Speculation: Draft Thread 2018-19: Part X (No Kakko/Hughes Talk) - Post Your Mock Draft

[Ghost of jas]

I'm okay if we pick him at 20, but I wouldn't necessarily trade up for him, and I'm not sure there won't be options on the board I like better.

Because this isn't a mock draft, I fully expect there are players I have lower that will be selected prior to the 20th pick. A guy like Lavoie is a prime example of someone who could be off the board long before the 20th pick comes up. Just doing a quick glance, I see 6 or 7 guys I have ranked behind Seider that could be off the board before him, and I see 6 or 7 guys I have ranked ahead of Seider that could very well go after him. So there's a lot of possibilities there. I'm less comfortable when we start talking about moving up to 16 or 17 and losing a second round pick to do so.

In Seider's case, the talent is there. When he's on, there's a lot to like. But I feel like I've seen a lot of variation there and it doesn't always make sense to me. It's not necessarily a situation where he's feeding on the weak and struggling against the better talent. Sometimes, it's actually the opposite. If it all comes together, I can definitely see a player that team's feel can set the tone in the NHL. If it doesn't, I can see a guy who really struggles to find a permanent place on an NHL roster --- even in a supporting role.

Great job, BTW. I’m not expecting the to draft to unfold according to your list, but if Seider is available at 20 (and much would depend who else was available), taking him there would be a solid pick.

 

[Edge]

I don't think I've ever seen so many USHL players slotted to go in the first three rounds before.

As the US National Program has grown in stature over the years, I feel like the USHL has almost quietly done the same.

In many ways, I tend to view it like the BCHL. You have to account for the varying degrees of talent, but you're top-end players in that league often look like they could've succeed in significantly more challenging settings, or can do so with a little more time to cook.

That's why you have intrigue around a guy like Brink. Yes, he's not perfect and has his question marks. But you also see elements that make you wonder how he could've done if he was on the US team in a spot somewhat similar to a guy like Caufield. Maybe he's a few stations behind in his development at this same point, and maybe the peak isn't quite as high, but there's a lot of potential there.

 

[Bluenote13]

Matt.

He's a guy who fell for me a little. Not because of anything he did, but because I became more intrigued by the possibility of other guys. I've had Robertson as high as 19th on my list, and he was comfortably in the 20s until late in the season. I think he plays a well-rounded, steady and safe game. But is it head and shoulders above similar defenseman in the back half of the first? Maybe not so much.

Nic was someone I strongly considered for the top 62 though. Maybe we can call him an honorable mention? He gets a lot of mileage out of his talent, but I wonder how he projects as a pro. He's undersized, but he's not necessarily a guy who is going to completely wipe that away with top shelf skills.

Nic is undersized, but he seems strong on his skates, strong legs. I like him a lot, but not top 20.

Guskov is a bit of a head-scratcher to me. There's a bunch of guys especially defenceman that you left off this list that I would have in front of him. Also, no Spiridonov?

 

[Edge]

Great job, BTW. I’m not expecting the to draft to unfold according to your list, but if Seider is available at 20 (and much would depend who else was available), taking him there would be a solid pick.

Seider to me would represent taking a bigger swing, and assuming some bigger risk.

Now in his case, the reward is there. Even if he's not quite a guy with a first pair ceiling, he definitely has traits of an important defenseman who has the potential to drive play and be a core player.

That's what will be interesting for us to watch with the Rangers. Who do they think are the talents with higher end potential, because I don't think they're going conservative in the first. We might not necessarily think the player they pick has the higher end potential, but I'd be surprised if the Rangers didn't feel that way.

That's where you could see some disconnect between the Rangers view and the boards. It's why I use Krebs as an example. If the Rangers took Krebs, and passed on Newhook, I don't think it would be based on the fact that Krebs is the "safer" choice per se. Granted, the Rangers might like his overall game better, and there might be different factors at work. But I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it was a situation where they felt Krebs' upside was right there with Newhook's. Again, just using that as an example (not a prediction).

 

[True Blue]

Great job, BTW. I’m not expecting the to draft to unfold according to your list, but if Seider is available at 20 (and much would depend who else was available), taking him there would be a solid pick.

Am slowly coming around to thinking Sieder may be BPA at 20.

 

[Edge]

Nic is undersized, but he seems strong on his skates, strong legs. I like him a lot, but not top 20.

Guskov is a bit of a head-scratcher to me. There's a bunch of guys especially defenceman that you left off this list that I would have in front of him. Also, no Spiridonov?

With the defenseman, there's a lot of names I could consider and did. In some cases, regardless of, the difference between being ranked 50th and not making the list is really pretty slim.

