In the days following the NHL entry draft, there’s nothing fanbases like to do more than to play the role of armchair GMs and relitigate their favourite team’s selections. Unfortunately when it comes to teenagers, many of whom aren’t yet fully grown, attempting to project their NHL ceiling/floor based on anecdotal evidence and grainy YouTube clips is akin to watching a documentary on space and declaring yourself an astronaut.
Players need time to develop, and the right ecosystem around them to foster their talents. For every Connor McDavid or Sidney Crosby that are ready to step in as 18 year olds there are a hundred others who take years to develop in order to be ready to play at the NHL level.
Whether it’s pundits, journalists, or GMs themselves, the saying of “don’t judge a draft until 5 years from now” is a common refrain. So before you cast judgment on who your team did/didn’t pick at the annual prospect crapshoot, let’s take the advice of those in the business and look back 5 years from today at the 2016 NHL Entry Draft and see who earned their paycheque and who failed the test.
To provide some context, here are the final NHL Central Scouting rankings from April 12th, 2016 (via Wikipedia)
| Ranking | North American skaters | European skaters |
| 1 |  Pierre-Luc Dubois (LW/C) |  Auston Matthews (C) |
| 2 |  Matthew Tkachuk (LW) |  Patrik Laine (RW) |
| 3 |  Alexander Nylander (LW) |  Jesse Puljujarvi (RW) |
| 4 |  Jakob Chychrun (D) |  Rasmus Asplund (C) |
| 5 |  Olli Juolevi (D) |  German Rubtsov (C) |
| 6 |  Charles McAvoy (D) |  Carl Grundstrom (RW) |
| 7 |  Logan Brown (C) |  Yegor Korshkov (RW) |
| 8 |  Mikhail Sergachev (D) |  Filip Hronek (D) |
| 9 |  Clayton Keller (C) |  Henrik Borgstrom (C) |
| 10 |  Kieffer Bellows (LW) |  Linus Lindstrom (C) |
| Ranking | North American goalies | European goalies |
| 1 |  Evan Fitzpatrick |  Filip Gustavsson |
| 2 |  Carter Hart |  Daniel Marmenlind |
| 3 |  Tyler Parsons |  Veini Vehvilainen |
Already you can see some familiar names, some perennial All-Stars, and some players who you’d have a hard time picking out of a police lineup. And that’s to be expected. Scouts (believe it or not) are human, and are therefore subject to making the same poor calculations you and I do on a day to day basis. Maybe it was a fringe prospect, who a scout happened to see only 3 times that season. Yet on those three nights he played out of his mind. Or perhaps he played poorly during a stretch where a scout was watching, but what that person didn’t know is that the player was actually working through a nagging injury.
The point is, the eyeball test can only account for so much, and no team has the resources to watch every minute of every game for the thousands of draft eligible prospects. Enter the NHL Central Scouting service. Their job as they describe it is to “…provide evaluation and scouting of draft-eligible players to NHL member clubs. Headed by Director of Central Scouting Dan Marr, NHL Central Scouting employs eight full-time scouts throughout North America. To report on prospects playing internationally, the NHL employs the services of Goran Stubb and his staff at European Scouting Services based in Finland.”
All of that is just a fancy way of saying that NHL Central Scouting essentially acts as a scouting conglomerate to provide intel to NHL clubs to use in their draft process. Think of them as the S&P 500, or an index fund. The logic behind it being that all of their notes, plus what the franchise’s own scouts see in the tape on the prospects should eliminate some of the guesswork involved. A classic example of if two heads are better than one, then dozens are better than a GM and his director of scouting. Or so you would think…
Because just like stocks, there are always those who think they can beat the market. Those who do, reap massive rewards. Unfortunately, those that get caught thinking they’re the smartest person in the room when they aren’t usually get handed walking papers in short order. And as you’ll see below, when it came to the 2016 draft for Canadian teams, there were more than a few GMs who thought they were playing chess while the rest of the league was playing checkers, only to be sorely mistaken with the benefit of hindsight.
It’s worth examining, in the wake of the million and one prospect lists and claims of “reaches” or “steals” this past weekend, just how accurate the composite lists truly are. After all, no sense in getting upset about your team picking someone off the board, if those whose job it is to set the board in the first place can’t get it right.
If we go through the Central Scouting list of skaters, they managed to identify most of the key players in the 2016 draft. Did they miss on a couple hidden gems like DeBrincat and Fox (more on him later)? Absolutely, but no one is expecting them to bat 1.000 here. Of their list of 20 top positional players (10 North American Skaters, 10 International skaters, I’m not wading into goaltenders as they’re essentially voodoo to predict) they managed to hit on 14 players who are now at a minimum full time NHLers.
(For those that are curious as to the 6 who aren’t NHL mainstays, that would be: Juolevi, Brown, Rubtsov, Korshkov, Borgstrom & Lindstrom, most of which are pros over in Europe, but weren’t able to get steady minutes in the NHL)
That’s good for a 70% success rate. They mirrored that 70% success rate in 2015, went bonkers in 2014 (95%), and hit on 90% in 2013. All that to say, is that’s your baseline if you’re going to go off the board with a pick in the first round. Do you think the team you’ve assembled can correctly identify a player that NHL Central Scouting has missed, and are you confident in the odds he’ll become a full time NHL player for your club. Because if not, you’re turning down a 70% (or better) assurance by going with a known commodity.
TSN did a report a few years back where they determined that based on data from 2000-2009 (a ten year span) that the odds a player would play at least 50 NHL games by round were as follows: 80% for 1st rounders, 44% for 2nd rounders, and 30% for 3rd rounders. From there the numbers fall off a cliff, with 5th rounders having a 1.6% chance on average of playing meaningful NHL minutes. Which means you’re essentially building your team through the first 3 rounds of the draft, and then buying lotto tickets on players in rounds 4-7. Sometimes they payoff, most of the time they don’t.
So now that the table is set, let’s finally revisit that fateful 2016 NHL entry draft and see how each of the 7 Canadian clubs fared.
*Technical note: The keen observer will point out that the data above only applies to the 10 best North American and 10 best International skaters. If one were to assume that they therefore make up the 20 best skaters available (rarely the case as scouts often put a premium on North American skaters, meaning the 10th ranked international skater could actually be 30th or 40th on the overall rankings making it even less likely a team whiffs on a pick in the first round if they rely on the composite rankings) then we can only apply the percentages to the first 20 picks. Well it just so happens that all 7 Canadian clubs had seasons to forget that year and all of them picked in the top 20 so it’s a moot point.
Legend:
*denotes with another organization
+denotes KHL/European League
!denotes University player
Toronto Maple Leafs
| Name | Rd. | No. | Pos | GP | G | A | P | PIM | P+M- | PPG | P/GP |
| Auston Matthews | 1 | 1 | F | 334 | 199 | 152 | 351 | 56 | 58 | 47 | 1.051 |
| Yegor Korshkov+ | 2 | 31 | F | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Carl Grundström* | 2 | 57 | F | 75 | 11 | 10 | 21 | 30 | -12 | 0 | 0.28 |
| Joseph Woll | 3 | 62 | G | ||||||||
| James Greenway! | 3 | 72 | D | ||||||||
| Adam Brooks | 4 | 92 | F | 18 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0.444 |
| Keaton Middleton* | 4 | 101 | D | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | -1 | 0 | 0 |
| Vladimir Bobylyov+ | 5 | 122 | F | ||||||||
| Jack Walker+ | 6 | 152 | F | ||||||||
| Nicolas Mattinen! | 6 | 179 | D | ||||||||
| Nikolai Chebykin+ | 7 | 182 | F | ||||||||
| TOTAL | 431 | 215 | 166 | 381 | 90 | 51 | 48 | 0.555 |
Analysis: It’s hard to screw up when you have the first overall pick in the draft. Matthews was the runaway choice to be taken number 1, and the Leafs would make the same pick 100 times out of 100 even with the benefit of hindsight. That being said, the buds absolutely whiffed on every other selection they had that year. Yes, Grundstrom is up to 75 games, but all of those came with LA. Nearly every other selection has moved on to European leagues, have gone back to school, or are out of hockey all together. It’s tough to fault the Leafs here for much as they got the best player available, but they certainly didn’t do much to bolster their organizational depth. Shoutout to Nicolas Mattinen who most recently played at Ottawa U for the GeeGees.
