NHL Entry Draft 2022 NHL Draft Thread - Part 2

[JD1]

Mann: 2022 draft could go in a lot of different directions

Senators chief amateur scout Trent Mann on having in-person interviews and meetings back, combine interviews, Tyler Boucher and 2022 draft class.

www.tsn.ca

Says that guys are needed in a salary cap world (just assuming he means guys like Coleman/Goodrow/Hagel as they are the in thing now in the copycat league) and teams don’t give them up and they price themselves out of cap teams.

On my 2nd listen through there is definitely more to it than I previously stated about the guys we drafted, which is just terrible to hear.

I didn't get the sense that he implied they drafted based on potential down stream salary implications

What he said was more of an it takes all kinds of different pieces to put together a winner and that they drafted what they didn't have

In Sillinger's case, they may have looked at him as more of what they already have

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Mann: 2022 draft could go in a lot of different directions

Senators chief amateur scout Trent Mann on having in-person interviews and meetings back, combine interviews, Tyler Boucher and 2022 draft class.

www.tsn.ca

Says that guys are needed in a salary cap world (just assuming he means guys like Coleman/Goodrow/Hagel as they are the in thing now in the copycat league) and teams don’t give them up and they price themselves out of cap teams.

On my 2nd listen through there is definitely more to it than I previously stated about the guys we drafted, which is just terrible to hear.

I would interpret that differently. David Backes, Milan Lucic and Wayne Simmonds are good examples of highly coveted powerforwards who arguably played their best hockey prior to their UFA years or just shortly into them. At their peaks they were cost controlled assets and the teams that had them weren't willing to move them. These kinds of impactful powerforwards are nearly impossible to acquire via trade when they are in their RFA years. Once they do become available to attain, which tends to be via UFA, there is a massive market for them which drives up the price of their contract, and typically they aren't quite as impactful as they were during their RFA years.

I would think that this is the rationale by the Sens. They want some premier powerforwards in their primes where they are at the peak of their performance and a cost controlled asset. They know that they can't acquire a premier one in their prime as teams won't trade them.

The Sens appear to be making a more concerted effort to find some of those players that are very scarce across the league, are highly coveted and the types of players that teams don't part ways with in their primes.

 

[Boud]

I would interpret that differently. David Backes, Milan Lucic and Wayne Simmonds are good examples of highly coveted powerforwards who arguably played their best hockey prior to their UFA years or just shortly into them. At their peaks they were cost controlled assets and the teams that had them weren't willing to move them. These kinds of impactful powerforwards are nearly impossible to acquire via trade when they are in their RFA years. Once they do become available to attain, which tends to be via UFA, there is a massive market for them which drives up the price of their contract, and typically they aren't quite as impactful as they were during their RFA years.

I would think that this is the rationale by the Sens. They want some premier powerforwards in their primes where they are at the peak of their performance and a cost controlled asset. They know that they can't acquire a premier one in their prime as teams won't trade them.

The Sens appear to be making a more concerted effort to find some of those players that are very scarce across the league, are highly coveted and the types of players that teams don't part ways with in their primes.

Lucic, Backes and Simmonds were all 2nd rounders.

You have a valid point but there's a time and a place to grab guys like that. It isn't in the top 10. After a year where the player barely even played nonetheless. At best it was a very poorly calculated move.

 

[dumbdick]

I would interpret that differently. David Backes, Milan Lucic and Wayne Simmonds are good examples of highly coveted powerforwards who arguably played their best hockey prior to their UFA years or just shortly into them. At their peaks they were cost controlled assets and the teams that had them weren't willing to move them. These kinds of impactful powerforwards are nearly impossible to acquire via trade when they are in their RFA years. Once they do become available to attain, which tends to be via UFA, there is a massive market for them which drives up the price of their contract, and typically they aren't quite as impactful as they were during their RFA years.

I would think that this is the rationale by the Sens. They want some premier powerforwards in their primes where they are at the peak of their performance and a cost controlled asset. They know that they can't acquire a premier one in their prime as teams won't trade them.

The Sens appear to be making a more concerted effort to find some of those players that are very scarce across the league, are highly coveted and the types of players that teams don't part ways with in their primes.

I get that logic and generally agree with the concept of "elite" bottom six/bottom pairing guys (Paul, Pageau, Neiler, etc.).

I was even tossing out the idea of trading down from 3/5 in 2020 and picking up a few of these hard to acquire guys in the process.

