Prospect Info: - 2025 NHL Entry Draft | Page 40 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Prospect Info: 2025 NHL Entry Draft

Anaheim4ever said:
What if Montreal did something like #16 + #17 + #41 + #49 for #8 ?
Click to expand...

There are two reasons why I say no. First, the success rate outside the top-10 crashes exponentially. Second, we don't need an excess of draft picks in our stage of the rebuild; we need a more talented player via a top-10 pick, trading for higher NHL talent, or trading for a team's top prospect that is NHL-adjacent such as the Cutter Gauthier trade.

Point 1.
The two charts below reflect that it is better to draft higher in the draft for improved chances of success as well as higher success. If Anaheim is dead set on a drafting a forward, then the org should definitely stay put because Anaheim isn't great at drafting forwards outside the top-10. 6'6 RD Mrtka looks like he's going to be a top-10 pick and the Ducks won't have a chance to draft him if they trade out of the top-10. This year's draft crop is weak after the top-12/top-15.

What's an NHL Draft Pick Worth?
1745955050471.png


Examining the Value of NHL Draft Picks
1745955300151.png


Point 2.

Anaheim's AHL program is oversaturated with youths at F, D, and G that the org has used the ECHL for a few of those prospects. Anaheim has eight signed youth defensemen for next season in the AHL/ECHL. They have three signed youth netminders with Clang being an RFA. At forward, they could have a minimum of seven youth forwards with a few RFA's in RW Colangelo (who could be NHL bound), LW Nesterenko, RW Caulfield, and C Mysak. The following summer, 2026, there will be five prospects that need signing.

Also, the Ducks do not need more draft picks as they currently have nine total draft spots in the 2025 draft.


1745957586039.png

as per Cap Wages
 
Hockey Duckie said:
This doesn't make sense, especially in a weak draft.
Click to expand...
It makes sense if the scouting staff believes there's little if any difference between a guy they'll get at 8 and a guy available later in the 1st. Their rankings could be entirely different than the masses. Personally I like the potential of some of the later 1st guys just as much as who will probably be available at 8. William Moore, Cootes, Mckinney, Brady Martin, Hensler, Fiddler and some others projected late 1st don't seem any worse a prospect than Bear, Mrtka, Obrien etc.
 
Last edited:
KickHisAssZegrass said:
It makes sense if the scouting staff believes there's little if any difference between a guy they'll get at 8 and a guy available later in the 1st. Their rankings could be entirely different than the masses. Personally I like the potential of some of the later 1st guys just as much as who will probably be available at 8. William Moore, Cootes, Mckinney, Brady Martin, Hensler, Fiddler and some others projected late 1st don't seem any worse a prospect than Bear, Mrtka, Obrien etc.
Click to expand...

I guess we can throw out the 10 year research that disagrees with you. Ofc, there are exceptions, but that's why they're denoted as exceptions.
 
KickHisAssZegrass said:
It makes sense if the scouting staff believes there's little if any difference between a guy they'll get at 8 and a guy available later in the 1st. Their rankings could be entirely different than the masses. Personally I like the potential of some of the later 1st guys just as much as who will probably be available at 8. William Moore, Cootes, Mckinney, Brady Martin, Hensler, Fiddler and some others projected late 1st don't seem any worse a prospect than Bear, Mrtka, Obrien etc.
Click to expand...
The consensus seems to be that this draft takes a sharp downward turn at about pick 15. Some call it pick 20. Regardless, this is not a draft to trade down in. Take the top 10 pick and run.
 
Hockey Duckie said:
Time to sign prospects
  • CHL: two years
  • NCAA: four years
  • USHL+NCAA: five years
  • European: four years
  • Russian: indefinitely
If a CHL prospect isn't signed within two years and are young enough, then they go back into the NHL draft.

