Prospect Info: At 27th Overall The Predators Select Zachary L'Heureux

[101st_fan]

Agreed.

I see this as an absolute win if L'Heureux ends up as 15-20ish goal per season, puck battle winning, absolute pest to play against without the disciplinary baggage that both Wilson and Marchand earned early in their careers. If he produces at a high level then the penalties and possible occasional supplementary discipline become acceptable in a cost/benefit perspective.

 

[AintLifeGrand]

after reading more and informing myself , i am now officially a fan of this pick

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Read this interview with the prospect himself being asked about the suspensions this past season before you makeup your mind.

‘Extremely competitive’ prospect L'Heureux aims to emulate Tkachuk, Marchand - TSN.ca

He is modeling his game after Matthew Tkachuk and Brad Marchand.

One of the mitigating factors that has to be looked at with regards to the suspensions this past season is we have a guy that plays playoff style hockey every shift going against the same five opponents all season long in his draft year and trying to make an impact.

We are discussing a 17-18 year old. Add in other stressors in what was admittedly a stressful year and I’m willing to let him take a deep breath, come to camp, and learn what it takes to be an NHL player. Sitting on the sidelines or in the penalty box for undisciplined play doesn’t get you very far.

I think he’s excited to learn and move forward.

Oh I am definitely not going to make up my mind anytime soon, on any draft picks, regardless of any things I read here or anywhere else. It's not about making up my mind. I've got years yet before I do that. It's just about bringing up points of discussion, pro and con, etc. I like the pros in L'Heureux's game and have always been intrigued and considered him a candidate for our pick even at #18. So getting him at #27 is fantastic.

I'm sure he's excited to learn and move forward too, and I'm not so worried about the discipline side of things. It's more a question of the statistical nature of the Entry Draft. Which I will expound upon more in another post.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

that’s why we were able to get him at #27.

i like the pick from what i have read. it’s all a crapshoot anyways after about the 5th overall pick. statistically at least.

So IF we accept that "it's all a crapshoot anyways"... this is where you start to read a lot about the analytical approach some teams are taking with their pick quotas. And that's really a point I think is relevant to this L'Heureux pick. It's not an issue with the player at all.

But we traded picks #40 (the 39th player taken) and 51 (the 50th player) to move up for L'Heureux. And just to pick on a couple of recognizable names (but there are numerous others we could pick on), we could have had Chibrikov and Raty with those 2 picks, instead of just L'Heureux. (Again, don't focus on which 2 players - there were a bunch in that range of comparable value, though maybe we talked more about Chibrikov and Raty here than some of those others).

So IF it's a crapshoot, you kind of want to roll the dice twice instead of once, don't you? Or ditto trading up later for Anton Olsson. And if this draft is more crapshooty than most, then if you are playing the draft statistically, and some teams were (like our trading partner in Carolina), then arguably just having MORE picks is the smarter strategy as opposed to trading up for a player you happen to like, but realistically probably isn't more or less likely to pan out than somebody that is taken 15 picks later.

It's just something I think is interesting to think about with this trade-up. Independent of what we think about L'Heureux as a player.

 

[LCPreds]

The trade up is kind of irrelevant to me. They basically gave up #50 to get the guy they wanted who was supposedly top 20 on their board. Glad to see them sticking to their convictions.

 

[desmondtootoo]

Marchand, Tucker, Avery, Barnaby, were annoying pests who were often dirty, but didn’t fight a lot and either turtled or pretend fought, to not lose. Tootoo was a bit of a pest, but a great fighter who fought all the time.
Wilson’s a big boi, not a pest. He fights other HWs and enforcers, and tries to knock everybody’s block off.
Marchand is also a different breed, a guy who was a latent big scorer, unrealized for several seasons while being a Dick, lol. Perry is similar, though a better talent from the start.
I think L’Hereux will be like the classic pests, and hopefully have the talent to score 15-25 goals. About like Jeannot who is a little more stout and strong. If they both pan out, they will make the Preds much better. Throw in Olivier and we would have a top 10 tough team.

 

[glenngineer]

So IF we accept that "it's all a crapshoot anyways"... this is where you start to read a lot about the analytical approach some teams are taking with their pick quotas. And that's really a point I think is relevant to this L'Heureux pick. It's not an issue with the player at all.

