Post-Game Talk: NHL Draft 2017 | Final Thoughts? What's Your Grade?

[X66]

Yeah. And I'd like to point out that I'm not saying that I have no faith in our scouting, or the draft picks themselves. But the ambition and goal should be to continue to draft well, to get impact players so we can keep replenishing our draft pool.



And what does a hit actually mean? Because odds are that we'll be lucky if we get the next Oleksiak from picks like Gordeev. Very lucky. That shouldn't be the ambition of our drafting, that should be the effect of our picks failing.

Going for the "big D-man without scoring upside in juniors" has been the least effective, most wasteful drafting strategy of modern times. There's almost no NHL players from that kind of pick, and those that exist aren't good. There's absolutely no reason to be happy with that approach.

Hunter is a scout with a great reputation, so we can absolutely hope that he has identified factors that make a Gordeev into an exception, but being happy with the general idea of getting that kind of pick is not something I understand. Might as well draft every grumpy, self-deprecating Swede and hope to get the next Peter Forsberg. Only need to hit on one of them, after all.

We're a month away from seeing Pens win the cup, which wouldn't have happened if they hadn't used their late round picks to search for a high upside gem, and finding Guentzel. We'll hopefully be in the same situation as well, where we've had to move good players and need impact prospects to replace them, not depth pieces.

Guntzel was taken 77th overall(3rd round), and he took 4 years to become what you see now. So it's way to premature to be ragging on some of these late picks.

Most of these picks that people are getting worked up over are beyond the 100th overall picks:

Middleton 101st overall
Mattinen 179th overall
Gordeev 141st overall
Desrocher 155th overall

Now i'm not saying any of these picks are good or bad because I don't know what these scouts know, but they're very late picks, when you compare who the Leafs took under Hunter closer to Guntzel's position(77th overall) you have:

Rasanen 59th overall
Grundstrom 57th overall
Woll 62nd overall
Greenway 72nd overall
Brooks 92nd overall
Bracco 61st overall
Nielsen 65th overall
Dzeirkals 68th overall
Lindgren 95th overall

MUCH different context in terms of players selected.

There is only one way to see how this turns out, and that's to wait.

If they Leafs used most of their top 90 picks to take guys like from that first list I think I'd agree with your point, but they didn't.

 

[BertCorbeau]

Yeah. And I'd like to point out that I'm not saying that I have no faith in our scouting, or the draft picks themselves. But the ambition and goal should be to continue to draft well, to get impact players so we can keep replenishing our draft pool.



And what does a hit actually mean? Because odds are that we'll be lucky if we get the next Oleksiak from picks like Gordeev. Very lucky. That shouldn't be the ambition of our drafting, that should be the effect of our picks failing.

Going for the "big D-man without scoring upside in juniors" has been the least effective, most wasteful drafting strategy of modern times. There's almost no NHL players from that kind of pick, and those that exist aren't good. There's absolutely no reason to be happy with that approach.

Hunter is a scout with a great reputation, so we can absolutely hope that he has identified factors that make a Gordeev into an exception, but being happy with the general idea of getting that kind of pick is not something I understand. Might as well draft every grumpy, self-deprecating Swede and hope to get the next Peter Forsberg. Only need to hit on one of them, after all.

We're a month away from seeing Pens win the cup, which wouldn't have happened if they hadn't used their late round picks to search for a high upside gem, and finding Guentzel. We'll hopefully be in the same situation as well, where we've had to move good players and need impact prospects to replace them, not depth pieces.

Yes and no. I think circumstances apply here as well. The Leafs boast a depth of solid winger prospects that could have a Guentzel-like effect in the future. At the same time the Leafs defense, organizationally speaking, lacked depth in terms of prospects in the pipeline. There are a couple nice names at the top (Dermott, Neislen) but not much after that. Part of this draft filled that in spades. At the same time they drafted some big bodies that could hopefully turn into a gem. This is also a clear trend with Hunter I have found in his 3 drafts is when he's drafting d-men in the latter rounds, he goes for big guys that and trending upwards in a sense.

