2017 Draft Class

[Winger98]

^^ Very interesting discussion guys. Just a few additional thoughts:

1) Should "replacable" "bottom 6" players not be drafted?, and rather traded for using 3rd and 4th round picks.

2) With so many teams pushing for more and more important drafting... I have noticed better and better NHL players are available for 2nd round picks. Its possible that building a team by trading draft picks for talent (for nearly every player but a superstar) seems to be a viable strategy

3) When we talk about character players, or size players, or skill players. I am not sure these definitions are well established. I think it would be an idiotic strategy to draft the best hands 5'7'' players from 3rd to 7th round just because we are looking for the next Gaudreau. Also if we never draft a big D man... how will we ever have any Big D men?? (see (1))

4) Rasmussen is not a "size only pick"... He was going to be drafted in the top 15-20th picks for a reason. It will take 2-3 more years before redrafts make sense for 2017... but i highly doubt Rasmussen falls out of the top 20.

5) We are approaching top 5 picks now. First one was Zadina. We all hope it works out. But the REAL talent is going to come to us in the next 1-2 years. Cross our fingers for that Lottery... We need the Luck too.

I think you need to draft guys who you see as having top6 upside but could max out as bottom6 guys if their development plateaus. When the Wings had their best fourth lines, they were stocked with guys who were pretty decent scorers in the lower leagues. I know that's easier said than done, but if you're drafting guys who appear to have relatively low ceilings from the start there isn't a lot of space for them to fall before they aren't NHLers at all.

Should also be noted that Maltby and Draper came in from outside the organization in two seemingly minor moves.

 

[The Zermanator]

I think you need to draft guys who you see as having top6 upside but could max out as bottom6 guys if their development plateaus. When the Wings had their best fourth lines, they were stocked with guys who were pretty decent scorers in the lower leagues. I know that's easier said than done, but if you're drafting guys who appear to have relatively low ceilings from the start there isn't a lot of space for them to fall before they aren't NHLers at all.

Should also be noted that Maltby and Draper came in from outside the organization in two seemingly minor moves.

Yeah exactly. Look at just about any bottom 6 guy in the league and odds are they were probably seen as the 'skilled' guy on whatever teams they played for all the way until they hit the NHL. Hell, Maltby was a 50 goal scorer in juniors. But to stick in the NHL he had to become a different player.

The thing about bottom 6 players is that they are mostly made that way, not born that way. Being a bottom 6 guy is all about learning defensive responsibilities and developing a good work ethic so that they're always hustling. That's something that pretty well anyone can learn and develop, whereas you can't just learn to be McDavid.

So to get at BinCookin's original question, no I don't think players who aren't thought to have top 6 upside should be drafted. Those bottom 6 players can either be found for relatively cheap on the UFA market or they can be developed out of players who didn't quite cut it in the top 6. The only type of 1-dimensional 'low potential' players I would draft are the Kivenmaki types. He's really small, he probably won't make any kind of NHL impact, but if he does it'll probably be a big one.

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

You're talking about mentoring. He's talking about competition and habit forming in general. Teammates need to push each other to compete harder in order to improve and stay on top of their game. That's why work ethic (which is a big part of character) is so highly valued. You need both mentoring and a healthy competitive environment to foster good team culture. It's worth noting that team culture isn't the same as organizational culture. You seem to be using them interchangeably.

I'd argue that they are one and the same. An organization is able to dictate the culture both on and off the ice and can make moves that will create the culture that they want through the hiring of staff, FA signings, and draft choices. An example would be Lou Lamoriello and his no fun nobody is bigger than the team style of managing. Players buy in regardless because they have no other choice. As well, you create a healthy and competitive environment just by having young prospects at the prospect camp. They understand what is at stake and want to impress the organization, you don't need to have "Leadership Players" at the camp to create the competitive environment.

I don't disagree that having players with good work ethic is important but it isn't really the point of the discussion here. Henkka was attempting to make the point that the 2017 draft was not a failure because the Wings were attempting to create an environment that would foster success. That by selecting the players they did the Wings would have a successful draft because they created this environment, even if the players they selected never amount to anything. I think it's a bit of a ridiculous way to evaluate the draft, and an even poorer draft strategy for a professional organization. You should have some form of a character test in your screening process but don't make it more important than it really is, which is a secondary or tertiary factor.

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

^^ Very interesting discussion guys. Just a few additional thoughts:

1) Should "replacable" "bottom 6" players not be drafted?, and rather traded for using 3rd and 4th round picks.

