2013 NHL ENTRY DRAFT POST 5: CHANGED PRIORITIES AHEAD

If we take Craig MacTavish at his word (they like C’s MacKinnon, Barkov, Monahan) there are a few options for the club at #7–depending on how this thing shakes out.

Let’s see if we can mock the top 6 at this year’s draft–just to see the list of players who might be available to Edmonton when they pick at #7. I think we can probably assume the big Russian goes before the Oilers pick:

  1. Colorado: C Nathan MacKinnon
  2. Florida: D Seth Jones
  3. Tampa Bay: L Valeri Nichushkin
  4. Nashville: L Jonathan Drouin
  5. Carolina: C Slava Barkov
  6. Calgary: C Elias Lindholm/C Sean Monahan
  7. Edmonton: ?????

I think there are four possible actions for the Oilers at #7

  • draft Sean Monahan (should this be the outcome)
  • trade up for Barkov or Nichuskin or Monahan
  • trade back in order to get one of Bo Horvat or Curtis Lazar along with another pick in the top 60 overall
  • trade the pick completely in exchange for immediate help

Now, a question for you: with the understanding that MacT has ‘changed priorities ahead’ which one would you choose?

(my sincere thanks Carey Du Gray for the photo, it arrived moments before I posted this, and at the exact moment as I was in search of a photo. Music!)

written by

The author didn‘t add any Information to his profile yet.
Related Posts

56 Responses to "2013 NHL ENTRY DRAFT POST 5: CHANGED PRIORITIES AHEAD"

  1. Ca$h-Money! says:

    I follow the blogs of a few teams with picks near the top of the batting order, and no one seems particularly interested in Lindholm. It doesn’t seem to be just the oilers, for whatever reason.

    And by “no one seems particularly interested” I mean of course the internet-based fans of various teams… no idea what actual GMs are thinking, but it’s interesting none-the-less.

    I don’t like the idea of moving down. I’m not sure I like the idea of picking Monohan ahead of Lindholm…. reality is I basically haven’t seen any of these people actually play hockey.

    What I really want is to not be thinking about who to draft come May of next year. That’s what’s really important at this point.

  2. Lowetide says:

    Cash-Money: Yeah, I think Lindholm is either a winger and everyone wants a center or this year’s Filip Forsberg. I’ll say this: lots can change between now and draft day.

  3. SoxandOil says:

    Interesting how Pronman feels about Lindholm or about the elite talent at the top. He see’s the first tier as Drouin, MacKinnon, and Jones followed by Nichushkin and Barkov. Then Lindholm has his own tier then Monahan. He does feel that Nich could be in the top tier though. Sorry I can’t link the article but its a great read about the depth of the draft.

    As far as my own feelings, a centre or power wing would be great. Carolina would be a great trade partner if the cost wasn’t too high. Then at 5th overall Edmonton could choose between hopefully Barkov, Monahan or Lindholm. If Edmonton keeps the 7th they should still get a great player.

  4. oilgreg says:

    I think MacTavich’s failure to mention Lidholm was an omission with intention.

    From what I have read, and there was recently a detailed posting on Flames Nation, he appears to be a high-end, quality prospect. Trading down seldom brings you a better player based on draft position, and it is quality over quantity that will determine the winner of any trade.

    I was at the Memorial Cup, and had the opportunity to see Horvat play a couple of times. I would say that he lacks speed, and I certainly would not project him as a Top Six guy going forward. I would hope the Oilers draft the best player who falls to them, be it Monahan, Lidholm or Nichushkin.

  5. HeavySig says:

    I have copied and pasted my post from the end of the last thread in hopes of getting a response from one of resident math wizards on the formulas below.

    I know Derek Zona did a piece on the Oilers employing a sports Psychologist a few years ago (a few decades after trendsetting sports clubs), but I wonder how much weight the Oilers put into prospects perceived personalities in relation to their observed skills and measurable statistics?

    This is not talking about the usual cliches of grit and jam, but from the semi-scientific analysis of player profiles. I say “semi,” because it is hard for me to give a lot of credence to Psychology as a true science, but if the profession can help in any way with weeding out the lost causes, then we might as well fold it into the formula of choosing draft picks.

