there is a 50% chance he busts, if he makes it to 25 he easily has the highest potential.

Management will do their homework and if the work ethic/attitude issues are overblown they will take him (or he will go earlier in the draft). Defense can easily be taught within a good system and Keefe/Babcock have been fantastic so far at molding players to become better all-around (Kadri, Rielly, Liljegren, etc.).

 

[93LEAFS]

If hes available, I would be happy to take Merkely at 25. I dont care if there is a 50% chance he busts, if he makes it to 25 he easily has the highest potential.

Management will do their homework and if the work ethic/attitude issues are overblown they will take him (or he will go earlier in the draft). Defense can easily be taught within a good system and Keefe/Babcock have been fantastic so far at molding players to become better all-around (Kadri, Rielly, Liljegren, etc.).

Or they could be like the Isles and be the team that didn't do their homework. Why should we assume they were right because they picked him? It is not like Dubas has an established track record at this level running a draft.

I think its a very bold assumption that our organization and information to us is further ahead of other teams slightly ahead of us. We have no reason to think we are significantly smarter than a team like the Ducks when it comes to drafting.

 

[Community]

Or they could be like the Isles and be the team that didn't do their homework. Why should we assume they were right because they picked him? It is not like Dubas has an established track record at this level running a draft.

Dubas will not have a huge influence n this draft. The rankings have been mostly set before Hunter/Lou left. All that happened since they left was the combine, meaning all Dubas really has to do is judge character, something I think him and the rest of the Leafs management have excelled at lately.

Why should we assume Dubas will be wrong because we pick someone? Hes given nothing to show he is incompetent and Shanahan has more faith in him moving forward than Hunter. Shanahan has done a great job so far and has done nothing to show he has poor judgement and I trust his judgement in picking Dubas.

Oh yeah, his AHL team just won their first ever championship thanks to his great moves so that gives him another bump in confidence for me.

Im not following blindly, but anybody who believes the Leafs current management is incompetent or wont do their homework for any move they make is being ridiculous. Not that they cant make a mistake, but they will do more than their due diligence and make a well reasoned decision which is more than I can say for a bunch of the current NHL organizations with draft picks before us.

Edit: History is also on our side as you van see by the first pick of the Shanahan era. We picked Nylander even though his perceived attitude issues were a big hurdle and look how well that has turned out so far.

 

[93LEAFS]

Dubas will not have a huge influence n this draft. The rankings have been mostly set before Hunter/Lou left. All that happened since they left was the combine, meaning all Dubas really has to do is judge character, something I think him and the rest of the Leafs management have excelled at lately.

Why should we assume Dubas will be wrong because we pick someone? Hes given nothing to show he is incompetent and Shanahan has more faith in him moving forward than Hunter. Shanahan has done a great job so far and has done nothing to show he has poor judgement and I trust his judgement in picking Dubas.

Oh yeah, his AHL team just won their first ever championship thanks to his great moves so that gives him another bump in confidence for me.

Im not following blindly, but anybody who believes the Leafs current management is incompetent or wont do their homework for any move they make is being ridiculous. Not that they cant make a mistake, but they will do more than their due diligence and make a well reasoned decision which is more than I can say for a bunch of the current NHL organizations with draft picks before us.

Dubas dramatically altered the draft board his first day on the job. As pointed out by Mirtle who is basically Dubas's media mouthpiece. Here is that article. If you have the Athletic I suggest you read it.

Mirtle: Leafs' draft strategy one of first big changes...

We made the AHL finals with Dallas Eakins and Nonis running the team. Lets not act like that's a big reason to have faith.

Why should we have faith that Leafs are right in their assessment, when equally competent (if not franchises which have shown themselves better than the Leafs) passed on him due to these concerns.

 

[Community]

Dubas dramatically altered the draft board his first day on the job. As pointed out by Mirtle who is basically Dubas's media mouthpiece.

We made the AHL finals with Dallas Eakins and Nonis running the team. Lets not act like that's a big reason to have faith.

No point in debating with somebody who has an obvious dislike for Dubas.

However I will state once again that he has done nothing or very little to show he has done a poor job since joining the Leafs (He made the Marlies a championship team, since hes been around the Leafs have been steadily improving, and he has the confidence of MANY people inside and outside the organization).

Also he formed the team that won the AHL championship, not the one that got swept in the finals.

Also Mirtle said that Dubas changed the Leafs draft strategy. If he is to be believed, then sure there have been some changes. However, Dubas just looked at the draft board and said I am favouring boom/bust players over safe players, that doesnt change the scouting that has been done (just what they emphasize when looking at players).

