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

[GeorgeKaplan]

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.

When I was reading it I thought pretty much the same thing, would be amazing for all of us if the draft broke that way.

I know a lot of people hate Button’s rankings, but I don’t mind them so much. Regardless of who publishes them(be it TSN or a random HF poster), I really try to not hold numbered ranking in too high of a regard because I feel like what separates most of the numbers is just a matter of taste and getting most of them ‘right’ is luck more than anything else

 

[Inferno]

@Edge...can you delineate the tiers in your rankings? Unless it is and I missed it and I'm too lazy to go back and look lol.

 

[True Blue]

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

I might as well, but think that I would beat you to bathroom.

 

[Bluenote13]

I don't have too many problems with Buttons list, it's a fair accessment of the players.

But Connor MccMichael he points out only went two games where he didn't have any points. That's great, but then he bombed in the playoffs.

Tomasino>Mccmichael

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I might as well, but think that I would beat you to bathroom.

At that point I think I'd just sit there and let myself soak in the shit.

 

[Matt Rentfree]

Just started reading this year's Black Book and in the quotes section more than one scout compares Kaliyev to Brendl. Yikes!

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Just started reading this year's Black Book and in the quotes section more than one scout compares Kaliyev to Brendl. Yikes!

I wanted to make the same comparison months ago but didn’t want to say the B word. I don’t think Kaliyev is as far down the scale as Brendl was, but I don’t like that he’s on the scale to begin with

 

[Edge]

@Edge...can you delineate the tiers in your rankings? Unless it is and I missed it and I'm too lazy to go back and look lol.

No problem, you didn't miss anything. I have it in my notes, but not the version I posted because I was using colors to track what I've heard or what we suspect.

In terms of approximate tiers (and some of these are loose groupings), I generally see there being the top two and everyone else.

I think 3-8 is really close, with 9-15 really not being too far behind that. Maybe just a one or two more question marks here and there.

With 16-24, I think you still have the good payoffs, but maybe a few more questions and slightly worse odds.

When you get to about 25, I think you debate between upside or risk mitigation.

For me 29-44 is where you start seeing clusters of support guys. These are still really good prospects, but maybe don't quite have that higher-end boom potential people like to think about.

The 45-52 spots are a mix of upside with questions (level of competition, not as developed, etc.) and guys who tend to project as potentially being steady, but more likely in roles as "cast" members.

When we get to 53-62, it's a continuation of the above tier, but with less certainty. In fairness, you could argue that if I were to continue going, this section could extend well into the 60s or even early 70s. The differences at this point, when it comes to teenagers, are really a matter of preference and some good guess work.

So based on all that, you'd have something that looks more or less like this:

1. Hughes
2. Kakko

3. Byram
4. Cozens
5. Turcotte
6. Zegras
7. Dach
8. Newhook

9. Caufield
10. Podkolzin
11. Boldy
12. Broberg
13. York
14. Dorofyev
15. Krebs

16. Soderstrom
17. Kayliev
18. Suzuki
19. Knight
20. Seider
21. Brink
22. Pelletier
23. Tomasino
24. Poulin

25. Lavoie
26. Harley
27. Holmstrome
28. Heinola

29. Bjornfot
30. McMichael
31. Leason
32. Honka
33. Kokkonen
34. Robertson
35. Afanasyev
36. Korczak
37. Nikolayev
38. McCarthy
39. Warren
40. Hoglander
41. Foote
42. Vlasic
43. Beecher
44. Thomson

45. Mastrosimone
46. Rees
47. Helleson
48. Farinacci
49. Fagemo
50. Johnson
51. Cajkovic
52. Guskov

53. Firstov
54. Murray
55. Tracey
56. Misyul
57. Pinto
58. Alexandrov
59. Wolf
60. Grewe
61. Spence
62. Beaucage

 

[Edge]

I wanted to make the same comparison months ago but didn’t want to say the B word. I don’t think Kaliyev is as far down the scale as Brendl was, but I don’t like that he’s on the scale to begin with

Just started reading this year's Black Book and in the quotes section more than one scout compares Kaliyev to Brendl. Yikes!

I can't say those comparisons are without merit. There's some truth there and you know it's on the radar when people close to the situation have hinted at the desire to put in the effort when things don't come naturally.

 

[Off Sides]

If anyone is interested, my list is not a mock, more so a list of who I'd like to see the Rangers draft. Weight is placed on the risk/reward, yet also position, my take on prospect pool need, skating, age, size, stats, etc, my list is super subjective to just plain feel.

My sample size of viewing is pretty limited to things like YouTube, free shift/shift, reading, tournaments/games on tv I've caught. I have no special insight and do not consider myself really good at scouting by any means. To be honest I have some trouble mixing and matching where to put defenders in with the forwards, and I have some forwards I just plain like probably higher than they should be. Some of these guys just have more out there to digest for free than others which also plays a part I'm sure.

