Prospect Info: "Tank ran out of gas" - 2014 NHL draft discussion - Part II

[CaptainChef]

Bogo for Edmonton's 1st and Marancin or Klefbom.

I think that was the same proposal i posted a few days ago (or was about to post and got sidetracked lol). Both good LHD prospects that may be ready to jump to NHL - I'd seriously do this.

 

[Sweech]

I think that was the same proposal i posted a few days ago (or was about to post and got sidetracked lol). Both good LHD prospects that may be ready to jump to NHL - I'd seriously do this.

I'd 100% consider it.

Can't see Chevy ever actually doing it though.

 

[KingBogo]

I'm not going back to my disappointment for winning those last two because you will see some very good TSNE players go in those three picks -- hopefully someone like Nylander or Ehlers somehow slips through. They'll be hampered by picking there vs 6 but no way you can change that -- nor did they go with a super dominant line-up to finish up.

Regarding the number of top 15 in our line-up, yes but half weren't even drafted by us -- only reason we have them is their original team gave up on them. So i would not make too much out of the number of first rounders we have in our lineup. Anyways do guys like Ellerby, Monty, Oli & Seto really fit the mold of high first rounders - not a chance.

I think my biggest beef is the weight put on "consensus picks" of 18 year olds. In all honesty it is way too young to get a true understanding of the player they will become. If the same group wasn't drafted until the were 19 year olds you would see a dramatic reordering of "consensus picks" based on next season's play, and again after the following season until about age 21-22 when you will get a much more accurate handle on what the player will become. Drafting 18 year olds outside of truly elite talent (Mackinnon) is at best an educated guess. But scouts and GM's don't necessarily use the same criteria to make these educated guesses as media pundits so really how much does it matter a couple spots difference in the 6-10 "consensus pick" range?

I've said it a couple times already, but if you go through the history of the NHL draft picking in the 6-15 or even the 6-20 range players might as well be picked randomly for the likelihood of becoming impact players. And that isn't going to change this year.

 

[truck]

I think my biggest beef is the weight put on "consensus picks" of 18 year olds. In all honesty it is way too young to get a true understanding of the player they will become. If the same group wasn't drafted until the were 19 year olds you would see a dramatic reordering of "consensus picks" based on next season's play, and again after the following season until about age 21-22 when you will get a much more accurate handle on what the player will become. Drafting 18 year olds outside of truly elite talent (Mackinnon) is at best an educated guess. But scouts and GM's don't necessarily use the same criteria to make these educated guesses as media pundits so really how much does it matter a couple spots difference in the 6-10 "consensus pick" range?

I've said it a couple times already, but if you go through the history of the NHL draft picking in the 6-15 or even the 6-20 range players might as well be picked randomly for the likelihood of becoming impact players. And that isn't going to change this year.

Perhaps the fact that different GMs use wildly different criteria is the cause of the variability in the picks.

There have been suggestions that the criteria some GMs use turn a relatively predictable outcome into a highly variable "inexact science".

 

[jetkarma*]

Drafting 18 year olds outside of truly elite talent (Mackinnon) is at best an educated guess. But scouts and GM's don't necessarily use the same criteria to make these educated guesses as media pundits so really how much does it matter a couple spots difference in the 6-10 "consensus pick" range?

I've said it a couple times already, but if you go through the history of the NHL draft picking in the 6-15 or even the 6-20 range players might as well be picked randomly for the likelihood of becoming impact players. And that isn't going to change this year.

Informed decisions .

Better information , better decisions , better drafting. No one should bother suggesting drafting isn't something we do , WELL.

 

[KingBogo]

Perhaps the fact that different GMs use wildly different criteria is the cause of the variability in the picks.

There have been suggestions that the criteria some GMs use turn a relatively predictable outcome into a highly variable "inexact science".

I would argue along those lines that GM's need to find/develop their own criteria to draft kids, because they are so early in their development it is impossible to know what kind of player your draft pick will ultimately become. That brings me back to my original premise, picking 9th instead of 6th might be totally meaningless because the player Chevy covets (based on his criteria) will be or won't be available either way.

While I'd further argue this team (current players) learning to win when you are expected to lose and no one except those in the room gives a rat's *** what happens will be fair more valuable to our future success than picking 9th instead of 6th.

Sorry but I tend to get this attitude in the playoffs as I watch players with little or no draft pedigree shine on the national stage while our team of high draft picks spends yet another extended summer golfing/fishing/doing their thing instead of playing hockey.

 

[ps241]

I would argue along those lines that GM's need to find/develop their own criteria to draft kids, because they are so early in their development it is impossible to know what kind of player your draft pick will ultimately become. That brings me back to my original premise, picking 9th instead of 6th might be totally meaningless because the player Chevy covets (based on his criteria) will be or won't be available either way.

While I'd further argue this team (current players) learning to win when you are expected to lose and no one except those in the room gives a rat's *** what happens will be fair more valuable to our future success than picking 9th instead of 6th.

Sorry but I tend to get this attitude in the playoffs as I watch players with little or no draft pedigree shine on the national stage while our team of high draft picks spends yet another extended summer golfing/fishing/doing their thing instead of playing hockey.

