As Modo pointed out this is hardly the first time Dallas fans/Ralph have voiced their displeasure of the 1st round choice made by Niewendyk and company. Most of us wanted Kulikov, Schroeder, or MSP and instead we got Glennie.
99% of us wanted Fowler or Forbot and instead we got Campbell. He may turn out great in four years but there's no denying Fowler being passed meant at least for this year the defense didn't take a step forward.
I'm surprised Ralph said it but good for him. Accountability for the drafting process has to come from somewhere. Heika certainly isn't going to say anything credible and we has fans on this or any other website are hardly going to force management's hands in the future.
I'm glad Ralph said it. He should get attacked now by the organization-can-do-no-wrong crowd, though, right? For consistency's sake?
Because of course if you criticize a pick at the time of the draft then you're not being fair and you should just trust whatever the scouts decided. But then if you criticize the same pick after the draft then it's only because you have the benefit of hindsight. It's a no-right-answer scenario, except if all we talk about are drafts from 5+ years ago. But no one ever does, because by then everything's obvious and there's nothing left to discuss.
I'm glad Ralph said it. He should get attacked now by the organization-can-do-no-wrong crowd, though, right? For consistency's sake?
Because of course if you criticize a pick at the time of the draft then you're not being fair and you should just trust whatever the scouts decided. But then if you criticize the same pick after the draft then it's only because you have the benefit of hindsight. It's a no-right-answer scenario, except if all we talk about are drafts from 5+ years ago. But no one ever does, because by then everything's obvious and there's nothing left to discuss.
GMs make the picks they believe are the best at the time given the information they have. You can agree or disagree with their assessments of the players, but no one goes into a pick saying 'Well, Player A is really better, but I'm going to take Player B just because I can. Plus his hairstyle is cool." These decisions can be right or wrong in hindsight, but there is no clear right answer at the time no matter how many internet lists or McKeon's scouting reports pretend to be authoritative. They're all projections and best guesses that are in no way binding or guarantees.
The only way to truly evaluate the success of a draft is 5-10 years down the road, but that's far too long for people who want winners and losers the second after the thing is done. Look at the 2005 draft. The Stars appear to have come out very well with Neal at 33 when he was passed over by nearly every NHL team in the first round. But evaluations in 2007 or 2008 would have played up the success of Niskanen and claimed Dallas was stupid for not picking Latendresse or maybe Mason Raymond in Neal's place, since they got to the NHL much faster and produced well for rookies and second-year players. Draft picks are a long-term investment, and judging the quality of the pick only on short-term results is stupid.
Ralph has a right to his opinion. Frankly, I think it's far too soon to declare it a good or a bad decision at this point because we don't how Campbell or how Fowler will play out over the long run. Niskanen had a gangbusters rookie season as well, and we all know how well that's working out, and goalies generally have slower development curves (Quick, for instance, was a third-round pick in 05). Give it five years and then I'll let you know how I feel about it.
Scouts like Campbell. Everyone else in the organization wanted Forbot and then Fowler when he fell to us. Niewendyk chose to go with his scouts. There was no consensus. Also yes you can grade a pick as it goes. Doesn't mean the grade can't change as time goes by but by any objective measure right now Dallas chose poorly. Just like I bet you ask anyone outside this organization about MSP vs. Glennie and they'll prefer MSP.
Whichever way you slice things though, Fowler is having an impressive rookie season...as an 18, well 19 year old player as of a week or two ago. Niskanen was 21 going on 22 playing alongside a should-be future hall of famer. Niskanen was also thought to be a bit of a reach when he was taken out of high school; Fowler was a star among stars in a great junior league who fell to 12th overall.
The biggest question about Campbell, or the concept of drafting any goaltender that high in the 1st round (or the 1st round at all), really comes down to drafting philosophy as a whole versus drafting philosophy in regards to the goaltending position. A quick look at the top goaltenders in the league by wins, GAA, SV %, shutouts...there is clearly no correlation between draft status. In a way, drafting a goalie in the first round is a gamble at best (relative even to other positions) and the risk of that gamble increases significantly the higher they are selected.
5-10 years from now Campbell may be a fine NHL goalie. We'll find out. Until then it's fun to at least discuss what some other available players are accomplishing. It's not like we're all going to sit on our thumbs during some 5 year moratorium on the 2010 draft class though.
HF - There was a consensus among the people paid to evaluate young talent. I would much rather a GM listen to a person with actual expertise in that area than an outsider, honestly. Again, you can agree or disagree with their rationale, but you cannot deny that they have an underlying rationale to begin with.
As far as your second point, the objective measures right now are woefully incomplete, particularly because player development is not a linear process. Two and three years into their NHL careers, Jonathan Cheechoo and Mark Bell looked like stellar picks too. Where a player is after 1-3 seasons in the NHL (or 1-3 seasons after his draft, for that matter) is not predictive of how good a player he will end up being.
glove - I don't doubt that Fowler is having an impressive offensive season (though I find his play in his own end to be lacking at this point - it obviously can get better with time, but he's got a ways to go there). But that, in the long run, is a small part of a long career. Most guys with his skill set, once they finish developing, end up being 3/4s who can run a power play. Does he have the potential to be more? Of course. But by that argument, Campbell also has the potential to be a franchise goalie. Being faster to develop is far less important than the level they actually reach, and speed to reach the NHL is not predictive of what that level will eventually be.
