When the 2023 NHL Draft comes to its conclusion next week, we’ll have an idea of which teams did well, but any impressions will be educated guesses.
That statement is not meant to denigrate hard-working draft experts and anyone giving out early draft grades. Predicting how teenagers will perform at the NHL level is exceedingly difficult, and it often takes years for masterstrokes and blunders from a draft to become clear.
Because the ultimate outcome of a draft is tough to surmise in its aftermath, one way to approach watching the proceedings is to consider whether teams’ picks seem to be the result of a logical processes. Figuring out the results can wait, but in the moment we can determine whether the decisions made in Nashville make sense given the information that’s available now.
If you’re looking to see if your team had a good draft when the festivities are over, by all means check out some draft grades, but also consider how they came to their decisions.
One way to do that is to see which clubs avoided pitfalls that have led to poor drafting decisions in recent history. Here are a few things process errors that teams should be looking to avoid on Wednesday.
Be careful reaching for centres
Franchise centres are arguably the most valuable players in hockey, and it makes sense that NHL teams are always looking for a player to anchor their top line.
If you have a high pick, it’s logical to shoot for players at an impact position capable of playing a critical 200-foot role.
The problem is that centres like that are extremely hard to come by. Some drafts don’t even have one.
Despite that, there are a few clear instances of teams dreaming on what a top centre could do to help their franchise, that have caused them to pass up superior talents at other positions.
Recent cautionary tale(s): 2016 (and 2015)
The 2016 Draft is an excellent example of centres being over-drafted with early picks. Auston Matthews was the clear top dog at the position and the best alternatives, Tage Thompson and Jordan Kyrou, ended up being sleeper prospects who weren’t considered top options at the time.
From the 10th to the 12th pick, three centres were chosen — Tyson Jost, Logan Brown, and Michael McLeod. That trio has combined for just 226 points in their NHL careers to this point. Directly after that mini run on centres, Charley McAvoy came off the board quickly at 14 and Jacob Chychrun went 16th.
The Colorado Avalanche, Ottawa Senators, and New York Rangers were seduced by the idea of snagging a top centre and got burned.
In the previous draft, there were also a couple of cases of prioritizing centres going wrong, as the Arizona Coyotes grabbed Dylan Strome (3rd) ahead of Mitch Marner (4th) and the New Jersey Devils reached for Pavel Zacha (6th), instead of grabbing an elite winger like Timo Meier (9th) or Mikko Rantanen (10th).
There’s nothing inherently wrong with drafting centres, but teams need to ask themself if they are undervaluing guys at other positions.
Prioritizing size is a dangerous plan
The old adage is that you can’t teach size, but as it turns out, it’s not easy to teach guys to be good at hockey, either.
In today’s NHL, it’s hard to win on burliness alone. While a combination of size, speed, and skill is ideal, if the first characteristic on that list is the primary selling point, you might not be looking at a player who is worthy of a high draft pick.
Recent cautionary tale: 2014
In the back half of the top-10 of this draft, there were a number of players drafted whose size was undoubtedly a big part of their appeal.
-
5th overall: Michael Dal Colle (6-foot-3, 195 pounds, 21 career NHL points)
-
6th overall: Jake Virtanen (6-foot-1, 227 pounds, 100 career NHL points)
-
7th overall: Hayden Fleury (6-foot-4, 208 pounds, 32 career NHL points)
-
10th overall: Nick Ritchie (6-foot-3, 236 pounds, 186 career NHL points).
Ritchie has been a decent NHLer at times, and it’s not really worth contemplating what Virtanen would’ve been had he not been accused of sexual assault and ushered out of the NHL — but none of these players ever lived up to their top-10 billing.
Meanwhile, William Nylander went 8th overall and a number of more impactful players were picked soon after Ritchie, headlined by Dylan Larkin (15th).
Don’t be last on a run at one position
While it might make sense to draft for need in the NFL or NBA, it’s rarely a good move in the NHL. Most of the players are far away from contributing and it’s difficult to know what a team’s strengths and weaknesses will be at that time.
Very rarely will an NHL team admit to targeting a particular type of player, but sometimes their actions betray their intentions. When there is a run on a player at a single position, there’s a good chance whoever is last to the party was probably determined to get a player at that spot and felt pressured by all the guys coming off the board.
Gearing your drafting strategy to what’s happening ahead of you is not likely to yield strong results.
Recent cautionary tale: 2012
The 2012 draft included a massive run on defensemen that included the following names coming off the board consecutively:
After that sextet of blueliners came off the board, the Tampa Bay Lightning snagged Slater Koekkoek, who NHL Central Scouting tabbed as the 23rd-best North American skater. Tampa Bay seemed to get caught up in the run, and wound up with a player who averaged just 13:45 of ice time in his career.
It’s unclear if we’ll see another similar positional cluster at the 2023 draft, but if we do, pay close attention to who grabs the last guy.
Chances are they would be better off find a player who plays a different spot.
Low-ceiling, high-floor players can be a trap
The idea of getting a player who feels certain to contribute at the NHL level — even if he’s not a difference maker — can seem seductive to certain teams. The average outcome for even a first-round pick isn’t overwhelming, so prioritizing certainty over theoretical ceiling isn’t inherently irrational.
The issue is that there’s no such thing as a sure thing. The floor of every player is a guy who never appears in the NHL, so aiming for upside makes more sense. Even guys who don’t fulfill their potential are often able to adjust their game over time and become role players if their careers don’t turn out as expected.
If the expectation is that a player is going to be a role player in the first place, then any unanticipated negative outcomes could push them out of the league entirely.
Recent cautionary tale: The Maple Leafs in 2011 and 2013
This is a tough one to define, but Toronto seemed to embody this ethos for a couple of years during the Brian Burke era. When the team selected Tyler Biggs, he projected to be a rugged third-line winger — not an exciting outcome for the 22nd overall pick — even if it would’ve been acceptable if he’d reached that level.
Instead, he produced 17 points in 119 games at the AHL level and never sniffed the NHL.
Two years later, the team opted for Frederik Gauthier. The likeliest scenario for the big centre seemed to developing into a bottom-six defensive specialist — the type of player that could be found relatively cheaply on the free-agent market.
The 6-foot-5 centre fell short of expectations by playing just 178 NHL games, but he didn’t even disappoint by an enormous margin. The Maple Leafs lack of ambition that manifested in an intense desire to lock in NHL contributors came back to bite them.
