Prospect Info: Jayden Struble, LD, St. Sebastians, Pick 46

[AlexGretzchenvid]

Max Pacioretty is 14th in the league in goals in the last 10 seasons. During his 11-12 to 16-17 goal scoring prime he was 4th in the league with 189 goals. I get that people don't like him for various reasons but he was absolutely a 1st liner and a very good one at that. McDonagh/Sergachev are obvious, and we would have had John Carlson too if they didn't trade a 1st for Tanguay and then let him walk. Timmins also apparently wanted Kreider in 2009 but was forced to take Leblanc with the draft in Montreal.

That's not to say there's not room for criticism with the Canadiens' first-rounders and drafting/development in general. McCarron and Tinordi were unwise reactionary picks and Fischer is one of the worst 1st rounders I can think off off the top of my head, but dismissing guys like Pacioretty as 2nd liners is just setting up an impossible standard.

Was pacioretty a 1st rounder?

 

[Hfbsux]

Why are we talking about our failures on a 18yrs old prospect thread who is trending the right way?

 

[Whitesnake]

The most respected ranking (Bob's ranking) had him 5th and he actually interviews NHL scouts! But I repeat, the gap between 3-7 was minuscule and a personal preference. Pretending there was only one BPA is thinking you know more than Timmins and his scouts and that's foolish cause they have a heck of a lot more info than fans do! Kotkaniemi was drafted as a long term prospect. Keep reminding yourself that each time you want him to break out at a earlier age. He's not Pettersson or Svechnikov. It's going to take a while for him to fill into that body and skill/IQ is not an issue at all! I don't expect him to be a elite level skater but he does need better lower body strength and better edge work so he can use his frame to his advantage more.

Caufield will be a PP specialist and decent 5/5. Look at the bigger picture which is the long game, not the sort game or short span. We have more growing pains that goes past this year believe it or not. I do see your issues with lack of grit/strength but that can be addressed in the next year or 2.

Not sure what you mean about Struble and late round hits? He was a 2nd round pick.

The only reason why JK was seen 3 to 5 was because of the insane need the Montreal Canadiens had at that position for the last 25 years. I wasn't a Tkachuk fan for even my top 10....as I thought he was a risk to fail,, but based on stats, performance and how steady they were, Hughes and Zadina were BPA. Tkachuk not that far behind. JK was a need. But because he wasn't a 2nd rounder, he became the guy to pick. But again, when you pick for need....it rarely works out.

We will see with Struble. But I do think that's a need too. When you hear the comments at the draft table about how big he is, how mean he is, and how we don't have a lot of those, that's a definition of a need. A need that in most cases won't be needs 'cause they won't make it (obviously not saying that about Struble). But at that rank, Nick Robertson was a clear BPA. Or Fagemo? Or Kolyachonok. Clearly, Norlinder for me is a BPA. Fairbrother and Leguerrier? Needs. 1 of which might work out. Doro would have been BPA. Or Honka. But you could have an argument for Fairbrother too. Leguerrier? Purely need. Aaltonen was the BPA there. Blaisdell, Lindmark...that round is filled with BPA (that won't probably make it, I know....), but my argumentation is always about strategy rather than actual choosing of the players or actual results. Just for me, if the draft is a crapshoot, going with needs is making the draft go from a crapshoot to a super crapshoot. Not sure why you'd make a process even harder than it already is....

 

[Andrei79]

The only reason why JK was seen 3 to 5 was because of the insane need the Montreal Canadiens had at that position for the last 25 years. I wasn't a Tkachuk fan for even my top 10....as I thought he was a risk to fail,, but based on stats, performance and how steady they were, Hughes and Zadina were BPA. Tkachuk not that far behind. JK was a need. But because he wasn't a 2nd rounder, he became the guy to pick. But again, when you pick for need....it rarely works out.

