GDT: 2018 Trade Deadline Thread

[kliq]

I posted the following back in 2016 somewhere else, and I posted this here in another thread a month or so ago. It seems relevant again based on the last page or so, so I'll post again.

Essentially I took the top 20 d-men based on points and I broke down their draft position. See the results below:

1/20 drafted in top 5
2/20 drafted between 6-10
3/20 drafted between 11-15
1/20 drafted between 16-30
13/20 drafted out of the first round/not drafted

1) Erik Karlsson -15th overall
2) Brent Burns – 20th overall
3) Kris Letang – 62nd overall
4) John Klingberg – 131st overall
5) Roman Josi – 38th overall
6) P.K. Subban 43rd overall
7) Oliver Ekman-Larsson – 6th overall
8) Mark Giordano – undrafted
9) Tyson Barrie – 64th overall
10) Ryan Suter – 7th overall
11) Shea Weber – 49th overall
12) Drew Doughty 2nd overall
13) Dustin Byfuglien - 245th overall
14) Brent Seabrook – 14th overall
15) Duncan Keith – 54th overall
16) T.J. Brodie – 114th overall
17) Andrei Markov – 162nd overall
18) Keith Yandle – 105th overall
19) Shayne Gostisbehere – 78th overall
20) Kevin Shattenkirk – 14th overall

 

[OldnotDeadWings]

It. Is. Rare.

Because you have hundreds of picks in the later rounds versus just 5-15 or whatever your cutoff is for the first round. There's literally 210 picks every draft. If you find 3 elite d-men in picks 16-210, that's more elite d-men than finding 2 in the top 15 picks. It's also 13.3% of finding an elite d-man versus 1.5%. The gap in probability is huge and cannot be ignored.

I think there's pretty much a consensus on who the elite d-men are. Hedman's never won a Norris. Is he not elite now? There might be slight disagreements around the edges, but let's be honest here, most people will agree on most defensemen as to their elite status.

I can safely say you’ve missed the point. I’m not using “hundreds of picks” to find more elite defensemen compared to the relatively few picked in the top five or ten of the lottery. I’m using same-size sample groups based on the percentage of defensemen picked in an average draft. The "quality" of peak-performing outliers in a particular draft will vary according to the overall quality of that Draft, but any study will show that these annual peak performers will be found at a near equal rate through the first three same-size sample groups. The average quality declines from one group to the next, the number of peak performers does not.

Of course Hedman is an elite player although he has not yet won a Norris Trophy. So was Shea Weber (the 14th overall defenseman picked in 2003) even though he never won a Norris. It does not change the point that your original claim of elite players being "incredibly rare" to find outside the top five of a Draft is patently wrong in regard to defensemen.

 

[Red Stanley]

Might I ask, to what achievable goal are those lower teams pulling themselves up towards, instead of going after the statistically best talent available? When it comes to token playoff teams facing real contenders, I think we've seen that movie (a few times).

Because if every non-contender team were run by an HFboards GM guru you'd end up with that situation. The irony is that it wouldn't solve anything at all, because the losers can't all finish dead last at the same time. It would be worse due to the lack of honest competition for the wild card spots. There is, of course, a clear benefit to being a part of either extreme, as I mentioned before.

I'd like to mention that your suggestion of incentivizing success through revenue sharing might actually be the most viable solution to discouraging intentional tanks. Removing the lottery is not an option at this point. It would go directly against their promotion of parity. That means smoothing the curve, which they've done. Disparity used to be greater before the cap and the lottery existed. It's going to get even smaller if they keep the lottery for any length of time. I don't think bottom dwellers will be consigned to hell as much as some people fear as they still have the advantage. Bubble teams won't be consigned to purgatory as much, either, as they at least have a chance at a top pick. I see that as a positive. It will literally come down to who can manage their resources better regardless of luck.

 

[OldnotDeadWings]

I posted the following back in 2016 somewhere else, and I posted this here in another thread a month or so ago. It seems relevant again based on the last page or so, so I'll post again.

