2018 mock drafts

[donpaulo]

I was glad to read Zadina going 2 overall.

Not that its directly applicable because there is a new owner but Carolina does not have a history of having many Russians on their teams. Lets call is the "Semin" effect

Czechs on the other hand...

MTL does however has had quite a few successful Russians with the franchise

so I see the flip at 2/3 to be prudent for both clubs

[Jouko-Pouko]

That's some stones, I personally want to see Aho and Svechnikov play together. I'd like to see Kotkaniemi go to Vancouver (Horvat, Dahlen, Kotkaniemi) could provide a solid decade down the middle. They can wait until round two to draft a defenceman since this is a deep draft for them, or so it seems.

Dahlen is a winger. Maybe you meant Pettersson?

[Pengwin7]

I think most rankings after the U18s have Kotkaniemi ahead. Kotkaniemi has been rising and is now a potential top 10 pick whereas Farabee seems to be in that #11 to #14 range.

Nice call on Kotkaniemi...
Pronman has him all the way up to "The High-End Prospects Tier" (just out on theathletic)!
[Some very interesting player positioning on his list - looks quite different from 8-31 from other lists I've seen...]
Amazing how much effort Pronman has put into "why this player is higher than this player" - gotta give him an A++ on effort there.

Link for subscribers (paid subscriptions):
https://theathletic.com/353713/2018/...top-prospects/

[TheMatthews]

Ranking Dobson at 20 blows my mind.

[reggiebarnes]

Ranking Dobson at 20 blows my mind.

A bad bad ranking any way you slice it. Dobson is top 3 d in this class

[Jouko-Pouko]

It's always funny when someone spends five minutes watching prospects and suddenly they know more about them than someone who spends thousands of hours year after year doing that stuff for a living. And then the rankings are apparently worthless because you don't agree with the ranking of one of the players there.

The Athletic writer group is full of respected hockey experts, and they all turn to Pronman when they want to know something about prospects. I wonder how often they call random forum guy #1 for that information.

[senryu]

A thing to keep in mind re: Pronman is that, by his own admission, high-end skill is his most-important criterion when ranking prospects. Not floor, dependability, or probability of being decent in the NHL. So while an NHL GM would probably gamble that Bouchard or Dobson will end up being a more useful D than Merkley because they're safer, Pronman cares more about the idea that Merkley's ceiling and skill is far beyond them. We can debate whether high-end skill should be the most important issue.

[reggiebarnes]

It's always funny when someone spends five minutes watching prospects and suddenly they know more about them than someone who spends thousands of hours year after year doing that stuff for a living. And then the rankings are apparently worthless because you don't agree with the ranking of one of the players there.

The Athletic writer group is full of respected hockey experts, and they all turn to Pronman when they want to know something about prospects. I wonder how often they call random forum guy #1 for that information.

you can criticize a writer for bad rankings and sometimes fans who folllow players all year know more than they do and have more live viewings. Corey pronman would not have many viewings of Dobson for example. It?s insulting to suggest somebody criticizing the writer spent ?five minute? watching the prospect they?re discussing

Writers are writers, not hockey experts or actual scouts . Nobody at the athletic is an ?expert?... you can criticize an obviously bad opinion when you see it. It?s nothing personal. They?re not worthless rankings but he always has big flaw. I personally would not take his rankings seriously compared to others.

[reggiebarnes]

A thing to keep in mind re: Pronman is that, by his own admission, high-end skill is his most-important criterion when ranking prospects. Not floor, dependability, or probability of being decent in the NHL. So while an NHL GM would probably gamble that Bouchard or Dobson will end up being a more useful D than Merkley because they're safer, Pronman cares more about the idea that Merkley's ceiling and skill is far beyond them. We can debate whether high-end skill should be the most important issue.

No serious nhl scout will have merkley that high. He most likely will not go in first round...he has so much baggage and flaw.

[als_revenge]

No serious nhl scout will have merkley that high. He most likely will not go in first round...he has so much baggage and flaw.

You are just proving our point. Pronman's rankings are about "upside" and not making the "safe" and "boring pick". NHL scouts don't care about how good a player will be in fantasy hockey. So Pronman gives a different perspective.

