2019-20 Prospects Thread

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

10 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I'm not even sure this part is true though.  Quite a number of reports from the accursed media had Dach and Turcotte at the top of Detroit's board.  If Zegras or Cozens goes top 5, as was widely expected, it's not really that hard to see how Seider might not have even whiffed the top 15.  Which is all to say that it's hard to say that Yzerman A) wanted Seider all along at 6th, or B) thought Seider was the 6th best player in the draft.  It only really means that 5 other players they may have liked more were gone AND nobody was willing to trade up for anybody who was left. 

I'm not following your logic here.

Sure Yzerman may have had both Dach and Turcotte ahead of Seider. If Zegras or Cozens goes top 5 though that still puts Seider at at least #6 on his list by virtue of the fact that Yzerman selected Seider over Zegras and Cozens.

 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

You've got that part wrong.  The guy personally watches thousands of prospects each year and augments his observations with others' observations (including scouts and managers) in order to minimize bias.  Very different than, say, a Craig Button (who also was a scout and manager himself) but tend to defer to video.  I know your tribe isn't too high on media types these days, but it's not like they got some dumbf*ck to opine on these guys. 

I promise my lack of faith in hockey media is anything but tribal.

I will simply always defer to a Yzerman or Holland over a Pronman or a Button. Pronman is usually very accurate in his predictions, but he typically has at least one prospect he ways off on like a Seider or Hayton. And I felt he was wrong about Seider before we even drafted him, so I'm not just arguing the point after the fact.

[kipwinger 8,492]

2 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I'm not following your logic here.

Sure Yzerman may have had both Dach and Turcotte ahead of Seider. If Zegras or Cozens goes top 5 though that still puts Seider at at least #6 on his list by virtue of the fact that Yzerman selected Seider over Zegras and Cozens.

 

Say the draft plays out like..

Hughes, Kakko, Byram, Cozens, Zegras (which was entirely plausible), then chances are that we aren't even talking about Seider at 6th.  My point, which I made badly, is that it's not as though Yzerman had some keen insight into Seider.  There's a good chance he wasn't "Yzerman's guy", he was just the best of what was left. If reports are to be believed (take them with a grain of salt if you want) then he was interested in two other guys more.  One or two different selections by other teams, which are entirely out of Yzerman's control, and Seider very likely DOES go in the 15-20 range (anticipated by most).  His selection at 6th says more about how the board shook out, and about how little Yzerman and co. thought about Zegras and Cozens as it does about how much they really liked Seider.

[kipwinger 8,492]

12 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I promise my lack of faith in hockey media is anything but tribal.

I will simply always defer to a Yzerman or Holland over a Pronman or a Button. Pronman is usually very accurate in his predictions, but he typically has at least one prospect he ways off on like a Seider or Hayton. And I felt he was wrong about Seider before we even drafted him, so I'm not just arguing the point after the fact.

I know.  It was a cheap dig.  But you're holding Pronman to a standard you don't even hold NHL executives to.  If he can't even be wrong (which remains to be seen on Seider) once or twice per first round, then he can never be right.  And that also ignores the fact that Steve Yzerman, as GM, has been VERY wrong in his 1st round selections in the past. 

In other words, if saying Moritz Seider is a 29th caliber pick when he's really a 6th caliber pick makes Pronman's evaluations suspect, then what does taking Brett Connolly at 6th overall make Yzerman's? 

Edited September 10, 2019 by kipwinger

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

10 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Say the draft plays out like..

Hughes, Kakko, Byram, Cozens, Zegras (which was entirely plausible), then chances are that we aren't even talking about Seider at 6th.  My point, which I made badly, is that it's not as though Yzerman had some keen insight into Seider.  There's a good chance he wasn't "Yzerman's guy", he was just the best of what was left. If reports are to be believed (take them with a grain of salt if you want) then he was interested in two other guys more.  One or two different selections by other teams, which are entirely out of Yzerman's control, and Seider very likely DOES go in the 15-20 range (anticipated by most).  His selection at 6th says more about how the board shook out, and about how little Yzerman and co. thought about Zegras and Cozens as it does about how much they really liked Seider.

Ok, I don't disagree with your point. I don't know if Yzerman had Seider at #3, #4, or #5 on his draft list, but I know he at least had him at #6. I don't really have a point beyond that fact.

