Prospect Info: Ives Preliminary 2020 Draft Rankings (1-32 for March)

[Tretyak 20]

It would not be the end of the world to defer the Vancouver pick to 2021, but I'd rather have it now. Three first rounders in 2020 definitely speeds up the rebuild. Also, it's a strong draft class and the Devils lack picks in the second and third rounds.

I do think that Fitzgerald makes an off-season deal to re-coup a 2nd or 3rd rounder, if at all possible (and if he keeps the GM gig).

The rebuild has been put on hold multiple f***ing times already. The Coleman trade was a fireable offense as is, if the pick moves to next year when Vancouver is only going to be better... that turns idiocy into disaster.

 

[StevenToddIves]

People realize it's hypocritical to flip out when anyone mentions Yakupov in relation to Hughes, yet use Drai to defend Hughes, right?

Both are silly arguments at this point.

In Yakupov's rookie season, it was a strike-shortened 2012-13 season. He led all NHL rookies in goals with 17 and tied for the rookie scoring lead with Jonathan Huberdeau with 31 points. Yakupov looked at the time like a burgeoning superstar. Yakupov's problems began after Oilers GM Kevin Lowe fired head coach Ralph Krueger and replaced him with Dallas Eakins, who had a very tumultuous relationship with Yakupov.

Thus, the Yakupov comparison to Hughes is inane, not factual, and we can throw it out using empirical data.

In Draisaitl's rookie season, he scored 2 goals in 37 games and struggled mightily. He needed to gain strength and get used to the challenges of the NHL game in order to realize his outstanding potential. In his sophomore season, he acclimated and became a productive player with 51 points. It was his third year before Draisaitl broke through with 77 points. Now, he is a perennial MVP candidate.

In Hughes' rookie season? Well, certainly he's struggled, but he's performed far better than Draisaitl. Like a rookie Draisaitl, he has unbelievable potential and shows flashes of brilliance, but needs to add core strength and better acclimate to the NHL game. It also has not helped that he's played with myriad (often bottom-6) line mates, for two coaches and two GMs.

Is Hughes going to score around 100 points in his 5th season as Draisaitl did? Well, there's no way to know this. But we can say using empirical data that after one season, the Draisaitl comparison cannot yet be disproven, as the Yakupov comparison can be with relative ease.

This is not a matter of hypocrisy, my friend. This is a matter of using rationalization and heresy to prove one's own arguments instead of settling down and studying the empirical data. The use of a name like Yakupov -- which has become synonymous with bust in hockey jargon -- to attach to Hughes is patently false. The lack of any discernible comparisons between the two -- style of play, position, background, personality, talent level, rate of development, anything -- well, it feels like I'm reading more of a personal vendetta or tantrum than an actual hockey argument.

Look, I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm just trying to defend a player who is the youngest player in the entire NHL from being labeled a bust before his 19th birthday. I mean, that sentence even felt absurd to type. Think about how crazy that is. If Hughes is still struggling two or three years from now? Sure, come back on the Devils threads and tell me you were right. But for the love of everything sane, the kid does not turn 19 until May.

 

[longislanddevil]

I posted this on another thread but seems appropriate here, as well.

If the regular season does not resume, are the Devils 6th worst? We are tied with Buffalo, who has more ROW and the same amount of games played. If the NHL defaults to winning percentage instead of total points, would the Devils still finish 6th worst?

After the NBA suspended its season last night, it felt imminent for the NHL. I was rooting for Anaheim against St Louis in the late window so the Ducks could leapfrog the Devils by one point. Alas, it was not meant to be.

Chicago (and possibly Montreal) may very well have passed Arizona but just ran out of time. Conversely, the Coyotes may have squeaked past the Rangers, Panthers, Canucks or Wild. Who knows. Either way, possessing the 10th overall pick should be viewed as a huge win considering where the Coyotes were in the standings at the time of the Hall trade.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Vancouver. They sit on the outside looking in from a points standpoint but that would change if the league goes to winning percentage to account for teams having played an uneven amount of games.

