Prospect Info: 2023 NHL Draft - Potential Selection Discussion

[Martin Skoula]

Yes it is, Dave. There's simply no reason why a draft strategy featuring small players needs to championed. If the player is small but has something exceptional from a competition, strength, skill perspective to him, go get him. If he's not, why bother drafting, waiting, developing?

There is no inherent benefit in a draft history that looks like this between 2015 and 2020. Nobody can deny these are completely fruitless picks:

Jeremy Bracco
Martins Dzierkals
Dmytro Timashov
Adam Brooks
Semyon Der-Arguchintsev
Mikhail Abramov
Kalle Loponen
Michael Koster
Wyatt Schingoethe
Joe Miller
Axel Rindell
John Fusco

The idea makes sense in the 90s/early 2000s where the size bias was a lot more exploitable, that stretch of Vancouver getting out-drafted by thousands of GP by an excel spreadsheet taking the highest available D-1 CHL PPG forward with every single pick comes to mind. I think Dubas and a lot of the size crowd underestimated how much even old school scouting groups look into that smaller player type today. You can’t just blanket take them and come out ahead of everyone else by exploiting a big attention gap, you’re back to having to be good/get lucky at picking the right ones out of the mass.

The days of coming to Siberia to watch a guy and accidentally discover Datsyuk while no one else has the budget to scout out there are over for the most part.

 

[Menzinger]

Yes it is, Dave. There's simply no reason why a draft strategy featuring small players needs to championed. If the player is small but has something exceptional from a competition, strength, skill perspective to him, go get him. If he's not, why bother drafting, waiting, developing?

There is no inherent benefit in a draft history that looks like this between 2015 and 2020. Nobody can deny these are completely fruitless picks:

Jeremy Bracco
Martins Dzierkals
Dmytro Timashov
Adam Brooks
Semyon Der-Arguchintsev
Mikhail Abramov
Kalle Loponen
Michael Koster
Wyatt Schingoethe
Joe Miller
Axel Rindell
John Fusco

Though you could make a list of the biggest prospects drafted by the Leafs in the same time frame its a fairly comparable list.

It's not as if bigger guys like Greenway, Korshkov, or Rasanen came any closer despite their larger frames.

And to be fair.too, some of those guys listed are also still works in progress. Koster still has a chance for example of turning into an NHLer

Edit: not that I have anything against drafting bigger players

 

[SprDaVE]

Yes it is, Dave. There's simply no reason why a draft strategy featuring small players needs to championed. If the player is small but has something exceptional from a competition, strength, skill perspective to him, go get him. If he's not, why bother drafting, waiting, developing?

There is no inherent benefit in a draft history that looks like this between 2015 and 2020. Nobody can deny these are completely fruitless picks:

Jeremy Bracco
Martins Dzierkals
Dmytro Timashov
Adam Brooks
Semyon Der-Arguchintsev
Mikhail Abramov
Kalle Loponen
Michael Koster
Wyatt Schingoethe
Joe Miller
Axel Rindell
John Fusco

Ok now do the list of big players that went fruitless

 

[SprDaVE]

Terrible? If I didn’t know any better I’d think you’re virtue signalling with the “terrible” comment. I forgive you. It’s okay if we see two sides of the box. I respect yours. Please respect mine.

I’m not literally saying always take a Canadian. I was quite happy when we landed Matthews. But when the players are projected to be close, I would draft the Canadian.

NHL player count by country 2024 | Statista

Canada was the country with the highest number of active NHL players as of March 2024.

www.statista.com

Must be something in our water?

I don't really think I said anything that meant to virtue signal anything. It's a terrible way of making it seem like a Canadian pick is better and it's never black and white to have 2 prospects pretty much equal. I really don't care to be forgiven. It's the same when someone keeps suggesting we should pick big players because they are typically better... except when they're not.

Canada produces the most players. Typically you'll pick more Canadian players in a draft. We sometimes do. But you were suggesting to go our of their way to pick Canadians just because they produce more players.