I could see Holland taking Seider just behind our pick, because Holland needed Dmen in Edmonton and likely had similar knowledge on Seider, or at least was likely aware of Yzerman's high opinion of the kid. After that though yeah I can see him slipping down the draft board.

4 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I know.  It was a cheap dig.  But you're holding Pronman to a standard you don't even hold NHL executives to.  If he can't even be wrong (which remains to be seen on Seider) once or twice per first round, then he can never be right.  And that also ignores the fact that Steve Yzerman, as GM, has been VERY wrong in his 1st round selections in the past. 

In other words, if saying Moritz Seider is a 29th caliber pick when he's really a 6th caliber pick makes Pronman's evaluations suspect, then what does taking Brett Connolly at 6th overall make Yzerman's? 

To be fair to Yzerman Pronman ranked Connolly at #5 in 2010. Yzerman took Connolly at #6.

I'm not saying Yzerman is infallible, or that Pronman is a dimwit. I'm just saying I trust Yzerman's (and most GM's) opinion over Pronman's.

I pick on Pronman because in the last 2 or 3 years he's become the unofficial prospect/draft guru. Easy to put a target on that.

[kipwinger 8,492]

11 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Ok, I don't disagree with your point. I don't know if Yzerman had Seider at #3, #4, or #5 on his draft list, but I know he at least had him at #6. I don't really have a point beyond that fact.

I could see Holland taking Seider just behind our pick, because Holland needed Dmen in Edmonton and likely had similar knowledge on Seider, or at least was likely aware of Yzerman's high opinion of the kid. After that though yeah I can see him slipping down the draft board.

To be fair to Yzerman Pronman ranked Connolly at #5 in 2010. Yzerman took Connolly at #6.

I'm not saying Yzerman is infallible, or that Pronman is a dimwit. I'm just saying I trust Yzerman's (and most GM's) opinion over Pronman's.

I pick on Pronman because in the last 2 or 3 years he's become the unofficial prospect/draft guru. Easy to put a target on that.

Well, I mean The Athletic's subscriber base is projected to surpass a million before the end of the year.  So a big part of why he's being quoted more is because he's being seen more.  But you don't even get that job unless you're frequently right about prospects. 

I read somewhere that Pronman's accuracy rate for the first round (meaning which 31 players go first, not order) is insanely high.  I'll try to dig up where I found that.  I'd be curious to know the extent to which your standard North American (or European) scout could accurately pick the top 31 guys off the board.  I know NHL central scouting does two different lists so they don't even bother.  It's not an easy job by any measure.

Edited September 10, 2019 by kipwinger

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Well, I mean The Athletic's subscriber base is projected to surpass a million before the end of the year.  So a big part of why he's being quoted more is because he's being seen more.  But you don't even get that job unless you're frequently right about prospects. 

I read somewhere that Pronman's accuracy rate for the first round (meaning which 31 players go first, not order) is insanely high.  I'll try to dig up where I found that.  I'd be curious to know the extent to which your standard North American (or European) scout could accurately pick the top 31 guys off the board.  I know NHL central scouting does two different lists so they don't even both.  It's not an easy job by any measure.

Just begs the question... why doesn't Pronman have a job with an NHL team then? Teams aren't above hiring outside the norm. San Jose has a baseball scout working for them. I believe Minnesota hired the founders of War On Ice.

Anyway I believe Pronman wrote about month ago that (after watching more tape and talking to more scouts) he's reassessed Seider and would now rank him much higher. He even said Seider is now the prospect he's most excited to watch this year. I posted this in another thread somewhere.

[kipwinger 8,492]

33 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Just begs the question... why doesn't Pronman have a job with an NHL team then? Teams aren't above hiring outside the norm. San Jose has a baseball scout working for them. I believe Minnesota hired the founders of War On Ice.

Anyway I believe Pronman wrote about month ago that (after watching more tape and talking to more scouts) he's reassessed Seider and would now rank him much higher. He even said Seider is now the prospect he's most excited to watch this year. I posted this in another thread somewhere.

Because his current gig probably pays WAY better than your average NHL scout?

Yeah, he's higher on Seider for sure.  I've seen those articles.  One of the things I generally like about the guy is that he routinely re-drafts and shows what he got wrong.  Not many people in any profession who are willing to do that.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

39 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Because his current gig probably pays WAY better than your average NHL scout?

