2016 NHL Draft

[Vulcan]

Consensus in an illusion created by fans who read a lot of scouting publications. The reality is there is no consensus and that teams have completely different lists. Choosing the prospects your scouts like best is not risky, its the only alternate unless you want to fire them all or overrule them.

For the Jankowski draft from what Wiesbrod said, he stated that he made the final call so I looked at as he probably overruled the scouts or at least there was some difference of opinion. Feaster double downed in reaction to the WTF choice was that.

I don't have such worries about our current management. I'm sure our head scout, our GM, our AGMs and our President will all have input with Treliving having the final say. If they pick Logan Brown, that won't bother me as he probably will be in our wheel house but if they take someone who consensus says should be taken in the second round, I may be questioning their choice.

Yeah sure they should be confident in their smarts but a lot of it comes from hard work. Work that comes with identifying and drafting good prospects such as Gaudreau and Brodie.

As for having an idea of what other teams are doing, sure it's important otherwise there wouldn't have been the subterfuge in drafting Gaudreau. There also wouldn't be any trades up or down to get the player you want at the place you believe he'll be available.

[Five-hole]

It's insane that one poster's response to news that Brown had a great U18, will probably go top 12, and Button suggests could go earlier than that, is that he would be mad if the Flames took this kid. It's clear you don't watch these guys to form these opinions yourself and it's clear you go off consensus lists. But what is the most insane is that you just got a new consensus list and lost your mind that it was different from the old one. Lol.

Brown sounds like he's "consensus" top 12. Can't figure out why your ship is stalled leaving the harbour on that one.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

There also wouldn't be any trades up or down to get the player you want at the place you believe he'll be available.

True. Perhaps I understated how much teams can know in relation to other teams. The Flames traded down in Jankowski's year because they thought there would be a good chance he'd still be there at 21. And they were right but they did risk another team taking him in between 14 and 21.

In Bennett's year if you look at the Flames reaction to picking Bennett ("we thought we'd get one of the Sams") it seems that they knew the Oilers were going to take Draisaitl. This was heavily rumoured before the draft. Is that more a matter of the Oilers not being secretive enough or good investigative research by everyone? It's not clear. I would suggest there were reasons to believe that BUF loved Reinhart as many of their fans were convinced he was their guy. Their scouting staff showed up en masse to see his dismantling of the Hitmen.

You can find out what some teams are up to but if they are secretive enough you'll never know for sure. Some teams are more transparent than others. Some teams try to hide their intentions around later picks but are more willing to divulge on earlier pick. In the EDM taking Draisaitl example there wasn't much to be gained from hiding it I suppose.

[Ashasx]

Before I reply, I want to say that I don't understand why you are being so confrontational and rude in your posts. I'm trying to not make this personal, but it really seems like your intention is otherwise.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Which shows clearly that you are emphasizing consensus even though you claim you aren't.

Why make this statement when my very next sentence explains my position?

Agreed, there are tiers. This year there is a top tier of 3. Some people see there being a secondary tier of players from 4-6 or 4-7 but not everybody sees it like that. Some see it as having a secondary tier from 4-12 or 4-15. Brown is solidly in the top 15 IMO.

So how can you say there is a top 3, but I can't say there is a top 5, following by a top ~8? Why does your logic not apply to your very own methods?

Wow, lot's of assumptions here and at least a few are incorrect.
-For the most part teams have a ton of scouts. This is a million dollar business and there's no cap on hiring scouts.
-Your assumption that posters here have seen Laine and Puljujarvi live more than some of the Flames scouts have is laughable. Treliving himself has probably Laine and Puljujarvi live more than any of us have and he's not even doing full time amateur scouting.

You do realize "live" in scouting terms means actually being there at the arena right?

Team's don't have a ton of scouts. The Flames have a total of 3 amateur European scouts. We have 2 WHL scouts. We don't even have a dedicated QMJHL scout.