Essentially I took the top 20 d-men based on points and I broke down their draft position. See the results below:

1/20 drafted in top 5
2/20 drafted between 6-10
3/20 drafted between 11-15
1/20 drafted between 16-30
13/20 drafted out of the first round/not drafted

1) Erik Karlsson -15th overall
2) Brent Burns – 20th overall
3) Kris Letang – 62nd overall
4) John Klingberg – 131st overall
5) Roman Josi – 38th overall
6) P.K. Subban 43rd overall
7) Oliver Ekman-Larsson – 6th overall
8) Mark Giordano – undrafted
9) Tyson Barrie – 64th overall
10) Ryan Suter – 7th overall
11) Shea Weber – 49th overall
12) Drew Doughty 2nd overall
13) Dustin Byfuglien - 245th overall
14) Brent Seabrook – 14th overall
15) Duncan Keith – 54th overall
16) T.J. Brodie – 114th overall
17) Andrei Markov – 162nd overall
18) Keith Yandle – 105th overall
19) Shayne Gostisbehere – 78th overall
20) Kevin Shattenkirk – 14th overall

That's another way of looking at it and underscores my point. You've divided players into groups of five, I used groups of six. I ignored all defensemen who were not among the first 18 defensemen selected in their Draft year. Similar result, although here you find high-scoring defensemen in the second group of five or the third group of five even more often than in the first group of five drafted overall. There's obviously more to being a defenseman than scoring, which is why I used Norris winners as well.

 

[jkutswings]

Because if every non-contender team were run by an HFboards GM guru you'd end up with that situation. The irony is that it wouldn't solve anything at all, because the losers can't all finish dead last at the same time. It would be worse due to the lack of honest competition for the wild card spots. There is, of course, a clear benefit to being a part of either extreme, as I mentioned before.

I'd like to mention that your suggestion of incentivizing success through revenue sharing might actually be the most viable solution to discouraging intentional tanks. Removing the lottery is not an option at this point. It would go directly against their promotion of parity. That means smoothing the curve, which they've done. Disparity used to be greater before the cap and the lottery existed. It's going to get even smaller if they keep the lottery for any length of time. I don't think bottom dwellers will be consigned to hell as much as some people fear as they still have the advantage. Bubble teams won't be consigned to purgatory as much, either, as they at least have a chance at a top pick. I see that as a positive. It will literally come down to who can manage their resources better regardless of luck.

Interesting comments, but you never answered my question. If these teams should feel compelled to aspire upward, what specifically are they aspiring to? And how realistic is that goal(s)?

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Do tell which teams should currently be tanking for their own good? Tie your answer with the Reagan era welfare state as seen through the lens of the modern NHL draft structure.

No teams should be tanking, but several of them should be rebuilding.

 

[kliq]

If these teams should feel compelled to aspire upward, what specifically are they aspiring to? And how realistic is that goal(s)?

This way thinking though is 100% linked to the current lottery model. We have a model in place right now where if you are not a contender, you are theoretically better off tanking.

Given the current model, there is definitely an argument to be made for teams to aspire downwards instead of upwards unless they are headed towards being contenders. The problem, is it leads to a bad product on the ice and in some ways is beginning to open up pandora's box.

Teams should have the ability to try to improve without worrying that by getting slightly better, they are going to be worse off. This doesn't eliminate the need for a re-build, it would still make sense to sell off vets for draft picks, as by getting draft picks you are increasing your probability to becoming better. What it does do though, is it takes away the motivation to be BAD in order to land a top 3 pick. This is where I have my issue. Its not horrible yet in the NHL, but in the NBA it is getting out of hand. There are teams right in in the NBA benching good players because they want to lose (they were discussing the Bulls doing this just the other day on 97.1). Fans are cheering when their team loses, booing when their team wins. I feel like we are one step away a team indirectly telling players and/or coaches to not try because it will not help their draft odds. I dont want to watch a sport where only a handful of teams are trying to win. As of now, I cant blame the GM's for the approach, they are doing what they are allowed to do given the system, what I am challenging is the actual system.

This is why I want all non playoff teams to have a 1/15 shot. You are no better being Arizona or Buffalo then being Chicago or Detroit.

Just my two cents.

 

[kliq]

That's another way of looking at it and underscores my point. You've divided players into groups of five, I used groups of six. I ignored all defensemen who were not among the first 18 defensemen selected in their Draft year. Similar result, although here you find high-scoring defensemen in the second group of five or the third group of five even more often than in the first group of five drafted overall. There's obviously more to being a defenseman than scoring, which is why I used Norris winners as well.

I think its pretty clear, D-men and Goalies take longer to develop, so a lottery pick is not too much better then a late pick. Elite forwards, different story.

