2017 Draft

[Magic Mittens]

Campbell had a lot of hype in his draft year iirc. Like Satan said, Campbell dominated the WJ's. I dont recall where he was ranked, but it was the first round

 

[Mr Misty]

JC seems to have made his rep on one tourney, Otter by stellar long term play. If there is a rule that applies here, its "Don't draft the late risers...."

Oh wait, Nill drafted Miro who was by most accounts a late riser.......

Actually, the real rule in play is "Don't hire a rookie GM just because he won the Conn Smythe Trophy during your Cup run." And, "Make sure your scouting department is well staffed, thorough and knowledgeable."

Seriously, IIRC, during bankruptcy Stars had one of the smaller scouting depts., no? Also, no goalie coach, just rectified, also contributing to the pick and failure of JC.

Nieuwendyk drafted Smith Chiasson Vincour McKenzie Nemeth Guptil Klingberg Oleksiak Ritchie Jokipakka Faksa Shore Lindell Smith as players who make it to 82 NHL games or are traded for NHL help, rounding up players in bold.

Meanwhile Glennie Campbell Theriau Molin Vance Stransky Bystrom Winther Trook Kiviaho Sinitsyn do not make this cut.

Over the same number of drafts, Nill drafts Nichushkin Dickinson Elie Paul Honka Pollock Gurianov

Probable busts Desrosiers Paulovic Makela Peters Moran Karjalainen Haydon Sanvido

Too early to tell Hansson Ully Prapavessis Nyberg Hintz Martenet Ceccioni Ruusu Tufte Karlstrom Gardner Point Caamano Stenqvist

GMJN1 14/25
GMJN2 7/29 so far, need 9.25 of that last group to be NHL useful to achieve same success rate. Gonna be tough IMO.

 

[Benneguin]

It is rare your last draft pick has any value at all, yet ours helped net a top pair D man.

I wonder what Pred fans would think of that after losing the Finals in a goal scored by a player who got picked dead last in the draft (Hornqist).

 

[Troy McClure]

Nieuwendyk drafted Smith Chiasson Vincour McKenzie Nemeth Guptil Klingberg Oleksiak Ritchie Jokipakka Faksa Shore Lindell Smith as players who make it to 82 NHL games or are traded for NHL help, rounding up players in bold.

Meanwhile Glennie Campbell Theriau Molin Vance Stransky Bystrom Winther Trook Kiviaho Sinitsyn do not make this cut.

Over the same number of drafts, Nill drafts Nichushkin Dickinson Elie Paul Honka Pollock Gurianov

Probable busts Desrosiers Paulovic Makela Peters Moran Karjalainen Haydon Sanvido

Too early to tell Hansson Ully Prapavessis Nyberg Hintz Martenet Ceccioni Ruusu Tufte Karlstrom Gardner Point Caamano Stenqvist

GMJN1 14/25
GMJN2 7/29 so far, need 9.25 of that last group to be NHL useful to achieve same success rate. Gonna be tough IMO.

Nieuwy is winning the warm body battle, but we are hoping Nill wins the high end battle. I'd rather have a handful of good players over a plethora of spares.

 

[Mr Misty]

Nieuwy is winning the warm body battle, but we are hoping Nill wins the high end battle. I'd rather have a handful of good players over a plethora of spares.

It's Klingberg to 0 on that front right now and Nieuwendyk acquired 3/4 of the Seguin pieces and 2/3 of the Spezza ones. Obviously it's too soon to call a winner here but the context is important.

 

[Troy McClure]

It's Klingberg to 0 on that front right now and Nieuwendyk acquired 3/4 of the Seguin pieces and 2/3 of the Spezza ones. Obviously it's too soon to call a winner here but the context is important.

It really comes down to the first rounders, since that's where the high end talent is found. If a couple of Nill's first round picks turn into quality NHLers, he'll easily pass Nieuwy.

