Prospect Info: 2021 Devils-Centric Mock Draft 2.0 for May

[MartyOwns]

if luke shares jack's affinity for tits, we should avoid him at all costs

 

[OmNomNom]

if the rags land 2nd pick and pick hughes, i'm jumping on the character assassination idea though

 

[Lou is God]

No team will have more insight into Luke Hughes than NJ and VAN. If NJ is ok with Jack my guess is that they will be ok with Luke. Maybe they are entitled kids who are dismissive of fans and people outside their inner orbit. They can grow out of that and more importantly, the team cares mostly about how they interact with teammates and coaches. I'm sure the Hughes boys are smart enough to know when to behave. I'll also offer a different view. Jack is outspoken at times and can be a bit ahead of himself when speaking (his Holtz needs to step up and start scoring statement comes to mind). Is that bad? Not necessarily. It's his way of showing commitment and, in his mind, leadership. That sort of approach will rub some people the wrong way. He's in a young locker room and likely one of the guys though so it doesn't seem like a big deal in the way the players' social media releases portray him. Maybe it's just that he's demanding and sees the world in stark terms and isn't shy about letting people know that. He'll likely temper that as he matures but in the hockey world where you are supposed to only speak when spoken to as a young player and even then only offer platitudes and cliches I could see that being labeled as a "character" issue. At this point with Jack two years into his career it's hard to see that as a stumbling block for NJ.

Hey, at first Red didn't care much for Andy Dufresne when he asked Red for a pickaxe, thought he was snobby, but in the end Red broke parole and skipped the country to be with Andy, maybe the Hughes brothers are a bunch of Andys

 

[Blackjack]

She was asked who she wouldn't take. She offered up Hughes and gave her reasoning why, just saying that people didn't have good stuff to say about him unless they had something to gain by that. She didn't think he would be available anyway. 'Forced' is glib language but given how Jack spoke publicly the other day about the Devils selecting his brother, it's not hard to read into that as strong pressure on the organization to take Luke if he is available when the Devils select.

You can all reinsert your monocles and proceed with your day.

Here's what she said:

Umm, okay, so here are some names that I would avoid, uhh Luke Hughes being like premiere top of that list. Ummmm, I have done quite a bit of uhh, we'll call it character recon and injury recon... and I have not heard a single person with a good thing to say that isn't either related to him or has something to gain. So like, not great. I also don't think that he'll be there for the Canucks to take because New Jersey is going to get forced into taking him. Ummm, but if the Canucks pick 9, what I would say is this, there's no superstars in this draft, but there are contributing, complementary players.

She said he was "premiere, top of the list" of guys not to draft because in her "character recon" not a single objective person had anything good to say about him.

 

[HBK27]

She was asked who she wouldn't take. She offered up Hughes and gave her reasoning why, just saying that people didn't have good stuff to say about him unless they had something to gain by that. She didn't think he would be available anyway. 'Forced' is glib language but given how Jack spoke publicly the other day about the Devils selecting his brother, it's not hard to read into that as strong pressure on the organization to take Luke if he is available when the Devils select.

You can all reinsert your monocles and proceed with your day.

What did Jack say about the Devils selecting his brother?

Regardless of what he said, there would be pressure on NJ to select Luke if he were available. Tough situation for Fitz/Castron to be in.

The fact that there's some smoke around Luke now is a bit concerning, though this is the first I'm hearing about it and it would be a bit surprising if there were actually any major issues with Luke when there weren't any with Quinn or Jack.

 

[Triumph]

And while we reinsert our monocles you can reinsert your hearing aid and listen again to this soundbite where she said she did a "character recon" on Hughes and "didn't hear a single good thing back from anyone who wasn't related or connected to him".

Yes, I acknowledged that. And your point is, what, exactly? It's up to you to take away what you want to take away from that. Who told her those things, and why did they do it? We can't know. If we had heard specifics, you would've likely said they are either falsehoods or out of bounds.

