Draft low (small) - Sell High

[Leafsman]

Great interview with Kyle Dubas on prime Time Sports yesterday.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/pts-maple-leafs-getting-max-value-out-of-kessel-deal/

I am very impressed and hopeful about this new drafting/prospect building philosophy.

It seems as though they are focused on acquiring as much skill as possible without the constraints of size/grit. This has been counter-intuitive to previous years but the NHL is changing. (3 on 3 OT is great for a team full of speed and skill, not a team full of size)

During the interview Dubas was hinting that shoudl they get a logjam of young skill players, they can easily go and get size from waivers, college FA's and numerous other sources.

Even better, and this is where I feel the genius part comes in, young skilled players are far more marketable throughout the league than Tyler Biggs types now-adays from what we've seen.

I think this method will be a great way to always be cycling in new talent and keeping a strong prospect pool.

Draft/acquire skill and IQ. - trade/waive/sign grit.
When it's determined who out of the current crop of prospects fits the mold - trade the other skill/IQ players for a far better return than large/gritty prospects would fetch. You can easily trade a young skill player for a young blue-collar player + pick

This model allows for far better rewards from the player either being what the team needed or getting better assets through a later trade.

Click to read more...

 

[Leafsman]

Just to add to my thought:

If you want to win a raffle; don't buy one ticket to multiple raffles. Buy multiple tickets to one raffle.

If you acquire 6 skilled small guys.
2 fulfill your expectations and fit into your thinking.
2 are decent but did not win the spot.
2 flunk out.

Trade the 2 decents for future picks/prospects/character player

So you get 2 roster players and then more fuel for the future fire. Pretty much 4/6 assets gave a return.

Instead of drafting 6 players all over the place and maybe 1 or 2 workout. so 1 or 2 out o6 assets yields a return.

 

[MapleLife*]

Draft/acquire skill and IQ. - trade/waive/sign grit.
.

Here lies the problem.

Size is important. Sure, it's not as important as it once was, but its still a big part of the game.
This whole idea that we can "trade for, sign, or waiver pickup guys with size" is completely misguided.
Sure, we can trade/sign/waiver pickup a guy like Biggs, but thats not what we mean when people sharing my viewpoint say that we still need size.

When we say we need size, I mean we need a big 1C who can win battles and play a solid 2-way game, a Getzlaf archetype. We need a big, punishing 1D in the mold of Shea Weber who can shutdown other teams top lines and knock guys off the puck.

We DO NOT need a big 4th line tweener who can make a couple of big hits during his 8 minutes of ice time while playing abismal defence and barely contributing offensively.

The Biggs of the world are the guys that you can get through trade/FA/waivers. And they're worthless.

When I say we need size, I mean we need a Getzlaf or a Weber. And there's no way in hell that you're getting one of those through trade/FA/waivers.

The only way is to draft them. Period.

So as much as I love taking a lot of high risk / high reward guys in later rounds, we still gotta address our needs for a big 1C and big 1D through the draft, likely in the first round, as big 1Cs are almost never drafted outside the 1st round (only one I can think of is Benn).

In 2016 we should be targeting Matthews / Chychrun. My dream would be to grab Chychrun with our pick and get another top 10 pick to grab Logan Brown. One draft, and our size issues are over. But what do I know, we probably end up grabbing another small singer (yes, I believe Nylander/Marner are better suited as winger, not the point though).

Rant over

 

[Sonofamitch]

When people talk about wanting size they don't mean, 6'5 goons off waivers. We want 6 to 6"2 skilled forwards. You can't acquire those type of players through waivers and Ufa signings(unless you overpay). Drafting players who have decent size and excellent skill is the best combination. Just because your drafting for skill doesn't mean everyone has to be under 6 feet.

 

[Leafsman]

Here lies the problem.

Size is important. Sure, it's not as important as it once was, but its still a big part of the game.
This whole idea that we can "trade for, sign, or waiver pickup guys with size" is completely misguided.
Sure, we can trade/sign/waiver pickup a guy like Biggs, but thats not what we mean when people sharing my viewpoint say that we still need size.

When we say we need size, I mean we need a big 1C who can win battles and play a solid 2-way game, a Getzlaf archetype. We need a big, punishing 1D in the mold of Shea Weber who can shutdown other teams top lines and knock guys off the puck.

