2016 NHL Draft

[Thorner]

This place has Keller fever. That's right, infatuation over a 5'10" 170lb forward. Hell I remember hearing how Reinhart was only 6'1" 190 so he might not be big enough. Keller at 8 would be fine but other players like nylander or the defenders are also good. Don't get tunnel vision on Keller.

Especially because it's unlikely Murray takes him, in my view. Again, I would be great with the pick being him if he's the best forward there, I.e. Nylander is gone.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Thorny

[3putt]

Do you want to get tougher to play against?

It is also tough to play against a guy who will bury any mistake you make in the back of the net. The Lightning are riding that into the conference finals.

[Rasmus_]

Go Chychrun, Juolevi, or Sergachev, or Nylander, Dubois, Tkachuk! Pray for a miracle.

[beerme1]

I'm leaning hard towards defenseman in this draft unless Tkachuk falls, which just isn't going to happen. I just think a top 6 forward is going to be a lot easier to find in FA than a top 2-3 defenseman will be over the next few years. Just looking at recent Cup contenders, I think our forward group is a lot closer than our blueliners. For example, the main lines Chicago rolled with when they won last year...

 

• Kane-Eichel-Reinhart
• Ennis-O'Reilly-FA winger

looks a lot more like

• Saad-Toews-Kane
• Bickell-Richards-Hoss

than

• McCabe-Ristolainen
• Gorges (Ghule?)-Bogo 

looks like

• Keith-Hjalmarsson
• van Riemsdyk-Seabrook

 

Obviously there's a lot more to it (bottom 6, bottom pairing, coaching). Didn't want to waste your time and bandwidth on all that since this is just one silly example that is honestly more confirmation bias than evidence haha. But man, I want those lockdown top-two pairings. I just fear if we go BPA forward and none of our defensemen in the pipelines pan out, we'll be grasping for someone to pair with Risto. Or McCabe will develop and fit up there but that leaves us with someone-Bogo as a second pairing? I won't lose any sleep if we go Nylander or someone else and honestly I'll be just as excited for Jack's future winger. I just would be leaning D if I'm GMTM. Unless he's got a big plan to improve the top 4 in FA or trade :)

 

 

This is a great post because it is so in tune with my thoughts and very well laid out unlike mine would be. Post more often please!   :thumbsup:

 

 

 

It is also tough to play against a guy who will bury any mistake you make in the back of the net. The Lightning are riding that into the conference finals.

 

 

Ok. And they're out now. Tee times set for tomorrow.

 

 

 

Go Chychrun, Juolevi, or Sergachev, or Nylander, Dubois, Tkachuk! Pray for a miracle.

 

 

If this was the way it fell to us it would be an incredible lucky strike and one of them will be there for us. That's why I don't want to move up. One of this group will be there for us. Fill in the pieces. Full faith and confidence in GMTM so I'm not sweating this. He may do something radical and I'll be ok with that too but my comfort zone is in the trade avenue, pick up a decent fa and draft the best. It will be fun to see what he does.

[WildCard]

Doubt it - Nylander is considered soft, Keller I think will be the better pro. I am often wrong.

To be fair we're all often wrong. I've fallen for Keller though.

Do you want to get tougher to play against?

There are plenty of FA defensemen on the market. Plus, either way our pick is not in the big leagues this year

This place has Keller fever. That's right, infatuation over a 5'10" 170lb forward. Hell I remember hearing how Reinhart was only 6'1" 190 so he might not be big enough. Keller at 8 would be fine but other players like nylander or the defenders are also good. Don't get tunnel vision on Keller.

He's bigger than Marner, and Kane sized. You're right though, we were freaking out about Reinhart's size. Still, does being wrong then make us right now? I don't believe so Edited May 27, 2016 by WildCard

[beerme1]

There are plenty of FA defensemen on the market. Plus, either way our pick is not in the big leagues this year

 

 

 Fair point. Is money better spent overpaying Stamkos or Yandle then? I'm thinking Stamkos and drafting better stronger D.

