Prospect Info: 2019 Draft

[Nikishin Go Boom]

I'm pretty much the opposite. We have a deep system, but past Necas...who is top-end?

We don't need more bullets, we're at the point we're wasting good D specs (Fleury, McKeown) for lack of opportunity and we're close to being there up-front...we need to find a way to add more potential elite talent to come up on ELCs when our core guys get pricey.

It's a waste to spend picks on established talent who will again be pricey and shorten the window. What we should be doing is moving picks to gain shots at drafting more top-end specs.

If we really pick 3 times in the span of about 15 picks between 25-40...I'm thinking DW failed to find the right opportunity to improve the Canes. (Or that it wasn't there...but that seems unlikely.)

Your point is a valid one. I would see us being able to move into middle of the round. We have a bunch of defenders and non elite forwards there. The draft strategy is trade for roster players or to make the picks and hopefully we snag a slower developing elite prospect or late bloomer.

 

[NotOpie]

We don't need more bullets, we're at the point we're wasting good D specs (Fleury, McKeown) for lack of opportunity and we're close to being there up-front...we need to find a way to add more potential elite talent to come up on ELCs when our core guys get pricey.

Well I can see that, but there's no guarantees either way. Using the picks or packaging the picks to get a proven scorer has a better chance of a higher overall return to the team than moving up a few slots in the draft. Make no mistake, that's what we're talking about because we're not moving into the top 10 with a couple of extra 2nds and/or even Justin Faulk. Now if you're talking about packaging a 2nd rounder or two with a higher end prospect and coming away with an Anthony Mantha or Andreas Athanasiou (or similar player), that's a different story.

 

[Mildan]

I haven't seen any Puistola action myself, but I remember reading good things about him for about a year now in Finnish prospects threads

 

[My Special Purpose]

I'm pretty much the opposite. We have a deep system, but past Necas...who is top-end?

We don't need more bullets, we're at the point we're wasting good D specs (Fleury, McKeown) for lack of opportunity and we're close to being there up-front...we need to find a way to add more potential elite talent to come up on ELCs when our core guys get pricey.

It's a waste to spend picks on established talent who will again be pricey and shorten the window. What we should be doing is moving picks to gain shots at drafting more top-end specs.

If we really pick 3 times in the span of about 15 picks between 25-40...I'm thinking DW failed to find the right opportunity to improve the Canes. (Or that it wasn't there...but that seems unlikely.)

I agree with what you're point that we need top-end talent, it's just that you're basing your entire opinion on the fact that moving up in the draft gives you a better shot at a top-end player. It simply doesn't. We need more bullets because that's how you get top-end talent outside the top 10. If everybody knew Pasternak was going to be this good, he wouldn't have gone 25th. What if the Bruins had traded up from 25 to 16 because they liked Sonny Milano?

More bullets gives you more chances for the second-round Nikita Kucherov, or the third-round Brayden Point, or the fourth-round Johnny Gaudreau or the sixth-round Mark Stone.

 

[A Star is Burns]

Yeah, but it's not likely we're going to lack bullets if we trade 2 2nds for a low first or add a 2nd to our 1st to move up. I'm certainly not of the opinion they must or need to, but they have the opportunity if there is a guy that absolutely must have. There was someone they liked and tried to get back into the 1st round last year, so they certainly might be of a similar mind this year and have the ammo to do it. We have had a lot of recent bullets, and even with a trade such as a move up, will have plenty of bullets left the next 2 drafts.

 

[My Special Purpose]

We don't need more bullets, we're at the point we're wasting good D specs (Fleury, McKeown) for lack of opportunity and we're close to being there up-front...we need to find a way to add more potential elite talent to come up on ELCs when our core guys get pricey.

More bullets is how you do this.

 

[Chan790]

More bullets is how you do this.

Higher picks are generally higher probability bullets.

We're at a point where moving up for guys like Caufield or Suzuki over taking two of guys like Thomasino, McMichael or Kaliyev seems like worthwhile risk.

 

[BrindAmours Army]

I'm shit with darts. I'm much more successful if I'm closer to the board that if I have an extra dart or two

 

[My Special Purpose]

Higher picks are generally higher probability bullets.

We're at a point where moving up for guys like Caufield or Suzuki over taking two of guys like Thomasino, McMichael or Kaliyev seems like worthwhile risk.

I'm **** with darts. I'm much more successful if I'm closer to the board that if I have an extra dart or two

Years and years of data say you're not right on this, but who am I to say.

For fun, I'll take Thomasino, McMichael and Kaliyev ... you get Caufield and Suzuki and we'll compare games played in five years?

 

[BladeRunner66]

1-

Higher picks are generally higher probability bullets.

We're at a point where moving up for guys like Caufield or Suzuki over taking two of guys like Thomasino, McMichael or Kaliyev seems like worthwhile risk.

2-

I'm **** with darts. I'm much more successful if I'm closer to the board that if I have an extra dart or two

Interesting way of saying the same thing.

1- Literally
2- Figuratively

 

[GoldiFox]

Higher picks are generally higher probability bullets.

We're at a point where moving up for guys like Caufield or Suzuki over taking two of guys like Thomasino, McMichael or Kaliyev seems like worthwhile risk.

I've seen Tomasino and Kaliyev ranked above Suzuki.

Personally I take the three #30-37 picks over one mid-1st unless a guy like Podkolzin falls.

 

[A Star is Burns]

Years and years of data say you're not right on this, but who am I to say.

For fun, I'll take Thomasino, McMichael and Kaliyev ... you get Caufield and Suzuki and we'll compare games played in five years?