Going to the NCAA doesn't preclude a signed prospect going to the AHL. Nesterenko, Helleson, and Colangelo have gone to the AHL in their first, full pro season. Colangelo didn't explode until his senior year. Imagine if Colangelo was a CHL product and didn't have a great first two seasons, then we wouldn't have signed him and he would have gone back into the draft.

The ELC slide rule ends once a prospect turns 20 years old prior to Jan 1st. We finished this season with 48/50 contracts. We have a lot of CHL prospects in 2026 that need to be signed if we're to retain their services.

2025, Time to Sign Date
Port (WHL)
Francis (NCAA)

2026, Time to Sign Date:
Blaise (QMJHL)
Massé (QMJHL)
Procyszyn (OHL)
Tarin Smith (WHL)
Kukkonen (NCAA)

Now, I would prefer we start drafting in the NCAA and/or European leagues because we have a longer time to retain their rights. If the org feels comfortable enough to sign them earlier than their "time to sign date", then the org is confident that prospect can take the next step. That step could be the AHL or NHL.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t this all change with Chl players now able to go to the ncaa? I think that actually makes the CHL more attractive because you get a lot of tweeters that aren’t ready to go pro and would do well to play in an intermediate step like the ncaa. I’d love to see Sennecke play one year of high level ncaa hockey on a great line. NCAA coaches seem to do a great job of helping develop good habits and maturity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwvs84
We aren't trading pick 8 for more picks in a weak draft. If we do trade it it will be for a proven player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwvs84
Trojans86 said:
Doesn’t this all change with Chl players now able to go to the ncaa? I think that actually makes the CHL more attractive because you get a lot of tweeters that aren’t ready to go pro and would do well to play in an intermediate step like the ncaa. I’d love to see Sennecke play one year of high level ncaa hockey on a great line. NCAA coaches seem to do a great job of helping develop good habits and maturity.
Click to expand...

I believe there might be a signing issue. Once a CHL player is signed, then they cannot go the NCAA route. That's part of the reason why Cayden Lindstrom is projected to play at the NCAA next season, the Blue Jackets never signed him to an ELC. Sennecke already has signed an ELC as a CHL product, which negates the possibility of going to the NCAA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trojans86
Hockey Duckie said:
There are two reasons why I say no. First, the success rate outside the top-10 crashes exponentially. Second, we don't need an excess of draft picks in our stage of the rebuild; we need a more talented player via a top-10 pick, trading for higher NHL talent, or trading for a team's top prospect that is NHL-adjacent such as the Cutter Gauthier trade.

Point 1.
The two charts below reflect that it is better to draft higher in the draft for improved chances of success as well as higher success. If Anaheim is dead set on a drafting a forward, then the org should definitely stay put because Anaheim isn't great at drafting forwards outside the top-10. 6'6 RD Mrtka looks like he's going to be a top-10 pick and the Ducks won't have a chance to draft him if they trade out of the top-10. This year's draft crop is weak after the top-12/top-15.

What's an NHL Draft Pick Worth?
View attachment 1025734

Examining the Value of NHL Draft Picks
View attachment 1025737

Point 2.

Anaheim's AHL program is oversaturated with youths at F, D, and G that the org has used the ECHL for a few of those prospects. Anaheim has eight signed youth defensemen for next season in the AHL/ECHL. They have three signed youth netminders with Clang being an RFA. At forward, they could have a minimum of seven youth forwards with a few RFA's in RW Colangelo (who could be NHL bound), LW Nesterenko, RW Caulfield, and C Mysak. The following summer, 2026, there will be five prospects that need signing.

Also, the Ducks do not need more draft picks as they currently have nine total draft spots in the 2025 draft.


View attachment 1025765
as per Cap Wages
Click to expand...
I think you are using the Dom Luszczyszyn chart. And his chart would say to definitely make the trade.

Pick 8 has a 6.7 GSVA while 16 and 17 have a combined 9.2 GSVA (a 50% excess value return) and 41 and 49 have a combined value of 3.6. So total we would be trading 6.7 GSVA for 12.8 GSVA. That's almost 100% excess value.

