C Quinton Byfield (2020, 2nd, LAK) part III

[Ziggy Stardust]

Since when is there any debate as to who is going #1?

Not that there’s any substance to the suggestions, but haven’t you noticed some of the comments out there by hockey media theorizing that perhaps taking Byfield at #1 might be a better option for the Rangers?

We all know Lafreniere will go first, just as we knew Hall was going to Edmonton in 2010, but it’s just speculation being thrown out there because of Byfield potentially fulfilling a need with the possibility of him becoming a franchise center. You know, similar to the same speculation you guys came spreading on the Kings board that had Byfield falling to the Senators (which is possible, but is still speculation).

Here are a few links where that idea of Byfield at #1 has been floated.
Should the Rangers trade the No. 1 pick in the 2020 NHL draft?

"Centermen are really hard to find," Rangers president John Davidson told me on this week's ESPN On Ice podcast.

Why Quinton Byfield at 1st Overall Isn’t All That Crazy

They have had a bit of Draft Lottery luck recently and with their rebuild going as well as they could have hoped, the risk of taking Byfield could be worth it. Lafrenière would obviously make an instant impact but if they decide that they need that possible franchise center long-term, an area where they seem to be a bit lacking.

Who the New York Rangers could target with the 1st overall pick

It would be a very bold move, but there could be a very small chance that the Rangers decide to use their first overall pick to draft a center, Quinton Byfield. When it comes to the wingers on the Rangers, they already have a solid top 4.

It’s all just pontification, but it’s worth noting whose name is being thrown out there as a potential #1 pick if it’s not Lafreniere, who we all know is a soon to be Ranger and will put on their uniform and hat on October 6.

 

[Mickey Marner]

I can't rationalize byfield over laf.

There's no question marks with lafrenniere. There's no "maybe if he was born _____, maybe if he was on a better team, maybe if he reaches ceiling " . Byfield could be the better player down the road, who knows, but when a prospect has proven as much as lafrenniere has, you take him.

Even if Byfield is better at 25, Lafreniere will comfortably be the best player over the next three ELC years and probably their RFA contracts.

 

[Legionnaire]

Even if Byfield is better at 25, Lafreniere will comfortably be the best player over the next three ELC years and probably their RFA contracts.

You can't prove that.

 

[Osprey]

Not that there’s any substance to the suggestions, but haven’t you noticed some of the comments out there by hockey media theorizing that perhaps taking Byfield at #1 might be a better option for the Rangers?

We all know Lafreniere will go first, just as we knew Hall was going to Edmonton in 2010, but it’s just speculation being thrown out there because of Byfield potentially fulfilling a need with the possibility of him becoming a franchise center. You know, similar to the same speculation you guys came spreading on the Kings board that had Byfield falling to the Senators (which is possible, but is still speculation).

Here are a few links where that idea of Byfield at #1 has been floated.

If it bothers you when some Sens fans speculate that Byfield could fall to them at #3, why post speculation that Lafreniere could possibly fall to you at #2, which probably bothers some Rangers fans? It seems like you're just doing the same as the Sens fans. I think that it's perfectly natural for fans to do, to wonder "what if?", even if it's not likely. It's just that it doesn't seem fair to criticize others doing it and then turn around and do something that you admit is similar to it. If it's OK for Kings fans to speculate about what the Rangers will do, it ought to be OK for Sens fans to speculate about what the Kings will do.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If it bothers you when some Sens fans speculate that Byfield could fall to them at #3, why post speculation that Lafreniere could possibly fall to you at #2, which probably bothers some Rangers fans? It seems like you're just doing the same as the Sens fans. I think that it's perfectly natural for fans to do, to wonder "what if?", even if it's not likely. It's just that it doesn't seem fair to criticize others doing it and then turn around and do something that you admit is similar to it. If it's OK for Kings fans to speculate about what the Rangers will do, it ought to be OK for Sens fans to speculate about what the Kings will do.

I’m not going on their boards and passing off this speculation as substantiated rumors, oh high and mighty Osprey. Did you fall off the Ducks bandwagon?

 

[Osprey]

I’m not going on their boards and passing off this speculation as substantiated rumors, oh high and mighty Osprey. Did you fall off the Ducks bandwagon?

