2021 NHL Entry Draft

[R3aL]

4 minutes ago, stawns said:

I would probably take Clarke or Eklund at #1, tbh

I haven't been agreeing with you a lot in this thread so lets celebrate! I agree with this haha.

 

Clarke would be my top choice in this draft for D.

 

And I like what I see / hear about Eklund for forwards. He looks very exciting. I don't think Eklund makes it out of the top 5. 

[Marv-the-wet-bandit]

37 minutes ago, hammertime said:

Meh whoever we draft I trust JB will get his guy. At the time I wanted Newhook but I'm happy JB stuck to his guns and got Pod. He probably never out scores Newhook but Pod is a guy who has the bigger heart and probably puts home the game 7 winner. 

Prior to the draft I also really wanted Newhook, I’m really happy we have Pod but I don’t think you can go wrong with either guy

[86Viking]

25 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

 

 

But he's also a literal giant among boys.  Remember Chychrun?  Myers? 

 

 

Chychrun lit it up this year with 18g and 23a. He was also only a -6, compared to our Hughes and his 3g 38a and -24.

[Junkyard Dog]

31 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Dont get me wrong about Powers.  He has all the tools.

 

Big, decent skater, decent shot seems intelligent.

 

But he's also a literal giant among boys.  Remember Chychrun?  Myers? 

 

He's soft as hell and still gets beat too frequently from skilled players.

 

For that size and potential he should be lights out but isn't

 

I mean attractive and all but I'd rather have Brandt myself

Chychrun is the Yotes #1 Dman and had a pretty great breakout year. He’s surpassed OEL. He was 2nd in points for them only 2 points behind Kessel for team lead. Lead the Yotes in ice time. 2nd in goals for the Yotes and he was on pace for over 25 goals.  Lead all NHL defenseman in goals and was tied for 10th with our own Quinn Hughes for points among all defenseman.   
 

He brings a lot more than just offensive play too. He just turned 23 in March.
 

If Power’s game matures properly like Chychrun’s did he will probably end up better than Chychrun. IMO Chychrun is almost pretty much at a Chabot level with the year he had. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Junkyard Dog

[HighOnHockey]

39 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Dont get me wrong about Powers.  He has all the tools.

 

Big, decent skater, decent shot seems intelligent.

 

But he's also a literal giant among boys.  Remember Chychrun?  Myers? 

 

He's soft as hell and still gets beat too frequently from skilled players.

 

For that size and potential he should be lights out but isn't

 

I mean attractive and all but I'd rather have Brandt myself

Yeah it's a similar situation to Byfield last year. Raymond, Stuetzle, Drysdale, were clearly far superior talents, but size goes a long way in the NHL. Here it's Clarke and Eklund who are clearly superior talents, and arguably a few others as well, but scouts are gonna lean towards that giant defenseman.

 

I remember thinking about this more seriously last year. I liked Raymond over Byfield, but I was trying to put myself in the shoes of an NHL head scout, going to my GM and going "look, Raymond has franchise-altering skill, hockey sense, work ethic, two-way acumen, but he's 5'10, 165 lbs. He's going to have to be a lean 180-185 to reach his full potential in the NHL. He's a good three years away from making any kind of impact in the NHL, and there's no guarantee he's able to handle the physical rigors of the NHL with his playing style. Byfield will never be as talented as Raymond, but he's 6'5, already 215 - he's already physically strong enough to compete in the NHL and could develop into a franchise center."

 

And I realized I just don't know how I would be able to justify Raymond over Byfield. It's easy for us as fans to say we'd take the more exciting player in Clarke or Eklund, Raymond or Stuetzle, but for real-world scouts, when your job and reputations and the franchise' success is on the line, of course you're more likely gonna lean towards the bigger, safer pick.

Edited May 27, 2021 by HighOnHockey

[hammertime]

53 minutes ago, HighOnHockey said:

This is not good logic. Why can't you trade Boeser for a top pairing RD or 200 ft 2C? I mean, it depends on what exactly is your definition and standard for those terms, but technically, there are 31 of them in the league (at least top pairing RDs). Not saying that is a good way of defining it, but my point is your terminology is unclear and that corrupts your argument. What is clear is that you have a 100% chance that you could, if you wanted, trade Boeser for a really good defenseman or a really good center, whether or not they live up to your ideal image of what you're looking for. There is a far, far lower chance of drafting that same player. Value is King. BPA over everything.

 

But even if you get an elite winger who pans out, you don't necessarily need to trade Boeser. All kinds of differently constructed teams win championships. One common trend for building dynasties is two franchise centers, like Crosby/Malkin, Sakic/Forsberg, Zetterberg/Datsyuk. But St. Louis and L.A. traded for Schenn/O'Reilly and Carter/Richards. Both of those teams' best player (arguably) was a franchise two-way defenseman. Washington's model was way out to left field compared to most recent Cup winners. Same for Anaheim, totally unique - their whole model relied on just having two of the best defensemen in the world, both who were acquired through trade or free-agency, although they also had some really good internally developed players like a young Getzlaf, Perry, Penner. And then there's Tampa, the greatest proof of "value is king" - they just drafted a bunch of incredibly good players, regardless of position; granted, the tax situation helps, but even if not for that, they could have used asset manipulation to trade some of those players for picks and prospects, as Chicago did during their dynasty. And Chicago is yet another example of a different model. The greatest counter-example of the two-franchise center model: just one do-it-all center, and then a franchise winger, a franchise defenseman, and a lot of otherreally  good players.

There are merits to both sides of the coin if you're a BPA hard liner you aren't really building your team "the right way". If you're always drafting by org need then youre gonna be leaving guys on the table who are just plain obviously better and your team will suffer for it. What's best is somewhere in the middle and making sure the guy you do draft has heart, drive, motor, character to go along with those skills. 

[J.I.A.H.N]

34 minutes ago, hammertime said:

There are merits to both sides of the coin if you're a BPA hard liner you aren't really building your team "the right way". If you're always drafting by org need then youre gonna be leaving guys on the table who are just plain obviously better and your team will suffer for it. What's best is somewhere in the middle and making sure the guy you do draft has heart, drive, motor, character to go along with those skills. 

That is probably the best description of how I feel that I have ever heard. I have never been able to put so simply! Well done, and I could not agree with you more!

[J.I.A.H.N]

38 minutes ago, hammertime said:

There are merits to both sides of the coin if you're a BPA hard liner you aren't really building your team "the right way". If you're always drafting by org need then youre gonna be leaving guys on the table who are just plain obviously better and your team will suffer for it. What's best is somewhere in the middle and making sure the guy you do draft has heart, drive, motor, character to go along with those skills. 

So solid.

 

I am just pointing out that every draft board will be different and I would love to see them all show their boards after the draft.......

 

I love this time of year...............

[Sp3nny]

1 hour ago, HighOnHockey said:

This is not good logic. Why can't you trade Boeser for a top pairing RD or 200 ft 2C? I mean, it depends on what exactly is your definition and standard for those terms, but technically, there are 31 of them in the league (at least top pairing RDs). Not saying that is a good way of defining it, but my point is your terminology is unclear and that corrupts your argument. What is clear is that you have a 100% chance that you could, if you wanted, trade Boeser for a really good defenseman or a really good center, whether or not they live up to your ideal image of what you're looking for. There is a far, far lower chance of drafting that same player. Value is King. BPA over everything.

 

But even if you get an elite winger who pans out, you don't necessarily need to trade Boeser. All kinds of differently constructed teams win championships. One common trend for building dynasties is two franchise centers, like Crosby/Malkin, Sakic/Forsberg, Zetterberg/Datsyuk. But St. Louis and L.A. traded for Schenn/O'Reilly and Carter/Richards. Both of those teams' best player (arguably) was a franchise two-way defenseman. Washington's model was way out to left field compared to most recent Cup winners. Same for Anaheim, totally unique - their whole model relied on just having two of the best defensemen in the world, both who were acquired through trade or free-agency, although they also had some really good internally developed players like a young Getzlaf, Perry, Penner. And then there's Tampa, the greatest proof of "value is king" - they just drafted a bunch of incredibly good players, regardless of position; granted, the tax situation helps, but even if not for that, they could have used asset manipulation to trade some of those players for picks and prospects, as Chicago did during their dynasty. And Chicago is yet another example of a different model. The greatest counter-example of the two-franchise center model: just one do-it-all center, and then a franchise winger, a franchise defenseman, and a lot of otherreally  good players.

