Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Meller93

2018 draft thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, dlbalr said:

Another pick value chart: https://www.broadstreethockey.com/2013/4/25/4262594/nhl-draft-pick-value-trading-up

 

Some trade proposals (approximate equivalent value) for #3 from The Athletic:

 

 

Are any of those scenarios of interest?

 

4 and 22? Sure. Especially if Timmins is actually targeting a defenceman. If Ottawa takes Zadina, no shame. If they take the D they were targeting, you take Zadina and got another pick in the first round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a weird feeling if we pass on Zadina we will regret it. Not saying the other prospects we might consider at 3 are not great prospects but the consensus #3 pick across the board from anyone respectable has Zadina at 3 and it hasn’t changed.

 

Dobson or Hughes would definitely be great D men to acquire but I just have a bad feeling on passing on Zadina. Drafting Kotkaniemi at 3 feels like way too much of a reach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you pass on a goal scorer when your team can't score. 

 

Makes no sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chris said:

Why would you pass on a goal scorer when your team can't score. 

 

Makes no sense. 

 

Transition is important to creating offense. You can make the case that a puck mover like Hughes might do more to create offense than a sniping winger like Zadina.  

 

Also as we are seeing in trying to trade Max.  (And when the oilers traded Taylor Hall).... Defencemen and Centres are more valuable pieces to teams, more sought after commodities than wingers. 

 

As I argued in the rumour thread too, I'm not convinced that Zadina is the undisputed third best player in this draft.  For those who say its unanimous, its not...

 

- NHL Central Scouting doesn't rank him that way (Tkachuk is ahead).

- Craig Button says Tkachuk is really close, and so is kotkaniemi... and that he would take kotkaniemi if he was the Habs GM

- Corey Pronman doesn't have him as the clear #3, has him tied with Kotkaniemi.

 

My own ranks have him at 3, but again, i say its very close between 3-9 on my board, and I can see a different evaluator putting any one of those players at 3. 

 

The more I think about it, the more I've wanted to move Hughes ahead of him to be honest.  Hughes just does so much on the back end... I could see him having a major impact on a team.

 

Hughes is basically taking Victor Mete, and making him MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better offensively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure Craig Button has Zadina at 3 in his draft rankings.

 

He goes to my gym so the next time I see him I’ll ask him to verify that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry he does, but he also said that he has it really close with both tkachuk and Kotkaniemi, and that if he were the Habs GM he would draft Kotkaniemi. 

 

It just goes to show that its not clear separation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

Also as we are seeing in trying to trade Max.  (And when the oilers traded Taylor Hall).... Defencemen and Centres are more valuable pieces to teams, more sought after commodities than wingers. 

That's just cherry picking considering Subban and Weber were traded the same day as Hall as well as the fact that the Duchenes of the world have happened. Not to mention that no one from the organization has confirmed that we are trying to trade Pacioretty. Yes, I'm fully aware that they wouldn't likely say it, but that doesn't mean I have to believe the opposite, that they are.

 

I look at it the other way and think that the same reason we should draft Zadina is a similar reason I would want to keep Pacioretty. They are finishers. We keep hearing that Zadina is only slightly better than 4 but that in and of itself is no reason to actually go off the board and pick someone who is "only slightly" worse. Zadina may not turn out to be the 3rd best overall pick in the draft come 5 years down the line, but you only skip over him if that's something you're sure of. I still like the Zadina pick at 3.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

That's just cherry picking considering Subban and Weber were traded the same day as Hall as well as the fact that the Duchenes of the world have happened. Not to mention that no one from the organization has confirmed that we are trying to trade Pacioretty. Yes, I'm fully aware that they wouldn't likely say it, but that doesn't mean I have to believe the opposite, that they are.

 

I look at it the other way and think that the same reason we should draft Zadina is a similar reason I would want to keep Pacioretty. They are finishers. We keep hearing that Zadina is only slightly better than 4 but that in and of itself is no reason to actually go off the board and pick someone who is "only slightly" worse. Zadina may not turn out to be the 3rd best overall pick in the draft come 5 years down the line, but you only skip over him if that's something you're sure of. I still like the Zadina pick at 3.

 

 

Almost every evaluator had Gilbert Brule as better than Carey Price.  Does that mean Timmins made the wrong choice. 