    I came across this study of pro-hockey players tested using SportPro (a personality inventory trademarked my Marshall in 1979) by Chris Gee, John Marshall and Jared King. While Marshall’s name is on the paper and he did own SportPro, I think it is worth looking at the numbers for fun. Basically they chart a guy on five characteristics associated with a “top performer,” with “5″ being the ideal. The test was given to 124 amateur hockey players prior to the 1991-92 entry draft. They then followed the subjects that met the criteria for 15 years to chart the results of the ones who made it to the NHL. I believe this was done with Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche. With that in mind, I was wondering if some of the statistical wunderkids on here could explain this passage:

    total of three simultaneous regression models were computed. Players’ composite personality scores were found to significantly predict the number of goals
    [R2=.084;F(1, 47)=4.31,p<.05], assists [R2=.087;F(1, 47)=4.67,p<.05], and total points
    [R2=.087;F(1, 47)=4.65,p<.05] that players’ accumulated over this 15 time period.

    from: http://www.selfmgmt.com/documents/IJCS%20Manuscript.pdf (Page 6 of 10)

    Apparently this supports the SportPro testing, to what extent I have no idea. There are probably much more refined tests out there now, but to what extent do clubs pay attention to them? Would paying more attention to these tests prevented say, Rob Schremp from being selected by the Oilers?

    I am curious about this, as I have always been skeptical of the whole field. However, if applied properly, can the use of Psychology help drafting teams make better draft decisions?

    Maybe where it should be used is in Pro acquisitions, as that is where some of the worst attitudes seem to come from. There is likely something in the NHLPA that makes such testing of NHL players verboten, though.

  6. Rondo says:

    I don’t know if McKeen’s is well respected they have Nurse rated as #5 in the draft.

    I have to think Oilers would consider him , if Monahan is gone.

    MacT did say

    I”t’s going to be a very strategic draft in that regard. There are teams ahead of us that are more inclined to draft a defenseman and there may be more of those that you’d be very happy with on the 7th, 8th or 9th pick, so there might be a fit there. Those are definitely discussions that we’re having that we’re looking to improve our team by.”

  7. RickDeckard says:

    While I agree that the above mock draft is the result that the Oilers should expect to happen one way or another, recent drafts seem to be going off the rails around the 4-6 picks. Reinhart-Reilly-Lindholm last year and Strome-Zibanejad-Schiefele are sequences that would have been laughed at in any mock draft. Gormely and Fowler were both in MacKenzie’s top 5 yet fell out of the top 10. Let’s hope that the Oilers are the team catching the falling star.

  8. Kris11 says:

    My crystal ball prediction for what will actually happen at the draft:

    1. Jones (Too perfect a pick for Colorado)
    2. Mackinnon
    3. Drouin
    4. Nicushkin
    5. Barkov
    6. Monahan (Flames will value “Canadian” over Swede)
    7. Nurse (Oilers will draft for need by taking big Dman)
    8. Lindholm (Unbelievable he will fall this far, but there it is)

    I believe that the Oilers should trade the pick, unless Nicushkin or Barkov falls to them, which is very unlikely. That’s just what I would do, not what I think they would do.

    Teams go crazy to buy a pick that high at the draft. Let them bid and take the highest bid, preferring bids with Dmen.

  9. gcw_rocks says:

    If that’s the way the draft falls, I could see Carolina open to a trade given they have the two Staals down the middle already. The question is, what would be the cost to move up 2 spots? If it was a second round pick and Omark (Canes need wingers) then sign me up baby!

  10. fifthcartel says:

    I don’t think there’s ever been a case where trading down has worked out for a team other than the one trading up.

  11. RickDeckard says:

    fifthcartel,

    Brodeur is the classic but I agree that trading down doesn’t work in the NHL. The top of the draft is too info heavy.

  12. speeds says:

    fifthcartel:
    I don’t think there’s ever been a case where trading down has worked out for a team other than the one trading up.

    In 1990, NJD traded down from 9 OV.

    To CAL: 9 OV (Trevor Kidd) and 32 OV (Vesa Viitakoski)
    To NJD: 20 OV (Martin Brodeur), 24 OV (David Harolcok), and 29 OV (Chris Gotziaman).

