Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
remkin

2016 DRAFT talk

Recommended Posts

I think Matthews ends up being #1 if for no other reason than he is the ultimate, much discussed 1C and the other two are wingers. There is little question though that those are the top 3.

 

1 in 14 chance to get one of them in the lottery. Once every two weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So tonight's the night. I will be watching at work, in and out. If I understand correctly, they have 3 separate lotteries for the 1, 2, and 3 picks. We have roughly a 2% chance in each. So you never know. If you have any supernatural ping pong-ball-altering powers, now would be a good time to use them. OK, I'm assuming you've already won a huge lottery if you have those powers and don't need any more money and can do us a solid.

 

Auston Matthews would be a stunning addition, but the top 3 picks are all considered NHL ready and a clear step up from the pack, so any win would be HUGE.

 

 

Oh and on the flipside ABB. Anybody But Boston. If Boston wins a top three slot we move down to #14. Not a huge move, but still...

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is this:

​If Edmonton picks first this season, they should be penalized for the next decade!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least Edmonton got slid to 4th...frankly, they should be forfeiting firsts as much as they squandered them the past decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've got to take a run at one of the top 4...pick and a D prospect to Edmonton so we can get Tkachuck is pretty plausible.

 

Would a D prospect be enough of an add-in for #4? Moving up nine spots in the top half of the first round seems like a big task - way bigger than moving up from #21 to #12 would be.

 

Trade both our firsts for an upper first?

 

Hm. Since we have two picks in both the first and second rounds, we could go hog-wild and offer both first-round picks, one second-round and a prospect for one of the top three picks in the first round. Would that be enough to move up that dramatically, considering the perceived gap in talent between the top three players in the draft and the next dozen or so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a D prospect be enough of an add-in for #4? Moving up nine spots in the top half of the first round seems like a big task - way bigger than moving up from #21 to #12 would be.

 

 

Hm. Since we have two picks in both the first and second rounds, we could go hog-wild and offer both first-round picks, one second-round and a prospect for one of the top three picks in the first round. Would that be enough to move up that dramatically, considering the perceived gap in talent between the top three players in the draft and the next dozen or so?

 

If you go back to post #7 on this thread and hit the last link I posted, you can play around with the relative value of each pick in trading up. This does not include prospects or current players included, just picks. What is, say a Murphy, worth? I'd gladly give up both firsts and Murphy to get to #3.

 

On the one hand, there is a clear top 3 this year, which might raise the price. On the other hand the model is based on actual historical trades, and the gap between #1 and #2, #2 and #3 is already factored in big on the point system. The farther down the draft the closer the value of each pick. So, I'm saying it does factor that elite grouping thing into the model.

 

Based on that graph, we could move from #13 to #3 by trading both of our first rounders. Now of course GM's are wary to trade away the can't miss star for just about any price. NYR did us a favor by exiting early, so that second rounder is a decent pick and ours is #43, also pretty good.

 

As I watch Toronto follow the Buffalo model and get their generational 1C superstar, I just think we need a true stud more than two or three projects right now, especially since Francis has added two very nice prospects to the pool with our rental trades, and Aho looks like such a good one also. So if the deal is there? I'd do it.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think Edmonton has to go D in the draft and there will be some good ones available in the 9-13 range so they can definitely get someone they want with that pick. Add in Murphy or Fleury and I think it's a good fit to move to 4. Here's some reports on Tkachuck...just seems a natural fit in Peters' system:

Ryan Kennedy of The Hockey News - February 9, 2016 - "What more can be said about Tkachuk? The kid just keeps churning out highlight-reel goals and just to mix it up, he has practically perfected the tip-in at the top of the crease. When you’re big, talented and smart, you can do that."

Damien Cox of Sportsnet - January 13, 2016 - "It’s Tkachuk’s playmaking more than his scoring that stands out when you watch him. Was very good at WJC."

