Prospect Info: 2019 NHL Entry Draft

[dracom]

You want to move Rakell and the 8th for the 4th?... Thats terrible.

He had a down year on a team full of nothing but down years.

and he still put up 43 points in 69 games. People wanting to move him because of one season are crazy. the chances that anyone in that 4-10 range will come close to a Rakell like player is not that high. But everyone loves that mystery box, one that could even be a Rakell!!

 

[AngelDuck]

and he still put up 43 points in 69 games. People wanting to move him because of one season are crazy. the chances that anyone in that 4-10 range will come close to a Rakell like player is not that high. But everyone loves that mystery box, one that could even be a Rakell!!

Completely false lol but I agree with your premise

 

[dracom]

Completely false lol but I agree with your premise

prospects in that range aren't a guaranteed thing, the chances they even become NHL regulars isn't certain. the chances that they become back to back 30+ goal scorers also isn't certain. they could become an Marner, Ehlers, or they can become a Ritchie, or a A. Nylander. We know what we have with Rakell; there's no good sense in moving him for a mystery box. that's all I'm saying.

 

[AngelDuck]

prospects in that range aren't a guaranteed thing, the chances they even become NHL regulars isn't certain. the chances that they become back to back 30+ goal scorers also isn't certain. they could become an Marner, Ehlers, or they can become a Ritchie, or a A. Nylander. We know what we have with Rakell; there's no good sense in moving him for a mystery box. that's all I'm saying.

Obviously it’s not a guarantee (everyone knows this)but it isn’t a low chance of finding a Rakell-like player in that range. It’s probably about 50/50. I’ll reaearch it more when I get home

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

You want to move Rakell and the 8th for the 4th?... Thats terrible.

He had a down year on a team full of nothing but down years.

How the hell did you get that lol? We don't have the 8th, I'm saying I could foresee a deal around Rakell and 8th overall, namely due to Edmonton's desperate need for quality wingers that don't cost a ton.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Obviously it’s not a guarantee (everyone knows this)but it isn’t a low chance of finding a Rakell-like player in that range. It’s probably about 50/50. I’ll reaearch it more when I get home

I'd guess it's probably even better than that, especially with our scouting staff. You also can't ignore the possibility that it lands a player quite a bit better than he is, which in my eyes outweighs the negatives.

Even more than that, it gives us a very good chance of landing exactly that with at least one of those two picks. That's part of my thinking, really helps our odds when we're banking on them a bit.

 

[dracom]

Obviously it’s not a guarantee (everyone knows this)but it isn’t a low chance of finding a Rakell-like player in that range. It’s probably about 50/50. I’ll reaearch it more when I get home

I doubt it's 50/50 either.

How the hell did you get that lol? We don't have the 8th, I'm saying I could foresee a deal around Rakell and 8th overall, namely due to Edmonton's desperate need for quality wingers that don't cost a ton.

So you want to give the Oilers a piece that desperately need for a pick that's not even a top 5 pick for one. but also a pick where the most desirable players will have been taken already. not to mention whoever we pick most likely won't be making the impact Rakell makes for 2-3 years anyway. there would be zero reason in moving Rakell.

I'd guess it's probably even better than that, especially with our scouting staff. You also can't ignore the possibility that it lands a player quite a bit better than he is, which in my eyes outweighs the negatives.

Even more than that, it gives us a very good chance of landing exactly that with at least one of those two picks. That's part of my thinking, really helps our odds when we're banking on them a bit.

Our scouting staff aren't psychics, if they were I doubt they draft Ritchie or any of the other prospects that were busts (not saying Ritchie is a bust btw). And how does the 8th pick mean we may be drafting a player better than Rakell? you can make that argument for any pick, because it's a mystery box; could be a bust, could be a Getzlaf, could be a Rakell. Again, the chances that whoever we draft in that range becoming a multiple 30+ goal scorer are not high enough to move out Rakell.

Unless you're completely giving up on being competitive for many years; which we might as well move Lindholm and Gibson and just completely rebuild.

