News Article: 2013 NHL Draft Results: Top 10 Team Performances (THW)

[UpsideHockey]

Early impressions only; we'll obviously have to give this another 3 to 5 yrs and beyond...

Hint: Blue Jackets show well!

Latest at THW:

2013 NHL Draft Results: Top 10 Team Performances

Thoughts welcomed.
___
*2013 NHL Draft Prospect Index
**2013 NHL Draft Guide: The Next Ones
***2013 NHL Draft Rankings: The Next Ones Final Top 210

Click to read more...

 

[CBJ Tiffin]

Wow, didn't realize Buffalo had 11 picks, used 7 on U.S. Players and only 1 on a Canadian. Interesting, though perhaps insignificant.

 

[stevo61]

I feel like Winnipeg and Edmonton are kind of overrated here. Buffalo was the clear winner, hard to debate that. Montreal had a really impressive draft beside that reach for Mccarron. Everyone knows why they did it as a few teams did similar things (Columbus with Dano, Calgary with Poirier, Philly with Morin to name a few) but Mccarron might be the biggest so it kinda lowers how people view their draft i guess.
I liked our draft. I wasn't in the Wennberg camp before the draft but by no means do i dislike the pick. Hopefully he turns into more of a big time player for us then i originally thought he would be. I like the Rychel and Dano picks. Heatherington has gotten little to no recognition when people look over these drafts but he truly could be one of the final pieces to our defense going forward. I also think Soberg has a chance to surprise people someday. I like our draft maybe not for the top end talent but it seems like we found potential talent in every single round

EDIT: I guess Comrie is the real wildcard for Winnipeg and could earn them that spot

 

[Jackets16]

Wow, didn't realize Buffalo had 11 picks, used 7 on U.S. Players and only 1 on a Canadian. Interesting, though perhaps insignificant.

They got a lot of players I liked. IMO, they had the best draft.

 

[Nanabijou]

Every team is always optimistic after a draft and I hope we got a few winners. I agree it's hard to tell for about 5 years, so these gradings are obviously purely for entertainment purposes.

Just for fun, I tried to find some grades that occurred shortly after the 2008 draft (5 years ago). I found Mark Seidel's grades for all the teams:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/16989-Mark-Seidels-Blog-2008-NHL-draft-grades-Part-1.html

Links to parts 2 and 3 are in the page above, but part 1 has the Central division.

Keep in mind we drafted:

Nikita Filatov
Cody Goloubef
Steve Delisle
Drew Olson
Matt Calvert
Tomas Kubalik
Brent Regner
Cam Atkinson
Sean Collins

Seidel gave us a B grade shortly after the draft:

B, Columbus Blue Jackets – The Jackets have never got all they could out of Nikolai Zherdev, but that didn’t scare them away from selecting Nikita Filatov from Russia and it was a wise choice. The dynamic youngster has a chance to be a superstar and at NCAS we feel had he played in the CHL this year, he may have battled Steven Stamkos a lot closer. The Jackets’ need was defense, but when Toronto jumped ahead of them to take Luke Schenn, GM Scott Howson did the right thing and selected Filatov because he was clearly the best player available. They then went and addressed the lack of defensive prospects by getting Cody Goloubef and Steven Delisle, the giant defender from Gatineau. Much like Nashville, Columbus’ first three picks were so good they could take some flyers later on. With the exception of Tomas Kubalik, the rest have significant deficiencies in their game that need a lot of work if they are to become good prospects, but the big three will all have a chance to contribute down the road in the Buckeye state.

Looking back on this trade I'd probably give it a B+. I'd like to give it a A- because it is a really good draft in terms of nabbing Atkinson and Calvert, and I still feel Goloubef has NHL potential. I had high hopes for Kubalik but obviously he's not ours anymore. The whole Filatov fiasco is why I have to settle for a B+ grade.

I especially liked the part I bolded, seeing as it's the later picks that are really panning out. Anyways, this article prompted me to do some web searching so thought I'd post the results.

 

[Skraut]

Here is Lori Schmidt's Recap of Draft Recaps
http://fearthehat.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/jarmos-first-report-card/

 

[Sore Loser]

Good review, thanks for sharing, Chris.

 

[UpsideHockey]

Good review, thanks for sharing, Chris.

Thanks Sore Loser; appreciate all the comments all.

 

[UpsideHockey]

This is the link to the main thread on the "Prospects" page:

LINK

Mods: can close this thread and refer readers to the above link to go and discuss.

