Prospect Info: 2019 NHL Draft.

[Winger98]

It's a roughly 70% chance that your pick, in the top 10, will be a forward. So it's hardly out of the question that drafting BPA could net you 10 wings in a decade, without a single alternate position. And there's not a single team in the league that's going to give you a top 2 D or a 1C for a non-elite winger.

Wait. Sorry, that's objectively untrue. But I think Bergevin is out of top 2 D prospects, now.

I mean, fine, but it's not really relevant how we stack the players together. The argument is in how they get stacked.

It could net you 10 goalies. I still find it unlikely that the Wings, if they pick in the top 10 for ten years, will always find themselves in a position where the best player on their list is a guy destined to be a wing, elite or otherwise.

And I think it is relevant because in your scenario the team is essentially waiting until they are on the clock and then going, "well, who do we pick?" I think that answer is already there - at least for those top10 picks, and likely through the majority of the first three rounds. If they like Player X over Player Y, Player X is going to be higher on their board and there won't be a whole lot of discussion at that point. At some point what's really being debated is how much trust there is in the scouts/management.

Hronek, Cholowski, Lindstrom, McIsaac etc. are the guys likely to be "the rest of your D". The issue becomes when you are banking on those guys being "the guy". You are doing a lot of hoping at that point.

If need be, I think you hope that you have a defense where none of them necessarily have to be "the" guy. Maybe things are easier to slot in when you have a Norris caliber guy back there, though that also probably makes it harder on your cap structuring. If we can find four guys who can eat 20+ minutes and compliment one another, I like that group even if it doesn't have that one big name guy to lead the way.

If we put that together by drafting, great. If it's by dealing a pick and player, I'm fine with that, too.

 

[njx9]

Sorry, poorly worded - it doesn't really matter if we say "this guy was #5 on their list" vs. "this guy is an 85, and this guy was an 86", presuming that they're in the same order. The only things that matter are relative order, and distance between two players in that order (in other words, why they're in that order). If you don't want to talk about 0-100, but where they are in the stack, that's fine, but they still shouldn't stack similar players in a way that favors a non-essential/non-need position.

It could net you 10 goalies. I still find it unlikely that the Wings, if they pick in the top 10 for ten years, will always find themselves in a position where the best player on their list is a guy destined to be a wing, elite or otherwise.

There was like, a 1% chance of a goalie being the best player in the top 10, and there were only like 6 since 2000, so no, it couldn't. 70% is *vastly* different than statistically insignificant.

And I think it is relevant because in your scenario the team is essentially waiting until they are on the clock and then going, "well, who do we pick?" I think that answer is already there - at least for those top10 picks, and likely through the majority of the first three rounds. If they like Player X over Player Y, Player X is going to be higher on their board and there won't be a whole lot of discussion at that point. At some point what's really being debated is how much trust there is in the scouts/management.

You're just moving the "how do we rate Player X vs. Player Y" conversation around. It's still taking place. There's nothing in my scenario that implies it should happen while the clock is ticking. I mean, honestly, you can put together your board in January, April or June, but you're still putting together your board. It doesn't make any difference when that occurs.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

And I think it is relevant because in your scenario the team is essentially waiting until they are on the clock and then going, "well, who do we pick?" I think that answer is already there - at least for those top10 picks, and likely through the majority of the first three rounds. If they like Player X over Player Y, Player X is going to be higher on their board and there won't be a whole lot of discussion at that point. At some point what's really being debated is how much trust there is in the scouts/management.

It isn't a draft-day consideration though. It is an issue of how you prepare your draft list. If you honestly believe in talent tiers, you should rank players within a tier by position of need.

 

[Winger98]

Sorry, poorly worded - it doesn't really matter if we say "this guy was #5 on their list" vs. "this guy is an 85, and this guy was an 86", presuming that they're in the same order. The only things that matter are relative order, and distance between two players in that order (in other words, why they're in that order). If you don't want to talk about 0-100, but where they are in the stack, that's fine, but they still shouldn't stack similar players in a way that favors a non-essential/non-need position.

