Official 2014 NHL Draft thread

[rakish]

I haven't seen the freakanomics, but I believe Deaner/Lowen/Cobley are mixing two concepts that you guys are combining into one.

 

Yes, many more Jan/Feb/March born players are drafted to play in the NHL, so there is more total talent in players born in that quadrant. As Derrico says, "the cycle continues through Junior," but it ends. The January born kid is overvalued at 17

 

You want to draft the Oct/Nov/Dec born player, because he will play more games per player, the breakdown is something like 9 games per Dec draft pick per year as opposed to 6 games per year for the January draft pick

 

This doesn't really affect the 6'3" kid, but is critical for the 5'11" kid

 

What Liger is talking about though is a different issue. Kids in Junior score about 50% more per year, at least those that are going to the NHL, so if you are comparing the ppg for Bennett vs Reinhart, you ought to consider the age of the kid. If you talk about rankings though, the NHL does do a good job of ranking by age, because the September born kid before the cut off and the kid born almost a year later, are valued correctly, and will each average 7 games per year

Edited January 24, 2014 by RCentered

[Derrico]

I haven't seen the freakanomics, but I believe Deaner/Lowen/Cobley are mixing two concepts that you guys are combining into one.

 

Yes, many more Jan/Feb/March born players are drafted to play in the NHL, so there is more total talent in players born in that quadrant. As Derrico says, "the cycle continues through Junior," but it ends. The January born kid is overvalued at 17

 

You want to draft the Oct/Nov/Dec born player, because he will play more games per player, the breakdown is something like 9 games per Dec draft pick per year as opposed to 6 games per year for the January draft pick

 

This doesn't really affect the 6'3" kid, but is critical for the 5'11" kid

 

What Liger is talking about though is a different issue. Kids in Junior score about 50% more per year, at least those that are going to the NHL, so if you are comparing the ppg for Bennett vs Reinhart, you ought to consider the age of the kid. If you talk about rankings though, the NHL does do a good job of ranking by age, because the September born kid before the cut off and the kid born almost a year later, are valued correctly, and will each average 7 games per year

 

I think the real question is: Is he? I would argue either the opposite or atleast that he's valued correctly (better player). I was not a very good hockey player but I played rep hockey when I was younger (the highest I ever made was AA so not very good lol). The best players were relied upon and got much more ice time. But more importantly I found that the coaches paid much closer attention to the better kids (I'm not sure if they were older or not). In theory, the older kids are the better kids early and with all of the extra advice they've been given throughout, maybe the younger players are at a disadvantage adn thus don't develop to their potential. That's my take on it atleast, certainly an interesting discussion.

 

As an aside, I implore you to read the freakonomics series. I think they have it in video form too but read the books if you can. Certainly worth the read imo.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Derrico

[rakish]

The January born 17 year old is overvalued because he plays fewer games per pick than the December born kid. I read this first in a magazine article by Gladwell, and he was trying to explain why there are so many more January born players. What interested me is who you want to pick, so I made this chart, that I've put out a few times here now.

 

The purple bars are the number of picks by age (*50 I think), the green bars the number of games played

[Derrico]

The January born 17 year old is overvalued because he plays fewer games per pick than the December born kid. I read this first in a magazine article by Gladwell, and he was trying to explain why there are so many more January born players. What interested me is who you want to pick, so I made this chart, that I've put out a few times here now.

 

The purple bars are the number of picks by age (*50 I think), the green bars the number of games played

 

I'm sorry but I can't understand the graph. What do the x and y axis represent?

[rakish]

the x axis is the age of draft picks, starting at the left at 17.9 (for June draft), those are September born players. Each bar is one month.

 

The y axis. The purple tells you the number of pics, so the picks increase each month from September to January. The scale is times 50, so for the players I looked at, about 250 were January picks. Then there's a big dropoff to the number of December picks, which came to about 100.

 

The y axis green tells you the average games played, so the players picked at 17.9 play about 6 games each per season for the players that I looked at. The green bars hang out near 7 for September,Aug,July,June,May,Apr, then they decline a bit for March, Feb, and January. The green bars are higher, more games played per pick, for December, November, and October.

