Prospect Info: Oskari Laaksonen (2017, 89th) 2018-19 Ilves - Traded to Dallas

haseoke39

Registered User
Mar 29, 2011
13,938
2,490
I can't weigh in on this kid, obviously, but one point of note: we have the kind of robust scouting staff that has the manpower and resources to dig deep enough to find a hidden gem. Maybe they're wrong, but credit to the Pegulas for building an organization with the resources to go off the board and find a guy who isn't being flagged for them by every central scouting service.

To take an old GMTM line, happy scouts, happy life. Big change from the video scouting days. Glad we're enabling our guys to dig deep and make bold choices.
 

Onslow

Registered User
Mar 25, 2015
3,308
797
Here and There
I can't weigh in on this kid, obviously, but one point of note: we have the kind of robust scouting staff that has the manpower and resources to dig deep enough to find a hidden gem. Maybe they're wrong, but credit to the Pegulas for building an organization with the resources to go off the board and find a guy who isn't being flagged for them by every central scouting service.

To take an old GMTM line, happy scouts, happy life. Big change from the video scouting days. Glad we're enabling our guys to dig deep and make bold choices.

For that reason alone I'm quite intrigued by this guy.

The Sabres have been doing some interesting things with their third round picks lately :laugh:
 

WeDislikeEich

Registered User
Jun 22, 2015
5,863
4,182
'While it makes sense for Botterill to want his own guys, he gave the Sabres’ holdovers a chance to prove their worth. For example, the Sabres’ third-round pick, Oskari Laaksonen, wasn’t one of the 149 players in NHL Central Scouting’s European ratings. But the scouts wanted him, so Botterill went with them.

“He listened to the guys,†said Crisp, who ran the draft process with Kevin Devine, the player personnel director. “He sat in all the meetings and listened to the area guys and Kevin Devine and myself. I think we all felt part of the program."

http://buffalonews.com/2017/06/24/chaotic-two-months-sabres-get-chance-team/
 

Ace

Registered User
Oct 29, 2015
23,070
27,637
Murray did the same thing in the third round of his first draft with Johansson. He said in his draft roundup he didn't know much about the player but the scouts wanted him and he picked him for the same reasons. Never got to find out if he was right to trust them lol. Can only pray Botterill has longer.
 

Rasmus CacOlainen

The end of the Tank
Sep 24, 2015
7,226
1,137
Europe
Why did we take him so early when we knew he'd likely be there in later rounds? I found the GM's non-answer annoying.

Non-answer? He explained they have scouted him for 2 years and were high on him despite him notbeing on scouting services radar. They clearly thought some other team might like him too (after all scouts know where other scouts go...) and wanted to secure the pick with picks 89 or 99 as between there and 192 there is a big gap where we don't pick. I'm not defending the pick but they clearly explained why they made it.
 

Doug Prishpreed

Registered User
May 1, 2013
9,815
6,531
Brooklyn
Non-answer? He explained they have scouted him for 2 years and were high on him despite him notbeing on scouting services radar. They clearly thought some other team might like him too (after all scouts know where other scouts go...) and wanted to secure the pick with picks 89 or 99 as between there and 192 there is a big gap where we don't pick. I'm not defending the pick but they clearly explained why they made it.

I just don't believe other teams had them on their list that high. His answer for "why in the 3rd round" doesn't track for me. Such a minute chance someone else would take him before our next pick.

I have no problem reaching in any round, but the guy is such a long shot, 3rd round is way too early for that in this situation.
 

Jim Bob

RIP RJ
Feb 27, 2002
55,647
34,477
Rochester, NY
I just don't believe other teams had them on their list that high. His answer for "why in the 3rd round" doesn't track for me. Such a minute chance someone else would take him before our next pick.

I have no problem reaching in any round, but the guy is such a long shot, 3rd round is way too early for that in this situation.

The problem is that nobody knows when another team will take a guy.

For me, the big comparison here will be Laaksonen vs Farrance.

