Prospect Info: Drafting like Dundon

[A Star is Burns]

I think a lot of us would have been on board with taking chance on VV, but he must've been an older, late 6th rounder for a reason. Tearing up the Finnish league proves pretty much nothing other than he can do that. I can't really see blaming Waddell regardless as he likely hasn't seen an overage 6th round prospect play that much. The scouts must not have gone to bat for him, and that's where the decisions largely come from.

The Henman one was a head scratcher, but it seemed clear he would be a project with his physique. We'll see how this year and next year goes. The Kucharski pick seemed odd, but I'm not willing to call a 7th rounder a wasted pick at this point. I'm sure they saw some traits in him they liked, and it's a longshot to work out regardless.

 

[AD Skinner]

I know we won't draft him but I just had the thought that "Jack Hughes" sounds just like "j'accuse" and that's funny to me

 

[jiitu]

I think even late in the first or early in the second the chances of getting a difference-making forward are too high to roll the dice on a goalie.

And how often late first brings such? Dice it is there as well.

One thing i cant stop wondering is how much goalie importance is undevalued in NA. Goalie is the most important player. Carolina fans should now know it more than well.

Take e.g. numbers from last season:
Darling let .45 goals more against than ward (who also was not his best anymore). Similar difference can be still seen between very good and average goalie. With 60 starts thats 27 goals difference.

E.g. carolina made 228 hoals and 313 assists. 2.37 points needed per goal. Even average player should make 40 p with first line TOI + playing PP. Replacing that with Decision-making forward with 80 points = 40/2.37 = 17 goal difference.

Goal scoring is more sexy but each key save or avoided blunder is just as important in the score board in the end.

How many pics e.g. #25-#45 goves 80 p player? Id say that it makes sense to "roll dice" few years to take best goalie prospect if you get it with these numbers. Youre likely to get at least one pretty good goalie.

And goalie is THE decision making player after all.

edit: too many typos with phone

 

[Lempo]

I pick defenders only later rounds,
D-playing Ahos, go to Tiger Sounds,
I draft them like Dundon,
I draft them like Dundon,
I dra-a-A-a-aft them like Dundon


I'm sorry, but the title.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

And how often late first brings such? Dice it is there as well.

One thing i cant stop wondering is how much goalie importance is undevalued in NA. Goalie is the most important player. Carolina fans should now know it more than well.

Take e.g. numbers from last season:
Darling let .45 goals more against than ward (who also was not his best anymore). Similar difference can be still seen between very good and average goalie. With 60 starts thats 27 goals difference.

E.g. carolina made 228 hoals and 313 assists. 2.37 points needed per goal. Even average player should make 40 p with first line TOI + playing PP. Replacing that with Decision-making forward with 80 points = 40/2.37 = 17 goal difference.

Goal scoring is more sexy but each key save or avoided blunder is just as important in the score board in the end.

How many pics e.g. #25-#45 goves 80 p player? Id say that it makes sense to "roll dice" few years to take best goalie prospect if you get it with these numbers. Youre likely to get at least one pretty good goalie.

And goalie is THE decision making player after all.

edit: too many typos with phone

It's not that teams don't recognize the importance of goalies. It's that predicting their paths is practically impossible.

If we were to spend every single 5th to 7th round pick on goalies from now until forever, I'd be fine with that. We did, after all, draft Andersen (sigh) in the 7th.

 

[VaCaps Fan]

Drafting like a dumdum.

 

[jiitu]

And just to continue seeing some last year stats.

For example draft 2009 (should already be shown the capability more or less) players as total: 1 players over 80 p. 6 players as total over 60 p. From top #10, 3 made over 60 p and 3 other over 50 p. So even top 10, I would say still 50/50 to get "good level" forward who can really be called decision-making.

Continuing​

Draft 2010 players as total: 2 players over 80 p. 8 players over 60 p.​

Draft 2011 players as total: 2 players over 80 p. 9 players over 60 p.
Draft 2012 players as total: Not a single over 80 p, 3 over 60 p
and some older players still
Draft 2005 players as total: 2 players over 80 p. And those 2 were the only one over 60 p as well.

Edit: still some other angle: from all years rounds 2-4: 14 players as total were over 60 p and from those 3 were over 80 p.
Edit2: when there are players from about 15 drafts, so just 2nd rounders close to 500. They got 6 over 60 p players. So at best, few percentage chance to get real "decision-making" player outside 1st round. From top 3 goalie prospects annually, how many are blunders on average? As carolina, I would definitely use at least 2nd round pic for goalie next years if not first.