We will see with Struble. But I do think that's a need too. When you hear the comments at the draft table about how big he is, how mean he is, and how we don't have a lot of those, that's a definition of a need. A need that in most cases won't be needs 'cause they won't make it (obviously not saying that about Struble). But at that rank, Nick Robertson was a clear BPA. Or Fagemo? Or Kolyachonok. Clearly, Norlinder for me is a BPA. Fairbrother and Leguerrier? Needs. 1 of which might work out. Doro would have been BPA. Or Honka. But you could have an argument for Fairbrother too. Leguerrier? Purely need. Aaltonen was the BPA there. Blaisdell, Lindmark...that round is filled with BPA (that won't probably make it, I know....), but my argumentation is always about strategy rather than actual choosing of the players or actual results. Just for me, if the draft is a crapshoot, going with needs is making the draft go from a crapshoot to a super crapshoot. Not sure why you'd make a process even harder than it already is....

The reason other head scouts had KK top 5 was because Montreal had a need at center ? Explain this to me.

 

[Habs Halifax]

The only reason why JK was seen 3 to 5 was because of the insane need the Montreal Canadiens had at that position for the last 25 years. I wasn't a Tkachuk fan for even my top 10....as I thought he was a risk to fail,, but based on stats, performance and how steady they were, Hughes and Zadina were BPA. Tkachuk not that far behind. JK was a need. But because he wasn't a 2nd rounder, he became the guy to pick. But again, when you pick for need....it rarely works out.

We will see with Struble. But I do think that's a need too. When you hear the comments at the draft table about how big he is, how mean he is, and how we don't have a lot of those, that's a definition of a need. A need that in most cases won't be needs 'cause they won't make it (obviously not saying that about Struble). But at that rank, Nick Robertson was a clear BPA. Or Fagemo? Or Kolyachonok. Clearly, Norlinder for me is a BPA. Fairbrother and Leguerrier? Needs. 1 of which might work out. Doro would have been BPA. Or Honka. But you could have an argument for Fairbrother too. Leguerrier? Purely need. Aaltonen was the BPA there. Blaisdell, Lindmark...that round is filled with BPA (that won't probably make it, I know....), but my argumentation is always about strategy rather than actual choosing of the players or actual results. Just for me, if the draft is a crapshoot, going with needs is making the draft go from a crapshoot to a super crapshoot. Not sure why you'd make a process even harder than it already is....

Essentially, you are talking about your own personal BPA options. Most if not all had Dahlin and Svechnikov 1 and 2. Then the 3-7/8 range varied by a lot when you looked at all the rankings. That should tell you BPA at 3, did not exist. My BPA options were Kotkaniemi, Tkachuk, Zadina, Boqvist, Hughes, Dobson. You say Hughes and Zadina cause you were not high on Tkachuk. There is nothing you can tell me that changes my stance on the stupid BPA argument. It's far to easy to talk BPA after the draft and you get to see draft +1/+2. It's hindsight evaluation. You would be hiding and would say nothing today if Kotkaniemi was on pace for a 50-60 pts season.

Did the Habs reach? OK, maybe they reached from 8 to 7.5 on scale of 1-10. It's minuscule differences so why would we not take the center when the BPA at 3 had like 4 or 5 different answers depending on who you ask.

You are allowed to have your own BPA list but that is your personal list, not everyone's.

 

[jaffy27]

The only reason why JK was seen 3 to 5 was because of the insane need the Montreal Canadiens had at that position for the last 25 years. I wasn't a Tkachuk fan for even my top 10....as I thought he was a risk to fail,, but based on stats, performance and how steady they were, Hughes and Zadina were BPA. Tkachuk not that far behind. JK was a need. But because he wasn't a 2nd rounder, he became the guy to pick. But again, when you pick for need....it rarely works out.

We will see with Struble. But I do think that's a need too. When you hear the comments at the draft table about how big he is, how mean he is, and how we don't have a lot of those, that's a definition of a need. A need that in most cases won't be needs 'cause they won't make it (obviously not saying that about Struble). But at that rank, Nick Robertson was a clear BPA. Or Fagemo? Or Kolyachonok. Clearly, Norlinder for me is a BPA. Fairbrother and Leguerrier? Needs. 1 of which might work out. Doro would have been BPA. Or Honka. But you could have an argument for Fairbrother too. Leguerrier? Purely need. Aaltonen was the BPA there. Blaisdell, Lindmark...that round is filled with BPA (that won't probably make it, I know....), but my argumentation is always about strategy rather than actual choosing of the players or actual results. Just for me, if the draft is a crapshoot, going with needs is making the draft go from a crapshoot to a super crapshoot. Not sure why you'd make a process even harder than it already is....

