GDT: NHL Draft R1 (6/28): 6pm CT (ESPN), R2-7 (6/29): 10am CT (NHLN)

[TaLoN]

so they backed themselves into this corner.

That doesn't mean they had to throw away the first round. They did fine with #53 and #64. Balance the rest of the draft, go for the homerun in the first.

 

[MuckOG]

The verdict is out equally on both of them. That's why Guerin and Brackett overcorrected and took two 6'3 200+lb centers with the first two picks this year.

That's true. But at the time they were selected, the "consensus" opinion was they were both future top 6 centers. This just shows how how much (or how little) stock we should put in the opinions of those national scouts who put together the pre-draft rankings. One thing I do know is that they don't spend as much time scouting individual prospects as team scouts do. All the fans have to go by are You-Tube highlight packages and the opinions of the national scouts.

It's possible that Stramel turns out to be a better center than both Rossi and Marat over time. Only time will tell.

 

[AKL]

I think another 1st disconnect between you and I have is who we see as center prospects. While Rossi hasn't yet succeeded at the NHL level, he has always played center and has developed in the Wild AHL system as a center, I don't see that changing. So if we work with that assumption, we also have Bankier who had a very good season but I think we can agree he'll be a bottom six center.

So starting off, I agree our center depth is lacking.
But I also think high-end offense talent lacks - and we both agree on that.

I think depth is easier to solve with later picks than trying to solve the high-end talent problem. So my preference was to use 21st on a higher reward player, then use the 2nds as we did on Kumpulainen and Heidt.

Now I am not saying we needed to go with the highest risk prospect otherwise I would suggest Cristall and Gulyayev - huge upside prospects but some major red flags. But I want us to pick players with Yurov/Ohgren like upsides. I saw Perrault at Yurov's level and Stenberg at Ohgren's level. They have a higher upside but aren't riddle with holes.

Granlund was developed as a center too until he wasn't. And very few 5'9 centers exist in the NHL, let alone those guys being top six centers. So that's my reservation with calling Rossi and Marat no doubt centers. They play center now, but will they play center for us long term? That's still very much up in the air.

My preference for this pick would have been a higher upside center. I think Stenberg or Ritchie would have been fine, and recall that I was talking about those two just before our pick, and that I was disappointed with Stramel right after our pick. So I'm not defending this pick. If we had to choose between the question mark being "will he stick at center or will he be a top six winger" and "well he'll be a center but will he be anything more than a bottom six center", I would rather bet on the talent than the position.

My point is that 1) the problem here isn't drafting for position over upside, it's the specific player they chose. Whoever they get is going to have question marks, and they opted for the "well he'll be a center but will he be any more than a bottom six center" question mark; and 2) that's what happens when you back yourself into a corner and the only centers you take with your last 15 draft picks were Haight (probably not a center) and Bankier (probably only a bottom six center). At that point, they just feel like they need a for sure center.

So I'm not disagreeing with you about this pick, I'm just trying to reason out what led to this. Had they taken some more chances on some centers in the last two drafts, or had their only high upside centers in the system not been 5'9, this draft might have gone differently. So that's where not always taking the high upside wingers might actually be a good thing.

The biggest thing here is, just because our pool is deep with wingers and LD, doesn't mean we don't still need centers. And again, I would have liked to take a higher upside center, even if he ends up at wing, but that would mean we need to take more centers in the 15 picks between the 2021 and 2022 drafts. That's where the balance comes in.

 

[Spurgeon]

I know it’s been a while since they’ve been able to do this, but we are still allowed to sign UFAs. There’s plenty of centers that they can target next offseason or the following.

They’d even have the money to go after someone like Matthews or Aho if they really wanted to.

 

[Circulartheory]

Granlund was developed as a center too until he wasn't. And very few 5'9 centers exist in the NHL, let alone those guys being top six centers. So that's my reservation with calling Rossi and Marat no doubt centers. They play center now, but will they play center for us long term? That's still very much up in the air.

My preference for this pick would have been a higher upside center. I think Stenberg or Ritchie would have been fine, and recall that I was talking about those two just before our pick, and that I was disappointed with Stramel right after our pick. So I'm not defending this pick. If we had to choose between the question mark being "will he stick at center or will he be a top six winger" and "well he'll be a center but will he be anything more than a bottom six center", I would rather bet on the talent than the position.

My point is that 1) the problem here isn't drafting for position over upside, it's the specific player they chose. Whoever they get is going to have question marks, and they opted for the "well he'll be a center but will he be any more than a bottom six center" question mark; and 2) that's what happens when you back yourself into a corner and the only centers you take with your last 15 draft picks were Haight (probably not a center) and Bankier (probably only a bottom six center). At that point, they just feel like they need a for sure center.

So I'm not disagreeing with you about this pick, I'm just trying to reason out what led to this. Had they taken some more chances on some centers in the last two drafts, or had their only high upside centers in the system not been 5'9, this draft might have gone differently. So that's where not always taking the high upside wingers might actually be a good thing.

