Speculation: Draft and UDFA Thread 2018-19: Part IX (No Kakko/Hughes Talk)

[Edge]

I think there are a few teams who would 100000% move their picks for now help.

Philly, Arizona, Colorado (16th OA) and maybe even Edmonton and Buffalo.

We need to package AV favorites together to get the #11

I continue to view Anaheim as a dark horse for activity, depending on how they want to play the game. They wouldn't completely trade out of the first, but if a team (say the Rangers) could get close enough, I don't think offering them more picks to slide down is an automatic no.

The reverse is they look to use their picks to move up, which could also change the way the top 10 unfolds and shuffles the deck a little.

 

[offdacrossbar]

If the Rangers somehow get Cozens and Kakko in this draft ill be doing very badly coordinated cartwheels in the streets.

ive softened on cozens some what after his showing at the u18 and i was a bigtime cozens fan before that.

he really did not have a great tournament playing along side krebs and newhook. of the 3, he showed the least. seemed lost frequently and also seemed to be struggling quite a bit figuring out how to keep up which is surprising with that speed and size. he got better as he went but started slowly and it was said more than once that the canadian coaches were trying to get him going.

at the same time, krebs looked the part as a true 1C and certainly alex newhook looked like a kid who could play that uptempo 200 ft game with aplomb. unlike cozens, he did not look out of place on the wing at all. he was every bit the player i thought he would be and he showed me all i needed to see.

i still think cozens has enormous upside and i do not believe hes getable at all. hell be gone within the first 6 picks. he will not be a ny ranger.


updated GET list (preference in bold- my ideal draft)

2. kakko
14. newhook (with move up)
20. lavoie (if stay put)

the rest

connor mcmichael
tobias bjornfot
lassi thomson
doro/zaitsev

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Right now it feels like Krebs’ stock is rising and Cozens’ is in question.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

I don't think Cozens is in any question ... top 5 lock.

 

[Lion Hound]

aside from pointing out that he's not on a good team, I think this convo has me way more interested in Krebs then I was yesterday is the idea that he is viewed as a center. I was under the impression that he was more of a LW...not that we can't use wingers too but if he's a center that helps his value

Krebs got a lot of love from the first two draft guides that were published.

Redline has him at 8. Redline is based out of the USA. No Canadian Bias here.
FC has him at 6. Not sure where FC is based. Im assuming Canada. They have 10 Canadian Scouts on their payroll, 3 US Scouts

Both had really good praise for him. I wont post more so i don't get flagged for copyright infringement but a lot of scouts have him up there in the top 10. Early in this thread i mentioned he is this years Joel Farabee. Obviously different programs, but player seems to project the same way to me.

 

[Lays]

I don't think Cozens is in any question ... top 5 lock.

I’d say there’s no chance he goes top 5. Many reports are saying that Turcotte/Byram/Dach will be the top 5 picks. Unless LA somehow likes Cozens over Dach

 

[Edge]

Krebs got a lot of love from the first two draft guides that were published.

Redline has him at 8. Redline is based out of the USA. No Canadian Bias here.
FC has him at 6. Not sure where FC is based. Im assuming Canada. They have 10 Canadian Scouts on their payroll, 3 US Scouts

Both had really good praise for him. I wont post more so i don't get flagged for copyright infringement but a lot of scouts have him up there in the top 10. Early in this thread i mentioned he is this years Joel Farabee. Obviously different programs, but player seems to project the same way to me.

I would say Krebs is a player that's been higher elsewhere than he is on HFBoards, particularly our board.

Right now it feels like Krebs’ stock is rising and Cozens’ is in question.

I think you'll see quite a bit of this leading up to the draft, which is pretty normal. Certain guys get into more conversations and suddenly they are on the tips of more tongues. Sometimes they end up being risers, other times it doesn't work out that way.

Dobson was a prime example of that last year. He was slotted in that 7-10 range for a while. Then there was a pre-draft surge in conversations, and coupled with a strong playoff showing, a lot of chatter that he could go as high as fourth. In the end, he actually went 12th.

So expect a lot of chit-chat that Player A is rising and Player B is falling.

 

[Leetch3]

are any draft guides available on newstands besides THN?

 

[McRanger]

I think there are a few teams who would 100000% move their picks for now help.

Philly, Arizona, Colorado (16th OA) and maybe even Edmonton and Buffalo.

We need to package AV favorites together to get the #11

I mostly meant move their picks to us; aside from Kreider and maybe Buch we dont have much in the way of "now help".

Assuming Kreider is our best ammunition to acquire another 1st (as opposed to moving up from #20) I could Colorado as a fit and Philly as place that could get Kreider to re-sign, though I am not sure they would want 22m committed to left wings.

 

[Joey Bones]

How reliable is that Dorofeyev remark, @Edge?

Very high, Edge got connects!!

 

[bobbop]

Arizona likes Krebs a lot. Probably wouldn't go there because they see center depth as a big organizational strength and have a lot of other needs.

