Prospect Info: 2023 NHL Draft - Part 2 (Who Do You Want To Draft At #2)

[DuckDuckGetz]

I’m still mad about Chicago winning lol

 

[MCB]

I’m still mad about Chicago winning lol

I'm still mad about Chicago existing

 

[Son of Gib]

53G 85A 138P 143GP +4
50G 78A 128P 170GP +48 57.9%FO

Kane had an amazing peak, Bergeron has 5 Selke’s. Kane has 2 seasons over 100 points and 40 goals, Bergeron has a career +/- of 289 vs +41. They do different things. I will gleefully take either.

Not to mention Bergeron has been lights out in the faceoff circle.

 

[Leonardo87]

I’m still mad about Chicago winning lol

I’m over it. We are still getting an elite, potential franchise player so I’m fine.

 

[LePerilsofPerreault]

I want Maxim Strbak

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

My guy, look at more recent drafts yourself and let me know what you find. It took me hours to do that side project for a hockey forum.

The issue I had with starting at the present and working back is some players are not done developing, and their total career production is unknown.

Off the top of my head slightly more recent examples Strome over Marner. Marner was a superior talent. Strome was bigger. Cole Caulfield falling to 15.

Outside of that compiling the in depth information would require a lot of work. If I have free time tomorrow maybe I will go through the most recent 5 drafts and let you know or 2015 to 2020 or something let me know what you are looking for and I will do the same thing for more recent drafts. Then we can find out together if what I found from earlier drafts is still relevant. Good?

Have a great night

This is exactly what I meant by cherry-picking. You can just go, with the full benefit of hindsight, and pick any time a smaller player ended up being better than a bigger player picked in a similar spot and chalk it up. It’s not actual data, you’re just picking and choosing what to highlight, ignoring the context of the time, and patting yourself on the back.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

I’m over it. We are still getting an elite, potential franchise player so I’m fine.

Still hoping we move up some picks... i think this is the year to start packaging some of our residual picks and moving up. Would like to end up with another pick in the top 40 at least... weather we move up using henrique/comtois or even a gibson trade.

Essentially id like to move up our 2nd rounder to 20s, and 1 of our late 2nds to an early 2nd.

id love to get Maxim Strbak... feel like he is the right type of dmen to aim at... and then a power forward or 2... i like Musty a lot but idk if i see a way to get him.

​

I want Maxim Strbak

haha beat me to the punch

 

[DuckDuckGetz]

I’m over it. We are still getting an elite, potential franchise player so I’m fine.

oh I’m content with our pick. I’m just mad that Chicago is Chicago

 

[FiveTacos]

This is exactly what I meant by cherry-picking. You can just go, with the full benefit of hindsight, and pick any time a smaller player ended up being better than a bigger player picked in a similar spot and chalk it up. It’s not actual data, you’re just picking and choosing what to highlight, ignoring the context of the time, and patting yourself on the back.

The problem with trying to retroactively evaluate things is how do you know where the various players were legitimately slotted without size bias, vs. where they were ultimately drafted? It's not like you can just use the CSB or an old draft guide ... the pre-draft rankings are almost certainly influenced by size as much as the actual draft is, so there's really no way to quantify "inches over 6ft and weight over or under 195lbs is worth X amount of draft spots in either direction." I mean, Theo Fleury was an 8th rounder, but how can anyone know for sure that without size bias he where he would have gone? Was his size worth 7 rounds or just 2? Why was his size worth a bigger drop than, say, Daniel Briere?

Even if you found players with identical stats in identical leagues with identical height/weight measurements, they wouldn't necessarily be projected to the exact same spot in a different draft. Maybe someone will find a way to quantify and thus eliminate size bias, but it's probably going to end up a lot of work for very little truly useful info.

I'm never against drafting small guys though; some of my favorite players ever were considered undersized, and most of them were picked at least a few spots (or even rounds) lower than they should have been due to size. But almost every one of them was clearly exceptional well above and beyond the other guys that you'd have reasonably considered picking. I don't think that's the case here at #2, but it'll probably be the case very shortly after our pick.

