Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
remkin

NHL Draft 2020

Recommended Posts

Noel Gunler: 6'2" winger from Sweden. 

 

This is a very widely ranged scouting prospect. This is where our scouts would earn their money even more. Even though he's 6'2", he's skinny and not physical. My take based on reading several reports is that he has the tools, but there is debate about how high end. The thing there is less debate about is that he is farther from NHL ready then anyone mentioned so far. 

 

His issue appears to be a lack of full engagement at times, which is speculated as the reason he's been left off of Sweden's National teams, which is odd for the top Swedish draft prospect for his year (though not universal, Button has Daniel Torgersson at 27th ahead of Gunler). Phrases such as: "leaves puck to avoid hits", "goes for line change when hard backcheck needed", "tends to drift in the periphery", "not reliable in puck battles". "issues with compete and battle" also lead to him not being on the ice in crunch time and no PK time. Other negative: misses simple plays and overcomplicates things. 

 

It is possible that all of that can be coached out of him. If not? He'll drive coaches nuts in the AHL/NHL. 

 

On the other hand he is a kid in the top Swedish men's league. His skill is not overmatched, but he seems to be not ready for that level in terms of compete. When he played in the more age matched U20 he was dominant: 27 goals in 31 games, 46 points. He has not produced much in SHL so far: this year is 2g  7p, 34 games. It can be tough here, because the SHL can be a bit like the NHL in that coaches don't usually put these kids onto top lines and give them huge minutes.

 

He has the full complement of other skills though. Strong passer, near elite stickhandling. Pure sniper. quick release. protects puck. Good D stick and positioning. Very good speed. Good edgework. Deceptively good laterally and very good north south. High hockey IQ.  Quick hands. 

 

On the one hand he seems like a nice bet in the high upside / higher risk mode that we've been largely following. On the other hand, some key scouts are not that impressed. While he's ranked 10th,12th 15th and 11th by several scouting publications, Pronman at the Athletic "is less impressed", and Craig Button has him at #45, ie mid second round. There is no doubt he'd be a great steal in the second round, but first round? I'd probably pass, though this is where the right scout making the right call could get a steal. 

 

Either way he is more of a project. Likely not in the NHL for at least 3 if not 4 years. I think we are deep enough to wait that long, but can we coach up the compete level? Could be as he gets bigger and keeps getting tough love, but the risk is a semi skilled soft player that never quite hits his potential. The upside is that if he matures in those areas, he could be a very good NHL player. Scout, earn thy paycheck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very intrigued by Seth Jarvis. This is a guy that I'd be thrilled with. He seems to be the embodiment of the skill and production over size and projected skill argument. That is, that point production in draft year and lots of good stuff in the scouting report right now is better than tantalizing possibilities in bigger players. In a way this is the arc from Seth Jarvis to Noel Gunler. Gunler has the frame and the skills, but has been inconsistent scoring in his draft year and has scouting downsides. While Jarvis is small (5'10" at best),he is also a scoring machine and has few weaknesses. Some scouts say that after Marner and many other NHL productive small players that scouts are losing their size bias, yet maybe everyone is not there yet as it's hard to see how else Jarvis is ranked so low by some scouts. (24, 29 by McKeen and ISS) and #23 by Button. I take some pause with Button because I've heard him rant about how dumb scouts are to pass on high skilled, smaller players, and I really think he puts size low down his list of factors to consider, but in the end I have to go with my gut: putting up massive points your draft year is, while far from perfect, still the best predictor of future NHL success. 

 

Seth Jarvis was the #2 scorer in the WHL. And that was after he started slow. At midseason when he was just starting to come on, Cory Pronman had him ranked #13 with high skill, high IQ. Nothing super elite but does just about everything well, and scores in bunches. And that was before he went off. Mostly after Pronman wrote that Jarvis then finished his season by putting up 63 points in 26 games: for an insane 2.42 ppg over those last 26 games. His full year at 1.69 ppg was still one of the tops in the WHL in a player's draft year in recent years. And that was 42 goals in there too. 

