One of the most interesting prospects at the top of the draft is Dougie Hamilton. Why? He keeps impressing people. At the recent NHL combine, Hamilton placed in the top ten in 10 of the 25 tests. Hamilton's most impressive performance likely came during VO2 Max test duration, when he lasted 13 minutes to finish just behind the 14 minutes of David Musil of the Vancouver Giants (WHL) and Adam Larsson from Skelleftea of the Swedish Elite League.
Hamilton continued to do well on the bike tests during the Wingate test, finishing fourth in Mean Power Output, averaging 11.1 watts/kg generated during the gruelling 30 second bike test.
--
ISS likes him plenty, saying he's a strong defender, very mobile and explosive for his size. Good coverage and he is big and can intimidate.
- NHL Central Scouting’s Chris Edwards: "He moves the puck well and makes good outlet passes, he does make good decisions with the puck, moves it very well out of his zone. He's a big guy, he'll take the body. … He uses his size well. He can muscle people off the puck."
- Niagara IceDogs head coach Marty Williamson: "Especially at this level, you find guys that are awkward or don't have a lot of explosion. You're 6-foot-4, you don't have a lot of explosion (but) the jump off his skates is phenomenal. When he sees those opportunities to jump into the rush or lead the rush, I really believe it's untapped what he can do. He's a very special defenseman in our league. He just has to understand the details and he's going to be a very good pro . . . Dougie gets himself very prepared for hockey games. He's very diligent preparing himself. He goes about it very business-like. He's mature beyond his years.”
- More Williamson: "We thought our team was built for next year but our two young guys (Dougie Hamilton and Ryan Strome) have had phenomenal seasons. It's amazing what Dougie does for us: he quarterbacks the PP, he kills penalties and plays against top lines, his icetime is always up there."
Kirk Luedeke: Hamilton is a very good skater for a defenseman of his size, exhibiting some real jump and smooth acceleration, top speed, and excellent lateral agility and footwork. His wheels allow him to jump into the play, and he's a self-described "sneaky offensive player" who scored several of his goals by shooting down into the slot and losing his man in time to rip the puck into the back of the net. With his size and mobility, he can play a shutdown role, but he has a big point shot, so he has power play duty in the NHL as a realistic option. He's a right-shooter, so on a team with a big lefty, Hamilton could be even more valuable.
Based on his size, resume and the league he played in this season, I think Hamilton could go in the top 5.
Top five? I guess that speaks to the uncertainty of this years draft. It's entirely possible.
ReplyDeleteLanding RNH and Hamilton would be a sweet haul for sure. With so many guys thought to be in the top 8 I'm sure someone really good is going to drop a bit. If we could move up from 19 to somewhere from 8-10 I'm sure it would mean another great draft pick for the Oil.
ReplyDeleteThere's tons to like about Dougie Hamilton.
Plus MPS was ranked top 5 and dropped to 10...
ReplyDeleteI think Murphy is the most likely guy to drop. Possibly Strome or Landeskog. This kid Hamilton keeps rising though and I can't see him making it past the Devs who are desperate for just this kind of player.
ReplyDeleteUsed to tell me it was a weak draft year. I disagreed. Was called a fool. And damn me if i'm not right.
ReplyDeleteWhen you can pick a 6''5 PPG d-man at the 6th spot, it's an impressive thing.
Wasn't Hamilton also the OHL Scholastic player of the year? No dummy and great pedigree with two Olympians for parents.
ReplyDeleteIf it is believed that Larssen and Hamilton now go in the top 6 and an elite center will fall to 8, does not logic dictate (with Columbus's #8 in hand) you take a D early followed by whichever forward is left?
ReplyDeleteIf Zibanead is added to the mix does he or Couturier or Strome come into play at 8?
Hamilton will surely be picked in the top 10, probably around 5-7.
ReplyDeleteIf the Oilers trade up that high and select RNH and Hamilton instead of Larsson and Couturier or Strome, I'd certainly be disappointed.
...an elite center will fall to 8...
ReplyDeleteAssuming that whoever falls to 8 will be elite is too big of an assumption. The dropoff from 1 to 8 in talent is usually quite severe (Gregor has an article on it). I couldn't base any "logic" on that assumption.
LT wrote: If the Edmonton Oilers can figure out a way to draft a potential #1 C and a top pairing defender--say RNH and Dougie Hamilton--at the top of the draft, I think Oiler fans should consider that an outstanding development.
ReplyDeleteLT, you're too conservative!
Spoiler
ReplyDeleteIF, and I do realize it is an IF, there are 2 elite multi skilled D and 5 or 6 centers, you have a greater likelihood of getting a top D and a good C selecting D first not the other way around
Now I do not say that there are 2 top D in the top grouping, but if that is the premise, logic dictates you take the scarce asset first.
