HF Habs: 2023 NHL Draft part 2

[JoelWarlord]

I think we've overcorrected on goalies a little bit. Goalies don't (and shouldn't) go in the top 10 anymore, but there can still be value in picking goalies relatively high, and it would make sense to do it this year. I don't really buy into this dichotomy between 5 superstar Gs and then the other 55 goalies being scratch tickets. There is still value in having a consistent starter, even if he might vary between eg. 10th-18th best G in the league from year to year.

I don't think Vegas really works as a slam dunk argument against drafting a goalie in the first 2 rounds unless we're also willing to argue that Vegas being up 2-0 after trading for Eichel and Stone on their roster means the groupthink about "drafting stars/skill" as the lynchpin of building a contending team might also be overblown. Not to mention that two of the last three cups were won by Vasilevskiy, with Price and Bobrovsky as finalists twice.

I get the argument and I would get queasy about drafting a goalie in the early-mid teens at this point, but drafting a G at 31 or 37 isn't really the same thing given you're at the stage of the draft where "uncertainty" is quite high for skaters too. After the mid-late teens you're basically into a long 2nd round.

That's correct, because VGK also doesn't have highly skilled players like Eichel and Stone.

Yeah, who they got by trading some mid-late 1sts, a gritty top 6 winger, and a couple highly touted prospects taken in the mid-1st who haven't really done anything since being traded.

 

[WeThreeKings]

That's correct, because VGK also doesn't have highly skilled players like Eichel and Stone.

And they didn't draft them - so why draft Eichel and Stone when you can just acquire them?

 

[NotProkofievian]

Yeah, who they got by trading some mid-late 1sts, a gritty top 6 winger, and a couple highly touted prospects taken in the mid-1st who haven't really done anything since being traded.

This is the same as a 4th two drafts from now. In fact, I bet bergevin could've traded a 4th for that package, he wins all his trades.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Sure, but a slightly above-average goalie probably also gets you there if you have a good enough team. Let's also not forget that Bobrovsky was hot trash for most of the last two years. Essentially, you just need your goalie to have a good 25-game sequence.

Also, it's mostly the fact that goalies are so unpredictable at 18yo. It's worlds away from drafting a forward or D, so why waste high picks on such uncertainty.

Most hockey players in general are unpredictable at 18 year old. The success rate of any draft pick goes down consistently the further down the draft you go.

You can't just bank on a goalie having a good 25 game sequence and Vegas had to use multiple goalies, in a way they are just lucky they have a couple guys who managed to get them through some series when they needed them.

I don't think anyone here is talking about taking Hrabal at 5.. but when you are picking at 31 or 37, are we really thinking that the certainty on a forward or a defenseman is that much higher than a goaltender?

I just think it's a biased way to go about it. If you identify a goalie who you think has starting potential you should invest the appropriate pick on that goalie. Are the chances that Maxim Strbak or Bradley Nadeau becoming lynch-pin players of a franchise all that much higher than Hrabal or Fowler becoming viable starting goalies?

Ultimately the success rate on goalies in the draft is going to be skewed by the fact that less goalies get picked every year and there's a finite number of spots for them to develop at the pro level. There's more likelihood that a 2nd round pick at forward or defense will carve out some NHL career, albeit not one to much fanfare, because there's 7 D on every team and 13/14 forwards.

 

[Vachon23]

One thing I don't understand personally is that some seem to assume that having a solid #1 goalie mean that we won't have a good offence. We can have (and should) have both, it's not because we had Price that we didn't had offence but because the ex regime didn't draft or acquired some

 

[NekkiChiconey]

I think we've overcorrected on goalies a little bit. Goalies don't (and shouldn't) go in the top 10 anymore, but there can still be value in picking goalies relatively high, and it would make sense to do it this year. I don't really buy into this dichotomy between 5 superstar Gs and then the other 55 goalies being scratch tickets. There is still value in having a consistent starter, even if he might vary between eg. 10th-18th best G in the league from year to year.

I don't think Vegas really works as a slam dunk argument against drafting a goalie in the first 2 rounds unless we're also willing to argue that Vegas being up 2-0 after trading for Eichel and Stone on their roster means the groupthink about "drafting stars/skill" as the lynchpin of building a contending team might also be overblown. Not to mention that two of the last three cups were won by Vasilevskiy, with Price and Bobrovsky as finalists twice.

