Avalanche Draft 2019 - Did we do well?

chet1926

Registered User
Jan 9, 2008
12,274
5,587
Denver
Everyone can have their opinions, and who they would have drafted instead of X player. But I tend to lean on the opinions of the people who do this for a job, not HF posters, because I don't do scouting as a profession. And they seem to be reviewing our draft very positively, so I guess we did pretty well.

I was a little disappointed that we didn't make a move to get a high 2nd round pick with the about if picks we had. I rather we tried to swing for the fence than be complacent and hear later on that we missed out on some guys we were targeting due to them getting drafted right before our pick.
 

Patagonia

Keep Whining
Jan 6, 2017
7,621
3,245
Everyone can have their opinions, and who they would have drafted instead of X player. But I tend to lean on the opinions of the people who do this for a job, not HF posters, because I don't do scouting as a profession. And they seem to be reviewing our draft very positively, so I guess we did pretty well.

I was a little disappointed that we didn't make a move to get a high 2nd round pick with the about if picks we had. I rather we tried to swing for the fence than be complacent and hear later on that we missed out on some guys we were targeting due to them getting drafted right before our pick.

Draft felt mixed and really average beyond the 1st round. LAK, CAR and LVK had more balance and better choices in the later rounds.

Incredible 1st, terrible 2nd-3rd and strong 5th-7th.

However, adding to possibly elite players is still a tremendous success. Extremely impressed with the Byram/Newhook choices, the rest is just a bonus.
 

Patagonia

Keep Whining
Jan 6, 2017
7,621
3,245
You have to be completely clueless to think Helleson was a terrible choice.

Maybe this was worded incorrectly...great choice if this is closer to trading Barrie. :laugh:

He is actually a decent pick, but they had better options: Leason, Jones and Grewe.
 

BKarchitect

Registered User
Oct 12, 2017
7,019
11,848
Kansas City, MO
Looks like they really went for North American guys with size who can shoot after round 2. Beaucage, Mutala, Burzan. A lot of project picks, maybe the scouts feel all these big bodies are moldable and can be depth players if they don’t pan out offensively but really they don’t (as a group) profile as safe depth guys either due to major deficiencies in their games. Definitely feels like they wanted a “type” though to me.

I’m not going to go nuts about mid and late round choices but if they wanted upside home run picks there were tons Europeans we ignored and if they wanted future glue guys, they should have pounded the American guys harder.

Miner was bloody good value for the 7th round though (although you can say the same for Wolf and several other goalies who weren’t even drafted).
 

AllAboutAvs

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 25, 2006
9,244
7,255
The way I look at it is the 1st round was great, 2nd was very good, 3rd was a bit disappointing, 5th was very very good, 6th was just OK, and 7th was very good.

The reason I went with very very good for the 5th round is because after reading Mutala's story and what he went through during the season I changed my mind on that pick. I wasn't aware of his story. This guy was originally ranked quite a bit higher prior to last season. This is the kind of players you want to pick in the late round. Now that things are looking better in his personal life he could be headed towards a strong bounce back. Very good job by the Avs to recognize that and taking a chance on the kid.
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
59,988
19,060
w/ Renly's Peach
Ranta was one of my least favorite picks last year, so I'm not thrilled that it seems like he was just a taste of the type of project we're targetting in the mid-to-later rounds. But I don't know much about these specific Ranta's and he had a really nice freshman season, so I'm hopeful that these can guys can help the eagles and maybe even hit on 1 or 2 of them as the kind of cheap depth that we've struggled to develop.