But you've got to maximize your assets in those first 40 or so picks. Otherwise it's just leaving money on the table. Trade down or trade the pick, but when you draft a role guy high he needs to be pretty close to the BPA.

 

[JungleBeat]

You trade for that depth when you are contending. Not waste a top 10 pick on them.

 

[Micklebot]

So, just to summarize what he said;

- We're still very happy with who we picked,
- We picked players we knew the development path would be a little longer
- Felt like we were in another phase of the rebuild where we have time, [to develop players for down the road]
- You need certain types of players to help you win and teams don't give you those players
- Sometimes they price themselves out the cap for certain teams
- Make sure we have access available [to those types of players] for Pierre and management whatever they do with it

Other things of note:
- Ben Roger is probably one of the best skating dman in the OHL, long reach, long body,
- Romeo, skates extremely well, come a long way, knew it would be a longer process.
- Can't have all the kids make the Sens in the same year


I don't see it as him making picks because of salary cap issues, I see it as a team needs to have these types of players, and they are hard to come by, that's all.

 

[BondraTime]

I would interpret that differently. David Backes, Milan Lucic and Wayne Simmonds are good examples of highly coveted powerforwards who arguably played their best hockey prior to their UFA years or just shortly into them. At their peaks they were cost controlled assets and the teams that had them weren't willing to move them. These kinds of impactful powerforwards are nearly impossible to acquire via trade when they are in their RFA years. Once they do become available to attain, which tends to be via UFA, there is a massive market for them which drives up the price of their contract, and typically they aren't quite as impactful as they were during their RFA years.

I would think that this is the rationale by the Sens. They want some premier powerforwards in their primes where they are at the peak of their performance and a cost controlled asset. They know that they can't acquire a premier one in their prime as teams won't trade them.

The Sens appear to be making a more concerted effort to find some of those players that are very scarce across the league, are highly coveted and the types of players that teams don't part ways with in their primes.

Hopefully they change their strategy, it bombed this past draft

 

[JackieDaytona]

Hopefully they change their strategy, it bombed this past draft

While I think you’re probably right, his whole point was that we don’t know yet and that it’ll be some time before we can judge whether or not theses picks turn out.

That said, if they had selected Sillinger I imagine they’d be patting themselves on the back pretty heartily.

 

[BondraTime]

While I think you’re probably right, his whole point was that we don’t know yet and that it’ll be some time before we can judge whether or not theses picks turn out.

That said, if they had selected Sillinger I imagine they’d be patting themselves on the back pretty heartily.

Of course, like any draft picks you never know for sure until it’s done, but there are things you’re able to look for an see that make projections moving forward.

Like every draft pick, we have a years worth of games to judge them and evaluate their progression and skills, Ostapchuk is the only one who is passing the eye test from our 3 top 50 picks.

3 top 50 selections, you need more than what we got from them in their D+1’s.
People for some reason seem to gloss over the fact that the way these guys play after being drafted is usually a pretty good barometer of the caliber of player.

Everyone would be celebrating if we had taken Sillinger, for sure, from the team to everyone here. He’d have gone back to the WHL and absolutely tore it apart for 110+ points. If Boucher has shown some offense rather than struggle in both the NCAA and OHL, people wouldn’t be so disappointed in the pick, but he had the worst offensive season for a top 10/high pick in either the NCAA or CHL going back to 2000, and likely much further. That’s the reason so many are down on him.

You’re expected to put up points in the CHL as an NHL drafted prospect, at any point in the draft. Top 10 you should be dominating that level, usually. Boucher isn’t your typical top 10 pick, so there is some leeway. But even then it was an extremely disappointing season.

He absolutely brings elements useful to a team that most successful top pick players don’t, but he is also missing elements most successful high picks have.

 

[Boud]

Of course, like any draft picks you never know for sure until it’s done, but there are things you’re able to look for an see that make projections moving forward.

Like every draft pick, we have a years worth of games to judge them and evaluate their progression and skills, Ostapchuk is the only one who is passing the eye test from our 3 top 50 picks.

3 top 50 selections, you need more than what we got from them in their D+1’s.
People for some reason seem to gloss over the fact that the way these guys play after being drafted is usually a pretty good barometer of the caliber of player.

Everyone would be celebrating if we had taken Sillinger, for sure, from the team to everyone here. He’d have gone back to the WHL and absolutely tore it apart for 110+ points. If Boucher has shown some offense rather than struggle in both the NCAA and OHL, people wouldn’t be so disappointed in the pick, but he had the worst offensive season for a top 10 pick in either the NCAA or CHL going back to 2000, and likely much further. That’s the reason so many are down on him.