Teams don't have a ton of scouting staff in the NHL. I'm fully aware that there is no cap on management and other personnel. Why do you feel the need to patronize me?

And I fully realize "live" scouting means actually being at the arena. There are many posters on this board who live in Europe, many in the cities that these players play out of. The Flames have 3 scouts in Europe, scouting everybody.

There's a lot of misinformation spread and teams will try their hardest to mask their intentions. Did you miss the article where Tod Button talks about never taking to Gaudreau's parents/coaches because they wanted it to be a secret that they liked him?

Sure but outside of actual industrial espionage you can try to guess another team's list but you'll never know for sure.

I don't claim to have all the knowledge, but scouts and teams are consistently able to read and predict where players are generally able to go in the draft even though it's not the exact position, short of a few obvious selections. One of the reasons why the NHL established central scouting was to provide a resource for teams with fewer resources to at least try and keep pace with the Torontos and New Yorks of the league, even if that purpose is less prevalent today.

Bob McKenzie is able to predict with 90-97% accuracy the players that will go in the first round of the draft. People are sharing this information, and it's not just to him.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

True. Perhaps I understated how much teams can know in relation to other teams. The Flames traded down in Jankowski's year because they thought there would be a good chance he'd still be there at 21. And they were right but they did risk another team taking him in between 14 and 21.

In Bennett's year if you look at the Flames reaction to picking Bennett ("we thought we'd get one of the Sams") it seems that they knew the Oilers were going to take Draisaitl. This was heavily rumoured before the draft. Is that more a matter of the Oilers not being secretive enough or good investigative research by everyone? It's not clear. I would suggest there were reasons to believe that BUF loved Reinhart as many of their fans were convinced he was their guy. Their scouting staff showed up en masse to see his dismantling of the Hitmen.

You can find out what some teams are up to but if they are secretive enough you'll never know for sure. Some teams are more transparent than others. Some teams try to hide their intentions around later picks but are more willing to divulge on earlier pick. In the EDM taking Draisaitl example there wasn't much to be gained from hiding it I suppose.

I'd even guess that some GMs will tell their buddy GMs who they like. Say it goes down that as Bingo suggests we may be open to trading down a few spots from 6 or 7 and the team wanting our choice needs to say who he's going to take. Treliving thinks okay we weren't going to take that player and we like the next few options, so lets do the deal.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Why make this statement when my very next sentence explains my position?

I guess I don't understand what you're saying then. Looks like you say, "I don't put too much into consensus" and then you criticize the Bruins for not following the supposed consensus and say that you'll criticize the Flames for not following the supposed consensus. Please explain.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

So how can you say there is a top 3, but I can't say there is a top 5, following by a top ~8? Why does your logic not apply to your very own methods?

You can say whatever you want. If you've seen the players and have some talent at identifying talent (or scouting) then what you say would be a valid and informed opinion.

Are you saying there's a top 5 followed by a top 8? If so how many times have you seen the players in question?

Why can I say there's a clearcut top 3? I'm merely repeating what most scouts have said this year. It also happens that in my limited viewings of the players in question that the top 3 players are on another tier than the rest. Saying there's a clearcut top 3 is echoing the expert opinion. Are you disagreeing that the top tier is 3 players?

Can we not agree that what the scouts say is the most important?

Originally Posted by Ashasx

For leagues in Europe for example, only teams like the Leafs and Ranger can afford larger and more dedicated teams

That's a quote from you. That is a false statement. That statement you made is not true.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I guess I don't understand what you're saying then. Looks like you say, "I don't put too much into consensus" and then you criticize the Bruins for not following the supposed consensus and say that you'll criticize the Flames for not following the supposed consensus. Please explain.

There is a difference between plainly following a list on central scouting or ISS or what have you.

