# 2016 NHL Draft 1-6



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

Canadian teams have five of the first six selections. It's an extremely interesting field this year and candidates are getting a lot of media attention with all the tournaments that have been aired of late.

If any of you wish to take a stab at predicting top six prospects in order of selection, I'll post the winning member(s) and announce the prize winner of the SFA prize.

I always play devil's advocate on these things and miss by a mile. Everyone is talking Auston Matthews, but I prefer Laine.

My wild guess....

1. Laine
2. Matthews
3. Puljujarvi
4. Dubois
5. Chychrun
6. Tkachuk


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

I may be going out on a limb here, but I think if the Leafs take anyone other than Mathews there will be rioting in the streets.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Matthews should go #1 and I have no doubt he'll be a great player. Scouting isn't what it used to be and we haven't seen a true "bust" in a looooong time. Kids are in much better shape and their skills are miles ahead of what we were seeing out of 1st rd kids before. Also, bottom line is that the Leafs need an elite center and the draft happens before Stammergeddon hits on July 1st, so I'd be shocked if they didn't take Matthews 1st. He had a solid showing at the World Championships and clearly USA Hockey brass thinks highly of him by naming him to the World Cup roster after initially stating he would be a dark horse to make it.

I also like Chychrun and Tkachuk better than Dubois, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Dubois as any of 4, 5 or 6.

1. Matthews
2. Laine
3. Puljujarvi
4. Chychrun
5. Tkachuk
6. Dubois


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

While there is some debate over #1& 2, the top three are pretty much set unless something happens between now & then...

After that it gets more open.
So I'll take a chance or two--as the draft rarely goes as predicted after the first 2 or 3 oicks (& even hen sometimes it doesn't go that way from #1)

1. Matthews
2. Laine
3. Puljujarvi
4. Juolevi 
5. Dubois
6. Nylander


----------



## leftysg (Mar 29, 2008)

1.Matthews
2.Laine
3.Puljujarvi
4.Chychrun
5. Dubois
6.Tkachuk


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

nkjanssen said:


> I'm a little leery of an American playing in the Swiss league rather than major junior or even US college. Could be wrong, but if I was drafting first I think I'd try to swing a deal that saw me giving up the pick to someone who wanted Matthews in exchange for the second or third and pick plus something else worthwhile as a kicker.
> 
> I also think that whoever signs Stamkos in the offseason is going to hugely overpay and end up regretting it.


I think it was an interesting move for him. Allows him to learn to play against players much bigger and more experienced than him and that should help him transition straight to the NHL. Look at Marner in London, he was racking-up points like nobody's business. Other than looking like an absolute stud, do you really think he's learning much more about his game when he's essentially scoring at will and skating circles around everyone else? 

As for Stamkos, who knows? There's an awful lot of talk of his game going South, which isn't 100% accurate. He wants to play center and his production simply isn't as good as a center, so a lot of his recent play reflects that, since he was strong-arming TBL to letting him skate at 1C. Second, he doesn't have St. Louis anymore. That combo worked really well. His linemates simply aren't as good as St. Louis was and the chemistry isn't the same. Lastly, his numbers are also a reflection of the lockout and his broken leg. Taken in aggregate, he's still doing very well (except this year).

2011-12 82 games - 97p - 1.18ppg
2012-13 48 games (lockout) - 57p - 1.19ppg
2013-14 37 games (leg) - 40p - 1.08ppg
2014-15 82 games - 72p - 0.89ppg
2015-16 - 77 games - 64p - 0.83ppg

I'll grant him a decrease in 2014/15 where he was recovering from his broken leg, and this year could be a lot of things (pressure due to impending UFA, bad juju with linemates, playing C instead of LW, shooting down to 8.5/g instead of career avg of 10/g), but I think he's still got a lot left in the tank. 0.83ppg is nothing to sneeze at. He's only 26 and we still think of Kadri as one of our young players, but we think of Stamkos as a veteran. They're the same age. We have a ton of cap space and it won't affect the Leafs negatively in any way to take on the giant contract. And yes, it will be giant. 11MM or so per season isn't unlikely. Do we need him? Not necessarily. Can we use him? Certainly. Also, it's good for the team to have that brand-name recognition of having a bona fide superstar on the team to take some heat off Matthews in his first year (like Lemieux with Crosby).

It all comes down to how the blood clot situation resolves itself, although, that's also a blessing-in-disguise because if he retires due to injury, the contract becomes void.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

nkjanssen said:


> I'm a little leery of an American playing in the Swiss league rather than major junior or even US college.



He wanted to play against men rather than kids. Nothing wrong with that. And he played well at the world championships against NHL players.




> Could be wrong, but if I was drafting first I think I'd try to swing a deal that saw me giving up the pick to someone who wanted Matthews in exchange for the second or third and pick plus something else worthwhile as a kicker.


The Matthews pick would cost a _hell_ of a lot more than that.





> I also think that whoever signs Stamkos in the offseason is going to hugely overpay and end up regretting it.


For one of the best players of his generation? Not likely.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

hollowbody said:


> I think it was an interesting move for him. Allows him to learn to play against players much bigger and more experienced than him and that should help him transition straight to the NHL. Look at Marner in London, he was racking-up points like nobody's business. Other than looking like an absolute stud, do you really think he's learning much more about his game when he's essentially scoring at will and skating circles around everyone else?
> 
> As for Stamkos, who knows? There's an awful lot of talk of his game going South, which isn't 100% accurate. He wants to play center and his production simply isn't as good as a center, so a lot of his recent play reflects that, since he was strong-arming TBL to letting him skate at 1C. Second, he doesn't have St. Louis anymore. That combo worked really well. His linemates simply aren't as good as St. Louis was and the chemistry isn't the same. Lastly, his numbers are also a reflection of the lockout and his broken leg. Taken in aggregate, he's still doing very well (except this year).
> 
> ...



Keep in mind also that scoring is down across the league.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

nkjanssen said:


> Maybe the Leafs should sign Brett Hull for $11 million per. He scored a lot of goals a while back too.


At 26, Hull scored 86G and 45A for 131P. Translated to today's game, yes, those are Stamkos numbers, and yes, it's worth $11M. I don't get what you're trying to say.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> Surely you'd agree that signing Brett Hull today for $11 million (or anything for that matter) would be a terrible signing. I'm saying that if you are paying for past performance, you are overpaying.


but thats how its done. Paying for forecasted ie future performance, doesnt work either, unless players can somehow guarantee it.
it even happens in real life. When ive gone to job interviews, most of the time whether i get the job or the salary, it is based around my past experience....even though i try real hard to convince them I should be CEO and paid $5M per yr


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> I also think that whoever signs Stamkos in the offseason is going to hugely overpay and end up regretting it.


ya but theres a law of diminishing returns with pro players anways. few are really worth their money based on a $ per goal/point/whatever basis. But when one raises the bar in a contract signing, all will follow suit.

Malkin makes about the same as Ovechkin....but which team relies on their star more? both guys (and kessel) are getting almost double Stamkos'. How would he not think he deserves to be at the same level?
Tavares will be barking up the same tree when his contract is due.

but a lot of that depends on where you are playing....Usually when youre on a strong team, you take a discount for that chance to win the cup. when youre on a marginal team, and thus have more pressure to "self-generate" production, your price goes up.
I would say CHI and Pit (and im tempted to say DET ) are "winning environments"....for this reason, when compared to Kane and Toews salary, or for that matter, Datsyuk, Malkin looks like a theif. He should be a 6M guy, not 10M on a team with a 12M player vastly better than him.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

nkjanssen said:


> A hell of a lot more than second overall and something else? Uh, ok.


Yes. If traded to Winnipeg or Columbus the deal would have to include their picks and two pieces. If traded to anyone below Columbus an additional piece would have to be added before the Leafs considered it.

Matthews is a generational player on par with McDavid. Had Matthews been drafted last year (he missed being eligible by two days) he would have gone second, ahead of Eichel. A generational player would not come as cheaply as you seem to think.




> Maybe the Leafs should sign Brett Hull for $11 million per. He scored a lot of goals a while back too.


An idiotic response.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

nkjanssen said:


> Surely you'd agree that signing Brett Hull today for $11 million (or anything for that matter) would be a terrible signing. I'm saying that if you are paying for past performance, you are overpaying.



Past performance is the best indicator of future performance.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> So you're saying the Leafs may have to pay Stamkos $14.8 million per?


lol...i wouldnt put a price out there,but ya...Id expect they will/have always paid premiums for players to play here, if they could even get them.
hopefully thats less of an issue if they are in fact now at least on the right track.

But back to Stamkos, I think there will be bidders with deep pockets...i dont think TML should be one. Reason being, I dont think he makes enough of an immediate impact in the next 3 yrs or so with the core they already have. The timing isnt right. TML isnt one hot forward away from being a great team. theyre pretty much a mess at every position.
As exciting as the new youngsters are, I got free tickets to the Marlies playoff elimination game a week and a half ago. Lets just say, theres much more work to be done.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

i dont know much about Matthews, but I honestly didnt think he was rated as highly as McDavid.
I would have thought Matthews to McDavid was more like Tavares to Crosby.
Last years draft was an exceptionally deep one. This years seems more average.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

nkjanssen said:


> Surely you'd agree that signing Brett Hull today for $11 million (or anything for that matter) would be a terrible signing. I'm saying that if you are paying for past performance, you are overpaying.
> 
> ...and I totally disagree with this. Hull didn't finish 24th overall in scoring with those numbers


Signing a 51-year-old Brett Hull is a bad move. I agree. But Hull made the bulk of his money on the tail end of his career, as all superstars do. He was paid $1.1M for his career-best season and didn't cash in the value he built there until years later. He was still banging in 30+ goals a season right up until the end of his career. Translated to today's game, that's probably equivalent to a 20 goal season. You get paid based on what you've done and what you're likely to do. There's some math involved to determine when this amount becomes silly, but other than that, yes, you're paid based on what you've accomplished. You don't have to like it, but you have to accept that that's how the business model operates.

No, Hull didn't finish 24th. He was 2nd. But next season saw a 17% drop in production which continued to fall over the years, even when he was still putting in 40+ goals. No one questioned whether he was a valuable part of the team, *10 years later*, when he put up 39G and 40A for 79P in 79gms.

Let's not get too hasty here in terms of putting Stamkos out to pasture. A horrible season for him still saw him tied for 7th in the NHL for goals, with 36. He tied Crosby, btw. He also tied for 4th in PPG and tied for 3rd in GWG. Clearly, he wasn't an assist machine, but that's not surprising, given that TBL was 12th in GF/GP with 2.73 and GF total with 224. It's easy to look at hit point total and say he's shit, but when you put it in context, it's pretty clear he still has a lot of hockey left in him. The fact that this is even being questioned is ridiculous.

