Prospect Info: Team Board Mock Draft

[Harbour Dog]

He'd be great value here, but I just love what Marat brings to the table with his game

I'm not big on Marat, but if we picked him here I'd be fine with it. I think that's kind of the position we're going to be in at 22.

Nobody seems overly entrenched in their opinions here.

Until we take Justin Barron...

 

[eco's bones]

I'm going with Grieg.

 

[gravey9]

I went Marat K. The more I watch him, the more I love this motor and skillset. Just seems like a better version of Karl Henriksson. And I think he'll be able to play up and down the lineup.

 

[Edge]

I feel like Gunler falls into two different tiers depending on who you talk to.

In my experience, fans are significantly higher on him than a lot of teams or people in the industry.

I feel like fans have him in that 18-22 range, and it seems most teams, scouts and people closer to the situation have him in the late 20s and even a little further down.

 

[Trxjw]

I feel like Gunler falls into two different tiers depending on who you talk to.

In my experience, fans are significantly higher on him than a lot of teams or people in the industry.

I feel like fans have him in that 18-22 range, and it seems most teams, scouts and people closer to the situation have him in the late 20s and even a little further down.

Fans never put much stock into the risk factor since they have no real skin in the game.

 

[Beer League Sniper]

Really can't go wrong with Greig, Gunler, or Bourque at this spot. They all make a good case.

Personally, I went with Greig. We were lacking not only in talent, but tenacity in the Carolina series. Also, I'm not convinced he's destined for the 3rd line. The tools are there for him to be a Callahan clone. I think that's definitely worth it at 22.

 

[Edge]

Fans never put much stock into the risk factor since they have no real skin in the game.

I do think people like flashier options as well and that tends to make people correlate that with higher "upside". It's true in some cases, but not always.

I also think there's a tendency to downplay the risk with certain picks and assume the upside or reward is greater than it actually is.

A lot of fans love highlight videos. They love when someone comes out and tells them that a player has "world-class skill" or "is one of the most talented kids in the draft."

Scouts and front office people tend to approach this as more of a business. They want to know how skills translate to the NHL level and how it helps the team. They don't give a shit if you can net 40 goals against a goalie who will be wearing a suit to his office job in 5 years. They don't care if you can pass between your legs against a defender who is barely old enough to drive a car. They're not looking at a highlight video someone put together and posted to YouTube. They're looking to see how the guy read the player, how he's evolving, where his head is, etc.

And sometimes they do all that work, and they still make the wrong choice. But usually when a guy is ranked 10-15 spots lower by the professionals, they're seeing something different than people eating popcorn and waving a foam finger.

 

[Machinehead]

It's gonna be some guy we never heard of and then after being mad for an hour, we'll realize he was pretty underrated and we'll stan Gorton.

That's what we do every year.

 

[Trxjw]

I do think people like flashier options as well and that tends to make people correlate that with higher "upside". It's true in some cases, but not always.

I also think there's a tendency to downplay the risk with certain picks and assume the upside or reward is greater than it actually is.

A lot of fans love highlight videos. They love when someone comes out and tells them that a player has "world-class skill" or "is one of the most talented kids in the draft."

Scouts and front office people tend to approach this as more of a business. They want to know how skills translate to the NHL level and how it helps the team. They don't give a shit if you can net 40 goals against a goalie who will be wearing a suit to his office job in 5 years. They don't care if you can pass between your legs against a defender who is barely old enough to drive a car. They're not looking at a highlight video someone put together and posted to YouTube. They're looking to see how the guy read the player, how he's evolving, where his head is, etc.

And sometimes they do all that work, and they still make the wrong choice. But usually when a guy is ranked 10-15 spots lower by the professionals, they're seeing something different than people eating popcorn and waving a foam finger.

I'm certainly guilty of it myself. It's easy to look at someone who is incredibly slick with the puck and can bring you out of your seat and say "This is the clear pick in the late 1st. He could be a home run." Yet you ignore the fact that there aren't any other elements in his game that make him a viable NHL player if the talent doesn't translate. Once in a while you can make that swing but you simply cannot do it consistently while hoping to actually have some sort of ROI on your picks. Especially when you have to sort of guess as to how these kids will fit into the picture 4-5 years from now as opposed to tomorrow.

