LA handled his development pretty much as poorly as they could possibly have.
I dont think that's what this thread is about though?
Good one!
Kravtsov went exactly where he was projected to go. I’ll give you the other 3 though, even if Hayton panned out.
Feom what I remember, Morin, Teubert, Bowers, Matteau, Samuelson and Foudy went picked too far from where people projected thwm to go.
I thought Kravtsov was supposed to go in the 12-16 range, not at 9? That's what I remember seeing on most mocks IIRC.
Yeh, but their profile meant that the odds of them being good players were very small... even if the concensus was they were first rounders! Still bad pick in my eyes when the data and skillsets say a player has basically a bottom six or 3rd pair absolute ceiling!
That not too far out from the range, was definitely a riser leading up to the draft, but m McKenzie had him at #12 in his final List. 3 spot “reach” isn’t crazy.
Agreed, some of those picks most people knew were low upside, but all those guys I mentioned were projected to go around that range, and I don’t think those are the guys the OP were necessarily looking for.
I think it was even bigger reach. Going to my notes Central Scouting had him 50th from Europe.
Hamill was a bust, but wasn't someone the Bruins drafted thinking they were outsmarting other GMs. Sure, he was a late birthday CHLer who used the extra year of junior to stat pad/inflate the resume, but most people had a fairly high opinion of him pre draft.
Liam Foudy was drafted 20-30 spots too early and was an underwhelming DY producer, but he did have one projectable elite trait: speed. The rest of his game didn't develop enough for him to become a consistent NHLer, but there was belief he could be a 3rd liner, I wouldn't say his profile screamed "longshot", but you can agree to disagree with me if you'd like.