All in all I feel like this was a solid B/B+ draft, even if I would've liked to have seen us be more active/agressive with our pick surplus. I'm excited to have a new-Meloche :yo:
 
Last edited:

henchman21

Mr. Meeseeks
Sponsor
Feb 24, 2012
61,892
45,217
My overall thoughts on the draft:

4 - Bowen - My stance on him has a pretty long history. Best defensive prospect in the draft by a good margin, don't think there is #1 upside here. Realistically should be a #2. Totally understand this pick.
16 - Newhook - Krebs being right there probably skews this down a bit, but Newhook is skilled, works hard, and should be a real solid NHL player. I know people are divided on skating here, and I'm in the group that rates it worse. His top speed is good, maybe even great... small space and burst leave a lot to be desired. It is pretty sound fundamentally. I'd like to see him drop 5 pounds to pick up some burst. He also has a tendency to be outside the play and not be a dots in sort of guy. Those two things worry me a lot on his ability to be a center long-term. He's going to get his shot to develop there, but I see some real concerns there. Long-term I see a 2nd line wing who is a 50-55 point guy.
47 - Helleson - Also have stated a lot on him. One of my personal favorites in this draft. One of the best pure passers in the draft. They are clean, crisp, and easily receivable with a very high consistency. He's not dynamic, doesn't have great hands and doesn't have a bomb of a shot. But his passing and reads are top notch. He's also a very mobile kid for 6'3" and has great gaps. If you're down on the kid, you see a player without enough skill to carve out a role. If you're up on the kid you see a future middle pairing, shutdown guy who will anchor a PK unit and provide a nice safety net.
63 - Stienburg - I'm not as down on the player as much as others, but he was certainly picked 2-3 rounds too high IMO. He works hard, has a nasty edge, leader... downside... not a ton of skill or much to develop there. Needs skating work. To me, he is a more realistic AHL 3rd liner that ends up a long-term captain in the league. His upside is a fan favorite bottom 6 grinder, who is better on a 4th line than up.
78 - Beaucage - He is a pretty divisive kid in the scouting community. It is hard to really explain here beyond just sounding terrible... but he is a horrific skater. Not just by overall and projection standards, but horrific in the Q. Which would make him horrific in the ECHL. He's going to have to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. He has solid IQ and a damn good shot, but you're banking on a bunch of skating improvement to get a NHL player (or even a good AHL player). Also fun fact... Rouyn Noranda has a 190' long ice surface. It is the smallest (or close to it) ice surface in the league. This helps their lesser skaters get by. I don't know off hand, but the home/away split has to be significant.
140 - Mutala - His story draws you to him. He's had a very hard year and I think it impacted him. On the ice he works hard and he's a better skater than he first may come off. Can play a physical game, but I find it a touch inconsistent. Solid shot, but not a ton of other plus skills offensively. At very least you're getting a worker and a good kid. That will warm him to coaches and open up doors (and fans who care about prospects will cheer for the kid). I doubt there is a NHL player here, but decent enough for a 5th rounder.
171 - Burzan - Skilled and should run all over the WHL next year. I worry about his compete and IQ significantly. He will put up video game numbers next year in the WHL and build hype. Don't fall for it until he gets into the pros. He has the skill and ability to transition and become a real player, or he can fall flat on his face.
202 - Miner - On the plus side, he nearly stole the crease from a drafted prospect. He's got a real keen ability to read the play and be ready for chances against instead reacting (speaks highly of his IQ). Also has a knack for making a big save. Downsides... not real athletic (post to post is pretty slow and don't see high end flexibility) and his frame is on the small side. Seems like a selection to just make sure they hit a goalie quota, not somebody they really love. Would have preferred a Nussbaumer/Drozdov/Gutik over forcing a goalie pick.

Looking at this, if the Avs don't get at least 2 NHL players out of this draft, it will be a surprise and a disappointment. Bowen and Newhook will be the sure things. A third should be likely with Helleson having the strongest chance. I'd probably put Buzan as the second most likely then Mutala. So I'd wager that they should get 3 NHL players here. Now a 4th would be a surprise on the positive side. I don't think the odds are strong there. To me, that keeps the draft from touching the B+/A- level. A solid B sort of draft to me. If you get 3 NHL players a year, you're doing pretty well... 4 is elite drafting. Having 2 firsts makes the 3/4 much easier, but that won't be counted on into perpetuity. If they can get Helleson into the NHL and get one other more than a cup of coffee, I'll be happy with the draft in 5 years.
 

Pokecheque

Whack it Hard to Girard
Sponsor
Aug 5, 2003
45,817
28,815
The Middle West
www.armoredheadspace.com
Going through Manny "The Salad Man" Elk's draft grades. He attempted to evaluate from a statistical perspective.



