U-18 Tournament Talk (4-18 - 4/28)

[jaffy27]

Yes, unless its one of the two top 10 Ds.

Hypothetically, if we on the clock and these two players are available.......who we taking

Or

 

[Mrb1p]

Hypothetically, if we on the clock and these two players are available.......who we taking

Or

Id take Alex but Heinola is good too.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Hypothetically, if we on the clock and these two players are available.......who we taking

Or

Nieuwe haak.

 

[Mrb1p]

If Newhook and Heinola are on the board at 14/15 I hope to god everything is done to acquire the picks. Arizona would love a D like Petry IMO, Vegas too (I think they'd fall 16th?). These two kids are special, special.

 

[Andrei79]

I'd say if there was a kid as good as Karlsson, go for it. I've said many times that I am fine with Byram and Heinola in the first, mainly because I think they can be that type of player, but the difference between Harley, Soderstrom, York and the usual suspect vs Kolyachonok, Bjornfoot, Kokkonen, Thrun, Robertson, Mysul, Kniazev, Thomson, Korczak, etc. Isn't big enough IMO.

There's more value in picking D in the 2nd than D in the first, it's been shown over and over in the 2000's. Montreal is actually one of the best examples.

Obviously if the difference is a bust in the first round and a NHL D, you'd want a D, but thats not how drafting and developping works.

The 2008 draft is also a good example of this, Karlsson being the exception to the rule because he's pretty much a borderline generational talent, and the obvious top 3 pick in Doty.

D's picked in the first: Myers, Schenn, Del Zotto, Carlson, Teubert, Sbisa, Cuma,
D's picked outside of the first: Voynov, Josi, Wierchoch, Schultz, Hamonic, Scandela, Stone, Brodie, Spurgeon, Demers

I'd say that even if you added Karlsson to the first group, its damn close.

Obviously there's also a way higher number of pick in the "rest of the draft" than the first round, but the first six are 2nd round only, and they stack up really well to the first round choices.

Yeah see, this doesn't make any sense to me.

You're showing me two groups, from two rounds, and saying they're relatively equal in quality. They're not, but even if they were, it doesn't change the fundamental issue with your point: the first group in relation to their spot is still excellent to exceptional value. And that's really the issue here, even if good defensemen are picked in the 2nd, they're still good value in the first, in relation to other positions. All it speaks to is how, in some drafts, there could be an argument to favor a D over a forward in the later rounds. Or even choose more defensemen in the first over forwards who likely have more limited value as assets.

And really, why do you truncate a third of the first round ? Do you now mean the second round produces more "elite" defenders (didn't you say it was 40% first round vs 60% of them 2nd round in a previous post? ) versus a portion of the first round ? Oh... and it depends which first round... seems like your parameters aren't very well set here. Well, even so, let's take your argument at face value and use it for forwards. The vast majority of elite centers and elite forwards in general are picked at the very top of the draft. Very few are picked in later rounds. So, seeing as this is the opposite for defensemen, why would anyone even bother picking defensemen in the top 10 ? I mean, why not pick the forward always and go for a defensemen where your chances of getting an elite one are higher, in the second.

Well, because it's Pejorative Slured. The value's there whether in the top 10, top 30 or top 60. They're not goaltenders, they're valuable assets.

See, even in your examples, you should be including the whole round. And especially players like Karlsson. He's, literally, the prime example of a player who wouldn't be available in the second round. If scouts knew he'd be this good, they'd have drafted him top3 - so there goes that bizarre reason to exclude him from the group. I wouldn't skip John Carlson to draft Josi either, I'd just draft both.

...and what's that about thinking Heinola and Byram can be borderline generational ?

 

[MarkovsKnee]

Depends if their plans are to go after Panarin and Bob hard. But I guess Knight would be insurance and when is he NHL ready? Another 4, 5, 6 years ish? It might fit. He can be back-up in the last 2 or 3 years of Bob's 7 year term.

No way Knight takes that long. Carter Hart made it his 1st year pro. I can't see Knight taking longer than 3 years. D+2 at Boston College and the WJC and then 1 year pro. Should follow the same path as Hart/Primeau.

I think an NHL team can calculate 3 years for him. It would be great if Florida took him, but I think they take D, which is also great. They're already quite deep at forward. Anaheim and Vancouver could go both D too. Canucks love Swedes so I can see them having serious interest in Soderstrom or Broberg.