 

[The Wumpus]

The teams are at 68 to 71 games played. If we come back with enough time, maybe they will have a busy week and get all the teams to 72 and do the playoffs from there.

 

[Forge]

The rebuild has been put on hold multiple f***ing times already. The Coleman trade was a fireable offense as is, if the pick moves to next year when Vancouver is only going to be better... that turns idiocy into disaster.

What?

 

[BenedictGomez]

That Askarov kid seems like a freak of nature, I definitely think he goes higher than #17.

 

[FooteBahl]

@StevenToddIves since there’s pretty much no more hockey to scout, do you think your skills translate well enough to scout dr’s for us? I think Dr. Sanjay Gupta is a generational talent. His bedside manner is an 80; however, his stethoscope handling could be a little better.Thoughts?

 

[FooteBahl]

What?

He needs to self quarantine after that comment lol

 

[Edmonton East]

In Yakupov's rookie season, it was a strike-shortened 2012-13 season. He led all NHL rookies in goals with 17 and tied for the rookie scoring lead with Jonathan Huberdeau with 31 points. Yakupov looked at the time like a burgeoning superstar. Yakupov's problems began after Oilers GM Kevin Lowe fired head coach Ralph Krueger and replaced him with Dallas Eakins, who had a very tumultuous relationship with Yakupov.

Thus, the Yakupov comparison to Hughes is inane, not factual, and we can throw it out using empirical data.

In Draisaitl's rookie season, he scored 2 goals in 37 games and struggled mightily. He needed to gain strength and get used to the challenges of the NHL game in order to realize his outstanding potential. In his sophomore season, he acclimated and became a productive player with 51 points. It was his third year before Draisaitl broke through with 77 points. Now, he is a perennial MVP candidate.

In Hughes' rookie season? Well, certainly he's struggled, but he's performed far better than Draisaitl. Like a rookie Draisaitl, he has unbelievable potential and shows flashes of brilliance, but needs to add core strength and better acclimate to the NHL game. It also has not helped that he's played with myriad (often bottom-6) line mates, for two coaches and two GMs.

Is Hughes going to score around 100 points in his 5th season as Draisaitl did? Well, there's no way to know this. But we can say using empirical data that after one season, the Draisaitl comparison cannot yet be disproven, as the Yakupov comparison can be with relative ease.

This is not a matter of hypocrisy, my friend. This is a matter of using rationalization and heresy to prove one's own arguments instead of settling down and studying the empirical data. The use of a name like Yakupov -- which has become synonymous with bust in hockey jargon -- to attach to Hughes is patently false. The lack of any discernible comparisons between the two -- style of play, position, background, personality, talent level, rate of development, anything -- well, it feels like I'm reading more of a personal vendetta or tantrum than an actual hockey argument.

Look, I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm just trying to defend a player who is the youngest player in the entire NHL from being labeled a bust before his 19th birthday. I mean, that sentence even felt absurd to type. Think about how crazy that is. If Hughes is still struggling two or three years from now? Sure, come back on the Devils threads and tell me you were right. But for the love of everything sane, the kid does not turn 19 until May.

Talk about a serious issue with confirmation bias, my friend. This post puts the nail in the coffin for me. Can't value your opinion going forward.

Also hilarious to see you patronize someone simply for saying Hughes comparisons to Yakupov and Drai are both stupid/premature at this point. Instead of the diatribe above, your rebuttal can simply be summarized as: "I love Jack Hughes. Said he was generational. Said he had HIGHER UPSIDE than Patrick Kane. So, he's more likely to be Drai than Yakupov!"

C'mon. Hughes plays nothing like Yakupov!!! Well, he plays nothing like Drai either and he never has.

And before a mod deletes, he solicited feedback in this very thread.

 

[StevenToddIves]

That Askarov kid seems like a freak of nature, I definitely think he goes higher than #17.