She wasn't talking about his game which is fair game, she was clearly judging him on his character, she even used the word "character".

Yes. I acknowledged that. And your point is? I guess you think this isn't 'fair game'. I assume you'll be just as diligent when you read profiles of prospects that mention uncoachability or the like. Or that a player doesn't seem that committed to hockey or whatever. How dare they talk about Ryan Merkley like that! There's several players in every draft for whom 'character' is a question, but I grant most of them are not brothers of established players on your favorite team who your favorite team seems quite likely to draft (as you acknowledge).

I just don't know how you, of all people, have the cognitive dissonance to not understand what is going on here.

 

[Lou is God]

if the rags land 2nd pick and pick hughes, i'm jumping on the character assassination idea though

If the Rags get second or anywhere near the first pick I'm going to jump on a conspiracy theory that will make Q blush.

 

[OmNomNom]

this is hardly smoke - we're blowing up a comment from someone we know hates the devils (and possibly the hughes ?)

until someone else says something, it's just hearsay

 

[HBK27]

Here's what she said:

Umm, okay, so here are some names that I would avoid, uhh Luke Hughes being like premiere top of that list. Ummmm, I have done quite a bit of uhh, we'll call it character recon and injury recon... and I have not heard a single person with a good thing to say that isn't either related to him or has something to gain. So like, not great. I also don't think that he'll be there for the Canucks to take because New Jersey is going to get forced into taking him. Ummm, but if the Canucks pick 9, what I would say is this, there's no superstars in this draft, but there are contributing, complementary players.

She said he was "premiere, top of the list" of guys not to draft because in her "character recon" not a single objective person had anything good to say about him.

That reads in my mind like a scene from Drunk History.

 

[My3Sons]

Hey, at first Red didn't care much for Andy Dufresne when he asked Red for a pickaxe, thought he was snobby, but in the end Red broke parole and skipped the country to be with Andy, maybe the Hughes brothers are a bunch of Andys

That was a great story. It's also probably the most accurate movie version of a story I've ever seen. I'm not sure how many folks realize that's a Stephen King story. It's probably my wife's favorite movie. I could live with the Hughes boys turning out like Andy Dufresne.

 

[Hisch13r]

If the character issues were about him not trying hard because he's not all that into hockey then that's something I'd care about as there's a chance they don't work as hard and don't realize their potential. This comes off more as Luke being a dick and 17 year old kids can be dicks. I don't care

 

[Triumph]

What did Jack say about the Devils selecting his brother?

Regardless of what he said, there would be pressure on NJ to select Luke if he were available. Tough situation for Fitz/Castron to be in.

The fact that there's some smoke around Luke now is a bit concerning, though this is the first I'm hearing about it and it would be a bit surprising if there were actually any major issues with Luke when there weren't any with Quinn or Jack.

 

[Lou is God]

Yes, I acknowledged that. And your point is, what, exactly? It's up to you to take away what you want to take away from that. Who told her those things, and why did they do it? We can't know. If we had heard specifics, you would've likely said they are either falsehoods or out of bounds.



Yes. I acknowledged that. And your point is? I guess you think this isn't 'fair game'. I assume you'll be just as diligent when you read profiles of prospects that mention uncoachability or the like. Or that a player doesn't seem that committed to hockey or whatever. How dare they talk about Ryan Merkley like that! There's several players in every draft for whom 'character' is a question, but I grant most of them are not brothers of established players on your favorite team who your favorite team seems quite likely to draft (as you acknowledge).

I just don't know how you, of all people, have the cognitive dissonance to not understand what is going on here.

My point is a teenager's character is fair game behind the scenes of GMs and scouts, but not for media personalities. How hard is that not to understand?

 

[HBK27]

Thanks.

That's about what you'd expect any player to say in that situation.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

this is hardly smoke - we're blowing up a comment from someone we know hates the devils (and possibly the hughes ?)

until someone else says something, it's just hearsay

I think somebody pointed out earlier in this thread that somebody had already said something about Luke Hughes character

 

[Triumph]

That reads in my mind like a scene from Drunk History.

