• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

2015 NHL Entry Draft

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pick said:
No, coming in second place isn't success but Leafs haven't even made it that far while other teams have. What criteria do you think is appropriate? What is success -  Winning %? Stanley cups? Personal player achievements? Playoff series won? Can you name others? Lets use them all. What you will find is that Leafs are in the bottom third.

Right because, again, for 25 years they were owned by a crazy person. When they had smart, competent ownership under Stavros they had success which can be measured in myriad ways, including but not limited to winning playoff series, regular season record and individual achievement(which, again, is not simply limited to winning awards).

In the 10-12 year period where Stavros was heading up the club they were very reasonably successful. That's undeniable and points to the real culprit the Leafs have faced at other times. Terrible, impatient ownership.

Pick said:
Btw, you did mention horses and zebras.

Yes. It's a commonly used metaphor that is in no way an insult but simply an expression that serves as a reminder of Occam's Razor.

I don't have respect for bad ideas or arguments but I don't make things personal.
 
Highlander said:
We are going to pick either Strome, Marner or Hanifin. Are any of them NHL ready or will all of them have to go to the AHL?

As for marner and Strome, neither of them can play in the AHL next year.  They would both have to return to junior. 

I'm not sure what Hanifin's options are next year other than returning to Boston College if he doesn't make the NHL.
 
Nik the Trik said:
I just really don't see the team passing on Strome or Hanifin. I wouldn't be upset with Marner and I think drafting for need at this point is a little ahead of where they're at but I think you want to inject as much variety into the system as possible and "super skilled but smallish and probably a winger and not a center" seems an awful lot like Nylander.

This is exactly where I am at. 
 
pmrules said:
I'm not sure what Hanifin's options are next year other than returning to Boston College if he doesn't make the NHL.

Hanifin can play in the AHL if he goes pro. It's not really a guarantee that he'll sign right away though, he could go back for another year of college.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
pmrules said:
I'm not sure what Hanifin's options are next year other than returning to Boston College if he doesn't make the NHL.

Hanifin can play in the AHL if he goes pro. It's not really a guarantee that he'll sign right away though, he could go back for another year of college.

Hmmm....good to know. Another benefit to drafting Hanifin in my opinion.
 
Nik the Trik said:
Pick said:
No, coming in second place isn't success but Leafs haven't even made it that far while other teams have. What criteria do you think is appropriate? What is success -  Winning %? Stanley cups? Personal player achievements? Playoff series won? Can you name others? Lets use them all. What you will find is that Leafs are in the bottom third.

Right because, again, for 25 years they were owned by a crazy person. When they had smart, competent ownership under Stavros they had success which can be measured in myriad ways, including but not limited to winning playoff series, regular season record and individual achievement(which, again, is not simply limited to winning awards).

In the 10-12 year period where Stavros was heading up the club they were very reasonably successful. That's undeniable and points to the real culprit the Leafs have faced at other times. Terrible, impatient ownership.

Pick said:
Btw, you did mention horses and zebras.

Yes. It's a commonly used metaphor that is in no way an insult but simply an expression that serves as a reminder of Occam's Razor.

I don't have respect for bad ideas or arguments but I don't make things personal.

My apology. I missed the reference to Occam's Razor. But does your reference apply as you intended?

My proposal makes matters less complicated. Instead of discussing poor scouting, poor drafting, poor coaching, no leadership, lazy players, incompetence, the media, impatient fans, etc, etc, etc.....it proposes that these are symptoms and narrows the problem down to a culture where making money is more important than the product. This culture change started when Smythe Sr's influence was diminished by a group of crooks.

It also includes a culture of self-serving men that started with Imlach's ego (yes, the cracks formed when they were still winning cups and the cracks widened until the team was ultimately proven to be "broken" by the Bruins in the '69 playoffs - btw, the word "broken" was used by Derek Sanderson).

Early on in this discussion, I asked you to "keep things amicable". I felt this was necessary because although I welcome discussion and different points of view, your responses were dismissive and contained childish putdowns (what's that term used today..... "snarkey"?).

Anyway, how does Ballard explain the last ten years? And why has the center of the hockey universe been able to attract only one capable owner in the last 45+ years? If your rebuttal rests on Stavro, it's a lame rebuttal. Didn't Stavro decide that the greatest name in hockey and the biggest acquisition this organization would ever make was too expensive?

 
Pick said:
My apology. I missed the reference to Occam's Razor. But does your reference apply as you intended?

My proposal makes matters less complicated. Instead of discussing poor scouting, poor drafting, poor coaching, no leadership, lazy players, incompetence, the media, impatient fans, etc, etc, etc.....it proposes that these are symptoms and narrows the problem down to a culture where making money is more important than the product. This culture change started when Smythe Sr's influence was diminished by a group of crooks.

Yes, it applies. All of those things that you think are incidental are just symptoms of the central problem and your explanation doesn't address them. A primary interest in making money, and let's be fair that's the first time you described "the problem" as such, would lead to better development and drafting. Not worse. A fundamental interest in maximizing profit would see ownership want to have the best possible team, not the worst.

Ballard's primary interest wasn't, I don't think, to make as much money as possible. He just wanted to rule the Leafs like his own crazy fiefdom and could do that because making money owning the Leafs was more or less inevitable.

To lean on your answer one has to assume that there's some "culture" that matters more than simply top-down incompetence. Saying a well run company achieves good results and a poorly run company fails...there's no assumption there.

Pick said:
Anyway, how does Ballard explain the last ten years? And why has the center of the hockey universe been able to attract only one capable owner in the last 45+ years?

The quality of the market doesn't dictate the quality of the owner. A hockey team is a commodity and if you have a bad owner he can stick around forever. Look at the NBA. Most people would probably tell you the worst owner in the league(James Dolan) owns a team in the best market in the league(New York City). They'd probably only say that because, last year, the guy who was worst owner in the League(Donald Sterling) was forced to sell his team in the second best market in the league(Los Angeles).

Football? Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder. Baseball? Fred Wilpon and Frank McCourt. Hockey? Bill Wirtz ran the Blackhawks into the ground for 50 years in a terrible market. The Habs have had their stretches recently with terrible ownership.

You're more likely to have bad ownership in good markets precisely because they're good markets. Any idiot can make money owning the Leafs and as such idiots are then interested. They can then make capricious, short-sighed or self-serving decisions because, unlike in other markets, they're not fighting for survival.

If you have a bad owner who wants to hang onto a team, there's nothing the market can do. That's why the Leafs record was so bad from '67 to '92. They were owned by a bitter, petty, vindictive, racist, criminal lunatic.

Pick said:
If your rebuttal rests on Stavro, it's a lame rebuttal. Didn't Stavro decide that the greatest name in hockey and the biggest acquisition this organization would ever make was too expensive?

Stavros' personal finances collapsed around him when he owned the team. The collapse of Knob Hill Farms isn't really a reflection of him and how well he was suited to own a sports franchise. He didn't sign Gretzky because he couldn't.

Eventually, though, the team's finances stabilized and they got back on the right track. With good ownership they found good management who hired good hockey people and the team got back on track. Whether or not you think it's lame, Stavros' tenure is proof positive that with good ownership, there's no real impediment to success for the franchise.
 
Pick said:
My proposal makes matters less complicated. Instead of discussing poor scouting, poor drafting, poor coaching, no leadership, lazy players, incompetence, the media, impatient fans, etc, etc, etc.....it proposes that these are symptoms and narrows the problem down to a culture where making money is more important than the product.

I think here is the fundamental problem with your position. A lot of the issues you dismiss as symptoms are very much causes of the team's lack of consistent, sustainable success. You address those, and the perceived culture of failure you've been harping on goes away - making the culture the symptom rather than the cause. I also wouldn't say the focus on making money is a culture. That's really just business. The lack of focus on the quality of the product is a symptom of poor management, not culture.
 
I don't want to sound like a Debbie Downer but this thread has really moved away from its title. Shouldn't we be discussing the draft rather than ramblings about "what's wrong with the Leafs"?
 
Some other reports based on some names that have been mentioned:

6. Mathew Barzal
C, Seattle (WHL)
DOB: 5/26/97 | Ht: 6-0 | Wt: 181
2014-15 GP: 44 | G: 12 | A: 45

In prospect circles, Barzal has been a name in discussion for most of this decade as he came up through the Bantam ranks. The former first overall WHL pick is an exciting and well-rounded prospect with significant upside. He's one of the best skaters in this draft class, with an explosive first step, high-end top speed and his edge work that is among the most impressive of his age group.

Barzal's skill level is also pretty good, with his vision and playmaking being standout attributes. He's patient, creative, and shifty with the puck. He succeeds in many different ways, whether it is off the rush with pace, a quick no-look pass from the cycle, or by making a defenseman miss.

He's not an incredibly physical player, but shows great energy and effort on the ice at both ends. He is often one of his team's top scoring-chance creators and penalty killers.

Ranking explanation: Both players are highly skilled, right-handed centers with great character. Konecny's impressed me more when they've played on the same ice, but he's been hurt more often, too. Konecny's overall production during his CHL career has been more impressive, but Barzal arguably was more so this season. I leaned Barzal due to the small gap in skill and seeing more upside.

8. Zach Werenski
D, Michigan (Big Ten)
DOB: 7/19/97 | Ht: 6-2 | Wt: 214
2014-15 GP: 35 | G: 9 | A: 16

Werenski was incredible this season, and was arguably Michigan's best defenseman despite being 17 years old.

"He's smooth as silk" said one scout; with another saying "he makes everything look easy."

His skating won't blow you away, but he's certainly above average, with power out of his first step, good edges and footwork. Werenski is at the top of his game when he has the puck, whether it's on an outlet, bringing it up on the rush or controlling a power play. He makes a ton of plays offensively and never looks panicked when doing so.

He's pretty developed physically already, measuring in at 6-2 and 214 pounds, although he's not a very physical player. His defense isn't poor, in fact I'd say it's better than average, but he can get caught making mistakes in his positional play. He's a potential top-four D-man, who can also be a first-unit power-play option.

Ranking explanation: While this may be seem like semantics -- and often outside of a "tier" that's what one-on-one rankings end up being -- the reasons for taking Werenski over Mathew Barzal is a matter of degrees relative to the Konecny vs. Werenski ranking explanation.

The main difference is that while Svechnikov's skill set is of a very high degree, it is just not as high as Konecny's, and thus tilts the scale towards the defenseman Werenski. His skating and vision are around the same level, and his off-the-puck game somewhat better, but his pure skill and offensive creativity are not at the same level of Konecny. Thus, when you consider the merits of Weresnki's game, and his incredible production with Michigan, it tilts the scale in his favor.

10. Lawson Crouse
LW, Kingston (OHL)
DOB: 6/23/97 | Ht: 6-4 | Wt: 212
2014-15 GP: 56 | G: 29 | A: 22

Crouse is a player with fantastic physical gifts, and despite a lack of amazing statistical production, he's consistently impressive. He's an outstanding skater for a 6-4 forward and will be an above-average skater at the NHL level. Given his large body mass, the way he gets up to his top gear so quickly is a standout attribute of his game.

Crouse plays a tough brand of hockey, supplemented by his filled-out frame, and he projects as an elite physical player in the NHL. Crouse is very advanced defensively for an under-18 prospect, showing very good defensive awareness and penalty-killing skills. He's not a standout offensively, but he's above average in terms of puck skills and offensive ability; he just doesn't show it consistently. I'm not sure if this is due to a lack of offensive IQ, or not yet being comfortable playing that kind of game. But, I've seen him make high-level plays, the points will come.

11. Pavel Zacha
C, Sarnia (OHL)
DOB: 4/6/97 | Ht: 6-3 | Wt: 214
2014-15 GP: 37 | G: 16 | A: 18

Zacha's season was a little up and down, as he lost time due to injuries and performed pretty well, but was somewhat below expectations considering he's been a highly touted prospect for the past few years. All the tools point in the right direction for Zacha. He's a big, strong forward who uses his body well to win battles and deliver hits. He's a fantastic skater for a big man. His technique is very refined, he's good in tight spaces, and can explode through the neutral zone.

He's also a pretty skilled playmaker who shows skilled, coordinated puck handling and the vision to make plays. Zacha's shot is notably above average, with a ton of torque behind it. He'll need to improve his defensive positioning, but he does show effort to come back on D.

14. Ivan Provorov
D, Brandon (WHL)
DOB: 1/13/97 | Ht: 6-0 | Wt: 201
2014-15 GP: 60 | G: 15 | A: 46

Provorov is a very skilled and advanced defenseman who has shown a strong commitment to North America, having played on this side of the Atlantic for the past four seasons. He's a very gifted skater with good agility and power out of his stride. Mechanically, he isn't perfect -- he has an awkward lean-over skating style -- but the end result looks promising, with room to improve. He's above average as an offensive player, with good puck skills and great ability to find lanes and move the puck.

He's slightly undersized for a defenseman, but he's decent-to-solid in his own end, with good angles, positioning and stick work. There are times when his defensive zone play shows a read error, but overall, he makes enough stops to be reliable at even strength.

15. Oliver Kylington
D, Farjestad (SHL)
DOB: 5/19/97 | Ht: 6-0 | Wt: 181
2014-15 GP: 18 | G: 2 | A: 3

Kylington's season was a little bumpy due to reassignments and injury, but overall, it was very impressive considering the high level at which he played in tough, pro leagues. He's a brilliant skater who gains speed easily, and has the four-way movements to stay with quick forwards. Kylington is a very skilled puck handler, who makes a lot of creative plays and controls the puck in tight spaces as well as the best forwards in this class. He stretches the ice well, and can control a power play very effectively. His offensive IQ and vision are high-end, and his total package offensively can create chances out of nowhere and control the game.

He has his warts, however, as he isn't the best in the physical aspects of the game in terms of effort or his frame, and his shot could be better. His defense isn't perfect, but it isn't bad. If anything I'd project him to be about average defensively, while being a top-end offensive defenseman.
 
Potvin29 said:
After reading so many scouting reports thus far I can take one thing away with certainty: every single prospect is amazing.

Haha...

Can you imagine the effect on a draft class if they suddenly shifted to publishing bluntly realistic scouting reports?
 
Highlander said:
We should be able to glean another first for Phanuef and some of the others that are heading out of town.

Philadelphia might be a destination for Phaneuf. They've got the 7th pick and I don't think they are heading towards a rebuild just yet. The Leafs taking the Lecavalier contract off their books might be worked in there somehow.
 
corsi fenwick said:
Highlander said:
We should be able to glean another first for Phanuef and some of the others that are heading out of town.

Philadelphia might be a destination for Phaneuf. They've got the 7th pick and I don't think they are heading towards a rebuild just yet. The Leafs taking the Lecavalier contract off their books might be worked in there somehow.

Maybe I'm undervaluing Phaneuf, but I'm not sure Philly would be willing to move the 7th for him, even if they'd be shedding salary in the process...

However, Philly has Tampa's first round pick, and I think that has a chance of being dealt.
 
louisstamos said:
corsi fenwick said:
Highlander said:
We should be able to glean another first for Phanuef and some of the others that are heading out of town.

Philadelphia might be a destination for Phaneuf. They've got the 7th pick and I don't think they are heading towards a rebuild just yet. The Leafs taking the Lecavalier contract off their books might be worked in there somehow.

Maybe I'm undervaluing Phaneuf, but I'm not sure Philly would be willing to move the 7th for him, even if they'd be shedding salary in the process...

However, Philly has Tampa's first round pick, and I think that has a chance of being dealt.

No, I doubt that Phaneuf is worth the 7th, but maybe (insert Leafs GM here) does a great job in convincing Philadelphia that he is. Or maybe the Tampa pick would work.

I'm looking forward to this off-season. So many unknowns right now and (there should be) many changes coming.

I apologize for my over-use of parentheses.
 
Guys, do you think it's possible for the Leafs to have 9 1st round draft picks this year?  Maybe 10?
 
L K said:
Guys, do you think it's possible for the Leafs to have 9 1st round draft picks this year?  Maybe 10?

I'm personally hoping for all 30. Less than 20 will be a disappointment.

Joking aside, I'm thinking the Leafs might be able to make 2 more happen somehow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top