Yeah, picks outside the top 10 have less success than those in the top 10, but that's largely because picks 1 and 2 have huge GSVAs and even through pick 5 it's pretty high. Pick 8 isn't tremendously different than 16.

I understand quibbling with the shape of production (1 star providing 7 GSVA, vs. 2 guys providing 3.5 GSVA) if the numbers are close but this is a heist for the Ducks.

Finally, I'll even add that at this point in the rebuild, finding more cheap depth might be beneficial. I don't think there's a high likelihood that we get a guy who is displacing Leo, Z, Cutter, McTavish, or Sennecke in this draft and we're going only as far as those guys take us. If they fail, this 8th pick isn't going to be what turns it around and we'll be drafting highly for the next 5 years anyway. We'll have plenty more shots at 8 overall. If they succeed, they will get expensive. We will need lots of cheap contracts that provide excess value to fill in behind them for the next 4-5 years. These later picks will be key.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaGeneral
eaterfan said:
Finally, I'll even add that at this point in the rebuild, finding more cheap depth might be beneficial. I don't think there's a high likelihood that we get a guy who is displacing Leo, Z, Cutter, McTavish, or Sennecke in this draft and we're going only as far as those guys take us. If they fail, this 8th pick isn't going to be what turns it around and we'll be drafting highly for the next 5 years anyway. We'll have plenty more shots at 8 overall. If they succeed, they will get expensive. We will need lots of cheap contracts that provide excess value to fill in behind them for the next 4-5 years. These later picks will be key.
Click to expand...

I think we're still not at the stage of planning for cheap contracts down the road as depth behind the core guys. We should still be accumulating as many high end assets as possible, because you can always trade an impact player for depth down the road if needed. Harder to go the other way.
 
FiveTacos said:
I think we're still not at the stage of planning for cheap contracts down the road as depth behind the core guys. We should still be accumulating as many high end assets as possible, because you can always trade an impact player for depth down the road if needed. Harder to go the other way.
Click to expand...
That's fine, too. But pick 8 isn't twice as likely to be a star than either pick 16 or 17 and not very close to as likely as both.
 
eaterfan said:
I think you are using the Dom Luszczyszyn chart. And his chart would say to definitely make the trade.

Pick 8 has a 6.7 GSVA while 16 and 17 have a combined 9.2 GSVA (a 50% excess value return) and 41 and 49 have a combined value of 3.6. So total we would be trading 6.7 GSVA for 12.8 GSVA. That's almost 100% excess value.

Yeah, picks outside the top 10 have less success than those in the top 10, but that's largely because picks 1 and 2 have huge GSVAs and even through pick 5 it's pretty high. Pick 8 isn't tremendously different than 16.

I understand quibbling with the shape of production (1 star providing 7 GSVA, vs. 2 guys providing 3.5 GSVA) if the numbers are close but this is a heist for the Ducks.

Finally, I'll even add that at this point in the rebuild, finding more cheap depth might be beneficial. I don't think there's a high likelihood that we get a guy who is displacing Leo, Z, Cutter, McTavish, or Sennecke in this draft and we're going only as far as those guys take us. If they fail, this 8th pick isn't going to be what turns it around and we'll be drafting highly for the next 5 years anyway. We'll have plenty more shots at 8 overall. If they succeed, they will get expensive. We will need lots of cheap contracts that provide excess value to fill in behind them for the next 4-5 years. These later picks will be key.
Click to expand...

In a vacuum, sure the GSVA comes out 100% excess value. Lost is the qualitative part of the equation: Top-end player vs middle-six and fourth liners.

I don't think you understand the exponential drop to carelessly say "pick 8 isn't tremendously different from 16", when you cite pick 8 is worth 7 GSVA and pick 16 is 3.5. You need two players of lesser talent to make up one player. Why not keep the top-end player and utilize the rest of your draft picks to supplement the top-end player? There are reasons why there are more trades done in the mid-teens and beyond because the values are much closer together than between pick 8 and pick 16, where the exponential drop starts to slow down as depicted in the Trade Value & GSVA charts.

