GDT: 2024 NHL Draft Thread | No Picks, No Problems

[MS]

100% with all of this. And prospect analysists who put together these lists either haven't figured this out, or are expressly not trying to quantify asset value of the prospect if and when he makes it to the NHL.

But NHL teams have figured this out. Just look at the 2023 draft results, and consider that wingers make up 42% or so of the players in the NHL but:
1) zero wingers in the top six (0%)
2) two wingers in the top 11 (18%); and
3) 12 wingers in the top 32 (38%).

So, despite making up 42% of players in the NHL, wingers were under represented in the first round, and significantly under presented the earlier and more valuable the picks were in the first, and the reason for this is exactly as you have noted.

Yeah, we saw this last year when all these sites had the Benson/Cristall/Perron crowd rated incredibly high and then were baffled that ‘dumb’ NHL teams didn’t see it the same way.

And through the 1990s and 2000s, yeah. There were incredible value disparities offered by taking small skill players in an era where NHL teams were taking 12-point face-punching defenders in the first round but a guy who led his league in scoring would go in the 4th round. And these sites (and most of the fans posting here, including myself) realized you could just focus on (usually smallish) high-producing skill players and that you would statistically blow apart the drafting of most NHL teams.

But these things are very fluid and what was smart and represented good value in 2012 isn’t necessarily what is smart and represents good value in 2024.

1. The value proposition has changed completely over the last decade. In 2014 Brayden Point went #79 overall. In 2023 Zach Benson who was basically the exact same player (except a wing and not a C) went #13 overall. The league has adjusted and small players are now valued … pretty appropriately and you can’t just default to ‘draft small guys’ and expect to get some sort of insane moneypuck value.

2. What I’ve realized over years now of draft watching and rating guys is that continually rating small high-producing players highly means that you essentially build a roster of nothing but tiny skill wingers and small PP QB defenders. And it’s not a recipe for success.

3. Further from (2), there has always been this notion that ‘if you draft good players at one position you can trade them for need’ but if you draft a bunch of small skill wingers, that just isn’t how it works. Nobody is trading their top young defensemen for little scoring wingers.

I’ve done a 180 in the last 5 years from being of a stat-counting mindset in draft analysis where instead of looking to generate the most GP/points with my picks and ‘be smarter’ than NHL teams who have lower GP/point totals from their picks I’m looking at generating the highest value from picks and how important it is to add C and D and build the spine of your team.

But most of these scouting sites (and most of the prospect board posters here) are still stuck in 2014 and haven’t made this adjustment. And they’re operating from a totally different playbook than what NHL teams are right now. C, D, and size/physicality are at an incredible premium. And the top 20 picks of the draft will be absolutely dominated by players at those positions or with those traits.

Conor Garland has been a massive eye-opener for me. I loved Garland back in 2015, had him rated in the 2nd round. And I theoretically got that evaluation dead on. But if I had taken him in the 2nd round … he’s only had a couple moments in his career where he would have returned that invested cost in a trade. At age 27 coming off a 46-point season he was basically judged to be completely worthless by the NHL. And even though I nailed the player evaluation, it wouldn’t really have been a very good pick if I’d actually taken him as highly as I had him rated. The guys that actually carry value out of that range of that draft are guys like Roope Hintz, Rasmus Andersson, Anthony Cirelli, Erik Cernak. Big players or C/D or both. And if you keep taking Garlands you’re never going to have those sorts of hits of core-type assets that are nearly impossible to find if you don’t draft them.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

I like the Zether idea. I'd be a bit surprised if he gets to our pick but he'd be high on my list. Interesting profile, could be a decent upside guy that slips through the cracks.

Another is Sam O'Reilly. Who knows where he goes, could see a team even take him in the late 2nd tbh (teams love these players) but for where our first few picks land I'd love to get him. Upside is prob bottom 6 but he's a pain in the ass out there & I think he'll play.

Luca Marelli is another one. I've liked him more than Ben Danford in the games I saw tbh. Good skater, pretty good skills/2-way game. For a late round pick he's an interesting guy if he gets there.

