GDT: 2024 Rookie Tournament

[Alf Silfversson]

The problem is when you lament the 2nd rounders that fail (including the guy we literally just drafted as a project), while ignoring that we did seemingly hit on a guy like Ostapchuk and Kleven. We're looking like we'll be 2 for 6 in the last 4 drafts which is about what you expect (I'm not including this year because it's way too early).

Yes, Dallas hit some homeruns, it can happen. You can also end up busts that way too, you can't just look at the one team that caught lightning in a bottle and say they are doing it right, you have to look at the draft as a whole and base you're evaluation on what tends to work over the larger sample. If Elliasson takes the Chara path and Kleven becomes Weber do we suddenly talk about how great our strategy was? There will always be guys who exceed expectations and guys that don't live up to it, drafting skilled guys doesn't guarantee you will find the next Kucherov, just like drafting big guys won't guarantee you Weber or Chara,

Yes, we gave up a lot of capital with the trades, everyone agrees. But in the last 6 years, we've picked 9 times in the 2nd round, so when you say we don't use enough of our 2nd round picks, how many exactly do you expect us to use? You only get one a year by default.

Kleven is going to become Weber? Like SHEA Weber? I mean I've heard of stretches but come on. And Eliasson is going to be first ballot HHOFer? We're reaching here. Kleven will likely be a 3rd pairing D and Ostapchuk a 3rd line player. Eliasson is very much a toss up as to whether he actually makes the NHL. Useful to have no doubt and I guess you can call that a hit.

I'm not advocating for going ONLY after purely skill guys. I'm not sure why you would even talk about that in response to my post. Tampa, Dallas, Carolina and other teams that get core players after the first round don't JUST go for skill guys. They don't limit themselves in that regard. Not in the way that our scouts appear to, at any rate. Going for a certain type limits your options and increases your chances of striking out.

We used to draft a wide variety of players beyond the first round and we had success. Stone, Hoffman, Pageau, Dzingel. With the way they've been drafting I can't see our group taking any of these players. As a fan that irks me because they were productive players who were fun to watch.

 

[Hale The Villain]

We're clearly going to be in trouble getting this team over the hump and transitioning to a legitimate contender because of how much futures we've squandered in recent years, whether by Dorion's incompetence or the scouting staff going full Burke.

It's not an exaggeration to say there isn't a single team in this league that has wasted more picks/prospects in the last 3 years than we have, and we're not even a playoff team yet.

Usually the kind of sabotaging of the future for the benefit of the present that we have experienced recently is only done by established contenders that are going all-in to put their team over the top. It's completely unprecedented to do it as a team that has yet to make the playoffs after 8 years following a massive teardown rebuild.

Staios is in a tough spot because of Dorion, but he's only making it tougher on himself by not upgrading the scouting staff that is partially responsible for this mess.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

Actually, defenders will say look at how the team performs overall in the second round instead of on a pick by pick basis because looking at an individual pick is either dishonest or plain stupid way of evaluating a teams drafting when the expected return of an individual pick is bust.

Excuse I'm being dishonest or plain stupid , when you're suggesting that Tyler Kleven could reasonably become Shea Weber and Gabriel Eliasson has more than a 0.1% chance of being Zdeno Chara?

Gotcha!

Oh and go kick rocks.

 

[Micklebot]

Excuse I'm being dishonest or plain stupid , when you're suggesting that Tyler Kleven could reasonably become Shea Weber and Gabriel Eliasson has more than a 0.1% chance of being Zdeno Chara?

Gotcha!

Oh and go kick rocks.

People probably would have said Chara had a 0.1% chance of becoming Chara, and Robertson had a 0.1% chance of becoming Robertson.

The whole point is expecting a outlier occurrence is disingenuous, so cherry picking examples of when it happens isn't being particularly honest regardless of whether it's Robertson or Eliasson.

Dallas took a risk that a skilled player would work out, we took a risk that a physical player will work out, both strategies have risk and benefits. Both were more likely to bust than to pan out, but that's life when it comes to prospects.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Kleven is going to become Weber? Like SHEA Weber? I mean I've heard of stretches but come on. And Eliasson is going to be first ballot HHOFer? We're reaching here. Kleven will likely be a 3rd pairing D and Ostapchuk a 3rd line player. Eliasson is very much a toss up as to whether he actually makes the NHL. Useful to have no doubt and I guess you can call that a hit.

