2020 Draft Thread

[krsmith17 7,191]

6 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Because it's a 1st and not a 6th? That's pretty short-sighted if you ask me. 1st overall rankings are often incorrect. Media rankings are far from the dogma they and fans would have one believe.

Seider was ranked what? 20-25 most of the season? And ended up rising to 6th. Now he looks like he should have gone #1.

You're just calling the notion dumb with no educated retort. Sorry that your sacred rankings are being tested.

It doesn't hold (significant) value. Who's he talking to? 100 Hakan Andersson's? or 5 Jeff Findlay's - the guy who drafts based on size first?

Furthermore, you better bet that scouts and agents feed the media misinformation non-stop. That's part of the game. I put myself in a scouts shoes and I would NEVER reveal that I'm super high on Moritz Seider. In fact I would feed McKenzie BS I don't believe like that Zadina is the best player in the draft.

If they were such gifted talent assessors teams would be clamoring to hire them. They're not. Because they're amateur journalists pretending to be scouts. Nothing more.

Here's where you've misinterpreted my entire stance. I'm not claiming to know more than Mckenzie or you or Kip or Pronman. I'm claiming none of the mentioned or I really know s***. So to treat Pronman or McKenzie as gospel is foolish.

I'm much more amicable to any one on this board who watches a prospect and can post a long, detailed, and insightful post about said player either for or against.

I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself suggesting that Seider should have gone number one...

There are no "sacred rankings". Like I said they're a tool to use. Not the end all, be all. Take them with a grain of salt...

I never once said they were "gifted talent assessors", but some of them watch 300+ games a year of these prospects. That's a hell of a lot more than any of us can say. Maybe you can see more watching one game of a player than these guys can watching 20 games of that one player. I doubt it, but maybe...

Here's where you've drastically misinterpreted my stance... I'm not in any way saying that anything any of these people say should be taken as "gospel". I'm saying I highly doubt so tool on the internet knows more about these prospects than every single hockey analyst in the world. If you can find one legitimate source that says that there's even a slight chance that Rossi could be better than Lafreniere, I'll listen. Otherwise it's just the same dumb person saying dumb things...

[krsmith17 7,191]

5 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I'm pointing out instances in which consensus rankings were obviously wrong.  If all those guys know so much why were they ALL so wrong on so many top five picks, year after year?

My point has never been that I get everything right.  My point is that "everybody" gets top picks wrong frequently enough to suggest that their consensus 1st overall choice may not actually be the best player in the draft this year. 

Sure. I don't disagree that these guys have been wrong and will be wrong again on top draft picks. It's happened and it'll continue to happen. It won't happen this year though. Lafreniere is not like other consensus number one picks. He's closer to Matthews / McDavid than he is to Patrick / Hischier. The former were can't miss, elite of the elite. The latter were good prospects. Lafreniere is elite of the elite, borderline generational. Rossi is a good prospect.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

10 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself suggesting that Seider should have gone number one...

I absolutely stand by that statement. He's gonna be a multiple norris winning Dman. Hughes and Kakko will not accomplish similar feats.

10 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

There are no "sacred rankings". Like I said they're a tool to use. Not the end all, be all. Take them with a grain of salt...

Yet anyone dares question Lafrenaires ranking, you remark that the poster is clearly "dumb"...

10 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I never once said they were "gifted talent assessors", but some of them watch 300+ games a year of these prospects. That's a hell of a lot more than any of us can say. Maybe you can see more watching one game of a player than these guys can watching 20 games of that one player. I doubt it, but maybe...

Here's where you've drastically misinterpreted my stance... I'm not in any way saying that anything any of these people say should be taken as "gospel". I'm saying I highly doubt so tool on the internet knows more about these prospects than every single hockey analyst in the world. If you can find one legitimate source that says that there's even a slight chance that Rossi could be better than Lafreniere, I'll listen. Otherwise it's just the same dumb person saying dumb things...

Then why are you here? To shill for the media? If no dumb internet tool can ever have an interpretation approaching Pronmans superior take, then you are wasting your time here. Why do you care what us dumb tools think?

Edited March 6, 2020 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[marcaractac 3,960]

Just now, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I absolutely stand by that statement. He's gonna be a multiple norris winning Dman. Hughes and Kakko will not accomplish similar feats.

Can confirm 100% that Kakko and Hughes will never win a single Norris trophy, let alone multiple. Jerks.

[kipwinger 8,492]

15 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself suggesting that Seider should have gone number one...

There are no "sacred rankings". Like I said they're a tool to use. Not the end all, be all. Take them with a grain of salt...

