View Single Post
02-10-2013, 07:52 AM
Registered User
Vaasa's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,690
vCash: 500
First of all, I apologize to those who find this side-discussion irritating. But it is really is related to Petrecki as part of an overall process. Second of all, if you want to know exactly where I am coming from, let me refer you to this December 2008 post of mine that laid my team-building philosophy in the post-cap world.

I hadn't re-read it in a while and I think that 4+ years later I wouldn't change a thing. Now, onto SR's post.

Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Assuming that they drafted the same players, with the same development route, as they did in this reality. Which, considering the Sharks's depth, would have been highly unlikely.
I'm moving this up in the post because it's an important one. Just as I can't assume the Sharks would have drafted the same players, you can't assume they wouldn't have. Therefore, the best metric is to look at who was actually taken. As for development, given that I have been criticizing DW for not paying enough attention to drafting and development for years, you are only making my point stronger, not weaker.

Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
The bulk of your post seems to contradict this.

Regarding "first round picks don't matter".

They do matter. It is just that with this team, the value is diminished. Those first-round picks are typically going to bring moderate talent to a roster that requires much more than that to crack it. This is why DW/Burke keep swinging for the fences...a safe 3rd/2nd liner will do nothing here. We saw what happened to players like Marcel Goc, etc. They floundered because they could not get playing time.
It's funny how you say "Those first-round picks are typically going to bring moderate talent.." when it's pretty obvious that a lot of the talent taken with the picks in those areas has been anything but "moderate". You're basically saying, "Since we can't guarantee a great talent every time, and some of them might bust or not be as good as we hoped, we should just give up trying entirely."

You say a safe 2nd/3rd liner "will do nothing here", but what are people complaining about almost every season? A lack of good 2nd/3rd line players. Guys that can provide scoring depth, hopefully make Ryane Clowe expendable, provide injury fill-ins for the top-6. You know, good safe "2nd/3rd liners". And given that DW is constantly trying reclamation projects and paying for outside talent at both defense and forward (Wallin, Huskins, Gomez, Sheppard, Dom Moore, Winnik, Galiardi, etc, etc, etc), it's pretty obvious that a serious organization lack of depth exists. That depth should be provided by young talent in a healthy organization. The fact that the Sharks can't in many cases (and please, don't point to Wingels or Desi, the fact that DW got guys like Handzus and Burish shows that they are exceptions more than a trend) shows an serious organizational lack of drafting and development.

Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
At the time, DW's stated goal was to make the playoffs, and we had a need for a player who was NHL ready. Michalek was not only a former candidate for the first overall pick, but was widely considered the most NHL-ready.
And the year before the Barons went through 27 different defenseman in the AHL. Of those, the best were Fahey, Davison, and Jillson. At the NHL the D group was McLaren, Ragnarsson, Marchment, Hannan, Jillson, Rathje, Fibiger, McGillis, Davison, Jakopin, Heins, and Fahey. Ragnarsson, Marchment, McGillis, and Heins were all dealt during the season. There was a screaming need for a potential top-2 young defenseman in the org, and they had a great scouting report on Ryan Suter. When they traded up, everyone expected them to take Suter. I know why DW said he selected Michalek, it doesn't change that it wasn't the best pick from an organizational need perspective. The other players who went after Michalek included Ryan Suter (#7), Brayden Coburn (#8), Dion Phaneuf (#9), Jeff Carter (#11), Dustin Brown (#13), and Brent Seabrook (#14). In Suter, Phaneuf, and Seabrook they passed over 3 different top-2 defenseman.

Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
At the time, people were quite excited with this pick. Sharks chose to take someone who had more of the power-forward reputation. At the time, I know that the Sharks were considering taking Getzlaf at that position, but did not due to concerns over skating speed and over an organizational belief that they already had too many centers. Remember, that at the time, San Jose had Marleau, Goc, and Boyes at the center position. SJ felt that they could work with Bernier over his defensive-zone responsibility.

I'm 80% certain that Parise was passed because of size.
What, and Bernier was known for his skating? No, he wasn't. As for not drafting centers, virtually every forward the Sharks have drafted under DW has been a center. They regularly convert them to wings. So your argument for not taking Getzlaf doesn't hold water. I'll agree that size was a potential issue against Parise, but size hasn't stopped DW from drafting exactly the same sized players like Pavelski.

Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Kaspar was billed as a potential Marian Hossa at the time, someone who could provide more value to our lineup. Schneider would have never had a role in an organization so deep in net. Mike Green most likely would never have developed as he did in our system. Meszaros hurts, but you can't win them all.
Thank you! You have just made my point for me. "You can't win them all", but you lose every attempt you don't make. It's not just an inspirational poster in the locker-room, it's the reality of drafting.

Part of the picks moved to get Kaspar was the pick used to take Edler. As for Schneider never having a chance, would the Sharks have signed Niemi if they had Schneider in house? What about Nittymaki? You assume that if the Sharks had better talent in house that they would still sign UFA's or trade for other players. The whole main point of my argument is that by having talent in house you have more flexibility, especially in a cap-constrained world.

Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
This one hurts. Kopitar would have been a great pick, but remember, the Sharks were not the only organization to pass him over. Many had concerns over him. I would also be reasonably certain that SJ passed on Staal due to organization depth at that position. Remember, at the time, they had Carle (looking like a potential Norris winner), Stuart (looking like a potential Norris winner), Preissing (had a fantastic rookie season), Hannan (just come down shutting down Peter-freaking-Forsberg), Fahey (another great rookie season; would have won the Calder with a full 82-games), Ehrhoff, and Gorges.
RE: Staal. There was no 04-05 season, remember? So the D-corps the Sharks had to use as a reference at the NHL level was Marshall, Davison, Preissing, McLaren, Fahey, Ehrhoff, Rathje, Hannan, and Stuart. In the AHL level during the lockout year they had Ehrhoff, Fahey, Carkner, Gorges, and Fahey. Ehrhoff was the only one at the time who even remotely looked like a Top-2 defenseman, and in the NHL they had Stuart (as a 2-3) and Hannan (as a 2-3). Fahey only had 3 more points in the AHL in the 04-05 lockout year than Doug Murray did, despite playing more games.

So again I argue, bad drafting.

Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Not much explanation I can give here, save that 21 teams passed on Giroux....Wishart was, IIRC, Giles Cote's man.
There are a large number of posts on this board that show I was a fan of Wishart too. And the pick the Sharks traded was used to take David Fischer. Even I admit that some years they are going to bust. However, this is the year where your post above about defensive strength leading them to draft forwards is a better argument. Ehrhoff had played a nearly full season looking good, and then went on to put up 8 points in 11 playoff games. Carle made his NHL debut putting up 6 points in 12 regular season games and 3 in 11 playoff. Preissing had his career year, and they felt strong enough on D to deal Stuart to Boston for JT. At Center they had Thorton, Marleau (already playing some game at wing), Goc, McAuley, and Smith. In the AHL they had Iggulden and Hennessy (who were both showing issues by then). So taking a forward, especially a high-potential one, should have been the move.

Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Again, a late first-round pick usually ends up in a top-9 forward or a #4/5 defenseman. That player was not going to provide too much value for the Sharks. Besides, Rivet was eventually traded for two seconds.
Top 9 forwards includes Top 3 and Top 6. You can't assume they will be 3rd-liners at best. For those who are complaining about Clowe, would he even still be in the org is MaxPac had been working his up the last few years? And those two 2nds they got for Rivet? They went for Wrenn and Mark Alt. Neither of whom is looking like they will ever make the NHL. MaxPac is already there.

Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
See above argument. You can't just use who WAS picked at that position (and even given that, that he would develop the exact same way). That pick coudl just have easily been Angelo Esposito or Petrecki....
And see my response, you can't assume they wouldn't. If you can provide a better mechanism for evaluating moves, please do so. But at the moment, the only way to evaluate is to look at who was actually taken or who was taken immediately near if that chosen player may not have fit an org need at the time.

Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
This one I give to you. Couture, after all, is a terrible player.
And even Doug Wilson gets lucky in the first round once in a while. But if I had the choice of not having Couture and instead having Suter, Kopitar, MaxPac, Perron, and Ennis and instead of Couture just having Eller? Yeah, I take that trade-off in a heart-beat. You can't pick the few wins and ignore all the losses. Either they all count (including the ones where the Sharks miss-out on my side) or they don't.

Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
I would trade Carle, Wishart, and Palmieri for Boyle alone. No question. Have you seen how important Boyle is to the Sharks? And about Olsen...has he even scored a goal in the AHL yet?

