2017 NHL Draft -- General NHL Thread

[tom webster]

Just like it's been suggested over and over on here: if the player doesn't want to sign after 3 years, they re-enter the draft and start all over again. It's really that simple. Players should have a say who they definitely won't play for, but ejecting like this should be a last resort, not end up being a reward.

 

I know this doesn't happen often, but we've seen it happen once already (Vesey) and it's a very real possibility with Petersen - all in the past couple years. I think the young draftees are much different than those 10-20 years ago. Heck, even players' attitudes towards the game have changed. I think we're going to see this more often now.

 

Actually this has been going on for years, it just didn't get the attention.

I don't see it as problem but I don't understand why people think it's terrible when a player chooses not to sign with the team that drafts him but it's alright for the team to walk away from guys they draft. You want to make all players sign with them that drafted them? Then make teams offer contracts to everyone they draft.

[Derrico]

Actually this has been going on for years, it just didn't get the attention.

I don't see it as problem but I don't understand why people think it's terrible when a player chooses not to sign with the team that drafts him but it's alright for the team to walk away from guys they draft. You want to make all players sign with them that drafted them? Then make teams offer contracts to everyone they draft.

NHL franchises should be bigger than 5th round rookies, not the other way around.

[pi2000]

The NFL combine is grown men, the NHL combine is high school age kids.

 

I don't think strength tests are important for the NHL combine. I'd rather see on ice agility and speed testing... reaction time is also important. Those are things that really don't depend a whole lot on how physically mature you are. I think some junior leagues have extensive one ice testing.

[North Buffalo]

The NFL combine is grown men, the NHL combine is high school age kids.

 

I don't think strength tests are important for the NHL combine. I'd rather see on ice agility and speed testing... reaction time is also important. Those are things that really don't depend a whole lot on how physically mature you are. I think some junior leagues have extensive one ice testing.

Fair points, but isn't that what all the current extensive video of these guys show or would testing be able to show more info....  Guess it might help ID diamonds in the rough, but not sure those that have already been identified as having those skill sets other than maybe setting baselines will show much more.?  Just hypothesizing.  Hmmm.  

[kas23]

Actually this has been going on for years, it just didn't get the attention.

I don't see it as problem but I don't understand why people think it's terrible when a player chooses not to sign with the team that drafts him but it's alright for the team to walk away from guys they draft. You want to make all players sign with them that drafted them? Then make teams offer contracts to everyone they draft.

But, this is what the "draft" is. Across all sports, it's seen as a way of re-distributing talent to those teams that need it most. If young players could choose their team, then this system is subverted.

 

As for teams picking players and not having to sign them; it's true, the franchises have the upper hand. These are the rules because the franchises hold the power. It's a draft. If a player thinks this is unfair, there are many other hockey leagues where they can play. And this is totally ignoring the fact of why this loophole only exists for NCAA players.

[tom webster]

But, this is what the "draft" is. Across all sports, it's seen as a way of re-distributing talent to those teams that need it most. If young players could choose their team, then this system is subverted.

 

As for teams picking players and not having to sign them; it's true, the franchises have the upper hand. These are the rules because the franchises hold the power. It's a draft. If a player thinks this is unfair, there are many other hockey leagues where they can play. And this is totally ignoring the fact of why this loophole only exists for NCAA players.

My point is that it's a loophole when it benefits the player, it's the way it's always been when it benefits the team.

NHL franchises should be bigger than 5th round rookies, not the other way around.

Then they should sign everyone. Holding them hostage for two years and then discarding them doesn't make them bigger.

Go the NBA route and only draft 2 rounds, then you don't have to worry about loopholes.

[LGR4GM]

Take it to the other thread.

[LGR4GM]

Chance Lias Andersson goes in the top 10. 

[Crusader1969]

I compiled a list of Defencemen who could still be on the board in Round 2 using the Final Rankings of TSN, Sportsnet, ESPN, McKeens and Recrutes. 

 

 

1)  Pierre-Oliver Joseph D Charlottetown 6'2 / 165lbs -  ranked in 2nd round in 4 out of 5 publications. Ranked 13th overall by TSN. 

 

Thought of as being a very athletic and strong decision maker.  Strongest trait is his skating - weakest is that he is only 165lbs and 6'2 - he obviously needs to fill out. Has a late DOB and if he can get stronger, he could be a gamble worth taking in the early part of the 2nd round.