2) With so many teams pushing for more and more important drafting... I have noticed better and better NHL players are available for 2nd round picks. Its possible that building a team by trading draft picks for talent (for nearly every player but a superstar) seems to be a viable strategy

3) When we talk about character players, or size players, or skill players. I am not sure these definitions are well established. I think it would be an idiotic strategy to draft the best hands 5'7'' players from 3rd to 7th round just because we are looking for the next Gaudreau. Also if we never draft a big D man... how will we ever have any Big D men?? (see (1))

4) Rasmussen is not a "size only pick"... He was going to be drafted in the top 15-20th picks for a reason. It will take 2-3 more years before redrafts make sense for 2017... but i highly doubt Rasmussen falls out of the top 20.

5) We are approaching top 5 picks now. First one was Zadina. We all hope it works out. But the REAL talent is going to come to us in the next 1-2 years. Cross our fingers for that Lottery... We need the Luck too.

1) If the upside that can be projected is just that of a bottom 6 player I would have that player further down the list; you could use a system similar to what is suggested here to aid in the decision making process. Replacement level players, typically defined as someone you can sign for minimal amounts and readily find, shouldn't be traded for nor should they be your goal of a draft pick. Having a skilled, higher upside player develop into a bottom liner is different than having the bottom liner develop and meet their potential. For example, last year you could have signed Ennis, Radil, Kuhnhackl, Dowd, Grimaldi, etc. for all sub 1M caphit and all can play in the bottom 6.

2) It all depends on where your team is in terms of their asset mode. If you're coming out of a rebuild and have a bit of a full cupboard than it makes more sense to move your 2nd round picks, even a late 1st in some instances. I wouldn't trade many picks just because of the cost certainty they can provide

3) I think it comes down to how you view the draft. I want my team to try and create the most excess value possible, if that means we select only sub 6 foot forwards then so be it. A player isn't valuable or less valuable just because of their size, you need context, can they score, can they generate zone entries, etc. The best indicator of a player being able to score in the NHL is if they can score at previous levels. Given that elite players, top 6 players, etc. all cost the most to acquire either in FA or trade it's my belief that every player picked should have some chance of reaching those levels.

4) Ras is not just a size pick but he's also not really a "max" upside pick either. If we were aiming for that I think the pick would have been Necas/Vilardi; given we were picking at 9 a 2nd/3rd liner is a reasonable outcome for a player selected in that range. He wasn't who I wanted but it's not my biggest peeve with the draft.

5) I think that's why it's important the team focuses on maximizing the value. The typical difference between the most valuable and 2nd most valuable player in a draft is huge so I really hope they just focus on who taking who is the best player should we pick #1.

 

[DetroitRed]

Rasmussen wouldn't have been my pick in 2017, but I still don't think he's really behind schedule as far as development. I think he's in the NHL a little earlier than normal because he is the Red Wings' best option for that roster spot, ready or not.

Also, the line he's on is one of the worst in the league. That impacts his production.

There are a couple guys picked after Rasmussen who have slightly outdone him in points so far, but not by so much that I have given up on him as a prospect.

I will say that for a guy Blashill expects to provide a physical presence, Rasmussen's hasn't been especially physically aggressive. His size is a natural advantage for him around the net but beyond what natural advantage his size provides, he doesn't really go out of his way to throw his size around. That could just be his age or it could be that it's just not his style of play. Either way, I think he'll eventually adjust.

I guess if you already wanted to do a redraft for 2017 just based on point totals from this season, Rasmussen would be drafted 8th, one spot sooner than he was drafted in 2017 (9th over all). And remember that although he was picked 9th, he was ranked more like 10th. Yet, we can't even say for sure he's ultimately going to work for us yet. So, that's a good indication that it's too early to call him a good pick or a bad pick.

 

[Oddbob]

Rasmussen wouldn't have been my pick in 2017, but I still don't think he's really behind schedule as far as development. I think he's in the NHL a little earlier than normal because he is the Red Wings' best option for that roster spot, ready or not. Also, the line he's on is one of the worst in the league. There are a couple guys picked after Rasmussen who have slightly outdone him in points so far, but not by so much that I have given up on him as a prospect.

I will say that for a guy Blashill expects to provide a physical presence, Rasmussen's hasn't been especially physically aggressive. His size is a natural advantage for him around the net but beyond what natural advantage his size provides, he doesn't really go out of his way to throw his size around. That could just be his age or it could be that it's just not his style of play. Either way, I think he'll eventually adjust.

