C Mathew Barzal - Seattle Thunderbirds, WHL (2015, 16th, NYI)

[Felix Unger]

He's got it all. He's fast, protect well the puck, good defensively, can shot, good IQ, nice hands and he's fairly physical.

Just to clarify, I wasn't comparing the two - just saying that I thought that Barzal would have absolutely fit LL's Devils style.

Just from watching Zacha one game v NYI, I didn't think he was NHL ready. But that was one game... Seemed to be following the play a bit.

 

[MatthewFlames]

Nevermind. Not worth my time!

This!

(on second thought...you do realize that I predicted Provorv 7th overall to Philly in my draft rankings...right?...plus nailed the top 5 100% correctly in my mock draft...and me saying Barzal should go 6-9th is looking pretty astute now as Barzal is hanging around at Isles camp still, proving the value they got in him on draft day.)

It's a great blog despite the fact the crystal ball is a little cracked . Everything written about Barzal on it has proven to be right.

 

[rockhouse15]

I know that it continues to be fun to crap on Boston for passing on Barzal (and Connor) in the draft, but this is the main reason why. Boston is very deep at center with Krejci, Bergeron and Spooner. Behind them are Khokhlachev, Heinen, Donato, JF Karlsson and Kuraly. Barzal would have been redundant. What the Bruins need are scoring wingers, which is what Sensyshyn and Debrusk are.

Even if that's what they were doing you always take highest value and BPA over need when it comes to the draft. The draft for teams is basically a time to get free assets that you probably won't use for a while. Why worry about drafting a player to fill a need when by the time the player reaches his potential your needs may be completly different. Just look at what Boston did 5 years ago with their top pick. Their biggest need by far was a winger considering their highest scoring one was 41 year old Mark RecchI the year before and they already had 3 top-6 centers in Bergeron, Savard and Krecji. They could have reached for Nino or Skinner to fill that need but stuck with Seguin and got the much better value and player.

 

[Felix Unger]

Even if that's what they were doing you always take highest value and BPA over need when it comes to the draft. The draft for teams is basically a time to get free assets that you probably won't use for a while. Why worry about drafting a player to fill a need when by the time the player reaches his potential your needs may be completly different. Just look at what Boston did 5 years ago with their top pick. Their biggest need by far was a winger considering their highest scoring one was 41 year old Mark RecchI the year before and they already had 3 top-6 centers in Bergeron, Savard and Krecji. They could have reached for Nino or Skinner to fill that need but stuck with Seguin and got the much better value and player.

When someone says that it's a mistake to draft a center because 2 30 year olds, Spooner and Khokhlachev stand in the way, you know they're lost in ratiocination. By the time Barzal is ready, I believe he'll be better than the latter two and that they'll be plenty of ice time to go around.

All I read there was an argument to draft Connor over Barzal. Okay - take Connor, and then take Barzal.

 

[rockhouse15]

When someone says that it's a mistake to draft a center because 2 30 year olds, Spooner and Khokhlachev stand in the way, you know they're lost in ratiocination. By the time Barzal is ready, I believe he'll be better than the latter two and that they'll be plenty of ice time to go around.

All I read there was an argument to draft Connor over Barzal. Okay - take Connor, and then take Barzal.

Agree. The rationalization some fans are using to suggest it made sense to draft Debrusk and Senyshyn over Barzal, Connor, and/or Svechnikov is starting to become laughable. They were most likely one or two things, poor valuation of talent to the point where they thought they were drafting the BPAs or they made the mistake of drafting need over BPA. Either way its not good. Not saying that all 3 of their players can't become good to very good NHL players but they left considerable talent still on the table for no good reason.

 

[Estlin]

Or maybe Boston had professional scouts that see what posters here don't? I watched Garth snow get laughed at on this board for passing on luke schenn and filatov, and trading up to get de Haan and Nelson. Heck, there was a thread deriding isles for taking Okposo over Mueller, and there were also those who thought we went off board with Strome.

I'm a fan of the Barzal pick and love that he fell. But, I doubt Boston is going to look back with huge regrets. They'll get quality kids out of the deal.

Thanks for your reasoned post. I don't think that Boston will regret those picks, either. The scouting has clearly improved under Keith Gretzky, and that has been demonstrated best by the previous draft, which netted a couple of steals: Pastrnak and Heinen. Fans take comfort in that and will cut the scouts and management some slack for selecting Debrusk and Sensyshyn.

Agree. The rationalization some fans are using to suggest it made sense to draft Debrusk and Senyshyn over Barzal, Connor, and/or Svechnikov is starting to become laughable. They were most likely one or two things, poor valuation of talent to the point where they thought they were drafting the BPAs or they made the mistake of drafting need over BPA. Either way its not good. Not saying that all 3 of their players can't become good to very good NHL players but they left considerable talent still on the table for no good reason.

