NHL Entry Draft 2018 Draft - Prospect Discussion (Poll added)

[L'Aveuglette]

Not that I agree with it, but lots of people in hockey believe Zadina shouldn't be a top 4 pick. Ultimately, I'd guess that most of us are basing our rankings on rankings of those very same scouts and executives - the guys who had him as a 2/3 prospect in this draft before are the same ones who now have 3, 4, 5, + players ahead of him.

I reckon the same teams who don't have him in their top-5 are the ones who would draft him at 3 no questions asked. The kid is obviously a step above every forward not named Svechnikov.

Gotta be some mind games going on here.

 

[BondraTime]

You know you're on HF when there's a number of people making a case not to pick Zadina at 4 if he's available.

Just like the numerous scouts (out of 10....) that don't have him top 5.

HF, crazy folk.

Ive been hearing, and seeing it for months. Great prospect, not viewed as a top, top guy by many.

 

[L'Aveuglette]

Just like the numerous scouts (out of 10....) that don't have him top 5.

HF, crazy folk.

Ive been hearing, and seeing it for months. Great prospect, not viewed as a top, top guy by many.

I haven't seen a single list online that has Zadina outside of the top-5, hell, some of them have him above Svechnikov, latest he's ranked is #4. Who have you been hearing this from aside from the Bobcast?

 

[BondraTime]

I haven't seen a single list online that has Zadina outside of the top-5, hell, some of them have him above Svechnikov, latest he's ranked is #4. Who have you been hearing this from aside from the Bobcast?

I've been saying it since January, somewhere in this thread multiple times, nearly word for word what Bob said Friday. I've talked to a dozen or so scouts, many of them not having Zadina as the top guy in the Q, which is the starting point of the conversation. From that I've gathered that guys like him, a lot, but guys that were perceived behind him have caught up and are gaining ground.

Bob saying word for word what I heard months ago tells me that it's got legs.

 

[L'Aveuglette]

I've been saying it since January, somewhere in this thread multiple times, nearly word for word what Bob said Friday. I've talked to a dozen or so scouts, many of them not having Zadina as the top guy in the Q, which is the starting point of the conversation. From that I've gathered that guys like him, a lot, but guys that were perceived behind him have caught up and are gaining ground.

Bob saying word for word what I heard months ago tells me that it's got legs.

Weird. Only Q guy I could maybe see going ahead is Dobson in a situation where #3-5 teams need help on D primarily and therefore value him above forwards, but otherwise I can't see Zadina not being the first guy from the Q going in the draft. I'll be stunned if either one of Montreal(or whichever team ends up with 3rd pick)or Ottawa don't snag him. I guess we'll see when the draft happens.

I can say that I do hope that what you heard has legs as well because us getting Zadina would be fantastic.

 

[BondraTime]

Weird. Only Q guy I could maybe see going ahead is Dobson in a situation where #3-5 teams need help on D primarily and therefore value him above forwards, but otherwise I can't see Zadina not being the first guy from the Q going in the draft. I'll be stunned if either one of Montreal(or whichever team ends up with 3rd pick)or Ottawa don't snag him. I guess we'll see when the draft happens.

I can say that I do hope that what you heard has legs as well because us getting Zadina would be fantastic.

I'd be surprised if Dobson wasn't higher on a majority of lists. Very surprised.

I'm quite confident it's correct info.

 

[Micklebot]

I'd be surprised if Dobson wasn't higher on a majority of lists. Very surprised.

I'm quite confident it's correct info.

I do find it odd that McKenzie puts out a list at the end of April with Zadina solidly in 3rd with only one of the scouts he talked to having Dobson in the 4th spot and none higher (average had hhim 8th), and then talks to scouts again a month and a half later, and all the sudden Dobson's ahead on a whole bunch of lists and a bunch don't have Zadina in their top 5.

Guess they're putting a lot of weight into playoffs.

 

[BondraTime]

I do find it odd that McKenzie puts out a list at the end of April with Zadina solidly in 3rd with only one of the scouts he talked to having Dobson in the 4th spot and none higher (average had hhim 8th), and then talks to scouts again a month and a half later, and all the sudden Dobson's ahead on a whole bunch of lists and a bunch don't have Zadina in their top 5.

Guess they're putting a lot of weight into playoffs.

I found it strange at the time, that ranking seemed off to me in more than a few ways (I was lower on Boqvist, higher on Kotkaniemi, higher on Dobson). The old list had a tier of "Zadina/Tkachuk". That seemed very foolish to me. Having them 3/4 is perfectly fine, having them on a tier to themselves is wrong. I fully believe both will still be in the 3-4 positions on the reveal tonight. Just a much closer grouping than the "consensus 3-4" we were presented with. Not to mention Bouchard in a tier of his own at 5, which is now completely out the window as both Kotkaniemi and Dobson, at the minimum, have jumped past him since the last ranking.

*In my opinion of course.

