NHL Entry Draft #19 overall

[OgieO]

Connor McMichael seems like Sens type of player and I have feeling he will be on the Sens radar. He is not the most sexiest pick, but he seems worthy of serious consideration.

Do you see him as a legit top six forward?

Without 'studying' him, yes. He seemed to have really nice hockey sense and skill. Skating seemed like an asset too. He just seemed a bit small (strength, not height). I didn't see every game and not necessarily saying he's better than anyone else - just that I liked him and def saw top 6 forward potential there if he adds strength.

 

[Taluss]

I want to move up to top 10. Tierney and the 1st in a package maybe

 

[coladin]

We are on the Brink of getting a great player

 

[Sen sational]

I want to move up to top 10. Tierney and the 1st in a package maybe

May need to hold onto Tierney until Brown has shown that he can compete as a 1 or 2C at the NHL level. If he does, trade Tierney at the TDL.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Not that I put much stock into these mock drafts but ... Mock draft: Three players in running to be picked after Hughes, Kakko In this one 3 people make their picks and as it turns out Krebs , Turcotte, Zegras, Boldy could fall outside the top 10 (not unanimous top 10) ... In this scenario if any of these guys fall .. The Sens should be trying to move up using 19, 44 + an asset if necessary imo. They could potentially save the asset and use 19 and 44 to move up fewer spots to ensure they get the guy they want ... e.g. Newhook, Lavoie, Seider outside the top 15 if they chose to wait.

This mock has no mention of these potential #19 pick players in the top 15... IE not picked by any of the 3 in the top 15

Newhook
Lavoie
Seider
Poulin
Pelletier
...

Pick	Kimelman	Morreale	Lepage
1	Hughes	Hughes	Hughes
2	Kakko	Kakko	Kakko
3	Podkolzin	Dach	Cozens
4	Cozens	Podkolzin	Podkolzin
5	Zegras	Byram	Byram
6	Byram	Turcotte	Turcotte
7	Caufield	Cozens	Dach
8	Krebs	Soderstrom	Zegras
9	Harley	Broberg	Krebs
10	Dach	Boldy	Boldy
11	Turcotte	Krebs	Soderstrom
12	Kaliyev	Zegras	Kaliyev
13	Broberg	Knight	York
14	Boldy	Kaliyev	Suzuki
15	Suzuki	Heinola	Broberg

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Alf Silfversson]

He might make it to 32 but I'd also consider trading down to about 22-24 and picking up Lassi Thomson. Speed, skill, shot and really good offensive awareness. Doesn't necessarily shy away from physical play either.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

He might make it to 32 but I'd also consider trading down to about 22-24 and picking up Lassi Thomson. Speed, skill, shot and really good offensive awareness. Doesn't necessarily shy away from physical play either.

There has been some discussion on him on the other 2019 Draft thread.
Rockets have 2 RHD that could be available in the 2nd. Thomson and Korczak. Korczak was invited to Canada U18 WJC camp and is preferred by some that follow that team closely.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

There has been some discussion on him on the other 2019 Draft thread.
Rockets have 2 RHD that could be available in the 2nd. Thomson and Korczak. Korczak was invited to Canada U18 WJC camp and is preferred by some that follow that team closely.

Granted I've only seen the Rockets live a couple of times this year but Thomson stood out to me. Korczak didn't. I guess depending on what type of player you're looking for that can be a good thing or a bad thing.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

I posted this on the trade boards re: the possible positions of the pick but I figured it could be useful here... I am pretty sure it is all correct but if not lemme know and I will edit...

So the only possible positions it can be are: 17, 18, 19, 28, 29, 30, 31.

17 is if two of C/V/D make the conference finals AND CLB doesn't make the conference finals

18 is if one of C/V/D make the conference finals AND CLB doesn't make the conference finals

19 is what it currently is and it will stay that way if none of CLB, COL, DAL, and VGK make the conference finals.

28 is if CLB loses in the conference finals and none of C/V/D make the conference finals

29 is if CLB loses in the conference finals and one of C/V/D loses in the conference finals

30 is if CLB makes the finals and loses

31 is if CLB wins the cup.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

We are on the Brink of getting a great player

I like this post

 

[Sweatred]

What would the Oiler's need to swap for the 8th for 19th. They need to strengthen the depth of their roster. 19th + Demelo + Tierney +++ I'd make Duclair, 2nd's, Chaplik, bad contract, etc available.

What is a realistic ask for 19th+ ? for 8?