At this point in time, no one—and I mean no one—can declare that a prospect like Barzal, Connor, Svechnikov, Debrusk or Senyshyn will be star or bust. Let's check in on these players in two or three years' time and see how they are doing. At that point we can fairly decide whether or not Boston screwed up or proved to be very shrewd.

In addition, the comment that Boston "left considerable talent still on the table for no good reason" is nonsense. They did not pick the players they did on a hunch.

 

[seafoam]

Boston just should have dropped down a few spots, got a few more picks, and then took their guys. Perception would have been better I think but obviously there was either and or no deals to be made or didn't want to risk the chance of their guys being gone.

 

[Estlin]

Boston just should have dropped down a few spots, got a few more picks, and then took their guys. Perception would have been better I think but obviously there was either and or no deals to be made or didn't want to risk the chance of their guys being gone.

Debrusk was going to be picked in the first round, anyway, so they decided to select him at 14. In addition, there were rumors and indications that Sensyshyn—who was the fastest riser in the rankings—was going to either Detroit or Toronto in the first round. That undoubtedly had a hand in Boston choosing him at 15 and not risking a deal to move down some spots and lose out on him.

 

[rockhouse15]

At this point in time, no one—and I mean no one—can declare that a prospect like Barzal, Connor, Svechnikov, Debrusk or Senyshyn will be star or bust. Let's check in on these players in two or three years' time and see how they are doing. At that point we can fairly decide whether or not Boston screwed up or proved to be very shrewd.

In addition, the comment that Boston "left considerable talent still on the table for no good reason" is nonsense. They did not pick the players they did on a hunch.

With that logic then you can never make any judgments about any pick after its made. In that case if Edmonton decided to draft Debrusk over McDavid, you can't say that was a bad pick because its way to early to tell if either player will be a star or bust.

I'm not saying that Debrusk or Senyshyn are bad picks because they are bad players or will become bad players. On the contrary I think they will become good to very good NHL players. However, I am saying they either got very bad value for those picks by reaching for them ahead of players that could have fit in that spot much better or misjudged the value of those players to the rest of the leauge. It would have made much more sense if they really wanted those guys to trade back or trade up from their 2nd round pick and take the guys that would have been better value at those spots instead. Even if they turn out to be better than Barzal or Connor or anyone else that would have been a better value selection it still would have been a poor decision in terms of asset management.

I'll give you a good example. In 2003 Columbus could have decided instead of taking Zherdev #4 to take Shea Weber who at the time was considered a 2nd round pick. While they would have ended up with the much better player, at the time and right now it would have been considered a terrible pick. Why? Because they could have gotten much better value at the time by taking Zherdev or Vanek or Suter or anyone else that was considered to go that early and just picked up Weber with their 2nd round pick. In fact that was exactly what Nashville did where they took Suter at 7 and then picked up Weber at 49. They could have easily taken Weber at 7 but would have lost out considerably in terms of value for their pick by doing so.

 

[rockhouse15]

Debrusk was going to be picked in the first round, anyway, so they decided to select him at 14. In addition, there were rumors and indications that Sensyshyn—who was the fastest riser in the rankings—was going to either Detroit or Toronto in the first round. That undoubtedly had a hand in Boston choosing him at 15 and not risking a deal to move down some spots and lose out on him.

Even with assuming that those rumors were 100% true, Detroit and Toronto had picks 19 and 24 at the time. Would have made much more sense to trade back 2-5 or maybe even more spots and pick up assets while still getting the player they want. Also would have made sense to pick a guy like Barzal or Connor at one of those picks and trade up with their 2nd round picks or other assets to try and take one of their targets.

 

[Darth Milbury]

I'm not saying he's "the source", you just don't have any analysis to back up what you are claiming.

Your "analysis" consisted of linking to a blog and telling me that I shouldn't disagree with the writer because he watches the CHL more than me.


Barzal looks like he has great upside, but also flaws. I think he is going to be a small player, I don't know if he'll be a scorer, and I have concerns about how complete a player he will be. that's all workable, of course, and he was a great find at that position in the draft. But, I don't see him as can't miss.


Even the fairly optimistic blog saw him as 2nd line winger, noting his defensive weaknesses.


Provorov is a much more comfortable projection for me. I don't see major holes in his game and I believe he could have easily gone #3 in this year's draft.


Its harder to project defenders than forwards, but I'm a lot more confident about how Provorov will develop than I am Barzal, which is not to say I don't think Barzal can be quite good. He just has to develop and round out his game more.

 

[snizzbone*]

Your "analysis" consisted of linking to a blog and telling me that I shouldn't disagree with the writer because he watches the CHL more than me.