You think? I guess I didn't realize how little scouts make. Like 40-70K I'm seeing.

[kipwinger 8,492]

Just now, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

You think? I guess I didn't realize how little scouts make. Like 40-70K I'm seeing.

Yeah, it's a s*** job.  That's why retired players who don't need the money, and are used to the travel, are always doing it. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

5 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Yeah, it's a s*** job.  That's why retired players who don't need the money, and are used to the travel, are always doing it. 

When I was fresh out of college I asked an OHL GM how one would go about becoming a scout if one wanted to do the job with no prior pro experience. He basically said show up to the rink everyday. Talk to everyone. Pester the GM and other scouts with amateur reports. Maybe if you bother them enough they relent and you get hired part time. If you do get "hired" be prepared to work for free for a while. Bust your ass for a few years and hopefully you land a fulltime gig. Sounded like s*** TBH. I guess I shouldn't be surprised it doesn't pay well. Also this GM had a 16 year old on his scout staff. Not joking.

[kipwinger 8,492]

3 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

When I was fresh out of college I asked an OHL GM how one would go about becoming a scout if one wanted to do the job with no prior pro experience. He basically said show up to the rink everyday. Talk to everyone. Pester the GM and other scouts with amateur reports. Maybe if you bother them enough they relent and you get hired part time. If you do get "hired" be prepared to work for free for a while. Bust your ass for a few years and hopefully you land a fulltime gig. Sounded like s*** TBH. I guess I shouldn't be surprised it doesn't pay well. Also this GM had a 16 year old on his scout staff. Not joking.

The only job worse is Congressional Staff Member. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

The only job worse is Congressional Staff Member. 

I don't even believe in the government

[kipwinger 8,492]

2 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I don't even believe in the government

Well then let me inform you. Government is like if Gary Bettman sucked at his job, and was dumber and more bellicose than everyone else. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

13 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Well then let me inform you. Government is like if Gary Bettman sucked at his job, and was dumber and more bellicose than everyone else. 

Go Caps amirite?

[kipwinger 8,492]

12 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Go Caps amirite?

My preferred method of governance would be if everyone was allowed to do, think, feel, and say whatever they want...in their house.  But if you start being public with your s***, then you have to go one single round with a UFC fighter who feels differently than you do.  If you believe it, bleed for it ya know?  I think if you want to say publicly that interracial marriages are a sin (or whatever) then you've got to say it to this guy in the Octagon or shut the f*ck up. 

 

Edited September 11, 2019 by kipwinger

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

32 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

My preferred method of governance would be if everyone was allowed to do, think, feel, and say whatever they want...in their house.  But if you start being public with your s***, then you have to go one single round with a UFC fighter who feels differently than you do.  If you believe it, bleed for it ya know?  I think if you want to say publicly that interracial marriages are a sin (or whatever) then you've got to say it to this guy in the Octagon or shut the f*ck up. 

 

Interracial marriage is a sin

I reckon I can take tiny nips here

[kipwinger 8,492]

44 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Interracial marriage is a sin

I reckon I can take tiny nips here

I'm confused by your use of "tony nips" as a pejorative.  Are bigger nips better when discussing men you may need to fight?

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

31 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I'm confused by your use of "tony nips" as a pejorative.  Are bigger nips better when discussing men you may need to fight?

Remember when Kramer got a Tony?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

34 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I'm confused by your use of "tony nips" as a pejorative.  Are bigger nips better when discussing men you may need to fight?

Just look at them. I'm not sure whether to fight him or pluck those little chips off his chest and make chocolate chip cookies with them. Pathetic.

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

2 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Just look at them. I'm not sure whether to fight him or pluck those little chips off his chest and make chocolate chip cookies with them. Pathetic.

Remember the show "Chips"?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Remember the show "Chips"?

No

[Buppy 1,720]

4 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

....I hate the term reach, because it was only a reach according to the media. And I value the opinions of the media far less than I do actual managers and scouts. Yzerman clearly had Seider in his top6 of best available players, maybe even higher than 6. I respect that he wanted to trade down to game the system a bit, but in the end he got in his mind the BPA at #6... even if he could have maybe possibly also gotten him at #10 or #15 or something.

