The Importance of Drafting a Defenceman With the 6th OA?

[Hen Kolland]

it's my personnal opinion

I have Hughes 3rd and Boqvist 5th on my list.

Personally, I have Hughes behind Dobson and Bouchard due to style of play and Hughes' size (with reason to believe he weighs under 165). Boqvist being more of a high risk, high reward type, plus the concussions, I have late in the top 10. He's the type that I personally would only take if I traded back to the 8-10 range and he was the defenseman that fell. Ultimately, I don't care position wise where the team goes even though I lean towards defense, but this team NEEDS to hit on this draft pick, regardless of position. If they take a run at Boqvist and he doesn't develop to be near his ceiling, it will hurt big time.

 

[BinCookin]

I imagine our internal list to be something like this:

1) Dahlin
2) Svechnikov
3) Zadina
4) Tkachuk
5) Dobson
6) Bouchard
7) Hughes

So I fully expect BPA = a D man at 6.

 

[Frk It]

On this draft Red Wings people in here are talking more and more about an ORGANIZATIONAL NEED. I almost sounds like same guys who prefer absolute BPA, are going after a NEED.

It's simple logic how a group of people will habit:
1. We have a lot of wingers and this 2018 draft offers a lot of wingers at TOP9, at Wings pick range. We should avoid them.
2. Our prospect defenceman group seems to be weak, and this draft offers a lot of defencemen at Wings pick range. We should get one of those.
3. People wouldn't mind drafting a center, but because of the consensus lists won't have any in Red Wings pick range, it would be a mistake. But no one really knows how high a guy like Kotkaniemi is appreciated on Red Wings list. there has been comparisons for Kopitar and these two-way guys correlate most with winning.

It's a NEED -talk.

But nobody isn't thinking in bigger picture, what if we draft a Center like Kotkaniemi at 6th of trade down and draft him, and get a package of defencemen with those lower picks, what would be the better overall value for these different tactics. Or opposite ways.

1st pick Defenceman (Dobson/Bouchard)
30-33-36 picks (just forwards? or another D + 2 f)

1st pick center (Kotkaniemi)
30-33-36 (a group of sliding D like Merkley, Samuelsson, K'A. Miller etc.)

Which tactic would give bigger overall value?

Except you don't know who is going to be there at 30/33/36 when you are making the pick at #6. So I don't think that is a very smart approach to use.

 

[jkutswings]

I think it's almost never a scenario of pure BPA vs pure need. That would be something crazy like a team in great long-term shape in net, but taking a goalie anyway if he's the highest player still on their board. Or passing on an elite center to take an average defenseman due to positional need.

In practice, it's a matter of using both components, but how far on either side of the middle that you drift for a given pick. Like, if they rate guys 1-100 (100 being the perfect player), and at #6, there's an 82 winger (say Tkachuk) and a 79 defenseman (say Bouchard)... Does the bigger need on D justify the slightly lower rating? Would it still justify something like 86 (maybe Zadina) vs 79? Each team not only has their unique board, but their unique balance of BPA vs need.

Personally, I think prospects 3-10 are more or less all one tier of talent, so I'd happily take either Dobson or Bouchard over either Zadina or Tkachuk (or Kotkaniemi or Wahlstrom, for that matter, who I think are right there as well). But that's "my board", not theirs.

The good news is (in my opinion) there doesn't seem to be a really lousy choice available at 6. I would definitely hold my breath about Boqvist's health or Hughes' size if either was the pick, and I like other skill sets better than that of Tkachuk, but none of those prospects look like an imminent disaster.

In the bigger picture, I just hope that none of Detroit's first 4 picks leave everybody scratching their heads, and that at least 2 of those picks turn into very good NHL players. Fingers crossed for a very good defenseman, but we'll see.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

In practice, it's a matter of using both components, but how far on either side of the middle that you drift for a given pick. Like, if they rate guys 1-100 (100 being the perfect player), and at #6, there's an 82 winger (say Tkachuk) and a 79 defenseman (say Bouchard)... Does the bigger need on D justify the slightly lower rating? Would it still justify something like 86 (maybe Zadina) vs 79? Each team not only has their unique board, but their unique balance of BPA vs need.