Those are a few I like for our picks. Also if theres a situation where we could get a 1st rounder for Hronek (prob in the teens) to land Carter Yakemchuk (if he slips a bit) Id be super interested.

Best scenario is obviously Hronek signing a reasonable deal but if not... You get a great RHD prospect (imo), probably a secondary asset & cap space to sign a UFA replacement.

 

[bossram]

Yeah, we saw this last year when all these sites had the Benson/Cristall/Perron crowd rated incredibly high and then were baffled that ‘dumb’ NHL teams didn’t see it the same way.

And through the 1990s and 2000s, yeah. There were incredible value disparities offered by taking small skill players in an era where NHL teams were taking 12-point face-punching defenders in the first round but a guy who led his league in scoring would go in the 4th round. And these sites (and most of the fans posting here, including myself) realized you could just focus on (usually smallish) high-producing skill players and that you would statistically blow apart the drafting of most NHL teams.

But these things are very fluid and what was smart and represented good value in 2012 isn’t necessarily what is smart and represents good value in 2024.

1. The value proposition has changed completely over the last decade. In 2014 Brayden Point went #79 overall. In 2023 Zach Benson who was basically the exact same player (except a wing and not a C) went #13 overall. The league has adjusted and small players are now valued … pretty appropriately and you can’t just default to ‘draft small guys’ and expect to get some sort of insane moneypuck value.

2. What I’ve realized over years now of draft watching and rating guys is that continually rating small high-producing players highly means that you essentially build a roster of nothing but tiny skill wingers and small PP QB defenders. And it’s not a recipe for success.

3. Further from (2), there has always been this notion that ‘if you draft good players at one position you can trade them for need’ but if you draft a bunch of small skill wingers, that just isn’t how it works. Nobody is trading their top young defensemen for little scoring wingers.

I’ve done a 180 in the last 5 years from being of a stat-counting mindset in draft analysis where instead of looking to generate the most GP/points with my picks and ‘be smarter’ than NHL teams who have lower GP/point totals from their picks I’m looking at generating the highest value from picks and how important it is to add C and D and build the spine of your team.

But most of these scouting sites (and most of the prospect board posters here) are still stuck in 2014 and haven’t made this adjustment. And they’re operating from a totally different playbook than what NHL teams are right now. C, D, and size/physicality are at an incredible premium. And the top 20 picks of the draft will be absolutely dominated by players at those positions or with those traits.

Conor Garland has been a massive eye-opener for me. I loved Garland back in 2015, had him rated in the 2nd round. And I theoretically got that evaluation dead on. But if I had taken him in the 2nd round … he’s only had a couple moments in his career where he would have returned that invested cost in a trade. At age 27 coming off a 46-point season he was basically judged to be completely worthless by the NHL. And even though I nailed the player evaluation, it wouldn’t really have been a very good pick if I’d actually taken him as highly as I had him rated. The guys that actually carry value out of that range of that draft are guys like Roope Hintz, Rasmus Andersson, Anthony Cirelli, Erik Cernak. Big players or C/D or both. And if you keep taking Garlands you’re never going to have those sorts of hits of core-type assets that are nearly impossible to find if you don’t draft them.

100% and where I'm at now. Back when I first started on HFboards, these ideas of drafting the smaller, higher producing players were still correct. You would draft much better! But the thing about market inefficiencies...is that the market eventually becomes efficient. It gets figured out. Teams have (for the most part) realized the flaws they were making and are valuing small but skilled players more appropriately in the draft.

Big, mobile centers and defenseman have become the most valuable assets in the league. They should be prioritizing those areas, because it's hard to acquire them. You can acquire mid-tier undersized wingers fairly easily, at any time.

That's not to say "never draft small wingers". I was/am extremely high on Zach Benson. But there has to be some significant edge in ability over the next best (and bigger) center or defenseman.

 

[MS]

100% and where I'm at now. Back when I first started on HFboards, these ideas of drafting the smaller, higher producing players were still correct. You would draft much better! But the thing about market inefficiencies...is that the market eventually becomes efficient. It gets figured out. Teams have (for the most part) realized the flaws they were making and are valuing small but skilled players more appropriately in the draft.