FYI Carolina got a solid A, Arizona got a D, Detroit got a D-. Minny got a D+, Montreal and Ottawa get F's!
 

henchman21

Mr. Meeseeks
Sponsor
Feb 24, 2012
61,892
45,217
Their conclusion on Ottawa's draft was "they didn't make a single good pick". :laugh:

Which, I'd say is BS. I'm a big fan of both Pinto and Thomson. Both are big time 'flash' players. Meaning they have instances where they will impress the hell out of you with a play, it just may not be there all the time. They were drafted 10ish spots too high, but long-term I don't care about that. I think Lodin is a real sneaky pick too... there were rumors that a few teams had him high on their lists. Lots to love in his game, but he's a projection/project kid. At 17 he looked like a lost cause... at 19 he turned heads. He's a prospect on the upswing. How much you feel that continues probably changes how you feel about it.
 

Nihiliste

Registered User
Feb 8, 2010
11,536
4,658
Everyone can have their opinions, and who they would have drafted instead of X player. But I tend to lean on the opinions of the people who do this for a job, not HF posters, because I don't do scouting as a profession. And they seem to be reviewing our draft very positively, so I guess we did pretty well.

I would agree if our track record wasn’t so horrible. Outside of high picks we’ve had 10 years of failure, and even some of the high picks were bad or meh (Siemens, Jost). If you had only succeeded with the lowest hanging fruit at your job, would anyone trust your work product going forward?
 
Last edited:

Pokecheque

Whack it Hard to Girard
Sponsor
Aug 5, 2003
45,817
28,815
The Middle West
www.armoredheadspace.com
I saw Pinto play quite a bit this year. He was the best forward on an absolutely miserable Lincoln Stars team (I'd say Josiah Slavin was their 2nd best guy up front). So I'm fine with that pick as well, and not convinced Kaliyev and Brink would have been better choices in that slot. I don't know anything about Thomson so I can't comment one way or the other there.

To be fair, he doesn't necessarily sell his model as anything infallible, and sometimes even notes when he disagrees with it.

But yeah, say what you will about Dorion but the man knows how to run a draft. Same goes for Trevor Timmins.
 

S E P H

Cloud IX
Mar 5, 2010
30,714
16,242
Toruń, PL
I give us a current "B-" with the potential to become an "A/A-" if some of the stars align.

4 Colorado Avalanche
3.png
Bowen Byram (D)
Vancouver Giant...
3.png
WHL
67 26 45 71
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
I would rank this pick as an "A". He was 5th on my list and even though I would consider a couple players as better choices, you can't argue against Byram's complete package. I have no problem going down the Predators route of drafting high-end defenders and give us the ability to trade others for other areas of need. I'm with Hench that I think his offence is overvalued and I don't see number one capabilities in his game, but I won't argue that he doesn't have that potential. Whatever the case is, he will be a great addition as a steady piece who will be able to play in all situations.

My rank for this pick would be "B". Captain Hook was 15th on my final list and even though I might've criticized it a bit after he was draft, he will still become a great player. I don't see a strong two-way game and I still prefer Peyton Krebs who I suggest gets better as the games get bigger, but you can't argue against his offencive talent or potential. As I said in previous posts, I do buy the fact that he has one of the highest ceilings in this draft outside of the top ten. However, a big part of that relies on if you see him as a centre or winger in the long run. His straight line speed is good for a winger off the rush, but if he's some latent potential on the lateral portion of skating then I think he can become a centre (which should increase his offencive ceiling for me). I am also in agreement with Hench that Newhook plays a bit too perimeter of a game at times and gets an absurd amount of points on the man-advantage. I did have some of the same issues with Barzal so there is the ability to get better in different areas of the game. I still keep going back between an off the rush Matt Duchene or Vladimir Tarasenko because I buy his shooting traits getting better.