 

[Micklebot]

I found it strange at the time, that ranking seemed off to me in more than a few ways (I was lower on Boqvist, higher on Kotkaniemi, higher on Dobson). The old list had a tier of "Zadina/Tkachuk". That seemed very foolish to me. Having them 3/4 is perfectly fine, having them on a tier to themselves is wrong.

In my opinion of course.

It's interesting for sure. I know Shawn Simpson talks about how everything coming from teams this time of year is a lie, and they are trying to throw the opposition off with any info they let leak. I wonder if this extends into these lists... though with how accurate McKenzie's lists have been at predicting the draft that seems unlikely.

I'm hopeful we get Zadina, as I like him quite a bit, and see him as a good fit for our needs, but I'll be happy with a couple other guys as well. I think 3-8 is pretty close, though admittedly, I was saying 4-10 before and I haven't seen more than a handful of clips since so my opinion is clearly coloured by draft rankings and scouting reports that have since come out. 4th OA seems like it will get us a really good player, but I don't know how much more than that. Here's hoping the team's scouts can sniff out the guy out of the bunch with the most unrealized potential, and get us a guy that can bring it to another level.

At this point, I'm more interested to see where we go with 22nd OA. Really wish we weren't allergic to players in the KHL because I think if either of Kravtsov or Dennisenko make it that far they'd offer fantastic value. I also think 22 is a spot where we could get a guy that is in some teams top 10-15, as there are a lot of similarly good prospects in the 10-25 range imo.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

You know you're on HF when there's a number of people making a case not to pick Zadina at 4 if he's available.

i think its a good sign youre on a discussion board in a free country when there are difference of opinion

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

All completely valid points but those teams you mentioned didn't spend a top 5 pick to get those guys. They used their lottery picks on guys like Kane, Seguin, Backstrom and Ovechkin. You wanna chase Wilsons or Byfuglien's in the later rounds and later first round be my guest but I think getting that skilled core first is instrumental. We don't have the skill yet to be a contender. Gotta start there.

Does this draft have players like that though? The guys you mentioned were all top 2 picks. Do we have a top 2 pick? We have the 4th overall, do we even have a solid chance at a player like that?

I'd argue only Dobson has better "less risk/high impact ability". I've also said I'd take Kotk over Tkachuk too. Hughes is interesting but I don't see number 1 D in him.

But at number 4, especially in this draft, is there really elite talent that we are unfathomably overlooking if we pick Tkachuk? Maybe Dobson and Kotk; the rest I'd take Tkachuk over them.

 

[DJB]

@FolignoQuantumLeap

I've sort of asked this question before, but as the unofficial leader of the "Don't draft Tkachuk at 4 " I do have a question. Regardless of how other guys turn out Zadina, Dobson , Hughes etc. If we were to drsft Tkachuk and he turns out to be a clone of his brother , i.e 30 goal 30 assist 100pim guy with all the other stuff he does, would you consider it a successful pick and worthy of a top 4 choice?

Thanks

 

[Sensung]

@FolignoQuantumLeap

I've sort of asked this question before, but as the unofficial leader of the "Don't draft Tkachuk at 4 " I do have a question. Regardless of how other guys turn out Zadina, Dobson , Hughes etc. If we were to drsft Tkachuk and he turns out to be a clone of his brother , i.e 30 goal 30 assist 100pim guy with all the other stuff he does, would you consider it a successful pick and worthy of a top 4 choice?

Thanks

Draft the best player available. Tkachuk won't be the best player available at 4.

 

[Micklebot]

All completely valid points but those teams you mentioned didn't spend a top 5 pick to get those guys. They used their lottery picks on guys like Kane, Seguin, Backstrom and Ovechkin. You wanna chase Wilsons or Byfuglien's in the later rounds and later first round be my guest but I think getting that skilled core first is instrumental. We don't have the skill yet to be a contender. Gotta start there.

This post would make sense if we had 1st or 2nd overall, the only guy picked outside of the top 2 picks is Backstrom, who was 4th and among the better players picked at that slot of all time. It's like saying we shouldn't waste 22nd OA on a guy like Lunderstrom because Giroux was picked 22nd, so that's the what we need to get...

 

[Hale The Villain]

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

Oh MAN, I hope they trade down and we snake Kotkaniemi away from them.

 

[DJB]

Draft the best player available. Tkachuk won't be the best player available at 4.

I said regardless of others around ignoring Zadina etc. I'm asking clearly whether a Mathew clone is worthy of a top 4 pick. I'm not interested in comparison to others we've done that a million times already

 

[danielpalfredsson]

If it's actually true MTL is willing to take Kotkaniemi at 3, they won't trade down with the intention of taking him. They'll only trade down if another team offers them a package so great, that it's worth trading down with the idea that they might not get him.

Even if they move down to 5 because they don't think he is on our radar, there's no guarantee that somebody else won't trade up to 4 and steal him from MTL.

That's assuming that this isn't a smoke screen, and MTL isn't trying to extort value from another team in the top 7ish picks who badly wants one of the only legit top centers available. If MTL actually wants one of the D, and they have 3-4 guys of those non-Dahlin D's closely ranked, they could move back down to as far as 7 or 8 and still get one of those 4.

This would be a very positive development for the Sens assuming Kotkaniemi isn't in our top 3. It means we probably get our 3rd prospect on the big board (or 2nd if we're one of the few teams that doesn't have Svechnikov 2). It also potentially presents a scenario where if we do not like Zadina or the top non-Dahlin D, maybe we could trade back, pick up some badly needed late 1sts, or 2nd+3rds, and still get a quality prospect.

 

[Sensung]

I said regardless of others around ignoring Zadina etc. I'm asking clearly whether a Mathew clone is worthy of a top 4 pick. I'm not interested in comparison to others we've done that a million times already

Not sure I understand your point.

If none of the other top 10 players existed, he'd be worthy of the #1 selection.

Each year is different. There are no absolute value levels.

 

[Zorf]

I said regardless of others around ignoring Zadina etc. I'm asking clearly whether a Mathew clone is worthy of a top 4 pick. I'm not interested in comparison to others we've done that a million times already

30G 30A player with grit would be welcomed by me as a 4th OA pick all day every day.

30G is a tough nut to crack in the NHL though. Brady Tkachuk was great in the WJC, but didn't show as much scoring prowess in his NCAA games (going just by stats. I never saw any of this NCAA games). I'm not sold that he's a 30G player.

 

[OgieO]

I said regardless of others around ignoring Zadina etc. I'm asking clearly whether a Mathew clone is worthy of a top 4 pick. I'm not interested in comparison to others we've done that a million times already

Yes! A 60 point player (pace) with a strong physical game that is not a liability defensively is a good pick at #4. No question. The draft is all about who is available, but assuming a normal year - that's nice value at #4 for sure imo.

 

[Micklebot]

Not sure I understand your point.

If none of the other top 10 players existed, he'd be worthy of the #1 selection.

Each year is different. There are no absolute value levels.

Lots of posters have been arguing you don't take a player like Tkachuk with a lottery pick because a lottery pick should somehow be reserved for pt per game forwards or elite offensive talents. Both ideas don't really add up because there are guys that have higher upside that get drafted in later rounds all the time, because upside and potential isn't the only thing being evaluated; likelihood of reaching your potential is also important. If it wasn't, Merkley would be in everyone's top 10, but he's on some team's do not draft list instead.

Is Tkachuk the best player available at 4th? Maybe, maybe not. He's certainly one of the more safe bets to become a good player, but others have more intriguing upside. Having said that, sometimes guys greatly exceed expectations, so you could find in 5 years from now, any player in the #1 slot of a re-draft.

 

[R2010]

30G 30A player with grit would be welcomed by me as a 4th OA pick all day every day.

30G is a tough nut to crack in the NHL though. Brady Tkachuk was great in the WJC, but didn't show as much scoring prowess in his NCAA games (going just by stats. I never saw any of this NCAA games). I'm not sold that he's a 30G player.

Well think of it this way - how many players score 30 G without ever having hit the mark at lower levels. He could maybe someday have a 30 G year but that's not his style of game and anyone expecting a 30 G scorer is probably not looking at the right player. Svechnikov, Zadina and Wahlstrom are the only three players you could foresee being suited to having multiple 30G seasons based on the information we have right now.

 

[Icelevel]

30G 30A player with grit would be welcomed by me as a 4th OA pick all day every day.

30G is a tough nut to crack in the NHL though. Brady Tkachuk was great in the WJC, but didn't show as much scoring prowess in his NCAA games (going just by stats. I never saw any of this NCAA games). I'm not sold that he's a 30G player.

I saw him play. He’s a 20-30 goal nhl player.

 

[Sens in Process]

Tkachuk scored 37 goals in 85 game in 2016-2017.

He tied for the lead in goals on USNTDP junior team with Farabee amd Norris, while playing less games. Wahlstrom played 5 more games than Tkachuk and had 3 less goals(yes I know he is younger, so don't @ME)

Tkachuk was third in goals on the USNTDP team, two goals away from the leader.

2016-17	USNTDP Juniors	USHL	24	12	11	23	73	3	|
	U.S. National U18 Team	USDP	61	25	29	54	129

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Tkachuk can score goals, flat out. I am not sure if he will hit 30, but mid twenties are reasonable. Mark Stone has never hit 30, has been mostly in 20 to 25 range, and no one is complaining.

He had a little difficulty adjusting to NCAA hockey, so did Mittelstadt. It happens.

Despite this, Tkachuk had 229 shot attempts in 40 games and led his team in assists as freshman. The kid is a "possession beast" to quote Pronman.

I would very much like Tkachuk on this team.

But in a year of disappointments, I think believe Sens are going Zadina.