HF's Team Board Mock Draft

[Morgs]

Hey everybody. There's always variations of these every year on this site. The idea is to try to reach a consensus for who each team might pick would the fans of that team be in control.

This does not take into account any previous polls before it. Only the results of this poll will affect the numbers going forward.

Here are the results of the one I set up two seasons ago http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1697411

There's around a month left until the draft, so there will be 24 hours for each pick. Obviously, we're only looking for the fans of each team to vote on their pick. This also assumes no trades will be made between picks.

Coyotes fans, you have the 20th overall pick!

1. C Auston Matthews 98%

2. RW Patrik Laine 98%

3. RW Jesse Puljujarvi 95%

4. C/LW PierreLuc Dubois 47%

5. LW Matthew Tkachuk 91%

6. RW/LW Alexander Nylander 58%

7. C Logan Brown 48%

8. D Jacob Chychrun 55%

9. D Olli Juolevi 36%

10. C/LW Tyson Jost 53%

11. C/LW Clayton Keller 85%

12. D Mikhail Sergachyov 46%

13. C/LW Kieffer Bellows 69%

14. D Dante Fabbro 78%

15. C/RW Luke Kunin 60%

16. D Charles McAvoy 40%

17. RW Julien Gauthier 37%

18. C Michael McLeod 48%

19. LW Max Jones 54%

20. ??

21.

22.


** this is something that "leafed" was doing, but stopped for some reason in the middle. I wanted to see this get done before draft day

Click to read more...

 

[Flyotes]

I voted: German Rubtsov

 

[Mosby]

Bean.

 

[Vinny Boombatz]

easily Bean. Surprised he hasn't gone yet.

 

[Jormungandr]

If one of the top 6 defensemen are available at 20, in this case Bean, I take them. So I voted Jake Bean. If they're all gone I go Rubtsov.

 

[PhoPhan]

Only two guys outside of my top 20 went before this pick (Nylander and McLeod), so I'm going with my 18th ranked player: Pascal Laberge. Projects as a versatile, high energy middle six forward of the Justin Williams variety.

 

[ck26]

easily Bean. Surprised he hasn't gone yet.

This.

If one of the top 6 defensemen are available at 20, in this case Bean, I take them. So I voted Jake Bean. If they're all gone I go Rubtsov.

And this.

Only two guys outside of my top 20 went before this pick (Nylander and McLeod), so I'm going with my 18th ranked player: Pascal Laberge. Projects as a versatile, high energy middle six forward of the Justin Williams variety.

We don't need future versatile, high energy middle six forwards as much as we need future talented defensemen.

Voted Bean. Surprised to see Fabbro and McAvoy go before him. Boston fans seem to be bent on making it 4 really bizarre first round choices in a row.

 

[PhoPhan]

We don't need future versatile, high energy middle six forwards as much as we need future talented defensemen.

Don't. Draft. For. Need.

In a best case scenario, Bean is probably still 2-3 years away from being ready for NHL duty. Take a look at the Coyotes roster from three years ago, and then try to guess what it'll look like three years from now. If you draft Laberge and he turns out to be a solid player, and somehow everyone else in the queue has too, then make some trades for defensemen you know turned out well, as opposed to drafting someone you're not sure about.

For what it's worth, if the draft played out like this, there would still be five other defensemen I take ahead of Bean.

 

[lanky]

It's only by a narrow margin but Logan Stanley is in 2nd place in voting. If he's our pick at 20 I'd be very disapointed.

 

[Decoyote]

I'd be very happy if our first round went Brown/Bean.

 

[Morgs]

It looks like it's pretty close to unanimous you guys are going with Bean.

I'm gonna start the next poll.

 

[rt]

Good chance that Bean is another Rundblad. Equally good chance he's something more useful.

 

[lanky]

Red Line likes him a lot.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/draft/2016/06/15/nhl-draft-2016-defensemen/85937714/

Also want to mention that I really like how he's acknowldeged Niemelainen and Lindgren as top prospects. He saw what I saw at the U18s.

 

[ck26]

Don't. Draft. For. Need.

