''Sexy picks'' in each round

[Joey Moss]

1st round: Taylor Hall
2nd round: Calvin Pickard/Tyler Toffoli
3rd round: Kirill Kabanov/Stanislav Galiev
4th round: Teemu Pulkkinen
5th round: Troy Rutowski, Brendan Gallagher
6th round: Brandon Davidson, Maxim Kitsyn
7th round: Luke Moffat (Projected 1st round pick before this season)

 

[LAX attack*]

And we know those GMs can't possibly end up proven wrong, can they? There always is a reason for every player that ever fell - I'm also looking at you, Zach Parise and Ryan Getzlaf.

Let's not give in to the illusion that the teams passing up on him had some magical insight. From the players that did get drafted before, it seems much more likely that teams were simply going for their (mainly offensive) needs (as they often do, since the concept of always picking the so-called best player available doesn't translate into reality that easily).

For every Parise/Getzlaf there are 10 Angelo Esposito's, Jakub Kindl, Cory Emmertons, and Kenndal Mcardle's

NHL scouting staff that have to produce results to keep their paycheck >>>>>>> ISS/central scouting who can afford to make mistakes

 

[Vipers31]

NHL scouting staff that have to produce results to keep their paycheck >>>>>>> ISS/central scouting who can afford to make mistakes

We're talking about prospects. It's not a science. You don't just put more effort into it and wind up with better results.

That said, that's only half of my original point. We don't know where the 11 teams before the Ducks had ranked Fowler. For all we know, he might have been top 5 on every single list, with the Jackets having Johansen at four, the Bolts Niederreiter, the Stars Campbell, and so on. Teams were rather obviously looking at their needs. Which is nothing uncommon, since the concept of picking the BPA doesn't translate into reality that well.

So at the end of the day, we have no idea whether Fowler fell because 5 to 9 teams suddenly saw some red flags that went unnoticed by all scouting services in their carelessness due to their mistakes not mattering. The fact that he fell to 12 alone doesn't really make for a basis for that thesis.

 

[Robert Pahlsson]

From where I'm sitting highly skilled offensive defenceman Tim Heed in the 5th round is a sexy pick. A boom or bust player for sure, 37 points in 32 games for the junior team, 15 points in 37 games for the big club.

 

[jniklast]

The problem with most these "Sexy picks" is that they are simply players that were (once) higher ranked than where they were picked. Those players however are well-known and they all fell for a good reason, whereas most of the players that later turn out to be "steals" are players who were not as well-known at the time of their draft and thus showed unexpected improvement.

I posted some links in another "steals" thread from former drafts, and basically all these threads are good for is having a laugh. The earliest one could maybe talk about steals is after all the prospects have played at least a good portion of hockey since their draft.

 

[haelwho]

And we know those GMs can't possibly end up proven wrong, can they? There always is a reason for every player that ever fell - I'm also looking at you, Zach Parise and Ryan Getzlaf.

Let's not give in to the illusion that the teams passing up on him had some magical insight. From the players that did get drafted before, it seems much more likely that teams were simply going for their (mainly offensive) needs (as they often do, since the concept of always picking the so-called best player available doesn't translate into reality that easily).

For what it's worth...

HF: Best player available?

DL: “Still the best player available. If they’re tied, then we’ll look at forwards.â€

They took a defenseman while Fowler was still on the board and they badly needed forwards. I think it's not so much that these teams drafted by need, but for the most part, that they didn't think Fowler was the best player available.

 

[Vipers31]

They took a defenseman while Fowler was still on the board and they badly needed forwards. I think it's not so much that these teams drafted by need, but for the most part, that they didn't think Fowler was the best player available.

That's not what I meant to say. Sure, if you have a very certain idea of who is the best player available, you pick that guy. But the situation, at the latest outside of the top 3 in a draft, is very rarely that clear-cut. Even with huge efforts put into scouting, it's not so easy to compare different positions and styles to each other and come out with a clear ranking of the best players.

There is only two teams that picked a defenseman before the Ducks picked Fowler. The Kings were not one of those teams (at 15), so I'm not quite sure who you're referring to as "they". The only defensemen picked before Fowler were Gudbranson and McIlrath, the latter being looked at very critically and with a clear sentiment of drafting for the attribute of toughness and not the alleged BPA.

 

[haelwho]

That's not what I meant to say. Sure, if you have a very certain idea of who is the best player available, you pick that guy. But the situation, at the latest outside of the top 3 in a draft, is very rarely that clear-cut. Even with huge efforts put into scouting, it's not so easy to compare different positions and styles to each other and come out with a clear ranking of the best players.

There is only two teams that picked a defenseman before the Ducks picked Fowler. The Kings were not one of those teams (at 15), so I'm not quite sure who you're referring to as "they". The only defensemen picked before Fowler were Gudbranson and McIlrath, the latter being looked at very critically and with a clear sentiment of drafting for the attribute of toughness and not the alleged BPA.

