2018 NHL Entry Draft Thread (Less then 24 Hours Edition)

[Runner77]

I don't put nearly the time as some others so yeah, I will typically listen to what they have to say.

Thing is, I see a lot of bu**hurt people also when you counter their arguments. I typically choose my battles though and I'm careful about what I say if I can't back it up.

Maybe it's the academic in me, I always believe in not just the quality of source but also to make sure you get some quantity. I think I mentioned it in this thread, but I read... A LOT. I read scouting reports from multiple sources almost daily and if there is a prospect I want to learn about, well, I read more. I am also big on stats, so if I can, I'll go over stats as well.

At the same time, I harp on stats watchers. I always say you need more. Quantitative data is important and you can use that as a starting point, and I'll adapt qualitative analysis to understand the numbers. It sounds complicated, but it really isn't. However, I do this in order to determine if I need to do more research.

From there, I'll look for video or watch live games. I live in the heart of Ontario, so OHL research is easy for me.

The mock draft also gives you a great opportunity to learn about prospects, especially as you get past round 4. Myself for example, I keep a modest list of my top-50 players I know well. 50-100 players, I know enough to decide if I should read up more before drafting. Once it gets past 100 players, I'll zero in and pick 5-10 prospects every couple days for research.

I think this is the first time I really invested myself in prospect watching. When your team is garbage, it frees up more time to armchair scout. End of the day, many here put a lot more time. Guys who know 300+ prospects, I dunno how they do it.

Given how much info you're processing about the players you target, do you ever get too invested in some players? I mean, what if you fall upon a profile that you'd really like for the Habs, you're convinced that the player is extremely viable and then he ends up on some other team. What happens to the knowledge you mined about the player if he never becomes a Hab?

That's the part I'd hate the most if I were so invested on doing research. It's great to know but what then? I'd hate it that only so few could be Habs. And I'd hate it even more if Timmins were to select someone totally out of left field from those you were zooming in on.

 

[schnapshot]

Who ? Us amateurs ? At that point in the draft teams will have players ranked all over the place. Most drafts outside of the top 5 it's hard to have a consensus and the further you go, the more wild and unpredictable it becomes.

A lot of players are ranked 2nd round and some are ranked first.

To see a projected first rounder go in the 2nd (sliding) is as surprising as seeing a projected 2nd rounder go in the first. You would be as surprised to see Kotkaniemi drop to Beaudin’s area as you would be to see Beaudin get picked at Kotkaniemi’s area.

So a lot of people were surprised of seeing a guy who was ranked as a mid-second rounder get picked late in the first, especially when we had 3 second round picks.

 

[NotProkofievian]

I don't put nearly the time as some others so yeah, I will typically listen to what they have to say.

Thing is, I see a lot of bu**hurt people also when you counter their arguments. I typically choose my battles though and I'm careful about what I say if I can't back it up.

Maybe it's the academic in me, I always believe in not just the quality of source but also to make sure you get some quantity. I think I mentioned it in this thread, but I read... A LOT. I read scouting reports from multiple sources almost daily and if there is a prospect I want to learn about, well, I read more. I am also big on stats, so if I can, I'll go over stats as well.

At the same time, I harp on stats watchers. I always say you need more. Quantitative data is important and you can use that as a starting point, and I'll adapt qualitative analysis to understand the numbers. It sounds complicated, but it really isn't. However, I do this in order to determine if I need to do more research.

From there, I'll look for video or watch live games. I live in the heart of Ontario, so OHL research is easy for me.

The mock draft also gives you a great opportunity to learn about prospects, especially as you get past round 4. Myself for example, I keep a modest list of my top-50 players I know well. 50-100 players, I know enough to decide if I should read up more before drafting. Once it gets past 100 players, I'll zero in and pick 5-10 prospects every couple days for research.

I think this is the first time I really invested myself in prospect watching. When your team is garbage, it frees up more time to armchair scout. End of the day, many here put a lot more time. Guys who know 300+ prospects, I dunno how they do it.