 

Again when its really close, we don't know who Timmins is saying is better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

Almost every evaluator had Gilbert Brule as better than Carey Price.  Does that mean Timmins made the wrong choice. 

 

Again when its really close, we don't know who Timmins is saying is better. 

While I'm no expert on the topic, I've personally wanted either Zadina or Tkachuk from the get-go. I've constantly seen Tkachuk bashed on here so I've calmed down on him, even though I've actually liked what I've seen from him (and not just his character and leadership). I think he has some nice size and can score some important goals in the future as well.

 

With that being said, players like Hughes have shown up as far down as 6,7,8 or 9 on some lists while Zadina hasn't seen anything more than maybe a 4-6 at worst, but generally it has been 3. I do understand that when it's close, a professional scouting team may have someone unexpected in a slot that generally has a consensus but I do think there is that separation between 3 and 4 right now, even if it is less than the difference between 2 and 3. I also can see someone drafted later ending up being better than Zadina, but I'd still feel comfortable with choosing him and I think he's going to develop into a very solid player on this league. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the rankings and projections are really close, which they are, then you select based on positional need. Whether that's center or defense is the only question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no authority on prospects, but defencemen are almost always more valuable than forwards in my book. As Commandant noted, they drive the offence and manage the play at both ends of the ice. In other words, they're a bit like C in that their value is intrinsically higher than a W. So if there is little to separate Zadina from Hughes, then I'd go with Hughes, frankly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, illWill said:

If the rankings and projections are really close, which they are, then you select based on positional need. Whether that's center or defense is the only question

 

Exactly.

 

If we were second overall, Id say take svechnikov.  Positional needs be damned, hes just a clear cut above.

 

With zadina and hughes so close innmy mind (and i dont have kotkaniemi in that group personally)... my choice becomes clearer.

 

I want hughes as he just fits this teams needs like a glove.  LhD with great skating and puck moving.

 

One other thing that i think is a key differentiator for hughes over both Zadina and Kotkaniemi is the skating.  We have seen in the last several playoffs speed kills. Hughes might be the best skater in this draft.  Kotkaniemi and zadina... both have skating as their biggest weakness.  Neither are bad skaters... they are both above average or good in that category... but Hughes skating is elite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not as close as people on here are saying. I mean no disrespect to anyone but illWill is basing some of his perception of Zadina on one live match of his, where even though he scored, it was an ugly garbage goal, and while other people are stating that it’s close at the 3 slot, Hughes isn’t close to Zadina on many lists. 

 

IF two players are neck and neck, then you go by positional need but Hughes and Zadina are not. I’m fairly confident we are going to pick Zadina so I won’t argue this topic too much anymore because with differences of opinion, we’ll have to wait and see. 

 

As for the tanking card, it’s amazing that people were begging for the tank all season and now that we got got one of the coveted top 3 spots, we’re unsure if we want to pick one of the consensus top 3. I’ve never been a tanker but after having witnessed a season that can’t get much worse, I know I never will be with how people are wanting to draft someone projected as low as 9 on some lists in the top 3.

 

Our most important positional need shouldn’t be acquired at the draft because by the time they are in their prime, our positional needs will be different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.things.

 

Ive watched them all... probably more than anyone on this site.  So you might say they arent close based on this list or that... but it doesnt change my opinion on them being that they are as close as people are saying. What Hughes did against ncaa competition as a freshman defenceman is special.  He outscored tkachuk and casey mittlestadt... thats pretty incredible. Hes the youngest of the three too.

 

Second... while you are right in that positional needs change.  The fact is this isnt just a look at the current team but also a projection

 

Under the age of 26 we have a ton of wingers... chuck, gallagher, lehkonen, carr, hudon, scherbak,  possibly drouin.

 

Under the age of 25 at left defence... there is mete... and from there a couple of lottery tickets that we dont know what we have in tzsyka and walford, plus a couple czech kids we signed who were ufa.  There isnt much there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I'm no authority on prospects, but defencemen are almost always more valuable than forwards in my book. As Commandant noted, they drive the offence and manage the play at both ends of the ice. In other words, they're a bit like C in that their value is intrinsically higher than a W. So if there is little to separate Zadina from Hughes, then I'd go with Hughes, frankly.

