HFBoards

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

Nick Petrecki on waivers (Cleared)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-10-2013, 07:13 PM
  #151
210
Registered User
 
210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Worcester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Nemesis View Post
Must be nice to sit there and pick apart everything with the benefit of hindsight.
This is a great point, but this raises an interesting question...is there anywhere a collection of mock drafts that cover the last ten years or so? I'm looking for the same site/person/etc that has a long history of doing a mock draft. It would be interesting to see what their picks for the Sharks were vs the actual picks...meaning did they do a better job of picking or did DW.

Now granted we'd just be looking at "success vs failure" and not how a player might or might not have developed in SJ's organization, but I think it might be an interesting study.

210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 07:29 PM
  #152
WTFetus
Moderator
Most popular combo
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 12,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 210 View Post
Now granted we'd just be looking at "success vs failure" and not how a player might or might not have developed in SJ's organization, but I think it might be an interesting study.
And the Sharks probably wouldn't have gotten the same pick if they drafted a different player (maybe no Couture trade if they took Kopitar). It definitely would be interesting to look at though.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 07:35 PM
  #153
210
Registered User
 
210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Worcester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
And the Sharks probably wouldn't have gotten the same pick if they drafted a different player (maybe no Couture trade if they took Kopitar). It definitely would be interesting to look at though.
Yeah, there's a million variables...but if we just look at the picks they did make vs what was predicted it would be an interesting thing to see.

210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 07:48 PM
  #154
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,596
vCash: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
And the Sharks probably wouldn't have gotten the same pick if they drafted a different player (maybe no Couture trade if they took Kopitar). It definitely would be interesting to look at though.
Personally, I think we'd still have drafted Couture. DW traded up specifically because he was high on Couture (Ottawa 67 connection).

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 07:52 PM
  #155
WTFetus
Moderator
Most popular combo
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 12,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Personally, I think we'd still have drafted Couture. DW traded up specifically because he was high on Couture (Ottawa 67 connection).
Montreal might not have done the trade though. Maybe the Sharks get a later pick in the draft because of Kopitar (he got 61 points that season).
All hypothetical talk, maybe he wouldn't have played in the NHL that year if he were on the Sharks instead of the Kings. Who knows.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 07:53 PM
  #156
The Nemesis
Global Moderator
Semper Tyrannus
 
The Nemesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Personally, I think we'd still have drafted Couture. DW traded up specifically because he was high on Couture (Ottawa 67 connection).
There were strong rumors that someone in between the Sharks original pick and where they traded up to had their eye on Couture (Florida maybe?)

__________________

"Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent."
'14-15 Sharks CI Tracker: 22 GP, 8-10-4 (home-away-Nat'l/In-Region)
Sorry, I am not taking signature requests at this time.
The Nemesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 07:59 PM
  #157
RexFeral
Registered Boozer
 
RexFeral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 210 View Post
This is a great point, but this raises an interesting question...is there anywhere a collection of mock drafts that cover the last ten years or so? I'm looking for the same site/person/etc that has a long history of doing a mock draft. It would be interesting to see what their picks for the Sharks were vs the actual picks...meaning did they do a better job of picking or did DW.

Now granted we'd just be looking at "success vs failure" and not how a player might or might not have developed in SJ's organization, but I think it might be an interesting study.
We should do something like this. Everyone vote for a player they want for a particular Sharks pick at each round in the draft. Then after 5 or so years(lol) come back and see who wanted who. You must have 50% success rate to be critical of the organizations drafting.

RexFeral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 08:03 PM
  #158
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,596
vCash: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Nemesis View Post
There were strong rumors that someone in between the Sharks original pick and where they traded up to had their eye on Couture (Florida maybe?)
I think you're right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
Montreal might not have done the trade though. Maybe the Sharks get a later pick in the draft because of Kopitar (he got 61 points that season).
All hypothetical talk, maybe he wouldn't have played in the NHL that year if he were on the Sharks instead of the Kings. Who knows.
The pick we traded from (14th overall) was the one we got from the Toskala trade. And it was St. Louis who swapped picks with us.

As for Kopitar, there would have been no way he played top-6 on the Sharks that year. We had Thornton and Marleau both playing center in 06-07. Kopitar might have been the #3C, but I don't think so. Besides, if Kopitar is playing, does Pavelski get called up and then rip it up the rest of the season?

