HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012 Draft - 2nd Pick: Mitch Moroz

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-23-2012, 01:58 PM
  #526
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,136
vCash: 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Excellent post. Couldn't say it better.

t.
This scares me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
So drafting someone because he's big and he has speed is pointless. You better pass this gem along to the 100's of scouts that are looking for precisely that. You seem to be cherry picking your stats and players so maybe these responses are lost on you. Nobody is saying Ewanyk or Moroz are locks as effective NHL players but when a team sees a deficiency in their minor league system the proactive thing to do is fill it. Maybe you are forgetting how badly the Oilers needed team toughness and grit a few years back and attempted to acquire it through FA i.e.. Eager and Sutton. And granted drafting Moroz with a 2nd rd. pick was and is risky but it was done out of necessity. My pick would have been Thrower as well and I was hoping for Samuelson but I think our scouts/system have been doing more diligent work recently and will remain hopeful.
Teams aren't doing that though. Picking someone who is big and has speed in hopes he learns to be a player is poinless. The odds of those guys turning out are slim to none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toydarian View Post
Clifford was injured in the 1st round of the playoffs (might have even been 1st game). Also, the reason the Kings were willing to trade Simmonds was because they felt Clifford could replace him, they obviously really value Clifford.
So what you are telling me is you don't need a Clifford to win?

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:59 PM
  #527
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,136
vCash: 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
The chance that ANY 2nd rounder becomes better than Glencross is remote.
So why not increase your chances by picking the best available player?

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:03 PM
  #528
Replacement
Now 11.5% more Zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
So drafting someone because he's big and he has speed is pointless. You better pass this gem along to the 100's of scouts that are looking for precisely that. You seem to be cherry picking your stats and players so maybe these responses are lost on you. Nobody is saying Ewanyk or Moroz are locks as effective NHL players but when a team sees a deficiency in their minor league system the proactive thing to do is fill it. Maybe you are forgetting how badly the Oilers needed team toughness and grit a few years back and attempted to acquire it through FA i.e.. Eager and Sutton. And granted drafting Moroz with a 2nd rd. pick was and is risky but it was done out of necessity. My pick would have been Thrower as well and I was hoping for Samuelson but I think our scouts/system have been doing more diligent work recently and will remain hopeful.
One of the fallacies in drafting "tough" is not having any idea how that "tough" will translate to the NHL game.
jmo that "tough" tends to be overrated in this regard in scouting. Whether it be forwards or D.

Bad analogy time...Can you really judge what a person will look like, how they will fill out, how strong they will be, on the basis of what they look like and how they act in a highschool corridor?
Any 10yr highschool reunion will pretty much rule that out.

"Tough" is not a hard to attain attribute and theres a lot out there. To wit you agree that theres little chance of this player equalling Glencross's value.

In that case logically explain why it makes sense for an org to just let a bonafide player walk, then spends years and drafts trying to replace him? With such idiots as Eager?

I think the far bigger question is this org often doesn't have a clue what they actually need and so some natural suspicion occurs anytime they move off the bpa radar on a higher pick.

Replacement is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:03 PM
  #529
McTedi
Registered User
 
McTedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
So why not increase your chances by picking the best available player?
Maybe in their mind he was. Hard to tell with 16-18 year olds, do you know what his potential might be? You see a 4th line grinder at best, maybe they see Clarkson, Ott or Lucic...see how easy it is to cherry pick players.

McTedi is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:06 PM
  #530
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,136
vCash: 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
Maybe in their mind he was. Hard to tell with 16-18 year olds, do you know what his potential might be? You see a 4th line grinder at best, maybe they see Clarkson, Ott or Lucic...see how easy it is to cherry pick players.
I never said Moroz is a 4th liner, I said it's stupid to draft him if that's what they think.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:09 PM
  #531
Replacement
Now 11.5% more Zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
Maybe in their mind he was. Hard to tell with 16-18 year olds, do you know what his potential might be? You see a 4th line grinder at best, maybe they see Clarkson, Ott or Lucic...see how easy it is to cherry pick players.
Joe is correct. With a 32nd pick selecting BPA has a higher probability of yielding a better prospect then going outside the box and using one need based indicator.

Look, if this is a first round pick(any number) virtually anybody would be stating an org is silly to fill a one limited need with this pick hoping it pans out. The better probability is just picking the best player. Period.

Its only in later picks that I would even consider picking for particular attributes. If you're picking close to first round the upside should be higher than this.

Replacement is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:11 PM
  #532
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,136
vCash: 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
One of the fallacies in drafting "tough" is not having any idea how that "tough" will translate to the NHL game.
jmo that "tough" tends to be overrated in this regard in scouting. Whether it be forwards or D.

Bad analogy time...Can you really judge what a person will look like, how they will fill out, how strong they will be, on the basis of what they look like and how they act in a highschool corridor?
Any 10yr highschool reunion will pretty much rule that out.

"Tough" is not a hard to attain attribute and theres a lot out there. To wit you agree that theres little chance of this player equalling Glencross's value.

In that case logically explain why it makes sense for an org to just let a bonafide player walk, then spends years and drafts trying to replace him? With such idiots as Eager?