 

What I'm arguing is that when people talk about this, they are often talking about the purple bars, it's interesting to them that the spread isn't consistent. What interests me is the green bars, that the games played in the NHL are also not consistent.

[Derrico]

the x axis is the age of draft picks, starting at the left at 17.9 (for June draft), those are September born players. Each bar is one month.

 

The y axis. The purple tells you the number of pics, so the picks increase each month from September to January. The scale is times 50, so for the players I looked at, about 250 were January picks. Then there's a big dropoff to the number of December picks, which came to about 100.

 

The y axis green tells you the average games played, so the players picked at 17.9 play about 6 games each per season for the players that I looked at. The green bars hang out near 7 for September,Aug,July,June,May,Apr, then they decline a bit for March, Feb, and January. The green bars are higher, more games played per pick, for December, November, and October.

 

What I'm arguing is that when people talk about this, they are often talking about the purple bars, it's interesting to them that the spread isn't consistent. What interests me is the green bars, that the games played in the NHL are also not consistent.

 

Interesting, thanks for the research.

[Huckleberry]

I still say we'll go for ekblad, everything i read about him he is the next scott niedermayer, that is just to good to pass up.

 

Gives you

 

Ekblad (niedermayer) - zadorov (pronger)

Myers - erhoff

Ristolainen - Mcnab <--- or whatever prospect d we traded for a forward.

 

And any pick out of top 5 we get from islanders you just take kapanen or virtanen if you want speed on your wings.

[LaLaLaFontaine]

Hmm, I personally like Ristolainen more than Zadarov. Why? He scored the tournament title clinching goal at the WJC.

 

THIS shows true potential. Hopefully he scores the SC clinching goal for us too.

 

Regarding the draft I have not decided yet who we should draft, but I hope we can get Dreisaitl with the Islanders pick.

[Rasmus_]

Honestly, it has to be Reinhart, who sees the ice better than most of the other forward high end draft picks. I love Ekblad and watched as much of the World Juniors to see him and Reinhart together. Reinharts play would definitely fit in the Blue and Gold. Here's hoping that while Nolan is doing a good job competing that we can fail enough to keep it where it needs to be. Also if Edmonton wins another f***ing draft lottery, I might as well pull out my hair. While they should take Ekblad, you never know. Their GM MacTavish is quite a bafoon.

 

Hmm, I personally like Ristolainen more than Zadarov. Why? He scored the tournament title clinching goal at the WJC.

 

THIS shows true potential. Hopefully he scores the SC clinching goal for us too.

 

Regarding the draft I have not decided yet who we should draft, but I hope we can get Dreisaitl with the Islanders pick.

 

Ristolainen in terms of his offense is much more polished at this stage of the game than Zadorov. Both have their upsides in different aptitudes. Zadorov in my opinion has more of a shot from the point on the PP and is more physical. Whereas Ristolainen is more smooth in his ability when in his own zone. Just as much of a matchup nightmare, he hits his spots more clearly. Ristolainen is much further a long in the process than Zaddy is. It's so great to have both in the system. It at least fluidly injects some life into the back end for years to come. Combine that with Jake McCabe at Wisconsin and this team is going to be special infront of the net. If this is the Tyler Myers we have for the forseeable future, we're going to be good there. Peppering in more options to strengthen it out is always an option but the forward group is just a mess at the moment. I like Compher, Hurley and Armia a bit, but there are still major question marks. They SHOULD trade Moulson and Miller.

Edited January 25, 2014 by TheCerebral1

[HopefulFuture]

As far as this draft is concerned, here is my reasoning for my thoughts......bare with me please and feel free to flame the crap out of it :P

 

Defensively for the Sabres going into the off season I see it shaping up this way:

 

Myers (he's not going anywhere, he's in complete beast build up mode, he'll be here for years)

Ehrhoff (can't see them moving him with the recapture penalty, could be wrong however and will elaborate further down in this post)

Pysyk (to me, he is here to stay, a great 3/4 guy, steady, not flashy, but good)

McNabb (out of all our d men, he seems the most likely to move, but he could be a Pysyk type with some offensive up side)

Zadarov (this kid isn't going anywhere, has 1/2 potential all over him)

Ristolainen (same as Zadarov, not as physical, but a very good ceiling on his potential)

McCabe (he'll be coming up for sure, when he's done developing gives us all kinds of options)

 

With those 7 players being the core of our future D, we can only field 6 at a time, something will have to give. As I said in my by lines on them, McNabb seems the most likely to move (addressing Ehrhoff in the next paragraph) given the potential of the rest. With that said, even though he's the most likely, I believe one of the other bottom 5 (those below Myers) could bring in a bigger haul in a move. Just my thoughts and it all depends on if they all reach some of their potential.

