Draft low (small) - Sell High

[Duffman955]

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.

If you are willing to pay multiple 1sts you can get nearly anything.

 

[Swervin81]

You cant just trade for size

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

Explain to me that

Skill and size aren't mutually exclusive. Just like size and grit are not the same at all.

Most guys with skill AND size come off the board in round 1. After that, it's pretty much either or, and if a guy with skill and size drops out, there's usually some massive flaw (character, terrible skater, etc) that brings up red flags, much like lack of size is for pure skill guys or lack of skill for pure size guys. So basically, when drafting in later rounds, it's either:

A. Draft skill over size and tell him to put on weight to survive NHL brutality
B. Draft size over skill and hope the guy is able to develop NHL level skills or be able to skate.
C. Draft a physical freak (size, skating, big shot) and teach him how to play pro hockey and think the game at the pro level

Look at some notable later round size guys:

- Lucic: Was pretty much a big hitter with little skill, then was able to develop skills to suit his game
- Weber: Big guy with a big shot who developed all around skills to become an elite d-man
- Chara: The definition of a physical freak project that worked out. People forget how late he bloomed.
- Hedman: He was drafted 2nd overall for a reason. Had the complete package of size and skill right away.
- Seabrook: Again, top 10 pick for a reason. Size and skill.

That said, I do like drafting skill simply because size is big a factor as the player makes it to be. If the player plays a soft perimeter game and doesn't use his size to hit, shield the puck, or even reach on pokes, then it really is a non-factor. To me, it's not so much "how big are you?" as much as it is "how big do you play?". I'd rather have a skill guy that makes the most of his frame than a size guy that plays like he's half a foot shorter.

Oh, and we do have a big core piece. It's JVR. And just because he isn't a heavy hitter doesn't mean he doesn't use his size. Same with Sundin last decade.

 

[Duffman955]

Skill and size aren't mutually exclusive. Just like size and grit are not the same at all.

Most guys with skill AND size come off the board in round 1. After that, it's pretty much either or, and if a guy with skill and size drops out, there's usually some massive flaw (character, terrible skater, etc) that brings up red flags, much like lack of size is for pure skill guys or lack of skill for pure size guys. So basically, when drafting in later rounds, it's either:

A. Draft skill over size and tell him to put on weight to survive NHL brutality
B. Draft size over skill and hope the guy is able to develop NHL level skills or be able to skate.
C. Draft a physical freak (size, skating, big shot) and teach him how to play pro hockey and think the game at the pro level

Look at some notable later round size guys:

- Lucic: Was pretty much a big hitter with little skill, then was able to develop skills to suit his game
- Weber: Big guy with a big shot who developed all around skills to become an elite d-man
- Chara: The definition of a physical freak project that worked out. People forget how late he bloomed.
- Hedman: He was drafted 2nd overall for a reason. Had the complete package of size and skill right away.
- Seabrook: Again, top 10 pick for a reason. Size and skill.

That said, I do like drafting skill simply because size is big a factor as the player makes it to be. If the player plays a soft perimeter game and doesn't use his size to hit, shield the puck, or even reach on pokes, then it really is a non-factor. To me, it's not so much "how big are you?" as much as it is "how big do you play?". I'd rather have a skill guy that makes the most of his frame than a size guy that plays like he's half a foot shorter.

Oh, and we do have a big core piece. It's JVR. And just because he isn't a heavy hitter doesn't mean he doesn't use his size. Same with Sundin last decade.

If size isnt a factor, the average size in the NHL would not have been 6'0 200+ pounds. Whether you admit it or not, the Marner/Nylander are not going to be winning many puck battles and will be forced to play a perimeter game.

Which is fine if they are complimented by the big guys, who we forgot to draft/sign/trade

 

[Swervin81]

If size isnt a factor, the average size in the NHL would not have been 6'0 200+ pounds. Whether you admit it or not, the Marner/Nylander are not going to be winning many puck battles and will be forced to play a perimeter game.

Which is fine if they are complimented by the big guys, who we forgot to draft/sign/trade

Well, it's not like this is our only draft. Next year we have more picks, and it's a good draft for d-men and for size.

But I guess what I'm trying to say is if a 6'4" guy isn't engaged and doesn't use his size and plays like a 5'10" guy, is he worth picking up just because he's tall. While you do need size in puck battles, elusiveness (see: Datsyuk) and core strength is key too. Look at MSL. He's tiny, but built like a tank. Lower center of gravity can help in a puck battle too.