Apologies for any inconvenience.

Thanks!

 

[JACKETfan]

Every team is always optimistic after a draft and I hope we got a few winners. I agree it's hard to tell for about 5 years, so these gradings are obviously purely for entertainment purposes.

Just for fun, I tried to find some grades that occurred shortly after the 2008 draft (5 years ago). I found Mark Seidel's grades for all the teams:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/16989-Mark-Seidels-Blog-2008-NHL-draft-grades-Part-1.html

Links to parts 2 and 3 are in the page above, but part 1 has the Central division.

Keep in mind we drafted:

Nikita Filatov
Cody Goloubef
Steve Delisle
Drew Olson
Matt Calvert
Tomas Kubalik
Brent Regner
Cam Atkinson
Sean Collins

Seidel gave us a B grade shortly after the draft:


Looking back on this trade I'd probably give it a B+. I'd like to give it a A- because it is a really good draft in terms of nabbing Atkinson and Calvert, and I still feel Goloubef has NHL potential. I had high hopes for Kubalik but obviously he's not ours anymore. The whole Filatov fiasco is why I have to settle for a B+ grade.

I especially liked the part I bolded, seeing as it's the later picks that are really panning out. Anyways, this article prompted me to do some web searching so thought I'd post the results.

Based on the concept that it's pure luck after the second round, I'd give all our previous drafts a C-. Too many first and second round busts.

This year's draft feels like all the previous ones: high hopes. So while it may be a good one, and we get a nice ranking in HF, who really knows.

 

[UpsideHockey]

Based on the concept that it's pure luck after the second round, I'd give all our previous drafts a C-. Too many first and second round busts.

This year's draft feels like all the previous ones: high hopes. So while it may be a good one, and we get a nice ranking in HF, who really knows.

True enough, but on paper at least, CBJ crew got it right - now it's up for the player development side of the equation as well as the prospects themselves.

 

[Sore Loser]

... prospects themselves.

This is something that I think gets overlooked a lot. With some kids, it's important to not only grow mentally, but to have a willingness to adapt their game to fit the mold of what they're drafted to be. I saw a kid get drafted (7th round) a few years back who was one of the top two-way centers in junior hockey. Great on the faceoffs, bigger kid, very good in all three zones ... but, he had to become a wing to be able to be a professional player. He had a good head on his shoulders and made himself learn to be a physical wing, something he hadn't ever done before ...

To compare and contrast that, I think we've all seen/heard the stories of the guys picked high in the first round who don't pan out. I think more of it goes into a kid's desire than people think.

 

[Viqsi]

This is something that I think gets overlooked a lot. With some kids, it's important to not only grow mentally, but to have a willingness to adapt their game to fit the mold of what they're drafted to be. I saw a kid get drafted (7th round) a few years back who was one of the top two-way centers in junior hockey. Great on the faceoffs, bigger kid, very good in all three zones ... but, he had to become a wing to be able to be a professional player. He had a good head on his shoulders and made himself learn to be a physical wing, something he hadn't ever done before ...

To compare and contrast that, I think we've all seen/heard the stories of the guys picked high in the first round who don't pan out. I think more of it goes into a kid's desire than people think.

...and it should probably also be pointed out that said desires aren't modifiable by anybody other than the kid himself. Unless folks assume that regular hypnosis and brainwashing sessions are a standard part of prospect development (in which case we would never have had to dump Filatov ).

 

[Arch City Zach]

...and it should probably also be pointed out that said desires aren't modifiable by anybody other than the kid himself. Unless folks assume that regular hypnosis and brainwashing sessions are a standard part of prospect development (in which case we would never have had to dump Filatov ).

"1, 2, 3, now you are fully under my control, repeat after me...'Filly does do rebounds, Filly does do rebounds'".

 

[UpsideHockey]

This is something that I think gets overlooked a lot. With some kids, it's important to not only grow mentally, but to have a willingness to adapt their game to fit the mold of what they're drafted to be. I saw a kid get drafted (7th round) a few years back who was one of the top two-way centers in junior hockey. Great on the faceoffs, bigger kid, very good in all three zones ... but, he had to become a wing to be able to be a professional player. He had a good head on his shoulders and made himself learn to be a physical wing, something he hadn't ever done before ...

To compare and contrast that, I think we've all seen/heard the stories of the guys picked high in the first round who don't pan out. I think more of it goes into a kid's desire than people think.

Well put, SL!