Curtis Joe of Elite Prospects - 2016 - "A multi-dimensional energy winger that plays a pro-style, adaptive game. Well-versed as a guy who can consistently put up points, but also as an agitator who plays with a little bit of bite and nastiness. Skates with excellent balance and speed, outclassing many in his age range. No lack of offensive instincts and knows how to score in many different ways. Confidence in his abilities and playing to the extent of his capabilities strengthens his work ethic and creativity."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think Edmonton has to go D in the draft and there will be some good ones available in the 9-13 range so they can definitely get someone they want with that pick. Add in Murphy or Fleury and I think it's a good fit to move to 4. Here's some reports on Tkachuck...just seems a natural fit in Peters' system:

Ryan Kennedy of The Hockey News - February 9, 2016 - "What more can be said about Tkachuk? The kid just keeps churning out highlight-reel goals and just to mix it up, he has practically perfected the tip-in at the top of the crease. When you’re big, talented and smart, you can do that."

Damien Cox of Sportsnet - January 13, 2016 - "It’s Tkachuk’s playmaking more than his scoring that stands out when you watch him. Was very good at WJC."

Curtis Joe of Elite Prospects - 2016 - "A multi-dimensional energy winger that plays a pro-style, adaptive game. Well-versed as a guy who can consistently put up points, but also as an agitator who plays with a little bit of bite and nastiness. Skates with excellent balance and speed, outclassing many in his age range. No lack of offensive instincts and knows how to score in many different ways. Confidence in his abilities and playing to the extent of his capabilities strengthens his work ethic and creativity."

No way I give up Fleury unless it gets us in the top 3!!!  Fleury was a #7 overall pick, & is 2 years along in his development.

 

I would offer Edmonton #13, & #21 for #4...I'd be willing to throw in Murphy, but I don't think Edmonton would want him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go back to post #7 on this thread and hit the last link I posted, you can play around with the relative value of each pick in trading up. This does not include prospects or current players included, just picks. What is, say a Murphy, worth? I'd gladly give up both firsts and Murphy to get to #3.

 

On the one hand, there is a clear top 3 this year, which might raise the price. On the other hand the model is based on actual historical trades, and the gap between #1 and #2, #2 and #3 is already factored in big on the point system. The farther down the draft the closer the value of each pick. So, I'm saying it does factor that elite grouping thing into the model.

 

Based on that graph, we could move from #13 to #3 by trading both of our first rounders. Now of course GM's are wary to trade away the can't miss star for just about any price. NYR did us a favor by exiting early, so that second rounder is a decent pick and ours is #43, also pretty good.

 

As I watch Toronto follow the Buffalo model and get their generational 1C superstar, I just think we need a true stud more than two or three projects right now, especially since Francis has added two very nice prospects to the pool with our rental trades, and Aho looks like such a good one also. So if the deal is there? I'd do it.

 

Got it. So, since the Hurricanes hold #13 & #21 in the first round, it *might* be possible to trade both first-round picks and the higher of the second-round picks for #3. Doing linear interpolations between adjacent table entries tells me that #13 is worth ~31.3 points, #21 is worth ~21.4, and #43 is worth ~8.1. Adding those up gives 60.8 points, and #3's table value is 59.5 or so.

 

However, to my eye, there's not going to be as big a gap between #1 and #3 as the Hurricanes' Mr. Tulsky calculates. As others have mentioned, there seems to be some hedging on who's really going to be #1 between Auston Matthews and Patrick Laine, and I have a feeling that is going to influence the valuation of Puljujarvi at #3 as well.

 

The wild card, of course, is how one values current pro players. Applying current analytics would probably enter into that, but I think that needs some sort of generalization - which is a weakness of analytics. It's easy enough to generate HERO and WARRIOR charts to illlustrate a given player's strengths and weaknesses relative to his team/teammates and to compare that player with another, but does postulating that the player will produce at the same level relative to his new teammates that he did with his old team make sense in this context?

Edited by JonKerfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on the #1 pick is that people need something to write and get attention and questioning Matthews going number one fills that bill. I would be shocked if Matthews went anything other than #1. He is a clear #1 even with the two Finns looking very strong.

 

Matthews will be picked #1 and it's not even close.

 

The last 21 mock drafts in a row have Matthews first, and even at the NHL lottery it was pretty much stated he was going first.

 

It matters some in that, that clear cut #1 is the guy no one can trade. Toronto has to pick him no matter what we throw at them.