I actually thought Fowler was picked lower, that's my mistake.

I understand what you're saying, but I think what you're implying is that Fowler fell through the cracks. I don't think that's so much the case. He played for the most notable junior team in Canada (arguably one of the best in history) and was probably seen by not only every scouting staff, but also a majority of GMs. If the Rangers thought Fowler was going to be a franchise defenseman, despite their desire for a physical-type player, I think it's safe to say they would have drafted him. I think that would be true of all teams that picked before the Ducks. Of course, that's only speculation, but I think it's more reasonable to say that with the hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours put into the scouting process that Fowler fell for a reason. To me, it seems like teams were skeptical of his success on a stacked team and unsure whether he could perform without the same quality of teammates.

 

[Vipers31]

I actually thought Fowler was picked lower, that's my mistake.

No problem, at all.

I understand what you're saying, but I think what you're implying is that Fowler fell through the cracks. I don't think that's so much the case. (...)

I think that would be true of all teams that picked before the Ducks.

That's more extreme than I would put it, and would indeed suggest a lack of professionality on behalf of the clubs. I would definitely not go that far, since it's far fetched and, coming from a rather young guy from across the pond who's insight into the organisations is rather limited, just not very relevant.

I don't think he fell through the cracks. I however do think most teams actually did have a bigger need for forwards (or in Dallas' case, goaltending) they wanted to address and saw players on the board which they felt could end up being as good as Fowler might on D, so simply a situation in which they felt a clear-cut BPA situation was not given and in which they rather went with the organisational fits.

If the Rangers thought Fowler was going to be a franchise defenseman, despite their desire for a physical-type player, I think it's safe to say they would have drafted him.

Well, the Rangers are the only team to not work within my statement that well. I agree, the Rangers obviously did have a different view of both players' upside. I can live with one team's divergent analysis, though, without a further analysis of why they did what they did. Gudbranson was understandable / not unexpected. McIlrath was the one other guy, and that's not much of a trend, in my opinion.

 

[Dempsey]

The players who fell like stones on draft day may seem like steals, but the real steals will be the players who went under the radar and develop more than their peers over the next few years.

Go back and look at all the "steals of the draft" threads from the past six years at HFBoards. Every year the threads are dominated by "I can't believe this guy fell all the way to the 5th round - what a steal!" and those players are, for the most part, afterthoughts now.

It's all just speculation at this point.

 

[haelwho]

I don't think he fell through the cracks. I however do think most teams actually did have a bigger need for forwards (or in Dallas' case, goaltending) they wanted to address and saw players on the board which they felt could end up being as good as Fowler might on D, so simply a situation in which they felt a clear-cut BPA situation was not given and in which they rather went with the organisational fits.

I think that's definitely true, but at the same time, it's difficult to be sure. You mentioned the Dallas example with Campbell, and that reminds me of when the Kings picked Jonathan Bernier in 2006 with the 11th overall pick. Fans and analysts were, for the most part, pegging the Kings to pick Bryan Little when they were on the clock. The pick shocked pretty much everybody, considering Bernier was projected as a late first-rounder, but Lombardi maintained after the draft that despite the fact that the Kings needed a goaltending prospect, and despite most analysts labeling the pick as a "reach" or a pick by need, that Bernier was, in the team's opinion, the best player available at that time. Now, four years later, Bernier is the best goalie in the AHL, one of the top goalie prospects league-wide, and the heir to the Kings' starting throne (sorry for the pun ).

Just to support what I'm trying to say a little bit, here's an article about the Stars' philosophy for the draft: http://www.defendingbigd.com/2010/6/25/1536030/defending-big-ds-dallas-stars-2010

While the Stars say they will keep to their "best player available" philosophy, they told the Dallas Morning News yesterday that if there is an option, they will lean toward the blue liners.

"If we think two players are close, we're probably going to go with the defenseman," said Tim Bernhardt, the Stars' director of amateur scouting.

It's telling that despite Fowler still being on the board AND the team leaning towards picking a defenseman that they still went with Campbell.

Well, the Rangers are the only team to not work within my statement that well. I agree, the Rangers obviously did have a different view of both players' upside. I can live with one team's divergent analysis, though, without a further analysis of why they did what they did. Gudbranson was understandable / not unexpected. McIlrath was the one other guy, and that's not much of a trend, in my opinion.

As ridiculous as the pick seemed, I really wonder if the Rangers actually thought he was the best player available at the time. They'll either look like geniuses or fools down the line.

 

[r0bert8841]

I think some of the teams might not have thought Fowler to fall that far and they were already set to draft someone else. They might have not been prepared. I mean their is a reason most of those teams were picking that early.

