View Single Post
02-11-2013, 08:24 AM
Registered User
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 39,028
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
While I can agree with this, I would say that players like Petrecki simply take longer to develop. How long did Murray, Clowe, and Ehrhoff take before they were NHL-ready? In today's league, with FA at 27, that is a luxury that few can afford. And the organization has definitely been doing a better job churning out prospects at a fast rate. However, we have to acknowledge that some players like Petrecki, Mclaren, etc. have longer time-frames...and the mistake was either drafting them in the first place (with the assumption that they wouldn't need so long to develop) or the misjudgement that the team could wait for the player.
Murray, Clowe, and Ehrhoff were 8th, 6th, and 4th round selections respectively. They had no expectations. The thought process should be if the team is able to pull out solid players consistently enough to not call it luck in the later rounds, the formula should be able to work in the first round and make the pick better on the whole of it. They are whiffing every time in the mid-to-late first area. If you call the late round picks something other than pure luck, there has to be some accountability for the first round failures and Burke has one success in the last fifteen years of drafting and that was Scott Hannan out of ten tries from mid-to-late first rounders.

I can understand a longer time to develop for some players. I can't understand the entirety of how the organization handles these selections. The organization obviously doesn't care about their results from this to do anything about it. I don't see any desire to improve this aspect nor hold anyone accountable for it. And that is exactly the attitude that the players take on in one form or another and for the most part, the organization enables that.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote