2018 NHL Draft

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I am pretty sure that central scouting had MacDonald #1, not #2

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-css-201...ranks/c-712858

I looked through the list and didn't see anyone who stood out as having "made it".

[Enoch Root]

lol at people saying that Gillies is 'not looking good', or being concerned about Parsons numbers.

Gillies played NHL games this year - that is a big progression for him. Did he light it up?
No, but most goalies struggle their first time or two in the NHL. Let's see how it plays out.

As for Parsons, he is a top prospect. What hi numbers were, in his first pro season, are pretty irrelevant. Developing goalies requires patience. Fans around here have none.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Why do you think this? Gillies looked pretty damn good last season behind an awful team.

In 9 starts in 17/18, Jon Gillies did this:

Apr 7: .963
Apr 5: .923
Apr 3: .810
Mar 29: .821
Mar 5: .875
Mar 2: .889
Feb 27: .923
Feb 24: .966
Feb 22: .946

Shots against: 253
Goals against: 24
Save %: .905

.905 for a rookie playing behind a bad team is not bad, especially when you look into the games and see the quality of chances given up during the stretch towards the end of the season/after Smith's injury.

In addition to Smith's injury it is also important to bear in mind that Tkachuk was shut-down on 11 March, Brodie on 18 March, and Monahan on 22 March.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

lol at people saying that Gillies is 'not looking good', or being concerned about Parsons numbers.

Gillies played NHL games this year - that is a big progression for him. Did he light it up?
No, but most goalies struggle their first time or two in the NHL. Let's see how it plays out...

This bears repeating:

*EDIT* I am correcting the error in my original post, but still believe that it helps to contextualize any discussion of Gillies's performance to date:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Vezina nominee Connor Hellebyuck was excellent in his first twelve NHL starts, but then to end his rookie season he recorded a 4-7 record and a 0.856 SP. Gillies has a 4-5 record in 10 starts and 12 GP, and a 0.903 SP.

Gillies looks to be on track. I will add that Hellebyuck had a fairly forgettable first full season as a NHL starter. My point is not to draw direct comparisons between the developmental trajectories of Hellebyuck and Gillies, but rather to show how inconsistent young goalies tend to be in the formative stages of their professional hockey careers. Gillies has work to do, but there really is no good reason to be disappointed in his performance so far.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This post is all over the map...

Vasilevsky was a #19 pick—NOT selected in the 19th round(?!). I don't think it should come as any surprise that very few goalies are ever drafted in the first round any more. There have been only eight goalies selected in the first round in the past decade, and only two since 2012 when TB selected Vasilevsky, and Boston picked Subban. The Flames have not drafted a goalie in the first round since 2006.

I meant the 19th OA pick, first world phone problems.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

There have actually been very few highly drafted goalies to win a WHJC. In the past 20 years there have been only two first-round gold-medal winners—Al Montoya in 2004, and Jack Campbell in 2010.

Quoted before I changed my post, I specifically meant WJHC goalies not specifically gold medal winners as I originally indicated. Goalies such as: Tokarski, Pickard, Visentin, Roy (Olivier), Paterson, Fucale, Brossoit,Jodoin, Hunt... etc.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

"Obsolete"?
Matt Murray entered the 2012 NHL entry draft with a 0.894 SP in the QMJHL. Holtby entered the 2008 draft with a 0.908 SP, and Jake Allen had a 0.905 SP. Like you said: it is very difficult to evaluate how 18-year-old GK prospects will turn out.

Matt Murray is the exception not the rule. Matt was drafted in the 3rd round as a "chance" to make it and rightly so based on his statistics pre-draft. As for Allen he went in at .905 is really close to .910 which is my personal belief. He went on to have .913, .910 and then .933 which would constitute the reasoning for his solid development into an NHL starter.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You say of Gillies that he is "not looking good," and yet he has pretty solid early numbers for a NHL goalie at the entry of his big-league career, and at only 24-years-old. In his first twelve NHL starts, Vezina nominee Connor Hellebyuck had a 4-7 record and a 0.856 SP. Gillies has a 4-5 record in 10 starts and 12 GP, and a 0.903 SP. He looks fine to me.

Tyler Parsons is a 20-year-old first-year professional. What do you expect?

I'm not saying hes a bust, I'm simply stating that his showing in the NHL so far has been rocky at best after been giving a solid chance as a backup for 16 games in the NHL. His numbers were fantastic going into the draft, the selection was warranted for sure but I think his situation is what falls to developmental issues in Calgary. Time will tell, I think this is an important season for John in the AHL but he's not looking like a surefire NHL starter just yet at 24.