I get the argument and I would get queasy about drafting a goalie in the early-mid teens at this point, but drafting a G at 31 or 37 isn't really the same thing given you're at the stage of the draft where "uncertainty" is quite high for skaters too. After the mid-late teens you're basically into a long 2nd round.

Agreed, you need at least a second-tier goalie ideally, but Montembeault was that this year and we got acquired him for nothing.

This is the somewhat correct take though; pick Fs and Ds until you feel the uncertainty is leveled with goalies. Obviously everyone will have a different tolerance level, so a different cutoff within the draft.

Just as an example; I don't really see a goalie picked in the 31-37 range being more valuable than Owen Beck after their respective D+1. That goalie would have to put up massive numbers. There are some drafts in which no goalie is worth of a 1st or 2nd round pick, but I feel like some teams inevitably force these picks just because they want the best goalie from the draft.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Agreed, you need at least a second-tier goalie ideally, but Montembeault was that this year and we got acquired him for nothing.

This is the somewhat correct take though; pick Fs and Ds until you feel the uncertainty is leveled with goalies. Obviously everyone will have a different tolerance level, so a different cutoff within the draft.

Just as an example; I don't really see a goalie picked in the 31-37 range being more valuable than Owen Beck after their respective D+1. That goalie would have to put up massive numbers. There are some drafts in which no goalie is worth of a 1st or 2nd round pick, but I feel like some teams inevitably force these picks just because they want the best goalie from the draft.

There were no goalies to pick at the value of Owen Beck last year.

This year it is different, there's a number of goalies that look to have a starting profile. I'd argue that a legitimate starting goalie in today's climate is more attractive than someone like Ethan Gauthier or Maxim Strbak.

I just think the philosophy of never draft a goalie is a stupid philosophy. Goaltending isn't irrelevant. For every example of a mediocre goalie back-stopping a good team, you have an example of literal generational talents getting hampered by their bad goaltending.

The argument against drafting goalie really just leads to an argument of never drafting and trading all your picks and prospects for established NHLers.

 

[NekkiChiconey]

There were no goalies to pick at the value of Owen Beck last year.

This year it is different, there's a number of goalies that look to have a starting profile. I'd argue that a legitimate starting goalie in today's climate is more attractive than someone like Ethan Gauthier or Maxim Strbak.

I just think the philosophy of never draft a goalie is a stupid philosophy. Goaltending isn't irrelevant. For every example of a mediocre goalie back-stopping a good team, you have an example of literal generational talents getting hampered by their bad goaltending.

The argument against drafting goalie really just leads to an argument of never drafting and trading all your picks and prospects for established NHLers.

Yeah I was comparing this year's goalie crop to our pick in that range from last year.

Obviously, I'm not suggesting to avoid picking goalies at all costs. I just think that, in this draft, there should be players worth picking over goalies at 31 or 37. If Willander, Musty, Heidt, Stenberg or Cristall are there, I'm not even thinking about a goalie.

If I was a gm, I'd rank the goalies within loose tiers and wait for the last one to drop, or trade up once I'm comfortable doing so. For example, this year I'd have Hrabal, Bjarnason and Fowler as the top-3 goalies. If 2 of them are picked by 55, then I'm moving up to grab the 3rd one. Otherwise, I'm waiting to 69. If they all get picked before 55 then too bad, I'll throw a dart at Gajan or Augustine later on.

 

[Kent Nilsson]

And they didn't draft them - so why draft Eichel and Stone when you can just acquire them?

Draft doesnt matter confirmed

 

[The Great Weal]

Draft doesnt matter confirmed

It's a pretty bad comparison though. Adin Hill is a journeyman goalie, Eichel and Stone are elite players. @NotProkofievian isn't arguing the cost it took to get these players, he's talking about the quality of the players.

 

[Kent Nilsson]

Oh I totally agree with NP. Goaltending is the only subject where W3K isnt the goat.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Yeah I was comparing this year's goalie crop to our pick in that range from last year.

Obviously, I'm not suggesting to avoid picking goalies at all costs. I just think that, in this draft, there should be players worth picking over goalies at 31 or 37. If Willander, Musty, Heidt, Stenberg or Cristall are there, I'm not even thinking about a goalie.

If I was a gm, I'd rank the goalies within loose tiers and wait for the last one to drop, or trade up once I'm comfortable doing so. For example, this year I'd have Hrabal, Bjarnason and Fowler as the top-3 goalies. If 2 of them are picked by 55, then I'm moving up to grab the 3rd one. Otherwise, I'm waiting to 69. If they all get picked before 55 then too bad, I'll throw a dart at Gajan or Augustine later on.

I'd be taking Hrabal over many of those guys.

Even in Vasilevskiy's draft, many anti goalie guys would have said never to take him or any goalie in round 1.

Do you realistically take ANY of those players drafted ahead of him now?

If you trust your scouts and you've identified a goalie who can be a legitimate starter, are you really going to value him less than players who's most likely ceilings are bottom pair defenseman or bottom 6 players?

 

[Andrei79]

I wouldn't pass on a potential elite goaltender late first because I can draft Poehling and acquire Hill. The argument against picking goalies in the first rounds just sounds completely stupid to me. Easier to acquire doesn't mean easy to acquire.

 

[The Great Weal]

I wouldn't pass on a potential elite goaltender late first because I can draft Poehling and acquire Hill. The argument against picking goalies in the first rounds just sounds completely stupid to me. Easier to acquire doesn't mean easy to acquire.

If it’s between a star goalie and a 4th liner, I don’t think you’ll find anyone say otherwise.

 

[Andrei79]

If it’s between a star goalie and a 4th liner, I don’t think you’ll find anyone say otherwise.

Of course not. It's as dumb a comparison as I've been reading. You're looking usually at potential 3rd liners by that point. Unless your team has identified an Aho or Kandre Miller, drafting someone you believe can be a starter in a market that's undervaluing them is a good use of draft capital.

 

[calder candidate]

I'd be taking Hrabal over many of those guys.

Even in Vasilevskiy's draft, many anti goalie guys would have said never to take him or any goalie in round 1.

View attachment 716089

Do you realistically take ANY of those players drafted ahead of him now?

If you trust your scouts and you've identified a goalie who can be a legitimate starter, are you really going to value him less than players who's most likely ceilings are bottom pair defenseman or bottom 6 players?

The thing with Vasilevski is that he was dominant at 17yo in all level he played, even playing against older competitions like WJC(likely drop because he had one bad game at the wrong time), guy like Hrabal or top goalies from any draft class are not always dominant vs. older competition they are all projection. Vasil should have been pick earlier, it doesn’t mean we need to pick the best goalie prospect of every class earlier…

 

[WeThreeKings]

The thing with Vasilevski is that he was dominant at 17 in all level he played even playing against older competitions like WJC(likely drop because he had one bad game at the wrong time), guy like Hrabal or top goalies from any draft class are mostly not dominant vs. older competition they are all projection. Vasil should have been pick earlier, it doesn’t mean we need to pick the best goalie prospect of every class earlier…

But we wouldn't be taking those guys at 19 either.

All I am saying is that the philosophy to never draft a goalie high is a bad philosophy, it's built on very shaky logic.

If your scouts have identified someone who they think is a top starting goalie in the NHL, why wouldn't you take him? Why would you just have a philosophy to take a skater, when in the late 1st and 2nd round, the odds are you don't get anything and if you do, it is more likely just a bottom 6/bottom pair defenseman.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

And Dallas went in semi final with Jake Oetteiger

Every elite goalie in the past 15 years have at least bring their team in the final

Price
Lundqvist
Luongo
Rinne
Rask
Quick
Fleury
Holtby

Since 2010, only 2 Vezina winner trophy didn't went in the finals: Helleybuck and Shestorkin but both went at least to the semi final

Lundqvist - 7th rounder
Luongo- acquired
Rinne - later round pick
Rask - acquired
Quick - 3rd
Holtby - 3rd, or 4th rounder.

Hellebuyck - 5th Shestorkin - 4th, Sorokin- 4th.

Price and Fleury were both top 5 picks.

Bobrovsky is a 2 times veznia winner, or at least won it once, he was an undrafted FA who was dealt for like a 3rd.

Adin Hill was drafted in his 2nd year of eligibility by Arizona and ended up in San Jose where he was dealt for a 4th.