Big, mobile centers and defenseman have become the most valuable assets in the league. They should be prioritizing those areas, because it's hard to acquire them. You can acquire mid-tier undersized wingers fairly easily, at any time.

Totally. Nothing is ever static. These things are like pendulums that go back and forth as teams adjust and over-adjust and then adjust back again.

If you look at the 1996 draft, Daniel Briere should have been the #1 overall pick. Dude scored 163 points, most talented player in the draft by a mile. But he goes #24 and just amongst Q players is behind Mario Laraque and Matthew Descouteax who are 6’4 no-talent face punchers with 26 and 15 points respectively. Just absolutely insane value to get Briere at that point relative to those players. But in 2024 with those same guys, Briere goes top-5 and the defenders are 4th-6th rounders. The league has adjusted and the same value propositions are not available.

That's not to say "never draft small wingers". I was/am extremely high on Zach Benson. But there has to be some significant edge in ability over the next best (and bigger) center or defenseman.

For sure. I obviously loved Stankoven at #41 in 2021 and would absolutely have taken Gabriel Perreault at #23 where the Rangers did last year (and for a few picks ahead of that). There are still points where big talent provides value and the small skilled player is the right pick. And conversely, I hated the Samuel Honzek pick for Calgary that early in last year’s draft. But generally speaking, yeah. You’ve gotta prioritize size, C, and D.

But going back to Ryder Ritchie, guy had 44 points in 47 games last year so isn’t some insane high-producing talent. Plays wing. Slightly undersized. Not really a great skater. What the hell is he doing rated top-20? And I’ll be stunned if he’s actually selected that high by actual NHL teams.

 

[ManVanFan]

Yeah, we saw this last year when all these sites had the Benson/Cristall/Perron crowd rated incredibly high and then were baffled that ‘dumb’ NHL teams didn’t see it the same way.

And through the 1990s and 2000s, yeah. There were incredible value disparities offered by taking small skill players in an era where NHL teams were taking 12-point face-punching defenders in the first round but a guy who led his league in scoring would go in the 4th round. And these sites (and most of the fans posting here, including myself) realized you could just focus on (usually smallish) high-producing skill players and that you would statistically blow apart the drafting of most NHL teams.

But these things are very fluid and what was smart and represented good value in 2012 isn’t necessarily what is smart and represents good value in 2024.

1. The value proposition has changed completely over the last decade. In 2014 Brayden Point went #79 overall. In 2023 Zach Benson who was basically the exact same player (except a wing and not a C) went #13 overall. The league has adjusted and small players are now valued … pretty appropriately and you can’t just default to ‘draft small guys’ and expect to get some sort of insane moneypuck value.

2. What I’ve realized over years now of draft watching and rating guys is that continually rating small high-producing players highly means that you essentially build a roster of nothing but tiny skill wingers and small PP QB defenders. And it’s not a recipe for success.

3. Further from (2), there has always been this notion that ‘if you draft good players at one position you can trade them for need’ but if you draft a bunch of small skill wingers, that just isn’t how it works. Nobody is trading their top young defensemen for little scoring wingers.

I’ve done a 180 in the last 5 years from being of a stat-counting mindset in draft analysis where instead of looking to generate the most GP/points with my picks and ‘be smarter’ than NHL teams who have lower GP/point totals from their picks I’m looking at generating the highest value from picks and how important it is to add C and D and build the spine of your team.

But most of these scouting sites (and most of the prospect board posters here) are still stuck in 2014 and haven’t made this adjustment. And they’re operating from a totally different playbook than what NHL teams are right now. C, D, and size/physicality are at an incredible premium. And the top 20 picks of the draft will be absolutely dominated by players at those positions or with those traits.