  13. RickDeckard says:

    I can only hope that Shero is realizing that he may have made a mistake by getting washed up old men like Morrow and Murray. And that he’ll have to let Malkin walk in a year.

  14. Lowetide says:

    gcw_rocks:
    If that’s the way the draft falls, I could see Carolina open to a trade given they have the two Staals down the middle already. The question is, what would be the cost to move up 2 spots?If it was a second round pick and Omark (Canes need wingers) then sign me up baby!

    Would you do Paajarvi and 7 for the #5 overall that brings Barkov and Ruutu?

  15. sliderule says:

    If the oilers can come out of this with one of the top centers it will set them up at center for a long time.

    Carolina will draft a defenceman or trade down.They gave Jokinen away at trade deadline even taking back salary so you got to think they are happy at center.

    Unless they move down to eight we get a center.

    If somehow we get hooped take Horvat ,49 goals and 83 pts in season and playoffs.

    As to speed most saw him score on shorthanded breakaway against Barrie and again in M cup.

    Looked plenty fast to me just uses his speed when he has to doesn’t race around like a chicken with his head cut off.

  16. OilClog says:

    If I’m MacT, and I want to be cerebral about this draft.. I wait until Colorado makes that first pick.. If they take Jones.. I throw Gagner or MPS or MPS, Nick Schultz and the 7th at Florida for that #2.. Pick MacKinnon, begin day dreaming about the 1 on 1′s in the future ..similar to what we saw in the Memorial cup… Watching Roy seethe on the bench.. Joy.

  17. mike.c33 says:

    I don’t think the Oilers need another big defenseman:

    Oscar Klefbom, DOB: 1993/07/20, H: 6’3”, W: 201 lbs
    Martin Marincin, DOB: 1992/02/18, H: 6’5”, W: 196 lbs
    David Musil, DOB: 1993/04/09, H: 6’3”, W: 200 lbs
    Martin Gernat, DOB: 1993/04/11, H: 6’5”, W: 191 lbs
    Dillon Simpson, DOB: 1993/02/10, H: 6’2”, W: 200 lbs
    Alex Plante, DOB: 1989/05/09, H: 6’4”, W: 230 lbs
    Kyle Bigos, DOB: 1989/05/12, H: 6’5”, W: 230 lbs
    Brandon Davidson, DOB: 1991/08/21, H: 6’2”, W: 202 lbs
    Colten Teubert, DOB: 1990/03/08, H: 6’4”, 195 lbs
    Taylor Fedun, DOB: 1988/06/04, H: 6’0”, 202 lbs
    Erik Gustafsson, DOB: 1992/03/14, H: 6’0”, 176 lbs
    Joey LaLeggia, DOB: 1992/06/24, H: 5’10”, 181 lbs

    The average height of the Oilers’ defensive prospects is 6’2 ½ “.

    Even if you subtract the prospects most people here have written off (Plante, Bigos, and Teubert), the Oilers still have a lot of defensive propsects.

    I think Lindholm is the target.

    The Oilers’ depth at left wing and center is woefully thin.

    From MacT’s comments, the Oilers top 6 next year looks something like this:

    RNH-Hall-Eberle
    Gagner-???-Yakupov

    Lindholm is listed as both a center and a left wing. MacT wants a surplus of players that can take faceoffs.

    How would a top 6 of RNH-Hall-Eberle and Gagner-Lindholm-Yakupov look?

  18. RickDeckard says:

    mike.c33,

    I’ve reached the point where any player that MacKenzie ranked in the top 10 in April is fine by me, except Zadorov, Shinkaruk and Monahan. They are all high value players that could fit the Oilers somehow.

  19. Rondo says:

    I think Nichushkin could go 3- 7

    Nurse 5- 8

    Monahan 5 -7

    Lindholm 6-7

    Any of these players could fall to # 7

  20. Hammers says:

    Lowetide,

    No but I would do N. Schultz & 7 for 4 to get Barkoz . Do Nashville & Carolina need cheaper top 4′s . Maybe . Seems Carolina wants to dump some salary so PitKainen & 5 for N. Schultz & 7 . Nashville maybe Hemsky & 7 for #4 & 64 . Just thinking of the options

  21. Ryan says:

    I think the Oilers are in a dangerous draft position. At number 7, fan expectations are pretty high, yet a lot can go wrong.