Given the circumstances I don't mind taking a few big swings at some of these guys because if you can hit on one of them, it fills a big need. But that shouldn't be the primary focus of the latter round picks (which I don't think they are).

 

[BertCorbeau]

Neilsen
Greenway
Middleton
Mattinen
Rasanen
Gordeev

All over 6'3

 

[43Kadri43]

Yes and no. I think circumstances apply here as well. The Leafs boast a depth of solid winger prospects that could have a Guentzel-like effect in the future. At the same time the Leafs defense, organizationally speaking, lacked depth in terms of prospects in the pipeline. There are a couple nice names at the top (Dermott, Neislen) but not much after that. Part of this draft filled that in spades. At the same time they drafted some big bodies that could hopefully turn into a gem. This is also a clear trend with Hunter I have found in his 3 drafts is when he's drafting d-men in the latter rounds, he goes for big guys that and trending upwards in a sense.

Given the circumstances I don't mind taking a few big swings at some of these guys because if you can hit on one of them, it fills a big need. But that shouldn't be the primary focus of the latter round picks (which I don't think they are).

Okay, but that doesn't address the fact that non-scoring defensemen in junior do not make the NHL. In fact, non-scoring defensemen who were high picks make it to the NHL about as often as scoring defensemen who were late picks, and non-scoring defensemen who were late picks virtually never make it to the NHL.

It's fine to pick defensemen, but why pick defensemen with limited likelihood of success? That's not to suggest that none of them will be successful, just that their odds are lower than some of their peers. I look at someone like Gawande, Hoefenmayer or Phillips, and I see both more upside and a greater likelihood of success than I do with someone akin to Gordeev. Now, Gawande, Hoefenmayer and Phillips were all off the board by the time the Leafs selected Gordeev so I'm not suggesting the Leafs made a mistake (although I would have taken Phillips in the second round so I think they should have selected Phillips before Scott, but that's tangential), I'm merely suggesting that looking for high-scoring junior defensemen with flaws (tends to be size) late in the draft will lead to more drafting success than selecting low scoring defensemen (this is sort of casual determinism, but as long as the inefficiency exists, this will likely remain true) with a particularly appealing trait (size).

 

[Menzinger]

A scout with write ups on players taken from the OHL (includes players from other teams too)

http://ohlprospects.blogspot.ca/2017/06/2017-nhl-entry-draft-primer.html?m=1

Not to necessarily endorse husband POVs (just posted for interest of Khmers). Seems more critical of the Rasanen and Gordeev selections. Seems to think McGregor has a solid upside though.

 

[43Kadri43]

Guntzel was taken 77th overall(3rd round), and he took 4 years to become what you see now. So it's way to premature to be ragging on some of these late picks.

Most of these picks that people are getting worked up over are beyond the 100th overall picks:

Middleton 101st overall
Mattinen 179th overall
Gordeev 141st overall
Desrocher 155th overall

For what it's worth, Desrocher has developed into a very good pick (statistically speaking):

 

[stickty111]

The only questionable picks Hunter has made IMO are Middelton and Gordeev and maybe Mattinen

At least with Desrocher, there was some kind of possible offensive upside even if its average.

The way I see it most of Hunter's picks have progressed and some are looking really good.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

For what it's worth, Desrocher has developed into a very good pick (statistically speaking):

That's funny, because Neill and Desrocher are two guys I want on AHL deals next year for the Marlies. Neill may be able to be a good bottom pairing guy as soon as next year, but at the very least he plays 7/8 with Desrocher and gives us good depth for once.

Leafs have connections with Sherbrooke as well (Robidas + Charbonneau), so we will know how good he is.

Korostelev may slip under the radar enough for us to get him on an AHL deal as well.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

The only questionable picks Hunter has made IMO are Middelton and Gordeev and maybe Mattinen

At least with Desrocher, there was some kind of possible offensive upside even if its average.

The way I see it most of Hunter's picks have progressed and some are looking really good.