Conor Garland has been a massive eye-opener for me. I loved Garland back in 2015, had him rated in the 2nd round. And I theoretically got that evaluation dead on. But if I had taken him in the 2nd round … he’s only had a couple moments in his career where he would have returned that invested cost in a trade. At age 27 coming off a 46-point season he was basically judged to be completely worthless by the NHL. And even though I nailed the player evaluation, it wouldn’t really have been a very good pick if I’d actually taken him as highly as I had him rated. The guys that actually carry value out of that range of that draft are guys like Roope Hintz, Rasmus Andersson, Anthony Cirelli, Erik Cernak. Big players or C/D or both. And if you keep taking Garlands you’re never going to have those sorts of hits of core-type assets that are nearly impossible to find if you don’t draft them.

Sam Bennett was taken 4oa. A big sturdy center. His return was a 2nd round pick which was very late and a C prospect. You've been talking about return of value for these types that GM's covet. Kirby Dach drafted 3oa was then traded for a "mid round" pick.

Where was the return on investment for drafting Jake Virtanen over Willian Nylander?

You speak of the good but you forget the Nick Ritchie's, Duncan Siemen's, Michael Dal Colle, Hayden Fleury's, Brandon Perlini's, and countless others that turned into a waste.

There are usually a couple of undersized players that out produced their draft slot like Garland. or Alex Debrincat who drafted 39th returned a 7oa pick. Even though those players aren't value to Gm's.

GM's have figured it out (years ago), that it isn't a one way street big or small, BPA vs value. Certain types of players are more rare than others, doesn't mean GM's are going to start wasting picks to try and draft something that has very little chance of becoming it. For every "big player or C/D that out performs a draft slot there is also a middle 6 winger or undersized player that outperforms their draft slot just as much.

 

[MS]

Sam Bennett was taken 4oa. A big sturdy center. His return was a 2nd round pick which was very late and a C prospect. You've been talking about return of value for these types that GM's covet. Kirby Dach drafted 3oa was then traded for a "mid round" pick.

Where was the return on investment for drafting Jake Virtanen over Willian Nylander?

You speak of the good but you forget the Nick Ritchie's, Duncan Siemen's, Michael Dal Colle, Hayden Fleury's, Brandon Perlini's, and countless others that turned into a waste.

There are usually a couple of undersized players that out produced their draft slot like Garland. or Alex Debrincat who drafted 39th returned a 7oa pick. Even though those players aren't value to Gm's.

GM's have figured it out (years ago), that it isn't a one way street big or small, BPA vs value. Certain types of players are more rare than others, doesn't mean GM's are going to start wasting picks to try and draft something that has very little chance of becoming it. For every "big player or C/D that out performs a draft slot there is also a middle 6 winger or undersized player that outperforms their draft slot just as much.

A list of busts doesn't tell you anything. I could give you a list of Zadinas, too. All kinds of players of all types bust, and do so at high rates throughout the draft.

And again, I'm not saying you draft nothing but big no-talent players or something like that. There are levels of talent. If you're choosing between Zach Benson and Samuel Honzek, obviously the talent disparity is just far too massive and Benson is just a different calibre of player and prospect. And a guy like Virtanen should never have gone where he did in that draft.

What I'm saying is that in terms of tiers of relatively similar level prospects available when you come up to pick, if you consistently default to higher-producing small wingers, you are going to get a mess of a team build and limited asset value even if the picks hit. And that a player's upside and potential value has to justify their draft position.

If we were picking 50th and took Ryder Ritchie there. sure. Probably a reasonable pick. Inside of the top 20 is to me insane and you would need like a 99th percentile result from the pick to ever justify the investment you just made in the player.

 

[ManVanFan]

A list of busts doesn't tell you anything. I could give you a list of Zadinas, too. All kinds of players of all types bust, and do so at high rates throughout the draft.

And again, I'm not saying you draft nothing but big no-talent players or something like that. There are levels of talent. If you're choosing between Zach Benson and Samuel Honzek, obviously the talent disparity is just far too massive and Benson is just a different calibre of player and prospect. And a guy like Virtanen should never have gone where he did in that draft.

