2013 NHL Draft Thread III (6/30, 3PM EDT)

[Fro]

i keep seeing in this thread "no matter where we pick, we'll get a player" i don't want just a player...i want a legit piece that will get us to the next level...and I fully believe Jarmo will get us a top 5 pick...

 

[Cash for Nash]

i keep seeing in this thread "no matter where we pick, we'll get a player" i don't want just a player...i want a legit piece that will get us to the next level...and I fully believe Jarmo will get us a top 5 pick...

That's kinda how I feel. I just want one really great player drafted (top 4 selection)
Idiot proof player on the board and use the later round picks to find the diamonds in the rough.

And yes....we have Jarmo.....And yes....he's a great talent evaluator....And yes...this is the deepest draft since 2003....And yes Seabrook, Richards, and Getzlaf were taken with the picks we own. But we are still the CBJ until proven otherwise. I'd love to eliminate as much risk as possible to find a superstar.

 

[Fro]

agreed CFN

 

[IHeartZherdev*]

i keep seeing in this thread "no matter where we pick, we'll get a player" i don't want just a player...i want a legit piece that will get us to the next level...and I fully believe Jarmo will get us a top 5 pick...

A legit piece like Ryan Murray?

 

[Cash for Nash]

A legit piece like Ryan Murray?

If Ryan Murray pots 30 goals next year then yes.....

I found it interesting like right when Hitch was basically blaming his young homegrown guys inability to score when it counted. I was thinking....man these must have been Jarmo/Armstrong guys and those two have been highly regarded by the league as talent evaluators. Interesting.

 

[major major]

That's kinda how I feel. I just want one really great player drafted (top 4 selection)
Idiot proof player on the board and use the later round picks to find the diamonds in the rough.

And yes....we have Jarmo.....And yes....he's a great talent evaluator....And yes...this is the deepest draft since 2003....And yes Seabrook, Richards, and Getzlaf were taken with the picks we own. But we are still the CBJ until proven otherwise. I'd love to eliminate as much risk as possible to find a superstar.

I'm with you in wanting to move up, but for me it's less about risk and more about getting a superstar. Risk can run either way- it's much easier to miss with lower picks, but if you miss at the top, you gave up a lot to get there.

If this draft has, not the talent level, but the talent distribution of 2003, then moving up is a waste. But I don't see any indication that it will look like that. The common expectation from scouts is that the top 5 is all players with superstar upside and some with limited downside. Barkov is NHL ready, and will move into a top center position soon, Mackinnon similarly is can't miss, some but not all scouts say the same thing about Drouin, and Jones is obviously can't miss.

Below that is a mix of guys with limited upside, and some who are boom or bust. The talent runs deep into the draft, but I don't count on there being much superstar level talent available. In other words, even if this draft is as talented as 2003, it won't necessarily have the strangest characteristic of 2003- its distribution.

 

[Cash for Nash]

I'm with you in wanting to move up, but for me it's less about risk and more about getting a superstar. Risk can run either way- it's much easier to miss with lower picks, but if you miss at the top, you gave up a lot to get there.

If this draft has, not the talent level, but the talent distribution of 2003, then moving up is a waste. But I don't see any indication that it will look like that. The common expectation from scouts is that the top 5 is all players with superstar upside and some with limited downside. Barkov is NHL ready, and will move into a top center position soon, Mackinnon similarly is can't miss, some but not all scouts say the same thing about Drouin, and Jones is obviously can't miss.

Below that is a mix of guys with limited upside, and some who are boom or bust. The talent runs deep into the draft, but I don't count on there being much superstar level talent available. In other words, even if this draft is as talented as 2003, it won't necessarily have the strangest characteristic of 2003- its distribution.

Great points all around....Can't really argue any of them. Especially the distribution all over the first two round.

One interesting characteristic to me was how many booms there were regarding the NA players drafted (basically everyone) vs the busts (basically every Euro taken). Michalek was really the only exception for me. And he has had an injury riddled career at that.

Certainly a draft for ages, but even more so when looking at the Western Hemisphere. We just happened to look at the wrong side of the map when making our first couple of selections.

 

[major major]

Great points all around....Can't really argue any of them. Especially the distribution all over the first two round.

One interesting characteristic to me was how many booms there were regarding the NA players drafted (basically everyone) vs the busts (basically every Euro taken). Michalek was really the only exception for me. And he has had an injury riddled career at that.

Certainly a draft for ages, but even more so when looking at the Western Hemisphere. We just happened to look at the wrong side of the map when making our first couple of selections.

I've never noticed that before about the 2003 draft. Maybe that comes from different communities of scouts covering different areas?

 

[Sore Loser]

I feel just the opposite. Last year I wasn't very impressed at all with the top group, especially not the group after the top 3. The West-Van guys (Reinhart and Rielly) are guys I don't know if I'd want in the top 10 even. I would have been happier with a pair of mid-round picks instead of either one of those spoiled chumps. And this years draft, as deep as it is, has great elite talent all through the top 5. I think a lot of this disagreement must go back to the way I weight elite players. To my mind there is a very big spread in value between the elites and the average top 6 guys, and I'm confident in this.

Reinhart is what he is - a probable top-4 guy with limited offensive upside. Speaking more for Morgan Rielly, however, maybe you haven't seen him play enough? It's of my opinion that this is the only defenseman in the entire draft that can challenge Ryan Murray on upside.

 

[CBJx614]

Pavel Buchnevich (KHL) - LW

You guys know anything about this kid? This was on CBS & since I'd never even remotely heard of him(CBS has us taking him at 14) I figured I'd ask.

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/e...draft-lottery-mock-drafting-the-lottery-teams

Never heard of him, but apparently he's a "consistent 30 goal scorer" Meh, if he's not as good as nichushkin or kuztenov Idk f I wanna wait 2 or 3 years. But who knows we could get him in the 2nd or 3rd and him pull a datsyuk

 

[JacketsFanWest]

Pavel Buchnevich (KHL) - LW

You guys know anything about this kid? This was on CBS & since I'd never even remotely heard of him(CBS has us taking him at 14) I figured I'd ask.

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/e...draft-lottery-mock-drafting-the-lottery-teams

He did well at the U18 tournament, leading the Russians in scoring (over Nichushkin), and 2nd in scoring in the tournament to Connor McDavid.

He's a rather typical Russian player, similar to Filatov. Highly skilled, skates well, good playmaker, but needs work on his defensive game, and not physical. But he just turned 18 and still needs to fill out. (6'0, 161)

He'd be a long term project. He signed a 3 year KHL contract and he's the type of player that needs to spend that time developing in Russia.

He seems like a Red Wings type of draft pick.

There's a chance he stays in Russia for the money, but it might be worth the risk of a 3rd or 4th round pick if he does want to leave.

While with hockey, there's so much talk of Russians staying, but what doesn't get reported is that there is unprecedented emigration out of Russia. Estimates are over 1.25 million Russians have left between 2001-2011 (link). A lot of Russian who can get out, are getting out. Russian billionaires running KHL teams want to keep players there as a sign that things are getting better, but I wanted to point out there's far more complexity with Russians staying/going abroad.

So Russian players who signs a multi-year deal in the KHL could be a patriotic Russian wanting to play in the KHL over the NHL or they could want to make as much money as possible so they can get their whole family out of Russia.

 

[EspenK]

I'm with you in wanting to move up, but for me it's less about risk and more about getting a superstar. Risk can run either way- it's much easier to miss with lower picks, but if you miss at the top, you gave up a lot to get there.

If this draft has, not the talent level, but the talent distribution of 2003, then moving up is a waste. But I don't see any indication that it will look like that. The common expectation from scouts is that the top 5 is all players with superstar upside and some with limited downside. Barkov is NHL ready, and will move into a top center position soon, Mackinnon similarly is can't miss, some but not all scouts say the same thing about Drouin, and Jones is obviously can't miss.

Below that is a mix of guys with limited upside, and some who are boom or bust. The talent runs deep into the draft, but I don't count on there being much superstar level talent available. In other words, even if this draft is as talented as 2003, it won't necessarily have the strangest characteristic of 2003- its distribution.

While the above is well written, it also smacks of bs to me. How could you or anyone possibly know if the distribution is as deep as 2003? And for that matter did the "experts" know beforehand in 2003 that it would turn out like it did? I'm guessing not. Otherwise I'm pretty sure Shea Weber would have gone well before Dan Fritsche and Corey Perry wouldn't have lasted as long as he did.

 

[CBJx614]

He did well at the U18 tournament, leading the Russians in scoring (over Nichushkin), and 2nd in scoring in the tournament to Connor McDavid.

He's a rather typical Russian player, similar to Filatov. Highly skilled, skates well, good playmaker, but needs work on his defensive game, and not physical. But he just turned 18 and still needs to fill out. (6'0, 161)

He'd be a long term project. He signed a 3 year KHL contract and he's the type of player that needs to spend that time developing in Russia.

He seems like a Red Wings type of draft pick.

There's a chance he stays in Russia for the money, but it might be worth the risk of a 3rd or 4th round pick if he does want to leave.

While with hockey, there's so much talk of Russians staying, but what doesn't get reported is that there is unprecedented emigration out of Russia. Estimates are over 1.25 million Russians have left between 2001-2011 (link). A lot of Russian who can get out, are getting out. Russian billionaires running KHL teams want to keep players there as a sign that things are getting better, but I wanted to point out there's far more complexity with Russians staying/going abroad.

So Russian players who signs a multi-year deal in the KHL could be a patriotic Russian wanting to play in the KHL over the NHL or they could want to make as much money as possible so they can get their whole family out of Russia.

I'm with you in wanting to move up, but for me it's less about risk and more about getting a superstar. Risk can run either way- it's much easier to miss with lower picks, but if you miss at the top, you gave up a lot to get there.

If this draft has, not the talent level, but the talent distribution of 2003, then moving up is a waste. But I don't see any indication that it will look like that. The common expectation from scouts is that the top 5 is all players with superstar upside and some with limited downside. Barkov is NHL ready, and will move into a top center position soon, Mackinnon similarly is can't miss, some but not all scouts say the same thing about Drouin, and Jones is obviously can't miss.

Below that is a mix of guys with limited upside, and some who are boom or bust. The talent runs deep into the draft, but I don't count on there being much superstar level talent available. In other words, even if this draft is as talented as 2003, it won't necessarily have the strangest characteristic of 2003- its distribution.

While I agree with majority of what you said, it's entirely to early to say this draft isn't as deep. When I hear JD say the first round is going to be littered with A+ players, that gets me excited. I've also seen people saying this years 3rd Rd will be like a usual early mid to early 2nd, while the 2nd has the potential to be an extended first. I don't know if that's entirely true or not.

But no one truly knows. It's up to the players to prove themselves. Bobrovsky was a undrafted FA..and he's up for vezina nominations..now that's a lot less likely with a forward to outscore stamkos or Crosby but hey look at datsyuk. With hockeys growing popularity and skill level in America, the talent level for prospects should only rise and produce more elite competition throughout jrs and NCAA in the coming years

 

[EDM]

I am not looking for a superstar. I have had it with the whole "Nash's team" concept. I like the current concept of a constant swarm of 4 lines poking, harrassing and otherwise imposing their will on the other team. If I wanted to watch a sport based on superstars, I would watch the NBA. But as it is, I HATE THE NBA.

 

[OldGoaltender]

I am not looking for a superstar. I have had it with the whole "Nash's team" concept. I like the current concept of a constant swarm of 4 lines poking, harrassing and otherwise imposing their will on the other team. If I wanted to watch a sport based on superstars, I would watch the NBA. But as it is, I HATE THE NBA.

I couldn't agree more. I want talented team players, those who play like they don't believe they're entitled.

 

[Sore Loser]

I couldn't agree more. I want talented team players, those who play like they don't believe they're entitled.

Thirded.

People keep mentioning that the picks we own wound up as Seabrook, Richards, and Getzlaf .. but I think the thing that makes those guys great players is that, none of them are standout superstars - all are skilled guys who put the team first, regardless. Getzlaf being probably the most all-around gifted player, it still speaks more to me that he's a guy that plays in every situation for the Ducks, and works hard to be a leader for them.

The top 5 in 2003?

M-A Fleury, Eric Staal, Nathan Horton, Nikolai Zherdev, Tomas Vanek...

I would take the "team guys" ahead of at least three - likely four - of those players.

 

[major major]

While the above is well written, it also smacks of bs to me. How could you or anyone possibly know if the distribution is as deep as 2003? And for that matter did the "experts" know beforehand in 2003 that it would turn out like it did? I'm guessing not. Otherwise I'm pretty sure Shea Weber would have gone well before Dan Fritsche and Corey Perry wouldn't have lasted as long as he did.

You're right, I don't know and we don't know. My point is that, given how anomalous the distribution was in 2003, and that we don't have reason to believe that this draft will have that distribution, we should think it unlikely to look like 2003.

While I agree with majority of what you said, it's entirely to early to say this draft isn't as deep. When I hear JD say the first round is going to be littered with A+ players, that gets me excited. I've also seen people saying this years 3rd Rd will be like a usual early mid to early 2nd, while the 2nd has the potential to be an extended first. I don't know if that's entirely true or not.

But no one truly knows. It's up to the players to prove themselves. Bobrovsky was a undrafted FA..and he's up for vezina nominations..now that's a lot less likely with a forward to outscore stamkos or Crosby but hey look at datsyuk. With hockeys growing popularity and skill level in America, the talent level for prospects should only rise and produce more elite competition throughout jrs and NCAA in the coming years

I'm trying to separate the concept of depth from distribution. 2003 was very deep, and this draft likely will be deeper than usual as well. But 2003's distribution was really really odd. We won't have a good sense of this years distribution for years to come but we shouldn't expect it to look anything like 2003.

 

[major major]

Thirded.

People keep mentioning that the picks we own wound up as Seabrook, Richards, and Getzlaf .. but I think the thing that makes those guys great players is that, none of them are standout superstars - all are skilled guys who put the team first, regardless. Getzlaf being probably the most all-around gifted player, it still speaks more to me that he's a guy that plays in every situation for the Ducks, and works hard to be a leader for them.

The top 5 in 2003?

M-A Fleury, Eric Staal, Nathan Horton, Nikolai Zherdev, Tomas Vanek...

I would take the "team guys" ahead of at least three - likely four - of those players.

I think of Seabrook, Richards, and Getzlaf as bigger stars than all but Staal and maybe Vanek. And in what sense are Staal, Horton, and Vanek not team guys? I'm not liking this false dichotomy between "superstars" and "team players." I'm watching Crosby and Tavares duke it out now and they are great in both categories.

I also keep seeing folks running with the assumption that we're looking at a 2003 distribution in the upcoming draft. That's a bold assumption, to put it mildly.

 

[OldGoaltender]

The draft is at best a crap shoot. I prefer guys with high floors than high ceilings, the bust ratio is a lot better, probably why I like Ryan Murray more than a Yakapov. The egos are less diva or at least they're more concealed.

I'm not saying I don't like high end players, I think guys like Getzlaf have as much value as a Crosby.

 

[Sore Loser]

I think of Seabrook, Richards, and Getzlaf as bigger stars than all but Staal and maybe Vanek. And in what sense are Staal, Horton, and Vanek not team guys? I'm not liking this false dichotomy between "superstars" and "team players." I'm watching Crosby and Tavares duke it out now and they are great in both categories.

I also keep seeing folks running with the assumption that we're looking at a 2003 distribution in the upcoming draft. That's a bold assumption, to put it mildly.

You missed the point entirely ... I never said that any of those guys weren't team guys ... hence my "team guys" being stated the way it was. My point is that, in a good draft, you can find great guys at every level of it.

The discussion to trade into the top 5 is getting ridiculously old. It's gone on for an entire thread and a half, and it's completely moot, because the likelihood that it happens is incredibly thin. It's time to embrace the fact that we're going to end up making our first pick at #14, and accept the fact that it's going to be a guy like Pulock, Erne, Horvat, Mantha, etc ...

 

[King Sergei*]

I think we need more depth offense, that can score. We have good Defensive depth, but really need another young scorer besides Cam and Matty.

 

[EspenK]

I think of Seabrook, Richards, and Getzlaf as bigger stars than all but Staal and maybe Vanek. And in what sense are Staal, Horton, and Vanek not team guys? I'm not liking this false dichotomy between "superstars" and "team players." I'm watching Crosby and Tavares duke it out now and they are great in both categories.

I also keep seeing folks running with the assumption that we're looking at a 2003 distribution in the upcoming draft. That's a bold assumption, to put it mildly.

I agree that not all superstars are divas and are not team players. Who wouldn't want Crosby,Malkin,Stamkos,Ovechkin(maybe a few),Toews,Tavares,Seguin,St Louis, Zetterberg,Datsyuk.

Its the guys who think they are superstars but aren't like Zherdev, and Filatov who are guys you want to avoid.

And also guys like Thornton & Nash who while talented don't
have the heart to play hard every shift.

 

[OldGoaltender]

You missed the point entirely ... I never said that any of those guys weren't team guys ... hence my "team guys" being stated the way it was. My point is that, in a good draft, you can find great guys at every level of it.

The discussion to trade into the top 5 is getting ridiculously old. It's gone on for an entire thread and a half, and it's completely moot, because the likelihood that it happens is incredibly thin. It's time to embrace the fact that we're going to end up making our first pick at #14, and accept the fact that it's going to be a guy like Pulock, Erne, Horvat, Mantha, etc ...

I agree but I could see us moving up a few spots if they really like a certain player. Top five, I highly doubt but if a player like Barkov falls to 7 or 8 due to injury or if they really like a player like Hunter I could see us moving up a few spots.

 

[Fro]

i think believing that any draft could compare to 2003 is a misnomer...that was a crazy year that I don't think any year may ever meet/live up to...

 

[major major]

You missed the point entirely ... I never said that any of those guys weren't team guys ... hence my "team guys" being stated the way it was. My point is that, in a good draft, you can find great guys at every level of it.

The discussion to trade into the top 5 is getting ridiculously old. It's gone on for an entire thread and a half, and it's completely moot, because the likelihood that it happens is incredibly thin. It's time to embrace the fact that we're going to end up making our first pick at #14, and accept the fact that it's going to be a guy like Pulock, Erne, Horvat, Mantha, etc ...

Yeah we're probably not going to find a deal to move up, but the discussion is about whether its a good idea to move up. In any case, we've had a lot of these discussions for quite a while, and if you want to agree to disagree I'll agree to that.