As a die-hard Leafs fan, I'm quite happy with bringing in Stamkos for $11M~/yr.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

nkjanssen said:


> When the performance was 5 seasons prior?


Five seasons prior? Do you even watch hockey? Stamkos has been in the top twenty in points in the league every year since 2009 with the exception of the year he broke his leg and wasn't playing (and he scored 40 points in 37 games before the break) and last season (during which he was used differently by his coach, had his power play time cut. etc.). In most of those years he was in the top ten and was second in the league in points in two of them.

During that time he never finished out of the top ten in goals except for the year in which he broke his leg and wasn't playing. He is also a 60 goal scorer who won the scoring title.




> Hey don't get me wrong, I really hope the Leafs sign him. I mean I REALLY hope they sign him. Disappointment of Leafs fans is the air I breathe.


You're a special one eh?


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

hollowbody said:


> Let's not get too hasty here in terms of putting Stamkos out to pasture. A horrible season for him still saw him tied for 7th in the NHL for goals, with 36. He tied Crosby, btw. He also tied for 4th in PPG and tied for 3rd in GWG. Clearly, he wasn't an assist machine, but that's not surprising, given that TBL was 12th in GF/GP with 2.73 and GF total with 224. It's easy to look at hit point total and say he's shit, but when you put it in context, it's pretty clear he still has a lot of hockey left in him. The fact that this is even being questioned is ridiculous.



He is also the same age as Kadri who the Leafs have just signed to a longer term deal because they see him as part of their core moving forward. If Kadri is at the right age for that then it is preposterous for anyone to argue that Stamkos isn't when he is only a few months older than Kadri.




> As a die-hard Leafs fan, I'm quite happy with bringing in Stamkos for $11M~/yr.



I agree but wouldn't go higher than $11 million.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

nkjanssen said:


> If guess you've never heard of a three-way trade.


Those don't happen often in the NHL. And if you are basing your argument on some hypothetical three way trade then your argument is based on an incredibly shaky foundation.





> I don't think you understand what "generational" means.


Actually I understand it perfectly well.






> ...to an idiotic post.


My post was far from idiotic. But your claim that the Leafs should sign a long retired player when the topic is one of the best active players in the world, who is only 26 years old, definitely qualifies your response as being idiotic.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Looking forward to the Pens hoisting the cup tomorrow. Happy for Kessel.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> Who's going to be your pick for "generational player" in next year's draft?


lol....
boys, lets take it back a notch...as an impartial observer, between the "generational player" remark and the Brett Hull reference, id call it even at this point, which makes it a good time to move past ruffled feathers.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Diablo said:


> i dont know much about Matthews, but I honestly didnt think he was rated as highly as McDavid.


He was damned, damned close.

The consensus is that had he been eligible last year he would have gone #2 after McDavid rather than Eichel going in that slot. And there are some scouts who have said that he might have gone #1. Even if he didn't, they do say it would have been one hell of a debate. Eichel was always second to McDavid wheras Matthews is often considered to be damned near his equal (that being said, I would personally prefer McDavid because of his lifelong love of the Leafs...imagine the passion he would have felt playing for his favourite team!).


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

nkjanssen said:


> Who's going to be your pick for "generational player" in next year's draft?



You really don't know much about hockey do you?

In hockey terms 'generational' is a measure of talent. It is the highest level, above 'elite'. It refers to a player who can do things that the overwhelming majority of players simply cannot. And it is entirely possible to have more than one generational player playing at a time. Take Gretzky and Lemieux - they were contemporaries for much of their careers but both were generational (I'd love to see you argue that one of them was not). In the current era Crosby and Ovechkin are both generational players (again, I'd love to see you argue that one is not) and they both joined the league in the same year (Ovie scored 106 points that year while Crosby scored 102). 

Entering last year's draft both McDavid and Eichel were deemed to be generational players. And, as I have mentioned above, the consensus amongst the experts is that Matthews would have been drafted ahead of Eichel had he been eligible last year. So if McDavid and Eichel are generational players and Matthews would have been drafted ahead of Eichel, Matthews is clearly a generational player too. Maybe if you actually knew anything about hockey you would have understood the term when I used it.

NHL Player System Rating Rules - Hockey's Future

And here we have one of the most respected websites in hockey labeling him as a generational talent (because, unlike you, they understand how the term is used in hockey):

Auston Matthews


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Maybe "generational" is a term like "hero" that gets used too often.
McDavid was generational, now Matthews supposedly, Stamkos, Crosby, Ovechkin, Tavares (likely heard it a few times)...a generation should mean something other than the #1 pick in this years draft.
I think theres so much parity between players, its a hard term to use these days. How many can there be within a "generation" ie 10-15 yrs? Is there a limit? maybe it should apply to just 1 player....maybe every team could have one, i dunno.
Crosby is likely this generations example....but even that is tough for me to swallow when theres been a half dozen other players arguably nearly as great. I guess they all can be, to make all the fans happy and sell more merchandise and Big Macs.

at any rate, Since the days of Alexandre Daigle, Rick DiPietro, et al Im hesitant to anoint that title on anyone before theyve played a few seasons at the NHL level.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

nkjanssen said:


> I think your avatar says everything anyone needs to know about how much you know about hockey. Hey, keep dreaming though. Nothing's worked for the Leafs in the past 50 years, but I'm sure they've got it all figured out now.



Your comments just keep getting dumber.




> Try reading your own links, by the way, dumbass...
> 
> "Generational Talent – a player for the ages, one who can do things with a puck that no other player would even contemplate doing. Very, very few players will be deserving of this rating, probably one per decade."
> 
> ...yet you figure we've got three within a year of each other. Who knew that "generational talents" were so common?



Are you really this thick or do you just keep doubling down because you cannot admit that you are wrong? And do you not understand the definition of 'probably'?

While there is usually only a player or two who fit the generational tag, the existence of one in a particular era does not preclude another from being generational (especially as that term is used to denote a particular level of talent and does not in any way denote that that talent level is exclusive to a single player). 

All of the experts have deemed McDavid, Eichel, and Matthews as being generational talents. That is the reality and you need to accept that, especially considering your lack of hockey knowledge. I readily admit that it is a unique situation to have three come out at the same time (three born in the same year no less!), but the fact that they are all generational talents is the reality whether you can accept that or not.

If you do not think there can be more than one generational player at a time I have two questions for you:

1) Gretzky and Lemieux were contemporaries for most of their careers. Which was generational and which was not? 

2) Crosby and Ovechkin entered the league at the exact same time so their careers match up perfectly. Which of them is generational and which is not?

If you are right, and if you are as knowledgeable about hockey as you seem to think, surely you can make rational, supportable, and fact based arguments for why only one of Gretzky/Lemieux and one of Crosby/Ovechkin were generational talents. So come on, let's see you make those arguments.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Diablo said:


> Maybe "generational" is a term like "hero" that gets used too often.


It doesn't get used too often. Having three born in the same year is an _incredibly_ unique situation. The only situation that comes close is Crosby and Ovechkin, two generational talents that came into the league at the exact same time. The generational tag was applied to them and wasn't used again until last year when McDavid and Eichel were drafted.




> McDavid was generational, now Matthews supposedly, Stamkos, Crosby, Ovechkin, Tavares (likely heard it a few times)...a generation should mean something other than the #1 pick in this years draft.


Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid, Eichel, and Matthews are deemed generational talents (personally, I am not 100% sold on Eichel being generational but the experts have applied that tag so I will accept that based on their expertise). The others you mentioned are elite, probably at the top end of the elite category, but are not quite generational.




> How many can there be within a "generation" ie 10-15 yrs?


I think you might be taking the 'generation' part of 'generational' too literally. In the hockey context it is a measure of talent and is not a chronological term. So to answer your question, it depends on talent levels. But as I said above, last year was the first time the generational tag had been applied since Crosby and Ovechkin entered the league and having three born in the same year is incredibly unique.



> at any rate, Since the days of Alexandre Daigle, Rick DiPietro, et al Im hesitant to anoint that title on anyone before theyve played a few seasons at the NHL level.



Scouting has improved drastically since Daigle. And he had the talent, what he lacked was the drive to fully utilize that talent and to reach his potential at the NHL level.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

nkjanssen said:


> Firstly, I don't understand why you're trying to get me to support an argument I never made.


You called into question the possibility of having more than one generational player at a time, and did so because you did not understand the term. Even after having the term explained to you, you continued with your argument. Now that you have been asked specific questions, which should be easy to answer if you were correct and if your position had any merit, you cannot do so. I am not at all surprised by that.



> I suppose it's because you've realized the idiocy of your statements and are trying to deflect attention from your own stupidity.


Nice attempt at deflection there. But my statements were fact based (the definition of generational, to whom that tag has been applied, etc.) and it is your statements that are stupid.




> Secondly, the "generational talent" label is something only "bloggers" and morons care about (granted, there's much overlap between those two). It adds nothing to any discussion about anything.



For you to make that statement demonstrates, once again, how little you know about hockey. Seriously, at this point you are just embarrassing yourself.

And to prove the idiocy of your statement, here is the NHL's own website using the term 'generational':

Generational talents McDavid, Eichel living up to hype

So who knows more about hockey and the application of terms like 'generational', you or the league itself?

But why stop there, let's see what one of Canada's two sports networks has to say. This piece of from Craig Button (a former NHL executive and scout, now a broadcaster and analyst with TSN):

Craig's List - December Ranking: McDavid and Eichel on even terms

Yep, there we have someone who was employed in senior positions in the league for two decades using the term.

I wonder if Bob McKenzie, arguably the most respected hockey journalist/analyst in the world, would use a term like generational? Oh, wait, yes he would:

McDavid, Strome prepared for all outcomes


I wonder if John Shannon, one of the few hockey journalists/analysts who is in McKenzie's league, would use the term? Oh, wait, yes he would:

4 reasons why Islanders vs. Sabres lacked intensity



I could go on but why bother?

But yeah, you stick to your pathetically stupid assertion that only bloggers and morons use the term 'generational'.

Face it, you're wrong and have been proven wrong. Just accept it. There is no shame in it, it happens to everyone at some point.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

guitarman2 said:


> Looking forward to the Pens hoisting the cup tomorrow. Happy for Kessel.


I was really hoping for Thornton to win one, but I'm super-happy to see Kessel succeed so well. Toronto media were conducting a witch-hunt on him. It was insane how much bad press he got in spite of doing nothing but score more goals in recent memory than any Leafs not named Sundin or Mogilny.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

nkjanssen said:


> Oh and colchar, while this has been fun, at some point I'm going to have to put you on "ignore". Arguing with a child eventually just gets a little tiring and repetitive. So if I stop responding to you, feel free to call me a "dummy-headed poopy pants" or something similar and we'll leave it at that, OK?



Your maturity level matches the depths of your hockey IQ. That is quite a feat. Feel free to put me on ignore if you want, but all you will be demonstrating is that you ran away from an argument that you were losing - badly. Talk about childish..................


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Great thread! Entertaining.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

hollowbody said:


> I was really hoping for Thornton to win one, but I'm super-happy to see Kessel succeed so well. Toronto media were conducting a witch-hunt on him. It was insane how much bad press he got in spite of doing nothing but score more goals in recent memory than any Leafs not named Sundin or Mogilny.



I wanted the Penguins to lose in the first round but only because that would have meant that the draft pick the Leafs received in the Kessel deal would have been higher, it was nothing against Phil himself. I actually think it is kind of cool that he is in the discussion for the Conn Smythe.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Diablo said:


> Maybe "generational" is a term like "hero" that gets used too often.
> McDavid was generational, now Matthews supposedly, Stamkos, Crosby, Ovechkin, Tavares (likely heard it a few times)...a generation should mean something other than the #1 pick in this years draft.
> I think theres so much parity between players, its a hard term to use these days. How many can there be within a "generation" ie 10-15 yrs? Is there a limit? maybe it should apply to just 1 player....maybe every team could have one, i dunno.
> Crosby is likely this generations example....but even that is tough for me to swallow when theres been a half dozen other players arguably nearly as great. I guess they all can be, to make all the fans happy and sell more merchandise and Big Macs.
> ...


Out of that list, I would say only Crosby and Ovie would be Generational talents for me. Stamkos and Tavares (and Kane, Toews, etc.) are all fantastic players, but not quite to the degree of Sid and the Great 8. Those 2 are hugely dynamic and have a more complete game than the rest. Whether McD or Matthews gets to that level will take a few seasons to pan-out. Everyone thought Taylor Hall was going to come in a be the next big thing, and while he's a very good player, he's just a very good player.

fwiw, McDavid looks like he has the goods to be one of the best.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

colchar said:


> I wanted the Penguins to lose in the first round but only because that would have meant that the draft pick the Leafs received in the Kessel deal would have been higher, it was nothing against Phil himself. I actually think it is kind of cool that he is in the discussion for the Conn Smythe.


Yeah, a 16th or 17th overall pick would be great right now, given that my boy Chychrun seems to have dropped quite a bit in the rankings. But good on Phil!

It'll be interesting to see whether he gets the Conn Smythe. This is a guy who's been crapped on for years - picked last at the All-Star game, left off team USA for the 2016 Worlds, basically bullied into leaving town by idiots like Steve Simmons, etc. It'll go a long way to righting those wrongs if he's selected, but honestly, it's Phil...they'll probably give it to Pavelski on the losing team before they give it to Phil


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

hollowbody said:


> Yeah, a 16th or 17th overall pick would be great right now, given that my boy Chychrun seems to have dropped quite a bit in the rankings. But good on Phil!



There are also a couple of forwards who might be available in that range who project to be great players. One is Brown (son of the former NHL player) and another is a kid from out in BC.



> It'll be interesting to see whether he gets the Conn Smythe. This is a guy who's been crapped on for years - picked last at the All-Star game, left off team USA for the 2016 Worlds, basically bullied into leaving town by idiots like Steve Simmons, etc. It'll go a long way to righting those wrongs if he's selected, but honestly, it's Phil...they'll probably give it to Pavelski on the losing team before they give it to Phil



There is a lot of talk of Crosby getting it and I expect that he will win.

As for Phil being bullied into leaving town, while I agree with you that Simmons is a moron, Phil wasn't dealt because of the media. Phil was dealt because Shanahan didn't want him and his attitude (well the attitude he had when with the Leafs) around for the rebuild particularly as that attitude could have infected younger players. I tend to agree with Shanahan's decision based on Phil's attitude when with the Leafs.


----------



## johnnyshaka (Nov 2, 2014)

Kessel was dealt because of his contract, age, and how much somebody was willing to give up for him.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

nkjanssen said:


> My argument is that "generational talents" (to the extent someone insists on using that now cliche term) are, by definition, rare. You then cited a blog stating that generational talents come along at most once a decade in support of your opinion that there have been three in the past year.



I am starting to wonder if you are only barely literate. That website did not say they only come along at most once a decade, they said probably. If you PM me your address I will have Amazon deliver you a dictionary so that you can learn the definition of the term 'probably'.




> One thing I'll give you... you're a generational idiot, colchar. And by that, I mean that I haven't seen the likes of your idiocy in at least a decade.



Sorry Skippy, but you are the one who is being an idiot. I have posted facts and have supported those facts with examples. You have made snide comments and offered nothing whatsoever in support of your baseless arguments. I am actually starting to wonder why I am even bothering because it is no fun having a war of wits with someone as obviously unarmed as yourself.






> Quick epistemology lesson... a hockey blogger's definition of a term is not a "fact".


While checking that dictionary for the definition of 'probably' you should also look up the definition of 'blogger' because I have provided multiple example of the term being used, including by the league itself, but you still do not seem capable of grasping the definition of the term.






> "Knows more about...application of terms like 'generational'"? I think I'm beginning to understand why you seem like a raving lunatic. You seem to think this is a scientific term capable of precise and accurate measurement. It's not. It's a qualitative judgement.


It is qualitative? Well no shit Sherlock. But what you seem so singularly incapable of grasping is that despite its qualitative nature the term carries meaning in the hockey world and that meaning is accepted throughout hockey. Anyone with any knowledge of hockey who hears that term knows what it means...which I guess explains why you don't as you have clearly demonstrated that the average Labrador Retriever knows more about hockey than you do.

While one can argue about who the term is applied to due to its qualitative nature, as I am somewhat inclined to do with respect to Eichel, one cannot argue about the basic definition of the term as it applies in a hockey context. And your initial snide comment after I first used the term here indicates that you were arguing about its definition, as do your subsequent comments (ie. trying to claim that a generational player only comes about once per decade because you are incapable of understanding the term 'probably'). On that note, and many others, you are clearly wrong and are merely attempting to support an unsupportable argument because you are completely incapable of admitting that you are wrong.





> Beyond that, have you ever thought that maybe people (even the NHL!) use it as a marketing term?


If it was a marketing term it would be used far more often than it actually is and would not be a term that scouts use. But nice try Skippy.




> Or maybe that lazy reporters use it because they've heard it elsewhere and can't think of anything more original to use?


Did you ever consider that reporters use the term not because of laziness but because it is a term that is widely understood by those who know and follow hockey and thus instantly conveys a specific meaning. Actually no, you couldn't possibly do that because, as I have said, the average Labrador Retriever has more knowledge of hockey than you have demonstrated here.





> ...well there you go!


Exactly - some of the most respected names in the business use the term but you go right ahead and continue to claim that only bloggers use it.




> OK, let me modify slightly... bloggers, morons and lazy sports journalists use it. Again, though, there is a ton of overlap between those.


The fact that you are now labeling some of the most knowledgeable, connected, informed, and respected names in the business as 'lazy' says an awful lot about you, and none of it good. You are wrong. Just grow up and accept it.




> The only things proven here are that: (a) you have access to Google; (b) you have some basic capacity to read, but very little capacity to understand what you read; (c) you have no idea what a "fact" is; (d) you have no idea what "proof" is or what kind of things are even capable of "proof" (hint... an opinion is not); (e) you ascribe WAY too much credit to the opinions of bloggers and sports journalists, without any apparent capacity to think for yourself; (f) you like to categorize things that don't need to be categorized; and (g) you are a generational idiot.



You really are a special kind of stupid aren't you? I would wager that I have far more capacity to understand than you do as you cannot even understand the definition of basic terms such as 'probably' and 'blogger'. I also have far more knowledge of what constitutes a fact than you do. Maybe you should check the dictionary for that term too. As for proof, I have not offered opinions as proof. I have presented instances of some of the most respected names in the business using a term that you claimed was only used by bloggers. In doing that I proved that you were wrong (then again, based on your level of ignorance and idiocy one should just assume that everything you say is wrong).

Arguing with you was fun for a while but I think I'm done because all you have accomplished here is to demonstrate that you lack hockey knowledge, do not understand terms that are widely used in the hockey world and that carry a specific meaning within that world, that you cannot accept being wrong, that you can formulate and support an effective argument, and that when your position is taken apart you have nothing to fall back on but insults and deflection.

I could continue to take you apart piece by piece but at some point I will just become the guy who is beating up on the handicapped person and nobody wants to be that guy.

But still, PM me your address and I'll have Amazon deliver that dictionary to you..............


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

johnnyshaka said:


> Kessel was dealt because of his contract, age, and how much somebody was willing to give up for him.



His attitude played a role. Word is that Shanahan was absolutely seething after Salutegate (immediately down to the dressing room to tear a huge strip off of the players). Since Kessel was the one most responsible for that I think that was the moment from which there was no turning back in Shanahan's mind. No matter what else Phil might have done as a Leaf, from that moment he was on his way out of town.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

vadsy said:


> Great thread! Entertaining.



Then why am I kicking myself in the ass for creating it? Where are the draft predictions??????


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

And my apologies for giving it a kick. I your OP had been sitting dead for over a week. Like Fred Gwynne said in Pet Cemetary, "sometimes dead is better".


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

colchar said:


> His attitude played a role. Word is that Shanahan was absolutely seething after Salutegate (immediately down to the dressing room to tear a huge strip off of the players). Since Kessel was the one most responsible for that I think that was the moment from which there was no turning back in Shanahan's mind. No matter what else Phil might have done as a Leaf, from that moment he was on his way out of town.


his likeability was definitely a factor.
and in fairness, Kessel isnt a guy you build a team around. his goals on their own with little other support were pretty meaningless. It would be like putting Patrick Kane on an equally bad team and expecting a massive turn around. its not how you build teams.
Still I think he was hard done by, by fans and media in TO, and I wish him well...but my hatred for Pit still has me cheering for SJ.


----------



## johnnyshaka (Nov 2, 2014)

Krelf said:


> Then why am I kicking myself in the ass for creating it? Where are the draft predictions??????


OK, FIIIIIIIIINE.

1.1 Matthews
1.2 Laine
1.3 Puljujarvi
1.4 Tkachuk
1.5 Dubois
1.6 Brown

Happy now?!


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Diablo said:


> his likeability was definitely a factor.
> and in fairness, Kessel isnt a guy you build a team around. his goals on their own with little other support were pretty meaningless. It would be like putting Patrick Kane on an equally bad team and expecting a massive turn around. its not how you build teams.



Couldn't agree more.




> Still I think he was hard done by, by fans and media in TO, and I wish him well...but my hatred for Pit still has me cheering for SJ.


Agreed.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

A rumour has surfaced today that Arizona is offering the Leafs their two first round picks (#7 & #20) and either Domi or Dvorak for the Leafs first overall pick.

I doubt that is enough to get the Leafs to consider a trade. But if they were to offer the two picks, Dvorak/Domi, and OEL I think the Leafs would listen - especially if they think they have a good shot at signing Stamkos. I don't know if they would do it, but they would listen.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

colchar said:


> As for Phil being bullied into leaving town, while I agree with you that Simmons is a moron, Phil wasn't dealt because of the media. Phil was dealt because Shanahan didn't want him and his attitude (well the attitude he had when with the Leafs) around for the rebuild particularly as that attitude could have infected younger players. I tend to agree with Shanahan's decision based on Phil's attitude when with the Leafs.





johnnyshaka said:


> Kessel was dealt because of his contract, age, and how much somebody was willing to give up for him.





colchar said:


> His attitude played a role. Word is that Shanahan was absolutely seething after Salutegate (immediately down to the dressing room to tear a huge strip off of the players). Since Kessel was the one most responsible for that I think that was the moment from which there was no turning back in Shanahan's mind. No matter what else Phil might have done as a Leaf, from that moment he was on his way out of town.


Make no mistake that Kessel's unhappiness in this city was directly caused by the media and Simmons, who was spearheading the assault.

It would've been very easy for the media to run with the story "Puffy-Looking Cancer Survivor Scores 37 Goals!" and have all sorts of feel-good stories about Phil, but they chose the opposite. The fairweather fans bought into it and you ended up with a shitstorm that resulted in Salutegate, which was Phil's way of saying Fuck You to all the haters who didn't realize we had the 4th-highest goals scorer of the era on our team (only Oveckin, Stamkos and Perry scored more - that's some rarified air). I totally think Phil was justified in fighting back against the fans and media who were bullying him for his appearance. Nevermind the morons throwing waffles and jerseys on the ice.

If those people stopped to realize that Phil was an incredible talent that needed to be supported, instead burdened with impossible expectations, he would still be here. 100%. Like @Diablo said, you don't build around Phil, or Kane or players like that. You almost NEVER build around a winger unless his name is Ovechkin.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

That is an interesting rumour...im a bird in the hand kind of guy, so in the same way I didnt feel bad when TML got Kessel for what turned out to be Seguin, I like what ive seen of Domi at the NHL level, and could find that deal quite liveable.
although, the #1 pick is really what everyone strives for and rarely get the opportunity, so I dunno.
I think politically, the optics would be bad for that deal for Shanahan.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

as for Salutegate, well I heard at the time they had a Captain, so that fiasco has to fall on him, or at best although unlikely, his inability to convince his players otherwise.
the whole salute thing was stupid anyways and another media contrivation.

kessel was a hired gun. He cared for scoring and little else, and he was damn good at it, and that strength should have been leveraged fully. defensive shortcomings should have been addressed with their defensive units. What kind of shitty organization wants to take a 30 goal scorer and turn him into a 20 goal scorer AND a defender, just because they dont know WTF to do with that oaf Phaneuf and his mates? I still think Dion should have been moved long ago, and Kessel given a chance to fit in with the young core. I actually think with guys like Nylander, shostikov etc there could have been a fit. TML is still in a world of hurt with their defense and goaltending issues (Sparks was fun to watch for a couple games, but theres a reason a slightly less shitty Bibeau was in goal for the Marlies playoff run). Dont even mention Bernier.

i dont think he cared one way or the other for saluting/not-saluting, the media or any other elements of the TO hockey circus. he didnt want to be the Sidney Crosby poster boy /ambassador of the game, or a captain/leader. he wanted an opportunity to play, score, win and get paid. Very simple and I can respect that. Ive worked professionally with ppl like that....theyre usually your best employees because of their single minded focus, although they'll never run the company.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> I assume this means you think the Oilers are going to move Hall to get a top-pairing defenseman.


More likely Yakupov...maybe RNH. Maybe both. and TBH, its about f-ing time.
i dont even live in EDM and i find their situation painful to watch.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

hollowbody said:


> Make no mistake that Kessel's unhappiness in this city was directly caused by the media and Simmons, who was spearheading the assault.


I agree. Simmons is a douche of the highest order.




> It would've been very easy for the media to run with the story "Puffy-Looking Cancer Survivor Scores 37 Goals!" and have all sorts of feel-good stories about Phil, but they chose the opposite. The fairweather fans bought into it and you ended up with a shitstorm that resulted in Salutegate, which was Phil's way of saying Fuck You to all the haters who didn't realize we had the 4th-highest goals scorer of the era on our team (only Oveckin, Stamkos and Perry scored more - that's some rarified air). I totally think Phil was justified in fighting back against the fans and media who were bullying him for his appearance. Nevermind the morons throwing waffles and jerseys on the ice.


While I agree with respect to the media, I tend to disagree with respect to the fans. Well not the ones who complained about his appearance and alleged lack of conditioning. Those fans were idiots. I heard Mike Gartner being interviewed one day and he said Kessel's conditioning was fine. He said some players simply don't do well when in great physical shape. He said that he rarely trained in the off season but decided to do so one year and went into camp in great shape. But he said by about thirty games in he was playing terrible and that turned out to be the worst and lowest scoring season of his career. The next summer he didn't train much and rebounded. He said that Kessel was probably the same as him and that working out would adversely affect his play. This is coming from one of the all time great scorers and a hall of fame member. So I agree with you on that point.

But with regards to the fans throwing jerseys, etc. I disagree with you. The team was abysmal at that time, absolutely abysmal, and the fans had every right to vent their frustrations. They weren't attacking him for his fitness level, they were attacking him and the team for their horrific play. That season was a tire fire and the team deserved the criticism it received. 



> If those people stopped to realize that Phil was an incredible talent that needed to be supported, instead burdened with impossible expectations, he would still be here. 100%. Like @Diablo said, you don't build around Phil, or Kane or players like that. You almost NEVER build around a winger unless his name is Ovechkin.


Or Bossy.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Diablo said:


> That is an interesting rumour...im a bird in the hand kind of guy, so in the same way I didnt feel bad when TML got Kessel for what turned out to be Seguin, I like what ive seen of Domi at the NHL level, and could find that deal quite liveable.
> although, the #1 pick is really what everyone strives for and rarely get the opportunity, so I dunno.
> I think politically, the optics would be bad for that deal for Shanahan.



True, but when you are in a rebuild and have the opportunity to bring in multiple young players, especially someone of OEL's skill (if he was to be included), then you have to at least consider doing it.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

colchar said:


> True, but when you are in a rebuild and have the opportunity to bring in multiple young players, especially someone of OEL's skill (if he was to be included), then you have to at least consider doing it.


i agree, but when faced with tough decisions that may be too close to call, most of times the decision that would have pissed off the fewest ppl is the one that gets chosen.
in a worst case scenario its easier to say "hey, he was the 1st overall pick...what did you want me to do?" vs "ya I gave away the 1st overall pick that we likely wont get again for 20 more years, for 2 guys that turned into another Phaneuf and Clarkson" (totally facetious, and unlikely, but you get the point...some decisions are safer than others even if they arent the best one).


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> Couldn't get a top pairing defenseman for Yakupov. RNH, maybe. The only way drafting a winger makes sense, though, is if the Oil lose a winger. They have too many already. If a deal is done to move a winger before the draft, they might take Tkachuk. Otherwise, they'll be looking at defensemen. Maybe trading down since there doesn't seem to be a clear #1 defenseman this year.


probably true, but in the case of moving Yakupov, theres addition by subtraction


----------



## johnnyshaka (Nov 2, 2014)

nkjanssen said:


> I assume this means you think the Oilers are going to move Hall to get a top-pairing defenseman.


Remember, I was predicting WHO was drafted 1-6, not which teams were doing the drafting. Maybe a deal comes up involving this pick and a player for a d-man but that likely won't change who gets selected at 1.4, IMO. Unless whoever moves up really wants a center, then Dubois likely goes at 1.4.

Should the Oilers take Tkachuk should they stay at 1.4? IMO, sure, why not? I think you need to take the best player available more often than not and worry about having too many good players later on versus trying to get cute and drafting for need and increasing the risk of a bust.

I think Tkachuk fits Chiarelli's "strong on the puck" mold. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he'd rather that one of the Finns falls to him but I'm sure he'll be fine selecting Tkachuk as a consolation. Yes, they would end up with a logjam at LW but there is nothing wrong with starting a rookie in the bottom six...you know, like pretty much every other team in the NHL. SMH. If he plays well then we'll have a great problem on our hands. 

I doubt it's Hall leaving town for that elusive defensive unicorn. I suspect Eberle is the odd man out.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Ya its really unlikely Hall moves...1st overall picks are the last to go.
i heard a rumour that Lucic is open to going to edmonton. Pretty sure chiarelli likes him


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> There are maybe a dozen generational defensemen in the league that would make a Hall trade worthwhile for the Oil and not many teams are willing to give those up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We've seen though, that EDM has been extremely tight fisted with their assets, any of them, so I'd be real surprised if they moved Hall at all this decade. I think he's seen as their golden goose.
Maybe if they were offered a Doughty or Burns, but that ain't happening.
Subban perhaps? That would be interesting! Would you do that trade? Seems pretty fair to me.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Honestly, Subbans off ice traits are more impressive than some of his on-ice behaviour. I don't think there's any surprises with him, wysiwyg.
He's a character guy with a lot of emotion, which can be an asset and liability at the same time.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Im not sure about a lot of the other stuff, but the captain thing doesnt bother me. Patch had been there a long time, and we dont really know that getting named was a democratic process....It sure wasnt in TO when Phaneuf got it. pretty clear therrien doesnt like him though, and never has. some coaches just have a hate-on for certain guys. i think hes on a pretty short leash as well though.
at any rate, Im sure PK has is detractors, he annoys the hell out of me sometimes too lol but its not on the level of a lot of players...and theres at least one on every team....the Kanes (take your pick), Seguin, kassian, Kadri etc. but it usually doesnt get in the way of a deal getitng done.


----------



## johnnyshaka (Nov 2, 2014)

johnnyshaka said:


> OK, FIIIIIIIIINE.
> 
> 1.1 Matthews
> 1.2 Laine
> ...


Well, Columbus shook things up in a big way.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I wouldn't expect anything less from CBJ. We'll see if the broken clock got it right this time.


----------

