HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

A Look Ahead: 2012 NHL Entry Draft

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-18-2011, 05:50 PM
  #26
DW
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: MN
Posts: 927
vCash: 500
Do we really think a NHL ready d-men will be available where the Wild pick? (11-16, modest guess, hoping for 20-ish-maybe wishing.) This looks like a deep draft for d-men but I have my doubts the Wild will have two more rookie d-men starting next year. I'm including Brodin but I think he'll need atleast one more year in Sweden/or the AHL. I know that reports say he could've played this season but I'm not quite drinking the kool-aid yet.

If the Wild draft top 5-6-7 maybe the get a guy ready to help, but I would think if we draft in the middle of the pack we might not see that d-men for two years minimum.

If the Wild want to fix their d, they'll have to sign or trade for a good player for next season imo.

Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic. We'll have to wait to see where the Wild finish I guess.

DW is offline  
Old
10-18-2011, 06:09 PM
  #27
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 23,903
vCash: 50
Well I said the most NHL ready defenseman. Most being the operative word. the one most likely to play in the NHL before others. Doesn't necessarily mean his draft year, though I'd be stoked if he were legitimately ready. It's easier (IMO) to develop a defenseman than it is to develop a top six forward in the NHL without AHL seasoning. Looking at our defense from the last few years can you honestly tell me it would kill us to put a very good prospect as our #6 defenseman? If he's not quite ideal, well, neither is what we have now. Plus he'll grow up in the system and have every opportunity to overstep players on his way to living up to his draft position.

rynryn is offline  
Old
10-18-2011, 06:23 PM
  #28
firstroundbust
lacks explosiveness
 
firstroundbust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Parts Unknown
Country: United States
Posts: 5,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
the draft never goes according to anyone's list.
correct sir.

I will dispute the BPA thing though- NHL teams will rank out players from 1-30, 45, 60 whatever, so there is a clear cut choice when it comes to their selection; "no switching at the draft table."

So you take the BPA, but the kicker is that who the team has at BPA and the concensus pundit pick at BPA may not jive.

firstroundbust is offline  
Old
10-18-2011, 06:26 PM
  #29
firstroundbust
lacks explosiveness
 
firstroundbust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Parts Unknown
Country: United States
Posts: 5,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
To clear the early draft speculation out of the Prospect Thread, talk about next year's draft here.



To start it off: Defense, defense, defense

Murray, Dumba, Trouba, Reilly and more!

Top 100
ISS Top 30 (October)
Button's Top 30 (October)
here is the top 30 from Future Considerations. It should be updated soon, and made available to the public.

I've seen the Top 100 for FC, but am not at liberty to reveal it.

firstroundbust is offline  
Old
10-18-2011, 06:36 PM
  #30
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,090
vCash: 500
There's only a couple guys out of most drafts that stick in the NHL their first year, and Fletcher's been pretty adamant about not rushing players. We've seen him make late offseason moves to fill spots.

I do think our preference would be for a d-man, but at the same time you can't pass on a forward who's rated significantly higher by your staff. Maybe trade down, but can't pass on him. We've assembled a nice group of forward prospects with Granlund, Coyle, Larsson, Phillips, Zucker, etc., but our D is clearly lacking behind Scandella and Brodin. We've got a 25 year old who can't crack the NHL in Prosser and a couple midgets in Spurgeon and Genoway. Tyler Cuma's intriguing, but the injury history and inconsistent play related to those injuries are definitely worrisome.

After Scandella and Brodin, we're talking about d prospects along the same lines as Colton Gillies, Cody Almond, and Casey Wellman among forward prospects.

Its still a ways to see how guys perform their draft year, so I wouldn't commit to anyone at this point.

saywut is offline  
Old
10-18-2011, 06:36 PM
  #31
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 5,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstroundbust View Post
here is the top 30 from Future Considerations. It should be updated soon, and made available to the public.

I've seen the Top 100 for FC, but am not at liberty to reveal it.
High five!

Circulartheory is offline  
Old
10-18-2011, 06:37 PM
  #32
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 5,131
vCash: 500
I think its clear the CF will draft the best player available, regardless of position. So it'll be very entertaining to see how the Wild do as a team and how these prospects develop

Circulartheory is offline  
Old
10-18-2011, 10:03 PM
  #33
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 23,903
vCash: 50
We had better get a younger/prime defenseman with top four skill this season/offseason somehow. edit: if we can't draft one, i would be all for tossing our #1 pick + to someone who has one.

rynryn is offline  
Old
10-18-2011, 10:24 PM
  #34
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstroundbust View Post
correct sir.