Yes, maybe the lil' Russian dude is the next Pavel Bure and it'd suck to miss out on him. OTOH, if you take him and he turns out to be the next Chistov while Fantilli and Carlsson become the next Messier and Sundin, it's a historic gaffe that people will be laughing at for the next 40 years.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

The problem with trying to retroactively evaluate things is how do you know where the various players were legitimately slotted without size bias, vs. where they were ultimately drafted? It's not like you can just use the CSB or an old draft guide ... the pre-draft rankings are almost certainly influenced by size as much as the actual draft is, so there's really no way to quantify "inches over 6ft and weight over or under 195lbs is worth X amount of draft spots in either direction." I mean, Theo Fleury was an 8th rounder, but how can anyone know for sure that without size bias he where he would have gone? Was his size worth 7 rounds or just 2? Why was his size worth a bigger drop than, say, Daniel Briere?

Even if you found players with identical stats in identical leagues with identical height/weight measurements, they wouldn't necessarily be projected to the exact same spot in a different draft. Maybe someone will find a way to quantify and thus eliminate size bias, but it's probably going to end up a lot of work for very little truly useful info.

I'm never against drafting small guys though; some of my favorite players ever were considered undersized, and most of them were picked at least a few spots (or even rounds) lower than they should have been due to size. But almost every one of them was clearly exceptional well above and beyond the other guys that you'd have reasonably considered picking. I don't think that's the case here at #2, but it'll probably be the case very shortly after our pick.

Yes, maybe the lil' Russian dude is the next Pavel Bure and it'd suck to miss out on him. OTOH, if you take him and he turns out to be the next Chistov while Fantilli and Carlsson become the next Messier and Sundin, it's a historic gaffe that people will be laughing at for the next 40 years.

Exactly, not to mention going back far in the past is useless because attitudes have changed and the game itself has changed.

I’m not against drafting smaller players at all, but in this spot I just don’t think Michkov would be it. His small frame isn’t really a big factor to me, either.

 

[70sSanO]

I’m still mad about Chicago winning lol

Patience my friend. I’m disappointed we didn’t get the first overall.

But I look forward to that day when Bedard decides he doesn’t want to stay in Chicago. That will be a joyous day.

Of course there is a possibility that it will be worse if he goes to San Jose or LA, but there is also the possibility he comes here.

One can only dream.

John

 

[MrGuyPerson]

This is exactly what I meant by cherry-picking. You can just go, with the full benefit of hindsight, and pick any time a smaller player ended up being better than a bigger player picked in a similar spot and chalk it up. It’s not actual data, you’re just picking and choosing what to highlight, ignoring the context of the time, and patting yourself on the back.

Brother... I am done here and I have tried to be done here previously. But, I do want to keep responding to you. I feel like it is courteous to respond. I don't think it is Cherry picking, I think it is inferencing based on the information I took the time to pull on every player in 1st rounds of drafts. I suppose I could have done it better had I included their draft year productions. That may or may not have validated or invalidates the inference, idk. If you want you can check each players production in their draft year and compare it to other players taken in the same draft that played in similar leagues in their draft year, then check draft year production and see if any players with great production went lower and check their height, then see if any players with great production went lower and check their height. Then cross reference that with there actual NHL career production and see what you come up with. It sounds like a lot of work though.

I wish you well, I hope you enjoy Fantilli. He will be very good. Carlsson will also be super good. Michkov will be better, so I hope he is not in your division. Please have wonderful weekend

 

[Mr Rogers]

Patience my friend. I’m disappointed we didn’t get the first overall.

But I look forward to that day when Bedard decides he doesn’t want to stay in Chicago. That will be a joyous day.

Of course there is a possibility that it will be worse if he goes to San Jose or LA, but there is also the possibility he comes here.

One can only dream.

John

I think there is a real possibility of that, but it would likely be Vancouver over anyone else

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Brother... I am done here and I have tried to be done here previously. But, I do want to keep responding to you. I feel like it is courteous to respond. I don't think it is Cherry picking, I think it is inferencing based on the information I took the time to pull on every player in 1st rounds of drafts. I suppose I could have done it better had I included their draft year productions. That may or may not have validated or invalidates the inference, idk. If you want you can check each players production in their draft year and compare it to other players taken in the same draft that played in similar leagues in their draft year, then check draft year production and see if any players with great production went lower and check their height, then see if any players with great production went lower and check their height. Then cross reference that with there actual NHL career production and see what you come up with. It sounds like a lot of work though.