 

Except it wasn't just the media. ISS had him at #17. NHLCS had him as #6 Euro skater (and 4th Euro defenseman). McKenzie's list is derived from polling NHL scouts and had him #16. 

"Reach" just means going against the prevailing opinion. You seem to think it means people think he's a bad player. It doesn't and no one thought that (except maybe Scott Wheeler). Doesn't even necessarily mean it's a bad pick. Like I said in the draft thread, it's not that big a difference. It's not like everyone else had him going in the 4th round. Every list has a player or three ranked a bit different than the "norm".

Reaching with a high pick, I think it's a little more important to be right, but even if he's a complete bust I wouldn't say it would make it that much worse. Hindsight means only so much when looking at a single pick. 

 

3 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

To be fair to Yzerman Pronman ranked Connolly at #5 in 2010. Yzerman took Connolly at #6.

...
4.  Filip Forsberg, Right Wing, Leksands-Allsvenskan
...
23. Slater Koekkoek, Defense, Peterborough-OHL

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

5 minutes ago, Buppy said:

"Reach" just means going against the prevailing opinion. You seem to think it means people think he's a bad player. It doesn't and no one thought that (except maybe Scott Wheeler). Doesn't even necessarily mean it's a bad pick. Like I said in the draft thread, it's not that big a difference.

Either you're misinterpreting me or I'm (again) misinterpreting the term reach. I don't necessarily think that anyone is suggesting Seider is a bad pick BECAUSE he's a reach. I don't like the term reach because he wasn't a reach to Yzerman. And at the end of the day I care much more for Yzerman's opinion than I do Pronman's, Mckenzie's, or even ISS's.

It's probably a flawed POV, as I'm going to be initially happy with every draft pick made. But that's the way I like to approach the draft. I don't do much research and I don't really follow draft eligible players beyond what's posted here on LGW. I trust the team to make their picks. I spend a summer being giddy about them, and then I form my opinions of them throughout the coming year(s). This is probably best illustrated by me last year with Zadina. I was hype about the kid all summer, but my opinion changed sharply around late October 2018. Going into the season my knowledge was; he's a sniper who plays a well-rounded game and he spent much of the previous year ranked at #3. About 2 months into the 2018 season I decided I disagreed with that description and that ranking. Furthermore, I'm sure you've probably seen me in draft threads expounding about how dumb and time-wasting I think it is to follow draft prospects. About all I think the activity is good for is getting descriptions of players.

That all said, I broke my own rules with Seider this year. Found him at the suggestion of someone on HFboards around April or May, and I was shocked how good he was for a player ranked 20-30. So I started following him. I have more than a couple posts on here before the draft stating that I thought he was probably the best Dman in the draft outside of Byram. And I believe I said I wouldn't be shocked if he went in the 10-15 range.

Low and behold he goes #6 to us. So I'm definitely very biased on this player at this point. Yzerman basically over-validated my opinion of him.

TLDR: I don't care for draft rankings much. In my mind Seider was always the 2nd best D in that draft, and apparently Yzerman agreed with me.

 

[Buppy 1,720]

7 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Either you're misinterpreting me or I'm (again) misinterpreting the term reach. I don't necessarily think that anyone is suggesting Seider is a bad pick BECAUSE he's a reach. I don't like the term reach because he wasn't a reach to Yzerman. And at the end of the day I care much more for Yzerman's opinion than I do Pronman's, Mckenzie's, or even ISS's....

That all said, I broke my own rules with Seider this year. Found him at the suggestion of someone on HFboards around April or May, and I was shocked how good he was for a player ranked 20-30. So I started following him. I have more than a couple posts on here before the draft stating that I thought he was probably the best Dman in the draft outside of Byram. And I believe I said I wouldn't be shocked if he went in the 10-15 range.

Well, duh. No one is ever a reach from the perspective of the person making the pick. You can respect Yzerman's opinion and still acknowledge that it was significantly different than the norm.

Also, in the final rankings from the popular lists, Seider's average ranking was 17th. 10 out of 14 (not counting NHLCS due to lack of combined list) had him between 9 and 18. I know you're having fun thinking you were one of the few believers in Seider, but the fact is you were right in line with the prevailing opinion. Yzerman didn't validate your opinion, he said you were wrong.