I guess if you already wanted to do a redraft for 2017 just based on point totals from this season, Rasmussen would be drafted 8th, one spot sooner than he was drafted in 2017 (9th over all). And remember that although he was picked 9th, he was ranked more like 10th. Yet, we can't even say for sure he's ultimately going to work for us yet. So, that's a good indication that it's too early to call him a good pick or a bad pick.

The physical thing isn't fair at all, at this point. He is a 19 year old boy, he is going to mature physically to becoming a man, and when he add that little more size he will be the power forward he is hoped to be. He already knows what to do in front of the net on the PP, as he has been pretty good at being a distraction in front of the net. If he adds another 10-20 pounds in the next 1-2 years, it will make a world of difference, as defenders will not being able to push him around as easily as they can right now.

 

[DetroitRed]

The physical thing isn't fair at all, at this point. He is a 19 year old boy, he is going to mature physically to becoming a man, and when he add that little more size he will be the power forward he is hoped to be. He already knows what to do in front of the net on the PP, as he has been pretty good at being a distraction in front of the net. If he adds another 10-20 pounds in the next 1-2 years, it will make a world of difference, as defenders will not being able to push him around as easily as they can right now.

Okay, but I did say that it could be just his age and that I think he will adjust.

I really think that for physicality there is a huge gap between the juniors and the AHL. Even between the WHL and AHL there is a huge gap. Rasmussen skipped the AHL. So for him the gap is even larger. That isn't lost on me.

 

[Debrincat93]

League average per draft is two NHL players. If Lindstrom shows up which seems pretty likely thus far at worst we hit league average on what you can expect in this draft and in a weak draft to boot.

you shouldnt be aiming for league average when you had 6 picks in the top 88.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

you shouldnt be aiming for league average when you had 6 picks in the top 88.

We also don't know if they will really only have two guys anyway since this thread is three years too early for most of these gripes. In what is shaping up as a bad draft year there isn't much to this thread in terms of the premature claiming.

It might turn out to be as bad as some think it was. On the flip side you had people pumping Jurco's tires like crazy this far from his draft and Bertuzzi was still an lol pick.

The instant push to grade these drafts and players this early in the process has benefits and pitfalls. You can shape whatever argument you want on this small of sizes and an example of that would be in a decade when they deconstruct this class landing 3 NHL guys in the top 88 might turn out good by the numbers. We are too close to have absolute statements. The averages listed were for an average draft not a below average draft as well in terms of the narrative currently being discussed.

 

[Go Wings]

Unfortunately the 2017 looks as bad as it did when Detroit drafted these players. Focusing on size and character in today's NHL is just plain stupid. There is still lots of time to see how this plays out but it still looks like crap considering the amount and where those picks were.

Skill and speed like they did in the 2018 is what Detroit should always be focusing on.

 

[Ezekial]

You're talking about mentoring. He's talking about competition and habit forming in general. Teammates need to push each other to compete harder in order to improve and stay on top of their game. That's why work ethic (which is a big part of character) is so highly valued. You need both mentoring and a healthy competitive environment to foster good team culture. It's worth noting that team culture isn't the same as organizational culture. You seem to be using them interchangeably.

Brad Marchand just did a player's tribune article and mentioned 2 guys that stuck out to me for this reason specifically:

There’ve been several guys along the way who really helped me grow from a 20-year-old kid with a ton of question marks into the player I am today.
My first couple years in the league, I really learned a lot from Gregory Campbell on and off the ice – how to train, how to push myself harder, how to do more than the bare minimum. He taught me how to compete and work long after practice was over so I could improve different areas of my game.
Off the ice, Chris Kelly made a huge impact on me in teaching me how to be a professional. Becoming a successful player in the NHL is about so much more than what you can do on the ice. If you want to stick around the league, you need to learn how to be a good teammate in the locker room and an even better friend outside of it. And no one was a better mentor for me in that area than Kells.

Built for Boston | By Brad Marchand

 

[Ezekial]

you shouldnt be aiming for league average when you had 6 picks in the top 88.

And 2 in the top 70*

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

^^ Very interesting discussion guys. Just a few additional thoughts:

1) Should "replacable" "bottom 6" players not be drafted?, and rather traded for using 3rd and 4th round picks.

If you are really willing to step back and be brutally honest, almost no one taken past the second round projects as anything more than a bottom six player on draft day. They are all missing something that makes them obviously projectable as a top-six player. The average player taken in the fourth through seventh rounds is just not that attractive (which is also why NHL teams aren't looking to trade established players (even bottom six ones) for those picks. What we see from time to time is a player make massive post-draft developmental gains.

