2019 Entry Draft Thread Part IX

[DramaticGloveSave]

Kaliev to me is such an enigma. In alot of ways, he's this years Wahlstrom or Galchenyuk. I really am surprised he isn't the man crush this year, even has the sexy Russian name lol. That said, I'm torn on him. He goes against everything I believe in, but at the end of the day sexy skills and a rifle shot with tremendous production in the OHL is tough to pass on in the middle first.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Kaliev to me is such an enigma. In alot of ways, he's this years Wahlstrom or Galchenyuk. I really am surprised he isn't the man crush this year, even has the sexy Russian name lol. That said, I'm torn on him. He goes against everything I believe in, but at the end of the day sexy skills and a rifle shot with tremendous production in the OHL is tough to pass on in the middle first.

He's not an enigma for me. I can't remember the last time someone with such low effort ever did anything at the higher levels.

I wouldn't go to war with that guy. Difference is Galchenyuk and Wahlstrom had a much more diverse skill set and were implicated in the play.

Kaliyev is like the guy on Halo that sits on the sidelines and watches two people Duke it out. Then when one guy dies, he comes out and shoots the other guy once before he heals and gets the kill.

 

[Janne Niinimaa]

Kaliev to me is such an enigma. In alot of ways, he's this years Wahlstrom or Galchenyuk. I really am surprised he isn't the man crush this year, even has the sexy Russian name lol. That said, I'm torn on him. He goes against everything I believe in, but at the end of the day sexy skills and a rifle shot with tremendous production in the OHL is tough to pass on in the middle first.

Once again, I hope you're talking comparing Kaliyev to Galchenyuk today and not Galchneyuk as a prospect.

I'll also stand by my previous statement that Wahlstrom had a much larger offensive arsenal in his game.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

The truth is also, sometimes and unfortunately, not in the data, no matter what decision rule you use. If we're being honest, Poehling's 2019 WJC was the first real sign of statistical life for him. This also goes for traits, too, not just stats. Benoit Pouliot's traits are a lot better than his production would indicate. As are Beaulieu's. There's just nothing you can do if a guy is better or worse than his traits/stats beside making your call and hoping for the best.

This is the case with Newhook this year for example. Anyone feeling totally at ease with him as a pick is an idiot. The upside is just so compelling, though, you just have to take your swing and risk missing badly.

The thing is you have to grade compete level and IQ as part of the traits. Both Beaulieu and Pouliot were missing something in either their heart or their mind. Intangibles count.

At 15 we aren’t getting a blue chipper. But I think Newhook is the highest graded forward who has a chance to be there.

 

[NotProkofievian]

The thing is you have to grade compete level and IQ as part of the traits. Both Beaulieu and Pouliot were missing something in either their heart or their mind. Intangibles count.

At 15 we aren’t getting a blue chipper. But I think Newhook is the highest graded forward who has a chance to be there.

I think we will have a difficult time coming to an agreement on a prospect who had all the traits but amounted to nothing, even though no one would ever say that drafting on traits will make you bat 1.000. In hindsight there's always a reason why people didn't make it. There's always ''something that was missing.'' And of course it's always easy to blame it on intangibles. Who can even say you're wrong? It's intangible.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

Once again, I hope you're talking comparing Kaliyev to Galchenyuk today and not Galchneyuk as a prospect.

I'll also stand by my previous statement that Wahlstrom had a much larger offensive arsenal in his game.

I wasn’t a fan of either at 3 overall, but I’d certainly gamble on them at 15.

I think we will have a difficult time coming to an agreement on a prospect who had all the traits but amounted to nothing, even though no one would ever say that drafting on traits will make you bat 1.000. In hindsight there's always a reason why people didn't make it. There's always ''something that was missing.'' And of course it's always easy to blame it on intangibles. Who can even say you're wrong? It's intangible.

You can’t just remove intangibles from the equation then... they may be harder to qualify, but they need to be considered.

 

[Janne Niinimaa]

I wasn’t a fan of either at 3 overall, but I’d certainly gamble on them at 15.

Galchenyuk was touted as a Kopitar style centre who would have probably gone 1st overall if he wasn't injured. He was nothing like Kaliyev or Wahlstrom as a prospect.