I never once said they were "gifted talent assessors", but some of them watch 300+ games a year of these prospects. That's a hell of a lot more than any of us can say. Maybe you can see more watching one game of a player than these guys can watching 20 games of that one player. I doubt it, but maybe...

Here's where you've drastically misinterpreted my stance... I'm not in any way saying that anything any of these people say should be taken as "gospel". I'm saying I highly doubt so tool on the internet knows more about these prospects than every single hockey analyst in the world. If you can find one legitimate source that says that there's even a slight chance that Rossi could be better than Lafreniere, I'll listen. Otherwise it's just the same dumb person saying dumb things...

You disagree with the "experts" ALL THE TIME.  For instance, they all said Joe Veleno has limited offensive upside at the NHL level.  You constantly say otherwise.  They all said Michael Rasmussen was a top ten pick, something you FREAKED OUT about on draft day.  Seems like their takes are only unassailable when it helps your argument. 

11 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Sure. I don't disagree that these guys have been wrong and will be wrong again on top draft picks. It's happened and it'll continue to happen. It won't happen this year though. Lafreniere is not like other consensus number one picks. He's closer to Matthews / McDavid than he is to Patrick / Hischier. The former were can't miss, elite of the elite. The latter were good prospects. Lafreniere is elite of the elite, borderline generational. Rossi is a good prospect.

The "experts" said the same things about Dahlin and Hughes.  They were wrong and will be again. McDavid and Matthews are centers.  Their impact on the game is MUCH greater than a wingers' impact.  Literally the only "generational" winger of the last 20+ years is Ovechkin.  And Lafreniere ain't no Ovechkin. 

Also, you seem obsessed with media evaluators and even they say Lafreniere is more like a Taylor Hall type than a McDavid/Matthews.  Sorry to break it to you, but Taylor Hall is NOT "elite of the elite". 

[krsmith17 7,191]

5 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I absolutely stand by that statement. He's gonna be a multiple norris winning Dman. Hughes and Kakko will not accomplish similar feats.

Yet anyone dares question Lafrenaires ranking, you remark that the poster is clearly "dumb"...

Then why are you here? To shill for the media? If no dumb internet tool can ever have an interpretation approaching Pronmans superior take, then you are wasting your time here. Why do you care what us dumb tools think?

Lafreniere is not your typical number one overall pick. He's a borderline generational talent. So yes, anyone that thinks he's not the best prospect available is dumb. Similarly if anyone thought any player was going to be better than McDavid in 2015, that would have been dumb.

It's not "you dumb tools". It's kip the dumb tool. And I don't care what he thinks. 

Anyone is free to believe that Lafreniere might not be the best player in the upcoming draft. I believe that opinion is dumb and will be proven wrong in time.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 minute ago, krsmith17 said:

Lafreniere is not your typical number one overall pick. He's a borderline generational talent. So yes, anyone that thinks he's not the best prospect available is dumb. Similarly if anyone thought any player was going to be better than McDavid in 2015, that would have been dumb.

So then Lafren is as good as McDavid? I'm reading that correctly yes?

1 minute ago, krsmith17 said:

It's not "you dumb tools". It's kip the dumb tool. And I don't care what he thinks. 

Anyone is free to believe that Lafreniere might not be the best player in the upcoming draft. I believe that opinion is dumb and will be proven wrong in time.

I just wish you had more substance than people who disagree with me are "dumb"

[marcaractac 3,960]

Hughes > Rossi

[krsmith17 7,191]

4 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

You disagree with the "experts" ALL THE TIME.  For instance, they all said Joe Veleno has limited offensive upside at the NHL level.  You constantly say otherwise.  They all said Michael Rasmussen was a top ten pick, something you FREAKED OUT about on draft day.  Seems like their takes are only unassailable when it helps your argument. 

LOL yeah, because your run of the mill 1st round pick is exactly the same as a consensus number one, ELITE player like Lafreniere...

6 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

The "experts" said the same things about Dahlin and Hughes.  They were wrong and will be again. McDavid and Matthews are centers.  Their impact on the game is MUCH greater than a wingers' impact.  Literally the only "generational" winger of the last 20+ years is Ovechkin.  And Lafreniere ain't no Ovechkin. 

Also, you seem obsessed with media evaluators and even they say Lafreniere is more like a Taylor Hall type than a McDavid/Matthews.  Sorry to break it to you, but Taylor Hall is NOT "elite of the elite". 

Blah, blah, blah... Rossi is a center and centers are so much more valuable than wingers, therefore Rossi is better than Lafreniere... blah, blah, blah...

