Knee Jerk reaction to the oilers draft

Grade the oilers performance for the 2018 draft

  • A

  • B

  • C

  • D

  • F


Results are only viewable after voting.

Aerrol

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Sep 18, 2014
6,555
3,208
I voted C, but really it should be B-. Love the Bouchard pick, not a fan of grabbing McLeod (I hate the lack of intensity reports, would much rather have grabbed Bode Wilde or Akil Thomas), and do not like trading up to pick a goalie in the second round. Goalies are hard enough to project, if you really want one, just draft one when you can IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LTIR

CycloneSweep

Registered User
Sep 27, 2017
48,200
40,001
Why is that? Because you don’t know who Ian Scott is? This is going to turn into a Stuart Skinner hate post, and I don’t hate him, but he got a lot of love and is being overrated due to being traded to a powerhouse defensive hockey team. That’s not to say he wasn’t good, because he was, and he was the final piece of the puzzle for a strong defensive team, but he also had some brutal games in the playoffs(see being pulled at least twice in the first round vs. Regina). If you don’t think Ian Scott is on par with him you’re sadly mistaken. He carried a very average team on his back and within 10 minutes of upsetting the first place Moose Jaw Warriors in the first round. He wasn’t on a strong defensive team either. The Raiders has some hard workers, but lacked firepower offensively and defensively. Scott is at the other end of the spectrum as Skinner, very underrated mainly because he struggled in international competition in his draft year. Scott is every bit as good as Skinner, and trumps him in athleticism. He is at the very least on par with Skinner as a prospect. Again, don’t hate Skinner, but the trade of two assets to acquire one when there are more than one good option available to you.

As far as Bouchard goes, I like the pick, and gave it a B+, but if you look at my personal rankings, he was 12th on my board, while Noah Dobson was 3rd. So would have I been ecstatic to get Bouchard, no. Not disappointed that we got him though, just disappointed to have had the opportunity to draft Dobson and pass it up.
Skinner got traded to a strong defensive team?

You mean the championship team that got outshot most games in the playoffs?
The WHL team in the Memorial Cup that had so many defensive breakdowns in one game that Skinner put up one of the best single player performances in Memorial Cup history?

Skinner in Swift Current faced on average 29.8 shots per game, Scott faced 28.7 shots per game.

Not a huge difference, but it's not like Swift Current was some defensive juggernaut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MinimaMoralia

CycloneSweep

Registered User
Sep 27, 2017
48,200
40,001
I really don’t like them trading picks to move up either but maybe they just didnt like much left in the draft at that point and felt strongly about Rodrigue. Chiarelli mentioned on Friday that there was a lack of depth in the draft. But he also said that they might take a goalie later in the draft, so he sort of contadicted himself a bit. Kinda a weird draft, seemed like a lot of promising prospects never got drafted. Guess that’s probably true for any draft.
I dont think he really did.

100% what I think happened there was, they had Rodrigue ranked mid 2nd round but werent going to use 40 for it. So the end of the 2nd is there and no one has grabbed him yet so they go for it. They probably thoughtthey had zero chance at him and were prepared to take a goalie later
 
  • Like
Reactions: nabob

Roof Daddy

Registered User
Apr 1, 2008
13,131
2,281
With respect to loading up on goaltenders I find it to be a rather questionable strategy. I look towards the Capitals who are probably the best current goaltending factory in the NHL and while they did draft and find their superstar goaltender, which is certainly something to covet and hold on tightly to, they've traded off multiple goalies who looked to have starting upside and didn't get great returns for the most part, the closest to a really solid return was Varlamov, but Colorado was expecting to be a much stronger team the year they traded for him and that 1st round pick wasn't projected to be that high.

I'll start by saying you're one of the best posters on HFOil and give thorough and detailed responses,but I have to strongly disagree on this one.

1) Your recall of the Varlamov deal. Many people thought that could be a top 10 pick. Just go back and look at the initial reaction on the main trade boards. Proof being the very next year they finish 2nd last. They were not "a goalie away" from being relevant. It would also be one thing if it were just the 11th pick in 2012, but that turned out to be Filip Forsberg. Just saying, Varlamov returned considerable value.

2) A lot of people seem to take this stance that goalies just magically appear, let someone else draft and develop them, then scoop them up for pennies on the dollar (like Varlamov????). Somebody has to draft them. What if everyone took the same approach- you'd never see a goalie drafted.