 

[NotProkofievian]

You can’t just remove intangibles from the equation then... they may be harder to qualify, but they need to be considered.

Yeah, that's all well and good until you pass on a Kucherov for some Canadian kid with intangibles.

My point is that sometimes prospects go on to be incredible and there's no way of knowing that they would be, and vice versa. Sometimes there is no reason you could tell at the time that someone would bust/boom. Inventing an intangible boogeyman as being the reason behind this failure/success sounds like a good idea until it costs you.

If you can't test it, you can't really use it.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

Yeah, that's all well and good until you pass on a Kucherov for some Canadian kid with intangibles.

My point is that sometimes prospects go on to be incredible and there's no way of knowing that they would be, and vice versa. Sometimes there is no reason you could tell at the time that someone would bust/boom. Inventing an intangible boogeyman as being the reason behind this failure/success sounds like a good idea until it costs you.

If you can't test it, you can't really use it.

And this is your problem. You are constantly afraid of passing on the Kucherov for the "Canadian/American kid". You have to understand that the Kucherovs are the outliers, you definitely can take your swings here and there, but you can't have that be your MO when drafting and be succesful.

 

[sandviper]

I wasn’t a fan of either at 3 overall, but I’d certainly gamble on them at 15.

I do get what you’re saying but the way I see it, if I have reservations about a prospect, he just becomes a ND to me... regardless of draft position.

Of course, if he has traits that put him above anyone else at the draft position, that is different, but in regards to Kaliyev, while he has some nice tools, there are others that I’d take before him.

I’m not TT though, so obviously it’s their decision. That said, while prospects can mature and “change”, Kaliyev’s current style of play is going to drive CJ crazy.

Anyhow, I’d be stunned if we drafted him at #15. My personal opinion of course.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

I do get what you’re saying but the way I see it, if I have reservations about a prospect, he just becomes a ND to me... regardless of draft position.

Of course, if he has traits that put him above anyone else at the draft position, that is different, but in regards to Kaliyev, while he has some nice tools, there are others that I’d take before him.

I’m not TT though, so obviously it’s their decision. That said, while prospects can mature and “change”, Kaliyev’s current style of play is going to drive CJ crazy.

Anyhow, I’d be stunned if we drafted him at #15. My personal opinion of course.

For myself I have a for a sure top 11 forwards. After those 11, you are looking at gambles and lower upside guys. IMHO Kaliev is the best gamble amongst that group.

Though to be clear I'd take one of the D over Kaliev.

 

[sandviper]

For myself I have a for a sure top 11 forwards. After those 11, you are looking at gambles and lower upside guys. IMHO Kaliev is the best gamble amongst that group.

Though to be clear I'd take one of the D over Kaliev.

I don’t disagree really. I do think he has potential to be a boom pick, but yes, he would be a gamble.

I wouldn’t be thrilled with Kaliyev, but I wouldn’t be outraged also. Well, maybe a little upset depending who we left on the board.

 

[NotProkofievian]

And this is your problem. You are constantly afraid of passing on the Kucherov for the "Canadian/American kid". You have to understand that the Kucherovs are the outliers, you definitely can take your swings here and there, but you can't have that be your MO when drafting and be succesful.

Well, this is silly for a variety of reasons. First, you're not always passing on Poehling for ''the next Kucherov.'' There are limited chances at players like these. As a result, I rank plenty of good ol' boys highly enough that I'll end up drafting some in mocks. But moreover, if you never take that shot, you're certainly going to fail. And secondly, sometimes, a lot of times, the good ol' boys bust. It's not just ''the next Kucherovs'' who can bust. How well has our ''draft big d men who can skate'' strategy worked out? And finally, if you do pick the next Kucherov how many 40-50 point good ol' boy players is that worth? You have to give yourself some upside if you're right. For example, we drafted Didier ahead of Gaudreau in 2011, same round. What was the upside? What if we were right?

 

[Habs Halifax]

For myself I have a for a sure top 11 forwards. After those 11, you are looking at gambles and lower upside guys. IMHO Kaliev is the best gamble amongst that group.