[WildCard]

Fair point. Is money better spent overpaying Stamkos or Yandle then? I'm thinking Stamkos and drafting better stronger D.

Well the options in FA for blue liners are much cheaper and it's our immediate need, so I prefer a Goligoski or Yandle. I'd like Nylander or Keller to develop in the minors for a few years, so when we inevitably lose an Ennis or Kane, or need to replace an aging player, we have that guy. Granted one can make the argument that the forward prospects are already much deeper, and because blue liners generally take longer to develop than we should get one now anyways, but I still believe that Keller could be a game changer and therefore the pick. Ultimately, where we are, I prefer bpa. I certainly won't be upset with Juolevi either. Picking defense however does not solve our immediate issues in the B&G leagues, so I don't really see the argument for drafting for need based on our NHL roster Edited May 27, 2016 by WildCard

[TrueBlueGED]

Hard to say...maybe because there are 3 D to pick between, they are getting compared and contrasted and therefore critiqued a lot? Keller is probably on his own level for forwards likely available at 8. I would love to take Keller if we are picking at 8. Provided the other 6 forwards are gone. To me, Keller over Nylander would be a stretch.

 

There's likely more than a little truth to this. I also think that since there's no clear separation between them, people are generally less enthusiastic about the bunch. 

 

Given the pick of a questionable forward versus a questionable defenseman, people are usually going to get excited about the forward. It's human nature. Fans like the prospect of goals.

 

Probably true--forwards are fun.

 

Yes, I want to be tough to play against because we're so good at hockey. No, I don't want to watch us checking everything while chasing the puck the whole night.

 

Indeed. "Hard to play against" is such a nebulous term--anyone can read it and get what they want out of it.

 

This place has Keller fever. That's right, infatuation over a 5'10" 170lb forward. Hell I remember hearing how Reinhart was only 6'1" 190 so he might not be big enough. Keller at 8 would be fine but other players like nylander or the defenders are also good. Don't get tunnel vision on Keller.

 

Being wrong then does not mean anyone has to be wrong now. Also, I'm pretty sure the people with Keller fever were not those questioning Reinhart's size.

I'm leaning hard towards defenseman in this draft unless Tkachuk falls, which just isn't going to happen. I just think a top 6 forward is going to be a lot easier to find in FA than a top 2-3 defenseman will be over the next few years. Just looking at recent Cup contenders, I think our forward group is a lot closer than our blueliners. For example, the main lines Chicago rolled with when they won last year...

 

• Kane-Eichel-Reinhart
• Ennis-O'Reilly-FA winger

looks a lot more like

• Saad-Toews-Kane
• Bickell-Richards-Hoss

than

• McCabe-Ristolainen
• Gorges (Ghule?)-Bogo 

looks like

• Keith-Hjalmarsson
• van Riemsdyk-Seabrook

 

Obviously there's a lot more to it (bottom 6, bottom pairing, coaching). Didn't want to waste your time and bandwidth on all that since this is just one silly example that is honestly more confirmation bias than evidence haha. But man, I want those lockdown top-two pairings. I just fear if we go BPA forward and none of our defensemen in the pipelines pan out, we'll be grasping for someone to pair with Risto. Or McCabe will develop and fit up there but that leaves us with someone-Bogo as a second pairing? I won't lose any sleep if we go Nylander or someone else and honestly I'll be just as excited for Jack's future winger. I just would be leaning D if I'm GMTM. Unless he's got a big plan to improve the top 4 in FA or trade :)

 

I'm 100% on board with fixing the defense before worrying about the forwards. However, I think it would be a mistake to take that and use it to lock us into drafting defense. Even beyond the 2016 roster, there is a clear organizational need for quality defensive prospects, so I'm quite sympathetic to the sentiment. However, current needs need not be future needs--it was less than 3 years ago that we were all looking at a stacked blue line (organizationally speaking) and a dearth of forward talent. Point being that things can change quickly, and since any Dman we draft this year probably isn't a top-4 contributor for ~3 years, I just don't think it should drive decision making.