 

[odin1981]

I think the problem with the current lottery system is you pretty much have to be a bottom 3 team to get a good player to help build on a new core if you trust your teams scouting department. Because bottom 3 while it might not ensure a top 1/2 pick will at worst project a top 4/5 pick the way the system is set up now.

 

[jkutswings]

This way thinking though is 100% linked to the current lottery model. We have a model in place right now where if you are not a contender, you are theoretically better off tanking.

Given the current model, there is definitely an argument to be made for teams to aspire downwards instead of upwards unless they are headed towards being contenders. The problem, is it leads to a bad product on the ice and in some ways is beginning to open up pandora's box.

Teams should have the ability to try to improve without worrying that by getting slightly better, they are going to be worse off. This doesn't eliminate the need for a re-build, it would still make sense to sell off vets for draft picks, as by getting draft picks you are increasing your probability to becoming better. What it does do though, is it takes away the motivation to be BAD in order to land a top 3 pick. This is where I have my issue. Its not horrible yet in the NHL, but in the NBA it is getting out of hand. There are teams right in in the NBA benching good players because they want to lose (they were discussing the Bulls doing this just the other day on 97.1). Fans are cheering when their team loses, booing when their team wins. I feel like we are one step away a team indirectly telling players and/or coaches to not try because it will not help their draft odds. I dont want to watch a sport where only a handful of teams are trying to win. As of now, I cant blame the GM's for the approach, they are doing what they are allowed to do given the system, what I am challenging is the actual system.

This is why I want all non playoff teams to have a 1/15 shot. You are no better being Arizona or Buffalo then being Chicago or Detroit.

Just my two cents.

I hear what you're saying, but it still doesn't include a tangible goal(s).

Say the lottery rules are magically changed tomorrow, whether to give all 15 teams outside the playoffs a 1/15 chance, or even to the extreme of giving everybody but the Cup winner a 1/30 chance. So targeting the #1 pick is out.

What is there for a Detroit or New York or Montreal or Vancouver to shoot for? They're not making the playoffs, let alone advancing. Now they're not getting any better chance at the top player, either. So, besides just playing out the string, what's their target? The ever nebulous, "get better"? Or seeing their young players developing? That's not any different than any other team in the league, including playoff teams that have something real to chase.

Leveling the playing field for the top of the draft just removes the last hope that bad teams have to take more than baby steps to improving. Get ready for 10-15 year rebuilds, and Holland-style veteran specials all around.

 

[kliq]

I hear what you're saying, but it still doesn't include a tangible goal(s).

Say the lottery rules are magically changed tomorrow, whether to give all 15 teams outside the playoffs a 1/15 chance, or even to the extreme of giving everybody but the Cup winner a 1/30 chance. So targeting the #1 pick is out.

What is there for a Detroit or New York or Montreal or Vancouver to shoot for? They're not making the playoffs, let alone advancing. Now they're not getting any better chance at the top player, either. So, besides just playing out the string, what's their target? The ever nebulous, "get better"? Or seeing their young players developing? That's not any different than any other team in the league, including playoff teams that have something real to chase.

Leveling the playing field for the top of the draft just removes the last hope that bad teams have to take more than baby steps to improving. Get ready for 10-15 year rebuilds, and Holland-style veteran specials all around.

I think it all depends on your perspective. If you are a Montreal or Vancouver, you can still focus on trading away players you do not view as your future for more picks, but you can become active in free agency because signing a player or two is not going to hurt your draft odds, and you can become active in the trade market (something that is severely lacking in 2018).

Teams will no longer have to fixate on "does this move increase our probability of losing a lottery pick". I think it improves the integrity of the game, and law of averages would dictate that one teams won't hog those prized picks (ie. an Edmonton situation). I think this system only becomes a problem if you make it one. It also will make it unlikely for teams like Pittsburgh to become the super teams that they are (I do use this term loosely, I know its not the NBA). With this system you would never have a team land Fleury/Malkin/Crosby in back to back to back years, therefore leveling out the playing field and keeping more of a competitive balance at the very top. There is parity in today's NHL, but when you land 2 or 3 of those prized players, its tough to take that team down. I dont want to see Edmonton land Dahlin after already landing McDavid and co. The lesson this teaches teams is that the worse you do even when trying to get better helps you.

The tangible goal would become re-building while keeping a competitive balance with your team. IMO that is a better choice then what some teams are doing now (again not that I am even blaming them, this is a result of the system).

