Bob McKenzie's mid-season draft rankings: Schaefer the unanimous #1

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Nonsense.

The last guy who wasn't Canadian who went 1st was Slafkovsky, and by the season's end, he was 1st in McKenzie's rankings, not Wright.

I was here at that time. The majority of people (including Canadians) were hugely onboard with that Wright was the best player and that he was being over scouted. It was absolutely wild reading these discussions. Very accusatory and back and forth. Some of the most heated debates from any recent draft I can remember surrounding 1OA. It was not an easy process for Wright to let go of 1OA, and it didn't happen until the very end when it became known that he wasn't going to go 1OA, and may not even go 2OA or 3OA.

 

[landy92mack29]

Nonsense.

The last guy who wasn't Canadian who went 1st was Slafkovsky, and by the season's end, he was 1st in McKenzie's rankings, not Wright.

Canadians are already manufacturing McKenna for 26 and Dupont for 27 so tough times ahead....don't look at 2016-2019 drafts though.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I was here at that time. The majority of people (including Canadians) were hugely onboard with that Wright was the best player and that he was being over scouted. It was absolutely wild reading these discussions. Very accusatory and back and forth. Some of the most heated debates from any recent draft I can remember surrounding 1OA. It was not an easy process for Wright to let go of 1OA, and it didn't happen until the very end when it became known that he wasn't going to go 1OA, and may not even go 2OA or 3OA.

That's just because the Habs had the first pick and their fanbase is huge.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Canadians are already manufacturing McKenna for 26 and Dupont for 27 so tough times ahead....don't look at 2016-2019 drafts though.

But I thought a smallish, skill forward can't be picked first overall? Shouldn't the player that goes 1OA be a bigger player that can eat minutes or something? I'll hold you guys to this standard for next year.

 

[landy92mack29]

But I thought a smallish, skill forward can't be picked first overall? Shouldn't the player that goes 1OA be a bigger player that can eat minutes or something? I'll hold you guys to this standard for next year.

yeah J Hughes and Bedard definitely didn't happen, McKenna isn't that small though. Verhoeff will give him a run though

 

[wetcoast]

Nolan Patrick was never a consensus 1st overall pick, like ever. He was always seen to potentially challenge 1st overall and be a safe top 5 pick. He was always super overrated though, never liked him not because of zero talent but because I saw a player more around 6 to 10 than being top 5 level.

Wright was super hyped to be 1st overall, but that's because he played in the CHL and OHL of all places. When you include the words of talent and OHL, there is a huge circlejerk that happens. NHL teams were smart not to select him in the top 3.

The majority of NHL scouts live and work around the CHL, especially the OHL, so it is not a surprise that Schaefer is 1st overall even though he doesn't belong there. If Hagens was in the OHL, he would clearly be 1OA. This doesn't mean Schaefer sucks because he doesn't, but people are labelling him Scott Neidermayer 2.0 and that's awful to do to the poor lad because no way he comes close to that level from what I have watched.

Frankly I think Schaefer will be better than Nieds out of the gate and at his peak you are getting a peak Nieds IMO in terms of value to whatever team picks him.

 

[TheDoldrums]

And this stuff doesn’t even pass basic scrutiny. So Hagens ends up one of the best players at the World Juniors and the 1C for the Gold Medal Winners yet his stock goes down relative to a guy who played 1.5 games? That makes no sense.

The NHL scouts that McKenzie quotes claim there is absolutely nothing anyone could do. They’ve decided Schaefer is the guy. 17 games in junior hockey is all they need to see, even though for years he’s been outplayed by the competition. But they think he’s been so amazing in these 17 games.

It’s not logical, but it doesn’t need to be logical. It’s a fixed outcome. The decision makers are literally spelling that out for us.

The logic is that scouts project Schaefer to have the better NHL career compared to Hagens. You keep on harping on the small sample size of 1.5 WJC games or 17 junior games. That does not preclude scouts from seeing a better pro for the next decade.

In basketball, Kyrie Irving played 9 games for Duke before getting hurt. He played a couple of NCAA tournament games at the end of the season. Still went #1 overall in the NBA draft.

Some of your posts make it seem like Schaefer has to hit a certain amount of games played or statistical benchmark to earn the 1st overall, when that’s not the case. Scouts are going to recommend the player they think will be the best over the next decade and if you only have a small sample size of viewing in their draft year, sometimes that’s enough.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I agree, first overall isn't about a resume contest... although that stuff is good and it seems like Schaefer is being sold a bit short.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Dude you had Charlie Stramel ahead of Adam Fantilii for ages. You had Turcotte in the top 2. Every year it seems you overrate at least one American prospect.

Your lack of self awareness in this thread is impressive.

I’ve learnt most of the time to just move on to the next post now, it’s become a meme now, with all the gatekeeping.

 

[Rare Jewel]

I was here at that time. The majority of people (including Canadians) were hugely onboard with that Wright was the best player and that he was being over scouted. It was absolutely wild reading these discussions. Very accusatory and back and forth. Some of the most heated debates from any recent draft I can remember surrounding 1OA. It was not an easy process for Wright to let go of 1OA, and it didn't happen until the very end when it became known that he wasn't going to go 1OA, and may not even go 2OA or 3OA.

Every situation is different, but in Slafkovsky's case, you have a 17-year-old playing well in the Finnish league and for his team in the Olympics. It's easy to see why he overtook him.

The issue here is accepting or at least acknowledging that if it can happen to Wright with all that he did prior, it can also happen to Hagens. Both could and should still be very effective NHlers, slightly more optimistic with Hagens atm.

The big thing with Schaefer is you have to buy into the projection as an NHLer in terms of what he could be if everything hits. He's a 6'3 defenceman who skates like the wind and isn't shy physically, who's also offensively in terms of his production, very good. Maybe it's something I've grown to appreciate watching Toronto, but the importance of having an absolute horse on the back end like Doughty, Hedman, Pietragelo, Makar, etc.. is almost essential if you want to go far in the spring.

 

[Rare Jewel]

Canadians are already manufacturing McKenna for 26 and Dupont for 27 so tough times ahead....don't look at 2016-2019 drafts though.

Yeah, In 2016, generally speaking, no one was pushing Dubois even above the Finnish guys, let alone Matthews.

2018 was Dahlin and Svechnikov all year. Similarly, in 2019, with Hughes and Kakko.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

The logic is that scouts project Schaefer to have the better NHL career compared to Hagens. You keep on harping on the small sample size of 1.5 WJC games or 17 junior games. That does not preclude scouts from seeing a better pro for the next decade.

In basketball, Kyrie Irving played 9 games for Duke before getting hurt. He played a couple of NCAA tournament games at the end of the season. Still went #1 overall in the NBA draft.

Some of your posts make it seem like Schaefer has to hit a certain amount of games played or statistical benchmark to earn the 1st overall, when that’s not the case. Scouts are going to recommend the player they think will be the best over the next decade and if you only have a small sample size of viewing in their draft year, sometimes that’s enough.

Right, I get the argument from the Schaefer proponents. it doesn't have to be based on anything tangible. As long as you can conceptualize it, that's all that matters to some. I can project my neighbor who shoots pucks in his driveway to be a generational player. Doesn't mean it's a convincing argument to you, but doesn't mean that I can't believe it.

I do think though that if we're to be real about this topic that "projection" is a very risky way to go about it when talking about the NHL Draft compared to a player who has a proven resume. There are of course some outliers (very small players, bad skaters, players who are excessively big or raw), but generally the best players at one age become the best at the next age and then the best at one level become the best at the next level. Past performance is by far the best indicator of future success.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Every situation is different, but in Slafkovsky's case, you have a 17-year-old playing well in the Finnish league and for his team in the Olympics. It's easy to see why he overtook him.

The issue here is accepting or at least acknowledging that if it can happen to Wright with all that he did prior, it can also happen to Hagens. Both could and should still be very effective NHlers, slightly more optimistic with Hagens atm.

The big thing with Schaefer is you have to buy into the projection as an NHLer in terms of what he could be if everything hits. He's a 6'3 defenceman who skates like the wind and isn't shy physically, who's also offensively in terms of his production, very good. Maybe it's something I've grown to appreciate watching Toronto, but the importance of having an absolute horse on the back end like Doughty, Hedman, Pietragelo, Makar, etc.. is almost essential if you want to go far in the spring.

I don't really get your comparison between Hagens and Wright.

Wright actually had way less of a proven resume. Dude was just coasting his draft year (and the last year or two have been similar, but recent results this year are a little better). Wright had the great ES year, then didn't play any hockey the next year for a club team (had a big WJC18, but I believe that was the tournament Bedard overshadowed him and people generally weren't that impressed by his tournament). Then came the mediocre draft season. Wouldn't say that's similar to Hagens. Hagens has had a pretty respectable draft season, even if not like literally the best or second best ever in the NCAA for a draft-eligible. (and no one has ever questioned his production before that). Wright was looked at as the big favorite for 1OA for years. Hagens hasn't really ever been viewed as a big favorite. There's always been a player who people have tried to argue was as good as him. There's always been some people who say he doesn't pass their 1OA eye test, too small, etc.

And with your Schaefer argument trying to make Schaefer the Slafkovsky and Hagens the Wright, are we even sure that Slafkovsky is the better player than Wright? Because I don't think it's anywhere near a sure thing. In fact, I think Montreal needs a top 6 center a lot more than a top 6 winger. I personally would say Wright was the pick there. Thought it at the time. Still think it. I think Wright is doing at least as well this season as Slafkovsky. Slafkovsky was good last year (terrible his first year). This is their first year in the same league. I still think there's a lot there to be proven for both, and the funny thing is that Slafkovsky's teammate (that apparently the NHL scouts didn't think "projected" well) is looking like the 1OA in a 2022 re-draft (it's early, but just hypothetically).

 

[5cotland]

How the hell Tomas Pobezal did not even get a honorary mention is crazy.

 

[Eternal Leaf]

I have Schaefer going first as well but "unanimous" is a bit surprising.

His skill set is electric and he's going to be a dominant #1 D in the NHL once he hits his stride. The NHL scouts will have a deeper understanding of his game, so perhaps they are seeing him in an even greater light as the best prospect in the draft.

 

[LilLeeroy]

The logic is that scouts project Schaefer to have the better NHL career compared to Hagens. You keep on harping on the small sample size of 1.5 WJC games or 17 junior games. That does not preclude scouts from seeing a better pro for the next decade.

In basketball, Kyrie Irving played 9 games for Duke before getting hurt. He played a couple of NCAA tournament games at the end of the season. Still went #1 overall in the NBA draft.

Some of your posts make it seem like Schaefer has to hit a certain amount of games played or statistical benchmark to earn the 1st overall, when that’s not the case. Scouts are going to recommend the player they think will be the best over the next decade and if you only have a small sample size of viewing in their draft year, sometimes that’s enough.

Also end with some James Wisemans that way too

 

[Rare Jewel]

I don't really get your comparison between Hagens and Wright.

The comparison comes from being the odds-on guy to go #1 2 or 3 years before his draft and then not going. You have mentioned a few times now what Hagens has done in past tournaments; well, similarly, it can be said for Wright, and as far as being outshone by Bedard, well, most prospect would, unless your surname start with an "M"

And with your Schaefer argument trying to make Schaefer the Slafkovsky and Hagens the Wright, are we even sure that Slafkovsky is the better player than Wright? Because I don't think it's anywhere near a sure thing. In fact, I think Montreal needs a top 6 center a lot more than a top 6 winger. I personally would say Wright was the pick there. Thought it at the time. Still think it. I think Wright is doing at least as well this season as Slafkovsky. Slafkovsky was good last year (terrible his first year). This is their first year in the same league. I still think there's a lot there to be proven for both, and the funny thing is that Slafkovsky's teammate (that apparently the NHL scouts didn't think "projected" well) is looking like the 1OA in a 2022 re-draft (it's early, but just hypothetically).

Well, I think most at this point would go with Slafkovsky over Wright, but he could still be a good player, and I hope he does anyway. Cooley may end up better than either; we'll see. But the main point is that all of Wright's hype pre-draft can be outdone by someone else because I don't think it means much, and it's not outlandish to suggest it may happen to Hagens.

As for their draft seasons, 94 points in 62 games vs. Hagens, who sits at 25 in 21 games in the NCAA, I think it's a pretty similar projection.

 

[Star Platinum]

This is shaping up to be such a volatile draft given how tight the groupings are. I think positional preference is going to play a bigger role than in most years as a result, if it's a true coinflip and you have a lot of centers on the way but are weak on the wing then why not take a winger?

Using current standings:

SJ- Schaefer I guess? Hardest pick to project for me since Dickinson is also an LHD and also killing it in the O but the WJC exposed some of his warts.

Sharks fan here. We're 100% taking Schaefer if he's available, otherwise it'll be between the other 3 forwards depending on where we finish and lottery luck.