You could be right, but he's had a bit of a rough 2019-20. My earlier mocks had him going in the 9-12 range, but I've dropped him.

 

[StevenToddIves]

@StevenToddIves since there’s pretty much no more hockey to scout, do you think your skills translate well enough to scout dr’s for us? I think Dr. Sanjay Gupta is a generational talent. His bedside manner is an 80; however, his stethoscope handling could be a little better.Thoughts?

Haha, you said "stethoscope handling".

 

[StevenToddIves]

Talk about a serious issue with confirmation bias, my friend. This post puts the nail in the coffin for me. Can't value your opinion going forward.

Also hilarious to see you patronize someone simply for saying Hughes comparisons to Yakupov and Drai are both stupid/premature at this point. Instead of the diatribe above, your rebuttal can simply be summarized as: "I love Jack Hughes. Said he was generational. Said he had HIGHER UPSIDE than Patrick Kane. So, he's more likely to be Drai than Yakupov!"

C'mon. Hughes plays nothing like Yakupov!!! Well, he plays nothing like Drai either and he never has.

And before a mod deletes, he solicited feedback in this very thread.

1. I was not drawing a stylistic comparison to Draisaitl, just a parallel to abet my statement that different players develop at different rates.

2. If you look up "diatribe" in the dictionary, you will see that your post, which I am responding to now, fits the definition. My post, which you were responding to, would be considered "debate", in lieu of its emphasis on usage of empirical data which was provided in the post, and also its multiple intonations that it was not meant to be an attack in any way on you (which I am sorry you missed).

3. If your summary of what I said is what you actually feel I was saying, perhaps you should re-read it after your irateness with me dissipates a bit; maybe then you'll have a better understanding of what I was actually conveying.

4. It's fine if you don't value my opinion. I freely admit when I am wrong about prospects, I vocalize my own biases, I consistently suggest all hockey fans on the HF Boards read other prospect writers and do their own research; not to simply take my word for things. Comprehensive knowledge comes from listening to several opinions with an open mind. I can recommend some great prospect writers to you if you don't want to pay attention to the columns I post on these threads, just ask.

5. I agree that a moderator should not delete your post, as I did indeed solicit feedback. My original post which seems to have spurred on this silly little disagreement was my own analysis of my failures and successes in ranking the prospects for the 2019 draft. My major criteria in doing so were the hypotheticals of where these same players would be re-drafted if the draft were held again right now. As Jack Hughes would certainly be the #1 overall pick in a 2019 re-draft, we can agree that my ranking of him as the #1 overall prospect (which was in accordance with every single major draft writer and scouting bureau) should be considered the correct call.

6. Look, I feel awful that something I said upset you. I'm never vitriolic in a debate. If I think Rossi is the #4 prospect and someone else has reservations about him and thinks he should be ranked lower, I will ask to hear their reasons why, or what prospects should be ranked above him. If they have questions about Rossi's size or offensive potential in the NHL, I will try to answer them as comprehensively as possible. If they have other players they simply like better, I will ask who and why. This is all cool with me. But if someone says "Rossi's a bust" or "Rossi sucks" and offers no reasonable discourse, that's where I admittedly get touchy. These prospects I spend a great deal of time researching are human beings -- they are essentially children, they have families and loved ones who read things written about them, and they are chasing their dreams of being NHL players. It shows very little human empathy when an essentially anonymous person can write mean-spirited things about them without providing empirical reasoning and then continue to slag them for fear of being proven wrong themselves. So, if you want to bury the hatchet and read me in the future, I welcome it. If you want to disagree with me in the future, I welcome that, too. If you want to ignore my posts, I feel bad about that, but it's certainly your right and I respect this. But if you are going to continue to insist that any player is a failure and a bust at age 18 -- with no evidence whatsoever to support such an aspersion -- I suggest you address the nature of your own need to be proven right instead of continuing to direct this frustration at the player.