[beerme1]

Well the options in FA for blue liners are much cheaper and it's our immediate need, so I prefer a Goligoski or Yandle. I'd like Nylander or Keller to develop in the minors for a few years, so when we inevitably lose an Ennis or Kane, or need to replace an aging player, we have that guy. Granted one can make the argument that the forward prospects are already much deeper, and because blue liners generally take longer to develop than we should get one now anyways, but I still believe that Keller could be a game changer and therefore the pick. Ultimately, where we are, I prefer bpa. I certainly won't be upset with Juolevi either. Picking defense however does not solve our immediate issues in the B&G leagues, so I don't really see the argument for drafting for need based on our NHL roster

 

 

Well, I do appreciate your thoughts and yet they further reinforce mine. Stamkos provide immediate goals from the minute he starts. Points equal wins. We all like that. But the D that MAY be available in the draft could step in right away or a be a year out. It is help that will be up here if not immediately, soon enough. Stamkos in FA and a guy like Risto in the draft. Pretty good off season no? 

[WildCard]

Well, I do appreciate your thoughts and yet they further reinforce mine. Stamkos provide immediate goals from the minute he starts. Points equal wins. We all like that. But the D that MAY be available in the draft could step in right away or a be a year out. It is help that will be up here if not immediately, soon enough. Stamkos in FA and a guy like Risto in the draft. Pretty good off season no? 

Couple things here

 

Points = wins is honestly an oversimplification of the game, especially in the worst offensive era in the last what, 20 years? If anything, preventing points = wins

 

I'm not sure what you mean by your point about a potential d-man being available in the draft. Regardless of whichever one we pick, and 1/3 will be there at the least, he's a year out from playing, and at least 2 years out from being an impact player. McCabe will have a much larger impact in the next two years than any guy we draft this year. We need immediate deffensive help, and it's available in spades and for much cheaper than the 20% chance of landing Stamkos

[beerme1]

 

Indeed. "Hard to play against" is such a nebulous term--anyone can read it and get what they want out of it.

 

I'm 100% on board with fixing the defense before worrying about the forwards. However, I think it would be a mistake to take that and use it to lock us into drafting defense. Even beyond the 2016 roster, there is a clear organizational need for quality defensive prospects, so I'm quite sympathetic to the sentiment. However, current needs need not be future needs--it was less than 3 years ago that we were all looking at a stacked blue line (organizationally speaking) and a dearth of forward talent. Point being that things can change quickly, and since any Dman we draft this year probably isn't a top-4 contributor for ~3 years, I just don't think it should drive decision making.

 

The quote is from Devine as you know. I want to be harder to play against at all positions. If I'm picking at number eight and have to decide between Tachuk or Sergachev I'm taking the Chuck guy with the bloodlines etc. If he's not there, but Nylander is I'm taking Sergachev. We are going to be tougher to play against. No more soft. We are hard from here on out. If I cant land a Stamkos, maybe I get a Brouwer and add the Serg?? Lots of options and it is going to be fun!

[Thorner]

I'm 100% on board with fixing the defense before worrying about the forwards.However, I think it would be a mistake to take that and use it to lock us into drafting defense. Even beyond the 2016 roster, there is a clear organizational need for quality defensive prospects, so I'm quite sympathetic to the sentiment. However, current needs need not be future needs--it was less than 3 years ago that we were all looking at a stacked blue line (organizationally speaking) and a dearth of forward talent. Point being that things can change quickly, and since any Dman we draft this year probably isn't a top-4 contributor for ~3 years, I just don't think it should drive decision making.

Oh heck yes. On record saying I feel the same way. But I agree, for the draft, at 8, it's gotta be BPA. If Murray thinks that's a D, great. But it could be a forward. It will largely depend on who goes before us. If 2 D go in the top 7, leaving us Nylander, Keller and a D, good chance Murray likes a forward best.

 

We don't have a great D pipeline right now, but you are right, that can change quick. Maybe we acquire a couple defence prospects in a trade. The biggest thing is fixing the D now. That has to come from free agency and potentially a trade.

 

We can't go into the season with Gorges, McCabe, and...Pysyk? as our 3 left side D. I would be exceptionally disappointed if that happened.