I wish you well, I hope you enjoy Fantilli. He will be very good. Carlsson will also be super good. Michkov will be better, so I hope he is not in your division. Please have wonderful weekend

Not that production is everything but the one contemporary example you picked featured two guys with virtually identical production from the same junior league. It’s like the definition of cherry picking, you found an example in hindsight that turned out lopsided and retroactively applied your own reasoning, regardless of the facts and context. Here’s a better example: in the 2013 draft a smaller forward was favoured to go really high and at 2nd overall the team there made what was at the time a surprising pick, some even said a reach, of a big center. It’s pretty much the exact scenario you’re harping on about, yet weirdly not mentioned. I wonder why?

 

[duckpuck]

Even in the playoffs, good luck landing an open ice hit on Bedard. He's one of the most elusive skaters I've ever seen, regularly weaving his way through defenders effortlessly. He's also pretty sturdy for 5'9'' (I know he's listed as 5'10'', but I don't believe it), so I think he'll be fine. Someone would probably have to target him against the boards and really line him up with a dirty hit to take him out in the playoffs and the fallout of something like that would be huge given what he means to the league.

In recent years, we've seen a lot of undersized guys succeed in the NHL (Zegras, Hughes, Marner and DeBrincat being some of the best examples). That being said, Bedard and Michkov seem a tad bit smaller then guys like that. I don't think its guaranteed they will fill out and/or adjust - certainly not in the short run.

And guys like that do tend to struggle defensively and in the playoffs when the checking is tighter and the matchups less favorable. There's something to be said for having a bigger player who can physically dominant.

And just to be clear, Bedard is of course still the top guy and clear #1 pick. I'm just saying I think there's a higher chance he struggles than a guy like McDavid or Crosby or even Matthews who is a horse.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

I want Maxim Strbak

I like Strbak a lot. He was one of the first players I was looking at with our own 2nd round pick months ago. Then if you look at our system, we're lacking top-6 type forwards. Still, if Strbak is going to college, then we'd be in no rush to for him to develop. Bad side is that Verbeek already has had a bad experience with a college D-man not wanting to sign with Anaheim.

Last year, we took three D-men out of our four in our first two rounds. The only forward we did draft was a shutdown center in Gaucher. Then factor in that Verbeek said we needed to get more forwards, I'll presume he's hinting at top-6 type forwards in our system.

The new player I would like to take a swing at, and fits Verbeek's preferences, is 6'3 PF Halttunen. His stock has dropped b/c of his lack of production in Liiga, where he started this season. There are videos of him in Liiga that show he's in the right spot often and just lots of bad luck not scoring goals. But when Halttunen went to play against his peers at the HIFK-U20 team and at the WJC-18, Halttunen was back to being a scoring machine once again. He's still 17 years old and doesn't turn 18 until Jun.

Halttunen does have one red flag. He has had a concussion injury to start this season with HIFK. Probably was rushed to the Liiga from U20 as a 17 year old.

 

[DuckRogers10]

The way some people talk about Toews you'd think he was as good as Mark Messier, which he clearly was not.

That said I don't think we'd be at all disappointed if he turned out to be "only" a Toews, but man it'd be awesome if he turned out to be a Messier. With better hair.

You baldist.

The way some people talk about Toews you'd think he was as good as Mark Messier, which he clearly was not.

That said I don't think we'd be at all disappointed if he turned out to be "only" a Toews, but man it'd be awesome if he turned out to be a Messier. With better hair.

You baldist.

 

[tunnelvision]

Has Verbeek suggested anything publicly on which player they might be leaning towards? Jackets president JD had this to say in a radio interview the other day:



Just food for speculation. Mentioning Carlsson's name out loud and then following it up with "We have an idea which way we're gonna go..." could be an indication of CBJ knowing who Ducks actually do prefer at 2?

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Has Verbeek suggested anything publicly on which player they might be leaning towards? Jackets president JD had this to say in a radio interview the other day:



Just food for speculation. Mentioning Carlsson's name out loud and then following it up with "We have an idea which way we're gonna go..." could be an indication of CBJ knowing who Ducks actually do prefer at 2?

