Speculation: Who will we draft with #4? Part III

[Stephen]

If your boat has holes in it, of course a mystery box is better...

 

[mydnyte]

I believe if Ekblad was in this draft, he would likely be no better than 5th overall. Behind Mc-Eichel, Hanifin, Strome. I can see him being right there with Provorov and Werenski. And fighting it out with Marner and Crouse for 5th overall. But again this draft has been regarded as the best in a decade.

I have to agree, and i still think he follows in Phaneuf's footsteps and has a few good seasons, then people figure him out, and he crashes back to earth.

 

[Stephen]

Ekblad is a high IQ defenseman with wheels. That kind of skillset usually doesn't come crashing back to earth.

 

[SprDaVE]

If your boat has holes in it, of course a mystery box is better...

This metaphor has been stretched a little too far. In your example, the mystery box is definitely not better because it could have poop in it, which is definitely not better then a boat with holes.

Generally, multiple picks are used to acquire a good NHL player for the reason that those picks have an average/very low chance of producing a player of equal value in a few years. Perhaps both of the picks have the value of the player you traded.

So really, there are various reasons why you acquire future assets for a NHL player. It's really not black and white, for either side of the coin.

 

[slozo]

I've been thinking about the last few statements by Dubas especially, and Hunter, in interviews . .. being asked about the draft naturally. They've both talked about and listed the players we all know about, and when given the chance to list them . . . They always list Hanifin third, Strome 4th, Crouse 5th. At least from what I've noticed (may have missed a few statements).

These guys are not stupid. They know their statements are not just being analyzed by we the rabid Leafers . . . but other management as well. To gauge how they will pick, etc.

Do you folks think there is some politicking involved? Trying to influence other teams on who they think is their top 5, and maybe the whole time having decided on say Marner or a dark horse at #4 (Barzal, Provorov, etc)?

Or do you think they just list it as they are generally ranked as a consensus?

And the whole Crouse thing keeps bothering me . . . generally ranked consensus #4 or #5, but consistently ignored by commentators and this board as a potential #4 pick.

Is this more politicking by Leafs management?

What the hell would everyone think if we pick Crouse at #4?

 

[Reddaye]

I've been thinking about the last few statements by Dubas especially, and Hunter, in interviews . .. being asked about the draft naturally. They've both talked about and listed the players we all know about, and when given the chance to list them . . . They always list Hanifin third, Strome 4th, Crouse 5th. At least from what I've noticed (may have missed a few statements).

These guys are not stupid. They know their statements are not just being analyzed by we the rabid Leafers . . . but other management as well. To gauge how they will pick, etc.

Do you folks think there is some politicking involved? Trying to influence other teams on who they think is their top 5, and maybe the whole time having decided on say Marner or a dark horse at #4 (Barzal, Provorov, etc)?

Or do you think they just list it as they are generally ranked as a consensus?

And the whole Crouse thing keeps bothering me . . . generally ranked consensus #4 or #5, but consistently ignored by commentators and this board as a potential #4 pick.

Is this more politicking by Leafs management?

What the hell would everyone think if we pick Crouse at #4?

I believe Dubas has mentioned Hanifin first on at least one occasion.

Just pulling that from memory though.

 

[Glenn Isildur Healy]

This metaphor has been stretched a little too far. In your example, the mystery box is definitely not better because it could have poop in it, which is definitely not better then a boat with holes.

Generally, multiple picks are used to acquire a good NHL player for the reason that those picks have an average/very low chance of producing a player of equal value in a few years. Perhaps both of the picks have the value of the player you traded.

So really, there are various reasons why you acquire future assets for a NHL player. It's really not black and white, for either side of the coin.

Mystery Box is just a poor analogy. Draft picks aren't something where you find out instantly that they are poop after you've used it. Even after you draft a player they maintain (maybe a bit higher or lower) a certain amount of value

 

[theIceWookie]

Well said, its been a while since a 18 year old dman looked so well composed in both ends of the rink. It would have been easier to evaluate Noah if he played in one of the junior league's. I am not trying to put down the college/unv hockey however the skill set is at a higher level in junior. I would be happy if we pick him however I hope we draft Marner if he is still available.