We DO NOT need a big 4th line tweener who can make a couple of big hits during his 8 minutes of ice time while playing abismal defence and barely contributing offensively.

The Biggs of the world are the guys that you can get through trade/FA/waivers. And they're worthless.

When I say we need size, I mean we need a Getzlaf or a Weber. And there's no way in hell that you're getting one of those through trade/FA/waivers.

The only way is to draft them. Period.

So as much as I love taking a lot of high risk / high reward guys in later rounds, we still gotta address our needs for a big 1C and big 1D through the draft, likely in the first round, as big 1Cs are almost never drafted outside the 1st round (only one I can think of is Benn).

In 2016 we should be targeting Matthews / Chychrun. My dream would be to grab Chychrun with our pick and get another top 10 pick to grab Logan Brown. One draft, and our size issues are over. But what do I know, we probably end up grabbing another small singer (yes, I believe Nylander/Marner are better suited as winger, not the point though).

Rant over

When people talk about wanting size they don't mean, 6'5 goons off waivers. We want 6 to 6"2 skilled forwards. You can't acquire those type of players through waivers and Ufa signings(unless you overpay). Drafting players who have decent size and excellent skill is the best combination. Just because your drafting for skill doesn't mean everyone has to be under 6 feet.

Of course you do not pass on anybody for this type of player.

First priority would always be best player available, regardless of size or position. If one of the blue chippers was available from Pittsburgh for Kessel is stands without reason you jump at it.

But the philosophy should also be now don't pass on skill because of size.

Out of all the best players available, focus shoudl be on the one's that can't be traded for or signed via waivers/collefe FA/ or FA itself.

A narrower focus will produce more success, especially when the area's outside the focus can be obtained easily through other process's

 

[GordieHoweHatTrick]

One draft does not make a trend.

 

[Leafsman]

One draft does not make a trend.

There def was a trend in regards to that particular draft.

Not to mention the actions taken on draft day + Kessel Trade + Dubas's comments during the lengthy interview do indicate a potential trend and a definite philosophy.

The size aspect may just be an anomaly as all the skilled players available just happened to be smaller to what has been choosen in the past.

Focusing on skill/IQ and forgeting the truculence (and whatever else Burkie was after) I believe is definitely going to be a trend and one we'll see them stick to.

 

[Quares27]

Of course... it's much harder to get legit skill than it is to get a grinder. And it's very rare you're going to draft a power forward that's actually a guaranteed top 6 guy.

 

[Banic]

Here lies the problem.

Size is important. Sure, it's not as important as it once was, but its still a big part of the game.
This whole idea that we can "trade for, sign, or waiver pickup guys with size" is completely misguided.
Sure, we can trade/sign/waiver pickup a guy like Biggs, but thats not what we mean when people sharing my viewpoint say that we still need size.

When we say we need size, I mean we need a big 1C who can win battles and play a solid 2-way game, a Getzlaf archetype. We need a big, punishing 1D in the mold of Shea Weber who can shutdown other teams top lines and knock guys off the puck.

We DO NOT need a big 4th line tweener who can make a couple of big hits during his 8 minutes of ice time while playing abismal defence and barely contributing offensively.

The Biggs of the world are the guys that you can get through trade/FA/waivers. And they're worthless.

When I say we need size, I mean we need a Getzlaf or a Weber. And there's no way in hell that you're getting one of those through trade/FA/waivers.

The only way is to draft them. Period.

So as much as I love taking a lot of high risk / high reward guys in later rounds, we still gotta address our needs for a big 1C and big 1D through the draft, likely in the first round, as big 1Cs are almost never drafted outside the 1st round (only one I can think of is Benn).

In 2016 we should be targeting Matthews / Chychrun. My dream would be to grab Chychrun with our pick and get another top 10 pick to grab Logan Brown. One draft, and our size issues are over. But what do I know, we probably end up grabbing another small singer (yes, I believe Nylander/Marner are better suited as winger, not the point though).