 

[Darkauron]

1. I was not drawing a stylistic comparison to Draisaitl, just a parallel to abet my statement that different players develop at different rates.

2. If you look up "diatribe" in the dictionary, you will see that your post, which I am responding to now, fits the definition. My post, which you were responding to, would be considered "debate", in lieu of its emphasis on usage of empirical data which was provided in the post, and also its multiple intonations that it was not meant to be an attack in any way on you (which I am sorry you missed).

3. If your summary of what I said is what you actually feel I was saying, perhaps you should re-read it after your irateness with me dissipates a bit; maybe then you'll have a better understanding of what I was actually conveying.

4. It's fine if you don't value my opinion. I freely admit when I am wrong about prospects, I vocalize my own biases, I consistently suggest all hockey fans on the HF Boards read other prospect writers and do their own research; not to simply take my word for things. Comprehensive knowledge comes from listening to several opinions with an open mind. I can recommend some great prospect writers to you if you don't want to pay attention to the columns I post on these threads, just ask.

5. I agree that a moderator should not delete your post, as I did indeed solicit feedback. My original post which seems to have spurred on this silly little disagreement was my own analysis of my failures and successes in ranking the prospects for the 2019 draft. My major criteria in doing so were the hypotheticals of where these same players would be re-drafted if the draft were held again right now. As Jack Hughes would certainly be the #1 overall pick in a 2019 re-draft, we can agree that my ranking of him as the #1 overall prospect (which was in accordance with every single major draft writer and scouting bureau) should be considered the correct call.

6. Look, I feel awful that something I said upset you. I'm never vitriolic in a debate. If I think Rossi is the #4 prospect and someone else has reservations about him and thinks he should be ranked lower, I will ask to hear their reasons why, or what prospects should be ranked above him. If they have questions about Rossi's size or offensive potential in the NHL, I will try to answer them as comprehensively as possible. If they have other players they simply like better, I will ask who and why. This is all cool with me. But if someone says "Rossi's a bust" or "Rossi sucks" and offers no reasonable discourse, that's where I admittedly get touchy. These prospects I spend a great deal of time researching are human beings -- they are essentially children, they have families and loved ones who read things written about them, and they are chasing their dreams of being NHL players. It shows very little human empathy when an essentially anonymous person can write mean-spirited things about them without providing empirical reasoning and then continue to slag them for fear of being proven wrong themselves. So, if you want to bury the hatchet and read me in the future, I welcome it. If you want to disagree with me in the future, I welcome that, too. If you want to ignore my posts, I feel bad about that, but it's certainly your right and I respect this. But if you are going to continue to insist that any player is a failure and a bust at age 18 -- with no evidence whatsoever to support such an aspersion -- I suggest you address the nature of your own need to be proven right instead of continuing to direct this frustration at the player.

Also want to say thanks for everything you do Steven. Also try not take certain people as serious sometimes and dont feel awful

 

[Scooooooooooooot]

1. I was not drawing a stylistic comparison to Draisaitl, just a parallel to abet my statement that different players develop at different rates.

2. If you look up "diatribe" in the dictionary, you will see that your post, which I am responding to now, fits the definition. My post, which you were responding to, would be considered "debate", in lieu of its emphasis on usage of empirical data which was provided in the post, and also its multiple intonations that it was not meant to be an attack in any way on you (which I am sorry you missed).

3. If your summary of what I said is what you actually feel I was saying, perhaps you should re-read it after your irateness with me dissipates a bit; maybe then you'll have a better understanding of what I was actually conveying.

4. It's fine if you don't value my opinion. I freely admit when I am wrong about prospects, I vocalize my own biases, I consistently suggest all hockey fans on the HF Boards read other prospect writers and do their own research; not to simply take my word for things. Comprehensive knowledge comes from listening to several opinions with an open mind. I can recommend some great prospect writers to you if you don't want to pay attention to the columns I post on these threads, just ask.

