I think there's one thing we all agree on: drafting for need is a terrible thing to do. Mel Kiper used to say (at every NFL draft) "the New York Jets once again show they have no idea how the draft works" and for good reason. The Oilers have a long history of drafting forwards with their first pick and spending a second pick in the first round on a defender. They are unlikely to take a goalie in the first round again--the last being Devan Dubnyk in 2004--more than once in the next couple of decades.
Yesterday, speeds dropped by (in the thread below) and made some interesting comments in terms of what the Oilers need moving forward. It was a very interesting take and I thought it might be an idea to have a longer look at what he said:
- speeds: I am hopeful that Petry, Klefbom, Musil, Teubert, Plante, etc have good seasons, so that adding a D in the first round of 2012 might tend to make less sense for the Oilers. I don't agree that the Oilers need a D more than a F at this point. Yes, the Oilers have Hall etc in the NHL, but they are already in the NHL. They'll improve (hopefully), but they are already taking up a roster spot. In terms of actual prospects, the Oilers aren't nearly as forward heavy as some think, IMO.
That's two different comments spliced together but gives the general idea. From my point of view, the Oilers are likely to select in the 4-10 range at the 2012 NHL entry draft. That means Nail Yakupov is likely gone and we know next year's draft is defense-heavy. I know speeds would agree that BPA is always the better plan, but let's say that at the time the Oilers pick there is a forward and defender available of equal value. Which player would you select?
History tells us the forward will be NHL ready earlier and that he's more likely to deliver on the bet. The defender (based on history) will develop more slowly and if rushed to the NHL is likely to struggle badly. Here's my top 20 prospect list and I'll also list my top 5 F's and D's:
Forwards
- C Ryan Nugent-Hopkins
- L Curtis Hamilton
- L Teemu Hartikainen
- C Anton Lander
- R Tyler Pitlick
- Oscar Klefbom
- Jeff Petry
- Martin Marincin
- David Musil
- Jeremie Blain
Forward? or a D?
Always forwards, take D in the second and third rounds and keep an eye out for a good trade or veteran free agents. The first round should be all forwards all the time almost 100% of the time
ReplyDeleteLT said....
ReplyDeleteForward? or a D?
No brainer: BPA.
Forward.
ReplyDeleteMarincin, Musil, and Klefbom all have top-pairing upside. While it's unlikely they all hit that upside, that's a lot of high-end depth in the prospect pool.
The only forward with 1st line upside on that list is RNH. The rest fo the prospects look to be grinders with some skill. As such, we need to add more depth to the high end forwards prospects.
If the objective is to build a deep team, the more prospects with first line/pairing potential we have, probability says that the more first line/pairing players we have that will eventually turn out. That helps push everyone else down the depth chart and ensure no one needs to be rushed, and makes the team better, and the organization stronger.
Since we already ahve a lot of high end depth on the back end, if the ford and defense prospects are valued equally, I take the forward, because we lack the high-end propsect depth at that position.
Whitney re-injures ankle:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.edmontonjournal.com/entertainment/Oilers+Whitney+sick+playing/5326481/story.html
By the time a 2012 defenceman is ready to contribute, we're paying Hall & company real dollars on real contracts.
ReplyDeleteTrade whatever it takes to get Suter, draft a forward.
My point with respect to Hall and Eberle is that they are already either #1 or #2 at their respective positions on the depth chart. As they improve, and either become better #2 LW/RW or better #1 LW/RW, that will help the team, but it doesn't really change the depth chart. So, while they aren't a known quantity, they are in place.
ReplyDeleteOn D, the Oilers have Whitney and Gilbert, in my mind, as top 4 D. I don't know how much improvement there will be for Smid/Peckham/Petry, but if those guys were currently 5/6/7 on the depth chart, I'm not sure they'd be too badly over their heads.
In the next 2 or 3 years, I don't think it's unreasonable to project* one of those 3 to be able to play up the roster, and I don't think it's unreasonable to think one or two of the other prospect D to play as a 6/7 in that same time.