 

Deceptively powerful and gritty for size. Goes to net. Wins battles. Excellent hands. Elite vision and puck control. Slippery as they come. Great lateral movement. Quick off the puck and good acceleration. Quick, accurate shot. Good forechecker. 2 way player. Hard worker in all 3 zones. 

 

Sign me up for this guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gunler is one of those wide disparity guys. Wheeler put him #11 mid season despite explicitly citing those weaknesses. This points out not only how many guys we might want to take at #19 but the variety of guys who might be there. I agree though that he doesn't really fit the Brind'Amour model. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hendrix LaPierrre, 6.0" 181 is by far the most intriguing possible pick at #19. As gocanes mentioned this is a top 10 pick at least if injuries were even just normal injuries. 

 

But he's more than top 10 and he's had more than "just injuries". The risk/reward is huge on both sides of that equation.

 

Mike Morrelale on March 6th said that LaPierre "may have the highest ceiling of any player in the draft." I had to read that again. Yes, any player. Craig Button said that on skill alone, he's the best two way player in the draft and a top 5 pick. Despite his injury history Button has him as his #10 pick. Quite a fall to #19. Yet it might happen because of the injuries. He was the first overall pick in the Q and put up 45 points in 48 games as a rookie. That is very very high for a rookie, even in the Q. 

 

So, what injuries? Again, as gocanes alluded to, he's had three concussions* in one calendar year. (not one season), and two of them this season which shut him down even before Covid happened. 

 

*or has he? The first one, a season prior is pretty much agreed to have been a concussion. But the second and possibly the third are now being reported by LaPierre's doctors as a vertebral injury. Hmmm. That is vague to me. One description I read of it was that his cervical vertebrae were not properly aligned in one place. His recurrent headache from both of the second injuries were put off on this. Reportedly he got 3 doctors to agree that this was the case, that this is something he can strengthen and get past. 

 

IMO this clouds things a bit more. I am not a spine specialist, but as you all now know, I am an M.D. I'm not saying that spine misalignment might not cause pain, or even headaches, but it should not be at all confused for a concussion. Maybe the extent of a post concussive syndrome, but not a concussion. Concussion is a transient loss of mental awareness with some amnesia to the event. Even with a mild concussion there have to be "cognitive symptoms". One does not get "cognitive symptoms" with a neck injury. Even a broken neck.  Also, there is no mention of a fracture on the MRI. An acute injury to cause a substantial misalignment usually involves not just one but a multiple fractures. 

 

Again, I am not saying that this explanation is wrong, but that what I have read doesn't fully explain it. If LaPierre is on the board at #19 when we pick, we won't need our scouts, we'll need to have done a deep medical dive on him, because if there's a decent chance he gets clear of these injuries, this guy is probably the #2 pick in this draft when they redraft it in a few years. 

 

It's not 100% universal, some scouts say his skating is questionable, while admitting his skill is off the charts. But others say his skating is excellent. This from one: very fast, smooth skater, very good edges, quick cuts, stop on a dime. Outstanding top end speed. Good at weaving through traffic. In fact I get the feeling that that other guy is the outlier and his skating is a big plus. 

 

Then there's his "amazing vision" "sees and executes passes that others don't even see", "very high hockey IQ". "Great hockey sense, compete, and playmaking". "Plays the body". "Solid defensively". "Protects the puck well down low". "Quick hands". "Quick toe drags to adjust shot angle". 

 

Outside of the injuries, other negatives are minor: dangles too much, doesn't keep stick on ice, needs to add lower and upper body strength. To me these are all easily fixable. 

 

My take on the takes is that he is an outstanding skater with that elite vision that the best playmakers have and serious elite skills. He is also fast. (Keep up with Necas). He will make dazzling plays. The shot is good, but he's not a sniper. If I see any serious non injury short fall I guess its' that at least at present he's not likely a 40 goal guy. But to get this much talent that far down in the draft? If it works it's franchise changing. 

 

When I surmised that we seemed to be going high reward, higher risk on picks, I wasn't thinking concussion risk. That seems to be a higher risk as guy's careers have been ended before NHL even. But the upside on this guy is insane.  Probably too high for him to be there at 19. But then someone else that shouldn't be will be. That's the crazy thing about this deep of a draft, especially picking in the lower middle of it. 

