Prospect Info: 2017 NHL Draft / Pick #7 - Lias Andersson (C)

[NYR Viper]

1. He was. According to every single ranking that I've seen.
2. See 1.
3. This is probably more speculation than fact, but I think the story of what actually happened serves my point better than the counter-point. I'd imagine you could feel the same way. Also, let's cut it out with this 18 year old stuff. He's been 19 since October.
4. He wasn't to start the season, that was very obvious. And he still probably isn't now.
5. Did you look at the names of the centers that they brought in to camp? Do you see the center-depth on this team right now? Did the Rangers use their 7OA on a 'safe', older, center? Do the math? Maybe I'm reading between lines that aren't there, but I'm not willfully ignoring them, either.

1) Those rankings are often inaccurate
2) See 1
3) Why does it seem like you are holding it against him that he wasn't ready for the NHL?
4) So now it isn't clear?
5) How do you know if Gorton was trying to make a deal for another player? How do you know if the organization just decided to go in with what they had, see if any of the young players were ready, and use this as a retooling year in lieu of going out and handing out a long term contract to one of the UFA centers? Why is it assumed that the organization assumed he was ready?

 

[silverfish]

Never mind.

 

[pld459666]

Meh. When it comes to LA and how people on this board 'treat him', I'm cautious.

It seems that no one is actually "rational" when it comes to LA. Either you defend him incessantly, or you hate him. Already quite a polarizing figure.

Not a big fan of what he did at the WJC's, but that, IMHO, is a maturity thing that can and usually is grown out of.

That said, until I can see what he can do on an NHL sheet of ice for a year or two, my opinion of him as a player is yet to be determined.

 

[ManUtdTobbe]

I think Lias was a bit of a reach, but not as big of a reach as some make it out to be.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I think Lias was a bit of a reach, but not as big of a reach as some make it out to be.

What is considered a reach? His ranking was between 8 and 15. Is that really a reach at 7? If Pettersson was first overall, would he have been a reach as well? I think people need to:

a.) Determine what is and isn't a reach
b.) Realize that a reach doesn't automatically mean he won't be worth the pick

 

[ManUtdTobbe]

His ranking was generally around 15, so i think he was a reach... The reason why i say it's a slight reach is because i think the draft was super even in general, especially among the C's... Lias, Suzuki, Vilardi, Mittelstadt and Necas all had their flaws and their rankings generally fluctuated quite a bit.

 

[silverfish]

I suppose everyone's definition of a reach is different. Mine would be:

When you don't select the BPA, and instead draft for organizational need and/or the general consensus of rankings disagrees with your pick.

This doesn't mean that players who are "reaches" are bad.

 

[NYR Viper]

Its like because people see a ranking from a pundit, anything other than that exact draft order means players are a reach. And yet, every year there are discrepancies from what those pundits publish.

On top of that, people who seem to either not like or love a pick use this as justification for their opinions saying 'look he was a reach because of this list'. It happens with every player

 

[ManUtdTobbe]

I suppose everyone's definition of a reach is different. Mine would be:

When you don't select the BPA, and instead draft for organizational need and/or the general consensus of rankings disagrees with your pick.

This doesn't mean that players who are "reaches" are bad.

Then yes, Lias was a reach in your eyes... As would any other C have been maybe with the exception of Vilardi.

 

[silverfish]

Then yes, Lias was a reach in your eyes... As would any other C have been maybe with the exception of Vilardi.

What was the GDT during the draft like? When the Rangers were on the clock, who were we clamoring for? Lias Andersson? No way. He was on like 5% of people's radars here.

If you ask me, without hindsight, I remain steadfast. It should've been Mittelstadt, Tippett, or Vilardi, in that order. Andersson nowhere near my radar.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I thought Andersson would be a top-10 pick. I've had conversations with Tobbe about this pre-draft so he can confirm this. To me it wasn't a surprise he was picked in the top-10. Seeing him play in the SHL play offs for HV71 and not looking out of place was a huge indicator for me.