These would be my top 33, skaters I have as, "would be happy using a 1st round pick on" (space being where I think a tier ends)

Hughes
Kakko

Turcotte
Byram
Zegras
Newhook
Dach
Cozens
Boldy
Krebs
Broberg

Dorofeyev
Tomasino
Seider
Caufield
Kaliyev
York
Soderstrom
Podkolzin
Suzuki

Lavoie
Heinola
Poulin
Brink
McMichael
M Robertson

Johnson
Bjornfot
Thomson
Afanasyev
Hoglander
Harley
Pelletier

*Knight not listed, I don't think the Rangers should take a goalie in the 1st, yet I think he would be in tier 3.


Players I considered ranking higher, yet see more as good picks past the 1st round, maybe even past the 2nd round, kind of just notable players for whatever reason(s) More a list of who I've even more briefly looked into where I've liked at least some of what I've seen.

Rees
Leason
Holmstrom
N Robertson
Nikolayev
Tracey
Beecher
Korczak
Legare
Grewe
Mastrosimone
Kokkonen
McCarthy
Spiridonov
Foote
Warren

 

[Ola]

I am puzzled by how low Rees are all over the place.

 

[Edge]

I am puzzled by how low Rees are all over the place.

Love the tenacity, love the drive, easy guy to root for and get behind.

Not quite as sure about the offensive upside or the ability to translate at the higher levels. Worry he's going to take a pounding in push to make it. Recognize in myself that he's exactly the type of guy who is hard to dislike, but also can be easy to over-project because I love the way he plays.

In terms of his broader rankings, a late first seems to be the higher end, a third seems to be the lower end. I kind of split the difference and like him as a mid-second and a kid who reminds me a little bit of Ryan Callahan at the same age.

 

[Ola]

A lot of people are gonna hate this one

Yeah, and it’s kind of telling that the two Russians playing in Canada are as high as they are, while guys like Spiridonov and co are way way way behind them. And many other CHL players are extremely high. Harley at 11...

In many instances there are players who are a good 30 spots higher than guys who is a full whole notch above them in terms of skill and ability.

 

[Ola]

Wheeler re-did the 2016 draft. Good read.

Wheeler: A 2016 NHL Draft re-draft and retrospective look...

Look at his summery:

1. Sure it’s a bit early and the jury is still out on many kids, but there is an extremely steep decline after 8. That won’t be pushed back that much in the coming 5 years. 10? 12?

The 2016 draft wasn’t unusually bad, it’s like this most years. And this year will certainly not be an exception.

This annoys me a bunch this time of the year, everyone are very optimistic about kids and have no problems with settling for players who have issues/actually aren’t that good.

2. I also think waaaaaay to little attention is spent on what you will get in a forward — if you don’t manage to find one of the top 5-6 forwards in the entire draft. Because there will only be around that number who become good top 6 players in the NHL, most likely. All other forwards picked won’t become like as good as even a JT Miller or up, somewhat. Why the heck do we care so much about how many pts these kids scored in a mega big goto scoring role on some so-so junior league? The job description they will be asked to perform will be extremely different in the NHL, most likely.

3. For me it’s also a very obvious trends where the kids that are extremely good in one area have success, often in terms of skating, stickhandling and ability to play in traffic. The guys who are just strong across the board but not exceptional in any area have had a very grey process since 2016.

Bratt, Kyrou, Hronak and co way up, so many fairly talented kids without top skating ability waaay down.

 

[Edge]

Wheeler re-did the 2016 draft. Good read.

Wheeler: A 2016 NHL Draft re-draft and retrospective look...

Look at his summery:
View attachment 234099

1. Sure it’s a bit early and the jury is still out on many kids, but there is an extremely steep decline after 8. That won’t be pushed back that much in the coming 5 years. 10? 12?

The 2016 draft wasn’t unusually bad, it’s like this most years. And this year will certainly not be an exception.

This annoys me a bunch this time of the year, everyone are very optimistic about kids and have no problems with settling for players who have issues/actually aren’t that good.

2. I also think waaaaaay to little attention is spent on what you will get in a forward — if you don’t manage to find one of the top 5-6 forwards in the entire draft. Because there will only be around that number who become good top 6 players in the NHL, most likely. All other forwards picked won’t become like as good as even a JT Miller or up, somewhat. Why the heck do we care so much about how many pts these kids scored in a mega big goto scoring role on some so-so junior league? The job description they will be asked to perform will be extremely different in the NHL, most likely.

3. For me it’s also a very obvious trends where the kids that are extremely good in one area have success, often in terms of skating, stickhandling and ability to play in traffic. The guys who are just strong across the board but not exceptional in any area have had a very grey process since 2016.

Bratt, Kyrou, Hronak and co way up, so many fairly talented kids without top skating ability waaay down.

Some guys who are coming in way under expectations, some not necessarily knocking on the NHL's door, some potentially looking elsewhere next year, the every-present "potential" guys, yada, yada, yada. All ahead of a kid who just made the Rangers as a 20 year, spent the whole season with the club, has continued to progress since being drafted.

Look, I get not everyone shares my opinion that Howden's upper ceiling is a potential second line center, and that's fine. Not my hill to die on. But at some point the guy who is actually playing in the big games for their age group, or playing in the NHL before they can legally buy a drink in the U.S., has to get some credit over the guy you hope can play in those games.

 

[Mikos87]

With regards to Craigs list: I think he puts a lot of stock into the latest games he sees. You can see some risers from recent tournaments, but what overall he's a good talent evaluator. I think what his eye is really good for is hockey sense or hockey smarts.

He's great at spotting guys who are considered offensive players that won't make it.

Some of the things he's said about Caufield are no different that what I've seen and said. It's a different era.

Based on what I know and have heard, Krebs is considered a darling of a prospect. I'm not fully sold on him as a top 6 player. I think he's a Sam Bennet in the making. But Krebs interviewed really well.

 

[True Blue]

Some of the things he's said about Caufield are no different that what I've seen and said. It's a different era.

It is a different era, but size is still size and has a place on a winning team. Look no further at the battle that is going on during the Finals. I am not saying that Caufield cannot acclimate, but at least to me, the size is a concern. That need not be a concern for anyone else.

 

[Ola]

Love the tenacity, love the drive, easy guy to root for and get behind.

Not quite as sure about the offensive upside or the ability to translate at the higher levels. Worry he's going to take a pounding in push to make it. Recognize in myself that he's exactly the type of guy who is hard to dislike, but also can be easy to over-project because I love the way he plays.

In terms of his broader rankings, a late first seems to be the higher end, a third seems to be the lower end. I kind of split the difference and like him as a mid-second and a kid who reminds me a little bit of Ryan Callahan at the same age.

Fair points and I am just arguing my point.

But my response is, why is he easy to overproject and not the pretty forward who can put up great points against kids?

To put it like this, we know that only 5-6 forwards in this draft will become good top 6 forwards. We don’t know who they are, a few will go in the top 10, a few spread over the rest of the rounds and of course become more rare the later you get. Right.

So if we rank the forwards, the best we can, you very fast get into a territory where there is a huge difference in quality and talent and skill. Right? And look at Wheelers list — right or wrong — its not like the 2nd rate guys are extremely attractive (I also think Howden is way to low). And of those forwards, which types would you want to have? It’s the hard working guys, with attitude and hustle and speed and so forth.

Still in these rankings, they don’t get any kind of premium. It’s still the pretty kids with some size and that scores a lot in juniors that are totally all over the later half of the 1st and the 2nd round.

And in this perspective, I want to say that I do not include someone like Brink in the pretty forward cathegory. He has elite skills but also significant needs. With him it’s somewhat hit or miss. But there are so many other guys who are very very questionable to become like even one of the top 10 forwards in this draft — which means that they at best will hold limited value — that still get that premium.

 

[Edge]

Fair points and I am just arguing my point.

But my response is, why is he easy to overproject and not the pretty forward who can put up great points against kids?

To put it like this, we know that only 5-6 forwards in this draft will become good top 6 forwards. We don’t know who they are, a few will go in the top 10, a few spread over the rest of the rounds and of course become more rare the later you get. Right.

So if we rank the forwards, the best we can, you very fast get into a territory where there is a huge difference in quality and talent and skill. Right? And look at Wheelers list — right or wrong — its not like the 2nd rate guys are extremely attractive (I also think Howden is way to low). And of those forwards, which types would you want to have? It’s the hard working guys, with attitude and hustle and speed and so forth.

Still in these rankings, they don’t get any kind of premium. It’s still the pretty kids with some size and that scores a lot in juniors that are totally all over the later half of the 1st and the 2nd round.

I think a lot comes down to how someone things something will translate. And each one category has certain check marks you're looking to hit, or questions that you raise.

In the case of Rees, I think it's probably a combination of several factors.

While bigger kids get the benefit of the doubt, because there's always a feeling that they don't have to quite hit on all of the check boxes to advance, smaller players tend to be viewed as having less wiggle room. If a guy who is 6'1, 200 pounds doesn't quite develop the hands you hope to see, there's a feeling you can still use him in a middle six role, or a support role. Most teams don't tend to view a guy who is 5'10 as having quite that same "rebound" opportunity.

