2015 NHL Entry Draft #4 - June 26th

[rt]

If 20/30 teams have Hanifin 3rd overall, and we don't, we should trade down to #5 if possible. Take whichever of Strome or Marner is left.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Watching the scouting videos on TSN, it only cements my desire to draft Strome.

 

[Semantics]

Marner I didn't know, but he had 2 concussions in the playoffs, which isn't good.

Uhh... no he didn't. He only had two injuries this season, the first being an arm injury in February. The second injury, in the playoffs, was reported to be whiplash. Maybe there was a mild concussion as well that they're hiding, but the claim of "2 concussions in the playoffs" is ridiculous.

 

[Puck possession wins]

I'd move back to 5 and take Whoever is left of Strome/Marner, while gaining extra picks. Than if it was me, trade up and nab Kylington in the mid 20s.

Imagine
OEL-Kylington on the back end for the next 10+ years.

 

[RABBIT]

Uhh... no he didn't. He only had two injuries this season, the first being an arm injury in February. The second injury, in the playoffs, was reported to be whiplash. Maybe there was a mild concussion as well that they're hiding, but the claim of "2 concussions in the playoffs" is ridiculous.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh maybe he made a mistake. Relax.

 

[Vinny Boombatz]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh maybe he made a mistake. Relax.

I know...I was just regurgitating what an article said. I have 'zero' knowledge as to the real truth obviously.

 

[Mosby]

This is in response to a Devils fan asking if Strome or Marner would fall to 6:

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie 13m13 minutes ago

I'd be surprised if Marner/Strome drop to 6. Nothing carved in stone, but I sense ARI big decision is which one of those 2 to take at No. 3.

 

[PhoPhan]

The Hanifin being the majority 7/10 is interesting, but sounds like Marner and Strome is a coin toss, after that.

I'll be shocked if Hanifin isn't third on his list, though I don't expect it to be unanimous. I'll eat a pig's brain* if he's not at least in the top 5.

*This highly specific conditional is because I have access to it and promise to follow through on this should I be shown incorrect.

Phew.

 

[letowskie]

I'd move back to 5 and take Whoever is left of Strome/Marner, while gaining extra picks. Than if it was me, trade up and nab Kylington in the mid 20s.

Imagine
OEL-Kylington on the back end for the next 10+ years.

Kylington would be a fine pick; although I don't see top pairing potential, a 3/4 potential for sure. And players from SHL is harder to rank if not the top 2/3 standouts.

If we end up with Strome/Marner, I would like to trade into the top 14, and try to get Werenski if possible, Chabot would also be a good fall back if available around 15-20.

In terms of need, while C is our weakest position, our D isn't much better off at this point. Stone and Murphy are both good youngsters that likely top out as a 3/4D. I don't see much of a possibility of either becoming top pairing material (they simply do not have the blend of physical tools and hockey IQ necessary). Guys like Dahlbeck and Moore are fine too, but I would be content if they turn out to be stalwarts on the 3rd pairing. Gormley, while has the potential, his likelihood of fulfilling top-pairing potential gets dimmer each day.

In the long run, we will definitely need another 1/2D to go with OEL, if we hope to be a strong contender at some point in the future. And it typically takes a D 4-6 years to fully develop.

 

[rt]

Well...

We will see what the acouts have to say about Hanifin being BPA at number three. I bet he's the majority winner but not a 50% majority. More like 40-30-30. AKA not a clear cut BPA.

...I was wrong.

It was 70-20-10

 

[letowskie]

McKenzie's final rankings: http://www.tsn.ca/mcdavid-tops-mckenzie-s-final-draft-ranking-1.296839



Button has individual profiles for each of the top prospects as well. Strome's skating gets a 3 out of 5:

From what I have seen of him, especially compared to other forwards projected in the top 15, he would probably come in last, or nearly last, in terms of skating ability at this point.

So I would have to say that Button is being very generous here to give 3/5.

 

[IPreferPi]

In terms of need, while C is our weakest position, our D isn't much better off at this point. Stone and Murphy are both good youngsters that likely top out as a 3/4D. I don't see much of a possibility of either becoming top pairing material (they simply do not have the blend of physical tools and hockey IQ necessary). Guys like Dahlbeck and Moore are fine too, but I would be content if they turn out to be stalwarts on the 3rd pairing. Gormley, while has the potential, his likelihood of fulfilling top-pairing potential gets dimmer each day.

In the long run, we will definitely need another 1/2D to go with OEL, if we hope to be a strong contender at some point in the future. And it typically takes a D 4-6 years to fully develop.

Carlo, Juulsen, Cernak, Meloche, Spencer, and Roy are all in Bobby Mac's Top 50. Although I'd probably rank them Juulsen, Meloche, Carlo, Spencer, Roy, and Cernak in terms of personal preference.

 

[letowskie]

Carlo, Juulsen, Cernak, Meloche, Spencer, and Roy are all in Bobby Mac's Top 50. Although I'd probably rank them Juulsen, Meloche, Carlo, Spencer, Roy, and Cernak in terms of personal preference.

I like Roy, although he's a little risky as a project if picked to high (say in the 10-20 range); but he does have a lot of potential. The rest are all good D men that are likely to find an NHL career, but none of them would solve our need for another top-2 D, even if they reach their projected potential.

 

[IPreferPi]

I like Roy, although he's a little risky as a project if picked to high (say in the 10-20 range); but he does have a lot of potential. The rest are all good D men that are likely to find an NHL career, but none of them would solve our need for another top-2 D, even if they reach their projected potential.

Roy has the smarts but he's undersized and not a very good skater, which is generally a red flag for me (I have similar concerns with Rasmus Andersson, although he's bigger than Roy). It's hard to gauge top pairing upside when it does take longer for D to develop, but at the least I think all of them have Top 4 upside. Juulsen however seems to have the best overall combination of mobility, offensive ability, smarts, and physical play.

