HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Dallas Stars
Notices

The Hockey Writers say Stars have second best draft in 2012; Mike Heika/DallasAM News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-26-2012, 09:52 PM
  #1
chrisralph007
HFB Partner
 
chrisralph007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 1,944
vCash: 500
The Hockey Writers say Stars have second best draft in 2012; Mike Heika/DallasAM News

Link: http://starsblog.dallasnews.com/2012...-in-2012.html/

Direct THW link to Top 10: http://thehockeywriters.com/top-10-n...-performances/

Too high or too low? Or just about right?

chrisralph007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2012, 10:05 PM
  #2
Ampersand
Dallas Stars Fan
 
Ampersand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,487
vCash: 500
Wow, didn't know we did that well. This is promising, of course there is no guarantees in hockey.

Ampersand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2012, 10:20 PM
  #3
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 17,863
vCash: 157
Looks that way right after the draft, and I agree at this point.

But who knows how it'll look in 4-5 years.

LatvianTwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2012, 10:35 PM
  #4
Mr Misty
The Irons Are Back!
 
Mr Misty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,160
vCash: 500
Hard to take a ranking seriously that has the Flames that high.

Plus there was a bunch of "my ratings had (player) in the 2nd round," like Gemel Smith.

Mr Misty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2012, 10:53 PM
  #5
chrisralph007
HFB Partner
 
chrisralph007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 1,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Misty View Post
Hard to take a ranking seriously that has the Flames that high.

Plus there was a bunch of "my ratings had (player) in the 2nd round," like Gemel Smith.
We'll have to agree to disagree with respect to the Flames. They has an extremely solid draft in every round even with the taking of a project pick in the 1st. Jankowski looked good at prospect camp. He's a ways away, but he won't be a Kris Chucko like pick.

If you're not familiar with our draft guide and rankings:

Next One Draft Guide:

http://thehockeywriters.com/2012-nhl...the-next-ones/

Final Top 150:
http://thehockeywriters.com/2012-nhl...inal-rankings/

chrisralph007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2012, 02:50 AM
  #6
Mr Misty
The Irons Are Back!
 
Mr Misty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisralph007 View Post
We'll have to agree to disagree with respect to the Flames. They has an extremely solid draft in every round even with the taking of a project pick in the 1st. Jankowski looked good at prospect camp. He's a ways away, but he won't be a Kris Chucko like pick.

If you're not familiar with our draft guide and rankings:

Next One Draft Guide:

http://thehockeywriters.com/2012-nhl...the-next-ones/

Final Top 150:
http://thehockeywriters.com/2012-nhl...inal-rankings/


The Flames traded down and then took a player at 21 that was ranked 34th in your prospect rankings. Those 13 spots represent a significant reach at that pick, and not factoring that in to your assessment of their draft is bananas. Also, there are teams that can afford to take a project in the 1st round, teams that are currently successful or have deep prospect pools. Neither of those are currently true of the Flames, and not taking the status of their organization into account in your assessment is bizarre.

And it just goes on and on. The 150 has Sieloff at 77 and Calgary got him at 42, while Gillies is at 103 but was taken 75th. Whatever credit you give the Flames for getting a "first rounder" in Kulak in the 4th should surely be wiped out by taking a 2nd in the 1st, a 3rd in the 2nd, and a 4th in the 3rd.

The ranking of the Flames' draft the 4th best is indefensible.

Mr Misty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2012, 04:37 PM
  #7
Rune Forumwalker
Registered User
 
Rune Forumwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,532
vCash: 500
Can't really rate a draft until five years down the line, IMO.

Rune Forumwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2012, 11:43 PM
  #8
chrisralph007
HFB Partner
 
chrisralph007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 1,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Misty View Post


The Flames traded down and then took a player at 21 that was ranked 34th in your prospect rankings. Those 13 spots represent a significant reach at that pick, and not factoring that in to your assessment of their draft is bananas. Also, there are teams that can afford to take a project in the 1st round, teams that are currently successful or have deep prospect pools. Neither of those are currently true of the Flames, and not taking the status of their organization into account in your assessment is bizarre.

And it just goes on and on. The 150 has Sieloff at 77 and Calgary got him at 42, while Gillies is at 103 but was taken 75th. Whatever credit you give the Flames for getting a "first rounder" in Kulak in the 4th should surely be wiped out by taking a 2nd in the 1st, a 3rd in the 2nd, and a 4th in the 3rd.

The ranking of the Flames' draft the 4th best is indefensible.
I'll attempt to refute your claim of "indefensible" with respect to the Flames.

The rankings took into account a lot of factors. THW rankings weighed heavily into things, but was not the be all, end all. I've listened to countless post-draft interviews with team's brass with respect to selections made. Gillies is an easy one to justify - I rank goalies lower than skaters and would never be surprised when they go earlier than my rankings. Because of the league Janko played in, he was one of those guys that was very tough to gauge and I would make these limitations quite obvious in introducing our rankings. When hearing Flames brass (Feaster, Todd Button, John Weisbrod) talk about Janko post-draft, it wasn't just a "love affair" between the team and him. The kid also performed well at prospect camp. Sieloff was a similar story for me. I liked him as a player heading into the draft and knew most services had him as a 2nd rnder. However, his play at Flames prospect camp and further analysis of what intangibles he brings to the rink, I can easily admit when I underrated a guy.