If you can consider a "tier" of players of those who generally hover around the same rank across multiple publications (i.e., if you graphed their positions, mean, min, max, on a graph, a tier of players would be close together. The next tier, as we can see in this draft, occurs after the top 3, as you have noted). Debrusk/Senyshyn weren't even in the same stratosphere as Barzal/Connor. I'll bet the Islanders and Jets tap-danced to the podium.

You can say whatever you want. If you've seen the players and have some talent at identifying talent (or scouting) then what you say would be a valid and informed opinion.

Are you saying there's a top 5 followed by a top 8? If so how many times have you seen the players in question?

Why can I say there's a clearcut top 3? I'm merely repeating what most scouts have said this year. It also happens that in my limited viewings of the players in question that the top 3 players are on another tier than the rest. Saying there's a clearcut top 3 is echoing the expert opinion.

I don't understand how you can say "I'm merely repeating what most scouts have said this year." and then mock me for doing the same.

That's a quote from you. That is a false statement. That statement you made is not true.

It's a false statement to say the Rangers and Leafs have larger and more expensive scouting teams?

They do. I don't know what else to say to you. Higher revenue teams have an advantage here. It's as it's always been. This is the primary reason why the NHL established Central Scouting Services, to help level the playing field.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Before I reply, I want to say that I don't understand why you are being so confrontational and rude in your posts. I'm trying to not make this personal, but it really seems like your intention is otherwise.

I have very little respect for opinions like, "I really hope the Flames don't try to be smarter than everyone with this draft pick." That lack of respect is coming through in my posts I'm sure. Why that statement is stupid has been excellently covered by SuperMatt18 and GranteedEV if I failed to do so clearly and with respect. I suggest rereading their replies as they were excellent.

[Ashasx]

The "smarter than everyone else" quip was clearly (or so I thought) in reference to Jay Feaster and friends, as has been made in direct reference numerous times on this very forum. I thought that was evident. I guess not.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

The "smarter than everyone else" quip was clearly (or so I thought) in reference to Jay Feaster and friends, as has been made in direct reference numerous times on this very forum. I thought that was evident. I guess not.

Oh I understood the reference. I think it's a stupid reference that displays a misunderstanding of how the draft works. It annoys me when people parrot that reference because it's a dumb reference.

Why is it dumb? The answer is contained in the responses that myself, GranteedEV and SuperMatt18 provided to you. Why do I appear insulting? Because after 2-3 pages of discussion you seem to have lost the point and not have understood ours at all.

[Ashasx]

I don't think it's dumb. Or, at the very least, I don't think I deserved the condescending responses.

I thought CliffFletcher put it well. If your scouting team sees something 29 other teams don't, and you have that player in your top 5 when most other teams have him at 12-16 (teams that could have more exposure to the player, more resources, etc.), you can't just accept that at face value.

When I look some scouting resources right now, I see a group of maybe 5 or 6 players that are consistently ranked together (although is various orders) at 4 and beyond (2 of which are usually 4/5). Brown isn't part of that group. Before today, I hadn't even heard of Brown being a top 10 pick.

What do you do then if you still really like a player, even though you know other teams don't? Well, I guess you trade down if you don't like the other players that are projected to go at your position, as the Flames did in 2012. But I still emphasize the concerns of having tunnel vision for one or two players and refusing to see the appeal of others. Weisbrod mentioned that if Jankowski wasn't available at 21 after they traded down, they would have taken Sieloff!

Under no circumstances, however, do you do what Boston did last summer.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I don't think it's dumb. Or, at the very least, I don't think I deserved the condescending responses.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I really hope the Flames don't try to be smarter than everyone with this draft pick.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

They are literally paid to try and be smarter than everyone.

Enough said. A scouts job is to be smarter than the scouts of the other teams. It's like saying, "I really hope Brad Treliving doesn't try to win a trade." That's his frickin job! He's successful if he wins a trade. The Calgary Flames scouts are successful if they are smarter than the other teams scouts. The Gaudreau pick was smart. The Brodie pick was smart. That's the goal, make smart picks. Jankowski? We'll see but I've always liked the pick. It was a smart pick then IMO and you can find the old threads where I say so at the time.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I thought CliffFletcher put it well. If your scouting team sees something 29 other teams don't, and you have that player in your top 5 when most other teams have him at 12-16 (teams that could have more exposure to the player, more resources, etc.), you can't just accept that at face value.