 

[bobbop]

Well done @Edge

 

[HockeyBasedNYC]

Lavoie is a talented kid with size, but after seeing more of him in the Memorial Cup I do not like him at 20. And unless someone unexpectedly falls from the top 12 to the Rangers at 20, id really push hard to move up to get a player like Soderstrom, Broberg, Cozens, Newhook, Boldy, Caulfield or Krebs. I don't see Dach, Podkolzin, Byram, Turcotte or Zegras being realistic targets because the teams in the position to take them will take them.

What we need is Spencer Knight to go in the top 10-12 to make it a little easier to grab one of those guys.

And i think Lavoie is a Habs bust at #15 waiting to happen.

 

[Ola]

Not surprised if Canadian scouts likes Krebs, but my bet is that when we settle down with input from all places, Krebs shouldn’t be too high.

(i) I don’t think his strengths are as good as portrayed. I don’t think his playmaking ability is elite. Think he is behind Zegras by quite the margin. In the U18 I felt he was gambling way too much. The top players at that level can really play keep aways with the puck, Krebs not as used to play at a higher level with much better teammates than in the WHL like many of the other top guys. Compared to the top 5-6 guys on like the US U18 team, I feel like his puck distributing game is trailing them.

(ii) Krebs not an elite skater. Definitely behind guys like Turcotte, Newhook and the likes. He moves well, but not as good as the top skaters.

(iii) He might step up and thrive in the spot light. That is great. But overall I do fear that his overall impact in the NHL won’t be great. My best bet would be like a little bit of a poor mans RNH.

I could be wrong. I could be right. Our scouts can be right/wrong. These guys also had Gropp in the top 10 or whatever.

 

[Leetch3]

Not surprised if Canadian scouts likes Krebs, but my bet is that when we settle down with input from all places, Krebs shouldn’t be too high.

(i) I don’t think his strengths are as good as portrayed. I don’t think his playmaking ability is elite. Think he is behind Zegras by quite the margin. In the U18 I felt he was gambling way too much. The top players at that level can really play keep aways with the puck, Krebs not as used to play at a higher level with much better teammates than in the WHL like many of the other top guys. Compared to the top 5-6 guys on like the US U18 team, I feel like his puck distributing game is trailing them.

(ii) Krebs not an elite skater. Definitely behind guys like Turcotte, Newhook and the likes. He moves well, but not as good as the top skaters.

(iii) He might step up and thrive in the spot light. That is great. But overall I do fear that his overall impact in the NHL won’t be great. My best bet would be like a little bit of a poor mans RNH.

I could be wrong. I could be right. Our scouts can be right/wrong. These guys also had Gropp in the top 10 or whatever.

you also need to consider context...rangers being interested in Krebs if he's available between 14-20 doesn't mean they think he's better than Turcotte who could go #3. it would be a completely different convo if we were picking 5/6

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Thing with Krebs: I know he was on a bad team, but I have concerns about spending a top-15 pick on a kid who can’t pot 20 or add more than a single win on his own in juniors in his draft year. Not necessarily because he’s not good, but because that defines him as a complementary type rather than a primary driver.

 

[Edge]

Thing with Krebs: I know he was on a bad team, but I have concerns about spending a top-15 pick on a kid who can’t pot 20 or add more than a single win on his own in juniors in his draft year. Not necessarily because he’s not good, but because that defines him as a complementary type rather than a primary driver.

That’s a fair concern and arguably one that makes his status a little more complicated.

While we can talk about the “allstar” team benefit to guys from the US program, or the benefit of playing for better teams with Dach and Cozens, the fact remains that boost or no boost, they produced a tangible - they produced results.

With Krebs, it’s more hypothetical. We’re faced with additional “if-then” questions concerning his production.

We’ve seen the tournaments, but he’s never played in a WHL playoff game. There’s skill there for sure, but what’s the ceiling?

His situation is unique because his teams have been dreadful. Not just mediocre, or even bad. They’ve put together some of the worst stretches of multi-season hockey in recent CHL memory.

So there’s a degree of guess work with Krebs. But that also makes me wonder if perhaps we’ve got the narrative turned around. We’ve tended to view Krebs as the “safe” pick, a sort of do-it-all core player, but not necessary an engine. It’s quite possible there are a number of teams who might view him as more of a risk-reward type. He’s playing for a crappy team, there’s not the other environments by which to judge his ability, but he’s also a kid whose numbers and production could go through the roof.

Just something to consider.

 

[pblawr]

That’s a fair concern and arguably one that makes his status a little more complicated.

While we can talk about the “allstar” team benefit to guys from the US program, or the benefit of playing for better teams with Dach and Cozens, the fact remains that boost or no boost, they produced a tangible - they produced results.

With Krebs, it’s more hypothetical. We’re faced with additional “if-then” questions concerning his production.

We’ve seen the tournaments, but he’s never played in a WHL playoff game. There’s skill there for sure, but what’s the ceiling?