I also like the idea of teams being able to improve without having to absolutely suck for years and years which is what all of Pittsburgh/Chicago/LA did.

Hockey is such a unique sport given the lack of positions. In the NFL you can land an elite player almost anywhere in the draft because of the number of positions, same thing goes for the MLB. The NBA is having an even worse problem then the NHL, and the NHL is starting to go down that road.

Either way, IMO this is something I would like to see. If you don't, cool. Probably wont happen anyways.

 

[Frk It]

The current system doesn’t give Edmonton a good chance at Dahlin. It doesn’t give any team a good chance at Dahlin.

 

[jkutswings]

I think it all depends on your perspective. If you are a Montreal or Vancouver, you can still focus on trading away players you do not view as your future for more picks, but you can become active in free agency because signing a player or two is not going to hurt your draft odds, and you can become active in the trade market (something that is severely lacking in 2018).

Teams will no longer have to fixate on "does this move increase our probability of losing a lottery pick". I think it improves the integrity of the game, and law of averages would dictate that one teams won't hog those prized picks (ie. an Edmonton situation). I think this system only becomes a problem if you make it one. It also will make it unlikely for teams like Pittsburgh to become the super teams that they are (I do use this term loosely, I know its not the NBA). With this system you would never have a team land Fleury/Malkin/Crosby in back to back to back years, therefore leveling out the playing field and keeping more of a competitive balance at the very top. There is parity in today's NHL, but when you land 2 or 3 of those prized players, its tough to take that team down. I dont want to see Edmonton land Dahlin after already landing McDavid and co. The lesson this teaches teams is that the worse you do even when trying to get better helps you.

The tangible goal would become re-building while keeping a competitive balance with your team. IMO that is a better choice then what some teams are doing now (again not that I am even blaming them, this is a result of the system).

I also like the idea of teams being able to improve without having to absolutely suck for years and years which is what all of Pittsburgh/Chicago/LA did.

Hockey is such a unique sport given the lack of positions. In the NFL you can land an elite player almost anywhere in the draft because of the number of positions, same thing goes for the MLB. The NBA is having an even worse problem then the NHL, and the NHL is starting to go down that road.

Either way, IMO this is something I would like to see. If you don't, cool. Probably wont happen anyways.

Makes sense. We just have opposing views on parity in general, but that's fine.

 

[Red Stanley]

Interesting comments, but you never answered my question. If these teams should feel compelled to aspire upward, what specifically are they aspiring to? And how realistic is that goal(s)?

I did answer your question. Whether everyone competes or everyone doesn't it will end up the same. Only difference will be the overall level of competition. You're assuming only some will tank on purpose. That's why I specifically said the HFboards ideal will lead to this.

 

[jkutswings]

I did answer your question. Whether everyone competes or everyone doesn't it will end up the same. Only difference will be the overall level of competition. You're assuming only some will tank on purpose. That's why I specifically said the HFboards ideal will lead to this.

No, you said that parity will continue to increase over time. Which is another way of saying that there will be fewer and fewer teams worth watching each year.

Average hockey teams don't create memories. Or set records. Or inspire a young kid to become the next great NHL player. This league is fighting against what it doesn't realize it needs: greatness.

Now I know full well that truly great players only come along very rarely. But the fact that an Edmonton dynasty or The Russian Five or an alternating NJ/COL/DET string of championships will likely never happen again is a thing to pity, not a thing to celebrate. There should be great teams and awful teams, and if there's too many of the latter, the league should contract, not redistribute the incoming wealth.

 

[Red Stanley]

No teams should be tanking, but several of them should be rebuilding.

Something tells me you're not being entirely honest here, but whatever.

 

[kliq]

Makes sense. We just have opposing views on parity in general, but that's fine.

No, you said that parity will continue to increase over time. Which is another way of saying that there will be fewer and fewer teams worth watching each year.

Average hockey teams don't create memories. Or set records. Or inspire a young kid to become the next great NHL player. This league is fighting against what it doesn't realize it needs: greatness.

Now I know full well that truly great players only come along very rarely. But the fact that an Edmonton dynasty or The Russian Five or an alternating NJ/COL/DET string of championships will likely never happen again is a thing to pity, not a thing to celebrate. There should be great teams and awful teams, and if there's too many of the latter, the league should contract, not redistribute the incoming wealth.

