Prospect Info: Play Bad for Ekblad? (the 2014 draft thread)

[NotOpie]

I've read a lot about Perlini having "bust potential" but I haven't seen it in any of the scouting reports I've read. By far of those 2nd tier prospects, I'd be all over Alex Tuch. I think that he's raw and needs development, but he's got a good shot and a nose for the net. I'm more Virtanen than Ritchie and wouldn't be offended by Nylander. I too think there will be a lot of movement at the draft. Players and picks feel like they will be moving.

 

[What the Faulk]

As Skinner-ish has he seems, it begs the question, do we need two Jeff Skinners? Is that really the goal here? I love Jeff as much as the next guy, but you can't have a team full of him. Yes, I'd like our pick to have Skinner-like success, but I don't necessarily want him to be a Skinner-like player.

You can't have a team full of 30 goal scorers?

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

Unless one of the "Big 5" fall, I think I still want Fleury. Defenseman take longer to develop, but at some point we need to address our back end. The top 6 only has 6 spots.

 

[What the Faulk]

But it's the same deal with the post I made above: why pass up a guy that could be a 30-goal scorer to fill a hole that may or may not exist in 3 years? Always, always, always take the best player available. If you believe that's Fleury, by all means, make him the choice. But don't take him because you need to address the defense.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

I wonder, if one of the big 5 do drop to 7, would we have any interest intrading the pick? It's value would go through the roof.

 

[Vagrant]

What do you mean by level of competition? Nino and Draisaitl put up good numbers in the WHL.

Yes, they were both outstanding in the Dub. It's just that if you're a prospect developed in a traditional country there are usually certain thresholds that you meet where adversity is faced. The fact that those two in particular hadn't ever been put in a league that was over their heads until they came across means that the potential existed for them to be overwhelmed in the jump to professional hockey. For elite talents in North America and the more hockey developed nations in Europe, the opportunity is always there to play on a level that challenges your development. There are no competitive U20 leagues in Germany, where Draisaitl played until he was 16. Nor was there an immense amount of scrutiny on his development. Same applies for Nino in the NLA development leagues. And we shouldn't forget that the CHL is just another U20 league with the added wrinkle of there being an immense amount of future professional hockey players playing there. So the risk that you have in taking a player that has only played 1 season or 2 seasons of competitive hockey is that you're dealing with players that haven't encountered a great deal of pushback in their career. They go into a new level, dominate, and then move forward. Even playing with the best U20 prospects at 15 isn't a challenge for these guys because the competition is so weak relative to where they are in their development. That can do bad things to a player mentally if they're not strong enough to realize they have to keep working and things will not always be this easy.

Take McDavid as an example. Brought to the CHL at 14-15 and posted a point per game there. He was being pushed in the proper way by his peers. He wasn't coasting through without having to work hard. His progress was monitored and he was brought along as he was ready and as his play dictated. Smaller countries run out of ways to challenge these kind of talents. I think what we saw with Nino was a great example. The Islanders thought that since he dominated the CHL it would be a modest jump for him to come in and contribute something in the NHL. He failed miserably. Likely because he lost his confidence in his game during the transition from being the star at every level to being just another guy on the bench trying to get some results. It took him going backwards to get him going forward again. He had to learn what it meant to be a professional and the fact that every shift at this level mattered and determined if you'd get a chance at another one. It sounds simple but it's a big part of development. If Draisaitl has had similar experiences, it might be prudent to play it a bit more cautious with him.

 

[DaveG]

Also look at Kopitar. He demolished the Swedish U-20 league in his draft year, I think something close to 50 points in 30 games? And yet, even in a draft that week, he found himself slipping from a top 5 pick to #11 in large part because of his background playing in Slovenia before moving to Sweden before his draft year to play tougher competition.

 

[TheOllieC]

I figured that I would get on record about the draft early so that when we look back in history at these posts we can accurately gauge where we were in our thought process. It tends to get a bit frustrating when people are like "I was on board with that pick all along!" when the sweeping sentiment was obscure.