There was like, a 1% chance of a goalie being the best player in the top 10, and there were only like 6 since 2000, so no, it couldn't. 70% is *vastly* different than statistically insignificant

You're just moving the "how do we rate Player X vs. Player Y" conversation around. It's still taking place. There's nothing in my scenario that implies it should happen while the clock is ticking. I mean, honestly, you can put together your board in January, April or June, but you're still putting together your board. It doesn't make any difference when that occurs.

I get where you're coming from now, thanks.

If you're making your order with anything other than who is going to be the best player in mind, I think you're making a mistake. Regardless of when you want to try factoring in a guy's position, or what weight you want to give it, I think it's a mistake and is something that will lead you to making the sort of mistake on draft day that sees you totally bust on a pick. I think a lot of a rebuild is just limiting mistakes and getting the very best player you can. If you start taking lesser players for any reason, you're more likely to end up with a lesser team.

With the percentages, you're just looking at the percentage of it happening in any given year. The odds of it happening every year, to the same team, is different. The odds of any individual coin flip being tails is 50/50. But the odds of doing it ten times in a row is somewhat lower. There aren't many real world comparisons to draw from other than maybe Edmonton, but even they found a year to take Darnell Nurse, as well as a handful of centers.

 

[Henkka]

1) Our current GM does not make trades like that. We don't even know who our next GM will be yet.
2) STOP USING PITTSBURGH AS AN EXAMPLE. Having players like Crosby and Malkin allows you to get away with things other teams can't. We will not have that privilege.

There's now 26 examples for you in that another topic.

There's no other general pattern, than it's better to find TOP defencemen from another ways, or from lower rounds and draft forwards high.

 

[Martinez]

Turcotte is my favorite so far, I absolutely love the way he plays.
Anyone watch soderstrom yet?

 

[TCNorthstars]

1) Our current GM does not make trades like that. We don't even know who our next GM will be yet.
2) STOP USING PITTSBURGH AS AN EXAMPLE. Having players like Crosby and Malkin allows you to get away with things other teams can't. We will not have that privilege.

To be fair on #1 our current GM hasn't been in a position to be able to do something like that so we don't know if he will make trades like that or not.

 

[TCNorthstars]

Who exactly was Seth Jones traded for? Karlsson is a pending UFA. Even if you manage to trade for him, you still need to worry about re-signing him (something that is beyond your unilateral control).

Again, no one is going to trade us an elite defensemen for something we can afford to give up. The trade market will always favor teams trying to move defensemen and centers. The best we can hope for with your strategy is to trade established NHL players for defensive prospects who have not yet hit the NHL.

I think that is why Henkka is so for drafting BPA. We keep drafting this low and draft good for a while, we will have something to give up for that d.

 

[njx9]

I think that is why Henkka is so for drafting BPA. We keep drafting this low and draft good for a while, we will have something to give up for that d.

Unless we start accumulating guys who will actually play C and high end D prospects, we will not have anything to give up for that D.

Since 2012, our picks in the first two rounds have given us two guys who are NHL Cs (assuming the wing rumors for Ras are true), 4 D, and 9 W. That's not a prospect collection that's likely to get you anything you'd want on D, unless you're ready to give up Larkin. The Cs, especially, have to be dramatically ramped up in number and quality if you want to start thinking about making trades, and you have to be ready to move a Larkin to do it.

 

[Frk It]

Hockeyprospect.com early 2019 ranking

HockeyProspect.com's Early 2019 NHL Draft Top 31 Ranking - HockeyProspect.com | 2019 NHL Draft

 

[odin1981]

Hockeyprospect.com early 2019 ranking

HockeyProspect.com's Early 2019 NHL Draft Top 31 Ranking - HockeyProspect.com | 2019 NHL Draft

I hope most of the D prospects hit growth spurts. Only 2 of them are 6'2"+.