Why do you think the skill set is higher in junior than in the NCAA? It's a different league not a sub par league...

 

[slozo]

I believe Dubas has mentioned Hanifin first on at least one occasion.

Just pulling that from memory though.

He's listed Hanifin "first" when asked about picks 3 onward, or when offering that up knowing that it's McDavid and Eichel at 1 and 2 no matter what.

So basically you are agreeing with me, I think.

 

[theIceWookie]

If your boat has holes in it, of course a mystery box is better...

Unless that mystery box is a boat with more holes...

Oop

 

[Woll Smoth]

If your boat has holes in it, of course a mystery box is better...

Maybe the Leafs can hire some scouts to watch some players in the Jr. Leagues and maybe have a few over seas. Take away some of that mystery.

 

[BlueBaron]

Do you folks think there is some politicking involved?

What the hell would everyone think if we pick Crouse at #4?

I think a smart GM never reveals his hand while it is still in play. Edmonton can tell us who they are picking because it has no impact. It's a given.

But say we let it be known we liked Barzal ? (I personally believe Hanifin/Strome should be our picks)

We have now removed any incentive for the fifth team to move up if they covet Hanifin/Strome/Marner. We could easily trade down, gain value and still get our guy. In fact we could probably trade down a few times collecting second round picks and prospects all the way down. But this only works if no one knows who we truly value.

It could also work against us if we we're trying to acquire another top pick to get Barzal, assuming we take a Hanifin first.

Now for your second question. It would freak everyone out since he is not a major positional need and has less glam than Strome/Hanifin/Marner. It would be a very surprising pick and would imply the Leaf Brass think he is a future Shanny type player. I think we could live with it but I doubt he is many peoples second choice let alone first.

 

[HarrisonFord]

Personally I'm pretty excited by the fact that all 3 of our options seem like they'll be NHL players. No real bust candidates IMO

 

[Diamond Joe Quimby]

Personally I'm pretty excited by the fact that all 3 of our options seem like they'll be NHL players. No real bust candidates IMO

This is true. I think many people are hoping for a franchise player at four, and thus the debate of whom available there has the best likelihood of being so.

 

[Stephen]

Unless that mystery box is a boat with more holes...

Oop

Ok, well let's skip the draft then.

 

[Reddaye]

He's listed Hanifin "first" when asked about picks 3 onward, or when offering that up knowing that it's McDavid and Eichel at 1 and 2 no matter what.

So basically you are agreeing with me, I think.

I wasn't saying it originally to disagree with you. Just that I thought I remembered him listing Hanifin first.

EDIT: Actually, in this quote following the draft lottery he does mention Hanifin first. Is this the particular discussion you're referencing?

So whether you've got, I think everyone knows who they are, Noah Hanifin, Dylan Strome, Lawson Crouse, Mitchell Marner, Pavel Zacha, Matthew Barzal, Ivan Provorov, it's focusing in on that group of players and more, and really start to break them down and become as certain as you possibly can about each one and select the one we think is best for the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Not that it really matters since I don't put much stock into who they list first.

 

[Judas Tavares]

Assuming Strome goes 3, my gut (as to who we will select) first goes to Hanifin right away, but then deep down I feel like it will be Marner. I guess it depends on the day. But I see it playing out like:

3. Strome
4. Marner

3. Hanifin
4. Marner

3. Marner
4. Strome

It's weird that my gut says Hanifin but in my situations we don't pick him. Maybe it is because I just have the feeling the Leafs brass want another forward and feel they can get defencemen late, or maybe that's just me!

 

[HarrisonFord]

This is true. I think many people are hoping for a franchise player at four, and thus the debate of whom available there has the best likelihood of being so.

For sure. For me at least, the potential upside goes Marner, Strome, Hanifin with the risk level going Marner, Strome, Hanifin

 

[egd27]

Ok, well let's skip the draft then.

This post is a good example of the dismissive attitude you were complaining about on the last page.