Picks that I want:

Any of the consensus "Top 5", before any of these guys if they slip
Ritchie
Virtanen
Fabbri

Picks I wouldn't be crushed about:

Ehlers
Nylander
Fleury

Picks I would be disappointed with:

Kapanen
Fiala
McCann
Perlini

My turn...

Picks that I want:

Dal Colle
Nylander

(gap)

Virtanen
Ritchie

Picks I wouldn't be crushed about:

Ehlers

Picks I would be disappointed with:

Fleury (at 7)
Fabbri
Perlini
Kapanen
Fiala
McCann


I think I've made it clear that I love Dal Colle. I Don't expect there to be any chance the Sams/Draisaitl are there anyway. Recently I've become less intrigued by Ritchie but certainly wouldn't mind him. I just don't know how he'll translate so that shred of doubt is stuck in my head.

 

[DaveG]

Preference order for me:

like it:
Ekblad
Reinhart
Dal Colle
Bennett
Ritchie
Nylander
Draisaitl
Virtanen
Fleury (after trading down)
Tuch (after trading down)

fine with it:
Fleury (at #7)
Ehlers
Fabbri
Perlini (after trading down)
Kapanen (after trading down)

disappointed:
Perlini (at #7)
Kapanen (at #7)
Tuch (at #7)
Fiala
McCann

will post my final mock some time tonight.

 

[What the Faulk]

At 7 (in no particular order):
Dal Colle/Bennett/Ekblad/Reinhart
Ritchie
Ehlers
Nylander
Virtanen
Fabbri (barely)

Trade down:
Fleury
Fabbri
Tuch (barely)

No thanks:
Kapanen
Draistaitl
Perlini

Can't say I'm qualified to make judgments about anyone else.

Seems there's a lot of agreement save one or two players.

While I do have Draisaitl in "no thanks" at 7, his potential does seem pretty good. But I don't think they're in position for a "high risk, high reward" type player.

 

[w e l o s t b o y s]

^ Mine is almost identical I would just swap Ritchie and Nylander

 

[raynman]

The fact that Josh Rimer pumps Perlini's tires on twitter is enough for me to not want Francis to draft him.

 

[TheOllieC]

Ugh. Button has us taking Fleury at 7. Ritchie at 8.

Simply because "Carolina is short at defense".

 

[Chan790]

Ugh. Button has us taking Fleury at 7. Ritchie at 8.

Simply because "Carolina is short at defense".

I'd be okay with that...I think we can and should move back to take Fleury...but I prefer him to either of Nylander or Ehlers. They're high-risk/high-reward and I think we should make the safest pick possible.

I wouldn't take either of them; I'd rather get snake-bit for passing on a superstar to take a serviceable player than get snake-bit taking a bust and having nothing of value for the pick.

 

[TheOllieC]

Our RW prospect pool:

1. Greg Nemisz
2. Jared Staal
3. Brendan Woods

I don't want defense at all with the first pick.

 

[Chan790]

Our RW prospect pool:

1. Greg Nemisz
2. Jared Staal
3. Brendan Woods

I don't want defense at all with the first pick.

We need defensive prospects with top-2/4 potential in our system and it's a lot easier to find top-6 wings in the 2nd/3rd/4th or FA than great D.

Fleury's not my first choice among the guys likely at #7...but he's a solid pick.

 

[TheOllieC]

I know Fleury's a good prospect I just think the claims of being desperate for defense, along with the forwards likely available at that spot having a higher upside while filling an important need make me not want to take him that high. Trade back a bit and I'd love to get him.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I don't claim to know everything about this prospects, but I'm curious why people keep saying "move back to take Fleury". Quite a few rankings have him right in the range we are picking. Button: #7; McKenzie: #8; THN: #8 for example. Given the unpredictability of this draft, who knows if he would even be there if the Canes move back, especially since he is ranked by many in the 7/8 spot. Seems to me like it's not a reach at all at #7.