Is Hill a great goalie ? Nope. He's got size and enough skill to be a solid goalie while Vegas is good enough to limit, or erase back door plays. Florida isn't getting Hill to move side-to-side. Sportsnet showed thar Vegas is blocking wrist shots no matter what and moving for slapshots.

Of the best goalie prospects you have Wallstedt that was a mid 1st, same with Askarov. Then you have Wolf, 7th rounder and Levi, 7th rounder, traded.

I dont have last year's conference finals, but this year's...

Carolina - Have a home grown goalie, but didnt use him and he was an early 2nd.

Florida - They don't have Knight, who was a high pick, but their current goalies are both brought in. Hopefully Knight can come back and beats his demons !

Vegas - a bunch of goalies brought in, but a unique situation.

Dallas - Oettinger, late 1st round pick and he's all over the place, but mostly not good in the conference finals.

I wouldn't pass on a potential elite goaltender late first because I can draft Poehling and acquire Hill. The argument against picking goalies in the first rounds just sounds completely stupid to me. Easier to acquire doesn't mean easy to acquire.

It's not so much don't draft a goalie, it's you don't need one that early.

All that said, if the Habs use 37th on Hrabal I wouldn't be upset. Everything sounds promising and he has the size along with the athleticism you want.

Anyone else that early, just wait until the 3rd and grab someone if Hrabal is gone.

6 spots sooner, wouldn't be mad at Hrabal at 31/32 either unless someone fairly decent falls.

 

[JoelWarlord]

This is the same as a 4th two drafts from now. In fact, I bet bergevin could've traded a 4th for that package, he wins all his trades.

I certainly agree the acquisition cost of a solid goalie is lower than a 1st line skater, and I'm not saying we should be trading everything we can to get Hellebuyck or to get Hart and hope he becomes elite to do the build around an elite G thing again. I'm saying that if Adin Hill is proof that we shouldn't ever draft a goalie in the 1st/2nd round again, Stone and Eichel would just as reasonably be proof that we can just trade some B prospects and a couple of mid-late 1sts to get elite talent instead of following the conventional wisdom about the vital importance of tanking to build a core properly. Of course, I don't actually believe this about Stone/Eichel, but I similarly don't think it makes much sense to take the clear worst goalie to (potentially) win a cup since Niemi in 2010 as a reason to write off drafting a G before the 3rd/4th rounds ever again.

Did the Penguins winning with a top pair of Dumoulin-Hainsey while Letang missed the entire playoffs and beating the team with prime Subban, Josi, Ekholm, and Ellis mean that #1 defencemen are overvalued? Does the Blues cup prove that you don't need to draft and develop a franchise C, and you can just hope that a veteran who's usually around a top 20-25 C from year to year will have a supernova year for you? I certainly don't think either of those things are true. Furthermore, Vegas made it to the finals with Fleury (losing to Holtby!) and got to the final four with Fleury/Lehner as well, so I don't really see why Adin Hill is the one Vegas goalie to determine everyone's future roster-building strategies any more than winning a cup with Dumoulin as a #1D means you don't need a real top pair.

I get where you're coming from and agree with the broader principle. I certainly agree that the old-school nonsense of picking goalies at #1OA or in the top 10 is stupid, and I'm not a "build from da net out" guy at all. I just don't think Adin Hill is proof to count on scratch tickets when Vasilevskiy won 2 of the last 3 cups including a win against Price, was in the final a 3rd year in a row, and eg. Colorado had to trade a 1st later to get a good starter in Kuemper anyway. Part of my issue with this is the argument based around attrition/uncertainty is that taken to its logical conclusion, the same line of reasoning would support trading pretty much every pick later than about 4th or 5th overall for established players under current market conditions, which is not something anyone seriously advocates for.

Agreed, you need at least a second-tier goalie ideally, but Montembeault was that this year and we got acquired him for nothing.

This is the somewhat correct take though; pick Fs and Ds until you feel the uncertainty is leveled with goalies. Obviously everyone will have a different tolerance level, so a different cutoff within the draft.

In an arbitrary year if we just assume generic prospect depth/distribution I'd probably say somewhere around the 20-35 range is when I'd start considering it. It will always depend on who's available and what the alternatives are of course. But yeah, we just draw the tolerance/risk-reward line at different spots which makes sense.