Rant over

Lets take your 2 examples and note that Weber has never won the cup and Getzlaf won once when he was much younger and NOT the star player on the team. Jon Thornton has also never won. Versus Chicago who has Toews at 6"2, Crosby, Krejci and Datsyuk are 6" or less. The fact is that 2 inches really doesn't make as much of a difference if the player is stocky and is strong on their feet. While I understand that size can and does help, it isn't crucial and in fact many of the best players in the league are smaller by your standard. ALWAYS Skill > size, speed > size. But if you have an equally skilled, speedy tall guy, then yes height is then important.

 

[Daisy Jane]

There was someone talking about Hunter on the radio, who said, if you know him, he treasures skill above anything, and if he had to choose between a big skill guy, and a small skill guy he's going with the big skill guy.

I just think as it happens, right now all the guys we're getting just happen to be smaller. the height will come.

 

[Leafsman]

Lets take your 2 examples and note that Weber has never won the cup and Getzlaf won once when he was much younger and NOT the star player on the team. Jon Thornton has also never won. Versus Chicago who has Toews at 6"2, Crosby, Krejci and Datsyuk are 6" or less. The fact is that 2 inches really doesn't make as much of a difference if the player is stocky and is strong on their feet. While I understand that size can and does help, it isn't crucial and in fact many of the best players in the league are smaller by your standard. ALWAYS Skill > size, speed > size. But if you have an equally skilled, speedy tall guy, then yes height is then important.

I think height plays more or a role when it comes to the defensive side of the game as it gives a little extra reach. Not only is the player have a little extra arm length and reach but they likely use a little longer stick with reach as well.

 

[Leafsman]

There was someone talking about Hunter on the radio, who said, if you know him, he treasures skill above anything, and if he had to choose between a big skill guy, and a small skill guy he's going with the big skill guy.

I just think as it happens, right now all the guys we're getting just happen to be smaller. the height will come.

I'm not sure of anybody who would go the opposite? Drafting the smaller skilled guy is likely not a good practice. As long as the skill level is equal.

I would not grab the larger slightly less skilled guy over a smaller slightly more skilled guy.

 

[Drew75]

Here lies the problem.

Size is important. Sure, it's not as important as it once was, but its still a big part of the game.
This whole idea that we can "trade for, sign, or waiver pickup guys with size" is completely misguided.
Sure, we can trade/sign/waiver pickup a guy like Biggs, but thats not what we mean when people sharing my viewpoint say that we still need size.

When we say we need size, I mean we need a big 1C who can win battles and play a solid 2-way game, a Getzlaf archetype. We need a big, punishing 1D in the mold of Shea Weber who can shutdown other teams top lines and knock guys off the puck.

We DO NOT need a big 4th line tweener who can make a couple of big hits during his 8 minutes of ice time while playing abismal defence and barely contributing offensively.

The Biggs of the world are the guys that you can get through trade/FA/waivers. And they're worthless.

When I say we need size, I mean we need a Getzlaf or a Weber. And there's no way in hell that you're getting one of those through trade/FA/waivers.

The only way is to draft them. Period.

So as much as I love taking a lot of high risk / high reward guys in later rounds, we still gotta address our needs for a big 1C and big 1D through the draft, likely in the first round, as big 1Cs are almost never drafted outside the 1st round (only one I can think of is Benn).

In 2016 we should be targeting Matthews / Chychrun. My dream would be to grab Chychrun with our pick and get another top 10 pick to grab Logan Brown. One draft, and our size issues are over. But what do I know, we probably end up grabbing another small singer (yes, I believe Nylander/Marner are better suited as winger, not the point though).

Rant over

I think you missed the point. They are not passing on, nor avoiding size - they are simply going for the player with the highest amount of natural skill, period. They don't draft for need, position, or role.

This is actually the method used by Detroit and Tampa.

 

[GuillaumeLetsundress*]

Love this thinking. Hopefully other teams that havent already realized the way the NHL is shifting take their time coming to. Toronto can reap the rewards in the meantime.

 

[Sonny21]

Here lies the problem.

Size is important. Sure, it's not as important as it once was, but its still a big part of the game.
This whole idea that we can "trade for, sign, or waiver pickup guys with size" is completely misguided.
Sure, we can trade/sign/waiver pickup a guy like Biggs, but thats not what we mean when people sharing my viewpoint say that we still need size.

When we say we need size, I mean we need a big 1C who can win battles and play a solid 2-way game, a Getzlaf archetype. We need a big, punishing 1D in the mold of Shea Weber who can shutdown other teams top lines and knock guys off the puck.

