Prospect Info: 2020 NHL Draft Part 2

[DavidBL]

For a team desperate for high end talent taken I have trouble seeing the team move down from their best opportunity to get it. My guess is they would be looking to move up if they could. Not down.

 

[Beckett]

For a team desperate for high end talent taken I have trouble seeing the team move down from their best opportunity to get it. My guess is they would be looking to move up if they could. Not down.

Wouldnt be outlandish to believe their scouts see a guy like Lundell or Rychel as better pro prospects than Rossi/Perfetti... or alteast comparable.

 

[lwvs84]

Which teams in the 10-15 range would move their pick? Toronto at 15 seems like a likely candidate, but I assume Manson would have to go the other way. Buffalo (although unlikely), Jets, Canes, Oilers, Leafs might all be willing to move picks to upgrade for playoffs next year. I'm not sure any of the teams would be willing to trade down to 27+other pick(s). Wonder if the Ducks would be able/willing to move any vets for those picks or 27+ to get into the late teens if there is anyone they think is worth it left.

 

[robbieboy3686]

Off topic, can someone explain to me why the red head girl ( Gardner ) or whatever her name is, doesn’t get as much air time as Jackie redmond And the blonde girls ? It’s like? Hello, nlh network ! Get on the ball!

 

[robbieboy3686]

This whole “
High end talent “ debate is laughable , a #6 pick isn’t a guaranteed “ high end talent “ pick where trading down to 15 or so is some huge downgrade. We will have lots of contracts coming off the books, we will
Have tons of money to spend after next season, we need to draft as many core 2/3 young liners as possible! When we lack a superstar, we can sign one or trade for one later on, we need the next core of Silfverbergs and we need more picks to make sure we have multiple versions of him

 

[eternalbedhead]

#6 is not guaranteed "high end talent" by any stretch of the imagination but it's a lot better than those third-line tweeners we keep drafting. You're kidding yourself if someone like Zegras isn't head-and-shoulders above just about everyone else in our pool, and that we aren't in a position to draft someone of similar caliber this year.

Trading down, especially if it's a significant distance, would be a mistake.

 

[Vaakou]

This whole “
High end talent “ debate is laughable , a #6 pick isn’t a guaranteed “ high end talent “ pick where trading down to 15 or so is some huge downgrade. We will have lots of contracts coming off the books, we will
Have tons of money to spend after next season, we need to draft as many core 2/3 young liners as possible! When we lack a superstar, we can sign one or trade for one later on, we need the next core of Silfverbergs and we need more picks to make sure we have multiple versions of him

What are you talking about. We have too many young forwards already, we don't have room for all of them. We need top end talent, nothing wrong with our depth players.

 

[Paul4587]

#6 is not guaranteed "high end talent" by any stretch of the imagination but it's a lot better than those third-line tweeners we keep drafting. You're kidding yourself if someone like Zegras isn't head-and-shoulders above just about everyone else in our pool, and that we aren't in a position to draft someone of similar caliber this year.

Trading down, especially if it's a significant distance, would be a mistake.

My thoughts behind the rationale for trading down was that Madden stated in interviews that there is a drop off after around 12 which indicates he has a lot of guys in a similar tier. If he could get a really good asset to move down say 3 spots or so to get a similar player to what he thought was around at 6 then he probably would.

I don't necessarily agree with it and maybe Madden was just saying that for the sake of it and doesn't believe it at all. It just wouldn't surprise me if we did move down.

 

[GibsonIsGod666]

What are your guys thoughts on Lapierre? Seems like a boom or bust prospect that might be there at around 27.

 

[Paul4587]

What are your guys thoughts on Lapierre? Seems like a boom or bust prospect that might be there at around 27.

At 27 I would have interest. There are a lot of red flags but there is a shitload of talent there.

 

[Rasp]

What are your guys thoughts on Lapierre? Seems like a boom or bust prospect that might be there at around 27.

Its going to depend on his medical report. If it looks good he will go well before 27 if not he will prob be there for our second round pick.

 

[Boo Boo]

I think there will be high upside options available with bostons picks that dont have concussion red flags so if I was picking I would stay away until our secound rounder. Really though I dont mind taking a risk with bostons pick if we think we can hit our second round out of the park.

 

[Beckett]

Here's a high upside guy:

I really want Rychel to make it to the Boston pick, but if he's not there I'm hoping for William Wallinder. Huge kid, moves really well for his size and has shown some offensive instincts. He's a late 2nd on a lot of mocks but I think a team will grab him in the 1st rd.

 

[Boo Boo]

Here's a high upside guy:

I really want Rychel to make it to the Boston pick, but if he's not there I'm hoping for William Wallinder. Huge kid, moves really well for his size and has shown some offensive instincts. He's a late 2nd on a lot of mocks but I think a team will grab him in the 1st rd.