My idea about the draft lottery is not so much a result of my opinion on parity, its more so my opinion on rewarding failure, but it definitely is a factor. My issue is with a team like Edmonton, they were not trying to tank after their first few 1st overall picks, they were just inept. I dont respect Edmonton, and do not want to see them get Dahlin.

If we are talking parity, I can appreciate a dynasty but for me its situational and I think it all depends on who you are a fan of.

In the NHL, since 2009 only 4 teams have won a championship (Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, Boston). In the NFL over that same period of time, we have seen 8 teams win a superbowl (New Orleans, Green Bay, NYG, Baltimore, Seattle, Denver, New England, and Philly). I can say without a doubt that I have enjoyed the Superbowl over the Cup finals much more over those 9 years and I am more of a hockey fan then a football fan. I've found the last decade of hockey the least enjoyable in my lifetime because it just seems that the same teams keep winning over and over again and I am not a fan of those teams outside of LA. I don't know a single person who was entertained watching the Hawks win their 2nd or 3rd championship, or seeing the Penguins win their last two. To be honest, most of the fans I know werent even watching. Now, when the Wings were winning, of course I was into it, but it doesnt get much more bias then that lol. This is what I mean by it depends on who you are a fan of.

I absolutely hate the dynamic in NBA right now. Having GS vs Cle 3 straight years is not entertaining for me. It makes the entire regular season feel like a waste of time. I'm a Raptors fan, and knowing that if my team makes the finals they will just likely be swept does not make me enjoy it more.

I guess it is just a difference of opinion, neither of us are "right" or "wrong". Some like seeing the same teams winning every year, some do not. Personally it's just not my cup of tea.

 

[Red Stanley]

No, you said that parity will continue to increase over time. Which is another way of saying that there will be fewer and fewer teams worth watching each year.

Average hockey teams don't create memories. Or set records. Or inspire a young kid to become the next great NHL player. This league is fighting against what it doesn't realize it needs: greatness.

Now I know full well that truly great players only come along very rarely. But the fact that an Edmonton dynasty or The Russian Five or an alternating NJ/COL/DET string of championships will likely never happen again is a thing to pity, not a thing to celebrate. There should be great teams and awful teams, and if there's too many of the latter, the league should contract, not redistribute the incoming wealth.

Ok let me break this down cause you're all over the place.

1. If teams are not trying to constantly improve, they're doing it wrong. Having parity means even slight improvements or the occasional lottery win will be that much more significant. It happens every year and is a welcomed shift of power to keep things fresh. If you choose to look at this as a negative, that's on you.

2. The draft lottery doesn't prevent greatness. We are still talking about the draft lottery, right?

3. Didn't we just have an expansion team set a few records and sit atop the league? I'll not presume to tell you what kind of memory that'll be for you personally, but it's a pretty inspirational memory for some.

4. Speaking of expansions, the NJ/COL/DET glory days came on the heels of a couple of expansions that created some insane disparity between the great and the awful teams. Why would you want the league to contract, then? Let's expand to 40 teams so the ones at the top look like the Justice League playing against beer leaguers.

 

[Go Wings]

I posted the following back in 2016 somewhere else, and I posted this here in another thread a month or so ago. It seems relevant again based on the last page or so, so I'll post again.

Essentially I took the top 20 d-men based on points and I broke down their draft position. See the results below:

1/20 drafted in top 5
2/20 drafted between 6-10
3/20 drafted between 11-15
1/20 drafted between 16-30
13/20 drafted out of the first round/not drafted

1) Erik Karlsson -15th overall
2) Brent Burns – 20th overall
3) Kris Letang – 62nd overall
4) John Klingberg – 131st overall
5) Roman Josi – 38th overall
6) P.K. Subban 43rd overall
7) Oliver Ekman-Larsson – 6th overall
8) Mark Giordano – undrafted
9) Tyson Barrie – 64th overall
10) Ryan Suter – 7th overall
11) Shea Weber – 49th overall
12) Drew Doughty 2nd overall
13) Dustin Byfuglien - 245th overall
14) Brent Seabrook – 14th overall
15) Duncan Keith – 54th overall
16) T.J. Brodie – 114th overall
17) Andrei Markov – 162nd overall
18) Keith Yandle – 105th overall
19) Shayne Gostisbehere – 78th overall
20) Kevin Shattenkirk – 14th overall

This list has zero credibility without Victor Hedman on it. In fact you are missing plenty of the best defensmen in the league. I suggest you focus less on points and more on talent.