 

[Miamipuck]

Meh a reach of 6-7 picks? In a draft where the consensus varied quite a bit after the first 6, that's weak sauce calling that a reach.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Meh a reach of 6-7 picks? In a draft where the consensus varied quite a bit after the first 6, that's weak sauce calling that a reach.

I agree here. There was no real consensus after the top-5 (maybe top-6). Projections were all over the place. And most of these projections always underrate Euro-based players. QoO be damned, right?

 

[silverfish]

Meh a reach of 6-7 picks? In a draft where the consensus varied quite a bit after the first 6, that's weak sauce calling that a reach.

The difference in value between the 7OA and the 13OA is far from insignificant. If you're reaching 6 or 7 picks outside the first round, that's probably fine. If you're reaching 6 or 7 picks in the top-10? You goofed.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

What was the GDT during the draft like? When the Rangers were on the clock, who were we clamoring for? Lias Andersson? No way. He was on like 5% of people's radars here.

If you ask me, without hindsight, I remain steadfast. It should've been Mittelstadt, Tippett, or Vilardi, in that order. Andersson nowhere near my radar.

I think everyone was shocked that Pettersson and Glass were gone when the Rangers were on the clock. I personally wanted Brannstrom or Liljegren. Middlestadt most out of the 3 you listed but I've got some problems with his game that haven't gone away post draft

 

[Miamipuck]

I agree here. There was no real consensus after the top-5 (maybe top-6). Projections were all over the place. And most of these projections always underrate Euro-based players. QoO be damned, right?

I used to follow the draft in the 80's and 90's and could probably tell you who drafted whom and where, now lol no way in hell. I started following the football draft more than the NHL.

Anyhow, I have followed enough to know that a 6-7 pick difference in some player rankings where there is not much consensus is not a reach, a reach is a much bigger difference and/or it's pretty clear and not agenda driven by people that wanted someone else or worse (I don't mean SF). imo

I have seen Lias play 4-5 times, I don't know if he's going to be a #1-2-3 or #4 center. He has played well in the SHL against men and then in the WJC against his age group. I tend just to be happy about that.

 

[Miamipuck]

The difference in value between the 7OA and the 13OA is far from insignificant. If you're reaching 6 or 7 picks outside the first round, that's probably fine. If you're reaching 6 or 7 picks in the top-10? You goofed.

I am not disputing draft value, I am disputing the player consensus. There was no consensus after the top 6. He was not a reach. You may have wanted someone different and that's fine.

If you can just blindly aggregate pundits draft opinions, why pay to have a professional scouting staff? There were some pundits that had him as high as 8 OA some as low as the 20's. That's a pretty wide disparity, on the high end right there at the low end, yes a reach.

 

[silverfish]

I am not disputing draft value, I am disputing the player consensus. There was no consensus after the top 6. He was not a reach. You may have wanted someone different and that's fine.

If you can just blindly aggregate pundits draft opinions, why pay to have a professional scouting staff? There were some pundits that had him as high as 8 OA some as low as the 20's. That's a pretty wide disparity, on the high end right there at the low end, yes a reach.

It's not necessarily breaking news that pundits don't accurately predict players, right?

I'd be interested in the spread of all players, but I know no one has the time to do it, I wouldn't do it, it's probably not worth it. Meaning like, okay so you say some had LA as high as 8 and as low as 20. What about Mittelstadt? Vilardi? Tippet? What were their spreads? I'd be interested to see that, but again, probably worth no one's time.

I'm gonna step out of this thread now to allow the conversation back to LA being in Hartford, and when he's gonna suit up.

I think an interesting thread idea would be surrounding hockey theory (for lack of a better word). We've essentially morphed the stats thread into an all encompassing hockey theory/economics/stats talk. This conversation about the draft and value and rankings could be had there, instead.

 

[ManUtdTobbe]

What was the GDT during the draft like? When the Rangers were on the clock, who were we clamoring for? Lias Andersson? No way. He was on like 5% of people's radars here.

If you ask me, without hindsight, I remain steadfast. It should've been Mittelstadt, Tippett, or Vilardi, in that order. Andersson nowhere near my radar.

