Prospect Info: Nicolas Mattinen

[Funk21]

He was a completely average if not bad head scout in his short tenure here. Matthews and Marner were no brainer picks that went exactly where they were predicted to go. Liljegren is bordering on being a bad pick. He may still still turn out but there are half a dozen picks at least between 18-31(the rest of the 1st round after him) I'd rather have. He gets credit for Dermott. Well done. He hit a pick that needed some ability to see.

His draft record here is not worth the colossal fit a big portion of this board had when he left the organization.

Dermott was an okay pick. IMO there were better players in Carlo and Aho. Especially Carlo, he is exactly what we needed a D first RHD.

Is Cal Foote a bust in TB? Valimaki? Branstrom? All taken ahead. Liljegren has been the better AHL player than most if not all. I was not a fan of Hunter because he took some unnecessary off the board picks in the year we got Matthews. Korskov at 31? With Hart, DeBrincat, Girard. Korskov wasn’t on any draft boards. I get that revisionist history can make anybody look bad but it’s not like many of his later picks are even with the organization.

 

[Drew311]

If he's at the University of Ottawa he's now focusing on a business degree, not a NHL career.

 

[Stephen]

Dermott was an okay pick. IMO there were better players in Carlo and Aho. Especially Carlo, he is exactly what we needed a D first RHD.

Is Cal Foote a bust in TB? Valimaki? Branstrom? All taken ahead. Liljegren has been the better AHL player than most if not all. I was not a fan of Hunter because he took some unnecessary off the board picks in the year we got Matthews. Korskov at 31? With Hart, DeBrincat, Girard. Korskov wasn’t on any draft boards. I get that revisionist history can make anybody look bad but it’s not like many of his later picks are even with the organization.

I always thought Dermott was a calculated pick, like they saw something very special in him and was therefore willing to tap dance around and get him. But a lot of time has passed, and guys they missed on like Konecny, Aho and Carlo are all clearly better, which leads me to think they kind of outsmarted themselves on that pick. Dzierkals and Bracco made sense as extra bodies for a rebuilding team at the time, but both look like they were a waste of time.

 

[93LEAFS]

He was a completely average if not bad head scout in his short tenure here. Matthews and Marner were no brainer picks that went exactly where they were predicted to go. Liljegren is bordering on being a bad pick. He may still still turn out but there are half a dozen picks at least between 18-31(the rest of the 1st round after him) I'd rather have. He gets credit for Dermott. Well done. He hit a pick that needed some ability to see.

His draft record here is not worth the colossal fit a big portion of this board had when he left the organization.

Marner wasn't a no brainer pick. I mean, Bob's list which is an aggregation of 10 scouts lists (which generally represents 10 different teams list) had Hanifin ahead. It revisionist history to say Marner was the locked in #4 pick. It was hotly debated the order between Strome, Marner, and Hanifin. And, going with Hanifin over Marner would lead to him being ripped apart here now, so people belittle the Marner pick as obvious, when it clearly wasn't a universal opinion.

People really need to look at the expected return on picks outside the top 10. If Liljegren turns into a top 4 RHD and was taken at 17, that is a good pick in that range. The odds of getting a long-term NHLer in the second round is between 20% to 25%.

 

[Mickey Marner]

Marner wasn't a no brainer pick. I mean, Bob's list which is an aggregation of 10 scouts lists (which generally represents 10 different teams list) had Hanifin ahead. It revisionist history to say Marner was the locked in #4 pick. It was hotly debated the order between Strome, Marner, and Hanifin. And, going with Hanifin over Marner would lead to him being ripped apart here now, so people belittle the Marner pick as obvious, when it clearly wasn't a universal opinion.

People really need to look at the expected return on picks outside the top 10. If Liljegren turns into a top 4 RHD and was taken at 17, that is a good pick in that range. The odds of getting a long-term NHLer in the second round is between 20% to 25%.

It's silly that people pretend Hunter had autonomy anyhow. If he did, why would he pass on Victor Mete half a dozen times after trading six draft picks to acquire him in London and instead draft a bunch of talentless giants that he passed on drafting in the OHL.

Even Liljegren was taken three spots ahead of Robert Thomas. Does Hunter with autonomy make that choice? Maybe, maybe not, but a lot of the picks don't jive with his ~20 years of drafting with London. It appears to me that Lou had a directive with what sort of players to acquire and under those parameters Hunter was head honcho.