Definitely would rank this as an "A+". Helleson was ranked as 30th on my final list so I am definitely a believer of his talent. Mentioned by both Hench and I here, he is one of the best passers in this draft easily and that consistency will be very hard to break him down on the forecheque. I would say that our defencive core isn't one of the most talented bunches in terms of generating offence, but man oh man with Barrie, Makar, Girard, Byram, and now with Helleson I just cannot see how teams are going to be able to grind us down. Drew is a smart defender on the cusp of being a two-way defender, but I think he's a bit less talented than that. A reason why I put him more as a defencive-defender is that he tends to make the simpler play which kind of downgrades his offencive ability. Now with that said, I am also with Hench in agreement that he has some sneaky tools to provide some offence; such as his mobility, IQ, vision, and passing ability. It will be interesting to see if he develops more of a risky style since he won't be buried behind a loaded NTDP . BC will need to use him more in big game situations and I fully believe he has the ability to be a better stretch passer than Girard.

My ranking on this would be "D-". I never watched Stienburg so he wasn't in my final rankings and in reality this was a big "wtf pick?". Avs probably found out that another team valued him behind them so they went with their guns and picked this lad (which I am not against). I actually don't consider this a truly terrible pick or the Avs worst pick because they probably see him have a lot higher potential than we do on here, perhaps as a legit CBJ Josh Anderson type of player. However, I have two problems with this type of logic concerning the Avs; first and foremost he screams to me as a long-term project along the lines of Mark Jankowski. I am not against long-term players, but honestly I see them as too needy and finicky in terms of watering and sunlight (and if you buy the Avs as a terrible development team then write him off already). I am all for taking risks, but give me a more safer player than someone who might realistically be five years away from having any sort of impact and that might be a Josh Anderson type of player at best. Second, majority of his points came against weak competition and not even in a single Junior A Ontario league. Sure he played a couple of games in the USHL where all he had was one assist. Nonetheless, he was just ten points above PPG in a random league called the CAHS. This means that if he decided to play in the OJHL he probably wouldn't have been a PPG player and would've been a late round project. It's going to suck when players like Campbell, Jones, Grewe, Puistola, Legare, and Farinacci all reach higher levels than him. Hope Avs saw something other teams didn't because I can't justify this pick over the likes of Campbell and Puistola personally.

Can't rank this higher than an "F" personally. Wasn't ranked on my list because he was one of the most disappointing players I watched this season, especially at the Memorial Cup. It's not that I value him having zero offencive talent or NHL potential. Though, that he's one of those players that has enough potential/talent to make the NHL, but doesn't have anything higher except absolutely frustrate you. He is Derick Brassard 2.0 where you see the flashes of talent, but you keep wondering why teams keep giving him a shot. Just too calm and collective, too inconsistency, and skates like he's in mud meaning he's late everywhere. He's a very stationary player similar to Kaliyev, but instead of Arthur Alex doesn't have a lot of tools or athleticism besides his shot. He has an amazing shot which is at the NHL level, but if you can't move or agile around players then what strength will that be if defenders will be able to get in the way of it in (in the higher leagues)? Another concern I am starting to have as a scout and it is the question,"would this lad have gone this high if he wasn't on a loaded team who just won the Memorial Cup?". Realistically ask that you'll find that similar to Stienburg, if Beaucage was on a worse club than he wouldn't have been a top 90 pick. These players are ones to fall in any redraft thread. I would like to add is that very soon we're going to see how bad this pick is going to be when the likes of Dorofeyev, Clarke, Kokkonen, Nikolayev, Cajkovic, and Protas all take the next step.

Rank this as a solid "C". Was below my top two rankings, but that doesn't mean he's a bad player. After a couple days of thinking I still like this pick. Of course he was super inconsistent and I think he's a bit more talented than how he played last year. But why I didn't rank this higher than a C is because I want him to be more of a catalyst instead of complementary player. He played last season as he was there for his teammates instead of being there to create plays, goals, or dangerous chances for his teammates. I do think a part of this is because of his parents being on the back of his mind and that's hard to forget, even in hockey. I would like to see him lose a bit of weight, get leaner, and get faster because you see some good worth ethic skills like taking the puck to the net and being an accomplished player from the puck. He's a bit similar to Beaucage in terms of skating that he wants to play a good defencive game, but doesn't have the explosiveness yet so he trails behind more than I think he would like to. Still think he can become a poor man's Alex Killorn or Matt Calvert type of player.

