Who would you want at 3rd overall?

[Gecklund]

I voted Frondell. I think he might not have the offensive talent of Hagens or Martone but he’s got the complete playstyle and could be an excellent compliment to Smith and/or Eklund on the second line behind Macklin. He’s not a great skater but I think he’s a bit underrated there in a similar way to the way Smith is talked about around here. I also like his hockey IQ which is what I value more than anything else more than Martone for sure and probably more than Hagens. He’s also probably the most NHL ready of the three and while that’s not necessarily a big deal, it’s definitely a consideration.

Essentially for me Frondell has the highest floor and probably the lowest ceiling but still a relatively high ceiling (good 2C). Not mad if we went Hagens or Martone at 3 though.

 

[Makoshark]

This whole thread is just making me want to see that pic traded for a RHD with known qualities or trade down a few spots still within the top 10 and still come away with whoever is left, Mrtka, O'Brien or Eklund and another pick in next year's stacked draft. If you held a gun to my head I think I'd go Frondell as I think we need goal scorers more so than playmakers and he'd defensively the best out of the bunch and made for playoffs hockey.

 

[Gecklund]

This whole thread is just making me want to see that pic traded for a RHD with known qualities or trade down a few spots still within the top 10 and still come away with whoever is left, Mrtka, O'Brien or Eklund and another pick in next year's stacked draft. If you held a gun to my head I think I'd go Frondell as I think we need goal scorers more so than playmakers and he'd defensively the best out of the bunch and made for playoffs hockey.

I mean realistically is there a defenseman out there (never mind handedness) that is realistically available that you’d move 3rd overall for and the other team would accept that trade? Cause I just don’t see it.

 

[sampler]

I say None of the above. trade Down. Everyone wants a #1C. Hagens and Misa seem the clear top 2 there. other teams will pay handsomely to get one of those them at #3. If we aren't trading up to get one, trade down to add a top 4D or several more high picks, and then take Martone if available and, Desnoyers or Frondell otherwise.

If you can get martone at #6, then taking him at 3 is terrible asset management, and seeing as how the difference between martone, desnoyers, O'brian, Frondell seems not that big... I would trade down.

this is the year where grier should be able to trade up to #1 at a reasonable cost, or get a kings ransom to trade down from 3 from some team who needs a #1C. Think about what a coup it would be for a team picking #6 to walk away with hagens? They would pay a fortune for that. I could se Nash or Philly giving up BOTH of their late 1sts to move into the #3 hole to get him.

 

[GRANdSharks]

I say None of the above. trade Down. Everyone wants a #1C. Hagens and Misa seem the clear top 2 there. other teams will pay handsomely to get one of those them at #3. If we aren't trading up to get one, trade down to add a top 4D or several more high picks, and then take Martone if available and, Desnoyers or Frondell otherwise.

If you can get martone at #6, then taking him at 3 is terrible asset management, and seeing as how the difference between martone, desnoyers, O'brian, Frondell seems not that big... I would trade down.

this is the year where grier should be able to trade up to #1 at a reasonable cost, or get a kings ransom to trade down from 3 from some team who needs a #1C. Think about what a coup it would be for a team picking #6 to walk away with hagens? They would pay a fortune for that. I could se Nash or Philly giving up BOTH of their late 1sts to move into the #3 hole to get him.

Id be perfectly fine with the idea of trading up to 1 or down within the top 8. Unfortunately teams aren't going to trade off of Schaefer or Misa (they are a cut above the rest of the field, so it's going to take more then we would want to give) and Idt Hagens is going to be viewed as a premium asset worth a top 4 d and premium picks your expecting while staying in the top 8. I wouldn't be surprised if some teams have him as the 4th best center depending on the board. Sure we could maybe get that type of package down the board but it's probably not worth it to trade down that much. Were better off keeping the pick and contuing to add players that fit going forward. Are top pick isn't the only way to address the need on defense even if it would be ideal to.

 

[Makoshark]

I mean realistically is there a defenseman out there (never mind handedness) that is realistically available that you’d move 3rd overall for and the other team would accept that trade? Cause I just don’t see it.

Dobson potentially straight up, Morrow +, Nemec +, Wallinder + 15th overall, overall is a short list. Are all of them available or even worth passing on a potential 2nd line center? Debatable if MG is not sold on any on of the players in the poll. I think most of these guys potentially fit the timeline and our right side need.

 

[Juxtaposer]

For those leaning Center - Not seeing much love for the highly ranked Frondell - is it just the lower risk with Hagens higher floor that make you value him as BPA?

Frondell doesn't have the transition skill that Hagens has. Main difference IMO.