BPA from who’s list??

Just because YOU think player X is BPA, don’t mean teams share your opinion.
Ya sure, 1st round top 10 is usually pretty close, after that it’s a crapshoot.

In 2013, who was the #1 “rated” goalie?...Fucale......how that work out?

You have Lehkonen and Bertuzzi picked in the later part of round 2, 20 some players picked ahead of ten yet they’ve turned out as the best players of that round.......so much for picking best players available.....it don’t or should I say rarely works out, especially in the latter rounds.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Was pacioretty a 1st rounder?

Yes he was... back in 07. McDonagh at 12, Patch at 22, and Subban at 43. One of the best drafts we have ever had (Price was in 05). Unfortunately, we followed that up with one of our worse 4 year spans from 08-11.

 

[Habs Halifax]

BPA from who’s list??

Just because YOU think player X is BPA, don’t mean teams share your opinion.
Ya sure, 1st round top 10 is usually pretty close, after that it’s a crapshoot.

In 2013, who was the #1 “rated” goalie?...Fucale......how that work out?

You have Lehkonen and Bertuzzi picked in the later part of round 2, 20 some players picked ahead of ten yet they’ve turned out as the best players of that round.......so much for picking best players available.....it don’t or should I say rarely works out, especially in the latter rounds.

The BPA talk is always easy when people look back and use hindsight evaluation. And it's much easier when a player is on a low point on the up/down development curve. Say something negative about Kotkaniemi last year and you get run over... trust me, I did lol.

It's comical how trendy people are with small zoomed in sample sizes.

 

[Whitesnake]

BPA from who’s list??

Just because YOU think player X is BPA, don’t mean teams share your opinion.
Ya sure, 1st round top 10 is usually pretty close, after that it’s a crapshoot.

In 2013, who was the #1 “rated” goalie?...Fucale......how that work out?

You have Lehkonen and Bertuzzi picked in the later part of round 2, 20 some players picked ahead of ten yet they’ve turned out as the best players of that round.......so much for picking best players available.....it don’t or should I say rarely works out, especially in the latter rounds.

How is the No1 rated goalie immediately the BPA? What if the goalie year is abysmal? Does the No1 goalie has to be picked early? Everybody with a brain knew that Fucale was the product of his team. BPA often goes with stats. As you will rarely if not NEVER see a guy picked that had no stats SUDDENLY have some stats when he plays at a higher level. Yes, I know, having some stats in juniors does not AUTOMATICALLY means that you will have some stats later on too....but...again, chances are everybody playing in the NHL no matter the role will have had some great stats in juniors. And you can pick up every exception in the book, it will still be exceptions.

 

[Whitesnake]

The BPA talk is always easy when people look back and use hindsight evaluation. And it's much easier when a player is on a low point on the up/down development curve. Say something negative about Kotkaniemi last year and you get run over... trust I did lol.

It's comical how trendy people are with small zoomed in sample sizes.

Well it depends of the people who does that, I know I don't. You couldn't hate Scherbak back in the days. It's still a bad pick in retrospect 'cuase in the end, that's how you judge if a prospect is good or not....you couldn't hate it as it was surely the BPA at that point and time. But you had EVERY reason to hate the McCarron pick 'cause he was nowhere the BPA at the time NO MATTER how bad the 2013 draft was. It's insane to draft 'cause you want to be big. If you end up with 12 great smurfs, chances are you will be able to trade a couple of those for REAL needs...the ones that actually made it.

 

[Goldenhands]

The only reason why JK was seen 3 to 5 was because of the insane need the Montreal Canadiens had at that position for the last 25 years. I wasn't a Tkachuk fan for even my top 10....as I thought he was a risk to fail,, but based on stats, performance and how steady they were, Hughes and Zadina were BPA. Tkachuk not that far behind. JK was a need. But because he wasn't a 2nd rounder, he became the guy to pick. But again, when you pick for need....it rarely works out.