What I'm saying is that in terms of tiers of relatively similar level prospects available when you come up to pick, if you consistently default to higher-producing small wingers, you are going to get a mess of a team build and limited asset value even if the picks hit. And that a player's upside and potential value has to justify their draft position.

If we were picking 50th and took Ryder Ritchie there. sure. Probably a reasonable pick. Inside of the top 20 is to me insane and you would need like a 99th percentile result from the pick to ever justify the investment you just made in the player.

Say the 2013 NHL Draft. Players that have played over 100 games from that draft. Andre Burakowsky is the 15th highest PPG player @ .57. Equal to about 50 points over 82 games. Obviously you can slap in about 5-8 D that don't score as much but have more value than a middle 6 winger. You get to 38th highest PPG player Jason Dickinson who has a career .31 PPG equal to 25 points a year. The 50th best player in that draft you're looking at Connor Clifton or a William Carrier type.

Those numbers go for most drafts, slight change depending on how good or bad a draft is.

2015 a strong draft 15th best forward scoring at .64 PPG which is 52 points a year. Which in 2015 16th is Conor Garland at .60 PPG. Looking at the defence from that draft, I would probably place 11 D at more value than Garland. So in a re-draft, he would most likely be a late 1st round pick.
50th best players in that draft would be Noah Juulsen or Kevin Stenlund. You can't tell me that Garland has less value than those types of players.

I'm not Byron Bader, I never said that Ryder Ritchie should go 17th. His model is based off projections from 30 years of data and what they have produced in the NHL but if a team projects Ryder Ritchie as a say 40 point player, a mid round pick if he pans out isn't that bad of a pick.

 

[RobsonStreet]

If we want more evidence for relative league value of skill wingers versus centres, it’s worth comparing the careers (and the upcoming contracts) of Teuvo Teravainen and Elias Lindholm.

If we really wanted to get into the weeds, we could even try making case that Tochett’s reluctance to reunite the Lotto line is borne out of this same supply and demand problem (on the Canucks as well as in the league as a whole).

 

[credulous]

Say the 2013 NHL Draft. Players that have played over 100 games from that draft. Andre Burakowsky is the 15th highest PPG player @ .57. Equal to about 50 points over 82 games. Obviously you can slap in about 5-8 D that don't score as much but have more value than a middle 6 winger. You get to 38th highest PPG player Jason Dickinson who has a career .31 PPG equal to 25 points a year. The 50th best player in that draft you're looking at Connor Clifton or a William Carrier type.

Those numbers go for most drafts, slight change depending on how good or bad a draft is.

yeah when people mock teams for taking like jordan greenway in the 2nd round they don't usually realize that's basically a home run. i mean yeah anthony cirelli went a round later but a ton of guys you haven't thought about in almost 10 years went before him

 

[ManVanFan]

yeah when people mock teams for taking like jordan greenway in the 2nd round they don't usually realize that's basically a home run. i mean yeah anthony cirelli went a round later but a ton of guys you haven't thought about in almost 10 years went before him

Those type of picks might never be that pretty but they do work. That's why when Vector and I were discussing Simon Zether in the 3rd round. I don't view it as a pretty pick but I don't have a problem with it depending if there isn't someone with what looks to have more upside on the board. If there is a Brayden Point, Tommy Novak, Anthony Cirelli type player there, I'd take that swing over a less pretty pick. They could trade another 5th for a Lafferty. You aren't trading a 5th for Brayden Point or the other 2. Haha.

 

[MS]

Say the 2013 NHL Draft. Players that have played over 100 games from that draft. Andre Burakowsky is the 15th highest PPG player @ .57. Equal to about 50 points over 82 games. Obviously you can slap in about 5-8 D that don't score as much but have more value than a middle 6 winger. You get to 38th highest PPG player Jason Dickinson who has a career .31 PPG equal to 25 points a year. The 50th best player in that draft you're looking at Connor Clifton or a William Carrier type.

Those numbers go for most drafts, slight change depending on how good or bad a draft is.