 

2) Ian Mitchell 5'11 D Spruce Grove 175lbs- ranked in 2nd round in 4 out of 5 publications, ranked 87th by TSN.

 

A AJHL dman who was overshadowed by Makar. Mobile. strong puck mover, with a good hockey IQ. He like Makar is a bit undersized and has lots of offensive potential - though Makar had double the points of Mitchell. Will play NCAA hockey at Denver. Looks to be an option late in the 2nd round.

 

3) Max Gildon 6'3 190lbs  USA NTDP ranked in 2nd round 3 out of 5 publications. ranked 78 by TSN and 81 by recrutes.

 

Tall defender who plays a physical style and has good mobility. Best asset is his pro level shot. Questions about consistency and hockey IQ should see him go in late 2nd.

 

4) David Farrance  5'11 190lbs USA NTDP - ranked in 2nd round 3 out of 5 publications, 

 

Another smaller puck moving Dman committed to Boston College. good offensive skills, natural speed. late 2nd seems to be his spot

 

5) Eemieli Rasanen 6'7 208lbs Kingston 

 

mobile for his size, good stick, not overly physical. Late 2nd round potential

 

6) Markus Phillips 6'0 200lbs Owen Sound 

Well rounded Dman with no exceptional qualities but no real liabilities. Will need time to develop, probably looking at 2 years in OHL plus a year or 2 in AHL. Late 2nd rounder

 

7) Jarret Tyszka 6'2 190lbs Seattle 

Stay at home defenceman who battles consistency issues. Skating is above average but won't be pushing the puck up the ice himself. Will make quick and crisp outlet passes. Known more for his defense play. Projects to be the anchor for a mobile defenceman. Late 2nd rounder or later.

 

8) Nicolas Hague 

 

9) Henri Jokiharju

 

10) Dylan Samburg 

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by Crusader1969

[rakish]

The most undervalued draft picks lately have been overagers. Players like Victor Arvidsson, Wayne Simmonds, Jimmy Vesey were by-passed in their first opportunity to be selected. Teams are recognizing this, Toronto took a boatload of overagers last draft, 4 if I remember right. Even Buffalo took a couple last draft, again, from memory.

 

The second most undervalued, NCAA players. The most overvalued, high school, then 2nd tier leagues.

 

Overagers are hard to find, I will miss some, I look at eliteprospects 600+ list of prospects, and teams will start picking players outside of that 600+ list by the third round. These are my 4 favorite this year:

 

Denis Smirnov. Came through the USHL, is 2 years overage, but was very young at his first draft, which is common that a very young player gets overlooked at 17.

Smirnov did OK at 17, I have him at 82nd best forward.

Age 18, 95th best forward

But age 19, moved to the NCAA, 12th best, right next to Mathew Barzal.

Check out Penn State, he outscores his teammates by 15 points (I use base 60), on a very good hockey team.

Such a great year could be an anomaly, but he's the type of player I'm hoping to get in my draft contest.

 

I can't pronounce his name, but Brinson Pasichnuk has stats very close to Makar, born a year earlier. Makar's 16th year was better, so I think I would prefer Makar, but you won't find him in the second or third round.

Pasichnuk:

Age 16: 36th best defenseman  (AJHL)

Age 17: 13th best defenseman (AJHL)

Age 18:  9th best defenseman (NCAA)

 

I don't trust 2nd tier players, and the model reflects my 2nd tier concern, so I'm not exactly on the Makar bus, but this is what the model says:

Makar:

Age 16: 32nd best defenseman (AJHL)

Age 17: 22nd best defenseman (AJHL)

 

Third, I also can't pronounce, is Igor Shvyryov. I selected Igor in my draft last season, he then went out and scored 70 points in 40 games in the MHL. Last season there were a number of good seasons in the MHL, so they may have changed some rules to increase scoring. Who knows? They moved him up to the KHL for 10 games and he didn't score. Lets look at the MHL players at the top of my model for age 18:

 

1 IGOR SHVYRYOV MHL 1634
2 ALEXANDER KADEYKIN MHL 1260
3 ANDREI ALTYBARMAKYAN MHL 1099 (also 2017 eligible)
4 ARTYOM MANUKYAN MHL 1014 (also 2017 eligible, but tiny)
5 YEGOR KORSHKOV MHL 970 (Toronto Round 2)
6 NIKITA KUCHEROV MHL 853
7 NIKITA GUSEV MHL 810
8 MAXIM SHALUNOV MHL 745
9 MIKHAIL MALTSEV MHL 677
10 ARTEMI PANARIN MHL 637
11 GERMAN RUBTSOV MHL 580

 

As far as where the model compares Shvyryov to his peers.