And yet years and years of data doesn't impact one single situation at all. If you can get Zach Parise instead of Marc-Antoine Pouliot and Jean-Francois Jacques, you go for it. There's no guarantees either way. And again, it's not like we won't have a lot of darts left if we give up one. If they like someone enough, they should feel fine with all the ammo they have going for it.

 

[BrindAmours Army]

Years and years of data say you're not right on this, but who am I to say.

For fun, I'll take Thomasino, McMichael and Kaliyev ... you get Caufield and Suzuki and we'll compare games played in five years?

Oh I don't doubt that. I was just taking the dart metaphor to my real life experience. I suck at darts. The Canes are better. Aho, Slavin, Pesce, etc.

 

[Unsustainable]

Caufield

Seems like a risk pick, but could slide to us, only 5’7, but scores a ton

 

[Roboturner913]

He’s actually Patrick Poulin’s son. Patrick was a whalers first round selection back in ‘91.

He was a good player for a little while.

He's also the evil twin of Tripp Tracy

 

[Cardiac Jerks]

Caufield

Seems like a risk pick, but could slide to us, only 5’7, but scores a ton

I think that ship has sailed. His hype keeps growing and our draft pick keeps sliding.

 

[emptyNedder]

I do like the odds of getting at least a McKeown level d-man in the 3rd or later. As I have mentioned my son and I tried to figure what was different about Slavin and Pesce. That wasn't terribly difficult. Then the trick was to see if it held for other d-men taken outside the first two rounds. After looking at all the d-men taken in 2012 and 2013 it appears to increase success by about 40%.
Here are the rounds and D-men with PSF I would target:
End of 2nd round: Jordan Spence 1.62 or Zachary Jones 1.06
4th round: Ryan Siedem 2.52
6th round (2 picks): Thomas Pelletier 1.75; Alexander Lundqvist 1.58; or Grayson Ladd 2.41

 

[HisIceness]

He was a good player for a little while.

He's also the evil twin of Tripp Tracy

What has been seen, cannot be unseen

 

[SaskCanesFan]

I'm pretty much the opposite. We have a deep system, but past Necas...who is top-end?

We don't need more bullets, we're at the point we're wasting good D specs (Fleury, McKeown) for lack of opportunity and we're close to being there up-front...we need to find a way to add more potential elite talent to come up on ELCs when our core guys get pricey.

It's a waste to spend picks on established talent who will again be pricey and shorten the window. What we should be doing is moving picks to gain shots at drafting more top-end specs.

If we really pick 3 times in the span of about 15 picks between 25-40...I'm thinking DW failed to find the right opportunity to improve the Canes. (Or that it wasn't there...but that seems unlikely.)

I agree with your point in general, that the Canes are better served going after elite talent than multiple lower picks. The trouble is it doesn't really work this year with where the Canes pick could be. If they're picking 15 and a 2nd or two could get them into the 6-8 range, I'd do that all day long. But it's looking like they could be at 28, at which point there's no way they're moving into the top 10, so go with the darts

 

[SaskCanesFan]

Years and years of data say you're not right on this, but who am I to say.

For fun, I'll take Thomasino, McMichael and Kaliyev ... you get Caufield and Suzuki and we'll compare games played in five years?

Years and years of data show that the top 5-10 is by far the place to get elite forward talent, so his general point is correct. If you're saying that they can't get there anyways and the difference between pick 15 and 25 isn't worth it, then I agree with you

 

[raynman]

And yet years and years of data doesn't impact one single situation at all. If you can get Zach Parise instead of Marc-Antoine Pouliot and Jean-Francois Jacques, you go for it. There's no guarantees either way. And again, it's not like we won't have a lot of darts left if we give up one. If they like someone enough, they should feel fine with all the ammo they have going for it.

Proof that you shouldn’t give your kids two first names.

 

[NotOpie]

Higher picks are generally higher probability bullets.

We're at a point where moving up for guys like Caufield or Suzuki over taking two of guys like Thomasino, McMichael or Kaliyev seems like worthwhile risk.

Tomasino and McMichael (Tomasino especially) are exactly the types of players we need.

From McKeens:

Tomasino is an explosive skater, which helps him to be one of the most dynamic offensive talents available this year. He generates a ton of power with his first few strides and it helps him create separation off the rush, where he is extremely dangerous. Tomasino also possesses excellent edgework, showcasing an ability to stop or change direction on a dime, making him an extremely difficult player to check one on one, especially when he is skating at full speed. As he gets stronger, I would expect that his skating continues to evolve to be a major strength.

 

[DaveG]

So a name that's been popping up a lot in my mind of late is Leevi Aaltonen. Guy is possibly the best skater in this draft class and has some good offensive upside and a non-stop motor. If he weren't 5'9 he'd likely be getting a lot more talk as a top 40 pick. If he's there with our second I'd be all over him.

 

[Canes]

So a name that's been popping up a lot in my mind of late is Leevi Aaltonen. Guy is possibly the best skater in this draft class and has some good offensive upside and a non-stop motor. If he weren't 5'9 he'd likely be getting a lot more talk as a top 40 pick. If he's there with our second I'd be all over him.

With your description of his play, sounds like he'll be a Cane for sure if he's there with one of our 2nd round picks.

 

[Chan790]

Possibly ironic as I was just arguing for finding ways to parlay picks into elite talent, but I'm really intrigued by Brett Leason.

Big, gritty, fast, knows how to use his reach and long stride, motor never stops, scores goals down-low and he plays a 3-zone, 200' game. Just seems like a high-floor, short development kid that RBA would love.