2022 NHL Entry Draft Part 3 (#9, #16, #28)

[Der Jaeger]

Well, we don't know that, but it doesn't even have to be Zegras, you can put any name from the latest draft picks. I mean, being in the top 3 doesn't guarantee you success. I like picks 9 and 16 and I like a lot of players in that range. I just don't see the point in trading.

Nothing's guarenteed, but you're playing the odds. I think the odds of Cooley panning out are better than 9 and 16. I hope I'm wrong.

There's absolutely no guarantee that whoever you pick at #2 will be better than any of the young centres we already have - Thompson, Krebs, Cozens, Mittelstadt, etc.

The only early trade up which makes ANY sense is for Nemec/Jiricek - but even then - giving up so much as your proposal is stupid. If either of those guys started to slip outside of the top 5 then I'd do something like 9 + 41 to secure one of them.

Trading up from 28 or 41 is much more realistic & makes much more sense IMO.

All of this depends on how you view the draft. Remember when Beane traded up to get Elam because he was the only player left on his board with a first round grade? That was a board-driven trade.

Taking that same philosophy to the NHL draft, Adams' board will drive his trades. I don't have a board, per se, but my opinion on this draft is that it's a weak one. That's why teams were willing to give up first round picks. So based on my perspective of this draft, I'd much rather take a big swing at an impact player than go for quantity.

If we haven't learned by now that going all in on one prospect isn't the best way to build a winning NHL team, I doubt we ever will.

With as down as many seem to be about this draft class, Cooley sounds like Mitts 2.0.

That's hyperbole. Trading picks to get to 2 isn't going all in on one prospect to build a winning team. It's not like Cooley would be looked at like he's the franchise savior.

Cooley isn't really like Mittelstadt at all. Far more explosive.

 

[RefsIdeas]

So many of us love Gauthier. I bet he’s this year’s McTavish and goes way higher than expected.

Frank Nazar, who I just watched the EP rinkside guys gush over, is my new realistic top target at 9. There was near unanimous agreement that Nazar has the highest offensive upside of any player in this draft. Yes please.

Liam Ohgren continues to be my target at 16. He’s the type of player that I love. Heady, good all around. Hechtian, if you will. Backup there is McGroarty. At 28 I want Chesley. If he’s gone, Luneau.

Gauthier was my early favorite too. I mentioned this in a post previously but I wanted to flesh out my ideas a bit more. Reading a scouting report on him he seems perfect. He's big, decent skater, hell of a shot, good in his own zone, physical - what's not to like? Until I started to dig a little deeper and find that he rarely has the puck on his stick. He's not the one that's going to be driving play, starting breakouts, entering the zone etc. He's a big body who can hammer home a one timer and be physical in the defensive zone. Plus he got a ton of A+ looks from his linemates. Even though he played a couple games at center, I think there's 0 chance he plays there at the NHL level. He is not a playmaker at all. Not to say he's a bad passer - he's not. It's just not how he typically plays.

He certainly has NHL attributes and NHL size, but I'm of the opinion that he would probably need quite a bit of seasoning at Boston College before playing in a top 6 role in the NHL.

Pronman and DraftProHockey both listed his pro comparable as JT Miller. I don't see that. They're both a decent sized US born player with a good shot - but I think JT Miller is much more capable with the puck on his stick. I think more of a less-skilled, more physical Thomas Vanek (I was trying to think of a non-Sabre comparable but I kept coming back to Vanek as the most similar).

 

[Jim Bob]

That's hyperbole. Trading picks to get to 2 isn't going all in on one prospect to build a winning team. It's not like Cooley would be looked at like he's the franchise savior.

Cooley isn't really like Mittelstadt at all. Far more explosive.

Giving up 3 top 41 picks and a prospect for 1 pick is absolutely going all in on one prospect vs the depth that you should get with quality drafting and developing of 3 top 41 picks and another prospect.

The basis of your argument seems to be the need for a big time top 6 offensive center trumps all else.

Adams' approach to team building has flown in the face of this all in impatient type approach. I doubt you would see him give up 4 futures for 1 future.

The idea you are championing is a far cry from moving up to get Peterka in the 2nd round.

 

[Der Jaeger]

If we haven't learned by now that going all in on one prospect isn't the best way to build a winning NHL team, I doubt we ever will.

With as down as many seem to be about this draft class, Cooley sounds like Mitts 2.0.