Edit: Also if you are going to make an edit to try and argue against a point I make later on, you should include what your edit inclusion is for other posters.

 

[93LEAFS]

No point in debating with somebody who has an obvious dislike for Dubas.

However I will state once again that he has done nothing or very little to show he has done a poor job since joining the Leafs (He made the Marlies a championship team, since hes been around the Leafs have been steadily improving, and he has the confidence of MANY people inside and outside the organization).

Also he formed the team that won the AHL championship, not the one that got swept in the finals.

Also Mirtle said that Dubas changed the Leafs draft strategy. If he is to be believed, then sure there have been some changes. However, Dubas just looked at the draft board and said I am favouring boom/bust players over safe players, that doesnt change the scouting that has been done (just what they emphasize when looking at players).

Edit: Also if you are going to make an edit to try and argue against a point I make later on, you should include what your edit inclusion is for other posters.

I don't have blind faith in the guy, I hope he proves me wrong. But, the fact Merkley is a long-term client at Dubas's best friends dad's gym (and likely a future employee of the Maple Leafs in Wes Clark) makes me nervous about that encouraging him to overlook certain aspects.

That absolutely changes the draft board, and there could be more to it than just changing what they view. It could also mean incorporating other aspects or changing what they are actually willing to risk on.

I also find it pretty funny the belief Hunter was risk averse. He took Liljegren, and Marner was viewed as a risk due to his size. So, I feel there is more to the change than being risk averse.

Nylander had some issues as being a somewhat difficult kid, who lacked effort playing defence. He wasn't a wide-spread no draft in the same vain as Ho-Sang. Plus, even if you are a great drafter you shouldn't get a permanent pass. Al Murray has been hailed for how he's drafting with the Lightning, but absolutely botched the DeAngelo pick overlooking the kids issues. Two years later they managed to turn what was a 19th overall pick into a 37th.

 

[Community]

I don't have blind faith in the guy, I hope he proves me wrong. But, the fact Merkley is a long-term client at Dubas's best friends dad's gym (and likely a future employee of the Maple Leafs in Wes Clark) makes me nervous about that encouraging him to overlook certain aspects.

That absolutely changes the draft board, and there could be more to it than just changing what they view. It could also mean incorporating other aspects or changing what they are actually willing to risk on.

I also find it pretty funny the belief Hunter was risk averse. He took Liljegren, and Marner was viewed as a risk due to his size. So, I feel there is more to the change than being risk averse.

Nylander had some issues as being a somewhat difficult kid, who lacked effort playing defence. He wasn't a wide-spread no draft in the same vain as Ho-Sang. Plus, even if you are a great drafter you shouldn't get a permanent pass. Al Murray has been hailed for how he's drafting with the Lightning, but absolutely botched the DeAngelo pick overlooking the kids issues. Two years later they managed to turn what was a 19th overall pick into a 37th.

Last response because I found this post absolutely ridiculous.

If you honestly believe a respected NHL GM will be influenced because a prospect (one of many, im sure) trains at his best friend's dad's gym, I dont know what to tell you. That is serious reaching.

Never said Hunter stayed away from taking risky prospects, the article you referenced said that Dubas was changing from a safe to more boom/bust draft strategy so either the article is wrong or Hunter was leaning towards safe picks this year. Just going by the article you referenced.

Pre-draft (especially considering how talented he was), Nylander was very much in the same breath as Merkely regarding attitude issues (both of whom dont seem to be as bad as DeAngelo considering I havent heard any racist/homophobic remarks by them). Id argue the exact same issues were being said about Nylander and Merkely both of which had less issues than both Ho Sang and DeAngelo (who, side note, has actually done pretty well so far for a young 19th OA pick).

You are right though, you do not have blind faith in Dubas. At this point it seems you have some blind hate though.

 

[93LEAFS]

Last response because I found this post absolutely ridiculous.

If you honestly believe a respected NHL GM will be influenced because a prospect (one of many, im sure) trains at his best friend's dad's gym, I dont know what to tell you. That is serious reaching.

Never said Hunter stayed away from taking risky prospects, the article you referenced said that Dubas was changing from a safe to more boom/bust draft strategy so either the article is wrong or Hunter was leaning towards safe picks this year. Just going by the article you referenced.

Pre-draft (especially considering how talented he was), Nylander was very much in the same breath as Merkely regarding attitude issues (both of whom dont seem to be as bad as DeAngelo considering I havent heard any racist/homophobic remarks by them). Id argue the exact same issues were being said about Nylander and Merkely both of which had less issues than DeAngelo (who, side note, has actually done pretty well so far for a young 19th OA pick).

