2018 Draft Discussion

[CasperX22]

I'm not saying they didn't over draft Kot at that position. I've posted multiple times that it's stupid to draft for need.

I am saying that multiple teams passed over the 3rd ranked prospect. Maybe the scouts know something about Zadina that we don't?

Montreal drafted for need with Kot but it's a stretch to call him a reach at 3 when he would have been an acceptable pick at 4 as compared to selecting a prospect at 38 that was expected to be drafted much, much later.

If you are going to keep calling Zadina the 3rd ranked prospect in the draft when using consensus rankings then no Kot is not a perfectly acceptable pick at 4 because nobody that I can access had him ranked that highly and the general consensus was he was a fringe top 10 guy. Based on the value of the 3rd pick in the draft that is a much larger reach than Romanov at 38 I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about this. It would take about 6 38th overall picks to equal the value of 3. The difference in value from 4 to 3 alone is worth approximately the same as the value of the 38th pick alone.

[Lee]

I'm not saying they didn't over draft Kot at that position. I've posted multiple times that it's stupid to draft for need.

I am saying that multiple teams passed over the 3rd ranked prospect. Maybe the scouts know something about Zadina that we don't?

Montreal drafted for need with Kot but it's a stretch to call him a reach at 3 when he would have been an acceptable pick at 4 as compared to selecting a prospect at 38 that was expected to be drafted much, much later.

If you are going to keep calling Zadina the 3rd ranked prospect in the draft when using consensus rankings then no Kot is not a perfectly acceptable pick at 4 because nobody that I can access had him ranked that highly and the general consensus was he was a fringe top 10 guy. Based on the value of the 3rd pick in the draft that is a much larger reach than Romanov at 38 I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about this. It would take about 6 38th overall picks to equal the value of 3. The difference in value from 4 to 3 alone is worth approximately the same as the value of the 38th pick alone.

Bob Mackenzie aggregates his rankings from actual scouts and has Kot ranked at # 5. Bob is probably the most trusted inside source in all of hockey.

Show me any legitimate source that has Romanov ranked anywhere close to 38.

[lightupdadarkness]

You have no way of knowing that lol! Nobody in the world outside of Arizona's table had any idea that they would take Hayton that high. You can't say Hayton was overdrafted and in the same breath say that Kot wasn't if we are going to use consensus rankings here. Arizona could've had O'Brien higher than Kot for all we know because I sure as hell was higher on O'Brien than Hayton. Different scouts can watch the same kid and see something completely different at the same time because they value something differently. Montreal clearly saw something in Romanov that none of us saw and in a draft where the strength of the draft was defenders no less. And considering that they took him that high I would be willing to bet they weren't the only team much higher on him than the media outlets were.

The general consensus was that there was very little separation between picks 4-10. By those standards, Montreal drafted Kot one spot too high.

Let's take a look at the general consensus for Romanovs rankings..

Rankings
Ranked #156 by HOCKEYPROSPECT.COM
Ranked #179 by FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Ranked #115 by NHL CENTRAL SCOUTING (EU Skaters)
Ranked #83 by TSN/McKenzie


I see the problem. Maybe he was a little dyslexic on Bob's rankings?

If we are using rankings here's JASPER KOTKANIEMI's


Ranked #8 by HOCKEYPROSPECT.COM
Ranked #13 by FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Ranked #16 by ISS HOCKEY
Ranked #13 by MCKEEN'S HOCKEY
Ranked #6 by NHL CENTRAL SCOUTING (EU Skaters)
Ranked #5 by TSN/McKenzie

Going off rankings average of Kot draft rankings is 10.16. Say that more than a stretch to get to 3OV and not call him a reach if you are using rankings as you previously did. Teams 3-5 drafted based on need IMO with Det at 6 going best player available with Zadina. Drafting for need is pretty much always a mistake IMO especially 1st round and the higher up you pick. Long story short teams take who they want and we do the same and we usually won't know for years how things really turn out

Go look at FC rankings and see how close they were to the actual outcome.
Do the same for ISS
And then do the same for Mckeen.

Again, you are looking at things in black and white and again, without context.

For a fun though process game. Go check and see who NHL CS has ranked ahead of Kot at #5

I literally used the same set of rankings you did to justify your reasoning haha. Both said players were obvious late riser and one more than the other.

Draft rankings are pointless at this point b/c players are already drafted. Kot is 3OV and Romanov is 38OV. Now it's just wait and see how they develop.

[CasperX22]

I'm not saying they didn't over draft Kot at that position. I've posted multiple times that it's stupid to draft for need.

I am saying that multiple teams passed over the 3rd ranked prospect. Maybe the scouts know something about Zadina that we don't?