But we traded picks #40 (the 39th player taken) and 51 (the 50th player) to move up for L'Heureux. And just to pick on a couple of recognizable names (but there are numerous others we could pick on), we could have had Chibrikov and Raty with those 2 picks, instead of just L'Heureux. (Again, don't focus on which 2 players - there were a bunch in that range of comparable value, though maybe we talked more about Chibrikov and Raty here than some of those others).

So IF it's a crapshoot, you kind of want to roll the dice twice instead of once, don't you? Or ditto trading up later for Anton Olsson. And if this draft is more crapshooty than most, then if you are playing the draft statistically, and some teams were (like our trading partner in Carolina), then arguably just having MORE picks is the smarter strategy as opposed to trading up for a player you happen to like, but realistically probably isn't more or less likely to pan out than somebody that is taken 15 picks later.

It's just something I think is interesting to think about with this trade-up. Independent of what we think about L'Heureux as a player.

I had never thought about this until yesterday about drafts and maybe I did at one point but as I get older, I don't remember all the things I've thought about pertaining to hockey.

I was looking at our 1st pick's regular-season numbers versus what he produced in the playoffs. Same for this player if I can remember what I did yesterday. While I get we try to focus on what they bring to a team on many different levels, one thing Poile has done over the last couple of weeks is moving on from steady regular-season performers who disappeared in the playoffs stat-wise and physically.

With the first two picks, he got a guy who's a solid two-way center and a pesky player with good upside, who appear to raise their game come playoff time. Once again, will those hold true at this level, none of us know but those are the guys I want on my team. I want an edge. I want solid two-way play. I want playoff performers. I want guys with chips on their shoulders. I love this second pick. I want to see if he backs up his statements about going into corners and winning battles. If he does, I will love this pick even more.

I'd still love to see Poile draft an elite forward at some point before he retires though.

 

[Roman Yoshi]

Yes. More of this please.

Then maybe Arvy would have one working knee.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I had never thought about this until yesterday about drafts and maybe I did at one point but as I get older, I don't remember all the things I've thought about pertaining to hockey.

I was looking at our 1st pick's regular-season numbers versus what he produced in the playoffs. Same for this player if I can remember what I did yesterday. While I get we try to focus on what they bring to a team on many different levels, one thing Poile has done over the last couple of weeks is moving on from steady regular-season performers who disappeared in the playoffs stat-wise and physically.

With the first two picks, he got a guy who's a solid two-way center and a pesky player with good upside, who appear to raise their game come playoff time. Once again, will those hold true at this level, none of us know but those are the guys I want on my team. I want an edge. I want solid two-way play. I want playoff performers. I want guys with chips on their shoulders. I love this second pick. I want to see if he backs up his statements about going into corners and winning battles. If he does, I will love this pick even more.

I'd still love to see Poile draft an elite forward at some point before he retires though.

I mean, I have been doing drafts for over 30 years now, and sure, I understand the lure of liking certain players and finding fits for my team and making moves to get those players I like, etc. It's part of the confidence you kind of at least ideally want to have in your scouting. There have been many past years I actually watched prospects and knew them all and saw them play many many times. I don't do that anymore, so I don't know any of this crop except the few my kid has played with or against. But I understand the lure.

At the same, if I really was objective about it... an awful lot of those players I thought I liked in the past 30 years didn't work out. I probably tend to put a spotlight in my memory banks on the ones who did pan out, and I pat myself on the back for my "steals". But there are an awful lot more who didn't pan out, and it's not just because I suck as a scout. (Part of it is). But I think the new Analytics crowd has a lot more data from a "modern scouting" foundation to go on now, and they understand the degree to which picks within any given range are statistically interchangeable with other picks a little bit later. I do believe this statistical approach to scouting is going to work out better than the traditional scouting approach. I have seen enough drafts to be confident of that. But I do understand how it's nice to just pretend otherwise and still fall in love with the players you like and fool yourself into thinking that somehow you can beat the odds. It's more fun that way.

(Again, none of which has any real bearing on our picks, because I like those picks).

 

[Legwand Legacy]

Skilled with a snarky competitive side is what makes smaller prospects like L'Heureux (gonna take a while to get used to that spelling) so interesting to watch develop. The fact we traded up for him as well shows Poile sees something he really likes.

 

[Soundgarden]

This is a guy that fans would love to have on their team and despise to play against.
There's talk in this thread about Marchand, but if we had a Marchand he'd be a fan favorite, we'd even have plastic tongues and have a fan club called the lickers. You think Boston fans hate Marchand and Anaheim fans hated Perry when he scored 50?