Yet, Bergevin traded a blue chip d-man for a winger....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

It’s not as close as people on here are saying. I mean no disrespect to anyone but illWill is basing some of his perception of Zadina on one live match of his, where even though he scored, it was an ugly garbage goal, and while other people are stating that it’s close at the 3 slot, Hughes isn’t close to Zadina on many lists. 

 

IF two players are neck and neck, then you go by positional need but Hughes and Zadina are not. I’m fairly confident we are going to pick Zadina so I won’t argue this topic too much anymore because with differences of opinion, we’ll have to wait and see. 

 

As for the tanking card, it’s amazing that people were begging for the tank all season and now that we got got one of the coveted top 3 spots, we’re unsure if we want to pick one of the consensus top 3. I’ve never been a tanker but after having witnessed a season that can’t get much worse, I know I never will be with how people are wanting to draft someone projected as low as 9 on some lists in the top 3.

 

Our most important positional need shouldn’t be acquired at the draft because by the time they are in their prime, our positional needs will be different. 

 

Look I hear what your saying, I'm mostly on the same page, but a rigid mentality at the draft table with no desire to morph or adjust the plan even at the last moment is always a recipe for disaster. 

 

My take is, there is virtually no one who would take Hughes at #3 besides us, because our need for a LHD is pretty much on par with our need for a top 6 C. If we stay put at #3, player evaluations and close races aside, Zadina is as pure a goal scorer as you are going to find in this draft with only Wahlstrom in the same elite category, we need elite goal scorers, even more desperately if Pacioretty gets moved. There isn't just positional needs involved here, there are individual player skill needs as well, we know we need a Puck Moving D, we are also going to need a high volume goal scorer if Pacioretty is moved.

 

Next point is, at #3, your chances of drafting an NHL ready player are fairly high, Zadina will very likely break into an NHL lineup as early as this coming season, an NHL ready prospect helps your team for a decade, starting immediately. Drafting a player who may not be NHL ready for a season or even 2, at #3 is a bit of a waste of valuable years to help your team make a quick turn around. 

 

With that said, I have no issue what so ever if this team identifies Hughes, a LHD with all the skills we lack on the back end, as their guy, but why take him at #3 when he would very likely still be there at #4 to 6? Trade the 3rd pick if Zadina isn't your guy, trade it, move back a few spots and collect yet another top 40 pick along with it. This same rule applies if they see Kotkaniemi as their guy, or Wahlstrom as their guy, they are all great picks, all would serve us well for one reason or another, but none need to be picked at #3, and if we are to pick one of them, I'd rather do so with another late 1st pick or early 2nd pick in my book. This way once we are done making our first pick, we can go crazy on the top 6 potential prospects or top 4 potential D with all the picks leading into the 3rd round. If even 2 out of the 4 or 5 reach their potential, then this draft becomes a home run for this organization, exactly what it needs out of this draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Link67 said:

 

Look I hear what your saying, I'm mostly on the same page, but a rigid mentality at the draft table with no desire to morph or adjust the plan even at the last moment is always a recipe for disaster. 

 

My take is, there is virtually no one who would take Hughes at #3 besides us, because our need for a LHD is pretty much on par with our need for a top 6 C. If we stay put at #3, player evaluations and close races aside, Zadina is as pure a goal scorer as you are going to find in this draft with only Wahlstrom in the same elite category, we need elite goal scorers, even more desperately if Pacioretty gets moved. There isn't just positional needs involved here, there are individual player skill needs as well, we know we need a Puck Moving D, we are also going to need a high volume goal scorer if Pacioretty is moved.

 

Next point is, at #3, your chances of drafting an NHL ready player are fairly high, Zadina will very likely break into an NHL lineup as early as this coming season, an NHL ready prospect helps your team for a decade, starting immediately. Drafting a player who may not be NHL ready for a season or even 2, at #3 is a bit of a waste of valuable years to help your team make a quick turn around. 