Tampa didn't need Vasilevsky when they drafted him, sure looks good they took him now though. Washington was able to trade Orpik's contract because of Grubauer/Samsonov. If you draft and develop a starter/NHL calibre goalie, you open a lot of doors for yourself. Imagine Tampa with no Vasilevsky - they're probably locked into Bishop 6x6 right now. You draft and develop a guy, it can help with negotiations with your current guy.

We should draft a goalie every year.
 

nabob

Big Daddy Kane
Aug 3, 2005
34,391
20,859
HF boards
I really don’t like them trading picks to move up either but maybe they just didnt like much left in the draft at that point and felt strongly about Rodrigue. Chiarelli mentioned on Friday that there was a lack of depth in the draft. But he also said that they might take a goalie later in the draft, so he sort of contadicted himself a bit. Kinda a weird draft, seemed like a lot of promising prospects never got drafted. Guess that’s probably true for any draft.

My guess is that if they couldn’t have got Rodrigue that they liked other goalies and they would have taken one later. But they really liked Rodrigue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CycloneSweep

PKSpecialist

Registered User
Feb 6, 2010
1,750
838
Skinner got traded to a strong defensive team?

You mean the championship team that got outshot most games in the playoffs?
The WHL team in the Memorial Cup that had so many defensive breakdowns in one game that Skinner put up one of the best single player performances in Memorial Cup history?

Skinner in Swift Current faced on average 29.8 shots per game, Scott faced 28.7 shots per game.

Not a huge difference, but it's not like Swift Current was some defensive juggernaut.

Swift Current played a defensive collapse game, utilizing their big defenders like Minulin, Anderson and Khaira to clear the front of the net and give open looks to their goaltender. They didn't mind giving up shots, their goal was not to give up rebound opportunities, and yes, they did very well at it. I was at game 3 of the Pats/Broncos series and watched the Broncos dominate the game almost from start to finish. When the game was half way through the 3rd I remember looking at the shots and they were extremely lopsided in favor of the Pats, and I was sure they must have had them backwards, as generally speaking, a team that dominates the play should outshoot their opponent. I rewatched the game a couple of days later to see if the shots were a mistake, or if I was just watching a completely different game, but I wasn't mistaken. The Broncos controlled the play. They let their big netminder make the first save and they dominated the down low areas of the game giving up very few second chance opportunities. That's how the Broncos were able to be one of the top teams in the league despite relying on their top line so heavily to do the scoring up front.

I'm not a stats guy, and wouldn't even know where to look to find it if available, but look up the scoring chances per game against between the two teams, I'm guessing there would be a much larger gap.

edit: I'm done on this topic...didn't mean to derail a thread was just rationalizing my ranking. Let's carry on with talking about this draft....
 
Last edited:

Dan Kelly

Registered User
Sep 27, 2017
2,540
934
Evan Bouchard - (A)
Ryan McLeod - (B+)
Olivier Rodrigue - (A-)
Michael Kesselring - (C+)
Patrik Siikanen - (C)

Overall Grade - (B)

The way I see it
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
49,880
29,769
St. OILbert, AB
loved the first 3 picks
Bouchard- the RHD we coveted for years...best passer in the draft, booming shot, PP QB...captain of his team, leader
McLeod- speedy center with skill that was a projected 1st rounder
Rodrigue- best ranked goalie in the draft

don't know much about the other 2 picks though
 

nabob

Big Daddy Kane
Aug 3, 2005
34,391
20,859
HF boards
Swift Current played a defensive collapse game, utilizing their big defenders like Minulin, Anderson and Khaira to clear the front of the net and give open looks to their goaltender. They didn't mind giving up shots, their goal was not to give up rebound opportunities, and yes, they did very well at it. I was at game 3 of the Pats/Broncos series and watched the Broncos dominate the game almost from start to finish. When the game was half way through the 3rd I remember looking at the shots and they were extremely lopsided in favor of the Pats, and I was sure they must have had them backwards, as generally speaking, a team that dominates the play should outshoot their opponent. I rewatched the game a couple of days later to see if the shots were a mistake, or if I was just watching a completely different game, but I wasn't mistaken. The Broncos controlled the play. They let their big netminder make the first save and they dominated the down low areas of the game giving up very few second chance opportunities. That's how the Broncos were able to be one of the top teams in the league despite relying on their top line so heavily to do the scoring up front.