Love the discussion in here.

 

[coooldude]

Interesting to see Hagens so strongly in the lead, although I get it. I personally was way turned off of him after the @19Simon19 video showing some of his issues - sticking out to me was too much slot pass forcing (like Celebrini but worse at passing and even more forcing) and a troubling tendency to stick to a single, ineffective shot type on the rush and in the zone. Just makes me worry that he's going to struggle to adapt his game to the big boy league. And even if he does, it presents challenges in the top 6... Like what to do with Marleau was always our challenge, only if Marleau was smaller, not as good at skating, potentially a smarter playmaker, unclear whether as good at goalscoring. Just don't love it.

I think the thread and good discussion reinforces the feeling that 3-asy is Queasy. God willing we hit our 3.125% chance /s at picking 1 or 2.

 

[sampler]

Id be perfectly fine with the idea of trading up to 1 or down within the top 8. Unfortunately teams aren't going to trade off of Schaefer or Misa (they are a cut above the rest of the field, so it's going to take more then we would want to give) and Idt Hagens is going to be viewed as a premium asset worth a top 4 d and premium picks your expecting while staying in the top 8. I wouldn't be surprised if some teams have him as the 4th best center depending on the board. Sure we could maybe get that type of package down the board but it's probably not worth it to trade down that much. Were better off keeping the pick and contuing to add players that fit going forward. Are top pick isn't the only way to address the need on defense even if it would be ideal to.

You may be right about teams' view of Hagens, but I really dont think so. Remember, he was the clear #1 preseason. In fact, he was the clear #1 to be for multiple years after being top 4 on the USNDT at a 15 year old.

I don't think his stock has fallen that far. I wouldnt be surprised if multiple teams still have him as the #1 on their overall list or at least #1C. Remember, Hagens had a very strong world jrs on the championship USA team while Misa was left off, and the NCAA is a WAY harder league than the wild west OHL where scoring is off the charts easy. Misa also evaporated in the OHL playoffs, so while Misa's big numbers look great on paper, the CHL is ridiculously easy, and beating up on 16 and 17 year olds is very diferent than matching up against 19-23 year olds.

Furthermore, Schaefer played less than 20 games all year between Mono and injury. He has some big red flags that would make teams less excited for him, particularly if they have need for a #1C.

I genuinely think that the sharks are in a position where if they get the #3 pick, they should be trading up to 1 for an affordable package (far preferred option 1) or trading down to 6-8 for a very nice package (like to #3 and #51 to philly for #6, 22, and 24). Picking Anyone but hagens at 3 is a poor value play (as you could trade down and get the same guy+package) and picing hagens, while not a bad play, does not match the need for either Size or D.

Say we cannot get schaefer because whoever wins just wont budge, so we did the #3 and 51 for #6, 22 and 24 deal with philly.

Philly gets their #1C with Hagens. We might well get Martone at 6, landing a guy who fits here, along with functionally FOUR first rounders at approx. 22, 24, 28, and 33.

This gives the sharks a nice prospect in martone, and enough draft capital to move up to land multiple good RHD prospects, possibly both Fiddler and Hensler.

Outside of walking away with schaefer, I would be OK to walk away with Martone, Hensler, Fiddler, and Moore.

 

[TheBeard]

I think Hagens has the most trade value so I go him.

 

[Juxtaposer]

If we got 3, I would be willing to trade down as far as 6. I see the Hagens/Martone/Frondell/Desnoyers tier as approximately equal. I think Eklund is on that tier of player but to be frank his size and position just make him less attractive.

 

[TheBigDrunkPanda]

BPA all day

 

[sampler]

BTW, the discussion around Frondell vs. Desnoyers vs. Martone vs. Obrian vs. Mrtka discussion is showing just how close picks 4-8 really are, and the overwhlemingly common ranking around 1-2-3 being Schaefer, Misa, Hagens shows the dynamics of this draft. For the sharks, #1 is clear. but #2-8 are not. For other teams looking for a #1C, #1 is not so clear. BPA is pretty clear in schaefer, but does not match team need and is not that far ahead of #2/3 (misa/hagens).

If we dont come away with Schaefer, I do not have a very strong preference for who we get. Nothing matches team need of a clear top pair D followed by clear top line Wing with size (martone is closest, but he is likely available in the 6+ range as most other teams will prefer C (Misa/Hagens/desnoyers/obrian/Frondell over W). As such, it makes little sense for us to stay at 3, when we can take advantage of being in the top tier and having the hagens pick.

We can always take Hagens and then look for trades later, but I gather that tends to be worse than just trading down to try to get martone.