You’re expected to put up points in the CHL as an NHL drafted prospect, at any point in the draft. Top 10 you should be dominating that level.

To be fair 99.99% of people outside Ottawa are down on him and realized just how bad of a pick it was from day 1 and are definitely way more down on him now than at the draft.

There's just a handful of people who still defend the pick and they're obviously all Sens fans and they're the same people who would defend literally anything this team does no matter how bad the impact to the franchise.

When the only thing you can say about your top 10 pick in his D1 season is "we don't know what'll happen, he might be good one day" you know the pick was bad. It's just clinging to hope that it'll turn out fine in the end without really considering the reality of the situation.

At this point we have a guy who runs around the ice like a chicken with his head cut off that'll be average size by NHL standards. "Good shot" but can't score. What's his comparable at this point? Basically looks like William Carrier to me. Cool player to have on your team but when you pass on legit top 6 guys for that it's concerning to say the least.

 

[Ice-Tray]

To be fair 99.99% of people outside Ottawa are down on him and realized just how bad of a pick it was from day 1 and are definitely way more down on him now than at the draft.

There's just a handful of people who still defend the pick and they're obviously all Sens fans and they're the same people who would defend literally anything this team does no matter how bad the impact to the franchise.

When the only thing you can say about your top 10 pick in his D1 season is "we don't know what'll happen, he might be good one day" you know the pick was bad. It's just clinging to hope that it'll turn out fine in the end without really considering the reality of the situation.

At this point we have a guy who runs around the ice like a chicken with his head cut off that'll be average size by NHL standards. "Good shot" but can't score. What's his comparable at this point? Basically looks like William Carrier to me. Cool player to have on your team but when you pass on legit top 6 guys for that it's concerning to say the least.

Bullshit.

No one is defending the pick, not a single poster. Pretty much everyone feels like Sillinger was a better choice at the moment.

There are however posters who realize that we made the pick, and are now focused on seeing what he turns into, and hoping for the best.

Then there are others that make up bullshit strawmen to beat on because there apparently isn’t enough new negative crap to bleat on about.

Give it a rest, some fans of the team want to try and enjoy Boucher’s progression regardless of where he was drafted, because we can’t exactly change the draft pick now can we.

And just to be clear, since the size argument being pushed seems to have gained traction, Boucher is about the same size as Chris Neil, and no one is going support an argument that Chris was average at any part of the physical aspect of the game. Again, pure bullshit to dump on a prospect on our team, for unknown reasons….

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

I didn't get the sense that he implied they drafted based on potential down stream salary implications

What he said was more of an it takes all kinds of different pieces to put together a winner and that they drafted what they didn't have

In Sillinger's case, they may have looked at him as more of what they already have

That kinda scares me (if it's thier thinking). You don't pass up a player in the first round because we already have that type of player. You pick up the best asset regardless. If that asset develops well, you then have the opportunity to make a high value trade (either that prospect or an established player of the same mold.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Hopefully they change their strategy, it bombed this past draft

I'm not sure if they should change their strategy. If that was in fact their strategy, then in my opinion it is a good strategy and they should continue to implement it but the important thing is for them to scrutinize their execution of it and the types of evaluations they make.

What we don't know is what kind of projections they made in their scouting assessments of the 2021 draft selections. We also don't know what kind of timeline and development path they anticipated for those draft selections to achieve that projected upside and what kind of probability they attached to them achieving it.

We know that from a production standpoint and somewhat of a performance standpoint, that the D+1 season for their 2021 selections was underwhelming, if not outright disappointing. In my opinion that suggest three possible explanations, which are: 1. They are targeting the wrong kinds of players relative to draft pick and are picking players way too high. 2. They are targeting the right kinds of players but made poor assessments in projecting their upside and picked players way too high, or 3. They targeted the right kinds of players, anticipated a longer development path and while the D+1 season wasn't what they were hoping for, they still have confidence in those prospects eventually reaching that projected upside.

If it is the first explanation then it would be consistent with your initial post. It would suggest that they are targeting the Barclay Goodrow and Blake Coleman types, who are good players, just not the kinds of players that a team should use really high picks on drafting. If it is the second explanation then it would mean that they targeted a Lucic/Backes/Simmonds type but through a poor assessment ended up drafting a Goodrow/Coleman type. The third explanation would mean that they targeted a Lucic/Backes/Simmonds type and are still confident that the prospects they drafted will eventually be developed into that.