2015 a strong draft 15th best forward scoring at .64 PPG which is 52 points a year. Which in 2015 16th is Conor Garland at .60 PPG. Looking at the defence from that draft, I would probably place 11 D at more value than Garland. So in a re-draft, he would most likely be a late 1st round pick.
50th best players in that draft would be Noah Juulsen or Kevin Stenlund. You can't tell me that Garland has less value than those types of players.

I'm not Byron Bader, I never said that Ryder Ritchie should go 17th. His model is based off projections from 30 years of data and what they have produced in the NHL but if a team projects Ryder Ritchie as a say 40 point player, a mid round pick if he pans out isn't that bad of a pick.

Redraft position is a fun theoretical game to play without really any real-world value. Just because a player would go in the 2nd round in a re-draft doesn't mean that that player - ever - necessarily had the value of a 2nd round pick.

Fans think the point of the draft is to make the best pick in terms of stat counting. NHL GMs think the point of the draft is to generate asset value.

If you took a random NHL team and did their drafting based on the consensus rankings of independent scouting sites or the consensus of the HF Prospects Board, they would draft virtually nothing but sub-6'0 skill wingers and PP specialist D. And in terms of GP or points scored when you're looking at a sheet of paper, it would stack up well against the drafting of NHL teams. But in the actual real world in the context of trying to generate value and build a real competitive hockey team, it would be a mess.

 

[F A N]

100% with all of this. And prospect analysists who put together these lists either haven't figured this out, or are expressly not trying to quantify asset value of the prospect if and when he makes it to the NHL.

But NHL teams have figured this out. Just look at the 2023 draft results, and consider that wingers make up 42% or so of the players in the NHL but:
1) zero wingers in the top six (0%)
2) two wingers in the top 11 (18%); and
3) 12 wingers in the top 32 (38%).

So, despite making up 42% of players in the NHL, wingers were under represented in the first round, and significantly under presented the earlier and more valuable the picks were in the first, and the reason for this is exactly as you have noted.

It's an interesting discussion though. Teams have been drafting "Best Asset Available" for many years when fans are stuck with the "Best Player Available" talking point. Which is better? It's hard to say. When the team truly drafts the "Best Asset Available" then the team is correct. When they bypass the "Best Available Player" in favour of what the team thought as the "Best Asset Available" who turned out to be a draft bust then the team is wrong. Take the 2016 draft. What if we took McAvoy instead? How many of us here would say we made the wrong pick given Tkachuk's success?

 

[mriswith]

Prospect rankings aren't trying to be mock drafts.

I think everyone has figured out that wingers generally have to be expected to be at least one tier better, if not a little more, to get picked over the next available C/D. That's the biggest reason why mock drafts are different from prospect rankings.

 

[F A N]

Prospect rankings aren't trying to be mock drafts.

I think everyone has figured out that wingers generally have to be expected to be at least one tier better, if not a little more, to get picked over the next available C/D. That's the biggest reason why mock drafts are different from prospect rankings.

Agreed, but that doesn’t stop people from referring to “rankings” as oppose to “mock drafts” when evaluating reasonableness of picks. But even then “mock drafts” by people who have ZERO insider knowledge is simply making a rather uneducated guess of what teams would do.

 

[BluesyShoes]

I agree with drafting for projected asset value, basically. I see asset value as tied to many factors, and I think the better you can forecast all the variables, the more success your team is going to have. I do believe in getting the right guys for your team, with some guys being more or less valuable to your team than to others. If you know a guy is going to be miserable to negotiate with or is set on playing on the east coast when they hit UFA, I feel like it is good to factor that in. Obviously you aren't going to sacrifice much in the way of talent, but if a guy plays a premium position and is a good bet to stick around long term on a reasonable deal, I'd do it.

I think Swedish players particularly see Vancouver as a destination, so I'm pleased we often favour Swedes with our higher value picks. It's never a sure bet to predict these things, but players that want to stick around are IMO better value for the acquisition cost and it is worth consideration at the draft.

