Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dlbalr

2018 NHL Entry Draft Thread

Recommended Posts

Thing about the Romanov pick - we learn of all the ‘experts’ opinions of where he should be drafted, not the opinions of the GMs. If Timmins had him that high, maybe someone else did too. And if Romanov ends up being, let’s say, a top 4 d-man, everyone will be complaining that we and 29 over teams blew it. 

 

I feel like this draft really was Timmins draft, more than any other. I feel like MB didn’t have much say this time - we kept our picks, maybe only dealt them with Timmins ok. 

 

No basis for this. Just seemed like we would always go into the draft in recent years and our wealth of picks evaporated away through trades - and there were always picks (McCarron maybe) that left us scratching our heads - they just didn’t feel like Timmins picks but more like MB or PG or BG picks. 

 

No point having scouts if at the end of they day you just draft off of Bob Mackenzie’s list. The time to evaluate is in a couple of years - but my hunch is that 2018 was Timmins draft more than any other.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good job Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was sweatin’ eating a hat until the Habs traded down on that last 2nd rounder. Phew!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have mixed feelings about this draft.  There were some reaches IMO, but still some good prospects chosen.  Hopefully these kids develop well over the next few years.

 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, John B said:

I have mixed feelings about this draft.  There were some reaches IMO, but still some good prospects chosen.  Hopefully these kids develop well over the next few years.

 

   

The French kid seems a waste of a pick at 133, simply best available QMJHL kid I guess, the rest seem fine.

But;  Ryan McLeod,(C) or Bode Wilde(D) seems would of been better pick at 38 than the Russian kid, but we will see in couple years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dlbalr said:

As promised, here is my grade/overall evaluation of the draft.  This wound up being a whole lot longer than I originally anticipated... http://www.habsworld.net/2018/06/grading-the-2018-draft-class/

 

Nice work Dlbalr and all who've contributed similarly. 

 

It's not that I dislike the kids drafted so much as I have serious concerns about how they "valued" each pick.  It seemed like they completely ignored pick value and BPA in the first 2 rounds before starting to trade down...so maybe the trades weren't there for them earlier.  I can give them that out.  I just don't agree that they should have been locked in on the players that filled a "need" at the places they did then pick. 

 

For that reason, I'd grade Kotkaniemi as a B+ pick...they should have draft Zadina to get full value.  Drafting for need at the top of the draft is just bad, bad, bad strategy. 

I probably give the Romanov pick a D. 

No concerns on the Ylonen and Olofsson rankings you gave - Ylonen could have been 5-6 other guys that were sliding out of the first round.  Olofsson was a solid pick and value.

I think Harris was a reach and probably would have graded that a C or C-...particularly when they were reaching on other picks already.  They fell in love with some prospects and just ignored the rest.  To me that indicates a bias in their approach that became evident by this pick.

Gorniak was another reach but it was at a stage in the draft when those kinds of reaches start to make some sense...a kid with tools that was dominating (even at that level).    I agree with your ranking for him and Fonstad.  Last two picks didn't do much for me so I can't disagree with your rankings there either.

 

Overall, I'd give their draft a B-.  They had so many picks, failed to really "hit" on their first 3 picks and reached on 7 out of 11 picks overall, only 1 or 2 picks were guys sliding.  Didn't try to trade up, only down.  Just a wasted opportunity given the volume of picks.  Only time will tell, and I really hope I'm wrong, but given the Habs inability to develop young talent in both the minors and at the NHL level I wouldn't bet on so many projects turning out.  I'd really rather be the optimistic Hab fan but recent history doesn't support that stance.

 

Some things I wish they could have done:

1) trade down from #3 - I'll assume they couldn't get any takers.  Should have taken Zadina and then watched where Kotkaniemi fell to...then offered that team Zadina for Kotkaniemi plus whatever else you could get out of that team (or package up 2-3 2nd rounders if they didn't want Zadina).

2) trade up to get Veleno when he fell that far...probably could have dealt the pick they used on Ylonen and a 4th rounder.  AND they likely could have still drafted Ylonen when the Romanov pick came up.  Which to me, again, further indicates they were locked in on all their "sleeper" picks - the point of getting these kind of sleeper picks is to get them at the right value.  Veleno should have gone between 10th and 15th overall.  For a team that was so stuck on drafting C's throughout the draft this was a major miss on their part.

3) Don't draft US high school projects before the 4th round...

4) traded some of the pick volume to move up and get more 1st round picks in general...I think they could have had 3 1st round picks. 