I'm not advocating for going ONLY after purely skill guys. I'm not sure why you would even talk about that in response to my post. Tampa, Dallas, Carolina and other teams that get core players after the first round don't JUST go for skill guys. They don't limit themselves in that regard. Not in the way that our scouts appear to, at any rate. Going for a certain type limits your options and increases your chances of striking out.

We used to draft a wide variety of players beyond the first round and we had success. Stone, Hoffman, Pageau, Dzingel. With the way they've been drafting I can't see our group taking any of these players. As a fan that irks me because they were productive players who were fun to watch.

I've said it before that the current iteration of the Sens scouting staff would have missed many of the biggest draft steals this franchise has ever had.

Does anyone honestly believe our current scouts would have taken 5'11, 165lb Erik Karlsson in 2008? Not a chance they would have drafted him over a "tough to play against" big two-way D like Luca Sbisa or Tyler Cuma.

What about 5'11 Mike Hoffman in 2009? 5'9 JG Pageau or 5'11 Ryan Dzingel in 2011? Very unlikely.

From what I can tell based on listed heights/weights they have drafted only one player in the past 4 years below 6'0, and that player was Cam O'Neill who is listed at over 200lbs and is not weak by any means.

It's fine to have a preference for players with size and value toughness. Heck even the former iteration of the scouting staff under Dorion and Mann (before he went off the deep end post-2020) was obviously more infatuated with those qualities than most other scouting staffs around the league, but it's another thing to exclusively focus on those types of players.

 

[Senator Stanley]

There were other options at #7.


Great movie!


Do you have a quote of Poulin re: Yakemchuk?

I was just teasing Poulin. He called Yakemchuk's skating "elite" after the draft, which always stood out as odd. Listen at 6:45.

Poulin: We're very excited about the picks that Don Boyd and his staff have put together

Senators Senior VP Dave Poulin joins JR and Gord to discuss the team's selections in the 2024 NHL Entry Draft.

www.tsn.ca

 

[Hale The Villain]

People probably would have said Chara had a 0.1% chance of becoming Chara, and Robertson had a 0.1% chance of becoming Robertson.

The whole point is expecting a outlier occurrence is disingenuous, so cherry picking examples of when it happens isn't being particularly honest regardless of whether it's Robertson or Eliasson.

Dallas took a risk that a skilled player would work out, we took a risk that a physical player will work out, both strategies have risk and benefits. Both were more likely to bust than to pan out, but that's life when it comes to prospects.

Actually I'll toot my own horn and say I fully expected Robertson to become a top 6 forward in 2017. Had him ranked very highly on my personal list and was dumbfounded he fell all the way to the 2nd round.

Betting on high skill high IQ forwards to improve their skating to a passable level is one of the smartest bets you can make as a scouting staff, particularly if they also have size to fall back on. We did that with Stone, Batherson and Halliday in the latter rounds and it's paid dividends for us.

The track record for big athletic defensive D that lack both skill and IQ is SIGNIFICANTLY worse. Guys like Chara and Weber are complete pipe dreams and truly the 0.1% outcomes. The vast majority of these types of players bust completely, and the ones that do make it tend to be bottom pairing D or replacement level players that don't justify the value of the draft pick spent on them.

People forget that most shutdown D in the NHL were once two-way D at lower levels, and some were even offensive guys that re-oriented their games once the offense didnt translate (eg. Spurgeon, Russell, etc...). It's extremely rare to get a top 4 D out of a Eliasson-type selection, which makes it a poor risk reward pick at 39th OVR.

 

[Xspyrit]

Again, everyone knows Dorion screwed some things up. 2nd round picks typically bust so complaints about Roger are just that, needless complaining, the point though is trying to use our top ranked pool in 2020 to highlight how things are now is nonesense, it's unrealistic to expect that to be maintained so bringing it up at all is just theatre and adds nothing .

Notice that I specifically mentioned Boucher, Roger and Nordberg but no one else? I didn't complain much about drafting Lassi Thomson or Logan Brown for example because they at least had the potential to be worth their draft position.