His situation is unique because his teams have been dreadful. Not just mediocre, or even bad. They’ve put together some of the worst stretches of multi-season hockey in recent CHL memory.

So there’s a degree of guess work with Krebs. But that also makes me wonder if perhaps we’ve got the narrative turned around. We’ve tended to view Krebs as the “safe” pick, a sort of do-it-all core player, but not necessary an engine. It’s quite possible there are a number of teams who might view him as more of a risk-reward type. He’s playing for a crappy team, there’s not the other environments by which to judge his ability, but he’s also a kid whose numbers and production could go through the roof.

Just something to consider.

Did Dach and Cozens really produce results though? Because they only scored at a ~10% higher rate than Krebs. And the 12 U 18 players who have finished between Dach and Cozens' point totals over the last 10 years (Brendan Gallagher, Nick Henry, Mark McNeill, Ty Rattie, Jansen Harkins, Jaedon Descheneau, Jaret Anderson-Dolan, Matthew Phillips, Morgan Klimchuk, Michael St Croix, Justin Feser, and Noah Gregor) isn't exactly murderer's row. Personally, I view their production (especially on good teams while getting power play time and being on the older side of their draft class) as a bit of a red flag, although I do think Cozens 5v5 and defensive numbers are encouraging.

 

[Leetch3]

the debate over valuing a guys stats on a really good team vs a really weak team is why you shouldn't be judging guys on their stats at all. obviously as fans we can't see all these kids play so we have to go with something but scouts shouldn't be basing much of anything that...

the USNDT was stacked and no doubt some players had inflated stats cause the team was so good...but on the flip side there are guys that are the REASON the team was that good and drove those stats.

same thing can be said about a guy on a bad team...where his stats less than the should be cause the team was bad or was the team bad cause the players weren't good?

 

[Ghost of jas]

I say just target Newhook and avoid the anxiety

 

[Edge]

Did Dach and Cozens really produce results though? Because they only scored at a ~10% higher rate than Krebs. And the 12 U 18 players who have finished between Dach and Cozens' point totals over the last 10 years (Brendan Gallagher, Nick Henry, Mark McNeill, Ty Rattie, Jansen Harkins, Jaedon Descheneau, Jaret Anderson-Dolan, Matthew Phillips, Morgan Klimchuk, Michael St Croix, Justin Feser, and Noah Gregor) isn't exactly murderer's row. Personally, I view their production (especially on good teams while getting power play time and being on the older side of their draft class) as a bit of a red flag, although I do think Cozens 5v5 and defensive numbers are encouraging.

I think they did. Not world-beater numbers mind you, but they produced on a level you’d want for kids generally ranked where they are. Strong playoffs as well.

But also keep in mind that your point speaks to the concept that Krebs himself is not ranked terribly much lower than Cozens or Dach on most lists. There’s a bigger gap on this board. So our ranking is the lower one.

 

[Anzi]

We seem to like drafting guys that might not have high overall production but impressed late in the season or at some international tournament. Chytil and Kravtsov both seem to fit this mold. Any guys in this year's draft that we might go for along those lines?

 

[Machinehead]

We seem to like drafting guys that might not have high overall production but impressed late in the season or at some international tournament. Chytil and Kravtsov both seem to fit this mold. Any guys in this year's draft that we might go for along those lines?

I'm hoping we break that trend and start going for guys who fart goals.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

We seem to like drafting guys that might not have high overall production but impressed late in the season or at some international tournament. Chytil and Kravtsov both seem to fit this mold. Any guys in this year's draft that we might go for along those lines?

I’d shift that slightly to say that they’ve drafted guys who’s production needs to be put into context, rather that being gaudy at first glance

 

[pblawr]

the debate over valuing a guys stats on a really good team vs a really weak team is why you shouldn't be judging guys on their stats at all. obviously as fans we can't see all these kids play so we have to go with something but scouts shouldn't be basing much of anything that...

the USNDT was stacked and no doubt some players had inflated stats cause the team was so good...but on the flip side there are guys that are the REASON the team was that good and drove those stats.

same thing can be said about a guy on a bad team...where his stats less than the should be cause the team was bad or was the team bad cause the players weren't good?

I think there's a yin and yang component to looking at the numbers. Because what makes a hockey player good can be really nuanced / subtle and those kinds of things can be difficult to pick up by watching the game but easier to notice in the numbers. The players with the best hockey sense will understand and process the game better than the scouts that watch them. But the converse of that is that players stats can be significantly influenced by who they play with and how they're deployed, so in the right situation, a bad player can put up good numbers. Personally, I think the key is to try to understand the context the numbers were produced in and to iteratively judge the numbers and the skill set producing them against each other.

Beyond that, outside of 2-4 players, no one in this draft is going to be a good NHL player on the day they're drafted. So their ability to improve and develop matters just as much as what kind of hockey player they are today. The stuff that happens off the ice, like the player's work habits, is just as important as what happens on the ice. How the players stack up against their peers today is one way measure of that, but I think how they progress year to year, how they progress during the year, and how old they are are important too.