Who we gonna Draft?

[DON]

So Brown taken ahead of either Tkachuk or Dubois? But Canucks may be far enough out to lunch to make that call.

[Commandant]

Heights and weights

http://lastwordonsports.com/2016/06/04/2016-nhl-draft-combine-heights-weights/

[Meller93]

Sergachev is one big puppy. 6'2.25 and 221 pounds. I hope he falls to 9, although I think he'll be gone.

I can see this being the order

1. Mathews

2. Laine

3. Puljujarvi

4. Tkachuck

5. Dubois

6. Joulevi

7. Sergachev

8. Nylander

9. Habs pick

[Meller93]

And to make it a little clearer, I'm betting Edmonton trades the 4th down to 6-10 to take a d man in that spot. One of juolevi serachev or chychrun

[Meller93]

Oh, and I'm not a "MOAR BIGGER" kind of guy, I just like that Sergachev seems to have the whole package to make a great 2-way defender. Reminds me of ekblad.

[DON]

Sergachev is one big puppy. 6'2.25 and 221 pounds. I hope he falls to 9, although I think he'll be gone.

I can see this being the order

1. Mathews

2. Laine

3. Puljujarvi

4. Tkachuck

5. Dubois

6. Joulevi

7. Sergachev

8. Nylander

9. Habs pick

Who is that Habs Pick guy?

This kid perhaps?

http://lastwordonsports.com/2016/04/04/jakob-chychrun-scouting-report-2016-nhl-draft-5/

[Meller93]

Who is that Habs Pick guy?

This kid perhaps?

http://lastwordonsports.com/2016/04/04/jakob-chychrun-scouting-report-2016-nhl-draft-5/

I wouldn't be mad haha, but his drop in value was a little alarming

[DON]

I wouldn't be mad haha, but his drop in value was a little alarming

Yes it is, but up until a month or two ago his value was still darn high (he was also a stand out at combine testing yesterday, which may not mean much but).

My worry with taking any d-man in top ten, is whether his puck skills will hold up at NHL speed and the longer learning curve for d-prospects. 1st round d-men average 18% fewer NHL career games played vs 1st rd forwards (from the draft pick value chart dlbalr posted).

Again from value chart, the summary (seems reasonable, so I assume his numbers pass muster);

"It is a generally held believe that forwards provide more value than defenseman at the top end of the draft. This is reflected in my value chart as a 1st or 2nd overall defenseman value lies between that of a 2nd overall and third overall selection.

When taking a defenseman at the top end of the draft, teams need to be very diligent in their scouting. The value of a forward exceeds that of a defenseman by 30% with the top four selections but that rate drops to just 10% for selections 5-90.

• Between 19th and 33rd overall, it is best to select forwards as their value exceeds defenseman by 42% in this range.
• After the 33rd selection there is a significant drop-off in the value of a draft pick as the 33rd overall selection is worth 68% more than that of the 34th overall pick.
• On average, a 34th to 60th overall selection is valued at 3.9, which is slightly less than half the value of a late first or early second round selection (7.9-8.8)."

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Boy, the science of drafting. Fascinating stuff.

My own reactions are much cruder: e.g., a defenceman is, ceteris paribus, a more valuable asset than a forward. There's only 6 D, after all. I do strongly think that's true, but it doesn't factor in draft-related calculations such as the likelihood of a pick actually making the NHL in the first place.

My other reaction is that way too much stock seems to be placed on quite short-term blips in prospect's careers. A guy hits a slump, suddenly his draft position starts to slide. Understandable, but it *seems* - to my uninformed eye - to be just the opposite of the above, quasi-scientific approach to the whole business.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

My other reaction is that way too much stock seems to be placed on quite short-term blips in prospect's careers. A guy hits a slump, suddenly his draft position starts to slide. Understandable, but it *seems* - to my uninformed eye - to be just the opposite of the above, quasi-scientific approach to the whole business.

I've commented for a while on how stupid people get about small performance blips as juniors. I don't care about the historical data. The historical data is also full of stay at home defencemen who couldn't play hockey and just knew how to hit people being taken in the first round. Too many guys still bust in the top 90 picks and nobody knows what makes a good goaltender yet to smartly draft. Basketball has figured out their drafting better than the NHL, but at least hockey is way ahead of baseball (it's still a crapshoot in baseball).

[bbp]

I've commented for a while on how stupid people get about small performance blips as juniors. I don't care about the historical data. The historical data is also full of stay at home defencemen who couldn't play hockey and just knew how to hit people being taken in the first round. Too many guys still bust in the top 90 picks and nobody knows what makes a good goaltender yet to smartly draft. Basketball has figured out their drafting better than the NHL, but at least hockey is way ahead of baseball (it's still a crapshoot in baseball).

