Prospect Info: The 2019 Entry NHL Draft Thread - Part V

[timothy jimothy]

thats okay as I am hoping Knight falls to us anyway

I'd take a pass on Knight if I'm being honest. When you can get good established goalies through trade for the same price, sometimes even less (see Grubauer trade), then you have to be sure that you are picking an elite goalie for the future otherwise it's just not worth the risk. Knight doesn't scream elite goaltender to me like someone like John Gibson did when he was in the USNDP. I'd even say that Jack Campbell was more of a certain thing than Knight, and he didn't turn out as expected.

Also I'd be more open to picking him if there was no one else good to pick in our spot, but I really like the depth in this first round and we can still get a pretty good player with that pick.

 

[Ncit3]

Give me some Caufield at our 2nd first round pick. Imagine that little bugger scoring goal after goal on our second line. Natural goal scorer. Can't get enough of those.

 

[LTC Pain]

If the Avs pick ends up at #16, Caulfield might be a realistic target to trade up for. #16 and a third round pick to move up 4-5 slots???

 

[Barklez]

I'd take a pass on Knight if I'm being honest. When you can get good established goalies through trade for the same price, sometimes even less (see Grubauer trade), then you have to be sure that you are picking an elite goalie for the future otherwise it's just not worth the risk. Knight doesn't scream elite goaltender to me like someone like John Gibson did when he was in the USNDP. I'd even say that Jack Campbell was more of a certain thing than Knight, and he didn't turn out as expected.

Also I'd be more open to picking him if there was no one else good to pick in our spot, but I really like the depth in this first round and we can still get a pretty good player with that pick.

What if I told you he screams elite goaltender - more than your other examples did - to the people whose job it is to know?

If he's available at our pick he will easily be best value at 16. If Pod somehow drops to 16 you take him instead, otherwise you run to the podium to make Knight your pick if he's still there.

Getting both C and D would be nice, but if Knight is there you have to take him at 16.

 

[Steerpike]

When we win the game tonight, what is our best possible pick? Still 16?

If not we should certainly consider throwing in the towel.

 

[The Abusement Park]

What if I told you he screams elite goaltender - more than your other examples did - to the people whose job it is to know?

If he's available at our pick he will easily be best value at 16. If Pod somehow drops to 16 you take him instead, otherwise you run to the podium to make Knight your pick if he's still there.

Getting both C and D would be nice, but if Knight is there you have to take him at 16.

I’d say Knight is a Gibson level prospect. Maybe a touch higher but not a ton more.

 

[PAZ]

If the Avs pick ends up at #16, Caulfield might be a realistic target to trade up for. #16 and a third round pick to move up 4-5 slots???

Might be plausible if Caufield is there around #13-14, but nobody is going to trade down from 11th to 16th for a 3rd rounder.

 

[AvsMakar08]

When we win the game tonight, what is our best possible pick? Still 16?

If not we should certainly consider throwing in the towel.

We are too good of a hockey team to be picking 16th OA with our pick.

 

[Freudian]

Avs pick only move down to 28th-31th if Avs get to the Western Conference Finals. If that happens you just have to treat the drop in value of that pick as a down payment on future success since a deep run is a great learning experience.

 

[Patagonia]

I'd take a pass on Knight if I'm being honest. When you can get good established goalies through trade for the same price, sometimes even less (see Grubauer trade), then you have to be sure that you are picking an elite goalie for the future otherwise it's just not worth the risk. Knight doesn't scream elite goaltender to me like someone like John Gibson did when he was in the USNDP. I'd even say that Jack Campbell was more of a certain thing than Knight, and he didn't turn out as expected.

Also I'd be more open to picking him if there was no one else good to pick in our spot, but I really like the depth in this first round and we can still get a pretty good player with that pick.

I prefer Knight for the 16th due to the lack of any Goalie depth. Your comparisons though are mixed.

Gibson is an All-Star Goalie playing for a terrible team and needed 5 yard to join the team. Campbell is finally breaking through after 8 years.

