Where to draft McDavid in a new dynasty?

[Pengwin7]

well emu... just out of curiousity...
Who is your top 5 then?
Where DO you put McDavid in a new dynasty with this scoring?

[Bomm Bastic]

In a cap league, yes. It's all about $/production ratios, and he could be absolutely sweet there. Tavares should be the top pick in a cap setup. If there's no cap, he shouldn't be top-10.

Really? Gs/As dynasty and you don't see him drafted ahead of Backstrom or Getzlaf? Even Tarasenko?

[4horsemen]

this is going to be the funniest thread to read a year from now lol.

i'd say top 10, top 5 if it's a cap league.

he hasn't even played a game yet. he's likely going to be a star, but is his upside, which is probably 5-10 points higher, really worth the risk of passing over an already established star like tavares, stamkos etc?

If it's a capped league, who are you taking above him? I'm not trying to strawman an argument here but too often people jump to the conclusion that the proven 'studs' are obviously going to be the top picks. I can not possibly make a case for taking Ovi, Malkin, Crosby or Stamkos at the top of the draft and don't even touch P Kane or Toews!! I could make a case for Tavares and Seguin but my gut tells me to take McDavid on his sweet ELC with immediate production, plenty of $$ to spend elsewhere and the youth factor is the 'oh so sweet' icing on the cake. Any player with the potential to challenge the 100 point mark while still on an ELC is the ULTIMATE asset in a capped league.

Like FHG said in a previous post, winning cap leagues is largely about $/production ratios and a player like McDavid who will probably get less points than Crosby over the next few years but could cost you 5 mil less gives an astute GM in a capped league a huge advantage. Obviously the evaluation has to include factors such as age or Mike Ribero might come out as the #1 pick. Another factor to consider is length of the contract a player is on and this could be where a player like Seguin gets the nod over Tavares given the extra year you have to play with before the massive pay day.

As I've found out before, many will mock this line of thinking because we all know Crosby is the best player in the NHL right?

[Bomm Bastic]

It's a hypothetical dynasty league though, so strategies may vary but if we are all in agreement that he's a generational talent (or maybe we're not) I can't see drafting Getz, Backstrom....Giroux and Tarasenko you can make an argument...right or wrong...but that puts McD at 8-11 overall.

I can see that as fair.

[JagrBomb]

Definitely.
I would be confident enough on McDavid to use the term "definitely"... (health permitting, of course).

Scouts have not yet failed at their predictions on "Next Ones".
Since Gretzky/Lemieux, the annointees have been:
*Lindros
*Crosby
*Tavares

Of those... the WORST statistically thus far is Tavares.
I mean... let's say somebody took Tavares 4th overall in a 2009 dynasty pool - Tavares draft year.
[Back then, I doubt anybody was taking him over Crosby/Malkin/Ovechkin - all young 100+pt hyped players]

But there ARE people would be kicking themselves for taking the following high-scoring 2008-2009 players:
Oh, I should've drafted the 97pt Datsyuk.
Oh, I should've drafted the 94pt Parise.
Oh, I should've drafted the 91pt Kovalchuk.
Oh, I should've drafted the 91pt Getzlaf.
Oh, I should've drafted the 89pt Iginla.
Oh, I should've drafted the 88pt Marc Savard.
Oh, I should've drafted the 88pt Nicklas Backstrom.

Proven is "nice".
But that secondary group of players is sometimes only good for 5 really good years (Datsyuk, Parise, Kovy, for example).

Of those "established" players... maybe people who drafted Getzlaf or Backstrom are not upset with their choices.
But anybody drafting a "proven" player like Datsyuk, or Parise, or Kovalchuk... just to compete for the near future... that was the wrong pick (in retrospect).

McDavid won't be a bust.
...Because Lindros & Crosby & Tavares weren't busts... and scouts don't make mistakes on the Generational Talent level.
These "generational" guys are 20%-30% better than the next best at their level.
It DOES translate (that margin) to the NHL.

[and fwiw, guys like Yakupov or Stefan... past busts... weren't 20%-30% better than their peers... closer to 3%-5% better... marginally #1s in weak classes. I think this is where some people get a tad scared about high-drafting a "rookie"... McDavid... just different. Fantasy hockey GMs need to have faith in him the same way somebody should have had faith in Lindros, Crosby, Tavares... and it paid off.)

by proven, i was still referring to those still young enough to have several years of elite production left. should have been more clear but i thought it was implied when i only referenced tavares and stamkos.

but in your example, i still think the correct decision would have been to take Datsyuk, Parise and Kovy over Tavares. They all hit 90+ points, under the age of 25 except Datsyuk who i think was just under 30. the latter who had back to back 97 point seasons, and before that back to back 87 point seasons.

i could see an arguement for taking Tavares of Datsyuk because of his age, chances are he would be on the decline. But Parise and Kovy, definitely not. I still think if Parise were on a less defensive team right now he could be hitting ppg numbers. And Kovy, well there is no way to know that he would bolt, no one saw that coming.

My main point is that you can't pass up a <25 year old player that is already capable of going ppg+ over an 18 year who can hit maybe 5-10 points more 3 years down the road.

Assuming this is a non-cap league, would a McDavid owner really say no if someone offered them Tavares or Stamkos? If it were a 26-30 player like getzlaf, then i definitely agree mcdavid is the right choice. at worst i think he's a 70 point guy, so the risk is well worth the reward as getzlaf will only outscore him for the next few years most likely.

[Fighting_Emu]

well emu... just out of curiousity...
Who is your top 5 then?
Where DO you put McDavid in a new dynasty with this scoring?

