TA: Revisiting the 2019 Draft

[PuckinUgly57]

Been 5 years, you knew it was coming. All 3 of Turcotte, Bjornfot and Kaliyev covered and well, you guys guessed it.

LA completely blew this draft from top to bottom, excerpts on these three:

The Alex Turcotte pick

Turcotte was the No. 5 pick in 2019, and a player who I believed in a ton at the time. The argument for Turcotte was he was a very fast, very competitive center with a strong offensive skill level. He was a very likable player. He didn’t play a ton in his draft season due to injury, but he had been a top player in his age group alongside Hughes for years and was very productive when healthy.

The pick looked problematic almost from Day 1 when Turcotte left junior hockey for college. He hasn’t played great versus pros either, looking like a bottom-of-the-lineup type of forward at best. Turcotte’s been often injured, so that surely played a variable in his development, but there were issues in his projection, too. He wasn’t the biggest center, and while talented, he didn’t have any true high-end offensive traits. His speed and compete versus juniors helped him stand out, but against bigger men, there were other guys his size who could skate well and worked hard, so he became more ordinary.

It’s not like scouts didn’t see this. They were aware his skill, vision and finish weren’t anything special. I think it was a combination of him being a top player for that great USA team and his game style being so likable — who doesn’t like an elite competitor who could fly? One player who could be a high pick in this draft is Guelph center Jett Luchanko, and I see quite a few rhymes between him and Turcotte. He’s a burner who works hard but doesn’t point or finish at high rates.

Sweden’s U18 gold medal team was systematically overdrafted

The 2019 draft season featured a fantastic U18 World Championship. There were a ton of potential high picks in that event. The aforementioned stacked USA team got topped in the semifinals due to an elite goaltending performance by future top-15 pick Yaroslav Askarov. Russia then lost to the host Swedes in overtime in the gold medal game, which featured a Lucas Raymond hat trick.

That Swedish age group played well but certainly didn’t dominate u18 international play that season. They lost 6-1, for example, to the U.S. team in the same tournament. But they got hot in the medal round and were probably fortunate USA got bounced.

It’s interesting looking back at the players on that Swedish team: Lucas Raymond has become a star and looked like one all season as an underage player that year. Simon Holmstrom has become an OK middle-six wing; whether the late first-round pick will have a long NHL future or not is to be determined. But it’s reasonable to argue a lot of the players on that team were taken too high.

Alexander Holtz (No. 7 pick in the 2020 draft), Philip Broberg (No. 8 in 2019 and named defenseman of the tournament), Victor Soderstrom (No. 11), Tobias Bjornfot (No. 22), Karl Henriksson (No. 58 and the center between Holtz and Raymond), Albert Johansson (No. 60), Albin Grewe (No. 66) and Hugo Alnefelt (No. 71) have all played very few NHL games or, in the case of the high picks, would get picked later in a redraft of their classes. All of these players played important roles on that Swedish U18 team.

Where am I going with this? A part of me wonders if that Swedish team essentially falling into a gold medal artificially bumped up the perceived talent level of their players. I don’t think this year’s Swedish U18 team is an overly talented age group but it has won games against the U.S. NTDP in November and February in part because of abysmal goaltending from Team USA.

Arthur Kaliyev and Bobby Brink go in Round 2

One of the biggest stories in Round 1 of the 2019 draft was two players who didn’t go in the first round: Hamilton and Sioux City wingers Arthur Kaliyev and Bobby Brink. Kaliyev had already won an OHL championship and was coming off a 50-goal, 100-point season. Brink was the best forward in the USHL in his draft season.

Both Kaliyev and Brink were considered supremely talented offensive players. Kaliyev was seen as a super smart goal scorer with an elite shot. Brink was a high-end skill and vision winger who created tons of scoring chances. But they both had substantial risks in their games. Kaliyev was a so-so skating winger whose compete worried teams. Brink is very small by NHL standards and had a technically flawed skating stride. Their detractors saw too many risks for them to be regular NHL forwards. Their supporters saw too much talent that they would overcome those issues.

Five years later, both sides seem to have merit. Worse players were picked ahead of Kaliyev and Brink, who went No. 33 and No. 44, respectively. They’ve both played a considerable number of NHL games and have shown they have the talent to score in the league. But they’ve also been healthy scratched, had their ice limited or sent to the minors recently due to the aforementioned issues in their games.

I think you can look at both players and ask reasonable questions about whether they are going to be legit middle-six forwards in the league five years from now, but you could also see a path on which they get to 300+ career points. From this year’s class, I could look at wingers like Liam Greentree and Terik Parascak as high producing CHL forwards with skating issues that I think will give NHL teams some pause.

