NHL Entry Draft 2020 NHL Draft Discussion - PART XIII [We got 3-5]

[Liver King]

How confident are we Detroit is taking Perfetti

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

How confident are we Detroit is taking Perfetti

Not sure how we can be all that confident in it. I'm sure Yzerman won't let it leak. I would give it some where between 25 and 30% chance personally.

 

[Liver King]

Not sure how we can be all that confident in it. I'm sure Yzerman won't let it leak. I would give it some where between 25 and 30% chance personally.

Oh so a lower chance...hmmm. I feel they may go for D

Btw where were you able to watch the Raymond game today?

 

[BondraTime]

I’m curious you like Guenette?

Saw a lot of him in the Q wasnt a fan at all. Rough on defense had terrible numbers although I agree Foreurs arent the greatest team last few years Id be surprised to see him in the NHL. Curious about your view

Big body that can skate, understands the game, and is able to defend and move the puck.

I mean, he was 12th in the league in D scoring, his stats were quite good offensively for a guy that isn't an offensive defencemen

He was playing 30 minutes a night on a bad team, against the best players, as well as PP1 and PK1.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Oh so a lower chance...hmmm. I feel they may go for D

Btw where were you able to watch the Raymond game today?

Yes I am watching- good game, good pace. onhockey.tv I think the wings could go Sanderson, Perfetti, Raymond or Rossi; Thinking they are set on RD and I don't see a lot of separation in those players.

 

[TheDebater]

How confident are we Detroit is taking Perfetti

I would be very surprised if they are not taking a good hard look at Raymond right now, I think he would actually be a pretty good fit for them, more so than Perfetti. Which means if Raymond is gone, would we consider Perfetti or does it almost guarantee that we are taking one of the two D-men?

 

[Imnotagoodposter]

I think the sens should use their draft picks on hockey players

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

My draft plan;

I was on Stutzle over Byfield, then was Byfield over Stutzle, now I feel myself flipping back to Stutzle over Byfield. I'll be happy with either. At 5, I am still hoping for a forward. We need skill up front in such a bad way.. Any one of Rossi, Raymond or Perfetti and we have 2 potential stud forwards.

At 28, 33 I still go BPA .. but if we can address the D without giving up a high (top 6) upside forward that isn't tiny I'd do it. Up to 33 .. I am focused on good players with high upside and skill

At 51, 58, 60, 63, 70 .. I am addressing big power forwards that can play and bring size and grit to the lineup or some hidden gems .. Also looking for BPA and adding D with equal or better potential

Late round picks (4-7) I am looking for defensive D with size and physicality with average or better skating; Not expecting all to make it, looking to pull one that can be an effective shut down , defensive specialist

 

[JD1]

I hate to sound hyperbolic but this draft could end up being one of the most impactful in Senators history, due to how divisive it has been amongst Sens fans (and even experts).

No matter who we select at #5, if that player does not end up long term as the best player selected from that 5-12 range of the first round, there is going to be huge backlash from a large portion of the fanbase.

If that happens I expect a lot of comments like "I knew we should have drafted ______ instead of ______ at #5", especially if the players selected at #6 and/or #7 end up better than our #5 selection.

I am thinking that the only player we can select at #5 and satisfy the majority of fans whether he busts or not is probably Lucas Raymond.

I don't see that at all.

Obviously you want to look back and view it as we got the best player. But the majority of guys here seem to be saying give me any of these 4 or that 5 kind of thing.

I don't see this as a zadina tkachuk kind of thing where lots of guys were livid with the tkachuk selection.

This imo has been one of the most civil discussions here in a long time with a bunch of guys accepting of a number of options

Caveat to that is the team not going off the board at 5OA

 

[ijif]

My draft plan;

I was on Stutzle over Byfield, then was Byfield over Stutzle, now I feel myself flipping back to Stutzle over Byfield. I'll be happy with either. At 5, I am still hoping for a forward. We need skill up front in such a bad way.. Any one of Rossi, Raymond or Perfetti and we have 2 potential stud forwards.