 

Drafting Ekblad is a bad idea. We need immediate offensive fire power in the pipeline, not more Defense. Moving forward, not maintaining the same position.

I thought about the possibilities of moving one of the others in a trade down the road, but then, that doesn't fit Tim Murray's comments on getting better right now.

If Ekblad is ranked #1 and we retain the 1st over all pick with the lottery, I trade that pick to the Edmonton Oilers with the following situation:

 

Edmonton will most likely finish 2nd to last behind us. Ekblad is the best player available at the top. I believe Murray should go to Edmonton and offer that 1st pick over all to Edmonton in a package that brings us back the 2nd over all pick and one of Jordan Eberle or Nail Yakupov. For referrence as to why I believe this is possible here is a recent article containing thoughts from Bob McKenzie of TSN on this:

 

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2014/01/24/bob-mckenzie-says-edmonton-oilers-could-move-ales-hemsky-sam-gagner-ryan-smyth-and-possibly-jordan-eberle-or-nail-yakupov/

 

Now, both are RW'ers. Eberle with the more proven stats. I don't believe he'll be moved, just my personal opinion.

But, Nail Yakupov on the other could probably be had if we work a deal to swap draft picks with Edmonton.

What would a deal look like with either one in it? Well, let's explore this for a moment. I'm guessing something along these lines on draft day just prior to things kicking off:

 

YAKUPOV DEAL

 

To Buffalo

2nd pick overall

Nail Yakupov

 

To Edmonton

1st pick overall

Christian Ehrhoff

 

Maybe a throw in prospect, but over all risky with the recapture penalty. But I believe a deal centered around these components is viable, just opinion mind you.

 

EBERLE DEAL

 

To Buffalo

1st pick overall

Jordan Eberle

 

To Edmonton

2nd pick overall

Christian Ehrhoff

Mark Pysyk or Braydon McNabb

 

Other components can be added on the minor side of things once again. My thoughts on Pysyk are to keep him, but Eberle is much more established talent then Yakupov right now.

 

Please remember, I'm throwing these out there to see if any members can tweak it as they see the value as it is. We have defensive depth to continue the rebuild. Please give input to tweaking these deals or putting up your own with value for each club in mind. And I'd like some feed back as well, am I in the ball park given McKenzie's comments?

 

Thanks All.........

[Iron Crotch]

I still say we'll go for ekblad, everything i read about him he is the next scott niedermayer, that is just to good to pass up.

 

 

Most "experts" seem to think Ekblad is the best pure prospect in this draft, position aside. I think people on here forget that finishing dead last will only guarantee us the #2 overall pick. So (hypothetically) if we were to pick second and Reinhart is gone, I think it'd be a good play to take Ekblad. I've always liked the "best available" strategy since most of these guys are years away from playing meaningful NHL minutes and the roster can look very different a few years from now. Plus adding another talented defense prospect would open up all sorts of interesting trade possibilities.

[TrueBlueGED]

Most "experts" seem to think Ekblad is the best pure prospect in this draft, position aside. I think people on here forget that finishing dead last will only guarantee us the #2 overall pick. So (hypothetically) if we were to pick second and Reinhart is gone, I think it'd be a good play to take Ekblad. I've always liked the "best available" strategy since most of these guys are years away from playing meaningful NHL minutes and the roster can look very different a few years from now. Plus adding another talented defense prospect would open up all sorts of interesting trade possibilities.

 

I think the positive about the "best available" strategy is Regier is gone. Many people justifiably didn't want to go strict BPA because they had no faith in Regier to use it as an asset to acquire pieced to fill organizational holes. But with Murray in charge, there's at least some hope a stable of stud Dmen could be parlayed into a stud forward or two.

