The problem with the THN DRAFT PREVIEW is that it confuses --it shows an older ISS ranking (not the latest current one),quotes onnly CSS mid-term rankings,yet also gives some post Wu-18 comments on certain players....result is that its own "HOT 100" seems kind of out of date and way off....LARS ELLER at #35? If he makes it to chicago;s pick that late ,the Hawks will be laughhing at the steal and THN's stupidity (but we all know Eller willbe long gone by then);dtto for Simonn Hjalmarsson who THN does not even show in their "HOT 100"--probably because they show the March ISS rankings where Hjalmarsson was only #95 on their list,so THN just assumed he was not 100 worthy (somehow lazy THN ignored that CSS had Hjalmarsson at the #18 euro at mid-term! As we know Hjalmarsson had a good 2nd half and terrific U-18,finished as the #6 euroskater on CSS's final ranking -but which somehow came out too late for the THN Darft Preview issue to consult)....as a result,even if THN staff did not have access to the Final CSS rankings by press time for the THN Draft Preview,they still shuld have talked to NHL team's own scouts,still should have taken into consideration the U-18 results which were commented on elsewhere in the Draft Preview in relation to certain players,AND double checked against the CSS mid-term lists at the very least to see if they overloked anyone--CLEARLY they made a huge guffaw on missing Hjalmarsson who just destroyed Caada in that bronze medal game....it was not a 1-off --even before the u-18,anyone who dd not have Hjalmarsson as at least a 2nd rounder given that they watched him all year playing with Eller who even THN had as at the very least an early 2nd rounder
should have been shot as a scout...THEN to allow an ealiersubmission (the HOT 100) to be published even though they knew it was too out-dated and plain way off in some cases like Hjalmarsson--was just editorial laziness by theTHN staff...
If they try to use Hjalmarsson's weight as an excuse why he is tooo much risk for the top 100--then I would argue Kane is also too much risk--ie such excuse would be nonesense...
Simply put-THN was out-dated and too off base on many players--they PROBALY should have delayed the publication till June 1st when they would have had time to consult :
a) a later ISS ranking than March..
b) CSS Final Ranking
c) opinions of certain NHL team scouts after the U-18 ..
They then would have come out with a more accurate HOT 100 --both as to inclusions and to placings...instead--all they had time for was a brief blurb here or there on a just a few players' performances at the u-18 -which sometimes dd not match placings on the Hot 100...in other words it was a hodge podge of different timing submissions from their writers that skewed their mag's impressions all over the place...rather than 1 FINAL consensus view from THN ,you come away with more of an impression of a mixed and distorted view and lazy journalism given the time pressure of getting to press on time...thus in the end you learn almost nothing important that helps you sort out the draft ...
The only key info that is helpful from THN is that Chicago may trade the#1 pick down and still get the guy they want --of course we all know therewas no consenus for the#1 =no franchise playeer like rosby--BUT the additional blurb about hom GRETZKY personally went to see Turris anf how hard PHI scouted him and seemingly covets him,does lead one to suspect CHI might indeed give up the cachet of keeping the #1 to trade down with PHX so that they might cut PHI off at the pass....
(I knew of the PHI and PHX special interest in Turris before THN's Draft Preview emohasized the story,but that they bothered to speculate on CHI being able to play on this interest to possibly trade down,leads me to believe their is some substance to that actually occurring).
IF both PHI and PHX really covet Turris,then CHI can trade down 1 -2 spots and
still get a prospect they would be happy with + another asset (whether a player or another pick)..