What if moment: None to speak of. Matthews was the number one choice then, and he’s the number one choice today if the draft was redone.
Grade: C- , based entirely on Matthews dragging them up from a failing grade
Winnipeg Jets
| Name | Rd. | No. | Pos | GP | G | A | P | PIM | P+M- | PPG | P/GP |
| Patrik Laine* | 1 | 2 | F | 351 | 150 | 121 | 271 | 139 | -29 | 56 | 0.772 |
| Logan Stanley | 1 | 18 | D | 37 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 26 | 13 | 0 | 0.108 |
| Luke Green | 3 | 79 | D | ||||||||
| Jacob Cederholm* | 4 | 97 | D | ||||||||
| Jordy Stallard! | 5 | 127 | F | ||||||||
| Mikhail Berdin+ | 6 | 157 | G | ||||||||
| TOTAL | 388 | 151 | 124 | 275 | 165 | -16 | 56 | 0.44 |
Analysis: In a strange bit of irony, the Jets actually now have the #3 overall pick (Dubois) instead of Laine on their roster, but very similar to Toronto’s draft, don’t have much to show for it outside their top selection. Logan Stanley finally cracked the Jets roster last year and looks to be part of the team’s future (or at least has trade value moving forward). From there however 2016 yielded very little in terms of stocking the prospect cupboard in Winnipeg.
What if moment: Would Winnipeg be better or worse off if they’d gone with PLD immediately as opposed to living the Laine experience? Regardless, if the draft was held again today they’d probably still be picking one of the two of them.
Grade: C, better than Toronto as they at least got a secondary asset but nothing to write home about.
Vancouver Canucks
| Name | Rd. | No. | Pos | GP | G | A | P | PIM | P+M- | PPG | P/GP |
| Olli Juolevi | 1 | 5 | D | 23 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0.13 |
| William Lockwood | 3 | 64 | F | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | 0 |
| Cole Candella | 5 | 140 | D | ||||||||
| Jakob Stukel* | 6 | 154 | F | ||||||||
| Rodrigo Abols+ | 7 | 184 | F | ||||||||
| Brett McKenzie* | 7 | 194 | F | ||||||||
| TOTAL | 25 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | -3 | 0 | 0.065 |
Analysis: Congratulations to William Lockwood on graduating from the University of Michigan. That’s about all the good news that can be said about the Canucks draft haul that year. Remember how we said that Central Scouting was only right about 70+% of the time? Well, it looks like Vancouver is on the 30% side of that equation here. A rather abysmal showing from the Canucks, however their saving grace is that outside of Juolevi and Lockwood, all their picks were from round 5 onwards. Which as we noted above, is roughly equivalent to buying a scratcher. Ya win some ya lose some.
What if moment: What if the Canucks took Tkachuk or Keller who were selected immediately behind Juolevi? Or, if they truly were gungho on taking a blueliner, Sergachev was there for the taking (as well as McAvoy & Chychrun only a few picks later).
Grade: D-, Juolevi can hopefully put together a nice career now that he’s been given a shot, but Canucks fans will likely always look at him through the lens of “other players we could’ve taken”.
Ottawa Senators
| Name | Rd. | No. | Pos | GP | G | A | P | PIM | P+M- | PPG | P/GP |
| Logan Brown | 1 | 11 | F | 30 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 6 | -2 | 1 | 0.3 |
| Jonathan Dahlen* | 2 | 42 | F | ||||||||
| Todd Burgess! | 4 | 103 | F | ||||||||
| Maxime Lajoie* | 5 | 133 | D | 62 | 7 | 8 | 15 | 20 | -25 | 4 | 0.242 |
| Markus Nurmi+ | 6 | 163 | F | ||||||||
| TOTAL | 92 | 8 | 16 | 24 | 26 | -27 | 5 | 0.271 |
Analysis: Not to be outdone by Vancouver, Ottawa walked away from the draft with almost nothing to show for their efforts. All the prospects have chosen different avenues at this point, and a nasty showdown between Logan Brown’s camp and Dorion is going to come to a head sooner rather than later in the Nation’s capital. Had Brown not been dealt a rotten hand with a variety of injuries over the years, perhaps this would be a different story. Unfortunately it appears as though Ottawa would have been better off setting their computer to “auto draft” and hoping for the best. As fate would have it, Trent Mann was actually promoted to Chief Amateur Scout in October after the 2016 draft. Whether that was the plan all along, or was a result of the 2016 draft choices is up for debate.