He has Kotkaniemi at 4th. The Hockey News has him at 18th. McKenzie's list (based on NHL scouts, I believe) has him at 10th. Multiple perspectives are refreshing...

[Jouko-Pouko]

you can criticize a writer for bad rankings and sometimes fans who folllow players all year know more than they do and have more live viewings. Corey pronman would not have many viewings of Dobson for example. It?s insulting to suggest somebody criticizing the writer spent ?five minute? watching the prospect they?re discussing

Writers are writers, not hockey experts or actual scouts . Nobody at the athletic is an ?expert?... you can criticize an obviously bad opinion when you see it. It?s nothing personal. They?re not worthless rankings but he always has big flaw. I personally would not take his rankings seriously compared to others.

I'm not doubting you've seen plenty of Dobson. I'm doubting you've seen any of the others. Why wouldn't Pronman have viewings of Dobson? He's been a highly regarded prospect for a long time playing in major junior. Players like that get viewings. Plenty of them. It's not like Dobson's been hiding somewhere. Everyone's seen him. My dead grandma has a scouting report on Dobson.

I'm not saying you should just take his rankings and agree 100%. But to suggest his rankings are "very very bad" because you disagree with something there is ridiculous. His rankings are still infinitely better than yours. They're infinitely better than mine. Why can't you just say "I like Dobson much higher than that"? Why does it always have to be a hyperbole? "These rankings are terrible because he doesn't agree with me!!!" What's up with that?

[Jouko-Pouko]

You are just proving our point. Pronman's rankings are about "upside" and not making the "safe" and "boring pick". NHL scouts don't care about how good a player will be in fantasy hockey. So Pronman gives a different perspective.

He has Kotkaniemi at 4th. The Hockey News has him at 18th. McKenzie's list (based on NHL scouts, I believe) has him at 10th. Multiple perspectives are refreshing...

Also good to remember that it's not a mock draft, it's his personal ranking. He believes Merkley is the 10th best prospect in this draft class and he isn't afraid to put that in writing. Him dropping to 2nd round changes nothing.

[als_revenge]

Also good to remember that it's not a mock draft, it's his personal ranking. He believes Merkley is the 10th best prospect in this draft class and he isn't afraid to put that in writing. Him dropping to 2nd round changes nothing.

To me, him potentially dropping to the 2nd round actually highlights the risk averse nature of teams drafting. I've read in a few places that Merkley is on some team's "don't draft" list. Differences in ranking could be viewed as a measure of risk.

[reggiebarnes]

You are just proving our point. Pronman's rankings are about "upside" and not making the "safe" and "boring pick". NHL scouts don't care about how good a player will be in fantasy hockey. So Pronman gives a different perspective.

He has Kotkaniemi at 4th. The Hockey News has him at 18th. McKenzie's list (based on NHL scouts, I believe) has him at 10th. Multiple perspectives are refreshing...

Pronman doesn?t care about fantasy either though. So not sure what you mean

[reggiebarnes]

I'm not doubting you've seen plenty of Dobson. I'm doubting you've seen any of the others. Why wouldn't Pronman have viewings of Dobson? He's been a highly regarded prospect for a long time playing in major junior. Players like that get viewings. Plenty of them. It's not like Dobson's been hiding somewhere. Everyone's seen him. My dead grandma has a scouting report on Dobson.

I'm not saying you should just take his rankings and agree 100%. But to suggest his rankings are "very very bad" because you disagree with something there is ridiculous. His rankings are still infinitely better than yours. They're infinitely better than mine. Why can't you just say "I like Dobson much higher than that"? Why does it always have to be a hyperbole? "These rankings are terrible because he doesn't agree with me!!!" What's up with that?

It?s not ridiculous to suggest the ranking of Dobson is very very bad.

To say his rankings are better than mine or yours is also false as that?s subjective. It?s jaut another random ranking by somebody who primarily views prospects on video . Real nhl teams and scouts don?t respect or put any value in rankings done by people like Pronman. That?s just a fact.

What you?re doing is appealing to authority. There?s a reason real scouts make three times the salary of internet scouts.