Pretty much turned out as described.

 

[histkng23]

This is where I think Blake's "leadership" comes more into light, as to how his "vision" of what type of team he was trying to put together. He was more focused on skating & skill, as opposed to size & grit. While skill & skating are essential, he was too focused on those attributes. So many of his picks in those early years of his tenure were smaller players, who have not panned out.

While the 2019 Draft as a whole has been underwhelming (several players are flaming out, or have been traded by their original organizations), the players that Blake was directing Yannetti to target were definitely a deviation from the Lombardi years. I'm sorry, but I just don't think that if Dean was still charge players like Bjornfot, Fagemo, or Turcotte would have been selected. At #5, I think Cozens or Boldy would have been more in play, just because of their different physical characteristics. Dean's teams were more physical, didn't allow themselves to be pushed around, winning board battles, whereas Blake's intention was to be able to ice a team that could out-skate the opposition, imo.

Also, I feel that Dean's curve for prospects is/was shorter than what Blake's is. I think Dean only gave the prospects 3 years to start showing signs of what types of players they could be. While Blake's has been 5 years. This has clearly been a detriment to the club, as now they've already lost 2 players to waivers (JAD, Bjornfot) without getting any assets back in return (actually 3 if you include Fagemo), while at the same time holding on to players for too long. Could have built up the 4th line more effectively. When the club had Lemieux on the 4th line, at least keeping other teams honest, that line was producing.

We always heard/read during the Dean years that players targeted (drafting/trade/FA) that it had to be the "right type" of player. Never hear that out of the Blake regime. Is how I feel he's just throwing darts at a board, while Dean had more of a "formula" on how the team was to be crafted.

 

[PuckinUgly57]

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that if Dean was still charge players like Bjornfot, Fagemo, or Turcotte would have been selected. At #5, I think Cozens or Boldy would have been more in play, just because of their different physical characteristics.

Dumbo absolutely understood that you need character, skill and size to win. A good balance of all 3, not skewed specifically to one attribute or another.

Blake has done nothing but draft smaller speed guys who theoretically can't be hit therefore don't know what it takes to win because the physicality ramps up 10x when April rolls around.

Might be a weird comparison but this is my boys' first season playing flag football. It's become extremely popular and MS kids being MS kids, the flag guys think they're the hottest shit on the planet. They are in for a rude awakening when they go into HS and want to play tackle and get blown up during two a days and Hell Week, one of my son's friends already said he is afraid of contact. He has played flag for years.

My youngest son has already been penalized multiple times for personal fouls because he is launching guys into next week during games. Of course I tell him reel it in, wrong sport son but that's my point; he's played tackle for now his fourth season ans that is ingrained in his mind. You see a kid with a football, you attack and be physical and make a play.

The guys Blake mostly drafted have been escape artists and crumble when it gets physical with no push back because he emphasized speed and skill.

Also, I feel that Dean's curve for prospects is/was shorter than what Blake's is. I think Dean only gave the prospects 3 years to start showing signs of what types of players they could be. While Blake's has been 5 years. This has clearly been a detriment to the club, as now they've already lost 2 players to waivers (JAD, Bjornfot) without getting any assets back in return (actually 3 if you include Fagemo), while at the same time holding on to players for too long.

Spot on, take a look at his pattern. Schenn drafted in 2009, gone by summer 2011 or example. Dumbo kept an eye on both their development and also financial ramifications, I think that guy with his charts and Venn diagrams literally had every possible outcome of scenarios etched and followed that road map when certain situations happened or revealed itself.

The irony of your statement is the same 3 guys that shouldn't have been drafted you could easily insert their names as examples of guys held onto for too long.

Could have built up the 4th line more effectively. When the club had Lemieux on the 4th line, at least keeping other teams honest, that line was producing.

The fourth line has been needed to be rebuilt for at least 3 seasons now if not more and again proved to be a weak spot in the POs. While the Kings' T2 lines were essentially shut down this series, that's where good B6 lines come in and contribute and get a timely goal, a hit, something to get the team going. They are the difference makers in a series when your guns cannot get it going.

The Kings B6 is neither physical, disruptive or productive, specifically the fourth line.

We always heard/read during the Dean years that players targeted (drafting/trade/FA) that it had to be the "right type" of player. Never hear that out of the Blake regime. Is how I feel he's just throwing darts at a board, while Dean had more of a "formula" on how the team was to be crafted.

Again, agreed. Lombardi built from the net out and had a plan and followed that plan. He never deviated. He never made premature moves (Dunno, PLD) ans generally managed the cap well until he started handing out loyalty/ past performance contracts.

Blake never had any conviction in his plan, whatever TF it was.