I don't know why people have issues with Middleton. He was Saginaw's best defenseman besides Hronek, who was a late 97' 2nd round pick last year. Saginaw didn't have a great defense, but he really stood out despite that. Was even named captain over some older guys expected to get the job.

His offensive numbers will never stand out, but his defensive play is strong, he can skate, he's huge and is physical, and he's pretty reliable. I can see him on the Leafs' bottom pairing and being very important for a playoff run down the line.

Gordeev and Mattinen are raw picks who are likely going to need more time than we can hold their rights. I just hope we can pick them up on AHL deals if they don't explode, because they are guys with a few years of development may be able to become something good. Size, speed, good shot, etc.

 

[Mess]

I actually think grading this draft in the present is premature.

These draft grades are more reflective based on how these players turn out and how many go on to become NHLers.

20/20 hindsight and retrospectively in 3-5 years is when the real grading occurs.

Its not only on who the Leafs actually drafted but also can be evaluated against the players they missed on and should have taken instead of the player they did take.

Today all these new prospects are all just suspects.

 

[Critical13]

Okay, but that doesn't address the fact that non-scoring defensemen in junior do not make the NHL. In fact, non-scoring defensemen who were high picks make it to the NHL about as often as scoring defensemen who were late picks, and non-scoring defensemen who were late picks virtually never make it to the NHL.

It's fine to pick defensemen, but why pick defensemen with limited likelihood of success? That's not to suggest that none of them will be successful, just that their odds are lower than some of their peers. I look at someone like Gawande, Hoefenmayer or Phillips, and I see both more upside and a greater likelihood of success than I do with someone akin to Gordeev. Now, Gawande, Hoefenmayer and Phillips were all off the board by the time the Leafs selected Gordeev so I'm not suggesting the Leafs made a mistake (although I would have taken Phillips in the second round so I think they should have selected Phillips before Scott, but that's tangential), I'm merely suggesting that looking for high-scoring junior defensemen with flaws (tends to be size) late in the draft will lead to more drafting success than selecting low scoring defensemen (this is sort of casual determinism, but as long as the inefficiency exists, this will likely remain true) with a particularly appealing trait (size).

I am not saying you're wrong, and it's fun to debate, but at the end of the day our scouts and our team leadership know these prospects much better than we do.

 

[thewave]

People who rated this draft poorly need to consider who we are goimg to be facung for the cup... Edmonton is who we are biilding to face... We need slme size.

 

[pylon17]

People who rated this draft poorly need to consider who we are goimg to be facung for the cup... Edmonton is who we are biilding to face... We need slme size.

This is true.

There must be some NHL players that succeed from this archetype background?

 

[Faltorvo]

If our ambitions at the draft is limited to getting future replacement level pieces, our prospect depth will be completely shot and the longevity of our ability to contend with it.

The capable depth D-men can be had on the market for cheap any time we need it. But when guys like Gardiner needs a new contract and we need to move on from him, the cost-effective place to get a replacement is in our prospect pool. If all we have then is depth pieces, we have a hole in our lineup again or a costly contract on our hands.

People talk about guys like Manson, but even he was taken as a big, skilled guy in the draft. He was an almost PPG player in BCHL at the draft, who redefined his game in NCAA when he realized that his skill wasn't going to cut it for an offensive role as a pro.

I honestly don't get some posters here. If we keep spending picks on these type of guys and one of them turn into a mediocre player, you're thrilled? You're thrilled if we get a mediocre or worse return on our drafting?

gordeev 5th rnd

greenway 3rd

middleton 4th

mattinen 6th


anyone of them turn into a hall gill is fine by me

rasanen is basically a 3rd

so ya, if i get a big serviceable 3rd pair/pk D , why would i be bothered

 

[Nithoniniel]

so ya, if i get a big serviceable 3rd pair/pk D , why would i be bothered

Is this Jeopardy? Why are you asking the question to which the whole post you quoted is devoted to answering?

