Prospect Info: 2015 NHL Entry Draft Thread | McKenzie's Final Ranking Released

[ChaoticOrange]

I'm terrified of deals like 16++ or 16+++ for guys like Burns and Seabrook.

The idea of giving up that much for a player only to have them saunter off into the sunset gives me flashbacks to the Lowe as GM years.

Samsonov. Peca. Visnovsky. Cogliano. Roloson. Spacek. Stoll and Greene. Poti. Cole. Gilbert. Petry. Brodziak. Dubnyk.

The amount and quality of players we traded for/ drafted and subsequently turned into nothing is the single biggest reason we went full tailspin in the first place.

If we're trading 16+++, we'd better be damned careful about who we trade it for and if they sign long term. That's the name of the game in the NHL. Acquire good players, keep good players, and when you have to trade those players, acquire more good players, (drafting wisely, targeting the right prospects, etc)

 

[misfit]

I'm terrified of deals like 16++ or 16+++ for guys like Burns and Seabrook.

The idea of giving up that much for a player only to have them saunter off into the sunset gives me flashbacks to the Lowe as GM years.

Samsonov. Peca. Visnovsky. Cogliano. Roloson. Spacek. Stoll and Greene. Poti. Cole. Gilbert. Petry. Brodziak. Dubnyk.

The amount and quality of players we traded for/ drafted and subsequently turned into nothing is the single biggest reason we went full tailspin in the first place.

If we're trading 16+++, we'd better be damned careful about who we trade it for and if they sign long term. That's the name of the game in the NHL. Acquire good players, keep good players, and when you have to trade those players, acquire more good players, (drafting wisely, targeting the right prospects, etc)

Most of those players were drafted, so they have nothing to do with trading the 16+ for a player approaching UFA status (unless you're terrified of both trading a draft pick and using it to draft players).
As for the others:

- Samsonov was a rental and we made it to G7 of the SCF
- Peca cost Mike York who played 1 more season for NYI than Peca did for us, and Peca was pivitol in our playoff success the year he was with us.
- Spacek was also a rental that cost Salmelainen...who was more or less a bust
- Roloson cost our 1st round pick that turned into Trevor Lewis, and was our starting goalie for 3 years including our run to the SCF.
-Visnovsky was great for us, and we gave him up in a bad trade. The deal to get him was good, and the deal to move him stunk. you certainly have good reason to be disappointed with that.
- Cole was dumb not just in trading for him, but we actually got a good return for him when we shipped him out, we just boned it by turning Williams and a 2nd into O'Sullivan and Kotalik. LA should've never been involved.

 

[Macblender]

This is a great assessment. PWFs were overvalued in 2009-2015 and now teams are starting to go for the undervalued skilled players. However this will cause skill guys to be overrated and PWFs to be underrated (maybe not this year, but over the next 4 years). So I actually think Oilers will land that good PWF in rounds 2-5 soon

I think the Russian factor will soon be over too. Tampa has exploited it and Edmonton has to a degree. I dont see many Russian fallers this draft (so Tkachev is about it get it good, small and russian).

In the up coming drafts, teams will have to look at other types of players and league to exploit to look for other undervalued players. I am guessing it will shift to Czech/swiss leagues and BCHL and USHL players

I don't see many big fallers in this draft either I am almost convincing myself that we should try and snag Guryanov with the 16th pick and try and land Vladar and Tomek at 57th and 79th.

I honestly think Guryanov's style of play could be quite complimentary to Ebs-RNH when Pouliot regresses. Or he could fit on a McDavid line as a big guy (6'3 188 currently) who isn't afraid to bring the puck to the net and can absolutely fly with terrific hands.

 

[Game 8]

Any draft pick can miss, but some positions miss more often than others

Is there that much difference in the success percentages? My bet is its small. To add to the conversation using Mckenzies list there is no player even close to Samsanov in the rankings at 16th so is the discussion best player available other than Goalies? I think that would be a loosing decision if an organization went that way. Best player available particularly if the position fits a team need IMHO is the way to go.

 

[s7ark]

Is there that much difference in the success percentages? My bet is its small. To add to the conversation using Mckenzies list there is no player even close to Samsanov in the rankings at 16th so is the discussion best player available other than Goalies? I think that would be a loosing decision if an organization went that way. Best player available particularly if the position fits a team need IMHO is the way to go.

In the first round it's pretty significant. about 40% more likely to get an NHL skater than a goalie.

https://bluebulletreport.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/rethinking-how-to-draft-goalies/comment-page-1/

What we have learned is that the best method of drafting goalies is to stay away from using a first round pick on a goalie (unless it is an exceptional goalie) as the odds are significantly better if you draft a forward or d-men over a goalie (over 40% better). Instead, the best time to draft one of the top rated goalies from North America or Europe is to grab them in the 2nd or early 3rd round. Goalies in this range tend to out perform the forwards and d-men by 50% and if you wait to long all the good goalies will be gone. If a team wants to take a shot on a goalie in the late rounds, it is better to take a European goalie as history shows they are twice as likely at becoming a successful NHL goalie as their North American counterparts. By doing this a team will give itself the best chance of getting a successful goalie.

