HFBoards

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

Evaluating the Stu MacGregor Draft Era.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-13-2012, 06:20 PM
  #1
PaperDesigner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 838
vCash: 500
Evaluating the Stu MacGregor Draft Era.

I thought it might be fun to pioneer a new method of evaluating the draft based less on player quality, and more on whether the player can simply turn into something. Yes, if you're drafting first overall, you should expect to get a star, but with the vast majority of picks, ANY type of player is a win. The vast majority of second round players do not become NHL players (though they may get a cup of coffee), and it becomes even less likely from the third round on. I have a seven point scale, with some players being ranked in-between the two categories. I believe I have every single player drafted since 2008 on this list, so feel free to use my system to re-arrange the names as you see them fitting. Here are the ranking categories (please note that the gaps in the math will be covered by .5 categories):

7--NHL established: this is a pick that has already carved out a place on the NHL roster, and barring a mental or physical meltdown, can be counted on to play some kind of role on the team going forward. A fourth line forward would get this rating, but a player that bounces from the 14th forward spot or 8th defenceman and the farm would not. Likelihood of NHL role: 95%+

6--NHL probable: A player who seems to be on the path to full-time employment, and it's just a matter of time before they seize a role. Typically, a young player who split time between the AHL and NHL in various roles fits this. Likelihood of NHL role: 60%-80%

5--Positive arrows: I'm borrowing this term from Lowetide, whom I have taken much of the information and impressions I have on these prospects as well. These are prospects who, while still not near NHL employment, have been doing quite well and seem to be on track. Likelihood of NHL role: 35%-50%

4--Neutral: This is a player who is doing fine, but has yet to do anything to indicate he's going to fill a role, or that he's anything special. The junior player who showed reasonable improvement, but there are questions about when he hits pro would fit this category. Likelihood of NHL role: 20%-30%

3--Negative arrows: A player that has not quite fallen off the map, but simply is not improving as much as hoped, or completely hit a wall in pro and is struggling in his second year. Likelihood of NHL role 10%-15%

2--Unlikely: It's too early to call the player a bust, but if you think this player is going to turn out, then I have some high quality bottled air to sell you. Likelihood of NHL role: 1%-5%

1--Bust: A guy who, in terms of having an NHL career, barring a Tim Thomas-like career trajectory, is nil. Will not play a NHL game, period. Likelihood of NHL role: 0%

* = Prominent NHLer
** = Played a NHL game

So with no further ado, let's go down the list:

The Sevens:

Hall* and Nugent-Hopkins*: I'm going to do these two together, because they were both somewhat obvious, can't miss picks. Yes, there are other NHL players who, perhaps in ten years, we'll consider to be slightly better, but they did nab one of the available, obvious stars at the very top of the draft. Good work, but there's little to say.

Eberle*: In terms of bang for buck, by far the best pick of the era. Part of it is that we've had a chance to wait a few years (this was the very first pick of the Stu MacGregor era) to get a clearer picture of how things are turning out, and have had a chance to get a more complete idea of what kind of player Eberle is as opposed to some of the other picks. But brilliant, brilliant pick nonetheless.

The Six Point Five:

Paajarvi**: He is the only player in this category, and for good reason--no other player in the Oilers system is quite in Paajarvi's position. He struggled, but after a reasonably successful NHL debut, it's easy to see it as a one-off, especially after a fairly successful run on the farm. I think the Oilers should have let him play one more year in the SEL or AHL before bringing him into the league largely because I don't know if he's ever had a chance to dominate a professional league. He will be an NHL player, and I'm not as willing as others to write off the possibility of him ever being a first line winger, but I think it's an open question as to how good a player, exactly, he's going to be.

The Sixes (NHL probable):

Hartikainen**: Two straight years of good performance in the AHL, has had some success in the NHL, and has some size, some scoring, some physicality. I think he's a third line player and no more, but I also think that he's going to start the season with the team. Will be a useful bottom six player in a year or two.

Lander**: Probably had the most screwed up, least sensical development path of any player on the Oilers not named Omark. I see a player who is going to be a Marty Reasoner type, though it may be another couple of seasons before he has full time employment on this team. He will be able to check at the NHL level, it's just a matter of whether he'll be able to score enough to be on the third line, rather than the fourth.

