Jump to content

2022 NHL Entry Draft


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

I tend to agree with the Commandant that we should swing for the fences with at least some of the later picks, rather than going safe. Middle-six players are far easier to find, even on waivers (see Pitlick, Rem), but top forwards (and D-men) pretty much need to be drafted.

 

No question, we need high end talent not safe picks.  We need quality as quantity of prospects is not our problem.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

No question, we need high end talent not safe picks.  We need quality as quantity of prospects is not our problem.  

With the extra picks in 2023 as well, does give them lots of ammo for trading or picking a kid with "some" elite feature to game, but also a wart or two (Joshua Roy-like:D).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

No question, we need high end talent not safe picks.  We need quality as quantity of prospects is not our problem.  

Can someone enlighten me on why it EVERY pick shouldn’t be a swing for the fences?

 

What I’d prefer personally is at every single pick taking the guy with the highest ceiling (within reason/still looking at the complete player).

 

imo you can sign depth players, you don’t need to draft them per se. I’m not sure why any draft pick should be a “safe pick”. Keep swinging, eventually you will find your gems. 

 

Drafting Josh Roy or Sean Farrel are prime examples of doing this. 
 

But maybe I’m missing something as to why this is a bad idea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Meller93 said:

Can someone enlighten me on why it EVERY pick shouldn’t be a swing for the fences?

 

What I’d prefer personally is at every single pick taking the guy with the highest ceiling (within reason/still looking at the complete player).

 

imo you can sign depth players, you don’t need to draft them per se. I’m not sure why any draft pick should be a “safe pick”. Keep swinging, eventually you will find your gems. 

 

Drafting Josh Roy or Sean Farrel are prime examples of doing this. 
 

But maybe I’m missing something as to why this is a bad idea

 

because you also get the Cam Hillis and Joni Ikonen who fail to develop

 

I tend to see it more like a stock portfolio that a sports roster, the mix is key for "growth at a reasonable risk"

Edited by alfredoh2009
added note on my thinking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injuries (Ikonen, Brook, Juulsen etc) can strike any prospect, that's pretty much independent of whether you pick based on expected performance or based on ceiling.

 

But, with the number of picks we have, there will be some safe choices there, too. And some riskier picks will end up being bottom-six players rather than stars or total busts. So, I think tending to picking based on maximum potential (in general) should work the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple risky pick examples on Habs; 

Wideman; great puck skills, PP QB , can skate OK, but simply cant defend well or like physicality at all.

Hoffman; elite NHL shot & PP weapon, but backchecking, or take one for the team are unknown concepts to him.

 

Something completely different;

Confidence can be great and all that in interviews, but not sure Wright rambling on about "I should be number #1." is needed. 

Might of been part of issue with Yakupov, being told you are the best by everyone and then buying into it "too much"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, tomh009 said:

I tend to agree with the Commandant that we should swing for the fences with at least some of the later picks, rather than going safe. Middle-six players are far easier to find, even on waivers (see Pitlick, Rem), but top forwards (and D-men) pretty much need to be drafted.

 

Some Swings (ill have more later)

 

Mateychuk

Korchinski

Nazar

Miroschnichenko

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Meller93 said:

Can someone enlighten me on why it EVERY pick shouldn’t be a swing for the fences?

 

What I’d prefer personally is at every single pick taking the guy with the highest ceiling (within reason/still looking at the complete player).

 

imo you can sign depth players, you don’t need to draft them per se. I’m not sure why any draft pick should be a “safe pick”. Keep swinging, eventually you will find your gems. 

 

Drafting Josh Roy or Sean Farrel are prime examples of doing this. 
 

But maybe I’m missing something as to why this is a bad idea

 

This has always been my philosophy.  3rd and 4th liners are cheap commodities in free agency.

 

Sometimes you get cole caufield and sometimes you get Nikita Scherbak with this philosophy but im fine with busts as long as you get some home runs too.

