Prospect Info: Tyler Kleven (D) at 44th Overall (Sens traded up)
- Thread starter IceColdOx
- Start date
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 54,021
- 39,489
Alf Silfversson
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2011
- 5,771
- 5,497
Kleven has improved and that's great. I still wouldn't have traded basically 2 2nds for the right to draft him though. And the guy I DID want around there was the guy who went right after Kleven: Brock Faber. I'd still want that guy over Kleven, pretty easily.
It's awesome that he's developed so well but let's not pretend like he's some Norris trophy winner.
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 54,021
- 39,489
There's nothing wrong with liking different players in the second round, doesn't matter how big a miss it is or how big a hit the guy you liked over them ends up being, their all long shots in the grand scheme of things.
I'd also suggest framing it as basically two 2nds could be flipped to basically two 3rds. I'd certainly trade two 3rds for Kleven.
Last edited:
I was just kidding around, you have to admit that it was a pretty funny post I replied to.
Anyways, it’s a classic case of bird in the hand case two in the bush at this point. All good that you prefer different players.
Alf Silfversson
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2011
- 5,771
- 5,497
That's fair and it's fine to think that way. I'd prefer to try for a volume approach, particularly because there was a decent chance that Kleven (or a similar prospect) would have been there had we not made the trade.
I think I've said this before, but heading into the US national program, he was thought of as a potential top five overall pick. Obviously his development didn't follow that path, but I think the reason anyone ever thought it is because he has unusually good hands and feet for someone his size.
The Faber comp could be a tough one for the duration of their careers, but it's possible that when you're talking playoff hockey, Kleven is the type of player you need on your team, even more than a great skating well rounded player like Faber. Or maybe not. But check back in a few years.
The Faber comp could be a tough one for the duration of their careers, but it's possible that when you're talking playoff hockey, Kleven is the type of player you need on your team, even more than a great skating well rounded player like Faber. Or maybe not. But check back in a few years.
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 54,021
- 39,489
I mean, MacKenzie had Kleven ranked higher (36th) than we drafted him, by the same logic of you saying we basically gave up two 2nds, you might argue Kleven was pretty much ranked as a first.
Anyways, like I said, it's all crap shots, I think we made out pretty well though, so I'm not gonna complain even if we could have grabbed Faber, just like I wouldn't be too upset if we picked a couple busts, the odds are against you at that stage of the draft.
Alf Silfversson
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2011
- 5,771
- 5,497
I'm not as high on Kleven as most around here are but he's played well for us and I'm stoked about that. He's finally started showing some of the hardness to his game which was always gonna come with him getting comfortable. What I am impressed with is that he can actually carry the puck now. He's looking really good in that regard. He also gets the puck toward the net without hesitation when he gets the chance; nothing fancy.
What I don't like about his game is that unless he has a really easy outlet I find his passes are inaccurate, weak or ill-advised. But the guy is a 3rd pairing player at this point and doing it well. He's been a positive asset in this series for sure.
bert
Registered User
Maybe just learn from your first mistake and watch this player develop. He is clearly worth two 2nds, he is worth way more than that. He is not remotely close to his ceiling, his puck skills are wild for his size.
Obviously not if they had to move up to get him. Cant tell if you are being serious right now. They did have a volume approach they already had 3 first rounders and with Kleven that is 3 second rounders.
Do you think 6'5 physical d men that skate like that grow on trees or something?......
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 54,021
- 39,489
Kleven is still at the stage where he's showing flashes rather than consistency, if he ever turns those flashes into consistent play he's going to be a hell of a player, but even if he doesn't I think he's well worth the picks we gave up.
bert
Registered User
What he is right now is worth the picks they gave up. He is getting better every player with his size and physcality has a long long development curve. Look at Logan Stanley he is finally arriving.
Masked
(Super/star)
Has Stanley arrived? He still seems to be a borderline 6/7 guy in Winnipeg.
He's a guy I'd hoped the Sens made a play for if it could have been done cheaply.
Alf Silfversson
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2011
- 5,771
- 5,497
I am watching this guy develop and enjoying it. I've said that many times.
Obviously they HAD to move up? LOL. We're talking about Pierre "here have 3rd rounder because you asked for 4th rounder" Dorion here.
I'm glad the player is improving and looking like he could end up a really good player. 6'5 guys who can skate don't grow on trees for sure. Neither do 1RDs who play for Team USA.
We got an NHL player who seems to be still improving but my goodness people act like this was some coup where we got a generational player or something.
Second round players are a crap shoot, as has been pointed out in this thread. I still wouldn't trade 2 2nd round picks at that point in the draft. Given the way our scouts draft (big guys who can skate) I'd think this was probably a lucky hit. I'm glad it has worked out for us but I'm not a fan of the way our GM at the time did this. Happy with the result but not happy with the thought process that went into it.
bert
Registered User
So your standard is you have to hit on the best player in the 2nd round or maybe just the 2nd best player?.... Kleven has alot of runway left.
Its a lucky hit when thats the type of player they always target... That is a weird way of looking at it.
No one dislikes Dorion more than me but its pretty obvious that they had to move up to pick Kleven. He was ranked way higher than the sens next 2nd round pick and looks like he should have been a top 20 pick. By the end of his development who knows.
While Dorion had many faults his execution of the 2020 draft looks like one of the best drafts a team will ever have in this history of hockey. Its literally his by far best performance in the job.
Alf Silfversson
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2011
- 5,771
- 5,497
It is a lucky hit when those are the types they always target.
Kleven
Nordberg
Wallberg
Roger
Romeo
Other than Kleven that is not a good looking group.
In the past couple years they've also gone for:
Andonovski - I actually think he has a shot but he's slightly different
Eliasson - Too early to tell but looking like a bit of a reach
Wallenius - Who knows?
That is a lot of going for the same type of player and not getting much out of it. Again I'm glad Kleven looks to be working out but I didn't like the process and I won't if they go that route again.
bert
Registered User
jbeck5
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2009
- 16,784
- 4,496
Wouldn't we hope that they don't need his offense so that we can be patient for his development?
I don't see why anyone would HOPE that we NEED his offense....that would mean we are struggling and need to make a change...I don't see why anyone would hope for that.
Whatever type of player you “target”, the reality is the vast majority of prospects will never make it.
Draft a bunch of speed and “skill” prospects? Most will never pan out.
Draft a bunch or smart and cerebral prospects? Most will never pan out.
Draft a bunch of size and grit prospects? Most will never pan out.
There really is no archetype that has a higher success rate.
Look at the Leafs under Dubas. Outside of the lottery picks, what did drafting “skill” get him? Absolutely nothing. A bunch of mediocre AHLers and players playing in Europe.
The guys you liked over Kleven will, most likely, never be NHLers.
Alf Silfversson
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2011
- 5,771
- 5,497
No. Ad you're clearly either missing, or ignoring, my point. My point is that I wouldn't have traded those picks for the 44th pick.
After the fact it's really nice to have a good player in Kleven (although I was vocal that I would have preferred Faber) but the process was, IMO, a bad one.
Example: I can try to make every 8 foot putt on the golf course by blading a sand wedge instead of using my putter. Just because one goes in doesn't mean it was a good idea.
Alf Silfversson
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2011
- 5,771
- 5,497
I'd never advocate for just drafting one type.
THE guy that I wanted over Kleven was Brock Faber at 44. He's a very good 1RD. But I'm no scout so that is probably just luck.
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 54,021
- 39,489
So, it's all going to come down to an expected return on the pick proposition, combined with if you think the targeted player has been undervalued.
So, for example, Sound of Hockey has a pick value model, there are plenty out there, it's just the first I found.
44 OA = 78.37
vs
59 OA = 43.2
64 OA = 36.22
for a total of 79.42
Those picks vs 44 OA are about as close to a wash as it gets using that model.
Puck pedia has another model, it had the picks valued at 6.25 for 44OA and 6.85 for the package, again pretty darn close in value, you could throw in a mid 5th to even it out if you want,
Now, if you think that Kleven slid on draft day, and believe he should have went where Mackenzie had him ranked, 36th, the balance shifts with the puckpedia model valuing Kleven's ranked spot at 8.69 vs the package at 6.85, and the sound of hockey model having it 111.03 vs 79.42. You make that trade every day from a process perspective.
bert
Registered User
Dubas has followed the process you want the team to take. He is the worst GM in the NHL. Draft small your team will be small. While I think Ottawa should diversify how they pick prospects atleast they are going for an identity that wins when it counts.
