ATD 2013 - Draft Thread I
- Thread starter Hobnobs
- Start date
- Status
EagleBelfour
Registered User
Isn't he a 4 x 2nd Team All-Star? 2006, 2008, 2011, 2012, right?
He was the only defensemen we would have considered at 82. He's the best one left, and would have been nice to have somebody to throw around Gordie Howe
Nobody can throw Gordie Howe around, but we would of seen great battles in front of the net.
Absolutely true, but Chara is a better all-time defenceman than any D taken after Quackenbush.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Has he really gained that much in a year? Last time I looked at him closely, there were a few undrafteds better (I obviously can't talk about them now).
(By "any" D, you basically mean Savard and Lapointe?)
Last edited:
EagleBelfour
Registered User
He was taken 90 last year, I selected him 153 two years back if my memory serves me right. Asking if he gained that much in a year imply that that he was taken at his rightful place among defenceman last year, was it the case?
Yes! Actually I said that, because as soon as Quackenbush got taken, Chara was bump #1 on our list of available defenceman. I didn't look who which D was taken since then
Sturminator
Love is a duel
I agree. I think Kennedy would be fine centering either of those two (with a second winger to help out...either a fast guy with Lindsay or a playmaker with Conacher), but I think as a trio, it is somewhat less than the sum of its parts.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
He was taken 90 last year, I selected him 153 two years back if my memory serves me right. Asking if he gained that much in a year imply that that he was taken at his rightful place among defenceman last year, was it the case?
Yes! Actually I said that, because as soon as Quackenbush got taken, Chara was bump #1 on our list of available defenceman. I didn't look who which D was taken since then
I thought he was selected a tad too early last year, too. But just a little bit.
Dreakmur
Registered User
Just before Quackenbush was selected, I decided to move Chara ahead of him on my list....
The guy is a 6 x post-season all-star, and that's despite his relatively low scoring totals. He's been a top-5 defenseman for almost 10 years now.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Chara has a fairly weak playoff record though, but I guess so does Quackenbush. I'll be sure to mention the undrafteds I had above Chara when they are drafted. Who knows, maybe has passed them by now.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
I think Chara is as defensible as Quack in this range. Different kind of defenseman, and Quack is more of a "classic #1" because he moved the puck better, but there's a legit argument that Chara is actually the better of the two. Both are overvalued where they were picked, but such is life in the ATD. All of the teams taking defensemen taken since Leetch have left a lot of value on the table, in my opinion.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Nice to see Selanne continue to rise. He is deserving.
Regarding the Soviet players: it is always difficult to have a rational conversation about these guys because the Soviet league was so mysterious and distorted that rational comparisons often elude us. My take:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Makarov was clearly great, but his competition in the Soviet league of the 80's was generally pitiful, and it's a a virtual certainty that he was never really challenged physically in the domestic league. TDMM likes to use the scoring over 31 metric to compare Makarov to other stars, but I think he cherrypicks his numbers. I'll try to give a more complete set.
Makarov's NHL performance declined badly during his age 36 season, so we'll use his 31-35 seasons and compare them to the same age range of other NHL stars. We will also note differences in era. Makarov came into and played in the pre-lockout NHL. Some of the players to which he will be compared spent part or all of this period in the dead puck era. In order to wash out these differences as best as possible, I will post Vs2 numbers for the players by year, rather than raw scoring totals. This should give us a better idea of their true production relative to the rest of the league.
Makarov:
89-90: 70
90-91: 60
91-92: 57
92-93: 36
93-94: 57
Jagr:
03-04: 85
05-06: 100
06-07: 84
07-08: 67
Sakic:
00-01: 100
01-02: 88
02-03: 56
03-04: 100
Yzerman:
96-97: 78
97-98: 76
98-99: 69
99-00: 84
00-01: 44
When not using raw numbers and comparing eras, Makarov really doesn't appear to be on the level of the above players as an over-31 NHLer. Better comparables for Makarov's over-31 production have not been drafted yet. Now, this is not conclusive. There is the old argument that "Soviet training methods" burnt out players early in their careers, and that's why they couldn't perform at an elite level into their 30's. Perhaps this is true, but Makarov's modest NHL production must cast some doubt as to his true level of peak skill. 31 is generally still within a player's peak. Hell, Joe Sakic was 2nd in league scoring at 34.