Not that it's a high bar. Nieuwy blew every one of his first round picks when he was picking in spots where finding quality NHL players isn't hard. No pick is a sure thing, but 0 for 3 there is terrible.

 

[LT]

Nieuwendyk drafted Smith Chiasson Vincour McKenzie Nemeth Guptil Klingberg Oleksiak Ritchie Jokipakka Faksa Shore Lindell Smith as players who make it to 82 NHL games or are traded for NHL help, rounding up players in bold.

Meanwhile Glennie Campbell Theriau Molin Vance Stransky Bystrom Winther Trook Kiviaho Sinitsyn do not make this cut.

Over the same number of drafts, Nill drafts Nichushkin Dickinson Elie Paul Honka Pollock Gurianov

Probable busts Desrosiers Paulovic Makela Peters Moran Karjalainen Haydon Sanvido

Too early to tell Hansson Ully Prapavessis Nyberg Hintz Martenet Ceccioni Ruusu Tufte Karlstrom Gardner Point Caamano Stenqvist

GMJN1 14/25
GMJN2 7/29 so far, need 9.25 of that last group to be NHL useful to achieve same success rate. Gonna be tough IMO.

Counting traded for NHL help is bad. Just because they were traded doesn't mean they panned out.

Guptill is a bust. Vincour is pretty much a bust (he looked okay for a time). The rest have at worst been serviceable.

 

[LT]

IIRC, Picard was rated higher than Campbell on several scouting services, and ISS didn't have a goalie in the top 30. On top of that, you passed on a fairly consensus Top 5 talent in Fowler.

It may not be fair entirely to say one was better than the other. Oettinger clearly played higher competition as a starter in the NCAA his draft year, but right or wrong, and it seems more wrong than right, Campbell excelled at the WJC where Oettinger was a back up. I personally think it's reasonable to say Oettinger is considered a more established prospect at 18 than Campbell.

In terms of reaching for a guy, Campbell was a reach according to most people. Now, I can't recall the exact team, for some reason I want to say Atlanta, but I'm fairly confident that as we approached the draft, there were rumblings Atlanta was considering taking him ... at I want to say 8 but I'd have to look it up.

Unless I'm forgetting a specific example of people have Campbell highly rated, he was for sure not the consensus number 1 goalie like Oettinger was, and I'm almost certain he wasn't a consensus 1st round pick. That said, I do recall it wasn't a surprise Dallas took him. The only reason I vaguely remember the Atlanta story (assuming that's the right team) is there were already reports Dallas would likely take Campbell, and I just remember hoping desperately that the other team would take the decision out of Dallas' hands.

Campbell definitely got a lot of first round talk.

The way it sounded, we had him at #3 on our list behind Hall and Seguin. Only guys who had "superstar potential". And I recall hearing that at least one other unnamed team had him high as well, but maybe I'm imagining that.

 

[Morry83]

Based on what? It's hard to compare because Oettinger is a late birthdate so he was able to go to college this year, and posted great stats. However, Oettinger was the 3rd string goalie for Team USA behind Woll and Parsons.

In Campbell's draft year he dominated at the U18s and then eventually helped the US win gold at the WJC, while posting better USNTDP stats that Oettinger did in 15-16.


It's a lot closer than you make it sound.

You bring up valid points for sure. I really just basing it off what I saw of both. I'm much more impressed with Oettinger. And in addition, the size advantage he has over Campbell makes him a safer bet in my opinion. Derek Neumeier had a pretty good breakdown as to why Oettinger is better.

I'm not saying the difference between them is like Carey Price and Cristopher Nilstorp, but I think Oettinger is certainly the better goalie at the same age. Just my opinion though I guess haha

 

[txomisc]

Campbell definitely got a lot of first round talk.

