2020 Draft Thread

[krsmith17 7,191]

6 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Seems pretty clear to me that over the last year Rossi's offensive game has caught up to, and surpassed Lafreniere's.  Lafreniere, however, is the better player all around and the more physically developed human being.

You can't be serious... Just because he's having a slightly better offensive year than Lafreniere you believe he's a more offensively talented player? You're smarter than that... do you think Bryan Rust is a more offensively talented player than Auston Matthews and Nikita Kucherov? Just because he has more points per game this season?

12 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

That's not how math works. Mathematically the difference of .03 (3.8 vs. 3.5) would mean a difference of 3 goals if Rossi played 100 more games than Lafreniere.  But they haven't played 100 games.  They've played the same number of games (actually Rossi has played two fewer).  Which means the difference in the leagues would account for 3/100th of a goal. 

The difference is 0.3, not 0.03... which is 30/100 or 3/10...

17 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

If this is true for Rossi it would also be true of Lafreniere, who is also not playing in a men's league.

Sure it would, but in my opinion, Lafreniere is in a league of his own. Rossi and Raymond are comparable, but the leagues they play in are not, so that has to be taken into consideration. 

20 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

No, I'm suggesting I'd do something different than them. Largely because I've seen and analyzed years worth of top five picks and seen how often they get it wrong.

Pro scouts probably aren't aware of these statistics. Maybe you should let them know...

Also, Lafreniere is a borderline generational talent. He's not your typical number one overall. I know you're not buying into this though, so whatever.

[kipwinger 8,524]

12 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

You can't be serious... Just because he's having a slightly better offensive year than Lafreniere you believe he's a more offensively talented player? You're smarter than that... do you think Bryan Rust is a more offensively talented player than Auston Matthews and Nikita Kucherov? Just because he has more points per game this season?

The difference is 0.3, not 0.03... which is 30/100 or 3/10...

Sure it would, but in my opinion, Lafreniere is in a league of his own. Rossi and Raymond are comparable, but the leagues they play in are not, so that has to be taken into consideration. 

Pro scouts probably aren't aware of these statistics. Maybe you should let them know...

Also, Lafreniere is a borderline generational talent. He's not your typical number one overall. I know you're not buying into this though, so whatever.

Rossi and Lafreniere have the same usage. Rust and Matthews/Kucherov don't.  So it's pretty easy to see which is an aberration and which isn't. 

Good catch on my math.  Point still remains, it only makes a difference if Rossi plays 10 more games than Lafreniere, which he hasn't, and even then it would only be a difference of three goals (I'd be curious to know the points per game difference between the two leagues).

Again, I don't care about pro scouts that much because, as I've already stated, they do obviously stupid things at the draft all. the. time.  And presumably they don't care about me because I'm just a guy on the internet.  You know who does care about my thoughts a lot though?  The guys that responded to 25 of my posts this morning.

[Dabura 12,207]

10 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Most of the scouting reports I've seen suggest that Rossi is pretty stout, and strong one his skates, and very aggressive.  He's already 180 lbs, despite being 5'9 so it's pretty fair to assume he'll be 200-210 lbs in his 20s.  Most tend to agree that he projects out as a center because of this.  He's also, as I've stated a few times, the most dynamic offensive player in the draft (and that includes Lafreniere) so I think he's as likely to have "game breaking" upside as anyone.

With all that said, I don't think we need him to be a "1C".  It's great if he is, mind you, but we've already got a 1C who can score 60+ points will matching up against the top centers in the game and logging heavy minutes.  What we really need is a top six center who can score a ton of points precisely because he WON'T have to log Larkin type minutes.  Let him be the Sakic to Larkin's Forsberg.

I like Rossi a lot, don't get me wrong. I also like the idea of the Wings pulling a St. Louis and winning a Cup with a hard-working, blue-collar, decidedly unsexy lineup that, on paper, is the underdog against every one of its four postseason foes. Live by the parity, die by the parity.

I don't even strongly believe being 5'9 has to be this huge obstacle to becoming an NHL centerman if the player is otherwise physically built for it (and Rossi is) and he plays harder and smarter than ~97% of his opponents (and Rossi does). Hell, my main concern with man mountain prospects like Rasmussen and Cozens and Byfield is that life has been easy for them because they're so much bigger and stronger than their peers. If you're a 5'9 centerman and you're performing so well that you might as well be 6'4, you're a baller. Yzerman, as we know, likes that kind of player. (See: Tyler Johnson, Braden Point, Yanni Gourde, Ethan Phillips.)

