The ridiculously premature 2016 draft prospects thread

[Kin]

Being as most of us assume that the Leafs are playing right now with the draft as a goal I thought a thread might be useful for talking about prospects we're interested in for the 2016 draft as well as, because some people have asked about it, a place to discuss the draft as a whole.

So I'll start. There are, as best as I can tell, two websites with 2016 mock drafts up. One, which is a little out of date re: standings, has the Leafs drafting Alex Nylander of Mississauga at #8 and Logan Brown of Windsor at #20.

The other, which actually has a full 7 round mock draft, has the Leafs taking Chychryn(I'm not going to spell that correctly ever) at #2 and Julien Gauthier of Val d'Or at #22.

Thoughts? Opinions?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

This is a boring answer, but I'll be pretty happy with whoever we pick with our 1st this year I think. Staying in the bottom-5 and selecting a Chychrun/Puljujarvi/Laine/Tkachuk would be nice, but getting Nylander would be a good consolation prize (and potentially a blessing in disguise depending on if the brothers are able to Sedin-it up). Although I mean winning the lottery would be swell too.

I haven't had much time to really think about that Pittsburgh pick. Largely because, like I've mentioned before, draft rankings are all over the place for that spot. You mentioned the one mock draft has us taking Julien Gauthier with it. Well the other mock draft that you looked at has him going 6th overall. Names like Gauthier, Brown, Sam Steel, Max Jones are probably the higher profile names we'll be hearing about there. Alex DeBrincat, the very under-sized goal scoring machine in Erie, is also someone that would likely warrant a look.

 

[Frank E]

This is a boring answer, but I'll be pretty happy with whoever we pick with our 1st this year I think. Staying in the bottom-5 and selecting a Chychrun/Puljujarvi/Laine/Tkachuk would be nice, but getting Nylander would be a good consolation prize (and potentially a blessing in disguise depending on if the brothers are able to Sedin-it up). Although I mean winning the lottery would be swell too.

I haven't had much time to really think about that Pittsburgh pick. Largely because, like I've mentioned before, draft rankings are all over the place for that spot. You mentioned the one mock draft has us taking Julien Gauthier with it. Well the other mock draft that you looked at has him going 6th overall. Names like Gauthier, Brown, Sam Steel, Max Jones are probably the higher profile names we'll be hearing about there. Alex DeBrincat, the very under-sized goal scoring machine in Erie, is also someone that would likely warrant a look.

You think the Leafs might draft a guy named Nylander and a guy name Gauthier in the first round?

You sir have no creativity. 

 

[Kin]

This is a boring answer, but I'll be pretty happy with whoever we pick with our 1st this year I think. Staying in the bottom-5 and selecting a Chychrun/Puljujarvi/Laine/Tkachuk would be nice, but getting Nylander would be a good consolation prize (and potentially a blessing in disguise depending on if the brothers are able to Sedin-it up). Although I mean winning the lottery would be swell too.

I haven't had much time to really think about that Pittsburgh pick. Largely because, like I've mentioned before, draft rankings are all over the place for that spot. You mentioned the one mock draft has us taking Julien Gauthier with it. Well the other mock draft that you looked at has him going 6th overall. Names like Gauthier, Brown, Sam Steel, Max Jones are probably the higher profile names we'll be hearing about there. Alex DeBrincat, the very under-sized goal scoring machine in Erie, is also someone that would likely warrant a look.

These are all excellent points. I really just created the thread so that, as the year went on, people could comment as opinions began to form.

 

[herman]

If Hunter has free reign again, I see us tick-tocking between forward/defense picks. If Pittsburgh makes the playoffs, we're on pace to receive 13 picks even before we tally up the Trade Deadline returns, with two picks in each of the first 3 rounds. Let's say all 7 of our NHL impending UFAs move for 1 pick each, that will be potentially 20 picks in 2016 (probably spread to 2017). And if Kyle Dubas is allowed to play, our latter round picks are going to be multiplied further by dropping down.

Anyone in the top five would be great, but obvious. My current order of preference, not knowing our position yet, is Matthews, Chychrun, Puljujarvi, Tkachuk, Laine.

Nice to haves from rd 1: Nylander, Jones, Juolevi, Sokolov, McLeod; but I doubt those guys make it down to the 20s.

 

[Kin]

Let's say all 7 of our NHL impending UFAs move for 1 pick each, that will be potentially 20 picks in 2016 (probably spread to 2017). And if Kyle Dubas is allowed to play, our latter round picks are going to be multiplied further by dropping down.

That strikes me as a little unlikely. While I'm sympathetic to the idea of casting a wide net, at some point you have to take into account things like where 20 prospects would play in two or three years.

My guess is we'd be far more likely to trade up than down in that scenario.

 

[herman]

Let's say all 7 of our NHL impending UFAs move for 1 pick each, that will be potentially 20 picks in 2016 (probably spread to 2017). And if Kyle Dubas is allowed to play, our latter round picks are going to be multiplied further by dropping down.

That strikes me as a little unlikely. While I'm sympathetic to the idea of casting a wide net, at some point you have to take into account things like where 20 prospects would play in two or three years.

My guess is we'd be far more likely to trade up than down in that scenario.

I agree that 20 is definitely unlikely ans unsustainable.

I think excess picks would go more towards acquiring known quantities, a la Marincin-type deals, or pot-sweetners to move Lupul/Bozak/Phaneuf, rather than the gamble of moving up (unless it gets us into Top 2 picking). Outside of the top 20, picks are generally sitting on the same value plateau post-draft.

 

[Kin]

I think excess picks would go more towards acquiring known quantities, a la Marincin-type deals, or pot-sweetners to move Lupul/Bozak/Phaneuf, rather than the gamble of moving up (unless it gets us into Top 2 picking). Outside of the top 20, picks are generally sitting on the same value plateau post-draft.

Sure but if you have an excess of 2nd's and 3rd's then you can make some pretty meaningful moves up even within that context. Remember, the Leafs very well may have three picks in the top 35. If, just as a hypothetical, they have the #3, #21 and #33 picks then trading up could take the #21 into the top 10 and #33 into the top 20 or 25.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

If we have 20 picks I wouldn't mind drafting a bunch of goalies in the 5/6/7th rounds. I mean, like all the goalies. One of them must pan out.

 

[herman]

Sure but if you have an excess of 2nd's and 3rd's then you can make some pretty meaningful moves up even within that context. Remember, the Leafs very well may have three picks in the top 35. If, just as a hypothetical, they have the #3, #21 and #33 picks then trading up could take the #21 into the top 10 and #33 into the top 20 or 25.

I forgot we have to pay for Babcock and Lamoriello at some point, so that's a couple of picks either this year or in the next couple.

Moving into the Top 10 again would be nice. I don't think I would try to move up otherwise.

 

[Kin]

Also, the problem with some of the analysis of the inherent value of the various draft picks is that they sort of assume an inherent symmetry in the people doing the picking. A terrible GM, with a not very good eye for talent, is probably just as likely to make a bad pick at #27 as he is at #42. When all that gets aggregated, it might very well result in the value of the #27 pick only being incrementally higher than the #42.

If you believe that skill or whatever you'd want to call it plays at least a minor role in the draft I don't know how much value that sort of macro-analysis actually helps when a team of scouts is looking at the group of players they could select at those two spots.

 

[herman]

Also, the problem with some of the analysis of the inherent value of the various draft picks is that they sort of assume an inherent symmetry in the people doing the picking. A terrible GM, with a not very good eye for talent, is probably just as likely to make a bad pick at #27 as he is at #42. When all that gets aggregated, it might very well result in the value of the #27 pick only being incrementally higher than the #42.

If you believe that skill or whatever you'd want to call it plays at least a minor role in the draft I don't know how much value that sort of macro-analysis actually helps when a team of scouts is looking at the group of players they could select at those two spots.

That's an interesting point; are there GM stat trackers? Like NHL-level PPG for everyone drafted under a particular GM's purview?

The value of the macro-analysis, for me, is that it neutralizes all the variance from scouting skills, development strategies, etc. and paints a pretty clear picture that quantity trumps perceived quality after most of the first round of picks. And because some teams still try to trade up to get their guy, it's a behaviour that can be exploited.

Moving up in the draft has a steep cost that appears to climb exponentially as you near the top. In the 2nd round on, moving up is like trading two or three lottery tickets for one (because it has your favourite numbers on it).

 

[Kin]

That's an interesting point; are there GM stat trackers? Like NHL-level PPG for everyone drafted under a particular GM's purview?

The problem with that, and indeed this leads to another problem with the sort of draft analysis we're talking about, is that there's really no good way to quantify the value of a player in the context of the draft.

Whenever I've seen someone try to do it, picks are either evaluated by eventual NHL points(which obviously leads to the overvaluing of some players/positions) or by NHL games played(by which Kris Draper rates as a "better" pick than Peter Forsberg).

The value of the macro-analysis, for me, is that it neutralizes all the variance from scouting skills, development strategies, etc. and paints a pretty clear picture that quantity trumps perceived quality after most of the first round of picks. And because some teams still try to trade up to get their guy, it's a behaviour that can be exploited.

Moving up in the draft has a steep cost that appears to climb exponentially as you near the top. In the 2nd round on, moving up is like trading two or three lottery tickets for one (because it has your favourite numbers on it).

