Prospect Info: 2025 Draft discussion

[Big Friggin Dummy]

I think McQueen's size is gonna bait some teams into picking him way earlier than they should tbh. Hope it's not this team.

 

[Jacob]

I don't think it will be difficult to move into the top 4 or 5 late in the season. For one, we have pieces to sell at the deadline. For some teams "ahead" of us like Buffalo and Seattle, they are going to want to salvage the last 1/2 of the season. Especially Buffalo who has been tanking for 12 years. And I don't see a guy like Trotz or Lamoriello giving up on the year, they'll keep trying to win games. The Sharks and Blackhawks will certainly be at the bottom.

Detroit has McLellan and they're going to move ahead of us. We trade Petts for futures, maybe toss Beauvillier and Grzelcyk to contenders, start "shutting down" the big guys in the last couple weeks of the year, we're in the top 5 easily. Ideally top-4 obviously.

 

[Malkinstheman]

I don't think it will be difficult to move into the top 4 or 5 late in the season. For one, we have pieces to sell at the deadline. For some teams "ahead" of us like Buffalo and Seattle, they are going to want to salvage the last 1/2 of the season. Especially Buffalo who has been tanking for 12 years. And I don't see a guy like Trotz or Lamoriello giving up on the year, they'll keep trying to win games. The Sharks and Blackhawks will certainly be at the bottom.

Detroit has McLellan and they're going to move ahead of us. We trade Petts for futures, maybe toss Beauvillier and Grzelcyk to contenders, start "shutting down" the big guys in the last couple weeks of the year, we're in the top 5 easily. Ideally top-4 obviously.

Ideally the team finishes bottom-3 but its gonna be very hard to out tank the Hawks, Sharks and Ducks. At #4 you have a 65% chance of getting dropped back 1-2 spots.

 

[Gurglesons]

I think McQueen's size is gonna bait some teams into picking him way earlier than they should tbh. Hope it's not this team.

If we are picking in the 5-10 range it’d be a great pull for us.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I think trading up makes a lot of sense for the Penguins to try to do, but not trading up higher in the top-10 but trading up with some of their 2nds/3rds and getting another 1st. Their prospect pool's depth is pretty solid right now but they really need more top end guys with core upside or better. You're more likely to get that with 1 1st at 15th overall than say 3 2nds at 45th overall. That said, it's easier said than done to trade up with a bunch of 2nds/3rds into the 1st.

 

[Le Magnifique 66]

I think trading up makes a lot of sense for the Penguins to try to do, but not trading up higher in the top-10 but trading up with some of their 2nds/3rds and getting another 1st. Their prospect pool's depth is pretty solid right now but they really need more top end guys with core upside or better. You're more likely to get that with 1 1st at 15th overall than say 3 2nds at 45th overall. That said, it's easier said than done to trade up with a bunch of 2nds/3rds into the 1st.

I doubt any team wants in on that, and we don't even have our 2nd this summer ( Montreal ) has it. We need more prospects not less!

 

[eXile3]

I think trading up makes a lot of sense for the Penguins to try to do, but not trading up higher in the top-10 but trading up with some of their 2nds/3rds and getting another 1st. Their prospect pool's depth is pretty solid right now but they really need more top end guys with core upside or better. You're more likely to get that with 1 1st at 15th overall than say 3 2nds at 45th overall. That said, it's easier said than done to trade up with a bunch of 2nds/3rds into the 1st.

Complete opposite of what we should do. I would take two or three 2nds with a 40% chance of being an NHL player over one with a 65% chance.

Would you rather have one Yager, or three Brunicke?

 

[Gurglesons]

Wouldn’t be shocked if we are like 8-12 to see Dubas drop back in the 1st to add an additional 2nd tbh.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Complete opposite of what we should do. I would take two or three 2nds with a 40% chance of being an NHL player over one with a 65% chance.

Would you rather have one Yager, or three Brunicke?

Would you rather have one Yager or three Bjorkqvists?

With a 2nd rounder, you're by far more likely to be drafting more "supporting cast" caliber prospects. Which aren't nothing of course, but this team needs top end talent in their prospect pool more than anything. The odds may not be that much better with a mid 1st over a mid 2nd, but you're significantly more likely to get a difference maker with the 1st than mid 2nd.