Just as an example; I don't really see a goalie picked in the 31-37 range being more valuable than Owen Beck after their respective D+1. That goalie would have to put up massive numbers. There are some drafts in which no goalie is worth of a 1st or 2nd round pick, but I feel like some teams inevitably force these picks just because they want the best goalie from the draft.

Hmm. Not sure I agree. Beck had a good season but it's entirely plausible that one of the top 3Gs in this class has a better D+1. Hutson sure but that's a pretty unique situation. What about like Jesper Wallstedt? I don't think Beck's value is anywhere close to him right now, and I'm a big fan of Beck.

 

[JoelWarlord]

Of the best goalie prospects you have Wallstedt that was a mid 1st, same with Askarov. Then you have Wolf, 7th rounder and Levi, 7th rounder, traded.

Yes, but partially because Oettinger just graduated. Levi also cost Sam Reinhart to acquire, so it's not like Buffalo got some huge bargain on him. Buffalo took Jack Quinn at 8th overall in Levi (and Askarov's) draft year, did they actually "save" on asset cost by taking Quinn and trading Reinhart vs if they had just drafted Askarov instead of Quinn, and kept Reinhart? I don't think I would have taken Askarov at 8 either, but if we're using Levi as hindsight it's reasonable to question Quinn + 28OA (Kulich) + Levi vs the combo of Asakrov + Reinhart (and they could have traded Reinhart elsewhere in that scenario too).

It probably still makes sense for Buffalo to prefer Quinn + Levi given their aging curves, but Reinhart + Askarov would currently be the more valuable two assets. I realize they got Kulich too, but again it's a little tricky to use hindsight in that way as they actually received the 28th overall pick and not Jiri Kulich himself. That's part of why I'm skeptical on this goalie stuff, just because you're not paying upfront to draft one doesn't mean you won't be paying one way or another (either paying to get a good G later, or burning your core's prime years when your Adin Hill scratch ticket doesn't pan out).

 

[Andrei79]

Lundqvist - 7th rounder
Luongo- acquired
Rinne - later round pick
Rask - acquired
Quick - 3rd
Holtby - 3rd, or 4th rounder.

Hellebuyck - 5th Shestorkin - 4th, Sorokin- 4th.

Price and Fleury were both top 5 picks.

Bobrovsky is a 2 times veznia winner, or at least won it once, he was an undrafted FA who was dealt for like a 3rd.

Adin Hill was drafted in his 2nd year of eligibility by Arizona and ended up in San Jose where he was dealt for a 4th.

Is Hill a great goalie ? Nope. He's got size and enough skill to be a solid goalie while Vegas is good enough to limit, or erase back door plays. Florida isn't getting Hill to move side-to-side. Sportsnet showed thar Vegas is blocking wrist shots no matter what and moving for slapshots.

Of the best goalie prospects you have Wallstedt that was a mid 1st, same with Askarov. Then you have Wolf, 7th rounder and Levi, 7th rounder, traded.

I dont have last year's conference finals, but this year's...

Carolina - Have a home grown goalie, but didnt use him and he was an early 2nd.

Florida - They don't have Knight, who was a high pick, but their current goalies are both brought in. Hopefully Knight can come back and beats his demons !

Vegas - a bunch of goalies brought in, but a unique situation.

Dallas - Oettinger, late 1st round pick and he's all over the place, but mostly not good in the conference finals.



It's not so much don't draft a goalie, it's you don't need one that early.

All that said, if the Habs use 37th on Hrabal I wouldn't be upset. Everything sounds promising and he has the size along with the athleticism you want.

Anyone else that early, just wait until the 3rd and grab someone if Hrabal is gone.

6 spots sooner, wouldn't be mad at Hrabal at 31/32 either unless someone fairly decent falls.

Oettinger is a great example of how undervalued goaltenders have become at the draft. An elite player at 26 with Poehling being drafted just before. You solve a position for years at a low cost.

 

[pylero]

Top 10 mock draft as of today:
CHI Bedard
ANA Fantilli
CBJ Carlsson
SJS Leonard
MTL Reinbacher
ARI Smith
PHI Benson
WAS Michkov
DET Dvorksy
STL Wood

I think it's a given MTL passes on Michkov, and Hughes only talk about Smith's character and never about his abilities - something tells me the Fresh Prince of Beloeil is not happening.