The size will come, though. You could already argue one size guy is here in JVR. If he fits the bill going forward, you basically have 2 undersized, 1 average sized, and 1 big guy in the top 6. You really only need 2 big top 6ers, so we really only need 1 more if we're keeping JVR as a core piece.

Like, think of this:

JVR-Marner-Nylander
XXXXX-XXXXX-Kapanen

If one of those X's is a big guy (>= 6'2"), even if the other guy is undersized, you can't say we're woefully undersized. Don't discount Nylander and Marner growing either.

 

[Duffman955]

Well, it's not like this is our only draft. Next year we have more picks, and it's a good draft for d-men and for size.

But I guess what I'm trying to say is if a 6'4" guy isn't engaged and doesn't use his size and plays like a 5'10" guy, is he worth picking up just because he's tall. While you do need size in puck battles, elusiveness (see: Datsyuk) and core strength is key too. Look at MSL. He's tiny, but built like a tank. Lower center of gravity can help in a puck battle too.

The size will come, though. You could already argue one size guy is here in JVR. If he fits the bill going forward, you basically have 2 undersized, 1 average sized, and 1 big guy in the top 6. You really only need 2 big top 6ers, so we really only need 1 more if we're keeping JVR as a core piece.

Like, think of this:

JVR-Marner-Nylander
XXXXX-XXXXX-Kapanen

If one of those X's is a big guy (>= 6'2"), even if the other guy is undersized, you can't say we're woefully undersized. Don't discount Nylander and Marner growing either.

When did I say I want a 6'4 guy who plays small.

The plan is to build a team to win the cup, and you will need those big guys on the top lines who play a big game.

 

[GoLeafsGo96]

The philosophy they're employing isn't to avoid size and go for skill.

The philosophy is skill > all and if a smaller player with much more skill is left on the board vs a bigger guy with less skill you take the smaller player despite such a size difference.

Top-6 skilled guys with size are very valuable. Nobody is saying otherwise. But they're valuable because they're rare. Should the Leafs have drafted Zacha over Marner? I'd say no.


The Leafs have spent draft picks on bigger guys with untapped offensive potential in the past (Biggs, Gauthier, Devane) etc. All of whom are not going to be top 6 players.

If you're going to criticize drafting skill over size, then tell me what big guy you would have picked instead of Bracco at 61? Or instead of Timashov with the players still on the board. We'll see if they pan out.

Its a lot easier to develop muscle/weight than it is to develop skill. The league is trending and has been trending towards speed and skill, especially now that obstruction is all but gone.

Big + Skill? Awesome.
Skilled + Small? Good.
Big and Not Skilled? Bad.

So yeah, if you can find the big guy with skill, pick him. Good luck though, since there aren't many.

 

[GoLeafsGo96]

If size isnt a factor, the average size in the NHL would not have been 6'0 200+ pounds. Whether you admit it or not, the Marner/Nylander are not going to be winning many puck battles and will be forced to play a perimeter game.

Which is fine if they are complimented by the big guys, who we forgot to draft/sign/trade

They don't have to win a puck battle if they get to the puck before the other guy due to their elite speed.

Puck battles aren't just about size. Its as much about skating ability (balance, agility) and puck control along/off the boards as it is about strength. Marner/Nylander are going to be fine. I guess they should have taken bigger guys instead of them since they won't win any puck battles.

 

[Duffman955]

They don't have to win a puck battle if they get to the puck before the other guy due to their elite speed.

Puck battles aren't just about size. Its as much about skating ability (balance, agility) and puck control along/off the boards as it is about strength. Marner/Nylander are going to be fine. I guess they should have taken bigger guys instead of them since they won't win any puck battles.

why instead? why not AND

my beef is why draft marner and 7 other 5'9 players.

Get Marner+players that compliment him.

 

[GoLeafsGo96]

why instead? why not AND

my beef is why draft marner and 7 other 5'9 players.

Get Marner+players that compliment him.

Because if Bracco is higher on the teams list than (Insert X Player Here) you draft Bracco.

The average pick doesn't become an NHL player. Draft the best ones you can and develop them the best you can to reach their potential. Same goes with any other pick, not just Bracco.


And two guys they drafted were very small. Bracco and Timashov. Aside from that, every other player was 5'11 or taller. Many of which can still grow an inch (they're only 18).

 

[PJJ]

Love people who question Mark ****ing Hunter's abilities/knowledge

 

[Gabriel426]

I think what Dubas said in the interview essentially meant, if it is a choice between a small skill guy and a big guy with less skill, he will choose the small skill guy.

 

[hotpaws]

Love people who question Mark ****ing Hunter's abilities/knowledge

Hunter proved he was a great jr GM , he's done nothing at the pro level so far for people to act like he's above having his decisions questioned/discussed .

