View Single Post
05-07-2010, 10:57 AM
agentfouser's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Ireland
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 500
selecting players at the draft always seemed a lot like playing poker to me. you make the call that you think is best based on the information you have at that moment, and judging after the fact ignores that. what matters is if you make the right call, not whether you actually win the hand, because there's always a large element of luck involved. all you can do is try to maximize your chances so that you'll come out ahead in the long run.

so, was teubert an acceptable call, based on the information that the kings had at the time? that's harder to say than saying that myers has played better since, and must therefore have been a better pick. the fact that lombardi has indicated that they liked teubert's mean streak suggests to me that in their view, there was a range of players of relatively similar potential, thus affording the kings the opportunity to select the characteristics they most desired, since these guys would all have a roughly equal chance of developing into an effective player. if it was clearly a case of myers being objectively better, you have to assume (hope?) that they would have taken myers.

so, i guess ultimately, i'm pretty forgiving of the teubert pick, at least in light of myers's success. i don't really see that myers's success has all that much bearing on the merits of teurbert's selection, because their ability to become nhl players was uncertain in both cases.

but it sure would be nice to have myers, and it's unfortunate that teubert hasn't shown some better hockey sense and discipline. hopefully he does in the future.

agentfouser is offline   Reply With Quote