2016 Draft Talk II
- Thread starter Frk It
- Start date
- Status
Okay, some stat lines and opinions.
Provorov had 61 points (15 goals) in 60 games in WHL. 13 in 19 in playoffs. Got to play in WJC (u-20) (1 in 7). He was seen by some as the most NHL ready D in draft. He had an advantage of living in NA since 2011 so he didn't have to adapt.
Werenski had 25 points (9 goals) in 35 games in NCAA. Got to play in WJC (2 in 5). He was seen as a bit raw defensively but with a lot of potential. Some regarded him equal to Hanifin - the front-runner D in 2015.
Sergachev had 57 points (17 goals) in 67 games in OHL. 5 in 5 in playoffs. Missed WJC u-20, had a poor showing at WJC u-18 being one of only guys of proper age at the team. Probably has the best shot between all 4 compared defensemen at the draft; he is also probably the most defensively raw. He is a riser: he was seen as 3rd best Russian talent-wise at the start of the year - now he is challenging for 1st place (and definitely he'll be the 1st one taken in draft).
Fabbro has 67 points (14 goals) in 45 games in BCHL - I know nothing about BCHL. 8 in 11 in playoffs. Missed WJC u-20, had an excellent WJC u-18 (8 in 7). Probably second best defensively in this draft besides Juolevi (hard to compare to Chychrun for me).
SpookyTsuki
Registered User
- Dec 3, 2014
- 15,919
- 675
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,865
- 15,741
We have our future #1C, IMO, and it's not that hard to find a 2C.
Hawks won a Cup with Handzus as their 2C, and we won one with Filppula as 2C.
We need to fix the defense. Though not opposed to a center in round 1 or 2, as long as the other pick is a defenseman.
RD 1 center: Kunin or Rubtsov
RD 2 center: Steel, Morrison, Kyrou, Gregor
Borgstrom is interesting, too.
I don't buy it. At some point, you actually have to admit that there are massive, gaping holes in your system, and then try to address them. I'm not saying that we should take the 100th best D over the 10th best C, but if the small, skilled winger is only slightly higher on your board than the next best D, we should be taking the D.
Hawks #2 C was Sharp.
I don't disagree with you on needing defense, but drafting all defenseman if better players are available is short-sighted.
Remember also we need defense now, and any pick outside of Chychrun, Juolevi, and Segachev will take 3-5 years to make it to the NHL
Michael Brand Eggs
Knee Guard
They should have taken that into account 3-5 years ago. But they didn't, so the next best solution is to bring the defense online by drafting it now. Otherwise you just push the problem back, and that's another year the Wings don't have any defensemen.
Besides, the Wings are way better at C than D, both in terms of NHL talent and prospect pool depth.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,865
- 15,741
Already pointed out several defenseman picked outside of top 10-12 the last few years that made the league in less time than 3-5 years. Ceci, Mueller, Theodore, Maatta, Klefbom.
Not really a great reason to deter from drafting them. Even if true, 4-6 years is worse than 3-5. So is 5-7. Every year we put it off, we are just tacking on.
There's more forwards drafted than D every year, by a good gap. If you truly just go BPA no matter what without compromising at all you can go 15 years without drafting any defenseman worth a damn like we have. Or almost draft a guy like Samsonov in the 1st when you have Mrazek. I think you should factor in a few different things, ideally.
Last edited:
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,865
- 15,741
Right, it's like never starting a retirement fund because you didn't when you first got hired.
Pretty sure Sharp was moved to wing at that point.
I think Sharp was only the 2C for the 1st Cup win.
Would love Fabrro, Allard and Greenway seems to have good genes. No idea on Sambrook but love the idea of defenseman throughout the first 5.
Terrible idea. That's two extremes combined: "Always" and "BPA," but also implicit in that statement is that there is a BPA and that your valuation is accurate. Yikes.
BPA is a great strategy when you've got a diversity of prospects, there is a vast difference in talent where you're drafting, or you're drafting high in the lottery, but I think its something of an outdated model. The argument for it is always "yeah, but then you can trade one of your X for a Y." That's a weak argument in a world where prospects rarely get traded for other prospects and trades in general are less common. And when they do happen, they're highly calculated with things like roster spots, concussion history and cap space taken into account. More often than not, you get stuck with your chosen ones. Then the ones that pan out you don't want to trade while the ones that might've panned out had they not been relegated are worth little.
We've already lost Nestrasil and Janmark for peanuts (and Jarnkrok, who probably would've debuted as a winger here). We're poised to lose some combination or all of Frk, Jurco, and Pulkkinen, who were basically regarded in the same light as Janmark and Jarnkrok - guys who had little value until they landed in an organization who could afford them the opportunity to play with talent because the organization wasn't already flooded with young top nine wingers.
TL; DR: BPA sucks when you have a ridiculously unbalanced youth presence at certain positions.
1) If you actually look at recent trades, they've almost all been prospects
2) The number of trades since the salary cap has increased
3) I don't always agree with Holland, but his philosophy on drafting is what has made Detroit one of the best draft teams in the last decade
Michael Brand Eggs
Knee Guard
(1) But they weren't prospect for prospect, or even prospect for good NHL asset. They were just dumps. If we want to truly draft BPA, we have to move assets from areas of strength in order to address areas of weakness. This team hasn't done that at all. If this is a league where teams stockpile wingers in order to trade for defensemen, I haven't seen that anywhere else, either.
(2) That's not particularly relevant to the point at hand, IMO. We don't see many of these promising prospect for promising prospect swaps, nor do we see high end prospects being traded much at all. So the trading required for this kind of 1st round BPA drafting doesn't seem to be happening.
(3) But it also may not be that the Wings draft BPA the way you think. Part of that is the fact that BPA is really, really vague. It essentially comes down to: what do you mean by 'best?' I think the Wings draft the kid they think meets their criteria across a number of categories: raw upside, position, organizational fit, character, pedigree/background, and so on. A kid would have to be spectacularly talented for them to ignore deficiencies in all the other stuff, I think. Now if they've got a winger, which they don't need, but he's got more upside than the others, maybe they take him. But maybe they trade down instead, because the value of that particular player isn't that high to their organization.
Last edited:
Michael Brand Eggs
Knee Guard
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,865
- 15,741
That top 10 is downright insanity.
Obvious insanity. They dont agree with the collective consensus all the other people who have barely watched the prospects have created.
SpookyTsuki
Registered User
- Dec 3, 2014
- 15,919
- 675
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,865
- 15,741
I like different opinions. Just seems very off the map.
I don't like Niemelainen or Stanley, so that kind of makes it hard to look at for me. I'd have Dineen and Girard in there over those guys. I hope Boston takes Stanley thinking he's the next Chara
I could see some team really liking Bean though.
Also don't really get the knock on McAvoy for pinching, all good offensive D in the league pinch a ton. If that's what he wants to be, that's what he'll have to do. They didn't knock Bean for it, yet Bean is probably even more of an average skater and he is a gambler himself.
gretskidoo
Registered User
- Nov 26, 2011
- 4,794
- 395
GoAwayDanCleary
DRWCC
- Aug 6, 2012
- 10,752
- 5
I don't know how you could say Fabbro lacks a good shot from he point... his highlight reel is basically point shots. He seems to be really good at getting he puck through. One of the best attributes you can ask out of a defenseman in the ozone.
HisNoodliness
Good things come to those who wait
I think it's more that he doesn't have a cannon slap shot, but honestly one of my favorite things about him is that his shots don't seem to get blocked or go wide at all. Which is huge in today's NHL.
That being said he's playing against the lowest competition so one has to worry that when up against better systems he'll struggle to get his shots through, but I really like him and think he'll continue to have a very effective shot from the point despite not possessing a Shea Weber cannon. He's my favorite of the D we can reasonably expect to be available when we pick.
- Status