 

[Gliff]

How the hell did you get that lol? We don't have the 8th, I'm saying I could foresee a deal around Rakell and 8th overall, namely due to Edmonton's desperate need for quality wingers that don't cost a ton.

Ya brain fart on 8 vs 9 picks.

And "definitely see a deal around Raks and the 8th." sounded like you were saying Rakell and our pick for the 4th you were talking about.

Totally misread the post under the table in a meeting. My bad!

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I doubt it's 50/50 either.



So you want to give the Oilers a piece that desperately need for a pick that's not even a top 5 pick for one. but also a pick where the most desirable players will have been taken already. not to mention whoever we pick most likely won't be making the impact Rakell makes for 2-3 years anyway. there would be zero reason in moving Rakell.



Our scouting staff aren't psychics, if they were I doubt they draft Ritchie or any of the other prospects that were busts (not saying Ritchie is a bust btw). And how does the 8th pick mean we may be drafting a player better than Rakell? you can make that argument for any pick, because it's a mystery box; could be a bust, could be a Getzlaf, could be a Rakell. Again, the chances that whoever we draft in that range becoming a multiple 30+ goal scorer are not high enough to move out Rakell.

Unless you're completely giving up on being competitive for many years; which we might as well move Lindholm and Gibson and just completely rebuild.

Wow some very flawed premises here. To address some, it's far from a sure thing but I like our odds. It not being a top 5 pick is completely meaningless, there's no such cutoff, in this draft especially. This draft especially seems to have a range of guys where there's not going to be much consensus and a major opportunity for a team in the later top 10 to get a guy they value greatly. I said this about 9 and it is even more true for 8, and getting two shots at that could be a major home run for this franchise.

If it was a sure thing Edmonton would never even consider it, even with their needs. From their end I'm totally fine with them having Rakell on the cheap for a couple years before losing him. I don't see our peak being while Rakell is under that contract so I'm more than fine with moving on now. Our best prospects will be 4+ years younger than Rakell, even Kase and Ritchie are 3 years younger than him, so I'm fine with getting someone who better fits into their age range. I also see Rakell as a very flawed player who I'd rather not pay in a few years and can tolerate some fewer goals in exchange for better all around play.

 

[bsu]

I would do rakell for 4th but not 8th

 

[AngelDuck]

I doubt it's 50/50 either.

Here’s 2009-2013 for now and I’ll do more later:

2009:
4 - Evander Kane (as good/better)
5 - Brayden schenn (as good/better)
6 - OEL (better)
7 - Kadri (as good/better)
8 - Scott Glennie (worse)
9- Jared Cowen ( worse)
10 - Pajaarvi (worse)

2010:
4 - Ryan Johansen (better)
5 - Nino Niederreiter (maybe slightly worse?)
6 - Connoly (worse)
7 - Jeff skinner (as good/better)
8 - Burmistrov (worse)
9 - Mikael Granlund (as good/better)
10 - McIlrath (worse)

2011:
4 - Adam larsson (worse
5 - Ryan strome (worse)
6 - Zibanajad (as good/better)
7- Schiefele (better
8 - Couturier ( better)
9 - Dougie Hamilton (debateable)
10 - Jonas Brodin (slightly worse)

2012:
4 - griffin reinhart (worse)
5 - Morgan Reilly (better)
6 - Lindholm (as good/better)
7 - Dumba (as good)
8 - Pouliot (worse)
9 - Trouba (as good/better)
10 - Koekoek (worse)

2013:
4 - Seth Jones (better)
5 - Elias Lindholm (as good/better)
6 - Monahan (better)
7- Nurse ( worse)
8 - Ristolainen (worse)
9 - Horvat (as good/better)
10 - Nichushkin (worse)

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Here’s 2009-2013 for now and I’ll do more later:

2009:
4 - Evander Kane (as good/better)
5 - Brayden schenn (as good/better)
6 - OEL (better)
7 - Kadri (as good/better)
8 - Scott Glennie (worse)
9- Jared Cowen ( worse)
10 - Pajaarvi (worse)

