Prospect Info: Draft Thread | Oilers Hold The 4th Overall Selection

[Macblender]

Unless we leave McDavid exposed I dont see how losing one player is going to significantly hurt us, especially when every team in the league is also losing a player and probably better ones than we are. It's a consideration for sure but it shouldnt be the biggest reason we dont improve this team.

Because trading a Tkachuk/Dubois I.E. a potential 50-70 point player who could compliment Mcdavid nicely and be cheap for the next few years for in the example:

Top 4 D
3c

you probably getting two assets back would be closer to an actual 3-4D.

So one of the players above for one of those players is not a good deal for the team. A one for one trade quality for quality fine but if you are risking exposing a player who you would like to keep then it could greatly effect trades.

I understand the will to improve this team but wouldn't you rather an Ebs+32 overall for Hamonic then throw some of Eberles money at Loui Eriksson?

 

[dustrock]

Some of the reports about his hockey I.Q. (or lack thereof) are scaring the crap outta me gotta be honest, that and some teams not having him even in their top 10.

I dunno, Steve Kourianos of the Draft Analyst says he's got the best defensive reads in the draft.

I feel like the hockey IQ criticism is one of those that gets repeated ad nauseum without any actual, constructive focus on where the mistakes are made.

I get worried about criticisms like "hockey IQ" because it seems so arbitrary. It's used positively when someone wants to boost a prospect they like (often when, at first glance, they're not as skilled ), and negatively to bring a prospect down without pointing out any actual problems.

You're looking at an 18-year-old draft pick, and I think hockey IQ probably has to do with confidence, intelligence, and work ethic. There's a risk for every player picked in the draft.

Chychrun is going to destroy the combine, and then people will start to wonder again because he has all the physical tools and he's 6'3" 215 at age 18.

 

[Macblender]

I am fairly on board with keeping the pick as Stauffer thinks Chia will likely make a deal with a Bowman or Murray so we could see the so called Top 4 D (Vatanen) and 3C (Shaw) come via smaller trades. If you are going to trade the pick add to it and chase a sure fire top pairing guy don't settle.

If we keep it my order of preference is:

Dubois
Sergachyov
Chychrun
Tkachuk

 

[jlockhart89]

Would trading down further and acquiring Vatanen work?

To the Ducks:

4th Overall
Yakupov

for

21st Overall
Vatanen
3rd round pick

To much? to little?

I don't know much about the guys in the late teens, early 20's to know if theres much exciting in that neighbourhood.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

Would trading down further and acquiring Vatanen work?

To the Ducks:

4th Overall
Yakupov

for

21st Overall
Vatanen
3rd round pick

To much? to little?

I don't know much about the guys in the late teens, early 20's to know if theres much exciting in that neighbourhood.

To much, Vatanen isn't worth that. If that Ducks pick was in the Teens, it would be closer.

 

[Soundwave]

EDM 1st (2017)
Griffin Reinhart

Is my offer for Vatanen. They can take that or I offer sheet and they can accept a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

 

[Noah88]

EDM 1st (2017)
Griffin Reinhart

Is my offer for Vatanen. They can take that or I offer sheet and they can accept a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

You talk about Vatanen? Sami Vatanen.
How in thew world do you offer a potential #1 pick for him + Reinhart where we gave up Barzal/Connor + #32 for.

 

[Soundwave]

You talk about Vatanen? Sami Vatanen.
How in thew world do you offer a potential #1 pick for him + Reinhart where we gave up Barzal/Connor + #32 for.

Pick would be protected, we're not picking in the top 5 hopefully for a long ass time anyway.

 

[Aceboogie]

I dunno, Steve Kourianos of the Draft Analyst says he's got the best defensive reads in the draft.

I feel like the hockey IQ criticism is one of those that gets repeated ad nauseum without any actual, constructive focus on where the mistakes are made.

I get worried about criticisms like "hockey IQ" because it seems so arbitrary. It's used positively when someone wants to boost a prospect they like (often when, at first glance, they're not as skilled ), and negatively to bring a prospect down without pointing out any actual problems.

You're looking at an 18-year-old draft pick, and I think hockey IQ probably has to do with confidence, intelligence, and work ethic. There's a risk for every player picked in the draft.

Chychrun is going to destroy the combine, and then people will start to wonder again because he has all the physical tools and he's 6'3" 215 at age 18.

I remember Ekblad had some criticisms in his draft year that his offensive IQ was meh. He could hammer the puck and destroy on the PP but he didnt make pro level reads

 

[Canovin]

Trading this year pick has the potential to make us look even sillier than the Reinhart/Barzal+Beauvillier trade when the expansion draft comes around

 

[CornKicker]

dubois reminds me of dal colle in his draft year, and he hasnt broke into the isles lineup yet so people pencilling dubois into next season might be completely out of touch.

i think Chychrun is going to up his stock in the next month or so and he will be the pick if we keep it.