It's always seemed to me that player value isn't always additive, either. Like if Tkachuk is an 82, adding Tkachuk to your team isn't necessarily +82. If you really need a winger, his overall value might be increased by that factor, so maybe he's a 90 for you. And likewise, if you have a million wingers, maybe Tkachuk is more of a 78 or something for you, because you don't have the roster space or complementary players to take advantage of having him.

So maybe Bouchard is 79, but given how badly Detroit needs a defenseman, it could mean his actual value to the Detroit organization is higher than Tkachuk's. Which is what you're saying, I think.

 

[odin1981]

I just can't understand why the wings would take a winger in this years draft. It is defense heavy and I'm sorry but centers and defenseman are always a priority over them. The only way I can fathom them even thinking about it is if for whatever reason all 5 d go before anything else in the draft and the only one left is concussion issue. I'm pretty sure that won't happen. And given that we probably only need one more center (safe to say Larkin is a top 6) at most because we could then move larkin off center and use his speed on the wing if Rasmussian (probably killing the spelling on that one sorry) gets to that level. As well as next year looking (granted a year out still very early) a more normal top 10 being winger and center heavy. Wingers that are not regarded as almost generational talents (so right now Ovie, Kane, and russian dude from St. Louis) or easy every year all stars are not at a big need and while I am not comparing him to any of the 3, Mantha could very well be are top 6 winger so in theory we already have him from a organizational stand point. Also given how the salary cap works top 6's aren't really 6's anymore it is really top 4's with +1's that meld the line together to cover everything.

 

[njx9]

As well as next year looking (granted a year out still very early) a more normal top 10 being winger and center heavy.

This is really it, for me. If we don't take any of the really highly rated D this year so that we can take a marginally higher winger, then it's realistically two more years before we can actually address the position. Which, with normal development times, puts the team 4-5 years out from even thinking about competing for anything. So taking a winger this year means that we waste all of the ELC time we'd get out of any wingers we end up with.

I dunno. If you're taking a winger, he'd better be a Kucherov/Tarasenko type star, or it's 100% a waste of a pick, and a waste of another year. A generic top 4D is still infinitely more valuable than a generic top 6W to this team, right now.

 

[SirloinUB]

Ya'll acting like rebuilding is black and white rather than fluid and evolving.

We need top talent in every damn position. If you see star potential, you don't worry about the position, nationality, or color of his damn eyes.

 

[njx9]

We need top talent in every damn position. If you see star potential, you don't worry about the position, nationality....

Cool, I'll mark you down for Yakupov and the Edmonton model. Good luck.

....color of his damn eyes

Absolutely pathetic. Grow up.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Cool, I'll mark you down for Yakupov and the Edmonton model. Good luck.



Absolutely pathetic. Grow up.

And he will sign you up for Erik Johnson over multiple-Stanley Cup winning captain, Conn Smythe and Selke winning Jonathan Toews? What's your point? Nitpicking one of the most notable busts to be selected #1, by one of the worst run organizations in recent memory, is "absolutely pathetic." You have some ridiculous precedent that one year drafting a forward instead of a defenseman will delay the rebuild multiple years, but when you pick the correct forward, shit looks a lot different. I tell you what, picking Taylor Hall and Tyler Seguin over Erik Gudbranson looks pretty bad right now...

 

[Frk It]

If we don't take any of the really highly rated D this year so that we can take a marginally higher winger, then it's realistically two more years before we can actually address the position. .

I'm gunning hard for a defenseman at #6, but I don't see this being the case at all.

There will be some options at defenseman next year in the top 5 and top 10. WHL is looking pretty strong next year, and USNTDP is just consistently churning out talent.

 

[Ezekial]

Cool, I'll mark you down for Yakupov and the Edmonton model. Good luck.



Absolutely pathetic. Grow up.

If there was a 101 point OHL winger in this draft class I'd be cool with taking him at 6.

E: I guess Svech had a higher ppg, so other than him.

 

[SirloinUB]

Cool, I'll mark you down for Yakupov and the Edmonton model. Good luck.



Absolutely pathetic. Grow up.