The way it sounded, we had him at #3 on our list behind Hall and Seguin. Only guys who had "superstar potential". And I recall hearing that at least one other unnamed team had him high as well, but maybe I'm imagining that.

campbells hype was in the top half of the first round. Most scouting reports labeled him as incredibly confident and a potential franchise goalie. Apparently what was said was something to the effect of "if he was there at 11 we were going to take him" so yeah it definitely sounded like he was 3rd on their list.

 

[Benneguin]

We can debate this later when both Oettinger and Campbell are LA Kings, one as the starter and the other the backup.

 

[OttMorrow]

I don't see how Oettinger becoming elite has anything to do with sacrificing the 70th pick to draft him. That really doesn't make any sense.

I'm not at all concerned about 70...I'm concerned at passing up on one of Tolvanen or Kostin.

 

[txomisc]

OttMorrow you keep listing ifs regarding Oettinger, yet fail to recognize the same ifs apply to any player we would've drafted at 29. It's still a massive crapshoot that late in the first and we more than made up for the pick when we snagged Robertson at 39.


I don't see how Oettinger becoming elite has anything to do with sacrificing the 70th pick to draft him. That really doesn't make any sense.

we may very well have taken robertson at 29, cant be sure. But yeah drafting at 70 we arent too likely to get all that great of a prospect.

 

[Mr Misty]

Counting traded for NHL help is bad. Just because they were traded doesn't mean they panned out.

Guptill is a bust. Vincour is pretty much a bust (he looked okay for a time). The rest have at worst been serviceable.

Players have value as assets and on the ice, I'm not sure what's controversial in suggesting that finding somebody who is willing to part with a Spezza or a Russel in exchange for a prospect makes that pick a success. It's a -1 for Nieuwendyk but a -2 for Nill if that's the methodology you want to use and it means Nill needs 10 hits to keep pace.

 

[Troy McClure]

Players have value as assets and on the ice, I'm not sure what's controversial in suggesting that finding somebody who is willing to part with a Spezza or a Russel in exchange for a prospect makes that pick a success. It's a -1 for Nieuwendyk but a -2 for Nill if that's the methodology you want to use and it means Nill needs 10 hits to keep pace.

Your scoring system leaves a lot to be desired. Giving a GM a win for a spare like Vincour playing 82 games isn't right. Vincour only got those games because the team was broke and needed to promote any warm body in the system to play. On any other team, he tops out at ten games before being sent down forever and forgotten.

 

[LT]

Why not count Ferguson for Nill, then?

 

[Mr Misty]

Your scoring system leaves a lot to be desired. Giving a GM a win for a spare like Vincour playing 82 games isn't right. Vincour only got those games because the team was broke and needed to promote any warm body in the system to play. On any other team, he tops out at ten games before being sent down forever and forgotten.

That's a feeble argument. If you want that much context then no analysis is practically possible and getting out the budget stick hurts the case against Nieuwendyk more than it helps it. 4th most games of a pick in that round and more than a full season of NHL games but honestly what is the point? What about this would motivate somebody to jump to the defense of Jim Nill's drafting?

You give me a lot of credit by using the word methodology, I didn't put much thought in it except that a season of games excludes Glennie and Campbell from appearing like successes, as does being traded for an NHL player instead of an AHL or prospect swap. If you have a better system for determining success then use that by all means; I just wonder how much fudging of numbers does it take for Nill's 4 drafts to look more productive than Nieuwendyke's.

 

[Mr Misty]

Why not count Ferguson for Nill, then?

4 drafts vs 4 drafts. Tossing in a 1 for 7 isn't great for the rate if you are way pro Nill. He has more picks through 4 anyway. Find whatever way you want to show how much better Nill is, go nuts, who cares?

 

[Troy McClure]

That's a feeble argument. If you want that much context then no analysis is practically possible and getting out the budget stick hurts the case against Nieuwendyk more than it helps it. 4th most games of a pick in that round and more than a full season of NHL games but honestly what is the point? What about this would motivate somebody to jump to the defense of Jim Nill's drafting?