However, I do understand some opinions against drafting a Goalie so high since it takes so long to develop and mentally it's very tough. Goalies are worth less in trades as well, so if the AVs really need a Goalie trade some of the depth for a player already years further along in development.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Honestly.... if we took Caufield at #4 I'd understand the pick and I'd support it.


Dude is an elite, elite offensive driver.

 

[Hasbro]

Might be plausible if Caufield is there around #13-14, but nobody is going to trade down from 11th to 16th for a 3rd rounder.

Philly has the 11th pick. They’d never take a 5’6” player.

 

[benzino]

Philly has the 11th pick. They’d never take a 5’6” player.

Pracey work for Flyers

 

[Hasbro]

Pracey work for Flyers

A 5’6” non-OHL 18 year old.

 

[Tralfamadore]

Honestly.... if we took Caufield at #4 I'd understand the pick and I'd support it.


Dude is an elite, elite offensive driver.

That'd be insanity.

 

[timothy jimothy]

What if I told you he screams elite goaltender - more than your other examples did - to the people whose job it is to know?

If he's available at our pick he will easily be best value at 16. If Pod somehow drops to 16 you take him instead, otherwise you run to the podium to make Knight your pick if he's still there.

Getting both C and D would be nice, but if Knight is there you have to take him at 16.

I think you are overlooking just how good Jack Campbell and John Gibson were coming into the draft. They had the ability to steal games when it mattered, and that is not something I have seen Knight do to the same extent.

Jack Campbell was the best goalie prospect since Carey Price. He had a near perfect u18s in his D -1 year and then followed that up with another near perfect u18s to go along with a great season and a legendary performance at the u20s. There was chatter that he could end up the third best player in his draft after Taylor Hall and Tyler Seguin. If Knight was in the same draft as Jack Campbell you would've been laughed at if you picked Knight before Campbell. It didn't work out as expected and that's all the more reason to be cautious of drafting a goalie in the first round--if it can happen to Jack Campbell it can happen to anyone.

John Gibson was a little bit of a late bloomer and I think that had a bit to do with playing in Campbell's shadow. Gibson didn't have the athleticism that Campbell had but he had one of the calmest demeanor's I have ever seen from a goalie in their draft year. Guy was absolutely cold-blooded. I liked him more in his draft year than I do Knight for sure, although I was VERY high on Gibson.

Anyways, I still stand by my point. Goalie development is so finnicky. You have to REALLY believe in the goalie if you are going to use that kind of draft value. Otherwise it is a completely unnecessary risk when that is the going rate for good-great established NHL goaltending through trade.

 

[The Merchant]

Best draft picks in the league.

 

[Patagonia]

Honestly.... if we took Caufield at #4 I'd understand the pick and I'd support it.


Dude is an elite, elite offensive driver.

No chance and would be a terrible choice.

He is not better than either:

Cozens
Byram
Turcotte
Dach
Podkolzin (don’t even like him)

Maybe at 16, but not at 4.

 

[cgf]

I think you are overlooking just how good Jack Campbell and John Gibson were coming into the draft. They had the ability to steal games when it mattered, and that is not something I have seen Knight do to the same extent.

Jack Campbell was the best goalie prospect since Carey Price. He had a near perfect u18s in his D -1 year and then followed that up with another near perfect u18s to go along with a great season and a legendary performance at the u20s. There was chatter that he could end up the third best player in his draft after Taylor Hall and Tyler Seguin. If Knight was in the same draft as Jack Campbell you would've been laughed at if you picked Knight before Campbell. It didn't work out as expected and that's all the more reason to be cautious of drafting a goalie in the first round--if it can happen to Jack Campbell it can happen to anyone.

John Gibson was a little bit of a late bloomer and I think that had a bit to do with playing in Campbell's shadow. Gibson didn't have the athleticism that Campbell had but he had one of the calmest demeanor's I have ever seen from a goalie in their draft year. Guy was absolutely cold-blooded. I liked him more in his draft year than I do Knight for sure, although I was VERY high on Gibson.