In a best case scenario, Bean is probably still 2-3 years away from being ready for NHL duty. Take a look at the Coyotes roster from three years ago, and then try to guess what it'll look like three years from now. If you draft Laberge and he turns out to be a solid player, and somehow everyone else in the queue has too, then make some trades for defensemen you know turned out well, as opposed to drafting someone you're not sure about.

For what it's worth, if the draft played out like this, there would still be five other defensemen I take ahead of Bean.

Do. Draft. A. Balanced. Prospect. Pool.

3 years from now, Michalek is retired, Stone is on a UFA contract, OEL will be making $9m minimum and Domi and Duclair will be getting big raises. Right now, Capobianco and a bunch of so-so young AHL'ers is the extent of our prospect pool. It's not "we need NHL defensemen now" need ... it's "we don't have any of this in the pipeline, we should start putting some in" need. Bean isn't about pairing with Oliver next season, he's about replacing Stone and Connauton for cheap in a couple years. We have a ton of good forward prospects who can do what Leberge can do.

 

[moosemeister]

Surprised Bean is still available. We gotta draft him at 20 if he is.

 

[boredmale]

If German Rubtsov goes 21st, the top 21 in the hfboard mock draft will be the same 21 I predict to go 21(although in a different order) in the real draft. All that being said I expect 1-3 other guys squeaking into that group of 21 before all 21 get scooped up

Tooting my own horn here, I put up a poll of chances the guys I say are the clearcut top 21 will all get drafted in the first round

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2088043

I am surprised 60% think it won't happen

 

[BUX7PHX]

Don't. Draft. For. Need.

In a best case scenario, Bean is probably still 2-3 years away from being ready for NHL duty. Take a look at the Coyotes roster from three years ago, and then try to guess what it'll look like three years from now. If you draft Laberge and he turns out to be a solid player, and somehow everyone else in the queue has too, then make some trades for defensemen you know turned out well, as opposed to drafting someone you're not sure about.

For what it's worth, if the draft played out like this, there would still be five other defensemen I take ahead of Bean.

In a best case scenario, almost all picks at #20 will take 2-3 before being ready. There are some diamonds in the rough, but I am not really seeing the argument.

For all we know, Laberge is the forward version of Gormley or Rundblad. Now we wind up in a similar, yet opposite boat to where we were 2-3 years ago - so much promise on one side of the cupboard, but if that promise doesn't keep, where are we at?

Surprised Bean is still there, but that is the right value. I would envision that 90% of draft boards have Bean squarely in the top 25-30, but not much higher than 10th, so the value is correct for him. While there are specific players that you can advocate for going into each draft, I am more concerned with overall value on the pick. A player like Bean/McAvoy/Fabbro taken anywhere between #12-22 represents terrific value.

 

[PhoPhan]

The reasoning behind taking Laberge over Bean isn't about who gets to town quicker. It's that you don't know what your needs will be three years from now, so it makes more sense to draft for talent, not need. I understand not everyone will have Laberge ranked highest here, but suggesting that we just draft Bean because he's a defenseman implies you've got a forward ranked higher but would pass over him for positional need.

You have the whole draft to replenish the system. Don't force it. They'll likely come away from the draft with at least two or three new defensemen, maybe more. There's also free agency and trades. Three years from now, the system will look as different as the pro team. A lot happens in three years.

The shorter version: you can't assess relative value three years out as well as you can assess absolute value, so draft the latter. If you find yourself with a glaring surplus/deficiency at a given time, you can move assets to do so, at which point you'll be happy you drafted the better player.

 

[XX]

Red Line likes him a lot.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/draft/2016/06/15/nhl-draft-2016-defensemen/85937714/

Also want to mention that I really like how he's acknowldeged Niemelainen and Lindgren as top prospects. He saw what I saw at the U18s.

I want Niemelainen out of this draft. Parayko vibes.

 

[rt]

The reasoning behind taking Laberge over Bean isn't about who gets to town quicker. It's that you don't know what your needs will be three years from now, so it makes more sense to draft for talent, not need. I understand not everyone will have Laberge ranked highest here, but suggesting that we just draft Bean because he's a defenseman implies you've got a forward ranked higher but would pass over him for positional need.