We will see with Struble. But I do think that's a need too. When you hear the comments at the draft table about how big he is, how mean he is, and how we don't have a lot of those, that's a definition of a need. A need that in most cases won't be needs 'cause they won't make it (obviously not saying that about Struble). But at that rank, Nick Robertson was a clear BPA. Or Fagemo? Or Kolyachonok. Clearly, Norlinder for me is a BPA. Fairbrother and Leguerrier? Needs. 1 of which might work out. Doro would have been BPA. Or Honka. But you could have an argument for Fairbrother too. Leguerrier? Purely need. Aaltonen was the BPA there. Blaisdell, Lindmark...that round is filled with BPA (that won't probably make it, I know....), but my argumentation is always about strategy rather than actual choosing of the players or actual results. Just for me, if the draft is a crapshoot, going with needs is making the draft go from a crapshoot to a super crapshoot. Not sure why you'd make a process even harder than it already is....

KK was BPA, only needs to fill his frame, time will prove you wrong...

 

[Whitesnake]

KK was BPA, only needs to fill his frame, time will prove you wrong...

But that statement makes no sense. I said when we drafted him that we HAD to draft him. So my pick was eventually him. But that he wasn't the BPA. And present and future will most definately prove that Hughes will be at the very least.

 

[Whitesnake]

The reason other head scouts had KK top 5 was because Montreal had a need at center ? Explain this to me.

Pretty simple actually. Some treat that list as their personal taste. Some other treat it as their personal prediction. Then, to be No5 in average means that quite a few might have had him 6, or 7 or even 8. But yes, some surely had him 4. Why? 'Cause he's a centerman. Which is more valued based on needs. I also stated befoe that it's insane to only use 1 tounament to move prospects around in a list. This is EXACTLY what happened for JK. U-18 completely changed what people saw should be a top 15 pick. I don't think people should do that.

 

[Whitesnake]

By the way people....using solely McKenzie list is laughable. This list is made by 10 scouts. Not 100. The McKenzie list needs to be used with othe lists out there. So as a fan you want to know who the BPA are? Use every list you could find, lists that do NOT make mock drafts for needs, and then you'll have your BPA. Not my personal one. The BPA by most experts out there.

 

[Goldenhands]

But that statement makes no sense. I said when we drafted him that we HAD to draft him. So my pick was eventually him. But that he wasn't the BPA. And present and future will most definately prove that Hughes will be at the very least.

I dont watch many Canucks games, but Hughes' offensive talent has never been in question, we all knew he was going to be a productive offensively minded defenseman, my concerns were his defensive zone efficiency...

Once KK fills his frame, he is going to be an amazing 2-way centerman, to me he was BPA at that spot...

Edit: The Yotes wanted him badly, Chayka called him the clear cut best centerman in the draft and went with Hayton instead of Zadina or Hughes, it gives you an idea...​

 

[Andrei79]

Pretty simple actually. Some treat that list as their personal taste. Some other treat it as their personal prediction. Then, to be No5 in average means that quite a few might have had him 6, or 7 or even 8. But yes, some surely had him 4. Why? 'Cause he's a centerman. Which is more valued based on needs. I also stated befoe that it's insane to only use 1 tounament to move prospects around in a list. This is EXACTLY what happened for JK. U-18 completely changed what people saw should be a top 15 pick. I don't think people should do that.

10 head scouts would be a third of the league and representative of how every players perceived on draft day by teams. That's why the list consistently, more or less, reflects where players end up.

Scouts add points to positional value... Because those positions are more valuable.

In any case, I think we've been through this multiple times.

It wasnt one tournament. I dont know how many times I can repeat it and point to the facts. He steadily rose up through the year based on multiple factors. He had one of the best U18 seasons in Liiga history on a fairly mediocre team. He really caught scouts' attention during the 5 nations. That was in February. You don't have to take my word for it, we have pros who said so, Timmins included. He was gone at 4 or 5 had we not taken him there was no doubt about it. At the very latest, he was going to be picked by Arizona, so why keep repeating the same thing ad nauseum in every thread about him.

 

[montreal]

Yup, we have nothing to show in the first round since Price. Am I missing someone?

how did we manage to get Domi and Drouin then?

Plus if not injured Juulsen would very likely be on the Habs this year and Poehling has already played for the Habs this year and likely will be up again at some point since MB and rushing prospects to the NHL go hand in hand. Too bad they wasted the pick they got on Beaulieu picking almost all defensemen that draft (though Brook, Fleury and Primeau could be nice wins)

 

[montreal]

Do you have an opinion on what struble lacks other than the obvious which would be playing highschool so far. His parents may not have been able to afford DEV camp?