I'm not trying to hate on Makarov, but merely to give a balanced perspective on his actual statistical achievements in the NHL, which I feel have been somewhat misrepresented to this point. The precise problem with all of these Russians is that they were never proven against NHL-level competition, during their primes, and over a long period of time. In Makarov's case, he wasn't even proven against top-level Soviet league competition. Outside of a couple of seasons, he had basically only his linemates as competition. Nevertheless, I like Makarov, and think he was a good value here. But I can live without the comparisons to Mike Bossy. I think that's an absolute best case scenario, and not where he should actually be valued given how many questions remain about his career.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I refer everybody to my old thread on the 70's generation for some perspective on Kharlamov and Mikhailov:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=565254
Mikhailov is basically the reason that Kharlamov gets questioned by some around here. K's legend is huge, but his actual results aren't any better than Mikhailov's on the whole, including scoring, MVP results, and international performances. This fact is often used as a cudgel against Kharlamov, but it could also be seen as complimentary to Mikhailov. At any rate, it is hard to see how the two can be very far apart.
I think one good way to discuss the value of the Soviet greats is to compare them to their best NHL parallels. I have called Kharlamov the Russian Guy Lafleur (and I'm not the first to do so) because of the great similarities between their careers. I am not trying to say, however, that I would have difficulty choosing between them in the ATD. I would pick Lafleur first 10 times out of 10. I think Lafleur is Kharlamov's upside, but the unknowns about his career make him less valuable than the flower, on the whole. So when I compare these guys to NHL players, I'm not trying to make a direct value comparison.
If Kharlamov is the Russian Lafleur, then Makarov is Bossy and Mikhailov is Cook. I think this about accurately expresses their styles of play (though Bossy --> Makarov is a little off), and their value relative to one another. They go in the right order these days. It should be Kharlamov, Makarov, Mikhailov. How close they should be...personally, I think they should all be within ten picks of one another, and all are about ten spots too low at this point (Makarov most of all), mostly because of the 2nd round defensemen glut. In terms of draft position, I think they should probably go something like: Kharlamov 48th; Makarov 53rd; Mikhailov 58th.
Our views of these players relative to one another was somewhat distorted in the past. In the top-70 project, we had Kharlamov 35th, Makarov 61st and Mikhailov 68th. This is simply too big a gap between the players. In order to close it, Kharlamov needed to come down a bit, and the others needed to come up. Their relative value in this draft is much more appropriate than it was in the past.
Regarding the Soviet players: it is always difficult to have a rational conversation about these guys because the Soviet league was so mysterious and distorted that rational comparisons often elude us. My take:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Makarov was clearly great, but his competition in the Soviet league of the 80's was generally pitiful, and it's a a virtual certainty that he was never really challenged physically in the domestic league. TDMM likes to use the scoring over 31 metric to compare Makarov to other stars, but I think he cherrypicks his numbers. I'll try to give a more complete set.
Makarov's NHL performance declined badly during his age 36 season, so we'll use his 31-35 seasons and compare them to the same age range of other NHL stars. We will also note differences in era. Makarov came into and played in the pre-lockout NHL. Some of the players to which he will be compared spent part or all of this period in the dead puck era. In order to wash out these differences as best as possible, I will post Vs2 numbers for the players by year, rather than raw scoring totals. This should give us a better idea of their true production relative to the rest of the league.
Makarov:
89-90: 70
90-91: 60
91-92: 57
92-93: 36
93-94: 57
Jagr:
03-04: 85
05-06: 100
06-07: 84
07-08: 67
Sakic:
00-01: 100
01-02: 88
02-03: 56
03-04: 100
Yzerman:
96-97: 78
97-98: 76
98-99: 69
99-00: 84
00-01: 44
When not using raw numbers and comparing eras, Makarov really doesn't appear to be on the level of the above players as an over-31 NHLer. Better comparables for Makarov's over-31 production have not been drafted yet. Now, this is not conclusive. There is the old argument that "Soviet training methods" burnt out players early in their careers, and that's why they couldn't perform at an elite level into their 30's. Perhaps this is true, but Makarov's modest NHL production must cast some doubt as to his true level of peak skill. 31 is generally still within a player's peak. Hell, Joe Sakic was 2nd in league scoring at 34.
I'm not trying to hate on Makarov, but merely to give a balanced perspective on his actual statistical achievements in the NHL, which I feel have been somewhat misrepresented to this point. The precise problem with all of these Russians is that they were never proven against NHL-level competition, during their primes, and over a long period of time. In Makarov's case, he wasn't even proven against top-level Soviet league competition. Outside of a couple of seasons, he had basically only his linemates as competition. Nevertheless, I like Makarov, and think he was a good value here. But I can live without the comparisons to Mike Bossy. I think that's an absolute best case scenario, and not where he should actually be valued given how many questions remain about his career.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I refer everybody to my old thread on the 70's generation for some perspective on Kharlamov and Mikhailov:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=565254
Mikhailov is basically the reason that Kharlamov gets questioned by some around here. K's legend is huge, but his actual results aren't any better than Mikhailov's on the whole, including scoring, MVP results, and international performances. This fact is often used as a cudgel against Kharlamov, but it could also be seen as complimentary to Mikhailov. At any rate, it is hard to see how the two can be very far apart.