I will dispute the BPA thing though- NHL teams will rank out players from 1-30, 45, 60 whatever, so there is a clear cut choice when it comes to their selection; "no switching at the draft table."

So you take the BPA, but the kicker is that who the team has at BPA and the concensus pundit pick at BPA may not jive.
That's not really "BPA" though, at least not in the sense that people on these boards use it. Teams rank their draft board not solely upon some raw quality measurement, but also upon institutional need, developmental progress, league, familiarity, risk, "system," and other such things. Given two approximately equally ranked players (and let's be honest, there's usually not a huge gap between consecutive draft picks) a team will select the one who better fills an institutional need. Furthermore, draft boards aren't simply a ranking of 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. They're separated into groupings to denote where meaningful jumps occur. The fact of the matter is, a team that needs a top defenseman won't pick Murray over Yakupov, but they certainly will select him over Galchenyuk even though another team that needs forwards might have them reversed. Both teams likely have almost identical ratings for the two players, but there comes a point where a team simply has too many prospects of a certain type or position that they simply can't hope to properly develop them all.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-19-2011, 08:11 PM
  #35
firstroundbust
lacks explosiveness
 
firstroundbust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Parts Unknown
Country: United States
Posts: 5,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
That's not really "BPA" though, at least not in the sense that people on these boards use it. Teams rank their draft board not solely upon some raw quality measurement, but also upon institutional need, developmental progress, league, familiarity, risk, "system," and other such things. Given two approximately equally ranked players (and let's be honest, there's usually not a huge gap between consecutive draft picks) a team will select the one who better fills an institutional need.
Players are evaluated on a number of things, but I disagree with the position. If we are talking someone they rank in the first round, position doesn't matter. You are literally taking the best player available, and if it fills a need than that's a bonus. In 09 Minnesota took Leddy despite that the pipeline had a good amount of D in it- Leddy was their BPA, and because they had him ranked higher than their pick, they could afford to trade down and gather some assets before taking him.



Quote:
Furthermore, draft boards aren't simply a ranking of 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. They're separated into groupings to denote where meaningful jumps occur. The fact of the matter is, a team that needs a top defenseman won't pick Murray over Yakupov, but they certainly will select him over Galchenyuk even though another team that needs forwards might have them reversed. Both teams likely have almost identical ratings for the two players, but there comes a point where a team simply has too many prospects of a certain type or position that they simply can't hope to properly develop them all.
Disagree. 1st round is ranked 1-30 (and on Becoming Wild they allude to this) but afterwards I do think that players are ranked in tiers, where the decision making is a bit more interactive.
With the 1st round, you absolutely have to make it concrete in terms of order because there just can't be wiggle room, and you can't be haggling over who's better at the Draft table.

firstroundbust is offline  
Old
10-20-2011, 07:49 AM
  #36
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstroundbust View Post
Players are evaluated on a number of things, but I disagree with the position. If we are talking someone they rank in the first round, position doesn't matter. You are literally taking the best player available, and if it fills a need than that's a bonus. In 09 Minnesota took Leddy despite that the pipeline had a good amount of D in it- Leddy was their BPA, and because they had him ranked higher than their pick, they could afford to trade down and gather some assets before taking him.





Disagree. 1st round is ranked 1-30 (and on Becoming Wild they allude to this) but afterwards I do think that players are ranked in tiers, where the decision making is a bit more interactive.
With the 1st round, you absolutely have to make it concrete in terms of order because there just can't be wiggle room, and you can't be haggling over who's better at the Draft table.
I don't think I'm getting across here, as the content of your post doesn't seem to disagree with what I'm trying to say.

Draft boards are ranked 1, 2, 3, 4, but determining that ranking does not ignore institutional need. That doesn't mean that, even though there are no top tier defensemen available at a certain pick, a team that needs defense will reach for one, skipping a much higher quality forward. It simply means that if (based on some skill/risk/expectation rating) Huberdeau is rated a 9.43 and Larsson is rated a 9.44, they're effectively the same rating. Huberdeau is ranked first because his position is one of greater need, and there is a perception that top pairing talent defensemen can be found later in the draft. Now, if Larsson is rated 9.44 and Strome is rated 9.15, and your team really needs a center but doesn't greatly need a defenseman, you pick Larsson anyway because the gap is actually significant.