 

[HeavyHitter99]

dubois reminds me of dal colle in his draft year, and he hasnt broke into the isles lineup yet so people pencilling dubois into next season might be completely out of touch.

i think Chychrun is going to up his stock in the next month or so and he will be the pick if we keep it.

Those 2 play nothing like each other. How is Chychrun going to up his stock?

 

[nexttothemoon]

The players that are most highly scrutinized are those that are in the spotlight the longest.

Every possible flaw is exposed (whether they are legit or not).

Truth is there is not a single prospect without some flaws (or possibility of those flaws showing up when they move up to the NHL level).

Unless you are a Lemieux/Crosby/McDavid type prospect of course... there will always be uncertainties that a player won't reach their ceiling at the higher level.

I think that is what is obviously affecting a player like Chychrun... he was being talked about as a probable #1 pick at this time last year... now some are saying he wouldn't even be in their top 10.

It's all educated guesswork in the end... even amongst the pro scouts. Chychrun could quite easily turn out to be the best dman in this draft or he could fail to reach that ceiling and several other dmen could turn out better than him.

Personally I see him as a very solid pick. I honestly wouldn't be unhappy if the Oilers chose him at #4... even though I'd personally lean more towards Sergachev... but that doesn't mean Chychrun is a bad pick... they are close enough that either could turn out better and it's not far from a coin flip imo who will turn out better (or who has the higher chance of turning out better).

I know this is also a radical opinion but I even wouldn't be against trading down and picking up 2 prospects such as Logan Brown + Charlie McAvoy (if a trade along those lines was possible). If the Oilers could pull off a deal like that I'd be on board because I think those 2 are actually underrated.

Could McAvoy end up as the best dman in this draft? Yes

Could Brown end up as the 3rd best forward in this draft behind Matthews/Laine? Again, yes.

A solid RHD and a huge, talented C... what's not to like about that deal?

 

[Zaddy]

dubois reminds me of dal colle in his draft year, and he hasnt broke into the isles lineup yet so people pencilling dubois into next season might be completely out of touch.

i think Chychrun is going to up his stock in the next month or so and he will be the pick if we keep it.

I'm not going to claim that I'm an expert on Dal Colle but from what I've seen of him they are nothing alike.

 

[lakai17]

Bring in Dubois. I like Chychrun but we need defence in their prime today. I believe Juolevi has more potential than Chychrun as is.

McDavid is this team and thats too many young d to have the next 5 years with Klefbom, Nurse, Davidson +

Dubois is the real deal. Size and i.q for the game.

Dubois could be had at #3 arguably.

 

[Halibut]

Because trading a Tkachuk/Dubois I.E. a potential 50-70 point player who could compliment Mcdavid nicely and be cheap for the next few years for in the example:

Top 4 D
3c

you probably getting two assets back would be closer to an actual 3-4D.

So one of the players above for one of those players is not a good deal for the team. A one for one trade quality for quality fine but if you are risking exposing a player who you would like to keep then it could greatly effect trades.

I understand the will to improve this team but wouldn't you rather an Ebs+32 overall for Hamonic then throw some of Eberles money at Loui Eriksson?

I dont believe Hamonic is actually available to us and if he is he's probably costing more than Eberle. I think the #4 pick is probably more tempting to the Islanders and they'll take the money they'd spend on Eberle and go after Eriksson.

If you frame it as trading the pick for a #4 D and a 3rd line center then yes that is a silly move but it's a strawman arguement because I dont see anybody suggesting you'd be able to get both with the #4 pick. If we trade the pick we're looking to get back a top 4 d that is at least as good as what we have now and has the potential to be a top pair ideally a puck mover. If we're also getting a #3 C in the deal we're adding more pieces.

Dubois or Tkachuk are nice pieces but they're complementary bits, not nearly as valuable to this team as a top 4 d-man. Look where people are projecting Dubois, as a 3rd line center, that's great a #3 center is valuable but it's sure not a top pair d-man.

 

[Hemsky4PM]

I dont believe Hamonic is actually available to us and if he is he's probably costing more than Eberle. I think the #4 pick is probably more tempting to the Islanders and they'll take the money they'd spend on Eberle and go after Eriksson.

If you frame it as trading the pick for a #4 D and a 3rd line center then yes that is a silly move but it's a strawman arguement because I dont see anybody suggesting you'd be able to get both with the #4 pick. If we trade the pick we're looking to get back a top 4 d that is at least as good as what we have now and has the potential to be a top pair ideally a puck mover. If we're also getting a #3 C in the deal we're adding more pieces.

Dubois or Tkachuk are nice pieces but they're complementary bits, not nearly as valuable to this team as a top 4 d-man. Look where people are projecting Dubois, as a 3rd line center, that's great a #3 center is valuable but it's sure not a top pair d-man.