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 08:10 PM
  #159
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexFeral View Post
We should do something like this. Everyone vote for a player they want for a particular Sharks pick at each round in the draft. Then after 5 or so years(lol) come back and see who wanted who. You must have 50% success rate to be critical of the organizations drafting.
I like to read about the draft reports and everyones opinions here, but I generally never have an opinion at the draft because I recognize it's something I just have WAY too little information about. The Sharks pay an entire staff full of people just for this purpose, to think I can even make an educated guess is pretty ridiculous.

Most I ever get annoyed over is if I think we need a forward instead of a d-man, or a speedy player over a slow one, etc. Even then Hertl and Coyle both seemed like great picks in hindsight even though a lot of people got annoyed about their footspeed or whatever.

It's tough to even blame DW when he screws up because, again, he has a staff that tells him who to pick. If they continuously screw up year after year and never improve, then THAT is dw's fualt, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Picking Seto over Kopitar for instance seems to be exactly the kind of thing they learned on. If that draft happened today, and history was erased, I'm pretty sure today's Sharks staff would pick Kopitar (center, hockey sense, etc).

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 08:13 PM
  #160
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,596
vCash: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
I like to read about the draft reports and everyones opinions here, but I generally never have an opinion at the draft because I recognize it's something I just have WAY too little information about. The Sharks pay an entire staff full of people just for this purpose, to think I can even make an educated guess is pretty ridiculous.

Most I ever get annoyed over is if I think we need a forward instead of a d-man, or a speedy player over a slow one, etc. Even then Hertl and Coyle both seemed like great picks in hindsight even though a lot of people got annoyed about their footspeed or whatever.

It's tough to even blame DW when he screws up because, again, he has a staff that tells him who to pick. If they continuously screw up year after year and never improve, then THAT is dw's fualt, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Picking Seto over Kopitar for instance seems to be exactly the kind of thing they learned on. If that draft happened today, and history was erased, I'm pretty sure today's Sharks staff would pick Kopitar (center, hockey sense, etc).
Well, what if that caused the Sharks to pick Hertl over Teravainen?

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 08:42 PM
  #161
210
Registered User
 
210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Worcester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexFeral View Post
We should do something like this. Everyone vote for a player they want for a particular Sharks pick at each round in the draft. Then after 5 or so years(lol) come back and see who wanted who. You must have 50% success rate to be critical of the organizations drafting.
I see you've missed the point of what I was saying

210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 09:02 PM
  #162
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 19,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 210 View Post
We pronounce it the same way they do in England
But, do you say it with an English accent? Or a noreaster accent?

Clowe Me is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 09:23 PM
  #163
The Nemesis
Global Moderator
Semper Tyrannus
 
The Nemesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexFeral View Post
We should do something like this. Everyone vote for a player they want for a particular Sharks pick at each round in the draft. Then after 5 or so years(lol) come back and see who wanted who. You must have 50% success rate to be critical of the organizations drafting.
It's not about having the "right" to be critical of the org based on how good you are at picking draftees. It's more about the ridiculousness of "We picked player X but 5-20 picks later we could've had Y or Z instead)" statements using hindsight to dodge the other failures and pick out the one or two outstanding players from that area of the draft.

Like was noted. If the Sharks don't pick Petrecki, the next 10 players picked were no more successful than he is. Beyond that, almost the entirety of hte 2nd round is full of nothing players except for PK Subban, Galiardi, Nick Spaling, or Wayne Simmonds. So holding up Petrecki as a terrible pick (a terrible pick that everyone was excited for for the better part of 3 years after he was chosen) kind of loses weight when you consider that they had basically a 1 in 8 or so chance of getting anyone remotely serviceable, let alone an impact player.

The Nemesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 09:31 PM
  #164
RexFeral
Registered Boozer
 
RexFeral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 210 View Post
I see you've missed the point of what I was saying
I didn't miss it, you just gave me an idea. A collection of mock drafts like that probably doesn't exist because people don't want to see how wrong they were.

RexFeral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 09:36 PM
  #165
RexFeral
Registered Boozer
 
RexFeral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Nemesis View Post
It's not about having the "right" to be critical of the org based on how good you are at picking draftees. It's more about the ridiculousness of "We picked player X but 5-20 picks later we could've had Y or Z instead)" statements using hindsight to dodge the other failures and pick out the one or two outstanding players from that area of the draft.