Giving up 3 top 41 picks and a prospect for 1 pick is absolutely going all in on one prospect vs the depth that you should get with quality drafting and developing of 3 top 41 picks and another prospect.

The basis of your argument seems to be the need for a big time top 6 offensive center trumps all else.

Adams' approach to team building has flown in the face of this all in impatient type approach. I doubt you would see him give up 4 futures for 1 future.

The idea you are championing is a far cry from moving up to get Peterka in the 2nd round.

Your quote drove my response. I'm not going all in on one prospect to build a winning team.

There's a big, big different between going all in on one prospect to build a winning team (McEichel approach) vs. assessing draft value and placing greater value on the prospect available at 2 over 9 and 16 (plus assets to get the deal done). I'm doing the latter.

If you look at the Sabres prospect pool and line up at all levels, there's a big hole at center. Remember the Quinn experiment at center? That wasn't on accident.

 

[LetsGoBuffalo1126]

That has nothing to do with the value proposition of the trade being considered this year, though.

Given all the needs the Sabres have and Adams not being impatient, I don't see him having any interest in a 4 futures for 1 future trade.

Therein lies the key to me. KA hasn't shown a Murray-level of panic in any of his moves so far. I can't say for sure that he has a long-term plan and that he's executing it, but he's acting like he knows what direction he'd like to go in, and whenever moves pop up to help that cause, he'll do it. However, he's not going to force something just because he had a moderately successful team for a few months and an abundance of high picks.

 

[RhinoFan]

Your quote drove my response. I'm not going all in on one prospect to build a winning team.

There's a big, big different between going all in on one prospect to build a winning team (McEichel approach) vs. assessing draft value and placing greater value on the prospect available at 2 over 9 and 16 (plus assets to get the deal done). I'm doing the latter.

If you look at the Sabres prospect pool and line up at all levels, there's a big hole at center. Remember the Quinn experiment at center? That wasn't on accident.

I'm kind of surprised you say there's a big hole at center right now with Tage, Cozens, Krebs and Mitts all here. The latter two aren't there yet by any means, but the first two check boxes. Wouldn't our biggest need be at RHD? Sorry if I'm nitpicking.

 

[Jacob582]

I find player interviews boring, but found myself listening to Shane Wrights interview on my drive this morning.

Of course I'm most interested in the insignificant details.


- Strangest question he's been asked: What is 25 x 25?

- Montreal took him to dinner at Patina 250

 

[Der Jaeger]

I'm kind of surprised you say there's a big hole at center right now with Tage, Cozens, Krebs and Mitts all here. The latter two aren't there yet by any means, but the first two check boxes. Wouldn't our biggest need be at RHD? Sorry if I'm nitpicking.

I view hole in two parts:

- The need itself
- How easy it is to fill

I think the Sabres have the necessary prospects, and a good UFA market, which can fill goaltender.

The UFA market is fairly strong with RHD and some are available for trade.

I don't see many top 6 centers available for trade or in the free agent market (combined with a willingness to come to Buffalo). I also think Cozens is a wing, and I think the jury is still out on if Krebs is a center.

For me, I always have two trends:

- Draft and develop more centers than you need
- 13-8 roster construction (nightmares from 2006)

 

[RefsIdeas]

Your quote drove my response. I'm not going all in on one prospect to build a winning team.

There's a big, big different between going all in on one prospect to build a winning team (McEichel approach) vs. assessing draft value and placing greater value on the prospect available at 2 over 9 and 16 (plus assets to get the deal done). I'm doing the latter.

If you look at the Sabres prospect pool and line up at all levels, there's a big hole at center. Remember the Quinn experiment at center? That wasn't on accident.

As of this moment I'm not sure if I'm in favor of your idea for a trade-up or not, but I do think the reasoning behind it is solid.

I strongly dislike Byron Bader and his HockeyProspecting models - but he does have a helpful chart for percentages a player pans out by round. The star percentage for a player picked between 1-5 is 45.5%. 6-10 it drops down to 17.8%, then it falls off a cliff after pick 11. Comparatively - the Sabres already have a pretty loaded prospect pool/players under 23 on our team. IMO one clear thing we are missing is high-end offensive talent. If Wright is there at 2, or if you like Cooley enough and believe he's a future 1C type of player, I think it makes sense not only organizationally, but from a statistical perspective if you're banking on getting a star player.