I've also already said i was surprised we took so many smaller players after having drafted Marner and Nylander with our last 2 top 10 picks .

I don't like reaching for big unskilled guys with the hope they develop in the top 2 rds but after that we should have targeted bigger grittier guys . It's easy to load up on skilled midgets because they always slide , what's difficult is finding the bigger guy who also possess some offensive skill .

 

[tooncesmeow]

Hunter proved he was a great jr GM , he's done nothing at the pro level so far for people to act like he's above having his decisions questioned/discussed .

I've also already said i was surprised we took so many smaller players after having drafted Marner and Nylander with our last 2 top 10 picks .

I don't like reaching for big unskilled guys with the hope they develop in the top 2 rds but after that we should have targeted bigger grittier guys . It's easy to load up on skilled midgets because they always slide , what's difficult is finding the bigger guy who also possess some offensive skill .

You mostly (at least, history shows) find those guys in rounds 2-4. Backes, Simmonds, Toffoli, Saad, O'Reilly, Shore, Clifford, all guys over 6'2 and top six guys.

 

[Trapper]

You cant just trade for size

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

Explain to me that

You've gone to the top of the food chain for your example. Those are core players, you draft them.
Other players that have been moved like a Hossa,Willie Mitchell,Greene,Jordan Staal,Troy Brouwer,Joel Ward,Scott Hartnell,Foligno etc. can be obtained with skill.
Then you are also ready when a player like Nash asks for a trade, a sniper like Kessel,Gaborik become available or a player like Saad/Hamilton has to be traded.

 

[Chevboyarsky]

You mostly (at least, history shows) find those guys in rounds 2-4. Backes, Simmonds, Toffoli, Saad, O'Reilly, Shore, Clifford, all guys over 6'2 and top six guys.

I looked at the last 10 years of the draft and something like (on average), 4 players in any given 2nd round became impact players. I think that I was being a bit generous too (might be more like 3) Obviously being an average there were years with 2 and years with 7 or so players.

The players you mentioned (7 of them) come from the 2003, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2009 x3 drafts. Clifford is not a top 6 player (career high 15 pts last year!), Shore (Drew?) isn't either as of yet, and O'Reilly is 6 ft even, from what I can find so he wouldn't make the cut if we're looking for players 6'1-6'2 and over. Anyway that's still 5 guys in 5 whole drafts. Slim to none odds.

Cherry picking some smaller players guys available in the same drafts (rounds 2-4) were: Tatar, Craig Smith, Sami Vatanen, P.K. Subban, Pulkkinen, Clarke MacArthur, Kucherov and Johnny Gaudreau. In other words it's equally stacked AGAINST both strategies (big or small). Skill is the best determining factor IMO (which is why I'd never pick a Clifford for example).

It's just too hard to say "draft the top six guy with size" in those instances IMO.

From an asset management standpoint, a big guy "may" develop into the player you want, but the skill player will always have the skill. I'd imagine that would make the smaller/skilled player easier to deal, if the need arises (though that's pure speculation). I'd put the risk as high or higher that they'll bust than the small skilled player succeeding.

Biggs/Ashton (and others) showed that if a size player doesn't develop the skill part of their game, they're virtually useless both on the ice and as an asset.

 

[gravyface]

I looked at the last 10 years of the draft and something like (on average), 4 players in any given 2nd round became impact players. I think that I was being a bit generous too (might be more like 3) Obviously being an average there were years with 2 and years with 7 or so players.

The players you mentioned (7 of them) come from the 2003, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2009 x3 drafts. Clifford is not a top 6 player (career high 15 pts last year!), Shore (Drew?) isn't either as of yet, and O'Reilly is 6 ft even, from what I can find so he wouldn't make the cut if we're looking for players 6'1-6'2 and over. Anyway that's still 5 guys in 5 whole drafts. Slim to none odds.

It's just too hard to say "draft the top six guy with size" in those instances IMO.

From an asset management standpoint, a big guy "may" develop into the player you want, but the skill player will always have the skill. I'd imagine that would make the smaller/skilled player easier to deal, if the need arises (though that's pure speculation). I'd put the risk as high or higher that they'll bust than the small skilled player succeeding.

Biggs/Ashton (and others) showed that if a size player doesn't develop the skill part of their game, they're virtually useless both on the ice and as an asset.

This.

The big, skilled sure-thing guys (Strome, Eichel) were taken before we had a chance; I have no doubt that we would've picked Strome if we could've, but he was gone, so the next best player available was Marner (who I might add was significantly stronger than McDavid et al in the Combine).