So as summary: Generally top 3 is clearly over 50/50 chance to get real super deal. Otherwise getting over 80 p player is a huge steal, in any position. Even getting over 50 p player is real "dice rolling" already after top 5 at least.

So claiming goalie selecting as "dice roll" compared to other players is way too emphasized.

So at least outside top 5 pics (I can lower this to top 10), it is even most probable to get a biggest positive impact by selecting best goalie prospect, when your organization is lacking any real deal in that area.

 

[emptyNedder]

So at least outside top 5 pics (I can lower this to top 10), it is even most probable to get a biggest positive impact by selecting best goalie prospect, when your organization is lacking any real deal in that area.

I have to agree with Hank. Look at 2010--three goalies were taken in the first two rounds Jack Campbell (taken before Jaden Schwartz and Tarasenko), Mark Visentin, and Calvn Pickard. Only Pickard has had any success.
Yet Grubauer was drafted in the fourth. Domingue and Mrazek were drafted in the fifth.
There are few sure thing goalies. It just makes more sense to draft them after the first two rounds.

 

[jiitu]

I have to agree with Hank. Look at 2010--three goalies were taken in the first two rounds Jack Campbell (taken before Jaden Schwartz and Tarasenko), Mark Visentin, and Calvn Pickard. Only Pickard has had any success.
Yet Grubauer was drafted in the fourth. Domingue and Mrazek were drafted in the fifth.
There are few sure thing goalies. It just makes more sense to draft them after the first two rounds.

Well also guys like Alexander Burmistrov (C) and Dylan McIlrath (D) were selected before them. Why didn't you mention them? It is simply what's wrong with your way of thinking. You cherry pick some name from some draft and compare to that, while only correct way is to make larger statistical analysis.

Plus draft 2010 starts to be even bit early for goalies who generally develop later.

from years 2005-2009 top 3 goalies:
Carey Price #5 +
Tuukka Rask #21 +
Tylor Plante #32 -
Jonathan Bernier #11 +
Riku Helenius #15 -
Leland Erving #28 -
Joel Gisted #36 -
Antoine Lafleur #48 -
Trevor Cann #49 -
Chet Pickard #18 -
Tom McCollum #30 -
Jacob Markstrom #31 -
Mikko Koskinen #31 +
Robin Lehner #46 +
Anders Nilson #62 +

6 out of 15 has made at least some career in NHL. That's 40 %! And I would say (mikko koskinen included now as he's about to come now nr 1 in Edmonton) that 20 % chance to make very good pick.

I would not call that as dice roll if you are telling that picking goalie may cause missing a decision-making forward, which in my (simple and still way too small data) analysis gave only few percetage chance even after top 5

And if you forget first round, I remind you that last season as total there were (rounds 2-4) 14 players above 60 p. 14 out of about 1500 players (that's just 1 %!). Of course there are many others who still are very good and important players so I cannot give now really "comparative" percentage.

But still, for real decision-making forward outside of 1st round vs. 20/40 % for goalie. And taking into account how important goalie is...at least don't complain carolina's goalie situation now if you really dont want to use any picks on them.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Well also guys like Alexander Burmistrov (C) and Dylan McIlrath (D) were selected before them. Why didn't you mention them? It is simply what's wrong with your way of thinking. You cherry pick some name from some draft and compare to that, while only correct way is to make larger statistical analysis.

Plus draft 2010 starts to be even bit early for goalies who generally develop later.

from years 2005-2009 top 3 goalies:
Carey Price #5 +
Tuukka Rask #21 +
Tylor Plante #32 -
Jonathan Bernier #11 +
Riku Helenius #15 -
Leland Erving #28 -
Joel Gisted #36 -
Antoine Lafleur #48 -
Trevor Cann #49 -
Chet Pickard #18 -
Tom McCollum #30 -
Jacob Markstrom #31 -
Mikko Koskinen #31 +
Robin Lehner #46 +
Anders Nilson #62 +

6 out of 15 has made at least some career in NHL. That's 40 %! And I would say (mikko koskinen included now as he's about to come now nr 1 in Edmonton) that 20 % chance to make very good pick.

