Prospect Info: Jonathan Lekkerimaki, #15 Overall, 2022 NHL Draft

[StreetHawk]

People talk about ‘BPA’ like it’s this concrete thing when it’s actually an artificial construct that is totally meaningless.

It’s influenced by your preferences. Size, Speed, Compete, physicality, skill, etc.
Whatever you put more emphasis on.

 

[canadianmagpie]

I like the pick and the player. At that point, there were a couple guys on my list that I would have liked to get as well. I'm sure they may have looked at the possibility of dropping down a few spots and grab an extra pick out of it but probably didn't receive a good enough offer to do it.

 

[StreetHawk]

I like the pick and the player. At that point, there were a couple guys on my list that I would have liked to get as well. I'm sure they may have looked at the possibility of dropping down a few spots and grab an extra pick out of it but probably didn't receive a good enough offer to do it.

Unless there is someone that another team covets they won’t move up. Didn’t see anyone move up in the second half of the draft yesterday.
The moves by Edm and Tor were driven by cap dumps more than them wanting to trade back.

 

[Quinning]

Pretty happy with this pick. I don't think he'll be ready for quite some time, but he put up excellent numbers as a 17 year old in the SEL and was nearly a goal a game in the league below.

 

[StreetHawk]

Pretty happy with this pick. I don't think he'll be ready for quite some time, but he put up excellent numbers as a 17 year old in the SEL and was nearly a goal a game in the league below.

These prospects depending on where they played lost a good chunk of 20-21 season. CHL and Tier II in Canada hit the hardest.

I doubt that you will see more than 8-10 kids from this draft as full time nhlers come 23-24 season at age 19. Most won’t be in the nhl until 24-25 season like Pod was this pst year. Come in at 20 vs 19.

 

[MS]

It’s influenced by your preferences. Size, Speed, Compete, physicality, skill, etc.
Whatever you put more emphasis on.

More than that even.

You could do it by personal preferences in terms of skill. You could do it by productivity and statistics. You could do it based on looking at the Russian factor. You could do it based on looking at the biggest talent that dropped. You could do it based on closeness to the NHL.

There are 10 different players who the fanbase would have embraced as the BPA had we taken them. At least. It’s a nonsense construct.

________

One thing I’m coming to realize is that if you constantly identify the BPA as a talented smallish one-dimensional scoring winger, you’re going to get a very unbalanced team and system. And it’s easy to say ‘trade from strength’ but these types of player don’t carry value well and quality young C and D are virtually impossible to acquire without drafting them. Meanwhile decent scoring wingers are pretty easy to acquire via trade or relatively cheaply in UFA.

I’d argue it might be better to draft C and D in the first round every year and have 50% bust than hit 100% of the time on smallish skill wingers, when you look at the actual value proposition involved.

 

[Svencouver]

People talk about ‘BPA’ like it’s this concrete thing when it’s actually an artificial construct that is totally meaningless.

It's just the concept that you shouldn't pass over an obviously better player for one that fits a positional need. I don't think that's necessarily meaningless. "BPA" is more about the prioritization and thought process behind selection more than it's about the literal best player available, since that's unknowable.

Realized after sending that this might come off as condescending since you obviously know what it means, but it's just how the thoughts came to my head.

 

[MS]

It's just the concept that you shouldn't pass over an obviously better player for one that fits a positional need. I don't think that's necessarily meaningless. "BPA" is more about the prioritization and thought process behind selection more than it's about the literal best player available, since that's unknowable.

Realized after sending that this might come off as condescending since you obviously know what it means, but it's just how the thoughts came to my head.

For sure, but there’s only an ‘obviously better player’ once in a blue moon (Kopitar in 05 as an example). In the vast, vast majority of cases you could argue 5 or 10 different guys are the best choice based on different metrics and this will include guys that fill positional needs and guys that don’t.

 

[Svencouver]

For sure, but there’s only an ‘obviously better player’ once in a blue moon (Kopitar in 05 as an example). In the vast, vast majority of cases you could argue 5 or 10 different guys are the best choice based on different metrics and this will include guys that fill positional needs and guys that don’t.

That's true. I think a more reasonable way to phrase the prioritization that people describe as "BPA" would be "prioritize perceived overall ability (which, as you've described, encapsulates 10000000 different factors. Drafting is hard) over position".

Everyone's draft board will be different, so it's perfectly reasonable that the Canucks just considered Lekkerimaki that far ahead in their standings than any available C+D. Which would make sense given that they valued him highly as a player in congress with the run on C+D in the top 10. When teams ahead of you draft disproportionately for need, that should - in theory - only raise the value of picking "BPA" given that the remaining wingers will probably be better than the remaining C/D.

 

[thefeebster]

Just one shift-by-shift for those interested (Not mine but very nice). But i am not seeing these glaring hockey sense concerns or one dimensional play (neglect of and in the defensive zone) that some are mentioning. He is often the first forward back, shows a good understanding of when to support defenders lower, but does play high near the blueline sometimes like Nylander does. I am also impressed with his passing ability, the numbers don't truly reflect that. Watching this game, i do not see a shoot-first mentality, oddly even on the PP.

0:55 - Nice off-look pass
2:30 - Nice PP Zone Entry and pass
3:30 - Entry back into the zone, stick checks the puck carrier and steals for a cheeky lobbing pass and scoring chance for Ohgren.
5:45 - Shows some nice patience waiting for the trailer, gets an assist.
6:00 - Shows a play where i think some more speed would have helped, but nice play by Chesley.
7:00 - Hit on the forecheck, Button talks about how Lekkerimaki started the season with mono
11:18 - Draws penalty
12:35 - Pass mentality
13:00 - Draws another Penalty for 5on3
19:10 - Pass mentality and assist
20:15 - Communicates that he wants the puck and gets a scoring chance

I don't see a Raymond level player (who i likened a lot to Marner). But moreso Eklund, which is still great value at 15. I would like to see him stronger on the puck and a bit faster.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

People talk about ‘BPA’ like it’s this concrete thing when it’s actually an artificial construct that is totally meaningless.

Then you dont understand what people mean when they say it.

He went through Mono this year. He’s 17. Got a frame to put on muscle as he matures. I think he’s going to get taller (6’). He’s not a guy who will carry the puck with exciting speed through the neutral zone. He’s more a cerebral player, who has elite puck skills, that can score in multiple ways. He reminds me of Bossy from his draft class. (Or more recently Marner, but with a shot.)

Marner thinks the game at an elite level and is a fantastic passer.

 

[MS]

That's true. I think a more reasonable way to phrase the prioritization that people describe as "BPA" would be "prioritize perceived overall ability (which, as you've described, encapsulates 10000000 different factors. Drafting is hard) over position".

Everyone's draft board will be different, so it's perfectly reasonable that the Canucks just considered Lekkerimaki that far ahead in their standings than any available C+D. Which would make sense given that they valued him highly as a player in congress with the run on C+D in the top 10. When teams ahead of you draft disproportionately for need, that should - in theory - only raise the value of picking "BPA" given that the remaining wingers will probably be better than the remaining C/D.

Absolutely.

It looks like they had Lekkerimaki rated 5th (which means ahead of at least one of Slaf/Wright/Cooley/Nemec/Jiricek plus Korchinski and Mintyukov amongst others) so they feel they’ve hit a home run here. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out and if they nailed that ranking or if it will look ridiculous in hindsight.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

That's true. I think a more reasonable way to phrase the prioritization that people describe as "BPA" would be "prioritize perceived overall ability (which, as you've described, encapsulates 10000000 different factors. Drafting is hard) over position".

Everyone's draft board will be different, so it's perfectly reasonable that the Canucks just considered Lekkerimaki that far ahead in their standings than any available C+D. Which would make sense given that they valued him highly as a player in congress with the run on C+D in the top 10. When teams ahead of you draft disproportionately for need, that should - in theory - only raise the value of picking "BPA" given that the remaining wingers will probably be better than the remaining C/D.

No I dont think it means that.

You can go BPA while weighing the position the player plays. Teams already do that with goalies all the damn time and nobody says anything.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Got a guy who should have gone top 10. It’s a win and no one outside of the top 3-4 are locks beyond that it’s a crap shoot. But, JL had more goals than any U18 in the SHL. Also, only Kasper had more points. 11 for Kasper and 9 for JL however Kasper played roughly 20 more games. Different players but ripping up the Junior league and then scoring 7 goals in 25+ games in the SHL as one of the youngest players in the draft is impressive.

Every draft pendent saying this is a good pick. Faber, Robinson, Pronman etc….

“should have gone top 10”

Why did 14 teams pass on him? Who knows how many others after us would have passed on him. I’m not at all saying he’s a bad pick (I literally don’t know any of these guys that got drafted and haven’t watched them play) but there’s teams and teams of scouts that didn’t like something about him to pass on him.

 

[MS]

Then you dont understand what people mean when they say it.

I understand exactly what people mean. They mean you shouldn’t compromise on taking the best player in order to fill a positional need.

But there is just no such thing as the ‘BPA’ in the vast majority of cases. You’re looking at a range of incredibly similar prospects who play all positions.

 

[Svencouver]

Absolutely.

It looks like they had Lekkerimaki rated 5th (which means ahead of at least one of Slaf/Wright/Cooley/Nemec/Jiricek plus Korchinski and Mintyukov amongst others) so they feel they’ve hit a home run here. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out and if they nailed that ranking or if it will look ridiculous in hindsight.

I agree. I think the variance in perceptions on this player hinge on whether or not he'll be "one dimensional".

Hockey IQ is probably the hardest attribute to gauge, and I'm certainly not qualified to do it. I would imagine there's an intersection between unconscious and conscious "smartness" that factors in. A conscious awareness of strategy, areas of improvement, knowing how to improve and how to learn ("coachability"), etc.; vs good instincts and habits in the moment-to-moment action - positioning, puck protection, shot selection, knowing when to defer vs when to shoot.

I think there are encouraging signs for both when it comes to Lekkerimaki. I really like his answer to the question of his personal areas of weakness. He was very blunt and honest in saying that he could, and should, raise his compete level. I imagine that for players that make scoring effortless; a real "it" factor for taking their game to the next level in the NHL is being able to find a path through speed, physicality, and adversity, and find that extra gear when necessary. It seems that this is the most common concern with Lekkerimaki, so his astute, certain awareness of this is a good sign for me. It conveys an ability to reflect and isolate. Would someone like Jake Virtanen even be capable of that?

There have been some good play-by-play breakdowns in this thread that demonstrate a keen intuitive awareness for creating space, working an effective cycle, creating high % shots, and having the vision to make the pass when it's the better option. For as much as his goalscoring outpaces his assist totals in some statlines, I think his U18 production indicates that he absolutely has the capacity to create and just doesn't have to most of the time because he's the most gifted goalscorer on the team.

 

[MS]

I agree. I think the variance in perceptions on this player hinge on whether or not he'll be "one dimensional".

Hockey IQ is probably the hardest attribute to gauge, and I'm certainly not qualified to do it. I would imagine there's an intersection between unconscious and conscious "smartness" that factors in. A conscious awareness of strategy, areas of improvement, knowing how to improve and how to learn ("coachability"), etc.; vs good instincts and habits in the moment-to-moment action - positioning, puck protection, shot selection, knowing when to defer vs when to shoot.

I think there are encouraging signs for both when it comes to Lekkerimaki. I really like his answer to the question of his personal areas of weakness. He was very blunt and honest in saying that he could raise his compete level. I imagine that for players that make scoring effortless; a real "it" factor for taking their game to the next level in the NHL is being able to find a path through speed, physicality, and adversity, and find that extra gear when necessary. It seems that this is the most common concern with Lekkerimaki, so his astute, certain awareness of this is a good sign for me. It conveys an ability to reflect and isolate. Would someone like Jake Virtanen even be capable of that?

There have been some good play-by-play breakdowns in this thread that demonstrate a keen intuitive awareness for creating space, working an effective cycle, creating high % shots, and having the vision to make the pass when it's the better option. For as much as his goalscoring outpaces his assist totals in some statlines, I think his U18 production indicates that he absolutely has the capacity to create and just doesn't have to most of the time because he's the most gifted goalscorer on the team.