I think the far bigger question is this org often doesn't have a clue what they actually need and so some natural suspicion occurs anytime they move off the bpa radar on a higher pick.
I have to agree. One thing to be able to throw kids around at the Junior rank. Another thing to throw grown men around.

What's better to have 3 Eberle's or 3 Ott's? Who you think you get a better return on the 2 Ebs or 2 Ott's?

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:11 PM
  #533
McTedi
Registered User
 
McTedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
One of the fallacies in drafting "tough" is not having any idea how that "tough" will translate to the NHL game.
jmo that "tough" tends to be overrated in this regard in scouting. Whether it be forwards or D.

Bad analogy time...Can you really judge what a person will look like, how they will fill out, how strong they will be, on the basis of what they look like and how they act in a highschool corridor?
Any 10yr highschool reunion will pretty much rule that out.

"Tough" is not a hard to attain attribute and theres a lot out there. To wit you agree that theres little chance of this player equalling Glencross's value.

In that case logically explain why it makes sense for an org to just let a bonafide player walk, then spends years and drafts trying to replace him? With such idiots as Eager?

I think the far bigger question is this org often doesn't have a clue what they actually need and so some natural suspicion occurs anytime they move off the bpa radar on a higher pick.
What bonafide player did we pass on? Normally my opinion is created by what I read or hear, and by the dozen games of Oilkings I see. Eager and Sutton were the best options available to a team that knew they lacked org. depth in that specific area and now are trying to address this by drafting in a more balanced way. You contend yourself that it is difficult to project these players and how they will progress. I'm optimistic until proven otherwise, perhaps the coolaid tastes good to me

McTedi is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:18 PM
  #534
McTedi
Registered User
 
McTedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
I never said Moroz is a 4th liner, I said it's stupid to draft him if that's what they think.
What do you see then? My impression is that you don't think he will amount to much and I thought that was the gist of your argument, my apologies if I am wrong.

McTedi is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:21 PM
  #535
McTedi
Registered User
 
McTedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
I have to agree. One thing to be able to throw kids around at the Junior rank. Another thing to throw grown men around.

What's better to have 3 Eberle's or 3 Ott's? Who you think you get a better return on the 2 Ebs or 2 Ott's?
Which Eberle were you referring to, please be specific.

McTedi is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:21 PM
  #536
Replacement
Now 11.5% more Zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
What bonafide player did we pass on? Normally my opinion is created by what I read or hear, and by the dozen games of Oilkings I see. Eager and Sutton were the best options available to a team that knew they lacked org. depth in that specific area and now are trying to address this by drafting in a more balanced way. You contend yourself that it is difficult to project these players and how they will progress. I'm optimistic until proven otherwise, perhaps the coolaid tastes good to me
Glencross was the player I alluded to a few times. That said I have a weird writing style so I could've been clearer.

I of course Don't agree that Eager was a best bet for us.

But your post again illuminates a problem with this org and another fallacy.

The notion that drafting to fill present "need" makes any sense at all. Because todays drafts of course don't fill todays needs, they service only the future, down the road, who knows how many years down the road. So it isn't filling need anyway. Who knows what the need is 3-5 yrs from now?

I keep remembering Lowes famous quote of "Wow, we have all these Defencemen" followed by years of trouble in top 2 pairings.

Replacement is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:29 PM
  #537
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,136
vCash: 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
What do you see then? My impression is that you don't think he will amount to much and I thought that was the gist of your argument, my apologies if I am wrong.
I don't know what to think of him. I get the impression he has an Ethan Moreau like potential. Which I'm 100% fine with, but I wouldn't have spent a 2nd on a guy who doesn't have 2nd line potential.

I just take what Holland said awhile back and wonder why we draft some guys we draft.

You hear the talk of guys like Lander, Moroz and Musil and you wonder. They all could end up being key players to a championship one day, but are they guys that we really need to spend 2nd round picks on and develop for 4-5 years and hope they hit top potential? You look at role players from past contenders and there are a lot of them that can be acquired at Free agency, during the year or even at the trade deadline. Should use those picks to try get the best players you can when you have the chance, not try fill a role that you might not even need in 4 years down the road.

Do I have an issue with Marincin, Pitlick, Martindale, and Hamilton, answer is no because they have a potential to be better.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:32 PM
  #538
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,136
vCash: 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
What bonafide player did we pass on? Normally my opinion is created by what I read or hear, and by the dozen games of Oilkings I see. Eager and Sutton were the best options available to a team that knew they lacked org. depth in that specific area and now are trying to address this by drafting in a more balanced way. You contend yourself that it is difficult to project these players and how they will progress. I'm optimistic until proven otherwise, perhaps the coolaid tastes good to me
Parise

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:34 PM
  #539
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,136
vCash: 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Glencross was the player I alluded to a few times. That said I have a weird writing style so I could've been clearer.

I of course Don't agree that Eager was a best bet for us.

But your post again illuminates a problem with this org and another fallacy.