 

...but I'd still take the best forward :P

[dudacek]

@ hopeful.

I don't think your deals are out of whack; I was .playing with similar options - minus the draft component - on the BS thread.

Strictly based on my view of the players I would not do your trade for Yakupov - too many questions with Yak.

I would look at the Eberle deal very closely. I would not want to include Pysyk if we were losing Ehrhoff. And since they are gaining Ekblad, I am not sure if we would have to. I think they would want a young forward - probably Girgensons or Foligno. I would try to convince them to take Armia instead.

[Iron Crotch]

A question for those who closely follow the Amerks: Is Armia looking any better lately?

[Rasmus_]

A question for those who closely follow the Amerks: Is Armia looking any better lately?

 

The skill is there, he's just not finishing it. The last game I went to before January 1st, he played the wall very well and transitioned with his speed pretty well...but there were times he looked lost on the ice. Given time he can easily come around.

[LGR4GM]

I haven't seen the freakanomics, but I believe Deaner/Lowen/Cobley are mixing two concepts that you guys are combining into one.

 

Yes, many more Jan/Feb/March born players are drafted to play in the NHL, so there is more total talent in players born in that quadrant. As Derrico says, "the cycle continues through Junior," but it ends. The January born kid is overvalued at 17

 

You want to draft the Oct/Nov/Dec born player, because he will play more games per player, the breakdown is something like 9 games per Dec draft pick per year as opposed to 6 games per year for the January draft pick

 

This doesn't really affect the 6'3" kid, but is critical for the 5'11" kid

 

What Liger is talking about though is a different issue. Kids in Junior score about 50% more per year, at least those that are going to the NHL, so if you are comparing the ppg for Bennett vs Reinhart, you ought to consider the age of the kid. If you talk about rankings though, the NHL does do a good job of ranking by age, because the September born kid before the cut off and the kid born almost a year later, are valued correctly, and will each average 7 games per year

Yup.

[Iron Crotch]

The skill is there, he's just not finishing it. The last game I went to before January 1st, he played the wall very well and transitioned with his speed pretty well...but there were times he looked lost on the ice. Given time he can easily come around.

 

Thanks for the update.

 

Some guys transition to the North American game faster than others, so I think it is probably too soon to worry about him.

[LGR4GM]

See as for the bias y'all have been talking about, it isn't what I mean. Bennett and Reinhart are very close in skill at this point. Reinhart has 7 months of additional maturity and playing. So if Reinhart and Bennett are about equal and Bennett keeps improving, I would draft him over Reinhart because with his younger age I could theoretically predict a higher ceiling. Of course that is just the way I personally look at prospects and has nothing to do with how anyone else does.

[26CornerBlitz]

Draft stuff: Reinhart hatty; Dal Colle keeps pace

 

Written By Kris Baker on Sunday, January 26, 2014

 

Regardless of how NHL Central Scouting built their midterm rankings, we knew that Kootenay ICE centerman Sam Reinhart was going to elevate his game following his World Junior experience.

 

With two forwards rated before him, No. 1 Sam Bennett (groin injury) and No. 2 Leon Draisaitl (six-game goalless streak), doing little to improve their draft stock, Reinhart has gone about his business at a high level. The 18-year old talent notched his second hat trick of the year Saturday to spark a 6-2 win over Moose Jaw, giving him eight goals and 10 points in four games since returning from the international stage.

 

In the OHL, Michael Dal Colle (#5 NA CSS) continued to pile up the points Friday, posting two goals and an assist as Oshawa smoked Peterborough 6-1. The effort pushed Dal Colle's season haul to 31 goals and 70 points after 47 games.

[Robviously]

tsn's actual top 50 rankings

http://www.tsn.ca/dr...eature/?id=9593

I'm starting to focus more on guys ranked 16+. The Sabres already have 3 2nd round picks in June and they'll probably pick up a late first this year at the trade deadline.

 

As much as I hope the Sabres pick in the top 3 this year, they need some direct hits afterwards too. I also wonder if they're looking at goalies. Thatcher Demko might be on the list late in the first round or with our first pick in the second.