 

This club needs more upside in its prospect pool.  They went for the volume and then reached on so many that it seems like a wasted opportunity.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You couldnt trade down and still get kotkaniemi as seen when the coyotes took hayton at 5.

 

Also mathematically trading up for late first rounders is a bad move.  Better chance to get a stud with 2 seconds than 1 first

 

In kotkaniemi, ylonen, and olofsson they got 3 first round talents off my board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DON said:

The French kid seems a waste of a pick at 133, simply best available QMJHL kid I guess, the rest seem fine.

But;  Ryan McLeod,(C) or Bode Wilde(D) seems would of been better pick at 38 than the Russian kid, but we will see in couple years.

 

Agreed.  Didn't particularly care for the Romanov pick.  I'd add Akil Thomas, Jack Drury and Jonny Tychonick to your list as well.   Filip Hallander and David Gustafsson were chosen after Olofsson, but I would have even taken one of them ahead of Romanov.  You never know though, Romanov could surprise us all and become a decent NHLer.

Share this post


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

Agreed.  Didn't particularly care for the Romanov pick.  I'd add Akil Thomas, Jack Drury and Jonny Tychonick to your list as well.   Filip Hallander and David Gustafsson were chosen after Olofsson, but I would have even taken one of them ahead of Romanov.  You never know though, Romanov could surprise us all and become a decent NHLer.

Romanov was compared by Timmins as a slightly more energetic Emelin. 

 

This was was immediately after I found myself hoping we had drafted our new Koivu and Markov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2018 at 4:42 PM, dlbalr said:

As is often the case, we're already seeing some development camp invites for undrafted players.  Early invites are:

 

LW Joel Teasdale (I'd have put a lot of money on this one)

G Samuel Harvey

 

Drummondville centre Nicolas Guay was also invited but it appears he's going to Detroit's camp instead.

 

We can add Blainville-Boisbriand winger Alexander Katerinakis to Montreal's invite list.

Share this post


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

 

We can add Blainville-Boisbriand winger Alexander Katerinakis to Montreal's invite list.

 

Nothing special for a 20 year old in the Q season but he had a good playoff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

Nothing special for a 20 year old in the Q season but he had a good playoff. 

 

One of Joel Bouchard's players though. He knows him better than anyone. 

 

Could just be an invite to say thanks for being a good player, and cause they will need bodies for the camp. 

Share this post


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

 

One of Joel Bouchard's players though. He knows him better than anyone. 

 

Could just be an invite to say thanks for being a good player, and cause they will need bodies for the camp. 

 

Certainly not against it. Every team does this. Look at an over ager to see if there's a good fit in ECHL/AHL or if there's maybe something more that everyone missed. Some NHLers have been discovered this way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Commandant said:

You couldnt trade down and still get kotkaniemi as seen when the coyotes took hayton at 5.

 

Also mathematically trading up for late first rounders is a bad move.  Better chance to get a stud with 2 seconds than 1 first

 

In kotkaniemi, ylonen, and olofsson they got 3 first round talents off my board.

 

I think that's a big maybe on the Coyotes...that was a big enough reach by them that they may have been taking him either way.  Hayton was arguably the 3rd or 4th best C in the draft IMO.

 

As for Ylonen, there were multiple "late first talents" available then too...many ranked ahead of him by quite a few publications and their final rankings.  Olofsson was good value at his pick.

 

My main issue is expected value at each pick.  They really didn't get full value on the majority of their picks.

Share this post


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

 

I think that's a big maybe on the Coyotes...that was a big enough reach by them that they may have been taking him either way.  Hayton was arguably the 3rd or 4th best C in the draft IMO.

 

As for Ylonen, there were multiple "late first talents" available then too...many ranked ahead of him by quite a few publications and their final rankings.  Olofsson was good value at his pick.

 

My main issue is expected value at each pick.  They really didn't get full value on the majority of their picks.

The people who grade the draft as an A- are looking at it from strictly a draft analysis type of way. If most experts have players in range 3-8 as having the same value, any of those picks are going to qualify as an A in pretty much any of those positions. Similarly, picking the consensus 23 pick at 40 won't seem as much more of a steal than perhaps picking the consensus 28, simce both players were steals anyway. Lastly, picking the consensus 40 at pick 32 won't necessarily seem as as much of a reach, even if pick 30 was available. 

 

On the other hand, those fans who had it in their minds that 3 is really better than 4 and 22 is really better than 27 on consensus mock drafts will grade the draft differently because they are looking at things from a different angle. For instance, I personally don't think Kotkaniemi has the skill that Zadina does but others will look at the position playing a factor considering their skill potential is still fairly close. In that sense it's a win for us since he's a center.