You are right though, you do not have blind faith in Dubas. At this point it seems you have some blind hate though.

Find me an article which states Nylander was a no-draft for some teams. Let a lone by multiple teams. I can find that for Merkley. I can find it for DeAngelo and Ho-Sang. So, I'd love to see how they are comparable on attitude issues.

When that best friend is likely to end up high-up in the organization starting in July (and worked for him at two different places, being a Dubas hire), it is a bit different.

EDIT: How has DeAngelo done well for the team that picked him? He was traded in 2 years for a pick 18 spots lower than were he was drafted.

 

[Menzinger]

I don't have blind faith in the guy, I hope he proves me wrong. But, the fact Merkley is a long-term client at Dubas's best friends dad's gym (and likely a future employee of the Maple Leafs in Wes Clark) makes me nervous about that encouraging him to overlook certain aspects.

That absolutely changes the draft board, and there could be more to it than just changing what they view. It could also mean incorporating other aspects or changing what they are actually willing to risk on.

I also find it pretty funny the belief Hunter was risk averse. He took Liljegren, and Marner was viewed as a risk due to his size. So, I feel there is more to the change than being risk averse.

Nylander had some issues as being a somewhat difficult kid, who lacked effort playing defence. He wasn't a wide-spread no draft in the same vain as Ho-Sang. Plus, even if you are a great drafter you shouldn't get a permanent pass. Al Murray has been hailed for how he's drafting with the Lightning, but absolutely botched the DeAngelo pick overlooking the kids issues. Two years later they managed to turn what was a 19th overall pick into a 37th.

Hunters “risk” averse nature seemed to come out more in rounds 2-7, rather than the first.

Perhaps that personal connection to Merkley may give Dubas better insight into his potential than those who rely on second hand references concerning his character?

 

[93LEAFS]

Hunters “risk” averse nature seemed to come out more in rounds 2-7, rather than the first.

Perhaps that personal connection to Merkley may give Dubas better insight into his potential than those who rely on second hand reerences concerning his character?

It could, but it has the same opportunity for bias to creep in when the Clarks have worked with the kid from a young age.

I don't really think there is a significant aspect of being risk-averse. I mean, they may not be risky picks people in analytics like but guys like Gordeev, Matinen, Rasanen, Greenway were high-upside but risky picks. They weren't particularly safe.

I think there has been a disconnect between risk and not drafting with the analytics. The only pick I could label safe post first round is Korshkov and really isn't that safe.

 

[Menzinger]

It could, but it has the same opportunity for bias to creep in when the Clarks have worked with the kid from a young age.

I don't really think there is a significant aspect of being risk-averse. I mean, they may not be risky picks people in analytics like but guys like Gordeev, Matinen, Rasanen, Greenway were high-upside but risky picks. They weren't particularly safe.

I think there has been a disconnect between risk and not drafting with the analytics. The only pick I could label safe post first round is Korshkov and really isn't that safe.

The pattern the last couple drafts seemed to fall under the same trend of grabbing larger players with big frames and waiting for the skill to come later. Yeah, in a couple instances like Ransanen/Greenway there was/is definitely an element of boom-bust about them. Though I’ve always been skeptical of claims that guys like Gordeev fall under the same category, since their skillsets never seemed that high to begin with.

 

[93LEAFS]

The pattern the last couple drafts seemed to fall under the same trend of grabbing larger players with big frames and waiting for the skill to come later. Yeah, in a couple instances like Ransanen/Greenway there was/is definitely an element of boom-bust about them. Though I’ve always been skeptical of claims that guys like Gordeev fall under the same category, since their skillsets never seemed that high to begin with.

Gordeev was a raw as hell player with a bunch of tools who switched positions a year ago. I honestly don't think there is a safe approach to drafting past the 40 or so.

I think the approach with bigger defenders was basically to draft them in bulk and hope one that hits. Basically, what AA did with the Jays past the first round in MLB pitching by hammering high-risk high-school arms (somehow that turned into Thor, Daniel Norris, and Sanchez). Now, you can argue that is a bad bet, and there is a valid argument against it. But, I don't think its a risk adverse approach.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

Gordeev was a raw as hell player with a bunch of tools who switched positions a year ago. I honestly don't think there is a safe approach to drafting past the 40 or so.

I think the approach with bigger defenders was basically to draft them in bulk and hope one that hits. Basically, what AA did with the Jays past the first round in MLB pitching by hammering high-risk high-school arms (somehow that turned into Thor, Daniel Norris, and Sanchez). Now, you can argue that is a bad bet, and there is a valid argument against it. But, I don't think its a risk adverse approach.