[WildCard]

It is also tough to play against a guy who will bury any mistake you make in the back of the net. The Lightning are riding that into the conference finals.

Who are you referring to here? 

[dudacek]

I get what Blue means with nebulous, but to me hard to play against is simple and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how physical you are: it's simply guys who don't make it easy for the opponent to do what they want to do. No matter what methods they use, they are guys who care about winning and find a way to do it.

 

They come in all shapes and sizes. Nick Lidstrom was much harder to play against than Milan Lucic because he never lost focus and never got stupid. Mike Peca was harder to play against than Miro Satan because he would cross lines that Miro would never approach.,Pat Lafontaine was harder to play against than Pierre Turgeon because of his relentless fearless speed.

[beerme1]

I get what Blue means with nebulous, but to me hard to play against is simple and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how physical you are: it's simply guys who don't make it easy for the opponent to do what they want to do. No matter what methods they use, they are guys who care about winning and find a way to do it.

 

They come in all shapes and sizes. Nick Lidstrom was much harder to play against than Milan Lucic because he never lost focus and never got stupid. Mike Peca was harder to play against than Miro Satan because he would cross lines that Miro would never approach.,Pat Lafontaine was harder to play against than Pierre Turgeon because of his relentless fearless speed.

 

 

Terrific points made.

Although I want to say Detroit got lucky with, that guy!

[That Aud Smell]

I get what Blue means with nebulous, but to me hard to play against is simple and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how physical you are: it's simply guys who don't make it easy for the opponent to do what they want to do. No matter what methods they use, they are guys who care about winning and find a way to do it.

 

They come in all shapes and sizes. Nick Lidstrom was much harder to play against than Milan Lucic because he never lost focus and never got stupid. Mike Peca was harder to play against than Miro Satan because he would cross lines that Miro would never approach.,Pat Lafontaine was harder to play against than Pierre Turgeon because of his relentless fearless speed.

 

This is good stuff here, but I do believe that, for most people who use it, "hard to play against" connotes a certain level of physicality, or heaviness on the puck.

 

Wait. What's "heavy" mean again?

[3putt]

Who are you referring to here? 

I am referring to fast skilled players like Palat, Johnson, Thiery, Kucherov, Kessel (ducks).  The prototypical banger is not necessarily tougher to play against than a skilled positionally sound forward if said forward capitalizes on defensive miscues, and constantly brings pressure.  I want scoring in this draft whether from the blueline or upfront.  The pens also lacked the traditional banger and Hagelin Kessel Bonino showed the potential of a speedy attack that scores.  Same could be said for Pavelski, Thornton and Hertl

[Winston]

I'm 100% on board with fixing the defense before worrying about the forwards. However, I think it would be a mistake to take that and use it to lock us into drafting defense. Even beyond the 2016 roster, there is a clear organizational need for quality defensive prospects, so I'm quite sympathetic to the sentiment. However, current needs need not be future needs--it was less than 3 years ago that we were all looking at a stacked blue line (organizationally speaking) and a dearth of forward talent. Point being that things can change quickly, and since any Dman we draft this year probably isn't a top-4 contributor for ~3 years, I just don't think it should drive decision making.

 

Can't disagree with any of this.. Perhaps I was a too strong-worded in my original assessment, especially the BPA forward part. If Murray clearly has Nylander a tier above any of the defenders, then yeah, you don't pass up the clearly better prospect for projected future need at D. If one or two or all of the defensemen are in the same tier as Nylander though, that's when I pick the Dman over the F. All things equal, I want the LHD over the winger because I'm more confident that we can fix the top 6 with free agents than the top 4 defensemen, and I'm more confident in our current forwards groups than blueliners to begin with.

 

There's definitely something to be said about restocking the forward ranks now though. I referenced it in another thread recently, about how important it is to acquire future impact players that will be on ELCs once Eichel and Reinhart and Risto get paid. We should be legitimate contenders by the time these guys are in years 4-5-6. It'll be imperative to get production out of young guys on cheap contracts rather than filling those holes with cheap, veteran pieces. 