 

[hohosaregood]

I won't lie, kinda think Hagens as Celebrini's wing sounds interesting to me. Like be his Jesper Bratt.

 

[Lebanezer]

The real question is what is more valuable to the Sharks, Bostonian or Height?

Edit: Yes I know Hagens is from NY, but he went to BC.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I won't lie, kinda think Hagens as Celebrini's wing sounds interesting to me. Like be his Jesper Bratt.

I actually think Hagens is a pure center. Besides, we already have Eklund as Bratt-lite.

 

[Gecklund]

Frondell doesn't have the transition skill that Hagens has. Main difference IMO.

Love the discussion in here.

Yep exactly. Hagens to me is the more dynamic options offensively and Frondell the more two way option. Obviously not exact but that’s kind of the way I see it. Hagens has potential to be anywhere from first line to bust whereas realistically I think Frondell is more of a high end second line to third line

 

[Hodge]

I actually think Hagens is a pure center. Besides, we already have Eklund as Bratt-lite.

Which raises the point that Grier has repeatedly said he sees Celebrini and Smith as our 1-2 punch at center going forward. Would he really spend a top 3 pick on Hagens or even Misa when they are mainly perceived as centers?

 

[coooldude]

Recent shift by shift for Hagens from the tourney.

• Best trait overall is positioning for puck support on the forecheck, breakout, and only sometimes in zone.
• GWG highlight was from a good instance of this: great timing/positioning to be around the net to collect the rebound and score a nice, difficult wraparound.
• Assist was lucky AF - should have been a bad high turnover but Leonard collects the bad pass on his backhand and then slips it to Perreault for the finish
• That said, he deserves one assist because Leonard missed a golden chance on PP after a Hagens dime seam pass to the back door.
• Otherwise, pretty underwhelming. Although he's positionally generally sound, he still loses a lot of battles or gets knocked off puck easily. There were more than a few occasions where both he and Perreault were occupying the same space in OZ, NZ, or DZ.
• Lots of poor forcing puck play from the entire line but especially Hagens and Perreault. As typical, Leonard played a lot of power forward hero hockey.
• Two shots were exactly as Simon described, a slow developing toe drag to a release from his inside heel that seems ineffective especially at a higher level with less space/time.

Comparing to Smith on the same line last year (granted D+1 vs D+0), Smith was more of a drifter but generally more dangerous with the puck when he received it, and seemed to cause more problems on the forecheck. Hagens more active in positioning in all zones, but generally imposed himself less on the game despite coming away with 1+1.

One game only, but this plus all the other evaluations = feels like a project that you'd have to believe has a strong enough hockey IQ to adapt his game in the pros, develop more strength and balance to complement his decent skating, and needs to mature his NHL skills. I'm still not into it but every choice feels bad as I said earlier. Maybe he could be a responsible 2 way 2C with some fast or big wingers, but doesn't feel like a fit with either Celebrini or Smith at this moment.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Yep exactly. Hagens to me is the more dynamic options offensively and Frondell the more two way option. Obviously not exact but that’s kind of the way I see it. Hagens has potential to be anywhere from first line to bust whereas realistically I think Frondell is more of a high end second line to third line

I wouldn't even say Hagens is more dynamic, just that he's more well-rounded and versatile.

The reality is that none of the forwards in this draft are Celebrini types. By that, I mean that you don't have to construct a line to fit Celebrini, he can fill any niche. He's a great transition player, a great defensive player, great on the forecheck, great on the boards, great handling the puck, great shooting, very good playmaking. There is nothing he absolutely needs a line mate to do for him, he can do it all.

Every forward in this draft has certain aspects of play that they don't excel in and will need a linemate to fill the gap. Martone needs a guy to be heavy on the forecheck and cause chaos and force turnovers (like W. Eklund). Misa needs a high-end playmaker and boards partner (like Chernyshov). Frondell needs a transition wiz and F1 (like V. Eklund). Desnoyers needs a high-end finisher and puck carrier. Hagens is probably the least "needy" in terms of line construction, but he does have weaknesses in terms of the fact that he doesn't seem to be the primary puck-carrier. They all will need the right mix of line mates to unlock their ultimate potential. And that's not necessarily an indictment, it's just a reality that there are very few forward who can "do it all" at an elite level the way Celebrini can. Crosby, Barkov, Point. That's all I got.

(Three Cup-winning 1C's with six Cups between them, for the record.)

I think Hagens has a very high floor. 50 point 2C with solid defensive impact. I think Frondell has a lower floor but still clearly an NHLer (3W IMO). Frondell's appeal over Hagens is purely in his physicality, size/jam, and shot. Starting a team from scratch I would comfortably choose Hagens. But you ignore fit when drafting at your own peril. Frondell is arguably a better choice for us because of fit, in that he could be a center or winger, has some size/physicality that we lack, and is more of a pure finisher.

