Kotkaniemi and Hayton in the 2019 draft???

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Hayton's scoring isn't great, but it wasn't crippling either. Especially when you know his usage. He got drafted a bit too high, but, finding quality centers outside the top 10 of the draft is a significant challenge. I'd also add, it wouldn't be fair to use those comparrisons for those 2, and then just cap Hayton at Horvat (if you are going to extremes atleast use Bergeron). Look at the NHL.com top 20 Centers (I'm just using that due to it being a recent, and a list that while placement can be argued, is probably close to an accurate unbiased representation of the top 20 centers in the league).

1: McDavid (1st Overall)
2: Crosby (1st Overall)
3: Malkin (2nd Overall)
4: Matthews (1st Overall)
5: MacKinnon (1st Overall)
6: Kopitar (11th Overall)
7: Scheifele (7th Overall)
8: Bergeron (45th Overall)
9: Seguin (2nd Overall)
10: Tavares (1st Overall)
11: Stamkos (1st Overall)
12: Kuznetsov (26th Overall)
13: Barkov (2nd Overall)
14: Backstrom (5th Overall)
15: Eichel (2nd Overall)
16: Barzal (16th Overall)
17: William Karlsson (53rd Overall)
18: Couturier (8th Overall)
19: Getzlaf (19th Overall)
20: Draisaitl (3rd Overall)

Now, that just shows how good centers are almost exclusively found at the top of the draft, in most cases, the very top. 50% of the list was drafted in the top 2, another 10% were taken between 3 and 5, another 10% between 6-10. So, about 70% of the leagues top centers were taken in the top 10, with 50% coming in the top 2 picks. We have 2 picks outside the 1st round. Kuznetsov was a top 10 talent who slipped based on being Russian at the height of the KHL scare and making his willingness to come over unclear. Compare this to any other positional list like D-men or wingers, and the breakdown would not be this extreme. Looking quickly at wingers 30% of the top 20 were taken outside the first round (compared to 10% of Centers) and significantly more were taken outside the top 10 in total (60% to 30%), obviously, the example of Kuznetsov applies to Kucherov and Tarasenko. Looking at defenders, its quite similar. With 35% of the defenders being drafted outside the first round (I will admit, the D list seems to be the biggest mess on first glance, but that doesn't mean it isn't representative). Outside of the top 10 is where 60% of the defenders were drafted.

Now, I think Kotkaniemi and Hayton were probably overdrafted. But, teams that are picking high, and don't think they will likely be picking high again, may be prone to reaching and taking a valid chance. Finding centers outside of the very top of the draft is extremely challenging, its the one position where finding good ones outside of the first round is extremely hard. Given forwards are easier to project, and the value attached to centers, it makes sense to occasionally slightly reach for them if your system is barren of them. I mean, league-wide how many legitimate top 60 centers are there who were taken past the first round? Off the top of my head, I got Stepen, Point, Tyler Johnson, Vincent Trochek, Krejci, and ROR.

I think Horvat is a better comparison. Bergeron wasn't drafted high. He simply developed well. I don't think we should start comparing over-drafted first rounders to players outside the first round. Its obviously possible that players who weren't highly heralded will develop
into stars from outside the first round, but even if we want to use extreme examples, it should be to ones that there is some realistic basis for comparing them to.

I'm not arguing your point about where centers are drafted. I make that same point a lot in my team's section of the website, but I think we shouldn't take that to mean that teams are right in over-drafting players who most would not say project as top 5-10 draft slot centers. It just seems like bad drafting to me. If you are drafting in those spots, you probably aren't a good team and have many areas that you need to improve on. Center is probably area #1, but why would you lie to yourself and try to convince everyone that they will have "underrated offense" or they will be a potential "Selke winner" or any of that nonsense that we hear when teams over-draft these types of players? Will that actually set your team up for maximum success? Or is it that trying to force something that almost certainly won't work?