Currently, the the Ducks own nine draft picks, with four picks in the top three rounds. You want a deluge of 12 draft picks in one draft. We haven't even discussed all the prospects in the AHL/ECHL nor the "to be signed" prospects in the system. What a waste of assets in one draft for a team on the latter end of the rebuilding stage. Even in an early stage of a rebuild done twice (Murray and Verbeek reset), the Ducks never traded any of their top-10 picks b/c the org knows it needs top-end stars to help them get out of the hole, and not a bunch of bottom-6 guys. Anaheim had two opportunities to trade down in 2019 and 2022, but never did.

2019, 9OA: C Zegras
2020, 6OA: RD Drysdale (eventually traded with a 2025 2nd round pick for Cutter)
2021, 3OA: C McTavish
2022, 10OA: LD Mintyukov
2023, 2OA: C Carlsson
2024, 3OA: RW Sennecke

The NHL draft comes yearly, so why unnecessarily stock pile 12 draft picks on one draft cycle that is particularly weak beyond the top-12/15? Anaheim still possesses their first round picks in 2026 and 2027. They have their 2nd round pick in 2026 and two 2nd round picks in 2027. In keeping our first round picks from this point forward, the Ducks don't have to rush its prospects and let them "overripen". When they do sign their ELC, it's a cheap contract for three seasons.

I don't comprehend the fear mongering of drafting at 8th will not displace "Leo, Z, Cutter, McTavish, or Sennecke". First, Z is a 9th overall pick. We are picking 8th. Second, we add more top talent to our current group that should push down middle-six talent down to the bottom-6. Third, that 8th overall talent is better suited to filling into top-6/top-4 roles if an injury occurs than a 16th or 17th pick, as you astutely cited pick 8 has a 7 GSVA and pick 16 has a 3.5 GSVA. Fourth, a huge missing component here is that this might be the last draft the Ducks pick in the top-10.

We shouldn't look at things in a vacuum. Cronin looked at things in a vacuum.
 
Hockey Duckie said:
In a vacuum, sure the GSVA comes out 100% excess value. Lost is the qualitative part of the equation: Top-end player vs middle-six and fourth liners.

I don't think you understand the exponential drop to carelessly say "pick 8 isn't tremendously different from 16", when you cite pick 8 is worth 7 GSVA and pick 16 is 3.5. You need two players of lesser talent to make up one player. Why not keep the top-end player and utilize the rest of your draft picks to supplement the top-end player? There are reasons why there are more trades done in the mid-teens and beyond because the values are much closer together than between pick 8 and pick 16, where the exponential drop starts to slow down as depicted in the Trade Value & GSVA charts.

Currently, the the Ducks own nine draft picks, with four picks in the top three rounds. You want a deluge of 12 draft picks in one draft. We haven't even discussed all the prospects in the AHL/ECHL nor the "to be signed" prospects in the system. What a waste of assets in one draft for a team on the latter end of the rebuilding stage. Even in an early stage of a rebuild done twice (Murray and Verbeek reset), the Ducks never traded any of their top-10 picks b/c the org knows it needs top-end stars to help them get out of the hole, and not a bunch of bottom-6 guys. Anaheim had two opportunities to trade down in 2019 and 2022, but never did.

2019, 9OA: C Zegras
2020, 6OA: RD Drysdale (eventually traded with a 2025 2nd round pick for Cutter)
2021, 3OA: C McTavish
2022, 10OA: LD Mintyukov
2023, 2OA: C Carlsson
2024, 3OA: RW Sennecke

The NHL draft comes yearly, so why unnecessarily stock pile 12 draft picks on one draft cycle that is particularly weak beyond the top-12/15? Anaheim still possesses their first round picks in 2026 and 2027. They have their 2nd round pick in 2026 and two 2nd round picks in 2027. In keeping our first round picks from this point forward, the Ducks don't have to rush its prospects and let them "overripen". When they do sign their ELC, it's a cheap contract for three seasons.