 

[Blueland89]

For the Thrashers of course Buristrov is a sexy pick but there were a couple others that look to make a push for the NHL in the future.

Ivan telegin selected 4th round 101st overall was predicted to be a first round pick at one point put up 44 point in 51 games in the ohl with Saginaw.

Julian Melchiori 6'3 200 pound defencemen who put up 23 points in 39 games in the OHA and was voted as best prospect in the OHA. He's Mike Murphys the vice president of hockey operations nephew

Tanner Lane gonna be a long time before we might see him but put up some rediculous numbers paying minny High School Hockey 6'2 and put up 90 points in 26 games. Not saying that will ever take im into the NHL but thats still impressive.

And Sebastion Owuya just because I want to see the pairing of Owuya and Oduya

 

[Alicat]

Jared Knight could be a steal, so could Button.Both were very impressive at development camp. I wont be surprised if they turn out to be steals since Boston has a great record of later round pics ie: Lucic, Bergeron, Krejci,Hunwick..

 

[WreckItRask]

I think some of the teams might not have thought Fowler to fall that far and they were already set to draft someone else. They might have not been prepared. I mean their is a reason most of those teams were picking that early.

This is hilarious. Do you really think NHL GM's would be so inept and incapable to adapt that they practically shat themselves debating whether to take Fowler or keep with their guy?

I saw Fowler play live with the NTDP team two years ago and he was absolutely incredible. Honestly...one of the best defenseman that I have ever seen live at that age. The problem, for me at least, is that he was exactly the same player (or even worse) when I watched him for most of this year (Mem Cup, World Juniors, etc) that he was two years ago. Still good, but he honestly hasn't grown as a player that much in the past two seasons, and that's troubling to me.

I remember coming on the Bruins board after seeing him play two summers ago and raving about how this kid is destined for stardom, and most people seemed to agree. He was just that much better than most kids his age, and was honestly better than most kids that were in their draft years that season.

What's my point with all this babbling...there's a reason why all those GM's passed on him in the first round, and if I was a betting man, I'd bet that it's for the reason I listed above. He's been very good for a long time now, but because of that scouts have been following him closely for the past 3+ years, and they've seen a kid that is essentially the same player that he was 3 years ago. Personally, I think that he still has a lot of room to grow as a player and that he can be a very good NHLer, and hopefully this experience of getting passed over is going to motivate him to make that next leap as a player.

 

[Vipers31]

I think that's definitely true, but at the same time, it's difficult to be sure. You mentioned the Dallas example with Campbell, and that reminds me of when the Kings picked Jonathan Bernier in 2006 with the 11th overall pick. Fans and analysts were, for the most part, pegging the Kings to pick Bryan Little when they were on the clock. The pick shocked pretty much everybody, considering Bernier was projected as a late first-rounder, but Lombardi maintained after the draft that despite the fact that the Kings needed a goaltending prospect, and despite most analysts labeling the pick as a "reach" or a pick by need, that Bernier was, in the team's opinion, the best player available at that time. Now, four years later, Bernier is the best goalie in the AHL, one of the top goalie prospects league-wide, and the heir to the Kings' starting throne (sorry for the pun ).

Oh, I completely agree, and at this point, I have absolutely no interest in or reason for saying that one or many of the teams made a mistake by not picking Fowler. It simply can't sensibly be done at this point and for a while. I was more interested in the general public interpretation of the phenom of falling players and it's two diametrically opposite views ranging from obvious steals to red-flagged. It's very interesting and there's a lot of potential factors involved.

The outcome is a whole other story, which will largely be influenced by what happens starting now. Which is going to be the even more interesting process to follow.

Just to support what I'm trying to say a little bit, here's an article about the Stars' philosophy for the draft: http://www.defendingbigd.com/2010/6/25/1536030/defending-big-ds-dallas-stars-2010

It's telling that despite Fowler still being on the board AND the team leaning towards picking a defenseman that they still went with Campbell.

That's definitely interesting. Well, so they seemed to believe that Campbell has a better chance to become a franchise player. That kind of variation is probably nothing uncharacteristic of drafting processes, even in the first round, but obviously getting much more obvious going up.

As ridiculous as the pick seemed, I really wonder if the Rangers actually thought he was the best player available at the time. They'll either look like geniuses or fools down the line.

Pretty much. And that while already coming out of 2003 as a not-so-genius looking club. Well, it's going to be very interesting to watch what's happening with these kids, and then, at some point we'll be able to see who the steals were; although that will be of little (other than reassuring) purpose then...

 

[Abyss]

Jared Knight could be a steal, so could Button.Both were very impressive at development camp. I wont be surprised if they turn out to be steals since Boston has a great record of later round pics ie: Lucic, Bergeron, Krejci,Hunwick..

is 2nd round really that late?

