Team Board Mock Draft

[PacificOceanPotion]

Where do you guys think Smith would’ve gone in the 2007 draft?

 

[TheBeard]

Where do you guys think Smith would’ve gone in the 2007 draft?

2007? 2nd.

 

[PacificOceanPotion]

2007? 2nd.

Really? I mean I respect your opinion. I guess for me, the question came to me when comparing Smith’s skill set to Cooch’s And we took him at 9. Id probably rank Smith ahead of Turris at least.

 

[TheBeard]

Really? I mean I respect your opinion. I guess for me, the question came to me when comparing Smith’s skill set to Cooch’s And we took him at 9. Id probably rank Smith ahead of Turris at least.

I mean if we're talking revisionist then it's hard to say. If we're transporting back to then and adding him into the draft pool, I'd maybe say third behind Kane and JVR, but ahead of Turris.

 

[PacificOceanPotion]

I mean if we're talking revisionist then it's hard to say. If we're transporting back to then and adding him into the draft pool, I'd maybe say third behind Kane and JVR, but ahead of Turris.

Sorry I didn’t specify. Yeah I meant transporting him back lol. Fun little exercise. Just wanted to see where others would rank him with Couture and guys in the 1st that were at his age.

 

[stator]

I think Grier will trade down for two picks.

 

[bullslugg]

I think Grier will trade down for two picks.

If he does he better come away with a 1C and a 1D.

 

[Juxtaposer]

If he does he better come away with a 1C and a 1D.

I have a lukewarm take which is that there is no defenseman with real #1D upside in this draft. Obviously the odds are that someone will develop exceptionally well and become a true #1D after being drafted (think Charlie McAvoy), but there’s no one with clear-cut could be a #1D potential. That’s why I’d like to spend #26 and #36 on defensemen like Willander, Simashev, Dragicevic, Molendyk, Gulyayev, etc. in the hopes that they can become foundational top-4 pieces for us for a long while. A “set it and forget it” Vlasic/Braun-lite pairing that you can rely on for 20 minutes a game in all situations against opposing second lines.

Worry about #1D next year. Get a foundational forward this year (Carlsson/Michkov/Smith) and some good D prospects and keep building next year.

 

[sharski]

hindisight will obv be 20/20 but unless GMMG really reaches, i don't see how you can love/hate what he does at #4 here

unless years later we find out that GMMG likes Michkov, Smith, Carlsson equally, has his pick of whoever's left at CBJ, and all he does is turn to Vlasic and say "welp... it's your call... whatever you decide, you have my full support"

 

[Juxtaposer]

hindisight will obv be 20/20 but unless GMMG really reaches, i don't see how you can love/hate what he does at #4 here

unless years later we find out that GMMG likes Michkov, Smith, Carlsson equally, has his pick of whoever's left at CBJ, and all he does is turn to Vlasic and say "welp... it's your call... whatever you decide, you have my full support"

What I don’t understand is this type of appeal to authority. I watch so much hockey in part so I can form an opinion of my own rather than just being a yes man to my GM and scouts.

It’s fine if that’s how you enjoy sports, but people are allowed to have opinions.

 

[Gecklund]

What I don’t understand is this type of appeal to authority. I watch so much hockey in part so I can form an opinion of my own rather than just being a yes man to my GM and scouts.

It’s fine if that’s how you enjoy sports, but people are allowed to have opinions.

I will say that I agree with both of you here. While yes I understand guys like Grier and other guys in hockey have more informed opinions, they’re human. They have biases. They get things wrong. I think it’s a lot more fun and helpful to be informed and be able to discuss these decisions.

For example, I think both you and I criticized the Timo pick HARD at the draft. I could be getting you confused with someone else but i know for me I hated the pick. I wanted Barzal or Rantanen. Obviously Timo ended up exceeding all expectations of mine which is fantastic. This is an example where I was wrong and management was right.

At the same time, I pushed HARD for Pastrnak in 2014. I was very unhappy that we traded down and basically took Pastrnak VERY lite. This was an example where I was right and management was wrong. Now these are far and few between but occasionally I’ll be right.

Now to the original point, as long as we are getting one of Smith, Michkov, Carlsson, or the very outside chance of Fantilli I think it’s hard to be upset with the pick even if I wanted someone else more.

 

[themelkman]

If this is the situation, Michkov is the only pick I would accept. Smith just isnt better than the crowd imo

 

[Hodge]

If this is the situation, Michkov is the only pick I would accept. Smith just isnt better than the crowd imo

I have a feeling it's going to be someone nobody is expecting, like Nate Danielson or something. And it will somehow turn out to be a decent pick in the end. I don't remember anyone mocking Timo to the Sharks or any team drafting in the top 10 that year.

 

[Gecklund]

I have a feeling it's going to be someone nobody is expecting, like Nate Danielson or something. And it will somehow turn out to be a decent pick in the end. I don't remember anyone mocking Timo to the Sharks or any team drafting in the top 10 that year.

Timo was ranked 10-15. I still don’t think it was a good pick though with Rantanen going right after.

