Maple Leafs 2016 Draft Recap

[KadriFan]

Interesting draft to say the least, lets hope at least 3 of these guys after Matthews pan out. I can see a lot of package deals coming up in the next week.

Three would be awesome!!!

 

[Bullfrog]

Three would be awesome!!!

And more or less unheard of.

 

[Kin]

Three would be awesome!!!

And more or less unheard of.

It's not entirely unheard of, you can find cases of a team drafting 3 or so players after the first round who went on to have NHL careers(the Blackhawks in '04, Kings in '07, Bruins in '04, Sens in '09, Leafs in '06).

But it does represent the upper limit. You're also almost certainly talking about one or so marginal contributors or guys who only find their NHL game after multiple spots.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Three would be awesome!!!

And more or less unheard of.

It's not entirely unheard of, you can find cases of a team drafting 3 or so players after the first round who went on to have NHL careers(the Blackhawks in '04, Kings in '07, Bruins in '04, Sens in '09, Leafs in '06).

But it does represent the upper limit. You're also almost certainly talking about one or so marginal contributors or guys who only find their NHL game after multiple spots.

Did those teams have 11 picks?

 

[Bullfrog]

I feel as though I should have said "uncommon."

 

[Kin]

Three would be awesome!!!

And more or less unheard of.

It's not entirely unheard of, you can find cases of a team drafting 3 or so players after the first round who went on to have NHL careers(the Blackhawks in '04, Kings in '07, Bruins in '04, Sens in '09, Leafs in '06).

But it does represent the upper limit. You're also almost certainly talking about one or so marginal contributors or guys who only find their NHL game after multiple spots.

Did those teams have 11 picks?

The '04 Blackhawks had 19.

 

[dappleganger]

Three would be awesome!!!

And more or less unheard of.

It's not entirely unheard of, you can find cases of a team drafting 3 or so players after the first round who went on to have NHL careers(the Blackhawks in '04, Kings in '07, Bruins in '04, Sens in '09, Leafs in '06).

But it does represent the upper limit. You're also almost certainly talking about one or so marginal contributors or guys who only find their NHL game after multiple spots.

Did those teams have 11 picks?

The '04 Blackhawks had 19.

*17 picks in 9 rounds for the hawks in '04.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

A nice Scott Wheeler article about Joseph Woll:  Leafs draftee Joseph Woll a student of the game, budding young star

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Yeah I really like the Woll pick. He was someone that really stood out among the potential goalies to go mid-round.

 

[herman]

More to munch on: https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/06/26/what-the-numbers-say-overage-players-vs-first-time-eligibles/

After Round 1 - Draft Year vs. Overage

Forwards Selected Successful Success Rate
Draft Year 667 92 13.79%
Overage 311 52 16.72%

Defense Selected Successful Success Rate
Draft Year 392 50 12.76%
Overage 204 35 17.16%

Here we see that there is a higher success rate for overage players selected after the first round for both forwards and defenders. It?s not an incredible difference, but it definitely seems that looking to overage players after the first round will yield NHL players more often than targeting draft-year players will.

Still a pretty raw look at the overage advantages, if there even is any. The Success criteria is 200 games played.

 

[herman]

This management team hasn't been deliberately stupid before so I'm willing to wait and see. Hard to pass up on Dineen and Girard though. 

I think if you're inclined to put everything this management team does in the best possible light it's probably misleading to then use those reads as support for continuing to do so. They have done stupid things before.

I apologize if that was misleading; I'm still not sure what to think of all this yet, and I see fans feeling compelled to seek silver linings or interpretations that cast this draft into a positive light (myself included).

 

[Kin]

More to munch on: https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/06/26/what-the-numbers-say-overage-players-vs-first-time-eligibles/

After Round 1 - Draft Year vs. Overage

Forwards Selected Successful Success Rate
Draft Year 667 92 13.79%
Overage 311 52 16.72%

Defense Selected Successful Success Rate
Draft Year 392 50 12.76%
Overage 204 35 17.16%

Here we see that there is a higher success rate for overage players selected after the first round for both forwards and defenders. It?s not an incredible difference, but it definitely seems that looking to overage players after the first round will yield NHL players more often than targeting draft-year players will.

Still a pretty raw look at the overage advantages, if there even is any. The Success criteria is 200 games played.

I think that the critique is less about the chances of producing a marginal or contributing NHLer and more about having lower ceilings in general. You and I have talked before about the problems with all of these sort of macro-draft evaluations but one of the things I noted when I was looking through the teams that had drafted 3 or so NHL regulars outside of the first round in a year is that for the most part the players taken weren't guys who'd blow you away. The Hawks, for instance, took Bickell, Bolland and Brouwer in the same year.

 

[Kin]

This management team hasn't been deliberately stupid before so I'm willing to wait and see. Hard to pass up on Dineen and Girard though. 

I think if you're inclined to put everything this management team does in the best possible light it's probably misleading to then use those reads as support for continuing to do so. They have done stupid things before.

I apologize if that was misleading; I'm still not sure what to think of all this yet, and I see fans feeling compelled to seek silver linings or interpretations that cast this draft into a positive light (myself included).

If it makes you feel better, I don't think anyone is ever deliberately stupid.

 

[herman]

I think that the critique is less about the chances of producing a marginal or contributing NHLer and more about having lower ceilings in general. You and I have talked before about the problems with all of these sort of macro-draft evaluations but one of the things I noted when I was looking through the teams that had drafted 3 or so NHL regulars outside of the first round in a year is that for the most part the players taken weren't guys who'd blow you away. The Hawks, for instance, took Bickell, Bolland and Brouwer in the same year.

Agreed. Busta and I sort of bandied this about during the actual draft; this class appears to have nothing that enticed the Leafs in the high ceiling range outside the top 15-20, even the names the blogosphere were touting as steals or high potential picks. They went with 'safe' higher floor, but lower ceilinged picks (Komarovs, Soshnikovs, and Marincins). Some argued that they might be pulling a Yzerman and drafting for cheap filler knowing they'd be top-heavy on the cap.

If it makes you feel better, I don't think anyone is ever deliberately stupid.

Haha, of that I'm well aware.

 

[ZBBM]

This management team hasn't been deliberately stupid before so I'm willing to wait and see. Hard to pass up on Dineen and Girard though. 

I think if you're inclined to put everything this management team does in the best possible light it's probably misleading to then use those reads as support for continuing to do so. They have done stupid things before.

I apologize if that was misleading; I'm still not sure what to think of all this yet, and I see fans feeling compelled to seek silver linings or interpretations that cast this draft into a positive light (myself included).

Someone mentioned how Burkish this draft seemed.  I think there's a lot to that.  Especially the #31 ... I hope it's not Biggs, The Sequel.

 

[Kin]

Agreed. Busta and I sort of bandied this about during the actual draft; this class appears to have nothing that enticed the Leafs in the high ceiling range outside the top 15-20, even the names the blogosphere were touting as steals or high potential picks. They went with 'safe' higher floor, but lower ceilinged picks (Komarovs, Soshnikovs, and Marincins). Some argued that they might be pulling a Yzerman and drafting for cheap filler knowing they'd be top-heavy on the cap.

And I think as a strategy it's an interesting one that probably should be explored if the team thinks there's something there. I just don't think that's something to do with the #31 pick when there's some high potential guys out there at positions of need. Even if they didn't grow as attached to Girard as I did, I think those shots sometimes need to be taken(and my faith in Girard has been somewhat validated by who did end up taking him, 9 spots after where they took Josi and 1 spot ahead of where they took Weber).

Biggs, Gauthier, Ross...we've heard the "safe, lower ceiling" thing before.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/scottcwheeler/status/747237523559088128
Scott Wheeler's picks in Toronto's spots:
1. Matthews
31. Abramov
57. Bitten
62. Dineen
72. Allard
92. Mete
101. Foriter
122. Sokolov
152. Bernhardt
179. Somppi
182. Boucher

He admits the exposure of players he is privy to is far less than the Leafs, but from his work at Future Considerations and covering the team on PPP, these were the high-ceilinged players he would've chosen.

I wish we did take some shots at players like Girard and Dineen; granted I really didn't know much of anything outside the top 10. Scouting reports of our guys, other than their size, were somewhat inconsistent (naturally).

 

[Kin]

I would have been very, very happy with those first 6 picks.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I would have been very, very happy with those first 6 picks.

Agreed. I can't believe that Dineen fell that far.

Sokolov too.

 

[herman]

If it makes you feel better, I don't think anyone is ever deliberately stupid.

Case in point?

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/06/27/bruins-draft-trent-frederic-first-round-admit-third-line-grinder

The Bruins? unhealthy obsession with the bottom-half of the roster became a parody of itself over the weekend. Stories like this only make those Stamkos rumors sound that much sillier.

The Bruins essentially admitted that to their fans on Friday at the NHL Draft after they selected center Trent Frederic with the 29th overall pick. Frederic, who is committed to the University of Wisconsin, was ranked outside the top 50 by many scouts and draft experts. The pick was almost universally regarded as a major reach.

The problem with the pick, however, isn?t that the Bruins drafted a guy that the ?experts? said was only a third-line player. It?s that they agree with them. They took a first-round pick, which should net you a player with big upside 100 percent of the time, and admitted they used it on a player destined to be a bottom-six forward. They did that, on purpose.

?[Frederic] is not going to be a top-two-line guy, we know that,? Bruins director of amateur scouting Keith Gretzky told reporters at the draft, according to Steve Conroy of the Boston Herald. ?But he has some jam. He plays hard with the penalty minutes. We were fortunate to get him.

?We believed he was our next guy and we really liked the projection of him as a staff. Everybody raved about him, his character is outstanding. He?s an athlete.?

Don Sweeney, man. It's always one great step forward quickly followed by two big steps back with this guy.