Prospect Info: 2020 NHL Draft 19th Overall Pick, Braden Schneider, D

[Edge]

I think Wheeler's philosophy is being mis-characterized a bit. He likes Schneider - sees his realistic upside as 2nd pair. So Wheeler says if you have say 8 high draft picks over a number of years and go after Schneider level talent you will wind up with say 5 guys that make it, but none are 1st pair dmen or 1st line forwards. He rather swing for the fences and pick riskier high end talent so that you would wind up with perhaps 3 guys that make it but at least one is an all star type. And that result, he believes, is more likely to produce a better team. And yes he devalues anyone a bit who doesn't have some significant offensive upside. Not saying I agree with him but I do find him interesting and I respect his viewpoints, which certainly go against the grain.

Fans generally fall in love with their new prospects, especially when buying into the front office's reasoning and accolades, and then get defensive when the nationally based prospect evaluators present a different view. It's a running joke among guys like Pronman that each fan base wants to know why they hate their team.

The problem with that approach is that it views those projections as tangible plateaus and also tends to favor over-projecting offensive forwards as “first line prospects” because of a stats bias or other misconceptions.

I think that’s the crux of a lot of these misconceptions - offensive numbers = all-star potential. But beyond that, I am not drafting for the all-star team. I am drafting for an NHL team. That’s a huge difference.

 

[OrlandK]

The problem with that approach is that it views those projections as tangible plateaus and also tends to favor over-projecting offensive forwards as “first line prospects” because of a stats bias or other misconceptions.

I think that’s the crux of a lot of these misconceptions - offensive numbers = all-star potential. But beyond that, I am not drafting for the all-star team. I am drafting for an NHL team. That’s a huge difference.

What Wheeler would say is that the hardest and most important thing to obtain are all-stars so you use your high draft picks for that type of talent (look at what type of player makes all-star teams) and use other methods (free agency, lower draft picks, etc.) to develop the other elements needed. He's not saying that only offensive stars are needed (ie Maple Leafs, older version of the Lightning, etc.); just that the most efficient way to build a successful team is not to use high draft picks to obtain grit & defensive oriented forwards and dmen.

 

[kovazub94]

What Wheeler would say is that the hardest and most important thing to obtain are all-stars so you use your high draft picks for that type of talent (look at what type of player makes all-star teams) and use other methods (free agency, lower draft picks, etc.) to develop the other elements needed. He's not saying that only offensive stars are needed (ie Maple Leafs, older version of the Lightning, etc.); just that the most efficient way to build a successful team is not to use high draft picks to obtain grit & defensive oriented forwards and dmen.

What is not being addressed by Wheeler (at least I don't see this explicitly in his analysis write-ups) is assessment of BPA at the point the pick is made. Prospects are ranked for a reason - each player carries a unique level of risk attributable to not fulfilling expectations. So I can see a less offensive prospect being ranked as a higher BPA than an offensive prospect because of this risk. If two players have the same level of risk then I agree that someone with more offensive potential should prevail.

 

[Edge]

What Wheeler would say is that the hardest and most important thing to obtain are all-stars so you use your high draft picks for that type of talent (look at what type of player makes all-star teams) and use other methods (free agency, lower draft picks, etc.) to develop the other elements needed. He's not saying that only offensive stars are needed (ie Maple Leafs, older version of the Lightning, etc.); just that the most efficient way to build a successful team is not to use high draft picks to obtain grit & defensive oriented forwards and dmen.

I think I'd probably have a lot of pushback if that was his response.

The first thing I'd say is that all-star teams don't inherently win championships, or even tournaments.

The second thing I'd say is that the folly of assuming you have all-stars is where some teams get themselves into a lot of trouble. The approach would almost inherently assume that forwards with high-end offensive numbers are potential all-stars, nd thus more valuable, whereas defenseman without high-end offensive numbers are not.

Following up on the second point, I don't the best approach is to find the types of players who make all-star teams (typically offensively leaning), so much as the best approach is to find which players are successful and in-demand by championship teams. Again, I'm not looking to win the skills competition.

I also disagree with his premise that you just go out and get those other players via trades and free agency. That's proven time and time again by the price paid for the better versions of those guys --- which typically includes the very draft picks and "all-star" types he's pursuing.