I love reading and researching about the prospects. I have a bunch of players I would love at 9, 16, 28 and 41. I would be sad to see us throw away all those assets and other teams acquire players that I've had my eye on for a while. But if we look back in 5 years, there's a strong chance that at least one of them never even becomes a regular NHLer, and it's unlikely any become a star. If we whiff on a Wright/Cooley selection though then the negative reaction would just be amplified and KA would lose his job.

At the end of the day though, I think this whole discussion is moot. I'd say there's as close to 0 chance as you can get that the Sabres actually pull off a move like this. NJ wants prospects/young players - not to acquire more picks. ARZ needs any sort of stud player. I think Seattle would be the first team you look at for a realistic trade-up, but then you're likely not getting Wright or Cooley. Not to mention I don't think the Sabres as an organization even have an apetite to even attempt a move up like this.

 

[jc17]

Gauthier was my early favorite too. I mentioned this in a post previously but I wanted to flesh out my ideas a bit more. Reading a scouting report on him he seems perfect. He's big, decent skater, hell of a shot, good in his own zone, physical - what's not to like? Until I started to dig a little deeper and find that he rarely has the puck on his stick. He's not the one that's going to be driving play, starting breakouts, entering the zone etc. He's a big body who can hammer home a one timer and be physical in the defensive zone. Plus he got a ton of A+ looks from his linemates. Even though he played a couple games at center, I think there's 0 chance he plays there at the NHL level. He is not a playmaker at all. Not to say he's a bad passer - he's not. It's just not how he typically plays.

He certainly has NHL attributes and NHL size, but I'm of the opinion that he would probably need quite a bit of seasoning at Boston College before playing in a top 6 role in the NHL.

Pronman and DraftProHockey both listed his pro comparable as JT Miller. I don't see that. They're both a decent sized US born player with a good shot - but I think JT Miller is much more capable with the puck on his stick. I think more of a less-skilled, more physical Thomas Vanek (I was trying to think of a non-Sabre comparable but I kept coming back to Vanek as the most similar).

I wasn't super impressed with his decision making, and his passing. A criticism I heard multiple times was his shot selection. I also felt his motor was a bit overrated when I watched him. There were times he was very active, and just watching other times. With all of that said, I had similar feelings about Quinn, and he's shown up.

It will be interesting if he's available, because it might shed more insight into whether this scouting staff has a type. The Rosen and Quinn picks show an affinity for guys who have NHL size, and can put the puck in the net, with the assumption they can figure out the rest.

Frank Nazar, who I just watched the EP rinkside guys gush over, is my new realistic top target at 9. There was near unanimous agreement that Nazar has the highest offensive upside of any player in this draft. Yes please.

I'm surprised his offensive upside would be much higher than Savoie, Lambert, Slaf, or even wright. But I think he's the guy I'm warming up to at 9 too. He seems to play with a lot of energy.

One question for anyone that can answer: did Nazar play most of the year with Cooley and Howard? I see his even strength production was a few ticks below theirs.

 

[Jim Bob]

Your quote drove my response. I'm not going all in on one prospect to build a winning team.

There's a big, big different between going all in on one prospect to build a winning team (McEichel approach) vs. assessing draft value and placing greater value on the prospect available at 2 over 9 and 16 (plus assets to get the deal done). I'm doing the latter.

If you look at the Sabres prospect pool and line up at all levels, there's a big hole at center. Remember the Quinn experiment at center? That wasn't on accident.

It's not just 9 & 16, though.

You are talking about 9, 16, 41, and a prospect for 2. 3 top 41 picks and a prospect for one pick.

A 4 for 1 deal like that is an admission by the team that they don't have a lot of confidence in their ability to draft and develop players. I don't see that being an approach that Adams takes.

That is something along the lines of Mitts, Rosen, Kisakov, and Johnson for one pick. I don't see that being a path that Adams has any interest whatsoever in going down.

 

[Puppa2Miller]

Anybody know when Bob’s final list comes out? Is it after the cup finals?

Edit: historically it drops about a week after the finals.

I’m really curious to see those because they are usually pretty accurate predictors at the top of the draft.

I thought Bob retired from that stuff or was it some other high profile "insider"?

 

[truthbluth]

One question for anyone that can answer: did Nazar play most of the year with Cooley and Howard? I see his even strength production was a few ticks below theirs.