Forgot RNH ...... has best vision of last 20 years
Teams don't have to trade to get out of bad contracts, and we've seen very little action that way.
ReplyDeleteTOJ:
ReplyDeleteI don't agree. You could do it that way if you were determined to get 1F and 1D out of 2 picks in the top 8, but I'd prefer 2F's, personally, all else equal.
spOILer:
The problem there is the "usually". It's true that the dropoff from one to eight is usually severe, but we have (some) reason to believe this isn't a usual year, based on most of the scouting reports I've read anyways.
John, I got what you're saying but has there ever been a draft with 7-8 elite players? That IF is too big.
ReplyDeletespeeds: I like that article. I like that team, too. Can you call Tambellini? :-)
ReplyDeleteSpeeds
ReplyDeleteNo scouting report or list I have read has said there are 8 elite players at the top of the draft. Most have said there may be none, with a chance at 1 or 2 guys. Some have discussed a drop off after the 3rd, some after the 5th prospect. There is a lot of "very good" talent in the top 8. That might be a semantical hair but it seems to be a distinction the scouts are making too.
This draft is not different in having 8 elite prospects. It is different in having 8 very good prospects.
Keep in mind MBS has said there are only two likely first line forwards and one first paiting Dman in that eight. That is not an "Elite Eight".
ReplyDeleteBoys
ReplyDeleteDid not say there were 2 elite D. If there are, always pick scarce asset first.
Speeds ...... Playing poker do you go all in 4-5 times a night? Have to say...... If you believe in this draft class: hell yeah!!
Personally I say Foster/B Campbell as a pairing go -65 next year. But 2012/13 we will have a TON of potential
No one ever need tell you "go big or go home" Quite simply"....... huge cojones my friend
I had too much to dream last night
ReplyDeleteAgree completely that Hamilton is an extremely desirable player and could move into the top 5. Defenders with his size, skillset, and skating move up the draft list, not down.
ReplyDeleteIt's also worth noting that he was measured at 6' 6.5" at the combine so he grew a couple of inches this season.
It would be a complete coup if the Oilers could take one of RNH or Couturier as well as Hamilton.
Spoiler: Find me that last draft you could have a 100 point center with no height/skating issue and a 6''6 PPG defenseman.
ReplyDeleteIf this year's top pick are ''low odds'' than last year was utter garbage, as they have all pretty much outplayed their counterpart. (Except for pick N1).
It's a draft without a clear-cut N1. But a very deep and talented one.
FBV: I agree in the sense that this years draft has a lot of role players in it and a lot of them will get a shot in the bigs, but it does lack in 1st line, 1st tier type players.
ReplyDeletespOILer wrote:
ReplyDeleteTeams don't have to trade to get out of bad contracts, and we've seen very little action that way.
Maybe teams want to trade terrible contracts away, but there are simply no teams looking to take them on? What team interested in winning right away would want to acquire Campbell, even if they do get some picks and prospects to take him on? Budget teams can't afford him, and cap teams (and teams that have the money to handle his contract) generally aren't interested in taking on guys that cost way more than they are worth. To take them on, you need to have a bunch of money to spend, and need to not be overly concerned about maximizing your cap or budget room in at least the short term. What team is in a position to do that besides Edmonton? Maybe TOR, they make enough money that if they were offered enough prospects, they could always bury him in the minors in a couple seasons once they need the cap room to compete
spOiler:
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying there are any elite players in this draft, I'm only saying that the dropoff from 1-8 is not as severe as most seasons, so there is some reason not to read too much into the fact that there is generally a big drop from 1-6 (or 8).
RE: Hamilton, he's a prospect I really like, from what I've read.
ReplyDeleteGreat +/-, excellent size, very good offensive numbers for a draft eligible player, bright guy. I'd have a real tough time deciding between Hamilton and Murphy - Hamilton seems like a safer bet but WOW does Murphy seem like a nice prospect to have as well.
Danger: Numbers suggest the exact opposite.
ReplyDeleteA draft with a lot of ''role players'' is a bad one with few scoring. 2007 draft.
If you look at historically strong draft years, it's because you could snatch players with scoring deep in the draft (1983, 2003 etc). It's the same this year. It's an exceptional year for gifted scorers.
I mean look at last year, Niederreiter potted 60 points and was N5. Now there's two of his 17 years old teammates who outscored him available in the 10-20 range.
It's going to be a great draft.
On an unrelated topic,
ReplyDeleteWith the NYR almost certain to buy out Drury and the Oilers almost certain to buy out Souray, does anyone else see a potential match for a waiver trade a la Vandermeer for POS last year? Rangers were interested in Souray at some point last year and even if the Rangers chose to buy out Souray, his buyout cap hit (according to capgeek) would be slightly less than Drury's thus freeing a little more money to chase Richards. The Oil would fill a large leadership void and add a player who, at the very least, can help win FO's and kill some penalties and provide some leadership. If his offense ever came back, that would be a huge bonus. However, he could be a valuable mentor in the way Oates was to Stoll and Horc.
Just a thought.
Maximus:
ReplyDeleteThe problem is Drury has a NMC, and not much of an incentive to waive it to go to EDM.
He's due to make 5 mil next season, so if NYR buys him out he'll get 3.33 via buyout, spread over 2 seasons.
So, to break even financially, he'd only need to sign a 1 year 1.67 mil contract, plus he's a UFA so he can probably find what he would consider a better situation than EDM.
"The dropoff from 1-8 is not as severe as most seasons".
ReplyDeleteConversely, the dropoff from RNH to Strome/Couturier isn't as severe.
Which is why the defender needs to be taken first.
true, but if we convince NYR to waive him, we pick him up at 1/2 price on recall, NYR suffers their cap hit in only one year for about the same amount and his NMC doesn't come into play... and we have a mentor for our young centers and someone to spell off Horcoff on the hard matchups and important faceoffs.
ReplyDeleteRick:
ReplyDeleteOne might also argue the dropoff from Larsson to Hamilton or Murphy isn't that severe either, assuming you're intent on picking a F and a D if you were picking twice in the top 8.
Tim:
ReplyDeleteDrury would have to agree to be waived, that is covered by the NMC.
Speeds
ReplyDeleteThink the argument is fall off from Hamilton to Murphy-- lack of ability to defend or Siemens lack of offense is greater than drop off from RNH to Couturier or Strome
Speeds,
ReplyDeleteI didn't know that. I thought the player had no control about being waivedm that it was solely the club perogative. I will have to look that up.
If I am wrong, thank you for the lesson.
Speeds,
ReplyDeleteI stand corrected. according to the fine info re Wiavers 101
http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2009/11/26/1174855/waivers-101-a-guide-to-the-nhl
recall waivers (which I was referring to) do not apply in the off season. Waivers are reset at the end of a team's season and they are deemed to have been readded to the team's roster 12 days prior to the start of the new season. Thus, the waiver process is not applicable betwen these dates and is not a usable strategy for what I am contemplating. It's buyout or nothing for the NYR, it seems...
FPB said...
ReplyDeleteIt's going to be a great draft.
I'm not disputing this. It's rare to have this many very good players.
TOJ:
ReplyDeleteIt depends who you ask though.
Redline ranked Larsson 3rd, Hamilton 5th, and Murphy 6th in their May rankings. How much of a gap do they see there? Not sure, but they have all 3 ranked between RNH and Strome/Couturier.
ISS ranked Larsson 2nd, Hamilton 6th, and Murphy 8th. Again all 3 D are ranked between RNH (1) and Strome (9)
Button ranks Murphy 4th, Larsson 8th, and Hamilton 12th. He also has Beaulieu 9th and Brodin 10th.
Further re NMC/waiver rights...
ReplyDeleteAccording to the CBO sec 11.8 (b), a NMC may prevent the involuntary relocation of a player, whether by trade, loan or waiver claim. However, does not restrict the club's buy-out and termination rights. The club must, however, give the player 24 hours notice of their intent to buy out the player, and the player may elect instead to be placed on waivers. The player has 24 hours to exercise this option and the cap impact is the same as when they are claimed on waivers in a normal sense, thus the recallable waiver rule (1/2 the salary , 1/2 the cap hit rule) does not apply in this situation either.
So if a player (let's call him Joe Drury-Smith) is served notice to be bought out, he has 24 hours to instead elect to go on waivers and would only do so if he felt reasonably sure that another club would claim him at his full contract, instead of simply signing him after the buyout at an amount less than the difference of his contract tned the buyout payment due from the original club (if he thought he would make more as a waiver claim than as a bought out player. Not likely, I might add...
This is all starting to make sense!
I love this site. What an education!
Speeds:
ReplyDeleteAgreed on Hamilton and Murphy. Tough choice. Wide range vs. elite specialization. Low risk vs. high reward. I think Hamilton though, for the Oilers. Klefbom seems to me a nice mix of both and not as costly.
As for the bad contract trades despite the difficulty of making any trade under this CBA, bad contract trades have been available under it--with available trade partners--and yet don't get done. Teams don't seem to like to pay to divest a contract.