 

[Stephen]

The idea makes sense in the 90s/early 2000s where the size bias was a lot more exploitable, that stretch of Vancouver getting out-drafted by thousands of GP by an excel spreadsheet taking the highest available D-1 CHL PPG forward with every single pick comes to mind. I think Dubas and a lot of the size crowd underestimated how much even old school scouting groups look into that smaller player type today. You can’t just blanket take them and come out ahead of everyone else by exploiting a big attention gap, you’re back to having to be good/get lucky at picking the right ones out of the mass.

The days of coming to Siberia to watch a guy and accidentally discover Datsyuk while no one else has the budget to scout out there are over for the most part.

Yeah that's exactly it. It's not like other teams aren't also looking at these smaller players in the pool, allowing for one progressive team to scoop them all up. Supremely skilled little guys like Kasper, Rossi, Savoie are going early in the Top 10.

So you're just stuck drafting the dregs of the USHL for underdeveloped guys who have to clear so many hurdles just to climb the pro ranks, just to get on the Leaf roster, just to not be a compliment to the Leafs needs.

Again, I'm not saying to throw a blanket DND on anyone under a certain size, but you can't stockpile longshots either. We could never have a really honest discussion about the previous regime's approach to the supposed 'market inefficiency'.

 

[LeafChief]

Yes it is, Dave. There's simply no reason why a draft strategy featuring small players needs to championed. If the player is small but has something exceptional from a competition, strength, skill perspective to him, go get him. If he's not, why bother drafting, waiting, developing?

There is no inherent benefit in a draft history that looks like this between 2015 and 2020. Nobody can deny these are completely fruitless picks:

Jeremy Bracco
Martins Dzierkals
Dmytro Timashov
Adam Brooks
Semyon Der-Arguchintsev
Mikhail Abramov
Kalle Loponen
Michael Koster
Wyatt Schingoethe
Joe Miller
Axel Rindell
John Fusco

Lmao this is so passive-aggressive.

This list is also very cherry-picked. Not to say that either strategy is better. Just pointing out the bias in this post.

 

[Stephen]

Ok now do the list of big players that went fruitless

You've got it all wrong.

I don't want to draft 1) big useless players and I don't want to draft 2) small useless players. One isn't smarter than the other.

Bottom line is we need sharper scouting and we have to draft big and small better. The ratio of small needs to be dialed down.

 

[SprDaVE]

You've got it all wrong.

I don't want to draft 1) big useless players and I don't want to draft 2) small useless players. One isn't smarter than the other.

Bottom line is we need sharper scouting and we have to draft big and small better. The ratio of small needs to be dialed down.

This doesn't make any sense. Make the list of big players that went fruitless and it's the same thing. It doesn't matter what size they are. Big players succeed and fail. Small players succed and fail. The morale of the story is that a good player is a good player.

I said don't look at the scale. You then mentioned Knies and then posted a list of small players that didn't work out, and then take a step back when the list of big players is just as bad.

Sandin to Robertson to Knies to Liljegren to Tverberg to Hildeby to Villeneuve to Durzi... I dunno. Seems like not an issue.

 

[LeafChief]

You've got it all wrong.

I don't want to draft 1) big useless players and I don't want to draft 2) small useless players. One isn't smarter than the other.

Bottom line is we need sharper scouting and we have to draft big and small better. The ratio of small needs to be dialed down.

The ratio of small does not need to be dialed down. The ratio of good needs to be dialed up, regardless of size.

 

[Stephen]

Lmao this is so passive-aggressive.

This list is also very cherry-picked. Not to say that either strategy is better. Just pointing out the bias in this post.

Well, cherry pick for me a list of sub 6'0" mid round picks made by Toronto that worked as a impact player under the Shanaplan. Or a regular NHL player. That guy is probably already on my list.