 

This is why i hate picks like Mike McCarron right out of the gate.  There is no swing there and the guy can still bust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said:

 

because you also get the Cam Hillis and Joni Ikonen who fail to develop

 

I tend to see it more like a stock portfolio that a sports roster, the mix is key for "growth at a reasonable risk"

 

Yes some guys will fail to develop.  Thats fine.  I can fill out the third and fourth ljne cheap in free agency.

 

Top 6 fwds, top 4 d, and number 1 goalies are very expensive in both trades and free agency.  If you draft them, you have more assets to work with to fill out the bottom six/bottom pair/backup goalie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DON said:

Couple risky pick examples on Habs; 

Wideman; great puck skills, PP QB , can skate OK, but simply cant defend well or like physicality at all.

Hoffman; elite NHL shot & PP weapon, but backchecking, or take one for the team are unknown concepts to him.

 

Something completely different;

Confidence can be great and all that in interviews, but not sure Wright rambling on about "I should be number #1." is needed. 

Might of been part of issue with Yakupov, being told you are the best by everyone and then buying into it "too much"?

 

I want the prospect who believes hes the best player in the draft and the best player on the ice.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what does it mean to “swing for the fences?” It means to choose a kid who has a high ceiling in some way or other, but seems unlikely to attain it, who has very significant flaws which will need to be overcome if they are to get to the promised land. Or you’re swinging for the fences if you choose a guy substantially ahead of where most people expect him to be chosen.

 

I don’t think we should be doing that with every pick. Caufield was not a “swing for the fences” choice - he was a no-brainer in that slot and was regarded as an unexpected gift by Timmins.

 

Mailloux was a swing for the fences. Draft the talented kid who has massive question marks.

 

Funnily enough, I saw McCarron as just such a pick. The idea seems to have been that he represented an “outlier” - a huge behemoth who, if he *did* hit, would be that rare thing, a monster-sized C who would be able to dominate physically. MB figured he’d rather take a chance on getting that than playing it safe on a more expected pick. 

 

It didn’t work out, because that’s what swinging for the fences is - a high-risk, high-reward play. No, most of our draft choices should not be high-risk, high-reward. A few of them here and there? Sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Well, what does it mean to “swing for the fences?” It means to choose a kid who has a high ceiling in some way or other, but seems unlikely to attain it, who has very significant flaws which will need to be overcome if they are to get to the promised land. Or you’re swinging for the fences if you choose a guy substantially ahead of where most people expect him to be chosen.

 

I don’t think we should be doing that with every pick. Caufield was not a “swing for the fences” choice - he was a no-brainer in that slot and was regarded as an unexpected gift by Timmins.

 

Mailloux was a swing for the fences. Draft the talented kid who has massive question marks.

 

Funnily enough, I saw McCarron as just such a pick. The idea seems to have been that he represented an “outlier” - a huge behemoth who, if he *did* hit, would be that rare thing, a monster-sized C who would be able to dominate physically. MB figured he’d rather take a chance on getting that than playing it safe on a more expected pick. 

 

It didn’t work out, because that’s what swinging for the fences is - a high-risk, high-reward play. No, most of our draft choices should not be high-risk, high-reward. A few of them here and there? Sure.

There’s a difference than picking an Uber skilled forward who can seemingly score at will, because he dropped only over concerns over his size, than picking up a guy who has size, and wasting a first round pick on a giant, with limited skill, skating ability and hockey IQ, and hope that he develops the later three qualities, that should be the starting point.

 

If you take a swing for the fence approach you could end up with Josh Ho-Sang in I’m the mid rounds. I think you need to weigh all factors with Skill, Hockey IQ, and speed, the three most essential criterion. Than factor in red flags, and whether someone may have more size, grit, leadership. McCarron was a stupid gamble based on his limited skill and skating ability. Caufield was as you said a no brainier. You can’t afford to take too many risks in the first round, but for sure go for the home run swings rounds three onwards, and occasionally second round.

 

we are in a unique situation where we have 3 picks in the first 33. I want us to get thr first two picks RIGHT. Top pick a top centre. The flames pick, hopefully with more upside than where we picked the player. That pick has be at least have a high degree of certainty of being able to become at least a solid top 4 D , top 6 F. I don’t mind swinging for the fences after that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Well, what does it mean to “swing for the fences?” It means to choose a kid who has a high ceiling in some way or other, but seems unlikely to attain it, who has very significant flaws which will need to be overcome if they are to get to the promised land. Or you’re swinging for the fences if you choose a guy substantially ahead of where most people expect him to be chosen.

 

I don’t think we should be doing that with every pick. Caufield was not a “swing for the fences” choice - he was a no-brainer in that slot and was regarded as an unexpected gift by Timmins.

 

Mailloux was a swing for the fences. Draft the talented kid who has massive question marks.

 

Funnily enough, I saw McCarron as just such a pick. The idea seems to have been that he represented an “outlier” - a huge behemoth who, if he *did* hit, would be that rare thing, a monster-sized C who would be able to dominate physically. MB figured he’d rather take a chance on getting that than playing it safe on a more expected pick. 

 

It didn’t work out, because that’s what swinging for the fences is - a high-risk, high-reward play. No, most of our draft choices should not be high-risk, high-reward. A few of them here and there? Sure.

Good point on McCarron.  I suppose you could look at his pick as a swing for the fences hoping he would turn out to be 2011 Lucic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dallas Stars basically re-built their team at the 2017 draft.

• Heiskanen 3rd overall

• Oettinger 26th overall

• Robertson 39th overall

 

Let's do this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

[...]

 

Funnily enough, I saw McCarron as just such a pick. The idea seems to have been that he represented an “outlier” - a huge behemoth who, if he *did* hit, would be that rare thing, a monster-sized C who would be able to dominate physically. MB figured he’d rather take a chance on getting that than playing it safe on a more expected pick. 

 

It didn’t work out, because that’s what swinging for the fences is - a high-risk, high-reward play. No, most of our draft choices should not be high-risk, high-reward. A few of them here and there? Sure.

 

that is how I remember McCarron too. Hillis, Olofsson and Mysak were more the "swing for the fences" type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Well, what does it mean to “swing for the fences?” It means to choose a kid who has a high ceiling in some way or other, but seems unlikely to attain it, who has very significant flaws which will need to be overcome if they are to get to the promised land. Or you’re swinging for the fences if you choose a guy substantially ahead of where most people expect him to be chosen.

 

I don’t think we should be doing that with every pick. Caufield was not a “swing for the fences” choice - he was a no-brainer in that slot and was regarded as an unexpected gift by Timmins.

 

Mailloux was a swing for the fences. Draft the talented kid who has massive question marks.

 

Funnily enough, I saw McCarron as just such a pick. The idea seems to have been that he represented an “outlier” - a huge behemoth who, if he *did* hit, would be that rare thing, a monster-sized C who would be able to dominate physically. MB figured he’d rather take a chance on getting that than playing it safe on a more expected pick. 

 

It didn’t work out, because that’s what swinging for the fences is - a high-risk, high-reward play. No, most of our draft choices should not be high-risk, high-reward. A few of them here and there? Sure.

 

I agree, for me swing for the fences is drafting a guy with a high ceiling but also a low floor, boom or bust, home run or pop up.  That kind of guy usually has some flaws they need to overcome. If you did that with every pick then you might end up with a fantastic team or a team that can't fill it's roster or something in between.  Habs have so many picks that they can afford to swing for the fences with many of the picks.  They need to get the #1 pick right though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

that is how I remember McCarron too. Hillis, Olofsson and Mysak were more the "swing for the fences" type.

 

I'd put those three in the safe category.  Hillis and Mysak were draft-day fallers relative to their rankings (it's hard to call a 'value' pick a big swing) while Olofsson's trajectory if all went well was a slightly better offensively version of Jacob de la Rose.  Olofsson, in particular, is basically the definition of a safer pick, one that's low-ceiling but a higher floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

I'd put those three in the safe category.  Hillis and Mysak were draft-day fallers relative to their rankings (it's hard to call a 'value' pick a big swing) while Olofsson's trajectory if all went well was a slightly better offensively version of Jacob de la Rose.  Olofsson, in particular, is basically the definition of a safer pick, one that's low-ceiling but a higher floor.

 

That's the way I remember those picks. Mysak was rated a late 1st round pick on many lists and fell to the 2nd round.  I think Olofsson dropped as well.  I think Romanov was more of a swing for the fences pick as many had him rated much lower but Timmins was pretty excited about his potential. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BCHabnut said:

The Dallas Stars basically re-built their team at the 2017 draft.

• Heiskanen 3rd overall

• Oettinger 26th overall

• Robertson 39th overall

 

Let's do this!

 

We've had years like that...2007 (Patches, PK, Mcdonagh), 1987 (Cassels, Leclair, Desjardins, Schneider! WHOA), and famously 1984 (Svboda, Corson, Richer, Roy). Too rarely, however. 

 

For a GM who got ripped for bad drafting, Savard in fact did spectacularly well, much, much better than any of his successors. He also got Koivu, Rory Fitzpatrick, and Darcy Tucker in 1993, another good year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps a better description of who I’d like to see drafted, is the player who has the most upside. 
 

You see guys like Jason Robertson slip due to skating. He improved, but is still not elite at skating. He’s tearing up the league due to his other elite qualities. 
 

Guys like point and Debrincat likely fell due to their size. Years ago Jamie Benn slipped all the way to round 5, and if my memory serves correctly it was because he was stuck between choosing hockey or baseball. 
 

All of them showed top upside, and oozed raw talent. Those are the guys I want in my prospect pool.

 

I’ll take 1 Brayden point and two busts over 3 de la rose’s 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Meller93 said:

Perhaps a better description of who I’d like to see drafted, is the player who has the most upside. 

This is simply a crap shoot, as with most stuff when projecting 17 yr old high school kids. 

3 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

I want the prospect who believes hes the best player in the draft and the best player on the ice.

Has zero to do with a kid saying, "I am #1 and that is important to me." in an interview.

I see as opposite like a Suzuki, who doesnt need to TELL folks he is great. 

But, i guess everyone has been kissing his ass since he was anointed extraordinary in the OHL. So, i assume a swelled head is to be expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, I liked what I saw as self-belief and intensity in Wright's comment. The quotes from him that I've read/heard suggest a kid who is single-mindedly fixated on being the best frigging player he can possibly be, and who expects himself to be an elite, impact player. Saying that he "deserves" to be #1 overall could be seen as ego, or it could be seen as an expression of conviction that he's worked hard to be the best and believes that, among his peers, he is.

 

Considering that he is universally praised for being an unselfish team player who does all the dirty work coaches love, I think his comment deserves to be taken as a statement of what he expects from himself more than a statement of KK-style entitlement.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DON said:

This is simply a crap shoot, as with most stuff when projecting 17 yr old high school kids. 

Has zero to do with a kid saying, "I am #1 and that is important to me." in an interview.

I see as opposite like a Suzuki, who doesnt need to TELL folks he is great. 

But, i guess everyone has been kissing his ass since he was anointed extraordinary in the OHL. So, i assume a swelled head is to be expected.

Personally I didn’t see a swollen head. It didn’t come across as cocky to me, just confident. He’s going to need that swagger with the pressure cooker of Montreal. 

Also I don’t think it’s been all ass kissing for him. This year, and even the exact question he’s responding to is about how people are doubting him. He handled the question by showing he’s sure of himself, he is laser focused. He knows what he wants and he’s getting it. I want that guy on the team. I loved the way he handled it if I’m honest, but each to his own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

I'd put those three in the safe category.  Hillis and Mysak were draft-day fallers relative to their rankings (it's hard to call a 'value' pick a big swing) while Olofsson's trajectory if all went well was a slightly better offensively version of Jacob de la Rose.  Olofsson, in particular, is basically the definition of a safer pick, one that's low-ceiling but a higher floor.

 

interesting

 

I just remember the video clip showing MB and TT saying "Hillis" at the same time and being excited. He was picked with the other bunch of centre: Olofsson(#56), Hillis(#66), McShane(97), Gorniak(#123), Fonstad(#128), Houde(#133)

 

None have panned out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...