Like was noted. If the Sharks don't pick Petrecki, the next 10 players picked were no more successful than he is. Beyond that, almost the entirety of hte 2nd round is full of nothing players except for PK Subban, Galiardi, Nick Spaling, or Wayne Simmonds. So holding up Petrecki as a terrible pick (a terrible pick that everyone was excited for for the better part of 3 years after he was chosen) kind of loses weight when you consider that they had basically a 1 in 8 or so chance of getting anyone remotely serviceable, let alone an impact player.
I was joking. Didn't use .

All this talk reminds me of Billy Beane's interview with some reporter on why he and other GMs didn't draft Mike Trout. His response was something to the effect of Why weren't you chastising me when we made the pick(Grant Green) as you are right now years after the fact.

RexFeral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 09:39 PM
  #166
RexFeral
Registered Boozer
 
RexFeral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
I like to read about the draft reports and everyones opinions here, but I generally never have an opinion at the draft because I recognize it's something I just have WAY too little information about. The Sharks pay an entire staff full of people just for this purpose, to think I can even make an educated guess is pretty ridiculous.

Most I ever get annoyed over is if I think we need a forward instead of a d-man, or a speedy player over a slow one, etc. Even then Hertl and Coyle both seemed like great picks in hindsight even though a lot of people got annoyed about their footspeed or whatever.

It's tough to even blame DW when he screws up because, again, he has a staff that tells him who to pick. If they continuously screw up year after year and never improve, then THAT is dw's fualt, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Picking Seto over Kopitar for instance seems to be exactly the kind of thing they learned on. If that draft happened today, and history was erased, I'm pretty sure today's Sharks staff would pick Kopitar (center, hockey sense, etc).
I thought the majority clamored for Etem over Coyle and it wasn't 'til the WJC until opinions started to change.

RexFeral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 09:47 PM
  #167
210
Registered User
 
210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Worcester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
But, do you say it with an English accent? Or a noreaster accent?
Oh, New England, of course. Wuss-tah

210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 09:48 PM
  #168
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 33,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexFeral View Post
I thought the majority clamored for Etem over Coyle and it wasn't 'til the WJC until opinions started to change.
I wanted Etem. It would have been nice to draft a California kid for the system but I didn't have a problem picking Coyle. When you get to that high of a selection, you can't really slam any one pick. The Sharks' problem is a consistent whiffing of picks in that area. The ones I didn't like were Seto over Kopitar and Michalek over Suter. I understood why they picked Michalek and it wasn't even a bad pick for them but I thought Suter would have been better for them at the time. I still don't get the Seto pick nor the criticism one Shark scout had for Kopitar at the time.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 10:18 PM
  #169
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
I wanted Etem. It would have been nice to draft a California kid for the system but I didn't have a problem picking Coyle. When you get to that high of a selection, you can't really slam any one pick. The Sharks' problem is a consistent whiffing of picks in that area. The ones I didn't like were Seto over Kopitar and Michalek over Suter. I understood why they picked Michalek and it wasn't even a bad pick for them but I thought Suter would have been better for them at the time. I still don't get the Seto pick nor the criticism one Shark scout had for Kopitar at the time.
It was Burke himself for the criticism on Kopitar.

Sry10 and others,
The coulda, shoulda, woulda's are supplementary to the net picking of the Sharks. It isn't one particular player, it is the net effect of their drafting in that part of the draft, the late first/early second round. The examples of specific players are a counterpoint to Sry10 because it isn't the average player at that part of the draft, it is the constant squandering of chances on the exceptional player at that part of the draft, guys who would be top 6 or middle pairing guys. They are not identifying those exceptions at all. The commonality for those exceptions leaguewide is generally lack of size while the Sharks consistently choose not to lose out on size. Not having guys who can challenge for the 6th forward or 3rd line center spot in the system has a trickle down effect. It gives those players like Clowe, Handzus, etc. a false sense of security taking away a pressure to perform NOW. It lends to a feeling of an aristocracy rather than a meritocracy on the team.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 10:23 PM
  #170
Vaasa
Registered User
 