I actually try to avoid reading reports as much as possible, and certainly paying for them. I don't know why anyone buys draft guides instead of purchasing games to watch. You can get ''anchored'' to others perceptions of players, and it's really hard to avoid, even if you're aware of the phenomenon. The mock draft here is really good because we have a lot of guys who cover a lot of ground, but typically I'll just know that someone is on someone's list, or that someone likes so-and-so in fairly vague terms. That leaves me to make up my own mind from the games without any subconscious shenanigans.

 

[Mrb1p]

I actually try to avoid reading reports as much as possible, and certainly paying for them. I don't know why anyone buys draft guides instead of purchasing games to watch. You can get ''anchored'' to others perceptions of players, and it's really hard to avoid, even if you're aware of the phenomenon. The mock draft here is really good because we have a lot of guys who cover a lot of ground, but typically I'll just know that someone is on someone's list, or that someone likes so-and-so in fairly vague terms. That leaves me to make up my own mind from the games without any subconscious shenanigans.

I use reports, rankings and mocks to know who and what to watch for. Im not a visionary that redefine scouting by finding guys like Dobson A FULL YEAR before their draft year, so its kinda useful.

 

[Draft]

Hayton gets no great shakes here, so I'll defer to our regulars.

But, Veleno? He belongs nowhere in the first round.

Sorry, didn't mean your list specifically, just the generalized consensus among most scouting services. Bad phrasing.

My point being, this is easily one of the worst drafts in ages for centers and it's pushing guys into positions they likely shouldn't be in. Players ranked too high (centers Veleno/Hayton/Kotkaniemi) and some ranked lower than I think they could be in a different draft (Farabee/Sandin/Ginning) based on their position.

I'm a big fan of Kotkaniemi, but not ahead of guys I can see being game-breakers.

 

[Runner77]

Sorry, didn't mean your list specifically, just the generalized consensus among most scouting services. Bad phrasing.

My point being, this is easily one of the worst drafts in ages for centers and it's pushing guys into positions they likely shouldn't be in. Players ranked too high (centers Veleno/Hayton/Kotkaniemi) and some ranked lower than I think they could be in a different draft (Farabee/Sandin/Ginning) based on their position.

I'm a big fan of Kotkaniemi, but not ahead of guys I can see being game-breakers.

Given the above, how much of an investment would you advocate towards next year’s draft? How many of our current picks would you trade for a 2019 pick?

 

[ProspectsSTC]

Looks like NP's favourite Thomas is a big Montreal fan, commented on Zadina's post saying he hopes Montreal picks him

 

[Draft]

Given the above, how much of an investment would you advocate towards next year’s draft? How many of our current picks would you trade for a 2019 pick?

Hard to say. If we ignore team needs and are purely looking at maximizing assets, I'm not sure it would make much of a difference. However, there are some really strong centers that are draft eligible next year. If we got to choose between a 2018/2019 3OA pick and were solely focused on getting a center, I'd go for 2019 as you'd have a chance at Hughes/Newhook/Suzuki... if it's a question about picking in the middle of the first round (which is more likely for the Habs) you likely have a chance at Lavoie/Dach/Kozens/etc.

Unless it's a very close reach within the same tier of prospects (Zadina and Kotkaniemi not being in the same tier IMO), I wouldn't advocate for choosing based on position at the top end of the draft. I'd rather pick up a top-end offensive player like Zadina and really focus on centers in the 2nd.

 

[Runner77]

Hard to say. If we ignore team needs and are purely looking at maximizing assets, I'm not sure it would make much of a difference. However, there are some really strong centers that are draft eligible next year. If we got to choose between a 2018/2019 3OA pick and were solely focused on getting a center, I'd go for 2019 as you'd have a chance at Hughes/Newhook/Suzuki... if it's a question about picking in the middle of the first round (which is more likely for the Habs) you likely have a chance at Lavoie/Dach/Kozens/etc.

Unless it's a very close reach within the same tier of prospects (Zadina and Kotkaniemi not being in the same tier IMO), I wouldn't advocate for choosing based on position at the top end of the draft. I'd rather pick up a top-end offensive player like Zadina and really focus on centers in the 2nd.

Totally agree on going forward and making the 3rd OA selection. There is no way to secure an equivalent pick next year.

However, was thinking about how some teams may be hungry for a second rounder this year and we could snatch a premium out of it, on top of securing a 2nd rounder next year. I'd only dangle the lower 2 2nd rounders for the right offer. The early 2nds are too good to pass up, there ought to be at least one major faller to be had with them.