2010:
4 - Ryan Johansen (better)
5 - Nino Niederreiter (maybe slightly worse?)
6 - Connoly (worse)
7 - Jeff skinner (as good/better)
8 - Burmistrov (worse)
9 - Mikael Granlund (as good/better)
10 - McIlrath (worse)

2011:
4 - Adam larsson (worse
5 - Ryan strome (worse)
6 - Zibanajad (as good/better)
7- Schiefele (better
8 - Couturier ( better)
9 - Dougie Hamilton (debateable)
10 - Jonas Brodin (slightly worse)

2012:
4 - griffin reinhart (worse)
5 - Morgan Reilly (better)
6 - Lindholm (as good/better)
7 - Dumba (as good)
8 - Pouliot (worse)
9 - Trouba (as good/better)
10 - Koekoek (worse)

2013:
4 - Seth Jones (better)
5 - Elias Lindholm (as good/better)
6 - Monahan (better)
7- Nurse ( worse)
8 - Ristolainen (worse)
9 - Horvat (as good/better)
10 - Nichushkin (worse)

You would discover the odds by looking at who was available, not who was picked.

 

[AngelDuck]

You would discover the odds by looking at who was available, not who was picked.

Nikita Kucherov was available at 4 but wasn’t picked until 75

Tough to do

 

[mightyquack]

Moving Rakell for 8th overall would be a completely boneheaded move. This team already struggles to score goals, so we trade away our best scorer? We might as well blow it up and rebuild for the next 5 years if we do that.

 

[bumperkisser]

Nikita Kucherov was available at 4 but wasn’t picked until 75

Tough to do

Not sure if some of those as good/betters are valid. I think it's more like slightly worse/equal.

Like Kadri? And a couple other bubble ones.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Moving Rakell for 8th overall would be a completely boneheaded move. This team already struggles to score goals, so we trade away our best scorer? We might as well blow it up and rebuild for the next 5 years if we do that.

Lol yeah a transitioning team looking to the future instead of the next season is "completely boneheaded".

 

[mightyquack]

Lol yeah a transitioning team looking to the future instead of the next season is "completely boneheaded".

Yes, it is completely boneheaded. Rakell turns 26 in a few days, he is apart of that future you're talking about - just like Gibson (soon to be 26), Lindholm (25), Manson (27) and so on are as well, these are the players you build around for the future - not trade away in the hopes of drafting a player who turns out as good as them in 5 years time. If we're moving Rakell for 'future' reasons, we might as well move all of the above players and others too because we're not transitioning at that point - we're fully committed to blowing it up and rebuilding for the foreseeable future.

So yes, if we want any chance to be in the playoffs at any point in the next few years, trading away the team's best goalscorer (and only one capable of being a 30+ goal guy) for a draft pick that you hope is as good as Rakell in 5 years time is a completely boneheaded move.

If we suck the next year or two, then you look into trading some of those players as it's clear that the retool hasn't worked and harder action may need to happen. But it makes absolutely zero sense to move players like Rakell at the start of the retool, especially when his value is probably at it's lowest currently.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Not sure if some of those as good/betters are valid. I think it's more like slightly worse/equal.

Like Kadri? And a couple other bubble ones.

I'd easily take Kadri over Rakell tbh. I also would with Dougie.

Honestly the biggest thing I gained from that breakdown(which was awesome, btw, thanks AngelDuck) is that if a player in that range hits, he'll almost certainly be better than Rakell. Almost all the worse guys are flat out busts.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Yes, it is completely boneheaded. Rakell turns 26 in a few days, he is apart of that future you're talking about - just like Gibson (soon to be 26), Lindholm (25), Manson (27) and so on are as well, these are the players you build around for the future - not trade away in the hopes of drafting a player who turns out as good as them in 5 years time. If we're moving Rakell for 'future' reasons, we might as well move all of the above players and others too because we're not transitioning at that point - we're fully committed to blowing it up and rebuilding for the foreseeable future.

So yes, if we want to be in the playoffs at any point in the next few years, trading away the team's best goalscorer (and only one capable of being a 30+ goal guy) for a draft pick that you hope is as good as Rakell in 5 years time is a completely boneheaded move.