At 28, 33 I still go BPA .. but if we can address the D without giving up a high (top 6) upside forward that isn't tiny I'd do it. Up to 33 .. I am focused on good players with high upside and skill

At 51, 58, 60, 63, 70 .. I am addressing big power forwards that can play and bring size and grit to the lineup or some hidden gems .. Also looking for BPA and adding D with equal or better potential

Late round picks (4-7) I am looking for defensive D with size and physicality with average or better skating; Not expecting all to make it, looking to pull one that can be an effective shut down , defensive specialist

Why do we need to target certain kinds of players? Can we just take BPA every time?

 

[Rodzilla]

My draft plan;

I was on Stutzle over Byfield, then was Byfield over Stutzle, now I feel myself flipping back to Stutzle over Byfield. I'll be happy with either. At 5, I am still hoping for a forward. We need skill up front in such a bad way.. Any one of Rossi, Raymond or Perfetti and we have 2 potential stud forwards.

At 28, 33 I still go BPA .. but if we can address the D without giving up a high (top 6) upside forward that isn't tiny I'd do it. Up to 33 .. I am focused on good players with high upside and skill

At 51, 58, 60, 63, 70 .. I am addressing big power forwards that can play and bring size and grit to the lineup or some hidden gems .. Also looking for BPA and adding D with equal or better potential

Late round picks (4-7) I am looking for defensive D with size and physicality with average or better skating; Not expecting all to make it, looking to pull one that can be an effective shut down , defensive specialist

the more I watch Raymond play the more I want him if he’s there at 5. We need high end prospects on forward. We can get dmens through trades or free agency to come help Chabot Brannstrom Wolanin JBD etc when we get there.

 

[Sensfourlife]

My wish for the 2 rounds

3. Stutzle
5. Raymond
28. Wallinder
33. O’Rourke
51. Cuylle
58. Tuch
60. Evangelista

 

[PatrickEaves]

I don't see that at all.

Obviously you want to look back and view it as we got the best player. But the majority of guys here seem to be saying give me any of these 4 or that 5 kind of thing.

I don't see this as a zadina tkachuk kind of thing where lots of guys were livid with the tkachuk selection.

This imo has been one of the most civil discussions here in a long time with a bunch of guys accepting of a number of options

Caveat to that is the team not going off the board at 5OA

Pretty much this. People are only going to riot if our pick busts. (eg. if the Sens pick Perfetti)

 

[JungleBeat]

Raymond is the third best player in this draft.

 

[Daffy]

Raymond is the third best player in this draft.

Could argue 4th for sure.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Why do we need to target certain kinds of players? Can we just take BPA every time?

I don't think that's realistic. BPA in terms of how they can help you win .. maybe you can go there but if you always target finesse puck possession players and you consider them BPA because they can put up points your team may end up lacking elements to have success against teams with others with more size, physicality, and better board play. BPA 1 to 1 is very hard to measure with distinctly different player types .. On my team I will target skill and finesse and pick BPA for that and I will also target other types and pick BPA within that. I am not going to philosophically compare a player like Pashin to a player like Groshev or use any kind of points based model to chose between them when the utility of one player is completely different than the utility of another. It takes all kinds of players to build a winning roster imo. That's my philosophy and I can respect others with theirs as well. You don't end up with a line with Clutterbuck, Cizikas and Martin because you targeted the highest scoring, best hands, best play making forward available. The measuring stick needs to change if you want that type of player in your lineup and I do
I think there is a difference between building a collection of talented hockey players and building a team.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

I don't think that's realistic. BPA in terms of how they can help you win .. maybe you can go there but if you always target finesse puck possession players and you consider them BPA because they can put up points your team may end up lacking elements to have success against teams with others with more size, physicality, and better board play. BPA 1 to 1 is very hard to measure with distinctly different player types .. On my team I will target skill and finesse and pick BPA for that and I will also target other types and pick BPA within that. I am not going to philosophically compare a player like Pashin to a player like Groshev or use any kind of points based model to chose between them when the utility of one player is completely different than the utility of another. It takes all kinds of players to build a winning roster imo. That's my philosophy and I can respect others with theirs as well. You don't end up with a line with Clutterbuck, Cizikas and Martin because you targeted the highest scoring, best hands, best play making forward available. The measuring stick needs to change if you want that type of player in your lineup and I do
I think there is a difference between building a collection of talented hockey players and building a team.