And how is it nonsense lol? I just explained it with 10+ facts. I thought it was clear that way but I'll use a quantitative evaluation to re-explain :

We moved on from having a 90/100 pool to a 20/100 pool in just 3 years not only because our best guys have graduated but because we have made TERRIBLE decision after TERRIBLE decision.

With just average management instead of Dorion, we'd currently have a much better prospect pool. Quite simple really.

You are literally complaining that we will eventually lose UFA that we signed as UFA.

Where? I only mentioned Giroux and Perron ages... it doesn't matter how we got them, these guys will age out. We will get some other older stop gaps after? Cool but I think we'd need more building blocks at forward, particularly if Norris isn't back to form

We hadn't been a destination for years because we either had zero money to try to attract anyone or were seen as a bottom feeder. Our ability to attract UFA is based on how our future looks, and the cap space we have.

I follow this team for 27+ years now and I have never seen Ottawa attract significant UFAs, at least while they're still in their prime. And it's not just Ottawa but Canadian markets in general, players are looking to sign in Florida, California, New York, Seattle, Vegas and soon Utah

Right now, we have some great young pieces, and despite your complaints, are seen as a team on the rise.

Fair enough, maybe I am crazy and I have hallucinated people seeing Ottawa as a laughing stock. An argument I have seen often :

"Every summer we hear about how great the Sens are until the season begins and then we don't hear about them until the following summer"

It's fearmongering because you are making assumptions of the worst case scenario, guys leave and aren't replaced.

Worst case scenario? Like Giroux/Perron aging out soon? About looking at the cold straight fact that not all forwards extend their prime until their mid 30s? Is it not more "expected scenarios"?

I don't know if they will be replaced, as of now, I don't see anyone in the prospect pool becoming a Top-6 forward. Last draft, we picked 2 D-men with the 7th and 39th OA picks. We still have to forfeit a 1st in the next 2 drafts too

If you cant see it that's on you, not me. Its self evident for anyone bothering to be objective. Does that mean everything will for sure be great, of course not,

What is not objective in everything I have said?

but when your premise is we will lose guys we have and do nothing to replace them, that's fear mongering.

I have said that?

Maybe it's because you don't know my POV about our potential competitive window. I'll try to explain it point form.

- How much success do you think we should have to offset 7+ rebuild years? Cup? SCF? ECF? Personally, I'd like to have at least as many successful years as the rebuild lasted

- How long before we start making the playoffs constantly? Then how long before we learn how to lose in the playoffs to become a real threat? As soon as this year? I personally don't find it realistic.

- But let's stay we reach that stage in 3 years, Batherson will be 29 y/o, Tkachuk and Norris 28 y/o. Based on every known study, chances are that not all 3 of them will still be in their prime for many more years. I think that Tkachuk is the most likely to be able to do so.

So in 5 years, we might have Stutzle (27), Tkachuk (30), Pinto (28) and Greig (27) who we can rely on for offense. We need to find 2-3 bonafide forwards by then

I personally don't think that filling the holes with Perron and Tarasenko types would be ideal.

 

[bicboi64]

The track record for big athletic defensive D that lack both skill and IQ is SIGNIFICANTLY worse. Guys like Chara and Weber are complete pipe dreams and truly the 0.1% outcomes. The vast majority of these types of players bust completely, and the ones that do make it tend to be bottom pairing D or replacement level players that don't justify the value of the draft pick spent on them.

People forget that most shutdown D in the NHL were once two-way D at lower levels, and some were even offensive guys that re-oriented their games once the offense didnt translate (eg. Spurgeon, Russell, etc...). It's extremely rare to get a top 4 D out of a Eliasson-type selection, which makes it a poor risk reward pick at 39th OVR.

100% Agree.

It's getting old having big lunks drafted in the 2nd round. Sure they have some other elements to their game, but relative to their peers selected in the 2nd round, it's just not adding the best talent to our prospect pool.

Then again, even when our scouts go for 'skill' picks, they suck there too. Jarventie over Peterka will forever baffle me. We drafted Stu 3rd overall and his linemate and friend is available, who also happens to be great at hockey, have good chemistry with a building block and is scrappy/willing to go into dirty areas to get the puck.