Personally, I think the odds of a kid like Farrance (USNTDP player headed to BU) is more likely to work out than a kid who split time between Jr B and Jr A in Finland.

But, any 3rd round pick isn't worth getting too worked up over.

And I would expect such a new GM to trust the scouting staff he inherited. I would be more worried if Botts sat them in the corner and did his own thing.
 

NotABadPeriod

ForFriendshipDikembe
Oct 28, 2006
51,827
8,438
Once you start getting deeper into the NHL draft, it's a total crapshoot. So if you've got a guy you really like, you don't worry about where he's ranked, you take him.

It only takes one other team to like the guy to screw you over.

And let's also remember--taking guys above where they're ranked (or if they're ranked at all) is something every team does. It's not like the Sabres are the only team to pull a surprise with a mid-round pick.
 

Chainshot

Give 'em Enough Rope
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2002
148,145
96,778
Tarnation
Not at all a direct comparison, but the Datsyuk draft story is the sort of thing that a scout catches a guy having a good game and then makes time for them to make sure what they saw wasn't a one-off performance.

Red Wings scout Hakan Andersson recalls process that led to the discovery of Pavel Datsyuk

I still want to know the details. Was it Teemu Numminen? And where/how did they find him? It isn't to compare him to anyone else, I'm just curious what the skinny is on the process that had him in their sights, let alone available to be taken.
 

Husko

Registered User
Jun 30, 2006
14,943
6,848
Greenwich, CT
I think he is quickly becoming one of my favorite prospects. For no other reason, I'd love to see him succeed after all the cries when he was drafted.
 

Ace

Registered User
Oct 29, 2015
23,070
27,637
All the cries were from Harrington.

Most everyone here I think is just fascinated and excited that the scouts fell in love with a player we've never seen.
 

sincerity0

Registered User
Dec 23, 2016
1,970
740
Why did we take him so early when we knew he'd likely be there in later rounds? I found the GM's non-answer annoying.

What if I told you there is not much of a difference in value between ~90 and 200. Teams are throwing darts on 18 year old kids who have shown some amount of skill.
 

Ace

Registered User
Oct 29, 2015
23,070
27,637
What if I told you there is not much of a difference in value between ~90 and 200. Teams are throwing darts on 18 year old kids who have shown some amount of skill.

Draft_chart.PNG
 

1972

"Craigs on it"
Apr 9, 2012
14,426
3,147
Canada
I just don't believe other teams had them on their list that high. His answer for "why in the 3rd round" doesn't track for me. Such a minute chance someone else would take him before our next pick.

I have no problem reaching in any round, but the guy is such a long shot, 3rd round is way too early for that in this situation.

I think they would have a pretty good idea which other teams we're interested in him. They wouldn't have taken him in the third if they thought it was bad value and they could have gotten him with a 6th or 7th.
 

Icicle

Think big
Oct 16, 2005
6,055
1,007
People worrying about reaching on anything 3rd round or later aren't worth engaging with. If they really like the kid and it isn't some external consensus they're jumping onto, I can't be anything except happy with the pick.

Remember, GMTM used a 3rd rounder on Dan Bylsma, as well as another one to get nowhere with Vesey, who already declared he was going to free agency. Hard to get much worse than that.
 

sincerity0

Registered User
Dec 23, 2016
1,970
740
This is theoretical nonsense. Give me clean statistical data of chance that a pick becomes long time 3rd liner/ top 4-5 D or better and than we are talking. This graph is just :laugh:

It's actually a statistical model that measures the average success of each pick. Games played is generally the most weighted portion of the model (some players don't put up a ton of points, but generally if they play 500 games they should be considered an NHL caliber player).

Of course each model will assign slightly different values. In this particular model, the 90th overall pick is worth 1 unit. 200 is .1 unit. So you could make the argument that the 90th pick is 10 times more valuable than the 200th pick, and you'd technically be correct according to the model (on average), it's really counting penny's to a millionaire.