I would actually expand on the ideas you have posted here. In my opinion the "Best Player Available" is the player who is most likely to increase the chances of the organization winning the Stanley Cup. The primary objective is to win the Stanley Cup and therefore players that increase the chances of that occurring are more valuable than those that don't. I would then look at this as a process of pattern recognition. Watching the Stanley Cup Finals, the conference finals, the second round and the first round over many years reveals certain patterns of success. Some playing styles translate to success and others prove ineffective. One notable feature is that there is far less time and space and in order to produce offense it requires a lot more battling and compete. Without fully articulating all the intricacies to success in the playoffs what I do is to compare and contrast the playing style of a prospect to proven success that I have observed in the playoffs. If a prospect's playing style matches that which I have seen in the playoffs I increase their prospect value, if they exhibit a playing style that I have seen fail consistently in the playoffs I decrease their prospect value. Essentially it operates as a heuristic to have a keep category and a discard category.

BPA can be measured in multiple ways and that could lead to much more subjective assessments. Having the qualifier of players that will succeed in the playoffs and increase the chances of winning the Stanley Cup limits the definition of BPA. It makes it more difficult for people to argue that a player that exhibits traits that consistently fail in the playoffs is in fact the BPA and therefore the person advocating them is required to make a much more compelling case.

Another important factor in determining the BPA is to have some imagination of what a player could be developed into and what kind of development path is required to try to help them actualize that potential. Some may evaluate BPA as the most proven commodity with a more certain outcome whereas others might value a raw prospect that can be developed into something substantial.

 

[TheDebater]

I would actually expand on the ideas you have posted here. In my opinion the "Best Player Available" is the player who is most likely to increase the chances of the organization winning the Stanley Cup. The primary objective is to win the Stanley Cup and therefore players that increase the chances of that occurring are more valuable than those that don't. I would then look at this as a process of pattern recognition. Watching the Stanley Cup Finals, the conference finals, the second round and the first round over many years reveals certain patterns of success. Some playing styles translate to success and others prove ineffective. One notable feature is that there is far less time and space and in order to produce offense it requires a lot more battling and compete. Without fully articulating all the intricacies to success in the playoffs what I do is to compare and contrast the playing style of a prospect to proven success that I have observed in the playoffs. If a prospect's playing style matches that which I have seen in the playoffs I increase their prospect value, if they exhibit a playing style that I have seen fail consistently in the playoffs I decrease their prospect value. Essentially it operates as a heuristic to have a keep category and a discard category.

BPA can be measured in multiple ways and that could lead to much more subjective assessments. Having the qualifier of players that will succeed in the playoffs and increase the chances of winning the Stanley Cup limits the definition of BPA. It makes it more difficult for people to argue that a player that exhibits traits that consistently fail in the playoffs is in fact the BPA and therefore the person advocating them is required to make a much more compelling case.

Another important factor in determining the BPA is to have some imagination of what a player could be developed into and what kind of development path is required to try to help them actualize that potential. Some may evaluate BPA as the most proven commodity with a more certain outcome whereas others might value a raw prospect that can be developed into something substantial.

I may be missing your exact point, but from what I gathered, it seems the method you are describing is the process a team probably uses when they end up not drafting the "BPA".

If a team is analyzing it the way you are, that means they are probably selecting a player based on their "need" and/or selecting a player who they think is the missing link to winning a Stanley Cup and not the player they think is the most talented?

 

[ijif]

I don't think that's realistic. BPA in terms of how they can help you win .. maybe you can go there but if you always target finesse puck possession players and you consider them BPA because they can put up points your team may end up lacking elements to have success against teams with others with more size, physicality, and better board play. BPA 1 to 1 is very hard to measure with distinctly different player types .. On my team I will target skill and finesse and pick BPA for that and I will also target other types and pick BPA within that. I am not going to philosophically compare a player like Pashin to a player like Groshev or use any kind of points based model to chose between them when the utility of one player is completely different than the utility of another. It takes all kinds of players to build a winning roster imo. That's my philosophy and I can respect others with theirs as well. You don't end up with a line with Clutterbuck, Cizikas and Martin because you targeted the highest scoring, best hands, best play making forward available. The measuring stick needs to change if you want that type of player in your lineup and I do
I think there is a difference between building a collection of talented hockey players and building a team.