We will agree to disagree Bogo.....I believe games at the end of the year don't carry over at all to the next season.

 

[truck]

I would argue along those lines that GM's need to find/develop their own criteria to draft kids, because they are so early in their development it is impossible to know what kind of player your draft pick will ultimately become. That brings me back to my original premise, picking 9th instead of 6th might be totally meaningless because the player Chevy covets (based on his criteria) will be or won't be available either way.

While I'd further argue this team (current players) learning to win when you are expected to lose and no one except those in the room gives a rat's *** what happens will be fair more valuable to our future success than picking 9th instead of 6th.

Sorry but I tend to get this attitude in the playoffs as I watch players with little or no draft pedigree shine on the national stage while our team of high draft picks spends yet another extended summer golfing/fishing/doing their thing instead of playing hockey.

...but it isn't impossible. Top picks are better on average and some teams are even further above par when it comes to drafting.

Also, I have no clue how you can say the difference between drafting 6th and 9th is meaningless. Depending on how the draft plays out picking 9th may mean Chevy picks his 9th ranked player. It won't always work out that way, but it could. Picking higher increases the odds of Chevy getting his guy.

As for learning how to win - talented teams always seem to figure it out pretty quicky.

 

[surixon]

I caught the last few U18 games and I have to say I'm starting to really like Virtanen's game. He still has some warts including being undisciplined but I think his north south speed game with his talent level and elite shot arsenal would fit in quite nicely here.

He also looks to be a smarter player and better passer than what I have heard previously.

 

[lanky]

Yep, Virtanen has looked really good. His intensity is really fun to watch. He's my hope for 9th but I think he'll get picked earlier.

 

[DK59]

Below is an excerpt from a mock draft that was done by Flames Nation http://flamesnation.ca/2014/4/15/2014-nhl-mock-draft-1-0

I just found it interesting that the Jets may be one of the teams that is not that high on Virtanen. I also thought he looked impressive based on the game I saw earlier today. I wonder if his good play in the tournament will start to change people's minds.


Talking to people, I got the sense the Jets may not like
Virtanen all that much, but at 9th overall, I think they warm up to
the Hitmen spark plug a little. When he’s “on”, Virtanen can dominate any
opposition and has the potential to be one of the best players to come out of
the 2014 class, only problem is he’s far from consistent with that sort of
play. He’s a very similar specimen to current Jets forward Evander Kane, who is
rumored to be on his way out.

Scouting Report via
Future Considerations: Virtanen
is a heads-up player who thinks the game well and is willing to get his nose
dirty. He has slick hands, a dynamic shot and a strong stride that makes him
dangerous. He can be outright dominant at times offensively with his blend of
size, skill and speed.

 

[Huffer]

I caught the last few U18 games and I have to say I'm starting to really like Virtanen's game. He still has some warts including being undisciplined but I think his north south speed game with his talent level and elite shot arsenal would fit in quite nicely here.

He also looks to be a smarter player and better passer than what I have heard previously.

Its funny you say this because I was thinking exactly the sane thing.

Obviously a small sample size, etc, but I didn't see a lot of the negatives in regards to hockey IQ. I thought he passed pretty well, and had pretty good vision in the games I saw.

He also stood out to me almost every time he was on the ice. A much better skater than pretty much everyone out there.

If you work under the thought that none if these guys are polished at thus point, and you're looking for a guy to develop and mold, a guy like Virtanen looks like he could have close to the most "clay" to mold, in regards to players possibly around our spot.

 

[Whileee]

I liked what I saw from Virtanen. He has dynamic speed, decent vision and a great shot. He's a very young draft-eligible and I can't see why a team wouldn't think that they can turn him into a top winger in the NHL. I found Button's commentary to be specifically negative about Virtanen, regularly slagging his lack of "discipline". Remember, this is the same Craig Button who somehow didn't seem to worry about Matt Dumba's "character" and ranked him #2 overall in his draft year.

Konecny and Barzal looked dynamic (too bad for Barzal on the late give-away). I also liked Fleury's play. I think he's going to be a really strong defenseman. I wonder if he might make his way up into the top-10.

McCann was a bit more active against the Czechs, but I still didn't see that much from him. To be honest, I can't remember Perlini doing anything in the past couple of games. He seems like a perimeter player.

 

[surixon]

I liked what I saw from Virtanen. He has dynamic speed, decent vision and a great shot. He's a very young draft-eligible and I can't see why a team wouldn't think that they can turn him into a top winger in the NHL. I found Button's commentary to be specifically negative about Virtanen, regularly slagging his lack of "discipline". Remember, this is the same Craig Button who somehow didn't seem to worry about Matt Dumba's "character" and ranked him #2 overall in his draft year.

Konecny and Barzal looked dynamic (too bad for Barzal on the late give-away). I also liked Fleury's play. I think he's going to be a really strong defenseman. I wonder if he might make his way up into the top-10.

McCann was a bit more active against the Czechs, but I still didn't see that much from him. To be honest, I can't remember Perlini doing anything in the past couple of games. He seems like a perimeter player.