The biggest thing here is, just because our pool is deep with wingers and LD, doesn't mean we don't still need centers. And again, I would have liked to take a higher upside center, even if he ends up at wing, but that would mean we need to take more centers in the 15 picks between the 2021 and 2022 drafts. That's where the balance comes in.

Going to highlight the point's I'm responding too. Alot of good stuff to talk in there

Will they play center for long term? Who's to say - but it definitely won't be me. I will not consider them a winger if they haven't played wing before - otherwise it opens to whole bag of thoughts. Like there's probably a higher chance Ohgren becomes a center than Rossi becomes wing because Ohgren did play center for the Swedish WJC team and throughout his development years. But not even going to consider that in discussions until there is a concerted development effort in training him. Khusnutdinov is different because he has played significant time on the wing.

That said, its should be beside the point.

Because, as you laid it out plainly, I get the reasoning from Judd - I just disagree with it.

I still really am growing on Stramel, just I don't agree with the draft approach. if Judd lied and came up with the cliché "we believe his was BPA" - I would be finnnnee. But literally came out and said "He fits a lot of our identity, and sometimes need trumps a little bit more of the skill value."" Well, what if one of your 'needs' is high-rewarding talent? I would argue when it comes to the 21st pick, high-reward talent trumps center position prospect.

We need centers for sure. We need high-reward centers for sure. Agreed with you 100%
However, picking at #21, we can either have a high-reward winger or a "safer" (hate the term) center. Kind of what you get when we pick late.

I think if we picked Stenberg/Perrault/Nadeau (you'll see im not a HUGE fan of Ritchie) then picked Kumpulainen and Heidt, it would give us both high reward forward talent and some center depth to develop. I think that would be perfect.

 

[Jbcraig1883]

Fine with day 2. Happy got Heidt. Would have preferred Heidt and Lardis but whatever.

Was a fan of Neil Pionk and was on my draft board that year (somewhere in my post history), so hopefully his bro makes it as well.

Overall, the Heidt pick lessens the blow of Stramel for me. Would've loved Barlow to fall, but he didn't, and there were some other centers I preferred, but I am OK with the draft overall. I will assume they couldn't move back a few slots and get another pick....

 

[Minnewildsota]

Was just reading things on Perreault.
His star’s looked good but some believe that this was a direct result of being paired with Smith. That he scored at a very good clip with Smith, and production dramatically reduced when he was away from Smith

TLDR: Perreault is not a play driver. Will Smith was.

 

[Circulartheory]

Was just reading things on Perreault.
His star’s looked good but some believe that this was a direct result of being paired with Smith. That he scored at a very good clip with Smith, and production dramatically reduced when he was away from Smith

TLDR: Perreault is not a play driver. Will Smith was.

That is the most interesting thing about the line - they all fed each other. But who becomes the better player once you separate them? That's why there was some debate with Leonard was better than Smith and Perrault better than Leonard. Like the Eichel, Tuch, Milano line.

 

[thestonedkoala]

That is the most interesting thing about the line - they all fed each other. But who becomes the better player once you separate them? That's why there was some debate with Leonard was better than Smith and Perrault better than Leonard. Like the Eichel, Tuch, Milano line.

Remember the Ohgren line last year?

 

[Circulartheory]

Remember the Ohgren line last year?

Kinda true but the nuance is Smith,Leonard,Perrault line is can considered the best line in "junior" hockey in the world. They dominated all year and in all internatinal tourneys. Ohgren line is nice but not as interesting.

 

[thestonedkoala]

Kinda true but the nuance is Smith,Leonard,Perrault line is can considered the best line in "junior" hockey in the world. They dominated all year and in all internatinal tourneys. Ohgren line is nice but not as interesting.

Well in terms of arguments there was some thinking that Ohgren was the line driver or Lekk or Ostlund.

 

[Circulartheory]

Well in terms of arguments there was some thinking that Ohgren was the line driver or Lekk or Ostlund.

If we are using comparison, I BELIEF (just belief) is Smith = Lekkermaki, Ohgren = Leonard, Ostlund = Perreault (this is the least good comparison as Ostlund is more two-way).

While I love Ohgren, I don't see him the line driver. He's the guy that compliments the skilled players with a bit of bite, wins the board battles, and opens up space for the smaller more skilled players. Can also shoot the puck that the skilled players throw at him

But when projecting to the pro level, sometimes the skills players don't make it and guys like Ohgren find a place because of their more sturdy size. Same as Leonard, not considered the driver but the more tenacious of the 3 and teams love that.

 

[Lapa]

Overall a solid draft. Not the biggest fan of the Stramel pick, but I get why they went for him. Heidt pick was excellent.

 

[Wabit]

Overall impression of the draft now that I've had some time to think and not make kneejerk reactions.

21oa Stramel. I still think he was a 10-20 pick reach. I don't hate it, but I don't love it either. He has NHL center size, and showed skill prior to going to UW.

53oa Kumpulainen. I'm interested to see what he is. He has size and is young for the draft class, so this could be a gem of a pick.

64oa Heidt. I'm going to walk back my initial response where I didn't like the pick. I was still in the this was a high pick, not 60s pick. The 3rd round is where I want the boom or bust prospect to be taken, so I'm okay with it.