The Niskanen comparison wasn't meant to be a direct line drawn so much as a case study of "good debuts do not indicate great development arcs." There are a million more out there.
I do agree with goalies being risky high draft picks. But that's an entirely separate argument to "which draft pick is better." I think it's fun to track how they're developing, but I also think it's way premature to make the sort of conclusive judgments HF is implying. It doesn't matter right now that 9 of 10 scouts would take Fowler over Campbell. It matters in 10-15 years which has the better career. People jump from discussion and opinion to trying to draw concrete conclusions way too fast.
Last edited by Kritter471: 12-15-2010 at 05:45 PM.
Frankly, I think it's far too soon to declare it a good or a bad decision at this point because we don't how Campbell or how Fowler will play out over the long run. Niskanen had a gangbusters rookie season as well, and we all know how well that's working out, and goalies generally have slower development curves (Quick, for instance, was a third-round pick in 05). Give it five years and then I'll let you know how I feel about it.
But here's the problem with that: The sooner a draft pick contributes, the better. The earlier prospect A contributes in his career the more prospect B is going to have to outshine him in absolute ability further down the road to give equivalent value out of the pick. It's the same principle behind money in your hand being worth more than the same amount of money guaranteed at a future date. It's why a 2011 1st rounder is worth more than a 2012 1st rounder.
Unless Fowler absolutely drops off the face of the Earth, Campbell has to be a top 3 goalie in the league for the better part of a decade for this pick to be redeemed.
I don't really understand your Mason Raymond comparison. Raymond was 22 during his rookie year and scored 21 points. Neal scored 37 as a 21 year old. Fowler and Campbell are the same age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kritter471
HF - There was a consensus among the people paid to evaluate young talent. I would much rather a GM listen to a person with actual expertise in that area than an outsider, honestly. Again, you can agree or disagree with their rationale, but you cannot deny that they have an underlying rationale to begin with.
I want the GM to listen to his scouts too. Absolutely. But I also want his scouts to be right. If they're not, they need to be replaced. And let's be honest here, this was mostly Bernhardt, not a nebulous consortium of scouts.
Quote:
Where a player is after 1-3 seasons in the NHL (or 1-3 seasons after his draft, for that matter) is not predictive of how good a player he will end up being.
Could not possibly disagree more. It's absolutely predictive.
Where a player is after 1-3 seasons in the NHL (or 1-3 seasons after his draft, for that matter) is not predictive of how good a player he will end up being.
With that logic, we should still be holding out for Niskanen to be a number one defensemen in the future.
__________________
★ #14 - #19 - #56 ★
Dallas Stars - Arsenal FC - FC Dallas - Alabama Crimson Tide - Kentucky Wildcats - SMU Mustangs Bossier-Shreveport Mudbugs - 1997 to 2011 - WPHL Champions 1998, 1999, 2000 - CHL Champions 2011
I do agree with goalies being risky high draft picks. But that's an entirely separate argument to "which draft pick is better."
They're not unrelated though in this case.
I stand by the adage of BPA, but a case must be made in this particular instance that a potential perfect fit at the perfect time at the perfect price was kicked aside because a player at the most scout questionable position for 18 year olds was deemed to have "franchise potential." The fact that the Stars are in the fiscal quagmire that they are yet are admittedly not "rebuilding" (nor should they per se) means that more variables come into play than simply which player's career would I rather attach my name to as a general manager when we look back at that draft in 30 years.
I don't need a goalie to be my franchise player; I need a goalie to make the saves he should make, some he shouldn't, and be able to play 65+ games a year for a handful of years and not **** the bed come playoff time. Also, and this may be a slight left turn here, but what good can come of telling an 18 year old player that he is expected to be a franchise player? No pressure kid. Even if that's how they felt I would rather they kept that to themselves, fans be damned.
HF - There was a consensus among the people paid to evaluate young talent. I would much rather a GM listen to a person with actual expertise in that area than an outsider, honestly. Again, you can agree or disagree with their rationale, but you cannot deny that they have an underlying rationale to begin with.
As far as your second point, the objective measures right now are woefully incomplete, particularly because player development is not a linear process. Two and three years into their NHL careers, Jonathan Cheechoo and Mark Bell looked like stellar picks too. Where a player is after 1-3 seasons in the NHL (or 1-3 seasons after his draft, for that matter) is not predictive of how good a player he will end up being.
glove - I don't doubt that Fowler is having an impressive offensive season (though I find his play in his own end to be lacking at this point - it obviously can get better with time, but he's got a ways to go there). But that, in the long run, is a small part of a long career. Most guys with his skill set, once they finish developing, end up being 3/4s who can run a power play. Does he have the potential to be more? Of course. But by that argument, Campbell also has the potential to be a franchise goalie. Being faster to develop is far less important than the level they actually reach, and speed to reach the NHL is not predictive of what that level will eventually be.
