Prospect Info: 2025 Draft discussion
- Thread starter Malkinstheman
- Start date
Empoleon8771
Registered User
Can you also keep an eye on Spence? He's another guy projected to go high and I'm curious for your insights on him. He may be an option if the Penguins 1st falls in that 7-10 range.
Randy Butternubs
Registurd User
I'll be drunk but okay.
Then again, how do we know that professional scouts aren't throwing back beers?
Ryabkin is exactly the kind of prospect I mean. He’s bounced around from the MHL to the KHL and his production has regressed considerably in his draft year.
If you want further evidence look at McGroaty and Brunicke. One was taken mid 1st and the other a mid 2nd, but they have similar value. Especially considering Brunicke is two years behind McGroaty.
Mid first round picks you get guys like Yager and McGroaty. Once you get past the elite talent guys it’s a crapshoot and the separation between the first and second rounds just aren’t as apparent as people think.
Pens need to fill the system with talent. Dubas is adding picks for that. I do see trades after this season to add to that. Respective of the 3 wins, Pens are a non playoff team to me and then it becomes where the slotting is post lottery.
HandshakeLine
A real jerk thing
HandshakeLine
A real jerk thing
That incredibly dumb Pens PR Kobasew post in another thread reminded me to go back and look at some earlier drafts and man, it's kind of wild drafts like 2001 were where you have guys that are clear consensus top 5 picks (like Kovachoooooo and AGM of the Future, Jason Spezza) and all the draft write ups go on about how deep the draft is and then... you look at how they actually turned out and you realize that scouts and scouting organizations are snake oil salesmen. 
Also, Kovchewwwwww (or Spezza for that matter) is such a great example of how you cannot simply build a franchise around a franchise quality player without all the other necessary organizational components and expect success.
Also, Kovchewwwwww (or Spezza for that matter) is such a great example of how you cannot simply build a franchise around a franchise quality player without all the other necessary organizational components and expect success.
Randy Butternubs
Registurd User
NJD were so close to winning the Cup that one season. Crazy that Hedberg was on that team and was better than Brodeur.
HandshakeLine
A real jerk thing
Freeptop
Registered User
Much of the hype of the "first round pick" (and the "second round pick" for that matter) was born in a time when the League only had around 16-20 teams.
There are now 32 teams, so a significant portion of the "first round" used to be "second round" picks, and so on and so forth. But somehow, the hype hasn't adjusted to that fact.
I agree with the conclusion on this, but I did want to point out that 2001 can be regarded as a deep draft, depending on what you consider "deep". If you're looking solely for elite talent? No. But if you're looking to get NHL players? 2001 produced multiple players who had 200+ game careers in every round all the way down to the ninth round. From the 4th through the 8th, there were 4-6 such players each round.That incredibly dumb Pens PR Kobasew post in another thread reminded me to go back and look at some earlier drafts and man, it's kind of wild drafts like 2001 were where you have guys that are clear consensus top 5 picks (like Kovachoooooo and AGM of the Future, Jason Spezza) and all the draft write ups go on about how deep the draft is and then... you look at how they actually turned out and you realize that scouts and scouting organizations are snake oil salesmen.
Also, Kovchewwwwww (or Spezza for that matter) is such a great example of how you cannot simply build a franchise around a franchise quality player without all the other necessary organizational components and expect success.
I also think there's the context of the time to take into account, as well. The dropoff in talent was a lot more stark in the 2000 draft, and even the 2002 draft. And that's still coming off the heels of the late 90s, which had some truly abysmal draft years. So in the context of the time, yeah, that was a pretty deep draft.
I'll spare you the wall of text I started to write about how there was a sea change in the draft following the lockout that has resulted in the talent being compressed into the top, this post is already enough tl;dr as it is
HandshakeLine
A real jerk thing
Yeah, I think there's still a bit of a reliance on really outdated conventional wisdom regarding how teams used to draft, and where they used to draft. That said, I think it's useful often to go back and look at how a lot of "sure shot" 5OA players were obviously not going to pan-out in hindsight, if for nothing else than to help spot warning signs for future drafts and to lower our own expectations a bit.
For sure. I get the argument that it's not about the calibre of players, but the amount of players who make it to the big show. That said, there's a lot of players in that 2001 draft who played like a season and a half for terrible teams before going back to where they came from. Looking at you, Chistov.
I'd be interested to read it, honest.I'll spare you the wall of text I started to write about how there was a sea change in the draft following the lockout that has resulted in the talent being compressed into the top, this post is already enough tl;dr as it is
Last edited:
Freeptop
Registered User
This is purely a personal theory of mine, but it's based on looking at the results of drafts over the years.
The gist of it is basically: following the lockout, the game changed, and smaller players with a lot of talent weren't automatically going to fail. Likewise, big, tough players weren't going to automatically succeed. (Granted, neither of those were ever true to begin with, but I'm talking about the general "hockey wisdom" of the time).
This meant there was a shift as to where such players are taken in the draft. While teams still want to pick agitators with some skill, or big, "tough" defensemen, they don't get picked nearly as high as they used to be (no spending a 5OV on Raffi Torres, these days, for example). As those players fall further down, they're usually replaced with more talented players.
A "deep" draft in years past meant that you could easily have 3-4 players (or more!) in the top 10 who ended up as bottom-six forwards, or bottom pairing defensemen, or even outright busts. The "depth" in the past was a result of many early picks being used on suboptimal prospects, which pushed more talented players lower in the draft, giving an illusion of more depth than there really was.
Teams have adjusted to the "new NHL" that came out of the lockout, and we get fewer of those suboptimal picks so high in the draft, which results in compressing much of the talent higher up. This means there are fewer "diamond in the rough" picks lower down the draft, to boot.
There are definitely additional factors as well: the League overall makes more money, which means more teams invest more in drafting. The Cap also puts more emphasis on having players contribute while on ELCs, thus motivating better drafts as well. So scouting has gotten better, overall.
This isn't a perfect theory, of course. I'm sure there's plenty of holes to pick in it. But as a general concept, I think I'm on to something here