 

[Kaizen]

How much has Hanifin actually improved since a year ago? Six months ago?

Some players just mature at a very early age but dont really improve beyond that. Is he one of those?

Very valid question - where is each player at in their own respective development curve.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Very valid question - where is each player at in their own respective development curve.

The important thing to note, for me, is what the scouts say about "hockey smarts." You can teach skill. You can't make a five-cent head into a dime, though. And consistently, the scouts tell me that of the three top candidates for #3, Strome is the one with the best hockey sense and smarts.

 

[letowskie]

Roy has the smarts but he's undersized and not a very good skater, which is generally a red flag for me (I have similar concerns with Rasmus Andersson, although he's bigger than Roy). It's hard to gauge top pairing upside when it does take longer for D to develop, but at the least I think all of them have Top 4 upside. Juulsen however seems to have the best overall combination of mobility, offensive ability, smarts, and physical play.

Roy is no Hanifin; but his skating is definitely above average for D in the 1st round.

He doesn't have very large straight-away speed (although by no means bad), his acceleration, turn on edges, and lateral movement at the blue-line are actually top notch compared to anyone at the same age. He is also one of the best puck handlers in this draft, as well as making very good decisions about puck distribution. Something like a Shattenkirk or Steve Duschene would be a good comparable.

All of them do have top 4 upside, but that is not very useful when you are trying to find D that would be able to anchor one of the top pairings. Stone and Murphy both have top 4 upsides already, and Gormley may eventually wind up there. But there isn't a clear #2, or even a clear #3 at this point in the entire organization.

BTW, It's pretty likely that Roy would be gone by the chicago pick. He's most likely to go around or slightly after 20, I project, for a team that's looking to take some risk and potentially land a good puck moving #2 D-man for a relatively low 1st. If there is at least one team that isn't risk averse, and needs a future top D, then Roy would likely be the next D taken after Chabot.

 

[rt]

Carlo, Juulsen, Cernak, Meloche, Spencer, and Roy are all in Bobby Mac's Top 50. Although I'd probably rank them Juulsen, Meloche, Carlo, Spencer, Roy, and Cernak in terms of personal preference.

I was surprised to see Mitch Vande Sompel so low. I really like him. He's impressed me each time I've seen him. Looks better than a large he portion of draft eligible D I've seen this year and in years past.

 

[ParisSaintGermain]

Vande Sompel is indeed 63rd on the list. Not sure why he is so low; maybe his size?

 

[letowskie]

Vande Sompel is indeed 63rd on the list. Not sure why he is so low; maybe his size?

I would take a chance on him, if we can move the TBL/NYR pick up a bit, I would probably take him at that point.

 

[Matias Maccete]

Kylington would be a fine pick; although I don't see top pairing potential, a 3/4 potential for sure. And players from SHL is harder to rank if not the top 2/3 standouts.

If we end up with Strome/Marner, I would like to trade into the top 14, and try to get Werenski if possible, Chabot would also be a good fall back if available around 15-20.

In terms of need, while C is our weakest position, our D isn't much better off at this point. Stone and Murphy are both good youngsters that likely top out as a 3/4D. I don't see much of a possibility of either becoming top pairing material (they simply do not have the blend of physical tools and hockey IQ necessary). Guys like Dahlbeck and Moore are fine too, but I would be content if they turn out to be stalwarts on the 3rd pairing. Gormley, while has the potential, his likelihood of fulfilling top-pairing potential gets dimmer each day.

In the long run, we will definitely need another 1/2D to go with OEL, if we hope to be a strong contender at some point in the future. And it typically takes a D 4-6 years to fully develop.

I think stone is already a 3 or 4 guy but that's where he's topping out IMO. I still think Murphy has top pairing potential. He's got size strength skating and is getting smarter every game about using them. His offensive game was looking better too as last year went on. He's very young and don't forget with his injuries he's probably behind in his development curve still.

 

[XX]

3 - Strome/Marner
29 - Boeser
32 - Sprong
59 - Rasmus Andersson
63 - Vande Sompel
81 - best goalie available

My ideal draft, right now.

 

[letowskie]

I think stone is already a 3 or 4 guy but that's where he's topping out IMO. I still think Murphy has top pairing potential. He's got size strength skating and is getting smarter every game about using them. His offensive game was looking better too as last year went on. He's very young and don't forget with his injuries he's probably behind in his development curve still.

Murph should be a good D for a long time on 2nd pairing, if he continues his current trajectory. However, I don't think he has the creativity and hockey IQ to be a 1/2-D in the NHL. He was never an offensive force in juniors, and certainly hasn't shown any quantum leap in growth of that area.

He is very much like a lesser version of Eric Johnson; a lot of raw tools and natural abilities. But his overall game very unlikely reaching an elite level because of the lack of split-second decision making, and the inability to to anticipate the play well. These are things that are very difficult to improve on, and Murphy will probably top out at a steady 2nd pairing D that can chip in in a variety of aspects of the game.

 

[Sinurgy]

The important thing to note, for me, is what the scouts say about "hockey smarts." You can teach skill. You can't make a five-cent head into a dime, though. And consistently, the scouts tell me that of the three top candidates for #3, Strome is the one with the best hockey sense and smarts.

Not that I'm endorsing Strome but you can't teach size either. In addition to what you already mentioned is a 6'3" frame that will almost certainly fill out.

 

[rt]

I would take a chance on him, if we can move the TBL/NYR pick up a bit, I would probably take him at that point.

Yeah, 32 seems early but I'll be happy if our scouts see enough in him to take him there.