How many other established NHLERS today came out if high school like him?

His defensive play needs work and he can be over aggressive physically and pinching in, just needs to learn when and where. Even though he was in the same league as Harris, he seems a good bit more raw but has the size and strength that Harris could only dream of.

As for NHLers that played in the USHS the list is long. For recent years just for the Habs, McDonagh, Chris Higgins (also played in the Northeastern prep league), off the top of my head. It's a long list though since it would be a lot of American born players that didn't play for the USNDTP or go to the CHL since most that played in the USHL and even some that played for the USNDTP played in the USHS at some point since the age starts around 14, as long as you have passed middle school you are eligible for high school.

 

[Habs]

how did we manage to get Domi and Drouin then?

Plus if not injured Juulsen would very likely be on the Habs this year and Poehling has already played for the Habs this year and likely will be up again at some point since MB and rushing prospects to the NHL go hand in hand. Too bad they wasted the pick they got on Beaulieu picking almost all defensemen that draft (though Brook, Fleury and Primeau could be nice wins)

I mean if you consider Domi and Drouin 1st round franchise players, I guess you can call it a win. I can't stand Domi, I don't care for his disappearing act, he's a complete dud. Players like Drouin are a dime a dozen in the NHL, nothing special there.

Impact first round picks? The cupboard is pretty bare around here.

 

[Whitesnake]

10 head scouts would be a third of the league and representative of how every players perceived on draft day by teams. That's why the list consistently, more or less, reflects where players end up.

Scouts add points to positional value... Because those positions are more valuable.

In any case, I think we've been through this multiple times.

It wasnt one tournament. I dont know how many times I can repeat it and point to the facts. He steadily rose up through the year based on multiple factors. He had one of the best U18 seasons in Liiga history on a fairly mediocre team. He really caught scouts' attention during the 5 nations. That was in February. You don't have to take my word for it, we have pros who said so, Timmins included. He was gone at 4 or 5 had we not taken him there was no doubt about it. At the very latest, he was going to be picked by Arizona, so why keep repeating the same thing ad nauseum in every thread about him.

Why? Pretty simple part 2. 'Cause you've got your facts wrong.

First, it's scouts not HEAD scouts. Read the entire articles and tell me where it says it's head scouts. Those are scouts. 10 per team. Tons that in the end aren't that much heard when it's time to pick. Like...Serge Boisvert for example.... Ten of 10 NHL scouts surveyed by TSN have the 6-foot-3, 185-pound blueliner in a class all by himself.

Then, if you bring the McKenznie list...bring the McKenzie article. And read this: "The No. 5 spot on TSN’s final rankings goes to Finnish centre Jesperi Kotkaniemi, who was No. 19 on the mid-season rankings and No. 10 on the draft lottery edition rankings. His strong performance at the World Under-18 Championships in April has vaulted him into the top five and provided this draft with something that it seemed to be missing all season long — a potential No. 1 centre."

https://www.tsn.ca/kc-1.1115400

 

[Habs Halifax]

Well it depends of the people who does that, I know I don't. You couldn't hate Scherbak back in the days. It's still a bad pick in retrospect 'cuase in the end, that's how you judge if a prospect is good or not....you couldn't hate it as it was surely the BPA at that point and time. But you had EVERY reason to hate the McCarron pick 'cause he was nowhere the BPA at the time NO MATTER how bad the 2013 draft was. It's insane to draft 'cause you want to be big. If you end up with 12 great smurfs, chances are you will be able to trade a couple of those for REAL needs...the ones that actually made it.

I just don't agree on that BPA all the time cause usually, it's a group of guys to choose from, not just one. It's not a crystal ball draft game. I do believe taking Caufield was a good BPA example from the last draft though.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Why? Pretty simple part 2. 'Cause you've got your facts wrong.

First, it's scouts not HEAD scouts. Read the entire articles and tell me where it says it's head scouts. Those are scouts. 10 per team. Tons that in the end aren't that much heard when it's time to pick. Like...Serge Boisvert for example.... Ten of 10 NHL scouts surveyed by TSN have the 6-foot-3, 185-pound blueliner in a class all by himself.