Age 16: 32nd best forward (Russia U17)

Age 17: 46th best (MHL)

Age 18: 4th best (MHL)

 

Petrus Palmu: I know what you're thinking, he's tiny. My theory is it's not the height, it's the weight that matters, and if he is 179, he's heavy enough, but I'm thinking round 6 or 7 here. Palmu vs his peers

Age 16: 80th

Age 17: 84th

Age 18: 58th

Age 19: 19th

Edited June 12, 2017 by rakish

[LGR4GM]

Crusader are those a ranking or list?

[LGR4GM]

Since this was mentioned previously, in 2016 the Sabres drafted 4 defenders none above pick #86. This was in spite of the fact we knew then that our defense depth was garbage.  To put this in perspective the Nashville Predators who have 4 solid defenders drafted 5 defenders in 2016.  While all of ours come after that #86 pick, Nashville used picks #17, #47, #78 all on defenders. The contrast to me is very interesting. Just something to think about. 

Edited June 13, 2017 by LGR4GM

[tom webster]

Since this was mentioned previously, in 2016 the Sabres drafted 4 defenders none above pick #86. This was in spite of the fact we knew then that our defense depth was garbage.  To put this in perspective the Nashville Predators who have 4 solid defenders drafted 5 defenders in 2016.  While all of ours come after that #86 pick, Nashville used picks #17, #47, #78 all on defenders. The contrast to me is very interesting. Just something to think about. 

As I'm sure you are aware, it is dangerous to look at these things in a vacuum. drafting defenseman for the sake of them being defensemen is akin to drafting QB's hoping that one works out. Looks good in theory but drafting the best player available is still the best way to go, especially in hockey were the preferred goal is to have 6 stars and 14 interchangeable parts.

[LGR4GM]

First, football QB's have nothing to do with the conversation and are a terrible analogy. You should draft a QB in every 9 out of 10 drafts in some round because you will hit on one. The only thing in hockey they are relevant to is GT who you should draft 1 every 9 out of 10 years because you will hit on one. 

 

Second, define best player available. If I have a defender ranked #30th on my board and at #29 I have a winger and both players are available to me at pick #38, I take the defender without a second thought because the best player available to me and my team (Sabres) is the defender.  Say for example Glass, Patrick, Hischier, Vilardi, Tippett, and Heiskanen are all gone at #8 but Liljegren and Makar are there along with those other forwards. I have a forward ranked as my #8 prospect with #9 and #10 being the 2 defenders. Is the best player for my team the guy I have ranked slightly ahead? Or the guy I know that I need? It all depends on how you define best player available. I personally think round #1 you draft the most talented player available and then after that you switch to some internal version of BPA for you. 

[tom webster]

First, football QB's have nothing to do with the conversation and are a terrible analogy. You should draft a QB in every 9 out of 10 drafts in some round because you will hit on one. The only thing in hockey they are relevant to is GT who you should draft 1 every 9 out of 10 years because you will hit on one. 

 

Second, define best player available. If I have a defender ranked #30th on my board and at #29 I have a winger and both players are available to me at pick #38, I take the defender without a second thought because the best player available to me and my team (Sabres) is the defender.  Say for example Glass, Patrick, Hischier, Vilardi, Tippett, and Heiskanen are all gone at #8 but Liljegren and Makar are there along with those other forwards. I have a forward ranked as my #8 prospect with #9 and #10 being the 2 defenders. Is the best player for my team the guy I have ranked slightly ahead? Or the guy I know that I need? It all depends on how you define best player available. I personally think round #1 you draft the most talented player available and then after that you switch to some internal version of BPA for you. 

 

First, I'm not sure what your problem with me is but the personal attacks that preceded your last two responses to my posts were unnecessary.

Secondly, to base any draft selection after the first two or three overall on present need is formula for a team stuck in mediocrity.

[LGR4GM]

First, I'm not sure what your problem with me is but the personal attacks that preceded your last two responses to my posts were unnecessary.

Secondly, to base any draft selection after the first two or three overall on present need is formula for a team stuck in mediocrity.

What personal attack?

