C Shane Wright - Kingston Frontenacs, OHL (2022, 4th, SEA) Part 3

[majormajor]

There was 1 vote between the two players from those 10 NHL scouts. 5 (Slaf)- 4 (wright) -1 (Cooley). You are speaking in absolutes about two prospects before they play a single NHL game with a random sample of 10 NHL scouts that was super close.

The next 5 NHL scouts Bob asked picked Wright (3) directly over Slaf (2).

Let me clarify - when I say "tie" I didn't mean a 5-5 tie. I was referring to a situation where an individual scout would have them judged equal on talent. In that case, they'd vote for Wright because center wins the tie. The ones that voted Slafkovsky obviously didn't think it was a tie or they wouldn't have voted for him.

 

[danisonfire]

Let me clarify - when I say "tie" I didn't mean a 5-5 tie. I was referring to a situation where an individual scout would have them judged equal on talent. In that case, they'd vote for Wright because center wins the tie. The ones that voted Slafkovsky obviously didn't think it was a tie or they wouldn't have voted for him.

Right that is systemic in nature because most organizations have figured out that you need strong centers and that they don't become available as often as wingers.

That being said it might be applicable 0 times in this 10 scout sample size. We don't know how close the individual scouts were in their decision. We don't even know who the scouts were.

I am just saying this draft if your team needs a center you are drafting Wright or Cooley #1. If you need a winger You might take Slafkovsky #1.

Montreal will be drafting a center and they took both centers out to dinner at the draft.

 

[JeffreyLFC]

So McCagg is just outright revealing sources. How professional....... Did Nemec's agent ever put this on record?

He did?

 

[93LEAFS]

He did?

There was some post where McCagg said that Canadiens like Slaf that was heard through Nemec's agent. Which I haven't seen anywhere else. For whatever reason that post got deleted. So, now my post sticks out like a sore thumb since it wasn't taken with it.

 

[JeffreyLFC]

There was some post where McCagg said that Canadiens like Slaf that was heard through Nemec's agent. Which I haven't seen anywhere else. For whatever reason that post got deleted. So, now my post sticks out like a sore thumb since it wasn't taken with it.

I think this was a rumor from Jean Perron (of all people) not McCagg but that seems quite laughable that a senile former coach without much hockey connection anymore would have that type of information about one of the closest secret of the draft.

 

[ottawa]

So McCagg is just outright revealing sources. How professional....... Did Nemec's agent ever put this on record?

How tf would we know, I'm guessing he did.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I still think Wright is going 1OA. Bob says it’s near tied at 1. Just because some NHL scouts who have no stake in the 1OA rank Slafkovsky as better it doesn’t mean that the team that does has it that way. That type of list Bob makes doesn’t account for positional differences and team needs. It’s a lot easier for someone to anonymously tell Bob they rank Slafkovsky higher than to actually make that decision and potentially have your job depend on it. Wright is viewed as a lot safer and more predictable. If Slafkovsky is a 35 point player at his best who only plays 400 games, you could get yourself fired. Wright is not going to bust completely.

Grant McGagg is a hack. I don’t know why anyone cares or listens to what he says. He tries to rile people up to generate clicks for his website.

Gorton and Hughes are not Bergevin. They are a lot more predictable. Gorton picked the expected choices when he had 1OA and 2OA. I have no actual clue who they’ll take, but I’ll guess it’s about 80% chance that they take Wright.

 

[Riddum]

There was some post where McCagg said that Canadiens like Slaf that was heard through Nemec's agent. Which I haven't seen anywhere else. For whatever reason that post got deleted. So, now my post sticks out like a sore thumb since it wasn't taken with it.

McCagg hates Wright lol

 

[93LEAFS]

McCagg hates Wright lol

He compared Laine to Mario Lemieux, and constantly downplayed Matthews in there drafts. Now, I don't think its a similar situation, or talking about the same tier of prospects, but McCagg has been a hack for years. In 2016 he also raved about Mikey McLeod over PLD.

As for the narrative the Habs need to pick Wright for job security. That they can defend themselves by saying most people/fans/public scouts viewed him as the top pick, if I ran a team and that was my GMs logic I'd fire him on the spot. In a market as rabid as MTL (Toronto is similar), if Wright doesn't come close to living up to expectations you are going to get trashed anyway. You are highly paid NHL professionals, you should be able to outdraft the public with picks that high. Everyone else would have taken him isn't an excuse when you are talking top 5 picks. Taking someone because of fear of backlash would be a defeatist attitude.