 

[waltdetroit]

Since 2012, our picks in the first two rounds have given us two guys who are NHL Cs (assuming the wing rumors for Ras are true)

Veleno, Turgeon, Janmark?

 

[njx9]

Veleno, Turgeon, Janmark?

Turgeon was a 3rd, and is, at best, a 4C. Janmark was a 3rd and isn't on the team.

The two Cs are Larkin and Veleno (again, assuming Ras is a more likely winger).

 

[waltdetroit]

Turgeon was a 3rd, and is, at best, a 4C. Janmark was a 3rd and isn't on the team.

The two Cs are Larkin and Veleno (again, assuming Ras is a more likely winger).

I didn't cach the 2C & 2nd round thing (it was 5 am before I had coffee)

 

[njx9]

I didn't cach the 2C & 2nd round thing (it was 5 am before I had coffee)

No worries, I've been there.

 

[lilidk]

Turgeon was a 3rd, and is, at best, a 4C. Janmark was a 3rd and isn't on the team.

The two Cs are Larkin and Veleno (again, assuming Ras is a more likely winger).

Both Larkin and Veleno not a first line centers, we need get one in the first round

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Both Larkin and Veleno not a first line centers, we need get one in the first round

This season will be very telling but to me it is hard to dismiss Dylan Larkin as not a legitimate #1 center. He needs to cement last season but he showed considerable growth hockey IQ wise. He learned how to slow down and speed up the game. He developed an understanding that seems a player really getting comfortable in the league. He has a lot of drive to his game, he has massive potential still. He has also shown this when with Team USA two summers in a row now. He can really be an impact all situations center. He needs a little more offense still but he becomes a serious #1 C at that point. Maybe we do luck out and get Jack Hughes. Larkin at that point would be a #2 in name only. That is really the ideal situation, but I don't think I need to dismiss Larkin has #1 center qualities and is trending towards that status, credit to him he is working pretty hard to make it happen by all accounts.

If we can draft a #1 center next year, I am happy to do it. Let's wait until we have the Jordan Staal situation before we need to get concerned. That really would would be the trade your forward for big pieces deal we say would be tough to make happen. BPA, you cannot miss on a Top 10 pick. If the center is the best player take him even if we know come next draft Dylan Larkin is a #1C having two of those helps you win every time.

 

[njx9]

Both Larkin and Veleno not a first line centers, we need get one in the first round

I mean, I think Veleno is hot garbage, but he's still a pick at a position that you can potentially trade for actual value. We need more of those. I'd also note that at no point did I say anything about 1Cs, as opposed to just Cs.

If we can draft a #1 center next year, I am happy to do it. Let's wait until we have the Jordan Staal situation before we need to get concerned. That really would would be the trade your forward for big pieces deal we say would be tough to make happen. BPA, you cannot miss on a Top 10 pick. If the center is the best player take him even if we know come next draft Dylan Larkin is a #1C having two of those helps you win every time.

Absolutely. There's no downside to having a lot of really good Cs. They're always tradeable, and other teams always value them highly.

That said, BPA, as demonstrated, likely leads to yet another W who will have no trade value and who will be stuck in a long line of other high picks spent on Ws, while the D and the Cs languish in the doldrums of our abject failure to identify, with non-premium picks, top 6/top 4 talent at positions that actually win hockey games.

 

[lilidk]

There is another guy from Halifax . He could be drafted early 1 st , huge center, ,not shy about fighting
Lavoie

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Good: passing, vision, hockey sense

Only okay: skating, shot. But he's only 16 there, and improved strength could help in both of those areas.

 

[waltdetroit]

Another ranking... from Future Considerations

https://futureconsiderations.ca/top-rankings-2019/

 

[Shaman464]

This season will be very telling but to me it is hard to dismiss Dylan Larkin as not a legitimate #1 center. He needs to cement last season but he showed considerable growth hockey IQ wise. He learned how to slow down and speed up the game. He developed an understanding that seems a player really getting comfortable in the league. He has a lot of drive to his game, he has massive potential still. He has also shown this when with Team USA two summers in a row now. He can really be an impact all situations center. He needs a little more offense still but he becomes a serious #1 C at that point. Maybe we do luck out and get Jack Hughes. Larkin at that point would be a #2 in name only. That is really the ideal situation, but I don't think I need to dismiss Larkin has #1 center qualities and is trending towards that status, credit to him he is working pretty hard to make it happen by all accounts.