Anyways, I still stand by my point. Goalie development is so finnicky. You have to REALLY believe in the goalie if you are going to use that kind of draft value. Otherwise it is a completely unnecessary risk when that is the going rate for good-great established NHL goaltending through trade.

Goalie development is no more finicky than skater development if we compare 1st round picks to 1st round picks, 2nd rounders to 2nd rounders, etc. What makes it seem so finicky is that most goalies are not drafted top 40, or even top 100. A 1st round goalie is no more likely to bust than a skater taken in the same area.

 

[cgf]

No chance and would be a terrible choice.

He is not better than either:

Cozens
Byram
Turcotte
Dach
Podkolzin (don’t even like him)

Maybe at 16, but not at 4.

You don't say

 

[Patagonia]

You don't say

Goalie development is no more finicky than skater development if we compare 1st round picks to 1st round picks, 2nd rounders to 2nd rounders, etc. What makes it seem so finicky is that most goalies are not drafted top 40, or even top 100. A 1st round goalie is no more likely to bust than a skater taken in the same area.

I also agree on Knight.

Goalies are not any more risky to draft due to the limited availability of positions at all levels. Most teams draft multiple goalies on the hopes one of them develop. Fewer opportunities would require a longer timeline.

AVs have few if any decent Goalie prospects. Knight would be a perfect addition and would have a clearer path to the NHL.

Not sure if he’ll be the pick, but Sakic is likely drafting more Goalies if not with the 16th, possibly in the 3rd round with the extra pick.

 

[cgf]

I also agree on Knight.

Goalies are not any more risky to draft due to the limited availability of positions at all levels. Most teams draft multiple goalies on the hopes one of them develop. Fewer opportunities would require a longer timeline.

AVs have few if any decent Goalie prospects. Knight would be a perfect addition and would have a clearer path to the NHL.

Not sure if he’ll be the pick, but Sakic is likely drafting more Goalies if not with the 16th, possibly in the 3rd round with the extra pick.

Oh, I have no expectation of us abandoning our midround-euro goalie strategy to grab an elite prospect, be it Knight this year, Askarov next year or Wallstedt in 2021...but that doesn't mean I have any doubts about Knight. Goalie technique is not something I know much about but based off the way Gigantor has talked about him, I have little doubt about Knight.

 

[Patagonia]

Oh, I have no expectation of us abandoning our midround-euro goalie strategy to grab an elite prospect, be it Knight this year, Askarov next year or Wallstedt in 2021...but that doesn't mean I have any doubts about Knight. Goalie technique is not something I know much about but based off the way Gigantor has talked about him, I have little doubt about Knight.

I guess we finally agree on the same pick

Knight wasn’t my original choice. Did some research of the scouting reports, player history and team needs this selection seems fairly clear. He is likely to be available as well.

Sakic might have a different opinion and could reach for a RW or LHD in this range.

 

[cgf]

I guess we finally agree on the same pick

Knight wasn’t my original choice. Did some research of the scouting reports, player history and team needs this selection seems fairly clear. He is likely to be available as well.

Sakic might have a different opinion and could reach for a RW or LHD in this range.

You're jumping the gun a little bit, I know there's no chance of it happening anymore, but I'm still dreaming about Caufield at 16

Though Knight would be my second choice when Caufield sneaks into the top 10 like Kravtsov did last year...after I had spent all season praying for him, Denisenko, Bokk or Farabee to make it to our pick.

 

[Patagonia]

You're jumping the gun a little bit, I know there's no chance of it happening anymore, but I'm still dreaming about Caufield at 16

Though Knight would be my second choice when Caufield sneaks into the top 10 like Kravtsov did last year...after I had spent all season praying for him, Denisenko, Bokk or Farabee to make it to our pick.

Knight is my 1st choice.

Depending on the Sens pick is Byram.

I would rather have Lavoie/Kaliyev/Newhook. LHD if a Forward is selected. Doubt Caulfield would fall to 16th.