I'm not a stats guy, and wouldn't even know where to look to find it if available, but look up the scoring chances per game against between the two teams, I'm guessing there would be a much larger gap.

edit: I'm done on this topic...didn't mean to derail a thread was just rationalizing my ranking. Let's carry on with talking about this draft....

Skinner stood on his head and bailed his team out countless times. Anyone who watched any of their playoff games could see this. His team was out shot and out chanced more often than not.
 

Delicious Pancakes

Top Pocket Find
Apr 23, 2012
5,324
5,306
Home
Hilarious to see some posters give Kesselring an A and other give him a D simply because they don’t know anything about him. There’s a few posters worth taking stock of what they say he and a whole lot of noise.

It seems like this is at least partially directed at me. I noted that I hadn't seen Kesslring play (difficult to get video on US high school players) however the D grade I gave was based on information gleaned from respected scouts who have seen him play. Also these types of picks have a lower probability of turning out hence the grade I gave. Just sharing my subjective opinion, and the reasons for it. As an Oilers fan though, if he does become an NHLer obviously I'll be happy.

Regarding the second part of what you said it seems you're suggesting that if somebody gives a player they haven't seen play a grade that other posters should disregard any of their opinions on other players. Is that a fair synopsis? That would be a logical fallacy seemingly aimed at discrediting these posters not on merit but because they previously posted an opinion that wasn't backed up by firsthand experience, regardless of whether they had firsthand viewings of other players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PKSpecialist

nexttothemoon

and again...
Jan 30, 2010
29,573
16,808
Northern AB
They got the best player in this draft with Bouchard falling to 10.

The rest of the draft was decent. I would have liked different players than they chose in rounds 2 onwards because there were still some very good names on the board but that doesn't mean those players they did choose won't turn out well.

Overall a B because they got the exact player I wanted them to get with their 1st pick and the rest is just gravy if they can get another prospect to pan out.
 

Burnt Biscuits

Registered User
May 2, 2010
9,164
3,179
I'll start by saying you're one of the best posters on HFOil and give thorough and detailed responses,but I have to strongly disagree on this one.

1) Your recall of the Varlamov deal. Many people thought that could be a top 10 pick. Just go back and look at the initial reaction on the main trade boards. Proof being the very next year they finish 2nd last. They were not "a goalie away" from being relevant. It would also be one thing if it were just the 11th pick in 2012, but that turned out to be Filip Forsberg. Just saying, Varlamov returned considerable value.

2) A lot of people seem to take this stance that goalies just magically appear, let someone else draft and develop them, then scoop them up for pennies on the dollar (like Varlamov????). Somebody has to draft them. What if everyone took the same approach- you'd never see a goalie drafted.

Tampa didn't need Vasilevsky when they drafted him, sure looks good they took him now though. Washington was able to trade Orpik's contract because of Grubauer/Samsonov. If you draft and develop a starter/NHL calibre goalie, you open a lot of doors for yourself. Imagine Tampa with no Vasilevsky - they're probably locked into Bishop 6x6 right now. You draft and develop a guy, it can help with negotiations with your current guy.

We should draft a goalie every year.
I recalled the Varlamov deal wrong, I thought it came after the year they made the playoffs, it didn't.

So my argument Washington is the best case scenario with the vast majority of teams not having that kind of hit rate or success with drafting goalies, the reasonable assumption is we won't hit with the same frequency as Washington, possibly cause we aren't as good at drafting goalies or as good at developing goalies, or some combination of the two.

If you hit a homerun with a goalie and let's say get a top 5-10 goalie in the league you are doing cart wheels and their trade value is generally pretty irrelevant cause you'll likely be keeping them and be very happy to do so. This is the case you are arguing for as drafting goalies can net you that top 10 goalie that is otherwise very hard if not impossible to get. Now with the rate we've been drafting goalies we likely want more than one of our goalies to pan out, or atleast it would be nice if that occurred. Being that you don't need 2 starting goalies you generally see the lesser of the two traded at some point (generally when they want more then back-up goalie money).

So what are goalies worth:
  • Top 5 goalie in the league seem to never get traded so it's hard to gauge
  • Top 10 goalies are rarely traded, the closest comparable might be Corey Schneider when he was traded he didn't play starter minutes, but he saw a lot more ice than most back-ups and had crazy good numbers. (traded for 9th overall)
  • Top 10-20 goalies- kind of hard to say this batch of goalies is often comprised of goalies who had a brief stint as a top 10 goalie and their game slid a bit, so they are often a bit overpaid and their price often takes a hit cause of it. Let's just say a mid-1st round pick, but can be diminished by contract or age.
  • Top 20-30 goalies are generally not worth much, anyone who has one in this range is usually looking to get their hands on a better goalie and they often get rotated around through free agency.
  • Then you have your high end goalie prospects- who look like they have upside to be a top 20 or better goalie, these ones often get a decent and successful stint as back-up goalies prior to being traded and generally net a late 1st round pick or early 2nd round pick with some possible change. e.g. Talbot, Bernier, Martin Jones, Bobrovsky
  • Then you have your 30-45th best goalies- the guality back-ups can net a 3rd or 4th round pick and the starters who lost their job to a back-up are albatrosses who get you nothing.
  • Then anything after that is pretty close to non-existent value.
So in brief you get your superstar goalie who is one of the 10 best goalies in the world and you are very happy to keep them, you get a top 10-20 goalie in the world or an elite goalie prospect (let's say there is roughly 8-10 of them floating around at any one time) and you can likely get a pretty decent or good return if you traded them. So you've got 10 goalies in the world who might be considered franchise cornerstones that you'd want to keep and let's generously say about 15 more goalies in the world who can fetch a pretty good return in a trade (obviously a few top 20 goalies are either overpaid or are old and declining which tanks their value) , any goalie outside of that range is worth very little or absolutely nothing

Now if you look at centers what is the 26th best center in the world worth? Based on points this year that would be Sean Monahan and I'd say he'd probably fetch a small fortune, the 60th best center can likely fetch a pretty decent return as well and even the 90th best center in the world would likely fetch quite a bit more than the 30th best goalie in the world. You could do the same for defense men and the value drop off comes even later than centers, the number of goalies that carry real value is a tiny little island and it's easy to fall short of the mark. Basically every single goalie you draft you should be able to say to yourself that this goalie has the potential to be one of the 20 best goaltenders in the world, if that isn't the case they probably aren't worth drafting cause you can pick one up who falls short of that mark through free agency with relative ease, there are a lot of goalies and not that many spots for them.

I'm not saying goalies aren't worth drafting, cause if you hit that franchise goalie jackpot it's great, but every swing you take on a goalie should be aiming for a homerun swing where as with centers or D you can be a lot more comfortable going for a bunt. Drafting goalies on mass isn't a sound strategy for asset accumulation unless you are absolutely tremendous at it, more than likely you'll end up with less than you invested in it. Drafting goalies on mass does increase your odds of getting that franchise goalie, but I think if you are competent scouting staff you should be just picking out the guys you really believe in rather than the bird shot in a general direction approach and hope you get lucky strategy.
 
Last edited:

nabob

Big Daddy Kane
Aug 3, 2005
34,391
20,859
HF boards
It seems like this is at least partially directed at me. I noted that I hadn't seen Kesslring play (difficult to get video on US high school players) however the D grade I gave was based on information gleaned from respected scouts who have seen him play. Also these types of picks have a lower probability of turning out hence the grade I gave. Just sharing my subjective opinion, and the reasons for it. As an Oilers fan though, if he does become an NHLer obviously I'll be happy.

Regarding the second part of what you said it seems you're suggesting that if somebody gives a player they haven't seen play a grade that other posters should disregard any of their opinions on other players. Is that a fair synopsis? That would be a logical fallacy seemingly aimed at discrediting these posters not on merit but because they previously posted an opinion that wasn't backed up by firsthand experience, regardless of whether they had firsthand viewings of other players.

So then almost every player drafted after the 2nd round should be given a grade of D or lower as the chances of them turning out to be full time NHLers is very low.

Regarding the second part of your post, there are reports both positive and negative for almost every player drafted and it is just confirmation bias to disregard the reports that don’t support your negative opinion of a player based on who drafted him or your own general lack of knowledge.
 

Satire

Registered User
Nov 20, 2016
2,940
3,726
Have the draft a B grade. Liked the signing of Bouchard although I thought Dobson was the safer choice (totally could be wrong here). Thought the 2nd round pick Mcleod was a good bet - he has drive issues but it sounds like he has all the tools already there. Didn't like our goalie (Rodrigue) pick more-so because we traded away 2 picks for that one and I think they could have got him without. Don't know enough about the prospects beyond that. It went better than I expected and is fully capable of turning into an A draft in my books if our 1st and 2nd round picks turn out.
 