 

[Roof Daddy]

I'm terrified of deals like 16++ or 16+++ for guys like Burns and Seabrook.

The idea of giving up that much for a player only to have them saunter off into the sunset gives me flashbacks to the Lowe as GM years.

Samsonov. Peca. Visnovsky. Cogliano. Roloson. Spacek. Stoll and Greene. Poti. Cole. Gilbert. Petry. Brodziak. Dubnyk.

The amount and quality of players we traded for/ drafted and subsequently turned into nothing is the single biggest reason we went full tailspin in the first place.

If we're trading 16+++, we'd better be damned careful about who we trade it for and if they sign long term. That's the name of the game in the NHL. Acquire good players, keep good players, and when you have to trade those players, acquire more good players, (drafting wisely, targeting the right prospects, etc)

I don't see much risk in acquiring Burns. He's got 2 years on his deal and works extremely well with McLellan - you know what you're going to get, and you know you're getting it for 2 years. Yes, he'll be 32 when his contract is up, but he us a phenomenal athlete. He's a guy that can play until he's 38 because even if he loses a step, you still have an average/above average skater who is 6'5 230 with a bomb for a shot.

I'd do 16th OA + 2016 1st without hesitation. Not sure they would.

 

[Game 8]

I'm terrified of deals like 16++ or 16+++ for guys like Burns and Seabrook.

The idea of giving up that much for a player only to have them saunter off into the sunset gives me flashbacks to the Lowe as GM years.

Samsonov. Peca. Visnovsky. Cogliano. Roloson. Spacek. Stoll and Greene. Poti. Cole. Gilbert. Petry. Brodziak. Dubnyk.

The amount and quality of players we traded for/ drafted and subsequently turned into nothing is the single biggest reason we went full tailspin in the first place.

If we're trading 16+++, we'd better be damned careful about who we trade it for and if they sign long term. That's the name of the game in the NHL. Acquire good players, keep good players, and when you have to trade those players, acquire more good players, (drafting wisely, targeting the right prospects, etc)

I'm with you! These proposals of trading a good player I won't even call it a strength as we don't have anyone behind them to fill the roll scare me. The last thing I want to see is a rush to look better next season and give up our future. Look at tonight the Lightning need to play thier backup goalie because the starter is hurt. You only need one good goalie right 2007!

 

[Game 8]

In the first round it's pretty significant. about 40% more likely to get an NHL skater than a goalie.

https://bluebulletreport.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/rethinking-how-to-draft-goalies/comment-page-1/

I agree with this makes perfect sense. Three points, one is our scouting has been bottom tier, we have not drafted Goilies when we should have, I was going by these ratings if true I would take the chance.

 

[PKSpecialist]

The only problem with this is you are assuming that needs will be the same in 5 years.

If your scouts have Jeremy Roy above Samsonov on there list then he's shown better. You could project Samsonov ending up better than Roy just as you could project Broissoit and Laurikainen being better than Nurse....and then your organizational need changes.

Since you don't know what your organizational need is 3-5 years from now you need to just take the guy who is most likely to have the biggest impact.

I can pretty much guarantee you that if you always draft BPA without taking your need into account that your organizational needs don't really change. Taylor hall, nail yakupov, mps, Jordan Eberle, RNH..... Too many players with very similar skill sets without mixing in need. I'm not saying I would have drafted anyone differently because I like all of these players, but our needs of goaltending,
Defense and big physical forwards remains.

And to say prospect A projects to be better than prospect B is for the most part an irrational thought.

Take these four players just as an example:

Mitch Marner=Claude Giroux
Dylan Strome=Eric Staal
Lawson Crouse=Rick Nash
Noah Hanifin=Ryan Suter

This is an example only, but in your scenario where every player projects to be something better, who is better? I guarantee you that you would get several different answers. If you assume that this is what these players project to at an 80% success rate then how do you choose? You take organizational need into account. Need defensemen? Take Hanifin/Suter...etc....

As I said, if you think there is a clear BPA, take that player, but the truth is outside of a couple of players there is almost never a BPA.

 

[McQuixote]

Take these four players just as an example:

Mitch Marner=Claude Giroux
Dylan Strome=Eric Staal
Lawson Crouse=Rick Nash
Noah Hanifin=Ryan Suter

This is an example only, but in your scenario where every player projects to be something better, who is better? I guarantee you that you would get several different answers. If you assume that this is what these players project to at an 80% success rate then how do you choose? You take organizational need into account. Need defensemen? Take Hanifin/Suter...etc....