The Niskanen comparison wasn't meant to be a direct line drawn so much as a case study of "good debuts do not indicate great development arcs." There are a million more out there.
I do agree with goalies being risky high draft picks. But that's an entirely separate argument to "which draft pick is better." I think it's fun to track how they're developing, but I also think it's way premature to make the sort of conclusive judgments HF is implying. It doesn't matter right now that 9 of 10 scouts would take Fowler over Campbell. It matters in 10-15 years which has the better career. People jump from discussion and opinion to trying to draw concrete conclusions way too fast.
Total fail. Being an apologist for the Scouts is ill advised when the facts are known. Fowler was clearly the best option. The fact he is on pace for 40 with the mediocre ducks while we're stuck with Niskanen, Daley, Grossman, and other half baked defensemen makes it a huge slap in the face for stars fans. We clearly didn't address our needs, and our needs were defense. Niskanen is a failed project with little offensive upside. Fowler would have been a perfect replacement.
Jack may be a decent goaltender in 4 years, but rarely are goalies superstar caliber, and this guy will most likely have an average career. Fowler is only what, 19 and already contributing big time. Not to mention he will be one of the best skaters on defense down the line with his speed.
Wow. Definitely didn't think he would actually say that.
As I said some time ago, we're (as in us fans) always going to feel that we should've taken Fowler until Campbell wins us a Cup.
Problem is, Campbell won't. I'd be incredibly surprised if he is ever a starting goaltender, let alone a goaltender who wins a Stanley Cup. Fowler should have been such an obvious pick it's not even funny.
With that logic, we should still be holding out for Niskanen to be a number one defensemen in the future.
Niskanen was almost certainly never going to be a No. 1 defenseman (just like Fowler will almost certainly not be a No. 1 defenseman - neither has the all-around skill set required). Niskanen can absolutely, however, be a much better defenseman than he currently is over the course of his career if he addresses several specific issues. Players can always improve or decline any given season. But you tend to project based on their recent history and leave caveats.
So with Niskanen, his career track has been on a negative slide since the first four months of his career. Therefore, barring a major change, we can project that he's not going to get better. We don't know what Fowler's (or Campbell's) career track will be at this point because the sample size is far too small. 25/0 professional games is a ludicrously small window of a career. Niskanen's what, 180 at this point?, gives us a much better window.
People assume Fowler is going to get better while the assume Campbell will never make a meaningful impact. But they are both simply assumptions, no matter how many times they are stated as fact.
Piqued - Sooner=better is a logical fallacy. Players do not develop at the same rate. Sam Gagner was in the NHL two (relatively productive) years before Jamie Benn, but Benn has the far better career track at the moment. Steve Bernier was contributing in the NHL a year before Loui Eriksson and had a stronger relative rookie season, but Eriksson is the better player. Andrej Meszaros was a much better defenseman than Mike Green for the first two seasons they were both in the league (and Meszaros needed no AHL time while Green spent 60 games of his rookie season there). Being there first does not make you the better player in the long run.
And Raymond was a bad comparison. Too much bronchitis medicine today. Make that comparison with Setoguchi or Cogliano with the evaluation at the end of the 07/08 season. Both reached the NHL that year and produced relatively well as rookies, but you would take Neal (who was not yet in the NHL) over both of them today.
Glove - Your argument is they made the far riskier pick and you don't think the reward is all that great anyway. That's completely reasonable. But you can't make any conclusions as to how that gamble worked out yet.
Reading the Fowler thread made me want to go back and relive what we went through during that draft....it's almost sad how much buildup there was, board-wide, as our pick neared, only to be followed by a total collapse of morale.
So I'll use Strangis's piece as a continuation of the draft thread.
__________________
If you're telekinetic and you know it, clap my hands!
Piqued - Sooner=better is a logical fallacy. Being there first does not make you the better player in the long run.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if a player isn't first to the NHL they HAVE to be better in the long run for the pick to make sense. It's a requirement. Not only will Fowler have a multiple year head start on Campbell, I think he'll have a multiple-years-of-high-quality-play kind of head start, which will necessitate Campbell becoming a near-deity to ever match Fowler's career contribution.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if a player isn't first to the NHL they HAVE to be better in the long run for the pick to make sense. It's a requirement. Not only will Fowler have a multiple year head start on Campbell, I think he'll have a multiple-years-of-high-quality-play kind of head start, which will necessitate Campbell becoming a near-deity to ever match Fowler's career contribution.
Isn't that the reason Nieuwendyk and the scouting department chose Campbell? They do believe he has franchise player potential.
But if people want to second-guess the pick, go ahead and drive yourself crazy. I don't see any sense arguing about it
Reading the Fowler thread made me want to go back and relive what we went through during that draft....it's almost sad how much buildup there was, board-wide, as our pick neared, only to be followed by a total collapse of morale.
So I'll use Strangis's piece as a continuation of the draft thread.
Gosh yeah. The "hmm Fowlers dropping a bit...interesting." Then "wow Fowlers really falling but im sure hes gonna be gone when Dallas picks". Then "OMFG Dallas is on the board and Fowler hasnt been drafted!!!!!! We are going to get a massive steal!!!" Finally, "WTF just happened??!?!"