 

[Alf Silfversson]

What would the Oiler's need to swap for the 8th for 19th. They need to strengthen the depth of their roster. 19th + Demelo + Tierney +++ I'd make Duclair, 2nd's, Chaplik, bad contract, etc available.

What is a realistic ask for 19th+ ? for 8?

Maybe take some money back and give them Ceci?

 

[Slack]

We are on the Brink of getting a great player

I see what you did there.

 

[stempniaksen]

What would the Oiler's need to swap for the 8th for 19th. They need to strengthen the depth of their roster. 19th + Demelo + Tierney +++ I'd make Duclair, 2nd's, Chaplik, bad contract, etc available.

What is a realistic ask for 19th+ ? for 8?

#8 + Brandon Manning (+?) for #19 + Ceci (+?)

I'd want another (small) asset from the Oilers, but gun to my head I'd pull the trigger 2 for 2.

 

[Liver King]

So Moritz Seider's nickname is the German Destroyer

Yeah...let's draft this guy

 

[danielpalfredsson]

I don't think Oilers/Senators are a match to jump from 8 to 18 unless it is a much bigger trade with us taking Lucic. I'd be shocked if we'd take Lucic.

The Oilers have a lot of needs, but guys like Ceci, Tierney, etc, teams don't usually trade that far down for secondary pieces like that.

The way I see it, FLA is a perfect target for a trade up depending on how the Luongo situation plays out. If we get up to 13, that's when it makes it easier to leap frog again with another team like Edmonton, or maybe even Anaheim (if Kesler is insured).

If we actually intend to compete for a playoff spot, it doesn't make sense to expect us to trade any of our current players for futures unless it's a situation that is prompted by UFA status. That leaves a short list of Boedker, Ceci, Pageau, Demelo, and Anderson. On that list, I don't think Demelo and Boedker would have a lot of value this summer in a trade, so I think we probably just hold on to them.

 

[armani]

I don't think Oilers/Senators are a match to jump from 8 to 18 unless it is a much bigger trade with us taking Lucic. I'd be shocked if we'd take Lucic.

The Oilers have a lot of needs, but guys like Ceci, Tierney, etc, teams don't usually trade that far down for secondary pieces like that.

The way I see it, FLA is a perfect target for a trade up depending on how the Luongo situation plays out. If we get up to 13, that's when it makes it easier to leap frog again with another team like Edmonton, or maybe even Anaheim (if Kesler is insured).

If we actually intend to compete for a playoff spot, it doesn't make sense to expect us to trade any of our current players for futures unless it's a situation that is prompted by UFA status. That leaves a short list of Boedker, Ceci, Pageau, Demelo, and Anderson. On that list, I don't think Demelo and Boedker would have a lot of value this summer in a trade, so I think we probably just hold on to them.

A player between 8th and 18th is not that much different to take on Lucic's albatross contract, which of course wouldn't happen under Melnyk.

 

[TkachukNorris79]

What would the Oiler's need to swap for the 8th for 19th. They need to strengthen the depth of their roster. 19th + Demelo + Tierney +++ I'd make Duclair, 2nd's, Chaplik, bad contract, etc available.

What is a realistic ask for 19th+ ? for 8?

Man, McDavid would turn Duclair into a damn superstar.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Looking forward to getting a good look at Legare. He could be an option with one of our 2nds.. It'll most likely have to be the earlier one if he has a good tournament.

Krebs el capitano

 

[RAFI BOMB]

The exact same thing applies to smaller players, there are hundreds that never make the NHL every yr. On Ott alone over the yrs there have been plenty of smaller players who people thought were going to be good NHL players that ended up as career minor league players, just like there have been bigger players who have not made it either, it works both ways buddy. IMO Abramov, Veronneau & Balcers could all end up as minor league players & never make the NHL & futher I don't like their chances on this team to make it. I think there are better players ahead of them in those same positions that are much more rounded (200' players) & less one dimensional either here now or coming.

Montreal is picking before Ott & by all accounts most expect Montreal to pick Lavoie before he gets to Ott, I'm suggesting Ott make a deal to move ahead of them if they want Lavoie. If Montreal draft Lavoie Ott lose out on a pretty good player in our range & I don't really like or want anyone else in that range other than Kaliyev or Seider. Lots of people prefer other players & that's fine but I don't. Ott doesn't need another LD we have enough, they need a Centre, a RD & a RW & before someone says you have to pick the BPA, IMO these are the BPA around that range. If Ott loses Lavoie but drafts Seider that's great but if they make a deal to get into that range they could have both which I would prefer to have instead of Brannstrom who I am not a fan of. Initially I thought we were drafting 57th which is where I thought Keppen would be taken & IMO Leason will probably go in the first rd & Ott would not get him unless they moved up. Since I'm also not a fan of Abramov trading him for Leason is an easy move, I don't see much value in Abramov.