1) strawman. Yak was a busy and has no relevance to this conversation

2) learn to take a joke

 

[Pavels Dog]

This is really it, for me. If we don't take any of the really highly rated D this year so that we can take a marginally higher winger, then it's realistically two more years before we can actually address the position. Which, with normal development times, puts the team 4-5 years out from even thinking about competing for anything. So taking a winger this year means that we waste all of the ELC time we'd get out of any wingers we end up with.

I dunno. If you're taking a winger, he'd better be a Kucherov/Tarasenko type star, or it's 100% a waste of a pick, and a waste of another year. A generic top 4D is still infinitely more valuable than a generic top 6W to this team, right now.

There's also Kotkaniemi, who is a center. And without having numbers I do believe centers are the most "safe" picks in the top 10, with lots of great d-men and wingers being taken later in the draft. We're 95% likely to take a D, but I don't share your fears of taking a forward. Talent is talent. We need it, and I disagree that a #3-4D is all that valuable to this team. I'm not going to be happier with Dobson if he's a #4 defensive D than I'd be with Tkachuk if he turns into a 30+30 powerforward.

 

[Heaton]

While I'll be disappointed if we don't take a defenseman, any player we take will automatically be our best prospect by a wide margin. I don't think a winger addresses current positional needs, but it does address a talent need.

 

[njx9]

Nitpicking one of the most notable busts to be selected #1, by one of the worst run organizations in recent memory, is "absolutely pathetic." You have some ridiculous precedent that one year drafting a forward instead of a defenseman will delay the rebuild multiple years

Ah, right. I forgot, if you take a bust, you can never, ever be used as an example of anything!

And yes, given that next year is C-heavy, and this team badly needs Cs, it seems likely that they'd take one next year. Pushing a high end D out 2 years. And while I can feel the "multiple 2nds!" crap coming, those are wasted picks for a team that hasn't converted one to a 1D in like 30 years.

There will be some options at defenseman next year in the top 5 and top 10. WHL is looking pretty strong next year, and USNTDP is just consistently churning out talent.

Totally - but there will be a lot more Cs and this team badly needs a 1C. If you get a top pair D and a complement to Larkin in the next two first rounds, you're actually set up for some success going forward. If you get two more Manthas you're... well... not.

If there was a 101 point OHL winger in this draft class I'd be cool with taking him at 6.

I've said all along that if you think the guy you're taking is the next Benn or Hall or Kane, then fine. Take him. If you think he's a mid-tier, top line winger, you've set the franchise back a year for very little to no benefit.

1) strawman. Yak was a busy and has no relevance to this conversation

You're advocating taking a winger over a defender, regardless of team need. I pointed to another team that did the same. Repeatedly. It's hardly a strawman just because you don't like it.

2) learn to take a joke

Learn to make one.

I'm not going to be happier with Dobson if he's a #4 defensive D than I'd be with Tkachuk if he turns into a 30+30 powerforward.

A 30/30 winger isn't exactly a generic 6W. In that case, I'd still say a 2D is infinitely more valuable, but you're right: if Dobson is a 4 DD, he's basically a DDK clone and we'd be better off taking someone else.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Ah, right. I forgot, if you take a bust, you can never, ever be used as an example of anything!

And yes, given that next year is C-heavy, and this team badly needs Cs, it seems likely that they'd take one next year. Pushing a high end D out 2 years. And while I can feel the "multiple 2nds!" crap coming, those are wasted picks for a team that hasn't converted one to a 1D in like 30 years.

Feel free to use them as an example, but just don't be defensive when someone else can point to an example that completely negates the point you are emphasizing as an absolute must. Passing on Toews for Johnson has done more damage to the Avs than the Oilers selecting Yakupov over the consensus "best" defenseman in Ryan Murray has. Seguin and Hall have turned into significantly better players than the best defenseman taken in the first round of that draft. So tell me why taking a forward that you think is better than a defenseman is a mistake? If the forwards are that much better on their draft board, don't pick a defenseman just because.

 

[Lampedampe]

Feel free to use them as an example, but just don't be defensive when someone else can point to an example that completely negates the point you are emphasizing as an absolute must. Passing on Toews for Johnson has done more damage to the Avs than the Oilers selecting Yakupov over the consensus "best" defenseman in Ryan Murray has. Seguin and Hall have turned into significantly better players than the best defenseman taken in the first round of that draft. So tell me why taking a forward that you think is better than a defenseman is a mistake? If the forwards are that much better on their draft board, don't pick a defenseman just because.