As I said, if you think there is a clear BPA, take that player, but the truth is outside of a couple of players there is almost never a BPA.

I think the actual analysis in this billion dollar industry goes a little deeper than that. I would sure hope it does, anyway, in trying to project the best player. Even if you don't want to draw a who's better distinction between, say, Eric Staal and Ryan Suter, the drafter should take into account, among other things, the probability of that player hitting the mark.

I mean, it's still a crapshoot, but I sure hope the drafters are working hard to minimize the amount of crapshooting and doing less "shrugging" and saying "meh, who can tell?"

 

[MCDAVIDISH]

I hope we NEVER draft a goalie in the first round.

 

[s7ark]

I hope we NEVER draft a goalie in the first round.

Agreed. Goalies take forever to develop and are often on the market for less than a 1st. 1sts should be used for skaters always.

 

[Game 8]

I hope we NEVER draft a goalie in the first round.

Grant Fuhr says hi! Funny the only Goalie besides Moog that we drafted and turned into a great Goalie.

 

[dustrock]

Was it Blue Bullet or someone else I think that the article that "the NHL has a scouting problem"?

THe author ran scout rankings of players to playing 100 NHL games vs ppg of prospects to 100 nhl games and the ppg was a far better indicator (stronger correlation).

If that's the case, we should be looking at guys like Beauvillier and Bracco. Those are the guys who could be the next Tyler Johnson.

And spend a late pick on overagers Adin Hill and Appleby. Goalies are voodoo and take longer to develop anyway.

 

[Spawn]

I'm terrified of deals like 16++ or 16+++ for guys like Burns and Seabrook.

The idea of giving up that much for a player only to have them saunter off into the sunset gives me flashbacks to the Lowe as GM years.

Samsonov. Peca. Visnovsky. Cogliano. Roloson. Spacek. Stoll and Greene. Poti. Cole. Gilbert. Petry. Brodziak. Dubnyk.

The amount and quality of players we traded for/ drafted and subsequently turned into nothing is the single biggest reason we went full tailspin in the first place.

If we're trading 16+++, we'd better be damned careful about who we trade it for and if they sign long term. That's the name of the game in the NHL. Acquire good players, keep good players, and when you have to trade those players, acquire more good players, (drafting wisely, targeting the right prospects, etc)

How can you be terrified of trading a mid first round pick? That's the kind of attitude that prevents you from ever getting better. The 16th is the perfect asset to gamble with. It doesn't work out... oh well, we've still got maybe the best player since Crosby out of the draft.

The team needs to get better immediately, even if that means losing out long term on whoever would be picked at 16.

 

[PKSpecialist]

I think the actual analysis in this billion dollar industry goes a little deeper than that. I would sure hope it does, anyway, in trying to project the best player. Even if you don't want to draw a who's better distinction between, say, Eric Staal and Ryan Suter, the drafter should take into account, among other things, the probability of that player hitting the mark.

I mean, it's still a crapshoot, but I sure hope the drafters are working hard to minimize the amount of crapshooting and doing less "shrugging" and saying "meh, who can tell?"

The thing is it's not a guess. What you are doing is placing players into tiers. You draft BTierA and a player in that tier based on positional preference.

Here's a scenario. Conor Garland is an undersized winger who is a great skater and is quite feisty as well. His overall game is comparable to Claude Giroux in terms of skating, skill... The probablility that he will ever hit that kind of ceiling for arguments sake is 10%. Now some will argue that Adam Musil is a Boyd Gordon type. No offence, but good defensively and battles hard. The chances of him hitting that ceiling is 70%. Again, this is just for arguments sake. Do you take the 70% odds on getting a 3rd/4th line tweener, or do you go for the gusto and draft the 10% possibility of getting a Giroux.

The thing is that I am making these numbers up, but these are certainly conversations that scouts have. A GM will listen to his scouts and they will come to a consensus list, but that doesn't mean that the list is perfect(it never is). That's why you tier the prospects and figure out what your needs are. You also overdraft a certain thing like size to improve your chances of that probablility playing out. Meaning if you lack a big prescence or speed in your lineup, draft more players late with that skill set to improve the probablility that one player with that skill set pans out.

If there was a centre man draft, a winger draft, then a defenseman draft, then a goalie draft, it would be way easier to just say BPA, but when you start saying I have a Nash, a Giroux, a Staal, a Suter and say a Ryan Miller, how can anyone say who is BPA. As far as probablility goes, in the first round, the expected probability that the top ten meet their peak is quite high, likely 90, so drafting on probablility there doesn't help. ...

 

[aki]

I hope we NEVER draft a goalie in the first round.

Carey Price, Martin Brodeur, Roberto Luongo and others say hello.