I wholeheartedly agree with the BPA principle. Assets can always be used, and they can be used more readily when you have more of them. Your example of Tampa is perfect, you don't hear them complaining of having to put Point, Miller, or Stamkos on the wing for stretches because they have too many centers. And then because they constantly find value in their draft picks, as soon as they lose a player like Miller, another steps right in and looks good ie. Ross Colton, Yanni Gourde etc.

 

However, it's so easy to say "pick BPA", and it's something that actually annoys me. None of us officially know who the BPA is, nor does any GM. Sure, some will get it right when proven down the line, but saying "pick BPA" is a statement based on the present, and almost takes out the potential growth of players. Was Sam Bennett the BPA at 4th in 2014? That was almost a given opinion based on reports at the time with that draft having a basic top 4. Many thought the flames had the easy spot in that draft to select whoever was left over, and they did get the BPA at the time. But who is the BPA now? Yes, Bennett has had a good stretch in Florida to close out the year, so the story isn't closed yet, but are any of us trading Bennett for Nylander, Ehlers, Fiala, Vrana, Larkin, or Pastrnak. There are other guys that could also go into that list, as those are only a few names, and only from the 1st round. If the Flames selected Pastrnak at 4th, there would have been shock and potential outrage. Look how much was made of CBJ picking Chinakhov last year. They obviously viewed him as BPA, but that was not a popular opinion.

 

I think the statement of 'value is king' is more appropriate. This implies the idea of getting a good deal or fair value with your pick, rather than reaching. If Chinakhov was BPA for CBJ but nobody else, why didn't they trade back and get more value for 21 than just Chinakhov alone?

 

Between analysts, and even our own personal lists, very few of them are the same, so BPA is always subjective. I think ranking in tiers then helps the "value is king" narrative, as instead of being focused on a certain player, grouping them together then allows you to get "value" for your particular selection if you trade back to get the last player of a tier, just as an example. This of course still means you have to correctly identify talent and rank them appropriately.

 

This isn't directed at anyone, just a rant on something that I've thought for a while, so I thought I would open it up to discussion if anyone feels the same, or even different.

[stawns]

1 hour ago, hammertime said:

There are merits to both sides of the coin if you're a BPA hard liner you aren't really building your team "the right way". If you're always drafting by org need then youre gonna be leaving guys on the table who are just plain obviously better and your team will suffer for it. What's best is somewhere in the middle and making sure the guy you do draft has heart, drive, motor, character to go along with those skills. 

I think if you're drafting in the top half of the first round, especially top 10, need has to factor heavily into the pick.  These are players that will be in the lineup rather quickly, so you can project their impact more immediately.

[Marv-the-wet-bandit]

23 minutes ago, stawns said:

I think if you're drafting in the top half of the first round, especially top 10, need has to factor heavily into the pick.  These are players that will be in the lineup rather quickly, so you can project their impact more immediately.

OJ was taken 5th OA and didn’t get into any regular season games until the 5th year after being drafted and even then it was under half our reg season games. He was drafted based on need over BPA (assumption on my behalf, maybe Van had him as their BPA but I’d hope not as that would show a misvaluation) so it’s not safe to just assume that a top 10 player will play quickly. JV was taken on need as well where as a Quinn Hughes was clearly the BPA. Everyone would run their team differently but I’d always go BPA as worst case scenario you have trade chips to get what you need. You really can’t afford to miss on a top 10 pick so take who you think is the most sure fire player. When BPA meets need then you hit an organizational home run but I don’t think you force it

[JustABandwagoner]

3 hours ago, stawns said:

I would probably take Clarke or Eklund at #1, tbh

If u wanna go safe, Beniers #1 is a good bet. Guaranteed #2C according to scouts 

[Guest]

I have a question for everyone...  actually two questions since one was never answered before:  

 

1) Name the top three wingers in this draft please  

2) Which one of our scouts is responsible for Russian players (KHL/VHL/MHL prospects) 

[YearoftheNuck]

5 hours ago, stawns said:

I would probably take Clarke or Eklund at #1, tbh

I feel the exact same way 

[hammertime]

5 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

I have a question for everyone...  actually two questions since one was never answered before:  

 

1) Name the top three wingers in this draft please  

2) Which one of our scouts is responsible for Russian players (KHL/VHL/MHL prospects) 

A1

1 Eklund probably a winger in the NHL

2 Lysell

3 Johnson 

 

A2

Sergi Chibisov I think??

I think they also consult with Larionov still.

[HighOnHockey]

8 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

That is probably the best description of how I feel that I have ever heard. I have never been able to put so simply! Well done, and I could not agree with you more!