So all Mr. Wheeler is actually doing is reversing the order a little bit. Instead of taking those players with first round picks, he'd find himself trading first round picks to acquire them --- assuming he can.

All of that goes back to the trap that a lot the younger pundits make --- that quality tends to coincide with offense.

For example, based on past evaluations (and there's not many of them because Wheeler is all of 25 years old and so he hasn't actually established a viable track record as to whether his approach is legit), Wheeler would look at someone like Bourque, see the offensive numbers as a forward, and assume the kid has all-star potential. In reality, Bourque and forwards like him probably project more into the second line territory. But it's easier to "convince yourself" that you're looking at a potential first line player, or all-star.

Most people don't do that with defensemen. If the offensive numbers aren't there, it's almost always followed with more of a "oh he's a second pair guy." The benefit of the doubt is almost always given to forwards though.

And that put's us right back to where we started about the risk of falling a little too in love with the highlight reel stuff, with the numbers against teenagers, and the belief that offense = upside or perceived talent.

 

[Edge]

What is not being addressed by Wheeler (at least I don't see this explicitly in his analysis write-ups) is assessment of BPA at the point the pick is made. Prospects are ranked for a reason - each player carries a unique level of risk attributable to not fulfilling expectations. So I can see a less offensive prospect being ranked as a higher BPA than an offensive prospect because of this risk. If two players have the same level of risk then I agree that someone with more offensive potential should prevail.

I think what is challenging for a lot of people is figuring out what actually constitues offensive potential. That's where it can be very easy to fall into the trap of stat watching.

So you take Schneider at 19. But who do you see as a potential all-star on the board at that point? Bourque? Lapierre? Perrault? Brisson?

I see guys with nice offensive upside (Lapierre is a top 10 talent without the injuries), but I don't know if I look at those names and say, "Wow, we just passed on all-star level talent."

I see second line forwards, who maybe have a chance to pair with a first line talent if everything falls together. In other words, not all that different than what I'd say for Schneider.

So why do those guys have all-star talent? Is it because of the offense? Again, I don't think that's necessarily true. There are plenty of guys who score 20 goals and 50 points, but aren't all-stars. There's nothing wrong with them, that's very good production. But it's not "all-star" production.

So what constitutes that label, especially when you start getting into picks in the 20s or 30s?

For me, that's where it starts to fall apart a little.

"This guy has all-star talent!"

"Okay, based on what?"

 

[kovazub94]

I think what is challenging for a lot of people is figuring out what actually constitues offensive potential. That's where it can be very easy to fall into the trap of stat watching.

So you take Schneider at 19. But who do you see as a potential all-star on the board at that point? Bourque? Lapierre? Perrault? Brisson?

I see guys with nice offensive upside (Lapierre is a top 10 talent without the injuries), but I don't know if I look at those names and say, "Wow, we just passed on all-star level talent."

I see second line forwards, who maybe have a chance to pair with a first line talent if everything falls together. In other words, not all that different than what I'd say for Schneider.

So why do those guys have all-star talent? Is it because of the offense? Again, I don't think that's necessarily true. There are plenty of guys who score 20 goals and 50 points, but aren't all-stars. There's nothing wrong with them, that's very good production. But it's not "all-star" production.

So what constitutes that label, especially when you start getting into picks in the 20s or 30s?

For me, that's where it starts to fall apart a little.

"This guy has all-star talent!"

"Okay, based on what?"

Pretty much the risk I was talking about. The further a prospect is removed from let’s say top10, the more risk is that his offensive talent will not translate to 20-30 or more goals but rather something is teens. And if this a case does this prospect have or could develop other parts of the game to be an effective NHL player, even as a bottom-6 forward. And as such possibility (risk) increases aren’t we looking at top-4 D vs bottom-6 winger?

 

[Edge]

Pretty much the risk I was talking about. The further a prospect is removed from let’s say top10, the more risk is that his offensive talent will not translate to 20-30 or more goals but rather something is teens. And if this a case does this prospect have or could develop other parts of the game to be an effective NHL player, even as a bottom-6 forward. And as such possibility (risk) increases aren’t we looking at top-4 D vs bottom-6 winger?