I'm just sayin'. Our 2020 1st is a really, really important pick. "Yeah, he's 5'9, but I'm not sure that'll matter. And, yeah, maybe he isn't your typical '1C,' but I'm not sure that'll matter" isn't really where my head and heart are at right now. But I hear your logic and I don't necessarily hate it.

[kipwinger 8,524]

1 minute ago, Dabura said:

I like Rossi a lot, don't get me wrong. I also like the idea of the Wings pulling a St. Louis and winning a Cup with a hard-working, blue-collar, decidedly unsexy lineup that, on paper, is the underdog against every one of its four postseason foes. Live by the parity, die by the parity.

I don't even strongly believe being 5'9 has to be this huge obstacle to becoming an NHL centerman if the player is otherwise physically built for it (and Rossi is) and he plays harder and smarter than ~97% of his opponents (and Rossi does). Hell, my main concern with man mountain prospects like Rasmussen and Cozens and Byfield is that life has been easy for them because they're so much bigger and stronger than their peers. If you're a 5'9 centerman and you're performing so well that you might as well be 6'4, you're a baller. Yzerman, as we know, likes that kind of player. (See: Tyler Johnson, Braden Point, Yanni Gourde, Ethan Phillips.)

I'm just sayin'. Our 2020 1st is a really, really important pick. "Yeah, he's 5'9, but I'm not sure that'll matter. And, yeah, maybe he isn't your typical '1C,' but I'm not sure that'll matter" isn't really where my head and heart are at right now. But I hear your logic and I don't necessarily hate it.

I 100% agree.  But I also have to be prepared for the likely scenario that we end up drafting 4th and Lafreniere, Byfield, and Stutzle are off the board.  And in that scenario I'd be very pleased with Rossi.

[nyqvististhefuture 1,002]

4 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I 100% agree.  But I also have to be prepared for the likely scenario that we end up drafting 4th and Lafreniere, Byfield, and Stutzle are off the board.  And in that scenario I'd be very pleased with Rossi.

He might be a good player but whens the last time you seen a 5’8 forward excel in the playoffs outside of pat kane maybe? Dont recall gaudreau making serious noise or anyone of that height in a long time . Not saying he wont be a good player but like you said this pick is important as s*** 

Now im hoping to god and id like to believe we wont get f***ed over and  fall back to 4th but if thats the case and those 3 are gone i wouldnt be against taking at 4 or trading back a spot or 2 ans taking askarov/drysdale and solidify the back end of our team for 10 years with seider+hronek (obviously would also love raymond/holtz) I know its a possibility but i dont  even want to think about 4th place right now

Edited January 17, 2020 by nyqvististhefuture

[kipwinger 8,524]

1 minute ago, nyqvististhefuture said:

He might be a good player but whens the last time you seen a 5’8 forward excel in the playoffs outside of pat kane maybe? Dont recall gaudreau making serious noise or anyone of that height in a long time . Not saying he wont be a good player but like you said this pick is important as s*** 

Now im hoping to god and id like to believe we wont get f***ed over and  fall back to 4th but if thats the case and those 3 are gone i wouldnt be against taking at 4 or trading back a spot or 2 ans taking askarov/drysdale and solidify the back end of our team for 10 years with seider+hronek (obviously would also love raymond/holtz) I know its a possibility but i dont  even want to think about 4th place right now

I'm not that concerned about his height, mostly because he'll probably grow another few inches.  Most draftees do.  But if he doesn't, and fills out to round 200 lbs, then there are literally dozens of examples of guys who were small and stout and successful.  Off the top of my head, Brayden Point, Brad Marchand, Cam Atkinson, Marty. St. Louis, Mats Zuccarello, Daniel Briere, Tyler Johnson, Tory Krug, Theo Fleury, and our beloved Ted Lindsey all come to mind.

[Dabura 12,207]

3 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I 100% agree.  But I also have to be prepared for the likely scenario that we end up drafting 4th and Lafreniere, Byfield, and Stutzle are off the board.  And in that scenario I'd be very pleased with Rossi.

I hear ya.

I've been trying to prepare myself for 4th -- mentally, physically, spiritually. It's tough. The rise of Stutzle, Rossi, et al. makes it a little easier, though.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

So what you're suggesting is that you probably know better than thousands of pro scouts?

What do you always tell me when I say this?

Why do you trust scouts? Scouts make mistakes ALL THE TIME.

[krsmith17 7,191]

41 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Rossi and Lafreniere have the same usage. Rust and Matthews/Kucherov don't.  So it's pretty easy to see which is an aberration and which isn't. 