And I think this argument fails hard. Teams pay their scouts to scout. You don't question your scouts just because you think the Edmonton OilClowns have a player higher than you do. What kind of incompetent judges their work based on guessing how another person is doing theirs? If I'm a math wizard in the middle of a test should I look over at another person's answers and second guess my own or should I just trust my own ability? Trust my own ability, duh. If you can't trust your scouts then you should fire them and hire some different ones.

Once you trust your scouts you definitely trust them and use their rankings. If they like a guy top 5 and other teams have him at 12-16 who cares? You still take the kid your scouts like. That's how it works and how it should work. Teams trust their scouts. It has to be that way.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

When I look some scouting resources right now, I see a group of maybe 5 or 6 players that are consistently ranked together (although is various orders) at 4 and beyond (2 of which are usually 4/5). Brown isn't part of that group. Before today, I hadn't even heard of Brown being a top 10 pick.

It's true that averaging scouting publications will give you a false consensus list of the top 9 or so. In this case you'd think Tkachuk, Dubois, Nylander, Juolevi, Chychrun and Sergachev should go in the 4-9 range. But guess what? Those players won't all be top 10 on certain teams lists. And guess what? Other players will be in their top 10 and shockingly high. Any of Brown, Keller, Jost, Fabbro, Bean, McAvoy, Gauthier, McLeod, etc COULD go top 10. If they do it won't mean it's a horrible pick. It just means that team's scouts love that kid. And if you haven't heard of them going top 10 that means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

But I still emphasize the concerns of having tunnel vision for one player and refusing to see the appeal of others.

Your use of the term "tunnel vision" still shows a misunderstanding of the draft. A team does not "tunnel vision" on a prospect and refuse to see the appeal of other players. They watch all the players, about as equally as they can and then they ranked them based on who they think will be the best NHLers in 5 years. Just like a group of guys won't agree on which girl at the bar is the hottest, a group of scouts will rarely agree on which prospect has the best NHL potential. This is why scouting lists are so drastically different than each other. There is no tunnel vision. There's just teams liking prospects a lot. It isn't that they refuse to see the appeal of others, they have their preferences and biases and they make the best scouting list they can.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Under no circumstances, however, do you do what Boston did last summer.

Boston last year trusted their scouts to make their picks. Just like every team will be doing this year.

You just don't like their picks because they disagree with some "consensus" that doesn't even exist.

[Ashasx]

circles. done.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Oh I understood the reference. I think it's a stupid reference that displays a misunderstanding of how the draft works. It annoys me when people parrot that reference because it's a dumb reference.

Why is it dumb? The answer is contained in the responses that myself, GranteedEV and SuperMatt18 provided to you. Why do I appear insulting? Because after 2-3 pages of discussion you seem to have lost the point and not have understood ours at all.

Here's what I could find about the reference.

You'll notice that it isn't about being the smartest man in the room but thinking that you are. You may be, but when your ego gets in the way of your thinking, look out.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

nm

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This notion that there is no board is dumb. There is such a thing a collective wisdom. Consensus. Call it what you will. When you take the valuations of 100 people who know what they're talking about and come up with averaged valuations, it is usually going to be more accurate than the valuations of 1 person. Not always. But usually.

What happens when 90 of the 100 peoples' opinions are influenced by the suggestion of 10 of the 100 people? If those ten people (we'll call them, CSS Preliminary rankings) tell the other 90 people that Nail Yakupov is the next Ilya Kovalchuk, can those other 90 people effectively view the player through a transparent lens, or will there always be a rose tinting of "oh, hey, yeah, that play resembles Kovalchuk"?

