Prospect Info: 2013 Draft Thread | "Falling Flat for Horvat"

[The Perfect Human*]

I agree with that in the sense that they didn't draft 1st overall 3 years earlier and get generational talents, it just seemed like you were blaming the management group (amateur scouts) for the drafting. Can't fault them for picking BPA and the lower round picks for the most part have tracked well considering where they were picked so the amateur scouting is the least of the organizational problems although this obssession with Oil Kings is getting a little tiresome and i'm still irritated by the Musil over Jenner pick.

They did fine with Hall, RNH and Yakupov and getting Eberle and Klefbom where they got them was extremely lucky. The core isn't the problem, it's the rest of the roster that needs work and it would be nice if some of the lower round picks start becoming fixtures on the big club namely Lander, Pitlick, Marincin and Hartikainen whom i still have hopes for.

What's your thoughts on a core stylized after Chicago/PIT/Eastern Conference teams playing in a division like the Pacific next year?

Spectacular group of players - I just don't see them as well-suited for a division where scoring is limited and physical play and hitting is the norm.

 

[I am the Liquor]

You think it is a long shot that Lander plays in the NHL?

Of course you need to define useful. Take a look at this thread.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1298875

Notice that not one player drafted at #30 between 1999 to 2008 became a top six forward or top 4 dman. And if you look at the 50 players taken in the 26-30 slot over that period only ten reached that level.

So yes, the odds of a high second rounder turning into something better than Lander is a long shot at best.

ROR #33 and Simon Despres #30 were pretty good picks. That is from 99' only. Weve now had five drafts under Stu, with the sixth coming up. So by your definition, we should have one of our early second rounders turn out from the players already taken. Who is that going to be? Are you going with Lander? In 67 nhl games he has 7pts and hasnt been a + player once in either the ahl or the nhl.

Dont forget that in 2010, we had three second round picks. In 2008 we had none, but we have still had 6 second round picks since 2008, most of them very early in the second round.

Pitlick
Musil
Marincin
Lander
Moroz
Hamilton

As of now, it looks like the only guys who look like they might make it are Lander (7pts -12 in the nhl) and Marincin.

I dont see how that can be characterized as good drafting at all.

 

[Hoogaar23]

What's your thoughts on a core stylized after Chicago/PIT/Eastern Conference teams playing in a division like the Pacific next year?

Spectacular group of players - I just don't see them as well-suited for a division where scoring is limited and physical play and hitting is the norm.

It would be great if the game reverted to what it was post 2004-2005 lockout. But as it is, clutch and grab hockey is back, and it's gonna be tough sledding for this group.

 

[CupofOil]

What's your thoughts on a core stylized after Chicago/PIT/Eastern Conference teams playing in a division like the Pacific next year?

Spectacular group of players - I just don't see them as well-suited for a division where scoring is limited and physical play and hitting is the norm.

They just need to mature and for their frames to fill out and they'll be fine.
The difference between this group and the Hawks, Pens besides the fact that the Hawks and Pens guys are a level better is that the Oilers kids have had no support whatsoever whereas the Hawks and Pens had a lot more veteran support to shelter them and more team balance in general.

Again, the problem isn't The Big 4. It's the supporting cast and the makeup of the team surrounding them. I don't see any reason why The Big 4 can't be here for the long haul, just surround them with a strong 2 way center to compliment RNH and a physical winger to create balance, neither has to be a big scorer, just meat and potatoes type of guys who will bring 2 way play and physicality to the top 6.

 

[I am the Liquor]

How is Smid not tough? I think we all agree he isn't mean but he definitely brings hits and sticks up for his goalie. Maybe we just have a different definition of "tough".

He gets his ass kicked by anyone and everyone? He doesnt scare anyone?

Yes he blocks shots, hits guys some, but more in a rub you off the puck type of way- never really lays anyone out and may clear the crease from time to time. If that is what constitutes "tough" by your definition then maybe he is.

 

[Crobby]

ISS May top 30 rankings:

http://www.isshockey.com/iss-top-30-released-for-may/

1. Jones
2. Mackinnon
3. Drouin
4. Nichushkin
5. Barkov
6. Nurse
7. Lindholm
8. Zadorov
9. Monahan
10. Horvat

As a Monahan fan i'd love if we could get him with our pick

 

[Mcnotloilersfan]

ROR #33 and Simon Despres #30 were pretty good picks. That is from 99' only. Weve now had five drafts under Stu, with the sixth coming up. So by your definition, we should have one of our early second rounders turn out from the players already taken. Who is that going to be? Are you going with Lander? In 67 nhl games he has 7pts and hasnt been a + player once in either the ahl or the nhl.