 

[Hodgy]

It's an interesting discussion though. Teams have been drafting "Best Asset Available" for many years when fans are stuck with the "Best Player Available" talking point. Which is better? It's hard to say. When the team truly drafts the "Best Asset Available" then the team is correct. When they bypass the "Best Available Player" in favour of what the team thought as the "Best Asset Available" who turned out to be a draft bust then the team is wrong. Take the 2016 draft. What if we took McAvoy instead? How many of us here would say we made the wrong pick given Tkachuk's success?

I don’t really get your point though. Best asset available should, theoretically, result in the player with the most value. So best asset available, absent error, will always be better than best player available, although the two may be the same sometimes.

 

[ManVanFan]

Redraft position is a fun theoretical game to play without really any real-world value. Just because a player would go in the 2nd round in a re-draft doesn't mean that that player - ever - necessarily had the value of a 2nd round pick.

Fans think the point of the draft is to make the best pick in terms of stat counting. NHL GMs think the point of the draft is to generate asset value.

If you took a random NHL team and did their drafting based on the consensus rankings of independent scouting sites or the consensus of the HF Prospects Board, they would draft virtually nothing but sub-6'0 skill wingers and PP specialist D. And in terms of GP or points scored when you're looking at a sheet of paper, it would stack up well against the drafting of NHL teams. But in the actual real world in the context of trying to generate value and build a real competitive hockey team, it would be a mess.

So again you are back to drafting big dumb idiots because of their size because of the "value" they provide to the team.

Noah Juulsen is clearly more valuable to the team than Conor Garland. Gotcha.

 

[MS]

So again you are back to drafting big dumb idiots because of their size because of the "value" they provide to the team.

Noah Juulsen is clearly more valuable to the team than Conor Garland. Gotcha.

This might be the worst strawman I've ever seen here.

 

[ManVanFan]

This might be the worst strawman I've ever seen here.

Now you resort to "name calling" because your entire argument has contradicted itself, had no actual context.

I tried to entire a conversation with you and I'm realizing that was a massive waste of time.

 

[MS]

Now you resort to "name calling" because your entire argument has contradicted itself, had no actual context.

I tried to entire a conversation with you and I'm realizing that was a massive waste of time.

Saying your argument is a strawman is not name-calling.

You absurdly mis-quoted my position. Never in any way shape or form have I suggested drafting ‘big dumb idiots’ or no-talent face-punchers.

I’ve said you want to prioritize size/physicality, C, and D because these are premium traits that are incredibly difficult/expensive to acquire if you don’t draft/develop them.

Simon Zether has been discussed here. This is a 6’3 C who has produced very well at lower levels. If you’re looking at Zether vs. some 5’10 CHL winger who scored 80 points this year (Clarke Caswell or something) … to me you want to prioritize the big C.

Same with my example of Ritchie vs. Elick. Ritchie is consensus ranked 8 spots ahead of Elick but there is no way I’d take a middle-6 smallish winger prospect over a mobile, physical, 6’4 RHD prospect of Elick’s quality.

This is also basically the gist of the Lindstrom/Catton debate on the Prospects Board. Virtually every poster on that board (and most independent services) had Catton ahead and then they were gobsmacked when a survey of NHL scouts had 100% with Lindstrom higher, most substantially so.

None of Zether/Elick/Lindstrom are ‘big dumb idiots’. They’re good players at premium positions who provide a higher value from an 80th percentile result than a small skill winger.

And I've also clearly, repeatedly said that there are points/situations/players where I would take the small skill player at that selection because it was obviously the best choice (Perreault to NYR last year). And given examples of marginally talented big players who went too high just because they were big (Honzek).

 

[God]

It's pretty futile to compare Noah Juulsen to Conor Garland on a 1 to 1 basis when one of them had significant injuries to derail their development and isn't being compared to a small forward that didn't pan out like Nick Merkley, but making these comparisons is also fairly pointless because the argument is about generating value on a pick that isn't necessarily reflected on the scoresheet.

Roslovic and Beauvilier were late 1sts in that draft and were profiled as high offensive ceiling guys, and they went for 4th/5th round picks this deadline. The point is that the value isn't really there even if you hit on a 90th percentile outcome, so these picks should be made later.