It's easy to sit on the side and say, "Yeah, but if everything breaks right..." because your job isn't riding on that decision. And to your point, skill and flash doesn't necessarily translate to upside. You could simply end up with a guy who is skilled, but not skilled enough to play above the 3rd line because he can't battle through the league's toughest competition. He might jump from team to team, teasing that he's going to finally take that step but he never does.

 

[Edge]

I'm certainly guilty of it myself. It's easy to look at someone who is incredibly slick with the puck and can bring you out of your seat and say "This is the clear pick in the late 1st. He could be a home run." Yet you ignore the fact that there aren't any other elements in his game that make him a viable NHL player if the talent doesn't translate. Once in a while you can make that swing but you simply cannot do it consistently while hoping to actually have some sort of ROI on your picks. Especially when you have to sort of guess as to how these kids will fit into the picture 4-5 years from now as opposed to tomorrow.

It's easy to sit on the side and say, "Yeah, but if everything breaks right..." because your job isn't riding on that decision. And to your point, skill and flash doesn't necessarily translate to upside. You could simply end up with a guy who is skilled, but not skilled enough to play above the 3rd line because he can't battle through the league's toughest competition. He might jump from team to team, teasing that he's going to finally take that step but he never does.

A long-time scout, who still works in the industry, once compared his job to investing in stocks.

It's not just the current value he's looking at, he's looking to see how his client's investment might grow and mature in the future. Sometimes a stock looks really good --- it's grown to a certain point, it would appear the future is bright, and everything is peachy.

But then you dig deeper and you realize there are flaws and concerns there. Maybe it's already peaked, maybe the stock will be impacted by an industry shift in a few years, maybe it will struggle to adapt.

Sometimes the better investment is in the company that no one is talking about. Or that you're not buying high on.

And you make that decision carefully, because it's your ass if you miss. It's your salary, your career and your ability to provide for your loved ones.

It's very easy to go for broke when there's nothing to lose. It's alot different when it's the rent money, or its a car payment, or the money for your kid's braces.

 

[Trxjw]

A long-time scout, who still works in the industry, once compared his job to investing in stocks.

It's not just the current value he's looking at, he's looking to see how his client's investment might grow and mature in the future. Sometimes a stock looks really good --- it's grown to a certain point, it would appear the future is bright, and everything is peachy.

But then you dig deeper and you realize there are flaws and concerns there. Maybe it's already peaked, maybe the stock will be impacted by an industry shift in a few years, maybe it will struggle to adapt.

Sometimes the better investment is in the company that no one is talking about. Or that you're not buying high on.

And you make that decision carefully, because it's your ass if you miss. It's your salary, your career and your ability to provide for your loved ones.

It's very easy to go for broke when there's nothing to lose. It's alot different when it's the rent money, or its a car payment, or the money for your kid's braces.

Seems like a pretty apt comparison to me.

 

[Inferno]

A long-time scout, who still works in the industry, once compared his job to investing in stocks.

It's not just the current value he's looking at, he's looking to see how his client's investment might grow and mature in the future. Sometimes a stock looks really good --- it's grown to a certain point, it would appear the future is bright, and everything is peachy.

But then you dig deeper and you realize there are flaws and concerns there. Maybe it's already peaked, maybe the stock will be impacted by an industry shift in a few years, maybe it will struggle to adapt.

Sometimes the better investment is in the company that no one is talking about. Or that you're not buying high on.

And you make that decision carefully, because it's your ass if you miss. It's your salary, your career and your ability to provide for your loved ones.

It's very easy to go for broke when there's nothing to lose. It's alot different when it's the rent money, or its a car payment, or the money for your kid's braces.

Just do etfs and ignore all that other crap.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Colanegelo, get another Paisan for Tony D to play with.

 

[eco's bones]

I get why some people like Gunler. He's skilled and this is his second year in the SHL. I chose Greig though because this is a guy who gets involved all over the ice and he plays a gnarly agitating game.....and he's skilled too though he hasn't played the level of competition that Gunler has. Still part of the game is attitude and my read on Greig is he's got a lot of that and when we have a GM saying we got to as a team get harder to play against Greig seems to me t0 be the one on the list above to be the hardest to play against.

 

[True Blue]

Really can't go wrong with Greig, Gunler, or Bourque at this spot. They all make a good case.