The late round picks are mostly whatever to me. I'm still a little confused by taking an overager LD when they already have so many LD prospects the same age.

 

[DeagleJenkins]

I wonder if the NHL will ever push the age requirements up, stop allowing high schoolers to be drafted and make it 21+. I think Canadian juniors restricts that possibility but I would personally rather have these kids not be draft eligible until 20/21+. Would help grow the game IMO has the draft picks would step into the roster sooner causing some more excitement for fans rather than waiting years to see them in their teams jersey.

 

[Minnewildsota]

I wonder if the NHL will ever push the age requirements up, stop allowing high schoolers to be drafted and make it 21+. I think Canadian juniors restricts that possibility but I would personally rather have these kids not be draft eligible until 20/21+. Would help grow the game IMO has the draft picks would step into the roster sooner causing some more excitement for fans rather than waiting years to see them in their teams jersey.

What incentives would the league have to do this?
Where would Junior players play after reaching 19+ years of age? The AHL?

 

[DeagleJenkins]

What incentives would the league have to do this?
Where would Junior players play after reaching 19+ years of age? The AHL?

I was just comparing the nfl vs nhl drafts and how the nfl picks step right in and play a lot of the time so it adds excitement for some of the less diehard fans, with the nhl needing to grow the game more and get more casual excitement it may be a way to address it however like I said I don’t know how juniors effects it. Maybe they’d be forced to then goto college which isn’t the worst thing in the world.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

It works for the NFL because they have 1 feeder system.

I actually think the NBA should move more towards the NHL system, and have for a while.

 

[DeagleJenkins]

It works for the NFL because they have 1 feeder system.

I actually think the NBA should move more towards the NHL system, and have for a while.

Indeed the NFL system works great for them. I was just looking at how Addison is already talked about is wr2 this season for the Vikings yet here we are saying 3-5 years from now maybe Stramel will be our 2/3C. The time line just sucks in comparison.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Indeed the NFL system works great for them. I was just looking at how Addison is already talked about is wr2 this season for the Vikings yet here we are saying 3-5 years from now maybe Stramel will be our 2/3C. The time line just sucks in comparison.

Maybe if the Canadian junior leagues kept their current setup as 18 and under (or under 18), and then created a new 19-21 year old, full-country league it could possibly work, but I don't see them eager to do that.

I'm not against the idea. I just think it would be extremely complicated to do with how Canada is currently constructed.

 

[DeagleJenkins]

Maybe if the Canadian junior leagues kept their current setup as 18 and under (or under 18), and then created a new 19-21 year old, full-country league it could possibly work, but I don't see them eager to do that.

I'm not against the idea. I just think it would be extremely complicated to do with how Canada is currently constructed.

I agree I was reading through some rules of the Canadian juniors with how they won’t let you goto ncaa after or something along those lines. Feels like you’re screwing the kids all for profit. Have juniors at 17-19 and not let them be draft eligible until they move up to the 20-22 age bracket league. Allow younger bodies to mature and also forces the kids to stay there which also adds revenue for them retaining top prospects not leaving early. I can see it being frowned upon but I’d also think it adds value and potentially helps with player evaluation having then be older and more developed.

 

[57special]

I agree I was reading through some rules of the Canadian juniors with how they won’t let you goto ncaa after or something along those lines. Feels like you’re screwing the kids all for profit. Have juniors at 17-19 and not let them be draft eligible until they move up to the 20-22 age bracket league. Allow younger bodies to mature and also forces the kids to stay there which also adds revenue for them retaining top prospects not leaving early. I can see it being frowned upon but I’d also think it adds value and potentially helps with player evaluation having then be older and more developed.

That's because CHL players get paid, albeit a pretty small amount. In the eyes of the NCAA, that makes them professionals.

 

[Spurgeon]

Really don’t like these comments from Russo’s Athletic Article:

This Wild were position-specific at this year’s draft, targeting centers (and ones with size) with their first two picks (Charlie Stramel and Rasmus Kumpulainen). It’s why Guerin acknowledged that director of amateur scouting Judd Brackett passed on a potentially higher-skilled prospect (believed to be left wing Gabe Perreault) for the need up the middle.

Skipping over a player is part of the job, Brackett said, having that honest conversation.

“Just having someone higher on our list doesn’t mean that they’re the right fit for us,” Brackett said. “There’s certain points within the draft where maybe you want to take a swing. Last year we did it, right?”

This is why Guerin essentially gave the scouts a directive to draft centers with size.

“Billy’s our leader. That’s where everything starts and ends,” Brackett said. “So if we’re building a culture, if we’re building an identity, if we think we’re missing something in our prospect pool, and we need to be more well-rounded, that changes our focus a bit. Next year could be something different.”

 

[Minnewildsota]

Really don’t like these comments from Russo’s Athletic Article:

Ok. Seem fine to me.

 

[Wasted Talent]

Really don’t like these comments from Russo’s Athletic Article:

I think it all depends how big the difference was between Stramel and whoever was highest on their list.

If Stramel was ranked at #40 on their internal list and someone else was sub-20, that's bad. If the difference was only 2 spots and Stramel was ranked at around #21, then it's perfectly fine.