In Spiridonov's case, there's some questions I have there. The skating, IMO, needs to get significantly better in order for him to have a bigger impact when he faces more advanced competition. Right now, he's a smart player with size, a great reach and a solid understanding of the 200 foot game. But does he have those extra skills that project him more towards a possible middle six role vs. a bottom size role?

A lot of the elements are there --- shooting, specifically his wrist shot, stick handling, his defensive game, his IQ. But I don't know if there's quite the recipe where you project him as a top six forward in the best league in the world.

So in some cases, he loses out to a player who maybe doesn't have the size, or complete game, or individual elements, but might get the edge in having that one or two skills that allow them to carve out a slightly more attractive niche down the line (Beaucage or some of the other forwards you see on that list).

But he's not out of line for a second round pick, and would be excellent value for a third.

 

[Joey Bones]

@Edge

Is that Matt or Nic at #34?

Also, who is #52?

Matvei Guskov. This years Vlad Namestnikov....

 

[LORDE]

So here is my final top 62 for 2019.

Red indicates players that I've confirmed (typically through multiple contacts) the Rangers have a high interest in.

Blue indicates players that I suspect the Rangers have a high interest in. However, I've been unable to confirm their interest. In some cases, other posters have indicated the Rangers interest. [EDIT - And of course I just realized that Johnson should be red and not blue. Replaced the file.]

Bold indicates players I have posted about (or think I have). In many cases I've provided an overview and/or scouting report over the course of the season, and it can probably be found using the search function.

I'm more than happy to discuss any prospect, but even if I did a simple 1-3 paragraph summary for each player in my top 62, I'd be looking at close to a magazine size collection of content and this post would require it's own thread. I am doing five things at once, so forgive any typos.

Please note that this is not a mock draft or a prediction of where I think players will go. While I am confident I know where some of the pieces of the Rangers' puzzle fit, it is by no means a complete picture. Just because a favorite prospect is not in red or blue doesn't mean the Rangers don't like him. Likewise, a player I don't know about could very well be picked while a player in red or blue remains on the board.

Yes, there's a good possibility someone you like is ranked lower by me. There's also a good possibility someone you don't like is ranked higher. That's because this is only my opinion, not an amalgamation of other lists.

Also note that "ranking" players can be very subjective. For example, I don't see a ton of inherent difference between the guy I have 3rd and the guy I have 8th on my list. Similarly, the difference between 9th and 15th is pretty minimal, as is the overall difference between 13 and 24. We're not necessarily always talking about miles of separation. In some cases, if I were assigning scores to prospects, we could be talking about less than a full point separating several slots.

So, without further delay here is my final ranking of prospects for the 2019 NHL Draft:

View attachment 234045

What a fantastic tool!

(The post... not u)

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

What a fantastic tool!

(The post... not u)

Porque no los dos?

 

[Edge]

Matvei Guskov. This years Vlad Namestnikov....

A guy who could have value depending on what you're looking for.

He's not going to be an big-time offensive player, though I think there's more there than the numbers show.

He plays a defensive role, is on a team that is going to stress that approach from him, and he does it very well. What's interesting with someone like him is that you can see the skills he possesses. He can skate, he can shoot, he can play any forward position, he's got a frame that looks like it could play well down the line. The question is how does all of that come together. Is he a utility player, is he a higher-end bottom six forward who shuts down other team's top players? Are you hoping for the offense to take on a more prominent role? Is he a guy you plug into a line because he's talented enough to play with the skilled players, but responsible enough to cover for them?

Those questions are all valid and it's why you don't consider him with a first. But a second, or even a third? I think he's a contender.

Now, is he necessarily what the Rangers would be looking for? Yes and no. Style wise I think he would definitely be on their radar. But if they're looking for some big upside swings in the top 60, he might not necessarily be that guy.

 

[Bluenote13]

With the defenseman, there's a lot of names I could consider and did. In some cases, regardless of, the difference between being ranked 50th and not making the list is really pretty slim.

In Spiridonov's case, there's some questions I have there. The skating, IMO, needs to get significantly better in order for him to have a bigger impact when he faces more advanced competition. Right now, he's a smart player with size, a great reach and a solid understanding of the 200 foot game. But does he have those extra skills that project him more towards a possible middle six role vs. a bottom size role?

A lot of the elements are there --- shooting, specifically his wrist shot, stick handling, his defensive game, his IQ. But I don't know if there's quite the recipe where you project him as a top six forward in the best league in the world.