You also forget to highlight that Coda Gordon was a strong 2nd rnd candidate who Flames landed in the 6th rnd. Their 7th round pick Matt Deblouw is yet another guy who could really blossom in the coming years. For instance, NHL Central scouting had him ranked as a late 2nd/early 3rd rnd pick.

Brett Kulak really struck a chord with THW with his silky smooth efficient play from the blueline this yr. The 5th rnd selection of Ryan Culkin was just another solid pick who many (as did I) think of as a strong candidate for a 3rd rnder.

All in all, pick by pick, Flames did very well.

Current state of the organization is somewhat relevant, but in the draft you take the best player available, each and every time. You don't draft on what a player is now, but what he will be in the future. The Flames are not about to correct things overnight through one draft. What they are doing though, is making every transaction count, every draft pick count (hopefully), with plans that each is a step forward in turning the franchise around. There are no easy fixes, but I like the path Feaster and Weisbrod (who I think is more behind the actual "hockey" "on-ice" decisions with Feaster overseeing the big picture).

chrisralph007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2012, 01:25 AM
  #9
Mr Misty
The Irons Are Back!
 
Mr Misty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisralph007 View Post
I'll attempt to refute your claim of "indefensible" with respect to the Flames.

The rankings took into account a lot of factors. THW rankings weighed heavily into things, but was not the be all, end all. I've listened to countless post-draft interviews with team's brass with respect to selections made. Gillies is an easy one to justify - I rank goalies lower than skaters and would never be surprised when they go earlier than my rankings. Because of the league Janko played in, he was one of those guys that was very tough to gauge and I would make these limitations quite obvious in introducing our rankings. When hearing Flames brass (Feaster, Todd Button, John Weisbrod) talk about Janko post-draft, it wasn't just a "love affair" between the team and him. The kid also performed well at prospect camp. Sieloff was a similar story for me. I liked him as a player heading into the draft and knew most services had him as a 2nd rnder. However, his play at Flames prospect camp and further analysis of what intangibles he brings to the rink, I can easily admit when I underrated a guy.

You also forget to highlight that Coda Gordon was a strong 2nd rnd candidate who Flames landed in the 6th rnd. Their 7th round pick Matt Deblouw is yet another guy who could really blossom in the coming years. For instance, NHL Central scouting had him ranked as a late 2nd/early 3rd rnd pick.

Brett Kulak really struck a chord with THW with his silky smooth efficient play from the blueline this yr. The 5th rnd selection of Ryan Culkin was just another solid pick who many (as did I) think of as a strong candidate for a 3rd rnder.

All in all, pick by pick, Flames did very well.

Current state of the organization is somewhat relevant, but in the draft you take the best player available, each and every time. You don't draft on what a player is now, but what he will be in the future. The Flames are not about to correct things overnight through one draft. What they are doing though, is making every transaction count, every draft pick count (hopefully), with plans that each is a step forward in turning the franchise around. There are no easy fixes, but I like the path Feaster and Weisbrod (who I think is more behind the actual "hockey" "on-ice" decisions with Feaster overseeing the big picture).
I appreciate your response.

What percentage of the time did the Flames take the BPA? You can use your rankings or any others and go pick by pick, justifying that Jankowski was the best at 21, Seiloff the best at 42, Gillies at 103, etc. I would argue that in fact none of these three represent the best player available in any pre-draft ranking. If you rely on the BPA criteria, which the Flames totally ignored in rounds 1, 2, and 3, pretty much by definition the team had an average draft at best given that none of the 3 highest picks, theoretically the most important and talented players the Flames took, were the BPA.

Again you bring up the "player x was a 2nd rounder according to rankings y" argument. If this is how you want to assess a draft, why not take your rankings and then subtract the rank from where the player was taken, and give the grades based on how much value each team got out of its picks? Excel could do that in no time and at least that way you would show your methodology and give your article some legitimacy. Instead you pick and choose what criteria to value with each pick. Draft evaluation is an inexact science, especially given the immediacy of your rankings, but there is no consistency in your criteria which means that it can be of no value to a reader.

On the topic of prospect camps, did you go to 30 prospect camps to watch all the prospects, or just the Flames because you live in Calgary? Did you list prospect camps as part of the judging criteria in your article? No, you did neither and the word "camp" is never used anywhere. I would be surprised to hear that any 1st rounders didn't "perform well at prospect camp." Given the Flames relatively shallow prospect pool, wouldn't you expect Jankowski to look good given the other players he is on the ice against? And what do you expect Feaster/Weisbrod/Button to say, "Gee we made a bad pick in round 1, then an equally bad one in round 2 and 3." Taking their comments at face value is foolish.

I understand you think they got value in the later rounds, but why put so much emphasis in terms of your ranking of an entire draft on the selection of players that were passed on by every NHL team 4, 5, or even 6 times? Barely half of the Flames picks could be considered good value for position so giving the team so much credit makes no sense.

Mr Misty is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:49 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.