I'm confused, where did I say that Hellebyucks slow start at the NHL level = he's a bust? Connor's junior stats are out of this world .930, .953 and .941 all show he has the tools to make it as an NHL started according to my personal belief that .910 is the evaluation "cutoff" to succeed. Just because he went 4-7 to start the year doesn't make him a bust, I'm talking specifically consistent Junior save percentage stat lines.

As for Parson's hes still young I agree, but going into this season he was the #2 rated prospect and that continued to slide as the season went on. Matt Murray was in the NHL @ 21 for your comparison, there's no way Tyler will be playing on the flames come next year which furthermore is why Murray is the exception not the rule.

.902 in the ECHL isn't the best, its not bad but its not good given the skill level of the league.
.856 in 7 AHL games didn't look good
Again time will tell, but both him and John are our best shots and are both on the list appropriately to me. I didnt call them busts but nothing thus far has shown me they're set to take over any time soon and part of that has to be on our development.

[dammage79]

Mtl has like 4 2nd round picks. Something could happen there. R

[bax]

Evaluating goaltenders on save percentage alone is bananas to me.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by bax

Evaluating goaltenders on save percentage alone is bananas to me.

How would you evaluate them? Maybe elaborate on your comment a bit and give us your 2 cents for comparison rather than just an offhanded remark with no substance.

You may not feel it is and that's fine but I stand behind my theory that it is because the success rates show it.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This bears repeating:

Originally Posted by Textcritic
In his first twelve NHL starts, Vezina nominee Connor Hellebyuck had a 4-7 record and a 0.856 SP. Gillies has a 4-5 record in 10 starts and 12 GP, and a 0.903 SP.


Gillies looks to be on track.

This is fake news though, it would be somewhat comforting if it was true. Taking a look at his stats on ESPN, I think it would be impossible to find a 12 consecutive game stretch where Hellebyuck ever had a .856 SP.

That being said, in Connor Hellebyuck's first 12 NHL starts he had a sparkling 8-4-0 record with a .929 SP and a 2.01 GAA. Connor was a stud from his first games in the NHL and has continued to be a great goaltender. Gillies is not on the same trajectory as Connor Hellebyuck. .http://www.espn.com/nhl/player/gamel...nor-hellebuyck

Connor's first 12 starts are below

Fri 11/27

• @
• MIN

W 3-1 60:00 1 15 14 .933 0 0 November Totals 60:00 1 15 14 .933 0 0 DATE OPP RESULT TOI GA SA SV SV% SO PIM Wed 12/2

• vs
• TOR

W 6-1 60:00 1 33 32 .970 0 0 Sat 12/5

• vs
• WSH

W 2-1 (OT) 64:40 1 38 37 .974 0 0 Thu 12/10

• vs
• CBJ

W 6-4 60:00 4 29 25 .862 0 0 Fri 12/11

• @
• CHI

L 0-2 56:56 2 31 29 .935 0 0 Tue 12/15

• vs
• STL

L 3-4 59:04 4 26 22 .846 0 0 Fri 12/18

• vs
• NYR

W 5-2 59:59 2 28 26 .929 0 0 Mon 12/21

• @
• EDM

L 1-3 27:44 3 14 11 .786 0 0 Sun 12/27

• vs
• PIT

W 1-0 59:58 0 30 30 1.000 1 0 Tue 12/29

• vs
• DET

W 4-1 60:00 1 34 33 .971 0 0 Thu 12/31

• @
• ARI

L 2-4 57:59 3 20 17 .850 0 0 December Totals 566:20 21 283 262 .926 1 0 DATE OPP RESULT TOI GA SA SV SV% SO PIM Sat 1/2

• @
• SJ

W 4-1 60:00 1 28 27 .964 0 0

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Quoted before I changed my post, I specifically meant WJHC goalies not specifically gold medal winners as I originally indicated. I specifically meant goalies such as: Tokarski, Pickard, Visentin, Roy (Olivier), Paterson, Fucale, Brossoit,Jodoin, Hunt... etc.

5th round (#122), 2nd round (#49), 1st (#27), 5th (#133), 3rd (#80), 2nd (#36), 6th (#164), ???, ???

Most of those do not look to me to be high picks.