I think one good way to discuss the value of the Soviet greats is to compare them to their best NHL parallels. I have called Kharlamov the Russian Guy Lafleur (and I'm not the first to do so) because of the great similarities between their careers. I am not trying to say, however, that I would have difficulty choosing between them in the ATD. I would pick Lafleur first 10 times out of 10. I think Lafleur is Kharlamov's upside, but the unknowns about his career make him less valuable than the flower, on the whole. So when I compare these guys to NHL players, I'm not trying to make a direct value comparison.
If Kharlamov is the Russian Lafleur, then Makarov is Bossy and Mikhailov is Cook. I think this about accurately expresses their styles of play (though Bossy --> Makarov is a little off), and their value relative to one another. They go in the right order these days. It should be Kharlamov, Makarov, Mikhailov. How close they should be...personally, I think they should all be within ten picks of one another, and all are about ten spots too low at this point (Makarov most of all), mostly because of the 2nd round defensemen glut. In terms of draft position, I think they should probably go something like: Kharlamov 48th; Makarov 53rd; Mikhailov 58th.
Our views of these players relative to one another was somewhat distorted in the past. In the top-70 project, we had Kharlamov 35th, Makarov 61st and Mikhailov 68th. This is simply too big a gap between the players. In order to close it, Kharlamov needed to come down a bit, and the others needed to come up. Their relative value in this draft is much more appropriate than it was in the past.
tony d
Registered User
With pick 80 in the 2013 ATD the Baltimore Blades are proud to select Left Winger Cy Denneny
One of the first great goal scorers in the NHL Denneny will be my main offensive weapon.
Next has been pmed.
One of the first great goal scorers in the NHL Denneny will be my main offensive weapon.
Next has been pmed.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Sturm, I really don't understand your picks for comparables. Sakic, Yzerman, and Jagr were all a part of a generation where playing at a high level for longer was much more common than it was for players who got their starts in the late 70s like Makarov. On top of that, Sakic and Jagr had freakish longevity even for their own generations.
The absolute "best case scenario" for someone like Makarov is someone who peaked at the level of Bossy and maintained the level for longer. Worst case scenario... I don't know, obviously less than that... heh
Sturm, you really seem to be of the belief that Soviet talent fell off a cliff around 1980 (and to be fair, you're definitely not the only one who thinks that), but then why did the Soviets perform even better against the rest of the world in the early-mid 80s than during most of the 1970s?
Edit: I guess I shouldn't have thrown in Jagr's unadjusted stats in my above post. The main comparison is Makarov from RWs of his own generation - Kurri and Bossy, and neither one of them did any more than Makarov did from age 31 up. So basically, I don't understand why he's criticized for his NHL play when he was clearly past his prime - remember he didn't have to defect, the USSR willingly rented him and his linemates to the NHL because they believed they were over the hill.
The absolute "best case scenario" for someone like Makarov is someone who peaked at the level of Bossy and maintained the level for longer. Worst case scenario... I don't know, obviously less than that... heh
Sturm, you really seem to be of the belief that Soviet talent fell off a cliff around 1980 (and to be fair, you're definitely not the only one who thinks that), but then why did the Soviets perform even better against the rest of the world in the early-mid 80s than during most of the 1970s?
Edit: I guess I shouldn't have thrown in Jagr's unadjusted stats in my above post. The main comparison is Makarov from RWs of his own generation - Kurri and Bossy, and neither one of them did any more than Makarov did from age 31 up. So basically, I don't understand why he's criticized for his NHL play when he was clearly past his prime - remember he didn't have to defect, the USSR willingly rented him and his linemates to the NHL because they believed they were over the hill.
Last edited:
VanIslander
A 20-year ATDer on HfBoards
- Sep 4, 2004
- 35,137
- 7,194
He deserves a great bio and 2nd/3rd round selection, top-100 all-time. At the time of his retirement, the 'Cornwall Colt' was the NHL's all-time leading goal scorer. His speed and conditioning can be questioned. His ability to put the puck in the net when in position can not. He is a sniper. With the right linemates (fast, passing, backchecking types) he would be a top goal scorer and key contributor in all-time competition. 
http://ottawahockeylegends.blogspot.kr/2009/12/cy-denneny.html
Sturminator
Love is a duel
You use Jagr, yourself, when making the comparison, but do it with raw points, rather than Vs2 numbers, which is more than a little bit distorting. Makarov isn't that much older than Yzerman, and Stevie was already in the "two-way" part of his career by the time he entered his early 30's. If he'd still been a one-way player, the numbers would be further apart.