To me, that means the Oilers will probably be looking to add one D, assuming they don't move Whitney or Gilbert. I suppose you might get that through the draft if you pick top 5 in 2012, but even if you do that player isn't all that likely to be a top 2 D for 3 years post-draft, speaking optimistically.
I'm of the mind to take BPA, but that is knowing that my definition of BPA tends to lean towards the F more than most people.
ReplyDeleteI can understand the desire to play around with that in cases where the team is extremely heavy in either F's or D, but I just don't see that for the Oilers right now - they've picked 3 D in the first 2 rounds over the last 2 drafts. Most of the time that would be considered a lot, but because EDM has had so many round 1 and 2 picks in the last 2 years (7, 4 F, 3 D), and because both #1 OV picks were forwards, I think that tends to get a bit lost, or overshadowed.
I agree with BPA, but LT mentioned to assume there is both a D and a F available with equal value.
ReplyDeleteIn that case, I lean toward the F, mostly due to timing. Having a D prospect for 3-4 years in the system isn't worth as much to the team as a proven NHL forward who on average should be able to make an impact before the D. The Oilers should be competitive by then, so every asset counts.
If Ryan Murry or Griffin Reinhart was still around I would find it pretty had to take a forward. That forward would have to be a big RHC or big RW power forward to do so. Mikhael Grigorenko, Ryan Murry, or Griffin Reinhart would be fine by me.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely defer to time, effort and knowledge of Speeds when it comes to the draft.
ReplyDeleteAlso realize that conventional wisdom is that taking D man high in draft is iffy. Also note David Conte took Larsson at #4.
I would take a slightly different approach. We hope we have a clear first line 2 years from now. We should also have the makings of a good 2nd line presuming Gagner and MPS continue to improve.
I am unsure of the other top D man we run out in our first pairing. Hope and pray Whitney's ankle woes are fully behind him but I have concerns. Gilbert can fill in in that first pairing role but not sure he can do it for 75 games. Nor do I think we have anyone on our NHL roster that projects to be there.
Petry is starting late, will be 24 with less than 50 NHL games to his name. Klefbon fell to a late teens pick because of concerns over a lack of offense in the SEL. I also had understood the knock on Larsson was that many were not sure he could play a first pairing role in NHL. He was light years ahead of Klefbon in accomplishment in the SEL. Marincin is, I think, the ultimate project. He may very well develop into a top pairing guy. Or not.
I think if we have a chance to draft a true # 1 D, do it. It fills in a gap in our roster. If Hemsky plus could get us that type of player in a trade, I would do that deal.
I think if we have a chance to draft a true # 1 D, do it. It fills in a gap in our roster. If Hemsky plus could get us that type of player in a trade, I would do that deal.
ReplyDeleteI get what you're saying, but we have to look at the opportunity cost as well. Personally, I don't think I'd prefer a top pairing D over a top line F, given the choice, even if EDM already has what looks like a first line F or two coming. I can see how someone else would disagree, but I'd prefer to draft another potential top line F over a potential top pair D, all else equal. If, in your opinion, the D available projects to be much better than the F, then by all means take him.
BPA, which is usually a forward.
ReplyDeleteYou also seem to be able to trade for and/or sign enough talented defenceman to do well. Look at '06 and how that team's was made. Trade, trade, trade, trade, UFA, draft, trade. They were solid. All you seem to need is solid.
LMHF:
ReplyDeleteOr look at PHI, with all of Pronger, Coburn, Carle, Timonen, Meszaros acquired via trade.
take the BPA, and if it's D Nick Ebert or Griffin Reinhart, so be it, but if its F Alex Galchenyk or Mikhail Grigorenko or Filip Forsberg, we'd still get a potential great player. we HAVE built a pretty good defensive prospect list with Petry, Klefbom, Musil, Marincin, Plante and Tuebert....probably none will be a Pronger but you never know?
ReplyDeleteAlways BPA; of course this is partial to if your team saw a certain player good. Nonetheless, if you have two players of roughly equal value, and your organization is deprived at a certain position, it doesn't hurt to draft by position at that point.
ReplyDeleteYou can always trade from a position of strength to fill a position of weakness as well.
But if the prospects are roughly equal, I don't see a reason why not.
Agree with Speeds. BPA. I have difficulty believing that between two prospects: one D, and one F - that the choice could be absolutely equal.
ReplyDeleteAlso agree that it's possible to sign/trade for a 1st pairing defender more than 1st line forward. I'm not saying it's easy, but speeds example of Philadelphia is absolutely true.
We don't even have to look farther than our own history: who's been the top pairing defensemen for the Oilers over the last decade: every single one of them has been picked up by trade.
Chris Pronger, Jason Smith, Eric Brewer, Janne Niinimaa, Roman Hamrlik, Tom Gilbert, Ryan Whitney, Lubo Visnovsky. Do we have to go all the way back to Paul Coffey to find the last top pairing Oiler defender that was drafted by the Oil?
Wow, JVR just cashed in. 25.5 over 6. Sam Gagner's eyes just lit up.
ReplyDeleteTalk about paying for potential.
Schitzo, I think that potential was realized in the playoffs. JVR is a beast. True power forwards like JVR, Iginla, Chris Stewart, Johan Franzen, etc. are worth their weight in gold.
ReplyDeleteA quick look at the last 5 Cup champs.
ReplyDelete3 teams had a first round draft pick of their own starting on D(Seabrook-Chi,Orpik-Pitt,Kronwall-Det)Seabrook being the only top pair D.Lots of first round picks,just not playing for the team that drafted them.
2 teams(Boston,Anaheim) had no D they drafted.
2 teams(Pitt and Chi)traded away D-men they drafted in the first round the year they won the cup.Those 2....Whitney and Barker..
Take the forward!!
There's more risk in developing defensemen and they take longer to get there. You can't draft by need, as there are other avenues (trade, UFA) to fill out your roster. Also, as pointed out by others, top defensmen seem easier to obtain than top forwards for some reason.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the strategy to pick up defensemen in the 2nd or 3rd round, unless of course the BPA is a defenseman, then I am not opposed to drafting one in the first round.
Craig Hartsburg the coah of Everett has said Ryan Murray is the best 16 yr old dman he has ever seen. Some compare him to Niedermayer but some also to Lidstrom in that he totally controls the game and is as dominant defensively as he is offensively. Many scouts expect him to play in the NHL right away after being drafted.
ReplyDeleteThat being said if I pick one overall I go for the elite forward, but if I am picking around 4-6 and this kid is available, and the consensus top pick like Larson was at 4 or Hamilton at 9 and it is a sort of "Oh my God I can't believe he is still here" I think you take him (Murray).
And for the life of me LT I can't believe you have either Musil or Blaine ahead of Teubert, let alone both of them. Haven't you listened to what Todd Nelson told you? He is very high on Teubert, who was also a top 12 pick, first overall into the WHL his WHL draft year, top pairing shutdown guy as an 18 and 19 year old at the WJHC. Blain meanwhile played well offensively for an obscure Q team...but he will be the first Q dman to score points in junior and not make it to the NHL over the top 12 pick I am sure.
speeds,
ReplyDeleteIt is always a pleasure to read your posts, whether we are in agreement or disagreement. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
BPA. If tied, forward. Will cover the bet almost certainly. Can also be traded for an actual NHL defender, rather than a hot-shot prospect whose career goes by the wayside at age 23 as he's about to break out of the AHL, with a devastating knee injury.
ReplyDeletespOILer
ReplyDeleteAgree with your comments on Speeds. not sure I always agree with him, but finish reading his posts and frequently think........damn that's a good point
Have not, yet, read. LT's Bogosian post, but we need a stud. A minute eating quiet ice (defined by CFP--- when he was on the ice the other team was quiet) Defensive stud. hard to trade for and when you have one, the other team always seems at a disadvantage
speeds point is moot. The point of a prospect pool is to replenish talent that is either exiting their prime years, or exiting the NHL. In other words, players that will hit their mid thirties, or are in their thirties and about to hit their late thirties. The points in a player's career where they typically slow down.
ReplyDeleteCan we agree that if a player is going to be an impact player, they will usually start assuming responsibility about five years out of their draft?
If we make the cut-off age for when we can expect a player to start slowing down at 33, how many players at forward are anywhere near possibly causing a deficiency in talent, IE, expected to hit 32 within the next five or so years?
Here's the list:
Hemsky.
Horcoff.
Belanger.
Smyth.
Everybody else is well away from moving into their thirties.
Instead of trying to replace them individually, let's just look at the depth without them, and what might need filling over the next several years:
Hall-Gagner-Eberle
Paajarvi-Nugent-Hopkins-Omark
Hartikainen-Lander-Hamilton
Jones-Brule-Eager.
Not awful, especially at the top end. If it's a little too soon to bet on Hartikainen, Lander or Hamilton, I suppose free agents for the bottom six, as demonstrated by the Belanger signing, aren't too difficult to find at good value.
On the other hand, let's look at our defence with the same rule:
Gilbert
Whitney
Sutton
Now, there are half as many defence as forwards, which means that losing a high-end defencemen has more ramifications on a depth chart than losing a high-end forward. Let's look at what the depth chart looks like without those three.
Barker-Petry
Peckham-Smid
Chorney-(Your favourite D prospect here)
I was able to cram in all NHL players onto the other list + Nugent-Hopkins. But just to review, For this to work, we would need Barker to establish himself as a legitimate top four defenceman, Petry to become a top-pairing player, Peckham to become a top four player, Smid to solidify himself as the same, Chorney to become an NHL player, and at least two prospects to turn into players.
Basically, if Whitney and Gilbert move along or take a step back, EVERYTHING has to go right.
Granted, there are a number of bullets, of possible solutions. Petry looks like he'll be a player. Peckham looks like at least a bottom pairing player. Smid can definitely be a #5, maybe a #4. Barker might be hitting the part of his career where he puts his tools together. Marincin had an outstanding season marred only by... exhaustion, it seems. Klefbom has a lot of promising tools. Teubert might have the toughness and basic skills to be a solid defensive defenceman. Plante isn't dead in the water as a possible depth defenceman at the NHL level. Musil has the genetics and tools to be something at the NHL level. And between Dillon Simpson, Brandon Davidson, Jeremy Blain, Kyle Bigos and Martin Gernat, there are enough interesting prospects towards the low end that there might be a gem among them. There's a genesis of a pretty good defence SOMEWHERE in there, but my question is... is there an absolute anchor for the group? I mean, I'm pulling for Marincin to be that "I can't believe he lasted until the second round" story as much as anyone, but is there a prospect in that group you feel confident in being a top-end player in the same way that you feel confident about Taylor Hall leading the forward for the next decade?
ReplyDeleteThere's some good prospects on D for the Oilers. In fact, there's probably better depth in the pool right now there than at forward. But, unlike at forward, they don't have their key piece. I believe this is the last year where they're going to draft quite high, and I think they need to use it to land a high-end defensive prospect. In fact, they might want to consider trading up to land their guy inside the top three.
In my opinion, what has happened is that the drafting has simply gotten much better in recent years, and the forwards have just arrived quicker. I think as the D prospects start pushing for roster spots, the depth chart will begin to look more balanced again.
Target the best D available with the first round selection, even trade to #2 to grab the first guy to go after Yakupov if necessary, and then just pick normal BPA after that.
I think there's some conflation going on in the bad reputation of drafting for need.
ReplyDeleteIf you buy a house on the wrong side of town--such as Mike Peca--later on it's going to cost you a realtor's fee to sort the problem out, which doesn't sound like much until you have kids in school. It's not wrong to minimize churn and commission by thinking ahead.
The problem here is that sussing which pups will pan is enough to drive grown men to ulcers. If you're drafting for need, chances are you got tired of thinking. "Well, I don't know which pup is the better prospect, but we need one of those." Problem solved. Until next year.
If you didn't get tired of thinking, you probably landed on a firm preference, one pup or the other. Your conviction in having chosen the right pup is no small factor in the pup panning out, either.
Need is not wrong of itself, but it's the escape hatch of the lazy mind, so it's forever tarred by just deserts.