I wouldn't. Because if DW had been following the strategy I an laying out, we would have had Suter, Staal, Vlasic, Ehrhoff, Carle, Demers, and Braun as our potential top-7 right now assuming no one left as a UFA. Even if Suter, Ehrhoff, or Carle left (or even all 3), the Sharks would still have good defense (again, see below)

Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
And the Sharks acquired a 2nd-round pick. Why do you omit that?
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
I love how this time, you omit the players taken with those second-round picks. Without even looking, I'm going to guess those players are busts or fringe NHLers.
I left out the 2nds because I was making an argument about the 1st round picks. But if you insist, here it is:

2003 2nd #66 - traded as part of the move up to acquire Bernier, goes for Masi Marjamaki. Bust.

2003 2nd #50 - acquired from the Bruins for Dan McGillis (used to acquire Ivan Barinka, bust) is part of the package to move up to take Hennessy (bust) at #43. BTW, #45 is used to take Patrice Bergeron.

2003 2nd #47 - acquired by trading 2003 third round pick (#97-Ryan Donally), two 2003 fifth round picks (#143-Greg Moore) (#173-Tyler Johnson) to Flames for 2003 second round pick (#47-Matt Carle). By selecting Carle the Sharks passed up on Shea Weber (#49).

2004 2nd #52 - Traded along with the 2004 first round pick (#28-Mark Fistric), 2004 second round pick (#52-Raymond Sawada), 2004 third round pick (#91-Alexander Edler) to Stars for 2004 first round pick (#22 - Kaspar), and a 2004 fifth round pick (#153).

2004 2nd #63 - Trades 2004 second round pick (#63-David Krejci) to Boston for 2004 third round pick (#94 - Greiss), 2004 fourth round pick (#129-Churchill), and 2004 ninth round pick (#288 - Derek MacIntyre).

2005 2nd #35 - acquired in the Kipper trade from Calgary, used to take Vlasic.

2006 2nd #53 - Used to take Mathieu Carle (bust), traded with the 2006 first round pick (#20-David Fischer), to Canadiens for 2006 first round pick (#16 - Ty Wishart).

2006 2nd #36 - Acquired by trading 2006 third round pick (#85, acquired from Philly for Niko Dimitrakos, used to take Tommy Sestito), 2006 fourth round pick (#113-Ben Wright), 2007 second round pick (#53-Will Weber) to Blue Jackets for 2006 second round pick (#36). Uses to take Jamie McGinn.

2007 2nds #41 & #57 - Trades 2nd round picks in 2007 (41st overall from Pittsburg, becomes Kevin Marshall) and 2008 (57th overall, becomes Eric Mestery) to Washington for a 1st round pick in 2007 (28th overall). Used to take Petrecki.

No 2008 2nds

2009 2nd #43 - acquired for Rivet. Used to draft William Wrenn.

2009 2nd #57 - Sharks own. Used to take Doherty.

2010 2nd #53 - acquired in Rivet trade. Used to acquire Nic Wallin.

2011 2nd - Traded for Ian White. Used to take Brock McGinn.

2011 2nd - Trades 2011 2nd-round pick (#59, becomes Rasmus Bengtsson) + 2012 3rd round (#78, becomes Shayne Gostisbehere) pick to the Panthers for their 2011 2nd round pick (#47) and uses #47 to draft Matt Nieto.

2012 2nd - Acquired from Minnesota in the Burns deal (becomes Pontus Aberg), used to acquire Dominic Moore.

2012 2nd - Chris Tierney (2nd round, 55th overall

Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
That trade is actually looking better and better for the Sharks. Ironically, Burns is exactly the player you want the Sharks to acquire when they trade youth, just like you were for the offer sheet the Sharks made to Hjlamarsson. Burns is young and signed long-term...
My point was that they never should have had to trade for Burns. By looking at the moves made involving first and second round picks, with even just 1 or 2 better selections, and not just trading away the first and second round picks, this team would not have needed to acquire Boyle, or Burns (or they could have had Burns from the beginning). They would have more top-6 depth, and a better defensive pool.

In my opinion (and yes I know it's just my opinion) if DW had managed the assets better and built a team through draft and development they would likely have won the Cup by now. And they would still a significant contender for the foreseeable future.

Vaasa is offline   Reply With Quote