    Defensemen are notoriously difficult to project and drafting a dman at 7 has the potential to not end well for us (obviously not including Seth Jones in that statement..).

    I personally agree with almost everyone here that I hate the idea of trading down especially if it’s a 2nd and a lower 1st for the 7th slot. That would be plain stupid IMO especially in light of our recent draft success in the 2nd round. I also don’t like the idea of trading for two late 1sts.

    I would be very okay with trading the pick for a roster player if I liked the player headed our way… Possibly in a scenario with a team needing cap relief…

    I think we love to over analyze things… Bottom line, I’d be happy if MacT just makes the damn pick provided it’s top 10 on MacKenzie’s list.

  22. Racki says:

    I guess for me, if I were GM, I would separate the draft from my organizational need (barring a miracle that we land a top 2 or 3 pick). There is some chance that the guy at #7 will be in the lineup very soon, but I think we can’t assume that and would be better off assuming that they’ll need maybe another year of junior.. possibly 1 or more years of AHL time. But, with that in mind, I’m thinking that the two positions that always seem to be in need/demand are defense and center. So draft whichever is the best available in that slot. And really, these are two needs for us now anyways. Things could really change by the time this player is in the lineup.

    But anyways, to really answer the question, I’d handle things in the following order:
    - Try to trade up with that pick, because hey… you don’t get much opportunity to draft that high (unless you suck it up for several years, like the Oilers did, but should be in the past).
    - If the above doesn’t happen, pick the best C or D available
    - If the options at #7 suck, trade the pick if there is a taker and a good offer (doing this at the draft table could be tough though, unless there is a GM foaming at the mouth over their player not being taken yet)

  23. Hammers says:

    The thing is if you can’t get Barkov why trade up so maybe # 7 Fedun, and Hartski for Tyutin and 14 .. The thinking could send us all looney . Don’t give up Magnus especially if you can get him for 4.5 to 5 mil $ for 3 years .

  24. Kris11 says:

    mike.c33:
    I don’t think the Oilers need another big defenseman:

    Oscar Klefbom, DOB: 1993/07/20, H: 6’3”, W: 201 lbs
    Martin Marincin, DOB: 1992/02/18, H: 6’5”, W: 196 lbs
    David Musil, DOB: 1993/04/09, H: 6’3”, W: 200 lbs
    Martin Gernat, DOB: 1993/04/11, H: 6’5”, W: 191 lbs
    Dillon Simpson, DOB: 1993/02/10, H: 6’2”, W: 200 lbs
    Alex Plante, DOB: 1989/05/09, H: 6’4”, W: 230 lbs
    Kyle Bigos, DOB: 1989/05/12, H: 6’5”, W: 230 lbs
    Brandon Davidson, DOB: 1991/08/21, H: 6’2”, W: 202 lbs
    Colten Teubert, DOB: 1990/03/08, H: 6’4”, 195 lbs
    Taylor Fedun, DOB: 1988/06/04, H: 6’0”, 202 lbs
    Erik Gustafsson, DOB: 1992/03/14, H: 6’0”, 176 lbs
    Joey LaLeggia, DOB: 1992/06/24, H: 5’10”, 181 lbs

    The average height of the Oilers’ defensive prospects is 6’2 ½ “.

    Even if you subtract the prospects most people here have written off (Plante, Bigos, and Teubert), the Oilers still have a lot of defensive propsects.

    I think Lindholm is the target.

    The Oilers’ depth at left wing and center is woefully thin.

    From MacT’s comments, the Oilers top 6 next year looks something like this:

    RNH-Hall-Eberle
    Gagner-???-Yakupov

    Lindholm is listed as both a center and a left wing. MacT wants a surplus of players that can take faceoffs.

    How would a top 6 of RNH-Hall-Eberle and Gagner-Lindholm-Yakupov look?

    Great post Mike.

    I think you are right about the D and you convinced me. But I still wonder if the Oilers agree with you.