If we can draft a #1 center next year, I am happy to do it. Let's wait until we have the Jordan Staal situation before we need to get concerned. That really would would be the trade your forward for big pieces deal we say would be tough to make happen. BPA, you cannot miss on a Top 10 pick. If the center is the best player take him even if we know come next draft Dylan Larkin is a #1C having two of those helps you win every time.

I still see Larkin as a #1B on a contending team, a Malkin to a Crosby, or a Zetterberg to a Datsyuk. Its not a knock against him, but he seems more like the #1 center you'd find on a bubble team.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I still see Larkin as a #1B on a contending team, a Malkin to a Crosby, or a Zetterberg to a Datsyuk. Its not a knock against him, but he seems more like the #1 center you'd find on a bubble team.

I am really confused by this, you named top 10 centers that were absolutely #1C and with no B attached.

I get making the comment on Larkin being a Krejci type or something like that, but you just listed four HHOF guys that are hands down front line #1 guys. Also Zetterberg did the heavy lifting in the post-season matchup department and was the front-line #1C if you're going to go that route anyway.

I don't look at the #2 line as where you actually place a player though. Nashville second pairing has #1 D-man on it. The Leafs and Pens have two #1 centers, Washington and there are others that would apply to. Heck if we win the Hughes lottery and Larkin does continue his development then we are in a good place with two legitimate #1 centers potentially.

 

[Shaman464]

I am really confused by this, you named top 10 centers that were absolutely #1C and with no B attached.

I get making the comment on Larkin being a Krejci type or something like that, but you just listed four HHOF guys that are hands down front line #1 guys. Also Zetterberg did the heavy lifting in the post-season matchup department and was the front-line #1C if you're going to go that route anyway.

I don't look at the #2 line as where you actually place player though. Nashville second pairing has #1 D-man on it. The Leafs and Pens have two #1 centers, Washington and there are others that would apply to. Heck if we win the Hughes lottery and Larkin does continue his development then we are in a good place with two legitimate #1 centers potentially.

It was more to illustrate a point than a skill comparison.

 

[Henkka]

I did an average from 5 different sources for the 2019 draft.

Here is the TOP10, for players which were ranked in each different rank.

Pos	2019 draft	Size / Hand	Nationality	Rank_AVG	Overall
C	Jack Hughes	5'10, Left	USA	1.20	1
RW	Kaapo Kakko	6'1, Left	FIN	3.60	2
C	Alex Turcotte	5'11, Left	USA	3.80	3
LD	Bowen Byram	6'0, Left	CAN	4.60	4
C/LW	Alex Newhook	5'11, Left	CAN	6.00	5
C/RW	Dylan Cozens	6'3, Right	CAN	7.80	6
C	Kirby Dach	6'4, Right	CAN	8.20	7
LW/C	Peyton Krebs	5'11, Left	CAN	8.40	8
C/RW	Raphael Lavoie	6'4, Right	CAN	10.60	9
LD	Matthew Robertson	6'3, Left	CAN	11.60	10

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Krebs was mostly listed as LW, but one rank had him as Center. Also one rank had Lavoie as RW, others had him as Center.

But in big picture, Kakko and Krebs are the only wingers. Byram is the highest and most possibly, Red Wings pick-range ranked defenceman. And other 6 in the TOP10 are natural centers.

If we don't win the lottery for Hughes, or TOP2/3 pick for Turcotte, And if we miss on Byram (picked earlier), I think I'd target those right-handed Centers (Cozens, Dach, Lavoie).

Still one year away, list will change, but gives us some ballpark for speculation.