Dont forget that in 2010, we had three second round picks. In 2008 we had none, but we have still had 6 second round picks since 2008, most of them very early in the second round.

Pitlick
Musil
Marincin
Lander
Moroz
Hamilton

As of now, it looks like the only guys who look like they might make it are Lander (7pts -12 in the nhl) and Marincin.

I dont see how that can be characterized as good drafting at all.

I havent been crazy on our 2nd rounders. I'd have to say on that list, that Marincin is the only guy that they took that I wanted.

For Pitlick I wanted Toffoli (we'll see where that goes).
For Hamilton I wanted Pickard
For Musil I wanted Jenner. (I had Jenner ranked around 16-20, so that one bugs me the most).
For Moroz I wanted Collberg or Finn

 

[Musashi]

I don't see why people would be against taking a dman in the top 10. We took Klefbom in the 1st round two years ago and he's clearly already our best defensive prospect and looks nhl ready.

We might not be able to pass up on a big center, but drafting a highly regarded defensive prospect could be our best chance at ever having a top dman. A dman could take anywhere from 2-8 years to make the impact we need but how long would it take a Lindholm, Lazar, or Horvat to be good and strong enough to be the 2nd line center we are looking for who can take us far in the playoffs?

Of course anyway Monahan is still there at 7 you take him and run

 

[Fourier]

I'm not sure what you mean by this?
Are you saying that it was a mistake to draft Hall (wing) over Seguin (supposedly a center), RNH (forward) over Larsson (defense) and Yakupov (wing) over Murray (defense) or Galchenyuk (center)?
Where did they have the opportunity to draft multi-faceted excellence over one dimensional skill?

The drafting has been fine, they have gone with a mix of high end forwards, defense and grittiness in the lower rounds over the last several drafts although Musil over Jenner was a head scratcher. The draftees are the least of the problems with this team. It's the pro scouting and the filling out of the rest of the roster through smart trades and free agency that has been the problem. That's where the fundamental issues lie, the amateur scouting is fine.

Anyway, i'm starting to be really intrigued by Horvat. I haven't really keyed in on him during the few London games that i've seen but it seems that his meteoric rise has some merit to it and he happens to fill a need.
Does anybody know much about Horvat from first hand viewings? How does he compare to Lazar, Monahan etc. in regards to his 2 way game and physicality?
It's going to be a fun Memorial Cup watching the obvious studs in Jones, Mac and Drouin but also the highly rated London prospects as well, Horvat, Zadarov, Domi.

I've seen Horvat about a dozen times, though never live.

I think he and Lazar are pretty good comparables. Lazar is more overtly physical in that he is a a bigger hitter and is more likely to scrap. Horvat is very gritty though. He goes to all the tough areas and is strong along the boards.

I think Horvat may have a little more dynamic offense at the next level but Lazar may score more goals. It looks to me like Lazar is the faster skater but Horvat is no slouch.

Both play in all situations and neither seems to have a significant weakness. I have a personal preference for Lazar since I have followed him since early last year. That said I'd take either an be happy.

Monahan I think is in a tier above these guys. I watched him a lot in 2010-2011 since I was trying to keep track of Martindale. He really impressed me as a 16 year old. I watched him a fair bit in 2011-2012. He looked fantastic with Prince and Toffoli. No doubt he could excel with skilled wingers. You could also see that he had a very well rounded game as he was clearly most reponsible defensively in that trio.

I did not see him play much this year as I did not have the OHL package. But I tried to keep up with him as much as possible. What I did see of Ottawa though showed me that they were an awful team with Monahan pretty much trying to hold things together bu himself for much of the year. He really rose to the occasion in this regard. His 78 points is actually quite remarkable given the team he had around him.

I don't see Monahan as a dynamic player lik Hall or Yakupov. BUt he is pretty much just what the doctor ordered to complement Nuge. He is also another great character kid which I think is really important to the Oilers.

People say his skating is a bit of an issue, but I don't really see a problem. He is certainly not fast like Hall or Yakupov, but I'd say he skates as well as a guy like Gagner or Eberle. I doubt it would be a problem on the Oilers. He won't have to be leading the rush.