I prefer to draft & trade for bigger tougher players with skill & yes I would lose out on smaller players with skill, but if the bigger players are just as good & more well rounded IMO Ott ends up with a better team & I'm fine with it. And your right, the NHL is getting smaller which is why Ott should go bigger & tougher & win with strength & skill or do we follow the other lemmings over the cliff? Where is the fun in being like everybody else?

Yes, many prospects both big and small in stature never make it to the NHL, that is why size if only one variable to look at and most likely a secondary or tertiary variable in terms of priority. The majority of the best players in the league range from 5'11 to 6'3, so only when prospects are outside that range does it become important to look at. The risk of failure increases in each deviation from the norm. In terms of risk 5'6 > 5'7 > 5'8 > 5'9 > 5'10 and on the other side 6'4 < 6'5 < 6'6 < 6'7 < 6'8. A 5'8 player and a 6'6 player should be evaluated in a similar risk rating; there aren't very many players that size that make it to the NHL and likely a similar percentage make it at each height. The risks and reasons for not making it are different but the amount of risk is comparable.

The factors that lead to the success of prospects include skating, skill, hockey IQ, compete level, character/work ethic and physical attributes/abilities. Being overly focused on size can result in overlooking other very relevant factors. I also have a preference for a bigger more physical team but it is exactly that, a preference. It isn't an absolute rule. I wouldn't pass on drafting players like Brad Marchand, Brendan Gallagher and Darcy Tucker simply because they are undersized.

The other factor you need to consider is that the role of a GM is asset management. Subjectively you may not value smaller players but if you were a GM other GM's would. Even if you wanted to trade every small player away the goal would be to maximize the return for the asset. Your trade ideas suggest throwing prospects of high market value away. Your preference for bigger players blinds you to getting the best return. Abramov and Brannstrom were key pieces used to acquire Duchene and Stone. Trading Abramov and the 32nd pick to move up to 28 is a massive overpayment. Trading Brannstrom for a first in the mid 20's is also a massive overpayment.

Aside from that the majority of our young players/prospects are 6'1 or taller. Norris, White, Tkachuk, Formenton, Batherson, Brown, Paul, etc are all tall. We won't be a small team if we happen to draft a few players under 6 ft.

 

[topshelf15]

So Moritz Seider's nickname is the German Destroyer

Yeah...let's draft this guy

Ours were better.....

 

[Alf Silfversson]

Yes, many prospects both big and small in stature never make it to the NHL, that is why size if only one variable to look at and most likely a secondary or tertiary variable in terms of priority. The majority of the best players in the league range from 5'11 to 6'3, so only when prospects are outside that range does it become important to look at. The risk of failure increases in each deviation from the norm. In terms of risk 5'6 > 5'7 > 5'8 > 5'9 > 5'10 and on the other side 6'4 < 6'5 < 6'6 < 6'7 < 6'8. A 5'8 player and a 6'6 player should be evaluated in a similar risk rating; there aren't very many players that size that make it to the NHL and likely a similar percentage make it at each height. The risks and reasons for not making it are different but the amount of risk is comparable.

The factors that lead to the success of prospects include skating, skill, hockey IQ, compete level, character/work ethic and physical attributes/abilities. Being overly focused on size can result in overlooking other very relevant factors. I also have a preference for a bigger more physical team but it is exactly that, a preference. It isn't an absolute rule. I wouldn't pass on drafting players like Brad Marchand, Brendan Gallagher and Darcy Tucker simply because they are undersized.

The other factor you need to consider is that the role of a GM is asset management. Subjectively you may not value smaller players but if you were a GM other GM's would. Even if you wanted to trade every small player away the goal would be to maximize the return for the asset. Your trade ideas suggest throwing prospects of high market value away. Your preference for bigger players blinds you to getting the best return. Abramov and Brannstrom were key pieces used to acquire Duchene and Stone. Trading Abramov and the 32nd pick to move up to 28 is a massive overpayment. Trading Brannstrom for a first in the mid 20's is also a massive overpayment.