The notion that drafting to fill present "need" makes any sense at all. Because todays drafts of course don't fill todays needs, they service only the future, down the road, who knows how many years down the road. So it isn't filling need anyway. Who knows what the need is 3-5 yrs from now?

I keep remembering Lowes famous quote of "Wow, we have all these Defencemen" followed by years of trouble in top 2 pairings.
When we signed Eager there was only a handful that didn't like bringing him in. It was thought to be something that would fill a void, one that people are now thinking players such as Ewanyk or Moroz could fill in a few years.

While Eager turned out to have an off year, the fact remains that he wasn't exactly hard to obtain and if doesn't work out for you what does it cost you?

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:35 PM
  #540
McTedi
Registered User
 
McTedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Glencross was the player I alluded to a few times. That said I have a weird writing style so I could've been clearer.

I of course Don't agree that Eager was a best bet for us.

But your post again illuminates a problem with this org and another fallacy.

The notion that drafting to fill present "need" makes any sense at all. Because todays drafts of course don't fill todays needs, they service only the future, down the road, who knows how many years down the road. So it isn't filling need anyway. Who knows what the need is 3-5 yrs from now?

I keep remembering Lowes famous quote of "Wow, we have all these Defencemen" followed by years of trouble in top 2 pairings.
We seem to be arguing the same points and I agree with some of this. But you are using the past to illustrate your points about drafting in a completely different scouting regiment. Yes the Oilers were deficient in scouting and player development but IMO they have become a better org. at this from the bottom up. I am complete agreement that Moroz and Ewanyk are unknowns at this point but how does one acquire a top end power forward if you never take a chance on drafting that style of player.

McTedi is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:36 PM
  #541
McTedi
Registered User
 
McTedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Parise
Give me a break, what a poor choice:shake head. That makes absolutely no sense, comparing golf balls to pumpkins.

McTedi is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:38 PM
  #542
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,136
vCash: 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
We seem to be arguing the same points and I agree with some of this. But you are using the past to illustrate your points about drafting in a completely different scouting regiment. Yes the Oilers were deficient in scouting and player development but IMO they have become a better org. at this from the bottom up. I am complete agreement that Moroz and Ewanyk are unknowns at this point but how does one acquire a top end power forward if you never take a chance on drafting that style of player.
I think the key is to stop thinking we need a top end power forward to win. Who was Chicago's big power forward? LA didn't exactly have one either.

You have to hope that once the boys on this team develop into men that the whole being push overs doesn't become such a big issue. Taylor Hall and Prv fill out and things look that much better.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:39 PM
  #543
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,136
vCash: 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
Give me a break, what a poor choice:shake head. That makes absolutely no sense, comparing golf balls to pumpkins.
Not really. They elected to go with size with Pouilot and Jacques, passed on Parise.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:40 PM
  #544
McTedi
Registered User
 
McTedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
When we signed Eager there was only a handful that didn't like bringing him in. It was thought to be something that would fill a void, one that people are now thinking players such as Ewanyk or Moroz could fill in a few years.

While Eager turned out to have an off year, the fact remains that he wasn't exactly hard to obtain and if doesn't work out for you what does it cost you?
Prior to that year it wasn't like UFA's were flocking to Edmonton. Obtaining the player you want through FA is expensive and costs more in the long run if you give up on your prospects.

McTedi is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:42 PM
  #545
McTedi
Registered User
 
McTedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Not really. They elected to go with size with Pouilot and Jacques, passed on Parise.
They drafted MAP in the first round ahead of Parise because they guy looked like money (lit it up in Junior big time). You are truly reaching if you think this compares.

McTedi is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:43 PM
  #546
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,136
vCash: 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
Prior to that year it wasn't like UFA's were flocking to Edmonton. Obtaining the player you want through FA is expensive and costs more in the long run if you give up on your prospects.
Not bottom 6 players.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:44 PM
  #547
McTedi
Registered User
 
McTedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
I think the key is to stop thinking we need a top end power forward to win. Who was Chicago's big power forward? LA didn't exactly have one either.

You have to hope that once the boys on this team develop into men that the whole being push overs doesn't become such a big issue. Taylor Hall and Prv fill out and things look that much better.
Chicago really...Bolland and Buff were huge (literally) for that team with a splash of high end talent to boot.

McTedi is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:47 PM
  #548
McTedi
Registered User
 
McTedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Not bottom 6 players.
Lots of bottom six guys passed on Edmonton...Neil and Boogard to name a couple.

McTedi is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:51 PM
  #549
McTedi
Registered User
 
McTedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
I think the key is to stop thinking we need a top end power forward to win. Who was Chicago's big power forward? LA didn't exactly have one either.

You have to hope that once the boys on this team develop into men that the whole being push overs doesn't become such a big issue. Taylor Hall and Prv fill out and things look that much better.
Incorrect, LA was/is considered a big team. King, Penner, Carter, Clifford and Westgarth say Hi

McTedi is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:53 PM
  #550
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,136
vCash: 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
Chicago really...Bolland and Buff were huge (literally) for that team with a splash of high end talent to boot.
Bolland was projected as an offensive guy though with grit. Buff was an 8th rounder. Still not the same as what we are doing.

joestevens29 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:48 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.