 

[Samsquanch]

Grant McGagg is a hack. I don’t know why anyone cares or listens to what he says. He tries to rile people up to generate clicks for his website.

I could be wrong, but is he not the same guy that had Stutzle ranked like 7th when literally everyone knew without a shadow of a doubt that he was going somewhere in the top 3?

Lol @ him if so.

Ill be fairly shocked if Wright doesnt go 1st. Slaf is just too much of an unknown himself, and Montreal has too much riding on this pick to be able to get cute with their choice (like KK).

They cant afford to miss out on what Wright could be for them, and they would be forgiven if by chance Slaf does pass him some day. It would still suck, but they cant be blamed for taking the most surefire player in draft. And Wright is definitely that imo.

 

[majormajor]

I could be wrong, but is he not the same guy that had Stutzle ranked like 7th when literally everyone knew without a shadow of a doubt that he was going somewhere in the top 3?

Lol @ him if so.

There were actually a few scouts that soured on Stutzle, including Scouching and very notably Elite Prospects, who I think had him at 6th. They thought he was kind of a low iq attacking player "who just does stuff over and over again until something works". It sure works a lot for him in the NHL.

Interestingly a lot of scouts say similar things about Cooley now, though whether his skill is actually comparable to Stutzle is debatable.

Ill be fairly shocked if Wright doesnt go 1st. Slaf is just too much of an unknown himself, and Montreal has too much riding on this pick to be able to get cute with their choice (like KK).

Funny enough, if they take Wright it will be kind of like the KK pick where they take the center ahead of where Bob's scouts ranked him.

They cant afford to miss out on what Wright could be for them, and they would be forgiven if by chance Slaf does pass him some day.

I will not be giving them a pass if they pick the lesser player, whoever that ultimately will be years down the road. I will praise them if they pick the better player, that's it.

It would still suck, but they cant be blamed for taking the most surefire player in draft.
And Wright is definitely that imo.

I don't think he's that safe, no.

 

[Samsquanch]

There were actually a few scouts that soured on Stutzle, including Scouching and very notably Elite Prospects, who I think had him at 6th. They thought he was kind of a low iq attacking player "who just does stuff over and over again until something works". It sure works a lot for him in the NHL.

Interestingly a lot of scouts say similar things about Cooley now, though whether his skill is actually comparable to Stutzle is debatable.



Funny enough, if they take Wright it will be kind of like the KK pick where they take the center ahead of where Bob's scouts ranked him.



I will not be giving them a pass if they pick the lesser player, whoever that ultimately will be years down the road. I will praise them if they pick the better player, that's it.



I don't think he's that safe, no.

More reputable scouts had Stutzle ranked 1st or 2nd than ones that went lower than 3rd. And it was the easiest pick Pierre Dorion that has ever made in his career. If not for the Alex Trebek cameo for the pick, it was totally anti climactic. You will always find some rebels that are wildly wrong.

And my point is that NY and LA, they likely wont be faulted for their picks over Stutzle, who may easily end up being the best of the three as of today - but was the least safe of the 3 at the time. He was the wildcard. But their teams made the justifiably safer pick at the time.

And having said that, Wright is not a sure bet. I never said that. But hes the safest pick of the top 3, and likely to end up at very least a decent top 6 center.

 

[NotProkofievian]

He compared Laine to Mario Lemieux, and constantly downplayed Matthews in there drafts. Now, I don't think its a similar situation, or talking about the same tier of prospects, but McCagg has been a hack for years. In 2016 he also raved about Mikey McLeod over PLD.

As for the narrative the Habs need to pick Wright for job security. That they can defend themselves by saying most people/fans/public scouts viewed him as the top pick, if I ran a team and that was my GMs logic I'd fire him on the spot. In a market as rabid as MTL (Toronto is similar), if Wright doesn't come close to living up to expectations you are going to get trashed anyway. You are highly paid NHL professionals, you should be able to outdraft the public with picks that high. Everyone else would have taken him isn't an excuse when you are talking top 5 picks. Taking someone because of fear of backlash would be a defeatist attitude.

I agree. At the same time, if Wright fulfills his potential, and we passed on him because he ''lacked vinegar in his blood'' and ''he never brought you out of your seat'' or ''he's a nice kid, and I don't want a team full of nice kids'' I would also fire them on the spot.

 

[93LEAFS]

I agree. At the same time, if Wright fulfills his potential, and we passed on him because he ''lacked vinegar in his blood'' and ''he never brought you out of your seat'' or ''he's a nice kid, and I don't want a team full of nice kids'' I would also fire them on the spot.