Lol Rakell is nothing like those other three. Not only are the other three much better at what they do, they're likely to age better too. Gibson is already signed long-term and the two defensemen are must sign guys when they're up. Can you really say the same about Rakell, that he'll be worth a big money contract for his post-prime years?

The suggestion that he's a guy to build around is what's completely boneheaded. He's Swedish Bobby Ryan without the better track record. Who the hell would want to build around that?

 

[mightyquack]

Lol Rakell is nothing like those other three. Not only are the other three much better at what they do, they're likely to age better too. Gibson is already signed long-term and the two defensemen are must sign guys when they're up. Can you really say the same about Rakell, that he'll be worth a big money contract for his post-prime years?

The suggestion that he's a guy to build around is what's completely boneheaded. He's Swedish Bobby Ryan without the better track record. Who the hell would want to build around that?

Rakell is the team's best and only high end goalscorer, he may not be as good as a Gibson or Lindholm overall as a player, but he's one of the team's best players and should absolutely be one of the players Anaheim look to build around in the future. Assuming Rakell bounces back to his usual 30+ goal form, he'll easily be worth the contract he ends up getting.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Rakell is the team's best and only high end goalscorer, he may not be as good as a Gibson or Lindholm overall as a player, but he's one of the team's best players and should absolutely be one of the players Anaheim look to build around in the future. Assuming Rakell bounces back to his usual 30+ goal form, he'll easily be worth the contract he ends up getting.

That's an incredible assumption to make and not a smart one. He may never hit 30 again(which isn't to say I dont think he will but it is a possibility), assuming he's gonna do that into his 30s is quite a leap.

It's also all he does. He's had one year of over 30 assists(although he might've done that this year if he stayed healthy), isn't great defensively, has some issues staying healthy(although not a big deal) on top of having issues with his compete level and consistency. A nice and talented player to have around when the price is right but that's not a guy you build around. The hope with trading him for futures is to get someone you maybe can, and I like our chances.

 

[Kalv]

What`s the word on Lavoie? Dude has almost twice as more points as the second guy on his team (Morand):

QMJHL – Includes live game day coverage, audio and video clips, exclusive stories, game tickets, stats, standings, schedules and features.

Eligible for this years draft.

 

[Dryish]

The main point about the Rakell discussion shouldn't be what he either is or is not, it should be that we just don't reliably know his true worth yet.

This year could easily have been a massive outlier in his overall development trajectory, as it was for many others due to RC's weird brand of hockey that definitely didn't do any favours for more creative type players that thrive on freedom and confidence in their ability. It's absolutely worth it to wait another year and see what he can do with a hopefully more offensively minded coach. Then if he doesn't deliver, you look to trade him, sure. Just not yet.

 

[The Duck Knight]

The main point about the Rakell discussion shouldn't be what he either is or is not, it should be that we just don't reliably know his true worth yet.

This year could easily have been a massive outlier in his overall development trajectory, as it was for many others due to RC's weird brand of hockey that definitely didn't do any favours for more creative type players that thrive on freedom and confidence in their ability. It's absolutely worth it to wait another year and see what he can do with a hopefully more offensively minded coach. Then if he doesn't deliver, you look to trade him, sure. Just not yet.

Once that happens he's not fetching a top 10 pick, which is the discussion now. For me it just comes down to 2 simple things- 1. Will we be a contender during Rakell's current contract? I'd lean towards no without getting too in depth. 2. Do I think we should pay a guy like Rakell 6-7m per on his next contract? That is a definite no thanks. So if you could get a prospect like Dach or Turcotte in return I'd make the move.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

The difficulty in trying to evaluate Rakell or anyone else is how to determine the Randy factor. While I never liked his hiring, it's been quite eye opening the things that we have heard since he was fired. (And that's only what we've heard.) It seems to only add more fuel to the fire as to how inept he was. How do you determine who will bounce back and play well under the new coach vs a guy who is falling off because he has his own issues?