Matt Murray is the exception not the rule. Matt was drafted in the 3rd round as a "chance" to make it and rightly so based on his statistics pre-draft. As for Allen he went in at .905 is really close to .910 which is my personal belief. He went on to have .913, .910 and then .933 which would constitute the reasoning for his solid development into an NHL starter.

You are moving the goalposts, here. The point is that your draft-cut-off of a 0.910 SP in Juniour play is fairly arbitrary.

I'm not saying hes a bust, I'm simply stating that his showing in the NHL so far has been rocky at best after been giving a solid chance as a backup for 16 games in the NHL. His numbers were fantastic going into the draft, the selection was warranted for sure but I think his situation is what falls to developmental issues in Calgary. Time will tell, I think this is an important season for John in the AHL but he's not looking like a surefire NHL starter just yet at 24.

Well, I disagree with the characterization of Gillies's extremely young NHL career as "rocky at best." Given his age, experience, and the limited number of games he has played, he looks fine to me.

I'm confused, where did I say that Hellebyucks slow start at the NHL level = he's a bust? Connor's junior stats are out of this world .930, .953 and .941 all show he has the tools to make it as an NHL started according to my personal belief that .910 is the evaluation "cutoff" to succeed. Just because he went 4-7 to start the year doesn't make him a bust, I'm talking specifically consistent Junior save percentage stat lines.

My point was in drawing a comparison between what Gillies has accomplished in the NHL and how Hellebyuck performed in his first dozen games. I find it interesting that you would be reluctant to characterize his middling start as a disappointment, and yet you are willing to conclude that Gillies—who has posted better NHL numbers in his first dozen games—is not looking like a "sure-fire NHL starter."

As for Parson's hes still young I agree, but going into this season he was the #2 rated prospect and that continued to slide as the season went on. Matt Murray was in the NHL @ 21 for your comparison, there's no way Tyler will be playing on the flames come next year which furthermore is why Murray is the exception not the rule.

Hahaha! What?!

How many goalies start their NHL careers at the age of 21? As Enoch Root has clearly observed, Tyler Parsons numbers as a first-year 20-year-old pro are pretty much "irrelevant."

.902 in the ECHL isn't the best, its not bad but its not good given the skill level of the league.
.856 in 7 AHL games didn't look good
Again time will tell, but both him and John are our best shots and are both on the list appropriately to me. I didnt call them busts but nothing thus far has shown me they're set to take over any time soon and part of that has to be on our development.

First off, a grammatical pet peeve of mine: it is "both he and John," not "both him and John" when the pronoun is part of the subject...

But moreover, while I agree with you that Gillies and Parsons are our top-two goalie prospects, I fundamentally reject your conclusions drawn from their present performance relative to programmes of development. It is simply too early to say one way or another for both of them.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

My point was in drawing a comparison between what Gillies has accomplished in the NHL and how Hellebyuck performed in his first dozen games. I find it interesting that you would be reluctant to characterize his middling start as a disappointment, and yet you are willing to conclude that Gillies—who has posted better NHL numbers in his first dozen games—is not looking like a "sure-fire NHL starter."


.

This is not accurate, Connor Hellebyuck posted significantly better numbers in his first 12 NHL starts than Jon Gillies did.

[UKflames]

Back as recently as May 2017 there were discussions among Jets fans about moving on from Hellybuck, that he was looking like a back up at best, the jets needed to trade for a bonafide #1 goalie etc. etc., similar to these coversations about Gillies. Maybe we need to be a little bit more patient, especially as the majority of NHL goalies develop later than normal players.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Hahaha! What?!

How many goalies start their NHL careers at the age of 21? As Enoch Root has clearly observed, Tyler Parsons numbers as a first-year 20-year-old pro are pretty much "irrelevant."

I'm not saying they do...

Originally Posted by Textcritic

"Obsolete"?
Matt Murray entered the 2012 NHL entry draft with a 0.894 SP in the QMJHL. Holtby entered the 2008 draft with a 0.908 SP, and Jake Allen had a 0.905 SP. Like you said: it is very difficult to evaluate how 18-year-old GK prospects will turn out.

You were the one who drew comparison between Murray entering the draft in 2012 with a .894 and Parsons/Gillies numbers so far.
I'm stating the OBVIOUS fact that Murray is the EXCEPTION not the RULE and comparing the two is irrelevant.

Again, this circles back to "we'll" see what they turn out to be.
You're the one who was critical of my original post to which I said Gillies = Not looking good thus far, and I don't think he has. Could he turn it around? Sure, this season will be the true test as I said.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

This is fake news though, it would be somewhat comforting if it was true. Taking a look at his stats on ESPN, I think it would be impossible to find a 12 consecutive game stretch where Hellebyuck ever had a .856 SP...

