Player Discussion 2020 NHL Draft Poll (who should we pick?)

[FrankMTL]

As we get closer to the draft, I thought it would be fun to see who some of the posters think we should pick (if available obviously).

I posted one last year before the draft as well, but I can't see to find the poll winner.

I tried to put players that "could" be available (players ranked between 12-18). There seems to be a a lot of different preferences between our posters, so put your top 3 and let's see who comes out on top. If somebody that is supposed to be drafted higher falls to us, than that's even better

Click to read more...

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

For myself I voted Jarvis, but if he’s gone I’d be happy with Holloway or Mercer.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Voted Holloway and Reichel. There is no real stand out BPA with those group of prospects IMO (like Caufield and Newhook last year). Draft for need in this case unless someone slips or we can trade down.

Sorry, I don't think Jarvis is a top line talent in the NHL. Most of these guys at 16th are potential top 6F with different strengths to their game.

 

[FrankMTL]

Voted Holloway and Reichel. There is no real BPA with those group of prospects IMO. Draft for need in this case unless someone slips or we can trade down.

Sorry, I don't think Jarvis is a top line talent in the NHL. Most of these guys at 16th are potential top 6F with different strengths to their game.

It comes down to personal choice and what type of upside you see for a particular prospect. Some people wouldn't wouldn't even pick Anton Lundell in the Top 15...

 

[26Mats]

As we get closer to the draft, I thought it would be fun to see who some of the posters think we should pick (if available obviously).

I posted one last year before the draft as well, but I can't see to find the poll winner.

I tried to put players that "could" be available (players ranked between 12-18). There seems to be a a lot of different preferences between our posters, so put your top 3 and let's see who comes out on top. If somebody that is supposed to be drafted higher falls to us, than that's even better

Can't wait to see if Timmins can redeem himself at the #16 spot.

Of his last 4 picks close to that spot (Beaulieu #17, Leblanc #18, Chipchura #18, Caufield #15) only Caufield has the potential to be good.

 

[Habs Halifax]

It comes down to personal choice and what type of upside you see for a particular prospect. Some people wouldn't wouldn't even pick Anton Lundell in the Top 15...

Agreed. Each scout and team has their own draft board. But if you put all the draft boards on the wall and looked at them, the trend would be this... the talent after 12/13 is guess work and lots of different targets depending on who you ask.

BPA only applies to your own personal list. Not everyone's list. I don't see a obvious BPA like Caufield or Newhook with our 16th pick. We will see if someone slips

 

[calder candidate]

Voted Mercer since I think he does everything, game will translate to the NHL and if he doesn’t reach is potential he still be a middle 6.

I think Amirov and Gunler probably have the most upside.

 

[26Mats]

Agreed. Each scout and team has their own draft board. But if you put all the draft boards on the wall and looked at them, the trend would be this... the talent after 12/13 is guess work and lots of different targets depending on who you ask.

BPA only applies to your own personal list. Not everyone's list. I don't see a obvious BPA like Caufield or Newhook with our 16th pick. We will see if someone slips

I wouldn't exactly call it guess work. Team's do their research to try to distinguish a Pastrnak from a Scherbak. I think what happens is some teams have a read on a certain player, or just really like him.

You could see our scouts liked Caufield last year. What I didn't like is at the draft table they said we need goal scoring help and scoring, let's go with Caufield. That would support the point that they didn't have a choice for BPA. In contrast, as Scherbak and Pasternk play the same position, we'd think the Bruins had Pastrnk ahead of Scherbak in terms of BPA.

 

[Adam Michaels]

I voted Holloway and Mercer, as they are my two favorites for 16th. I didn't pick a 3rd (since we're allowed to select 3) because I can't identify who I want more between Jarvis, Bourque, and Amirov. But I'd be happy with those three, as well.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I wouldn't exactly call it guess work. Team's do their research to try to distinguish a Pastrnak from a Scherbak. I think what happens is some teams have a read on a certain player, or just really like him.

You could see our scouts liked Caufield last year. What I didn't like is at the draft table they said we need goal scoring help and scoring, let's go with Caufield. That would support the point that they didn't have a choice for BPA. In contrast, as Scherbak and Pasternk play the same position, we'd think the Bruins had Pastrnk ahead of Scherbak in terms of BPA.

No scout knew how good/bad Pastrnak and Scherbak would be on draft day.

You can be high on someone like Romanov and take him early yes. BPA is a myth. Of course you are going to take the best talent possible. But if you are going for need, usually, that's a factor of what's left on the draft board when you pick.

For Example: We are not going to trade a Tatar when you need a Kreider. Who's BPA between them? Cause not so sure many realize the talent from 16+ is one big waive till probably mid 2nd round. Someone is going to hit with a Pasta type pick and people going to try to use BPA again. I don't think Jarvis is going to be Pasta. That's my point

Tell me... who's the potential star from 16-50 on Bob's list? Do you think the best scouts in the game can predict growth from 18-21 that accurately?

 

[ahmedou]

Gunler = My Favorite Prospect

Honorable mentions: Bourque/Mercer

 

[FrankMTL]

No scout knew how good/bad Pastrnak and Scherbak would be on draft day.

No, but it wasn't a "guess" either. Scouts put time into watching a lot of players and try to forecast their potential based on numerous factors. You can get lucky with certain players as they go through a huge development curve a year or two after being drafted and some just stagnate. It's a little bit like the stock market. You can be prepared and educated as much as possible on a stock and feel like it will go up and pay out, but it doesn't always work that way....sometimes it crashes for whatever reason. Humans (especially teenage humans) are somewhat unpredictable unless they're really the cream of the crop.

 

[Habs Halifax]

No, but it wasn't a "guess" either. Scouts put time into watching a lot of players and try to forecast their potential based on numerous factors. You can get lucky with certain players as they go through a huge development curve a year or two after being drafted and some just stagnate. It's a little bit like the stock market. You can be prepared and educated as much as possible on a stock and feel like it will go up and pay out, but it doesn't always work that way....sometimes it crashes for whatever reason. Humans (especially teenage humans) are somewhat unpredictable unless they're really the cream of the crop.

If there was that much to like with Pastrnak and the top scouts saw this... he would of went earlier. Bruins take Pasta 25th and then miss out on Barzal with the 13, 14, 15 picks the following draft?

Guess work is a major factor in terms of predicting growth from 18-21. Remember how good Tolvanen was suppose to be? Many considered him BPA when we picked Poehling.

 

[FrankMTL]

If there was that much to like with Pastrnak and the top scouts saw this... he would of went earlier. Bruins take Pasta 25th and then miss out on Barzal with the 13, 14, 15 picks the following draft?

Guess work is a major factor in terms of predicting growth from 18-21.

For sure there is some guess work, but if it wasn't an educated guess, than some of these players wouldn't be drafted in the first round. All i'm saying is that it isn't a pure guess. You're not throwing darts on board. You have a small pool of players that you really like and feel that one player in particular has what it takes to become a decent NHLer. After that, if certain players improve much more than others, than ya, that's considered somewhat lucky. If Boston was thinking Pastrnak could be a good 2nd line winger in the NHL and he turns into a dominant first line winger, than yeah, that's somewhat lucky as he wasn't forecast to turn into that otherwise he would have been drafted much higher.

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I chose Jan Mysak simply for the last name!

Joking aside, I like Guhle.

 

[jaffy27]

Gunler
Holloway

I’d be pleasantly pleasant with either......

 

[WeThreeKings]

Holloway
Jarvis
Reichel

HM to Gunler and Bourque

 

[montreal]

i don't know them but from what i've heard, i'd be happy with any of.

Jarvis
Reichel
Gunler

 

[The Great Weal]

Seth Jarvis


Lukas Reichel
Dylan Holloway
Noel Gunler

 

[Weber Fan]

Jarvis
Amirov
Bourque

 

[FrankMTL]

For now it looks like Holloway and Jarvis seem to be the two most popular picks by far, followed by Reichel, Gunler and Mercer.

 

[habsfan92]

I go with Jarvis because I think he has the highest upside based on his skating & skills. I don't want another 3rd liner, as we have nothing but it seems. Mercer would be next, as he would seem to be more of an offensive threat that a guy like Holloway (which would be a solid 2 way guy).

 

[Bacchus1]

BPA .... which depends on who is left off the board.

 

[MD thaivuN]

Gunler
Jarvis
Holloway

HM: Amirov, Bourque, Reichel

Would consider (among those not on the list): Perreault

 

[WeThreeKings]

BPA .... which depends on who is left off the board.

In this situation. Pretend they are all on the board. Make a call bri