ATD 2016: Draft Thread I

[Hobnobs]

No one said anything about taking a bad fit, and if there's a player you're referring to, I'm not picking up on it because there was no one in particular that I was hinting you should have taken.

Since when is seeing the players ranked in an appropriate order on the draft list a goal? Whether they've explicitly stated it or not, every time you see someone say "I can't believe he keeps getting taken after..." or "good to see him finally drop to where he belongs" or "good to see him get another rise this year" it shows that it is a mutual interest of most of us in this collaborative project to rank players appropriately, in a team building context.

Heck, any time a bad pick is criticized it shows the same thing. If this was just all about competitiveness we should all be delighted when our opponents make a bad pick, but we're not, are we? Who's happy to see Shawked take Mike Gartner? I'm not; it irks me to see his name up in the mid-100s after it took 9 drafts of dropping to get him into the 300s where he belongs.

I shouldve picked him first overall. I love to irk you

Serious thought. Yea it irks me too.

 

[Dreakmur]

Ratelle and Modano was my list, and I'm about to go on the bench for a hockey game, so I'll be a few hours at keast

 

[Iceman]

The Colorado Rockies will grab another offensive weapon and select Roy Conacher, LW

Stanley Cup Champion (1939, 1941)
First All-Star Team Left Wing (1949)
Stanley Cup Game Winning Goal (1939)
Art Ross Trophy (1949)
Maurice Richard Trophy (1939)
Inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame (1998)

Top-10 Scoring (1st, 6th, 7th, 10th, 10th, 10th)
Top-10 Goalscoring (1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th)
Top-10 Assist (2nd, 8th)
Top-10 Playoff Scoring (3rd, 4th, 7th)
Top-10 Playoff Goalscoring (2nd, 4th)
Top-10 Playoff Assist (3rd, 6th, 7th)
Calder Finalist (2nd)
Top-10 Hart Nomination (3rd, 8th)
Top-10 Lady Bing Finalist (3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th)
Team Scoring Leader (1942, 1949, 1950, 1951)
Team Goalscoring Leader (1939, 1941, 1942, 1947, 1949, 1951)
All Star Voting: 1, 3, 5, 5(RW)

Full Bio by HT18

A guy I was surprised didn't go until now considering the bursts of wing picks we've seen so far. Maybe the amount of centers being picked countered that a little bit?

Either way, I would certainly pick him if I had your pick, for my team as well. Would be a really nice 2nd line scoring winger, granted that you surround him with the right people. Hextall, Sr. is nice, hopefully you get a good center too.

 

[ResilientBeast]

A guy I was surprised didn't go until now considering the bursts of wing picks we've seen so far. Maybe the amount of centers being picked countered that a little bit?

Either way, I would certainly pick him if I had your pick, for my team as well. Would be a really nice 2nd line scoring winger, granted that you surround him with the right people. Hextall, Sr. is nice, hopefully you get a good center too.

The only real knock on him I can find is that we know very little about his play as a whole besides his speed. I'll be doing a lengthy search and hope I can find anything. T.Blake, Bill Cook, Hextall Sr and Roy Conacher is a scary set of wingers for any team in this IMO

Also for the record his VSX is highest amongst available LW I think. So he'll be productive for sure on my squad

 

[jarek]

Cameron is who I was leaning towards taking before I made the trade with rmartin

I figured he would be pretty high on your list! He was the BDA IMO, and has been for quite some time.

Cameron is a name that went through my head like 45 times during the last round or so.

Hopefully you can dig up some more stuff on him!

I intend to go through every single game recap for him (yes, I am THAT crazy) and see what I dig up. His offensive record suggests he was the Paul Coffey of his time, or thereabouts. He's a player that, with a good bit of research, could probably rise considerably next draft.

 

[Iceman]

I intend to go through every single game recap for him (yes, I am THAT crazy) and see what I dig up. His offensive record suggests he was the Paul Coffey of his time, or thereabouts. He's a player that, with a good bit of research, could probably rise considerably next draft.

...or down.

 

[tony d]

Time now to review Day 13 of the 2016 ATD, a day where we saw 11 picks:

- Adam Oates was picked; Very good pick, had him before, very good playmaker, put him next to a good goal scorer and you'll see loads of offense. Gretzky and Oates as your top 2 playmakers will be the envy of many a team around the league.

- Patrick Kane was picked: Good pick, guy is having a good season and I wondered when he'd go this year.

- Mike Modano was piked: Was hoping he'd drop to me at 190, good centre who will give you a lot of different play options.

- Doug Wilson was picked: Had he been there at 190 (Very wishful thinking I would have went with him, seems like the player I need for my defense)

- Mike Gartner was picked: A bit of a reach here; Again he's a good goal scorer, but you could have waited a bit to pick him as he went 318 last year.

Anyway those are my thoughts on Day 13, looking forward to day 14 and tomorrow beginning Week 3 of the 2016 ATD.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Ironically, the first skater I draft who cant be used as a defenseman will likely man the point on the power play.