So in some cases, he loses out to a player who maybe doesn't have the size, or complete game, or individual elements, but might get the edge in having that one or two skills that allow them to carve out a slightly more attractive niche down the line (Beaucage or some of the other forwards you see on that list).

But he's not out of line for a second round pick, and would be excellent value for a third.

Sounds like 2006 draft profile of Party Arty Anisimov, who we stole in the 2nd round that year

There's still plenty of time for a lot of these big guys to grow, some take time to grow into themselves, not going to show all their cards at 18 years old. That's the trick, imo, find out who hasn't hit their peak yet.

And yes, my hope is we get him with our 3rd rounder.

 

[Off Sides]

Also note that "ranking" players can be very subjective. For example, I don't see a ton of inherent difference between the guy I have 3rd and the guy I have 8th on my list. Similarly, the difference between 9th and 15th is pretty minimal, as is the overall difference between 13 and 24. We're not necessarily always talking about miles of separation. In some cases, if I were assigning scores to prospects, we could be talking about less than a full point separating several slots.

Great post and list, I think this snippet matches my general idea too, this draft seems to have larger pools of prospects in the tiers, where the difference between the tiers themselves, and the prospects in those tiers, is smaller than I remember from other drafts.

The only tier I'm relatively confident in where I think there is a relatively large gap to the next one, after the top 2 picks.

 

[Edge]

Sounds like 2006 draft profile of Party Arty Anisimov, who we stole in the 2nd round that year

There's still plenty of time for a lot of these big guys to grow, some take time to grow into themselves, not going to show all their cards at 18 years old. That's the trick, imo, find out who hasn't hit their peak yet.

And yes, my hope is we get him with our 3rd rounder.

Even going back to writing for the site more than 20 years ago, I also remind people that a lower ranking doesn't always mean I don't like a player. It might mean there's someone else I like more, or an element I find more intriguing, or other factors. I could have a guy listed as an honorable mention right now, that very easily could be listed in the 50s and I wouldn't blink an eye. The further down the list we go, the more it becomes a "pick 'em" scenario.

I used to have people email me (back before PMs) and they were irate that a player was ranked 45th and not 30th. The reality was that I probably could've ranked said player 30th and not thought twice about it. But you try to present a somewhat clean list for people.

 

[Edge]

Great post and list, I think this snippet matches my general idea too, this draft seems to have larger pools of prospects in the tiers, where the difference between the tiers themselves, and the prospects in those tiers, is smaller than I remember from other drafts.

The only tier I'm relatively confident in where I think there is a relatively large gap to the next one, after the top 2 picks.

I remember earlier this year, someone asked who was were the guys with the best odds to be top level impact players. My response then is the same as it is today, there are two guys in this draft who have GREAT odds of being elite, impact, franchise-level players: Hughes and Kakko.

There are other guys who could reach that level, but you wouldn't give them nearly the same odds as the top two.

That's really at the heart of what makes this draft unique for the Rangers. For the first time in a very long time, there's no question about the expectation/upside.

We're not drafting a player who "might" be a guy who closes that gap someday, we're not debating the nuances of whether question marks in a player's game are the difference between their higher upside, or a more moderate upside. We're not debating about whether a guy is a potential driver or more of a support guy. We're not talking about the differences between 60 points and 70, or where they may or may not rank within the realm of first line wingers or centers.

For the first time in this board's history, we are taking a guy who is already seen as having that potential. There's no "might" or "maybe" in these conversations. We are taking a player who is expected to be a first line player, a franchise player, and one of the best players at his position. That is the reasonable ceiling.

There is no benchmark to compare this to in HF history. For the first time, we are a team coming away with a guy at the top of the mountain and it's other teams who are trying to find the prospects they hope can be close to that level.

 

[True Blue]

But he's not out of line for a second round pick, and would be excellent value for a third.

You have Vlassic & Beecher within what I would consider striking distance for the Rangers in the 2nd. Hopefully those two can fall a little to NYR

 

[Bluenote13]

@Edge

So true, whatever happens. We KNOW we are coming away with a potential game changer.

But then there's the fact that we still have another 1st, and two 2nd's. Who do we draft to compliment Kakko. not to mention gaining another first if we trade Kreider.

 

[Bluenote13]

You have Vlassic & Beecher within what I would consider striking distance for the Rangers in the 2nd. Hopefully those two can fall a little to NYR

Vlasic has shown me nothing. He has size, I'll give him that.

Give me McCarthy, Thrun, or Helleson over him.

 

[Edge]

You have Vlassic & Beecher within what I would consider striking distance for the Rangers in the 2nd. Hopefully those two can fall a little to NYR

Let me tell you, ranking players in the second and third round is almost as difficult as trying to put together a reasonable mock draft.