The Five Point Fives:

Bunz: I think he's done all he can do to establish himself as an intriguing, quality prospect at the junior level, and given that drafting goalies is, by far, the least predictable position to draft, one wonders if Bunz is one of those players that emerges from the later rounds to become a star. He needs to post a strong pro season first, but he's ahead of where you would hope he could have been. Probably should have been on the WJC squad.

Klefbom: If I was going on verbal alone, Klefbom would probably be ranked in the same category as Paajarvi. The scouting report sounds wonderful--big, mobile, some offensive tools, good defensive ability. The only problem is that he hasn't played much, and for a player with supposedly some offensive ability, two points is minute in a lot of leagues. The big question mark is around his ice time; he simply wasn't playing very many minutes on a very good SEL team. With several players ahead of him on the depth chart leaving, he is due for a lot more minutes, and if he's ever going to show up offensively, it's now. Still, with a strong showing in the WJC against his peers, and that he's counted on at all in a pro roster is a good sign.

Rieder: Probably the player who has improved his stock the most in one calender year. Incredible increase in production, and perhaps most impressively, a MVP calibre run in the post-season at nearly a two points per game level of production. This is probably the player that has the biggest gap between Oilers fan awareness and promise as a prospect.

The Fives (Positive Arrows):

Roy: He's had a series of good seasons, and has made the transition to pro well. The question is whether he can make the same step to the AHL and the NHL, but hey, at least so far, so good. It will be interesting to see the race between him and Bunz--it looks a lot like the one between Deslauriers and Dubnyk.

Pitlick: A player that I think some people have been unduly high on, largely because I don't think he has more than third line upside--his offensive totals have never been stunning. What I do think, though, is that he might be a player, who like Lander, is going to force his way onto the bottom of the roster. A good run towards the end of his AHL season, I think, solidified him as a guy that I think will get an organizational push to get onto the end of the roster. May arrive sooner than we think.

Marincin: He needs to progress physically this off-season, but I think he has top pairing upside. But he really, really needs to have a strong first pro season. Much like the Roy-Bunz race, I think he's an intriguing comparison/contrast between another gigantic slovakian drafted a year later in Gernat.

Musil: I think he's tracking to be a guy who quietly slips onto the bottom of your roster, and works his way up from a depth defender to being your number four player. A guy who can play as many even strength minutes as you want, PK a bit, and be the defensive conscience.

Simpson: Had a good season the college. Just needs to show another improvement.

Gernat: Probably the most intriguing prospect drafted last year. Might be a high-octane, top four defender, much like Marincin, but the scouts seem to see Gernat as more the riverboat gambler, and Marincin as the safer player.

The Four Point Fives:

Davidson: I nearly put him as a five, but he's an older prospect, so I dinged him a little. He's another player that really needs to have a successful rookie pro season to establish himself as more than just another junior star who couldn't make the leap to a high-end pro player. Still, he's done all he could since being drafted. Due to his story, one has to think that if he makes it, it takes him a little longer.

Bigos: A player we're not going to know a whole lot about until he tries his hand at pro. But given he's shown some ability, nastiness, and is gigantic, I imagine he'll get a contract when he finishes school. A guy who just screams stay at home 5 or 6 D-man, assuming he's good enough. Nothing wrong with that. Seems to be doing fairly well.

Hamilton: I just think that he's a player that will find a way to carve out a niche as a third line winger. He needs to find a top six role next year, because he did not get nearly enough minutes last year. Despite tracking worse than Pitlick, I'd bet on Hamilton first. I just can't justify more than slight optimism based on his first pro year. I just think that he's the type of player that would take a year or two to figure things out, and need a bit more time to fully understand how to succeed at the NHL level. But the size, defensive willingness, a touch of offense... he simply sounds like a Pisani-type.

Blaine: I know they gave up on him, but I think it was too soon--they likely only did so due to their closeness to the 50 contract limit. He's had a good junior career. I think he's a player to watch out of curiousity to see if he can make it as a pro.

Touhimaa: I know nothing about him, except that, looking up his stats on the web, he seems to be doing okay, unlike the other difficult-to-pronounce goaltender drafted last year. May be years and years before we know anything concrete.