 

[Peat]

Complete opposite of what we should do. I would take two or three 2nds with a 40% chance of being an NHL player over one with a 65% chance.

Would you rather have one Yager, or three Brunicke?

Yup. Fairly sure the maths done on this at least crudely supports this too.

Would you rather have one Yager or three Bjorkqvists?

With a 2nd rounder, you're by far more likely to be drafting more "supporting cast" caliber prospects. Which aren't nothing of course, but this team needs top end talent in their prospect pool more than anything. The odds may not be that much better with a mid 1st over a mid 2nd, but you're significantly more likely to get a difference maker with the 1st than mid 2nd.

Not, iirc and from not fully comprehensive studies done a while back, to the extent that NHL teams want paid to move up. With the corollary that moving down is frequently good business.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Yup. Fairly sure the maths done on this at least crudely supports this too.

I think the math supports the idea in terms of getting NHLers but not necessarily in terms of getting impact players. With those 2 2nds, you're more likely to get a couple of NHLers but not as likely to get a star player. Although I think there is definitely a limit to that.

Just picking a random draft, let's look at the 2015 draft and compare picks 10-20 to picks 35-56. In the 10-20 range, you have Rantanen (10th), Barzal (16th), Connor (17th) and Chabot (18th) as players I'd consider "impact players". From 35-56, you have Aho (35th), Hintz (49th), Andersson (53rd) and Dunn (56th). This would suggest you're just as likely to get a difference maker with 1 mid 1st as you were with 2 mid/high 2nds, which seems like a reasonable estimate to me.

I was mistaken when I said you're better off with 3 2nds, but I'd take a mid 1st over 2 mid/high 2nds. Once you're getting above that price, that's when the math gets iffy.

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

I think for anything beyond the like top-10 picks, quantity is king. Just spray and pray.

 

[eXile3]

Would you rather have one Yager or three Bjorkqvists?

With a 2nd rounder, you're by far more likely to be drafting more "supporting cast" caliber prospects. Which aren't nothing of course, but this team needs top end talent in their prospect pool more than anything. The odds may not be that much better with a mid 1st over a mid 2nd, but you're significantly more likely to get a difference maker with the 1st than mid 2nd.

I don’t believe this is true. Kucherov and Kaprizov were 2nd, and a 5th. Don’t get much more impactful than that.

The most tried and true way to get difference makers is picking in the top 5. The alternative is just flat luck and in that instance you would want as many rolls of the dice as possible.

 

[Mr. T]

Just spray and pray.

That's the name of my faith-based birth control method.

 

[Peat]

I think the math supports the idea in terms of getting NHLers but not necessarily in terms of getting impact players. With those 2 2nds, you're more likely to get a couple of NHLers but not as likely to get a star player. Although I think there is definitely a limit to that.

Just picking a random draft, let's look at the 2015 draft and compare picks 10-20 to picks 35-56. In the 10-20 range, you have Rantanen (10th), Barzal (16th), Connor (17th) and Chabot (18th) as players I'd consider "impact players". From 35-56, you have Aho (35th), Hintz (49th), Andersson (53rd) and Dunn (56th). This would suggest you're just as likely to get a difference maker with 1 mid 1st as you were with 2 mid/high 2nds, which seems like a reasonable estimate to me.

I was mistaken when I said you're better off with 3 2nds, but I'd take a mid 1st over 2 mid/high 2nds. Once you're getting above that price, that's when the math gets iffy.

The math is fairly non-granular here from what I recall. I also seem to recall there's a steep drop off still between 10 and 15. It's been so long since I've looked at this all.

But you got to remember price. The Caps paid 80OA to move up from 24 to 22 in 2020. I have no idea what it would cost to move up from 35 to 18; in the same draft, 38 to 34 was 100OA. But it feels like the answer is a lot. It cost 45OA to move up from 14 to 11 in 2019.

1 pick between 10 and 20 being worth more than 2 2nds? Yeah, maybe. I'm assumed you meant more like 20 back. But I think the NHL will demand a lot more.