Ilya Kovalchuk, W

 

[MadArcand]

No one said anything about taking a bad fit, and if there's a player you're referring to, I'm not picking up on it because there was no one in particular that I was hinting you should have taken.

Since when is seeing the players ranked in an appropriate order on the draft list a goal? Whether they've explicitly stated it or not, every time you see someone say "I can't believe he keeps getting taken after..." or "good to see him finally drop to where he belongs" or "good to see him get another rise this year" it shows that it is a mutual interest of most of us in this collaborative project to rank players appropriately, in a team building context.

Heck, any time a bad pick is criticized it shows the same thing. If this was just all about competitiveness we should all be delighted when our opponents make a bad pick, but we're not, are we? Who's happy to see Shawked take Mike Gartner? I'm not; it irks me to see his name up in the mid-100s after it took 9 drafts of dropping to get him into the 300s where he belongs.

Bad pick is a bad pick, it has little to do with total ranking. If this was about ranking, then the annual run on defensemen would never happen. Team needs override any notion of overall ranking. At the very best, you could say players of the same position should be ranked roughly accordingly (team needs, fit & style still will take precedence, but at least it will be closer than the "D-men uber alles & supercenters late" that is the reality of the overall ranking).

Kane was not the best RW available when I took him, but he's gonna be very close to it by the time the playoffs roll around, IMO. And the players I see as better weren't a fit or need for my team.

 

[Voight]

If you're at all interested in having a competitive team, please watch the past draft positions of players you're interested in, and use it as a guide for where to draft them. You could have had probably three better players and then still taken Gartner.

Thanks but I'm good.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Millionares: William Durnan, G.

 

[Hobnobs]

Bobby Hull – Marcel Dionne – Rod Gilbert
Evgeni Malkin – Mike Gartner

Brian Leetch – Larry Murphy​

 

[seventieslord]

Imagine, Bill Durnan, a good #3 defenseman, a great 2nd line LW, and then Gartner.

 

[Sturminator]

C'mon now...let the man draft who he wants to draft. We shouldn't be encouraging navel-gazing of past draft positions, anyway.

 

[overpass]

I intend to go through every single game recap for him (yes, I am THAT crazy) and see what I dig up. His offensive record suggests he was the Paul Coffey of his time, or thereabouts. He's a player that, with a good bit of research, could probably rise considerably next draft.

Why bother doing the research when you've already formed your conclusion?

 

[jarek]

Why bother doing the research when you've already formed your conclusion?

I'm sorry? I have formed no conclusions at all.

Unless you're insinuating that I am only going to include the good things that I find and leave out the bad.

 

[seventieslord]

C'mon now...let the man draft who he wants to draft. We shouldn't be encouraging navel-gazing of past draft positions, anyway.

No, we shouldn't, but to the point where we can use it as a strategic guide to determine what rounds you can get away with drafting a player in, it's both useful and important.

 

[overpass]

I'm sorry? I have formed no conclusions at all.

Unless you're insinuating that I am only going to include the good things that I find and leave out the bad.

This doesn't exactly read like an open-minded starting position.

He's a player that, with a good bit of research, could probably rise considerably next draft.

Maybe I read it wrong but it reminds me of the days when someone would draft a player and immediately post "I intend to do the research to prove that his (insert weakness here) was a myth". I never found much value, if any, in the "research" that resulted from this starting position.

 

[jarek]

This doesn't exactly read like an open-minded starting position.



Maybe I read it wrong but it reminds me of the days when someone would draft a player and immediately post "I intend to do the research to prove that his (insert weakness here) was a myth". I never found much value, if any, in the "research" that resulted from this starting position.

Me being a guilty party in that, admittedly.

That being said, the only reason I started with that is because we don't really know a whole lot about his all-around game. We know he was tremendous offensively but there is a lot of room to go, one way or the other, with respect to the rest of his game.

As Iceman said, albeit likely in jest, his value could very well go down with a more complete picture of him. I am confident - but not expecting anything one way or another - that his value will almost certainly go nowhere but up.

 

[Dreakmur]

Couchiching Terriers select Lester Patrick

 

[Dreakmur]

I may not have a #1 defenseman, but I got four #2s lol

 

[Iceman]

I may not have a #1 defenseman, but I got four #2s lol

AND the Dominator.

 

[jarek]

I may not have a #1 defenseman, but I got four #2s lol

I would peg Lester as a strong #3 here..

It's probably obvious by now but Lester Patrick was the other guy I was thinking of taking when I took Cameron.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Is it worth it for Dreak to stack up his back-end so much? His forward crop is going to be seriously under-manned and lacking sizzle. Augment your strengths, I guess.

 

[jarek]

Is it worth it for Dreak to stack up his back-end so much? His forward crop is going to be seriously under-manned and lacking sizzle. Augment your strengths, I guess.

When we're all scrambling to complete our defenses, he's going to get the pick of the litter of all the high value forwards that drop.

It remains to be seen if it will work.