Agreed, and that's part of the rub. I'd say Schneider has just as much of a chance being tethered to an offensive dynamo on the first line as some of the forwards left on the board have of finding chemistry with first line, skilled forwards.

It does illustrate how expectations differ for forward prospects and defensive prospects as well. Pretty much every defenseman who doesn't project as scoring 10-15 goals, or more than 50 points projects as a second pair defenseman. Whereas with forwards we often talk about chemistry, and it depending on who their linemates are, and how teams balance rosters.

Meanwhile, in theory, if you have a 15 goal, 55 point defenseman, the odds say his partner isn't also going to be putting up 10 goals and 45 points. More than likely his partner will be putting more modest numbers as the a first pair defenseman.

Defense is a weird position in the sense that the primary responsibility (playing defense) is somewhat downplayed by fans compared to other attributes like scoring, hitting and fighting.

Let me put it this way. If Schneider, Fox, ADA, and Lundkvist all maintain, or hit their full potential, Schneider is the guy you put out there with 30 seconds left and holding a 1 or 2 goal lead. Pairings be damned.

 

[Mikos87]

What Wheeler would say is that the hardest and most important thing to obtain are all-stars so you use your high draft picks for that type of talent (look at what type of player makes all-star teams) and use other methods (free agency, lower draft picks, etc.) to develop the other elements needed. He's not saying that only offensive stars are needed (ie Maple Leafs, older version of the Lightning, etc.); just that the most efficient way to build a successful team is not to use high draft picks to obtain grit & defensive oriented forwards and dmen.

All of that is perfectly fine. It's called differentiation. There's more than one way to win. Wheeler has his thoughts, but in the corporate world, Wheeler may not be a cultural fit for one organization, while being perfectly suited for another. The value systems, which drive- not derive- how you want your organization to be are at the heart of player evaluation. Wheeler just has a different one. There's nothing wrong with Wheeler's logic, that may work for other teams. The GM will have to make trades down the line if you overstock at BPA.

I didn't read his article so I don't know the details, but I'm fairly certain the above will hold.

 

[Leetch3]

What Wheeler would say is that the hardest and most important thing to obtain are all-stars so you use your high draft picks for that type of talent (look at what type of player makes all-star teams) and use other methods (free agency, lower draft picks, etc.) to develop the other elements needed. He's not saying that only offensive stars are needed (ie Maple Leafs, older version of the Lightning, etc.); just that the most efficient way to build a successful team is not to use high draft picks to obtain grit & defensive oriented forwards and dmen.

LMAO @ the idea that you need to copy the maple leafs to efficiently build a successful team...the team that hasn't won in 53 years...and even tb was known as a choke artist until this year..

 

[OrlandK]

I think Wheeler's view on player value aligns more closely with the salary structure in the league. If you are correct you have identified an inefficiency and you should be able to exploit it (ala Billy Beane re: OBP) and build the best team in a salary cap league because you have a better idea of true value than the current league conventions as defined by current salary standards.

 

[OrlandK]

LMAO @ the idea that you need to copy the maple leafs to efficiently build a successful team...the team that hasn't won in 53 years...and even tb was known as a choke artist until this year..

That was my point - you missed it entirely.

 

[Leetch3]

I also don't understand why its wrong to use a 1st or 2nd round pick to get depth players...but trading a 1st round pick to acquire them is smart? both ways it is cost you a 1st round pick but the 2nd way you lose out on the cheap years as you'd be trading for a guy that is now UFA age. so how is that smart?

TB traded 2 1st round picks (Nolan Foote 1st in 2019 and a 2020 1st) for blake coleman...nj drafted him with a 3rd round pick

is that really better value? I mean it worked out for tb obviously but is giving up 2 1st round picks so you can't draft a skilled player with either pick rather than not picking a skilled guy with a 3rd round pick really the smart approach?

 

[Leetch3]

That was my point - you missed it entirely.

but that is the argument that wheeler is trying to make...your caveat that it doesn't just have to be offensive skilled players is true but invalidates the argument because schneider IS a good player. so if you aren't limited to offensive skilled players, then schneider is a perfectly fine pick in that spot.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Wheeler is the f***ing worst

 

[Edge]

All of that is perfectly fine. It's called differentiation. There's more than one way to win. Wheeler has his thoughts, but in the corporate world, Wheeler may not be a cultural fit for one organization, while being perfectly suited for another. The value systems, which drive- not derive- how you want your organization to be are at the heart of player evaluation. Wheeler just has a different one. There's nothing wrong with Wheeler's logic, that may work for other teams. The GM will have to make trades down the line if you overstock at BPA.

I didn't read his article so I don't know the details, but I'm fairly certain the above will hold.

I would say Wheeler's approach is probably in the minority league-wide. I think there's deviation as to how teams value players and interpret what they're seeing, but I don't think many teams go in with the mindset Wheeler is describing.

To that point, I think that's why we see the trades that we do and the GMs pay the prices that they do.

However, I do think that people outside the industry --- observers if you will --- tend to place a higher value on offense than defense. Which I think is the major flaw in Wheeler's approach.

Awards and recognition is heavily skewed toward offensive numbers. Has been for a very long time. So if you're basing talent evaluation off the mindset of who is likely to be named to all-star teams, it's going leave out a lot of very good players that are just as valuable as the guys playing in the all-star game, and sometimes paid just as much, but without the "reward" of playing in an exhibition game or being named to a post-season honor roll (depending on how one defines all-star).

Case in point, an extreme example is Artemi Panarin. He never played in all-star game until he bcame a Ranger and made the team at 28. McDonagh in his prime made a grand total of one all-star appearance.

Some of the best stay-at-home defenseman in the league never come close to sniffing an all-star game or a post-season award/designation. Teams gobble them however and whenever they can.

Should Schneider being picked before guys like Holtz or Raymond have been met with some surprise? Sure, you bet.

But the guys who are on the board at 19? Eh, I think that's pushing it. And even then, preference for offensive forwards doesn't make Schneider any less of a prospect.

It's just such a flawed approach.

 

[Levitate]

I think Wheeler's view on player value aligns more closely with the salary structure in the league. If you are correct you have identified an inefficiency and you should be able to exploit it (ala Billy Beane re: OBP) and build the best team in a salary cap league because you have a better idea of true value than the current league conventions as defined by current salary standards.

I'm not really sure he's identifying inefficiency

 

[OrlandK]

I would say Wheeler's approach is probably in the minority league-wide. I think there's deviation as to how teams value players and interpret what they're seeing, but I don't think many teams go in with the mindset Wheeler is describing.

To that point, I think that's why we see the trades that we do and the GMs pay the prices that they do.

However, I do think that people outside the industry --- observers if you will --- tend to place a higher value on offense than defense. Which I think is the major flaw in Wheeler's approach.

Awards and recognition is heavily skewed toward offensive numbers. Has been for a very long time. So if you're basing talent evaluation off the mindset of who is likely to be named to all-star teams, it's going leave out a lot of very good players that are just as valuable as the guys playing in the all-star game, and sometimes paid just as much, but without the "reward" of playing in an exhibition game or being named to a post-season honor roll (depending on how one defines all-star).

Case in point, an extreme example is Artemi Panarin. He never played in all-star game until he bcame a Ranger and made the team at 28. McDonagh in his prime made a grand total of one all-star appearance.

Some of the best stay-at-home defenseman in the league never come close to sniffing an all-star game or a post-season award/designation. Teams gobble them however and whenever they can.

Should Schneider being picked before guys like Holtz or Raymond have been met with some surprise? Sure, you bet.

But the guys who are on the board at 19? Eh, I think that's pushing it. And even then, preference for offensive forwards doesn't make Schneider any less of a prospect.

It's just such a flawed approach.

I certainly agree that Wheeler's views are in the minority, and are certainly different than mine. I just find them very interesting and he's a good listen too. And I'm not convinced that he's not on to something. In fact one could say that the Lightning won with his philosophy. They built a team with tremendous offensive talent and then only won it all when they backfilled with relatively low cost easily obtainable grit and sandpaper.

 

[Vitto79]

So Schneider hits a lot and the OHL won’t allow a body check ?

 

[Harbour Dog]

So Schneider hits a lot and the OHL won’t allow a body check ?

He plays in the WHL though, so wouldn't be affected by that rule if it is implemented.