 

[Stephen]

This doesn't make any sense. Make the list of big players that went fruitless and it's the same thing. It doesn't matter what size they are. Big players succeed and fail. Small players succed and fail. The morale of the story is that a good player is a good player.

I said don't look at the scale. You then mentioned Knies and then posted a list of small players that didn't work out, and then take a step back when the list of big players is just as bad.

Well there's the rub. We don't really draft good players at all.

 

[SprDaVE]

Well there's the rub. We don't really draft good players at all.

Oh ok. So just draft better players... right? Right. Maybe like instead of picking Korshkov maybe pick Debrincat or Kyrou?

Drafting has been average probably yeah, but it really isn't about picking small. It has nothing to do with that.

 

[LeafChief]

Well, cherry pick for me a list of sub 6'0" mid round picks made by Toronto that worked as a impact player under the Shanaplan. Or a regular NHL player. That guy is probably already on my list.

Find me a list of the behemoth mid round picks that have become impact players under the Shanaplan.

The point remains that the drafting needs to get better. Whether the players are big or small, the drafting needs to get better.

 

[Stephen]

Though you could make a list of the biggest prospects drafted by the Leafs in the same time frame its a fairly comparable list.

It's not as if bigger guys like Greenway, Korshkov, or Rasanen came any closer despite their larger frames.

And to be fair.too, some of those guys listed are also still works in progress. Koster still has a chance for example of turning into an NHLer

Edit: not that I have anything against drafting bigger players

Bottom line for me is we didn't draft that well full stop. And the guys that come up mostly don't help the team. So it's an identification problem on draft day and it's a failure to solve needs problem years down the line.

I'd love a 5'9" superstar on my team. But I don't want a pipeline with a half dozen of them who can't make the NHL or do anything to help the big club once they get there.

I also don't inherently support any old dumb fridge pick. But if you don't look for size sometime, you don't have a system that can yield the kind of players that Vegas won with. And we need some of that ingredient.

Koster, eh. We already have a Mac Hollowell ahead of him on the depth chart. And Victor Mete is better than both and virtually useless at the NHL level...

 

[Stephen]

Find me a list of the behemoth mid round picks that have become impact players under the Shanaplan.

The point remains that the drafting needs to get better. Whether the players are big or small, the drafting needs to get better.

Yes, agreed. The drafting needs to be better. Full stop. And part of getting better at drafting is to draft fewer small useless players who will never be useful at the NHL level.

 

[Stephen]

Oh ok. So just draft better players... right? Right. Maybe like instead of picking Korshkov maybe pick Debrincat or Kyrou?

Drafting has been average probably yeah, but it really isn't about picking small. It has nothing to do with that.

Well, yes literally. The mission goal is to build a better scouting department, identify pieces that can be more effective and ultimately draft better.

 

[LeafChief]

Yes, agreed. The drafting needs to be better. Full stop. And part of getting better at drafting is to draft fewer small useless players who will never be useful at the NHL level.

Incorrect. Not surprising.

Drafting large useless players would be just as moronic as drafting small useless players.

Part of getting better at drafting is to draft more players that will have an impact at the NHL level.

 

[4thline]

Jeremy Bracco
Martins Dzierkals
Dmytro Timashov
Adam Brooks
Semyon Der-Arguchintsev
Mikhail Abramov
Kalle Loponen
Michael Koster
Wyatt Schingoethe
Joe Miller
Axel Rindell
John Fusco

There is almost no common theme between these picks other than being busts in hindsight. Most aren't particularly small.

Bracco busted for off-ice reasons, listed at 5'11 196
Dzierkals currently plays at 6' 185
Timashov fine- small skilled guy (but also now listed at 187)
Brooks- claimed on waivers by 3 different NHL teams, more of a high IQ two way type than pure skill
SDA - fine small skilled guy
Abramov- ditto
Loponen- 190 pound two way dman that just wasn't much good at either of them lol
Koster- small, but a mobile positional defender more than a high skill pick
Schingoethe- drafted at 200 pounds, 5'11 gritty type
Miller- small (tiny) skilled guy
Rindell- 6'0 192
Fusco- waste of pick IMO but 5'11, flirting with 190.