I don't know why people have issues with Middleton. He was Saginaw's best defenseman besides Hronek, who was a late 97' 2nd round pick last year. Saginaw didn't have a great defense, but he really stood out despite that. Was even named captain over some older guys expected to get the job.

His offensive numbers will never stand out, but his defensive play is strong, he can skate, he's huge and is physical, and he's pretty reliable. I can see him on the Leafs' bottom pairing and being very important for a playoff run down the line.

Gordeev and Mattinen are raw picks who are likely going to need more time than we can hold their rights. I just hope we can pick them up on AHL deals if they don't explode, because they are guys with a few years of development may be able to become something good. Size, speed, good shot, etc.

It's because the minimum skill needed to not be a complete liability at the NHL level will lead to offense at the junior level. As a general rule, if you're so unskilled you don't put up any points at the junior level, it's almost a given that you won't be able to handle the puck well enough and fast enough to even be a Polak as an NHLer. The guys that are the defensive stalwarts in NHL now are yesterday's skilled D-men who reinvented their game along the way.

Of course there's always exceptions. Guys who don't produce but where it's due to a mixture of circumstance and lack of opportunity. That's probably what our scouts are looking for. And then there's the exception among exceptions, like Weber who was a better NHLer than AHLer, and better AHLer than junior. Can't come up with any other example of someone like that though.

What I've been saying though is that the information we do have isn't very positive, and I'm not sure why the same posters who not long ago talked about the huge importance of drafting well in all rounds is now saying "draft shmaft, it's just a crapshoot anyway."

Not to necessarily endorse husband POVs (just posted for interest of Khmers).

Oh, Menzinger, you are just the best.

Thank you for standing up for those of Khmer ethnicity. Not sure how the hockey interest is in Cambodia, but perhaps it is a growth market.

 

[stickty111]

You can never have too much skill either.

What will be interesting is if the Leafs 2015 draft class selections beyond the 1st round end up producing more NHL talent than the Leafs '16 or '17 classes combined

So far the 2015 small draft prospects look more promising than the size prospects in 2016 and 2017.

 

[Dk Math]

many teams skipped Liljegren because of his health.
it's a steal for sure.

For the same reason it is not without a big risk.
Risk you do not like to take at number one or two.

At 17 such risk is what I think gives a chance take very good players that late.

It will probably be either a very good choice or a total lost pick in years to come.

 

[Dk Math]

Is this Jeopardy? Why are you asking the question to which the whole post you quoted is devoted to answering?



It's because the minimum skill needed to not be a complete liability at the NHL level will lead to offense at the junior level. As a general rule, if you're so unskilled you don't put up any points at the junior level, it's almost a given that you won't be able to handle the puck well enough and fast enough to even be a Polak as an NHLer. The guys that are the defensive stalwarts in NHL now are yesterday's skilled D-men who reinvented their game along the way.

Of course there's always exceptions. Guys who don't produce but where it's due to a mixture of circumstance and lack of opportunity. That's probably what our scouts are looking for. And then there's the exception among exceptions, like Weber who was a better NHLer than AHLer, and better AHLer than junior. Can't come up with any other example of someone like that though.

What I've been saying though is that the information we do have isn't very positive, and I'm not sure why the same posters who not long ago talked about the huge importance of drafting well in all rounds is now saying "draft shmaft, it's just a crapshoot anyway."



Oh, Menzinger, you are just the best.

Thank you for standing up for those of Khmer ethnicity. Not sure how the hockey interest is in Cambodia, but perhaps it is a growth market.

That is often about coming up with the true late bloomer. People unlike myself, that start grow in their very late teen.
Me I has not grown since 15, and I was very tall at that age. Now 5,11 is just, well not tall.
However some of my school friends has become 6,3 and he was smaller than me at 18.
The problem here are of cause many of such people where often dominated out of sport, in their early age.

But they will also be late to be ready in the NHL and the question is if any such people would ever be recognized.

 

[Johny Drama]

I actually think grading this draft in the present is premature.

These draft grades are more reflective based on how these players turn out and how many go on to become NHLers.

20/20 hindsight and retrospectively in 3-5 years is when the real grading occurs.