I had a feeling that your response would be to attack. It's ironic that you think that I'm the "high and mighty" one. The majority of your posts involve judging what others say and being sharply sarcastic. Even when you make more thoughtful arguments, you often can't resist adding some rudeness, like when you called Rorschach (a fellow Kings fan, even) "one of those simpletons" the other day. It seems that you get annoyed when people argue with you. Who does that make high and mighty? You just have a rather toxic way of posting most of the time and seem to think that the problem is with everyone else. I actually quite like and enjoy reading the few posts of yours that are informative and non-confrontational, though. I wish that you'd post like that more often.

 

[bsu]

Ignore him and its simple

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I had a feeling that you'd simply attack me. It's ironic that you think that I'm the "high and mighty" one. The majority of your posts on this site, at least outside of your team forum, involve attacking people or being disapprovingly sarcastic. Even when you make a more thoughtful argument, you usually can't resist adding some rudeness, like when you called Rorschach (a fellow Kings fan, even) "one of those simpletons" the other day. You seem to get annoyed when people argue with you. Who does that make high and mighty? You just have a rather toxic way of posting most of the time and seem to think that the problem is with everyone else. I actually quite like and enjoy reading the few posts of yours that are informative and non-confrontational, though. I wish that you'd post like that more often.

That's because the idea that a player had a lackluster performance in a brief tournament doesn't seem to register with a poster who solely keeps focusing on those World Junior numbers, when I, among countless other scouting services, cautioned people not to get hung up on that tournament. Looking at a WJC performance and thinking some guy is or isn't going to be a star is the simpletons way of thinking, like those who overhyped Justin Pogge or Dustin Tokarski or Curtis Lazar or Nic Petan based on their tournament numbers, and when bringing up players who had bad tournaments (or were bypassed, like Eric Staal), those points get ignored and go over their heads. I guess I got tired of trying to reason with someone who was being unreasonable in their views of Byfield's play at the WJC. They even ignored Lafreniere's struggles at the previous year's WJC when he was the same age as Byfield and was called out by his coach, Dale Hunter.

I guess you can chalk it up as getting frustrated with the imbalanced and biased views some have, but so be it. I also made it pretty clear that the speculation I posted about were baseless opinions, but the thoughts that are being expressed suggested that Byfield would be a name to consider for the #1 pick, making a case as to why Byfield could potentially looked at as the #1B rated prospect in this draft. Akin to Seguin being the #1B in 2010 or Malkin being the #1B in 2005. I never once tried to pass off the speculation as rumors, like Sens fans were doing when they started bombarding the Kings' forum.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ignore him and its simple

Says the Ducks fan who has added nothing to this topic other than to come in to tell us that Byfield is overrated. Thanks for blessing us with your wisdom, jealous Ducks fan.

 

[Osprey]

That's because the idea that a player had a lackluster performance in a brief tournament doesn't seem to register with a poster who solely keeps focusing on those World Junior numbers, when I, among countless other scouting services, cautioned people not to get hung up on that tournament. Looking at a WJC performance and thinking some guy is or isn't going to be a star is the simpletons way of thinking, like those who overhyped Justin Pogge or Dustin Tokarski or Curtis Lazar or Nic Petan based on their tournament numbers, and when bringing up players who had bad tournaments (or were bypassed, like Eric Staal), those points get ignored and go over their heads. I guess I got tired of trying to reason with someone who was being unreasonable in their views of Byfield's play at the WJC. They even ignored Lafreniere's struggles at the previous year's WJC when he was the same age as Byfield and was called out by his coach, Dale Hunter.

I guess you can chalk it up as getting frustrated with the imbalanced and biased views some have, but so be it. I also made it pretty clear that the speculation I posted about were baseless opinions, but the thoughts that are being expressed suggested that Byfield would be a name to consider for the #1 pick, making a case as to why Byfield could potentially looked at as the #1B rated prospect in this draft. Akin to Seguin being the #1B in 2010 or Malkin being the #1B in 2005. I never once tried to pass off the speculation as rumors, like Sens fans were doing when they started bombarding the Kings' forum.