Like Horvat, I think he is less overtly physical than Lazar. BUt he can and will hit, and even fight if necessary. What he will do is battle hard, and he is strong enough to compete against the more physical centers in the West.

Of course Monahan is older than both Lazar and Horvat but a good part of a year. But I still think he is a full step above both in terms of potential.

 

[rockinghockey]

If what I heard is true and that Tampa are interested in V.Nichuskins that means the draft could look like this:

1 - Jones
2 - Mackinnon
3 - Nishuskin
4 - Drouin
5- Barkov
6- Lindholm
7- Monahan DDDDDDD

If Barkov drops to 5 we have to make a deal to get him. Even if it is a bit of an over payment. RNH and Barkov would be the perfect centremen on the top two lines for the next 15yrs.

 

[Fourier]

ROR #33 and Simon Despres #30 were pretty good picks. That is from 99' only. Weve now had five drafts under Stu, with the sixth coming up. So by your definition, we should have one of our early second rounders turn out from the players already taken. Who is that going to be? Are you going with Lander? In 67 nhl games he has 7pts and hasnt been a + player once in either the ahl or the nhl.

Dont forget that in 2010, we had three second round picks. In 2008 we had none, but we have still had 6 second round picks since 2008, most of them very early in the second round.

Pitlick
Musil
Marincin
Lander
Moroz
Hamilton

As of now, it looks like the only guys who look like they might make it are Lander (7pts -12 in the nhl) and Marincin.

I dont see how that can be characterized as good drafting at all.

It's easy to pick out an ROR and say that is good scouting.

No one is disputing the fact that there will be very good players picked later than the first round. But it would seem that the big successes are mostly random once you move past the first.

In 2005 Colorado had 4 2nd round picks. They picked Paul Stastny at 44 after picking the legendary Ryan Stoa at 34 (Vlasic was the next pick at 35). They then picked Tom Fritsche at 47 and Chris Durand. Brilliant drafting or lucky pick?

Since 1995 Colorado has had 28 second round picks. They hit two home runs in Statstny and ROR. They also had Boychuck in 2002 but they gave up on him before he made the NHL with Boston at age 25. Those are the only three significant NHL'er is the 28 picks. About one in ten.

If you look at draft history about 1 in 3 to one in 4 early second rounders will play 200 games in the NHL. (THat is typically the standard that most use in assessing drafted players). Fewer become long term regulars. So out of 6 picks you might expect 2 to play 200 NHL games.

Lander has already played 62 NHL games and he just turned 22. Marincicn would seem like a very good bet to make that standard as well. So while it is too early to say for sure it looks a lot like the second rounder will cover the bet.

You also seem to want to ignore Eberle and Klefbom, and even to a degree Paajarvi. As I said the most important picks are the first rounders. Oiler fans should know that better than anyone seeing the damage that the previous group did to the franchise by squandering there 1st round picks for so many years.

 

[oilers2k10]

Marc Antoine Pouliot also was by far the best player on a very poor junior team, kinda like Monahan.
Never seen Monahan play though, but thats one way in which those two are comparable ...also similar size, height, and leadership qualities at that level.
Great players put up great numbers regardless of their team..Crosby did it, so did Eberle or Seguin.

 

[Oiltankjob Fail]

Marc Antoine Pouliot also was by far the best player on a very poor junior team, kinda like Monahan.
Never seen Monahan play though, but thats one way in which those two are comparable ...also similar size, height, and leadership qualities at that level.
Great players put up great numbers regardless of their team..Crosby did it, so did Eberle or Seguin.

Yeah they really sucked with Sidney Crosby playing there Poluiot made Crosby's career

 

[joestevens29]

Yeah they really sucked with Sidney Crosby playing there Poluiot made Crosby's career

I hope you realize the team sucked, Pouilot who was their best player was then picked by us, the following year Crosby joined and the team didn't suck anymore.

 

[joestevens29]

I do have to ask though how bad is it that Dany Roussin a teammate of Pouilot's goes 7th in the 2003 draft, but then after two years of playing with Crosby he enters and goes in the 2nd.

 

[stoff]

Yeah they really sucked with Sidney Crosby playing there Poluiot made Crosby's career

We drafted pouliot before Crosby ever played there.