 

I think I take the chance. Shut him down as gocane's says? Sure. Why not? I'm not sure about trading down for him because the talent is too mesmerizing. The idea of taking a chance on him will go up with every forward off the board. And this is a tough year because there will be a good forward left on the board that will seem much safer. Seth Jarvis comes to mind. Then there's wild cards for other reasons as I'll get to next. But missing a first rounder at #19 is not as bad as missing higher. Lots of #19 picks end up either missing or not being that great. This year is likely to be better, but some years less than 50% of all first rounders end up making it, and that is highly weighted at the top. 

 

Do you go for greatness? I'd be very very tempted. I start listing the names of Hurricanes and future Hurricanes that could be, or already are stars  It's kind of mind blowing. If Suzuki hits his potential and we get Lapierre as the steal of this one and he gets past his injuries and hits his potential? Aho, Teuravainen, Svechnikov, Necas, Suzuki, Lapierre...Geekie, Rees, Drury....

 

We have a deep NHL youth and a pretty deep farm. Taking a chance at #19? Tempting indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our only chance at Lapierre would be a season like this. He hasn’t played since late November so, he can’t prove he can handle hits. Outside of VTC, are the teams going to get anything prior to the draft?  Any combine? If not, he won’t have much more than his word he is ready.  I believe he is a disadvantage here and we may able to capitalize.  Teams will be wary.  We should be scared too but, we have prospect capital and a team that is built for the long term. We can afford to take the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Like with so much we are considering these days, it comes down to risk/reward vs the next BPA sitting there at our pick. The thing about Lapierre is the reward is just sooo high. I tried to find specific data about the likelihood of the #19 pick becoming a long term productive NHL player, but can't find it that granular. What I do know is that for the average draft, the chance on all first rounders combined is about 50-50 reportedly, though some years much better. This is supposed to be a good draft, so it's probably better. However, the odds are definitely distributed by how low in the draft a player is taken. Top 5 picks have a dramatically better than 50-50 chance, while the #30 pick is almost a second rounder. 


But to land an elite player at #19? .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'm a bit bored and curious about this, so I went back and looked at the drafts from 2000-2014 and eyeballed 2015. After that there's too much guesswork (17-19). Just looking at #19 itself is too focused, so I looked 2 above and 2 below, so #17-21. How many misses? How many solid players or stars? 

 

I'll list two kinds of misses. First is a flat out whiff. I'm saying less than 150 NHL games. Second is some contact, but I'm going to say a player that played less than 300 games, or about 4 seasons. This would be guys like Anton Babchuk. Made a rumble briefly, but then faded away. 

 

Total Picks: 75

Total Whiffs: 26 (35%)

Misses: 32 (43%)

Star Players: 12-16 (12-21%) (depending on definition of "star"). 

 

Draft year matters. 2003 all 5 players hit 650 plus NHL games including Getlzlaf, Bret Burns, and Zach Parise in that group. 2007 saw 3 whiffs and Ian Cole and Riley Nash as the best.

 

There is a 1/3 chance of coming up completely empty. A 40% chance of either that, or a marginal player with less than 300 NHL games, and about a 1/5 chance of landing a star player. 

 

That said, the odds still favor getting a functional or better player there. I was really a bit surprised that it was so good. If you use 450 NHL games as a solid double, then most years you had at least 3 of those picks pan out. 

 

In terms of star players some names: our own Teravainen (#18), Parise, Getzlaf, Burns, Vasilevskiy, Zajac, Tuuka Rask, Orpik, Kreider, Hertl, Kyle Conner, Tomas Chabot, 

 

Once you get past those 12 names it gets less impressive. But I pushed it a bit to get to 21% stars. If you take just those names above it's more like a 12% chance of getting a star player, which is probably more accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So based on that, if we pick a guy not named Lapierre, the overall odds of landing a very impactful (star or solid veteran contributor) player is say around 20%, and an elite star closer to 10%. The chance of essentially whiffing is around 40%. (To me a 250-300 game marginal player is a whiff for us at this point). 