Personally, I went with Greig. We were lacking not only in talent, but tenacity in the Carolina series. Also, I'm not convinced he's destined for the 3rd line. The tools are there for him to be a Callahan clone. I think that's definitely worth it at 22.

That was my pick as well. I will say that I cannot see Gunler or Bourque. Well, definitely not Gunler. Attitude kills it. And Bourque's tendency to disappear does also not see what management has been looking for.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

I get why some people like Gunler. He's skilled and this is his second year in the SHL. I chose Greig though because this is a guy who gets involved all over the ice and he plays a gnarly agitating game.....and he's skilled too though he hasn't played the level of competition that Gunler has. Still part of the game is attitude and my read on Greig is he's got a lot of that and when we have a GM saying we got to as a team get harder to play against Greig seems to me t0 be the one on the list above to be the hardest to play against.

Would you say Greig is a Yanni Gourde type?

 

[AB13]

Helge Grans outproduced Boqvist, Broberg and Söderström at the same age and is a big defenceman mostly praised for his defensive ability. He will go top 20 for sure and is a good contender here. Went Gunler for scoring upside though.

 

[Edge]

I get why some people like Gunler. He's skilled and this is his second year in the SHL. I chose Greig though because this is a guy who gets involved all over the ice and he plays a gnarly agitating game.....and he's skilled too though he hasn't played the level of competition that Gunler has. Still part of the game is attitude and my read on Greig is he's got a lot of that and when we have a GM saying we got to as a team get harder to play against Greig seems to me t0 be the one on the list above to be the hardest to play against.

I’m more interested sometimes in the perceptions around draft time - I’ve always been fascinated by them.

For example there’s a perception they someone like Gunler is the best player on the board, and yet a sampling of team lists would indicate that Greig is probably on more (though not all lists). I use those two as an example because of the vote on here.

Likewise there is a fan perception that Greig is only a third liner and I’m not sure a lot scouts completely share that view. A lot of them think he has a legit shot to be a top six forward.

Gunler is seen as having the offensive upside, but I’ve heard mixed things from people. Some teams see a potential 30 goal, 60+ point player. Other teams think he’s going to have adapt and evolve a bit to maybe he hit 20-25 goals and 50 points.

 

[Kendo]

Gunler is certainly intriguing, but I went Zary here. I really don't think either drops past 20, though.

 

[Justin17]

Helge Grans outproduced Boqvist, Broberg and Söderström at the same age and is a big defenceman mostly praised for his defensive ability. He will go top 20 for sure and is a good contender here. Went Gunler for scoring upside though.

I’ve heard defense is his biggest weakness.

 

[AB13]

I’ve heard defense is his biggest weakness.

Where have you heard that? I don't think that is the case I can say as a swede who watches a quite bit of the SHL. He is usually very solid and hard to beat in his own zone, although he can be a little mistake prone at times.

 

[Justin17]

Where have you heard that? I don't think that is the case I can say as a swede who watches a quite bit of the SHL. He is usually very solid and hard to beat in his own zone, although he can be a little mistake prone at times.

Mark Edwards and Draft Dynasty off the top of my head, but I’ve also seen a bunch of other posters on here with the same view. I haven’t actually seen him play myself though, just read opinions of people who have.

 

[Harbour Dog]

Going to be a photo finish!

Some of you guys that are abstaining should weigh in with votes for Greig or Gunler!

 

[AB13]

Mark Edwards and Draft Dynasty off the top of my head, but I’ve also seen a bunch of other posters on here with the same view. I haven’t actually seen him play myself though, just read opinions of people who have.

Intresting, I am not sure about how often I agree with Draft Dynasty though, although Mark Edwards usually is reliable. I think he looks like a good defensive player in general but I might be wrong since I am no scout who watched him closely in particular. I think he his physique and skating give him relatively good defensive upside at least, and his production is outstanding as I explained. He is generally very mature in his decision making.

 

[eco's bones]

Would you say Greig is a Yanni Gourde type?

It's probably not a bad comparable though I think he might have higher offensive upside. Seriously any guy we pick here is going to have to work like nobody's business to break into our top 6 anytime soon with the top end talent we're putting together. If either Gunler or Greig can't break into the top 6 of our future lineup I'd see Greig as having more potential as a third liner.