 

[Wats]

I think we've overcorrected on goalies a little bit. Goalies don't (and shouldn't) go in the top 10 anymore, but there can still be value in picking goalies relatively high, and it would make sense to do it this year. I don't really buy into this dichotomy between 5 superstar Gs and then the other 55 goalies being scratch tickets. There is still value in having a consistent starter, even if he might vary between eg. 10th-18th best G in the league from year to year.

I don't think Vegas really works as a slam dunk argument against drafting a goalie in the first 2 rounds unless we're also willing to argue that Vegas being up 2-0 after trading for Eichel and Stone on their roster means the groupthink about "drafting stars/skill" as the lynchpin of building a contending team might also be overblown. Not to mention that two of the last three cups were won by Vasilevskiy, with Price and Bobrovsky as finalists twice.

I get the argument and I would get queasy about drafting a goalie in the early-mid teens at this point, but drafting a G at 31 or 37 isn't really the same thing given you're at the stage of the draft where "uncertainty" is quite high for skaters too. After the mid-late teens you're basically into a long 2nd round.

Yeah, who they got by trading some mid-late 1sts, a gritty top 6 winger, and a couple highly touted prospects taken in the mid-1st who haven't really done anything since being traded.

You need to draft prospects good enough for teams to actually want them in a trade. Only prospects Habs seem to be able to trade are top 10 picks like Sergachev last decade.

 

[HuGo Burner Acc]

Top 10 mock draft as of today:
CHI Bedard
ANA Fantilli
CBJ Carlsson
SJS Leonard
MTL Reinbacher
ARI Smith
PHI Benson
WAS Michkov
DET Dvorksy
STL Wood

I think it's a given MTL passes on Michkov, and Hughes only talk about Smith's character and never about his abilities - something tells me the Fresh Prince of Beloeil is not happening.

I mean we can argue that Smith is the 3rd most offensively gifted player in the draft behind Bedard and michkov. Maybe Habs pass on him to take reinbacher but I dont think it's an indictment of his talent just his compete level and maybe need if Habs brass sees that cluster of players on the same tier

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Yes, but partially because Oettinger just graduated. Levi also cost Sam Reinhart to acquire, so it's not like Buffalo got some huge bargain on him. Buffalo took Jack Quinn at 8th overall in Levi (and Askarov's) draft year, did they actually "save" on asset cost by taking Quinn and trading Reinhart vs if they had just drafted Askarov instead of Quinn, and kept Reinhart? I don't think I would have taken Askarov at 8 either, but if we're using Levi as hindsight it's reasonable to question Quinn + 28OA (Kulich) + Levi vs the combo of Asakrov + Reinhart (and they could have traded Reinhart elsewhere in that scenario too).

It probably still makes sense for Buffalo to prefer Quinn + Levi given their aging curves, but Reinhart + Askarov would currently be the more valuable two assets. I realize they got Kulich too, but again it's a little tricky to use hindsight in that way as they actually received the 28th overall pick and not Jiri Kulich himself. That's part of why I'm skeptical on this goalie stuff, just because you're not paying upfront to draft one doesn't mean you won't be paying one way or another (either paying to get a good G later, or burning your core's prime years when your Adin Hill scratch ticket doesn't pan out).

Given that Reinhart was likely out one way, or another Buffalo did well.

Levi and a 1st where it could have been Kulich, it could have been Mesar.

I get what youre saying, but it works both ways. Are you going to draft 1 goalie and just leave him there and wait for him to mature and be that number 1 goalie and if he doesnt work out you just draft another goalie and wait ?

Vegas is an extreme outlier as their top players and werent drafted by them.

Unless there's a goalie you really, really like my suggestion would be draft a goalie every 2nd year. I'm obviously no NHL exec but it's so hard to judge a goalie.

Jordan Binnington went from a crap goalie, to good enough to win a cup to a below average goalie.

Tim Thomas was passed over and ignored for like 13 years and then came in with his unorthodox style and won a cup and played well for the Bruins.

Oettinger is a great example of how undervalued goaltenders have become at the draft. An elite player at 26 with Poehling being drafted just before. You solve a position for years at a low cost.

Dallas also tried that in 2010 with Campbell and that didn't work out. Could have drafted Tarasenko and then in the 3rd drafted Grubauer.

Oettinger is a really good goalie, but he might have cost Dallas a series and definitely cost Dallas some games, but he helped win some, too.