You want to pump up Makarov as being as good as Bossy, but shrink from comparisons to players who are drafted in the same range as Bossy. I find this strange. To whom should I compare him at this point in the draft? Maybe Teemu Selanne would be a better comparison? You'll have to allow me to cherrypick Teemu's five best over-31 seasons (which I think is fair, due to his injury problems).
Selanne:
02-03: 62
05-06: 73
06-07: 82
10-11: 81
11-12: 68
Now, you can say that Teemu comes from another generation and has "freakish" longevity, but he also put up these numbers at an older age than Makarov. And at any rate, if you want to claim that Makarov's longevity was better than Bossy's, then you have to assume he was still in a normal "decline from peak" from 31 to 35 (and hadn't fallen off some mythical cliff by that point), which makes the comparison pretty fair. I'm not trying to say that Selanne is better than Makarov was, but it's certainly possible, and that's the downside. Maybe Makarov was as good as Bossy, but then again, maybe he wasn't quite as good as Selanne? You take the upper value from the range, and that's your right, but I prefer to take the midpoint when there are this many questions about a player's career. That being said, I still think he's borderline top-50 material, which is a higher opinion of him than the average, I believe.
I saw both sets of Soviets play. The Soviet teams of the 1980's, aside from the Green Unit, didn't really pass the eye test. A big part of Soviet success during this period was predicated on the fact that the North American teams stopped trying to ice "natural" hockey teams that were built to win, and more and more approached the games against the Soviets like some sort of all-star competition. Line combinations became increasingly silly (Gretzky and Mario together?!), checking schemes became loose to nonexistent (they let the then Oilers coach run the show for a long time...lol) and they no longer played a tough physical game. In short, the North Americans gave up basically all of the advantages of their style of hockey, and screwed themselves with senseless personnel combinations, as well. The results from those 80's matchups are flattering to the Soviets. There was little quality depth beyond the top unit, in my opinion.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Well, again, I don't see the point in comparing Makarov to Selanne by age, as Selanne is practically a superfreak in terms of play at an old age. The point wasn't that he was super duper awesome after the age of 31; it's that he was at an age where the majority of his generation was on their way out. And frankly, considering the fact that he had to learn a completely new style at that age, his performance for the next few years really does impress me.
I think Selanne represents a realistic low range for Makarov's skill.
Okay, but from about 1978 until the mid 80s, the Soviets just started steamrolling all of Europe again. A lot of it was the decline of the Czechoslovak program, but I don't think all of it was.
Bourque
It's clobberin time!
Active players Crosby moved up 40 picks, Selanne moved up 17 picks, and Chara moved up 11 picks. There may be a trend here.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
We basically agree, then, which isn't surprising. When we argue, it is generally splitting hairs. Our respective prejudices make us tend towards different ends of the possible range of Makarov's value, but I think we're both well within what could be considered "realistic".
Moving on...
- Just when you think defensemen cannot possibly become more overvalued, this happens. I am fairly certain that this is the most defensemen drafted in the top-80 in ATD history. The guys in the 3rd round have been creeping up higher, and the "bubble" of forward value was bigger than ever this year. A bunch of forwards going 10-15 picks lower than they should. I'm looking forward to the day when somebody wins this thing without taking a defenseman in the first three rounds. Maybe then, we can calm down with this silliness?
- that being said, a couple of forwards have fallen for good reason. Almost all of the forwards taken after pick 50 have been undervalued (some moreso than others), but in terms of relative value among the forwards, the draft order this year makes more sense than it did last year. It is a slow process, but each iteration of the ATD is better than the last.
- Amazingly, only one trade has gone through to this point. This is the lowest volume of trades I've ever seen in the first three rounds of an ATD.
BubbaBoot
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
There's a chance I'd be willing to trade down from pick 92. I'll know for sure when it gets closer to the pick, but feel free to send me offers in the meantime.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,819
- 6,140
I think he can be defended in this range. He had another real good year last year as a Norris finalist and post season all star...
Going with:
Vladislav Tretiak, G
Last edited:
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,819
- 6,140
Gah I forgot to PM sorry. Glad you're around.
My son wanted breakfast so I sort of had to rush!
Luckily I had a few options laid out because there are lots of good *non-defensemen* available hahaha
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,174
- 14,833
http://ottawahockeylegends.blogspot.kr/2009/12/cy-denneny.html
Doesn't he already has a pretty good bio from jarek? (I'm asking the question but I do know the answer).Gotta give credit where credit is due , jarek is responsible for rising Cy Denneny's star.
- Status
