The following is the first, second and third parts of an in-depth feature story detailing the nuts and bolts of the NHL draft from the perspective of a group of NHL insiders. The story was included in 2005's edition of the Young Guns EDGe. The story will be posted here in four weekly installments. The first three can be found immediately below.

First Installment (posted May 9th, 2006)

The Inside Scoop!

Our subscribers (past and prospective) were very enthusiastic about the idea of a feature story which would shed light on the inner workings of NHL teams’ scouting and draft preparation processes and this story is the result of that enthusiasm - and a little bit of teeth-pulling on our part!

To get the inside scoop, Young Guns Hockey approached various members of seven NHL organizations to discuss all things draft-related. We believe our group of insiders represented a healthy mix of the league’s 30 franchises. We spoke to reps from large and small market teams; Original Six teams and expansion teams (both recent and more established expansion teams). Free spenders and historically tight-fisted teams.

All tolled we interviewed one President and GM, three Directors of Amateur Scouting and three current or former Fulltime Scouts. Almost all of our subjects chose to remain entirely anonymous and, in the interest of having them speak to us as candidly as possible, we have respected their wishes. The one exception in the group was Tom McVie, a hockey lifer who is currently a scout for the Boston Bruins. McVie put it this way: "I’ve been in hockey some 50 years and have been fired by more teams than I can count. What are they going do to me that hasn’t already happened (to me)?" We would like to thank Tom McVie for his time and never-ending supply of great hockey stories.

Now that we’ve gotten all the pleasantries out of the way let’s start by establishing some of the basics.

Who’s Who In Scouting:

At the top of the scouting hierarchy you’ve typically got an organization’s ultimate decision-maker, a team’s GM. A GM’s involvement in the scouting process and the draft varies greatly from organization to organization. The highest level of GM involvement we encountered, in terms of actual scouting, was one GM who would have seen every player on a team’s final draft list at least three times. On the low end, we found one GM who would see every player in that organization’s top 60, or about two round’s worth of draft eligible players, at least three times.

Under the GM, you will typically find the person who organizes that team’s scouting efforts and runs the draft for any given team, the Director of Amateur Scouting. These individuals would see all of the players on a team’s final draft board various times over the course of the year.

Under the Director of Amateur Scouting, you find the actual foot soldiers, the amateur scouts, themselves. This group includes full time and part time amateur scouts. Most staffs varied little in terms of scout body counts. The Bruins staff, for example, consists of five fulltime and four part time amateur scouts. The Sharks had six full time and six part time scouts. Among a team’s scouting staff, you will typically find three such scouts who are dubbed crossover scouts. As the name indicates, they not only focus on one region but also travel to the different regions around the world to scout players along with their local amateur scouts.

We found that most GM’s and their Directors of Amateur Scouting would see every CHL team at least three times in a season.

Between the GM, the Director of Amateur Scouting and the cross over scouts, a franchise will wind up with at least five individuals who will have seen every player on their final draft board three to five times and in the case of the cross over scouts, many more times than that.

Quantity Means Quality:

We’ve heard more than one person comment that organizations draft players after only seeing them once or twice. This was not the case at all with regard to the teams we polled. Although it might seem like a convenient reason as to why teams might be so wrong about a player they drafted, there is no validity to it. NHL teams do not fly blind when they’re making draft day selections. Amateur scouts will see between 180 and 200 games per year. Prospects might be scouted as many as 30 times in a given year. It might seem like these individuals are seeing a helluva lot of games - and they are! McVie told us how he had just been paid a visit by one of the Bruins’ crossover scouts and "He had just seen 10 games in 10 nights!" Although that kind of compact schedule certainly exists, you should also remember that any major international tournament will provide an organization with multiple opportunities to evaluate players since there will be two or even three games on the schedule. Also, if members of a scouting staff are attending a playoff series, Memorial Cup-type of tournament or a game like the Top Prospects Game, such events present the opportunity for scouts to evaluate what might be various players at once and in the case of the former two, multiple games in a short time period.

A Clean Slate For Scouts:

In our two years of existence, Young Guns Hockey has never provided "Pre-season Rankings" or rankings of a future year’s draft crop. Although we can appreciate a sort of tipsheet, to point out certain players to look out for, the idea of rankings just seemed so unjustified since the most important credentials for the ranking would have not yet occurred (the actual pre-draft season).