I would not call that as dice roll if you are telling that picking goalie may cause missing a decision-making forward, which in my (simple and still way too small data) analysis gave only few percetage chance even after top 5

And if you forget first round, I remind you that last season as total there were (rounds 2-4) 14 players above 60 p. 14 out of about 1500 players (that's just 1 %!). Of course there are many others who still are very good and important players so I cannot give now really "comparative" percentage.

But still, for real decision-making forward outside of 1st round vs. 20/40 % for goalie. And taking into account how important goalie is...at least don't complain carolina's goalie situation now if you really dont want to use any picks on them.

"Only correct way is to make larger statistical analysis," you say. Well, all righty, then!

The following starting goalies in the NHL were picked 5th round or lower:

5th Round or lower
Connor Hellebuyck (130)
Petr Mrazek (141)
Mike Smith (161)
Fredrik Andersen (187)
Henrik Lundquist (205)
Pekka Rinne (258)
Brian Elliott (291)

Undrafted
Sergei Bobrovsky
Antti Raanta
Martin Jones
Keith Kinkaid
Carter Hutton
Cam Talbot

So, let's move on to some STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, shall we, genius?

Let's see, there's 31 teams... and 13 of those 31 teams have starting goaltenders that were drafted in the 5th round or lower, or weren't drafted at all... hmm... 13 divided by 31...

Looks like 42 percent! Hey, that's EVEN HIGHER than that 40% number *you* cited! Soooo weeeeird, right?

...

Now that I'm done mocking you for talking down to us, let's put it this way.

Let's say there are 6 players that can fundamentally change your team: top forward line, top defense pairing, top goalie.

What are the chances of getting a *top* forward in rounds 5-7? Pretty much zero.

What are the chances of getting a *top* defenseman in rounds 5-7? Nonzero, but low.

What are the chances of getting a *top* goaltender in rounds 5 or lower, or outside the draft entirely? Significantly nonzero. 40% of the current starters come from these rounds, and that includes *three Vezina winners*: Henrik Lundqvist, who was drafted in the 7th round, Pekka Rinne, who was drafted in the 8th round, a round that we don't even *have* anymore, and Sergei Bobrovsky, who wasn't drafted *at all*. There are also Vezina vote-getters on that list: Hellebuyck (2018), Elliott (2016), Talbot (2015), and maybe more that I didn't look up.

So that's my statistical analysis. Draft picks in the 5th-7th round are practically useless for finding impact players -- except for goaltenders, where they might net you Vezina candidates. So why would you spend them on anything else?

It might be different if we had our top forward lines set, or maybe our top two forward lines. Maybe then might be able to roll the dice -- and yes, it's still rolling the dice -- on a high draft pick goalie. But we're hurting for goal scorers. Our goaltending, for now, is adequate in comparison.

 

[DougieSmash]

Off topic probably but i don't understand why Booth is so underrated. He's more talented than Ned.

 

[bleedgreen]

I haven’t seen much of Booth so I couldn’t say, but I don’t have any real expectations of Ned. I’ve haven’t seen him look like an NHL guy since he turned pro.

 

[jiitu]

Why do you get so agressive? Dont take it so personally. You are clearly right that with goalie, there is larger chance to get good pick in late rounds.

Looks like 42 percent! Hey, that's EVEN HIGHER than that 40% number *you* cited! Soooo weeeeird, right?

Just basic thing of propabilistic calculation: when you count probability of some thing, denominator must match for this thing ypu are looking for. You have to count how many goalie pics in these rounds were made to give comparable probability to this 40 %.

40 % of selected top 3 goalies seem to make nhl career (with smallish sample size).

Based Drafts 2005-9 there is almost constant number of 11 picks in rounds 5+. So taking about 15 years drafts = 165 pics...13 out of 165 = 8 % is far from 20 % (as starter). Not naybe that far bu still significant difference.

Naturally if most goalies are picked in the late rounds, then many or most starters also comes from those rounds.

It does not change the fact that if you seriously need a goalie, best chance for it is to select one of the top prospect and usign at least 2nd round pick for it is not waste.

But ues...of course using also most of pics in 4+ rounds for goalie for couple of years gives good chance. How many wants that?

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Why do you get so agressive? Dont take it so personally. You are clearly right that with goalie, there is larger chance to get good pick in late rounds.



Just basic thing of propabilistic calculation: when you count probability of some thing, denominator must match for this thing ypu are looking for. You have to count how many goalie pics in these rounds were made to give comparable probability to this 40 %.

40 % of selected top 3 goalies seem to make nhl career (with small samplish size).