 

9 hours ago, hammertime said:

There are merits to both sides of the coin if you're a BPA hard liner you aren't really building your team "the right way". If you're always drafting by org need then youre gonna be leaving guys on the table who are just plain obviously better and your team will suffer for it. What's best is somewhere in the middle and making sure the guy you do draft has heart, drive, motor, character to go along with those skills. 

Well, I'm glad I could be the common enemy you two could rally around. But I just completely disagree. I love a good compromise on many things, but not this. Gimme that hard line BPA. Draft the best players, have the most valuable assets, and you can can build your team the right way through trade and free agency. Again, look at St. Louis adding O'Reilly and Schenn through trade late in their rebuild. Tampa adding "the missing piece" Patrick Maroon, reminiscent of Detroit adding Shanahan after being a dominant regular season team for years and choking in playoffs - what Dubas hopes Nick Foligno will be for the Leafs. Pittsburgh needed wingers to play with Crosby and Malkin, and for years I was like you guys, waiting for them to draft their future star winger - at one point I thought Beau Bennett would be that guy. Ultimately, they traded for Chris Kunitz, who would be Crosby's winger for the first Cup, and later for Phil Kessel for the next two Cups.

[HighOnHockey]

9 hours ago, Sp3nny said:

I wholeheartedly agree with the BPA principle. Assets can always be used, and they can be used more readily when you have more of them. Your example of Tampa is perfect, you don't hear them complaining of having to put Point, Miller, or Stamkos on the wing for stretches because they have too many centers. And then because they constantly find value in their draft picks, as soon as they lose a player like Miller, another steps right in and looks good ie. Ross Colton, Yanni Gourde etc.

 

However, it's so easy to say "pick BPA", and it's something that actually annoys me. None of us officially know who the BPA is, nor does any GM. Sure, some will get it right when proven down the line, but saying "pick BPA" is a statement based on the present, and almost takes out the potential growth of players. Was Sam Bennett the BPA at 4th in 2014? That was almost a given opinion based on reports at the time with that draft having a basic top 4. Many thought the flames had the easy spot in that draft to select whoever was left over, and they did get the BPA at the time. But who is the BPA now? Yes, Bennett has had a good stretch in Florida to close out the year, so the story isn't closed yet, but are any of us trading Bennett for Nylander, Ehlers, Fiala, Vrana, Larkin, or Pastrnak. There are other guys that could also go into that list, as those are only a few names, and only from the 1st round. If the Flames selected Pastrnak at 4th, there would have been shock and potential outrage. Look how much was made of CBJ picking Chinakhov last year. They obviously viewed him as BPA, but that was not a popular opinion.

 

I think the statement of 'value is king' is more appropriate. This implies the idea of getting a good deal or fair value with your pick, rather than reaching. If Chinakhov was BPA for CBJ but nobody else, why didn't they trade back and get more value for 21 than just Chinakhov alone?

 

Between analysts, and even our own personal lists, very few of them are the same, so BPA is always subjective. I think ranking in tiers then helps the "value is king" narrative, as instead of being focused on a certain player, grouping them together then allows you to get "value" for your particular selection if you trade back to get the last player of a tier, just as an example. This of course still means you have to correctly identify talent and rank them appropriately.

 

This isn't directed at anyone, just a rant on something that I've thought for a while, so I thought I would open it up to discussion if anyone feels the same, or even different.

 

Ugh. I love you Sp3nny, but I hate this argument. Just because we don't know (and even NHL teams don't know) who the BPA is, does not mean there isn't a BPA. Of course teams are going to be wrong, and they are all the time. This does not make it subjective. Granted, potential is an extremely difficult concept to grasp, so I can see why so many people get this wrong. I see this all the time on HF, where there is  a player who was not the consensus pick ends up being the best/better player at a position, and one fan will be saying "these other teams made bad picks" and other people will say "yeah, sure, in retrospect, but all the rankings agreed..." and then the fan making the argument will say "well, I said that that player was the best pick at that position, I don't care what other rankings said", and often people can go back and show the proof that they knew this player was the best pick there, and knew that other teams were making a mistake. Of course "knew" is a tricky word there, because at the time the prediction was made, they couldn't have been so certain. But in retrospect, they were right and others were wrong, and perhaps in their minds they did feel completely certain.