With the preconditioning that Logan Brown is ranked 14th in CSS mid term rankings, you are not going into viewing Logan Brown under a lens of "let's see how he would look at 5th Overall" regardless of his ability in isolation, because you are biased by what you now associate with as being "consensus". You may see a player that you're thinking is the best player in a draft class, period, but doubt creeps in. Now how can you legitimately contribute back towards a consensus if you're biased by a ranking?

If Columbus drafts 2nd overall and they take Dante Fabbro, Blue Jackets fans would have every reason to be nervous. Because even though the Jackets' scouting staff are highly-paid professionals, the idea that they see something that 29 other teams presumably don't see is unlikely.

The idea that 29 other teams don't see it is just an assumption.

[MarkGio]

CSS might be off +/-10 spots, but its still a good measure of the draft. You'll never see a CSS player ranked 30th go 1st overall, and likewise, you'll never see a projected 5th rounder go in the first round.

[RoughRiderRowdy]

Enough already

[Flames Draft Watcher]

http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/video

Button has posted a video on Puljujarvi and one on Chychrun

[Calgary4LIfe]

The only consensus in the draft is if all teams released their own ranking lists, and someone compiled them. Even then, I bet it would show some prospects varying greatly. That is as close as you can get to a consensus.

Teams have different philosophies. They place value in different areas. Some kids also just show poorly at times, or really good at other times, and teams happen to put some stock into it.

If Brown is the player the Flames select, then it is because they feel he has the possibility of becoming the best player in the NHL at that point in the draft when they make their selection. I see nothing wrong with that. It isn't 'being smarter' than anyone else - it is doing your homework, and sticking to what the consensus is among the Flames' scouting staff.

As for "Ritchie vs Bennett" - of course everyone will pick Bennett at the moment. He was ranked higher, and he has had a better start to his career. However, there are loads of players throughout the last few drafts that have started slow and ended up having the better careers, regardless of where they were selected. Brodie and Gaudreau both show that. Monahan is showing that. Backlund is finally starting to show that as well.

Derek Morris I believe was ranked somewhere in the 3rd round (if he was ranked at all - some outlets didn't have him ranked) and the Flames picked him 13th overall. I would imagine that if that happened today, some posters would flip out. Looking back at that draft, it was a complete home-run. Morris is ranked 8th in the entire draft class in points - and he was a defencemen.

I have my own list that is mostly based on scouting reports and as many games as I get to watch, or youtube clips, or whatever it is. If the Flames deviate from my list, or from CSS, or from ISS, or the McKeen's, or THN, etc., then I will have to trust them and keep an open mind. The careers of these scouts the Flames employ are on the line.

Remember, these scouts all sit in a room at various times - especially as the draft is approaching and 'the list' has to be finalized - and they 'fight' for 'their guy'. Other scouts remember who they fought for. Management remembers. I am sure all the individual lists and recommendations are noted. It is probably why Todd Button has survived so many regime changes in Calgary - the guys he fought for were at least mostly the right guys in hindsight.

I trust that the Calgary Flames have turned their drafting and development program around. I think they are getting good 'hits' on the guys they draft through many rounds. If they think that at 5, Brown will be a better player than Dubois (if they are both on the board), then I will weep a little inside, but look forward to seeing what Brown develops into. Same goes for Jost, or Sergachev, or Bill Bumface for all that matters. What matters is that the Flames stick to their guns and select the player who they think will end up having the greatest career from the available prospects at their selection. Nothing else matters - no other rankings from anyone matter.

I know that at various times, these same scouts making recommendations are being judged with hindsight, and their 'misses' are probably tabulated and they are axed. Lots of teams have completely cleaned-house on scouting departments in the last few years (Toronto and Edmonton for instance). With the cap, getting scouting down is incredibly critical to successfully building a team. You can be sure that the Flames are paying closer attention to the scouts fighting for their guys who have had good track records in doing so.