If this was a list based on size, where's Holmberg drafted at 5'10 174? Barely 6'0 190 pound Sean Durzi and Carl Grundstrom? 5'11 180 pound Sandin?

 

[Martin Skoula]

This doesn't make any sense. Make the list of big players that went fruitless and it's the same thing. It doesn't matter what size they are. Big players succeed and fail. Small players succed and fail. The morale of the story is that a good player is a good player.

I said don't look at the scale. You then mentioned Knies and then posted a list of small players that didn't work out, and then take a step back when the list of big players is just as bad.

Sandin to Robertson to Knies to Liljegren to Tverberg to Hildeby to Villeneuve to Durzi... I dunno. Seems like not an issue.

I don’t know why the conversation turned to their downsides, a bust is a bust. The more relevant point would be “ok so what if Hirvonen, SDA, Koster etc all hit their realistic ceilings?”. We got a bunch of smart chippy 5’9 middle 6ers along the lines of a Garland or a rich man’s Kerfoot and a bunch of 30-40 point PP2 QBs on D, none of them are breaking the bank but you’re paying them 2-4 mil a piece.

If you go that route they need realistic potential to be better than say a Bratt. SDA I can kind of see the gamble on, the playmaking getting visibly better with better linemates in that one camp could have been a lightbulb moment where he has an offseason like Brayden Point did and pushed his skating or shot into being a +++ level asset out of nowhere.

I’d rather take a gamble on a Hutson/DeAngelo type than a slightly bigger/slightly less insane version that doesn’t have the home run upside.

 

[Stephen]

There is almost no common theme between these picks other than being busts in hindsight. Most aren't particularly small.

Bracco busted for off-ice reasons, listed at 5'11 196
Dzierkals currently plays at 6' 185
Timashov fine- small skilled guy (but also now listed at 187)
Brooks- claimed on waivers by 3 different NHL teams, more of a high IQ two way type than pure skill
SDA - fine small skilled guy
Abramov- ditto
Loponen- 190 pound two way dman that just wasn't much good at either of them lol
Koster- small, but a mobile positional defender more than a high skill pick
Schingoethe- drafted at 200 pounds, 5'11 gritty type
Miller- small (tiny) skilled guy
Rindell- 6'0 192
Fusco- waste of pick IMO but 5'11, flirting with 190.

If this was a list based on size, where's Holmberg drafted at 5'10 174? Barely 6'0 190 pound Sean Durzi and Carl Grundstrom? 5'11 180 pound Sandin?

Well, Holmberg hasn't done much more than Adam Brooks. Not sure what the future holds there but maybe he'll get a shot. Grundstrom hasn't really panned out too well in LA as a former second rounder. And Sandin is the best of the bunch but virtually useless for a playoff run due to his size and lack of speed. And there's also Nick Robertson. We all know his challenges.

Looking at the whole landscape, Knies is probably going to be the best of the era. And he's a big power foward. So if the drafting shifts more towards more Knies type players (no guarantee on results of course) and away from that list, I would be supportive.

Generally, we have to pick better. The results haven't been very good.

 

[Stephen]

I don’t know why the conversation turned to their downsides, a bust is a bust. The more relevant point would be “ok so what if Hirvonen, SDA, Koster etc all hit their realistic ceilings?”. We got a bunch of smart chippy 5’9 middle 6ers along the lines of a Garland or a rich man’s Kerfoot and a bunch of 30-40 point PP2 QBs on D, none of them are breaking the bank but you’re paying them 2-4 mil a piece.

This is why I keep hammering away on why they need more diverse draft classes with more attention on bigger players who fill different roles. If all of those Hirvonen, SDA, Koster, etc. types hit their ceiling and you promoted them all to fill the Leafs roster openings, that's not a serious support cast.