As a general rule of thumb, yes. But you never say never.

 

[McAsuno]

Carey Price, Martin Brodeur, Roberto Luongo and others say hello.

As a general rule of thumb, yes. But you never say never.

For every Price, Brodeur, Luongo.. there's Dipietro's, Montoya's, Irving's. Its pretty much a crapshoot. I'll take a forward/defenseman in the 1st round, and talk about goalies in the later rounds.

 

[s7ark]

Carey Price, Martin Brodeur, Roberto Luongo and others say hello.

As a general rule of thumb, yes. But you never say never.

Lundquist Rinne and Quick all answer back.

Also it is good to remember that Brodeur was taken after super stud prospect goalie Trevor Kidd.

The mental aspect is huge for goalies. And you just can't peg how an 18yo will mature mentally

 

[McQuixote]

The thing is it's not a guess. What you are doing is placing players into tiers. You draft BTierA and a player in that tier based on positional preference.

Here's a scenario. Conor Garland is an undersized winger who is a great skater and is quite feisty as well. His overall game is comparable to Claude Giroux in terms of skating, skill... The probablility that he will ever hit that kind of ceiling for arguments sake is 10%. Now some will argue that Adam Musil is a Boyd Gordon type. No offence, but good defensively and battles hard. The chances of him hitting that ceiling is 70%. Again, this is just for arguments sake. Do you take the 70% odds on getting a 3rd/4th line tweener, or do you go for the gusto and draft the 10% possibility of getting a Giroux.

The thing is that I am making these numbers up, but these are certainly conversations that scouts have. A GM will listen to his scouts and they will come to a consensus list, but that doesn't mean that the list is perfect(it never is). That's why you tier the prospects and figure out what your needs are. You also overdraft a certain thing like size to improve your chances of that probablility playing out. Meaning if you lack a big prescence or speed in your lineup, draft more players late with that skill set to improve the probablility that one player with that skill set pans out.

If there was a centre man draft, a winger draft, then a defenseman draft, then a goalie draft, it would be way easier to just say BPA, but when you start saying I have a Nash, a Giroux, a Staal, a Suter and say a Ryan Miller, how can anyone say who is BPA. As far as probablility goes, in the first round, the expected probability that the top ten meet their peak is quite high, likely 90, so drafting on probablility there doesn't help. ...

I really think (or at least hope) that the process is a lot more involved than you're discussing, but it looks like you're very committed to your paradigm, so I'm happy to leave it at that.

 

[Cizin]

Also it is good to remember that Brodeur was taken after super stud prospect goalie Trevor Kidd.

Broduer also was taken after the Oiler's selection of Scott Allison - first of 11 Oiler 1990 picks, none of whom played even a single NHL game.

 

[MCDAVIDISH]

Broduer also was taken after the Oiler's selection of Scott Allison - first of 11 Oiler 1990 picks, none of whom played even a single NHL game.

I can probably name a 100 good goalies who were taken after Oiler picks (I'm probably exhaugurating). Most of them not chosen in the first round.

 

[s7ark]

I can probably name a 100 good goalies who were taken afer Oiler picks.

Drafting goalies is a crap shoot. That is why it is best to play the odds. 2nds and early 3rds have the best track record according to Blue Bullet's research.

If the Oilers don't take a goalie this draft I am not going to sweat it. We have Brossoit and he seems to be trending well. 2016 is supposed to be better for goalies anyways, so if we wait to take one from that draft, that is fine by me.

 

[Zaddy]

Was it Blue Bullet or someone else I think that the article that "the NHL has a scouting problem"?

THe author ran scout rankings of players to playing 100 NHL games vs ppg of prospects to 100 nhl games and the ppg was a far better indicator (stronger correlation).

If that's the case, we should be looking at guys like Beauvillier and Bracco. Those are the guys who could be the next Tyler Johnson.

And spend a late pick on overagers Adin Hill and Appleby. Goalies are voodoo and take longer to develop anyway.

Yeah, I think sometimes you have to simplify it a little and just take the best scorer left. I looked a bit at Tampas (among others) drafts recently and they've really been successful thanks to taking guys with big numbers, no matter if they are russian, overagers, double overagers, small in size, bad attitude etc. Bottom line seems to be, if you produce well in juniors, you have a very good chance of producing in the pros. That's why I'm so against taking coke machines just because they "play a pro-styled game" or whatever. If you don't have numbers even with all your size then it's a very slim chance you make it to the NHL. So it will be pretty interesting to see, not only how Bracco and Beauvillier does but also overagers like Andrew Mangiapane and Conor Garland.

 

[HeavyHitter99]

That's exactly why guys like Timashov will be steals in the 3rd round and guys like Dzierkals of Anthony Richard will be steals in the 4th/5th.

They all have their faults (mostly size) but at the end of the day they can score at an elite level.