 

[SA16]

I also don't understand why its wrong to use a 1st or 2nd round pick to get depth players...but trading a 1st round pick to acquire them is smart? both ways it is cost you a 1st round pick but the 2nd way you lose out on the cheap years as you'd be trading for a guy that is now UFA age. so how is that smart?

TB traded 2 1st round picks (Nolan Foote 1st in 2019 and a 2020 1st) for blake coleman...nj drafted him with a 3rd round pick

is that really better value? I mean it worked out for tb obviously but is giving up 2 1st round picks so you can't draft a skilled player with either pick rather than not picking a skilled guy with a 3rd round pick really the smart approach?

There is a big difference. When you use a pick for a potential depth player you don't know exactly what you're getting. The most likely scenario is you're getting a player who won't make the NHL or a 4th liner/3rd pairing player. When you trade the pick for a player, like Coleman, you already know you are getting an established quality player that can help your team. There is way more data on him. You can also target players that have a good contract situation like Tampa did. The other difference is players in the league are largely paid based on points. It is much more valuable to draft those players because you have years where they will be a cheap and provide a lot of excess value before they hit UFA. If you try to trade for those players you are going to be paying 5M+ if there are no retention. And yes, those guys can certainly bust too and again the most likely scenario is you're not getting an NHL player, but the times you do hit are far more valuable. If you draft a depth player they will be cheap early but those guys also remain cheap late. So whether you draft or trade for them you are going to be a getting an inexpensive contract regardless.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

So Schneider hits a lot and the OHL won’t allow a body check ?

Schneider doesn't play in the OHL

 

[kovazub94]

There is a big difference. When you use a pick for a potential depth player you don't know exactly what you're getting. The most likely scenario is you're getting a player who won't make the NHL or a 4th liner/3rd pairing player. When you trade the pick for a player, like Coleman, you already know you are getting an established quality player that can help your team. There is way more data on him. You can also target players that have a good contract situation like Tampa did. The other difference is players in the league are largely paid based on points. It is much more valuable to draft those players because you have years where they will be a cheap and provide a lot of excess value before they hit UFA. If you try to trade for those players you are going to be paying 5M+ if there are no retention. And yes, those guys can certainly bust too and again the most likely scenario is you're not getting an NHL player, but the times you do hit are far more valuable. If you draft a depth player they will be cheap early but those guys also remain cheap late. So whether you draft or trade for them you are going to be a getting an inexpensive contract regardless.

I disagree with your argument. Your basis (or how I interpret it) is that a junior depth player translates to the NHL depth player. To me a future depth player is still an offensively productive junior who also poses other attributes that would translate at a higher level. To that end a 5’9” junior putting up over hundred points but lacks physicality could have a less likelihood to become an NHLer than his contemporary who’s 80-point with 6’2” size who is an effective forechecker and also be willing to drop gloves or otherwise has an edge to his game. Both could be picked around the same time - let’s say the end of 1st / beginning of 2nd round - but is who I consider as a depth candidate and just as good value (if not better) as the former.

 

[SA16]

I disagree with your argument. Your basis (or how I interpret it) is that a junior depth player translates to the NHL depth player. To me a future depth player is still an offensively productive junior who also poses other attributes that would translate at a higher level. To that end a 5’9” junior putting up over hundred points but lacks physicality could have a less likelihood to become an NHLer than his contemporary who’s 80-point with 6’2” size who is an effective forechecker and also be willing to drop gloves or otherwise has an edge to his game. Both could be picked around the same time - let’s say the end of 1st / beginning of 2nd round - but is who I consider as a depth candidate and just as good value (if not better) as the former.

I do not believe a Junior depth player translates to an NHL player. A Junior depth player translates to not an NHL player. I mean a player in Junior who is seen as a depth player at the next level. These guys are generally still first or second liners at worst in Junior.

 

[kovazub94]

I do not believe a Junior depth player translates to an NHL player. A Junior depth player translates to not an NHL player. I mean a player in Junior who is seen as a depth player at the next level. These guys are generally still first or second liners at worst in Junior.

Then I don’t see how you can distinguish that these prospects with depth potential are more likely to not reach NHL.

 

[Mikos87]

A player that's in the running for 20+ a night on the Canadian world junior team isn't a depth player by traditional definitions.