I guess I just look at it different. To me, I wouldn't try to rationalize it as team A needs a center, there's a higher likelihood of predicting center outcomes, therefore reaching on a center isn't a terrible outcome.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I don't think this is what happens. You may disagree with the evaluations, but I doubt very much that teams are ignoring their scouts in order to draft a center.

It's also not as black and white as you suggest. There is a lot more room for interpretation with this. Larkin was a guy who was the 3C for USA in his draft year and billed more as a complete player, and he showed he had some untapped offense. It does happen in some cases.

Rasmussen and Andersson -- we will have to see. Rasmussen wasn't really "over-drafted" for the record, he was taken right where he was ranked. A little different than Andersson in that regard. But yeah, I wasn't a big fan of that pick. Doesn't mean it would be impossible for him to exceed what I think he is, though. Plus teams like good character guys, and I think both probably did great in their interviews.

In that case, I think they need to asses their scout's roles within their organizations if we are going to start being told that Hayton is a top 5 player or that Rasmussen and Andersson are top 10 players.

I don't see your Larkin example as particularly relevant. He was picked 15th, thats very different from picking someone 5th or 7th. Also, its not that these guys are over-shadowed, its that you need to seriously distort the picture to paint them in the light of a top 5-10 talent. At least thats how I look at it. Maybe you disagree. I find it to be panic over-drafts where we are sold a bill of goods that most should be able to see for what it is. My team tried to do this. I didn't like any of it, and it undermined my approval in the team's rebuild.

Larkin is a good example of a guy who was over-shadowed. Robert Thomas was over-shadowed. I think Zegras in the upcoming draft is an example of a player who will be over-shadowed. In a sense, I agree with that point, but I don't like when we are told thats the reason why those types of players have limited offensive ceilings. I think most can see those types of explanations for what they are.

 

[tony d]

I think both go lower in 2019 than they did in 2018.

 

[Legend123]

Kotka, considering his young age, would go top 10 and possibly top 5 if this year is off the charts for him. He is young enough to have been drafted in the 2019 draft

 

[93LEAFS]

I think Horvat is a better comparison. Bergeron wasn't drafted high. He simply developed well. I don't think we should start comparing over-drafted first rounders to players outside the first round. Its obviously possible that players who weren't highly heralded will develop
into stars from outside the first round, but even if we want to use extreme examples, it should be to ones that there is some realistic basis for comparing them to.

I'm not arguing your point about where centers are drafted. I make that same point a lot in my team's section of the website, but I think we shouldn't take that to mean that teams are right in over-drafting players who most would not say project as top 5-10 draft slot centers. It just seems like bad drafting to me. If you are drafting in those spots, you probably aren't a good team and have many areas that you need to improve on. Center is probably area #1, but why would you lie to yourself and try to convince everyone that they will have "underrated offense" or they will be a potential "Selke winner" or any of that nonsense that we hear when teams over-draft these types of players? Will that actually set your team up for maximum success? Or is it that trying to force something that almost certainly won't work?

I guess I just look at it different. To me, I wouldn't try to rationalize it as team A needs a center, there's a higher likelihood of predicting center outcomes, therefore reaching on a center isn't a terrible outcome.

I think if you are going to throw around the name Bossy with Wahlstrom, you need to somewhat balance it out with Horvat. Horvat isn't a ridiculously unlikely scenario for Hayton, and I'm not a big Hayton fan, Wahlstrom ending up comparable to a top 50 player of all time is quite minuscule. A realistic hope with Hayton is that he's a ROR or Horvat. It is a risky play.

Fan bases in general lie to themselves all the times trying to rationalize things. Draft reaches are no exception.

Hayton is probably one of the bigger reaches in recent memory, and it will be significant in defining the John Chayka era. Hopefully, for his sake it ends up more like the Scheifele reach than the Thomas Hickey one.

 

[AmericanDream]

I think if you are going to throw around the name Bossy with Wahlstrom, you need to somewhat balance it out with Horvat. Horvat isn't a ridiculously unlikely scenario for Hayton, and I'm not a big Hayton fan, Wahlstrom ending up comparable to a top 50 player of all time is quite minuscule. A realistic hope with Hayton is that he's a ROR or Horvat. It is a risky play.