 

[Neilio]

Marc Antoine Pouliot also was by far the best player on a very poor junior team, kinda like Monahan.
Never seen Monahan play though, but thats one way in which those two are comparable ...also similar size, height, and leadership qualities at that level.
Great players put up great numbers regardless of their team..Crosby did it, so did Eberle or Seguin.

The way both had managed to play on losing teams is admirable. And they are similar size. But I have no doubt that Monahan is the better player. More points in a better league at an earlier age with a good two way game.

 

[I am the Liquor]

It's easy to pick out an ROR and say that is good scouting.

No one is disputing the fact that there will be very good players picked later than the first round. But it would seem that the big successes are mostly random once you move past the first.

In 2005 Colorado had 4 2nd round picks. They picked Paul Stastny at 44 after picking the legendary Ryan Stoa at 34 (Vlasic was the next pick at 35). They then picked Tom Fritsche at 47 and Chris Durand. Brilliant drafting or lucky pick?

Since 1995 Colorado has had 28 second round picks. They hit two home runs in Statstny and ROR. They also had Boychuck in 2002 but they gave up on him before he made the NHL with Boston at age 25. Those are the only three significant NHL'er is the 28 picks. About one in ten.

If you look at draft history about 1 in 3 to one in 4 early second rounders will play 200 games in the NHL. (THat is typically the standard that most use in assessing drafted players). Fewer become long term regulars. So out of 6 picks you might expect 2 to play 200 NHL games.

Lander has already played 62 NHL games and he just turned 22. Marincicn would seem like a very good bet to make that standard as well. So while it is too early to say for sure it looks a lot like the second rounder will cover the bet.

You also seem to want to ignore Eberle and Klefbom, and even to a degree Paajarvi. As I said the most important picks are the first rounders. Oiler fans should know that better than anyone seeing the damage that the previous group did to the franchise by squandering there 1st round picks for so many years.

The only full time sure fire nhler you have identified is Eberle. A first round pick. The others are a bunch of maybes. Klefbom is another first round pick. Still a maybe. Fact of the matter is we dont have a ROR in the organization unless you want to go back as far as Horcoff.

Paul Stastny and ROR > anything weve been able to come up with. Our draft record has been disgustingly bad. If we have to use Lander as a indicator of our non-first round success then we are well and truly ****ed.

 

[doubledown99]

Pouliot was also ranked as a 2nd rd prospect by some agencies. I know Redline was not a fan of his at all.

Where as Monahan is a consensus top 10 pick.

Also Monahan is lauded for his hockey IQ....I don't recall Pouliot being so.

I've watched Monahan....no way he is going to bust. At worst he's Horcoff but he is damn good and will be much better. Kids the complete package. And for Edm there is no better prospect than him as he fills so many needs for us. Nuge and Monahan as a 1-2 punch would setup the Oil nicely.

Both could play 20+ min (so most of the game we could have one of them on the ice controlling the game) and they can be used in all situations. Our specialty teams would be set (pp and pk). Monahan would be ideal in games we are ahead and need to have puck possession and win key faceoffs. And with his offensive ability it wouldn't just be in a shutdown role.

Just makes so much sense for us. I'm really hoping we get him.

 

[Aequitas]

The only full time sure fire nhler you have identified is Eberle. A first round pick. The others are a bunch of maybes. Klefbom is another first round pick. Still a maybe. Fact of the matter is we dont have a ROR in the organization unless you want to go back as far as Horcoff.

Paul Stastny and ROR > anything weve been able to come up with. Our draft record has been disgustingly bad. If we have to use Lander as a indicator of our non-first round success then we are well and truly ****ed.

You are complaining that over the 5 years macgregor has been head scout he hasn't been good enough and when someone points out statistically he is right on track if not better you just say we havn't had a homerun so it doesn't count. he has only been head scout for 5 years we have no idea if any of the 2nd rounders will turn out as good as either of them but feel free to base you argument on nothing other than "I don't think he is good"

 

[I am the Liquor]

You are complaining that over the 5 years macgregor has been head scout he hasn't been good enough and when someone points out statistically he is right on track if not better you just say we havn't had a homerun so it doesn't count. he has only been head scout for 5 years we have no idea if any of the 2nd rounders will turn out as good as either of them but feel free to base you argument on nothing other than "I don't think he is good"

Feel free to point out draft successes outside of the first round.

Fact of the matter we have none.

If you think Lander is that then I suppose you consider MAP and JFJ draft successes too.

 

[Aequitas]

Feel free to point out draft successes outside of the first round.

Fact of the matter we have none.

If you think Lander is that then I suppose you consider MAP and JFJ draft successes too.

Well obviously jordan eberle is a huge success where he was drafted but we will ignore him. As far as picks stu has had rajala, reider (traded i know but he doesn't get a say in that), gernat, simpson and khaira are all currently performing above expectations imo and lander, marincin, pelss, roy, and davidson are about where you should expect them. If any of these players were regulars in the NHL at this point it would be a draft steal and considered an amazing pick but about half of his picks are trending in the right direction (not including first rounders which all are showing positive arrows currently). Drafting takes time and if in another 5 years even half of these guys become nhl regulars he is drafting well.

From over 2,000 players selected in the third round and beyond during 1990s, just 261 made it as NHL career players. That's about 12 percent.

taken from http://proicehockey.about.com/od/prospects/f/draft_success.htm

if you use average success (1/4 for second rounders and 12% for third and beyond) if lander and marincin become regulars and just 3 of the other 27 picks beyond the 2nd he is at average rate of success. If you include first rounders currently he is 5/6 (klefbom only one not a regular yet and looks like he could be as early as next year) he is already above average as the average success rate of first picks is 60%. The next 5 years will really start to tell us how well he drafts but being upset he can't find the one of the few amazing picks past the first round every year seems foolish.

EDIT: I also want to point out people saying he is an amaziing drafter is just as foolish as we just don't have enough information at this point. If one or two players make massive jumps and play in the NHL or fall off map and never have careers his results will swing rapidly. Drafting is a low success gamble and even just one success where it is unexpected can make a great draft.

 

[Mr Sakich]

I have a strong feeling that we are going to get Nikushkin. Too much risk for the clubs picking just ahead of us.

We are one of the few teams that could strike out with their early pick this year and not be devastated. We have plenty of quality youth for the next 5 years. A miss by Nashville, Carolina, or Calgary could cause the fan base to tune out or demand wholesale changes to mngt.

 

[I am the Liquor]

Well obviously jordan eberle is a huge success where he was drafted but we will ignore him. As far as picks stu has had rajala, reider (traded i know but he doesn't get a say in that), gernat, simpson and khaira are all currently performing above expectations imo and lander, marincin, pelss, roy, and davidson are about where you should expect them. If any of these players were regulars in the NHL at this point it would be a draft steal and considered an amazing pick but about half of his picks are trending in the right direction (not including first rounders which all are showing positive arrows currently). Drafting takes time and if in another 5 years even half of these guys become nhl regulars he is drafting well.

From over 2,000 players selected in the third round and beyond during 1990s, just 261 made it as NHL career players. That's about 12 percent.

taken from http://proicehockey.about.com/od/prospects/f/draft_success.htm

if you use average success (1/4 for second rounders and 12% for third and beyond) if lander and marincin become regulars and just 3 of the other 27 picks beyond the 2nd he is at average rate of success. If you include first rounders currently he is 5/6 (klefbom only one not a regular yet and looks like he could be as early as next year) he is already above average as the average success rate of first picks is 60%. The next 5 years will really start to tell us how well he drafts but being upset he can't find the one of the few amazing picks past the first round every year seems foolish.

EDIT: I also want to point out people saying he is an amaziing drafter is just as foolish as we just don't have enough information at this point. If one or two players make massive jumps and play in the NHL or fall off map and never have careers his results will swing rapidly. Drafting is a low success gamble and even just one success where it is unexpected can make a great draft.

My statement of "poor drafting" extends well beyond the Macgregor years. It is too early to be pinning success or failure on him yet, but the early returns are not looking too good imo.

Compare us with Montreal for example. Look a the last fifteen years or so. That is a pretty big contrast.

 

[doubledown99]

Aequitas good post. Was just going to post something similar.

Lots of studies have been done to show that picks outside of top 10 are risky. You guys can google it and get exact #s but here is a rough summary (by memory):

Top 10 - 85 percent success rate

1st rd - 65 percent success rate

2nd rd - 20-25 percent success rate

After that its pure luck....about 12 % of players make it.

And I believe studies were done to show that no team is that much better than others (especially in rounds 3-7).