12'/13' Draft Thread: Offensive flash is a beauty but defensive presence rules.

[mirasane]

I went back at the last 20 drafts to Selanne, and you may be surprised how many Finns didn't pan out in the first rd. Saku Koivu is probably one of the better Finns along with Selanne drafted in the first rd, but anyone recall a Hannu Toivonen or Jesse Niinimaki just to name 2 of many?

Finnish 1st round picks since 2000
2012: Teuvo Teravainen, Olli Maatta
2011: Joel Armia
2010: Mikael Granlund
2009: -
2008: -
2007: -
2006: Riku Helenius (G)
2005: Tuukka Rask (G)
2004: Lauri Tukonen, Petteri Nokelainen, Lauri Korpikoski
2003: -
2002: Kari Lehtonen (G), Joni Pitkänen, Jesse Niinimaki, Sean Bergenheim, Hannu Toivonen (G)
2001: Mikko Koivu, Tuomo Ruutu
2000: -

It is too soon to say if players from 3 recent drafts are busts or not but when looking at rest of the list I'd say Finns have pretty nice success percentage. Sure, Toivonen and Niinimaki sucked but out of the rest most have become solid NHL performers.

 

[mirasane]

I don't mind cockiness as long as an athlete can back it up, really if you look at Jokenin's 17 year old stats, they are uncannily similar to Barkov's when you project Barkov's to a full season. Both are similar in size and stature, and both came from SM Liiga with heady promise of a hockey prodigy. Heck they even might go 3rd overall in the NHL entry draft. Very similar paths.

But cockiness becomes problem when you move to North America and are surrounded by players who are as talented as you. I think that is one of reasons why Jokinen struggled so much during his first 4(!!!) seasons in the NHL. He thought he was bigger star than what he actually was and that is never a good thing if you want to be efficient part of the team.

 

[ErnieLeafs]

Why is Barkov considered a "boom" pick, but none of the other kids are?

This place is ridiculous. He displays a level of skill, smarts, and size hardly rivaled, yet he's a toss-up. The local bias on this board is a joke. Yes, let's pick an inferior player because he's a hometown boy. Does anyone else see how stupid that sounds?

Jokinen wasn't as good as Barkov at that age, he's ahead of Granlund at his age, yet, he's a question mark?

An for the record, Interactif, why don't you show me how many busts or failed potentials came out of those drafts? I bet there are AT LEAST 3 times as many. Drafting is an in-exact science. We go by what we see and can quantify, at this point, and also on projection. You would be hard pressed to find ANYONE putting Monahan above Barkov for ANY of that. Why? Because right now, and projection for the future, based on tangible and intangible factors, Monahan isn't on the same planet as Barkov. If Barkov pans out, he could be an absolute superstar.

You can ignore the post full of scouts' opinions, and even scouts you respect (like Button), but you cannot ignore reality.

Last year, you hung your hat on a guy, and the two guys you knocked down all year? They're enjoying wonderfully successful campaigns, despite the fact that one couldn't produce without his linemate (how's that working out?), and the other was lazy, and lacked effort (also not working in your favour).

Ease up on the "prospect A vs. prospect B" angle. It hasn't served you well. Cheer for all of these kids. I hope they all make it, all pan out, and do well for their clubs. They work hard and deserve success.

 

[ULF_55]

The law of averages, suggests there are certain leagues that are better for developing prospects than others. There are always exceptions to the rule, but you want the odds in your favour. There is more risk drafting a SM Liiga player than a CJHL prospect.

I went back at the last 20 drafts to Selanne, and you may be surprised how many Finns didn't pan out in the first rd. Saku Koivu is probably one of the better Finns along with Selanne drafted in the first rd, but anyone recall a Hannu Toivonen or Jesse Niinimaki just to name 2 of many?

Are you talking about stars or just players who play in the top league in some country.

I agree with you the odds of getting a NHL player from the North America is probably greater because they are staying home.

Unless they are a star they'll likely star at home, whether that is NHL, SM-liiga, KHL, ... so yes non-stars will likely pan out more often in their own location.