  25. speeds says:

    Not sure I’ll believe the Oilers aren’t interested in Lindholm until and unless EDM’s picking at 7, he’s available, and they pick someone else or trade down (and even then, depends on the trade).

    He does not fit absolutely perfectly in terms of “need” *, but a number of his strong points are the same traits MacT has hinted he’s looking for.

    * And what does that mean? One could argue that neither does MacKinnon (too short), Drouin (winger), Jones (RD, EDM might prefer a LD), or Barkov (some questions about his skating), yet all of them are good enough that I have no doubt EDM would like to add them if available at 7. Do they see Lindholm in the same light? Who knows, probably not, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he wouldn’t be the BPA by enough at 7 that they pick him even though he doesn’t fit absolutely perfectly in terms of need.

  26. Rondo says:

    Kris11,

    From what I have read oilers have no one like Nurse

    http://ohlprospects.blogspot.ca/2013/05/my-final-top-50-ohl-players-for-2013_27.html

    However I would take Lindholm at #7.

  27. RexLibris says:

    Lowetide: Would you do Paajarvi and 7 for the #5 overall that brings Barkov and Ruutu?

    In a New York minute.

  28. Lowetide says:

    speeds: I think there’s a chance they take Lindholm, too. Because they stubbornly have never mentioned his name–not ever, that I can recall–in media interviews.

    And the media hasn’t asked, which is also curious.

    No doubt in my mind they would be considering him.

  29. spoiler says:

    I don’t think the Oilers priorities have changed in the sense that the goal is always to improve the team. And I think Tambo would be facing similar choices, and would be aware of andwould cultivate them all. Pulling the trigger.. Having the courage and conviction and cognition to follow through on the best one… that’s another story. Probably a fairy tale.

    And MacT has been promising action. The draft is his first big opportunity to make something incisive happen.

    I think the optics would have to be really good on trading down. There would have to be a real coup coming back our way for this to look like a positive step forward to the public. There’s always the risk the player you want won’t be there, and you are going to face criticism for not drafting the better prospect. A short drop down doesn’t bring enough value back.

    The same situation is probably there for the outright trade, however then the pick has more value and the big fish easier to land.

    Which leaves stand pat or trade up.

    I think right now they are doing everything they can to move up… which means lowball and slow play and laughing at other GM’s counter offers, till we get closer to the draft.

    Lowetide: Would you do Paajarvi and 7 for the #5 overall that brings Barkov and Ruutu?

    I think there’s a lot of pressure to make a trade like this, as it is help now rather than in the future, and the Oil can’t count on the UFA market solving any of the big problems. I probably wouldn’t do it. But I would think about it a long while. I would much rather trade a pick and let the future happen with Paajarvi. Ruutu brings a lot of what the Oilers need though. He has a bit of Tikkanen in him.

  30. PunjabiOil says:

    Stu talked about Lindholm today I believe.

  31. speeds says:

    Lowetide,

    Stauffer asked MacGregor about him today on his show, I realize that’s another station but might be worth a listen!

  32. Lowetide says:

    speeds:
    Lowetide,

    Stauffer asked MacGregor about him today on his show, I realize that’s another station but might be worth a listen!

    I’m on it right now, thanks!

  33. Racki says:

    I think there’s a lot of pressure to make a trade like this, as it is help now rather than in the future, and the Oil can’t count on the UFA market solving any of the big problems. I probably wouldn’t do it.But I would think about it a long while.I would much rather trade a pick and let the future happen with Paajarvi.Ruutu brings a lot of what the Oilers need though. He has a bit of Tikkanen in him.

    I am not sure I entirely agree that this is a “now deal” and not dealing with the future. The big thing is we’re moving up in the draft for a guy who we think will be a solid prospect and long term C here in Barkov (supposedly a big enough step over someone like Monahan), so that’s the future. I think Ruutu still has it, even though the injuries have taken a toll, I’m sure. There’s 3 years left on his deal too, so we’d have him as an asset for a bit. Only question is whether he’s worth that kind of salary still. But he does bring quite a bit in his game. Guys that play with that edge and can put up points (if he still can) are going to be a big help to the rebuild too, as it’s going to take some good vet skill / elbow grease to turn this team around and send it to the playoffs.