Rossi and Lafreniere have the same usage, despite playing in different leagues, and different positions, but Rust and Kucherov have different usage, despite playing in the same league, and same position? I'm going to assume this is all speculation on your behalf, since you've probably never seen either Rossi or Lafreniere play much, if at all, live in the CHL, and Rusk and Kucherov (as well as Matthews) have very similar usage based on these models...

https://frozenpool.dobbersports.com/frozenpool_playerusage.php?team=PIT

https://frozenpool.dobbersports.com/frozenpool_playerusage.php?team=T.B

59 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

That's not how math works.

Good catch on my math. 

Well it's a good thing one of us understands how math works...

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

Point still remains, it only makes a difference if Rossi plays 10 more games than Lafreniere, which he hasn't, and even then it would only be a difference of three goals (I'd be curious to know the points per game difference between the two leagues).

The point doesn't remain, because your point is wrong. Lafreniere has been and will be a much better offensive player than Rossi, as well as every other area of the game. Any argument against this is laughable...

[kipwinger 8,524]

5 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Rossi and Lafreniere have the same usage, despite playing in different leagues, and different positions, but Rust and Kucherov have different usage, despite playing in the same league, and same position? I'm going to assume this is all speculation on your behalf, since you've probably never seen either Rossi or Lafreniere play much, if at all, live in the CHL, and Rusk and Kucherov (as well as Matthews) have very similar usage based on these models...

https://frozenpool.dobbersports.com/frozenpool_playerusage.php?team=PIT

https://frozenpool.dobbersports.com/frozenpool_playerusage.php?team=T.B

Well it's a good thing one of us understands how math works...

The point doesn't remain, because your point is wrong. Lafreniere has been and will be a much better offensive player than Rossi, as well as every other area of the game. Any argument against this is laughable...

Good talk man.  Thanks for playing.

[krsmith17 7,191]

11 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

What do you always tell me when I say this?

Why do you trust scouts? Scouts make mistakes ALL THE TIME.

I'm not saying to trust the scouts or not trust the scouts though. kip was just acting as if they don't consider the fact that there have been so many bust top 5 picks though. Scouts do make mistakes ALL THE TIME, but based on what I've seen, and virtually every scout in the hockey world, Lafreniere is a can't miss, elite, borderline generational talent.

3 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Good talk man.  Thanks for playing.

[nyqvististhefuture 1,002]

32 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I'm not that concerned about his height, mostly because he'll probably grow another few inches.  Most draftees do.  But if he doesn't, and fills out to round 200 lbs, then there are literally dozens of examples of guys who were small and stout and successful.  Off the top of my head, Brayden Point, Brad Marchand, Cam Atkinson, Marty. St. Louis, Mats Zuccarello, Daniel Briere, Tyler Johnson, Tory Krug, Theo Fleury, and our beloved Ted Lindsey all come to mind.

The list of short player excelling in the playoff is not long , maybe marchand and st louis from your list . All i know is we cant afford to f*** this draft up and id rather stay away from the 5’8 kid and get someone just as good or better who also happens go be bigger

If we had askarov and he turned into a vasilevsky type to add to seider and hronek on the back end that can be a game changer for our franchise . As good as he is im hoping things stay as is or we dont drop 3 back

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

5 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

kip was just acting as if they don't consider the fact that there have been so many bust top 5 picks though.

Right. Lafren could be a bust

6 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Scouts do make mistakes ALL THE TIME, but based on what I've seen, and virtually every scout in the hockey world, Lafreniere is a can't miss, elite, borderline generational talent.

ALL THE TIME

[kipwinger 8,524]

11 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Right. Lafren could be a bust

ALL THE TIME

The point I'm actually making is not the scouts are wrong and Lafreniere could be a bust. I mean, technically anyone COULD be a bust but I think he'll probably be really good.  I'm suggesting that they're probably overstating the difference between him and the other top guys (who will all also be really good). In the end I think that difference will end up being quite small.  As a result whomever gets the top pick should at least consider A) trading it and fleecing another team for a bunch of other assets, or B) drafting for position. 

I've never suggested that the consensus top guys are likely to be bad, just that other top of the draft guys are likely to be better than they're made out to be.  And the HYPE surrounding the top guys can be weaponized in your favor if you're confident in another player. 

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by kipwinger

[krsmith17 7,191]

5 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Right. Lafren could be a bust

ALL THE TIME

Scouts are wrong all the time about top 5 picks and later, but how often are they wrong about the top pick in the draft? I know, Yakupov... But that kid wasn't considered close to an elite talent. Lafreniere isn't on the level of McDavid, but he is on the level of Matthews. How many scouts were wrong about that pick?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

9 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Scouts are wrong all the time about top 5 picks and later, but how often are they wrong about the top pick in the draft? I know, Yakupov... But that kid wasn't considered close to an elite talent. Lafreniere isn't on the level of McDavid, but he is on the level of Matthews. How many scouts were wrong about that pick?