If you're more mathematically inclined the value of picks in the NHL and NBA decays exponentially. In the NFL it's a more linear decline, which is because talented players can be had across the entire draft, not just at the top.

For example, when the Sabres were about to draft Eichel Boston offered at least three first round picks in that years draft. They had picks 13,14, and 15 I believe. For a player of Eichels caliber (his expected value over his career) this trade wasn't even considered by Murray. In the NFL this trade would be graciously accepted by a majority of NFL GMs (if they're smart).

With that said, it's not really theoretical at all. People are using data to assign average career values of each pick. Outside of the top 40-50 picks, these values are so low it's insignificant. If you like a player for whatever reason, just take them. This is because however you slice it the value of pick 90 or pick 200 is fairly immaterial. Pick the player you like after the second round.
 

jc17

Registered User
Jun 14, 2013
11,015
7,733
This is theoretical nonsense. Give me clean statistical data of chance that a pick becomes long time 3rd liner/ top 4-5 D or better and than we are talking. This graph is just :laugh:

The post me explained it well, but if you still don't believe it check out the draft history.

Go through the third rounders and see how successful they are: http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/index.html


From 2007 to 2013 there were 38 third rounders that have played 100+ games.

So on average from this small sample size 5.4 out of 30 players selected in the third round "make it" if you count playing 100 games making it which is pretty generous.
 

Rasmus CacOlainen

The end of the Tank
Sep 24, 2015
7,226
1,137
Europe
It's actually a statistical model that measures the average success of each pick. Games played is generally the most weighted portion of the model (some players don't put up a ton of points, but generally if they play 500 games they should be considered an NHL caliber player).

Of course each model will assign slightly different values. In this particular model, the 90th overall pick is worth 1 unit. 200 is .1 unit. So you could make the argument that the 90th pick is 10 times more valuable than the 200th pick, and you'd technically be correct according to the model (on average), it's really counting penny's to a millionaire.

If you're more mathematically inclined the value of picks in the NHL and NBA decays exponentially. In the NFL it's a more linear decline, which is because talented players can be had across the entire draft, not just at the top.

For example, when the Sabres were about to draft Eichel Boston offered at least three first round picks in that years draft. They had picks 13,14, and 15 I believe. For a player of Eichels caliber (his expected value over his career) this trade wasn't even considered by Murray. In the NFL this trade would be graciously accepted by a majority of NFL GMs (if they're smart).

With that said, it's not really theoretical at all. People are using data to assign average career values of each pick. Outside of the top 40-50 picks, these values are so low it's insignificant. If you like a player for whatever reason, just take them. This is because however you slice it the value of pick 90 or pick 200 is fairly immaterial. Pick the player you like after the second round.

Source?
 

Rasmus CacOlainen

The end of the Tank
Sep 24, 2015
7,226
1,137
Europe
The post me explained it well, but if you still don't believe it check out the draft history.

Go through the third rounders and see how successful they are: http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/index.html


From 2007 to 2013 there were 38 third rounders that have played 100+ games.

So on average from this small sample size 5.4 out of 30 players selected in the third round "make it" if you count playing 100 games making it which is pretty generous.

I will play around a bit with this. For me "100" games is not a good criteria. This is like 2 half seasons and doesn't take into account production. Will post some updates as I am intrigued.
 

BarbadosSlim

Registered User
Feb 7, 2015
61
0
UK
I will play around a bit with this. For me "100" games is not a good criteria. This is like 2 half seasons and doesn't take into account production. Will post some updates as I am intrigued.

FWIW here's another interpretation of this question.

 

jc17

Registered User
Jun 14, 2013
11,015
7,733
I will play around a bit with this. For me "100" games is not a good criteria. This is like 2 half seasons and doesn't take into account production. Will post some updates as I am intrigued.

Right. 100+ games is really low criteria. So if you want to actually look at guys who have played significant time in the NHL and produced, you're going to be looking at even fewer than 5 "successful" 3rd round draft picks.

Not a source for that exact chart, but here's a breakdown with other charts.

http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->