 

It would be interesting to try to get some feel for the concussion thing. Clearly guys can have repeated concussions but still go on to have long, productive careers, while others either never get going or get cut short. I don't know the numbers. 

 

But for the sake of argument, let's say it's 50-50 that he gets completely over it and 75-25 that he is what the scouts say if healthy (probably less top 3 misses than that, but that's another project). That would mean .5 x .75 that he is a major elite success, or just short of 40%. 

 

So you have a 40% chance of landing an elite player at #19 vs a 12-20% chance picking another guy who becomes elite. And you trade a 50% chance of a whiff with a 35% chance if you go with the next BPA. You are swinging for the fences with him.

 

I would say that while this draft year is the rare year that a guy with this much talent drops, the reason is more due to the fact that this is a deep draft. The actual calculus of whether a guy drops is the sum of individual team's making the binary decision between LaPierre and their next BPA option. The quality of that BPA factors in big. This year, there are a lot of other guys who are very good and don't cary that huge medical risk. Every time a better player goes instead of Lapeirre, the next up BPA is a little weaker. 

 

After the top 10-11 or so, he will likely be factored into 7-8 decisions from 11-18 before it gets to us. (With an outside chance someone is enthralled enough to grab him in the top 10). 

 

Will he drop to #19? Who knows? I do know that GMS tend to be risk averse in terms of what are thought of as total bust risks and would favor taking the guy who has a higher percentage play on a productive pick than swinging for the fences. But we've got to get past a bunch of those decisions playing it safe. That said, many services have him ranked in the 20's due to the injuries. 

 

One last thing on the risk. It is true that while he put up a dazzling rookie season, we have not actually gotten to see him take that draft year step to elite production. The games he played in he was just over a ppg almost all assists. Elite prospects are typically in the neighborhood of 2.00 ppg in Canadian Junior hockey their draft year or better. (LaFreniere is 2.15 ppg, Byfield 1.82, Rossi 2.14). This is, again, the best predictor, and we didn't actually get to see Lapierre do that. Then again, if he did, he'd be gone in the top 5. 

 

Will he drop to us and should we take him if he does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does he drop to us? I really have no idea. There are so many variables. Each GMs assessment of the BPA at their pick, their assessment of the hockey risk on Lapierre (essentially no draft year data) and mostly their assessment on his health risk mixed with that GM's comfort with risk. Button and Morrele have him ranked 10 and 16, which would predict he does not drop to 19. But his combined rank on my rankings is close to #21, which projects him dropping. My guess is the upside ends up being just too tantalizing for some GM between 12-18, and he goes. But really no idea. 

 

But should we take him? Of course it depends on who is the other BPA there as the alternative. But if I had to just blurt out an answer? I'd say yes. Take him. My very very loose and non scientific odds are around 40% that he clears the concussion issue and ends up being a star player. This is compared to a roughly 15% chance of that next BPA becoming a star player. Dundon has mentioned that star players are key in this league and I agree. But especially on this team where there is already a core of excellent young players as well as strong young support players coming up, it's worth taking a chance on a guy who's upside is 1C even on this team. 

 

I like a lot of the guys likely available at 19. I think we are going to get a good NHL player there. But I'd go for great. We still have 2 second rounders and lots of good upside prospects in the system. If LaPierre is there, at this point in time, barring a major fall from another top forward, or a new worse red flag on his health, I say grab him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, remkin said:

I agree. Like with so much we are considering these days, it comes down to risk/reward vs the next BPA sitting there at our pick. The thing about Lapierre is the reward is just sooo high. I tried to find specific data about the likelihood of the #19 pick becoming a long term productive NHL player, but can't find it that granular. What I do know is that for the average draft, the chance on all first rounders combined is about 50-50 reportedly, though some years much better. This is supposed to be a good draft, so it's probably better. However, the odds are definitely distributed by how low in the draft a player is taken. Top 5 picks have a dramatically better than 50-50 chance, while the #30 pick is almost a second rounder. 


But to land an elite player at #19? .....

