• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Maple Leafs 2016 Draft Recap

WhatIfGodWasALeaf

Active member
#1        Auston Matthews
#31      Yegor Korshkov
#57      Carl Grundstrom
#62      Joseph Woll
#72      James Greenway
#92      Adam Brooks
#101    Keaton Middleton
#122    Vladimir Bobylev 
#152    Jack Walker
#179    Nicolas Mattinen
#182    Nikolai Chebykin

Thanks Herman for the great job!
 
Good post WhatIf... here's Mark Hunter:

https://www.nhl.com/mapleleafs/video/mark-hunter-june-25-2016/t-277437436/c-44292903
 
CarltonTheBear said:
Thanks WIGWAL. I missed the 2nd day of the draft. General thoughts? Seems like an odd collection of players. Lots of size, lots of older draft-eligible prospects. Passed on a lot of higher ranked guys with Korshkov.

No problem sir.

It was definitely a strange day, the Leafs seemed to be singing from a different hymn sheet than most everyone else.

I'm kinda excited to see how it works out, did they just Billy Beane the draft right under everyones nose?
 
Aside from Matthews, seems like a mix of good potentials and plenty of look-sees.

Korshkov(W), Woll(G), Middleton(D), Walker(W/D). They already have the size, speed, and agility with greater room for improvement.
 
Picks I Like: Matthews, Grundstrom

Picks I don't really like: Korshkov, Brooks

Picks I have largely no opinion on: The rest of them
 
Korshkov must have some solid backing from their scout in Russia, kinda reminds me of the Antropov pick in a way. Brooks at 92 seems fine to me, same for Walker at 152.
 
A decent stab at a Leafs prospect depth chart.

Cl00oN4VAAAlM6c.jpg:large

 
Thanks for the compile, WIGWAL

OMG! Yes! THANK YOU: Matthews
Like: Woll, Walker
Interesting: Grundstrom, Korshkov, Brooks, Mattinen
Meh: Greenway, Middleton, Bobylev, Chebykin
 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrZsEIZNHAU[/youtube]

Transcribed by MLHS: https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/06/25/2016-nhl-draft-toronto-maple-leafs-picks-list/
 
My read on the Leafs draft process:

- looks like a huge departure from last year's consistent exploitation of the market inefficiency in Size bias. skill > size is very obvious and easy to understand
- overagers/size appeared to be a focus, but I contend they've been drafting consistently for BPA both years (they picked larger overagers last year; e.g. Desrocher)
- this year, the weak draft class + even more data points on dev curve and progress momentum happened to put these who happen to be older/larger/international at the top of the BPA list at each pick.
- none of this matters if the picks can't play, but clearly the scouting department saw which players had steep upward curves based on their d/d+ years and slotted them accordingly
- benefits to their situation were also added to the BPA weighting scale
- overage = direct control over dev (Marlies), shorter dev timeline; sounds traditionally unattractive (history of rejection) so there is higher likelihood of picking who you want; ELC/SPC doesn't kick in until they're pretty much ready to drop into NHL (huge value, even for bottom six plugs)
- non-CHL picks: prospects get to stew longer without the cost of a contract while remaining under our control -- perfect situation for goalie development without kicking out an existing prospect; international picks are already playing against full-grown pro players

Why are we so meh about this draft?
- highly untraditional
- run up draft coverage always favours first year draft eligibles so those are the names we assess and attach to
- on the surface, looks like a Burke draft
- picks were even more unknown than usual

What is so exciting about this draft (outside of Matthews):
- clear analytics focus
- exploiting situations for easier cap/contract management
 
Thanks for your thoughts herman, definite food for thought.

I thought this roundtable from PPP was pretty good, I think they addressed a lot the reasons why fans were left feeling somewhat underwhelmed yesterday.

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/6/25/12031494/ppp-roundtable-our-thoughts-on-todays-draft-selections
 
herman said:
My read on the Leafs draft process:

- looks like a huge departure from last year's consistent exploitation of the market inefficiency in Size bias. skill > size is very obvious and easy to understand
- overagers/size appeared to be a focus, but I contend they've been drafting consistently for BPA both years (they picked larger overagers last year; e.g. Desrocher)
- this year, the weak draft class + even more data points on dev curve and progress momentum happened to put these who happen to be older/larger/international at the top of the BPA list at each pick.
- none of this matters if the picks can't play, but clearly the scouting department saw which players had steep upward curves based on their d/d+ years and slotted them accordingly
- benefits to their situation were also added to the BPA weighting scale
- overage = direct control over dev (Marlies), shorter dev timeline; sounds traditionally unattractive (history of rejection) so there is higher likelihood of picking who you want; ELC/SPC doesn't kick in until they're pretty much ready to drop into NHL (huge value, even for bottom six plugs)
- non-CHL picks: prospects get to stew longer without the cost of a contract while remaining under our control -- perfect situation for goalie development without kicking out an existing prospect; international picks are already playing against full-grown pro players

Why are we so meh about this draft?
- highly untraditional
- run up draft coverage always favours first year draft eligibles so those are the names we assess and attach to
- on the surface, looks like a Burke draft
- picks were even more unknown than usual

What is so exciting about this draft (outside of Matthews):
- clear analytics focus
- exploiting situations for easier cap/contract management

Nice breakdown Herman!
 
If Mark Hunter says they have upside and he's happy, then so am I.  Go Leafs Go.  Can't wait to see what's next. I'm guessing a trade for a young dman.  Someone with potential who has not worked out yet. 
 
Thanks, guys. It's just a guess really, based on what they've been saying publicly and some of the analyses other fans have dug up.

Hard to say how well these guys play, and hard to say if this tactic pays off until 2-3 years from now. 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.

My key point though is that they didn't do anything differently this draft from the last (philosophically). The result is just how the market shook out.
 
I think some people are generally confusing the idea of a player being a lower ceiling type with a player being a "ready soon" type. I think the difference can be highlighted with a guy like Gauthier who, when drafted, was sort of billed as the ultimate "low ceiling but safe bet" kind of guy and while there's some evidence to suggest that still might be the case I don't think too many of us are really expecting him to be a NHL regular until at least draft+4.

A lot of the things being cited as positives with the draft class(the ability for europeans to come to AHL immediately, european prospects playing against "grown men", different players having different development curves) aren't exactly new so it would stand to reason that there should at least be something in the way of evidence supporting this as a draft theory. I think the reason we're not seeing that is that a lot of what they did is actually bucking the information we have. As an immediate example, there's not a strong history of undrafted CHL players making big impacts in the NHL but there is a pretty extensive history of undrafted 20 year olds in the CHL putting up big numbers as overagers.

Bucking the evidence we have isn't always a recipe for disaster or even a bad decision but I do think it should at least be acknowledged.
 
herman said:
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top