2017 NHL Draft: Grant McCagg's Top 10 (Updated on-the-fly, not intermittently)

[TheGoldenJet]

Rasmussen isn't good.

McLeod is though.

 

[Marky9er]

I respect anyone who's out there seeing the players themselves. I think those guys see things that most of us miss, and they do an important, valuable job. I think Grant McCagg is one of those guys.

But, man: this list is wacky. And not just a little. If it ends up this way, I'd be happy to come back and eat my words someday. But, I mean... is it really going to turn out this way? I'm just not convinced. There's going off the board, and then there's buying an entirely new board.

Eh... There's the way the draft plays out and then there's the revisionist redraft of how it should have. If someone has the stones to try and make a prediction on that later list, all the power to them... and really that's all this is, players that you feel are too high merely come with a suggestion of value in regards to consensus. But yeah it looks to be over stated, who's hot right now stuff, but I like that with a grain of salt.

 

[Legionnaire11]

I don't care what you think of his rankings, just the fact that Mr. McCagg is here and willing to discuss these guys with us is pretty awesome.

As for the rankings, I'd say that you can't call any set particularly "bad" this year, this draft is so variable that anything could happen. There's a big handful of guys who could realistically go anywhere between 4th-20th or 15th-out of the 1st round.

 

[Grant McCagg]

For many draft followers this appears to sum up Vesalainen and Patrick from the feedback I've been getting - judge the Finn only on what he did versus men and 19-year-olds at the U20's this season...judge Patrick on what he did versus juniors only last season. Disregard what Vesalainen accomplished last year, disregard what Patrick did this season.

 

[Grant McCagg]

I respect anyone who's out there seeing the players themselves. I think those guys see things that most of us miss, and they do an important, valuable job. I think Grant McCagg is one of those guys.

But, man: this list is wacky. And not just a little. If it ends up this way, I'd be happy to come back and eat my words someday. But, I mean... is it really going to turn out this way? I'm just not convinced. There's going off the board, and then there's buying an entirely new board.

Feel free to tell me what's wacky...we'll revisit it after the draft and in five years. You did not provide one example of the supposed wackiness.

What's wacky is a lot of the lists you see from scouting services and such...trust me when I tell you that many NHL scouts think a lot of the public lists are way off..and that's what folks like you see..so when you see mine ..you think..."wow" this can't be right."

We'll see. With McKeen's I consistently got 24-27 out of 30 right in the first round...50-55 out of the top 60 right in the top two rounds. I've been hearing my lists are "wacky" for the past decade.but I know differently. Just because I don't put out the same list as ISS and such doesn't mean they're right and I'm wrong...my rankings are shaped with a LOT of NHL scouts' input...if anything is truly wacky..believe me. they let me know.

 

[Michael Brand Eggs]

Feel free to tell me what's wacky...we'll revisit it after the draft and in five years. You did not provide one example of the supposed wackiness.

What's wacky is a lot of the lists you see from scouting services and such...trust me when I tell you that many NHL scouts think a lot of the public lists are way off..and that's what folks like you see..so when you see mine ..you think..."wow" this can't be right."

We'll see. With McKeen's I consistently got 24-27 out of 30 right in the first round...50-55 out of the top 60 right in the top two rounds. I've been hearing my lists are "wacky" for the past decade.but I know differently. Just because I don't put out the same list as ISS and such doesn't mean they're right and I'm wrong...my rankings are shaped with a LOT of NHL scouts' input...if anything is truly wacky..believe me. they let me know.

Sure. Nolan Patrick 5th is wacky. If he falls, it strikes me as the same overanalysis we saw with Chychrun.

 

[boredmale]

Sure. Nolan Patrick 5th is wacky.

Thing is say of the 5 players, Patrick ends up the 3rd best, does that mean McCagg got it right or wrong listing him 5th?

 

[Michael Brand Eggs]

Although, actually, I think Rasmussen in the top 10 is worse. Yikes. I get that he's huge and excellent at scoring dirty goals, but I've come away really unimpressed with... well, literally everything else. Is this draft so bad that a third line center is 7th? And having him third a few months ago? That strikes me as bizarre. If we're to believe the first post here, Grant had him at or around #1 earlier in the year?