You give me a lot of credit by using the word methodology, I didn't put much thought in it except that a season of games excludes Glennie and Campbell from appearing like successes, as does being traded for an NHL player instead of an AHL or prospect swap. If you have a better system for determining success then use that by all means; I just wonder how much fudging of numbers does it take for Nill's 4 drafts to look more productive than Nieuwendyke's.

Don't take my post as defending Nill's drafting. I'm still waiting on it to yield even one quality NHLer. There are still high hopes for some guys who have yet to get a chance in the NHL, but I'm not ready to praise Nill until they pan out. Thanks to Nichushkin being a wasted pick, Nill's drafts haven't yielded any meaningful help yet.

I was more responding to what looked like a defens of Nieuwy's drafting, which I don't get. Nieuwy's drafting wasn't very good. The dumb luck of Klingberg working out can't erase missing on the top end guys he did three seasons in a row.

 

[LT]

Actually, half of the 14 players Misty listed are either already out of the NHL, or are at best bottom line players. Kind of skews the numbers.

Of the players drafted by Nieuwendyk, Klingberg is clearly the best. I'd argue Reilly Smith is next, then Faksa, then one of Ritchie/Lindell/Shore. For four years of drafting, that's not a good set of players to be the best from four years of drafting, especially for a team doing as poorly as we did.

I also don't think it's fair to evaluate any of Nill's drafts yet. Dickinson was his second pick ever, and he's only just now getting a legitimate shot at an NHL position. We do have the advantage of seeing Nieuwendyk's drafts 5+ years after the fact, which allows us to really know what we got. We don't have that luxury with Nill's yet.

I'm not trying to defend either of them, but let's not paint this like Nieuwendyk was a draft genius and Nill is terrible at it.

 

[LT]

4 drafts vs 4 drafts. Tossing in a 1 for 7 isn't great for the rate if you are way pro Nill. He has more picks through 4 anyway. Find whatever way you want to show how much better Nill is, go nuts, who cares?

Why are we counting players that are too soon to tell in the total? That makes absolutely no sense and only serves to make his percentages worse.

 

[BigG44]

Why are we counting players that are too soon to tell in the total? That makes absolutely no sense and only serves to make his percentages worse.

I'd argue this is the most important point. Like Troy said, Dallas was quick to promote under GM Joe because they lacked funds and filled out the roster with ELC's or bargain players for the most part.

It's seems silly to compare Nill's 4 right now to GM Joe's 4. Nill's slower to promote. Trying to paint Dickinson spending 2 years in the AHL after his 20 year old season as a negative seems strange and a little dishonest. Most prospects under Nill are going to spend close to if not all of their waiver exempt years in the AHL.

If there weren't a crazy amount of injuries last year, I don't think Shore would have spent a ton of time in Dallas. The only people Nill is really pulling up early are guys who can play a bigger role like Top 6 Forward or Top 4 defender. Otherwise, he's been slower to promote, and honestly that's likely a very good thing.

 

[Mr Misty]

I'm not trying to defend either of them, but let's not paint this like Nieuwendyk was a draft genius and Nill is terrible at it.

The post that I was initially responding to had the opposite of this as its thesis, something that isn't really supported by facts. And what you say here is a straw man.

It doesn't make a ton of sense to say some of those players are just 4th liners or out of the NHL when the same commitment to judging them as they are at exactly this moment is not the standard you are applying to Nill's picks.

If you think more than 9 of those players are going to meet or exceed Vincour's career, say so.

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

I can't recall anyone really defending Niewy's drafting to any large degree.

My complaints on him were changing drafting style every year, and recall his first draft when he seemed bizarrely disconnected and uninformed as to why they took Glennie. Just didn't impress me.

Nill does seem to go for skill and the home runs whereas Niewy seemed to make safe picks from 2008-2012. You would expect a lot of bottom half talent out of Niewys picks and this forum never rated his prospect systems highly, although they did feel Nill inherited quantity but not quality. Nill wisely used that quantity in the lopsided Seguin and Spezza deals. He did so after a long review of the system, where he decided pretty quickly who was going to stay and which prospects had to go.