Player comps are usually player type / style, not ceiling / floor. I can definitely see the Hall comparison, but I can also see Lafreniere being a much better winger than Hall. 

Also, neither Dahlin or Hughes were on the level of Lafreniere.

4 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

So then Lafren is as good as McDavid? I'm reading that correctly yes?

No, not likely, but in the same conversation. Like I said previously, Lafreniere is a lot closer to that level than the level of Patrick, Hischier, etc. pre draft.

I don't think Lafreniere will be as good as McDavid, but I do think he could be as good as Matthews.

[kipwinger 8,492]

1 minute ago, krsmith17 said:

LOL yeah, because your run of the mill 1st round pick is exactly the same as a consensus number one, ELITE player like Lafreniere...

Blah, blah, blah... Rossi is a center and centers are so much more valuable than wingers, therefore Rossi is better than Lafreniere... blah, blah, blah...

Player comps are usually player type / style, not ceiling / floor. I can definitely see the Hall comparison, but I can also see Lafreniere being a much better winger than Hall. 

Also, neither Dahlin or Hughes were on the level of Lafreniere.

All the "experts" said Dahlin was generational and Hughes was borderline "generational".  Suddently the experts' opinions aren't worth anything?

Also, for what it's worth Cory Pronman, whom you seems to suddenly love, said that Hughes was a better prospect than Lafreniere.  FYI.

[marcaractac 3,960]

14 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Also, neither Dahlin or Hughes were on the level of Lafreniere.

Dahlin was absolutely praised as a generational dman. Despite what some may think, I have no doubt he still absolutely will be. He is literally still only 19 years old. Kid will be the best dman in the league for many years. Shame he ended up in Buffalo. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by marcaractac

[krsmith17 7,191]

2 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

All the "experts" said Dahlin was generational and Hughes was borderline "generational".  Suddently the experts' opinions aren't worth anything?

Also, for what it's worth Cory Pronman, whom you seems to suddenly love, said that Hughes was a better prospect than Lafreniere.  FYI.

Hughes borderline generational? First I've heard that... He most definitely isn't.

Where the f*** are you getting me loving Cory Pronman from? Try harder.

[kipwinger 8,492]

You guys throw this "generational" word around like nothing.  To me there are only maybe three "generational" players currently in the NHL.  Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid.  Crosby dropped 102 points in his first NHL season.  McDavid had a serious injury, but still put up over a point per game as a rookie.  Ovechkin dropped 106 points as a rookie.  THAT'S what generational players do. 

Anybody expecting anything like that out of Lafreniere, a guy who isn't even leading the CHL in scoring, is probably overestimating his talent.  He's not "generational".  Not even close.  He'll be a very good NHL winger, not unlike a Hall, Tarasenko, or Pastrnak. 

As I've said, I see Rossi as a Girioux or Backstrom type center.  That's just a much more valuable all around player. 

13 minutes ago, marcaractac said:

Dahlin was absolutely praised as a generational dman. Despite what some may think, I have no doubt he still absolutely will be. He is literally still only 19 years old. Kid will be the best dman in the league for many years. Shame he ended up in Buffalo.

Would you consider Miro Heiskanen or Quinn Hughes "generational" then? They both had equally impressive (or more impressive) 19 year old seasons as Dahlin has.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

22 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

No, not likely, but in the same conversation. Like I said previously, Lafreniere is a lot closer to that level than the level of Patrick, Hischier, etc. pre draft.

I don't think Lafreniere will be as good as McDavid, but I do think he could be as good as Matthews.

Sounds like a whole buncha fence sitting to me. He's better than your average 1st overall, but not generational, but he could be, but not as good as McDavid, but clearly better than Hirschier, but not by that much

[kipwinger 8,492]

17 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Hughes borderline generational? First I've heard that... He most definitely isn't.

Where the f*** are you getting me loving Cory Pronman from? Try harder.

Perhaps you should read more.   

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-draft-prospects-pro-comparisons-jack-hughes-connor-mcdavid/c-306418902

[krsmith17 7,191]

3 hours ago, kipwinger said:

You guys throw this "generational" word around like nothing.  To me there are only maybe three "generational" players currently in the NHL.  Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid.  Crosby dropped 102 points in his first NHL season.  McDavid had a serious injury, but still put up over a point per game as a rookie.  Ovechkin dropped 106 points as a rookie.  THAT'S what generational players do. 