Fan bases in general lie to themselves all the times trying to rationalize things. Draft reaches are no exception.

Hayton is probably one of the bigger reaches in recent memory, and it will be significant in defining the John Chayka era. Hopefully, for his sake it ends up more like the Scheifele reach than the Thomas Hickey one.

well, to be fair, it has been said a few times by Button during the u-18 and at the draft that Wahlstrom's shot reminds him of Bossy's shot. you can take that to mean whatever you like as I have said that DeBrincat reminds me of Brett Hull with his release and poise with "hiding in the weeds" waiting for one timers...does that mean Wall-E is the next coming of Bossy? Probably not, but as others like Button have said, this kids shot is freaking elite and that is what his best attribute is being compared with.

 

[Captain97]

Kotkaniemi would be 6-10 range so let's say about 8.

Hayton let's say 15-20

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I think if you are going to throw around the name Bossy with Wahlstrom, you need to somewhat balance it out with Horvat. Horvat isn't a ridiculously unlikely scenario for Hayton, and I'm not a big Hayton fan, Wahlstrom ending up comparable to a top 50 player of all time is quite minuscule. A realistic hope with Hayton is that he's a ROR or Horvat. It is a risky play.

Fan bases in general lie to themselves all the times trying to rationalize things. Draft reaches are no exception.

Hayton is probably one of the bigger reaches in recent memory, and it will be significant in defining the John Chayka era. Hopefully, for his sake it ends up more like the Scheifele reach than the Thomas Hickey one.

I mostly agree. I think Wahlstrom is more of a boom-bust guy though, so his comps probably fairly have a larger range than most. The Bossy stuff was an exaggeration. I was using the Button comparison. We could say Tarasenko for example as what Wahlstrom maximizing his ceiling could come close to. It doesn't matter who is the name, more that I feel like when you have to go to this extreme to the best case to make the pick seem not that bad, it probably is that bad of a pick. The average comparable as opposed to the high-end comparable should be the basis that picks are being evaluated on, unless we are talking about a real boom-bust player. In that case, I guess you might evaluate the pick differently, but I don't think Hayton, Rasmussen, Andersson are boom-bust guys.

I think they are just worse hockey players that were over-drafted and we are told have higher floors to explain what seems to be panic over-drafts to get that team a center who is "likely" to be a helpful NHL'er. But even then, I think the whole "higher-floor" thing is very often a misnomer. Unless we are talking about Dahlin, McDavid, Matthews, Eichel types, there's usually always some projection with these players becoming actual NHL'ers. Hayton is not an NHL'er yet. He needs to improve for his "higher-floor" to even be used in a capacity that helps an NHL team, so I think the whole concept is misleading.

 

[Frk It]

In that case, I think they need to asses their scout's roles within their organizations if we are going to start being told that Hayton is a top 5 player or that Rasmussen and Andersson are top 10 players.

Do you think those teams did not have those players ranked top 5 or top 10 on their board? I for sure think they did. The whole reason teams make draft boards is so they don’t do what you are describing. Team’s draft boards differ a lot from the public scouting service rankings we all look at.

I don't see your Larkin example as particularly relevant. He was picked 15th, thats very different from picking someone 5th or 7th. Also, its not that these guys are over-shadowed, its that you need to seriously distort the picture to paint them in the light of a top 5-10 talent. At least thats how I look at it. Maybe you disagree. I find it to be panic over-drafts where we are sold a bill of goods that most should be able to see for what it is. My team tried to do this. I didn't like any of it, and it undermined my approval in the team's rebuild.

That example was just to point out that someone’s perceived ceiling is incredibly subjective. Larkin was seen as a pretty safe 2 way guy in his draft season. You say Lias Anderson has a lower ceiling, but I’m sure the Rangers would diasagree with you on that. They might be wrong, but I do not believe they are intentionally going for someone with a lower ceiling. They just think he has a different ceiling than you do.