Though to be clear I'd take one of the D over Kaliev.

If we have learned anything with Timmins drafting history, they will go after safer picks. Character, Attitude, Skating, Skill, Smarts. I think they are off the size bandwagon now though cause they fell into a trap with this over the years.

Hope we hit with this 15th pick. We don't have a good track record at hitting with mid range 1st round picks for a while now.

I'd be OK with Kaliyev but not sure they would pick him.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

Well, this is silly for a variety of reasons. First, you're not always passing on Poehling for ''the next Kucherov.'' There are limited chances at players like these. As a result, I rank plenty of good ol' boys highly enough that I'll end up drafting some in mocks. But moreover, if you never take that shot, you're certainly going to fail. And secondly, sometimes, a lot of times, the good ol' boys bust. It's not just ''the next Kucherovs'' who can bust. How well has our ''draft big d men who can skate'' strategy worked out? And finally, if you do pick the next Kucherov how many 40-50 point good ol' boy players is that worth? You have to give yourself some upside if you're right. For example, we drafted Didier ahead of Gaudreau in 2011, same round. What was the upside? What if we were right?

See I honestly don't get caught up in these "types". I'm not looking for the "next Kucherov" or loading my board with "good ol Canadian boys". When you are looking for a "type" that's when you pass on the guy you wish you didn't pass on. I just grade on a variation of Length/Strength, Skating, Skills, Compete, and IQ. That's it. If it's close I consider league/production/russian factor/development path etc... but generally I just stick to that formula.

 

[NotProkofievian]

See I honestly don't get caught up in these "types". I'm not looking for the "next Kucherov" or loading my board with "good ol Canadian boys". When you are looking for a "type" that's when you pass on the guy you wish you didn't pass on. I just grade on a variation of Length/Strength, Skating, Skills, Compete, and IQ. That's it. If it's close I consider league/production/russian factor/development path etc... but generally I just stick to that formula.

We're not even discussing ''types'' per se, we're talking about considering ''intangibles.'' By definition things that you cannot measure or consider objectively, or indeed (as an internet scout) that you could even pretend to have access to. These names are just useful placeholders and not central to my argument. The argument being that it's dangerous to consider things that you cannot know over some very concrete things (like stats), especially on the basis of some ''just so'' story for why some guy you liked busted.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

We're not even discussing ''types'' per se, we're talking about considering ''intangibles.'' By definition things that you cannot measure or consider objectively, or indeed (as an internet scout) that you could even pretend to have access to. These names are just useful placeholders and not central to my argument. The argument being that it's dangerous to consider things that you cannot know over some very concrete things (like stats), especially on the basis of some ''just so'' story for why some guy you liked busted.

Can you not see compete level when watching the player? Can you not see hockey IQ when watching the player? You may not be able to measure it, but you can still grade it.

Character, I agree, is something we as internet scouts can't judge. So that's why I have a tough time just dismissing Lavoie because of his dad because I honestly don't have a clue in regards to his family etc.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Can you not see compete level when watching the player? Can you not see hockey IQ when watching the player? You may not be able to measure it, but you can still grade it.

Character, I agree, is something we as internet scouts can't judge. So that's why I have a tough time just dismissing Lavoie because of his dad because I honestly don't have a clue in regards to his family etc.

You can absolutely see compete level and hockey IQ. You could even come up with some valuable proxies for them to measure them. These are tangible. For example, Bobby Brink is involved in something stupid like 50% of SC's entire offence. When he goes into a puck battle, I'd take the bet that he's going to win it every time. I can see that he's competitive and smart, and it's just not debateable. At least not intelligently so.

Intangibles are leadership, character, ''winner,'' ''my brother is even meaner than I am.'' Like, what am I supposed to do with that? These are even real things. But them being real doesn't mean that I know what to do with them.

On Lavoie I too have a tough time passing on him too. I'm about to drop about 20 bucks on Halifax games to make sure I don't pass on a 6'4 40 goal scoring winger. He's never done anything in a game that offended me, and he's actually more or less impressed me when I've watched him.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

You can absolutely see compete level and hockey IQ. You could even come up with some valuable proxies for them to measure them. These are tangible. For example, Bobby Brink is involved in something stupid like 50% of SC's entire offence. When he goes into a puck battle, I'd take the bet that he's going to win it every time. I can see that he's competitive and smart, and it's just not debateable. At least not intelligently so.