It's very realistic (depending on how BPA is defined). I don't think anybody said to just target finesse players. It might be hard to compare some players in terms of playstyle, but if both are strong statistical picks, I am not too concerned. If you want to strictly prefer the bigger player in that situation, I am fine with that. For example, Pashin and Groshev are both strong statistical picks for round three, so if you like Groshev more because he is safer or you prefer his style, that is fine with me.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

I may be missing your exact point, but from what I gathered, it seems the method you are describing is the process a team probably uses when they end up not drafting the "BPA".

If a team is analyzing it the way you are, that means they are probably selecting a player based on their "need" and/or selecting a player who they think is the missing link to winning a Stanley Cup and not the player they think is the most talented?

That isn't what I meant. What I was saying is that you can separate prospects into 2 general categories. The first category represents the prospects who exhibit traits that are consistent with playoff success and the second category represents the prospects that exhibit traits that consistently fail or struggle to succeed in the playoffs. It is the difference between building a regular season team and a playoff team. There are certain players that will look amazing in the regular season when they have time and space and aren't required to battle for their opportunities and quite a number of them prove to be fairly ineffective in the playoffs. Another group of players will still succeed in the regular season but where they will really excel will be the playoffs. This group has players that have traits that might not be as flashy but they are traits that will translate to playoff success. So this isn't about drafting for need by targeting positions and passing on BPA, it is about limiting the definition of BPA to be that related to playoff success. Therefore a prospect that looks like they could be a successful regular season player but struggle in the playoffs shouldn't be valued as highly as a prospect who has a playing style that will succeed in the playoffs.

 

[TheDebater]

That isn't what I meant. What I was saying is that you can separate prospects into 2 general categories. The first category represents the prospects who exhibit traits that are consistent with playoff success and the second category represents the prospects that exhibit traits that consistently fail or struggle to succeed in the playoffs. It is the difference between building a regular season team and a playoff team. There are certain players that will look amazing in the regular season when they have time and space and aren't required to battle for their opportunities and quite a number of them prove to be fairly ineffective in the playoffs. Another group of players will still succeed in the regular season but where they will really excel will be the playoffs. This group has players that have traits that might not be as flashy but they are traits that will translate to playoff success. So this isn't about drafting for need by targeting positions and passing on BPA, it is about limiting the definition of BPA to be that related to playoff success. Therefore a prospect that looks like they could be a successful regular season player but struggle in the playoffs shouldn't be valued as highly as a prospect who has a playing style that will succeed in the playoffs.

There is risk in that however and I do not necessarily agree that it is the best way to end up with the "better" player in the draft.

Why?

Because it is usually very rare to know the "type" of player that excels in the playoffs, let alone to know it so early on, at the draft.

Secondly, a team like Ottawa should be drafting players who will first and foremost have great regular seasons, because as of now playoffs are a long way out, and there is no guarantee the "playoff types" will be good enough to help the team during the regular season, is that not fair to say?

 

[aragorn]

Big body that can skate, understands the game, and is able to defend and move the puck.

I mean, he was 12th in the league in D scoring, his stats were quite good offensively for a guy that isn't an offensive defencemen

He was playing 30 minutes a night on a bad team, against the best players, as well as PP1 and PK1.

Guenneter reminds me of Lajoie except that they play opposite sides. Have you have seen both & if yes, could you comment & compare the two? Thanks.