    Just my 2 cents on all that. I’d do the deal, although I would try to get Carolina to retain a little salary I think, if I could. At almost $5m, that’s pretty risky I guess.

  34. Rondo says:

    Stu did say at the top there is a group of 4 , then a group of 6 or 7.

    #4 is either Barkov or Nichushkin

  35. Racki says:

    speeds:
    Lowetide,

    Stauffer asked MacGregor about him today on his show, I realize that’s another station but might be worth a listen!

    Did Stu MacGregor tell him “SSHHhhhh Shhhh… SHHH!!”. Or did MacGregor play dumb and start talking about Hampus Lindholm? Or did he say something like “Oh him? He’s awful.. I can’t see why anyone would want him…”

    If yes to any of the above.. the Oilers wanna draft him!

  36. Woodguy says:

    Now, a question for you: with the understanding that MacT has ‘changed priorities ahead’ which one would you choose?

    NOTE: All this assumes TBY likes Nichuskin as much as talking heads say they do.

    Trade up and get Barkov, and its not close.

    Would cost much, much less than Mackinnon and Nichuskin. Either of those costs one of 4, 93, 19, 64 and if you trade one of those you probably aren’t farther ahead.

    CAR is cap strung so getting a cheap young player to move down and still get Nurse is a no-brainer for them if they don’;t want to draft a F.

    The bogey is CAL might take Nurse, but probably takes Monahan in that scenario.

    Also,

    89 gets the softer minutes of the top 3 C.

    So while replacing 89 with Barkov is a set back in the short term, the short term might be…ugh…short.

    Frees up trading 89 for 1LD too.

    A significant add at 2LW makes the Barkov transition easier too.

    Almost perfect scenario for what ails the team in short and long term.

    I’d give up Paajarvi if it meant getting Barkov and CAR’s 2nd back for 91 and 7th overall, and I really like 91, he’s just much more replaceable than getting a Barkov to play C.

  37. Rocknrolla says:

    Wow Krejci is a helluva 2nd round pick. Guy is tearing it up.

  38. RickDeckard says:

    Rocknrolla,

    Bergeron too.

  39. Lowetide says:

    Marchand was a 3rd rder. Nice.

  40. Rocknrolla says:

    Ya all great picks…we need a couple of those Stu!

  41. Jonathan Willis says:

    Any of those four are fine, but if Barkov is available at five (possible, if unlikely) and Carolina really is pursuing a defenceman (the rumour making the rounds) than swapping seven for five is a no-brainer. Carolina gets their guy and a little extra, and Edmonton lands a major piece of the team long-term.

  42. Zack says:

    I’ve now had a chance to go through the prospects more intensively and I’d be ecstatic if the Oil landed Monahan at seven. I think another year in junior would do him good but if he makes the team, especially with Nuge out, I could see him playing at least nine games and maybe filling in the 3C position. I really don’t think outside of three maybe four guys would be ready for a full season yet anyways. I think Monahans offensive game is still pretty underrated and I’m sure with a full year in junior he could probably hit the 100pt mark, even if he made team Canada.

    As for Nurse, I love his upside as much as the next guy and I understand he climbed the depth chart this year but I think history shows us that selecting a more defensive d-man really early on in the draft may not be the best use of your pick. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t mind seeing Nurse as an Oilers prospect but not at pick 7. I think Nurse goes top ten in this years draft but if it was up to me I probably wouldn’t select him till spot 11. I think there’s a chance that a team could really like Rasmus Ristolainen and choose him with Nurse still on the board.

  43. Rocknrolla says:

    Lowetide,

    Stauffer today asked about Lindholm to Stu on his show. Stu was pretty matter of fact describing the prospect as in “he is a….”

    Didn’t really offer an opinion, would be consistent with minimal interest, or pretending no interest.

    http://www.630ched.com/podcasts/episodes.aspx?PID=2254

    EDIT: Punjabioil, I see you noted that earlier.

  44. Ducey says:

    I am worried about Monahan. He was apparently playing as much as 30 minutes a night and most of the PP time. There will be an adjustment in his numbers once he goes back to playing 18 minutes a night and getting only 1/2 of the PP time. I see MAP all over again.