What if moment: Unlike Vancouver who had a potpourri of future impact players to choose from, Ottawa didn’t have much left outside of McAvoy and Chychrun remaining in the 1st round. Ironically if the current scouting room were in charge, you could make the case that the Sens would have likely chosen Kieffer Bellows to satisfy their love for hockey “lineage”.
Grade: D, This could also go all the way to an F if the Senators aren’t able to get any kind of value in return for Brown, or if he fails to crack the Sens lineup this fall.
Montreal Canadiens
| Name | Rd. | No. | Pos | GP | G | A | P | PIM | P+M- | PPG | P/GP |
| Mikhail Sergachev* | 1 | 9 | D | 284 | 29 | 107 | 136 | 154 | 44 | 8 | 0.479 |
| William Bitten* | 3 | 70 | F | ||||||||
| Victor Mete* | 4 | 100 | D | 199 | 5 | 31 | 36 | 38 | 35 | 0 | 0.181 |
| Casey Staum! | 5 | 124 | D | ||||||||
| Michael Pezzetta | 6 | 160 | F | ||||||||
| Arvid Henrikson! | 7 | 187 | D | ||||||||
| TOTAL | 483 | 34 | 138 | 172 | 192 | 79 | 8 | 0.33 |
Analysis: The Canadiens actually did quite well for themselves, identifying two solid young defensemen who appear to be on track for long NHL careers. The bad news however is neither is with the organization any longer. Sergachev went over to Tampa Bay in the Jonathan Drouin deal, and Mete was claimed off waivers by Ottawa this spring. Kudos to the amateur scouting department, however the front office may want a do over on how they managed the pro side of things with the young blue liners.
What if moment: What if the Canadiens just kept Sergachev? It’s a question many Montreal fans are asking themselves in the wake of losing to the Lightning. Likely means no Edmundson who was a huge part of their season, but is that an upgrade or downgrade?
Grade: B+, Great draft, but not much to show for it years later. How Drouin pans out will ultimately decide how 2016 will be remembered draft wise for the Habs.
Edmonton Oilers
| Name | Rd. | No. | Pos | GP | G | A | P | PIM | P+M- | PPG | P/GP |
| Jesse Puljujärvi | 1 | 4 | F | 194 | 32 | 30 | 62 | 56 | -4 | 5 | 0.32 |
| Tyler Benson | 2 | 32 | F | 7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0.143 |
| Mark Niemeläinen | 3 | 63 | D | ||||||||
| Matthew Cairns! | 3 | 84 | D | ||||||||
| Filip Berglund+ | 3 | 91 | D | ||||||||
| Dylan Wells | 5 | 123 | G | ||||||||
| Graham McPhee | 5 | 149 | F | ||||||||
| Aapeli Räsänen+ | 6 | 153 | F | ||||||||
| Vincent Desharnais | 7 | 183 | D | ||||||||
| TOTAL | 201 | 32 | 31 | 63 | 56 | -5 | 5 | 0.232 |
Analysis: Puljujarvi has been a massive disappointment to many an Oilers fan given the immediate success the 3 players selected in front of him had in the league. However he’s shown some signs of life of late, and there may still be hope that he’s a late bloomer. Outside of him however, the Oilers managed only to strengthen their AHL and ECHL squads with their selections in rounds 2-7. Unlike their Canadian counterparts though, the Oilers were able to hold on to most of their prospects and keep them within the organization (albeit outside the NHL ranks).
What if moment: What if Matthew Tkachuk was on the other side of the Battle of Alberta?