Vaasa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Important to address. This is confirmation bias. This method is not objectively the right one to use. Because it supports your argument (because, for the most part, the picks the Sharks have given up have ended up being very good players who are outliers at their point in the draft), you take that position. The proper way to value a draft pick is to either use the typical value of a player drafted at that position on a league-wide scale, or to use the typical value of a player drafted at that position on the team-wide scale.
That's rediculous. It assumes that every player in every draft who is taken at approximately the same position is the same quality as every other player taken at the same position. It does not take the varying quality of the players in each years draft into account. The only way to deal with the varying quality of the players in the draft on a year by year basis is to look at the actual players taken, as that represents as close to a "consensus" of where players should have gone as possible (based on the evaluation of the pro scouts who have input into the draft).

Vaasa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 10:25 PM
  #171
Vaasa
Registered User
 
Vaasa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
So should you not be happy? Since 2003, that is almost 10 years of being a team with a "good chance at a Cup". Regardless of how they have gone about doing, and regardless of your claim that the Sharks are selling out their future for a win-now mode, they've achieved the highest-point of your standard of success.
What can I say, I disagree. They have a had a couple of years, but they have had gaping holes most of those years and the only way they had a good shot at the Cup was if there were massive injuries to the other top teams and if they got lucky.

Vaasa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 10:37 PM
  #172
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaasa View Post
What can I say, I disagree. They have a had a couple of years, but they have had gaping holes most of those years and the only way they had a good shot at the Cup was if there were massive injuries to the other top teams and if they got lucky.
Vaasa, you know I do sometimes agree with you on certain topics, but I just don't see it. I don't see the 'clairvoyance' you expect the sharks to have had being realistic. They've steadily gotten better and better at drafting over the last 10 years and that's really all you can hope for. I also don't see players like Carle, Vlasic, Bernier, etc being any help to this team over what they are currently icing.

Wilson isn't perfect, neither are the Sharks, but he does a far better job than most of the gm's in the league.

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 10:47 PM
  #173
RexFeral
Registered Boozer
 
RexFeral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Vaasa, you know I do sometimes agree with you on certain topics, but I just don't see it. I don't see the 'clairvoyance' you expect the sharks to have had being realistic. They've steadily gotten better and better at drafting over the last 10 years and that's really all you can hope for. I also don't see players like Carle, Vlasic, Bernier, etc being any help to this team over what they are currently icing.

Wilson isn't perfect, neither are the Sharks, but he does a far better job than SOME of the gm's in the league.
Revisions in bold.

RexFeral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 10:49 PM
  #174
Vaasa
Registered User
 
Vaasa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Nemesis View Post
Must be nice to sit there and pick apart everything with the benefit of hindsight.

If you can tell me with a straight face that in every scenario you would've picked the player you suggest instead of the player the Sharks did at the time of the draft, without any knowledge of how things played out in reality, then you have a case for how smart your "plan" is. But you're overlooking the fact that in the relatively immediate aftermath of the draft, most selections were not heavily criticized/questioned, and several were lauded by armchair GMs and draft pundits alike. Everyone* liked the Petrecki pick. People liked Carle and Bernier and Michalek (remember the "The Sharks had one of the top 5 classes in the 03 draft" talk?). There was some concern about Kaspar a little later on (before his complete bust status became apparent) and there were legitimate gripes at the time about trading up for Setoguchi instead of Kopitar. But by and large there haven't been too many times where the public en mass tore the Sharks org a new one for any particular 1st round pick (and the most recent ones I can think of, Hertl, Coyle, and Couture, are all looking like they're turning out fairly well so far)

It's one thing to criticize the team for not converting well in the draft on the whole (which they haven't), but it's completely different (and untenable) to sit in judgment of the team's draft history by specifically holding up cherry picked "coulda had" examples from later picks in the draft (especially when you get farther and farther away from the criticized pick.) After all. Just as you say the team could've picked up Suter, Weber, Pacioretty, Parise, Giroux, and Schneider, they could've ended up with Andrei Kostitsyn, Ivan Baranka, Mark Stuart, Rob Schremp, Marek Zagrapan, and Ivan Vishnevskiy.

*metaphorical "everyone", speaking in terms of the majority, and not meaning to refer to 100% of the fanbase without exception.
Once again, you are reading into my position things I have clearly said I was NOT saying. I clearly said that my suggested process would have resulted in the loss of some good players, and some players that were duds. My argument is that DW needs to use the first round for sure, and probably the second round, as ways to stock talent.