Second, in my response I stated I think in the first round you should take best talent available and then take BPA in later rounds. That isn't how you end up mediocre IMPO. 

[Crusader1969]

Crusader are those a ranking or list?

 

 

just a list of guys who come up in the 2nd round often using the 5 publications.

[GASabresIUFAN]

There is no such thing as a universal BPA.  To illustrate why this is true, just look at the "rankings" published by the various reliable services, sites and commentators.  They all attempt to rank who are the BPA, but none are even close to the same and none are very accurate to how the draft actually goes.  Why, because the 31 teams lists are also completely different, based upon unique criteria for that team.  These criteria should include long-term team positional needs.   If an organization doesn't look at need, then you end up with what Buffalo has become under the two prior administrations.  Regier, for some stupid reason, never seemed to draft centers in the 1st rd between 2001 and 2012 except for the great Marek Zagrapan.  Hard to develop well down the middle if you don't have any.  exGMTM did the same thing with D, only drafting 1 with 8 1st & 2nd rd picks.

 

IMHO good GM's take need into account and tier the prospects rather then sit with a firm list number 1-400.  This way you can look at the tiers and decide on position, size, speed etc... from highest tier with players when you draft.

 

Lets take this draft for example.  Here are my updated tiers.

Tier 1 Patrick and Hischier

Tier 2 Heiskanen, Vilardi, Mittelstadt, & Glass 

Tier 3 Makar, Tippett, Necas, Pettersson & Liljegren

Tier 4 Tolvanen, Andersson, Vesalainen, Rasmussen, Valimaki & Suzuki

Tier 5 Kostin, Brannstrom Poehling and Foote. 

 

I don't think Makar or Heiskanen will fall to us at 8.  Based on need, I have no problem with taking Liljegren over the other forwards in the same tier. Although if Jbot wants Liljegren I think he could trade down a few places and still get him, because I believe there are some teams behind us that might covet someone like Necas or Tippett. 

[Thorner]

There is no such thing as a universal BPA.  To illustrate why this is true, just look at the "rankings" published by the various reliable services, sites and commentators.  They all attempt to rank who are the BPA, but none are even close to the same and none are very accurate to how the draft actually goes.  Why, because the 31 teams lists are also completely different, based upon unique criteria for that team.  These criteria should include long-term team positional needs.   If an organization doesn't look at need, then you end up with what Buffalo has become under the two prior administrations.  Regier, for some stupid reason, never seemed to draft centers in the 1st rd between 2001 and 2012 except for the great Marek Zagrapan.  Hard to develop well down the middle if you don't have any.  exGMTM did the same thing with D, only drafting 1 with 8 1st & 2nd rd picks.

 

IMHO good GM's take need into account and tier the prospects rather then sit with a firm list number 1-400.  This way you can look at the tiers and decide on position, size, speed etc... from highest tier with players when you draft.

 

Lets take this draft for example.  Here are my updated tiers.

Tier 1 Patrick and Hischier

Tier 2 Heiskanen, Vilardi, Mittelstadt, & Glass 

Tier 3 Makar, Tippett, Necas, Pettersson & Liljegren

Tier 4 Tolvanen, Andersson, Vesalainen, Rasmussen, Valimaki & Suzuki

Tier 5 Kostin, Brannstrom Poehling and Foote. 

 

I don't think Makar or Heiskanen will fall to us at 8.  Based on need, I have no problem with taking Liljegren over the other forwards in the same tier. Although if Jbot wants Liljegren I think he could trade down a few places and still get him, because I believe there are some teams behind us that might covet someone like Necas or Tippett.

 

Good post.

[LGR4GM]

There is no such thing as a universal BPA.  To illustrate why this is true, just look at the "rankings" published by the various reliable services, sites and commentators.  They all attempt to rank who are the BPA, but none are even close to the same and none are very accurate to how the draft actually goes.  Why, because the 31 teams lists are also completely different, based upon unique criteria for that team.  These criteria should include long-term team positional needs.   If an organization doesn't look at need, then you end up with what Buffalo has become under the two prior administrations.  Regier, for some stupid reason, never seemed to draft centers in the 1st rd between 2001 and 2012 except for the great Marek Zagrapan.  Hard to develop well down the middle if you don't have any.  exGMTM did the same thing with D, only drafting 1 with 8 1st & 2nd rd picks.