Thanks for this reply. I did notice that you repeatedly cast them as speculation instead of rumor and acknowledge that some Sens fans may've done the opposite. That said, is there really enough of a difference there to matter, though? It seems like that the root of the frustration comes from the appearance that Sens fans are trying to claim a player that the Kings have dibs, but couldn't a Rangers fan feel the same way about talk of Lafreniere falling to the Kings, regardless of whether it was couched as speculation or rumor? I don't blame you for entertaining that fantasy scenario because I'd love to see the same thing happen, even though it's extremely unlikely. That's why I can understand Sens fans wanting Byfield to fall to them, though, and can cut them some slack, even if they're latching onto "rumors" that are baseless. It's wishful thinking in both cases, but it's harmless, IMO. After all, it's not like either team has picked either player yet. It seems a little premature to get possessive. We need to wait only a couple more weeks to learn for sure which player to get defensive over for the next decade or two .

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Thanks for this reply. I did notice that you repeatedly cast them as speculation instead of rumor and acknowledge that some Sens fans may've done the opposite. That said, is there really enough of a difference there to get frustrated by? It seems to me that the root of the frustration comes from the appearance that Sens fans are trying to claim a player that you feel is practically already a King. Couldn't a Rangers fan feel similarly possessive and bothered by speculation of Lafreniere falling to the Kings, regardless of whether it was couched as speculation or rumor? I don't blame you for giving that fantasy scenario any credibility because I'm crossing my fingers and hoping for the same thing. That's also, though, why I can understand Sens fans wanting Byfield to fall to them and can cut them some slack, even if they're latching onto "rumors" that are baseless. It's wishful thinking in both cases, but it's harmless, IMO. After all, it's not like either team has picked either player yet. It seems a little premature. We just need to wait a couple more weeks to learn for sure which player to get defensive over for at least the next 7 years .

That’s fair. I get some want to play devil’s advocate and offer a different take, like those making a case for Byfield at #1, or Stutzle over Byfield. You can make a compelling case for any one of those scenarios, though we all know that first scenario is highly improbable.

Good points there, and who knows how long it’ll take to determine who the best player turns out to be between the top three names (or if someone else bypasses them).

Coming out of the 2014 draft, nobody was saying Draisaitl is the best player from that draft class, but four years later, there’s no debate about it, and he went 3rd overall.

We’re a few years removed from the 2017 draft and there are a number of players who are looking a lot better than the #1 and #2 selections, and the guy who went #3 (Heiskanen) is three games away from winning a Cup.

 

[CornerStone61]

That’s fair. I get some want to play devil’s advocate and offer a different take, like those making a case for Byfield at #1, or Stutzle over Byfield. You can make a compelling case for any one of those scenarios, though we all know that first scenario is highly improbable.

Good points there, and who knows how long it’ll take to determine who the best player turns out to be between the top three names (or if someone else bypasses them).

Coming out of the 2014 draft, nobody was saying Draisaitl is the best player from that draft class, but four years later, there’s no debate about it, and he went 3rd overall.

We’re a few years removed from the 2017 draft and there are a number of players who are looking a lot better than the #1 and #2 selections, and the guy who went #3 (Niskanen) is three games away from winning a Cup.

Good post, just figured I'd chime in and say the bolded should be Heiskanen. Niskanen is a lot more than a few years removed from the 2017 draft haha

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Good post, just figured I'd chime in and say the bolded should be Heiskanen. Niskanen is a lot more than a few years removed from the 2017 draft haha

Doh, thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Rorschach]

I mean, if I was pulling my goalie right now and I had to choose between Stutzle and Byfield, it wouldnt be a super easy choice right now today.

When we talk about the risk of Byfield while debating him against Stutzle... Well, what about Stutzle's risk? He is as flawed of a player as Byfield in vastly different ways. I love to point out Barzal as a player who overcome the flaws in Stutzle's game but I can think of other comparables (Drouin) who kept those same flaws.

I think Byfield's rawness and flaws are two different discussions. Every top prospect has flaws, most have rawness.

I re-read this post and thought that your clarifying of terminology used such as flaws vs. rawness is very good. A lot of people are arguing the 50th time all over both here and/or today, plus other places and other drafts simply because the wrong terminology or incorrect understanding of the vocabulary is occurring between one more more parties is occurring. Mix the fact that scouting for most people is a lot of projection mixed with speculation and we have a good ole mess.

Since this is the Byfield thread, lets discuss his ranking. I'm one of the guys who earlier around July/August had concluded that Byfield was not top 4. (4/5ths have him top 3, 1/5 to 1/10th of scouts, both armchair and pro, seemed to have him at around 5th/6th.