I didn't recall Niewy rushing young ones in the league. In fact, I remember him recycling old guys most years rather than bring up the "yutes" for any meaningful minutes. Names like Souray, Fiddler, Dvorak, Pardy, Jake Dowell, Nystrom and Burish, were all brought in as vets because the young prospects were never deemed ready.

21-22 year olds who played in 2011 included Vincour and Phillip Larsen. In 2008, Benn, Neal and Niskanen made the team, and others played few games as other washed up vets took the minutes.

If you held a party for those who believed Niewy was a better drafter and skill evaluator than Nill, you could rent a pretty small room, no?

 

[Mr Misty]

I can't recall anyone really defending Niewy's drafting to any large degree.

My complaints on him were changing drafting style every year, and recall his first draft when he seemed bizarrely disconnected and uninformed as to why they took Glennie. Just didn't impress me.

Nill does seem to go for skill and the home runs whereas Niewy seemed to make safe picks from 2008-2012. You would expect a lot of bottom half talent out of Niewys picks and this forum never rated his prospect systems highly, although they did feel Nill inherited quantity but not quality. Nill wisely used that quantity in the lopsided Seguin and Spezza deals. He did so after a long review of the system, where he decided pretty quickly who was going to stay and which prospects had to go.

I didn't recall Niewy rushing young ones in the league. In fact, I remember him recycling old guys most years rather than bring up the "yutes" for any meaningful minutes. Names like Souray, Fiddler, Dvorak, Pardy, Jake Dowell, Nystrom and Burish, were all brought in as vets because the young prospects were never deemed ready.

21-22 year olds who played in 2011 included Vincour and Phillip Larsen. In 2008, Benn, Neal and Niskanen made the team, and others played few games as other washed up vets took the minutes.

If you held a party for those who believed Niewy was a better drafter and skill evaluator than Nill, you could rent a pretty small room, no?

Where do you get this stuff? We were a top 10 farm system in the NHL according to Hockey's Future. Not an easy task when you don't have any top 5 picks. And how many Nill picks helped win the Calder Cup? 12 Nieuwendyk picks on that team's roster on hockeydb, 12 being 1/2 of his total picks as GM once you subtract the traded Reilly Smith.

And criticism of Nieuwendyk for signing vets is lunacy. He went for older players because there were no young ones to speak of . That should be such an obvious thing. Jake Dowell didn't take a spot from Scott Winkler or Matt Tassone or Aaron Snow or David McIntyre or Max Warn because none of these picks were any good. "Dvorak is taking Ondrej Roman's spot!" said nobody ever.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2107227&highlight=prospect is about all the records I can find of HFStars' appraisal of our system. Our top 20 in GMJN's year 3 has 4 players who came into the system before he became GM. At the same point in Nill's tenure in 2015 the list is 1/2 Nieuwendyk picks.

Reilly Smith has been a 1st line forward by production twice, 50 points being the 90th place cutoff this year. In his first full year, Ritchie scored goals at a 2nd line pace and with a little work he'll get to 20. Shore and Faksa in their 1st full seasons both were top 6 forwards by points. Klingberg has been on the top pair for most of 3 seasons. Lindell had his struggles as a rookie but if we assume he can improve I think it's fair to say he's a future #4. That's 1 top 6 forward and half a top 4 defenseman per draft, plus a bunch of other stuff for the bottom pair and 4th line.

If you think that Nieuwendyk was bad at the draft, what does it say that Nill is struggling to keep pace with him despite having more picks including an extra 1st? Maybe it's too soon to judge Nill's picks at all but Smith topped 50 points in draft +5 and +7; Nichushkin, Dickinson, and Elie were taken at least a round before him and are getting ready for their +5 season. Where is the over/under on 50+ point NHL seasons in their combined careers?