Can't say I was very impressed with them either.

McCann looks like the prototypical safe player with questionable upside. I think we have similar types with Copp and Lowery already in the system.

Fleury looked fine to me, good skater, good shot and good poise. I wouldn't object to picking him either.

 

[Huffer]

I didn't know anything about him earlier in the year, but with the progression he's on, and his play in the U18's, I have a long shot hope that Chevy can also get Sanheim.

 

[Winnipeg Jets]

Just finishing up watching the Canada Czech Rep. game and I came away impressed by Fluery. He models himself after Bouwmeester and I can see it, he's smooth skating and he's just steady on the back end. He's got a great first pass, when he gets the puck on his stick you know it's going to get out in a hurry.

As much as I hate to project young kids, I could really see him developing into a solid top 4 D. He's got a lot of good skills: size, speed, skating, defensive awareness. Nothing screams elite in his game but everything is pretty solid. I'd dub him a jack of all trades.

I've said this before but depending on which forwards are off the table I wouldn't be disappointed picking up Fluery at #9.

 

[Flair Hay]

What are we supposed to do to force the team to lose? We were already playing a half AHL lineup. There's not much value in doing things in a somewhat honourable way I guess anymore.

I suppose we could have got a 3rd/4th round each for Jokinen or Stuart. The real mistake was Seto for a 2nd. That 2nd would have been massive at the deadline and even better to have now.

I think an unexpected FA signing this year, next, or the year after added to our core could have 10x the impact on the team as the difference between 6th and 9th draft pick. We'll see I guess.

Assuming the "consensus" top five are gone by trying we pick...truck do you have a big board of guys you'd want at that pick? Is Ehlers your #6?

 

[Mathmew Purrrr Oh]

What are we supposed to do to force the team to lose? We were already playing a half AHL lineup. There's not much value in doing things in a somewhat honourable way I guess anymore.

I suppose we could have got a 3rd/4th round each for Jokinen or Stuart. The real mistake was Seto for a 2nd. That 2nd would have been massive at the deadline and even better to have now.

I think an unexpected FA signing this year, next, or the year after added to our core could have 10x the impact on the team as the difference between 6th and 9th draft pick. We'll see I guess.

Assuming the "consensus" top five are gone by trying we pick...truck do you have a big board of guys you'd want at that pick? Is Ehlers your #6?

wait I can answer for truck

"there's still going to be a bunch of fun kids available at 9"

 

[drumzan]

Outside the Consensus top 5, this is my short list:

Kapanen
Nylander
Barbashev
Pastrnak
Milano
Larkin
Fiala
Ho-Sang

 

[truck]

wait I can answer for truck

"there's still going to be a bunch of fun kids available at 9"

Yup.

I don't hate drafting 9th this year, but drafting 6th would be better.

 

[air jett]

I wouldn't mind ehlers, but I think he will be gone by #9

I also have a feeling nylander will be gone by#9

Would jets even consider Virtanen or Nylander anyway given the supposed character concerns?

Fleury Is likely available, possibly Ritchie....which would you rather have?

I actually think fleury might not be a bad choice, if he can be a solid top 4, then our defense could be set in a few years- Trouba, morrissey, bogosian, fleury, all in their "prime"

 

[truck]

I wouldn't mind ehlers, but I think he will be gone by #9

I also have a feeling nylander will be gone by#9

Would jets even consider Virtanen or Nylander anyway given the supposed character concerns?

Fleury Is likely available, possibly Ritchie....which would you rather have?

I actually think fleury might not be a bad choice, if he can be a solid top 4, then our defense could be set in a few years- Trouba, morrissey, bogosian, fleury, all in their "prime"

What are the specifics of these "character concerns" that everybody always talks about?

 

[dobiezeke*]

I think that was the same proposal i posted a few days ago (or was about to post and got sidetracked lol). Both good LHD prospects that may be ready to jump to NHL - I'd seriously do this.

A top three pick and two prospects for a oft injured 3/4 defense? [mod]

 

[CorgisPer60]

A top three pick and two prospects for a oft injured 3/4 defense? [mod]

He's still better than what the Oilers have been running the past few years. Notice how he said Kefblom or Marincin, not Kefblom and Marincin?

 

[puck stoppa]

Just finishing up watching the Canada Czech Rep. game and I came away impressed by Fluery. He models himself after Bouwmeester and I can see it, he's smooth skating and he's just steady on the back end. He's got a great first pass, when he gets the puck on his stick you know it's going to get out in a hurry.

As much as I hate to project young kids, I could really see him developing into a solid top 4 D. He's got a lot of good skills: size, speed, skating, defensive awareness. Nothing screams elite in his game but everything is pretty solid. I'd dub him a jack of all trades.

I've said this before but depending on which forwards are off the table I wouldn't be disappointed picking up Fluery at #9.

That's funny because as I was watching the game I thought, man does this guy ever look like Bouwmeester. Drafting d's can be boring as people always enjoy the pick of a potential impact forward, but Fleury looks like one solid player and certainly fills a need for the Jets. Nylander is my first choice at 9 but Fleury would be good too.