In my mind, and I think similar to Draft Dynasty guy, we agree with all of the projections. We agree both him and a guy like Stutzle are flawed as prospects and have parts of their game that need some significant work. I also think that Stutzle is NHL-ready or one year away while Byfield is at least two years away since he needs one more "dominant" year in juniors before he goes pro (like AHL). I think both Byfield "top 3 supporters" and Byfield 5-6 guys agree on this. I know the Kings fans I have read, almost all say "we have the time to develop him" meaning they realistically expect him to take a few years. So I think everyone agrees on his raw-ness. And as I mentioned above, everyone agrees neither player is Lafreniere, a near-flawless prospect. One of Stutzle's main flaws is his shot is no where near a level of tool the rest of his offensive tools are; to me this means as is, he may wind up being a one or two trick pony in the NHL if he doesn't develop further...and that's not his only part of his game he needs to work on.

So far, flaws and rawness, I think most everyone here agrees on both. Everyone knows Byfield is rawer than players like Stutzle and Rossi. But everyone knows Byfield's upside over a guy like Rossi is equally greater than his rawness. And we all agree, other than Laf, all the prospects are flawed in at least one or more significant ways. Due to flaws and rawness across the board as negatives, negatives that can wash a bit across the board, we can use upside as a significant positive to cancel a certain amount of negatives. Byfield has bigger upside, including factoring his relative youth, he as a prospect can have that cancel some of his bigger rawness negative. (You and many others here probably know all of this already, intuitively...I just state it so you know I know.)

Despite this, due to his upside projection, it still puts Byfield in the top 3. I had Byfield 1-2 most of the year. But as time went on, we (us dissenting scout guys) allowed other players to leapfrog him because they had highly successful outcomes and their records were very complete. A "full record" means having appropriate success on the following levels of the D year:
1) Regular season (with positive adjustment if playing against men, vs. boys) (60-80% weight)
2) Tournament success vs. other top players, including national tournaments and team tournaments like Calder Cup (20-40% weight)

(BTW, I feel that many pundits in the NHL give a large amount of overall consideration to record...it's the reason why some players are in the top 100 NHL of all time and some are not, despite obvious top 100 talented players left off discrepancies. And I'm one of the guys...meaningful stats are more meaningful in meaningful games. )

Typical weight of the regular season, I give as 80% normally. Success over a full season to me against competition of your peers, day in and day out, is the most important. (This is where DD and I fully agree...quitters get dinged hard...in this case, there is no concern with Byfield.)

Tournament weight I give 20% to 40%. I increase from the normal 20 to 40% not because of a particularly spectacular performance (that could just be matchup issues). I give a higher percent if a player got injured during the regular season but still played in tournaments. Byfield certainly qualifies in this case as a approximate 35% since his regular season was only 45 of 63? games in his CHL season. So because he was out for about a quarter of the regular season, we allow greater weight for his tournament play.

Unfortunately, his tournament play was not that good. So he got an A for his ridiculously good regular season numbers but only at 65% weight because he is missing a quarter of the season, his total record grade for me is something like B-. He made the tournaments as a "best of the best players" but didn't do all that much, for whatever reason/s. 35% C. (I give below C for those that don't even get picked or didn't even make the tournaments.)

A guy like Rossi, I believe I give him a record of A, the highest normal grade. He lead the CHL in scoring, he had decent tournament numbers...he played against boys.

A guy like Stutzle, I gave him an A+, a grade normally not possible. He is his national team's number one player, head and shoulders. His regular season he played against men Mannheim DEL and set records for a rookie. It's not a surprise that a guy who started the season at the bottom of the first round and shot up to #2 OA gets a grade higher than normally possible.

So this B- is where guys who get A and A+ (including others like maybe Sanderson) can leapfrog Byfield. Personally, I have Rossi and Byfield nearly tied...where Byfield as an absurd A+ upside, I think Rossi has like a C+ upside due to his being older and almost completely physically mature. I bet Byfield can put on more muscle, be taught (especially by a team like LA) to play an even heavier, dominant game, be taught defense, etc. I don't think he'll be Kopitar, but he could be a more monstrous Toews (it's this A+ thing that leads to a lot of Kings fans here to have BDS, Byfield Derangement Syndrome).

TLDR;
Bottom line, prospects who achieve get the credit, those who did not achieve whether due to lack of opportunity or unfair situation...doesn't matter, that's the way the hockey cookie crumbles...things like injuries and bad coaching/bad luck are part of the game.

Byfield's big ding is his partial regular season and lack of tournament success compounded and in this year where you have prospects who had ridiculous, full regular seasons and significant tournament success, these few that leapfrogged Byfield have significantly less perceived risk than Byfield. Byfield still has that A+ drool-worthy ceiling but others do as well and they have the low risk/full resume to boot that he doesn't have. Stutzle for example has A for ceiling and A+ for record vs. Byfield's A+ ceiling and B- for record. (For the record I think both are about B+ for flaws. Lafreniere has an A or A+ across the board...he will be 1OA.)

However, that being said, I would bet my money that next year, if Byfield can play the full season, he might make himself the best prospect since McDavid, over MacKinnon and Matthews (I feel Laf is about a Matthews but as a winger). Sometimes your BDS is justified by a A+ ceiling. I also feel Stutzle is the best fit for the Kings and could be a Patrick Kane-level of player, but as a playmaker...MVP-level of player in the regular season AND in the NHL playoffs. Very sick choice at 2OA.

 

[Just Linda]

I re-read this post and thought that your clarifying of terminology used such as flaws vs. rawness is very good. A lot of people are arguing the 50th time all over both here and/or today, plus other places and other drafts simply because the wrong terminology or incorrect understanding of the vocabulary is occurring between one more more parties is occurring. Mix the fact that scouting for most people is a lot of projection mixed with speculation and we have a good ole mess.

Since this is the Byfield thread, lets discuss his ranking. I'm one of the guys who earlier around July/August had concluded that Byfield was not top 4. (4/5ths have him top 3, 1/5 to 1/10th of scouts, both armchair and pro, seemed to have him at around 5th/6th.

In my mind, and I think similar to Draft Dynasty guy, we agree with all of the projections. We agree both him and a guy like Stutzle are flawed as prospects and have parts of their game that need some significant work. I also think that Stutzle is NHL-ready or one year away while Byfield is at least two years away since he needs one more "dominant" year in juniors before he goes pro (like AHL). I think both Byfield "top 3 supporters" and Byfield 5-6 guys agree on this. I know the Kings fans I have read, almost all say "we have the time to develop him" meaning they realistically expect him to take a few years. So I think everyone agrees on his raw-ness. And as I mentioned above, everyone agrees neither player is Lafreniere, a near-flawless prospect. One of Stutzle's main flaws is his shot is no where near a level of tool the rest of his offensive tools are; to me this means as is, he may wind up being a one or two trick pony in the NHL if he doesn't develop further...and that's not his only part of his game he needs to work on.

So far, flaws and rawness, I think most everyone here agrees on both. Everyone knows Byfield is rawer than players like Stutzle and Rossi. But everyone knows Byfield's upside over a guy like Rossi is equally greater than his rawness. And we all agree, other than Laf, all the prospects are flawed in at least one or more significant ways. Due to flaws and rawness across the board as negatives, negatives that can wash a bit across the board, we can use upside as a significant positive to cancel a certain amount of negatives. Byfield has bigger upside, including factoring his relative youth, he as a prospect can have that cancel some of his bigger rawness negative. (You and many others here probably know all of this already, intuitively...I just state it so you know I know.)

Despite this, due to his upside projection, it still puts Byfield in the top 3. I had Byfield 1-2 most of the year. But as time went on, we (us dissenting scout guys) allowed other players to leapfrog him because they had highly successful outcomes and their records were very complete. A "full record" means having appropriate success on the following levels of the D year:
1) Regular season (with positive adjustment if playing against men, vs. boys) (60-80% weight)
2) Tournament success vs. other top players, including national tournaments and team tournaments like Calder Cup (20-40% weight)

(BTW, I feel that many pundits in the NHL give a large amount of overall consideration to record...it's the reason why some players are in the top 100 NHL of all time and some are not, despite obvious top 100 talented players left off discrepancies. And I'm one of the guys...meaningful stats are more meaningful in meaningful games. )

Typical weight of the regular season, I give as 80% normally. Success over a full season to me against competition of your peers, day in and day out, is the most important. (This is where DD and I fully agree...quitters get dinged hard...in this case, there is no concern with Byfield.)

Tournament weight I give 20% to 40%. I increase from the normal 20 to 40% not because of a particularly spectacular performance (that could just be matchup issues). I give a higher percent if a player got injured during the regular season but still played in tournaments. Byfield certainly qualifies in this case as a approximate 35% since his regular season was only 45 of 63? games in his CHL season. So because he was out for about a quarter of the regular season, we allow greater weight for his tournament play.

Unfortunately, his tournament play was not that good. So he got an A for his ridiculously good regular season numbers but only at 65% weight because he is missing a quarter of the season, his total record grade for me is something like B-. He made the tournaments as a "best of the best players" but didn't do all that much, for whatever reason/s. 35% C. (I give below C for those that don't even get picked or didn't even make the tournaments.)

A guy like Rossi, I believe I give him a record of A, the highest normal grade. He lead the CHL in scoring, he had decent tournament numbers...he played against boys.

A guy like Stutzle, I gave him an A+, a grade normally not possible. He is his national team's number one player, head and shoulders. His regular season he played against men Mannheim DEL and set records for a rookie. It's not a surprise that a guy who started the season at the bottom of the first round and shot up to #2 OA gets a grade higher than normally possible.

So this B- is where guys who get A and A+ (including others like maybe Sanderson) can leapfrog Byfield. Personally, I have Rossi and Byfield nearly tied...where Byfield as an absurd A+ upside, I think Rossi has like a C+ upside due to his being older and almost completely physically mature. I bet Byfield can put on more muscle, be taught (especially by a team like LA) to play an even heavier, dominant game, be taught defense, etc. I don't think he'll be Kopitar, but he could be a more monstrous Toews (it's this A+ thing that leads to a lot of Kings fans here to have BDS, Byfield Derangement Syndrome).

TLDR;
Bottom line, prospects who achieve get the credit, those who did not achieve whether due to lack of opportunity or unfair situation...doesn't matter, that's the way the hockey cookie crumbles...things like injuries and bad coaching/bad luck are part of the game.

Byfield's big ding is his partial regular season and lack of tournament success compounded and in this year where you have prospects who had ridiculous, full regular seasons and significant tournament success, these few that leapfrogged Byfield have significantly less perceived risk than Byfield. Byfield still has that A+ drool-worthy ceiling but others do as well and they have the low risk/full resume to boot that he doesn't have. Stutzle for example has A for ceiling and A+ for record vs. Byfield's A+ ceiling and B- for record. (For the record I think both are about B+ for flaws. Lafreniere has an A or A+ across the board...he will be 1OA.)

However, that being said, I would bet my money that next year, if Byfield can play the full season, he might make himself the best prospect since McDavid, over MacKinnon and Matthews (I feel Laf is about a Matthews but as a winger). Sometimes your BDS is justified by a A+ ceiling. I also feel Stutzle is the best fit for the Kings and could be a Patrick Kane-level of player, but as a playmaker...MVP-level of player in the regular season AND in the NHL playoffs. Very sick choice at 2OA.

Aye, that's the thing I love about player projections, each person has what they value over others.

I seem to have Lafreniere as a superstar tier below you, I see him as more in the Hall tier of propsects than in the Matthews tier. Its that Rawness is the reason, Lafreniere is such a well polished prospect already that we aren't going to see a new Lafreniere at the next level, we are going to see a more polished, improved version of what we already have. I also realize that I'm in the minority on that take.

Rossi is another good example, kid is polished and ready to go. Many people see that as a plus, I see it as a slight value dip for the draft floor. Rossi isn't raw and he put the performance he did, he's not exceeding his rawness. On a scale of rawness to flaw, if it ain't raw than its flawed.

I agree on Byfield's ceiling though I think he has too much rawness at 17 to be the next Lindros. There's a point where someone is too raw to be polished, there's a reason why someone raw talent guys don't realize their potential, often a flaw keeps the rawness from being refined.

My critique of Stutzle often falls to the flaw parts of his game whereas most people seem to focus on what he does so well. He skates well sure but he doesn't seem to have the net front presence I like in a top 5 Prospect, he's too perimeter except for the moments he breaks a d and goes for the net. I don't see him developing that, I see him being a Barzal type who build their game around not being it.

I feel that Byfield will become a 60-80pt centre. I don't think he ends up better than Lafreniere but I would still take him 1oa for the position.

 

[Polar Bear]

Aye, that's the thing I love about player projections, each person has what they value over others.

I seem to have Lafreniere as a superstar tier below you, I see him as more in the Hall tier of propsects than in the Matthews tier. Its that Rawness is the reason, Lafreniere is such a well polished prospect already that we aren't going to see a new Lafreniere at the next level, we are going to see a more polished, improved version of what we already have. I also realize that I'm in the minority on that take.

Rossi is another good example, kid is polished and ready to go. Many people see that as a plus, I see it as a slight value dip for the draft floor. Rossi isn't raw and he put the performance he did, he's not exceeding his rawness. On a scale of rawness to flaw, if it ain't raw than its flawed.

I agree on Byfield's ceiling though I think he has too much rawness at 17 to be the next Lindros. There's a point where someone is too raw to be polished, there's a reason why someone raw talent guys don't realize their potential, often a flaw keeps the rawness from being refined.

My critique of Stutzle often falls to the flaw parts of his game whereas most people seem to focus on what he does so well. He skates well sure but he doesn't seem to have the net front presence I like in a top 5 Prospect, he's too perimeter except for the moments he breaks a d and goes for the net. I don't see him developing that, I see him being a Barzal type who build their game around not being it.

I feel that Byfield will become a 60-80pt centre. I don't think he ends up better than Lafreniere but I would still take him 1oa for the position.

Well, you're on a small island in that last statement. I don't think there is a GM in the league that would not take Laf at 1, so I can respect the boldness.

 

[Rorschach]

Aye, that's the thing I love about player projections, each person has what they value over others.

I seem to have Lafreniere as a superstar tier below you, I see him as more in the Hall tier of propsects than in the Matthews tier. Its that Rawness is the reason, Lafreniere is such a well polished prospect already that we aren't going to see a new Lafreniere at the next level, we are going to see a more polished, improved version of what we already have. I also realize that I'm in the minority on that take.

Rossi is another good example, kid is polished and ready to go. Many people see that as a plus, I see it as a slight value dip for the draft floor. Rossi isn't raw and he put the performance he did, he's not exceeding his rawness. On a scale of rawness to flaw, if it ain't raw than its flawed.

I agree on Byfield's ceiling though I think he has too much rawness at 17 to be the next Lindros. There's a point where someone is too raw to be polished, there's a reason why someone raw talent guys don't realize their potential, often a flaw keeps the rawness from being refined.

My critique of Stutzle often falls to the flaw parts of his game whereas most people seem to focus on what he does so well. He skates well sure but he doesn't seem to have the net front presence I like in a top 5 Prospect, he's too perimeter except for the moments he breaks a d and goes for the net. I don't see him developing that, I see him being a Barzal type who build their game around not being it.

I feel that Byfield will become a 60-80pt centre. I don't think he ends up better than Lafreniere but I would still take him 1oa for the position.

Nice analysis, thanks!

To further the discussion, and towards Stutzle since he's my guy for the Kings, let's say Stutzle turns into a more electrifying version but similar numbers of Barzal. If we put Stutzle as center, I think he can be a devastating 2C on the Kings roster with wingers like Kaliyev on the right and an energy, go-to-the-net guy like Iafallo or Fagemo or even Turcotte (three different guys who maybe could play that role in their own ways). I think having the current line of Kempe/Vilardi/Frk plus a third line (a shadow line) of dude/Kopitar/Brown and another young kid/energy line as the 4th line could make for a very exciting forward corps. Not only will Stutzle be sheltered on the 2nd line, we have the passmaster with the shotmaster in Kaliyev. They can go all out offense, similar to That 70s Line. And it might happen as soon as next year if everything falls into place.

As for Byfield over Laf at 1OA, I actually think it should be for NYR at 1OA, they maybe look at Stutzle, who is also a center, at 1OA. Like LA, I believe NYR is poised to make noise on the NHL level next year. Even Kakko is no longer a rookie. Byfield and his extra year of "rawness" doesn't fit NYR's timeline.

 

[Polar Bear]

Nice analysis, thanks!

To further the discussion, and towards Stutzle since he's my guy for the Kings, let's say Stutzle turns into a more electrifying version but similar numbers of Barzal. If we put Stutzle as center, I think he can be a devastating 2C on the Kings roster with wingers like Kaliyev on the right and an energy, go-to-the-net guy like Iafallo or Fagemo or even Turcotte (three different guys who maybe could play that role in their own ways). I think having the current line of Kempe/Vilardi/Frk plus a third line (a shadow line) of dude/Kopitar/Brown and another young kid/energy line as the 4th line could make for a very exciting forward corps. Not only will Stutzle be sheltered on the 2nd line, we have the passmaster with the shotmaster in Kaliyev. They can go all out offense, similar to That 70s Line. And it might happen as soon as next year if everything falls into place.