With regards to size, even 5'10, 185 is probably pretty generous for Rees at this point. Generally speaking, even now, if a guy is on the smaller side, people usually like to see high-level skills: speed, shot, stickhandling, vision, etc. etc. Hughes, Caufield, Turcotte, Zegras, Krebs, Newhook, Suzuki, Brink, Pelletier are also guys who are going to be on the smaller side of the scale when we look at this year's crop of players.

Rees, by and large, really isn't a "skills" kind of guy. His attributes tend to check in as good, not necessarily great. But what he does better than 95 percent of his classmates is utilize said skills. So the question becomes, where's the cutoff? How high does his skill level have to be that he can effectively take the same approach as he moves up? How much growth potential is there? Are said skills emerging, or is there a cap? That's a key difference as to why Rees isn't inherently in the same conversation as other smaller sized players in this draft.

 

[Ola]

With regards to Craigs list: I think he puts a lot of stock into the latest games he sees. You can see some risers from recent tournaments, but what overall he's a good talent evaluator. I think what his eye is really good for is hockey sense or hockey smarts.

He's great at spotting guys who are considered offensive players that won't make it.

Some of the things he's said about Caufield are no different that what I've seen and said. It's a different era.

Based on what I know and have heard, Krebs is considered a darling of a prospect. I'm not fully sold on him as a top 6 player. I think he's a Sam Bennet in the making. But Krebs interviewed really well.

Yeah, and I mean, sure it matters a lot what he has between the ears. A kid who from here on outworks 9/10 of the other top kids will of course gain ground.

But I agree on you with his skill. I think too much is made of his play at the Hlinka and U18. Canada do not have much competition at center at the international level (Cozen and Dach are better fits on the wing, especially on the big ice). Of course he will get some pts. In fact, I think he struggled some handling many offensive situations. He can be a bit sloppy with the puck, some blind passes etc. he can also be stressed a bit too fast.

In the end, I don’t think you should count out many kids — take someone like Akil Thomas, I just think he is way way behind what it takes to make it in the NHL in terms of having a motor, elite skating technique, so he someone I more or less would write off, but there isn’t many — and Krebs certainly not one of them. I wouldn’t fall off a chair if he could become someone like ROR, but I would definitely not bet on it.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Fair points and I am just arguing my point.

But my response is, why is he easy to overproject and not the pretty forward who can put up great points against kids?

To put it like this, we know that only 5-6 forwards in this draft will become good top 6 forwards. We don’t know who they are, a few will go in the top 10, a few spread over the rest of the rounds and of course become more rare the later you get. Right.

So if we rank the forwards, the best we can, you very fast get into a territory where there is a huge difference in quality and talent and skill. Right? And look at Wheelers list — right or wrong — its not like the 2nd rate guys are extremely attractive (I also think Howden is way to low). And of those forwards, which types would you want to have? It’s the hard working guys, with attitude and hustle and speed and so forth.

Still in these rankings, they don’t get any kind of premium. It’s still the pretty kids with some size and that scores a lot in juniors that are totally all over the later half of the 1st and the 2nd round.

And in this perspective, I want to say that I do not include someone like Brink in the pretty forward cathegory. He has elite skills but also significant needs. With him it’s somewhat hit or miss. But there are so many other guys who are very very questionable to become like even one of the top 10 forwards in this draft — which means that they at best will hold limited value — that still get that premium.

Your argument seems to be the exact reason why Rees isn’t that high: it’s really hard to find those 5-6 guys, so if you think a kid has a decent chance at becoming one of those, is that not more valuable than the guy you know has a better chance of becoming a bottom 6 forward?

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

It is a different era, but size is still size and has a place on a winning team. Look no further at the battle that is going on during the Finals. I am not saying that Caufield cannot acclimate, but at least to me, the size is a concern. That need not be a concern for anyone else.

You can't dress a lineup of smurfs, but a few will hardly kill you, especially if they're willing to take the punishment required to get to the tough areas (See: Jaden Schwartz, JAM, Atkinsson, etc.)

 

[True Blue]

You can't dress a lineup of smurfs, but a few will hardly kill you, especially if they're willing to take the punishment required to get to the tough areas (See: Jaden Schwartz, JAM, Atkinsson, etc.)

I do not disagree. Is there enough evidence of Caufield of being such a player?

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

I do not disagree. Is there enough evidence of Caufield of being such a player?

I don't see him being a 'net front' kind of guy, but he absolutely can make plays and find soft spaces in traffic

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I don't see him being a 'net front' kind of guy, but he absolutely can make plays and find soft spaces in traffic

Yeah more DeBrincat, much less Gallagher.