Mann's comments are consistent with the third explanation, and it is the explanation that I believe is likely the case. But we can't know that and won't be able to know that until we see the 2021 picks develop further.

If the first explanation is true then yes they should change their draft strategy. If the second explanation is true then they can keep the strategy but need to do a better job making assessments. If the third explanation is true then it could still be a good idea to re-evaluate their assessments so they can pick players in better ranges and minimize the chances of making a poor assessment on projecting upside.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

I get that logic and generally agree with the concept of "elite" bottom six/bottom pairing guys (Paul, Pageau, Neiler, etc.).

I was even tossing out the idea of trading down from 3/5 in 2020 and picking up a few of these hard to acquire guys in the process.

But you've got to maximize your assets in those first 40 or so picks. Otherwise it's just leaving money on the table. Trade down or trade the pick, but when you draft a role guy high he needs to be pretty close to the BPA.

Lucic, Backes and Simmonds were all top six forwards in their primes and highly coveted around the league. That is why I mentioned them. It is not about targeting elite bottom six/bottom pairing d in the top 40, instead it is about targeting extremely rare top six forwards and top four d, that teams will never give up in their primes.

If the end result when the 2021 draft selections finish their development paths, is that they are only elite bottom six and bottom pairing players then the Sens took them way too high.

The top 3 selections are the real important ones here for the sake of this argument. It is my expectation that the Sens projected Boucher and Ostapchuk to be top six forwards and for Roger to be a top 4 d. I am willing to be patient and will tolerate variable performances as long as that is the upside that the Sens saw and that they are still confident that they can be developed into it. If they are playing in the bottom six or bottom pairing then I would tolerate it if they team had incredible depth and/or that they are still a few years out from hitting their prime.

The ideal outcome is for all three to reach that upside. However it is not realistic to expect that as the majority of picks don't live up to their draft status and it is rare to get two top six forwards and a top four d in a single draft. Therefore at minimum one will need to hit the mark for it to be an okay draft. If two hit the mark then it is a good draft. If all three hit the mark then it is a great draft. So we will see how things turn out.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Lucic, Backes and Simmonds were all 2nd rounders.

You have a valid point but there's a time and a place to grab guys like that. It isn't in the top 10. After a year where the player barely even played nonetheless. At best it was a very poorly calculated move.

The vast majority of teams in the vast majority of drafts would be ecstatic to get a prime Lucic, Backes or Simmonds with a typical 10th overall pick. All three were drafted in the 2nd round in their respective drafts because scouts didn't anticipate them becoming what they eventually grew into.

 

[PlayersLtd]

To be fair 99.99% of people outside Ottawa are down on him and realized just how bad of a pick it was from day 1 and are definitely way more down on him now than at the draft.

There's just a handful of people who still defend the pick and they're obviously all Sens fans and they're the same people who would defend literally anything this team does no matter how bad the impact to the franchise.

When the only thing you can say about your top 10 pick in his D1 season is "we don't know what'll happen, he might be good one day" you know the pick was bad. It's just clinging to hope that it'll turn out fine in the end without really considering the reality of the situation.

At this point we have a guy who runs around the ice like a chicken with his head cut off that'll be average size by NHL standards. "Good shot" but can't score. What's his comparable at this point? Basically looks like William Carrier to me. Cool player to have on your team but when you pass on legit top 6 guys for that it's concerning to say the least.

Hot garbage. As Ice-Tray said nobody is defending the pick. The common refrain from anyone in the glass half full camp is that what is done is done and we need to see it play out before etching anything in stone. What you're interpreting as defending is people simply pushing back against the absolutely asinine notion that Boucher's future as a bust is a foregone conclusion, a notion, I might add, that you are peddling with sensationalist language like "runs around the ice like a chicken with his head cut off."

You can have your take and it can be negative but don't for a second slam the door on any potential for Boucher to be a serviceable or even good NHLer one day. That is way more ignorant than the 'wait and see' take that you hate so much.

 

[JD1]

Hot garbage. As Ice-Tray said nobody is defending the pick. The common refrain from anyone in the glass half full camp is that what is done is done and we need to see it play out before etching anything in stone. What you're interpreting as defending is people simply pushing back against the absolutely asinine notion that Boucher's future as a bust is a foregone conclusion, a notion, I might add, that you are peddling with sensationalist language like "runs around the ice like a chicken with his head cut off."