Anyhow, my view is the Canes should take whoever they think is BPA, regardless of need. If that's a C or a RW or a D, then fine by me.

 

[Novacane]

What I'd like in order. Based purely on gut with no knowledge whatsoever of the prospects.

1. Draft one of the big 5 if they magically slip
2. Trade down
3. Draft Ehlers
4. Draft Fleury
5. Draft Ritchie

Everything is a wash after that.

 

[TheOllieC]

I don't claim to know everything about this prospects, but I'm curious why people keep saying "move back to take Fleury". Quite a few rankings have him right in the range we are picking. Button: #7; McKenzie: #8; THN: #8 for example. Given the unpredictability of this draft, who knows if he would even be there if the Canes move back, especially since he is ranked by many in the 7/8 spot. Seems to me like it's not a reach at all at #7.

Anyhow, my view is the Canes should take whoever they think is BPA, regardless of need. If that's a C or a RW or a D, then fine by me.

I think it's just mostly due to assuming which way the teams behind us will go. At least to 13 it seems like they'll be keen on forwards. Maybe someone like Nashville or Arizona wants to jump up and take someone like Ehlers at our spot or something.

 

[Vagrant]

I don't think trading back for Fleury is going to be an option. I truthfully don't know the exact number, but I would wager there haven't been many drafts in the past 15 years where 2 defensemen at least didn't go in the Top 10 picks. Not enough incentive to jump back only 1 or 2 spots and risk losing out if you're that keen on him. He'll go Top 10. With the defense class being so relatively weak this year on top end talent, it raises the price on the two available. In my keeper league draft we had Ekblad 1st overall, Fleury 10th, and the next defenseman at 25th in Travis Sanheim. Fleury and Sanheim both probably take small jumps up in the real one.

 

[TheOllieC]

Then arises the question, is Fleury being pegged in the latter half of the top-10 partially because of the lack of defensemen in the draft and not really having anyone to compare him to?

 

[Vagrant]

Then arises the question, is Fleury being pegged in the latter half of the top-10 partially because of the lack of defensemen in the draft and not really having anyone to compare him to?

Almost certainly. And it's part of the reason why I am hesitant about him. There's nothing about his game that is transcendent. I keep hearing people make the Jay Bouwmeester comparisons, but those just aren't fair to what Bouwmeester was viewed as in his draft season. There were a lot of Pronger comparisons. And Bouwmeester could MOVE when he was younger. One of the best skating big defensemen I have ever seen at the Junior level. And his offensive game was much more mature. There was a generational defenseman type vibe around him. It never really materialized, but I also think he's had an underrated career. Unfortunately he was on a lot of bad, bad teams in Florida with Olli Jokinen and they both carry the scars of being career losers for that reason.

But Fleury more fits with the somewhat nondescript class of guys that usually find their home in the middle 15 of every draft and his tires are getting pumped a bit more because of the lack of strong prospects at the position. You hear the same things every year. Big frame. Can skate. Not incredibly offensive but has a strong first pass and can play in all situations. Not to diminish those attributes, but it's a pretty boring profile. I think the same is happening with Thatcher Demko in net. He's probably not a first rounder in most drafts and may not be in this one. Just a somewhat weak draft year all around where finding guys outside the Top 20 picks is going to be a lot more about doing homework.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

I still think Nemisz is a solid prospect. He hits well and has some puck skills.

 

[go comets]

I don't claim to know everything about this prospects, but I'm curious why people keep saying "move back to take Fleury". Quite a few rankings have him right in the range we are picking. Button: #7; McKenzie: #8; THN: #8 for example. Given the unpredictability of this draft, who knows if he would even be there if the Canes move back, especially since he is ranked by many in the 7/8 spot. Seems to me like it's not a reach at all at #7.

Anyhow, my view is the Canes should take whoever they think is BPA, regardless of need. If that's a C or a RW or a D, then fine by me.

I agree. Unless someone slips down unexpectedly, take fleury. I can't see the canes taking a smallish forward, Francis has already said the team needs to get bigger and tougher to play against.