 

[LastWordArmy]

One part of the sentence conflicts the other. Any goalie taken in this draft will not make an impact at the NHL level until they are age 22, 23, 24 at the earliest. I respect saying no to any goalie based on what we already have but the thought that picking a goalie in this draft conflicts with Price's contract is not considering when this goalie will be NHL ready. Rodrigue will be age 23 when Price is in year 6 of 8 and at age 36. The time line fits IMO.

Between the number of prospects in our system and the 8 year contract, there is zero urgency to draft a goalie.

And Rodrigue will be 23 in year 5 of Price's contract. The 8 year deal hasn't even started yet.

Two things, we have a lot of prospects who could develop... McNiven, Hawkey, Primeau... a backup in the pipeline in Lindgren... and plenty of time to evaluate them all. We also have a lot bigger needs in our system. I'd load up on talented skaters with this draft.

 

[le_sean]

I’ll say Max ends up in Dallas and Habs draft Hayton at 13. It’s clear Bergevin has an infatuation with those Horvat/Robert Thomas types. Hayton fits that mould this year.

 

[sandviper]

Given how much info you're processing about the players you target, do you ever get too invested in some players? I mean, what if you fall upon a profile that you'd really like for the Habs, you're convinced that the player is extremely viable and then he ends up on some other team. What happens to the knowledge you mined about the player if he never becomes a Hab?

That's the part I'd hate the most if I were so invested on doing research. It's great to know but what then? I'd hate it that only so few could be Habs. And I'd hate it even more if Timmins were to select someone totally out of left field from those you were zooming in on.

Well, to answer the first question, I am heavily invested in Boqvist, Wahlstrom and Hughes. So yeah, we don't pick them, it kind of sucks. That said, as a Habs fan, I don't go too crazy knowing every prospect. I focus on usually what is the consensus at around the place we draft and I go hog wild on my research. Like anything else, if they don't become Habs, I'll just let that knowledge slip away. As for other prospects though, I research enough to make half intelligent decisions for the mocks.

I actually try to avoid reading reports as much as possible, and certainly paying for them. I don't know why anyone buys draft guides instead of purchasing games to watch. You can get ''anchored'' to others perceptions of players, and it's really hard to avoid, even if you're aware of the phenomenon. The mock draft here is really good because we have a lot of guys who cover a lot of ground, but typically I'll just know that someone is on someone's list, or that someone likes so-and-so in fairly vague terms. That leaves me to make up my own mind from the games without any subconscious shenanigans.

I read a lot mostly because I enjoy reading in general. I always draw from multiple sources though since you can easily fall into a trap of sticking with one view. That said, for players I like, I will go out of my way to watch as much footage I can. I try not to focus too much on highlights though as even a guy like Tkachuk can look like McDavid (well, not really) if you stick with highlights only.

But yeah, you can get anchored if you're not careful. I do make it a point to put a list of pros and cons in my top-50 so that I can be somewhat unbiased in my views.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Well, to answer the first question, I am heavily invested in Boqvist, Wahlstrom and Hughes. So yeah, we don't pick them, it kind of sucks. That said, as a Habs fan, I don't go too crazy knowing every prospect. I focus on usually what is the consensus at around the place we draft and I go hog wild on my research. Like anything else, if they don't become Habs, I'll just let that knowledge slip away. As for other prospects though, I research enough to make half intelligent decisions for the mocks.

This is kind of a fun point. We're in the middle of a very heated debate about who to take at 3, and everyone has their favourite. But is anyone particularly stoked, even if they get their guy, about leaving behind a guy like Hughes, or Zadina, or Dobson, or Boqvist, or Kotkaniemi?

I read a lot mostly because I enjoy reading in general. I always draw from multiple sources though since you can easily fall into a trap of sticking with one view. That said, for players I like, I will go out of my way to watch as much footage I can. I try not to focus too much on highlights though as even a guy like Tkachuk can look like McDavid (well, not really) if you stick with highlights only.

But yeah, you can get anchored if you're not careful. I do make it a point to put a list of pros and cons in my top-50 so that I can be somewhat unbiased in my views.