To me the organization should be looking to draft the most effective NHL player that they can with every pick. At times this will be a player with strong puck skills but other deficiencies. At other times it will be a guy who isn't great at any one thing but has really strong hockey IQ. At other times it will be a guy with well above average skating, at still other times it will be a big guy who shows some ability to score goals and works well off of the cycle. At other times it may be a hyper competitive player that plays an abrasive game. There is no one thing apart from maybe hockey IQ that makes all players effective at the NHL level. There are a ton of ways to skin the NHL cat.

I get that fans are frustrated with where the Wings are at and want a quick rebuild. If fans are expecting a player of Pav or Z's caliber to come walking through the late rounds of the draft, however, they are going to be really disappointed. Drafting just isn't that easy.

 

[Debrincat93]

And 2 in the top 70*

not sure i follow your point there?

 

[Debrincat93]

We also don't know if they will really only have two guys anyway since this thread is three years too early for most of these gripes. In what is shaping up as a bad draft year there isn't much to this thread in terms of the premature claiming.

It might turn out to be as bad as some think it was. On the flip side you had people pumping Jurco's tires like crazy this far from his draft and Bertuzzi was still an lol pick.

The instant push to grade these drafts and players this early in the process has benefits and pitfalls. You can shape whatever argument you want on this small of sizes and an example of that would be in a decade when they deconstruct this class landing 3 NHL guys in the top 88 might turn out good by the numbers. We are too close to have absolute statements. The averages listed were for an average draft not a below average draft as well in terms of the narrative currently being discussed.

true, but its almost safe to say we can essentially write off Zablocki and more then likely Gallant as well. I saw Kotkansalo twice, so limited showings, but just never impressed with anything.

only time will tell, but with all those picks, looking back.. i wasnt a fan of most of the picks then, and 2-3 years later, it really hasnt changed.

 

[TCNorthstars]

not sure i follow your point there?

You say 6 in the top 88 like it is a lot of high picks like the 2018 draft where we had 4 in the top 36.

It was 2 in the top 38. And then 4 from 70-88. And each one of those 4 in the 70-88 range have a 25% chance of becoming an NHL player.

Your point was quite disingenuous. Do you follow now?

 

[Debrincat93]

You say 6 in the top 88 like it is a lot of high picks like the 2018 draft where we had 4 in the top 36.

It was 2 in the top 38. And then 4 from 70-88. And each one of those 4 in the 70-88 range have a 25% chance of becoming an NHL player.

Your point was quite disingenuous. Do you follow now?

because, it is a lot of picks in the first three rounds.
Go back and take a look at some of the talent over the years that you find in round 3 and get back to me.
good talk.
Follow that now? good.

 

[Frk It]

I will never support the philosophy they went with on this one, but it is what it is.

When your Director of Scouting feels like he has to reassure people immediately after a draft they are going to take more skilled guys next year, that is telling.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

In 2017 they clearly decided on purpose to go a specific route and my guess is that route was established/determined weeks before the first pick was ever made.

Their is always skill to be found from round 3 on, you just have to be open to seeing it.

I think the brass were simply looking harder in other directions, not because of availability but rather philosophy.

 

[TCNorthstars]

because, it is a lot of picks in the first three rounds.
Go back and take a look at some of the talent over the years that you find in round 3 and get back to me.
good talk.
Follow that now? good.

It was 4 picks in the 3rd round and 3rd round pick have a low low success rate.

Looking back a few years you in the 3rd round you have 1 star player in Brayden Point from the 3rd round. A few really good ones with Guentzel, Parayko, Gostibehere, Pesce, Trocheck and Anderson. Then a a bunch of replacement level players and guys who couldn't make it.

So out you have 1 star (.05% of total 3rd rounders drafted) and 6 really good ones (3% of total 3rd rounders drafted). You have 37 players that have played 100 games or more in the NHL (20% of total 3rd rounders drafted)


2010:
Gudas, Rust, Nordstrom with the most games Rust @ .45 p/gm; 40% have played an NHL game; 23% have played more than 100

2011:
Trocheck, Lowry, Cousins with the most games played; Trocheck @ .67 ppg; 76% have played 1 30% have played more than 100

2012:
Gostibehere, Parayko, Andersen with the most games played: Ghost best @ .63 ppg; 60% have played 1; 40% have played more than 100

2013:
Duclair, Janmark, Pesce with most games; Guenzel with .77 ppg; 56% have played 1 game; 30% have played more than 100

2014:
Point is the best and has most games; Point with .87 ppg; 33% have played 1 game; 3% have played more than 100

2015:
Kinda too soon to tell but Cirelli has the most games; Cirelli .48ppg. Nobody else has scored a point; 20% have played a game; 0% have played more than 100