Our research showed us that we were not alone. NHL amateur scouts do not use any sort of pre-season rankings. Of course, some scouts will have knowledge of certain players before they see them. They talk to people. They hear things. They’ve probably seen some of the players they’re scouting a year or two in the past. However, one thing every one of our panelists told us was that scouts start the draft year with a clean slate.

Amateur scouts start out each draft year scouting every single player that’s in his first year of draft eligibility, in the region they’re responsible for. They keep notes on all of these players for the first few months and in most cases do not present a ranking of players to their co-workers or superiors until January. That’s typically the time when organizations will have the first meeting involving all of their scouting staff. In preparation for that meeting, amateur scouts will take their lists of as many as 300 players and whittle them down to between 60 to 120 players. Players who have shown improvement over the first few months will remain on a scout’s list. Players who a scout has no interest in at all will be removed entirely.

Our subscribers asked "How much weight do NHL organizations place in late season events such as playoffs, results from the player combine, personal interviews and player workouts?" The answer is not much weight at all. Obviously a phenomenal run during the playoffs or a tournament could make an important difference but as one Director of Amateur Scouting told us, "Those types of events might cause us to tweak our rankings but they wouldn’t normally cause tremendous shifts." The reasoning being that it’s unlikely a player who was ranked low, would all of a sudden have a phenomenal run.

Second Installment (posted May 17th, 2006)

For Flag and Country - And Coach Cherry:

Another common question we’ve been asked is whether or not certain types of game settings carry more weight than others when it comes to player evaluation? For example, how are international tournaments viewed? How about All Star Games or the Top prospects Game?

The consensus from our panel was that certain major international tournaments, like the U18 WC’s or the U18 World Cup, were by and large the best setting to scout draft eligible players and to get the most accurate read on their talents. One scout commented. "First of all, you’ve got the players playing against the best of their peers." A Director of Amateur Scouting added, "The U18 Championships are huge! Players are playing for their country and they will play less selfishly because of it." He continued, "If you look back, you will find that the top scorers in those types of international U18 tournaments were routinely successful NHL players."

As for the Top Prospects Game, our panelists were all fans. Every one of our panelists who we asked had a similar response, "The Top Prospect Game isn’t like other All Star Games. The game is physical." Even though there was the risk that the game might feature some selfish play - as players try and make an impact on scouts - our panel was convinced that the Top Prospects Game was a good climate for highly-regarded players to strut their stuff. It also shouldn’t be overlooked that the Top Prospects Game will routinely feature more top-level players than any other league All Star Game could round up.

With regard to other All Star Games, by and large our panelists weren’t very excited about them. One panelist pointed out that, "If you targeted only the types of players that participate in All Star Games, you would be doing your organization a disservice. Players like Jay Pandolfo or John Madden might not even make an All Star squad - but they are the types of players who would play in a Stanley Cup Finals game."

How Many Players Are On Those Wishlists?

Perhaps, the most surprising thing we learned in researching this story was just how few players were on a team’s final draft list. Last draft, there was a total of 291 players selected. We assumed that teams would typically enter a draft with a list of approximately 300 players - just so they wouldn’t be left shorthanded in later rounds. This was not the case at all.

We found that the NHL organizations showed up at any given draft with as few as 80 players on their list. The common range was between 80 and 100, although two of our sources said they might have as many as 150 on their final list. Eighty players?!?! That would mean that approximately 75% of the players picked in one particular draft weren’t deemed worthy of selection by that NHL team. That stat is mind-boggling to us!

One source mentioned that his organization had different lists. They had "short guy lists" and "regional lists", amongst others. Short guy lists?!?! We’re sorry but you’ll have to figure that one out for yourselves. We didn’t ask.

We did ask what we thought was an obvious question: What would happen if a team found themselves with no names left on their list with a pick or to still to be made? McVie commented, "You’d have some team’s GM and his scouting staff jumping up and down, making T’s with their hands, feverishly trying to call a time out. That’s what you’d have. That would be a sight!" Well, as entertaining a sight as that might be, the reality is that such a scenario isn’t a concern for the NHL organizations we polled. One GM told us that "It hasn’t happened yet, as long as I’ve been in the game and it’s not going to happen."

This leads us to the fact that teams’ draft lists vary greatly.

Potential Is In The Eye Of The Beholder:

The relatively small number of players which find themselves on a team’s final draft ranking is proof alone that scouts see different players very differently. One team official mentioned that, "I can only remember one time in the last 10 years, where the top 10 players selected followed our top 10 list exactly." Another told us that "If teams ever shared their rankings, the results would be all over the place."

We asked our insiders whether they found themselves routinely surprised as picks were made during the draft? Blake Wheeler’s #5 overall selection last year seemed like an obvious instance. Our GM panelist flatly replied, "Not really. You’ve got to remember we’re dealing with 18 year olds, for the most part. Talent projection is incredibly difficult at such a young age and differences of opinion are expected." Another of our insiders said, "Scouts see different things in different players, so no, we don’t usually get surprised."

We found that since teams show up at the draft with relatively short lists, most players on any team’s list would likely be off the board by the end of the draft. The few players left undrafted from a particular team’s list would be the players extended try-outs at that team’s next training camp. One official mentioned that the players which remained undrafted from their list served as an evaluation of their scouting staff’s work. "If there were too many players remaining (undrafted) on our list, then we’d question the job of our scouts."

The curious thing about that last comment was that teams expected to have different players targeted as potential selections. As we mentioned earlier, anywhere from 50% to 75% of the players selected by other teams wouldn’t be under consideration by other teams. However, there was a tipping point where too much of a discrepancy would cause an organization to question their evaluation process.

Third Intsallment (posted May 22nd, 2006)

Best Player Available (a/k/a "BPA") vs. Need:

Every year it seems draft fans and the media (who should know better) try to peg what players will go where in the draft.

A typical exchange this year would go something like this: "Does a team picking #9 overall select Ryan O’Marra or Marek Zagrapan?" "Well, it all depends on which team is drafting at #9. If they need a defenseman, then they would probably go for Marc Staal or Ryan Parent, instead."

That’s not the way it works. Every one of our panelists said the same sort of thing, "Apart from a select few players picked very high, players selected in the draft will not be impact players in the NHL until four or five years after they’ve been drafted."

One of our insiders put it this way, "If a GM is looking to fill a hole on his NHL roster with a draft pick, then that GM will be looking for a job before too long."

This really shouldn’t come as a shock to any of us. We’ve heard the same thing about the four or five year incubation period for draft picks for years. So why do people keep repeating the BPA vs. need question at every draft? We’re at a loss to explain it. However, the concept of need is not totally eliminated from teams’ evaluation processes. Where it arises, more often than not, is with regard to an organization’s depth at a position. If a team’s organization is lacking in skilled forwards, they might make an effort to gear their draft towards filling that need. One insider put it this way, "If we feel there’s a need in our organization for a particular type of player, then we might look to draft for that need later in the draft. That kind of decision would be more of what goes into deciding exactly which player to draft from those still on our draft board." That said, there’s a big difference between that and a team being characterized as drafting a defenseman because they need one on their NHL roster.

In our conversations, one of our panelists divulged their top 10 from a recent draft. There was one goalie on that list and the rest of the list was a split of forwards and defensemen, which was skewed in favor of forwards. Obviously, they weren’t targeting a need with that top 10 wishlist.

More on this a bit further down.

Stick to the Script:

Unanimous sentiment amongst our panel was that teams follow their lists almost religiously on draft day. One team official commented, "You always go by your list, although there might be a possibility of straying towards the end of the draft." Another of our subjects said, "People would be surprised just how late into the draft teams stick with their lists."

This explains why a team like the Sharks, who already had goalies such as Evgeny Nabokov and Vesa Toskala on their major league roster and recent draft picks like Patrick Ehelechner and Dimitri Patzhold in their system, took no less than four goalies in the 2004 NHL Entry Draft (Thomas Greiss, Jason Churchill, Derek MacIntyre and Brian Mahoney- Wilson). The Rangers got many of their fans in a tizzy when they selected Al Montoya #6 overall in 2004 even though they had a highly touted netminder in Henrik Lundqvist in their system, a recent top 10 pick in Dan Blackburn and other goalies such as Jason Labarbera and Chris Holt in the fold.

Of course, that’s not to say that teams never stray from their list early on. Let’s say a team has four two-way defensemen very highly ranked and three of them go off the board in quick succession. That team might stray from their list to get that fourth highly ranked defensemen before he’s off the board. Another reason for straying might be that a team is looking for more balance in their draft. One source said, "We look for balance. If we’ve wound up with a few smaller skill-type players, we might pick a larger, more physical player to even things out by the end of the draft."

Character...shmaracter!

We asked our insiders about the skills or traits that make a prospect a prized commodity and there seemed to be little consensus. There are many different traits or skills which add up to a desired prospect.