If our current management decided to stop going after the Eliasson's and go after skill guys, I still wouldn't trust them and want the scouting overhauled

 

[Micklebot]

Notice that I specifically mentioned Boucher, Roger and Nordberg but no one else? I didn't complain much about drafting Lassi Thomson or Logan Brown for example because they at least had the potential to be worth their draft position.

And how is it nonsense lol? I just explained it with 10+ facts. I thought it was clear that way but I'll use a quantitative evaluation to re-explain :

We moved on from having a 90/100 pool to a 20/100 pool in just 3 years not only because our best guys have graduated but because we have made TERRIBLE decision after TERRIBLE decision.

With just average management instead of Dorion, we'd currently have a much better prospect pool. Quite simple really.



Where? I only mentioned Giroux and Perron ages... it doesn't matter how we got them, these guys will age out. We will get some other older stop gaps after? Cool but I think we'd need more building blocks at forward, particularly if Norris isn't back to form



I follow this team for 27+ years now and I have never seen Ottawa attract significant UFAs, at least while they're still in their prime. And it's not just Ottawa but Canadian markets in general, players are looking to sign in Florida, California, New York, Seattle, Vegas and soon Utah



Fair enough, maybe I am crazy and I have hallucinated people seeing Ottawa as a laughing stock. An argument I have seen often :

"Every summer we hear about how great the Sens are until the season begins and then we don't hear about them until the following summer"



Worst case scenario? Like Giroux/Perron aging out soon? About looking at the cold straight fact that not all forwards extend their prime until their mid 30s? Is it not more "expected scenarios"?

I don't know if they will be replaced, as of now, I don't see anyone in the prospect pool becoming a Top-6 forward. Last draft, we picked 2 D-men with the 7th and 39th OA picks. We still have to forfeit a 1st in the next 2 drafts too



What is not objective in everything I have said?



I have said that?

Maybe it's because you don't know my POV about our potential competitive window. I'll try to explain it point form.

- How much success do you think we should have to offset 7+ rebuild years? Cup? SCF? ECF? Personally, I'd like to have at least as many successful years as the rebuild lasted

- How long before we start making the playoffs constantly? Then how long before we learn how to lose in the playoffs to become a real threat? As soon as this year? I personally don't find it realistic.

- But let's stay we reach that stage in 3 years, Batherson will be 29 y/o, Tkachuk and Norris 28 y/o. Based on every known study, chances are that not all 3 of them will still be in their prime for many more years. I think that Tkachuk is the most likely to be able to do so.

So in 5 years, we might have Stutzle (27), Tkachuk (30), Pinto (28) and Greig (27) who we can rely on for offense. We need to find 2-3 bonafide forwards by then

I personally don't think that filling the holes with Perron and Tarasenko types would be ideal.

Good lord, this is nothing but the same stuff repeated.

We got Perron to replace Tank both of which we got via UFA. Of course it matters how we got them, its evidence that we can and have gotten that type of player via UFA. Tank, Perron, Giroux. all recent UFA pickups. Dadonov was another one that was well regarded even if he didn't work out. So yes, we can find guys to replace Giroux and Perron when they leave, as evidenced by the fact that we've been finding guys. Do I expect us to land a 27 year old UFA? No, but replacing the 35 plus guys that we got as 35 plus UFA shouldn't be impossible.

All the rest is more doom and gloom that we won't find anybody in the next 5 years because well, no explanation, just more fear mongering nonesense, because apparently 27-30 year olds are all over the hill I guess.

Don't bother replying, I don't have the patience to read pages of you reiterating the same nonsense.

 

[Wallet Inspector]

Made this meme to vent my feelings about our scouting staff:

 

[Alf Silfversson]

People probably would have said Chara had a 0.1% chance of becoming Chara, and Robertson had a 0.1% chance of becoming Robertson.

The whole point is expecting a outlier occurrence is disingenuous, so cherry picking examples of when it happens isn't being particularly honest regardless of whether it's Robertson or Eliasson.

Dallas took a risk that a skilled player would work out, we took a risk that a physical player will work out, both strategies have risk and benefits. Both were more likely to bust than to pan out, but that's life when it comes to prospects.