Which raises the point that Grier has repeatedly said he sees Celebrini and Smith as our 1-2 punch at center going forward. Would he really spend a top 3 pick on Hagens or even Misa when they are mainly perceived as centers?

Yeah, I'm not sure that Hagens is realistically someone Grier is interested in at 3. Misa can definitely play wing, so I don't see that as a detriment there.

 

[gaucholoco3]

2. Celebrini-Smith-Hagens down the middle would be the best center depth since Crosby-Malkin-Staal. Then trade Eklund.

If this is the plan the I would prefer Desnoyers in the 3C role.

Going Celebrini - Smith - Hagens down the middle is too small for a team in todays NHL.

Celebrini - Smith - Desnoyers would be such a solid spine for the team. Also Ostapchuk would be then slotted as a strong 4C.

You have an all situations 1st line with Celebrini. A scoring 2nd line that will destroy Ozone starts. A matchup 3rd line that can play neutral with top lines and destroy other 3rd lines. Then a 4th line anchored by a big defensively responsible Center.

 

[Juxtaposer]

If this is the plan the I would prefer Desnoyers in the 3C role.

Going Celebrini - Smith - Hagens down the middle is too small for a team in todays NHL.

Celebrini - Smith - Desnoyers would be such a solid spine for the team. Also Ostapchuk would be then slotted as a strong 4C.

You have an all situations 1st line with Celebrini. A scoring 2nd line that will destroy Ozone starts. A matchup 3rd line that can play neutral with top lines and destroy other 3rd lines. Then a 4th line anchored by a big defensively responsible Center.

Right, that's exactly why I included Desnoyers in the poll option. I know his ultimate upside is lower than the other options (unlike Pronman/Wheeler, I don't think he has 1C upside), but his game is safe and projectable and pro-style. He could be a Jordan Staal type of 3C down the road if he were to play behind Celebrini's Crosby and Smith's Malkin.

 

[Gecklund]

I wouldn't even say Hagens is more dynamic, just that he's more well-rounded and versatile.

The reality is that none of the forwards in this draft are Celebrini types. By that, I mean that you don't have to construct a line to fit Celebrini, he can fill any niche. He's a great transition player, a great defensive player, great on the forecheck, great on the boards, great handling the puck, great shooting, very good playmaking. There is nothing he absolutely needs a line mate to do for him, he can do it all.

Every forward in this draft has certain aspects of play that they don't excel in and will need a linemate to fill the gap. Martone needs a guy to be heavy on the forecheck and cause chaos and force turnovers (like W. Eklund). Misa needs a high-end playmaker and boards partner (like Chernyshov). Frondell needs a transition wiz and F1 (like V. Eklund). Desnoyers needs a high-end finisher and puck carrier. Hagens is probably the least "needy" in terms of line construction, but he does have weaknesses in terms of the fact that he doesn't seem to be the primary puck-carrier. They all will need the right mix of line mates to unlock their ultimate potential. And that's not necessarily an indictment, it's just a reality that there are very few forward who can "do it all" at an elite level the way Celebrini can. Crosby, Barkov, Point. That's all I got.

(Three Cup-winning 1C's with six Cups between them, for the record.)

I think Hagens has a very high floor. 50 point 2C with solid defensive impact. I think Frondell has a lower floor but still clearly an NHLer (3W IMO). Frondell's appeal over Hagens is purely in his physicality, size/jam, and shot. Starting a team from scratch I would comfortably choose Hagens. But you ignore fit when drafting at your own peril. Frondell is arguably a better choice for us because of fit, in that he could be a center or winger, has some size/physicality that we lack, and is more of a pure finisher.


Yeah, I'm not sure that Hagens is realistically someone Grier is interested in at 3. Misa can definitely play wing, so I don't see that as a detriment there.

I agree with really everything you say for the most part. I’m just going to add that I think William Eklund would also be a great fit for Frondell. To me, I agree that Hagens is the pick if we are only considering BPA but I think that’s something you only consider in a perfect world. Honestly though Frondell-Eklund could be a fantastic start to a very very strong lineup of 3 great forward lines.

 

[gaucholoco3]

I mean realistically is there a defenseman out there (never mind handedness) that is realistically available that you’d move 3rd overall for and the other team would accept that trade? Cause I just don’t see it.

Dobson straight up.

 

[Gecklund]

Dobson straight up.

No thanks. Dobson is great but I’d rather one of the top guys in this draft than him.