Between 79 and 2015, 15 players selected at 19 OA played 100 or fewer games.  What other criteria would you like to define contributor? 9 played over 500 games.


Idk if he will fall this far but he could. Latest mocks have him around 13.  Who knows.


edit* saw your 250 point note in the next post. Only 4 have made it over 250 during that span. 3 of the 4 were 700+ point scorers in Keith Tkachuk, Martin Straka, and Ryan Getzlaf.

 

odd note: since 79 we haven’t picked 19 before.

Edited by gocanes0506

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting side note. We have two players who went around #19, Taravainen at #18, and Jake Gardiner at #17. But we didn't draft either of them. And the only time I can see we drafted between 17-21 was Gauthier at 21, whom I guess time will still tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mavrik Bourque: 5'10" 165 or 5'11" 171 depending on who you believe, Center.  Player in QMJHL, #3 in points with 71 in 49 and 29 goals for 1.45 ppg.

 

His ranking by my metric is to be drafted at 22 or 23 (22.4) with a range of 15-27. And he is one of the best examples of how deep this draft is. Craig Button has him at #20.

 

He is described as shift, slippery and quick with a nice release. His PNHLe ranking puts his range as top second line to mid first line. I see this as a guy with the potential to be one of the better second line players in the league. And that's pretty nice. 

 

A different consolidator of rankings that looks at over 30 scouts has Mavrik Bourque at......19. I guess if you had to go to Vegas and put a bet down on the guy we'd pick that would be a decent way to try to do it. (BTW for our discussion on Hendrix Lapierre, he goes #25 on that compilation, so that could get interesting). 

 

Skating highlighted by edgework and agility, he moves well laterally with quick cuts and direction changes. Strong on skates. Undersized, but low center of gravity and strong lower body make him hard to knock off puck. Protects puck well down low. Above average speed, but not super fast. Decent first few steps. Very good puckhandling skills.

 

High hockey IQ. Quick hands open up passing lanes. Good vision, smart passes. Bread and butter is goal scorer. Quick release. Excellent wrist, strong snap, and very good one timer let him score in variety of ways. Soft hands to finish in close to net. Can change angle just before shot to confuse goalies. Plays and thinks extremely well at high speed. 

 

A couple of scouts compare him to Travis Konecny. Not bad. 

 

D game "extremely well developed". Willing and effective back checker. Strong positionally and anticipates well. Active stick breaks up passes and steals puck. 

 

Neg: trouble defending vs bigger stronger players in cycle game. Can get outmuscled on boards and net front. Average face-off skills. Will need to improve overall skating to play center in NHL. When I watch highlights I see a guy scoring a lot and making a lot of nice primary assists. Not dazzling, but very effective.

 

His size has to be putting him down a touch, which has been a mistake of many drafters and could make him a nice pick for us. He is said to see and think the game 2-3 steps ahead of most players. That tends to work out well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many variables at play here that it is impossible to speculate on what players will be drafted by the Canes.  IMO two things seem apparent:

 

1) They will draft a forward in the 1st round.  Hey, the owner wants that and the roster dictates that.

 

2) There will be a trade that affects the Canes' draft position/tool box.

 

It is imperative that the Canes make room for and reward those players they have invested in and trained to be NHL players.  In my mind two players that earned roles on next year's squad as regulars are Haydn Fleury and Morgan Geekie.  If you look at the Canes defense, they have Slavin, Hamilton, Pesce, Brady, Fleury, and Gardiner on the big squad under contract, TVR, Edmondson, and Vatenen are UFAs, and Bean and Keane ready for promotion.  I don't see them signing one of the UFAs just to be a 7th guy, so all 3 of them may be gone.  I believe either Keane or Bean should be promoted.  What else does Bean have to prove at the AHL level?  It just so happens only Pesce and Hamilton are RHded, which could give Keane an advantage, but that may not dictate who wins a spot.  SO, not to sound like a broken record, but I see the Canes moving Gardiner to create roster space, financial space, and upgrade their draft position.  I don't see them getting an overwhelming return, but I am ok with that.  A 2nd round pick, and financial relief that allows them some space to invest in Hamilton and Svech would be fine with me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, beboplar said:

There are so many variables at play here that it is impossible to speculate on what players will be drafted by the Canes.  IMO two things seem apparent:

 

1) They will draft a forward in the 1st round.  Hey, the owner wants that and the roster dictates that.