Of course in basketball many of the prospects are older than the NHL prospects. Adding another year to half the draft class would make for more accurate picks.

[dlbalr]

Our draft options series has kicked off. First up is Sergachev: http://www.habsworld.net/2016/06/draft-options-mikhail-sergachyov/

We're shooting to hopefully have eight of these this year, spread out over the next couple of weeks.

[DON]

Would the Oilers take Sergachev at 4?

[dlbalr]

Would the Oilers take Sergachev at 4?

I can't see it happening. As much as they need a d-man, the consensus top player available at this point is going to be a forward by the looks of it (Tkachuk or Dubois in all likelihood). If they want Sergachev, they could probably slide back a spot or two at least.

I was looking at The Hockey News' mock draft earlier today, they have Tkachuk going at #4...to Montreal (with the Habs dealing 9, 39, and 45 to move up).

[DON]

Not big fan of trading up, who knows maybe even Nylander will be available at 9, just need 3 teams to pick d-men (or 2 + a Logan Brown go to Canucks ).

[habs rule]

I was looking at The Hockey News' mock draft earlier today, they have Tkachuk going at #4...to Montreal (with the Habs dealing 9, 39, and 45 to move up).

I would make that deal in a heart beat. I doubt that Edmonton would. Their draft record not so good.

[BlueKross]

Not big fan of trading up, who knows maybe even Nylander will be available at 9, just need 3 teams to pick d-men (or 2 + a Logan Brown go to Canucks ).

i would be happy to take a defenseman at nine- not agreeing on your take on defenseman. All in all there is just too much value from 5-15 to give up three picks to get Mr.T. Contrary to what has been stated earlier, i believe it would be Montreal not Edmonton, who would hesitate on the deal proposed.

[KoRP]

i would be happy to take a defenseman at nine- not agreeing on your take on defenseman. All in all there is just too much value from 5-15 to give up three picks to get Mr.T. Contrary to what has been stated earlier, i believe it would be Montreal not Edmonton, who would hesitate on the deal proposed.

I agree, with the lack of talent in our prospect pool, it makes no sense to give up all those picks, when a good player will still be available at #9.

[Guest Stogey24]

Bergevin needs to just take the ninth pick and move on with his day.

Unless Bergevin and Timmins see a player at #4 being nhl ready next year and immediately able to help this team. Then I think you make a move.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

If we moved up it would be to get Dubois.

[DON]

i would be happy to take a defenseman at nine- not agreeing on your take on defenseman. All in all there is just too much value from 5-15 to give up three picks to get Mr.T. Contrary to what has been stated earlier, i believe it would be Montreal not Edmonton, who would hesitate on the deal proposed.

Sorry what take is that, or what do you disagree with?

I agree not trade up and it seems Arizona and Buffalo have more assets that Oilers might want more than extra picks and 9th is likely too far for Oilers to drop.

Canucks 5th pick is likely more attainable with extra picks, if Habs look to move up and they may see both Tkachuk and Dubois as targets?

Only two big French kids ranked in top 15 or so and Dubois is #1 ranked North American skater, so might be tempting for Molson to nudge his GM and hint he would look good in and sell a lot of Hab jerseys as soon as he is picked.

[BlueKross]

Sorry what take is that, or what do you disagree with?

I agree not trade up and it seems Arizona and Buffalo have more assets that Oilers might want more than extra picks and 9th is likely too far for Oilers to drop.

Canucks 5th pick is likely more attainable with extra picks, if Habs look to move up and they may see both Tkachuk and Dubois as targets?

Only two big French kids ranked in top 15 or so and Dubois is #1 ranked North American skater, so might be tempting for Molson to nudge his GM and hint he would look good in and sell a lot of Hab jerseys as soon as he is picked.

I am referring to your statement regarding your apprehension of taking a defensemen in the top ten as opposed to a forward .

[TheDriveFor25]

Only move up to get Laine. (the #2 spot) (I would trade ANY forward with the exception of Galchenyuk + 9 to get to 2)

To get to 4, you're paying too much when the player at 9 is going to be almost as decent a prospect.

[DON]

BlueCross, "best player available" is of course the way to go.

But if looks at past drafts, d-man value tends to be less than forwards in 1st round, but if can find another McDonagh-type that would be sweet.

[DON]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/2016/06/07/nhl-mock-draft-auston-matthews-patrik-laine-jesse-puljujrvi/85575694/

I like Mr. Bean's game a lot and would make a good WHL d-pairing with RH-more defensive Juulsen and a LH-slick offensive kid in Bean; BUT not with better options likely available at 9.