 

There is a right and a wrong answer. Of course many other factors will come into play, such as development, injuries, players' personal lives, but some players have more potential than others. And some scouts can see this potential better than others. And I'll make the exact same point I just made again, in a different way. Fans might look at a team's draft record and think they got lucky with some of their picks. And sure, there is an element of luck, but then what's the point of spending all that money on scouting and analytics? You mention the outrage there would have been if Pastrnak was picked 4th in 2014, but it happens all the time, teams make wild reaches. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. From what I understand, Peter Forsberg was considered a deep reach at 6 overall in 1991. In one I can actually remember, Blake Wheeler at 5 was considered completely out of left field in 2004. Some scouting staff saw something that nobody else did and they were right.

 

It's getting harder and harder to ever really go off the board in the past decade or so, simply because there are so many different rankings, that some of them are going to get it right. Look at Erik Karlsson in 2008 - most rankings would have considered the Sens' pick off the board as he was generally ranked late 20s or worse, but McKeens was on the money with that one, ranking him 10th. They get a ton wrong, but they've always had my ear at least a little bit since then.

 

Anyways, I've strayed a bit from the heart of the matter. The point is, I don't expect you to agree with me here, but from the way I look at things, you've kind of made my argument for me: it is difficult enough to pick the BPA when you're just trying to pick the BPA, if you start worrying about things like organizational needs, you've got no &^@#ing chance.

 

And on your point about reaching, e.g. Chinhakov, it is fair enough, but we have no goddamn idea what teams' lists look like. NHL scouts spend a lot of time together at rinks, they talk, they go for beers after games. Obviously they're not trying to give away secrets, but things will come out. And harder to hide: they see which teams have scouts spending a lot of time watching certain teams. This is another reason you have to trust your scouts - if you send the head scout to confirm what an area scout tells you, you're tipping your hand that you're watching a certain player.

Edited May 27, 2021 by HighOnHockey

[VegasCanuck]

9 hours ago, Marv-the-wet-bandit said:

OJ was taken 5th OA and didn’t get into any regular season games until the 5th year after being drafted and even then it was under half our reg season games. He was drafted based on need over BPA (assumption on my behalf, maybe Van had him as their BPA but I’d hope not as that would show a misvaluation) so it’s not safe to just assume that a top 10 player will play quickly. JV was taken on need as well where as a Quinn Hughes was clearly the BPA. Everyone would run their team differently but I’d always go BPA as worst case scenario you have trade chips to get what you need. You really can’t afford to miss on a top 10 pick so take who you think is the most sure fire player. When BPA meets need then you hit an organizational home run but I don’t think you force it

At that point in the draft, most scouts agreed, that from 5 through to 15, it was so close, take a player who best suits your needs. Even Calgary had Tkachuk and Juolevi ranked as equal prospects. They weren't sitting hoping that we'd leave Tkachuk on the table, they would have been just as happy on draft day with Juolevi.

[Marv-the-wet-bandit]

1 minute ago, VegasCanuck said:

At that point in the draft, most scouts agreed, that from 5 through to 15, it was so close, take a player who best suits your needs. Even Calgary had Tkachuk and Juolevi ranked as equal prospects. They weren't sitting hoping that we'd leave Tkachuk on the table, they would have been just as happy on draft day with Juolevi.

Every teams draft board differs. I’d be willing to bet the heavy majority would have had MT over OJ but I’m not going to argue that we should have taken MT now. I’m just saying at the time a lot of people assumed we were going with MT as they viewed him as the best player when he was available to us. OJ seemed like the safer pick at the time, hindsight has shown that’s not the case but we shouldn’t use hindsight in these discussions, just the feelings that were had at the time. 

[Marv-the-wet-bandit]

2 hours ago, hammertime said:

A1

1 Eklund probably a winger in the NHL

2 Lysell

3 Johnson 

 

A2

Sergi Chibisov I think??

I think they also consult with Larionov still.

I agree that Eklund and Johnson probably get moved to the wing, but it’s not at all a guarantee. Beniers probably goes to the wing as well even though he’s great defensively but you don’t know until you know. They’ll be drafted and developed as C’s until they show that they aren’t up for the position, which might not happen. and Lysell over Guenther?

 

1) Guenther

2) Coronato 

3)Lysell

 

Im probably higher on Coronato then most on this draft board but I think he will surprise a lot of people on draft day

Edited May 27, 2021 by Marv-the-wet-bandit