 

[themelkman]

I have a feeling it's going to be someone nobody is expecting, like Nate Danielson or something. And it will somehow turn out to be a decent pick in the end. I don't remember anyone mocking Timo to the Sharks or any team drafting in the top 10 that year.

Timo was in the range, he wasnt out of nowhere. If Grier plans an outlandish pick he should trade down because 4 will have unique guys

 

[mogambomoroo]

It's important to use that #4 pick on a player of that tier, because even if it doesn't work out as well as advertised... at least you will know that you worked with the information you had at the time. It's much worse to reach at #4 and get a guy from 7-12 range, after that someone takes the consensus #4 and more probably succeeds. Top 5 is usually pretty sacred imo, I understand at 6-14 when the tier is not as clear as deeper in the draft.
But after all I'm not a scout, far from it but I think MG is pretty happy with the #4 position.

 

[SjMilhouse]

I have a feeling it's going to be someone nobody is expecting, like Nate Danielson or something. And it will somehow turn out to be a decent pick in the end. I don't remember anyone mocking Timo to the Sharks or any team drafting in the top 10 that year.

I mean this entire board was pretty upset we didn't take a few guys over Timo but hindsight is always 20/20 and to your point it wasn't a reach or a bad pick by any means

 

[Juxtaposer]

I mean this entire board was pretty upset we didn't take a few guys over Timo but hindsight is always 20/20 and to your point it wasn't a reach or a bad pick by any means

The guys I wanted over Meier were Barzal, Rantanen, and Connor in that order, so I don’t really feel like that’s even a little hindsight. I think I had Meier ranked around 17th in my personal rankings and I was absolutely apoplectic when we drafted him with all three of those guys on the board.

Meier was thought of as an early 20’s pick until the CHL top prospects game where he got a bunch of attention for playing well with McDavid. He was on people’s radar for having a pretty good WJC in his draft year as well.

Meier developed playmaking and defensive aspects of his game in his draft+1 year, which is what sold me on him as a prospect. But purely based on his draft year, he was an atrocious pick compared to the other three guys I wanted.

 

[Mattb124]

It's important to use that #4 pick on a player of that tier, because even if it doesn't work out as well as advertised... at least you will know that you worked with the information you had at the time. It's much worse to reach at #4 and get a guy from 7-12 range, after that someone takes the consensus #4 and more probably succeeds. Top 5 is usually pretty sacred imo, I understand at 6-14 when the tier is not as clear as deeper in the draft.
But after all I'm not a scout, far from it but I think MG is pretty happy with the #4 position.

Yup. In this good a draft, you do not trade down from 4OA.

 

[Jargon]

If we trade down and get like #6 and #12, I can see there’s some allure to that. But I still think not picking Michkov, a potentially generational player, will be a mistake.

 

[hotcabbagesoup]

If we trade down and get like #6 and #12, I can see there’s some allure to that. But I still think not picking Michkov, a potentially generational player, will be a mistake.

I would salivate. Benson at 6 and then Dvorsky/Moore at 12. All of a sudden, our team is extremely fast and tenacious up and down the lineup.

 

[Boy Hedican]

Your post is absolutely zero value post.

The risks are related to stuff which are larger scale things than just hockey. I cannot blame you as you live in North America that you are probably not following the situation as much.

Also, if Michkov really is that good, shouldn't he go already 2nd or 3rd overall if there would not be that big risk?

Please, do tell.

 

[Shark in Hockeytown]

The guys I wanted over Meier were Barzal, Rantanen, and Connor in that order, so I don’t really feel like that’s even a little hindsight. I think I had Meier ranked around 17th in my personal rankings and I was absolutely apoplectic when we drafted him with all three of those guys on the board.

Meier was thought of as an early 20’s pick until the CHL top prospects game where he got a bunch of attention for playing well with McDavid. He was on people’s radar for having a pretty good WJC in his draft year as well.

Meier developed playmaking and defensive aspects of his game in his draft+1 year, which is what sold me on him as a prospect. But purely based on his draft year, he was an atrocious pick compared to the other three guys I wanted.

I would add that with Thornton in decline at that point, the team needed a playmaker more than a scoring winger. That's why I thought either Rantanen or Barzal would have been better picks at the time. I also liked Connor more because he would have added speed to a slow team.

 

[hotcabbagesoup]

I would add that with Thornton in decline at that point, the team needed a playmaker more than a scoring winger. That's why I thought either Rantanen or Barzal would have been better picks at the time. I also liked Connor more because he would have added speed to a slow team.

Every team cpuld use more playmakers but I think DW was swayed by Timo's scouting report and how he was bigger and more physical than Barzal, faster than Rantanen, and have a more NHL-ready shot than either of those two also. Basically NHL-ready player. And maybe the next Heatley, Seto, or Cheechoo slotted next to Jumbo.

One season removed from the reverse sweep to the Kings and missing the playoffs because they could not get the puck in the net.

 

[Lebanezer]

If we trade down and get like #6 and #12, I can see there’s some allure to that. But I still think not picking Michkov, a potentially generational player, will be a mistake.

You make that trade if you want to pick Michkov and know that Arizona wants Smith/Carlsson at 4 and Montreal wants Reinbacher or someone else at 5. Then you can still get Michkov and add 12.