 

[WeThreeKings]

We all thought Detroit was a lock to take a D man last year.. things change once someone reaches.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Yeah see, this doesn't make any sense to me.

You're showing me two groups, from two rounds, and saying they're relatively equal in quality. They're not, but even if they were, it doesn't change the fundamental issue with your point: the first group in relation to their spot is still excellent to exceptional value. And that's really the issue here, even if good defensemen are picked in the 2nd, they're still good value in the first, in relation to other positions. All it speaks to is how, in some drafts, there could be an argument to favor a D over a forward in the later rounds. Or even choose more defensemen in the first over forwards who likely have more limited value as assets.

And really, why do you truncate a third of the first round ? Do you now mean the second round produces more "elite" defenders (didn't you say it was 40% first round vs 60% of them 2nd round in a previous post? ) versus a portion of the first round ? Oh... and it depends which first round... seems like your parameters aren't very well set here. Well, even so, let's take your argument at face value and use it for forwards. The vast majority of elite centers and elite forwards in general are picked at the very top of the draft. Very few are picked in later rounds. So, seeing as this is the opposite for defensemen, why would anyone even bother picking defensemen in the top 10 ? I mean, why not pick the forward always and go for a defensemen where your chances of getting an elite one are higher, in the second.

Well, because it's ******ed. The value's there whether in the top 10, top 30 or top 60. They're not goaltenders, they're valuable assets.

See, even in your examples, you should be including the whole round. And especially players like Karlsson. He's, literally, the prime example of a player who wouldn't be available in the second round. If scouts knew he'd be this good, they'd have drafted him top3 - so there goes that bizarre reason to exclude him from the group. I wouldn't skip John Carlson to draft Josi either, I'd just draft both.

...and what's that about thinking Heinola and Byram can be borderline generational ?

I think it makes sense to get paid to trade back based on the distribution of talent by position. If you're going to take a goalie, for example, it clearly makes sense to do so. The distribution is flat. Your chance of hitting on a goalie in the first isn't much better than your chance at hitting on a goalie in the 3rd or 5th. Might as well get some extra picks. For defenceman this trend is less pronounced, but I would almost never trade up to take a dman. It would have to be a very silly situation.

But this isn't just a position based argument. If you're in our position, it might make sense just to trade back anyways. The distribution for all talent starts to flatten out at about our point in the draft. If our favourites aren't there (which are probably illusory if we're being honest) I think trading back makes a lot of sense this year.

 

[Apeironic]

If Newhook and Heinola are on the board at 14/15 I hope to god everything is done to acquire the picks. Arizona would love a D like Petry IMO, Vegas too (I think they'd fall 16th?). These two kids are special, special.

Yes all day. This is my dream for this draft.

 

[Apeironic]

Yeah see, this doesn't make any sense to me.

You're showing me two groups, from two rounds, and saying they're relatively equal in quality. They're not, but even if they were, it doesn't change the fundamental issue with your point: the first group in relation to their spot is still excellent to exceptional value. And that's really the issue here, even if good defensemen are picked in the 2nd, they're still good value in the first, in relation to other positions. All it speaks to is how, in some drafts, there could be an argument to favor a D over a forward in the later rounds. Or even choose more defensemen in the first over forwards who likely have more limited value as assets.

And really, why do you truncate a third of the first round ? Do you now mean the second round produces more "elite" defenders (didn't you say it was 40% first round vs 60% of them 2nd round in a previous post? ) versus a portion of the first round ? Oh... and it depends which first round... seems like your parameters aren't very well set here. Well, even so, let's take your argument at face value and use it for forwards. The vast majority of elite centers and elite forwards in general are picked at the very top of the draft. Very few are picked in later rounds. So, seeing as this is the opposite for defensemen, why would anyone even bother picking defensemen in the top 10 ? I mean, why not pick the forward always and go for a defensemen where your chances of getting an elite one are higher, in the second.

Well, because it's ******ed. The value's there whether in the top 10, top 30 or top 60. They're not goaltenders, they're valuable assets.