It would be fun to have ''anti''-highlight videos. Video compilations that show you specifically what a prospect needs to improve. All the prospects look awesome (except for Thomas, who is a bust), until you watch them in a game. Sometimes it's just one play that you see that makes you think ''what in the f*** was that guy thinking?''

 

[Mrb1p]

This is kind of a fun point. We're in the middle of a very heated debate about who to take at 3, and everyone has their favourite. But is anyone particularly stoked, even if they get their guy, about leaving behind a guy like Hughes, or Zadina, or Dobson, or Boqvist, or Kotkaniemi?



It would be fun to have ''anti''-highlight videos. Video compilations that show you specifically what a prospect needs to improve. All the prospects look awesome (except for Thomas, who is a bust), until you watch them in a game. Sometimes it's just one play that you see that makes you think ''what in the **** was that guy thinking?''

Pretty sure well leave a guy slippin and hell make everyone look like a fool, happend every year. I love Kotkaniemi and Boqvist but I realize the crazy upside Hughes, Dobson, Zadina and Wahlstrom have.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Pretty sure well leave a guy slippin and hell make everyone look like a fool, happend every year. I love Kotkaniemi and Boqvist but I realize the crazy upside Hughes, Dobson, Zadina and Wahlstrom have.

If Zadina lights up the league next year, some idiot is going to come at me like a spider monkey all ''SEE, TOLD YA ZADINA WAS AWESOME!''

...I know that.

 

[Mrb1p]

If Zadina lights up the league next year, some idiot is going to come at me like a spider monkey all ''SEE, TOLD YA ZADINA WAS AWESOME!''

...I know that.

Imagine if Svechnikov lands in Carolina and somewhat struggles and Zadina gets first PPs with McDavid "TOLD YOU HE WAS BETTER"

To be honest we pretty much all have zadina at 4 or 5 so its not much of a risk.

 

[montreal]

Looks like NP's favourite Thomas is a big Montreal fan, commented on Zadina's post saying he hopes Montreal picks him

If I was a center I would be hoping the Habs pick me too, worst center depth in the league and not much on the farm system.

 

[The Great Weal]

I'd still trade Pacioretty for a mid 1st to take Ty Smith. He is going to be good.

 

[G0bias]

Pretty sure well leave a guy slippin and hell make everyone look like a fool, happend every year. I love Kotkaniemi and Boqvist but I realize the crazy upside Hughes, Dobson, Zadina and Wahlstrom have.

Here I thought he was just your run of the mill top 6'er.

 

[WeThreeKings]

I use reports, rankings and mocks to know who and what to watch for. Im not a visionary that redefine scouting by finding guys like Dobson A FULL YEAR before their draft year, so its kinda useful.

Dobson was a hard find. Going 6th overall in the QMJHL draft he was a virtual unknown.

 

[WeThreeKings]

I like getting the Black Book every year, it doesn't really change anything for me except for maybe getting some reports on virtual unknowns. I like the quotables and game reports, there's a lot of content and it's just a fun read.

 

[SML2]

Need a GM for the 10PM!

http://draftwired.com:8888/apps/dwNHL

 

[G0bias]

The hardest thing for me was watching Liiga games. For one they start anywhere from 10am to 12pm here so forget most weekday games. Then there's the fact the only available streams looked like they were filmed with potatoes. But of course everything sounds more exciting in Finnish, specially from Pori's pbp guy.

Atleast MHL games were decent to good quality on YT and you can skip alot of the bs.

 

[montreal]

The hardest thing for me was watching Liiga games. For one they start anywhere from 10am to 12pm here so forget most weekday games. Then there's the fact the only available streams looked like they were filmed with potatoes. But of course everything sounds more exciting in Finnish, specially from Pori's pbp guy.

add to that if you watched KalPa, holy shit were they boring as hell to watch. Terrible feeds and low scoring hockey. Although I did like the times since I could watch them at work, same for SHL games.

 

[G0bias]

add to that if you watched KalPa, holy **** were they boring as hell to watch. Terrible feeds and low scoring hockey. Although I did like the times since I could watch them at work, same for SHL games.

I only caught Ikonen once as I only focused on Pori and Karpat(who thankfully offered some decent level of play). Though Pori were on a Habs level of suck in the playoffs.