I do grant though that past history doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. God if entire governments can back themselves into a corner, a hockey team certainly can.
I was an advocate of trading for Drury about 6 weeks ago. I think he would make a good bridge to RNH and there would be a decent chance he would re-sign for reasonable money if things went well. But I don't think the payoff to take him (or others of the same ilk) is as good as what most think (and thus the cost higher). But a perfect storm can change anything. If that storm is there the Oil do need to be in the position to take advantage of it.
I've been looking through cap geek to see if there is any winger who may be able to play with RNH if the Oilers end up keeping him next year. Assuming he plays with Hall, who would be a good RW to play with them? I am thinking not Eberle or Hemsky as the three are likel to get the snot beat out of them.
ReplyDeleteGoing through the list, I have identified a few decent players with size although a few are getting up there. Would be interested in your thoughts.
Eric Cole
Jamie Langebrunner
Mike Grier
Chris Higgins
Maxime Talbot
Raffi Torres
Seems to me if he would consider it Eric Cole would make a lot of sense. I doubt he would come here but he had a good attitude and was a very good penalty killer.
Damn I wish it was last year, Colby Armstrong would have made a lot of sense.
I wonder if he is available at #31 if Tyler Biggs has a chance to be the next Lucic. If we are serious about being actual contenders one day this team will desperately need a player like that.
Ryan Malone and Scott Hartnell would be good via trade, but I wonder what it would take to get them?
I don't say this every day--in fact, I've never said it before--but FPB is making some good points in this thread.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side, it's pure statistical madness to presume that the lack of historical precedent for a cluster of eight nearly equal prospects at the top implies you should act on the premise that this never happens.
First of all, it's hugely correlated with the lack of generational talent in this pool (which everyone concedes). Cull a few tall poppies, the untrimmed meadow begins to look downright egalitarian.
Secondly, cluster statistics have confidence intervals of a diabetic with bad skin. For example, in a 30 team league of teams equally likely to win the cup each season (fair coin), a drought of close to 200 years for the least *lucky* team would not be unexpected over a millennial cycle. Basic fact of the Poisson distribution. Ninety year droughts would be commonplace, not for any particular team, but across the league for whichever team holds the Harold Ballard futility pennant at any given point in time. No bad management required, hard to believe, nothing but death by memoryless coin toss.
It's too bad we don't interleave this year's prospects with last year's prospects (as viewed at the time) in our rating lists. It would add a lot of sanity to the discussion, if only post-draft performance from the last batch could somehow be purged from the minds of the scouting jurors. Unfortunately, vindication bias would eat this proposal alive. Is anyone in this draft better than Jeff Skinner? Turns out he was in the top five list of every scout out there; 14 teams presumed he was already gone when calling their name out.
Statistically, it's hard to formally define a bad draft year, since there's so much luck involved with injury. If we stick with the cap system for another twenty years, we can tot up some cap-adjusted career earnings by draft year. That would be a modest proxy.
Perhaps the true measure of a bad draft year is any year with a Di Pietro or a Yashin: players with the knack of landing the whopper contract shortly before they check out, as Garth Snow would be quick to confirm.
Or Deadman we could simply look at games played by any given draft year. Course if Gretzky and Messier were picked in that year, fact few NHLers played 200 games would be irrelevant
ReplyDeleteOne of the guys on team 1260 made the point that Drury doesn't like playing in Canada and he made a stink to get out of Clagary. Not sure if this is true, but if it is, it renders my point moot.
ReplyDeleteAs for the draft, I was on the bandwagon of trading down as my logic was that we aren't necessarily shopping for a superstar in this draft, but rather solid players (Top-6 C, Top-4D, players with a range of above-average skills). The chance to add more picks in a draft where there is a lot of quality and parity and a lot of of relatively unkown upsides with players in the top 40 made a lot of sense. However, I feel that we should draft RNH as it seems to good to pass up. Furthermore, there appears a good chancve someone we all talk about being in the top 10 could fall to 19 for us to take due to said parity (McNeil, Siemens, Murphy). Same goes for 31 - we could find another Pitlick (first round graded talent). Under no circumstance do I want to see a package of the 19 and 31 unless it somehow gets us into the top 7. This draft has a lot of talent and the parity means a package like that could make the Oil miss out on a special player. I don't want a repeat of 2007 when we packaged an early 2nd plus the Anaheim first just to trade up a few spots.
(I changed myprofile name from MaximusBaggus to this as it was time for a change).
Teams don't seem to like to pay to divest a contract.
ReplyDeleteWell, NJ set the tone early when they paid a first rounder for the Sharks to take Malakov. Funny how it hasn't happened a lot since.