The Ducks have always been tight lipped about EVERYTHING when it comes to anything fans are interested in. That said he did publicly admit he was very happy he got #2 because now they could choose who they want and not have to be left with somebody making the choice for him. IMO, (and many others) I believe he is leaning towards Fantilli, but will for sure continue to do due diligence.

 

[forever1922]

I’ve just noticed on this board(and I’m not saying this is you) that some think better passing/playmaking = higher hockey IQ. I disagree with that line of thinking personally. Hockey IQ to me is about anticipating where the play is going to go before it happens. Fantilli is very good at that

I agree with you in that he anticipates plays very well without the puck, especially defensively.

He displays great hockey IQ with regards to his playmaking, as he anticipates not only his own movement but the movement and open space, pockets and weaknesses in defensive coverage. So in that sense with Fantilli, playmaking and hockey sense are closely knit.

I think the fact that the criticism comes from him hounding on the forecheck, maybe trying to do too difficult dekes and stuffing plays over shooting/passing sometimes that leads to people questioning the hockey IQ. It would be all fine and marveled if he scored those plays however.

 

[Kalv]

Has Verbeek suggested anything publicly on which player they might be leaning towards? Jackets president JD had this to say in a radio interview the other day:



Just food for speculation. Mentioning Carlsson's name out loud and then following it up with "We have an idea which way we're gonna go..." could be an indication of CBJ knowing who Ducks actually do prefer at 2?

I don't see how that indicates anything. He pretty much says they will gonna get a center they just don't know which one. It's still very much uncertain situation for them, hence they are actively looking

 

[HanSolo]

I don't see how that indicates anything. He pretty much says they will gonna get a center they just don't know which one. It's still very much uncertain situation for them, hence they are actively looking

Indicates Michkov is almost definitely not their guy but I think everyone assumed that.

 

[CrazyDuck4u]

Verbeek either gets fantilli or smith.

 

[FiveTacos]

Not that production is everything but the one contemporary example you picked featured two guys with virtually identical production from the same junior league. It’s like the definition of cherry picking, you found an example in hindsight that turned out lopsided and retroactively applied your own reasoning, regardless of the facts and context. Here’s a better example: in the 2013 draft a smaller forward was favoured to go really high and at 2nd overall the team there made what was at the time a surprising pick, some even said a reach, of a big center. It’s pretty much the exact scenario you’re harping on about, yet weirdly not mentioned. I wonder why?

There's also obviously far more factors at play than just production in a league (even if you somehow normalized it across different leagues) and height. There have been plenty of juniors who put up good numbers but were not considered top prospects. How do you factor in skating, style of play, team impact, intangibles, etc. into the size-less ranking? And even then, you're stuck projecting future development ... but how can you possibly know when one guy has more improvement left in him than another?

I bet some really good math geeks could probably come up with some algorithm to eliminate size bias while just accounting for other characteristics, but even if I were capable of it I wouldn't waste time doing it on a hockey forum. I'd be making huge bank doing it for an NHL team.

You baldist.

Not at all. The shaved head thing worked for him, it gave him a bit of Cro Magnon thing that was intimidating. But younger Mess had galactically terrible hair.

 

[Mr Rogers]

I agree with you in that he anticipates plays very well without the puck, especially defensively.

He displays great hockey IQ with regards to his playmaking, as he anticipates not only his own movement but the movement and open space, pockets and weaknesses in defensive coverage. So in that sense with Fantilli, playmaking and hockey sense are closely knit.

I think the fact that the criticism comes from him hounding on the forecheck, maybe trying to do too difficult dekes and stuffing plays over shooting/passing sometimes that leads to people questioning the hockey IQ. It would be all fine and marveled if he scored those plays however.

I think this is a really important and nuanced distinction with regards to hockey IQ. We've seen players who lack it, Sprong, Sbisa, and Cogs are just a few that come to mind. These guys would straight up make poor decisions with the puck regularly, make bad reads, be in the wrong place/go to the wrong place, etc. I don't see that with Fantilli.

There are a lot of talented players with high hockey IQ who make bad plays because they are trying to push the envelope with their skills. I honestly think we saw that with Getzy a lot. I also was a big Spezza fan, and he made an innumerable amount of bad passes and turnovers over the course of his career, but nobody would say he suffered from low hockey IQ lol.