Based Drafts 2005-9 there is almost constant number of 11 picks in rounds 5+. So taking about 15 years drafts = 165 pics...13 out of 165 = 8 % is far from 20 % (as starter). Not naybe that far bu still significant difference.

Naturally if most goalies are picked in the late rounds, then many or most starters also comes from those rounds.

It does not change the fact that if you seriously need a goalie, best chance for it is to select one of the top prospect and usign at least 2nd round pick for it is not waste.

But ues...of course using also most of pics in 4+ rounds for goalie for couple of years gives good chance. How many wants that?

When you seriously need a forward, or *several* forwards, as we do, draft them first. That's my point. Our need for skilled forwards has been the actual problem here for years.

Or, it could be that we have skilled forwards and don't have coaches that know how to use them.

Or, it could be that spending some more money might fix the problems.

Or, it could be that our Stanley Cup used all the luck our franchise will never have.

I don't f***ing know.

Stay away from this team if you have any sense.

 

[jiitu]

When you seriously need a forward, or *several* forwards, as we do, draft them first. That's my point.

Stay away from this team if you have any sense.

Too late for the last one.

And i get your point. Getting more goal scorers is sexy. But my point was that good goalie vs. Average one is more important for overall than one 80 p player vs average player. And at least from 2nd + round, its max 3 % chance to get even 60 p player per forward pick. So smaller than getting a starter goalie and thus, goalie pick is not dice rolling. And thus...tema that needs a goalie among other should not avoid picking promising goalie even in earlier rounds.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Staal/Brind'Amour
Getzlaf/Perry/Selanne
Zetterberg/Datsyuk
Crosby/Malkin/Staal
Toews/Kane
Krejci/Bergeron/Seguin
Kopitar/Carter/Richards/ Brown
Toews/Kane
Kopitar/Carter
Toews/Kane
Crosby/Malkin
Crosby/Malkin
Ovechkin/Backstrom/Kuznetsov

This is a list of players who are form the offensive core of their team when said team won the Stanley Cup, chronological order 2006-2018.

Underlined means the player was a non-1st round selection. Bolded means the player was acquired in a trade or free agency.

Only 4 guys were drafted outside the 1st round. Two of those- Zetterberg and Datsyuk- don't really count since they were only drafted late because Detroit was virtually the only team seriously scouting Europe in the '90's- they would be 1st round prospects in this day of bloated scouting staffs and satellite TV.

Surprisingly, Krejci and Bergeron are, if not the bottom 2 forwards, easily among the worst. Since Seguin was a healthy scratch in his Cup run, let's remove him. 21 players remain.

Every team sans Boston had multiple elite offensive producers. All but four out of 20 were acquired in the draft. Of the 17 acquired via draft, 13 were taken in the 1st round. Brind'Amour, Carter, Richards and Selanne were 1st round picks as well. 'Canes gave up a good player to get Brindy, who was only available because of locker room issues anyway, Selanne was traded 'cause $$$, and the Kings/Cbus gave up a boatload of futures to get Richards/Carter, who were only available because of locker room issues anyway.

Of those 13 taken in the 1st round by the team which selected them, 8- Staal, Crosby, Malkin, Staal, Toews, Kane, Ovechkin, Backstrom- were top 5 picks/top tier prospects. Brown and Getzlaf were top tier prospects who were fell to the Kings and the Ducks in what turned out to be one of the best drafts in history. Kuznetsov was the 3rd ranked prospect in Europe and fell because of stigma against Russian players. Kopitar was a top prospect who fell due to his unorthodox country of origin.

In other words, 12 out of 13 were top tier prospects, 8 were selected commensurate to that, 4 fell, and 1- Corey Perry- was selected about where expected. Only 4 guys out of 20 were non-1st round picks, 2 we can safely label as not representative of the current drafting situation and remove them, and the other two represented the weakest forward group on this list, which won because of depth, #grit, great defense and balls-to-the-wall goaltending from Tim Thomas.

You take forwards high. Goalies, you do what Francis did- take one every year until one sticks.

 

[bleedgreen]

I’m fine with forwards in the first unless we’ve hit a bottom of a tier of forwards, and there’s a dman still in the higher tier. Goalies either after the first or if we have an extra pick.

What I’d really like to see, as ridiculous as it sounds is less of a push for character or a well rounded game in the first round and go for the most obviously skilled guy. There are limits to the character end of that statement of course but I don’t want a good old fashioned guy who back checks thoroughly, opens doors for old ladies and always writes down what his coaches tell him so he can commit to memory later but has a poor shot. Or skating.