The important thing to note is this ranking is all done prior to the draft. This isnt' some discussion on the floor. It's simply the fact that weight is given to position of need because there is need in those positions. Want proof? In the 2011 draft, the top 9 teams each drafted a players by position of need. While some of the particular names slid around (coughSchiefeleCouturiercough) prior to the Wild's pick, each team grabbed what they were expected to grab.

RE: Tiers - Ranking prospects in tiers absolutely happens. Reference Becoming Wild for this as well "That's why you don't trade up, we got one of our two guys." You put your players into tiers to determine whether to move up or down in the draft. It's your pick and the last guy in your tier was just picked so you have five or six guys ranked approximately the same. That means you try to trade down, because the team 5 picks back probably has one guy left in that last tier, and you know you'll still get one of "your guys" 5 picks later. If there's no one in the right range looking to trade up, you just grab the guy at the top of the list. It's not any sort of moving at the draft table, it's due dilligence to be prepared for when a trade offer comes your way, or needs to be sent out.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-20-2011, 08:09 AM
  #37
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,677
vCash: 500
what baffles me is some of the top young dman in the league today weren't first round piks.

duncain keith 2nd round
kris letang 3rd
goligoski 2nd but really 3rd
edler 3rd
subban 2nd
webber 2nd

essentially if we can scout well and get a guy and develop him well we can end up with a very fine dman and not have to pick him in the 1st round.

now don't get me wrong if we can pick a guy in the first round that has some tools i'm all for that, but i think there is hope we can still end up with a good defensive core in a few years by picking well.

hell if we can ship Zids/Zanon/Brodziak any number of em and end up with a few 2nds or even a 3rd we can end up with some good defensive prospects.

so unless we are picking top 10, i think we'll have a guy who won't be ready right away. it all also depends on how the wild does this year.

forthewild is online now  
Old
10-20-2011, 08:22 AM
  #38
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 5,131
vCash: 500
I think one of the best examples of drafting and developing is Nashville, and they have drafted defenseman after defenseman because they did BPA.

Although I used to believe you should draft to fill pipeline needs but ignoring pro roster needs, I now believe you have to draft best available. So many things can happen over the course of the year or 2 and that organizational strength can easily become its weakness.

Circulartheory is offline  
Old
10-20-2011, 08:22 AM
  #39
mnwildgophers
Registered User
 
mnwildgophers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Country: United States
Posts: 4,497
vCash: 500
It's rather odd because we had no forward prospects, and now, we are lacking on the defensive side, crazy how quickly it can change. We continue to have good goalie prospects that should leave our goaltending situation very good. If we can keep grabbing guys and letting them develop for a while, we should be fine there.

I'm with most of you in that we need a defensemen, but hopefully we have a pick in the 16-20 range instead more near the #10 range. We don't have a 2nd, so I'm sure we'll try to recoup that pick some time this year (whether from Zanon, Brodz, maybe even Zid?). It's going to be tough to grab a guy who is read to play in the NHL next year in the 20ish range, it's not unheard of. Either way, we will probably take a defenseman.

mnwildgophers is offline  
Old
10-20-2011, 09:18 AM
  #40
Spawnisen
Believe.
 
Spawnisen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,005
vCash: 500
As it looks now we'll pick in the top-5 area...



Spawnisen is offline  
Old
10-20-2011, 10:05 AM
  #41
Jarick
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 25,015
vCash: 500
Every team has a list of players. No front office is going to say "well let's draft a mediocre center because we need a center even though this future NHL All Star defenseman is on the board". When you miss constantly like the Wild did for years, it's because your scouting staff and front office did a bad job evaluating talent.

Players tend to get exponentially more talented the higher up you draft. There's usually a consensus #1, and the next few are tightly grouped, then there's a group of 5-10 players, and then maybe 15-20, etc. Some scouts fall in love with certain players and push for them above their peers in that talent group. We saw that in Becoming Wild.

Jarick is offline  
Old
10-20-2011, 04:26 PM
  #42
firstroundbust
lacks explosiveness
 
firstroundbust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Parts Unknown
Country: United States
Posts: 5,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post

Draft boards are ranked 1, 2, 3, 4, but determining that ranking does not ignore institutional need. That doesn't mean that, even though there are no top tier defensemen available at a certain pick, a team that needs defense will reach for one, skipping a much higher quality forward. It simply means that if (based on some skill/risk/expectation rating) Huberdeau is rated a 9.43 and Larsson is rated a 9.44, they're effectively the same rating. Huberdeau is ranked first because his position is one of greater need, and there is a perception that top pairing talent defensemen can be found later in the draft. Now, if Larsson is rated 9.44 and Strome is rated 9.15, and your team really needs a center but doesn't greatly need a defenseman, you pick Larsson anyway because the gap is actually significant.
I don't think this is necessarily true, unless you are trying to convey some top secret info. I just can't see the need positionally over riding the proposed value, especially in the first round.