I’m not worried about his IQ and hockey sense either.

I’m worried about the combination of small/weak without being a great skater or having a big 3-zone motor.

 

[strattonius]

It sounds like they had strong intention of trading down but when Lekkerimaki slipped down to their lap he was too high on their list to trade.

When I see people throwing around BPA is just think of the consensus highest ranked player on the board. 'best player' is obviously subjective there's no use taking the terminology so literally.

I get why a team picking 6th-12th overall would choose a higher risk player and choose a big C or D, but at 15 you're probably happy to secure a safe pick. It's easy to understand why Lekkerimaki would slip - a smallish winger will get passed on more easily.

 

[Frostage]

I’m not worried about his IQ and hockey sense either.

I’m worried about the combination of small/weak without being a great skater or having a big 3-zone motor.

You are a knowledgeable poster and I am curious

Who would you have taken at 15?

 

[Svencouver]

I’m not worried about his IQ and hockey sense either.

I’m worried about the combination of small/weak without being a great skater or having a big 3-zone motor.

That's fair. I think those things are the most reassuring weaknesses, if such a thing exists, for a late birthday that's been rising in stock a ton over the year. AFAIK he's outright grown in height in the past year, which indicates a good amount of room for growth in areas like strength and speed.

Many prospects have naively been associated with the assurance that "they'll just fix their skating!" but I think Lekkerimaki is a reasonable candidate to follow through on seeing a lot of post-draft improvement. I'm generally a fan of draft year risers since it indicates that they know how to work on and improve their game past the age/level where raw physical ability and talent can carry them. I think he's a great bet with a huge pool of potential in addition to a good foundation of skill and weapons he's already developed. Good floor, super high ceiling.

 

[RutherPlan]

I’m not worried about his IQ and hockey sense either.

I’m worried about the combination of small/weak without being a great skater or having a big 3-zone motor.

That fact that you're so bearish on him like Hughes and Pettersson when they were drafted, makes me even more bullish.

 

[StreetHawk]

It sounds like they had strong intention of trading down but when Lekkerimaki slipped down to their lap he was too high on their list to trade.

When I see people throwing around BPA is just think of the consensus highest ranked player on the board. 'best player' is obviously subjective there's no use taking the terminology so literally.

I get why a team picking 6th-12th overall would choose a higher risk player and choose a big C or D, but at 15 you're probably happy to secure a safe pick. It's easy to understand why Lekkerimaki would slip - a smallish winger will get passed on more easily.

There were no trade downs after pick 11 yesterday. So, I don’t think we can keep throwing that out there. Tor and Edm dumped contracts. Neither gained more picks just cap space and Edm gave up more picks.

SJ opted for quantity. 27, 34 and 45 for 11. Geekie was the target for AZ.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I understand exactly what people mean. They mean you shouldn’t compromise on taking the best player in order to fill a positional need.

But there is just no such thing as the ‘BPA’ in the vast majority of cases. You’re looking at a range of incredibly similar prospects who play all positions.

So your beef is with the fact that it can be interpreted as The Best Player Available?

 

[Quinning]

The Baertschis, the Granlunds, the Goldobins, the Cassels

 

[MS]

You are a knowledgeable poster and I am curious

Who would you have taken at 15?

I would have tried to trade down (and it sounds like there were options for the team to do that).

They ended up in this place where they were right at the start of this huge run on relatively equal smallish skill forwards. A guy like Jagger Firkus who has a very similar skillset to Lekkerimaki hasn’t even been taken yet.

I don’t hate this pick. But it doesn’t seem like a great extraction of value from our situation and doesn’t solve a positional need.

That fact that you're so bearish on him like Hughes and Pettersson when they were drafted, makes me even more bullish.

I was never down on the Pettersson pick. At all. My take was that it seemed reasonable but I didn’t know a lot about him.

I didn’t hate Hughes but I preferred Dobson.

So your beef is with the fact that it can be interpreted as The Best Player Available?

My beef is that it’s framing a binary choice that in most cases simply doesn’t exist.