 

I had the draft graded as a B- in my mind as well but I do see both perspectives. A- is looking at it objectively and compared to other teams, we probably had an A- draft. I look at it from the perspective that we were at an advantage compared to other teams heading into the draft, however. It's fine to say that Kotkaniemi, Ylonen and Olofsson were projected to be 1st round picks, but Zadina, Akil Thomas and Jared McIsaac were as well. Considering the advantage we had, I graded it relative to the hand we were dealt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grade each team based on the total amount of talent the team gets at the end of the draft. 

 

The Sabres were due for an A at absolute minimum from the moment they drafted dahlin.  

 

The Habs got talent in this draft, and a lot of it.  They did really well in the key factor of a draft.  Adding talent. 

 

If you grade the other way, then a team like the Flames who don't draft til the 4th round could still get an A if they draft a third rounder in the 4th, a 4th rounder in the 5th, etc... but they didn't add a heck of a lot of talent, so who cares?  It really doesn't matter what you draft relative to the position.  It matters how much talent you have added at the end of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That line of thinking ignores that each pick is in actual fact an organizational asset.  The goal is to maximize those assets.  I don't think there are two correct but different angles to evaluate from...it should only be measured against whether you maximized the value of your picks (each viewed in the context of your pick at that moment in time - otherwise everyone could just submit their "list" and they wouldn't actually hold a draft).  

 

And yes, Calgary should be evaluated on what they picked with what they had...and that includes the value of the players they traded picks to get (though, admittedly that opens up a whole series of added questions).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zowpeb said:

I think that's a big maybe on the Coyotes...that was a big enough reach by them that they may have been taking him either way.  Hayton was arguably the 3rd or 4th best C in the draft IMO.

 

 

I had Hayton as the second best but it even seems like the Habs didn't think there was much difference between the two.  From Elliotte Friedman's 31 Thoughts:

 

Quote

The Canadiens also liked Barrett Hayton, who went two spots later to Arizona. There was real debate over which centre to take. Ottawa GM Pierre Dorion said he was worried the Canadiens would take Brady Tkachuk. Edmonton almost traded up to get Evan Bouchard, but realized as things unfolded that they wouldn’t need to.

2

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/31-thoughts-eyes-john-tavares-ufa-interview-period/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I look at this draft the more I like it. The Romanov pick isn’t so bad considering the amount of picks we had following. The safe Olofsson pick balances the reach on Romanov, which could work out yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DON said:

 

 

This is doing what Commandant is saying...evaluating what they got instead of how well they used the picks available.

 

Eg. in the real world we don't have clueless owners like Molson allowing Bergevin to run amok and use those picks on flyers as a mulligan.  If I have a deadline and I'm scrambling to meet it and being forced to cut corners to get it done on time when suddenly I get an extension...how would my boss react if I just decided to take that extra time and go to Starbucks, chat on Habsworld (lol), etc?   I'd lose my standing internally, possibly get fired or warned, for not refining the proposal with the extended time I was given.  We also don't SOLELY evaluate companies or people based on the total volume they bring in...we evaluate them on their growth.  You can be the biggest company in your industry and if you don't grow for 3 quarters in a row your share price gets destroyed and CEO is likely fired.  If your the Habs and Bergevin/Timmins you get pass after pass...this year its because they had more picks even if each pick was only at 80% value on average.

 

We had extra picks and decided to put on the blinders at draft time, ignore higher ranked guys and take sleeper picks ahead of higher ranked guys earlier then needed.  Sure, rankings by 3rd parties aren't the clubs BUT when 5-6 serious hockey publications are ranking prospects and you're going between 12-100 slots ahead of them on 7 of your 11 picks then something is wrong. 

 

Did the Habs grab a bunch of talent...obviously they did, they had 11 damn picks.  They ended up with more talent and prospects then most other clubs just on sheer volume.

That doesn't mean they got exceptional value out of each pick based on what was available each time. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olofsson, McShane. Fonstad. Ylonen, and Hillis were all taken after their consensus rankings

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes of course, habs might as well fire all scouting staff and simply go by internet consensus ranking. Never heard a smarter proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other issue ignored is that the difference between two players ranked 1 spot apart isn't always the same 

 

The gulf between Dahlin and Svechnikov is not the same as the margins between guys at 11 and 12 or between guys at 80 and 81

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  

×