Anybody expecting anything like that out of Lafreniere, a guy who isn't even leading the CHL in scoring, is probably overestimating his talent.  He's not "generational".  Not even close.  He'll be a very good NHL winger, not unlike a Hall, Tarasenko, or Pastrnak. 

As I've said, I see Rossi as a Girioux or Backstrom type center.  That's just a much more valuable all around player. 

Borderline generational. So not at the level of the Crosby's and McDavid's, but not far away. Similar to Matthews. I think Lafreniere will be a 100+ point winger, that can be depended on to play heavy minutes in all situations. A player that can drive play and dictate the pace of the game from the wing. His hockey IQ is off the charts. His junior numbers also haven't been that far off McDavid...

[Dabura 12,206]

Jack Hughes did nothing wrong.

[xault 272]

Would Lafreniere be closer to Pastrnak or Kucherov?

[krsmith17 7,191]

2 hours ago, xault said:

Would Lafreniere be closer to Pastrnak or Kucherov?

Stylistically, neither in my opinion. I see him as a more skilled / physical Mikko Rantanen. I've also heard comparisons to Taylor Hall, and Vincent Lecavalier (if he played wing), but I personally think Lafreniere will be better than any of these players...

[derblaueClaus 1,668]

Eric Lindros was once a sure thing and the next generational player. You never know with these guys, so being skeptical is anything but dumb. But I agree that Lafreniere , for what we know today, is the best pick in this draft by a mile.

[krsmith17 7,191]

2 hours ago, derblaueClaus said:

Eric Lindros was once a sure thing and the next generational player. You never know with these guys, so being skeptical is anything but dumb. But I agree that Lafreniere , for what we know today, is the best pick in this draft by a mile.

That's not even close to the same thing though... Like you said, Lafreniere is the best pick (player) in this draft, by a mile. That's not to say, some unforeseen injury couldn't happen (like Lindros), but that's not a reason to be skeptical.

Any normal draft, I'll hear an argument for any top 3-5 pick being the best player to come out of the draft. This is not a normal draft though. At least in terms of the consensus number one pick not being your typical number one pick. No one argued in 2015 that McDavid would be the undisputed best player to come out of that draft, and although I wouldn't put Lafreniere quite on that level, in my opinion, he's the closest things we've seen since Crosby. I believe Lafreniere will be that good...

[Scott R Lucidi 423]

5 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

That's not even close to the same thing though... Like you said, Lafreniere is the best pick (player) in this draft, by a mile. That's not to say, some unforeseen injury couldn't happen (like Lindros), but that's not a reason to be skeptical.

Any normal draft, I'll hear an argument for any top 3-5 pick being the best player to come out of the draft. This is not a normal draft though. At least in terms of the consensus number one pick not being your typical number one pick. No one argued in 2015 that McDavid would be the undisputed best player to come out of that draft, and although I wouldn't put Lafreniere quite on that level, in my opinion, he's the closest things we've seen since Crosby. I believe Lafreniere will be that good...

Agreed.

[TLGTrico 616]

I'm not saying the draft lottery is rigged but:

1.  5 of the 9 top 3 picks in the last 3 draft lotteries have gone to the metropolitan division

2.  The metropolitan division has picked 1 and 2 twice in the last 3 years.

3.  A metropolitan division team has moved up from out of the top 10 to pick 2nd twice in the last 3 years.

4.  The division has had all of this lottery luck with only one bottom 3 finish in the last 3 years.

[mackel 674]

1 hour ago, TLGTrico said:

I'm not saying the draft lottery is rigged but:

1.  5 of the 9 top 3 picks in the last 3 draft lotteries have gone to the metropolitan division

2.  The metropolitan division has picked 1 and 2 twice in the last 3 years.

3.  A metropolitan division team has moved up from out of the top 10 to pick 2nd twice in the last 3 years.

4.  The division has had all of this lottery luck with only one bottom 3 finish in the last 3 years.

The draft is most definitely rigged... it's an opaque process for that very reason.

Lafreniere (the top prospect) is French Canadian, Montreal is missing the playoffs, the draft is in Montreal...

I'll give you once guess as to what team wins the draft "lotto".

Edited March 8, 2020 by mackel

[LeftWinger 4,935]

2 hours ago, mackel said:

The draft is most definitely rigged... it's an opaque process for that very reason.

Lafreniere (the top prospect) is French Canadian, Montreal is missing the playoffs, the draft is in Montreal...

I'll give you once guess as to what team wins the draft "lotto".

I agree, but again, WHAT IF Detroit wins the lottery and Montreal gets #2? What on this Earth do you feel they would offer us to get Lafrienere?