 

IMHO good GM's take need into account and tier the prospects rather then sit with a firm list number 1-400.  This way you can look at the tiers and decide on position, size, speed etc... from highest tier with players when you draft.

 

Lets take this draft for example.  Here are my updated tiers.

Tier 1 Patrick and Hischier

Tier 2 Heiskanen, Vilardi, Mittelstadt, & Glass 

Tier 3 Makar, Tippett, Necas, Pettersson & Liljegren

Tier 4 Tolvanen, Andersson, Vesalainen, Rasmussen, Valimaki & Suzuki

Tier 5 Kostin, Brannstrom Poehling and Foote. 

 

I don't think Makar or Heiskanen will fall to us at 8.  Based on need, I have no problem with taking Liljegren over the other forwards in the same tier. Although if Jbot wants Liljegren I think he could trade down a few places and still get him, because I believe there are some teams behind us that might covet someone like Necas or Tippett. 

seems like a reasonable way to do things. 

[tom webster]

I still don't get this based on need thing. Anyone drafted after the first 5 picks isn't going to see the NHL for 2 probably 3 or 4 years. If we are still looking for defenseman three or four years from now we hired the wrong GM.

What personal attack?

 

Second, in my response I stated I think in the first round you should take best talent available and then take BPA in later rounds. That isn't how you end up mediocre IMPO.

I'm not used to someone telling me my opinion is ridiculous or my analogies horrible. People disagree with me all the time, but never with such vigor.

As for the second paragraph, we will just have to disagree although I will add that you used the team that lost as an example. The team that won seemed to use a different approach.

[Thorner]

I still don't get this based on need thing. Anyone drafted after the first 5 picks isn't going to see the NHL for 2 probably 3 or 4 years. If we are still looking for defenseman three or four years from now we hired the wrong GM.

I disagree. A good GM would be able to come up with a reasonable projection of where our team will be in 2/3 years, and what players we'll need for that time. We are going to need a top 2/4 defender in 2/3 years. If we want that guy, we have to draft him. It's ridiculously hard to trade for those guys now, or anyone for that matter.

 

Besides that, it often comes down to simple math and the law of averages. Take a look at our prospect pool for example. If we already have 5/6 RW prospects that have a shot at the NHL, and 1/2 D men in the prospect pool that do, it makes sense to add a dman to the pool, that way it maximizes the chances that both prospect depth charts have a decent chance of producing NHL players, through sheer numbers.

 

You have to stack the deck in your favour, and add blue chip prospects to the pipeline at all positions. We benefit much more from adding a blue-chip D man prospect to our ranks than another right-shot forward, as we already have strength in numbers there.

[pi2000]

I still don't get this based on need thing. Anyone drafted after the first 5 picks isn't going to see the NHL for 2 probably 3 or 4 years. If we are still looking for defenseman three or four years from now we hired the wrong GM.

 

I'm not used to someone telling me my opinion is ridiculous or my analogies horrible. People disagree with me all the time, but never with such vigor.

As for the second paragraph, we will just have to disagree although I will add that you used the team that lost as an example. The team that won seemed to use a different approach.

 

Chychrun, McAvoy, Sergachev, Hanifin, Provorov, Werenski....

[Thorner]

We've been hearing for months that this expansion draft process will create a once-in-a-long-while opportunity to acquire players that normally wouldn't be available. Once the process ends and we find that we were unable to acquire a top 4 dman in a trade, then maybe we'll start to see that the only way we are going to be able to add that guy is through the draft, and our best chance of that is with as high a pick as possible. JBot knows that in 3-4 years, we'll need that Defenceman.

 

At 8, I take whoever is available of Heiskanen, Makar, or Liljegren, and if none are, I trade down and pick up an extra asset, and take Valimaki. Trade down option may also be applicable with Liljegren.

[pi2000]

We've been hearing for months that this expansion draft process will create a once-in-a-long-while opportunity to acquire players that normally wouldn't be available. Once the process ends and we find that we were unable to acquire a top 4 dman in a trade, then maybe we'll start to see that the only way we are going to be able to add that guy is through the draft, and our best chance of that is with as high a pick as possible. JBot knows that in 3-4 years, we'll need that Defenceman.

 

At 8, I take whoever is available of Heiskanen, Makar, or Liljegren, and if none are, I trade down and pick up an extra asset, and take Valimaki. Trade down option may also be applicable with Liljegren.

 

Mittlestadt!