You have the whole draft to replenish the system. Don't force it. They'll likely come away from the draft with at least two or three new defensemen, maybe more. There's also free agency and trades. Three years from now, the system will look as different as the pro team. A lot happens in three years.

The shorter version: you can't assess relative value three years out as well as you can assess absolute value, so draft the latter. If you find yourself with a glaring surplus/deficiency at a given time, you can move assets to do so, at which point you'll be happy you drafted the better player.

I agree. I chose Bean not because he's a D but because the consensus rankings have him higher than the other options on the board.

 

[PhoPhan]

I agree. I chose Bean not because he's a D but because the consensus rankings have him higher than the other options on the board.

In which case I just disagree with your talent assessment, not your logic.

 

[BUX7PHX]

The reasoning behind taking Laberge over Bean isn't about who gets to town quicker. It's that you don't know what your needs will be three years from now, so it makes more sense to draft for talent, not need. I understand not everyone will have Laberge ranked highest here, but suggesting that we just draft Bean because he's a defenseman implies you've got a forward ranked higher but would pass over him for positional need.

You have the whole draft to replenish the system. Don't force it. They'll likely come away from the draft with at least two or three new defensemen, maybe more. There's also free agency and trades. Three years from now, the system will look as different as the pro team. A lot happens in three years.

The shorter version: you can't assess relative value three years out as well as you can assess absolute value, so draft the latter. If you find yourself with a glaring surplus/deficiency at a given time, you can move assets to do so, at which point you'll be happy you drafted the better player.

But the flip side is that in three years, we may have multiple options out there.

It is a combination of multiple items - BPA now, outlook for the future, value on pick, which teams are drafting after us, which may take the player that we are interested in at our next pick, and rounding out the prospect pool. All of those come into play in development of our draft board and who we wind up selecting.

IIRC, Gormley was not necessarily a choice out of need, but a choice as the BPA. How long did it take us to move on from Gormley? We didn't necessarily return assets for our forward deficiency from Gormley at all. Maybe we missed the boat on when to trade him to get the better return. Maybe there were a few teams interested, but we didn't have the "right" C-level, bottom 6 forward prospect to add to the trade b/c we went BPA and didn't round out our pool. Just because we have a surplus of one asset and a deficiency at the other doesn't mean that teams will be lining up to deal with us. I'd like to believe it to be the case, but it simply isn't.

My last paragraph said Bean was of great value there, and he also happens to fill a positional need in the pool as well. There may be some defensemen that I avoid, even if they are a positional need. But if I have a D ranked between #24 and #28, with no other D in my top 40, I have no qualms with selecting him at #20, b/c value is there, and other intangibles outside of BPA do come into play. Same reason as to why I want to trade back from #7 - Juolevi may be the BPA there, but if Chychrun, Sergachev, Fabbro, and McAvoy rank between #8 and #16 on my board and the delta between those players is razor-thin, that doesn't mean that I have to make Juolevi my choice at #7. I am just taking advantage of better value on the board later and parlaying a trade back into obtaining additional picks to go BPA, or fill holes, or take a flier on the 5'9" kid with a 5'11" mom and 6'4" dad b/c he hasn't hit his growth spurt yet.

 

[RABBIT]

Bean Bag.

 

[Jormungandr]

The reasoning behind taking Laberge over Bean isn't about who gets to town quicker. It's that you don't know what your needs will be three years from now, so it makes more sense to draft for talent, not need. I understand not everyone will have Laberge ranked highest here, but suggesting that we just draft Bean because he's a defenseman implies you've got a forward ranked higher but would pass over him for positional need.

You have the whole draft to replenish the system. Don't force it. They'll likely come away from the draft with at least two or three new defensemen, maybe more. There's also free agency and trades. Three years from now, the system will look as different as the pro team. A lot happens in three years.

The shorter version: you can't assess relative value three years out as well as you can assess absolute value, so draft the latter. If you find yourself with a glaring surplus/deficiency at a given time, you can move assets to do so, at which point you'll be happy you drafted the better player.

I'd draft Bean because he's the superior talent as far as I'm concerned. I have him top 15. Laberge is late first IMO.