And that's because it's not a prepared statement, it's someone talking on a podcast, knowing they have to be somewhat circumspect because of the nature of the conversation.

 

[Triumph]

My point is a teenager's character is fair game behind the scenes of GMs and scouts, but not for media personalities. How hard is that not to understand?

It's pretty hard because this comes up literally every year. Were you posting about Kiril Kabanov or Josh Ho Sang? Ryan Merkley? John McFarland? Patrick O'Sullivan, for the old-timers? This is the public conversation. It's a bit unseemly, but this is the industry, and this is what it trafficks in.

 

[Wierzbowski426]

Standard of evidence for attacking a 16 year old should be pretty high and Rachel has certainly not come anywhere near it.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

I think somebody pointed out earlier in this thread that somebody had already said something about Luke Hughes character

Who?

 

[HBK27]

Here's what she said:

Umm, okay, so here are some names that I would avoid, uhh Luke Hughes being like premiere top of that list. Ummmm, I have done quite a bit of uhh, we'll call it character recon and injury recon... and I have not heard a single person with a good thing to say that isn't either related to him or has something to gain. So like, not great. I also don't think that he'll be there for the Canucks to take because New Jersey is going to get forced into taking him. Ummm, but if the Canucks pick 9, what I would say is this, there's no superstars in this draft, but there are contributing, complementary players.

She said he was "premiere, top of the list" of guys not to draft because in her "character recon" not a single objective person had anything good to say about him.

Did she ummm, like ever elaborate uh... on this like injury recon she ummm mentioned?

 

[My3Sons]

this is hardly smoke - we're blowing up a comment from someone we know hates the devils (and possibly the hughes ?)

until someone else says something, it's just hearsay

I object your honor. The statement meets the "modern social media clickbait" exception to the hearsay rule. It complies with Article 803(35). (1) It is a negative statement; (2) It is used against a high profile person who is not likely to be able defend themselves; (3) The declarant is a relative nobody who would be best served by the controversy; and (4) It's vague enough that all parties involved can say they were "taken out of context" or "misquoted" if pressed by someone of authority. Given the clear suggestion that Hughes should drop down draft boards because of unnamed and unknown statements made about his character and this vague supposition being republished on a hockey based message board, the statement should be admissible. This is especially true where it appears the declarant has an axe to grind against the organization connected with the brother of the target of the statement.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

To me she seemed amused at the idea that the devils were "forced to" take Hughes. Was she amused cause she doesn't like the Devils or because of what she heard about Hughes? If the latter what did she hear that was so bad that Hughes would be the top of the list of names she would avoid based on character?

Have any other scouts even hinted at character issues?

 

[Captain3rdLine]

She definitely worked with us previously, and it seemed like it came to an abrupt end and wasn’t her choice. There was an article in the Athletic about it a few years back.

Regarding Luke’s character issues, Will Scouch on YouTube also alluded to hearing/reading similar info about his character defects. As long as it’s run-of-the-mill teenage cockiness and not Mitch Miller-esque (which definitely would have came out by now) I see no problem with it if he is the choice.

Who?

I don’t know how relevant or reliable this is but it is someone else

 

[beekay414]

Shiiiit, I like my athletes cocky. I like it when players are good and they know it and let you know it. I may or may not be the same way. That's actually a plus for me. Sign me up (if Brandt's gone).

 

[Oneiro]

Like Ryan Lambert, she has an annoying tone so I'm sure a bit of that plays into it. But most of the episode is just gossip and hearsay. If you traffic in these sorts of takes, you're going to get heat back and justifiably so. A Merkley comparison is a pretty scathing place to go, though I actually agree with her take on L. Hughes. I don't think he's as good as made out to be. And still dragging the Mukhamadullin pick too, without a thought to any counter-argument.