The Fours (Neutral):

Cornet**: He had a good pro season, but I don't know if there's a player who hasn't moved towards bust territory that I believe in less. It seems a lot of what happened in the AHL had to do with shooting percentage. I just don't see him improving enough to be a second line scorer, or making it as a grinder. There are other guys who I think are better qualified for that role. This may be a player, like one other that we look back on and say "he got a couple games in the NHL? Seriously?"

Jones: He's actually done quite well, but I think the Oilers decided against signing, and considering his profile, skilled midget, I doubt he ever had any chance with this organization. But I don't know how much more could be expected of him than him already scoring at a point per game rate in college only two years out from his draft. Will likely be signed by a NHL organization in need of scoring depth when he's done college.

The Three Point Five:

Pelss: I'm sorry, I know he got a contract, but I just don't see what he does well enough that he'll force his way onto an NHL roster. Maybe as a Liam Reddox type? But, and it feels strange to say this, I don't know if he has Liam Reddox's scoring touch. I think he's done enough to hold onto his status as a legitimate prospect, but I simply don't see him tracking like a surprise pick would have to, in my mind.

The Threes (Negative Arrows):

Rajala: He is a skilled forward that has consistently put up similar NHL equivalencies that are well below range of an NHL skill line. Seems like a fine second line AHL forward in the making. NHL player? No.

Perhonen: I know as little about him as I do about Touhimaa, except unlike Touhimaa, his stats are awful, despite being drafted three round earlier. Is only this high because I think there are only so many judgments you can make about goaltenders the first year after their draft.

The Two (Unlikely):

Ewanyk: A player drafted, despite completely inadequate offense, for his defensive acumen. And then he lost most of his first post-draft season to injury. If he's very lucky, he's Chris Vande Velde, and even Chris Vande Velde doesn't want to be Chris Vande Velde. Would need a strong pro season to even get on the radar. Just too early to label a bust.

The One Point Five:

Abney: Abney is a bust, plain and simple, except... Edmonton is the type of organization that might force this player to have a career. While the league seems to be eradicating the player role, if Abney can catch on with the AHL team, the management could go through another "we need more toughness, because it's clearly not our inadequate roster that is causing our losing" phase, and have him play an actual NHL game. Or dozens. It's unlikely, and there's nothing about this player that says he should ever play in the NHL, but if there was an organization dumb enough to play a hockey player as bad as Abney on their squad, it's the Oilers. Which is why Abney gets a category I frankly thought I wouldn't need until I saw his name.

The Ones (Busts):

Johan Motin**: Possesses the dubious distinction of being, likely, the worst player on this list to have played an NHL game. When you lose your spot on the AHL roster of the team affiliated with the Edmonton Oilers, you probably aren't very good. This man will end his playing career with exactly one NHL game.

Bendfield: Just no.

Hesketh: I don't know if I've ever heard of a player who seemed to be getting progressively worse every year after getting drafted. Is fascinating in how badly he's crashed and burned since his draft.

Martindale: May be the only controversial player on this list--I am sure some people believe he still has a chance. Personally, I think any player who goes from being a high-end OHL scorer to doing NOTHING in the ECHL has dug himself a hole so big that a nuclear powered mole couldn't get himself out. I doubt he's even got a solid AHL career ahead of him.

Czerwonka: I think he had the misfortune of simply not having anything that ever made him stand out, and playing the only position of organizational depth (wing).

So, the final count is:

7s: 3
6.5s: 1
6s: 2
5.5s: 3
5s: 6
4.5s: 5
4s: 2
3.5s: 1
3s: 2
2s: 1
1.5s: 1
1s: 5

Thoughts? Your rankings?

EDIT: I had Bigos on the list I made on paper, but I forgot to write him up. I actually had counted him in the total you see at the end. But yeah, he's not a bad prospect. Wouldn't be the first guy I'd bet on, but certainly not the last either.

EDIT 2: Here's a post on what is a fair over/under for evaluating drafts. I think it's too early to say Stu has succeeded, but it does seem like early returns are good.

-------

So if you want to judge Stu as average, here is your standard:

I looked through the draft years from 2000-2005. Why those years? Because there have been 690 jobs in the NHL since the Columbus/Minnesota expansion, and about thirty picks per round since then, which makes the likelihood somewhat equal to today. Using approximately 150 NHL games as the dividing line between a successful and failing pick (sometimes I let a player who hit 145 on as a success), though I dropped it to 100 for goalies. Remember, I am interested in players that fill SOME role, not how good they are.