Then, if you bring the McKenznie list...bring the McKenzie article. And read this: "The No. 5 spot on TSN’s final rankings goes to Finnish centre Jesperi Kotkaniemi, who was No. 19 on the mid-season rankings and No. 10 on the draft lottery edition rankings. His strong performance at the World Under-18 Championships in April has vaulted him into the top five and provided this draft with something that it seemed to be missing all season long — a potential No. 1 centre."

https://www.tsn.ca/kc-1.1115400

I understand where you are coming from. I get it. One question I had pre-draft when Kotkaniemi was a rising stock towards the draft was... Are there examples of a rising stock like Kotkaniemi that busted? Started the year 20-31 range, was mid ranking near half way point, and got inside the top 10 before the draft. Do you recall anyone like that? I didn't get any examples and I asked the question a few times.

 

[Whitesnake]

I just don't agree on that BPA all the time cause usually, it's a group of guys to choose from, not just one. It's not a crystal ball draft game. I do believe taking Caufield was a good BPA example from the last draft though.

Choose Caufield was the PERFECT example of BPA. And that pick, I applauded it. In a world where everything is either black or white, to me it's not. Me wanting to go in a different direction does NOT mean that I think Timmins and Co are ALWAYS wrong. It means that it might be time to have a different feeling or a different view on things. And that in the end, since he's here despite all the good picks he made, none of them played a key role into making us a contending team. Whether a GM in place thought that those prospects, we could do without. Or that prospects in the end didn't help enough. Even if you would build a team solely made out of Timmins picks without trading them, there are no indications that this team would have been good enough in any point of his tenure with us.

But he did make some very good picks. Just that the stupid strategy of...okay this year, we'll go after d-men 'cause we don't have enough of them makes absolutely no sense. When Columbus wanted a d-man, they traded Johansen for Jones. When Montreal wanted a d-man, they went after Fischer or Tinordi. And people can't bring the McDonagh example 'cause McDonagh was BPA. Why? 'Cause Kings surprised everybody by taking Hickey way too soon. McDonagh was on the top 10 list or top 15 list of everybody. Hickey being taken made us get a BPA at our rank.

 

[Whitesnake]

I understand where you are coming from. I get it. One question I had pre-draft when Kotkaniemi was a rising stock towards the draft was... Are there examples of a rising stock like Kotkaniemi that busted? Started the year 20-31 range, was mid ranking near half way point, and got inside the top 10 before the draft. Do you recall anyone like that? I didn't get any examples and I asked the question a few times.

And I know what you mean. I would have to think that usually, it's a good sign. That this is what you want to see as progression especially from a kid who is 2 months from being picked the year after.

Again, I'm not dissing the JK pick. I said at the draft, and people can look it up, that in the end, he had to be our pick. I had to fell in the need category because it's been since Saku Koivu that this team hasn't drafted a very good centerman. Can believe just get their heads around that? People keep saying that it's normal Timmins went after JK 'cause his position was valuable....to which I say...WHERE THE f*** WAS TIMMINS BEFORE? 15 YEARS before he could finally go after a potential great centerman. Hey I don't know, maybe if his d-men obsession wouldn't have been so huge, we wouldn't have drafted a big question mark in Fischer and get Giroux instead?And that's not hindsight. Fischer was nowhere near the top 20 list on every list. McKenzie list had him at HONOURABLE MENTION....lol

 

[montreal]

I mean if you consider Domi and Drouin 1st round franchise players, I guess you can call it a win. I can't stand Domi, I don't care for his disappearing act, he's a complete dud. Players like Drouin are a dime a dozen in the NHL, nothing special there.

Impact first round picks? The cupboard is pretty bare around here.

You would have to have crazy high standards to not call Galchenyuk and Sergachev wins as only player from the 2012 draft is out producing Galchenyuk and Sergachev has put up very good numbers while still being a few years away from his prime.

I have only seen 1 games this year and wasn't impressed with Domi but he put up 71 pts last year, if that's not impact then I don't know what is. Drouin is a real tough one as the good Drouin is clearly an impact on our offense, the bad Drouin makes me want to drink heavily while yelling at my tv and calling him offensive names.