And to be honest, purely conjecture here, I don't think NHL teams look at their cupboard and go "we are lacking *enter position here*, we better draft some." Depth can be achieved any number of ways, and it also may mean dealing from a surplus positionally.

Quote:
The important thing to note is this ranking is all done prior to the draft. This isnt' some discussion on the floor. It's simply the fact that weight is given to position of need because there is need in those positions. Want proof? In the 2011 draft, the top 9 teams each drafted a players by position of need. While some of the particular names slid around (coughSchiefeleCouturiercough) prior to the Wild's pick, each team grabbed what they were expected to grab.
Might be more coinIcidence. I made reference to the concensus order by the pundits earlier, but generally (blanket statement here) there is typically rankings and draft order correlate.

Quote:
RE: Tiers - Ranking prospects in tiers absolutely happens. Reference Becoming Wild for this as well "That's why you don't trade up, we got one of our two guys." You put your players into tiers to determine whether to move up or down in the draft. It's your pick and the last guy in your tier was just picked so you have five or six guys ranked approximately the same. That means you try to trade down, because the team 5 picks back probably has one guy left in that last tier, and you know you'll still get one of "your guys" 5 picks later. If there's no one in the right range looking to trade up, you just grab the guy at the top of the list. It's not any sort of moving at the draft table, it's due dilligence to be prepared for when a trade offer comes your way, or needs to be sent out.
I agree with this, just not for the first 30-60 picks, or where the scouts perceive dropoffs in talent. It may vary from year to year, depending on the depth of the draft.

IN SUMMARIUM, I see the point you're trying to make, but I just don't believe that position holds as much significance as you do.

firstroundbust is offline  
Old
10-20-2011, 05:27 PM
  #43
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 23,903
vCash: 50
FWIW someone in the organization told me they expect Seeler to be a top four guy.
Wasn't he picked in the 5th? Going off memory here. But he probably won't be ready to roll for quite a while IMO...didn't get an ETA on him but they like him a lot.

rynryn is offline  
Old
10-20-2011, 05:30 PM
  #44
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
FWIW someone in the organization told me they expect Seeler to be a top four guy.
Wasn't he picked in the 5th? Going off memory here. But he probably won't be ready to roll for quite a while IMO...didn't get an ETA on him but they like him a lot.
He looked good in july mobile and big pkus had a shot, he is a project but i could see the potential

forthewild is online now  
Old
10-20-2011, 05:32 PM
  #45
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
FWIW someone in the organization told me they expect Seeler to be a top four guy.
Wasn't he picked in the 5th? Going off memory here. But he probably won't be ready to roll for quite a while IMO...didn't get an ETA on him but they like him a lot.
He was picked in the fifth round.

However was this the same guy who is your Granlund source?

__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.

"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
-Doug Woog
1974 1976 1979 2002 2003 2014?
GopherState is offline  
Old
10-20-2011, 05:34 PM
  #46
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 23,903
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
He was picked in the fifth round.

However was this the same guy who is your Granlund source?
same guy as the Bulmer source.

rynryn is offline  
Old
10-20-2011, 09:21 PM
  #47
Jarick
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 25,015
vCash: 500
He seems like a puck mover who can skate, but he's skinny and raw. I think he's got the upside to be a top four but he's almost a project. Good pick IMO.

Jarick is offline  
Old
10-21-2011, 10:31 AM
  #48
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,919
vCash: 500
He'll be better than Leddy.

__________________

After Meaningless Win - 3/29/12 - Game 77 | SoH-"Who knows, that could have cost us a Cup tonight." | Dooohkay
this providence is offline  
Old
10-21-2011, 10:33 AM
  #49
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Sounds like Galchenyuk's out until like March with some major knee surgery.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-21-2011, 10:34 AM
  #50
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Sounds like Galchenyuk's out until like March with some major knee surgery.
That should probably take him out of the first round entirely for certain wouldn't you say? Especially if this draft is as deep as it's thought to be.

this providence is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:17 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.