I had Anderson at #13 and Rasmussen at #18 for the record, so I get what you’re saying. But I’ve been wrong before.

 

[93LEAFS]

well, to be fair, it has been said a few times by Button during the u-18 and at the draft that Wahlstrom's shot reminds him of Bossy's shot. you can take that to mean whatever you like as I have said that DeBrincat reminds me of Brett Hull with his release and poise with "hiding in the weeds" waiting for one timers...does that mean Wall-E is the next coming of Bossy? Probably not, but as others like Button have said, this kids shot is freaking elite and that is what his best attribute is being compared with.

Button also said Hayton reminded him of Bergeron.

https://www.tsn.ca/barrett-hayton-centre-1.1085909

My point was if you are going to use an extreme comparable like that for Wahlstrom, the same should probably be used for Hayton.

 

[93LEAFS]

I mostly agree. I think Wahlstrom is more of a boom-bust guy though, so his comps probably fairly have a larger range than most. The Bossy stuff was an exaggeration. I was using the Button comparison. We could say Tarasenko for example as what Wahlstrom maximizing his ceiling could come close to. It doesn't matter who is the name, more that I feel like when you have to go to this extreme to the best case to make the pick seem not that bad, it probably is that bad of a pick. The average comparable as opposed to the high-end comparable should be the basis that picks are being evaluated on, unless we are talking about a real boom-bust player. In that case, I guess you might evaluate the pick differently, but I don't think Hayton, Rasmussen, Andersson are boom-bust guys.

I think they are just worse hockey players that were over-drafted and we are told have higher floors to explain what seems to be panic over-drafts to get that team a center who is "likely" to be a helpful NHL'er. But even then, I think the whole "higher-floor" thing is very often a misnomer. Unless we are talking about Dahlin, McDavid, Matthews, Eichel types, there's usually always some projection with these players becoming actual NHL'ers. Hayton is not an NHL'er yet. He needs to improve for his "higher-floor" to even be used in a capacity that helps an NHL team, so I think the whole concept is misleading.

I agree higher floor is a misnomer. I've pointed it out maybe 50 times on these board how ridiculous the floor and ceiling arguments around here are. If I told you what Gaudreau and Benn would be the day they were drafted people would either ask if I was a relative, a fan of the team that drafted him or just insane. Now, in the opposite, if I told people what Yakupov or Griffin Reinhart would be, I'd be labelled someone with an agenda, a biased anti-fan or etc.

I do think certain players are slightly safer due to certain tools, but no one outside of the people you mentioned and prospects of their ilk is a lock to be a top 6 players or a top 4 defenders. Rasmussen, Hayton, and Andersson, all have tools you can point to that can make them effective role-players, but obviously, there's still a chance they don't become anything of value (a top 9 forward is what I'd cut that off at).

 

[TeddyBare]

Horvat was taken because of his OHL Playoffs
They saw the potential when he won the OHL playoff MVP, and was tasked with shutting down a 2 year older Mark Schiefele which he did with some success, and they won in 7 games.

Hayton didn't have that kind of A-Ha moment this year.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Do you think those teams did not have those players ranked top 5 or top 10 on their board? I for sure think they did. The whole reason teams make draft boards is so they don’t do what you are describing. Team’s draft boards differ a lot from the public scouting service rankings we all look at.

I really don't know. I'd like to think you are right and they are evaluating talent in this situation better than I am, but I think its more likely that their main draft targets weren't available and that they felt the need to draft more for positional need or some type of playing-style need than actually sticking to their board strictly. I also don't completely believe that teams always draft strictly on their draft board that the scouts and director of scouting have developed compared to what a GM or coach wants in the specific situation. I think this is even more so the case at the top of the draft where the bigger decision makers in the organization have a better grasp on the talent than at spot 100.

 

[ImNeverWrong]

Hayton is gonna prove you all wrong. It amazes me how many people have opinions based on stats alone and have not seen him play. He is going to surprise you.

could be like scheifele.