I sure as hell wasn't clamoring for Mittelstadt or Tippett...

I'm guessing most wanted Brännström or Liljegren honestly... Tippett would have been a mistake imo and i wasn't high on Mittelstadt...

Brännström, Liljegren or Vilardi were my picks, in that order.

Edit: CanucksArmys draft model rated Lias very highly, according to that he sure as hell wasn't a reach.

 

[Beacon]

If Lias was a reach, then he couldn't have been relied upon to make the NHL immediately because very few 18 year olds drafted out of the top 2-3 picks make it. If he was expected to reach the NHL immediately, then he wasn't a reach at #7 because anyone who can make the NHL right away is surely an easy top-10 pick. About a third of the players drafted 11-15 do NOT play at least 100 NHL games (getting a few cups of coffee does not make you an NHL player). Therefore, if you can get a guy who you think immediately makes it, he goes in the top-10 easily.

 

[Miamipuck]

It's not necessarily breaking news that pundits don't accurately predict players, right?

I'd be interested in the spread of all players, but I know no one has the time to do it, I wouldn't do it, it's probably not worth it. Meaning like, okay so you say some had LA as high as 8 and as low as 20. What about Mittelstadt? Vilardi? Tippet? What were their spreads? I'd be interested to see that, but again, probably worth no one's time. I only know Lias's because he was drafted by the Rangers, but I think/hope that's obvious to everyone.

I'm gonna step out of this thread now to allow the conversation back to LA being in Hartford, and when he's gonna suit up.

I think an interesting thread idea would be surrounding hockey theory (for lack of a better word). We've essentially morphed the stats thread into an all encompassing hockey theory/economics/stats talk. This conversation about the draft and value and rankings could be had there, instead.

I think a civil conversation about this subject would be great in any thread but the stats thread would be a better spot for sure.

As for your question about the spread of players, it's essentially a guess on my part because I had zero access to any draft analysis other than what people have posted here, so here goes. I only know Lias because he was drafted by the Rangers:

Mittelstadt- probably much slimmer margin
Villardi- probably similar to Lias or even a bit wider as some teams eliminated him because he has perceived skating issues....perceived because I have never seen him play and can't confirm.
Tippett- no idea really but I would guess smaller because he's a sniper.

 

[Irishguy42]

FWIW, I think most media pundits like McKenzie all thought Andersson wouldn't go as high (projected a few picks later), but they thought he would be one of the more likely NHL ready players of the draft.

Let's also not forget that there was speculation of the Red Wings and Kings wanting Andersson, and they were at 9 and 11. Rangers had Andersson at #3 on their list for 7OA. Their first two were picked in succession at 5 and 6. They really liked Lias. Did they know that Detroit and LA wanted him? Maybe...maybe not. Lots of things we don't know about from the draft floor that day.

Also, the idea of BPA after the first top five picks, at most, in a draft are more likely than not going to be subjective and not consensus.

 

[ZiGOODejad]

I think his drive is going to show people he wasn't a reach at all. the kids passionate about hockey and winning that much we know. He definitely won't be a flashy player at all; but i'll take a 55 point two center over just an offense guy. I might be reaching but id love for him to make it to if not selke caliber just under that. Chytil can help drive the offense he has good vision and is proving in the A he'll be close to ready next season.

 

[Alluckks]

Reach is a subjective opinion until there is sufficient information to form an arguable objective stance if a player was "reached" for.

If you wanna go with saying that Lias was a reach and it is costing us then you have to admit that Chytil was an even bigger reach by that exact same scouting department.

 

[Alluckks]

I think his drive is going to show people he wasn't a reach at all. the kids passionate about hockey and winning that much we know. He definitely won't be a flashy player at all; but i'll take a 55 point two center over just an offense guy. I might be reaching but id love for him to make it to if not selke caliber just under that. Chytil can help drive the offense he has good vision and is proving in the A he'll be close to ready next season.

When people define reach based on draft-day rankings then there is minimal hindsight to be applied.