I’d prefer a kid who scores. Preferably fast. Even if he laughs at old ladies getting doors slammed in their faces. You can beat that out of him later.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Too late for the last one.

And i get your point. Getting more goal scorers is sexy. But my point was that good goalie vs. Average one is more important for overall than one 80 p player vs average player. And at least from 2nd + round, its max 3 % chance to get even 60 p player per forward pick. So smaller than getting a starter goalie and thus, goalie pick is not dice rolling. And thus...tema that needs a goalie among other should not avoid picking promising goalie even in earlier rounds.

I think you're wrong. Getting goal scorers isn't "sexy". It's an absolute requirement to win. And we don't have enough of them.

Compare the difference between a good vs. average goalie and a good vs. average good scorer.

The most important characteristic is that you can *actually tell the difference*. It's obvious that Svech and Aho are good goal scorers (and Skinner, goddammit.) A good goal scorer at 17 looks pretty much like a good goal scorer at 30.

But with goalies, you can't tell, because whether they're good or great is a determination that happens mostly inside their heads. A goalie can have great technique at 17, get shelled a few times in the NHL, and then magically they're not good goalies anymore. Or a goalie who's meh for much of his career can turn into a Vezina winner. What's the difference? No one f***ing knows!

We threw a bunch of money at Scott Darling because he had "proven" his mental toughness by rising all the way up from the SPHL buses to a Stanley Cup Winner. Nope! That .925 save percentage evaporated overnight. Why? No one f***ing knows!

 

[AD Skinner]

I’m fine with forwards in the first unless we’ve hit a bottom of a tier of forwards, and there’s a dman still in the higher tier. Goalies either after the first or if we have an extra pick.

What I’d really like to see, as ridiculous as it sounds is less of a push for character or a well rounded game in the first round and go for the most obviously skilled guy. There are limits to the character end of that statement of course but I don’t want a good old fashioned guy who back checks thoroughly, opens doors for old ladies and always writes down what his coaches tell him so he can commit to memory later but has a poor shot. Or skating.

I’d prefer a kid who scores. Preferably fast. Even if he laughs at old ladies getting doors slammed in their faces. You can beat that out of him later.

As much as I really do love Slavin type aw shucks good guy players/people, this team could absolutely use a cocky asshole "don't touch my Percocets" type player that can back it up with his play. Sure they may not be good for the locker room but what's even worse for the locker room is sucking out loud for forever

 

[bleedgreen]

Don’t touch my f***ing Percocet's, and do you have any percocets.

I love that movie still.

 

[DougieSmash]

2011: Ryan Murphy was the BPA at #12. He was highly touted. It was mistake after all but the draft was weak. After Murphy you have Baertschi, Oleksiak, Miller, Armia, Beaulieau, McNeill, Klefbom, Connor Murphy, Noesen, Biggs, Morrow, Puempel, Danault, Percy, Namestnikov, Phillips, Jensen, Rakell. We miss on JT Miller, Klefbom and Rakell but so did a lot of teams.

2012: The day that we trade for Jordan Staal. There was rumours we are very high on Grigorenko. Forsberg would be special but the first round wasn't specticular at all. Pens take with #8 Pouliot, then you have in order Trouba, Koekkoek, Forsberg, Grigorenko, Faksa, Girgensons, Ceci, Wilson, Hertl, Teravainen, Vasilevskiy, Laughton, Maatta, Jankowski, Matheson, Subban, Schmaltz, Gaunce, Samuelsson, Skjei, Mattheau, Pearsson. We miss on Trouba/Forsberg/Hertl and Vasilevskiy but the first round wasn't anything that good. The biggest question is how exactly PDG and McGinn were second rounders? Not that we miss on something truly special at all, it was just weak draft. We did take Slavin, it was huge steal.

2013: Lindholm probably was BPA at #5 or it was between him and Monahan? Nurse was taken with #7, Risto with #8. Horvat (#9) is big success but after that is full with meh players. Nichushkin, Morin, Domi, Morrissey (big reach at the time), Wennberg, Pulock, Zadorov, Lazar, Mueller, Rychel, Mantha, Gauthier, Poirier, Burakovsky, Shinkaruk, McCarron, Theodore, Dano, Klimchuk, Dickinson, Hartman. Pesce makes this draft a win but nothing comes from Ganly and Pedersen.