Montreal drafted for need with Kot but it's a stretch to call him a reach at 3 when he would have been an acceptable pick at 4 as compared to selecting a prospect at 38 that was expected to be drafted much, much later.

If you are going to keep calling Zadina the 3rd ranked prospect in the draft when using consensus rankings then no Kot is not a perfectly acceptable pick at 4 because nobody that I can access had him ranked that highly and the general consensus was he was a fringe top 10 guy. Based on the value of the 3rd pick in the draft that is a much larger reach than Romanov at 38 I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about this. It would take about 6 38th overall picks to equal the value of 3. The difference in value from 4 to 3 alone is worth approximately the same as the value of the 38th pick alone.

Bob Mackenzie aggregates his rankings from actual scouts and has Kot ranked at # 5. Bob is probably the most trusted inside source in all of hockey.

Show me any legitimate source that has Romanov ranked anywhere close to 38.

So you are going to use one man's rankings now to justify your argument who just so happens to have Kot ranked the highest? Even so, taking the 5th best player in the draft at #3 is still a much bigger reach than where McKenzie had Romanov at #83 rising to #38. End of discussion.

[Lee]

You have no way of knowing that lol! Nobody in the world outside of Arizona's table had any idea that they would take Hayton that high. You can't say Hayton was overdrafted and in the same breath say that Kot wasn't if we are going to use consensus rankings here. Arizona could've had O'Brien higher than Kot for all we know because I sure as hell was higher on O'Brien than Hayton. Different scouts can watch the same kid and see something completely different at the same time because they value something differently. Montreal clearly saw something in Romanov that none of us saw and in a draft where the strength of the draft was defenders no less. And considering that they took him that high I would be willing to bet they weren't the only team much higher on him than the media outlets were.

The general consensus was that there was very little separation between picks 4-10. By those standards, Montreal drafted Kot one spot too high.

Let's take a look at the general consensus for Romanovs rankings..

Rankings
Ranked #156 by HOCKEYPROSPECT.COM
Ranked #179 by FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Ranked #115 by NHL CENTRAL SCOUTING (EU Skaters)
Ranked #83 by TSN/McKenzie


I see the problem. Maybe he was a little dyslexic on Bob's rankings?

If we are using rankings here's JASPER KOTKANIEMI's


Ranked #8 by HOCKEYPROSPECT.COM
Ranked #13 by FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Ranked #16 by ISS HOCKEY
Ranked #13 by MCKEEN'S HOCKEY
Ranked #6 by NHL CENTRAL SCOUTING (EU Skaters)
Ranked #5 by TSN/McKenzie

Going off rankings average of Kot draft rankings is 10.16. Say that more than a stretch to get to 3OV and not call him a reach if you are using rankings as you previously did. Teams 3-5 drafted based on need IMO with Det at 6 going best player available with Zadina. Drafting for need is pretty much always a mistake IMO especially 1st round and the higher up you pick. Long story short teams take who they want and we do the same and we usually won't know for years how things really turn out

Go look at FC rankings and see how close they were to the actual outcome.
Do the same for ISS
And then do the same for Mckeen.

Again, you are looking at things in black and white and again, without context.

For a fun though process game. Go check and see who NHL CS has ranked ahead of Kot at #5

I literally used the same set of rankings you did to justify your reasoning haha. Both said players were obvious late riser and one more than the other.

Draft rankings are pointless at this point b/c players are already drafted. Kot is 3OV and Romanov is 38OV. Now it's just wait and see how they develop.

I wish I could double bold the word context so that you might possibly begin to understand what I am saying because it seems like willful ignorance to support your argument.

No one is saying they arn't 3 and 38.

Everyone was saying that 4-10 have very little separation. Montreal selected for need at 3 for a prospect that, if drafted solely from spreadsheets , would have gone anywhere from 4-10 , while the prospect that was though to be 3 slipped to 6, meaning 3 lower ranked prospects were drafted ahead of him, on of which absolutely was a reach for being seen as the #2 center in the draft.

[Lee]

I'm not saying they didn't over draft Kot at that position. I've posted multiple times that it's stupid to draft for need.

I am saying that multiple teams passed over the 3rd ranked prospect. Maybe the scouts know something about Zadina that we don't?

Montreal drafted for need with Kot but it's a stretch to call him a reach at 3 when he would have been an acceptable pick at 4 as compared to selecting a prospect at 38 that was expected to be drafted much, much later.

If you are going to keep calling Zadina the 3rd ranked prospect in the draft when using consensus rankings then no Kot is not a perfectly acceptable pick at 4 because nobody that I can access had him ranked that highly and the general consensus was he was a fringe top 10 guy. Based on the value of the 3rd pick in the draft that is a much larger reach than Romanov at 38 I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about this. It would take about 6 38th overall picks to equal the value of 3. The difference in value from 4 to 3 alone is worth approximately the same as the value of the 38th pick alone.

Bob Mackenzie aggregates his rankings from actual scouts and has Kot ranked at # 5. Bob is probably the most trusted inside source in all of hockey.

Show me any legitimate source that has Romanov ranked anywhere close to 38.

So you are going to use one man's rankings now to justify your argument who just so happens to have Kot ranked the highest? Even so, taking the 5th best player in the draft at #3 is still a much bigger reach than where McKenzie had Romanov at #83 rising to #38. End of discussion.

Jesus fuck.

Big letters to help you understand.

BOB MACKENZIE DOES NOT RANK PROSPECTS. HE AGGREGATES HIS INFORMATION FROM SCOUTS AND PRESENTS THAT AS A RANKING LIST.

[lightupdadarkness]

LOL Lee

[CasperX22]

I'm not saying they didn't over draft Kot at that position. I've posted multiple times that it's stupid to draft for need.

I am saying that multiple teams passed over the 3rd ranked prospect. Maybe the scouts know something about Zadina that we don't?

Montreal drafted for need with Kot but it's a stretch to call him a reach at 3 when he would have been an acceptable pick at 4 as compared to selecting a prospect at 38 that was expected to be drafted much, much later.

If you are going to keep calling Zadina the 3rd ranked prospect in the draft when using consensus rankings then no Kot is not a perfectly acceptable pick at 4 because nobody that I can access had him ranked that highly and the general consensus was he was a fringe top 10 guy. Based on the value of the 3rd pick in the draft that is a much larger reach than Romanov at 38 I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about this. It would take about 6 38th overall picks to equal the value of 3. The difference in value from 4 to 3 alone is worth approximately the same as the value of the 38th pick alone.

Bob Mackenzie aggregates his rankings from actual scouts and has Kot ranked at # 5. Bob is probably the most trusted inside source in all of hockey.

Show me any legitimate source that has Romanov ranked anywhere close to 38.

So you are going to use one man's rankings now to justify your argument who just so happens to have Kot ranked the highest? Even so, taking the 5th best player in the draft at #3 is still a much bigger reach than where McKenzie had Romanov at #83 rising to #38. End of discussion.

Jesus fuck.

Big letters to help you understand.

BOB MACKENZIE DOES NOT RANK PROSPECTS. HE AGGREGATES HIS INFORMATION FROM SCOUTS AND PRESENTS THAT AS A RANKING LIST.

So they are his rankings. What's not to understand? He compiles a rankings list from the information he has same as everyone else Lol!

[Lee]

[CasperX22]

You shouldn't talk about yourself that way. It's unbecoming.

[Lee]

Ah, the " I know you are, but what am I" defense.

[CasperX22]

Ah, the " I know you are, but what am I" defense.

You literally can't get out of your own way, so you have resorted to name calling to make yourself look like you know what you are talking about. Every time something is pointed out you just repeat the same thing. Like saying that going strictly based off spreadsheets Kot should have been picked between 4-10. Yeah well 4 of the 6 scouting service rankings you listed had him ranked outside of the top 10. Which is fine to ignore that because it doesn't support your argument, but in the same breath you want to use those rankings to point out what a huge reach Romanov was by the same team that took Kot no less lol! It's comical at this point.

[Lee]

Ah, the " I know you are, but what am I" defense.

You literally can't get out of your own way, so you have resorted to name calling to make yourself look like you know what you are talking about. Every time something is pointed out you just repeat the same thing. Like saying that going strictly based off spreadsheets Kot should have been picked between 4-10. Yeah well 4 of the 6 scouting service rankings you listed had him ranked outside of the top 10. Which is fine to ignore that because it doesn't support your argument, but in the same breath you want to use those rankings to point out what a huge reach Romanov was by the same team that took Kot no less lol! It's comical at this point.

I asked quite a while ago if you could provide any scouting source which had him anywhere close to 38, which you conveniently ignored. 4 of the 6 scouting services have laughable rankings as evidence by Kpts rating and his actual draft position. I've yet to see any such comparison for Romanov's draft ranking vs his draft position. Even by Bob's aggregated rankings, he was drafted laughably early.

As for my thought exercise from earlier, NHL Central Scouting had Ginning ranked ahead of Kot. One of those 4/6. And outside of Bob, they had Romanov ranked the highest. So yeah, not taking anything from them seriously.

And those are actually just EU rankings, not even NA include. Their rankings are a mockery of the ranking system.

[CasperX22]

Ah, the " I know you are, but what am I" defense.

You literally can't get out of your own way, so you have resorted to name calling to make yourself look like you know what you are talking about. Every time something is pointed out you just repeat the same thing. Like saying that going strictly based off spreadsheets Kot should have been picked between 4-10. Yeah well 4 of the 6 scouting service rankings you listed had him ranked outside of the top 10. Which is fine to ignore that because it doesn't support your argument, but in the same breath you want to use those rankings to point out what a huge reach Romanov was by the same team that took Kot no less lol! It's comical at this point.

I asked quite a while ago if you could provide any scouting source which had him anywhere close to 38, which you conveniently ignored. 4 of the 6 scouting services have laughable rankings as evidence by Kpts rating and his actual draft position. I've yet to see any such comparison for Romanov's draft ranking vs his draft position. Even by Bob's aggregated rankings, he was drafted laughably early.

As for my thought exercise from earlier, NHL Central Scouting had Ginning ranked ahead of Kot. One of those 4/6. And outside of Bob, they had Romanov ranked the highest. So yeah, not taking anything from them seriously.

So what your saying is that when rankings conviently support your opinion they are good, but when they go against your opinion they are worthless? And yet you still ignore the fact that even if I generous give you Not as the 4th or 5th best prospect, taking him at 3 is still a bigger reach than taking Romanov at 38 even if he is the 200th best player in the draft. You literally want to ignore all information that doesn't support your opinion and that's not how this works.

[Lee]

Ah, the " I know you are, but what am I" defense.

You literally can't get out of your own way, so you have resorted to name calling to make yourself look like you know what you are talking about. Every time something is pointed out you just repeat the same thing. Like saying that going strictly based off spreadsheets Kot should have been picked between 4-10. Yeah well 4 of the 6 scouting service rankings you listed had him ranked outside of the top 10. Which is fine to ignore that because it doesn't support your argument, but in the same breath you want to use those rankings to point out what a huge reach Romanov was by the same team that took Kot no less lol! It's comical at this point.

I asked quite a while ago if you could provide any scouting source which had him anywhere close to 38, which you conveniently ignored. 4 of the 6 scouting services have laughable rankings as evidence by Kpts rating and his actual draft position. I've yet to see any such comparison for Romanov's draft ranking vs his draft position. Even by Bob's aggregated rankings, he was drafted laughably early.

As for my thought exercise from earlier, NHL Central Scouting had Ginning ranked ahead of Kot. One of those 4/6. And outside of Bob, they had Romanov ranked the highest. So yeah, not taking anything from them seriously.

So what your saying is that when rankings conviently support your opinion they are good, but when they go against your opinion they are worthless? And yet you still ignore the fact that even if I generous give you Not as the 4th or 5th best prospect, taking him at 3 is still a bigger reach than taking Romanov at 38 even if he is the 200th best player in the draft. You literally want to ignore all information that doesn't support your opinion and that's not how this works.

Look at Bob's aggregated rankings and compare how the draft played out vs the other sources and how the draft played out and tell them they are anywhere close to the same quality.

And I will give you a big "no shit" to comparing the value of a 3rd overall pick to a 38th overall pick. I was never discussing value of that pick. I was discussing the reach factor of each of the players picked at that position.

[CasperX22]

As am I. 5 at 3 is still a bigger reach than 83 at 38 because of the value of each pick. This isn't an apples to oranges. The value of the 83rd best player is a lot closer to the 38th best player than the 5th best to the 3rd best.

[Lee]

As am I. 5 at 3 is still a bigger reach than 83 at 38 because of the value of each pick. This isn't an apples to oranges. The value of the 83rd best player is a lot closer to the 38th best player than the 5th best to the 3rd best.

And yet you immediately discuss value after saying you're not discussing value.

[CasperX22]

As am I. 5 at 3 is still a bigger reach than 83 at 38 because of the value of each pick. This isn't an apples to oranges. The value of the 83rd best player is a lot closer to the 38th best player than the 5th best to the 3rd best.

And yet you immediately discuss value after saying you're not discussing value.

And it has everything to do with reach factor. 5 at 3 is a huge reach in any draft year. Unless you legitimately believe Kot is a top 3 player in the draft he is a bigger reach than Romanov.

[Lee]

And if you can't understand the difference, I am not wasting any more energy trying to simplify it for you any more.

Using your logic, Romanov at 7 is less of a reach than Kot at 3.

So sure, keep shitting on the chess board.

[CasperX22]

And if you can't understand the difference, I am not wasting any more energy trying to simplify it for you any more.

Using your logic, Romanov at 7 is less of a reach than Kot at 3.

So sure, keep shitting on the chess board.

Actually no, but math doesn't seem to be your strong suit at this point, so phone a friend and maybe they can work it out for you.