5. I agree that a moderator should not delete your post, as I did indeed solicit feedback. My original post which seems to have spurred on this silly little disagreement was my own analysis of my failures and successes in ranking the prospects for the 2019 draft. My major criteria in doing so were the hypotheticals of where these same players would be re-drafted if the draft were held again right now. As Jack Hughes would certainly be the #1 overall pick in a 2019 re-draft, we can agree that my ranking of him as the #1 overall prospect (which was in accordance with every single major draft writer and scouting bureau) should be considered the correct call.

6. Look, I feel awful that something I said upset you. I'm never vitriolic in a debate. If I think Rossi is the #4 prospect and someone else has reservations about him and thinks he should be ranked lower, I will ask to hear their reasons why, or what prospects should be ranked above him. If they have questions about Rossi's size or offensive potential in the NHL, I will try to answer them as comprehensively as possible. If they have other players they simply like better, I will ask who and why. This is all cool with me. But if someone says "Rossi's a bust" or "Rossi sucks" and offers no reasonable discourse, that's where I admittedly get touchy. These prospects I spend a great deal of time researching are human beings -- they are essentially children, they have families and loved ones who read things written about them, and they are chasing their dreams of being NHL players. It shows very little human empathy when an essentially anonymous person can write mean-spirited things about them without providing empirical reasoning and then continue to slag them for fear of being proven wrong themselves. So, if you want to bury the hatchet and read me in the future, I welcome it. If you want to disagree with me in the future, I welcome that, too. If you want to ignore my posts, I feel bad about that, but it's certainly your right and I respect this. But if you are going to continue to insist that any player is a failure and a bust at age 18 -- with no evidence whatsoever to support such an aspersion -- I suggest you address the nature of your own need to be proven right instead of continuing to direct this frustration at the player.

I'm going to watch a lot more of Rossi during this sports break because I know you (whose opinion I respect greatly) and Todd Cordell are both super high on him and I havent seen as much on him as I have some other prospects who have gotten more hype over the last two years. will always read the stuff you write even if I disagree with you on certain things.

 

[StevenToddIves]

I'm going to watch a lot more of Rossi during this sports break because I know you (whose opinion I respect greatly) and Todd Cordell are both super high on him and I havent seen as much on him as I have some other prospects who have gotten more hype over the last two years. will always read the stuff you write even if I disagree with you on certain things.

Rossi is seriously challenging Stutzle for #3 in my rankings. And I love Stutzle.

 

[Nubmer6]

Rossi is seriously challenging Stutzle for #3 in my rankings. And I love Stutzle.

Can't spell "Stud" without Stutz... err... umm.... nevermind.

 

[My3Sons]

1. I was not drawing a stylistic comparison to Draisaitl, just a parallel to abet my statement that different players develop at different rates.

2. If you look up "diatribe" in the dictionary, you will see that your post, which I am responding to now, fits the definition. My post, which you were responding to, would be considered "debate", in lieu of its emphasis on usage of empirical data which was provided in the post, and also its multiple intonations that it was not meant to be an attack in any way on you (which I am sorry you missed).

3. If your summary of what I said is what you actually feel I was saying, perhaps you should re-read it after your irateness with me dissipates a bit; maybe then you'll have a better understanding of what I was actually conveying.

4. It's fine if you don't value my opinion. I freely admit when I am wrong about prospects, I vocalize my own biases, I consistently suggest all hockey fans on the HF Boards read other prospect writers and do their own research; not to simply take my word for things. Comprehensive knowledge comes from listening to several opinions with an open mind. I can recommend some great prospect writers to you if you don't want to pay attention to the columns I post on these threads, just ask.

5. I agree that a moderator should not delete your post, as I did indeed solicit feedback. My original post which seems to have spurred on this silly little disagreement was my own analysis of my failures and successes in ranking the prospects for the 2019 draft. My major criteria in doing so were the hypotheticals of where these same players would be re-drafted if the draft were held again right now. As Jack Hughes would certainly be the #1 overall pick in a 2019 re-draft, we can agree that my ranking of him as the #1 overall prospect (which was in accordance with every single major draft writer and scouting bureau) should be considered the correct call.