I could completely get behind taking rychel. he seems like a riser though so it might be unlikely

 

[rlstine]

When I'm bored at work I mess around with an amateur draft project I have trying to see historically what sort of factors (height, league, scoring pace, age, etc.) lead some picks to outperform their draft position and others to underperform.

Historically the player taken with the #6 pick is worth about 5 standing points per year. If you wanted to trade down the equivalent would be about three picks in the teens (e.g. 14, 15, and 16 would be about right). I've only had time to incorporate data from the 2010-2017 drafts so it's pretty rough at this point, but we're pretty much always better off just keeping #6.

For reference, here are the expected standings points added by a player at each draft position in the first round:

1. 11 (Yakupov was worth 1.8, McDavid is worth 18.5)
2. 8
3. 6
4. 5
5. 5
6. 5
7. 5
8. 5
9. 4
10. 3
11-20. 1.5ish
21-31. 0.5ish

A few other notes:

-Value drops off extremely quickly, even in the first round. It makes a lot of sense we've declined so quickly when we're constantly drafting in the end of the first.
-That value drop is probably most extreme around picks 3-4 and then again around picks 9-11. As a quick rule of thumb there are probably three tiers in the first round: 1-3, 4-10, and then 11-31.
-I think we (at least I know I did) might have overrated guys like Steel, Jones, and Lundestrom who were taken where they were. Even though they are "first round picks", historically guys taken there usually don't contribute much.
-Just for fun, Nick Ritchie actually outperformed his expected value at #10, but that's mostly because historically that's where a huge dropoff starts. Larsson has also surpassed his expected value essentially just by making it to the NHL.

 

[Beckett]

Thanks for sharing, confirms how much of a wild card all picks really are. Gotta think the Ducks have better metrics with Madden making decisions

 

[Static]

6th and 27th now.

 

[Trojans86]

This whole “
High end talent “ debate is laughable , a #6 pick isn’t a guaranteed “ high end talent “ pick where trading down to 15 or so is some huge downgrade. We will have lots of contracts coming off the books, we will
Have tons of money to spend after next season, we need to draft as many core 2/3 young liners as possible! When we lack a superstar, we can sign one or trade for one later on, we need the next core of Silfverbergs and we need more picks to make sure we have multiple versions of him

That was a pretty stupid take

 

[Trojans86]

When I'm bored at work I mess around with an amateur draft project I have trying to see historically what sort of factors (height, league, scoring pace, age, etc.) lead some picks to outperform their draft position and others to underperform.

Historically the player taken with the #6 pick is worth about 5 standing points per year. If you wanted to trade down the equivalent would be about three picks in the teens (e.g. 14, 15, and 16 would be about right). I've only had time to incorporate data from the 2010-2017 drafts so it's pretty rough at this point, but we're pretty much always better off just keeping #6.

For reference, here are the expected standings points added by a player at each draft position in the first round:

1. 11 (Yakupov was worth 1.8, McDavid is worth 18.5)
2. 8
3. 6
4. 5
5. 5
6. 5
7. 5
8. 5
9. 4
10. 3
11-20. 1.5ish
21-31. 0.5ish

A few other notes:

-Value drops off extremely quickly, even in the first round. It makes a lot of sense we've declined so quickly when we're constantly drafting in the end of the first.
-That value drop is probably most extreme around picks 3-4 and then again around picks 9-11. As a quick rule of thumb there are probably three tiers in the first round: 1-3, 4-10, and then 11-31.
-I think we (at least I know I did) might have overrated guys like Steel, Jones, and Lundestrom who were taken where they were. Even though they are "first round picks", historically guys taken there usually don't contribute much.
-Just for fun, Nick Ritchie actually outperformed his expected value at #10, but that's mostly because historically that's where a huge dropoff starts. Larsson has also surpassed his expected value essentially just by making it to the NHL.

This is about what I see in past drafts. Top 10 has elite potential. Drops off quickly after that.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

My thoughts behind the rationale for trading down was that Madden stated in interviews that there is a drop off after around 12 which indicates he has a lot of guys in a similar tier. If he could get a really good asset to move down say 3 spots or so to get a similar player to what he thought was around at 6 then he probably would.

I don't necessarily agree with it and maybe Madden was just saying that for the sake of it and doesn't believe it at all. It just wouldn't surprise me if we did move down.

Madden does make a point about a top-12, but that doesn't necessarily mean all 12 are equal. It's like saying LaFreniere is interchangeable with the 12th overall selection, which isn't true. There probably are tiers within the top-12. Also, it could be 'GM speak' to mask who the Ducks might want by expanding the pool of talent they like.