Grabbing some big project guy is a better suited for the later rounds. Go with skill/speed and size can come with proper strength training (and these guys have the best trainers and nutritionists in the world available to them).

 

[gravyface]

Hunter proved he was a great jr GM , he's done nothing at the pro level so far for people to act like he's above having his decisions questioned/discussed .

I've also already said i was surprised we took so many smaller players after having drafted Marner and Nylander with our last 2 top 10 picks .

I don't like reaching for big unskilled guys with the hope they develop in the top 2 rds but after that we should have targeted bigger grittier guys . It's easy to load up on skilled midgets because they always slide , what's difficult is finding the bigger guy who also possess some offensive skill .

I just don't think you bother drafting those big gritty guys: they're available every year in free agency or as throw-ins for trades.

All the gritty guys we drafted are not impact players in the AHL, let alone the NHL.

 

[Leafsman]

This.

The big, skilled sure-thing guys (Strome, Eichel) were taken before we had a chance; I have no doubt that we would've picked Strome if we could've, but he was gone, so the next best player available was Marner (who I might add was significantly stronger than McDavid et al in the Combine).

Grabbing some big project guy is a better suited for the later rounds. Go with skill/speed and size can come with proper strength training (and these guys have the best trainers and nutritionists in the world available to them).

I just don't think you bother drafting those big gritty guys: they're available every year in free agency or as throw-ins for trades.

All the gritty guys we drafted are not impact players in the AHL, let alone the NHL.

This is where I think the plan is genius.

The big gritty guys you grab later. Let the other teams grab the project players or waste picks grabbing size.

Later, because we've narrowed our focus and are more likely to get success. We trade the skilled players we can't fit in our lineup for some of these project players who have been developing + a pick.

The skilled player later is much more valuable than a gritty guy later. There will be more trading partners and better pieces.

 

[Leafsman]

You cant just trade for size

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

Explain to me that

Who is going to trade them period???

Those are major franchise pieces that you pray every draft pick you can get someone close.

Those are ridiculous players to list in a discussion about trading for size/grit. We're taking about players who round out the roster not players who are the cornerstone of it.

Size I think has become too much of a focal point which is ironic since we are talking about how it should not be a focal point!

Draft skill over all else - Size should not matter.

"We require, as a team, proper levels of pugnacity, testosterone, truculence and belligerence" is out the window now.

We require, as a team, proper levels of skill, intelligence, ability and performance.

Burke's NHL is dead, I am happy to see mgmt jumping way ahead of the curve.

**** size! Draft skill - trade/sign grit and character players

 

[93LEAFS]

You cant just trade for size

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

Explain to me that

Most teams would seriously consider trading one of those guys for Giroux or P Kane.

 

[gravyface]

This is where I think the plan is genius.

The big gritty guys you grab later. Let the other teams grab the project players or waste picks grabbing size.

Later, because we've narrowed our focus and are more likely to get success. We trade the skilled players we can't fit in our lineup for some of these project players who have been developing + a pick.

The skilled player later is much more valuable than a gritty guy later. There will be more trading partners and better pieces.

Yup, a good example is a guy like Semin who has all kinds of skill, but lacking in everything else: he still, to this day, is getting signed/traded and finally bought out because the teams involved hope that he can turn things around, and if he does, man, that skill cannot be denied.

Compare that with a big guy like David Steckel who's around the same age, drafted 30th overall, and isn't even playing in the NHL right now.

Even when you look at the worst examples of either type of player, the skill guy always wins out.

 

[Lion15]

One draft does not make a trend.

Great point.

 

[Leafsman]

Yup, a good example is a guy like Semin who has all kinds of skill, but lacking in everything else: he still, to this day, is getting signed/traded and finally bought out because the teams involved hope that he can turn things around, and if he does, man, that skill cannot be denied.

Compare that with a big guy like David Steckel who's around the same age, drafted 30th overall, and isn't even playing in the NHL right now.

Even when you look at the worst examples of either type of player, the skill guy always wins out.

That is for sure the perfect example!!! Thank you.

Great point.

Not really!! One draft may not make a trend but it can sure as hell start one.

Edit: We're also talking about a philosophy that touches all parts of transactions - draft, TD, FA, etc...

 

[Knightnight]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoLBWfo_o2I

 

[Drew75]

This thread is getting funny - but I'm still trying to figure out who the big AND skilled player is that we passed on?

I've heard the Dergachev argument, but that REALLY feels like a draft size and hope the glimmer of skill pans out - vs drafting a guy who has the skill, and hoping he fills out.