 

But number 2 and 3 are mostly seen as interchangeable by many and again almost universally seen as the next two to go, but 12 mock drafts in a row put Laine ahead. Maybe, mostly likely not, but maybe this creates a clear #3 in Puljavari who might then be getable with both #13 and #21, and maybe a sweetener.

 

It is also interesting to think about trying to move up to 4 or 5 to get Tkuchuk or DuBois. These guys and Nylander form a pretty clear next level after the Finns. Nylander is a lot of flash, and I'm not sold, but Tkuchuk or DuBouis might be worth trading up for. Also, if the 4 or 5 team (or even both) take one or both highly rated D men, we could get Tkuchuk or DuBois in the 5 or 6 slot.

 

If we could move say Murphy, #13, and both seconds to move to #5, we could get Tkuchuk or DuBouis and still pick #22.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on the #1 pick is that people need something to write and get attention and questioning Matthews going number one fills that bill. I would be shocked if Matthews went anything other than #1. He is a clear #1 even with the two Finns looking very strong.

 

Matthews will be picked #1 and it's not even close.

 

The last 21 mock drafts in a row have Matthews first, and even at the NHL lottery it was pretty much stated he was going first.

 

It matters some in that, that clear cut #1 is the guy no one can trade. Toronto has to pick him no matter what we throw at them.

 

But number 2 and 3 are mostly seen as interchangeable by many and again almost universally seen as the next two to go, but 12 mock drafts in a row put Laine ahead. Maybe, mostly likely not, but maybe this creates a clear #3 in Puljavari who might then be getable with both #13 and #21, and maybe a sweetener.

 

It is also interesting to think about trying to move up to 4 or 5 to get Tkuchuk or DuBois. These guys and Nylander form a pretty clear next level after the Finns. Nylander is a lot of flash, and I'm not sold, but Tkuchuk or DuBouis might be worth trading up for. Also, if the 4 or 5 team (or even both) take one or both highly rated D men, we could get Tkuchuk or DuBois in the 5 or 6 slot.

 

If we could move say Murphy, #13, and both seconds to move to #5, we could get Tkuchuk or DuBouis and still pick #22.

NO offense to Murphy, but he is not much of a  trading   chip... imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dinz I think you're right on Murphy. In my example above both seconds are worth 14 points combined and leaves us just a few points short. Seems that Murphy is at least worth a late second rounder, which would put us over the points needed.

 

In other news, after the lottery there is typically a rash of mock drafts and there are three new ones. One has us taking a defenseman at #13, which kind of shows a pretty big lack of awareness, but the other two have us on: Michael McLeod and Logan Brown. I have heard a couple of people thinking Brown is a good fit for us.

 

The gaggle we are probably looking at is ranked

 

McLeod

Keller

Jost

Brown

Bellows

 

Keller

Jost

McLeod

Brown

Bellows

 

Keller

Jost

McLeod

Brown

Bellows

 

It appears Jost's recent performance might be bumping him up from #13, were almost every mock had us getting him until recently.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm highly skeptical  about Tulsky's table for draft positions near the top since those are based completely on extrapolated data.  The highest traded pick he had in his database was #7.  To my mind, that fact that there were no top 6 picks traded at all over the time span he considered says a lot in and of itself.   Then add in that this year's top 3 (like last years top 2) are all considered "more special" than in most years, and I think you have to throw his table out the window when it comes to our chances of trading up into one of the top 3 spots. 

 

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2013/4/25/4262594/nhl-draft-pick-value-trading-up

"I should point out that over this timespan, there were no trades at the very top of the draft for my model to examine. The highest value trade considered here was when the Predators traded pick No. 9 and pick No. 40 for pick No. 7 in 2008. Since this trade is one where the values on the trade chart line up quite well (within about 10 percent), it seems reasonable to assume that our fit is good at least up to that part of the draft. However, the value estimates for the top five picks are still an untested extrapolation and should probably come with a grain of salt."

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't think anyone is giving up a top 5 pick this year.   It would take something like J. Staal, or Skinner to get something like that to happen IMO. They are all just as excited as we would be if we had a top 5 this year, Nobody is giving it up for lower picks and prospects or Murphy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...