The success rate in the first round was 126/180 picks, second round was 61/205, third round was 36/194, fourth round was 26/203, fifth round was 24/208, sixth round was 21/184 and seventh round was 20/197.

Basically, there are four tiers: 1st round, 2nd round, 3rd round, and the fourth through seventh rounds are so similiar, that I think you can check them as a whole.

Basically, par for the first round is two out of three picks, par for second being three out of ten, Third round one out of five, and fourth through seventh are, approximately, one out of nine.

Let's just take the first overall picks, since the 10th overall selection, the 22nd, and 19th represent a good distribution of non-top picks, and it's probably fair not to credit picking the consensus best young player as part of their resume. And remember, THIS IS JUST AGAINST THE STANDARD OF HAVING PLAYED 150 NHL GAMES. Marc Pouliot is a succesful pick by this standard. having two players out of three that are regular members in prominent roles would be considerably above par.

The 2 in 3 first rounders:

Paajarvi
Eberle
Klefbom

Personal Evaluation: Eberle sets an excellent foundation for this list. I think if Paajarvi goes on to have a career as even a third line regular (and I think he's a bit better than that), this group will have covered the bet even if Klefbom never plays a single NHL game. Smaller sample size, but I think two of these players are NHL players right now (give Paajarvi a better linemate than Belanger!). That's already above par.

The 3 in 10 second rounders:

Lander
Pitlick
Marincin
Hamilton
Musil

Personal Evaluation: A really good looking group, with all five of these players looking like decent prospects. Impact players? No, but considering that your odds of getting a player are essentially only thirty percent, this looks like a group that will produce ahead of the odds. If one of these players ends up being a regular on the roster, and another plays at least enough of a role to put in a few seasons in a depth role, this will be a very successful group of picks. Myself? I would say that three of these players will hit 150 games, and two of them will be regulars. My picks would be Lander and Marincin as regulars, and Pitlick to play a bit role.

The 1 in 5 third rounders:

Perhonen
Ewanyk
Martindale
Hesketh
Abney

Personal Evaluation: Awful. Oddly, this exercise has made me feel much, much better about the Oliers drafting (and I already thought it was generally an area of strength), but this team drafts really, really badly in the third round. This is really the last tier where there's any real differentiation with later rounds in terms of likelihood of a pick turning out, so perhaps part of it is that there have only been so many picks, but considering that they are way ahead of the game elsewhere, this list is a bit jarring when you put them together. Perhonen had an awful year, Ewanyk barely played, Martindale bombed in the ECHL (!!), Hesketh is long since a bust, and Abney is probably a worse hockey player than MacIntyre. The only chance of this group covering the bet is if Perhonen takes one of those crazy goalie development bounces, or Ewanyk squeezes his way onto the team as a fourth line centre, or Martindale has a religious conversion, but I wouldn't bet on any of those. By far the weakest part of their drafting.

The 1 in 9 rounds fourth through seventh rounders:

Cornet
Hartikainen
Bendfield
Roy
Rajala
Bigos
Jones
Pelss
Czerwonka
Davidson
Bunz
Blaine
Touhimaa
Gernat
Rieder
Simpson

Personal Evaluation: Hartikainen. Roy. Bigos. Davidson. Bunz. Gernat. Rieder. Simpson. I bet you some of these will have a career. You know how many will have to turn into something (remember, not much!) to cover the bet? Two. Hartikainen seems like he's already most of the way there, and I would be shocked if neither of Gernat or Rieder, considering their incredible years, made it. There are some really interesting names on there, and a few others that could still surprise.


Last edited by PaperDesigner: 06-13-2012 at 09:46 PM.
PaperDesigner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 06:25 PM
  #2
Jimmi McJenkins
Sometimes Miracles
 
Jimmi McJenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 41,362
vCash: 500
Thoughts? It's a little early.