Grade: D+, The Oilers likely had blinders on to try to find McDavid his version of Jari Kurri and passed on some names that could have dramatically shifted the future of the franchise.
Calgary Flames
| Name | Rd. | No. | Pos | GP | G | A | P | PIM | P+M- | PPG | P/GP |
| Matthew Tkachuk | 1 | 6 | F | 349 | 110 | 168 | 278 | 357 | 28 | 33 | 0.797 |
| Tyler Parsons | 2 | 54 | G | ||||||||
| Dillon Dube | 2 | 56 | F | 121 | 18 | 25 | 43 | 30 | 1 | 3 | 0.355 |
| Adam Fox | 3 | 66 | D | 125 | 13 | 76 | 89 | 46 | 41 | 3 | 0.712 |
| Linus Lindström+ | 4 | 96 | F | ||||||||
| Mitchell Mattson! | 5 | 126 | F | ||||||||
| Eetu Tuulola | 6 | 156 | F | ||||||||
| Matthew Phillips | 6 | 166 | F | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Stepan Falkovsky+ | 7 | 186 | D | ||||||||
| TOTAL | 596 | 141 | 269 | 410 | 433 | 70 | 39 | 0.466 |
Analysis: The Flames are your run away winners of the 2016 draft. They selected 3 players who are not only full time NHLers, but core pieces of their current teams. The bad news for Flames fans is that Adam Fox was involved in one of the more one sided deals in recent NHL history. He, along with Dougie Hamilton and Michael Ferland were sent to Carolina for Noah Hanifin and Elias Lindholm. Hamilton is now one of the most sought after free agents on the market, and Fox just collected his first Norris Trophy in New York. That being said, they’ve held on to a few of their other draft choices, so they at least have some AHL depth as a result of their selections.
What if moment: If he’s still there the Flames likely still take Tkachuk today at 6. The real what if happened when the Flames traded their 2nd rounder to St. Louis for Brian Elliott (35th overall). What if they used that pick to take DeBrincat, or Carter Hart who were selected 39th and 48th overall respectively?
Grade: A, Say what you will about the trade of Adam Fox, but identifying him as a budding talent means the amateur scouting department certainly earned their paychecks that day.
So, what did the talking heads have to say about the drafts in the immediate aftermath back in 2016? Well let’s just say they were a little more optimistic about the future than how things actually played out:
2016 ESPN Grades:
Calgary: A-
Bang on quote: “is his father’s son on some days, being a pain in the rear for many defenders and goalies.” -on Tkachuk
Edmonton: A-
Hindsight quote: “Jesse Puljujarvi is one of the most exciting prospects Finland has ever produced”
Montreal: B
Bang on quote: “Victor Mete is one of the best skaters in this draft class.”
Ottawa: B
Hindsight quote:“Logan Brown, coupled with Jonathan Dahlen to give them a nice foundation down the middle along with last year’s top-round pick Colin White.”
Toronto: A
Bang on quote: “Toronto’s high grade may be classified as “the Auston Matthews grade”“
Vancouver: B+
Hindsight quote: “I really like what the Canucks did on the draft floor.”
Winnipeg: A
Bang on quote: “The Logan Stanley pick was way too high for me”
As you can see, aside from the Montreal and Calgary grades, the results weren’t even in the same ballpark as the predictions from 2016. So for anyone grumbling about the knee jerk reaction grades that were doled out over the weekend, rest assured, there isn’t a great precedent of those being accurate.
So breathe, relax, take it all in. Know that with most of your teams selections you won’t be seeing these kids crack a roster until a few years from now. Others? You’re likely never going to hear about them beyond this weekend. And that’s the cruel reality of professional sports. Of the 224 players selected this past weekend, how many will ever get to put on an NHL jersey? Not nearly as many as you think. So before you start getting worked up over your team’s “reach” in the 5th round, keep in mind that, statistically speaking, they have less than a 2% chance of playing 50 or more games at the NHL level.
Seattle on the other hand, you guys have some explaining to do about some of the already established professionals you guys chose on Expansion Night.
-Kyle Skinner
Twitter: @JKyleSkinner