It just feels very disingenuous to cherry pick draft picks like that honestly. Because you've got to realise the opposite can be said a 100 times, we can have a back and forth for ages if i cherry picked great defensemen that were picked after bad Forwards and vice versa (Zacha ahead of Werenski and Provorov). I also don't think Hall or Seguin are even remotely close to being relevant to the discussion since they were 100% elite talents picked 1st and 2nd, we're not in the picking range of them, Brady/Wahlstrom/kotniemi aren't even close to being in the same tier of talent. Going back to the Zacha pick, how much better would Devil's outlook be with Provorov? And then you name a team that picked a bad defenseman ahead of a great forward, it just doesn't add anything. (Just to make it clear, this isn't a 100% directed at you, I know the poster you responded to kind of started it, I just didn't like the direction of the thread.)

The reason I made the thread was to point out that first pairing defensemen are a lot tougher to come by outside the 1st round, without looking it up right now I'd say most of those in the first round were picked top 15 or just after 15. Defensemen take longer to develop and stay in their prime longer, thus it just makes too much sense going for a Defenseman this year while we're still early in the rebuild, for several other reasons aswell.

As to the BPA discussion, well obviously it ain't black and white, a team will always consider team need and make a judgement if the BPA is that much more valuable than the positional need. But that doesn't take away from the fact that when they go for BPA, they do just that. Going BPA every draft has it's consequences, because if we acknowledge that the chances of drafting a first pairing defenseman is a lot lower outside the top 15 ish picks, then we also have to realise that if a forward is the BPA almost every year we also have a lower chance at a adressing defense, so why not increase our chances early? If they ignore the defense this year I could see it becoming quite painful, but that's just my opinion.

I think its important to add though that trades are a thing at the draft, and since we have an abundance of picks in the top 100 and expandable roster players. If Holland wishes to go for more quality this draft he could pick a guy like Kotkaniemi and then trade for another high pick to draft a highly touted defender. Holland could have a really busy draft this year.

 

[snailderby]

If we use TOI/GP as a rough proxy for first-pairing defensemen, here are the top 2 defensemen for each team, along with their draft position. (Of course, many of these defensemen don't actually play on the first pairing or aren't really first-pairing defensemen or may not even be one of the two best defensemen on their team, but here's the data anyways so we can argue about its implications.)



Anaheim Ducks
#012 - Cam Fowler
#006 - Hampus Lindholm

Arizona Coyotes
#006 - Oliver Ekman-Larsson
#061 - Alex Goligoski

Boston Bruins
#056 - Zdeno Chara
#014 - Charlie McAvoy

Buffalo Sabres
#008 - Rasmus Ristolainen
#055 - Marco Scandella

Calgary Flames
N/A - Mark Giordano
#114 - T.J. Brodie

Carolina Hurricanes
#120 - Jaccob Slavin
#037 - Justin Faulk

Chicago Blackhawks
#054 - Duncan Keith
N/A - Jordan Oesterle?!
#014 - Brent Seabrook

Colorado Avalanche
#001 - Erik Johnson
#064 - Tyson Barrie

Columbus Blue Jackets
#004 - Seth Jones
#008 - Zach Werenski

Dallas Stars
#131 - John Klingberg
#074 - Esa Lindell

Detroit Red Wings
(#029 and #043)