McJeetz

Registered User
Feb 2, 2007
779
4
Grade A for the patience to wait for Bouchard to drop to them

Grade A for not reaching and going for BPA in McLeod

Grade D for trading up for the goalie (did they learn nothing from the Bouchard pick?)

Grade F for no picks in rounds 3, 4 and 5. For Pete’s sake, Chiarelli best move as a GM might be bringing Keith Gretzky over. He should be giving Keith extra draft picks to work with every year 8-9 picks. Not 5-6 picks. Awful waste of a resource.

Grade C for last 2 picks. Nothing gained or lost yet.

Final grade...C+ but with a side note that trading draft picks every year can only hurt us. And while I agree trading 2 picks alone to move up to draft a goalie isn’t world ending, COMBINING that with trading a pick for a needless backup and trading a pick in next years draft for a goalie prospect years away, is a huge red flag warning.
 

oilers'72

Registered User
Jul 3, 2006
5,635
4,456
Red Deer, Alta
Grade A for the patience to wait for Bouchard to drop to them

Grade A for not reaching and going for BPA in McLeod

Grade D for trading up for the goalie (did they learn nothing from the Bouchard pick?)

Grade F for no picks in rounds 3, 4 and 5. For Pete’s sake, Chiarelli best move as a GM might be bringing Keith Gretzky over. He should be giving Keith extra draft picks to work with every year 8-9 picks. Not 5-6 picks. Awful waste of a resource.

Grade C for last 2 picks. Nothing gained or lost yet.

Final grade...C+ but with a side note that trading draft picks every year can only hurt us. And while I agree trading 2 picks alone to move up to draft a goalie isn’t world ending, COMBINING that with trading a pick for a needless backup and trading a pick in next years draft for a goalie prospect years away, is a huge red flag warning.

Edit: Oops.
 
Last edited:

Stoneman89

Registered User
Feb 8, 2008
27,429
21,835
Not sure how anyone can give a grade to someone they've never seen. All scouting reports will give good and not so good opinions, and can vary from one to another. To rely soley on those is silly. Only grade the ones you've seen and that should be it, IMO.
 

Raab

Registered User
Oct 6, 2007
18,085
2,777
I gave them a B, if they had landed Hanifin as well it would have been an A.
 

Dan Kelly

Registered User
Sep 27, 2017
2,540
934
I voted C, but really it should be B-. Love the Bouchard pick, not a fan of grabbing McLeod (I hate the lack of intensity reports, would much rather have grabbed Bode Wilde or Akil Thomas), and do not like trading up to pick a goalie in the second round. Goalies are hard enough to project, if you really want one, just draft one when you can IMO.

And how well has grabbing a goalie when you can worked out for us in the last 10 years or so? I at least am glad we traded up and threw in a lower pick each time to get a couple of the higher ranked goalies. Glad we didn't continue to do what hasn't been working and picking goalies in the later rounds. That ship has sailed. And the idea that McLeod won't be as good as the guy that YOU wanted because of a perception of laziness to me is nonsense . That very definitely can be coached out of him and should dissappear with maturity. o_O
 

Aerrol

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Sep 18, 2014
6,555
3,208
And how well has grabbing a goalie when you can worked out for us in the last 10 years or so? I at least am glad we traded up and threw in a lower pick each time to get a couple of the higher ranked goalies. Glad we didn't continue to do what hasn't been working and picking goalies in the later rounds. That ship has sailed. And the idea that McLeod won't be as good as the guy that YOU wanted because of a perception of laziness to me is nonsense . That very definitely can be coached out of him and should dissappear with maturity. o_O

How many goalies have we even drafted the past few years? What's the breakdown between goalie draft position among starters today? For every starter drafted early there's a ton drafted way later or signed as a UFA. I frankly like the Koskinen signing more as a bet than wasting a pick to move up - for a kid related to Oilers staff no less.

How is the critique of McLeod nonsense? Because you disagree? Of course he might grow and pan out well for us, but our development track record is bad and as @guymez has pointed out, compete level is one of the hardest things to change as a player. And to go with it, I don't see elite skill to offset that compete issue. I'd rather we have gone for a toolsy guy or a high skill high iq guy at 40.
 
  • Like
Reactions: guymez

s7ark

RIP
Jul 3, 2003
27,579
174
I think A. If you get one good top6/4 starting G out of a draft it is a success. Bouchard looks like he could be the real deal and exactly what this team lacks.

Of course he'll likely be 2+ years away. But that is the same for most drafts .
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad