2015 NHL Entry Draft

[Kin]

Jordan Staal scored 49 points that year. You don't need to find that at the top of the draft.

You do if you want it to be a 20 year old.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=123396

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=123889

Things aren't true just because you want them to be.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

I would say Shattenkirk is a tier lower than Doughty, and therefore "almost as good". Absolutely not as good but the other players can make up the difference. That's what trades used to be about.

Except the Leafs are in the mess they're in precisely because Burke thought he could build a team around guys who are just a "tier lower" than the elite talents in the league. I've seen what happens when teams think they can get by without elite talent and "make up the difference" elsewhere. Shattenkirk, who's been sheltered to a degree in St. Louis by virtue of being #3 on their depth chart, is not head and shoulders a better player than Phaneuf.

Trading for a bushel of guys who have the potential to be good but not great players leaves the Leafs exactly where they already are if everything goes right. They don't have Franchise level players and you can't win without them. That's the shot they need to be taking.

It's not about hedging your bets, it's about whether they're betting to win or betting to show.

For the Flyers? Well they have 2 great players and some depth up front (Giroux, Voracek, Couts, Schenn, Simmonds). They lack a great D-man and they like most teams have a window. They trade potentially better assets and controllability for an NHL ready defender who's very highly touted (hell he might not even make it to #4).

Which is why even if this deal did make sense it would be Philly talking to Arizona, not Toronto. You're not going to invest a ton into something like this and just cross your fingers that Hanifin falls.

Sure. The trade happens if Hanifin is available at 4 not in advance, but it's a conversation the Leafs and Flyers have in advance. Maybe Arizona wants to ensure they get Marner/Strome, who knows.

The Leafs are in the predicament they're in because Burke lost his mind and decided patience was for the Kevin Lowes of the world. They're not in this predicament because they traded for multiple draft picks Kessel is elite, problem is it's only at one thing.

JVR is a 2nd overall and he's not elite. What I'm proposing is moving a high pick that could end up like JVR/Bogosian and many others, for more bullets in the gun which could end up like Karlsson, Perry, Eberle etc. Sure that's hoping for the best, but so, in a way, is using the pick itself.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Jordan Staal scored 49 points that year. You don't need to find that at the top of the draft.

You do if you want it to be a 20 year old.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=123396

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=123889

Things aren't true just because you want them to be.

There are exceptions to every rule, true (how many 2012 2nd rounders scored 49 pts as a 20 year old?).

To your conversation with Frank, if Pitts had drafted another good defence man with a high pick they could've saved the 5M from Paul Martin for more depth either defensively or forwards to help the offence (Maata will help). That and they haven't drafted as well as Chicago, but that's true of a bunch of teams.

The Perron trade is just compounding the existing issue.

 

[Frank E]

Jordan Staal scored 49 points that year. You don't need to find that at the top of the draft.

You do if you want it to be a 20 year old.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=123396

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=123889

Things aren't true just because you want them to be.

Yes, of course there are exceptions, and drafting isn't an exact science.

I shouldn't have said that it always works that way, and that you never find great players in later rounds.  You got me. 

 

[Kin]

I shouldn't have said that it always works that way, and that you never find great players in later rounds.  You got me.

Yes. And I shouldn't have forgotten about the Mandatory number of 20 year olds a team has to have to qualify for the Playoffs. 24 year old depth players? Lo-sers.

Look, go back to the thing about Fowler and Lindholm. Those aren't guys the Ducks drafted because, you know, they had all these great players and were looking to bolster their depth. The reason why the Ducks had the #6 and #12 picks is because they didn't have a great blue line. They were in a position to draft those high ceiling guys because they needed high ceiling guys. Teams that aren't in that position don't have those picks. Yes, if Chicago was drafting #1 this year they'd take McDavid. But the question is what should teams who pick in that 20-30 range do to improve their depth and not whether or not the Penguins would like to have Bobby Orr on their 3rd pairing.

If you're drafting for depth, depth can found in that 20-30 range every year. It's not a crazy exception. Trading multiple shots at it for a higher ceiling player is the opposite of depth. You are shallowing your pool and, yes, herman shallowing is not a real word.

 

[herman]

You are shallowing your pool and, yes, herman shallowing is not a real word.

Haha, it is.

 

[Kin]

The Leafs are in the predicament they're in because Burke lost his mind and decided patience was for the Kevin Lowes of the world. They're not in this predicament because they traded for multiple draft picks Kessel is elite, problem is it's only at one thing.

Except being elite "at one thing" essentially confines him to the rung I'm talking about. He's not a Toews, Crosby, Doughty, Ovechkin type player. He's on that next rung. The reason the trade for him looks bad is because the asset sacrificed for him ended up being the kind that yields the kind of really top tier talent that teams need if they want to win. 

JVR is a 2nd overall and he's not elite. What I'm proposing is moving a high pick that could end up like JVR/Bogosian and many others, for more bullets in the gun which could end up like Karlsson, Perry, Eberle etc. Sure that's hoping for the best, but so, in a way, is using the pick itself.

No, because I think there's enough evidence that guys like Karlsson and Perry are incredibly atypical of the players you're likely to take at those positions whereas most really elite players come from the top 5 of the draft. So I think that if you agree that elite sort of players are needed, using the pick is playing the smart money, not hope.

 

[herman]

JVR is a 2nd overall and he's not elite. What I'm proposing is moving a high pick that could end up like JVR/Bogosian and many others, for more bullets in the gun which could end up like Karlsson, Perry, Eberle etc. Sure that's hoping for the best, but so, in a way, is using the pick itself.

No, because I think there's enough evidence that guys like Karlsson and Perry are incredibly atypical of the players you're likely to take at those positions whereas most really elite players come from the top 5 of the draft. So I think that if you agree that elite sort of players are needed, using the pick is playing the smart money, not hope.

If I'm reading this right, the Leafs need to make a long range shot; there's a nice long range bullet in the #4, but there is also a proposal to trade that bullet for a handful of lower caliber rounds. It's far more likely for that one shot of the long range round to hit the mark than it is for the smaller bullets to even make it that far.

 

[Kin]

If I'm reading this right, the Leafs need to make a long range shot; there's a nice long range bullet in the #4, but there is also a proposal to trade that bullet for a handful of lower caliber rounds. It's far more likely for that one shot of the long range round to hit the mark than it is for the smaller bullets to even make it that far.

Well, you know how I like my analogies but I'm pretty clueless about whether high calibre bullets are better over distances so I can't comment on this one.

The thing to me is that the kinds of assets Chev is talking about, late firsts and seconds, that you're picking up in exchange of a top five pick can be accumulated in a lot of different ways. The Leafs have an extra first round pick this year, in a roundabout way, because they traded Brett Lebda to Nashville and were willing to eat some bad salary. Next year, the Leafs will have an extra second round pick because they signed Daniel Winnik.

Those things can be repeated. The Leafs have assets to move which can fetch them lower first round picks and seconds. They'll hopefully sign some more Winniks this offseason. You can accumulate those assets, those bullets if you like, in a lot of different ways.

But top 5 picks aren't like that. Overwhelmingly, if you want a top five pick and what goes with it your team has to be bad for a year. It's an expensive bullet and, these days, there's a lot of competition for it. So even if you think that a top five pick has only marginal value over and above, say, a #7 pick I think you need to keep it rather than sacrifice in the service of picking up assets you can pick up in a lot of different ways and which there is a law of diminishing returns on.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

The Leafs are in the predicament they're in because Burke lost his mind and decided patience was for the Kevin Lowes of the world. They're not in this predicament because they traded for multiple draft picks Kessel is elite, problem is it's only at one thing.

Except being elite "at one thing" essentially confines him to the rung I'm talking about. He's not a Toews, Crosby, Doughty, Ovechkin type player. He's on that next rung. The reason the trade for him looks bad is because the asset sacrificed for him ended up being the kind that yields the kind of really top tier talent that teams need if they want to win. 

JVR is a 2nd overall and he's not elite. What I'm proposing is moving a high pick that could end up like JVR/Bogosian and many others, for more bullets in the gun which could end up like Karlsson, Perry, Eberle etc. Sure that's hoping for the best, but so, in a way, is using the pick itself.

No, because I think there's enough evidence that guys like Karlsson and Perry are incredibly atypical of the players you're likely to take at those positions whereas most really elite players come from the top 5 of the draft. So I think that if you agree that elite sort of players are needed, using the pick is playing the smart money, not hope.

I'm not going to argue that what you said isn't true, but I'm not sure "incredibly atypical" is an apt description.

From 2004 to 20014 players drafted between 15 and 35 (that are impact NHL'ers to some degree or another):

Zajac (20)
Cory Schneider (26)
Mike Green (28)
Tuuka Rask (21)
Niskanen (28)
James Neal (33)
Vlasic (35)
Giroux (22)
Foligno (28)
Pacioretty (22)
Perron (26)
Karlsson (15)
Eberle (24)
Ennis (26)
Carlson (27)
Voynov (32)
Johansson (24)
O'Reilly (34)
Tarasenko (16)
Bjugstad (19)
Kuznetsov (26)
Namestnikov (27)
Hertl (17)
Vasilevskiy (19)
Maata (22)
Lazar (17)
Mantha (20) (Your favourite, though he's not an NHL'er yet)
Burakovsky (23)


There are others outside that range but still in the 2nd round that include: Krejci, Dubinsky, Soderberg, Goligoski, Stastny, Lucic, P.K. Subban, Josi, Stepan, Hamonic, Tatar, Toffoli, Justin Faulk, Saad, Kucherov, Jurco, Jenner.

That's just a quick look and doesn't take into account the kind of player available at #7 if they were to trade down.

Basically if they trust their scouts/brain trust (as they keep on going on about with Hunter/Dubas), then there's a strong case to be made for that kind of deal IMO.

 

[Kin]

I'm not going to argue that what you said isn't true, but I'm not sure "incredibly atypical" is an apt description.

From 2004 to 20014 players drafted between 15 and 35 (that are impact NHL'ers to some degree or another):

*snip*

Excuse me though, Perry and Karlsson, the players you mentioned are not impact players to "some degree or another". They're a Hart winner and a Norris winner. If you'd said good players can be taken past #20, sure. But you specifically mentioned guys who are Franchise type players. On that list there's maybe two others who maybe fit that description in Giroux and Rask? Which is being pretty generous to Tuukka Rask? So that's three in 11 drafts. And ok so of the 231 players who were picked in spots 15-35 between 2004 and 2014 three were at that level? So that's a 1.3 percent chance you'll find one?

Yeah, I'll stick with incredibly atypical.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

I'm not going to argue that what you said isn't true, but I'm not sure "incredibly atypical" is an apt description.

From 2004 to 20014 players drafted between 15 and 35 (that are impact NHL'ers to some degree or another):

*snip*

Excuse me though, Perry and Karlsson, the players you mentioned are not impact players to "some degree or another". They're a Hart winner and a Norris winner. If you'd said good players can be taken past #20, sure. But you specifically mentioned guys who are Franchise type players. On that list there's maybe two others who maybe fit that description in Giroux and Rask? Which is being pretty generous to Tuukka Rask? So that's three in 11 drafts. And ok so of the 231 players who were picked in spots 15-35 between 2004 and 2014 three were at that level? So that's a 1.3 percent chance you'll find one?

Yeah, I'll stick with incredibly atypical.

But Eberle is. My original quote included him and "etc." but of course you moved the goal posts.

My previous post shows there are often impact players available in the 20's-2nd round and that was in reference to moving the 4th for a combination or the 7th, 28th and 37th to go along with the 24th.

I've made my position clear. You're right that they won't likely draft Perry with the 28th pick, but that wasn't the whole conversation. Anyway I'm done.

 

[Kin]

My previous post shows there are often impact players available in the 20's-2nd round and that was in reference to moving the 4th for a combination or the 7th, 28th and 37th to go along with the 24th.

Well, for starters you didn't mention that specific combination of picks because, if you had, I'd have said that Philly doesn't have the 37th pick so that's at least a bit of moot point. They will have a pick between 58-61 which is a significantly different beast.

And there's no way around that you cherry picked the absolute best of the players in that group. Curtis Lazar being available at 17 is not a strong argument for the availability of franchise or near franchise type players being available with the picks the Leafs would gain in that trade. Again, if you'd said that they could add good players, sure. But that's where I'd get back to those picks being available in lots of other ways that don't involve trading their best shot at a franchise type player and the current failure being a monument to the folly of the idea that you don't need franchise type players. 

It's the highest draft pick the team's had in 26 years. Those 26 years have, for the most part, sucked. There's an easy connection there.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

My previous post shows there are often impact players available in the 20's-2nd round and that was in reference to moving the 4th for a combination or the 7th, 28th and 37th to go along with the 24th.

Well, for starters you didn't mention that specific combination of picks because, if you had, I'd have said that Philly doesn't have the 37th pick so that's at least a bit of moot point. They will have a pick between 58-61 which is a significantly different beast.

And there's no way around that you cherry picked the absolute best of the players in that group. Curtis Lazar being available at 17 is not a strong argument for the availability of franchise or near franchise type players being available with the picks the Leafs would gain in that trade. Again, if you'd said that they could add good players, sure. But that's where I'd get back to those picks being available in lots of other ways that don't involve trading their best shot at a franchise type player and the current failure being a monument to the folly of the idea that you don't need franchise type players. 

It's the highest draft pick the team's had in 26 years. Those 26 years have, for the most part, sucked. There's an easy connection there.

Right. I didn't realize the other pick was so low. In that case it's not a trade I'd make either.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Anyone think SJ might be willing to move the 9th for Bernier and the 24th? If not is there something we can add to entice them more? The Nashville 2nd maybe (or was it Pittsburgh?)?

I'm guessing they're in the market for a goalie after they parted ways with Niemi.

 

[Kin]

Anyone think SJ might be willing to move the 9th for Bernier and the 24th? If not is there something we can add to entice them more? The Nashville 2nd maybe (or was it Pittsburgh?)?

I'm guessing they're in the market for a goalie after they parted ways with Niemi.

Toronto has Pittsburgh's 2016 2nd. Also their own.

And no. I don't think Bernier's enough of an upgrade to have that sort of value right now. Put yourself in their shoes. If you're a San Jose fan, how happy would you be with that trade? Wouldn't you rather them keep the 9th and maybe see if you could get a goalie out of the logjam in Ottawa for cheaper?

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Anyone think SJ might be willing to move the 9th for Bernier and the 24th? If not is there something we can add to entice them more? The Nashville 2nd maybe (or was it Pittsburgh?)?

I'm guessing they're in the market for a goalie after they parted ways with Niemi.

Toronto has Pittsburgh's 2016 2nd. Also their own.

And no. I don't think Bernier's enough of an upgrade to have that sort of value right now. Put yourself in their shoes. If you're a San Jose fan, how happy would you be with that trade? Wouldn't you rather them keep the 9th and maybe see if you could get a goalie out of the logjam in Ottawa for cheaper?

I don't know. I'm guessing Anderson isn't available. Then you're looking at a choice between a guy who hasn't been able to establish himself as a capable NHL starter to date, and a career AHL'er who had a hot run but ran out of gas in the playoffs.

Schneider was straight up for the 8th, so I'd say Bernier plus the 24th is roughly similar value.

 

[bustaheims]

And no. I don't think Bernier's enough of an upgrade to have that sort of value right now. Put yourself in their shoes. If you're a San Jose fan, how happy would you be with that trade? Wouldn't you rather them keep the 9th and maybe see if you could get a goalie out of the logjam in Ottawa for cheaper?

That logjam in Ottawa may not be as jammed as it appears. Lehner's recovering from a pretty serious concussion, and, as of a month ago, was still experiencing symptoms from it. He's not a sure bet to be able to play in the NHL in the 15/16 season. I imagine the sens will be pretty hesitant to make a move on their goalies until they have a clearer picture there, and, obviously, other teams will be really hesitant about parting with assets for a goalie who's recovering from a serious concussion. While I wouldn't make the deal being proposed, looking around at what might be available in terms of goalies this summer, Bernier seems like he could easily be the most appealing option.

 

[Kin]

I don't know. I'm guessing Anderson isn't available. Then you're looking at a choice between a guy who hasn't been able to establish himself as a capable NHL starter to date, and a career AHL'er who had a hot run but ran out of gas in the playoffs.

True, but for virtually nothing.

Schneider was straight up for the 8th, so I'd say Bernier plus the 24th is roughly similar value.

But Schneider was coming off three terrific seasons. Seasons where his save percentage were .929, .936 and .927. The buzz around Schneider in those years was pretty clearly that he was a top flight goalie, he just needed playing time.

Bernier's coming off a down year at .912, Niemi had a virtually identical year. As a starter, Bernier's put up a .918 over two years which is barely an upgrade from the .917 Niemi's had as a Shark. Right now the buzz around here regarding Bernier is that we genuinely don't know if he's a long term solution.

So again, ask yourself what you'd want if you were a Sharks fan. Personally? I'd keep the pick and see what you could do on the market. It's going to be a soft goaltending market and unless you're getting a sure fire upgrade, I just wouldn't spend like that.

 

[Kin]

And no. I don't think Bernier's enough of an upgrade to have that sort of value right now. Put yourself in their shoes. If you're a San Jose fan, how happy would you be with that trade? Wouldn't you rather them keep the 9th and maybe see if you could get a goalie out of the logjam in Ottawa for cheaper?

That logjam in Ottawa may not be as jammed as it appears. Lehner's recovering from a pretty serious concussion, and, as of a month ago, was still experiencing symptoms from it. He's not a sure bet to be able to play in the NHL in the 15/16 season. I imagine the sens will be pretty hesitant to make a move on their goalies until they have a clearer picture there, and, obviously, other teams will be really hesitant about parting with assets for a goalie who's recovering from a serious concussion. While I wouldn't make the deal being proposed, looking around at what might be available in terms of goalies this summer, Bernier seems like he could easily be the most appealing option.

Fair enough on the concussion. I guess they'll roll with Hammond as the back-up then.

Anyways, I still don't see Bernier as being enough of an upgrade on Niemi to warrant that sort of cost. If I were the Sharks, or any team seriously looking for some goaltending, I'd use an asset like the #9 pick but my phone call would be to Boston about Malcolm Subban.