Lots of North American picks in the first round make the NHL without being a 1st. liner, makes sense that's their home.

Certainly, if you aren't looking for the top talent you can safely stay provincial in your approach to drafting.

Sometimes you want the home-run, but sometimes you go for the single.

 

[Bernier the Boats]

These kids sure are hard to rank in the top 6. As long as MacKinnon and Jones are 1/2 I can pretty much justify any ordering of them.

 

[DD03]

Finnish 1st round picks since 2000
2012: Teuvo Teravainen, Olli Maatta
2011: Joel Armia
2010: Mikael Granlund
2009: -
2008: -
2007: -
2006: Riku Helenius (G)
2005: Tuukka Rask (G)
2004: Lauri Tukonen, Petteri Nokelainen, Lauri Korpikoski
2003: -
2002: Kari Lehtonen (G), Joni Pitkänen, Jesse Niinimaki, Sean Bergenheim, Hannu Toivonen (G)
2001: Mikko Koivu, Tuomo Ruutu
2000: -

It is too soon to say if players from 3 recent drafts are busts or not but when looking at rest of the list I'd say Finns have pretty nice success percentage. Sure, Toivonen and Niinimaki sucked but out of the rest most have become solid NHL performers.

And expect more to be on the way. Finns have produced their fair share of good goaltenders too in the NHL. They are slowly becoming a pretty good producer of hockey players.

 

[ErnieLeafs]

This Finnish team has a chance to play for gold at the WJC's. speaks to the development of their youth system. I, for one, cheer for Finland and Canada, Internationally. I've always had a soft spot for the Finns. I bought a National team jersey last year and all.

I like the way Finns play the game.

 

[leugangen]

This Finnish team has a chance to play for gold at the WJC's. speaks to the development of their youth system. I, for one, cheer for Finland and Canada, Internationally. I've always had a soft spot for the Finns. I bought a National team jersey last year and all.

I like the way Finns play the game.

I have a soft spot for them as well. Finland is very close to being a major hockey power, and they always seem to have a good mix of skill and grit.

 

[Epictetus]

Classic deflection technique. And then he follows it up with "I'm done here, I'm going to leave". We can see where he's coming from haha

This is one of your first posts where your thoughts were actually conveyed clearly for one of your interlocutors to grasp. Well done, even if you still struggle with putting words in other people's mouth (i.e., using direct quotations to say "I'm going to leave", which was never once said by me and is contradictory because I am still here!)

However, it's completely meaningless since you did not read why I was not responding to you.

So, to summarize [again]:

1) You do not take someone's argument, misinterpret it completely, and then expect an adequate response. This doesn't happen in academia, nor an internet message board.

2) Posting things such as: "Because you say so"; "great logic on this number" (clear ad hominem attacks), and: "since no one is ranked higher than MacKinnon, their potential must not be high and therefore don't deserve to be higher than Jones"; "he's ranked as 2nd by scouts. Therefore at therefore that must be his final draft ranking" (clear strawman arguments) are not worthy of a response from anyone.

3) The content that you posted, does not refute the Leafs taking Jones 2nd overall, if they have that draft pick (this was the discussion in the first place). To actually refute it, you would have to critique Jones's game and say why another player is better, which no poster has done. You've simply stated that the Leafs could take Barkov. That's fair, however, I have already stated why I think that is wrong (you've then failed to grasp the reasoning why).

4) There was a thread discussing this very same question, and so I assumed that was the more appropriate place for it, since this thread is titled "Draft thread" and concerns all prospects, not just Seth Jones. Some people probably do not care for a draft thread discussing only Seth Jones, when there is a thread devoted to it.

It's not an objective BPA, it's a strong consensus of subjective BPA, from pretty much any scout that doesn't live in a cave.

So in other words, it is an objective BPA. You just defined this using majority appeal, which consists in the form of the definition of objective.

There are certain players that winning does follow them around where ever they play, Messier, Neidermayer, Roy, Toews, Mike Richards, Tom Brady, Favre, Manning, it's not irrational. The better players you have in a postion of importance on a team the better the team is.