 

[Stephen]

Who has a dismissive attitude now?

If you're going to trust the draft process, you need to trade players for picks. To argue that process at this stage of the rebuild is pretty useless.

 

[BlueBaron]

Maybe the Leafs can hire some scouts to watch some players in the Jr. Leagues and maybe have a few over seas. Take away some of that mystery.

It's funny how not overrating draft picks gets completely turned it to they have no value. With the Cap era every team needs to have players they drafted on their roster to ensure cost certainty. Obviously you do everything in your power to make the most informed choice to have the highest chances of success.

What people need to wrap their heads around is players on all teams at any given time are not automatically worth less than draft picks. Also top prospects are not sure things, every draft we see examples of highly drafted players who don't make it. This is why a proven player tends to hold more value. People act/talk like everyone who is drafted in the top ten is a for sure point a game player which is just so not true. A team that needs a Kessel will most certainly trade any first rounder + for him (with the exception of generational talents) because they know what they are getting (more or less).

Yes Barzal and those guys are all sexy picks but they are worth less than proven first liners until they prove otherwise.

This does not mean a rebuilding team does not find picks and prospects more useful but this does not diminish the players value, it only gives hints to the types of assets that said team would want in a trade.

 

[egd27]

If you're going to trust the draft process, you need to trade players for picks. To argue that process at this stage of the rebuild is pretty useless.

I prefer looking at from the point of view that if you are going to rebuild a team, you need to extract equal or greater value from your existing assets if you choose to part with them.

Sometimes that can be done by trading players for draft picks, sometimes it can trading players for other players, or sometimes it means that it's best to hold onto the asset for the time being.

 

[ULF_55]

It's funny how not overrating draft picks gets completely turned it to they have no value. With the Cap era every team needs to have players they drafted on their roster to ensure cost certainty. Obviously you do everything in your power to make the most informed choice to have the highest chances of success.

What people need to wrap their heads around is players on all teams at any given time are not automatically worth less than draft picks. Also top prospects are not sure things, every draft we see examples of highly drafted players who don't make it. This is why a proven player tends to hold more value. People act/talk like everyone who is drafted in the top ten is a for sure point a game player which is just so not true. A team that needs a Kessel will most certainly trade any first rounder + for him (with the exception of generational talents) because they know what they are getting (more or less).

Yes Barzal and those guys are all sexy picks but they are worth less than proven first liners until they prove otherwise.

This does not mean a rebuilding team does not find picks and prospects more useful but this does not diminish the players value, it only gives hints to the types of assets that said team would want in a trade.

Doesn't it depend on the 1st. liners and picks involved?

There are about 90 first liners in the NHL, 'cuz someone has to be on the 1st. line, and I doubt every one of those 1st. liners is worth a top 10 pick!

But if you're saying a top 20 forward, which is very different than a 90th. forward.

 

[BlueBaron]

Doesn't it depend on the 1st. liners and picks involved?

There are about 90 first liners in the NHL, 'cuz someone has to be on the 1st. line, and I doubt every one of those 1st. liners is worth a top 10 pick!

But if you're saying a top 20 forward, which is very different than a 90th. forward.

I did not say every first liner is worth a top ten pick, I used a star like Kessel as an example for picks. But I would wager every first liner is worth a first at the deadline unless they have a god awful contract.

Obviously it is all very fluid and relative to the needs and situation of a given team but the basics of what I said stand.

 

[ULF_55]

I did not say every first liner is worth a top ten pick, I used a star like Kessel as an example for picks. But I would wager every first liner is worth a first at the deadline unless they have a god awful contract.

Obviously it is all very fluid and relative to the needs and situation of a given team but the basics of what I said stand.

There are many proven 1st. liners who are not a Kessel like player.

Yes Barzal and those guys are all sexy picks but they are worth less than proven first liners until they prove otherwise.

But certainly, Kessel is worth a top 10 pick, however I doubt he's worth a top 10 pick to every team that has one. He's a 100 foot player, just very good in those 100 feet. You don't win with 100 foot players, unless you have a great supporting cast rendering that player as a complimentary / support player.