But that's sort of my point. The only way to make that argument is if you think the scouting process is as random as picking numbers for the lottery. I think most people would reject that. 

So I guess I struggle to see how "neutralizing" the variances in scouting ability/development process helps in the context here when the Leafs have invested a lot of money in those things.

 

[Arn]

Let's say all 7 of our NHL impending UFAs move for 1 pick each, that will be potentially 20 picks in 2016 (probably spread to 2017). And if Kyle Dubas is allowed to play, our latter round picks are going to be multiplied further by dropping down.

That strikes me as a little unlikely. While I'm sympathetic to the idea of casting a wide net, at some point you have to take into account things like where 20 prospects would play in two or three years.

My guess is we'd be far more likely to trade up than down in that scenario.

I wonder if there'd be a way we could use say Pittsburgh's 1st and a couple of 2nds and/or some of our mid range prospects to trade up to get Nylander if he stays in the top 10.

Something along those lines.

 

[herman]

The only way to make that argument is if you think the scouting process is as random as picking numbers for the lottery. I think most people would reject that. 

So I guess I struggle to see how "neutralizing" the variances in scouting ability/development process helps in the context here when the Leafs have invested a lot of money in those things.

I see what you're saying, and I agree there is an element of skill to drafting. The difference between Hunter/Dubas compared to Burke/Nonis appears to be day and night. At least in this case, it's not so much a scouting skill difference as it is a draft strategy and player template philosophy that leads to eventual success.

Where the macro observations help is that they even out all the variations in the stuff that happens after the draft, where the actual measurable results occur. Just because there is an average result doesn't mean a management team shouldn't try to be on the leading edge of that bell curve wherever possible.

At the risk of saying too much and getting those additional comments picked apart ( 8) ), the macro analysis of the draft is an attempt at the 'advanced stats' of drafting. What elements are under control? Where are the variables outside of that control?

Just because scoring is largely luck driven, doesn't mean players shouldn't bother working on their shot velocity, or release time, or accuracy, or shooting strategy. I think it's the same with drafting. Get the best scouts, narrow down a strategy for the draft and the player template you want, and then take as many shots as possible because who knows what will happen after that. Top 3 picks are like tap-ins in the blue paint. Other 1st round picks are like shots from the slot and in (usually), whereas 7th rounders are like shots from the blue-line (and sometimes beyond).

 

[Kin]

I wonder if there'd be a way we could use say Pittsburgh's 1st and a couple of 2nds and/or some of our mid range prospects to trade up to get Nylander if he stays in the top 10.

Something along those lines.

That strikes me as possible but I think any such trade would take on a significantly different structure. If you look at the top 10 picks that have been dealt in recent years what you usually see are teams looking for immediate help rather than just an alternate draft strategy. I think that for most teams who are in the top 10 they're coming off a disappointing year and want something to excite their fans. No fanbase will be excited by "Yeah, we gave up #7 but we got #19, 38 and 55!"

So, just as an example, it might be more like Phaneuf(or Gardiner or Kadri or...) + Pittsburgh's 1st to get into the top 10. At least then the team can sell "We want to win now!" to their fans.

 

[Kin]

Where the macro observations help is that they even out all the variations in the stuff that happens after the draft, where the actual measurable results occur. Just because there is an average result doesn't mean a management team shouldn't try to be on the leading edge of that bell curve wherever possible.

At the risk of saying too much and getting those additional comments picked apart ( 8) ), the macro analysis of the draft is an attempt at the 'advanced stats' of drafting. What elements are under control? Where are the variables outside of that control?

I think we broadly agree, I just have a different take on it. I think the macro-analysis we're talking about is helpful but in a sort of abstract sense. Basically, I think it's useful for when you're talking about picks as picks and not so useful when you're talking about specific prospects.

So if, say, before the draft I had the #27 pick and someone came along and offered me the #35 and #49 for it I think having the data on the average value of those picks would be helpful in telling me whether or not that was a smart trade similar to the "points" system that some NFL teams use.

Where I think it's less useful is when you start talking about actual prospects a scouting staff will have opinions on. If there's a certain player who's available at 27 but wouldn't be at 35 then I think the aggregated data is less relevant to decisions hockey teams actually have to make.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

This seems like a good thread for this very useful ranking: http://platinumseatghosts.blogspot.ca/2015/12/2016-average-nhl-draft-rankings.html

 

[Kin]

This seems like a good thread for this very useful ranking: http://platinumseatghosts.blogspot.ca/2015/12/2016-average-nhl-draft-rankings.html

That is a handy chart, thanks for the link. Interesting to see that 5 different guys have been rated as high as #2.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Also I believe I may have posted this before, but someone else did up a handy chart in Google Docs of all of the draft picks each team has for the 2016 draft.  Leafs potentially have 11 picks right now.

Link