 

2) There will be a trade that affects the Canes' draft position/tool box.

 

It is imperative that the Canes make room for and reward those players they have invested in and trained to be NHL players.  In my mind two players that earned roles on next year's squad as regulars are Haydn Fleury and Morgan Geekie.  If you look at the Canes defense, they have Slavin, Hamilton, Pesce, Brady, Fleury, and Gardiner on the big squad under contract, TVR, Edmondson, and Vatenen are UFAs, and Bean and Keane ready for promotion.  I don't see them signing one of the UFAs just to be a 7th guy, so all 3 of them may be gone.  I believe either Keane or Bean should be promoted.  What else does Bean have to prove at the AHL level?  It just so happens only Pesce and Hamilton are RHded, which could give Keane an advantage, but that may not dictate who wins a spot.  SO, not to sound like a broken record, but I see the Canes moving Gardiner to create roster space, financial space, and upgrade their draft position.  I don't see them getting an overwhelming return, but I am ok with that.  A 2nd round pick, and financial relief that allows them some space to invest in Hamilton and Svech would be fine with me.

In a normal draft and normal cap situation, I would agree.  Teams are a little apprehensive to move draft picks that they don’t know the value, i.e next year’s draft.  We’ll see more player for player swaps because teams aren’t gaining cap for 2 more years.

 

this will be a weird offseason.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, gocanes0506 said:

Hey, the owner wants that and the roster dictates that.

Well, there is this little thing about taking the best player available .  If a gift is there. We wont let the horse walk away mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is absolutely a year that there are many variables. A bit like 2016, speaking of Bean, when we were picking 13 and 21. But at least this year, since we decided to pick up Skjei, we'll be just picking once. But the range of possible picks is much wider at #19. I've tried to put out some basic info on the most likely picks to put some sort of context into it, but it's hard because there are at least 14 possible picks and that's without going completely off the board with a complete wild card reach. Or picking a D man. 

 

I agree that we need to get Jake Bean up here, and ideally give Geekie at least a very long look in training camp and the inside track to play in Raleigh next season. I also agree that this likely means moving at least Gardiner, and probably TVR and Edmundson. Also agree that Gardiner is not going to bring back a first rounder before this draft, so I can't really factor it in, because trying to get a handle on second rounders and later is beyond even my draft interest level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK just a couple more profiles, then at some point nearer the draft I'll try to put my take on the overall shape of the options. But draft day will change everything, so having some handle on in will require a rough idea of who's who in the range I'm putting down. 

 

It will flip and flop because not only is there only agreement through about the top 11, but the disagreement ranges widely because you have very high end talent that has fallen off due to injuries or other factors, but then you have guys with the size and "skills" but not production like Gunler who some see as even more unproven than most prospects and others rank as high as #10 (one compilation has him here), while Button has him #45*. But if he goes that high, then other guys will fall. In the end it's musical chairs. There's only so many slots between #12 and #19. If these guys go, then these other guys fall. 

 

*We are picking around #44? second round. How sweet it would be to get a guy like Gunler there. It's highly unlikely, but one sees the huge variability on some guys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The final hockeynews rankings has Lapierre at 28.  NHL.com mock in mid April had 3 contributors pick and they ranged from 18 to 23 for Lapierre.  I would be pumped if he fell.  Dobberprospects has him at 34.  

 

My 2nd round targets of Guhle and Wallinder have jumped into 1st round discussions. A guy like Schneider has lower 1st round and mid 2nd round projections.  If he falls I would go for him.  

Neighbors is another one.  Anywhere from last 3 picks of the 1st to 60th. I would take him at 44.

Jurmo is my target for 54.  

Lukas Reichel sounds likes a decent 44 target.  Fast, even in tight spaces.  Needs to add strength and work on defense. Seems like a little slower version of Necas with the write up.  Good candidate to leave in Germany for one year to work hard in the gym and defensive game.  Then put in the AHL for a season+ to work on American game, add more weight, and refine the defensive game.