GMs are wrong all the time about players, but how often are they wrong about career AHL goalies? I know, Tim Thomas... But that guy wasn't considered close to an elite talent. Comrie isn't on the level of Bernier, but he is on the level of McCollum. How wrong was Holland about that pick?

[krsmith17 7,191]

34 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

GMs are wrong all the time about players, but how often are they wrong about career AHL goalies? I know, Tim Thomas... But that guy wasn't considered close to an elite talent. Comrie isn't on the level of Bernier, but he is on the level of McCollum. How wrong was Holland about that pick?

The only thing wrong with all of this is that I've full admitted that Comrie may be nothing more than a career AHLer. I've even said that regardless how his career plays out, I think it was a bad move to not bring Comrie back into the organization for the purpose of him playing in Grand Rapids.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

The only thing wrong with all of this is that I've full admitted that Comrie may be nothing more than a career AHLer. I've even said that regardless how his career plays out, I think it was a bad move to not bring Comrie back into the organization for the purpose of him playing in Grand Rapids.

Yzerman doesn't make mistakes, only happy accidents

Edited January 17, 2020 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[LeftWinger 4,961]

Ok, saw this hypothetical trade proposal on Twitter.  What would you do?

 

Detroit gets #1

Montreal gets #2

Its no secret Montreal (along with everyone else) REALLY wants Lafreniere, so here it goes:

Option 1, just draft him for our team.

Option 2, Trade #1 to Montreal for the #2 and Cole Caufield. Draft Byfield and have Caufield on the wing. Maybe you could toss AA in for Suzuki as well.

Would you do the trade or just draft Lafreniere?

I think I would do the trade. 

If Detroit wins the #1, whomever gets the #2, would you do the same with their top prospect?

If the Montreal case were real, could you imagine the offers we'd get from the #3 team?

[F.Michael 4,590]

1 hour ago, LeftWinger said:

Ok, saw this hypothetical trade proposal on Twitter.  What would you do?

 

Detroit gets #1

Montreal gets #2

Its no secret Montreal (along with everyone else) REALLY wants Lafreniere, so here it goes:

Option 1, just draft him for our team.

Option 2, Trade #1 to Montreal for the #2 and Cole Caufield. Draft Byfield and have Caufield on the wing. Maybe you could toss AA in for Suzuki as well.

Would you do the trade or just draft Lafreniere?

I think I would do the trade. 

If Detroit wins the #1, whomever gets the #2, would you do the same with their top prospect?

If the Montreal case were real, could you imagine the offers we'd get from the #3 team?

$5 says we could get more from Montreal...Or at least try to.

Anyone else remember the crazy rumors being floated around by both Montreal, and Quebec back in '93 when Ottawa had the 1st overall pick, and apparently Alex Daigle was the 2nd coming of a French-Canadian Jesus Christ?

If we do win the lottery - I'd just assume draft Lafreniere.

Edited January 21, 2020 by F.Michael

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

2 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

Ok, saw this hypothetical trade proposal on Twitter.  What would you do?

 

Detroit gets #1

Montreal gets #2

Its no secret Montreal (along with everyone else) REALLY wants Lafreniere, so here it goes:

Option 1, just draft him for our team.

Option 2, Trade #1 to Montreal for the #2 and Cole Caufield. Draft Byfield and have Caufield on the wing. Maybe you could toss AA in for Suzuki as well.

Would you do the trade or just draft Lafreniere?

I think I would do the trade. 

If Detroit wins the #1, whomever gets the #2, would you do the same with their top prospect?

If the Montreal case were real, could you imagine the offers we'd get from the #3 team?

Detroit would get waaaay more than that for #1 overall. Remember the haul Quebec got for Lindros? We're talking #2 overall this year + a lottery pick next year + a Caulfield type prospect at least.

[kipwinger 8,524]

Of course you do it, I've been saying this exact same thing for years.  Might as well weaponize the HYPE around the consensus 1st overall.  Particularly when 2nd overall picks are often as good, or better, than first overall guys.  And you'd be getting other high end talent on top of it. 

Think about it this way, either Crosby or McDavid has been the best player in the world for the last 15 years or so. How many Cups do they have combined?  Three.  So the best player in the world won three of the last 15 Cups.  Conversely, the best TEAM in the world has won 15 of the last 15 Cups.  Fans DRAMATICALLY overestimate the value of the best individual players.