This is partially true, and an error on my part. I was mis-reading Hellebuyck's rookie-year numbers in reverse. However, you are incorrect in your second point: in his final 12 games of the 2015–16 season Hellebuyck recorded a 0.856 SP. In addition, in his first full year as a NHL starter, he recorded a fairly pedestrian 0.907 SP, and prompted enough concern about his ability to start in 2017 that the Jets went and acquired Steve Mason as their starter in the summer.

That being said, in Connor Hellebyuck's first 12 NHL starts he had a sparkling 8-4-0 record with a .929 SP and a 2.01 GAA. Connor was a stud from his first games in the NHL and has continued to be a great goaltender. Gillies is not on the same trajectory as Connor Hellebyuck.

I disagree. Hellebyuck—as you rightly pointed out—had a stellar start to his NHL career—and at a slightly younger age than Gillies, but I don't think there is much separating their respective trajectories.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Royle9

I'm not saying they do...

But you seem clearly to be insinuating in your last post that Parsons is a disappointment thus far in the light of Murray's incredible outlier as a 21-year-old NHL starter.

You said:

Originally Posted by Royle9

As for Parson's hes still young I agree, but going into this season he was the #2 rated prospect and that continued to slide as the season went on. Matt Murray was in the NHL @ 21 for your comparison, there's no way Tyler will be playing on the flames come next year which furthermore is why Murray is the exception not the rule...

No one should expect Parsons to start next year, and anything he did in the AHL and ECHL this last season is fairly irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Royle9

You were the one who drew comparison between Murray entering the draft in 2012 with a .894 and Parsons/Gillies numbers so far.

No, that is not correct. I raised Murray, Holtby, and Allen as examples for why your 0.910 SP pre-draft cut-off is arbitrary and shortsighted. It is moderately informative, but a poor criterion for eliminating prospective draft selections. I stand by that claim.

I'm stating the OBVIOUS fact that Murray is the EXCEPTION not the RULE and comparing the two is irrelevant.

Of course. But as noted above, I was never comparing Murray to Gillies and Parsons, but was rather using Murray, Holtby, and Allen as examples which contradict your 0.910 SP pre-draft rule.

Again, this circles back to "we'll" see what they turn out to be.
You're the one who was critical of my original post to which I said Gillies = Not looking good thus far, and I don't think he has. Could he turn it around? Sure, this season will be the true test as I said.

And I remain critical of your position on Gillies on the basis that he looks to be on track for his age and experience, and it is still really premature to be drawing conclusions.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Gillies - Not looking good
Parsons - ECHL/AHL numbers aren't strong at all

Au contraire I’d say Gillies is looking quite good. Thought he did well for himself as a rookie this year.

Way too early to read much into Parsons numbers. Most goalies develop for years in pro.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Mtl has like 4 2nd round picks. Something could happen there. R

Maybe they will throw us one for getting Byron for free?

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Mtl has like 4 2nd round picks. Something could happen there. R

Stone does seem like a Montreal type defenceman.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Royle9

How would you evaluate them? Maybe elaborate on your comment a bit and give us your 2 cents for comparison rather than just an offhanded remark with no substance.

You may not feel it is and that's fine but I stand behind my theory that it is because the success rates show it.

I would have to think the best tool for evaluating goalies would be to actually watch them play. Assess them on athleticism, flexibility, positioning, etc. Many goalies just need some fine tuning to their game to help reach new levels. So much of the game these days is mental.

Save percentage also doesn't mean much if you're not looking at context. How many games are they playing? What kind of style does their team play? How good are the defenders on that team? Is the team a contender or a walkover? There are a variety of factors that can alter a save percentage.

Just for example:

Goalie A had a .900 SP in 49 games this year.
Goalie B had a .919 SP in 29 games this year.

Who do you want? Carey Price or Darcy Kuemper.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Last year was Tyler Parsons's first pro season. That should never be used as an indicator of future success. He's going from playing against kids to playing against men. Adjustment is never going to be favourable in those circumstances. If he's below .900 in the coming year in the AHL, maybe you'll have cause for concern. Even so, I think you probably start evaluating what you have in a guy like that at age 22, at this point.

That probably militates in favour of the strategy of not picking goalies high unless you have a really good reason to (Samsonov, Vasilevsky being examples of a good reason) and basically never in the top 10.