We'd all kill to draft a player like this and some on this board have been moaning about size, talent and grit for ages as opposed to talented "European" guys who have "no" toughness. Have to admire Poile having the balls to take the risk and get his guy.

 

[Legionnaire11]

You know, there's a fascination in hockey circles about the 6' mark and the 200lb mark. Anything at or above those numbers is seen as a big guy, while anything below those is seen as a small guy. L'Heureux is listed at 5'11, 196, just about as close to 6' 200 as you can get without actually being there, and might well end up over both of those marks.

Yet, it's just some mental trick where we see the 5 and the 1 at the beginning and think smaller guy and compare him to other smaller guys. Brad Marchand 5'9, 181 and Jordin Tootoo 5'9, 195.

L'Heureux as listed today is the same size as...

Matt Duchene
Joe Pavelski
T.J. Oshie
Derek Stepan
Anthony Duclair
Ethan Bear
and about a dozen more guys

He's bigger than Cousins and Tolvanen on our team. No way is size going to be an issue with this guy, especially after getting into the NHL weight room.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Luke Kunin doesn't look very big on the ice to me. If he's 6'0" it's... well a bit of a "stretch". And I doubt he weighs as much as L'Heureux already does. But he throws his body around and digs, and I don't think of Kunin as "small" either, even if he's probably more like 5'11/190. He's effective physically. (Without approaching that "edge" that L'Heureux reputedly dances on).

 

[nine_inch_fang]

I wish we had honest measurements for players.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I wish we had honest measurements for players.

Ha, this will definitely never happen. I have talked to enough NHL players to be permanently poisoned on the idea of their NHL measurements being accurate. I know my own measurements very accurately, and most NHLers I've encountered have definitely been exaggerated in any roster listings from what I've seen.

This is of course just a subjective small sample. I've probably met around 20 ex-NHL players through minor hockey. Guys who listed 6'3" are probably 6'1" on average. 1-2" is probably the typical height exaggeration. I'm not sure weight exaggerations are as meaningful (esp. dealing with retired guys!)

 

[nine_inch_fang]

Ha, this will definitely never happen. I have talked to enough NHL players to be permanently poisoned on the idea of their NHL measurements being accurate. I know my own measurements very accurately, and most NHLers I've encountered have definitely been exaggerated in any roster listings from what I've seen.

This is of course just a subjective small sample. I've probably met around 20 ex-NHL players through minor hockey. Guys who listed 6'3" are probably 6'1" on average. 1-2" is probably the typical height exaggeration. I'm not sure weight exaggerations are as meaningful (esp. dealing with retired guys!)

The one player I always go back to is Steve Sullivan. His oldest son is the same birth year as my son so we've coached each other's kids and I've spent a good bit of time on and off skates around him. I forget what his listed height was but we all, including him, had more than a couple laughs about it.

 

[triggrman]

The person helping my son with recruiting says you always round up, Nick is barely over 6’ but is listed at 6’1”, he’s barely 160 but list at 165

 

[nine_inch_fang]

The person helping my son with recruiting says you always round up, Nick is barely over 6’ but is listed at 6’1”, he’s barely 160 but list at 165

I'm calling myself 6'1" from now on. Hahaha

Can I round down on the weight?

 

[triggrman]

I'm calling myself 6'1" from now on. Hahaha

Can I round down on the weight?

Right.

 

[jumb0]

There's a good joke on social media that no man is 5' 11". If they were they would round up to 6 foot. Anyone telling you they are 5' 11" is actually 5' 9 1/2"

 

[Seth Lake]

There's a good joke on social media that no man is 5' 11". If they were they would round up to 6 foot. Anyone telling you they are 5' 11" is actually 5' 9 1/2"

I was told years ago that I was 5’11.5” during a physical and ever since then have held onto that half inch dearly!

 

[jumb0]

Signed his ELC today

 

[BigFatCat999]

I wish we had honest measurements for players.

Steven Sullivan

 

[nine_inch_fang]

Steven Sullivan

Please see below.

The one player I always go back to is Steve Sullivan. His oldest son is the same birth year as my son so we've coached each other's kids and I've spent a good bit of time on and off skates around him. I forget what his listed height was but we all, including him, had more than a couple laughs about it.

 

[BigFatCat999]

Please see below.

Did not see that, my bad.