I would actually expand on the ideas you have posted here. In my opinion the "Best Player Available" is the player who is most likely to increase the chances of the organization winning the Stanley Cup. The primary objective is to win the Stanley Cup and therefore players that increase the chances of that occurring are more valuable than those that don't. I would then look at this as a process of pattern recognition. Watching the Stanley Cup Finals, the conference finals, the second round and the first round over many years reveals certain patterns of success. Some playing styles translate to success and others prove ineffective. One notable feature is that there is far less time and space and in order to produce offense it requires a lot more battling and compete. Without fully articulating all the intricacies to success in the playoffs what I do is to compare and contrast the playing style of a prospect to proven success that I have observed in the playoffs. If a prospect's playing style matches that which I have seen in the playoffs I increase their prospect value, if they exhibit a playing style that I have seen fail consistently in the playoffs I decrease their prospect value. Essentially it operates as a heuristic to have a keep category and a discard category.

BPA can be measured in multiple ways and that could lead to much more subjective assessments. Having the qualifier of players that will succeed in the playoffs and increase the chances of winning the Stanley Cup limits the definition of BPA. It makes it more difficult for people to argue that a player that exhibits traits that consistently fail in the playoffs is in fact the BPA and therefore the person advocating them is required to make a much more compelling case.

Another important factor in determining the BPA is to have some imagination of what a player could be developed into and what kind of development path is required to try to help them actualize that potential. Some may evaluate BPA as the most proven commodity with a more certain outcome whereas others might value a raw prospect that can be developed into something substantial.

Good post. Ottawa has had numerous regular season teams that folded like a cheap suit in the playoffs. This is why I mention building a playoff team so often rather than a regular season team that can put up lots of pts.

Everything changes in the playoffs, the pressure is greater, space & time are reduced & good players are purposely targeted to take out of games whether people want to believe it or not. Anyone who has played at a high level knows this & these guys are playing for their careers, jobs & livelihood. The Leafs are built like a regular season team, so were the Habs & both now are trying to get bigger & tougher after once again being ousted early.

 

[BondraTime]

Guenneter reminds me of Lajoie except that they play opposite sides. Have you have seen both & if yes, could you comment & compare the two? Thanks.



Good post. Ottawa has had numerous regular season teams that folded like a cheap suit in the playoffs. This is why I mention building a playoff team so often rather than a regular season team that can put up lots of pts.

Everything changes in the playoffs, the pressure is greater, space & time are reduced & good players are purposely targeted to take out of games whether people want to believe it or not. Anyone who has played at a high level knows this & these guys are playing for their careers, jobs & livelihood. The Leafs are built like a regular season team, so were the Habs & both now are trying to get bigger & tougher after once again being ousted early.

If Guenette makes it it will be as a 3rd pairing guy. I’ve never been a fan of Lajoie, but the two are similar caliber type D, but I like Guenettes skill set for the bottom pair a bit better than Lajoie’s.

Guenette is 3+ years away from ever contending for a spot regardless.

I saw 5-6 games of Guenette over the past year 2 seasons, the only time I’ve ever seen Lajoie play was as a pro.

 

[TheDebater]

Guenneter reminds me of Lajoie except that they play opposite sides. Have you have seen both & if yes, could you comment & compare the two? Thanks.



Good post. Ottawa has had numerous regular season teams that folded like a cheap suit in the playoffs. This is why I mention building a playoff team so often rather than a regular season team that can put up lots of pts.

Everything changes in the playoffs, the pressure is greater, space & time are reduced & good players are purposely targeted to take out of games whether people want to believe it or not. Anyone who has played at a high level knows this & these guys are playing for their careers, jobs & livelihood. The Leafs are built like a regular season team, so were the Habs & both now are trying to get bigger & tougher after once again being ousted early.

Again, what you guys are saying makes sense when it comes to building a team to contend for the playoffs, but is Ottawa really in a position to draft based on playoff potential at this point in time?

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Again, what you guys are saying makes sense when it comes to building a team to contend for the playoffs, but is Ottawa really in a position to draft based on playoff potential at this point in time?

You could draft with a view towards the team make up 2, 3, 4 years from now. I would hope that we would be in the playoffs in y3 / y4 when most if not all the guys who are going to make it have been developed and are ready to play and contribute in contending. No one is drafting pretty much all of these players except 1 or 2 at the most for this year; most can be viewed as being 2-3 years away from making the NHL. Some will be 4 or more. A few won't get there.