I believe the typical ES line were
Howard-Nazar-Smith
McGroarty-Cooley-Snuggerud
Kaplan-Spicer-Gauthier

But midway through the season, McGroarty and Gauthier swapped

I thought Bob retired from that stuff or was it some other high profile "insider"?

Bob retired from reporting but continues to do draft stuff because he’s an actual “insider”.
His list is constructed entirely from polling currently employed NHL scouts, and then averaging the rankings. It’s the best list for understanding where the tiers are.

 

[Fjordy]

I could see Adams trade one of our players + one first to move up in the draft, like he wanted to do in the last draft, but trade three picks? I think there is no chance and I do not like this idea.

 

[RhinoFan]

I view hole in two parts:

- The need itself
- How easy it is to fill

I think the Sabres have the necessary prospects, and a good UFA market, which can fill goaltender.

The UFA market is fairly strong with RHD and some are available for trade.

I don't see many top 6 centers available for trade or in the free agent market (combined with a willingness to come to Buffalo). I also think Cozens is a wing, and I think the jury is still out on if Krebs is a center.

For me, I always have two trends:

- Draft and develop more centers than you need
- 13-8 roster construction (nightmares from 2006)

Fair approach and agreed with almost all outside of Cozo. I worry we're overvaluing his performance here at worlds playing alongside Barzal. His linemates have been pitiful here, improve them and he's a good center in my opinion. In all fairness though, if you do see him as a winger, that does change things substantially and I would agree there's a big gap then between Tage and anyone else in the org.

 

[Rowley Birkin]

Nothing's guarenteed, but you're playing the odds. I think the odds of Cooley panning out are better than 9 and 16. I hope I'm wrong.

All of this depends on how you view the draft. Remember when Beane traded up to get Elam because he was the only player left on his board with a first round grade? That was a board-driven trade.

Taking that same philosophy to the NHL draft, Adams' board will drive his trades. I don't have a board, per se, but my opinion on this draft is that it's a weak one. That's why teams were willing to give up first round picks. So based on my perspective of this draft, I'd much rather take a big swing at an impact player than go for quantity.

That's hyperbole. Trading picks to get to 2 isn't going all in on one prospect to build a winning team. It's not like Cooley would be looked at like he's the franchise savior.

Cooley isn't really like Mittelstadt at all. Far more explosive.

Nothing's guarenteed, but you're playing the odds. I think the odds of Cooley panning out are better than 9 and 16. I hope I'm wrong.

All of this depends on how you view the draft. Remember when Beane traded up to get Elam because he was the only player left on his board with a first round grade? That was a board-driven trade.

Taking that same philosophy to the NHL draft, Adams' board will drive his trades. I don't have a board, per se, but my opinion on this draft is that it's a weak one. That's why teams were willing to give up first round picks. So based on my perspective of this draft, I'd much rather take a big swing at an impact player than go for quantity.

That's hyperbole. Trading picks to get to 2 isn't going all in on one prospect to build a winning team. It's not like Cooley would be looked at like he's the franchise savior.

Cooley isn't really like Mittelstadt at all. Far more explosive.

Using Elam is a terrible comparison.

An equivalent move for Adams in this draft would be moving up - from 28 to lets say early 20s - to pick the one guy left he has in a much higher tier than anyone else on the board.

This isn't dissimilar to the trade up for JJP either & I've already said this type of move is far more likely & makes far more sense than what you're proposing.

 

[Der Jaeger]

It's not just 9 & 16, though.

You are talking about 9, 16, 41, and a prospect for 2. 3 top 41 picks and a prospect for one pick.

A 4 for 1 deal like that is an admission by the team that they don't have a lot of confidence in their ability to draft and develop players. I don't see that being an approach that Adams takes.

That is something along the lines of Mitts, Rosen, Kisakov, and Johnson for one pick. I don't see that being a path that Adams has any interest whatsoever in going down.

What about trading up due to value assessment leads anyone to believe that a team doesn't have confidence in their ability to draft and develop players? You're adding things into the argument that aren't part of the actual decision making.

If I think the prospect available at 2 is better than what I'm seeing on my board at 9 and 16, then how is that an admission that my teams doesn't draft and develop well? It's a value assessment and nothing more.

You can adjust the trade value, which is fine. I went off a pick value chart where 9, 16, and 41 got me 2. The value isn't significantly off. The idea of making that trade is what matters. If trading a B level prospect gets the deal done, so be it.

Using Elam is a terrible comparison.

An equivalent move for Adams in this draft would be moving up - from 28 to lets say early 20s - to pick the one guy left he has in a much higher tier than anyone else on the board.

This isn't dissimilar to the trade up for JJP either & I've already said this type of move is far more likely & makes far more sense than what you're proposing.

The comparison is that the draft board drives the trading. So the comparison is spot on.

 

[Jim Bob]

What about trading up due to value assessment leads anyone to believe that a team doesn't have confidence in their ability to draft and develop players? You're adding things into the argument that aren't part of the actual decision making.

If I think the prospect available at 2 is better than what I'm seeing on my board at 9 and 16, then how is that an admission that my teams doesn't draft and develop well? It's a value assessment and nothing more.

You can adjust the trade value, which is fine. I went off a pick value chart where 9, 16, and 41 got me 2. The value isn't significantly off. The idea of making that trade is what matters. If trading a B level prospect gets the deal done, so be it.

I don't believe that Adams will value one top 3 pick more than 3 top 41 picks and a prospect.

I am looking at this like a "Who says no?" proposition. And my answer is that Adams says heck no.

 

[jmelm]

For the talk of upside, I'm surprised there's not more Ohgren chatter. Almost 2 points per game is one of the highest rates historically. For whatever reason, I don't think Sweden u20 scoring translates as well as CHL, but it's still notable. Whats the knock on him?

I don't think there is a knock on him. The reason he's generally ranked a little lower is because he didn't immediately produce as much in the mens' league as fellow draftee Lekkerimaki. But he still seems like a consensus ranked player anywhere from the mid teens to early 20's.

 

[Dingo44]

Fair approach and agreed with almost all outside of Cozo. I worry we're overvaluing his performance here at worlds playing alongside Barzal. His linemates have been pitiful here, improve them and he's a good center in my opinion. In all fairness though, if you do see him as a winger, that does change things substantially and I would agree there's a big gap then between Tage and anyone else in the org.

Just pointing out Cozens mostly played with PLD at the World's - which was why a few people were suggesting trying to pry PLD out of Winnipeg or draft someone similar.

 

[jmelm]

Trikozov beast. he could easily be the best Russian in the draft, it's strange that people don't notice this, his stats and game are very good.

This was my first year watching a lot of MHL games so I'm still a noob at figuring out what translates up levels and what doesn't, but in terms of just entertaining players? Watching Gleb is some of the most fun I've had this year.

I've been wondering that if Yurov is gone at 16 and we're not going Dman, if Trikozov becomes a serious consideration at that spot. In terms of guys with elite high end talent, he may the BPA or at least BFA at that spot.

The good thing is this team showed us last year they're not afraid of drafting Russian players, so we know they'll give those 2 guys (and other guys in the 2nd & 3rd round range) an honest look and strong consideration.

 

[jmelm]

Juraj Slafkovsky ranks atop Corey Pronman's top 127 players available at the NHL Draft

Corey Pronman ranks the top 127 draft-eligible players in the 2022 NHL Draft.

theathletic.com

It will be interesting to see if the Sabres can get two players in the top three tiers with picks at 9 & 16...

Wow, Pronman's player comps are terrible! He said this is the first time he's included player comps, and hopefully this is also his last.

 

[Der Jaeger]

I don't believe that Adams will value one top 3 pick more than 3 top 41 picks and a prospect.

I am looking at this like a "Who says no?" proposition. And my answer is that Adams says heck no.

Well, that's a different argument. I'm floating this trade based on my assessment of the draft.

 

[displacedsabre]

Ive ended up in this strange world, where whenever people tell me we should draft XX because he is a center, I just cant believe it. Going into the 2019 draft , Dylan Cozens was the "prototypical" 2 way center, big fast, exactly what you are looking for as a top 6 center. Now people are saying he is a wing. So we should draft Cooley, or Kasper etc, because they are centers. yeah, they are centers until they are wingers

 

[Der Jaeger]

Fair approach and agreed with almost all outside of Cozo. I worry we're overvaluing his performance here at worlds playing alongside Barzal. His linemates have been pitiful here, improve them and he's a good center in my opinion. In all fairness though, if you do see him as a winger, that does change things substantially and I would agree there's a big gap then between Tage and anyone else in the org.

Off topic for this thread, but I've always thought Cozens was a winger, even during his draft year. His traits lend themselves to being a Kreider style winger. When he's had the chance to play wing, I think what we see are his best traits used optimally.