|
Post by bookboy007 on Apr 3, 2024 18:25:06 GMT
That's not quite where I'd take it. I'm more of the opinion that you draft guys in two streams - guys who you see as being part of the top half of the roster, like Lysell, whose NHL prospects are really tied to being scorers whether that's primary or secondary. Sure, it's good if they have size, but as you say, the guys with both skill and size are almost ALWAYS taken higher than you would think. I don't think Lysell's size was a knock against him so much as questions about his attitude and the usual question of him transitioning from Sweden to the NA game. But he's an inch shorter and 10 pounds lighter than Pastrnak, so he's not "small" especially for a guy with highly touted skating abilities. On the other hand, Tyler Boucher plays the same position and he went 10th overall for no reason other than being 6'1" and 205. He's never been a scorer and he had a history of injuries. He's never scored 11 goals or more in a season, and never played more than 24 games. Good pick, Ottawa. Point is, you need some very specific skills to be a good top half of the roster player. It's not enough to have size, and in some cases, it's better to have a ton of skill and no size if you can shake and bake well enough. No one expects 150 hits from the top line RW anymore. But the same logic applies to the bottom six forwards and bottom three D. Those roles align to a different algorithm of skills and physical talents. Size and skating might be more important than puck skills for a guy whose job will be to make life miserable for the opponents for 15 min a night, block shots, and fire it off the glass and out. You can work with that guy to make better first passes, be calmer with the puck, etc., as long as he's also finishing checks with some mass behind them and standing up for his teammates. You can find more of these guys if you look; they aren't just top 60 picks. What almost never works is putting a guy you drafted for the top six on the fourth line. Because if they don't have the puck skills to play in your top six with other top six players, they don't have the puck skills to play with lesser players and show what they can do. And the odds of them having a physical/energy game and the instincts to keep it simple are low. In fact, you don't want that. If they learn they can keep it simple and stay in the lineup, they never develop into the guys who take smart risks and create. I think job one is the top of the roster, and then you look to get the best possible players for the bottom of the roster and the roles they need to play.ALso - if you draft and develop a top 6 guy theres ample cap savings there. If you draft and develop a 4th liner, you really arent saving yourself any money. How much less does a homegrown 4th liner cost vs a journeyman 4th liner like Boqvist. So I agree, swing for the upside. Yes - but 'smart risks'. I've always liked the old Hockey Futures system of rating a guy's potential and then rating the likelihood that he'd reach that potential. And on the other side, the bottom six probably splits again between 3rd and 4th liners. I'd spend more capital on a guy who has all the attributes to play a fast, heavy checking line role but who can also get you almost as many points as a second liner in that role. I might even pay more for that than for a guy who is really only a secondary scorer - a guy who can play on your second line, but probably not your special teams.
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Apr 4, 2024 13:58:15 GMT
ALso - if you draft and develop a top 6 guy theres ample cap savings there. If you draft and develop a 4th liner, you really arent saving yourself any money. How much less does a homegrown 4th liner cost vs a journeyman 4th liner like Boqvist. So I agree, swing for the upside. Yes - but 'smart risks'. I've always liked the old Hockey Futures system of rating a guy's potential and then rating the likelihood that he'd reach that potential. And on the other side, the bottom six probably splits again between 3rd and 4th liners. I 'd spend more capital on a guy who has all the attributes to play a fast, heavy checking line role but who can also get you almost as many points as a second liner in that role. I might even pay more for that than for a guy who is really only a secondary scorer - a guy who can play on your second line, but probably not your special teams.Agreed. The first guy you mentioned has a higher floor. And understood that Im oversimplifying here, but generally I think: first two rounds, swing for upside (ceiling). But if in those rounds there is a) guy with a ceiling of 88 ovr but is only offense and second guy has 86 OVR but even if he doesnt reach it, can still play bottom six (higher floor) then maybe sacrifice some upside there to get the second guy cuz he has a much higher floor. Of course, this conversation is very over-simplifying in nature. We both know there are a ton of variables that we are overlooking here for simplicity. So all this is generally because it also needs to factor in signability, who else you have in your farm, what stage your organization is in, what your current roster looks like, character....
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Apr 4, 2024 14:05:46 GMT
6'8" is one HUGE goalie. Big Z in goalie pads. Wow And off Cooper Black goes to Florida. I hate seeing a prospect I like head to a rival, so hopefully I'm wrong about his actual NHL potential. Another goalie would have been alright but it doesn't seem to be a particular need for the B's at the moment, a few in the pipeline already. If a 6' 3" C woth good hands and great vision plus off the charts hockey IQ is in the B's cross hairs then sign me up!
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Apr 4, 2024 15:14:03 GMT
And off Cooper Black goes to Florida. I hate seeing a prospect I like head to a rival, so hopefully I'm wrong about his actual NHL potential. Another goalie would have been alright but it doesn't seem to be a particular need for the B's at the moment, a few in the pipeline already. If a 6' 3" C woth good hands and great vision plus off the charts hockey IQ is in the B's cross hairs then sign me up! No, the B's definitely don't need another goalie prospect, especially one at the stage where they need steady professional games to keep developing, and not much room in Boston or Providence. I just happen to watch a lot of Dartmouth games, and he really has been outstanding for an undrafted NCAA player.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Apr 11, 2024 13:50:11 GMT
Hilarious ESPN wants to be a player in prospect ranking. That pic attached is a rule on how and who they rate for prospects. Great window! Poitras got no credit last season nor this season. But the mother ship does mention Myrenberg and we are supposed to believe someone is watching that prospect at ESPN. PS. Mother Ship ESPN exes are worried about there ratings and why they are not seen as the go to sports network anymore.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Apr 16, 2024 18:08:57 GMT
More in the not shocking category.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Apr 17, 2024 16:42:35 GMT
More in the not shocking category. Yeah, no surprise there. Hope he finds a good fit and gets back on track.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Apr 25, 2024 22:11:31 GMT
More in the not shocking category. Yeah, no surprise there. Hope he finds a good fit and gets back on track. Maybe you might be able to catch him.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Apr 25, 2024 22:33:51 GMT
Yeah, no surprise there. Hope he finds a good fit and gets back on track. Maybe you might be able to catch him. Yeah, interesting spot for him. That's a good team. Hope it works out.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Apr 26, 2024 20:48:32 GMT
Maybe you might be able to catch him. Yeah, interesting spot for him. That's a good team. Hope it works out. Not a clue, Lieutenant, not a f**king clue... But it looks like they lacked scoring from the back end this year.
|
|