Jimmi McJenkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 06:26 PM
  #3
YoungGuns
The Taylor Hall Show
 
YoungGuns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton,Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,880
vCash: 50
too long bro .. you need to space it out more

YoungGuns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 06:27 PM
  #4
YoungGuns
The Taylor Hall Show
 
YoungGuns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton,Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,880
vCash: 50
and most of the players drafted under him still need time but so far it looks like he has made some great picks

YoungGuns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 06:32 PM
  #5
YoungGuns
The Taylor Hall Show
 
YoungGuns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton,Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,880
vCash: 50
lol now that I read it .... I strongly disagree with your assessment of Martindale , I feel he has a career ahead of him and yes in the nhl

YoungGuns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 06:32 PM
  #6
40oz
..........
 
40oz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,681
vCash: 500
One thing I feel is noteworthy, is that Touhimaa, Jones, and Bendfield were all drafted as overage players.

Not that I think drafting overagers is a bad thing, especially since when you hit the 7th round you're bound to find some obvious flaws with a player.

40oz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 06:38 PM
  #7
lakai17
Registered User
 
lakai17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,904
vCash: 50
Martindale isn't a bust yet, let him develop like he is, am I sold on him today? not at all because he is young and developing still, what one calls a project.

lakai17 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 06:51 PM
  #8
dem
Registered User
 
dem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,105
vCash: 500
Stu gets way too much credit around here for what he's done.

He's only been average so far.

One of these second and third rounders needs to turn out.

dem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 07:03 PM
  #9
Eskimo44
Registered User
 
Eskimo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,077
vCash: 500
Way too early to tell.


Last edited by Eskimo44: 06-13-2012 at 07:12 PM.
Eskimo44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 07:12 PM
  #10
Eskimo44
Registered User
 
Eskimo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,077
vCash: 500
Kellen Jones didn't have to sign as he's still in college. If he had signed he would no longer be eligible to play college. Look at Bigos for an example of how this works. The Oilers still retain his rights.

Another thing about the Jones selection, is that it really was a 2 for 1. They couldn't draft both with one pick so they just took one but there is little question that they were drafted as a package and if the Oilers sign Kellen, Connor will be inked too. In fact Connor seems to be the slightly better player based off reports and boxcars.

Eskimo44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 07:14 PM
  #11
McDoused
Registered User
 
McDoused's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Katy <3
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,550
vCash: 500
I always like to point out that the Stanley cup winnIng Los Angeles Kings drafted Hickey and Teubert early and both have been disappointing to say the least. Drafting is only one cog in the machine of success. Let's not be too hard on our scouting.

McDoused is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 07:22 PM
  #12
MisterD
Registered User
 
MisterD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Saskazoo
Posts: 8,478
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DousedInOil View Post
I always like to point out that the Stanley cup winnIng Los Angeles Kings drafted Hickey and Teubert early and both have been disappointing to say the least. Drafting is only one cog in the machine of success. Let's not be too hard on our scouting.
It's a pretty critical cog. Especially when we don't have a good record of UFA signings, we need to draft and develop our own talent.

MisterD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 07:34 PM
  #13
Jimmi McJenkins
Sometimes Miracles
 
Jimmi McJenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 41,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dem View Post
Stu gets way too much credit around here for what he's done.

He's only been average so far.

One of these second and third rounders needs to turn out.
Probably, but you know, it's been like 2 years.

Jimmi McJenkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 07:37 PM
  #14
PaperDesigner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dem View Post
Stu gets way too much credit around here for what he's done.

He's only been average so far.

One of these second and third rounders needs to turn out.
See, this is where I have difficulty trying to evaluate Stu against other teams. What exactly is average? You may think he's been average, but do you have a concrete evaluation of what NHL average is?

PaperDesigner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 08:18 PM
  #15
jebs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dem View Post
Stu gets way too much credit around here for what he's done.

He's only been average so far.

One of these second and third rounders needs to turn out.
Agree 100%.

In all honestly, they picked Eberle cause of Lorne way more so that cause of Stu... So IMO his results haven't been anything special.

We got some prospects with high potential, but until they hit the NHL, we have no idea what they will become.

I see MPS as a bad pick too.

jebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 08:27 PM
  #16
PaperDesigner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jebs View Post
Agree 100%.

In all honestly, they picked Eberle cause of Lorne way more so that cause of Stu... So IMO his results haven't been anything special.

We got some prospects with high potential, but until they hit the NHL, we have no idea what they will become.