As for Byfield over Laf at 1OA, I actually think it should be for NYR at 1OA, they maybe look at Stutzle, who is also a center, at 1OA. Like LA, I believe NYR is poised to make noise on the NHL level next year. Even Kakko is no longer a rookie. Byfield and his extra year of "rawness" doesn't fit NYR's timeline.

I have questions even about Stutzle making an immediate impact next season, tbh. Again though, it's a moot point. The Rangers are taking Laf at 1. Anyone stating otherwise is lying or just being silly. Every GM in the league would take Laf at 1, as well.

 

[Frolov 6'3]

I wonder what player the Rangers are taking.

 

[Polar Bear]

I wonder what player the Rangers are taking.

Alex Laferriere

 

[Rorschach]

I have questions even about Stutzle making an immediate impact next season, tbh. Again though, it's a moot point. The Rangers are taking Laf at 1. Anyone stating otherwise is lying or just being silly. Every GM in the league would take Laf at 1, as well.

He's certainly earned the #1 OA draft ranking. He not only has no flaws in terms of physical or record stuff, and character is impeccable too.

Perhaps the other route is, who you can trade to get a 2nd line and 3rd line center-type player/s. People forget, just because you have 1OA, you don't need to use the 1OA to fix your outstanding issue, especially if you're not fixing 1D or 1C issues. NYR has Zibenejad for 1C. You can fix your 2C with a trade of lesser assets. But if you're hellbent on drafting a center and the sooner the better, I would personally consider Stutzle over Byfield. Ottawa, the team with no chance of anything the next three years, can invest in Byfield and his rawness actually fits their timeline.

 

[Polar Bear]

He's certainly earned the #1 OA draft ranking. He not only has no flaws in terms of physical or record stuff, and character is impeccable too.

Perhaps the other route is, who you can trade to get a 2nd line and 3rd line center-type player/s. People forget, just because you have 1OA, you don't need to use the 1OA to fix your outstanding issue, especially if you're not fixing 1D or 1C issues. NYR has Zibenejad for 1C. You can fix your 2C with a trade of lesser assets. But if you're hellbent on drafting a center and the sooner the better, I would personally consider Stutzle over Byfield. Ottawa, the team with no chance of anything the next three years, can invest in Byfield and his rawness actually fits their timeline.

For sure, what I expect to happen is that after we draft Laf, we will use our remaining assets and try to find that answer at 2C long term, if possible. Otherwise, we probably just roll with Strome or Chytil and go from there. Maybe we use pick 22 to find that 2C down the line, it's possible? We have options, that I am sure.

LA can really do no wrong at 2 with Byfield/Stutzle. I, for one, am more so in the Byfield camp, but Kings' fans really should not be upset if they go with the Stutzle. It's truly a 2A/2B situation.

 

[Fatass]

For sure, what I expect to happen is that after we draft Laf, we will use our remaining assets and try to find that answer at 2C long term, if possible. Otherwise, we probably just roll with Strome or Chytil and go from there. Maybe we use pick 22 to find that 2C down the line, it's possible? We have options, that I am sure.

LA can really do no wrong at 2 with Byfield/Stutzle. I, for one, am more so in the Byfield camp, but Kings' fans really should not be upset if they go with the Stutzle. It's truly a 2A/2B situation.

If the Kings are drafting for potential ceiling then Byfield is way above Stutzl. Imo Byfield, because of position, has a ceiling that eclipses Lafreniere.

 

[Polar Bear]

If the Kings are drafting for potential ceiling then Byfield is way above Stutzl. Imo Byfield, because of position, has a ceiling that eclipses Lafreniere.

I think Byfield, personally, has a ceiling that if he reaches is very, very close to Lafreniere. However, the key is can Byfield put it all together, and if so, how long will it take? I think of the two, Stutzle is going to have a more immediate impact and has a safer route to reaching his potential. Byfield, however, would truly be the potential swing as you stated. I can understand the argument for either or.

 

[Just Linda]

I wonder what player the Rangers are taking.

I would imagine that, unless they make a trade, they end up with 9 players at the draft.