See, even in your examples, you should be including the whole round. And especially players like Karlsson. He's, literally, the prime example of a player who wouldn't be available in the second round. If scouts knew he'd be this good, they'd have drafted him top3 - so there goes that bizarre reason to exclude him from the group. I wouldn't skip John Carlson to draft Josi either, I'd just draft both.

...and what's that about thinking Heinola and Byram can be borderline generational ?

I think you've missed the point here. I agree with your contention, but only because you miss the point of his post: that defensemen are far less predictable developmental projects. Being that that is the case, it makes sense to say that the 2nd round is optimal for defensive prospects as within the model of a round-based draft, the second round represents talent from the defensive ranks that could be valued as a 1st, and yet aren't due to the variability in projection among defensemen.

This leads to a general trend where very good defensive prospects sit outside the top 30. This is the case because development of forwards seems to have better predictive precedent, and in addition the volume of defensemen is smaller then those of forwards on any roster. This produces the effect mentioned above where 1st round D-men will have to stand out a great deal from their crop, but also from the higher upside(due to predictive capacities) that forwards possess as value acquisitions in earlier rounds.

Something to chew on.

 

[NotProkofievian]

I think you've missed the point here. I agree with your contention, but only because you miss the point of his post: that defensemen are far less predictable developmental projects. Being that that is the case, it makes sense to say that the 2nd round is optimal for defensive prospects as within the model of a round-based draft, the second round represents talent from the defensive ranks that could be valued as a 1st, and yet aren't due to the variability in projection among defensemen.

This leads to a general trend where very good defensive prospects sit outside the top 30. This is the case because development of forwards seems to have better predictive precedent, and in addition the volume of defensemen is smaller then those of forwards on any roster. This produces the effect mentioned above where 1st round D-men will have to stand out a great deal from their crop, but also from the higher upside(due to predictive capacities) that forwards possess as value acquisitions in earlier rounds.

Something to chew on.

So, how does this affect your evaluation of Broberg for our 15th pick?

edit: different guy, nvm.

 

[MarkovsKnee]

So, how does this affect your evaluation of Broberg for our 15th pick?

I'm starting to think Broberg might go before our pick. Too big, too good of a skater. He can break out of a zone like Morgan Rielly.

Someone will view him as a Swedish Parayko and take him. Probably Vancouver or Florida.

 

[NotProkofievian]

I'm starting to think Broberg might go before our pick. Too big, too good of a skater. He can break out of a zone like Morgan Rielly.

Someone will view him as a Swedish Parayko and take him. Probably Vancouver or Florida.

Wouldn't be unlikely, he is ranked ahead of our pick on Bob's list. Some team's going to draft like this is football. REEEEEE big men who can skate!

 

[Andrei79]

I think you've missed the point here. I agree with your contention, but only because you miss the point of his post: that defensemen are far less predictable developmental projects. Being that that is the case, it makes sense to say that the 2nd round is optimal for defensive prospects as within the model of a round-based draft, the second round represents talent from the defensive ranks that could be valued as a 1st, and yet aren't due to the variability in projection among defensemen.

This leads to a general trend where very good defensive prospects sit outside the top 30. This is the case because development of forwards seems to have better predictive precedent, and in addition the volume of defensemen is smaller then those of forwards on any roster. This produces the effect mentioned above where 1st round D-men will have to stand out a great deal from their crop, but also from the higher upside(due to predictive capacities) that forwards possess as value acquisitions in earlier rounds.

Something to chew on.

There's nothing to chew on here, unless you can actually show me any data that supports that forwards have better predictive value (while actually defining what you mean here) and at which point do they stop having it. Being that defensemen are far less predictable, this should be easy to prove. Especially for first round defensemen, which really is the issue here.

 

[Habs Halifax]

No way Knight takes that long. Carter Hart made it his 1st year pro. I can't see Knight taking longer than 3 years. D+2 at Boston College and the WJC and then 1 year pro. Should follow the same path as Hart/Primeau.

I think an NHL team can calculate 3 years for him. It would be great if Florida took him, but I think they take D, which is also great. They're already quite deep at forward. Anaheim and Vancouver could go both D too. Canucks love Swedes so I can see them having serious interest in Soderstrom or Broberg.

It's very rare for goalies to make impacts in the NHL before 22 or 23. Knight looks good but we can't say he is the next Price or Hart yet. That would be very premature.