Edmonton Oilers
#019 - Oscar Klefbom
#007 - Darnell Nurse

Florida Panthers
#105 - Keith Yandle
#001 - Aaron Ekblad

Los Angeles Kings
#002 - Drew Doughty
#095 - Alec Martinez

Minnesota Wild
#007 - Ryan Suter
#156 - Jared Spurgeon

Montreal Canadiens
#049 - Shea Weber
#015 - Jeff Petry

Nashville Predators
#038 - Roman Josi
#043 - P.K. Subban

New Jersey Devils
#106 - Sami Vatanen
N/A - Andy Greene

New York Islanders
#016 - Nick Leddy
#061 - Johnny Boychuk

New York Islanders
#012 - Ryan McDonagh
N/A - Neal Pionk
#028 - Brady Skjei

Ottawa Senators
#015 - Erik Karlsson
#015 - Cody Ceci

Philadelphia Flyers
#007 - Ivan Provorov
#078 - Shayne Gostisbehere

Pittsburgh Penguins
#062 - Kris Letang
#051 - Brian Dumoulin

San Jose Sharks
#020 - Brent Burns
#035 - Marc-Edouard Vlasic

St. Louis Blues
#004 - Alex Pietrangelo
#086 - Colton Parayko (after being passed over)

Tampa Bay Lightning
#002 - Victor Hedman
#216 - Anton Stralman

Toronto Maple Leafs
#017 - Jake Gardiner
N/A - Nikita Zaitsev

Vancouver Canucks
#091 - Alexander Edler
#020 - Michael Del Zotto

Vegas Golden Knights
N/A - Nate Schmidt
#026 - Shea Theodore

Washington Capitals
#027 - John Carlson
#055 - Dmitri Orlov

Winnipeg Jets
#245 - Dustin Byfuglien
#009 - Jacob Trouba

 

[snailderby]

If you ignore the undrafted defensemen, the average draft position of these defensemen is 47.4, and the scatter chart looks like this:

 

[Frk It]

Odds of drafting a 20+ min a night defenseman by draft position (using drafts 1998-2010):

1-2 = 100%
3-8= 61%
9-18 = 32%
19-29 = 18%
51-75 = 8%
76-98 = 2%
99-188 = 4%
189-210 = 2%

Data taken from here: EXPANDED BLUE BULLET DRAFT PICK VALUE CHART

So yeah, we should probably draft a defenseman with a pick in the top 8.

 

[jkutswings]

Odds of drafting a 20+ min a night defenseman by draft position (using drafts 1998-2010):

1-2 = 100%
3-8= 61%
9-18 = 32%
19-29 = 18%
51-75 = 8%
76-98 = 2%
99-188 = 4%
189-210 = 2%

Data taken from here: EXPANDED BLUE BULLET DRAFT PICK VALUE CHART

So yeah, we should probably draft a defenseman with a pick in the top 8.

And hopefully they can deal a player or two again this year, to load up for the 2019 draft as well (albeit perhaps with emphasis at center instead of defense).

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Worth noting when you list all those people that Oesterle is the guy Blashill benched and kept playing Hughes over at the World Championships. I knew Coach Q did some weird things this year, but I didn't realize he was that high up in ice time.

Man I would love to pry Murphy away from them, his move to Chicago has been a disaster in terms of Coach Q not using him enough.

 

[Winger98]

There's also Kotkaniemi, who is a center. And without having numbers I do believe centers are the most "safe" picks in the top 10, with lots of great d-men and wingers being taken later in the draft. We're 95% likely to take a D, but I don't share your fears of taking a forward. Talent is talent. We need it, and I disagree that a #3-4D is all that valuable to this team. I'm not going to be happier with Dobson if he's a #4 defensive D than I'd be with Tkachuk if he turns into a 30+30 powerforward.

If we don't take a D at 6th overall, I think I'd rather see us reach a little on Kotkaniemi than draft one of the available wings. If the wing was someone who we could reasonably say was head and shoulders above the other guys, it'd be different, but I just don't see it with the group of guys likely available. If we're going with a forward, might as well roll the dice on a center.

Also, great wings typically only carry a team so far without the pieces in place at center and on the blueline.

 

[Frk It]

If we don't take a D at 6th overall, I think I'd rather see us reach a little on Kotkaniemi than draft one of the available wings. If the wing was someone who we could reasonably say was head and shoulders above the other guys, it'd be different, but I just don't see it with the group of guys likely available. If we're going with a forward, might as well roll the dice on a center.

Also, great wings typically only carry a team so far without the pieces in place at center and on the blueline.

I want a defenseman, but I do have some fear about being one of the teams that pass on Oliver Wahlstrom. I think it could be like Filip Forsberg all over again. He’s going to go to BC next year with Jack McBain, and he’s probably going to have a hell of a year and get a lot of buzz.