I don't comprehend the fear mongering of drafting at 8th will not displace "Leo, Z, Cutter, McTavish, or Sennecke". First, Z is a 9th overall pick. We are picking 8th. Second, we add more top talent to our current group that should push down middle-six talent down to the bottom-6. Third, that 8th overall talent is better suited to filling into top-6/top-4 roles if an injury occurs than a 16th or 17th pick, as you astutely cited pick 8 has a 7 GSVA and pick 16 has a 3.5 GSVA. Fourth, a huge missing component here is that this might be the last draft the Ducks pick in the top-10.

We shouldn't look at things in a vacuum. Cronin looked at things in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
In 2019 the Ducks before the draft lottery were #8 and then dropped 1 spot to #9
This year the Ducks have a 54.4% chance to stay at #8, 30% to drop to #9, 3.2% to drop to #10, 12.4%(added up the percentages of winning either 1/2/3 pick) to move into top #3.
en.wikipedia.org

2025 NHL entry draft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The #8 in 2019 had a higher chance of moving up I checked, it was like 19% they'd get a top3 pick and only 36.8% chance they stay at #8, 36% they drop to #9, 7.8% they drop to #10, 0.4% they drop to #11
en.wikipedia.org

2019 NHL entry draft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
eaterfan said:
I think you are using the Dom Luszczyszyn chart. And his chart would say to definitely make the trade.

Pick 8 has a 6.7 GSVA while 16 and 17 have a combined 9.2 GSVA (a 50% excess value return) and 41 and 49 have a combined value of 3.6. So total we would be trading 6.7 GSVA for 12.8 GSVA. That's almost 100% excess value.

Yeah, picks outside the top 10 have less success than those in the top 10, but that's largely because picks 1 and 2 have huge GSVAs and even through pick 5 it's pretty high. Pick 8 isn't tremendously different than 16.

I understand quibbling with the shape of production (1 star providing 7 GSVA, vs. 2 guys providing 3.5 GSVA) if the numbers are close but this is a heist for the Ducks.

Finally, I'll even add that at this point in the rebuild, finding more cheap depth might be beneficial. I don't think there's a high likelihood that we get a guy who is displacing Leo, Z, Cutter, McTavish, or Sennecke in this draft and we're going only as far as those guys take us. If they fail, this 8th pick isn't going to be what turns it around and we'll be drafting highly for the next 5 years anyway. We'll have plenty more shots at 8 overall. If they succeed, they will get expensive. We will need lots of cheap contracts that provide excess value to fill in behind them for the next 4-5 years. These later picks will be key.
Click to expand...
These charts treats drafts generically. The talent in this draft is top loaded. It's debatable whether that extends to the 8OA pick but it almost certainly doesn't extend to picks 16 and 17. It's a bit of a quantity vs quality argument. Same with making a trade...do you want the best player or a lot of pieces that may or may not add up to the best player? Give me the quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hockey Duckie
MMC said:
He'd fit perfectly either as a 3C to make us loaded at C or as complimentary winger on either of our top 6 lines depending how the line combos shake out, take him
Click to expand...
I like him a lot but do wonder if he'll be that physical in the NHL
I remember people hyping up McTavish as a guy who hits but then in the NHL he's not like that at all.way. Jones was said to be super physicsl hitter (and dirty) and it didn't turn out that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kalv and tomd
Martin is the forward version of Solberg. I don't want to overhype Martin b/c of a short tournament against mostly inferior competition but he has looked very good and his physical game is special.

Assuming the top 6 players go as predicted (in whatever order), the two players I'm the most interested in are Martin and McQueen. Both have flaws but are the "best of the rest" IMO. Lakovic remains my Madden dark horse pick.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KickHisAssZegrass
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 3, guests: 6)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom