Craig's List (The Rankings...)

[Veritas0Aequitas]

I personally don't see the reason to go overly gung-ho for picks. The draft pool is deeper but the same problems as usual are there: bust potential, development time, limited roster space, etc. At the right price by all means stock up but don't go out of your way to chase unproven assets.

I never said to sell the farm for picks but I think if you can obtain 1st and 2nd rounders, by all means do it.

[metaldude26]

There are lots of factors conspiring to make every new draft year seem deep but the reality is that only a couple kids in any year will go on to be stars so the idea that it makes sense to load up on any draft year seems a foolish endeavour to me. Unless you can nab one of truly elite guys from any draft class your best bet is instead to sell picks and grab established talent.

But that of course, is all dependent on your respective leagues.

[ericdaoust]

There are lots of factors conspiring to make every new draft year seem deep but the reality is that only a couple kids in any year will go on to be stars so the idea that it makes sense to load up on any draft year seems a foolish endeavour to me. Unless you can nab one of truly elite guys from any draft class your best bet is instead to sell picks and grab established talent.

But that of course, is all dependent on your respective leagues.

In my experience most 18 year old prospects are irrelevant in fantasy hockey. The development time to get the player up to the level of a good NHL producer usually exceeds the lifetime of the league. In other words, the league folds before the prospect offers a return on the investment.

If I have the picks then I make the most of them so that, like MD said, I can sell them for established talent. Better prospect = better trade value.

[octapuss]

I think this debate is interesting. How long does it take for a number one pick to pay off and become productive.
Two examples, what is the norm?

1. Granlund, Mikael - he was drafted in our 2010 entry draft, and still waiting for him to become productive let alone "elite"

2. Yakupov, Nail - he was draft in our 2012 entry draft, he is producing already and on his way to being "elite"

With the Granlund example, you have three full fantasy seasons of waiting to put him in your line up. Thats a lot of hockey.

In our league first round picks carry alot of weight, and trying to decide if its better to draft a player vs trading the pick for established talent?

whats your opinion?

[Akkei]

In my opinion, only the draft picks that can get you a top-3 overall prospect have a significant value in fantasy leagues. All other picks are marginal assets and have little value. My rationale is explained here:

http://forums.dobbersports.com/showthread.php?t=130139

From what I have read of the 2013 draft, there are 6-7 prospects that have elite potential, so this year may be different in that a 5th overall pick may be more valuable than in an average year, but only time will confirm if that is true and I would not bank on it.

That being said, I think it is important not to put all my eggs in the same basket. I usually like to have multiple picks in any draft class (and many prospects as well) to give me more options when I am involved in trade talks. There are often a lot of trading happening in fantasy leagues at the draft and I like being in a position to make a move if another GM decides to start a "rebuilding" process. If I cannot get good value for these picks, I then try to draft prospects that are closer to the NHL that were selected later in previous years (and hence ignored in fantasy leagues). I also like to use late picks to try to hit a homerun, which I acknowledge is a strategy that is bound to fail but I enjoy doing it anyway.

[ericdaoust]

In a sim league I've had success drafting OEL and Dougie Hamilton (not top-3 picks) as 18 year olds. Meanwhile owning Turris was a nightmare and thankfully a good trade option came up where I acquired Derek Roy. This was during the Phoenix days.

Context is everything. League size, farm eligibility, scoring categories, etc affect which prospects are relevant. The key is that what you think is relevant is not necessarily the same as what the next guy thinks and this can work to your favor in trades. So if/when you own draft picks make the most of them. Do your homework and try to find a gem. The better the player, the more trade value he has and if you can't find a trade maybe he gives your main roster a pleasant surprise.

[Akkei]

I agree. In 2011, I drafted Justin Schultz with a 6th rounder (pure luck, I had no insight on him other than what was written in Dobber's prospect guide). Very good/key players are drafted outside the top-3 each year. I am not sure if that makes a lot of sense, but what I am saying is that the picks themselves are not very valuable. If you have 10 picks in a draft (outside the top 3), chances are that you will be able to draft 1 or 2 players that will become key part of your roster eventually (pro scouts cannot do better than that). I am not saying that only one/two prospects out of 10 will be valuable in a fantasy league value however, but that trading for picks (or relying on picks to rebuild) is often a bad idea.

[Mr. Guru]

In this draft there is the top 5 that are clear cut above everyone else. They will all be stars in the NHL at some point.

Jones, Drouin, Mackinnon, Barkov, Nickushkin

Then guys like Lindholm, Domi, Monahan, Shinkaruk are next and thats when the risk/reward comes into play.

To answer your question, if I had a top 5 pick, I wouldn't trade it unless Im getting back a hefty return.

[Big Ev]

In this draft there is the top 5 that are clear cut above everyone else. They will all be stars in the NHL at some point.

Jones, Drouin, Mackinnon, Barkov, Nickushkin

Then guys like Lindholm, Domi, Monahan, Shinkaruk are next and thats when the risk/reward comes into play.

To answer your question, if I had a top 5 pick, I wouldn't trade it unless Im getting back a hefty return.

I would bet my life savings that Lindholm is drafted over the Russian.

[4horsemen]

I think this debate is interesting. How long does it take for a number one pick to pay off and become productive.
Two examples, what is the norm?

1. Granlund, Mikael - he was drafted in our 2010 entry draft, and still waiting for him to become productive let alone "elite"

2. Yakupov, Nail - he was draft in our 2012 entry draft, he is producing already and on his way to being "elite"

With the Granlund example, you have three full fantasy seasons of waiting to put him in your line up. Thats a lot of hockey.

In our league first round picks carry alot of weight, and trying to decide if its better to draft a player vs trading the pick for established talent?

whats your opinion?

There's been some solid insight offered up here already but your two examples above immediately brought something to mind that I've noticed throughout many years of playing this game and visiting forums such as this.

Yakupov was a consensus number one pick, he will almost certainly be a star because almost all number one picks are (with rare exceptions). Granlund was the 9th overall pick and, based purely on historical stats, is FAR less likely to become a star in the NHL. I completley agree with what Akkei said about the top three picks generally being can't miss prospects and all the evidence shows a strong negative relationship between lower draft position in the 1st round and NHL production. The link to his older post clearly shows what myself and many, many others have found when analysing the stats.....the dropoff after the top 3-5 picks is substantial and often drastic.

Now to my point; we all get on these boards and dig up info that supports our claims that 'so and so' will be a dynamite player for 'such and such' a reason even though all the experts in the field showed their disagreements with these statments based on where they chose to actually draft a player. The fact is that most poolies become completley fixated on the rather useless concept of 'upside' while ignoring the much more important evidence regarding 'likelyhood'. NHL GM's and coaches have a simple mandate, win hockey games. Generally these guys who are discussed as having 'fallen' in the draft and are now seen as 'steals' have some red flags that hinder their ability to log big minutes in the NHL. Often, people get a kick out of feeling as if they know more than the guys who do this for a living and why not, we all do it The danger here is that some of these guys get overhyped because everyone wants to be an insider on the latest shiny toy. Every once in awhile the exitable majority is right...it's bound to happen sometimes....but most of the time the draft is far more accurate than people want to give it credit for.

So, full circle back to your point. Yakupov has all the evidence in the world to support his claims to stardom and anyone owning him or attempting to aquire him should rest easy knowing that. Granlud is a 9th overall pick and despite being hailed as a potential superstar by much of the fantasy hockey community, has to overcome fairly steep odds to live up to his lofty expectations so people should tread with caution. I've been a huge 'sell high' advocate on Granlund for a while now and I maintain that posistion. If I could land a 70 point NHL forward for him I'd do it without hesitation.

[Mr. Guru]

I would bet my life savings that Lindholm is drafted over the Russian.

So would I.

I would bet, not my life savings, but a hefty amount, that when/if Nickushkin gets to the NHL he will be better than Lindholm

[bigbabybuda]

I heard him last night on NHLN extolling the virtues of Seth Jones as his #1. Pleasantly surprised, I was.

EDIT: oh...and really gushed over Fucale too. A name with which I am unfamiliar.

I personally have always had Jones going 1 and still don't even think it should be close. But whatever that's neither here nor there. What I wanted to ask you was did he explain the rational for having Ristolianen at 20. That seems crazy to me. I have seen him as high as 4 on some lists and very rarely outside top 8.

[Axeman33]

I personally have always had Jones going 1 and still don't even think it should be close. But whatever that's neither here nor there. What I wanted to ask you was did he explain the rational for having Ristolianen at 20. That seems crazy to me. I have seen him as high as 4 on some lists and very rarely outside top 8.

You have to realize that Button creates his list on long term potential, not where he expects these guys to actually get drafted on draft day. If he has Ristolianen after other Dmen (I havent looked at his updated list as I type this), then he is basically saying he expects those others in front of him to be better long term prospects. Thats how he determines his list.

[ericdaoust]

I find it difficult to poke a lot of holes in anyone's list. At this age there is so much uncertainty and draft day is just a snapshot of their value on one particular day. You almost have to give the benefit of the doubt aside from obvious errors.