Barzal looks like he has great upside, but also flaws. I think he is going to be a small player, I don't know if he'll be a scorer, and I have concerns about how complete a player he will be. that's all workable, of course, and he was a great find at that position in the draft. But, I don't see him as can't miss.


Even the fairly optimistic blog saw him as 2nd line winger, noting his defensive weaknesses.


Provorov is a much more comfortable projection for me. I don't see major holes in his game and I believe he could have easily gone #3 in this year's draft.


Its harder to project defenders than forwards, but I'm a lot more confident about how Provorov will develop than I am Barzal, which is not to say I don't think Barzal can be quite good. He just has to develop and round out his game more.

That's odd considering most scouts have praised it.

 

[Darth Milbury]

My opinion, from what I've seen, is that Barzal will likely wind up like Grabner - fast, with good anticipation, and that will make him effective as a forchecker.


I'm not sure how effective he'll be in his own zone, or whether he can learn to backcheck, but we'll see in time.


For now, I mostly agree with that blog - although I didn't write it and can't defend it.

 

[seafoam]

Your "analysis" consisted of linking to a blog and telling me that I shouldn't disagree with the writer because he watches the CHL more than me.


Barzal looks like he has great upside, but also flaws. I think he is going to be a small player, I don't know if he'll be a scorer, and I have concerns about how complete a player he will be. that's all workable, of course, and he was a great find at that position in the draft. But, I don't see him as can't miss.


Even the fairly optimistic blog saw him as 2nd line winger, noting his defensive weaknesses.


Provorov is a much more comfortable projection for me. I don't see major holes in his game and I believe he could have easily gone #3 in this year's draft.


Its harder to project defenders than forwards, but I'm a lot more confident about how Provorov will develop than I am Barzal, which is not to say I don't think Barzal can be quite good. He just has to develop and round out his game more.

I didn't make an analysis, because I didn't make a claim, because I don't watch the WHL regularly. You're the one who claimed Provorov is a class above Barzal.

All I'm doing is questioning your claim that Provorov is a class above Barzal because it lacked any analysis whatsoever while another claim I read had Barzal ranked higher than Provorov and had A TON of analysis.

If you provided any sort of analysis at the time you made your claim, I wouldn't have had a problem with it (even if I disagreed with the claim). I don't really mind if I don't agree with someone on here (I'm actually not looking to find people who agree or disagree with me), as long as they made a decent, well thought out, analysis of the situation. I don't see that much around here anymore, and I'm not talking about you specfically.

 

[Satastic]

Even though Meier has grown on me, I was still hoping for Barzal at 9. I have really high hopes for him

 

[Konk]

My opinion, from what I've seen, is that Barzal will likely wind up like Grabner - fast, with good anticipation, and that will make him effective as a forchecker.


I'm not sure how effective he'll be in his own zone, or whether he can learn to backcheck, but we'll see in time.


For now, I mostly agree with that blog - although I didn't write it and can't defend it.

Darth, you're way off on this one. Barzal is already a very good backchecker. His two-way ability is one of his strengths.

As far as your comparison to Grabner, aside from speed they are nothing alike. Again, you should probably step away from any Barzal discussion because it's clear you don't have a handle on his game and don't realize the level of player that fell to the Isles. He is already their best prospect.

 

[Brodeur]

Boston just should have dropped down a few spots, got a few more picks, and then took their guys. Perception would have been better I think but obviously there was either and or no deals to be made or didn't want to risk the chance of their guys being gone.

Even with assuming that those rumors were 100% true, Detroit and Toronto had picks 19 and 24 at the time. Would have made much more sense to trade back 2-5 or maybe even more spots and pick up assets while still getting the player they want. Also would have made sense to pick a guy like Barzal or Connor at one of those picks and trade up with their 2nd round picks or other assets to try and take one of their targets.

For all we know, Boston did try to trade down but maybe the fish were refusing the bait? The Kings got flack for taking Thomas Hickey in 2007 and most fans thought they could move down. Later, Dean Lombardi admitted that he tried like hell to move down but nothing materialized.

We saw from the Columbus behind the scenes videos where they were offered a couple deals to move up, but they decided to keep their picks. Same sort of thing could have happened to Boston.

Looking at the draft board:

16. Edmonton - Probably not that interested in moving up one slot.
17. Winnipeg - Had picks 25, 47, 78, 108. Plausible that Boston might have contacted them, but maybe they had 3+ guys left on their board that they liked and felt comfortable with staying put.
18. Ottawa - Had picks 21, 42, 48, 109. Maybe Ottawa would have been skittish about trading a 2nd to move up?
19. Detroit - Red Wings had 73, 110. Maybe not enough ammo to move up.
20. Minnesota - Wild had 50, 111. Maybe not enough to tempt Boston to move down.

Naturally teams could have offered up 2016 picks as well. But the Jets and Red Wings already moved their 2016 3rd. Minnesota moved their 2nd and 3rd.

