Prospect Info: 2016 Draft/ Lottery/ Prospect Discussion Thread (Lottery April 30th)

[bucks_oil]

Well it seems certain that Chia will get a dman. I really don't think Nuge will be dealt for one. I think the pick is dealt or, which I think is actually most likely, we sign a UFA d man. So there are lots of option to get a dman that don't involve trading Nuge.

That's my hope too, but I: 1) don't really like the UFA options... at least not on their own and 2) Nuge is the most tradable asset after the pick

It mostly depends on what a team with a desirable Dman wants in return... though the looming expansion draft definitely helps us (since we prefer to trade futures for present).

Interesting though... the suggestion above Horvat + 4th for 2nd would be intriguing. It would give us an expansion protected 3C that is a good fit in the role, plus another top end D prospect we don't need to rush (on the assumption that Nuge is then the traded asset)

 

[40oz]

I dont think you really need to look a lot more than box scores* (not cars, just poking fun )

Blue bullet report is doing some tremendous work regarding the draft and success of players with regards to draft position and draft year scoring. Lower scoring top 10 picks pan out MUCH less than higher scoring ones. I mean you can list me 20 reasons why you think this guy is totally different than disappointments from 2008-2012. But then I could probably also find reports from those same players as to why they are totally different than similar players drafted in 2006-2010.

Scoring in junior levels is very, very indicative of future NHL success. Point totals actually are like 90% of a scouting report. Scoring in junior shows they have ability to control play, generate offense etc. If they cant do that exceptionally in junior, there is a very slim chance theyll provide offense in NHL.

Same thing applies to junior. I dont need to hear scouting reports on Tinordi, Tuebert, Musil, Reinhart, Cowen. They are hovering .5 ppg in junior? yeah they wont be living up to expectation and will be struggling to play in over 100 NHL games in their career. You can show me Hal Gill and Weber as exceptions, but ill show you the dozens others that followed the rule

.5 ppg D or ppg forwards drafted in top 15ish area are going to disappoint a lot (a lot) more than high scoring forwards or D

Box scores are the scores from a game, box cars is a colloquial term for goals, assists, points. I googled "boxcars hockey" and this was the second thing to come up.

[I think I just use it because I've read way too much Lowetide.]

Sure, everything you're saying is fine, scoring in junior is indicative of a players ability to score in the NHL. My point is that looking at games/goals/assists just isn't enough to make a half decent judgment. Not when things like total team offense, time on ice, PP rates, age, etc. need to be considered. Is Panarin a better player than Taylor Hall or was Panarin just in better position to succeed? Context is important, that's why people scout and use analytics.

Pointing out Tinordi, Tuebert, Musil, Reinhart, Cowen vs Gill just proves my point that your reliance on points generated isn't enough. Gill isn't just an exception, he's a human ****ing being with a career that was based on thousands of variables. What about 0.25 point per game in his draft year Shea Weber? Perhaps there's some extenuating circumstances? Maybe he didn't get the ice time or PP time he needed, maybe he was physically immature, maybe he needed to be coaching and training to build his offense? Saying that 90% of a scouting report is those basic stats is nonsense.

Blue Bullet is a perfect example of my point because he's using variables to give context to these numbers. Considering things like age, position, and separating out power play points, to build better informed opinions on these players.