Jean-Luc Foudy seems like he is worth a pick when we have an extra one.  Super fast guy that needs to work on the rest of his game.  2 years in the OHL might be a good thing to add weight to battle in the corners and work on playing at the speed he can skate.  If he can learn to play with the speed he has, he is a top 15 pick.  That could be taught, speed not so much.

 

If we would maybe get a third 2nd rounder from ottawa because they really liked a guy a 44.

19- Lapierre

46- Smilanic

53- Foudy

54- Jurmo

 

or

 

19- Lapierre

44- Reichel/Foudy/Neighbors/ Smilanic

54- Jurmo (if offense with 44)

 

Those are good drafts to me.

 

Edited by gocanes0506

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've completed my rough summaries on the guys my ranking system puts about 13-23 who are forwards. But there are guys who are higher in some rankings and much lower in others. I've listed a guy like Gunler who could go as high as 10, or fall to the second round (but the preponderance of scouts rank him high enough to put him slotted at pick 19 on my list).

 

But a guy I haven't listed is more on the other end of the spectrum. A risk reward that is tilted more to possible high end talent that has fallen down on a lot of scout's rankings, but whom has a few scouts who think he's elite. There is so much bipolarity on him that enough scouts have him in the second round pulling his rank out of my list. 

 

Jan Mysak is a Czech who could be suffering from the fact that somewhat mixed competition leaves Czech players hard to read. Recall how Necas fell down to us,  (Zadina also fell a lot farther than people thought). Czech elite prospects have been a bit hit or miss historically, so it make sense. On my system, Mysak had three rankings at 14 (2) and 15 (1), but the rest all put him in the second round, bringing his aggregate ranking too low to be a likely choice. Craig Button has him #34, at the very top of the second round. 

 

What spurred my interest in him besides the wide disparity, was that Scott Wheeler of the Athletic, who scouts, wrote a piece entitled: Why Jan Mysak is one of the 2020 NHL Draft's top forwards prospects. And after reading that? I'm good with him as our choice despite his composite ranking in my system falling low.

 

First off, in his own age group, at a younger age, he dominated, posting 2.33 ppg. Second, he's one of the youngest players in this draft age group. This affects him at every level of play as he's almost a full draft year younger than the oldest guys, but also, when he went to the men's league, he was even that much more underaged. Third, he spent nearly his entire development and over half of his draft year in the Czech league, with less than half of a season in the OHL (22 games) as he came over mid season. 

 

So this all means that there is a lot of subterfuge for him to hide serious talent behind. Not only did he only have 22 games to adjust to new teammates, small ice, cultural stuff, etc with his small OHL sample, but before that he played his first season (31 games) in the top Czech men's league, all of them, AT AGE 16. The next year, his draft year, he was mostly 17. Despite that, at U17 and U18 his projection was still in line with Necas (and 800 NHL game Milan Michaelek), and better than Zadina and Chytil, and much better than Kaut who was taken 16th in 2018. Outside of Necas one has to go back to 2003 to find as good production U18, and 2002 (Jiri Hudler) for U17. 

 

So his Czech production in men's league's while not eyepopping numbers is actually about as good as it gets for age group historically. 

 

Wheeler breaks out his OHL numbers and his PPG (1.14) is actually #8 of his top 100 rankings, and his primary assists is #7, but is shy of the points elite guys tend to put up in Juniors. But then his age? Only Quinton Byfield is younger in Wheeler's top 49, and Mysak is the third youngest of all 100. This 1.14  ppg is, again, not eye popping, but again he came over mid season to smaller ice. Still pretty good really. And again could easily hide a much more elite talent. 

 

Further, Mysak played on one of the weakest teams in the OHL. 