Picks like Korshkov and Rasanen get a lot of flack, and deservedly so. But you can see if they had panned out we would have a Mikheyev/Nichushkin type winger in the system. Rasanen might have been be a Hakanpaa. That pads out a program.

 

[4thline]

Generally, we have to pick better. The results haven't been very good.

The point is that every team has a list of busts that are more less average size with the odd smurf in there, it's the nature of the draft..

The jury on Dubas drafting is still out. The Hunter period was ass though. The 15 and 16 drafts really killed us. 8 picks between 31 and 72 between those two drafts. 10 more late rounders. Good diversity of skillsets. Grundstrom, Dermott, and Woll are all to show for it. 17's a big ole goose egg outside of Liljegren.

18 draft yielded Sandin and Durzi - Holmberg and Kral still with shots
19- Robertson still has a year left of his ELC, Koster in college looking good, Abruzesse IMO a darkhorse to surprise this season
20- Niemela/Hirvonen/Villeneuve/Tverberg all legitimate prospects. Amirov wasn't a drafting issue. One of Miettinen and Miller could still boom in the NCAA- producing well enough to not rule out ELC's.

21 and 22, Knies already knocking, otherwise too early but pretty much everyone tracking as well as could be reasonably hoped.

 

[notbias]

You've got it all wrong.

I don't want to draft 1) big useless players and I don't want to draft 2) small useless players. One isn't smarter than the other.

Bottom line is we need sharper scouting and we have to draft big and small better. The ratio of small needs to be dialed down.

Big useful players get taken earlier I'd assume, so you're left with more undersized useful players than big useful players.

So your thought process makes no sense, you want them to dial down on small players, but also don't want useless players. I guess if they just trade anything after the 2nd round they could do that, but otherwise, I think they will have an issue trying to implement your strategy.

 

[nuck]

This is why I keep hammering away on why they need more diverse draft classes with more attention on bigger players who fill different roles. If all of those Hirvonen, SDA, Koster, etc. types hit their ceiling and you promoted them all to fill the Leafs roster openings, that's not a serious support cast.

Picks like Korshkov and Rasanen get a lot of flack, and deservedly so. But you can see if they had panned out we would have a Mikheyev/Nichushkin type winger in the system. Rasanen might have been be a Hakanpaa. That pads out a program.

These guys are all taken off the clubs list as put together by their scouting team. Especially outside of the first round, the expected success rate between the good available big guy and the good available small guy should be so miniscule that even if there is a bias one way or another for crunch vs pure skill a team shouldn't be handcuffing itself so long as their scouts are doing their jobs.

Guys like the Goat and Rasanen weren't reaches where they were taken, they were just big guys that didn't work out. Guys like Bracco and Brooks weren't blown picks on pigmies, they were highly skilled guys that couldn't take the next step.

There may have been an early bias with KD towards highly skilled guys because they didn't have much in their system when he came in. Most of the big offense guys on the Marlies were drafted by other organizations and were already questionable prospects. Maybe Minten and Knies were the beginning of a shift the other way.

I haven't done an exhaustive study but I suspect that more physical talent is harder to predict outside of the 1st round than a dangler so you will spend more picks and get less results. The tradeoff is these are rarer players and therefore more desirable than their smaller counterparts so choose your poison. It seems like a lot of teams just trade for their heavier players.

 

[weems]

As part of my job I watch a ton of OHL games, and I know he isn't projected to go in the first round but Nick Lardis is as good as anyone I've seen in the OHL this year U18. His game is similar to Nick Robertson, but with better agility.

His goal scoring pace once he got moved to Hamilton is very impressive.

He scored 31 goals in 39 games played including playoff games.

He's said to be one of the more explosive skaters in the draft with one of the better shots.

That's good upside value at the end of round 1 or in a trade down to early second round pick scenario.