Aside from that the majority of our young players/prospects are 6'1 or taller. Norris, White, Tkachuk, Formenton, Batherson, Brown, Paul, etc are all tall. We won't be a small team if we happen to draft a few players under 6 ft.

Well said.

I ran a simple correlation test on teams' average height (also did age and weight) and their regular season point totals in each of the last two years and there is no significant relationship between taller teams and successful teams in the NHL. Period. Good players are good players and they don't tend to be more successful the taller they are.

 

[aragorn]

Yes, many prospects both big and small in stature never make it to the NHL, that is why size if only one variable to look at and most likely a secondary or tertiary variable in terms of priority. The majority of the best players in the league range from 5'11 to 6'3, so only when prospects are outside that range does it become important to look at. The risk of failure increases in each deviation from the norm. In terms of risk 5'6 > 5'7 > 5'8 > 5'9 > 5'10 and on the other side 6'4 < 6'5 < 6'6 < 6'7 < 6'8. A 5'8 player and a 6'6 player should be evaluated in a similar risk rating; there aren't very many players that size that make it to the NHL and likely a similar percentage make it at each height. The risks and reasons for not making it are different but the amount of risk is comparable.

The factors that lead to the success of prospects include skating, skill, hockey IQ, compete level, character/work ethic and physical attributes/abilities. Being overly focused on size can result in overlooking other very relevant factors. I also have a preference for a bigger more physical team but it is exactly that, a preference. It isn't an absolute rule. I wouldn't pass on drafting players like Brad Marchand, Brendan Gallagher and Darcy Tucker simply because they are undersized.

The other factor you need to consider is that the role of a GM is asset management. Subjectively you may not value smaller players but if you were a GM other GM's would. Even if you wanted to trade every small player away the goal would be to maximize the return for the asset. Your trade ideas suggest throwing prospects of high market value away. Your preference for bigger players blinds you to getting the best return. Abramov and Brannstrom were key pieces used to acquire Duchene and Stone. Trading Abramov and the 32nd pick to move up to 28 is a massive overpayment. Trading Brannstrom for a first in the mid 20's is also a massive overpayment.

Aside from that the majority of our young players/prospects are 6'1 or taller. Norris, White, Tkachuk, Formenton, Batherson, Brown, Paul, etc are all tall. We won't be a small team if we happen to draft a few players under 6 ft.

I think most of my posts I mention that I prefer a tougher team & players like Abramov & Brannstrom & others are way too soft for my liking & I don't care how skilled they are. I like Brad Marchand & Gallagher but I don't see Abramov or Balcers being that kind of player at all, nor most of our small players with the exception of Pageau. Most small players are skilled perimeter players & I don't like perimeter players. I can't stand Nylander for example, IMO he's a perimeter figure skater & I'm told all the time how skilled he is but I don't want that kind of player on my team. Others have different preferences & I understand that, but that's not what I like in a hockey player & I have been quite consistent on this point.

I like guys who get their nose dirty, who separate players from the puck who have both size & skill, what's great about bigger players is that they already have NHL size. Smaller players than need to be much more skilled to make it & become one dimensional. I see very little value in a player like Abramov so I don't mind getting rid of them if that results in getting a player I want. It's great if someone else values them higher that's an advantage for us. I hope we won't be a small team, but I would also like to have a much tougher team & a number of out bigger players unfortunately are a little too soft given their size.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Not going to say having size is a bad thing, but when you look at players like Gretzky, Marner, Panarin, Point, Kucherov even Lafleur, Lemaire, Dion , Bobby Clarke all smaller than average guys some were among the best ever you don't need it to be a great player or a good player.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

Not going to say having size is a bad thing, but when you look at players like Gretzky, Marner, Panarin, even Lafleur, Lemaire, Dion , Bobby Clarke all smaller than average guys some were among the best ever you don't need it to be a great player or a good player.

+ Yzerman, Recchi, Mikita, D. Savard, Housley, Ullman, St. Louis, Bobby Hull, T. Fleury, Mullen, H. Richard, M. Richard, Gilbert, Lafontaine, Propp, Hunter, Kariya, Middleton, Keon, Kane, Cournoyer, Lindsay, Lemaire, Geoffrion, Shutt, Pronovost, Marchand, Bentley, T. Blake, Rafalski, Carlyle, Reinhart, Loob, Morenz, Pilote.... all 5'10 or below

The list of great players 6'4 and above is a wholllllle lot thinner