6. Look, I feel awful that something I said upset you. I'm never vitriolic in a debate. If I think Rossi is the #4 prospect and someone else has reservations about him and thinks he should be ranked lower, I will ask to hear their reasons why, or what prospects should be ranked above him. If they have questions about Rossi's size or offensive potential in the NHL, I will try to answer them as comprehensively as possible. If they have other players they simply like better, I will ask who and why. This is all cool with me. But if someone says "Rossi's a bust" or "Rossi sucks" and offers no reasonable discourse, that's where I admittedly get touchy. These prospects I spend a great deal of time researching are human beings -- they are essentially children, they have families and loved ones who read things written about them, and they are chasing their dreams of being NHL players. It shows very little human empathy when an essentially anonymous person can write mean-spirited things about them without providing empirical reasoning and then continue to slag them for fear of being proven wrong themselves. So, if you want to bury the hatchet and read me in the future, I welcome it. If you want to disagree with me in the future, I welcome that, too. If you want to ignore my posts, I feel bad about that, but it's certainly your right and I respect this. But if you are going to continue to insist that any player is a failure and a bust at age 18 -- with no evidence whatsoever to support such an aspersion -- I suggest you address the nature of your own need to be proven right instead of continuing to direct this frustration at the player.

I have to admit I’m somewhat disappointed in what you’ve said here. I mean I’ve said a number of really stupid things to you and I’ve never gotten this sort of long winded response. I’m kind of jealous and miffed at the same time. And maybe a little bit of insouciance thrown in as well just because it’s a great word.

 

[glenwo2]

Can't spell "Stud" without Stutz... err... umm.... nevermind.

Good try, man.

 

[StevenToddIves]

I have to admit I’m somewhat disappointed in what you’ve said here. I mean I’ve said a number of really stupid things to you and I’ve never gotten this sort of long winded response. I’m kind of jealous and miffed at the same time. And maybe a little bit of insouciance thrown in as well just because it’s a great word.

Well, you've never attacked me or a player on personal level. I pay a great deal of attention to who says what on these threads. I aspire to draw hockey fans together, not to be another source of division and polarization. There's too much of that bull already. I like disagreements, it tends to force us to better formulate our own opinions. But it's never personal to me. There's too much meanness in the actual world to bring it into sports, which are supposed to be a pleasant diversion.

 

[My3Sons]

Well, you've never attacked me or a player on personal level. I pay a great deal of attention to who says what on these threads. I aspire to draw hockey fans together, not to be another source of division and polarization. There's too much of that bull already. I like disagreements, it tends to force us to better formulate our own opinions. But it's never personal to me. There's too much meanness in the actual world to bring it into sports, which are supposed to be a pleasant diversion.

Ok fine. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries. There are you happy now?

 

[Ripshot 43]

Ok fine. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries. There are you happy now?

Racist! She was actually a gerbil! SMH!! Gasp!

 

[My3Sons]

Racist! She was actually a gerbil! SMH!! Gasp!

Actually the correct response is Attack attack attack!!! Run away run away run away!!!

 

[Jersey Fresh]

Id assume the draft would be determined based on records at cancellation plus lottery results

Or they play out the season whenever that happens, and next season is a condensed ~40 game season.

Not sure, but either way I don't think it will affect our draft position. It would be complete idiocy to do a league wide lottery.

 

[Ripshot 43]

Or they play out the season whenever that happens, and next season is a condensed ~40 game season.

Not sure, but either way I don't think it will affect our draft position. It would be complete idiocy to do a league wide lottery.

Agreed on the league wide draft part. This isn’t a lock out season where no games were played. No need to have all teams having equal odds.

 

[StevenToddIves]

Ok fine. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries. There are you happy now?

Can someone tell me what an elderberry smells like so I know if this is an insult or not?