But say Wright turns into Kyle Turris or Bryan Little or even worse Dylan Storme/Sam Gagner, and Slaf turns into Rantanen, you are going to be torn apart regardless. Like, make the decision you think is best after your evaluation, at least if you get fired for it, it's the decision you would have made.

At the end of the day, picking because it's consensus among people outside your building is a joke. Own your picks. All that matters is results. Like, if Leafs picked Hanifin over Marner and their defence was well Hanifin was ranked higher by Bob or central scouting, I'd lose my mind.

 

[NotProkofievian]

But say Wright turns into Kyle Turris or Bryan Little or even worse Dylan Storme/Sam Gagner, and Slaf turns into Rantanen, you are going to be torn apart regardless. Like, make the decision you think is best after your evaluation, at least if you get fired for it, it's the decision you would have made.

At the end of the day, picking because it's consensus among people outside your building is a joke. Own your picks. All that matters is results. Like, if Leafs picked Hanifin over Marner and their defence was well Hanifin was ranked higher by Bob or central scouting, I'd lose my mind.

Right, you have to own your pick. But to your original point it's not just if you're wrong, it's how you got to your conclusion. ''But muh concensus'' and ''ugly girlfriend, lacks confidence'' are both dogshit arguments, and are likely to result in dogshit picks more often than not. They're the kind of arguments that are only good if you happen to be right, but most of what scouts do is being wrong.

 

[93LEAFS]

Right, you have to own your pick. But to your original point it's not just if you're wrong, it's how you got to your conclusion. ''But muh concensus'' and ''ugly girlfriend, lacks confidence'' are both dogshit arguments, and are likely to result in dogshit picks more often than not. They're the kind of arguments that are only good if you happen to be right, but most of what scouts do is being wrong.

All that matters is being right or damn close when it comes to very high picks. Whether it's consensus or not. You don't get a pass because you went with consensus. You don't have to be perfect but you have to be in the same ballpark. You are going to get roasted regardless if the pick doesn't hit.

If you get to the conclusion that you don't want Wright because you feel he's stagnated, lacks shift to shift compete, etc. And, you prefer the likelihood of someone else then go with that. The knocks on Wright aren't superficial. There is evidence of it when you watch him play. Does that mean he won't' end up the best player in the draft? Absolutely not. But, it can give a reasonable person the belief that someone else is better/higher upside.

 

[NotProkofievian]

All that matters is being right or damn close when it comes to very high picks. Whether it's consensus or not. You don't get a pass because you went with consensus. You don't have to be perfect but you have to be in the same ballpark. You are going to get roasted regardless if the pick doesn't hit.

If you get to the conclusion that you don't want Wright because you feel he's stagnated, lacks shift to shift compete, etc. And, you prefer the likelihood of someone else then go with that. The knocks on Wright aren't superficial. There is evidence of it when you watch him play. Does that mean he won't' end up the best player in the draft? Absolutely not. But, it can give a reasonable person the belief that someone else is better/higher upside.

This is the part that I see missing from analyses about Wright, though. It's fine to be a bit worried or critical of his game. So was I for the first 3 months of the season. But at this point, it's basically all criticism of Wright. I don't see much reflection that maybe people might be laying it on a bit thick.

My point is that ''muh consensus'' isn't the only unacceptable argument. Passing on a former golden boy over chutzpah is asking for it, IMO. You have to have a good argument for why you think Wright is basically incorrigible.

 

[93LEAFS]

This is the part that I see missing from analyses about Wright, though. It's fine to be a bit worried or critical of his game. So was I for the first 3 months of the season. But at this point, it's basically all criticism of Wright. I don't see much reflection that maybe people might be laying it on a bit thick.

My point is that ''muh consensus'' isn't the only unacceptable argument. Passing on a former golden boy over chutzpah is asking for it, IMO. You have to have a good argument for why you think Wright is basically incorrigible.

Coverage dictates that you have to explain why you dislike Wright, more than explain why you like Slaf more since Slaf was the challenger, so it leads to nitpicking analysis. It could be as simple as the raw tools with his build allow Slaf to show he is more likely to take over games at the NHL level. Like, if Slaf ends up notably better than Wright or Cooley ends up noticeably better than both which GMs/Scouting staff will have to answer for it regardless.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

There were actually a few scouts that soured on Stutzle, including Scouching and very notably Elite Prospects, who I think had him at 6th. They thought he was kind of a low iq attacking player "who just does stuff over and over again until something works". It sure works a lot for him in the NHL.

Interestingly a lot of scouts say similar things about Cooley now, though whether his skill is actually comparable to Stutzle is debatable.



Funny enough, if they take Wright it will be kind of like the KK pick where they take the center ahead of where Bob's scouts ranked him.



I will not be giving them a pass if they pick the lesser player, whoever that ultimately will be years down the road. I will praise them if they pick the better player, that's it.



I don't think he's that safe, no.

Cooley is as skilled as anyone in this draft, has a motor, and is competent defensively. The main knock appears to be size, but he's around the same height as Wright with room to put on *some* weight/muscle. I think he's being slept on here and the Habs just might pick him and make this debate moot.

 

[Hacketts]

Cooley is as skilled as anyone in this draft, has a motor, and is competent defensively. The main knock appears to be size, but he's around the same height as Wright with room to put on *some* weight/muscle. I think he's being slept on here and the Habs just might pick him and make this debate moot.

I would also say is more competitive than the other 2.

 

[Korpse]

There were actually a few scouts that soured on Stutzle, including Scouching and very notably Elite Prospects, who I think had him at 6th. They thought he was kind of a low iq attacking player "who just does stuff over and over again until something works". It sure works a lot for him in the NHL.

Interestingly a lot of scouts say similar things about Cooley now, though whether his skill is actually comparable to Stutzle is debatable.

That's wild. I know HockeyProspect were very high on Stutzle's hockey sense, giving it a rating of 8/9. They talk about how adaptable he is when attacking and doesn't have pre-set moves, they even suggest his anticipation is elite. Looking back on that report they had a really good read on the player, shockingly good. Unsurprisingly they had him ranked 2nd. HockeyProspect actually does draw a comparison to Stutzle with how Cooley is reactive and dynamic, though they clearly are not as high on Cooley. Neither player is overly cerebral when attacking, though it would be too simplistic to suggest that means they are low iq attacking players.

 

[stastny12]

I still think Wright is going 1OA. Bob says it’s near tied at 1. Just because some NHL scouts who have no stake in the 1OA rank Slafkovsky as better it doesn’t mean that the team that does has it that way. That type of list Bob makes doesn’t account for positional differences and team needs. It’s a lot easier for someone to anonymously tell Bob they rank Slafkovsky higher than to actually make that decision and potentially have your job depend on it. Wright is viewed as a lot safer and more predictable. If Slafkovsky is a 35 point player at his best who only plays 400 games, you could get yourself fired. Wright is not going to bust completely.

Grant McGagg is a hack. I don’t know why anyone cares or listens to what he says. He tries to rile people up to generate clicks for his website.

Gorton and Hughes are not Bergevin. They are a lot more predictable. Gorton picked the expected choices when he had 1OA and 2OA. I have no actual clue who they’ll take, but I’ll guess it’s about 80% chance that they take Wright.

No offense but this whole post is pathetic. How you can be so sure that Wright is not going to bust completely and with Slafkovsky you have this possibility? Yes, Slafkovsky had only 10 points in Liiga. However, at the same time, he shined twice (not once but twice!) among the international competition. Against men. So at least you have some warranty that he can play on this level. With Wright you don´t have such a thing. The Canadian played against juniors and he wasn´t exactly shining either. This "no love" for Slaf and getting all the possible excuses for Wright why he didn´t well here or there is just ridiculous.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

No offense but this whole post is pathetic. How you can be so sure that Wright is not going to bust completely and with Slafkovsky you have this possibility? Yes, Slafkovsky had only 10 points in Liiga. However, at the same time, he shined twice (not once but twice!) among the international competition. Against men. So at least you have some warranty that he can play on this level. With Wright you don´t have such a thing. The Canadian played against juniors and he wasn´t exactly shining either. This "no love" for Slaf and getting all the possible excuses for Wright why he didn´t well here or there is just ridiculous.

Pathetic because I pointed out facts you don’t like?

Your whole argument for Slafkovsky is that he has a hypothetical potential advantage and did extremely well in two small sample size tournaments. That is the epitome of risk, compared to Wright. Potential and small samples compared to a more proven option with a more defined set of skills. One is riskier than the other.

 

[Ace]

The job is to project what players will be not what they were. Especially after a year where they backslid

 

[stastny12]

Pathetic because I pointed out facts you don’t like?

Your whole argument for Slafkovsky is that he has a hypothetical potential advantage and did extremely well in two small sample size tournaments. That is the epitome of risk, compared to Wright. Potential and small samples compared to a more proven option with a more defined set of skills. One is riskier than the other.

Slafkovsky might be bit riskier but also higher reward.