We DO NOT need a big 4th line tweener who can make a couple of big hits during his 8 minutes of ice time while playing abismal defence and barely contributing offensively.

The Biggs of the world are the guys that you can get through trade/FA/waivers. And they're worthless.

When I say we need size, I mean we need a Getzlaf or a Weber. And there's no way in hell that you're getting one of those through trade/FA/waivers.

The only way is to draft them. Period.

So as much as I love taking a lot of high risk / high reward guys in later rounds, we still gotta address our needs for a big 1C and big 1D through the draft, likely in the first round, as big 1Cs are almost never drafted outside the 1st round (only one I can think of is Benn).

In 2016 we should be targeting Matthews / Chychrun. My dream would be to grab Chychrun with our pick and get another top 10 pick to grab Logan Brown. One draft, and our size issues are over. But what do I know, we probably end up grabbing another small singer (yes, I believe Nylander/Marner are better suited as winger, not the point though).

Rant over

Very good post. The first thing I thought to myself reading cliff notes of Dubas, umm there's a HUGE DIFFERENCE in 3th/4th liners with size and what most people are talking about in regards to TOP 6 SKILLED with size.

To add, I really do like their strategy when it comes to drafting and targeting skilled players. I'm opposing his views on as if getting size like 3rd/4th liners are the same with SIZE AND SKILL like Getzlaf, etc which is what most mean by needing size.

 

[Turk Broda]

The Leafs drafted the best player remaining on their board. There are a few people that seem to completely ignore the fact that the Leafs drafted a 6'3", 210 pound kid in the third round, because it conflicts with their narrative that we are drafting only small players.

 

[MapleLife*]

The Leafs drafted the best player remaining on their board. There are a few people that seem to completely ignore the fact that the Leafs drafted a 6'3", 210 pound kid in the third round, because it conflicts with their narrative that we are drafting only small players.

You seriously think people have a narrative? Because they don't want OUR CORE to be too undersized. Really?

 

[Turk Broda]

Very good post. The first thing I thought to myself reaching cliff notes of Dubas, umm there's a HUGE DIFFERENCE in 3th/4th liners with size and what most people are talking about in regards to TOP 6 SKILLED with size.

To add, I really do like their startegy when it comes to draft and skilled players. I'm combating his vews on as if getting size like 3rd/4th liners are the same with SIZE AND SKILL like Getzlaf, etc etc.

Dubas was simply saying that highly skilled players aren't often on the trade market (ignoring Phil Kessel, because it was a unique situation), whereas you can add size to your roster more easily (though a combination of size and skill is definitely a premium). If a big, highly skilled player is available when we are drafting, I'm sure they will draft him. But there thinking could be that the priority at this point is taking the best player on the board, regardless of position, size, and stage of development. This team is several years away, its all about development at this point.

 

[Turk Broda]

You seriously think people have a narrative? Because they don't want OUR CORE to be too undersized. Really?

The narrative from some is that we should panic because Mitch Marner and William Nylander aren't 6'2". Do you really think the core has already been drafted? We have at least two more drafts before we start to put together our "core". But for now we have some great pieces in Reilly, Marner, and Nylander. Height is so overrated by some fans on here. How tall are Pavel Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg?

 

[Sonny21]

Dubas was simply saying that highly skilled players aren't often on the trade market (ignoring Phil Kessel, because it was a unique situation), whereas you can add size to your roster more easily (though a combination of size and skill is definitely a premium). If a big, highly skilled player is available when we are drafting, I'm sure they will draft him. But there thinking could be that the priority at this point is taking the best player on the board, regardless of position, size, and stage of development. This team is several years away, its all about development at this point.

I agree with the first part, like I said, good to target skilled guys with lots of potential unless you come across with size and high end skill with drafting.

I definitely disagree with being easy to trade for size as his made that point numerous times, if he means 3rd/4th liners, well no duh. If he means size and skill, that is very wrong. Size+skill is ten times harder to acquire then just skilled player.

He was too general in saying it's easy to add size, when most people know it's about adding or needing some size in top 6. Does anyone really think it's hard to add 3rd/4th liners with size? That's not what people mean when it comes to discussing needing size, it's about having a balanced lineup overall in the top 6.

