Prospect Info: With the 29th pick in the 2019 NHL Draft, the Ducks select Brayden Tracey

[Hockey Duckie]

Is that really the player you want to pick at the end of the first round? Reasonable minds could disagree, but I want a player who is less of a project, or if I take a project, then with greater upside.

I was on record at the time as wanting Kaliyev. He'd look pretty good on Zegras' wing right now - as he did at the world junior championships. Meanwhile, Tracey is "still developing."

Kaliyev has the higher floor, but does he possess the higher ceiling? We don't know. Murray thought so.

They're nothing wrong with "still developing" at age 20. Tracey went from 0 pts in 12 AHL games to 31 pts in 55 AHL games and did lead the Gulls in scoring at one point this season until injuries surfaced. It's too early to be definitive on any prospects except Zegras.

 

[duckpuck]

Kaliyev has the higher floor, but does he possess the higher ceiling? We don't know. Murray thought so.

They're nothing wrong with "still developing" at age 20. Tracey went from 0 pts in 12 AHL games to 31 pts in 55 AHL games and did lead the Gulls in scoring at one point this season until injuries surfaced. It's too early to be definitive on any prospects except Zegras.

We have no idea what Murray thought. But I can tell you that well Kaliyev was certainly a flawed player who fell in the draft, his shot - which results in goals - is better than any skill Tracey will ever have. Time will tell - and I never suggested there was a "definitive" assessment. But in terms of draft philosophy, give me Kaliyev over Tracey every time, particularly when I'm drafting for an underskilled team that has trouble scoring goals.

Murray's draft philosophy is partly responsible for the ducks being where they are. Imagine what would have happened if Zegras didn't fall to the ducks, which was pure luck.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

We have no idea what Murray thought. But I can tell you that well Kaliyev was certainly a flawed player who fell in the draft, his shot - which results in goals - is better than any skill Tracey will ever have. Time will tell - and I never suggested there was a "definitive" assessment. But in terms of draft philosophy, give me Kaliyev over Tracey every time, particularly when I'm drafting for an underskilled team that has trouble scoring goals.

Murray's draft philosophy is partly responsible for the ducks being where they are. Imagine what would have happened if Zegras didn't fall to the ducks, which was pure luck.

I would probably take just about any draft philosophy over this one. Falling in love with a shot is, for my money, the worst mistake anyone can make in player evaluation. There are so many guys with great shots who can't score goals, which puts a big dent in your logic, and even worse so many of those guys who actually can score can't do anything else and shouldn't be in the league.

Kaliyev in particular actually went a long way in my eyes for proving some of the criticisms wrong, or at least showing signs they might be wrong, but if his offensive game is just his shot then he might never progress much from what he is now. Which is actually a big step up from some other guys with great shots but it's still not great.

 

[duckpuck]

I would probably take just about any draft philosophy over this one. Falling in love with a shot is, for my money, the worst mistake anyone can make in player evaluation. There are so many guys with great shots who can't score goals, which puts a big dent in your logic, and even worse so many of those guys who actually can score can't do anything else and shouldn't be in the league.

Kaliyev in particular actually went a long way in my eyes for proving some of the criticisms wrong, or at least showing signs they might be wrong, but if his offensive game is just his shot then he might never progress much from what he is now. Which is actually a big step up from some other guys with great shots but it's still not great.

I think we're talking past each other. For me, the definition of having a great shot is a shot that is scoring goals. If you're not scoring goals, it is not a great shot. Kaliyev has always scored goals. Skating and compete were an issue - but Tracey's game has lots of holes as well.

 

[Tactical Quack]

I see Tracey as a 15-15 guy but what do I know

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I think we're talking past each other. For me, the definition of having a great shot is a shot that is scoring goals. If you're not scoring goals, it is not a great shot. Kaliyev has always scored goals. Skating and compete were an issue - but Tracey's game has lots of holes as well.

I don't think so, I think you're just backtracking. You singled out his shot when you could've said goalscoring ability, you're clearly talking about his shot. And I'm saying that's a bad idea.

Either way, it doesn't change anything I said. A great shot is often enough at lower levels to score and it often isn't in the NHL. And even when it can be it often comes at the expense of everything else. If you give Daniel Sprong the right opportunity he might score 30 goals but he shouldn't even be in the NHL. Kaliyev should be better than that but he also might max out as a lower lineup player who can be a bit of a PP specialist. That's not even necessarily a bad thing and might be better than Tracey but that's also with the hindsight of Kaliyev having answered some of his critics.

The point above all is I think your line of thinking is incredibly flawed. I don't think isolating any one skill is a good idea and of all the skills to isolate IMO a player's shot is one of the worst.

 

[duckpuck]

a player's shot is

I would never say a person not scoring goals has a great shot. If you think that's back tracking, then whatever.

To the larger point, if you draft a guy who has no elite skills, then you're drafting a 3rd or 4th liner. I think you aim higher than that in the first round.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

I would never say a person not scoring goals has a great shot. If you think that's back tracking, then whatever.

To the larger point, if you draft a guy who has no elite skills, then you're drafting a 3rd or 4th liner. I think you aim higher than that in the first round.

Tracey probably had a lot of very good skills across the board, which makes him a two-way scorer (goal scoring and playmaking).

Here's a snippet about Tracey from AllAboutTheJersey:

Tracey was somewhat of a latecomer to the party. Many higher draft prospects, especially in terms of Canadian juniors, play two full seasons of major junior hockey before being drafted. This was not the case for Tracey. He had a full season for Moose Jaw this year, logging a solid 66 regular season games plus a couple of playoff games. Last season, however, he spent most of the year playing Midget AAA hockey, only jumping up to major junior to play 5 games for Moose Jaw.​

​

But if you think that would be a major detractor against this kid, think again. He absolutely dominated this year in the WHL, and given that league’s reputation for a tougher brand of hockey, that is saying something. Had he done that well for Moose Jaw for two years in a row, we would be talking a first round selection here, but as is, even with just one full season in the books for the Warriors, there is a chance you could see him go in the second round.​

​

Central Scouting makes it clear just how much Tracey has jumped with his strong year. He was ranked as the 73rd North American skater at the midterms, but is now at #21 for the final rankings! It makes sense given his strong year, but also his lack of experience heading into it.​

Because Tracey has only one year in the CHL, he's still an unknown quantity compared to other prospects with at least 2 seasons in the CHL to build a consistent report. Murray decided to take a chance on the longer term project in Tracey. It's no different than when Murray decided to draft Zellweger over Raty, where Zellweger was a fast riser too in the draft.

The point isn't how fast a prospect develops, but how he looks like at the end of that development. Case in point, Rakell:

People say “look at Rakell”, and ignore/forget that he had 4 NHL points in his first 3 seasons post-draft, was a sheltered 3rd/4th line center who couldn’t win a faceoff in his 4th season (8:57 TOI), got 20+ goals in his 5th season, then 30+ in his 6th.

Here's Rakell's EP page: link. He was drafted in 2011 and you can count how many years development it took.