[Hoss]

I'm starting to focus more on guys ranked 16+. The Sabres already have 3 2nd round picks in June and they'll probably pick up a late first this year at the trade deadline.

 

As much as I hope the Sabres pick in the top 3 this year, they need some direct hits afterwards too. I also wonder if they're looking at goalies. Thatcher Demko might be on the list late in the first round or with our first pick in the second.

 

I would love to pick up Demko to add to our solid stable of goalie prospects. Guys that are after the first 15 that I like include Alex Tuch, Anton Karlsson (he could be a very good value if he slips to the early second), Adrian Kempe, Nick Schmaltz and Ryan MacInnis.

[PotentPowerPlay22]

As far as this draft is concerned, here is my reasoning for my thoughts......bare with me please and feel free to flame the crap out of it :P

 

 

 

Edmonton will most likely finish 2nd to last behind us. ....

 

 

I think Edmonton will draft 1st again by a large margin. The Sabres are slowly improving and will get enough points to achieve nothing, but damage their draft position. They will beat the Oilers by a least 8 points by the end of the year. I wouldn't be surprised if the Sabres fail to get a top 3 pick. The wildcard is the trade market. If the Sabres trade Miller and Moulson and/or Ott, for prospects and picks, then they could succeed in getting a top 3 pick.

 

Assuming they get a top 2 or 3 pick, they will get a top player who can help them long term. I lean toward the best player available theory. Who is the best available? I don't know, but I think the scouts and new GM will figure it out.

 

BTW, new GM Murray is in position to be the hero in this scenario. Darcy Regier has accumulated a lot of assets for Murray to manage. This is an enviable position for Murray. In a couple years when the Sabres are a playoff team, Murray will get the credit and everybody will forget that Regier did the dirty work to accumulate the assets that turned the team around.

[Robviously]

I think Edmonton will draft 1st again by a large margin. The Sabres are slowly improving and will get enough points to achieve nothing, but damage their draft position. They will beat the Oilers by a least 8 points by the end of the year. I wouldn't be surprised if the Sabres fail to get a top 3 pick. The wildcard is the trade market. If the Sabres trade Miller and Moulson and/or Ott, for prospects and picks, then they could succeed in getting a top 3 pick.

 

Assuming they get a top 2 or 3 pick, they will get a top player who can help them long term. I lean toward the best player available theory. Who is the best available? I don't know, but I think the scouts and new GM will figure it out.

 

BTW, new GM Murray is in position to be the hero in this scenario. Darcy Regier has accumulated a lot of assets for Murray to manage. This is an enviable position for Murray. In a couple years when the Sabres are a playoff team, Murray will get the credit and everybody will forget that Regier did the dirty work to accumulate the assets that turned the team around.

Great post, especially the last part. If Murray turns us around very quickly we'll have to give Regier some credit for stocking up some assets for him.

 

Totally agree with your take on the standings too. There's no way in hell we don't catch Edmonton. I think we catch Calgary too. Then we have to worry about Florida and NYI, and a bad lottery outcome. A lot can happen in 32 games.

[Assquatch]

I think Edmonton will draft 1st again by a large margin. The Sabres are slowly improving and will get enough points to achieve nothing, but damage their draft position. They will beat the Oilers by a least 8 points by the end of the year. I wouldn't be surprised if the Sabres fail to get a top 3 pick. The wildcard is the trade market. If the Sabres trade Miller and Moulson and/or Ott, for prospects and picks, then they could succeed in getting a top 3 pick.

 

Assuming they get a top 2 or 3 pick, they will get a top player who can help them long term. I lean toward the best player available theory. Who is the best available? I don't know, but I think the scouts and new GM will figure it out.

 

BTW, new GM Murray is in position to be the hero in this scenario. Darcy Regier has accumulated a lot of assets for Murray to manage. This is an enviable position for Murray. In a couple years when the Sabres are a playoff team, Murray will get the credit and everybody will forget that Regier did the dirty work to accumulate the assets that turned the team around.

 

And those of us hitching a ride on the tank will wonder what could have been if we didn't have to spend assets to get into the draft position we could be in by a few different lineup decisions along the way and still have those assets to boot.

[Eleven]

Have faith; they won last night, but they lost five straight before that.