 

With that said, I have no issue what so ever if this team identifies Hughes, a LHD with all the skills we lack on the back end, as their guy, but why take him at #3 when he would very likely still be there at #4 to 6? Trade the 3rd pick if Zadina isn't your guy, trade it, move back a few spots and collect yet another top 40 pick along with it. This same rule applies if they see Kotkaniemi as their guy, or Wahlstrom as their guy, they are all great picks, all would serve us well for one reason or another, but none need to be picked at #3, and if we are to pick one of them, I'd rather do so with another late 1st pick or early 2nd pick in my book. This way once we are done making our first pick, we can go crazy on the top 6 potential prospects or top 4 potential D with all the picks leading into the 3rd round. If even 2 out of the 4 or 5 reach their potential, then this draft becomes a home run for this organization, exactly what it needs out of this draft.

 

Arizona takes Hughes if he is on the board imo.  He has John Chayka draft pick written all over him.  Hes the defenceman version of keller. You cant trade with arizona or anyone behind them and be sure hughes will still be there. Your only safe trade back option is ottawa imo...  what if the sens dont want to trade?  What then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

Arizona takes Hughes if he is on the board imo.  He has John Chayka draft pick written all over him.  Hes the defenceman version of keller.  Your only safe trade back option is ottawa imo...  what if the sens dont want to trade?  What then?

 

I'll go into a theoretic situation if I'm at the table, we decide we like Hughes, Kotkaniemi, and Wahstrom as our guys, in that order.

 

We try to trade down a couple spots, first we knock on Ottawa's door 4th and 22nd for 3rd and 38th? if they say no they will take their chances, we knock on Detroit's door, 5th, 33rd and 36th for 3rd and 38th? If they say no, we call it a day on the attempts to move down and pick Zadina 3rd, If Ottawa says yes we pick Hughes 4th, and get a 22nd to play with now too, If Detroit says yes, but Arizona picks Hughes, you take Kotkaniemi 6th, and now have a 33rd and 36th to play with.

 

If no one moves, you pick Zadina, and when you trade Pacioretty, you make damn sure you get a high quality prospect at the C or LHD position, knowing you just drafted his replacement, and very likely his Upgrade even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that hypothetical assumes they have the three guys ranked the same.  what if they dont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Ottawa wants #3 for #4 and 18, you take that, pick either Zadina or Tcachuk, who ever Ottawa doesn't take. the don't really have either type of forward. 

 

If They were smart they would start looking at trades for Weber, Pacs and Galchenyuk. The habs need 2 centers and some legit defenseman. Mete and Juulson are ok, but not cornerstones. 

 

As someone said, they have decent young wingers, just no centers and Dmen. 

 

I have seen draft mock drafts where i saw that finish center taken as low as 18. No way you take him at 3. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just cause some random idiot has him at 18 should not be taken as a measure of his value

 

Hes not falling to 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Commandant said:

that hypothetical assumes they have the three guys ranked the same.  what if they dont

 

All I can do is hypothetically play it out as if I was at the table, if the other teams grab Hughes, Kotkaniemi, and Wahlstrom for whatever reason at 3 4 and 5, then we simply take Zadina, other wise one of the 3 player Hughes, Kotkaniemi, or Wahstrom is definitely there at #6, which is as low as I think we should try to go, while giving us extra assets in the top 40 for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Link67 said:

 

All I can do is hypothetically play it out as if I was at the table, if the other teams grab Hughes, Kotkaniemi, and Wahlstrom for whatever reason at 3 4 and 5, then we simply take Zadina, other wise one of the 3 player Hughes, Kotkaniemi, or Wahstrom is definitely there at #6, which is as low as I think we should try to go, while giving us extra assets in the top 40 for sure.

 

My scenario is based on wanting the team identifying one guy that it wants more than the others.  If it wants one guy, go ahead and take him.  No need to get cute to get a couple of other later picks. 

 

As our article says, players taken in the top 3 are significantly more valuable than adding some later picks in the NHL draft.  Trading down from this spot doesn't make sense.

If the org identifies one player they want, then just take him....   Even if they have Hughes and Wahlstrom the same, there is still value in taking Hughes and not trading down cause he fills the major organizational need that Wahlstrom doesn't. 

 http://lwosonhockey.ms.lastwordonsports.com/2018/05/30/draft-pick-value-charts/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Habopotamus said:

Yet, Bergevin traded a blue chip d-man for a winger....

 

Well, my views on Bergevin are well known around here. That trade only makes sense if Drouin becomes an impact C. At the very least he has to become a high-end W. The jury's still out, but right now it looks to be yet another mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×