[LGR4GM]

 

 

Being wrong then does not mean anyone has to be wrong now. Also, I'm pretty sure the people with Keller fever were not those questioning Reinhart's size.

 

I'm fairly certain I didn't say being wrong then, means being wrong now. Not even implied. I want to know why last year size was a major concern and cause for scrutiny but this year the board, almost on mass, has tossed that out the window because shiny toy.  Keller has a bunch of flaws but reading this place it sounds like he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. 

 

 

 

I like Keller and if we take him I am perfectly comfortable with that but raising Keller up and tossing out all the defenders except Juolevi has been a major theme of this thread and it makes absolutely no sense. 

 

 

 

Also here is a Keller scouting report, it has some good quotes from scouts. 

http://thehockeywriters.com/clayton-keller-the-next-ones-nhl-2016-draft-prospect-profile/

Edited May 27, 2016 by LGR4GM

[dudacek]

Maybe it's because two years ago many were desperate for talent and sick of smurfs up the middle?

Now we have Jack and ROR

[LGR4GM]

Rakish, does Keller's size and weight coupled with production pan out? It looks about right. 

[ct fab]

I offer tb a 3rd rounder for Stamkos rights and Nashville the same for vesey's rights. If would be nice to try and lock one of those guys up.before the draft. If you know you are getting one, or good-looking both, you can grab one or the big 3 dmen at #8, two of which I think will be available

[That Aud Smell]

Saw this out on Twitter. Very amusing stuff:

 

http://buffalo.craigslist.org/tix/5604948787.html

[WildCard]

I get what Blue means with nebulous, but to me hard to play against is simple and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how physical you are: it's simply guys who don't make it easy for the opponent to do what they want to do. No matter what methods they use, they are guys who care about winning and find a way to do it.

 

They come in all shapes and sizes. Nick Lidstrom was much harder to play against than Milan Lucic because he never lost focus and never got stupid. Mike Peca was harder to play against than Miro Satan because he would cross lines that Miro would never approach.,Pat Lafontaine was harder to play against than Pierre Turgeon because of his relentless fearless speed.

This is good stuff here, but I do believe that, for most people who use it, "hard to play against" connotes a certain level of physicality, or heaviness on the puck.

 

Wait. What's "heavy" mean again?

Exactly. Touch to play against is usually thrown around there as more physical, but it really doesn't need to be. ROR is tough to play against

 

 

"heavy" is, IMO, nothing more than a saying for teams with less skill that hit you and are very difficult to play along the boards because of their size and style (i.e. dump and chase with a relentless forecheck). The Ducks are the typical "heavy" team. 

I'm fairly certain I didn't say being wrong then, means being wrong now. Not even implied. I want to know why last year size was a major concern and cause for scrutiny but this year the board, almost on mass, has tossed that out the window because shiny toy.  Keller has a bunch of flaws but reading this place it sounds like he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. 

 

 

 

I like Keller and if we take him I am perfectly comfortable with that but raising Keller up and tossing out all the defenders except Juolevi has been a major theme of this thread and it makes absolutely no sense. 

 

 

 

Also here is a Keller scouting report, it has some good quotes from scouts. 

http://thehockeywriters.com/clayton-keller-the-next-ones-nhl-2016-draft-prospect-profile/

Maybe it's because two years ago many were desperate for talent and sick of smurfs up the middle?

Now we have Jack and ROR

Exactly as dudacek says. We don't have to hit on our pick this year, it's more for shits and giggles than the apocalypse 

[North Buffalo]

Exactly. Touch to play against is usually thrown around there as more physical, but it really doesn't need to be. ROR is tough to play against

 

 

"heavy" is, IMO, nothing more than a saying for teams with less skill that hit you and are very difficult to play along the boards because of their size and style (i.e. dump and chase with a relentless forecheck). The Ducks are the typical "heavy" team. 

 

 

Exactly as dudacek says. We don't have to hit on our pick this year, it's more for shits and giggles than the apocalypse

 

Disagree if Sabres are building a champion, they need to hit on one this year and develop at least two into future.