 

[Serpico4ever]

HM for 3rd Round should be McKegg. Unreal he fell that far.

You just knew this was coming.

 

[Pnut]

I think that's definitely true, but at the same time, it's difficult to be sure. You mentioned the Dallas example with Campbell, and that reminds me of when the Kings picked Jonathan Bernier in 2006 with the 11th overall pick. Fans and analysts were, for the most part, pegging the Kings to pick Bryan Little when they were on the clock. The pick shocked pretty much everybody, considering Bernier was projected as a late first-rounder, but Lombardi maintained after the draft that despite the fact that the Kings needed a goaltending prospect, and despite most analysts labeling the pick as a "reach" or a pick by need, that Bernier was, in the team's opinion, the best player available at that time. Now, four years later, Bernier is the best goalie in the AHL, one of the top goalie prospects league-wide, and the heir to the Kings' starting throne (sorry for the pun ).
Just to support what I'm trying to say a little bit, here's an article about the Stars' philosophy for the draft: http://www.defendingbigd.com/2010/6/25/1536030/defending-big-ds-dallas-stars-2010
It's telling that despite Fowler still being on the board AND the team leaning towards picking a defenseman that they still went with Campbell.
As ridiculous as the pick seemed, I really wonder if the Rangers actually thought he was the best player available at the time. They'll either look like geniuses or fools down the line.

As an Isles fan I was surprised that Fowler dropped so much, but it is very telling that so many teams that aren't knee deep in defensive prospects passed on him, unlike most who had him here going top 5.

As an add on to you'd Campbell story last year the NYI moved up to 16 & then ultimately 12 to pick Calvin deHaan where the was an organizational need for forwards. There were many great prospects still there (at forward) and they went with deHaan (which now in 1 short year looks good so far) Maybe we as fans don't know it all and maybe more than a few GM's know what they are doing. I know that it is early but hf'ers have been wrong before(not directed at you)

Getting back to the question at hand it was Kabanov, because he could be a dud on the ice WITH emotional problems or he could be a Kirill Petrov like steal (both Isles prospects)

 

[AwesomePanthers]

I will pick players that shouldn't have been there at that moment (drafted earlier):

1st round: Fowler and Gormley
2nd round: Järnkrok, McFarland, Straka and Zucker
3nd round: Kabanov, Weal and Galiev
4th round: Telegin, Pulkkinen
5th round: Klingberg, Madaisky, Hyman
6th round: Kitsyn
7th round: Rask?

 

[joe89]

Jarnkrok should have never dropped to 51, it's not a steal from Detroit it's poor scouting from the rest to not take him earlier when he pans out. Wannstrom drafted in front of him proves my point exactly, passed up on in the 09 draft, not really close to Jarnkrok this season and a far bigger project. They're from the same organization, it makes no sense that he got picked earlier if we go by the consensus to pick BPA at a position.

 

[vofty]

I think that's definitely true, but at the same time, it's difficult to be sure. You mentioned the Dallas example with Campbell, and that reminds me of when the Kings picked Jonathan Bernier in 2006 with the 11th overall pick. Fans and analysts were, for the most part, pegging the Kings to pick Bryan Little when they were on the clock. The pick shocked pretty much everybody, considering Bernier was projected as a late first-rounder, but Lombardi maintained after the draft that despite the fact that the Kings needed a goaltending prospect, and despite most analysts labeling the pick as a "reach" or a pick by need, that Bernier was, in the team's opinion, the best player available at that time. Now, four years later, Bernier is the best goalie in the AHL, one of the top goalie prospects league-wide, and the heir to the Kings' starting throne (sorry for the pun ).

Just to support what I'm trying to say a little bit, here's an article about the Stars' philosophy for the draft: http://www.defendingbigd.com/2010/6/25/1536030/defending-big-ds-dallas-stars-2010



It's telling that despite Fowler still being on the board AND the team leaning towards picking a defenseman that they still went with Campbell.



As ridiculous as the pick seemed, I really wonder if the Rangers actually thought he was the best player available at the time. They'll either look like geniuses or fools down the line.

FWIW Joe said behind Hall and Seguin that Campbell had the highest potential to become a franchise player, so for them he was #3 on their draft board. Believe you me fans were about to riot when it happened, but given some time I think most fans (at least on this board) have embraced the pick.

 

[Vipers31]

Jarnkrok should have never dropped to 51, it's not a steal from Detroit it's poor scouting from the rest to not take him earlier when he pans out.

That's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it?

 

[Sean Garrity]

Fowler fell for a reason. First round fallings can't be considered steals at all because the GMs must have avoided picking a player for a reason.

True, but the reason could be something as simple as he is a defenseman. That should not be held against a player, but when teams draft for position need then a player can be overlooked simply because of their position.

 

[JonathanK]

(insert russian prospect or north merican with "character issues" here)