Prospect Info: 2025 Draft: We are #1….1

[Goalie_Bob]

Eh I think Mrtka makes a ton of sense for them as well with the undersized puck movers they have on that defense.

Zellweger (5'10" and 187 lbs) is especially small while LaCombe (6'2" and 205 lbs) and Mintyukov (6'1" and 200 lbs) are probably undersized for western conference standards. Those three are also all LHD so I think Mrtka being a bigger, defensive RHD would complement that group really well. Zellweger and Mrtka as a pair makes a ton of sense for them to run with in the future if they'd take Mrtka.

Drafting for need is never smart. If all players are equal then ok, but if they have Martin rated higher then they should take him. Later rounds, sure, maybe but never in the high rounds. Take the talent.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Drafting for need is never smart. If all players are equal then ok, but if they have Martin rated higher then they should take him. Later rounds, sure, maybe but never in the high rounds. Take the talent.

The issue with saying this is that team needs fundamentally shape who these teams scout and how they rank them. Eklund is IMO much better than a lot of the centers that will go above him, but teams view playing center as an advantage over a winger. Who teams view as the BPA is fundamentally tied to things like need, because they set up who they're scouting based on their own biases and their own franchise needs.

There's no such thing as a central draft ranking or anything like that, teams just go off of their own boards and those boards include things like positional and play style biases. That's why Martin is probably going to be a top-10 pick.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Drafting for need is never smart. If all players are equal then ok, but if they have Martin rated higher then they should take him. Later rounds, sure, maybe but never in the high rounds. Take the talent.

Kinda related:

Someone in the prospects forum who allegedly had NHL scouting experience said something to the effect of:

"In the later rounds you should be targeting players with unique attributes. Not a jack of all trades master of none player."

This was a few years ago so I might be misremembering.

Kinda what the Pens did with Mac Swanson and his playmaking.

Not sure if others agree but I buy into this philosophy.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

The issue with saying this is that team needs fundamentally shape who these teams scout and how they rank them. Eklund is IMO much better than a lot of the centers that will go above him, but teams view playing center as an advantage over a winger. Who teams view as the BPA is fundamentally tied to things like need, because they set up who they're scouting based on their own biases and their own franchise needs.

There's no such thing as a central draft ranking or anything like that, teams just go off of their own boards and those boards include things like positional and play style biases. That's why Martin is probably going to be a top-10 pick.

Anaheim went way off the board to take a winger 3OA last year

 

[Empoleon8771]

Anaheim went way off the board to take a winger 3OA last year

Yeah and IMO that was a play style bias that Verbeek has. There's no such thing as a central draft ranking and things like play style and positions played are baked into who teams view as BPA.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

Yeah and IMO that was a play style bias that Verbeek has. There's no such thing as a central draft ranking and things like play style and positions played are baked into who teams view as BPA.

then you should understand why it seems wild to us that you are dismissive of anyone falling or rising… Or saying Anaheim will do a certain thing. You have no clue.

 

[Empoleon8771]

then you should understand why it seems wild to us that you are dismissive of anyone falling or rising… Or saying Anaheim will do a certain thing. You have no clue.

Where was I ever doing that?

I said Mrtka made sense from a positional need for Anaheim to take. I never said that Anaheim is certainly going to take him.

I have no clue how you could have interpreted my recent posts to mean that. I didn't suggest anything even remotely like that.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

Where was I ever doing that?

I said Mrtka made sense from a positional need for Anaheim to take. I never said that Anaheim is certainly going to take him.

And I said that Anaheim hasn’t shown a care in the world for positional need. Their best player is a right shot W. And they “reached” to take one high last year.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Yeah I have no clue how you can possibly interpret me saying "teams take into account team needs, positions and play style when they make their own boards and decide their BPA" is at all saying any team is going to do anything.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

Yeah I have no clue how you can possibly interpret me saying "teams take into account team needs, positions and play style when they make their own boards and decide their BPA" is at all saying any team is going to do anything.

No I’m pushing back that Anaheim cares about need and positional fit

Solberg and Sennecke are examples of that.

They traded a RD for a winger and added a pick

They are not a team that is going to say “oh this player is better but he’s a wing. We have to take a RD because of that and the fact a lot of our D is lefty”

 

[Empoleon8771]

No I’m pushing back that Anaheim cares about need and positional fit

Solberg and Sennecke are examples of that.

But that wasn't really the point of what I was saying, though. I wasn't making any claims for how team would act or wouldn't act, I'm speaking that the idea of "you shouldn't draft based on need" doesn't actually make sense because things like team needs directly impact who they view as BPA.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

team needs directly impact who they view as BPA.

Dude again… Anaheim doesn’t give a shit

They traded their “position of need” in RD for another lefty wing then turned around and drafted a winger with the 3rd overall pick. Then traded up for another LD

My point and the other posters point is that your logic for them and Mrtka might work for other teams but Anaheim is the wrong org to apply that logic to.

 

[SEALBound]

That mock by the Athletic is a very reasonable prediction. When you get in that 7/8 region, we could see a lot of movement.