    I’d like to see Nurse. Great athlete with wide range of skills could be a fixture in the top two for a dozen years.

  45. smellyglove says:

    HeavySig:
    I have copied and pasted my post from the end of the last thread in hopes of getting a response from one of resident math wizards on the formulas below.

    I know Derek Zona did a piece on the Oilers employing a sports Psychologist a few years ago (a few decades after trendsetting sports clubs), but I wonder how much weight the Oilers put into prospects perceived personalities in relation to their observed skills and measurable statistics?

    This is not talking about the usual cliches of grit and jam, but from the semi-scientific analysis of player profiles. I say “semi,” because it is hard for me to give a lot of credence to Psychology as a true science, but if the profession can help in any way with weeding out the lost causes, then we might as well fold it into the formula of choosing draft picks.

    I came across this study of pro-hockey players tested using SportPro (a personality inventory trademarked my Marshall in 1979) by Chris Gee, John Marshall and Jared King. While Marshall’s name is on the paper and he did own SportPro, I think it is worth looking at the numbers for fun. Basically they chart a guy on five characteristics associated with a “top performer,” with “5″ being the ideal. The test was given to 124 amateur hockey players prior to the 1991-92 entry draft. They then followed the subjects that met the criteria for 15 years to chart the results of the ones who made it to the NHL. I believe this was done with Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche. With that in mind, I was wondering if some of the statistical wunderkids on here could explain this passage:

    total of three simultaneous regression models were computed. Players’ composite personality scores were found to significantly predict the number of goals
    [R2=.084;F(1, 47)=4.31,p<.05], assists [R2=.087;F(1, 47)=4.67,p<.05], and total points
    [R2=.087;F(1, 47)=4.65,p<.05] that players’ accumulated over this 15 time period.

    HeavySig,

    At a p-value of <0.05 the model is statistically significant. That means that there is more than just random chance – the sample is robust enough to draw conclusions to the real world. However, I didn't read the paper and cannot say if their methods are sound.

    Based on the summary you could say that a player's psychological score explains their scoring to a high degree. I wonder if standardized tests are administered to combine attendees?

  46. Wes Mantooth-11 says:

    Would like to see this happen.

    Move up to take Barkov.

    Trade with CBJ for Dubinsky, he plays LW and C, would be able to move throughout the line up, work on the PP and PK has a little bit of a mean streak, competitive player and young at 27, has experience, and a very good cap hit with term.

    Definition of a Mac-T player.

  47. asiaoil says:

    Rocknrolla:
    Lowetide,

    Stauffer today asked about Lindholm to Stu on his show. Stu was pretty matter of fact describing the prospect as in “he is a….”

    Didn’t really offer an opinion, would be consistent with minimal interest, or pretending no interest.

    http://www.630ched.com/podcasts/episodes.aspx?PID=2254

    Wow that was one of the strangest replies I’ve ever heard from a scout about a top prospect – basically just read off a vague prepared reply that could have been written about some obscure guy from Austria. They like him plenty.

  48. asiaoil says:

    One more point about Lindholm – he measured out at 6.05 and finished in the top 10 on a couple of the upper body strength test (push/pull) with some of the big boys which surprised me. So he projects to be a big strong guy when he fills out – and add that to his skill level – and he’s an interesting prospect.

  49. Hammers says:

    For the right deal I would still trade #7 especially for a 26-28 year old established “D” that fits a 2-3 role that can grow and that can stay for 5+ years . It’s either that or Sam maybe gone . So McT has to evaluate his need for a good “D” against a #7 who may take 4-5 years to be a top player and if or he is willing to trade Gags .

  50. Hammers says:

    Keep relying on the draft and this rebuild is still 5 years out .

  51. slopitch says:

    I agree with Hammers. Keep the picks and plan on having them play in 2 years – unless you can get a top 5 pick. I like the idea of trading up with Carolina. Lets us get either Nichuskin or Barkov IMO which is ideal.

    I think the Oilers can acquire players for very little due to the cap. I’m not interested in moving a first or 2nd. Offer Pitlick or some prospect they don’t believe in anymore.