You can have your take and it can be negative but don't for a second slam the door on any potential for Boucher to be a serviceable or even good NHLer one day. That is way more ignorant than the 'wait and see' take that you hate so much.

You've hit a nail on the head here

Anything less than the most negative possible interpretation of any event is viewed as defending

 

[Boud]

Very sorry to have ruined all of your days with my opinion

 

[ijif]

The wait and see crowd sure seems to hype up our prospects when they are doing good/being productive.

 

[BankStreetParade]

The wait and see crowd sure seems to hype up our prospects when they are doing good/being productive.

It's an equal and opposite reaction to the pessimists who seem to extract some sort of twisted joy in a look-how-dumb-these-guys-are kind of way when players who have been traded away show any amount of success. Weird that the Balcers and Dahlen updates and the Duclair watch slowly tapered off as those players stopped performing a certain way.

 

[BondraTime]

It's an equal and opposite reaction to the pessimists who seem to extract some sort of twisted joy in a look-how-dumb-these-guys-are kind of way when players who have been traded away show any amount of success. Weird that the Balcers and Dahlen updates and the Duclair watch slowly tapered off as those players stopped performing a certain way.

It only makes sense to be excited and talk about how a prospect is doing well when he is, same as when they are doing very bad. We are in a thread where a player being discussed had an extremely, extremely disappointing season after being an extremely large reach, it only makes sense that the general sentiment is negative regarding the selection at the moment.

There are no people discussing how bad the Stutzle, Sanderson, Grieg picks are because they are all doing well. The exact opposite, everyone is extremely excited and discussing how well they are doing and project.

There isn't an over arching thought that people are hoping the Sens fail; it's just that at this moment, the pick looks extremely bad and that's the outlook most have on it. Perfectly fine to disagree with that and hope, but I certainly won't get behind the reasons being given that we just need to wait for a switch to flip.

I'll be more than happy to jump sides when/if the pick starts to look good, right now with everything I've seen over the past year, I'm not pleased to put it lightly. Last thing I want is for the Sens to have misused a 10th overall selection.

 

[Qward]

Very sorry to have ruined all of your days with my opinion

awww, my day was ruined well before I read anything you wrote sport.

 

[Mingus Dew]

Jiricek going to unite us all and usher in an era of prosperity.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

The vast majority of teams in the vast majority of drafts would be ecstatic to get a prime Lucic, Backes or Simmonds with a typical 10th overall pick. All three were drafted in the 2nd round in their respective drafts because scouts didn't anticipate them becoming what they eventually grew into.

Of course they would be happy to get those guys with 10th OA. The difference is that Backes and Simmonds showed notably better production that Boucher in their draft year, while Lucic obviously brought an element that Boucher has not shown yet and doesn't really project to ever have. Add in the fact that all three showed huge development leaps in their D+1 year and it's no surprise that people don't see the same upside in Boucher as those players.

Hopefully next year we see one of those leaps in development from Boucher to spur some optimism.

 

[BankStreetParade]

It only makes sense to be excited and talk about how a prospect is doing well when he is, same as when they are doing very bad. We are in a thread where a player being discussed had an extremely, extremely disappointing season after being an extremely large reach, it only makes sense that the general sentiment is negative regarding the selection at the moment.

There are no people discussing how bad the Stutzle, Sanderson, Grieg picks are because they are all doing well. The exact opposite, everyone is extremely excited and discussing how well they are doing and project.

There isn't an over arching thought that people are hoping the Sens fail; it's just that at this moment, the pick looks extremely bad and that's the outlook most have on it. Perfectly fine to disagree with that and hope, but I certainly won't get behind the reasons being given that we just need to wait for a switch to flip.

I'll be more than happy to jump sides when/if the pick starts to look good, right now with everything I've seen over the past year, I'm not pleased to put it lightly. Last thing I want is for the Sens to have misused a 10th overall selection.

Anyone who reads the boards regularly would strongly disagree with the bolded. There has never been more open hostility and disdain for the organization and the people who run it and people are desperate to see failure. It's way beyond the parameters of discussion on a discussion board. There's this undercurrent of pessimism and negativity that pervades every single discussion on this forum. Any stance softer than the strongest and most forceful rebuke of the organization and everything they do is considered defending it. If that's not considered hoping for failure, I don't know what is.