The first round, especially the first half or two-thirds, is fairly straight forward. You generally have a good idea of the names and a general idea of what you think they belong. But then you start reaching the outer planets and the subjectivity increases. The difference between 40 and 60 isn't the difference between 30 and 40, or earlier groupings.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

https://www.tsn.ca/craig-s-list-caufield-scores-his-way-into-top-5-1.1316942

Final Craigs list of the season. Spoiler alert - Caufield in the top 5.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

https://www.tsn.ca/craig-s-list-caufield-scores-his-way-into-top-5-1.1316942

Final Craigs list of the season. Spoiler alert - Caufield in the top 5.

A lot of people are gonna hate this one

 

[Edge]

A lot of people are gonna hate this one

And I have to tell you, that while my list obviously varies from his, I can see some of those names going as high and as low as he has them. There's not a lot that there that I can't say for sure is not going to happen.

There's a lot of free-flowing movement that I think is possible for this draft.

And for the sake of arguments, I don't think the Rangers would shed any tears if Cozens is there at 14, and Newhook, Seider, Tomasino, York and others were options at 20. Ditto for Dorofyev at 44.

If anything, for the sake of imagination, this breakdown would probably make both the Rangers and their fans pretty giddy from a certain perspective. Especially if the Rangers can indeed get themselves into the mid-teens.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

And I have to tell you, that while my list obviously varies from his, I can see some of those names going as high and as low as he has them. There's not a lot that there that I can't say for sure is not going to happen.

There's a lot of free-flowing movement that I think is possible for this draft.

And for the sake of arguments, I don't think the Rangers would shed any tears if Cozens is there at 14, and Newhook, Seider, Tomasino, York and others were options at 20. Ditto for Dorofyev at 44.

If anything, for the sake of imagination, this breakdown would probably make both the Rangers and their fans pretty giddy from a certain perspective. Especially if the Rangers can indeed get themselves into the mid-teens.

That was my thought exactly. Cozens at 14? I'd sign up for that.

 

[McRanger]

And I have to tell you, that while my list obviously varies from his, I can see some of those names going as high and as low as he has them. There's not a lot that there that I can't say for sure is not going to happen.

There's a lot of free-flowing movement that I think is possible for this draft.

And for the sake of arguments, I don't think the Rangers would shed any tears if Cozens is there at 14, and Newhook, Seider, Tomasino, York and others were options at 20. Ditto for Dorofyev at 44.

If anything, for the sake of imagination, this breakdown would probably make both the Rangers and their fans pretty giddy from a certain perspective. Especially if the Rangers can indeed get themselves into the mid-teens.

If the Rangers drafted Kakko, Cozens, Newhook and Dorofeyev I might literally shit my pants. Not really out of delight but out of pure shock. Actually it might only take the first three or even two.

Edge... I want to emphasize that I wasn't being figurative, I meant literally shit my pants. Shit. My pants.

 

[brians1128]

A lot of people are gonna hate this one

If this is how it played out I would be super happy. A trade up or trade to 14 for Cozens, even Dach at 12 if Philly is moving their 11. Option of Newhook at 18 which shouldn't cost too much to move up. Seider, Brink, Tomasino, Soderstrom, Suzuki as options at 20

 

[Edge]

That was my thought exactly. Cozens at 14? I'd sign up for that.

Let's play along for a second and also pretend the Rangers get 14 as part of a Kreider deal.

Kakko is a given at 2.

But 14 now has Cozens on the board, a player I've been told the Rangers really like. He was one of the first names to pop up months ago. You also have York and Newhook still on the board, all players the Rangers either have an interest in, or that we suspect they probably do.

At 20, you have have the possibility (if they wanted) of trying to trade up for Newhook or York, if they didn't take either at 14. Beyond that, you have Afanasyev, Tomasino, Seider, and Suzuki who are all believed to be on a short list.

So right there, without any moves other than getting the 14th, you've already got a first with Kakko, and some crazy ass combination of Cozens/Newhook/York/Afanasyev/Tomasino/Seider/Suzuki.

Then you have a second where Dorofyev is a few (tradable) spots ahead of the Dallas pick and/or a whole bunch of names either this board likes or that the Rangers supposedly like.

Not going to debate the merits of his list, or even whether I agree with him. But if you're a regular poster on this board, it's not insane to hope beyond hope that he is indeed right. I'll chalk this up as being thrilled to be wrong. Let Craig's list play out, please, oh dear Hockey Father who art in heaven. I'll change my damn signature to read, "I was wrong, and I am the happiest guy this side of the nuthouse."