Top 4 D are available every summer as UFAs. Yandel and Demers being two examples this summer. Sekera classified last year, he is a no. 3. The Oilers need 1-2 guys. Neither Vatanen, Hamonic, nor Faulk is a 1-2. Barrie is. He's the only guy I'd be moving 4OA for.

RNH for Faulk I could see. A no.4 pick has more value than an underperforming Nuge @6m aav.

 

[dustrock]

I like the idea of trading down, but in a draft where there seems to be a real toss-up from #4-15 or so, I'm not convinced you'd get a ton of extra value for moving down from #4 to say #10.

 

[Mcnotloilersfan]

I like the idea of trading down, but in a draft where there seems to be a real toss-up from #4-15 or so, I'm not convinced you'd get a ton of extra value for moving down from #4 to say #10.

I would agree at pick 6, but this is essentially like holding the 1st overall pick in the 2011 or 2012 drafts. The top 3 in this draft are above and beyond any players from those draft, and we all know they are going top 3.

So having pick 4, gives you first pick at the rest of the class. I'm sure a handful of teams have Dubois or Tkachuk as a clear cut #1 in that group and are willing to move up to snag that player.

If I were a betting man, we leave this draft with one Tkachuk, Brown or the 3 dmen. Chiarelli and his brother love to draft from the OHL.

 

[MoneyGuy]

LOL at those who say This Guy reminds me of That Guy and That Guy isn't very good so we shouldn't take This Guy. Just because their styles are similar doesn't mean they'll be comparable players.

 

[shoop]

I like the idea of trading down, but in a draft where there seems to be a real toss-up from #4-15 or so, I'm not convinced you'd get a ton of extra value for moving down from #4 to say #10.

The extra value in terms of a deep draft only comes when you move up in draft position not down.

The question of value obtained is what comes back in return for a trade in which you move down.

 

[Halibut]

Top 4 D are available every summer as UFAs. Yandel and Demers being two examples this summer. Sekera classified last year, he is a no. 3. The Oilers need 1-2 guys. Neither Vatanen, Hamonic, nor Faulk is a 1-2. Barrie is. He's the only guy I'd be moving 4OA for.

RNH for Faulk I could see. A no.4 pick has more value than an underperforming Nuge @6m aav.

All three of those guys you listed are either solid #2's or have the potential to be, far more than anyone we have and I dont see how Barrie is any better than Faulk and pretty close with the other two. He not as defensively sound as Hamonic. Meanwhile the guy we would pick up at the draft is going to still be developing for a few more seasons, likely not in the NHL.

There is a fair chance that #4 pick never develops into the player RNH is now or will be in the next few years. The only argument is the salary but I'm totally fine with trading RNH if it improves our D I'm also willing to move the #4 pick especially if it has more value and we can get more for it.

Demers and Yandel are options but they're not 1-2 guys and like you said that's what we need.

 

[lakai17]

I am high on Nylander as well. I do not see lots of talk on him anywhere really.

He is a high end prospect. What are opinions on him? Definitely a top 10 pick in my mind.

I rank him around #5 to #8 on my list, higher than most lists.

 

[Zaddy]

I would agree at pick 6, but this is essentially like holding the 1st overall pick in the 2011 or 2012 drafts. The top 3 in this draft are above and beyond any players from those draft, and we all know they are going top 3.

So having pick 4, gives you first pick at the rest of the class. I'm sure a handful of teams have Dubois or Tkachuk as a clear cut #1 in that group and are willing to move up to snag that player.

If I were a betting man, we leave this draft with one Tkachuk, Brown or the 3 dmen. Chiarelli and his brother love to draft from the OHL.

I could see something like this happening. I'm actually pretty sure that we aren't going to select Dubois even if we keep the pick. As you said, Chiarelli and his brother seem to be big fans of OHL so I'd imagine he is looking closely at Tkachuk, Sergachyov and Chychrun. If he feels like he can get a good asset out of it he's probably gonna trade down a few spots and grab whoever is left of those guys.

 

[dustrock]

The extra value in terms of a deep draft only comes when you move up in draft position not down.

The question of value obtained is what comes back in return for a trade in which you move down.

Thanks. I realize that. I don't think the value is there for the Oilers to trade down, there is that clearer?

In other words: what would a team give the Oilers to move up 6 spots in this draft? A second? Maybe if they're really desperate, but I doubt it.



And saying that the #4 is like a #1 pick from 2011 - come on man, people say that every single draft.

Every year without fail "next year's draft doesn't look too deep, few top prospects but levels off after that......this draft is actually looking pretty solid........I'm really excited about this draft, some of these players would be #1 in any year not named McDavid, but next year's draft doesn't look too deep, few top prospects but levels off after that".