Good players tend to win, since good players outperform bad players.

Good players make their team better (i.e., superior rather inferior), which helps the team defeat other teams.

Therefore, good players tend to be players who are important to their team winning.

If you are a good hockey player, you have more chances to impact a game, and thus be on a winning team. Their talent and skill is what makes them good hockey players that win, not some magical formula or clutch gene that creates championships that follow a particular players around, like you are suggesting.

You go across sports, and you will find the same thing. The players with the most talent and skill, for the most part, win.

This is not rocket science.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

This Finnish team has a chance to play for gold at the WJC's. speaks to the development of their youth system. I, for one, cheer for Finland and Canada, Internationally. I've always had a soft spot for the Finns. I bought a National team jersey last year and all.

I like the way Finns play the game.

I will make a friendly bet with you that the Finns will not be playing for Gold a few weeks from now. Think there are a few better teams than them this tournament. Are we on?

 

[ErnieLeafs]

I will make a friendly bet with you that the Finns will not be playing for Gold a few weeks from now. Think there are a few better teams than them this tournament. Are we on?

I'm not sure they WILL, but they have the talent and chemistry to do some damage, and get in a position to be there.

Russia/Sweden/Canada/US/Fin all have solid squads, and the Czechs aren't bad either. Should be a good show

 

[deprw]

Finnish 1st round picks since 2000
2012: Teuvo Teravainen, Olli Maatta
2011: Joel Armia
2010: Mikael Granlund
2009: -
2008: -
2007: -
2006: Riku Helenius (G)
2005: Tuukka Rask (G)
2004: Lauri Tukonen, Petteri Nokelainen, Lauri Korpikoski
2003: -
2002: Kari Lehtonen (G), Joni Pitkänen, Jesse Niinimaki, Sean Bergenheim, Hannu Toivonen (G)
2001: Mikko Koivu, Tuomo Ruutu
2000: -

It is too soon to say if players from 3 recent drafts are busts or not but when looking at rest of the list I'd say Finns have pretty nice success percentage. Sure, Toivonen and Niinimaki sucked but out of the rest most have become solid NHL performers.

When you look this and think about Barkov or any other Finn draftable this year. The most important thing you can learn from this is that most of the busts didn't play in FEL when they were drafted. Mikko Koivu, Tuomo Ruutu, Joni Pitkanen and Kari Lehtonen were all playing in FEL by the time they were drafted. In the impact roles, maybe despite Koivu but he had growth boost later age and it slowed down his deveploment. When he was junior he was small and skilled like Saku. Then he got lot bigger in one summer.

Same story goes with Armia, Granlund and Teravainen. All impact players in FEL at younger age. Then if you look those busted players like Tukonen, Niinimaki and Helenius. All were drafted because of their junior games or talent not because of their success against senior players. Actually same goes with Korpikoski, but he panned out.

Now if we talk about Barkov his been dominant in FEL for two seasons. His been all ready better than Granlund in same age. He has size, skill, plays all 3 zones and as center in the age of 17. FEL is mens league and it has been traditionally tough for young players. Only most talented ones have succeeded there. All top prospects from Finland this year play in FEL, other notables Ristolainen and Lehkonen.

If we talk about WJC biggest question mark is goaltending, but despite that Finland has all the tools for success. Though against Canada or Russia we need top notch goaltending from Korpisalo or Laurikainen.

 

[Warden of the North]

Im starting to get so pessimistic about the lockout that im worried we might not have a 2013 draft

 

[Leaf Rocket]

Im starting to get so pessimistic about the lockout that im worried we might not have a 2013 draft

Im not that pessimistic tbh. I think we'll see a draft

 

[The Magic Man]

Im starting to get so pessimistic about the lockout that im worried we might not have a 2013 draft

Im not that pessimistic tbh. I think we'll see a draft

I still think we'll see a season.



ya, ya, I know....

 

[Dangles McGavin]

Is Drouin really 5'11 ~175 pounds?

Not sure I buy that. He looks really really small. I guess 175 pounds isn't huge for that height, but man he looks so small.

 

[Badger Mayhew*]

Is there a website where I can find NHL comparables for each of the prospects? Example: Barkov-Sundin, Jones-Pronger, etc.

Some more detail would be nice too (example, so-and-so is a great playmaker, but isn't very physical).

 

[7even]

2) Posting things such as: "Because you say so"; "great logic on this number" (clear ad hominem attacks), and: "since no one is ranked higher than MacKinnon, their potential must not be high and therefore don't deserve to be higher than Jones"; "he's ranked as 2nd by scouts. Therefore at therefore that must be his final draft ranking" (clear strawman arguments) are not worthy of a response from anyone.

"Great logic" isn't an ad hominen at all. It's just about the exact opposite of an ad hominen. It's attacking your logic, which is your argument, not your person. An ad hominen would be "great logic and also you're stupid," which isn't what was said.

 

[Epictetus]

"Great logic" isn't an ad hominen at all. It's just about the exact opposite of an ad hominen. It's attacking your logic, which is your argument, not your person. An ad hominen would be "great logic and also you're stupid," which isn't what was said.

EDIT: I meant to connect "great logic on this number" and "because you say so". They were not meant to be independent. Together, however, it is an ad hominem.

 

[showtime8]

Is there a website where I can find NHL comparables for each of the prospects? Example: Barkov-Sundin, Jones-Pronger, etc.

Some more detail would be nice too (example, so-and-so is a great playmaker, but isn't very physical).

I think the best you can get is to read scouting reports from thescoutingreport.org, isshockey.com, hockeyprospect.com, etc.

 

[theIceWookie]

EDIT: I meant to connect "great logic on this number" and "because you say so". They were not meant to be independent. Together, however, it is an ad hominem.

That's still deconstructing only your logic not you.that post conveyed that type of logic (or lack there of) and I called it into question. Not ad hominem

 

[theIceWookie]

This is one of your first posts where your thoughts were actually conveyed clearly for one of your interlocutors to grasp. Well done, even if you still struggle with putting words in other people's mouth (i.e., using direct quotations to say "I'm going to leave", which was never once said by me and is contradictory because I am still here!)

However, it's completely meaningless since you did not read why I was not responding to you.

So, to summarize [again]:

1) You do not take someone's argument, misinterpret it completely, and then expect an adequate response. This doesn't happen in academia, nor an internet message board.

2) Posting things such as: "Because you say so"; "great logic on this number" (clear ad hominem attacks), and: "since no one is ranked higher than MacKinnon, their potential must not be high and therefore don't deserve to be higher than Jones"; "he's ranked as 2nd by scouts. Therefore at therefore that must be his final draft ranking" (clear strawman arguments) are not worthy of a response from anyone.

3) The content that you posted, does not refute the Leafs taking Jones 2nd overall, if they have that draft pick (this was the discussion in the first place). To actually refute it, you would have to critique Jones's game and say why another player is better, which no poster has done. You've simply stated that the Leafs could take Barkov. That's fair, however, I have already stated why I think that is wrong (you've then failed to grasp the reasoning why).

4) There was a thread discussing this very same question, and so I assumed that was the more appropriate place for it, since this thread is titled "Draft thread" and concerns all prospects, not just Seth Jones. Some people probably do not care for a draft thread discussing only Seth Jones, when there is a thread devoted to it.



So in other words, it is an objective BPA. You just defined this using majority appeal, which consists in the form of the definition of objective.



Good players tend to win, since good players outperform bad players.

Good players make their team better (i.e., superior rather inferior), which helps the team defeat other teams.

Therefore, good players tend to be players who are important to their team winning.

If you are a good hockey player, you have more chances to impact a game, and thus be on a winning team. Their talent and skill is what makes them good hockey players that win, not some magical formula or clutch gene that creates championships that follow a particular players around, like you are suggesting.

You go across sports, and you will find the same thing. The players with the most talent and skill, for the most part, win.

This is not rocket science.