Here's a quote from Bob Murray after discovering we were slated for the 6th overall pick:

"Naturally, we would have liked to move up in the draft, but we feel this draft has an outstanding top-10 crop of players," said Executive Vice President and General Manager Bob Murray. "Our fans are going to be very excited with the caliber of player we should be able to draft later this year."

I would be aghast if the org trades down from 6th overall. Can you imagine trading down from 6th overall in 2012 in hopes you can still get Lindholm later and be left with Slater Koekkoek? Recall that every pundit and many on the HF boards thought we overreached for Lindholm, save the Euro board where its members all raved about Lindholm. There's going to be someone good at 6th overall for the Ducks and it would be a shame to amputate getting a higher end talent prospect by trading out of the 6th overall pick. It doesn't make any sense as it's been researched that the further away you get from the top pick the less of a chance a player makes the NHL. Rlstine shared expected standing points that it's safer to retain the 6th overall than to trade down.

The Ducks have traded down in the first round before under Murray in 2011. It was with a late first round pick the Ducks owned. GM Murray sought to drafted F Stefan Noesen at 22nd overall, but the Sens snatched him up a pick before us. Then Murray traded the 22nd for the 30th and 39th overall, who became Rakell and Gibson. This trade of 22nd = 30th + 39th shows that a 6th overall would require significantly more than one top teen selection if draft picks were only involved in a trade.

Why gamble on losing a player you at 6th overall by trading down into a lower tier of talent into the teens, especially for forward talent? We need more Zegras type talent than Max Jones talent types at forward. We can't seem to find enough gems with forwards like we do with defensemen and goalies.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Thanks for sharing, confirms how much of a wild card all picks really are. Gotta think the Ducks have better metrics with Madden making decisions

With goalies and defensemen, not so much with forwards, unfortunately. ::: sighs ::: Gotta admit, we dodged a bullet by Ottawa selecting Noesen before us so that we could trade down to pick up both Rakell and Gibson.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

This whole “
High end talent “ debate is laughable , a #6 pick isn’t a guaranteed “ high end talent “ pick where trading down to 15 or so is some huge downgrade. We will have lots of contracts coming off the books, we will
Have tons of money to spend after next season, we need to draft as many core 2/3 young liners as possible! When we lack a superstar, we can sign one or trade for one later on, we need the next core of Silfverbergs and we need more picks to make sure we have multiple versions of him

We haven't signed a star player in 14 years

 

[Static]

The difference between 31st and 27th might not be anything at all as far as the quality of player we get, but might make moving up slightly easier if a guy we like drops a little bit.

 

[Kalv]

When I'm bored at work I mess around with an amateur draft project I have trying to see historically what sort of factors (height, league, scoring pace, age, etc.) lead some picks to outperform their draft position and others to underperform.

Historically the player taken with the #6 pick is worth about 5 standing points per year. If you wanted to trade down the equivalent would be about three picks in the teens (e.g. 14, 15, and 16 would be about right). I've only had time to incorporate data from the 2010-2017 drafts so it's pretty rough at this point, but we're pretty much always better off just keeping #6.

For reference, here are the expected standings points added by a player at each draft position in the first round:

1. 11 (Yakupov was worth 1.8, McDavid is worth 18.5)
2. 8
3. 6
4. 5
5. 5
6. 5
7. 5
8. 5
9. 4
10. 3
11-20. 1.5ish
21-31. 0.5ish

A few other notes:

-Value drops off extremely quickly, even in the first round. It makes a lot of sense we've declined so quickly when we're constantly drafting in the end of the first.
-That value drop is probably most extreme around picks 3-4 and then again around picks 9-11. As a quick rule of thumb there are probably three tiers in the first round: 1-3, 4-10, and then 11-31.
-I think we (at least I know I did) might have overrated guys like Steel, Jones, and Lundestrom who were taken where they were. Even though they are "first round picks", historically guys taken there usually don't contribute much.
-Just for fun, Nick Ritchie actually outperformed his expected value at #10, but that's mostly because historically that's where a huge dropoff starts. Larsson has also surpassed his expected value essentially just by making it to the NHL.

It's just averages but teams seem to win when they take a bit of a ''wild card'' or if it has fallen to them and plays out. Like Petersson and Hughes for the Nucks.
But this is an interesting share regardless. And it further validates that the late first round is a longshot. That's why competing teams are ok to give them up for the right price, even rentals.

I'm ok with Steel and Jones albeit I would like them to be better, but I am concerned with Tracey.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

For a team desperate for high end talent taken I have trouble seeing the team move down from their best opportunity to get it. My guess is they would be looking to move up if they could. Not down.

This doesn't mean they don't have a plan if they can't move up. If it happens that there's more than one guy they like at 6 and they think they'll get a guy they like just as well at 10 or 12 or whatever, then it would make more sense to move down and pick up an extra asset. Doesn't mean it's plan A but they can't control what happens ahead of them.