It's a little bit different in baseball though because there is no viable contract limit in baseball, and you can keep those guys for a long time (as long as you pay enough to sign them, which you typically can know before you even draft them). Plus you have 40+ rounds to get talent every year, whereas you are only given 7 picks every draft. It's a lot easier to burn through a few out of the 40 picks each year on guys who may not turn out or even come than it is in hockey where it is tough to waste even later round picks on guys who you almost certainly will not sign from the moment you draft them (and I know that is true because Middleton, Mattinen and Desrocher developed as well, if not better, than you could have realistically expected at the time that they were drafted).

If I am going after a bigger guy this year, I think I am looking at someone like Michael Kesselring in the 3rd round. He is a high school kid, but he's a high school kid with a RH shot, size, a ton of smarts and good skills to build upon. Plus Jim Vesey knows him intimately, so if he is as good as I think he is, then he definitely will know how good he is and will lobby to get him.

 

[Kiwi]

Gordeev was a raw as hell player with a bunch of tools who switched positions a year ago. I honestly don't think there is a safe approach to drafting past the 40 or so.

I think the approach with bigger defenders was basically to draft them in bulk and hope one that hits. Basically, what AA did with the Jays past the first round in MLB pitching by hammering high-risk high-school arms (somehow that turned into Thor, Daniel Norris, and Sanchez). Now, you can argue that is a bad bet, and there is a valid argument against it. But, I don't think its a risk adverse approach.

Couldn't most guys from the 2nd round on be viewed as high risk? Let's face it most of them are pretty flawed in one way or another

One of the guys I'd class as a low risk type player is Grundstrom and he's looking bloody good right now so it's less risk with me and what do the prospects do well and what are their problems and are they fixable?

 

[93LEAFS]

Couldn't most guys from the 2nd round on be viewed as high risk? Let's face it most of them are pretty flawed in one way or another

One of the guys I'd class as a low risk type player is Grundstrom and he's looking bloody good right now so it's less risk with me and what do the prospects do well and what are their problems and are they fixable?

To be honest, pretty much anyone from 15 on has a less than 50% chance of being a legit NHLer. In the 2nd round, we are mostly dealing with 20% chances. I really can't think of a safe second round pick. I can see how Korshkov could be labelled as such as a 20 year old, but I'd also think there is a fair amount of risk taking a guy passed over twice that high.

 

[93LEAFS]

It's a little bit different in baseball though because there is no viable contract limit in baseball, and you can keep those guys for a long time (as long as you pay enough to sign them, which you typically can know before you even draft them). Plus you have 40+ rounds to get talent every year, whereas you are only given 7 picks every draft. It's a lot easier to burn through a few out of the 40 picks each year on guys who may not turn out or even come than it is in hockey where it is tough to waste even later round picks on guys who you almost certainly will not sign from the moment you draft them (and I know that is true because Middleton, Mattinen and Desrocher developed as well, if not better, than you could have realistically expected at the time that they were drafted).

If I am going after a bigger guy this year, I think I am looking at someone like Michael Kesselring in the 3rd round. He is a high school kid, but he's a high school kid with a RH shot, size, a ton of smarts and good skills to build upon. Plus Jim Vesey knows him intimately, so if he is as good as I think he is, then he definitely will know how good he is and will lobby to get him.

In baseball, I was talking about throwing high-comp round picks at the issue.

I'm not saying it was a great strategy. But, I don't know how it could be labeled safe.

 

[Kiwi]

To be honest, pretty much anyone from 15 on has a less than 50% chance of being a legit NHLer. In the 2nd round, we are mostly dealing with 20% chances. I really can't think of a safe second round pick. I can see how Korshkov could be labelled as such as a 20 year old, but I'd also think there is a fair amount of risk taking a guy passed over twice that high.

I'd say after about #20 there's a fair degree of luck and organizational development involved rather than low or high risk, almost everybody is high risk in some way

I do wonder if there is a way to look at basic stats and league quality to make an algorithm that can up a teams odd somewhat and try to insert a little more science into the equation

 

[93LEAFS]

I'd say after about #20 there's a fair degree of luck and organizational development involved rather than low or high risk, almost everybody is high risk in some way

I do wonder if there is a way to look at basic stats and league quality to make an algorithm that can up a teams odd somewhat and try to insert a little more science into the equation

It's been attempted. Although, it's only really been a success though requires implementing an actual scouting board into (such as CSB or McKenzie's rankings) and weight them accordingly.