 

[MarkovsKnee]

It's very rare for goalies to make impacts in the NHL before 22 or 23. Knight looks good but we can't say he is the next Price or Hart yet. That would be very premature.

He's rated top 20 on most boards. At worst that puts him in Carter Hart/Vasilevsky territory. Those kinds of netminders get drafted high because teams believe they'll make the NHL in a normal time frame (2-3 years).

Players drafted outside of the 1st round can take a lot more time.

 

[jaffy27]

He's rated top 20 on most boards. At worst that puts him in Carter Hart/Vasilevsky territory. Those kinds of netminders get drafted high because teams believe they'll make the NHL in a normal time frame (2-3 years).

Players drafted outside of the 1st round can take a lot more time.

Who needs a goalie with a first round pick and can afford to wait 3-4yrs??

Nashville?
Edmonton?

 

[Habs Halifax]

He's rated top 20 on most boards. At worst that puts him in Carter Hart/Vasilevsky territory. Those kinds of netminders get drafted high because teams believe they'll make the NHL in a normal time frame (2-3 years).

Players drafted outside of the 1st round can take a lot more time.

There are more examples of top goalie prospects like Knight not making it till 22, 23, 24 (if they turn out) vs making the NHL at age 20 or 21. You can be as high on him as you like but were talking about a goalie who just turned 18.

Possible he is the next Price or Hart but not probable.

 

[Vachon23]

Who needs a goalie with a first round pick and can afford to wait 3-4yrs??

Nashville?
Edmonton?

Colorado
LA
CGY

 

[JeffreyLFC]

He's rated top 20 on most boards. At worst that puts him in Carter Hart/Vasilevsky territory. Those kinds of netminders get drafted high because teams believe they'll make the NHL in a normal time frame (2-3 years).

Players drafted outside of the 1st round can take a lot more time.

I can see a team like Colorado wanting him with their 2nd 1st round pick.

 

[Habs Halifax]

If Newhook and Heinola are on the board at 14/15 I hope to god everything is done to acquire the picks. Arizona would love a D like Petry IMO, Vegas too (I think they'd fall 16th?). These two kids are special, special.

Ducks need help on RD and they might trade that 9th OA for Petry. They also are structured to win now (They will be looking to Rebound) and then rebuild in a few years so they might bite. Petry for the 9th OA and their 2nd. I think this makes them think real hard about it. Petry's two years in term left fits their situation IMO.

 

[MarkovsKnee]

Who needs a goalie with a first round pick and can afford to wait 3-4yrs??

Nashville?
Edmonton?

Edmonton picks too early. They would probably take him with a 2nd if he fell to their pick there. Nashville is a definite possibility. Washington just recently took Samsonov in the 1st. Carter Hart went just outside the 1st round to Philadelphia.

I think Knight will be playing in the NHL at 20 years old, maybe 21. So do a lot of scouts which is why he's ranked so high. Big goalie, good technique, wonderful stick skills.

Teams that could possibility take him: Minnesota, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Vegas, Ottawa, Nashville, L.A., Calgary, and NYI.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

I still really like Heinola, but I don't think he's NHL ready physically. His mind is there, but he's weak, and while Kotkaniemi was able to survive, not sure a dman that weak would be able to.

 

[MarkovsKnee]

There are more examples of top goalie prospects like Knight not making it till 22, 23, 24 (if they turn out) vs making the NHL at age 20 or 21. You can be as high on him as you like but were talking about a goalie who just turned 18.

Possible he is the next Price or Hart but not probable.

I'm just saying teams will take him based on the view that he can be an NHLer in a regular time frame of 2-3 years over 4-6 years.

I also don't think he takes that long. 2 years College. 1 year AHL.

All prospects are probable except the truly exceptional (Crosby, McDavid).

 

[Mrb1p]

Ducks need help on RD and they might trade that 9th OA for Petry. They also are structured to win now (They will be looking to Rebound) and then rebuild in a few years so they might bite. Petry for the 9th OA and their 2nd. I think this makes them think real hard about it. Petry's two years in term left fits their situation IMO.

Dont think so. At 9 theyll be looking at Boldy, who should be ready in a year at most. Its a quick fix too.

Cam York ia from Anaheim too, and they tried picking from Anaheim before.

(They were actually going Etem before Fowler dropped)