 

[Fogelhund]

Sure. Nolan Patrick 5th is wacky. If he falls, it strikes me as the same overanalysis we saw with Chychrun.

Does it though?

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/juniors/big-read-nolan-patricks-unconventional-road-nhl-draft/

2011/12 55% of games played, 45% missed due to injury
2012/13 33% of games played, 66% missed due to injury
2013/14 68% of games played, 32% missed due to injury
2014/15 76% of games played, 24% missed due to injury
2015/16 100% of games played
2016/17 46% of games played, 54% missed due to injury

This isn't over analysis of him as a player, it's what is coming down to be a trend. The guy misses significant time due to injury, almost every year. Half of his last six seasons, he's missed half a season. There comes a point in time when you have to concede, this is who he is, an injury prone guy.

How much does a guy who misses at least a quarter of a season, 5 of the last 6 years, and half the season, half the time, get discounted? I mean, he's a very good player, not elite... and he's likely going to miss a lot of time, and at some point, maybe even risking his career, and production dropping, due to injuries. He's a big risk from that perspective....

I doubt anyone would argue, that a fully healthy Patrick, who had production and play growth over last season, would be a consensus #1.... But missing half this season, with his history, and then not improving this year over last.... Now it brings into focus his injury history.

-----

Let's put it another way.... let's suppose Nolan projects the talent to be a good two way NHL center, 60 points a season.

Using his last six seasons injuries, his first six seasons see him produce (not in order), 60 points, TWO 45 point season, and THREE 30 point seasons. How much is a two way center, who averages 40 points a season worth? (Due to injury).

 

[Flair Hay]

Feel free to tell me what's wacky...we'll revisit it after the draft and in five years. You did not provide one example of the supposed wackiness.

What's wacky is a lot of the lists you see from scouting services and such...trust me when I tell you that many NHL scouts think a lot of the public lists are way off..and that's what folks like you see..so when you see mine ..you think..."wow" this can't be right."

We'll see. With McKeen's I consistently got 24-27 out of 30 right in the first round...50-55 out of the top 60 right in the top two rounds. I've been hearing my lists are "wacky" for the past decade.but I know differently. Just because I don't put out the same list as ISS and such doesn't mean they're right and I'm wrong...my rankings are shaped with a LOT of NHL scouts' input...if anything is truly wacky..believe me. they let me know.

I like it. Keep it coming.

 

[Willy Stylez]

Intresting list.

 

[Grant McCagg]

Although, actually, I think Rasmussen in the top 10 is worse. Yikes. I get that he's huge and excellent at scoring dirty goals, but I've come away really unimpressed with... well, literally everything else. Is this draft so bad that a third line center is 7th? And having him third a few months ago? That strikes me as bizarre. If we're to believe the first post here, Grant had him at or around #1 earlier in the year?

So you disagree with two of my rankings and that makes my list wacky. Never mind that every scout says the rankings from 3-to-13 are essentially interchangeable this year...one team will have a guy 3 that another has 13...you have things completely figured out while NHL scouts remain unsure. You think players should definitely be ranked in certain spots or it's wacky. You are not coming across as someone who is very experienced with the draft. I learned a long time ago not to severely chastise others rankings just because you may disagree..sometimes those "yikes" can end up coming back to haunt you.

Saying Rasmussen only has third line upside is what makes anyone in the know go yikes. So you are unimpressed that he's a 6-6 guy with good speed who at 17 was on pace for 45 goals before getting injured who plays the PP, pk, wins faceoffs, has a great release and is hard to play against. I'm guessing you didn't study him very closely. EVERY NHL scout I talk to thinks he's top ten..in fact at one point I had Mittelstadt ahead of him and one head scout strongly suggested that was wrong.

 

[DeepFrickinValue]

Like the fluidity. I rank guys different all the time. Different variables are more important to me different days. Examplwe, Playoffs have me hoping for larger dmen than prior to playoffs.

 

[Grant McCagg]

As mentioned before...I have experience in being called wacky for having a list different than the norm. In 2012 I was not sold on Yakupov..I saw character/compete issues as well as selfish play...I did not think he should be ranked number one despite EVERY draft list saying he was....I ended up ranking him third...I was not working with McKeens that year...they had Yakupov first like everyone else.

Last year loads of folks called me crazy for being the first scout to rank Laine first overall in February with McKeen's. How could I not agree with the consensus? By draft time that didn't seem as crazy..and today...I don't think anyone that looks at Matthews and Laine fairly cannot say that Laine could end up being even better. Maybe he doesn't end up having a better career..but he did things NEVER done by 18-year-olds in the history of the game..considering him the best player from last year's draft crop was not wacky at all. I said at draft time that he has the potential to be a 60-goal scorer some day..and still feel that way. I also think his playmaking, compete and defence are severely underrated..let's see how good he is at 23.

I was also severely chastised for liking McLeod more than Dubois..that was insane to some... "look at the regular season stats!" they said. Well.....I don't think today you can call me wacky for liking McLeod more...to me he looks like a better prospect..faster, better defensively, better at center, better on faceoffs, better on the pk, works harder..and has outproduced him by a fair margin this season.

So...just a word of warning when you take the time to use such terms to describe where I or anyone else ranks someone...these posts/comments can be revisited at a later date..they are here for posterity.

 

[Mathletic]

As mentioned before...I have experience in being called wacky for having a list different than the norm. In 2012 I was not sold on Yakupov..I saw character/compete issues as well as selfish play...I did not think he should be ranked number one despite EVERY draft list saying he was....I ended up ranking him third...I was not working with McKeens that year...they had Yakupov first like everyone else.

Last year loads of folks called me crazy for being the first scout to rank Laine first overall in February with McKeen's. How could I not agree with the consensus? By draft time that didn't seem as crazy..and today...I don't think anyone that looks at Matthews and Laine fairly cannot say that Laine could end up being even better. Maybe he doesn't end up having a better career..but he did things NEVER done by 18-year-olds in the history of the game..considering him the best player from last year's draft crop was not wacky at all. I said at draft time that he has the potential to be a 60-goal scorer some day..and still feel that way. I also think his playmaking, compete and defence are severely underrated..let's see how good he is at 23.

I was also severely chastised for liking McLeod more than Dubois..that was insane to some... "look at the regular season stats!" they said. Well.....I don't think today you can call me wacky for liking McLeod more...to me he looks like a better prospect..faster, better defensively, better at center, better on faceoffs, better on the pk, works harder..and has outproduced him by a fair margin this season.

So...just a word of warning when you take the time to use such terms to describe where I or anyone else ranks someone...these posts/comments can be revisited at a later date..they are here for posterity.

and you were called crazy for saying Fleury wasn't far off Ekblad and you were.

 

[604]

and you were called crazy for saying Fleury wasn't far off Ekblad and you were.

That's the thing, it's easy to throw stones but I'd rather hear what people who actually watch these kids play say rather than listing to guys reading lists and assuming there isn't huge variance between each team/scout.

Nobody is always right or always wrong and more analysis is good.

 

[JBM]

Feel free to tell me what's wacky...we'll revisit it after the draft and in five years. You did not provide one example of the supposed wackiness.

What's wacky is a lot of the lists you see from scouting services and such...trust me when I tell you that many NHL scouts think a lot of the public lists are way off..and that's what folks like you see..so when you see mine ..you think..."wow" this can't be right."

We'll see. With McKeen's I consistently got 24-27 out of 30 right in the first round...50-55 out of the top 60 right in the top two rounds. I've been hearing my lists are "wacky" for the past decade.but I know differently. Just because I don't put out the same list as ISS and such doesn't mean they're right and I'm wrong...my rankings are shaped with a LOT of NHL scouts' input...if anything is truly wacky..believe me. they let me know.

That's not what makes your rankings wacky, it's where you put those top 60 players in terms of order.

You could take Buttons top 60 and shuffle them up in a wacky order, and you'd still get 50-55 of the top 60 right. Invalid argument.

That being said, some of your rankings that many people might think are crazy are not so crazy. I don't disagree with everything you are saying and respect your branch of NHL resources that influence your opinion. I just can't get behind everything in your rankings, I just don't see it.

 

[Asiantuntija]

This guy has very large knowledge about hockey. He recognizes the prospects very well and knows what he is doing. As i look his messages, i feel like he has same kind of vision about hockey than me. Good job Grant hope you continue same way!

 

[CaptainScrewy]

Man i think your list is great, you're actually talking to scouts and seeing the players and forming an independent opinion. In all sports the rankings typically take the consensus list and maybe move players a couples spots here and there. It's boring and pretty much useless.


Thanks for the insights here!

 

[Grant McCagg]

LOL..really has to strain to come up with that one Mathletic. Fleury? People called me crazy for liking Fleury top ten like every other scout? McKeen's ranked Fleury tenth overall...he went 7th to Carolina..Bob McKenzie polled ten scouts and his mean average was 8th...so I'd say that's a poor example of my wackiness.

At one point in the season the thought among a lot of NHL scouts was that Fleury wasn't far off of Ekblad..and I'm sure I mentioned that during the year...but Ekblad had a great playoff and got back in scouts' good books.

Give it five years though...Ekblad's already being exposed defensively...the skating isn't elite by any means....and his stats have gone down all three seasons he's played..never a good sign. if you think he's a superstar..just add it to your many wrong assertions.

Fleury struggled offensively this season..not the first 21-year-old to need time..still a better skater than Ekblad will ever be...wouldn't surprise me if in a decade people look back and assess that Fleury is not far off of Ekblad..but you're Mathletic...look at the stats now and make grandiose conclusions based on paper well before it should even be judged.

If you'll notice I never said McLeod will be better than Dubois..way too early to say..but I think it's fair to note that thinking he'll be better isn't wacky as some said ...so saying it's wacky that NHL scouts and myself at one point thought Fleury may be close to Ekblad less than 3 years since they were drafted...is hasty and assumptive, to say the least. Much like the Hab fans that said the Habs were crazy to have picked Patch ahead of Perron three years after they were drafted because Perron had already produced in the NHL..or Duclair for the same reasons..I suggest you give it a minimum of five years..as always.

 

[1OApick]

Really like your list and often coming off with good explanations on uncommon opinions. Good work.

 

[Hockeyisl1fe]

What sets apart Vesalainen and Jason Robertson? I haven't seen Robertson play, but have heard he is somewhat similar of a player. You seem to rate Vesalainen really high.

 

[jnk96]

Man i think your list is great, you're actually talking to scouts and seeing the players and forming an independent opinion. In all sports the rankings typically take the consensus list and maybe move players a couples spots here and there. It's boring and pretty much useless.


Thanks for the insights here!

This is as far from reality as you'll get regarding how any of the NHL scouting services work.

 

[Michael Brand Eggs]

One thing I'm curious to talk about: why update your rankings so frequently?

Hear me out. I think how a player plays over a season is a reflection of a bunch of factors we can't see, and hockey ability is one of those factors. We can only measure it through what we can see: on-ice performance. So our goal in scouting is to estimate what that hidden level of hockey ability is, while bearing in mind that we get all kinds of random noise and other factors clouding up the performances we see on the ice. Example: sometimes good kids don't play well for non-hockey reasons. Maybe his girlfriend broke up with him, or whatever.

If we've got a player, and he's performing like this over 10 games: 6, 7, 8, 8, 6, 7, 7, 10, 6, 4, how do you rank that kid? His average is 6.9, and that should give us an idea of roughly what level of player he is right now. But if you see him at a 10, you can get the wrong idea, and the same if you see him at a 4.

My question is: does changing your rankings frequently help with this problem? Certainly if you see a guy once a season and he's at a 4, you only ever saw him at his worst, and you never get a good read on him. But what about if you saw him at a 7 and then saw him blow a couple of games in a row: like a 5. Do you update your rankings to reflect that? Or do you account that it might have just been the kind of inconsistency you'd see with a young player (i.e. that's just the variance you're going to see in this data)? What about if he's at a 10?

Or what about a player who's, say, a 7 average, but you saw him at an 8. How do you know that 8 is truly who he is, and not the 7? That 8 might end up statistically indistinguishable from the 7 average. (He might just be having a really great day.) Essentially, when you're updating these rankings, how do you know the change you saw in the player is a real one coming from how good he is at hockey, and not anything like puck luck or external factors?

 

[The Winter Soldier]

I respect his rankings. Like all draft rankings no 2 people are always going to be in complete agreement. But I do respect Mckagg for not being afraid to go against the norm, and rank players where he sees them best fit. If there is a reason he has a player high or low, it is usually a well thought out reason.