 

The reported skills: wants the puck, wants to make the big play. Fast. Beats players 1 on 1. The more you watch him, the more you see how high his scoring ceiling is. Goes to slot/net. Shot is deceptive and accurate. Can adjust shot under pressure. A fine D player. Outstanding in transition: not speed of Stutzle or problem solving of Perfetti, but good at both and better at the off skill than those guys are. Extremely impressive skater. Very intuitive, high IQ and very creative which keeps defenders guessing. Soft touch. Skill on rush. Net drive. fights for puck. Just getting started, ready to explode. Should be top 10. Upside is future star. 

 

Only downside was "perceived lack of D commitment", but Wheeler disagrees.

 

Button has him at 34. Wheeler has him top 10. 

 

I see Mysak as the quintessential pick that our risk/reward strategy would favor, especially if he, in fact drops down to #19. It's not health risk in this case though. He hasn't put the pure dazzle up since he was in age appropriate leagues in the Czech republic. That said, the only other time he was playing even close to his age group was just his first small sample size, small ice experience coming over to a bad OHL team. And it's not like he didn't score, he did put up 1.13 ppg. Still the Czech factor, the boy in a men's league factor and the not eye-popping OHL numbers, might hide an elite talent. 

 

Wheeler's final comment? In Czech men's league (underaged) he played like he belonged. In the OHL he played like he was the most talented player on the ice and everyone else had to play up to his level. 

 

Every time I hear a scout say that a guy was almost always the best player on the ice? I'd take that guy. Plus, we have Necas to ease him in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thought on trading Gardiner. If the draft is still early June, then I think trades like that will be best done for the seller after the draft. Aside from needing players for a possible playoff run, there is the fact that draft picks become more and more valuable the closer to the draft. Suddenly that first rounder traded midseason, is less expendable. So much so that by draft day GM's rarely trade out of the first round or even down or up much. Suddenly just ahead of the draft GMS talk about listening to offers that they can't refuse. Suddenly you have to wow me for my draft pick.

 

But the 2021 draft is miles away. We'll get more later IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trades this offseason will be contract for contract type deals.

 

examples of my cooked up ones

 

Gardiner for Bjugstad and the rights to Murray. 2nd move being sending Reimer to Ottawa post signing bonus.


Dzingle @ 50% and a small kicker for Bozak and Allen. again Reimer to Ottawa.

 

Dzingle @ 50% and rights to TVR or Mckeown or Kaski for Johnson or Palat (preferred) and the rights to Cernak.

 

we could only afford one of those deals unless Nino was moved too.  These deals would have more oomph with a swapping of picks in the draft but we probably won’t have that option.

Edited by gocanes0506

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gocanes0506 said:

Trades this offseason will be contract for contract type deals.

 

examples of my cooked up ones

 

Gardiner for Bjugstad and the rights to Murray. 2nd move being sending Reimer to Ottawa post signing bonus.


Dzingle @ 50% and a small kicker for Bozak and Allen. again Reimer to Ottawa.

 

Dzingle @ 50% and rights to TVR or Mckeown or Kaski for Johnson or Palat (preferred) and the rights to Cernak.

 

we could only afford one of those deals unless Nino was moved too.  These deals would have more oomph with a swapping of picks in the draft but we probably won’t have that option.

Unless I am misunderstanding when these proposed deals are occurring, we won't have the rights to TVR to be trading.  He will be a UFA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, beboplar said:

Unless I am misunderstanding when these proposed deals are occurring, we won't have the rights to TVR to be trading.  He will be a UFA.

We have his rights to trade until the day of UFA.  Philly traded a 1st for the rights of 2 soon to be UFAs 10 years ago, I think. Its like a sign and trade type thing.

Edited by gocanes0506

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, gocanes0506 said:

We have his rights to trade until the day of UFA.  Philly traded a 1st for the rights of 2 soon to be UFAs 10 years ago, I think. Its like a sign and trade type thing.

 

You can stay in house; we traded for the rights to pending UFA Scott Darling. :shock:  [that emoji refers to the outcome not the move at the time, which almost everyone thought was a good one]

 

Having said that, I'd be surprised if the right to negotiate early with TVR was of much value.  An acquiring team would have to want him enough to make him an offer good enough for him to give forego free agency.  He doesn't seem like that kind of an asset to me, but I guess you never know.

Edited by LakeLivin

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...

×
×
  • Create New...