 

[ManVanFan]

Saying your argument is a strawman is not name-calling.

You absurdly mis-quoted my position. Never in any way shape or form have I suggested drafting ‘big dumb idiots’ or no-talent face-punchers.

I’ve said you want to prioritize size/physicality, C, and D because these are premium traits that are incredibly difficult/expensive to acquire if you don’t draft/develop them.

Simon Zether has been discussed here. This is a 6’3 C who has produced very well at lower levels. If you’re looking at Zether vs. some 5’10 CHL winger who scored 80 points this year (Clarke Caswell or something) … to me you want to prioritize the big C.

Same with my example of Ritchie vs. Elick. Ritchie is consensus ranked 8 spots ahead of Elick but there is no way I’d take a middle-6 smallish winger prospect over a mobile, physical, 6’4 RHD prospect of Elick’s quality.

This is also basically the gist of the Lindstrom/Catton debate on the Prospects Board. Virtually every poster on that board (and most independent services) had Catton ahead and then they were gobsmacked when a survey of NHL scouts had 100% with Lindstrom higher, most substantially so.

None of Zether/Elick/Lindstrom are ‘big dumb idiots’. They’re good players at premium positions who provide a higher value from an 80th percentile result than a small skill winger.

And I've also clearly, repeatedly said that there are points/situations/players where I would take the small skill player at that selection because it was obviously the best choice (Perreault to NYR last year). And given examples of marginally talented big players who went too high just because they were big (Honzek).

You are literally just arguing that your list is better than other peoples. Including NHL employed personal.

 

[HairyKneel]

You are literally just arguing that your list is better than other peoples. Including NHL employed personal.

Well there is a narrative here that many of the posters would be better GM’s than a lot of the current GM’s. Old Boys Club whining is my all time favorite.

 

[MS]

You are literally just arguing that your list is better than other peoples. Including NHL employed personal.

No, I’m saying that independent scouting resources and HF boards posters tend to rank players mostly around maximizing counting stats vs. NHL teams who rank players around maximining asset/positional value.

And I’m saying that I used to be in the first group just like most other people here but have realized the flaws that defaulting to that mindset creates. If you used HFboards/scouting service rankings to make our picks, every draft would be basically nothing but sub-6’0 scoring wingers and smallish PP QB defenders. And you can’t build a team that way. And you aren’t generating maximum value that way, even if the GP/points totals of the group you draft end up looking good.

The spine of an NHL team is through C and D and if you don’t consistently draft C/D – especially with size, which is still hugely important in this league – you’re going to be hooped. It’s easy to find 40-point wingers. It’s bloody hard to find big D who can play high-leverage top-4 minutes.

 

[ManVanFan]

No, I’m saying that independent scouting resources and HF boards posters tend to rank players mostly around maximizing counting stats vs. NHL teams who rank players around maximining asset/positional value.

And I’m saying that I used to be in the first group just like most other people here but have realized the flaws that defaulting to that mindset creates. If you used HFboards/scouting service rankings to make our picks, every draft would be basically nothing but sub-6’0 scoring wingers and smallish PP QB defenders. And you can’t build a team that way. And you aren’t generating maximum value that way, even if the GP/points totals of the group you draft end up looking good.

The spine of an NHL team is through C and D and if you don’t consistently draft C/D – especially with size, which is still hugely important in this league – you’re going to be hooped. It’s easy to find 40-point wingers. It’s bloody hard to find big D who can play high-leverage top-4 minutes.

Drafting BPA. As Shane Malloy has said if you have a grouping of players that are the same tier, you pick the player that is harder to find. Centers/ Defence then wingers.

Your evaluation of Ritchie vs Elick. If Ritchie is likely to be a middle 6, 40 point winger and Elick is likely to be a 3rd pair defender. Most likely take the 40 point winger. If a team views Elick as a #4 D, he's most likely going to go ahead of Ritchie. When you look at models like Byron Bader, it's 30 years of data that is the likelihood of the outcomes in that scenario. Obviously there is no perfect drafting method.

Teams are going to take a #3 D over a second line winger as well.