Its not only on who the Leafs actually drafted but also can be evaluated against the players they missed on and should have taken instead of the player they did take.

Today all these new prospects are all just suspects.

Yeah, I kind of thinking these blogger scouts who rank a team's draft right after picks is pretty pointless. I guess we live in a world where we look for immediate information and feedback due to the internet.

Grading last year's draft after seeing the players for a full season makes far more sense, even though it takes 3-4 years to get a good handle on the growth of these kids.

 

[Johny Drama]

Not sure where to post this question, through this thread maybe most suitable.
Any players go undrafted that was really surprising? I noticed Paquette went in the 7th round and yet I saw him as a potential 2nd to 4th round selection.

 

[egd27]

So far the 2015 small draft prospects look more promising than the size prospects in 2016 and 2017.

The ones that are further along the development path are looking better.....not terribly surprised.

 

[darrylsittler27]

2015 was an exceptional draft.

There was depth galore and Hunter excelled. Now he seems to be working more on perceived holes and size. We all knew he was in tough for 2017 but we got Liljgren at 17th which allowed him to gamble in a weak draft. The GM of Detroit, Holland said "You want to get 2 to 3 players every year." He did that in 2015 and 2016 and may have 2 from this draft. After the second round every GM is gambling or looking for role players.

I gave him a B and think we may have 2 players from the 2017 draft.

 

[Johny Drama]

There was depth galore and Hunter excelled. Now he seems to be working more on perceived holes and size. We all knew he was in tough for 2017 but we got Liljgren at 17th which allowed him to gamble in a weak draft. The GM of Detroit, Holland said "You want to get 2 to 3 players every year." He did that in 2015 and 2016 and may have 2 from this draft. After the second round every GM is gambling or looking for role players.

I gave him a B and think we may have 2 players from the 2017 draft.

Almost every draft I feel underwhelmed by some picks but that is purely my own ignorance of not knowing some of the players. Jury is obviously still far out with this past draft, but reading up on some of the players I'm pretty excited and confident we have found some good players. Feel same way with 2015. 2016 draft is the one I seem to have more of an issue with some picks. We had a ton of draft picks and seemed to me there were a number who we took too high. At the end of the day, we got Matthews from that draft and thats all that really matters.

 

[hockeywiz542]

According to CBC Sports, the last two Toronto Maple Leafs drafts bear certain similarities that suggest a more nuanced approach than simply taking the player with the most skill.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl...draft-reveals-organizational-trends-1.4184243

Lou Lamoriello has always had the same draft philosophy: you take the best player available.

"One year, the best players will be defencemen, and the next year, the best players will be forwards," said Lamoriello at the NHL entry draft in Chicago. "So if you decide that you were going to [take a proportional number of positional players], you're not really doing the right thing. You're going to take the best players."

At face value, the statement makes sense.

But the last two Leafs drafts bear certain similarities that suggest a more nuanced approach than simply taking the player with the most skill. There are several similarities between the two drafts since Lamoriello has been the general manager that suggest a strategy is in place.

Draft elite skill early

This past draft, the Leafs took defenceman Timothy Liljegren, who earned high praise from Lamoriello for his excellent skating (both its fluidity and top-end speed) as well as his puck-handling. Although Liljegren is unlikely to be deemed NHL-ready this season, he possesses offensive instincts that should help him flourish later on. If everything goes right, he could be a top-pairing defenceman, but Liljegren will have to add some muscle in the meantime.

Depth players with size

To be clear, size is a good trait in a prospect. All things being equal, bigger players are better. Unfortunately, things aren't usually equal, and the largest players often have issues with one of the most important facets of the "new" NHL era: skating.

Don't be afraid to select over-agers

When the Leafs selected four overaged players in the 2016 draft, it raised a lot of eyebrows because it's uncommon (though not unheard of) to even take one. Then, they went back the board and drafted another overage player in 2017 with Vladislav Kara in the fourth round.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

I like that we picked D and a Goalie in the first 3 rounds.