 

[kliq]

This list has zero credibility without Victor Hedman on it. In fact you are missing plenty of the best defensmen in the league. I suggest you focus less on points and more on talent.

Did you read my post? Or just look at the list?

I specifically said that this was a list of the top 20 point scoring D from 2 years ago. This list has nothing to do with ranking the top 20 D-men in the league right now, and is simply about taking a sample size of top D-men from a few years ago, and breaking down where the players were drafted.

If I said this list was a ranking of the top 20 D-men in the NHL, then you would be right. It's not.

 

[jkutswings]

Ok let me break this down cause you're all over the place.

1. If teams are not trying to constantly improve, they're doing it wrong. Having parity means even slight improvements or the occasional lottery win will be that much more significant. It happens every year and is a welcomed shift of power to keep things fresh. If you choose to look at this as a negative, that's on you.

2. The draft lottery doesn't prevent greatness. We are still talking about the draft lottery, right?

3. Didn't we just have an expansion team set a few records and sit atop the league? I'll not presume to tell you what kind of memory that'll be for you personally, but it's a pretty inspirational memory for some.

4. Speaking of expansions, the NJ/COL/DET glory days came on the heels of a couple of expansions that created some insane disparity between the great and the awful teams. Why would you want the league to contract, then? Let's expand to 40 teams so the ones at the top look like the Justice League playing against beer leaguers.

Having a rotation of who gets to be the tallest short guy in the room isn't impressive. I want the best teams to be an amazing collection of talent, playing an unbelievable brand of hockey, and that gets harder to do with each dilution of the talent.

 

[kliq]

Having a rotation of who gets to be the tallest short guy in the room isn't impressive. I want the best teams to be an amazing collection of talent, playing an unbelievable brand of hockey, and that gets harder to do with each dilution of the talent.

Don't you find that monotonous? Its just the same thing over and over and over again. I just find it boring to have the same teams win every single year.

 

[jkutswings]

Don't you find that monotonous? Its just the same thing over and over and over again. I just find it boring to have the same teams win every single year.

I value exceptional hockey. I'd rather see one dynasty win 10 straight with breathtaking fluidity than 10 average teams win each of the next 10 Cups. Now that's an exaggeration to prove a point, but "parity" leads to a lot more bad hockey than good hockey.

 

[Red Stanley]

Having a rotation of who gets to be the tallest short guy in the room isn't impressive. I want the best teams to be an amazing collection of talent, playing an unbelievable brand of hockey, and that gets harder to do with each dilution of the talent.

So are you against parity in general or against the lottery system? I thought this discussion was about the lottery system and its effects on tanking.

 

[kliq]

This list has zero credibility without Victor Hedman on it. In fact you are missing plenty of the best defensmen in the league. I suggest you focus less on points and more on talent.

You know what, I can do a new list. I'm interested to see what it says anyways. I need to go on points though, if I just list who I believe are the best 20, i'm letting bias effect the data.

Data in 2016

1/20 drafted in top 5
2/20 drafted between 6-10
3/20 drafted between 11-15
1/20 drafted between 16-30
13/20 drafted out of the first round/not drafted

Data in 2018

5/20 drafted in top 5
2/20 drafted between 6-10
1/20 drafted between 11-15
4/20 drafted between 16-30
8/20 drafted out of the first round/not drafted

1) John Klingberg – 131st overall
2) Brent Burns – 20th overall
3) John Carlson - 27th overall
3) Shayne Gostisbehere – 78th overall
5) P.K. Subban 43rd overall
6) Erik Karlsson -15th overall
6) Roman Josi – 38th overall
6) Victor Hedman - 2nd overall
9) Drew Doughty - 2nd overall
9) Ryan Suter – 7th overall
11) Seth Jones - 4th overall
12) Jake Gardiner - 17th overall
13) Alex Pietrangelo - 4th overall
13) Torey Krug - undrafted
13) Tyson Barrie – 64th overall
16) Dougie Hamilton - 9th overall
16) Keith Yandle – 105th overall
16) Kris Letang – 62nd overall
19) Morgan Rielly - 5th overall
20) Nick Leddy - 16th overall

Interesting actually. There has been a bit of a shift, more players in the top 20 (+4) are now drafted out of the the top 5, and a few less after the 1st round (-5).
The middle is basically the same.

I wonder if this is a reflection of teams more willing to take a D-man with a top 5 pick, or if its just fluke due to small sample size.