2014: Fleury was very good for Red Deer but D always take few years to develop. We pass on Ehlers (#9 pick) and Nylander (#8 pick). After that it was meh - Ritchie, Fiala, Perlini, Vrana, Honka, Larkin, Milano, Sanheim, Tuch, DeAngelo, Schmaltz, Fabbri, Kapanen, Bleackley, McCann, Pastrnak, Scherbak, Goldobin, Ho-Sang, Kempe. Somehow we got some role players from that draft - Wallmark who was supposed to be good scorer, Foegele and Bishop. A lot of 4th liners. Larkin is crazy good but he wasn't rated that high.

2015: Hanifin. Rumored to be top 3 pick. We pass on Provorov and Werenski. Long term i still believe than Hanifin will be the best of the bunch. Meier is special, Rantanen is elite. We steal Aho. Booth was crazy good in Q. Roy and Cotton were 'steals' according the industry.

2016: Kuokk supposed to be next Aho, good value pick. But Bean was meh choice, especially after Slavin/Pesce success and after Murphy fiasco. We take Fleury and Hanifin in last few drafts. Not to mention Bean was taken before McAvoy and Chychryn. Not sure there's good forward taken after Bean. Maybe Kunin? Meh picks on Elenyuik, Filipe, Helvig and Zimmer.

2017 while it's very early was good for me. Necas will take time to develop but at worst he would be ideal #2 center. Mattheos is crazy underrated, Martin is solid as rock. Not sure about Luostarinen but maybe he will be good third liner. Geekie could be steal, not sure. He seems to be adequate so far.

2018: meh but we take a franchise forward. Sellgren could be steal. He's not flashy but very solid. Overrager or not, if you get solid #4/5 dman as a 6th round pick, it's success.

 

[NotOpie]

"Ville Vehvilainen"?

As legit a Finnish hockey name as 'Ville' is, I think 'Veini' is on wholly another tier here.

#BrainFart on my part....but you get my gist. I'm not shitting on Sellgren, I just think given the organization's need for goalie talent we could have passed on the smallish defender for the Finn.

I can't really see blaming Waddell regardless as he likely hasn't seen an overage 6th round prospect play that much. The scouts must not have gone to bat for him, and that's where the decisions largely come from.

Well, I agree that the scouts have done a good job on the back end....using the word scout and goaltender in the same sentence as Carolina Hurricanes is a sin. I do agree that I believe the two best goalie prospects in the system currently are Booth and maybe Makiniemi....given lower level of competition.

 

[emptyNedder]

I believe the two best goalie prospects in the system currently are Booth and maybe Makiniemi....given lower level of competition.

From the little I have seen, I think Helvig and Booth are close from a potential standpoint. Helvig took some games to adjust to the ECHL, but I think over the past 4 games his sv% is around .930. The big problem is that Darling is taking up a spot that either Booth or Helvig could have in the AHL.

 

[emptyNedder]

My updated take on the 2019 draft. g

1st Round:
If the Canes completely falter or get lucky in the lottery again, the top two picks are no-brainers--1) Jack Hughes and 2) Kaapo Kaako.
There is a lot of debate about who the third best player is. For the Canes, I would go with Dylan Cozens. From what I have seen and read, he will likely be NHL-ready in another year. His upside seems to be a good 1C while his downside is a good two-way 2C or second-line winger.
If as seems likely the Canes end up with a pick in the 7-12 range, then the USNDP has three players who cold be available. My order of preference: Trevor Zegras, Alex Turcotte, Matthew Boldy.
If the Canes end up 13-15, then my choice from last month, Connor McMichael, is moving up in many rankings into the 10-15 range. I think he makes sense for the Canes because he is a goal-scoring center who is disciplined in both zones.

2nd Round: Any of Yegor Afanasyev, Albin Grewe, Nicholas Robertson would be a good pick with the Canes 2nd round choice. All three have shown an ability to score at various junior/international levels.
With the Sabres' 2nd rounder, I would target Alex Beaucage. While Beaucage hasn't enter many scouts top 62 yet, he is quickly demonstrating an ability to score goals in the QMJHL as a younger 17-year-old. He is also a right-shot which the Canes still need.

I agree with BleedGreen:

I’d prefer a kid who scores. Preferably fast.

This should be the Canes sole focus with their first three picks in the 2019 draft.

 

[DougieSmash]

Turcotte is injury prone, i like him though