As an armchair GM, I also would have tried to move down and get Senyshyn but I also recognize that the offers could have been underwhelming.

Trading back into the first round might have been possible. Toronto moved down twice and essentially moved #24 for #34, #61, and #68. Not sure if they would have moved the pick to Boston for a comparable package (Boston had #37, #45, #52, and #75 to work with).

 

[Random Forest]

Nevermind. Not worth my time!

(on second thought...you do realize that I predicted Provorv 7th overall to Philly in my draft rankings...right?...plus nailed the top 5 100% correctly in my mock draft...and me saying Barzal should go 6-9th is looking pretty astute now as Barzal is hanging around at Isles camp still, proving the value they got in him on draft day.)

I assume you actually aspire to be a real scout one day as opposed to an amateur blogger. Tip: Act more professionally. Be less arrogant. Take criticism better.

And for the record, the top five wasn't exactly hard to predict this year, and probably 90% of lists had Barzal in the 6-10 range. Don't flaunt things that require no real technical expertise to predict.

 

[SI90]

Grabner doesn't come close to Barzal in terms of passing/playmaking and on ice vision. Barzal also has great patience and can slow the game down.

Grabner is underrated defensivley but I could see a Barzal being a decent to good penalty Killer in the pros.
His bread and butter is his offense but unlike Ho-Sang who is arguable as skilled offensively as Barzal, Barzal is responsible defensivley.

 

[Felix Unger]

Grabner and Barzal? Crikey. Frans and Barzal is more like it. I'm far less confident in the translation of Barzal's offensive game than I am of his 2-way game.

 

[whlscowt]

You realize that "blogger" watches much more WHL hockey than you, right? Don't see how draft position is even remotely relevant. You're telling me you predicted San Jose taking Timo Meier?

I assume you actually aspire to be a real scout one day as opposed to an amateur blogger. Tip: Act more professionally. Be less arrogant. Take criticism better.

And for the record, the top five wasn't exactly hard to predict this year, and probably 90% of lists had Barzal in the 6-10 range. Don't flaunt things that require no real technical expertise to predict.

Not touching anything else, but he's a scout for the Blades. Hockey people obviously like how he views the game. I love R S' stuff. I know I'm going to miss his daily lineup updates. It was super handy.

Self-horn-tooting: I predicted Provorov to goto the Sharks in the HF mock, but I did say Meier was another option in that article.

 

[MatthewFlames]

Be less arrogant.

Someone should take a dose of their own medicine.

 

[SI90]

RS is my go to guy for the WHL. I started following him when the isles drafted Reinhart. I enjoy his analysis and his availibility to answer and converse with people on here.

I remeber leading up to the 13' draft I was in love with Pulock and wanted the isles to draft him. RS felt it would be a good fit and he and Reinhart would make a great pair. Obviously the isles felt the same.

 

[seafoam]

For all we know, Boston did try to trade down but maybe the fish were refusing the bait? The Kings got flack for taking Thomas Hickey in 2007 and most fans thought they could move down. Later, Dean Lombardi admitted that he tried like hell to move down but nothing materialized.

We saw from the Columbus behind the scenes videos where they were offered a couple deals to move up, but they decided to keep their picks. Same sort of thing could have happened to Boston.

Looking at the draft board:

16. Edmonton - Probably not that interested in moving up one slot.
17. Winnipeg - Had picks 25, 47, 78, 108. Plausible that Boston might have contacted them, but maybe they had 3+ guys left on their board that they liked and felt comfortable with staying put.
18. Ottawa - Had picks 21, 42, 48, 109. Maybe Ottawa would have been skittish about trading a 2nd to move up?
19. Detroit - Red Wings had 73, 110. Maybe not enough ammo to move up.
20. Minnesota - Wild had 50, 111. Maybe not enough to tempt Boston to move down.

Naturally teams could have offered up 2016 picks as well. But the Jets and Red Wings already moved their 2016 3rd. Minnesota moved their 2nd and 3rd.

As an armchair GM, I also would have tried to move down and get Senyshyn but I also recognize that the offers could have been underwhelming.

Trading back into the first round might have been possible. Toronto moved down twice and essentially moved #24 for #34, #61, and #68. Not sure if they would have moved the pick to Boston for a comparable package (Boston had #37, #45, #52, and #75 to work with).

I noted that it was possible there were no deals to made.

 

[seafoam]

Not touching anything else, but he's a scout for the Blades. Hockey people obviously like how he views the game. I love R S' stuff. I know I'm going to miss his daily lineup updates. It was super handy.

Self-horn-tooting: I predicted Provorov to goto the Sharks in the HF mock, but I did say Meier was another option in that article.

My post was referring to Darth Milbury, not RS.