The most amusing comment we received came from our question regarding the importance of character in a draft pick. One Director of Amateur Scouting shot back, "F*#k character! A player’s got to be able to play!" Now before you think these are the words of some short-sighted individual, what this official meant wasn’t that character didn’t necessarily matter but rather that we’re dealing with 18 year old kids and their character is far from set in stone.

Another source offered up the following player profiles to illustrate hit point:

Player A: Strong on his feet...wins face offs...is excellent defensively...plays in traffic...is strong on the rush...and has great character.

Player B: Has great character...will play on the penalty kill...is not a big scorer...will play against other teams’ top lines...is the first to loose pucks...not a top two-line talent.

Player A was Bryan Trottier. Player B was Jan Erixon. This official wrapped up his comment by saying, "If character is the first trait a scout brings up, you know you’re not looking at a top player."

For a somewhat contradictory point of view, McVie discussed the importance of things such as work ethic and desire, which people sometimes equate with character, in terms of the value of a player. He discussed how some teams will take a player who has certain desired skills but might be lacking in "hockey courage" - the ability to battle for the puck. "One player might be faster than another," he said, "but that second one will still get to the battles for the puck first." He made the same comment regarding the small player that goes into the high traffic areas as opposed to a bigger player who wouldn’t. McVie had a great quote from x-Washington Redskins Head Coach George Allen. Allen once told McVie, "Watch out for the guy who ‘looks’ like a player. You could lose your job waiting for him (to put it all together)."

I'm a boy and I'm a man...I'm eighteen...and I don't know what I want:

The lines immediately above are from the Alice Cooper song, "I’m Eighteen" and sum up the lack of maturity that our insiders thought many draftees had - both mental and physical.

As the new CBA was being fought over, there was some talk of the league’s desire to raise the minimum draft age. Many draft fans remarked that the draft age should be kept at 18 because teams that scouted well would be rewarded. Other found the current set-up made it fun to see which organizations had success.

Needless to say, the men paid to evaluate players did not appreciate the fun argument, nor did they necessarily believe that the drafting of 18 year olds rewarded teams with better scouting staffs. The majority of officials we polled felt that because most players were not matured, whether physically or mentally, by age 18, that the system did not necessarily reward good scouting.

Examples were given such as Joe Thornton, who didn’t mature physically until he was 20. Of course, there are exceptions. Players like Scott Niedermayer and Brendan Morrow were provided as examples of players who were already mature by the time they were drafted. One of our panelists held up the NFL and the immediate impact of a relatively high amount of that league’s draft picks as proof that the higher age was more appropriate. The consensus among our panelists was that 18 year olds were still learning how to properly train and had other factors, as basic as girlfriends, school or society in general which affected their lives and, ultimately, their on-ice performance.

We touched on this earlier - the fact that a player’s maturity was something draft talent evaluators were sensitive to - but it brought up an interesting sentiment that’s worth mentioning. Our panelists, by and large, understood the folly of placing too much importance on a player’s character. As we mentioned, they were willing to cut 18 year old kids some slack. It was interesting that some thought fans were much more unmerciful, when it came to indiscretions committed by players or supposed character flaws credited to them. Fans were seen as often wanting instant gratification and the reality was that these young players might take several years, if ever, to mature to the proper level.

We were made aware that the draft age was lowered to 18 back in 1979. A lot of it having to do with a player named Tom McCarthy (and his agent). Talk about an interesting life. For more info on McCarthy and/or the lowering of the draft age, check out the following links: http://www.hockeydraftcentral.com/1979/79010.html and http://www.hockeydraftcentral.com/1979/79facts.html

Even though our contacts thought a higher draft age would benefit everyone (except those players who proved to be unworthy of draft pick status), our insiders were unanimous in thinking that the 18 year old draft was here to stay.

Fourth Installment (posted June 6th, 2006)

THE NEXT ONE:

We asked our panel for opinions on just how good Sidney Crosby is. The response was unanimous. Every one of our panelists thought he had all the makings of the next great one. Here’s what they actually had to say:

"Crosby’s vision is unique. He sees all the angles and makes plays. If you look back, Gretzky made most of his plays from the right side and behind the net. Mario Lemieux made his plays from the left side. Adam Oates could make plays from the left and right side and down low. (Oates never got credit for being as tough as he was.) Brendan Shanahan and Igor Larionov had great success from both the right and left side. Crosby makes plays from everywhere. He is like a triple threat point guard in basketball. He can take it to the net, dish off or shoot from long range. He also plays defense."