What? Robertson was a 42 goal scoring player in the OHL in his draft year. They picked a scoring winger with some very translatable skills, and one weakness, banking that he could overcome that weakness and become exactly what he was in junior.

There is risk with every second rounder or they'd be top 5 picks. Well some of them. Even if Tyler Kleven was a lock to become what he was in junior he wouldn't go in the top 10. That's a big difference. Is he more likely to reach his potential than some second rounders? Probably by a little. It's why good teams pick both some Klevens and some Kucherovs. But we seem to have strayed from that path.

 

[Wondercarrot]

He might have to get used to it because there is not much of a future in Ottawa after a few guys

Giroux and Perron are both 36 y/o

Batherson is 26 already, Tkachuk and Norris are 25. How many peak/prime years do these guys have left? Norris future is pretty unknown at this point. Batherson has 3 years left and Tkachuk has 4 years left on his contract.

We have Stutzle (22), Pinto (23) and Greig (22)

Our best forward prospects are possible 3rd liners. And looking at the way we have drafted recently, we really need to turn things around ASAP

I choose to look at it this way:

Holy shit our core is young, and talented.
Not very many spots up for grabs in the key positions for awhile, and the ones that are available can be relatively easily replaced in UFA.
That’s a lot of guys just figuring out the league and abt to take it to another level.


Tkachuk 25 Stutzle 22 Batherson 26
Norris 25 Pinto 23
Greig 22

Sanderson 22 Zub 28
Chabot 27
Kleven 22

* Yakemchuk, Ostapchuk, Halliday, Donovan, Crookshank wil all play in the NHL imo.

Sure there could/should be waaaaaay better and more prospects coming but the reality is the group that will play this year is young, talented, and numerous.

 

[Icelevel]

Yakemchuk is going to require some time for sure.

Of course. The good far outweighed the bad though. Considering that’s the first look we got at him with the organization and his young age I’d say we can be happy with that.
Like I said before I think he just needs to work on his skating. Like spend 90% of his time on skating the next couple years.

 

[Icelevel]

I missed game 3 how was nordberg.

Made a couple good plays. When I noticed him it was good. So….encouraging and want to see more.

 

[Micklebot]

What? Robertson was a 42 goal scoring player in the OHL in his draft year. They picked a scoring winger with some very translatable skills, and one weakness, banking that he could overcome that weakness and become exactly what he was in junior.

And if they thought he was a sure thing he'd have gone top 5. Lots of examples of guys that never overcome skating, we've had our share.

There is risk with every second rounder or they'd be top 5 picks. Well some of them. Even if Tyler Kleven was a lock to become what he was in junior he wouldn't go in the top 10. That's a big difference. Is he more likely to reach his potential than some second rounders? Probably by a little. It's why good teams pick both some Klevens and some Kucherovs. But we seem to have strayed from that path.

We've chosen guys with skill too, they just haven't been the ones panning out. Jarventie for example, Sokolov is another, Halliday might end up panning out (mind you he's a 4th rounder), we picked other skilled guys in later rounds like Lodin, Hamara was more of a skilled guy in the 2nd, Oliver Johansson is another albeit in the 3rd.

The whole point is to evaluate drafting one the whole, not cherry pick the ones you like and the complain about the ones you don't, otherwise youd have people complaining we didn't take Zadanov and Kaliyev, or praising Tychonik over Bahl. Draft is a roll of the dice no matter who you take, evaluating how a team drafts requires a 1000 km view,

 

[Alf Silfversson]

And if they thought he was a sure thing he'd have gone top 5. Lots of examples of guys that never overcome skating, we've had our share.


We've chosen guys with skill too, they just haven't been the ones panning out. Jarventie for example, Sokolov is another, Halliday might end up panning out (mind you he's a 4th rounder), we picked other skilled guys in later rounds like Lodin, Hamara was more of a skilled guy in the 2nd, Oliver Johansson is another albeit in the 3rd.

The whole point is to evaluate drafting one the whole, not cherry pick the ones you like and the complain about the ones you don't, otherwise youd have people complaining we didn't take Zadanov and Kaliyev, or praising Tychonik over Bahl. Draft is a roll of the dice no matter who you take, evaluating how a team drafts requires a 1000 km view,

OK. I'll evaluate our recent drafting, especially outside of the first round based on results and early returns. It's bad.

We seem unable to find skilled players who can play in the NHL after the first round, largely from lack of trying but also apparently from having no idea how to find them.

 

[Micklebot]

OK. I'll evaluate our recent drafting, especially outside of the first round based on results and early returns. It's bad.

We seem unable to find skilled players who can play in the NHL after the first round, largely from lack of trying but also apparently from having no idea how to find them.

Most of our recent drafting fall under the way too early to know category, but Donovan, Andonovski, Halliday, and Ostapchuk all look like they will at least play at some point albeit perhaps only a cup of coffee, I like Hoyt Stanley as well, but he's more of a dark horse. We've got some big misses too, but with only one 1st round pick in those years that's not too bad (Boucher being a poor choice with that 1st Rd pick).

 

[Boud]

Yakemchuk is not as bad a skater as you would think reading some comments here. It just doesn't look great when he takes off because he doesn't have good acceleration. Otherwise when he gets going he has good speed and his hands do the rest of the work. His edgework is pretty good. His backwards skating is average.

I have no doubt he will be a strong enough skater to play his game at the NHL level with continued growth.

I can think of many very good prospects who ended up quality NHLers who started further off than Yakemchuk.

 

[dumbdick]

Going on the record. This will be my draft day result.

Very happy:
Parekh: ...
Catton: ...
Silayev: ...

Really Happy:
Buium: ...
Eiserman: ...
Lindstrom: ...

Happy:
Dickinson: ...

A little nervous:
Iginla: ...
Yakemchuk: Fast shifty hands but the kind of offense that works better in junior. If I have to predict a bust on this list, he's my choice.
Helenius: ...

This was my pre-draft Yak prediction. Hope I eat crow here.

 

[Cosmix]

I was just teasing Poulin. He called Yakemchuk's skating "elite" after the draft, which always stood out as odd. Listen at 6:45.

Poulin: We're very excited about the picks that Don Boyd and his staff have put together

Senators Senior VP Dave Poulin joins JR and Gord to discuss the team's selections in the 2024 NHL Entry Draft.

www.tsn.ca

Thanks for the link.

I listened to the broadcast link. Poulin said what stood out for Yakemchuk was his skating using the terms "elite", "truly elite" and saying it was not just "elite" for being a big player but truly elite amongst all players. That was said at about 7:00 in the tape.

We shall see.

 

[Cosmix]

Even we had won all 3 games 8-0 would it mean anything??? I don't get to excited about a nothing prospect tournament. Is it more to fun to win then lose yes but those 3 games mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things.

If we had won all three games by a large overall goal margin, it would mean that our prospects were significantly better than the other teams' prospects which would be very good news. We didn't. The results are very disappointing.

 

[Cosmix]

Haven't watched a single second of the Rookie tournament. This is a first for me in a long time.

Edit: oh wait it hasn't finished yet. So I still have a chance.

You missed absolutely nothing!

 

[Cosmix]

Getting outscored 17-4 across three games is not great

I would call it a catastrophe for our prospects. The roster could not score enough goals per game and they also could not defend their goal.

I’d like to see Boucher simplify his game a lot.

Stop trying the fancy dekes. You’re not that guy pal. Maybe you can work it into your repertoire down the line.

For now concentrate on the physical play, going hard to the net and making life difficult on the opposition. We’ve got plenty of dipsey doodlers. Not many highly physical forecheckers.

He seems to already have simplified his game to the point where he is getting virtually nothing done.

 

[Senator Stanley]

Thanks for the link.

I listened to the broadcast link. Poulin said what stood out for Yakemchuk was his skating using the terms "elite", "truly elite" and saying it was not just "elite" for being a big player but truly elite amongst all players. That was said at about 7:00 in the tape.

We shall see.

I find the comment very odd. Is this what our scouts were telling them? Is this what Poulin thinks? Are some or all of these people blind?

It's hard not to wonder how much this "elite" skating factored into their ranking of him and their selection of him at 7. If they viewed him as merely an okay skater with some warts, would they have had him that high?