Schaef, Misa, Frondell, Martone, Hags, Desny, JOB are pretty solid for a top 6, sans specific order of 3-6. I still think Seattle take a hard look at Mrtka. They need defense, he's a big defensive boy and he plays in Seattle where they can scout him a ton. Makes a lot of sense them going Mrtka.

Anaheim is the one I have no idea about. There's a ton of mixing and matching of the forwards. I think they're wing heavy so they opt for center if there's one there. That said, Aitcheson would look mighty good on their backend.

 

[tomd]

That mock by the Athletic is a very reasonable prediction. When you get in that 7/8 region, we could see a lot of movement.

Schaef, Misa, Frondell, Martone, Hags, Desny, JOB are pretty solid for a top 6, sans specific order of 3-6. I still think Seattle take a hard look at Mrtka. They need defense, he's a big defensive boy and he plays in Seattle where they can scout him a ton. Makes a lot of sense them going Mrtka.

Anaheim is the one I have no idea about. There's a ton of mixing and matching of the forwards. I think they're wing heavy so they opt for center if there's one there. That said, Aitcheson would look mighty good on their backend.

Anaheim drafted their Aitcheson last year in Solberg.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

That mock by the Athletic is a very reasonable prediction.

Not a prediction

“Two years ago, we tested out a new idea and called it our “if I were GM” mock draft. The idea was simple: In place of the mock drafts our prospects writers Corey Pronman and Scott Wheeler do individually where they predict what will happen on draft day, we wanted to give them a chance to draft the first round making their own selections for each team. Today, for a third year running, it’s back by popular demand.”

 

[SEALBound]

Not a prediction

“Two years ago, we tested out a new idea and called it our “if I were GM” mock draft. The idea was simple: In place of the mock drafts our prospects writers Corey Pronman and Scott Wheeler do individually where they predict what will happen on draft day, we wanted to give them a chance to draft the first round making their own selections for each team. Today, for a third year running, it’s back by popular demand.”

I guess...thanks for the "clarification"?

 

[SEALBound]

Anaheim drafted their Aitcheson last year in Solberg.

I asked on their board a bit and it looks like they are favoring a center. Martin seems to be their guy unless someone like JOB drops. Right in line with what I figured. I'd just rather their scouts and GM fall in love with McQueen.

Seattle with Mrtka, Anaheim with McQueen, Eklund going higher, and someone like Smith or Reschney (as per my dream) going top 10 would be most ideal. I stil goo at the idea of both Martin and JOB falling to 11/12. Highly unlikely but it's late-May.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

I guess...thanks for the "clarification"?

I’m very, very sorry for sharing the blaring disclaimer before the entire article.

 

[SEALBound]

I’m very, very sorry for sharing the blaring disclaimer before the entire article.

I read it, I'm just not sure what the difference is between what they did, and a "prediction", and a mock draft.

"how I would do it" vs "how I think it goes down"...whatever?

Seems uber nitpicky and unnecessary.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

I read it, I'm just not sure what the difference is between what they did, and a "prediction", and a mock draft.

"how I would do it" vs "how I think it goes down"...whatever?

Seems uber nitpicky and unnecessary.

Righttt…. you’re totally not just saying that now because you called it a reasonable prediction before reading the disclaimer of “this is not a prediction”

 

[SEALBound]

Righttt…. you’re totally not just saying that now because you called it a reasonable prediction before reading the disclaimer of “this is not a prediction”

Sure. Thanks for arguing to argue.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

Sure. Thanks for arguing to argue.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

 

[Freeptop]

I read it, I'm just not sure what the difference is between what they did, and a "prediction", and a mock draft.

"how I would do it" vs "how I think it goes down"...whatever?

Seems uber nitpicky and unnecessary.

The difference is that if they were doing a predictive mock draft, they would be making their "picks" based on how they think each team would rank the players. That's not what they're doing. They're going based on their own, personal lists. Theoretically, one should be able to re-create this mock draft by taking Wheeler's and Pronman's most recent draft rankings and just picking whichever player is the highest available on their lists for each pick.

I can't say I blame the writers for not wanting to do a predictive mock, as they don't actually know how each team is ranking the players, so it would inevitably end up being very wrong. If you're going to be wrong, at least do so based on your own rankings, so that if it turns out you were right about a player and the teams weren't, you can point back to your mock (and if you were very wrong, you can just never mention it again, and most people wouldn't remember it anyway).

 

[SEALBound]

The difference is that if they were doing a predictive mock draft, they would be making their "picks" based on how they think each team would rank the players. That's not what they're doing. They're going based on their own, personal lists. Theoretically, one should be able to re-create this mock draft by taking Wheeler's and Pronman's most recent draft rankings and just picking whichever player is the highest available on their lists for each pick.

I can't say I blame the writers for not wanting to do a predictive mock, as they don't actually know how each team is ranking the players, so it would inevitably end up being very wrong. If you're going to be wrong, at least do so based on your own rankings, so that if it turns out you were right about a player and the teams weren't, you can point back to your mock (and if you were very wrong, you can just never mention it again, and most people wouldn't remember it anyway).

So two writers are doing a mock draft based on their two lists but it's totally not a mock draft.

Again...whatever. It was an order that suggested a draft order based on the thoughts of the contributors.

What. the. f***. ever.