"Crosby is similar to Forsberg. He can battle and create offense with his extra effort. If guys were hanging off him (Forsberg), he had the ability to spin away or shake off opposing players. Crosby’s got that."

"Crosby takes no shortcuts."

"People bring up Alexandre Daigle. They are nothing alike. Daigle had a predictable speed rush game. Now, even though he was great at it, you have to be really great to rely on one type of game." (This commentator did admit that he too would have taken Daigle #1 overall, back in the day.)

"Crosby’s teammates are all receivers. You better be ready if you’re on the ice with him because the puck will find you."

"Crosby makes players out of anybody. Like Mario Lemieux in that regard. Kevin Stevens was never as productive without Lemieux." (Editor’s note: Let’s not forget to mention "Downtown" Robbie Brown and his impressive stat line of 64 games played, 49 goals, 66 assists and 115 points with Mario back in 1988-89!)

"It’s almost a good thing there was no hockey season this past year. I can’t even imagine what teams would have done to tank and get the best shot at drafting Crosby."

We put the question to our panel: Who would you take if they were both available in the draft, Alexander Ovechkin or Crosby? Crosby was the only choice. It was noted that although Ovechkin has a dynamic one-on-one shooter’s game and he was a tremendous finisher, he might not ever involve his teammates enough. This source likened it to Dany Heatley getting more players involved than Ilya Kovalchuk.

Closing Time:

In wrapping up this story, we decided to include some topics which we didn’t discuss at length with our subjects but which we thought were still interesting.

Rick DiPietro (#1) or Dominic Hasek (#199):

The concept of drafting goalies early always seems like a good debate starter. The 1991 and 1992 drafts were the last two consecutive drafts where no goaltender was selected in the first round. Ever since then, it’s been a common occurrence for multiple netminders to be selected in the first round. It’s gotten to the point where you can almost pencil in at least one goalie being taken in the top 10. Young Guns only had one goalie in our top 10, Carey price (at #10) but we half expect two goalies to be selected top 10 on Saturday (our bet would be Price and Rask). We asked our panel about the phenomena of goalies being drafted early and they didn’t have an explanation as to why this wasn’t always the case. They did say things like, "goaltending has always been one of the keys on a successful team." More than one also commented that "scouting had progressed over the years to a higher level these days."

Leave it to McVie to have the best quote. "All my life, I’d been told that you start a team from the net out. That goaltending is 80% of the game and 90%, in the playoffs. So there I am sitting at the draft table, as coach of the Washington Capitals. We get into the early rounds of the draft and our guys are debating who to take with our next selection. The popular choice seems to be a right wing, which we could use. We were so bad back then that we could use help everywhere. So here I am thinking about all the things I’ve been told about how important goaltending is and I ask one of our guys why we don’t take a goalie? He turns to me and deadpans that ‘it’s too early to take a goalie’. ‘We’re not going to waste an early round pick on a goalie.’ And I’m left trying to figure out how it’s too early to take a player that’s supposed to be responsible for 80 or 90% of our success?"

Sticks, Lies and Videotape:

Although scouts will watch games on TV and it’s not impossible to glean something from such viewings, the consensus was, "It’s no way to scout. The camera misses too much of the game." Teams will prepare video on players but such videos will often be shot from a single camera with a wide angle view that takes in almost all of the ice surface.

Money Makes the World Go Round:

Although big money teams could outspend small money teams and possibly gain an advantage when it comes to player evaluation, this isn’t the case in the current NHL. The league’s teams all budget similar amounts for scouting. The number is in the low seven figures. The only difference according to one source was that "Good staffs spend wisely".

Declaration of Independence:

Although some teams acknowledged that their personnel might read publications from outside sources (we know of a few that have checked out the Young Guns EDGe!), they don’t rely on these for actual rankings or player evaluation. Although this might sound like what you would expect men in their positions to say, more than one put it this way, "If all we had to do was buy a draft guide, what the hell would they be paying us for?" Apart from curiosity, some of our panel mentioned that they might look to such scouting services as sources of accurate information. Case in point: Central Scouting. NHL teams fund it and use it to find accurate basic info on players, such as height and weight.

We hope you enjoyed our "behind the scenes" look at the draft. Once again we thank our generous NHL sources for their time and info.


Shaken not stirred! (April 2, 2006)