You wonder, and this is merely a vague suspicion, that NHL scouts have grown savvy to the awful development record of Europeans who go to NA before being drafted, to the extent that it is now affecting their draft decisions?
As late as 2006, prior to the IIHF study which documented that, it would seem that NA-based euorpean prospects tended to get drafted at least as high as they were projected. Grabner at 14th, Vishnevsky (27), Nodl (39) and Fiala (40) all went as high or higher than expected.
Since 2007, it seems to be a reverse trend. Voracek was widely believed to be in contention for a top 3 selection, he went 7th. Repik and Moller (40 and 52) were thought to have some late 1st potential, but got selected lower than that. Bashkirov (60) was 43rd in the THN draft preview, for whatever that's worth. Sbisa was perhaps a little lower than expected at 19th, Kulikov was definitely at the low end of expectations at 14th. The only exception seems to be Mikkel Bødker, who were selected ahead of at least one player of comparable stature (Hodgson).
Not that these are big drops. But maybe one can suspect that it reflects this: In drafting decisions, you have to make an assessment of each individual, regardless of broader trends. But when you have several choices of roughly equal quality, teams start paying attention to that kind of thing. And in that situation, it makes sense to draft a North American player rather than a European player playing in North America, given the fact that the latter hisorically have been much, much more prone to bust. It would also make sense to choose a European player playing in Europe over a North American player of similar quality, since the European systems have a considerably better record in developing high-impact players than the North American, but there other concerns come into play too (such as availability). One wonders.
Anyway, if so that might to some extent have affected Haula too, although there is not too much experience to go on regarding Europeans in the NCAA.