Another way of looking at it:  Connor McDavid is WAY better than Jack Eichel right?  And yet, McDavid's presence, along with that of a bunch of other top picks, has not made Edmonton any better than Eichel has made Buffalo.  Or rather, hypothetically could Edmonton have been any better off if they'd traded the 1st for the 2nd+++, drafted Eichel (who's now a legitimate star in his own right), and taken anything of value that Buffalo had to offer (especially draft picks and defense)?  Hard to say?  But it's worth pondering. 

Edit:  It's also absurdly good strategy because you get to drive an extremely hard bargain in the trade, and if they don't take it, then your consolation prize is THE 1ST OVERALL PICK. 

Edited January 22, 2020 by kipwinger

[Dabura 12,207]

11 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Of course you do it, I've been saying this exact same thing for years.  Might as well weaponize the HYPE around the consensus 1st overall.  Particularly when 2nd overall picks are often as good, or better, than first overall guys.  And you'd be getting other high end talent on top of it. 

Think about it this way, either Crosby or McDavid has been the best player in the world for the last 15 years or so. How many Cups do they have combined?  Three.  So the best player in the world won three of the last 15 Cups.  Conversely, the best TEAM in the world has won 15 of the last 15 Cups.  Fans DRAMATICALLY overestimate the value of the best individual players.

Another way of looking at it:  Connor McDavid is WAY better than Jack Eichel right?  And yet, McDavid's presence, along with that of a bunch of other top picks, has not made Edmonton any better than Eichel has made Buffalo.  Or rather, hypothetically could Edmonton have been any better off if they'd traded the 1st for the 2nd+++, drafted Eichel (who's now a legitimate star in his own right), and taken anything of value that Buffalo had to offer (especially draft picks and defense)?  Hard to say?  But it's worth pondering. 

Edit:  It's also absurdly good strategy because you get to drive an extremely hard bargain in the trade, and if they don't take it, then your consolation prize is THE 1ST OVERALL PICK. 

I assume these conversations happen every year. If we win the draft lottery, Yzerman will probably have these conversations. And he probably won't move the pick. Because 1st overall picks don't get moved these days.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Dabura

[krsmith17 7,191]

15 minutes ago, Dabura said:

I assume these conversations happen every year. If we win the draft lottery, Yzerman will probably have these conversations. And he probably won't move the pick. Because 1st overall picks don't get moved these days.

It's a move I'd consider making in a year where there's not a Lafreniere calibre player at the top. I mean, sure, I'd consider it if it's a massive overpayment. If Ottawa ends up with the 2nd and 7th overall picks, and they offer those two picks, along with a top prospect like Batherson... Otherwise, I'm drafting Lafreniere.

[kipwinger 8,524]

1 hour ago, Dabura said:

I assume these conversations happen every year. If we win the draft lottery, Yzerman will probably have these conversations. And he probably won't move the pick. Because 1st overall picks don't get moved these days.

I don't put a lot of stock in what sports people do or don't do.  It took what, 100 years to use a 1-3-1 powerplay in hockey despite the fact that mathematically it makes more sense than a 2-3.  Similarly basketball and football constantly do stupid, counter-logical, s*** because nobody's ever really done it differently.  In football they still punt, despite it being dumb.  And it took basketball a zillion years to figure out that you should just rebound and shoot 3's all game.

These days moving the 1st is an even safer move because the 2nd overall guys are so good.  I will concede, however, that because fanboys get so moist over each 1st overall pick every year, the move would be HIGHLY unpopular. So you'd better be able to sell it to your fans.  Or at least fleece the other team so badly that it's obvious what a good idea it was. 

But play out the thought experiment. Say you trade the 2015 Connor McDavid 1st overall for Jack Eichel's 2nd, Buffalo's 2016 1st, and Rasmus Ristolainen (probably not even as good a package as you could get, but bear with me). Let's also assume for whatever reason Edmonton REALLY liked Puljujarvi with their own 2016 1st, regardless of the trade.

Outcomes of trading the pick: Eichel, Puljujarvi, Ristolainen, and Buffalo's 6th overall. Given that it was clear by the draft in 2016 that Edmonton wanted defensemen (Hence why they traded Hall for peanuts at the draft) I assume they take one of Sergachev, McAvoy, Bean, Chychrun, or Fabbro all of whom were still on the board at 6th.  Plus they probably don't trade Hall if they know they're getting a top ten defender and just landed Ristolainen.

Outcome of not trading the pick: McDavid, Puljujarvi, and Adam Larsson.

Which team is better?