Intangibles are leadership, character, ''winner,'' ''my brother is even meaner than I am.'' Like, what am I supposed to do with that? These are even real things. But them being real doesn't mean that I know what to do with them.

On Lavoie I too have a tough time passing on him too. I'm about to drop about 20 bucks on Halifax games to make sure I don't pass on a 6'4 40 goal scoring winger. He's never done anything in a game that offended me, and he's actually more or less impressed me when I've watched him.

All these things fall under character, and are something teams grade but we as fans can't. When I talked about intangibles before, I was specifically talking about hockey IQ and compete level.

 

[Mrb1p]

I remember a few wanted Dumba though.

I was happy with Chuck but my man crush was Forsberg. Still think Chuck had a similar ceiling but hey.

 

[Andrei79]

Dorothy is such beaut. Sometimes, I question his compete in the MHL, but hes leagues over the competition.

It's not that he has some of the best hands, passes, shots and edges in the draft... Its how he puts a clinic on how to create high level offense. If I was a skills coach, I'd show vids of him of how he fools defenders and uses space and the dots. Thats kind of the problem with some of these Russians sometimes. Theyre all pretty damn skilled in the MHL, but they try to outskill (i.e. theyre high risk) over thinking how to use those skills. Not Dorothy. He thinks the game.

Bob had him in the third round in January and I'm hoping he stays right around there. My guess is the Rangeds will try to get him late first and if theyre high on him, he's a guy I hope we try to work a deal around to move up and not let into our conference.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Dorothy is such beaut. Sometimes, I question his compete in the MHL, but hes leagues over the competition.

It's not that he has some of the best hands, passes, shots and edges in the draft... Its how he puts a clinic on how to create high level offense. If I was a skills coach, I'd show vids of him of how he fools defenders and uses space and the dots. Thats kind of the problem with some of these Russians sometimes. Theyre all pretty damn skilled in the MHL, but they try to outskill (i.e. theyre high risk) over thinking how to use those skills. Not Dorothy. He thinks the game.

Bob had him in the third round in January and I'm hoping he stays right around there. My guess is the Rangeds will try to get him late first and if theyre high on him, he's a guy I hope we try to work a deal around to move up and not let into our conference.

Rangers are going to take him late 1st, and Pavel Buchnevich is going to complain about him being ''overdrafted.''

 

[Mrb1p]

Rangers are going to take him late 1st, and Pavel Buchnevich is going to complain about him being ''overdrafted.''

Like hes done with Lundkvist and Kravtsov f***ing guy

 

[MarkovsKnee]

The offensive concerns about Forsberg manifested themselves during his draft year. He had 0 goals, 0 assists, 0 points for the longest time. I can't remember exactly but it was like until january or something crazy like that. This wasn't the SHL, it was the Allsvenskan. It was a huge red flag. And then the U18s rolled around and he was held off the score sheet the first couple games. I remember some people were saying that we should take Collberg ahead of Forsberg.

Which is why people can't just go by u18s. Zegras hasn't looked great there (albeit 1 game), but neither has Heinola. Have to look at the full body of work. What they bring skill wise, etc.

 

[MarkovsKnee]

Sebastian Aho was also viewed as a product of Laine & Puljujarvi. So he fell.

So on one hand you have Zegras & Caufield playing with Hughes. How much is Hughes and how much is them? It's a viable question. Because occasionally you get a Marc-Andre Pouliot, who absolutely WAS a product of Crosby.

Caufield is the beneficiary of some sick passes from Hughes. If we draft him, is he going to get those types of passes? Probably not. So how much offense is he really able to generate himself, and how much is he reliant on teammates to get him the puck?

Another 2019 who falls into that category is Karl Henriksson a center for Sweden who plays between 2 extremely talented youngsters in Lucas Raymond and Alexander Holtz (2020 draft eligibles. 2020 draft is going to be so good). He's looked good, but definitely seems like he's feasting on their amazing reads.