    I also have no interest in moving down and lots of interest in Tytuin. Draft Nichuskin, acquire Tytuin – a full 180 with regard to Russians in 2 years!

  52. slopitch says:

    From the OHL top 50 rankings RE Nurse

    “This year, with Ryan Sproul and Colin Miller on the point, Nurse was relegated to the 2nd unit. Next year, it’ll be his show to run and I expect very big things from him.”

    This reminds me too much of Alex Plante. I’d be hesitant to use a top 10 pick on a dman. I like the draft and develop model.

  53. slopitch says:

    Bet365 still has Penguins as the favorite to win the series against Boston. Unbelievable.

  54. OilTastic says:

    if Lindholm is the center that’s left at #7, i’d just go ahead and draft Ristolainen.

  55. FastOil says:

    Woodguy:
    Now, a question for you: with the understanding that MacT has ‘changed priorities ahead’ which one would you choose?

    NOTE: All this assumes TBY likes Nichuskin as much as talking heads say they do.

    Trade up and get Barkov, and its not close.

    Would cost much, much less than Mackinnon and Nichuskin.Either of those costs one of 4, 93, 19, 64 and if you trade one of those you probably aren’t farther ahead.

    CAR is cap strung so getting a cheap young player to move down and still get Nurse is a no-brainer for them if they don’;t want to draft a F.

    The bogey is CAL might take Nurse, but probably takes Monahan in that scenario.

    Also,

    89 gets the softer minutes of the top 3 C.

    So while replacing 89 with Barkov is a set back in the short term, the short term might be…ugh…short.

    Frees up trading 89 for 1LD too.

    A significant add at 2LW makes the Barkov transition easier too.

    Almost perfect scenario for what ails the team in short and long term.

    I’d give up Paajarvi if it meant getting Barkov and CAR’s 2nd back for 91 and 7th overall, and I really like 91, he’s just much more replaceable than getting a Barkov to play C.

    Glad you said it Woodguy. Getting MacKinnon or Barkov would make the Oilers a much better team IMO and I don’t see it as a long term thing either.

    I’d be willing to trade Gagner for the pick that scores MacKinnon. It’s risky, but I can’t find a way to see RNH Gagner as 1-2 C on a perennially strong team. This may not be possible depending on what’s in the works for that 1LD.

    Florida has a lot of needs and constraints (as do the others mostly), there has to be a deal there somewhere that doesn’t involve 4/93/64/19. I’d pay a pretty good price for the best C in the draft, in two years no one will remember who left anyway. Whoever gets the best player wins the trade, right?.

    The roster needs a complete overhaul basically outside of the core 4-5 and Pajaarvi. Therefore it makes sense to me to make a significant pay to swap 2013 2014 firsts if it’s there and retain the 7th this year. Anyone outside of the core is replaceable and can be found again.

    For things to change, change must be made. I think the fear of making a mistake or overpaying by a mediocre player has hampered the team. It’s the high end guys that matter so anyone not high end should be in play in multiples. Losing an extra average player in a deal will not break the team. LT’s multi-player coming soon.

  56. Cameron says:

    If you take the big 5 (Hall, Nuge, Eberle, Schultz, Yak) out of the equation there is no combination of picks/players that will get the Oilers to move intro the top 4, let alone Colorado’s pick.

    Any pick in the top four is considered a possible franchise talent, and no team with one of those picks is going to move down for Hemsky or Gagner (Flames fans should also stop with the delusional wishing/hoping/praying that Cammalleri +6 is somehow going to get us to Mackinnon or Barkov).

    The Flames are; even more highly motivated to move up than the Oilers, have lots of cap space to take back a bad contract (like Lecavalier), and both better and more 1st rnd picks to throw around.

    If the Oilers want to move up, even to #1, I think they could do so easily – but it means cutting into the big 5.

    Ask yourself, wouldn’t a team like Colorado prefer a package from Calgary that includes; 4 1sts,(including 6th overall this year and the Flames 1st next year), a young top 4 D man like Brodie and dumping a bad contract (say Stastny), to anything the Oilers offer that doesn’t involve the big 5?

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

© Copyright - Lowetide.ca