 

[GBLeaf]

I think you missed the point. They are not passing on, nor avoiding size - they are simply going for the player with the highest amount of natural skill, period. They don't draft for need, position, or role.

This is actually the method used by Detroit and Tampa.

This. People get all flustered over size.

They're picking who they believe has the highest skill available.

I know the physicality aspect in soccer is less important than hockey, but it definitely can make a difference. However, the best team of all time is the Spanish national side, who had an average size of about 5'9. Teams tried to bully them, but they had too much skill and quality and dominated world football.

 

[Turk Broda]

I agree with the first part, like I said, good to target skilled guys with lots of potential unless you come across with size and high end skill.

I definitely disagree with being easy to trade for size as his made that point numerous times, if he means 3rd/4th liners, well no duh. If he means size and skill, that is very wrong. Size+skill is ten times harder to acquire then just skilled player.

He was too general in saying it's easy to add size, when most people know it's about adding or needing some size in top 6. Does anyone really think it's hard to add 3rd/4th liners with size? That's not what people mean when it comes to discussing needing size, it's about having a balanced lineup overall in the top 6.

That's fair. But further to the Detroit example, Zetterberg and Datsyuk are both around 6'0. No one would say that they are big, physical forwards (though both are strong on the puck). Yet we would all agree they are highly skilled. Tomas Holmstrom was their big, power forward for a number of years (though he is also only 6',0"). Who would you be able to replace more readily? I'm not for one second arguing that we don't need guys like Holmstrom. I'm just saying, that type of player wasn't slotted as the best available player on the board when we were drafting in the first two rounds this year. Hopefully next year we are able to get some size and in particular a big, skilled center. Although if Chychrun is the best player on the board when we are drafting, lets hope they get him.

 

[Sonny21]

That's fair. But further to the Detroit example, Zetterberg and Datsyuk are both around 6'0. No one would say that they are big, physical forwards (though both are strong on the puck). Yet we would all agree they are highly skilled. Tomas Holmstrom was their big, power forward for a number of years (though he is also only 6',0"). Who would you be able to replace more readily? I'm not for one second arguing that we don't need guys like Holmstrom. I'm just saying, that type of player wasn't slotted as the best available player on the board when we were drafting in the first two rounds this year. Hopefully next year we are able to get some size and in particular a big, skilled center. Although if Chychrun is the best player on the board when we are drafting, lets hope they get him.

Whatever works, works. I haven't been one obsessed with size, simply stating that I disagree with how Dubas statement has come out without being specific. Adding 3rd/4th liners=easy, but that's not what people mean when they say we need or should add size, it's top 6 with size which is very difficult to acquire.

 

[Duffman955]

Great interview with Kyle Dubas on prime Time Sports yesterday.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/pts-maple-leafs-getting-max-value-out-of-kessel-deal/

I am very impressed and hopeful about this new drafting/prospect building philosophy.

It seems as though they are focused on acquiring as much skill as possible without the constraints of size/grit. This has been counter-intuitive to previous years but the NHL is changing. (3 on 3 OT is great for a team full of speed and skill, not a team full of size)

During the interview Dubas was hinting that shoudl they get a logjam of young skill players, they can easily go and get size from waivers, college FA's and numerous other sources.

Even better, and this is where I feel the genius part comes in, young skilled players are far more marketable throughout the league than Tyler Biggs types now-adays from what we've seen.

I think this method will be a great way to always be cycling in new talent and keeping a strong prospect pool.

Draft/acquire skill and IQ. - trade/waive/sign grit.
When it's determined who out of the current crop of prospects fits the mold - trade the other skill/IQ players for a far better return than large/gritty prospects would fetch. You can easily trade a young skill player for a young blue-collar player + pick

This model allows for far better rewards from the player either being what the team needed or getting better assets through a later trade.

You cant just trade for size

Who is going to trade a Seabrook/Hedman/Weber/Chara for a small winger?

Explain to me that

 

[Menzinger]

You cant just trade for size

Who is going to trade a Seabrook/Hedman/Weber/Chara for a small winger?

Explain to me that

Those are all top line players, nobody is going to trade those (regardless of their size) but look at LA, they just bought Lucic for a fair price.