Rank this as a "B-". Wasn't on my final ranking because I valued him more around the 5th round and he went in the 6th. Thought this was an interesting pick because I thought Burzan always had the flashes of high-end offencive, but he was quite soft and super inconsistent when he was with Moose Jaw. He reminds me a lot of the Denis Smirnov selection a couple years back where both have great talent, but for one reason or another have some really noticeable red flags. In Smirnov's case it seems he hasn't improved his skating and missing time due to some fluke injuries have plateaued parts of his development akin to Duncan Siemens. In Burzan's case, it is if he's able to break out of his shell and win puck battles and put the work of a pro. Nobody, absolutely nobody is going to make it into the NHL being soft on the puck and useless without it. When he has it though, I see an off the rush scorer who also has a surprisingly good cycle game since he's a strong skater and can out skate a lot of opponents. That in reality is why I resembled him to Phil Kessel, but he has the same problems as Mikkel Boedker and it will be interesting to see how good he is at training camp. I would personally send him back to the WHL even though I think (don't quote me on that) he is eligible to play in the AHL next season.

I would rank this as a very solid "B+". As I said in his prospect thread, grabbing him as a 7th rounder is very good value because I see some legit talent here. He doesn't have any amazing attributes where you can single it out as a strength. He's more of a natural jack-of-all-trades goaler where he does a lot of things above-average. However, if I was going to pinpoint two areas I personally liked more so than others is that he has high hockey intelligence and has great anticipation to the play developing. The other aspect and I actually consider this a skill is that he's able to make big time saves. Sure he isn't the most athletic, doesn't have the greatest speed, and I wouldn't say he is one of the best goalers out there in saving shots. However, I saw him make big time saves in almost every other game and there is a reason why he was able to play 32 games as a backup goaler including 6 in the playoffs. I see a lot of Thomas Griess in his game, but I also see some Calvin Pickard competitiveness which people will probably like here. If there is an area I want the Avs goaler coaches to help in the future, it is to be more patient in certain situations and work on positioning, but those are teachable traits.
 
Last edited:

John Mandalorian

2022 Avs: The First Dance
Nov 29, 2018
10,648
6,486
I liked the Beaucage pick. He's stylistically not a fit but he has a complementary skill, which the Avs currently lack. In the 3rd round, why not?

I really liked the Newhook pick. His tempo suits how the Avs play. It might make it easier for the top two lines to play more interchangeably.

I liked the Byram pick but I especially liked it after I saw the run on D leading up to the 16 pick.
 
Last edited:

Hasbro

Family Friend
Sponsor
Apr 1, 2004
52,414
16,381
South Rectangle
Great couple of 1st rounders. Sakic didn’t get cute with Ottawa’s pick.

Having gone through the later round guys, of feel good at least one will be a useful NHLer.
 

Patagonia

Keep Whining
Jan 6, 2017
7,621
3,245
As usual, our early picks are good. After the 1st round we go into a nose dive.

I thought the Helleson pick was actually fairly good. Here is a description on the manner he projects.

"He is a solid defensive defenseman with a high compete-level and really good hockey instincts. But beyond that. Helleson skates well and has a ton of patience with the puck — he rarely makes mistakes. He’s cited as having a very strong first pass, and is smart enough to jump up into the play when needed. He can also quarterback a power-play when needed."
Mile High Hockey - Tom Hunter

If they have 2-3 NHL players develop, this would be a tremendous success. The rest are just lottery choices. I'm extremely happy with Byram, Newhook and Helleson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Veritas0Aequitas

Pokecheque

Whack it Hard to Girard
Sponsor
Aug 5, 2003
45,817
28,815
The Middle West
www.armoredheadspace.com
Listening to the Hockey PDOcast now and both Filipovic and his guest are effusive with praise for what the Avs did at the draft, and what they're building overall in Colorado. They generally agreed that the big winners of the weekend were Colorado, Carolina, and Los Angeles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkT

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->