I see MPS as a bad pick too.
So after a successful rookie season, a good pro season prior, a season where he failed to score at the NHL but had slight improvements in his underlying stats, and did fine in the AHL, you want to call Paajarvi a bad pick? Try going through tenth overall picks--it's not an illustrious history. The best player of note recently was Dvorak. Furthermore, judging any one player on one bad season is always, always a bad idea.

And this is about the staff that has been in place recently, which is marked by the Stu MacGregor promotion. I am not interested in trying to pin specific picks on specific scouts, but simply, to evaluate how things are going recently using a good marker of the current era of Oilers drafting.

PaperDesigner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 08:36 PM
  #17
ManByng
It's Me OilTastic
 
ManByng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: St. Albert, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,535
vCash: 500
am i wrong, or did you miss d-man Kyle Bigos, who seems to have gotten back on the Oilers' radar lately. and Alex Plante is missing too.

ManByng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 08:47 PM
  #18
jebs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperDesigner View Post
So after a successful rookie season, a good pro season prior, a season where he failed to score at the NHL but had slight improvements in his underlying stats, and did fine in the AHL, you want to call Paajarvi a bad pick? Try going through tenth overall picks--it's not an illustrious history. The best player of note recently was Dvorak. Furthermore, judging any one player on one bad season is always, always a bad idea.

And this is about the staff that has been in place recently, which is marked by the Stu MacGregor promotion. I am not interested in trying to pin specific picks on specific scouts, but simply, to evaluate how things are going recently using a good marker of the current era of Oilers drafting.
Its not about MP's stats, its about how he plays the game. Hes not going to be a great player on small ice, it just doesnt suit his skillset.

Why would I compare him to past #10 picks? Each draft is different. You compare the guy to the other guys picked around him... and i like the guys we didnt pick better.

Paajarvi cant score, how do you expect him to be a first line winger? Many of his goals in his 1st NHL season were tap ins (thanks Omark) or just fluke.

jebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 08:54 PM
  #19
Moonlapse Vertigo
Katz n' MacT BFFs
 
Moonlapse Vertigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,071
vCash: 500
MacGregor get more credit than he deserves. Lets wait until the Oilers are drafting somewhere between 10 and 15 in the first round before we make an evaluation.

Of course... if he selects anybody but Yakupov with the number one selection then we can give him a firm "F."

Moonlapse Vertigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 09:01 PM
  #20
Groucho
Tier 1 Fan
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Displaced
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,620
vCash: 500
Paajarvi can score goals.
He has a beastly one timer and a very good wrist shot.
I am willing to bet his bad start this season had a lot to do with being saddled to Belanger, who was an offensive black hole, and the coach ruining his confidence.
He was really thriving under Nelson. He scored some clutch goals in the AHL playoffs and was also one of the better playmakers for OKC in the last few months.

Groucho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 09:01 PM
  #21
McDNicks17
Moderator
McDavid Cometh
 
McDNicks17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,632
vCash: 1115
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManByng View Post
am i wrong, or did you miss d-man Kyle Bigos, who seems to have gotten back on the Oilers' radar lately. and Alex Plante is missing too.
They were drafted before Stu took over as Head Scout.

McDNicks17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 09:05 PM
  #22
Moonlapse Vertigo
Katz n' MacT BFFs
 
Moonlapse Vertigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,071
vCash: 500
Paajarvi had a decent amount of points in the Calder Cup playoffs but he only had 2 goals in the playoffs and 9 in 48 games during his AHL stint (regular season and playoffs).

He still can't score.

Moonlapse Vertigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 09:09 PM
  #23
jebs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
Paajarvi can score goals.
He has a beastly one timer and a very good wrist shot.
I am willing to bet his bad start this season had a lot to do with being saddled to Belanger, who was an offensive black hole, and the coach ruining his confidence.
He was really thriving under Nelson. He scored some clutch goals in the AHL playoffs and was also one of the better playmakers for OKC in the last few months.
No surprises there. Guy is great lots of time and space, which he wont get in the NHL.

I dont think power is the main issue with his shot.. I think its lack of accuracy.

jebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 09:26 PM
  #24
McDeepika
Registered User
 
McDeepika's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,123
vCash: 500
The next 2 years will be very telling. We have had a ton of extra picks in the 2nd/3rd rounds the last couple of drafts.

We need at least a couple of them to work out.

McDeepika is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 09:37 PM
  #25
PaperDesigner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 838
vCash: 500
So if you want to judge Stu as average, here is your standard:

I looked through the draft years from 2000-2005. Why those years? Because there have been 690 jobs in the NHL since the Columbus/Minnesota expansion, and about thirty picks per round since then, which makes the likelihood somewhat equal to today. Using approximately 150 NHL games as the dividing line between a successful and failing pick (sometimes I let a player who hit 145 on as a success), though I dropped it to 100 for goalies. Remember, I am interested in players that fill SOME role, not how good they are.

The success rate in the first round was 126/180 picks, second round was 61/205, third round was 36/194, fourth round was 26/203, fifth round was 24/208, sixth round was 21/184 and seventh round was 20/197.

Basically, there are four tiers: 1st round, 2nd round, 3rd round, and the fourth through seventh rounds are so similiar, that I think you can check them as a whole.

Basically, par for the first round is two out of three picks, par for second being three out of ten, Third round one out of five, and fourth through seventh are, approximately, one out of nine.

Let's just take the first overall picks, since the 10th overall selection, the 22nd, and 19th represent a good distribution of non-top picks, and it's probably fair not to credit picking the consensus best young player as part of their resume. And remember, THIS IS JUST AGAINST THE STANDARD OF HAVING PLAYED 150 NHL GAMES. Marc Pouliot is a succesful pick by this standard. having two players out of three that are regular members in prominent roles would be considerably above par.

The 2 in 3 first rounders:

Paajarvi
Eberle
Klefbom

Personal Evaluation: Eberle sets an excellent foundation for this list. I think if Paajarvi goes on to have a career as even a third line regular (and I think he's a bit better than that), this group will have covered the bet even if Klefbom never plays a single NHL game. Smaller sample size, but I think two of these players are NHL players right now (give Paajarvi a better linemate than Belanger!). That's already above par.

The 3 in 10 second rounders:

Lander
Pitlick
Marincin
Hamilton
Musil

Personal Evaluation: A really good looking group, with all five of these players looking like decent prospects. Impact players? No, but considering that your odds of getting a player are essentially only thirty percent, this looks like a group that will produce ahead of the odds. If one of these players ends up being a regular on the roster, and another plays at least enough of a role to put in a few seasons in a depth role, this will be a very successful group of picks. Myself? I would say that three of these players will hit 150 games, and two of them will be regulars. My picks would be Lander and Marincin as regulars, and Pitlick to play a bit role.

The 1 in 5 third rounders:

Perhonen
Ewanyk
Martindale
Hesketh
Abney

Personal Evaluation: Awful. Oddly, this exercise has made me feel much, much better about the Oliers drafting (and I already thought it was generally an area of strength), but this team drafts really, really badly in the third round. This is really the last tier where there's any real differentiation with later rounds in terms of likelihood of a pick turning out, so perhaps part of it is that there have only been so many picks, but considering that they are way ahead of the game elsewhere, this list is a bit jarring when you put them together. Perhonen had an awful year, Ewanyk barely played, Martindale bombed in the ECHL (!!), Hesketh is long since a bust, and Abney is probably a worse hockey player than MacIntyre. The only chance of this group covering the bet is if Perhonen takes one of those crazy goalie development bounces, or Ewanyk squeezes his way onto the team as a fourth line centre, or Martindale has a religious conversion, but I wouldn't bet on any of those. By far the weakest part of their drafting.

The 1 in 9 rounds fourth through seventh rounders:

Cornet
Hartikainen
Bendfield
Roy
Rajala
Bigos
Jones
Pelss
Czerwonka
Davidson
Bunz
Blaine
Touhimaa
Gernat
Rieder
Simpson

Personal Evaluation: Hartikainen. Roy. Bigos. Davidson. Bunz. Gernat. Rieder. Simpson. I bet you some of these will have a career. You know how many will have to turn into something (remember, not much!) to cover the bet? Two. Hartikainen seems like he's already most of the way there, and I would be shocked if neither of Gernat or Rieder, considering their incredible years, made it. There are some really interesting names on there, and a few others that could still surprise.

PaperDesigner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 12:11 AM.

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.