Your list does prove a sobering point. Proven does not always equate to longevity. Id also like to clarify at this point in the debate that- i dont disagree that your McDavid play is the right call long term. ill just re-iterate that I HATE giving up in any given year unless Im clearly outclassed- lol! And I feel like a McDavid pick early does that- at ;east in a 1-2 year window. Truth be told I might even be wrong there- lmao!

Anyways for curiosity sake- im gonna go (2.5 per point- goal bias):

Crosby- Still gonna be money
AO- So goddamn underrated- but I will admit he could be declining by thetime mcDavi develops.
Malkin- im still on the bandwagon- might be Kovalchuking it here
Stammer- Not buying this TJ stuff- a one year abberation imho.
Tavs- Already making players better- and crazy deep supporting cast.

I feel like barring a disaster all these guys should be within 10ish points of McD in a 2- maybe even 3 year window.

Like i said I may even tke the Seguins, Girouxs, Perrys of the world because i always want to go for the title- but Im far less confident these picks would hold up over a 3 year window- lol- :P

[havanablast21]

All depends on the GM. Off the bat a team could be going for a long term win and only draft youth (Drouin, Mac, McD, Eichel, Forsberg, Tarasenko) kinda deal. He’ll be O-Ranked in the 100s I think, but he’ll be gone by the start of the 4^th round I think. Also it’s hard to say without knowing what team he’d be on. If he’s a Leaf, a lot of homers will draft him early, and if he’s Carolina, you can see his Avg Draft Position drop.

This makes a lot of sense to me. I think "WHERE HE ENDS UP" will dictate a huge sway in value. Still... I wouldn't be surprised to see him go in the 1st round of some 12 team leagues. I think there's the for sure bets (Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, Ovie, Giroux, Tavares... and wouldn't at all be surprised to see McDavid go 7-10th (viewed as the next Crosby as soon as his 1st/2nd season).

If I had a late 1st round pick... I'd probably take that gamble (in a snake draft that is)

[The Good Sir]

In a brand new Dynasty I think it's important to have a drafting strategy and stick with it. Some people will go for the win right away in year 1, some will have an eye on futures, and some will just take what they can get. I too would take McDavid 2nd overall (Behind Crosby), and than continue to draft young up and coming superstars and focus on building a powerhouse that can reign for 5+ years. That is my strategy for new leagues.

[lokguin]

Scouts have not yet failed at their predictions on "Next Ones".
Since Gretzky/Lemieux, the annointees have been:
*Lindros
*Crosby
*Tavares

McDavid won't be a bust.
...Because Lindros & Crosby & Tavares weren't busts... and scouts don't make mistakes on the Generational Talent level.
These "generational" guys are 20%-30% better than the next best at their level.
It DOES translate (that margin) to the NHL.

Scouts also predicted Alexandre Daigle to be a generational talent. So I would say yes they can be wrong...

[Bomm Bastic]

Scouts also predicted Alexandre Daigle to be a generational talent. So I would say yes they can be wrong...

Hmmmmmmm.....

[note to self: drop Daigle. Not a breakout candidate]

[Pengwin7]

Google: "Alexandre Daigle" "generational talent"
0 matches found.

[fungchen3]

Goals = x3 would definitely factor into my decision. Based on this, I might go...

1. Stamkos (25)
2. Seguin (23)
3. Tavares (24)
4. Crosby (27)
5. McDavid (18)

I don't have Ovie on the list because I think, moving forward, he'll be a 45-50 goals; 80-ish point player. I don't see anymore 95, 100, 105 years for him to be honest. I think Stamkos and Seguin can (and will) break 90 soon with a BOAT LOAD of goals.

As for McDavid, I believe he will be an elite player, and would LOVE to have him, but I'm not willing to bail on 4 PROVEN elite, world-class players for an 18 year old - not when they're all on the board for the taking. I mean, how great could McDavid realistically be? Say he ends up on Buffalo or Carolina - do people honestly see him scoring 95-100 points within the next 2-3 years? I really don't. I see something like 72, 84, 88. Then, by year 4, I see something like 96... and that's IF Buffalo has players in position to compliment him.

I still think I'm showing a ton of faith in the kid by listing him #5 in a scratch Dynasty format. Let's just say he ends up "Tavares", "Kane" or "Giroux" though - JT91 has been in the NHL for SIX years and has yet to bust 81 points. Are you willing to wait 3, 4, 5, 6 years for a 90-100 point kid when there are guys that could give you 85-95 (Seguin, Stamkos, Tavares) or 90-110 (Crosby) today?

[4horsemen]

I wonder if in 2004 this thread was posted on Crosby if the answers would have been:

1) Kovalchuck
2) St Louis
3) Heatley
4) Thornton
5) Crosby
6) Ovechkin

I'm just spitballing with the above list but I feel that many are underestimating the incredible level of consensus calling out McDavid's awesomeness. I do not see the hype of Tavares, Kane or Giroux as being on par with what scouts are saying about McDavid. Tavares was the closest but it wasn't on par with this.

I can understand the precautionary approach and that's a valid strategy but this thread could look funny in a few years.......or I could be completely wrong.

[havanablast21]

He's going to be every bit the star the scouts and hype are predicting. i wouldn't think twice to take him in the 1st round of a 12 team keeper. im probably taking
Crosby
Malkin
Tavares
Giroux
Stamkos / McDavid.

Although depending on the team he lands on which I think could help,or hinder the speed at which his dominance "arrives"... I'd actually consider takin him just after Tavares.

But I'm a gambler.

[keytolife]

In a capleague i am totally with Pengwin there and draft him 2nd overall without any hesitation. But i am the gamble for youth type in cap leagues as well. So far it has always panned out for me.