2) I simply pointed out the logic you use.

3)I didn't attend to refute the idea that homes was yet BPA, just the idea that it wasn't as set in stone as you said. I actually refuted your lack or argument by providing evidence why it wasn't as set in stone. Your post was written with a tone of arrogance saying that anyone who suggested barkov was BPA was essentially am idiot.I refuted it quite easily.

 

[theIceWookie]

I don't know either, you leave that up to the scouts and Burke. But if I were a GM and I had a top 4 pick, you bet I want to be sure Barkov is sure to be as good or better than Jones, Mackinnon, Monahan and I will include Drouin. There is a comfort level knowing what you have in these kids to a boom pick like Barkov is, remember Zherdev in the 03 draft, Filatov in the 08 draft, yes these guys are Russians, but they all had the unknown factor to them to. Filatov was a can't miss by scouts that even to this day wonder why he never caught on, they all missed on him.

Barkov isn't a boom pick anymore than monohan is. In fact hes likely one of the safest picks in this draft. I honestly think you are just being contrarian for the point of being contrarian.

1) you have a double standard sometimes. Last year you were going on and in about how scouts dropping grigorenko was indicative of his attitude etc and we should listen to them. Now your going against virtually every single scout who have near unanimously ranked barkov over monohan, most by more than a few sports and yet your saying they are equal. Your virtually ignoring every scouting quote I listed in fact attempting to somehow say hes bust likely

2) were discussing jokinen as a bust. This is beyond illogical. Only hossa has more points than him in the draft year ( not counting marleau and Thornton who went before him) and jokinen is still a pretty good player now. Really only hossa and luongo were players picked behind him worth mentioning. He led the panthers in scoring for 5 straight years, was 2nd on the coyotes even after being traded and not playing 25 games with them, and was second on the flames last year. With almost no help. Hardly a bust. And this doesn't consider he was drafted in a different time which changes things drastically.

3) he never had barkovs defensive game. He didnt and still doesn't have barkovs puck skills and was drafted in a time when you didn't need to have amazing all around game to be considered a top 5 pick. He also just doesn't hold a candle to barkovs hockey sense

4) jokinens 17 year old season was actually only a couple months long, as he played the remainder as an 18 year old. He also had 14 goals but in 18 more games. Barkov will play the entire year as a 17 year old and is considered the teams best player. He plays in all situations, not just offensively.

5) they are really only similar in size and nationality. Not much else.

 

[ErnieLeafs]

Barkov isn't a boom pick anymore than monohan is. In fact hes likely one of the safest picks in this draft. I honestly think you are just being contrarian for the point of being contrarian.

1) you have a double standard sometimes. Last year you were going on and in about how scouts dropping grigorenko was indicative of his attitude etc and we should listen to them. Now your going against virtually every single scout who have near unanimously ranked barkov over monohan, most by more than a few sports and yet your saying they are equal. Your virtually ignoring every scouting quote I listed in fact attempting to somehow say hes bust likely

2) were discussing jokinen as a bust. This is beyond illogical. Only hossa has more points than him in the draft year ( not counting marleau and Thornton who went before him) and jokinen is still a pretty good player now. Really only hossa and luongo were players picked behind him worth mentioning. He led the panthers in scoring for 5 straight years, was 2nd on the coyotes even after being traded and not playing 25 games with them, and was second on the flames last year. With almost no help. Hardly a bust. And this doesn't consider he was drafted in a different time which changes things drastically.

3) he never had barkovs defensive game. He didnt and still doesn't have barkovs puck skills and was drafted in a time when you didn't need to have amazing all around game to be considered a top 5 pick. He also just doesn't hold a candle to barkovs hockey sense

4) jokinens 17 year old season was actually only a couple months long, as he played the remainder as an 18 year old. He also had 14 goals but in 18 more games. Barkov will play the entire year as a 17 year old and is considered the teams best player. He plays in all situations, not just offensively.

5) they are really only similar in size and nationality. Not much else.

Par for the course, really

 

[kamosko]

The more I see of Seth Jones the more I want him