I usually don't call draft picks and I'm not saying I have some omniscient ability to pick players. The only 3 draft picks I have articulated as my preferences were Suter (I thought we needed a potential top-2 d-man big time, and I liked the family connection), Kopitar (if I remember right, it was mostly on the analysis another poster on these boards put for, Max maybe, that made me go out and look at the players in the draft expected to go there), and Teravainen in the last draft (I thought we really needed another scoring winger with some speed). Even with Hertl's recent play, I would still take Teravainen. And even then I'm going off my impressions, not some great insight. I've called more than a few players wrong, and am sure I will in the future.

But you miss point of my argument, which is that DW should not be trading away firsts on rentals (Guerin, Campbell), or doubtful pick-ups (Rivet), and I still don't think Boyle should have been acquired (despite how I know everyone thinks he's the greatest thing since sliced bread). In general, I also don't think DW should be trading up in the first, and more often that not it's a bad decision.

The whole point I am arguing is about building a team, knowing a large number of picks are likely to turn out bad. Because you can be pretty sure many of them will not pan out, the only way to win the long run is to have as many as possible. Therefore, I criticize DW for trading the picks and giving up the potential. Yeah, the Sharks might have ended up with Barinka, or AK, or whoever. But they might have ended up with Perron, Ennis, and a number of other good players that would make the CURRENT team much better than it has been.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Nemesis View Post
It's not about having the "right" to be critical of the org based on how good you are at picking draftees. It's more about the ridiculousness of "We picked player X but 5-20 picks later we could've had Y or Z instead)" statements using hindsight to dodge the other failures and pick out the one or two outstanding players from that area of the draft.

Like was noted. If the Sharks don't pick Petrecki, the next 10 players picked were no more successful than he is. Beyond that, almost the entirety of hte 2nd round is full of nothing players except for PK Subban, Galiardi, Nick Spaling, or Wayne Simmonds. So holding up Petrecki as a terrible pick (a terrible pick that everyone was excited for for the better part of 3 years after he was chosen) kind of loses weight when you consider that they had basically a 1 in 8 or so chance of getting anyone remotely serviceable, let alone an impact player.
And to re-iterate something I have said several times so far in this thread (and you apparently aren't reading), I'm not criticizing the Petrecki pick. I liked it at the time. Would I have preferred he kept the two 2nds, even if they didn't work out? Yep, because (again), I'm for playing a numbers game. I was criticizing DW putting him on waivers. It doesn't matter in the slightest to me that Petrecki was not taken. What matters is that DW showed a willingness to give up a 1st round pick (again) for no immediate gain when there seems to be at least a decent amount of indication that Petrecki is finally starting to turn into a bit of the player some hoped he might have been. DW has been screwing up development since he came on-board (his first act should have been to fire Sommers), and this was one more indication that since he can't develop players, he gives up on them too early or throws away the picks on short-term hopes.

So to reiterate my argument (since apparently you and many others aren't bothering to read it):

1) I am not saying I would be better than DW at drafting
2) I am saying DW should hold on to 1st (and most) 2nd round picks
3) Yes, many (if not most) of them will bust, that's why you go for as many as possible to get the few talents that are there
4) Even when the Sharks do get talent, they do a crap job of developing it. Some of you think that's a reason to not bother with the picks. I think it's a reason to fire DW and Sommers (to start).

Perhaps the two most important jobs of a NHL GM are to oversee the drafting of talent and the development of talent. DW, IMO, sucks at both.

Vaasa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 10:52 PM
  #175
Vaasa
Registered User
 
Vaasa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Vaasa, you know I do sometimes agree with you on certain topics, but I just don't see it. I don't see the 'clairvoyance' you expect the sharks to have had being realistic. They've steadily gotten better and better at drafting over the last 10 years and that's really all you can hope for. I also don't see players like Carle, Vlasic, Bernier, etc being any help to this team over what they are currently icing.

Wilson isn't perfect, neither are the Sharks, but he does a far better job than most of the gm's in the league.
HB, I don't expect 'clairvoyance'. See my post above. As a matter of fact I expect NO clairvoyance on their part. Which is why I want them to hold on to the picks. But it's strange how they get credit for getting players out of the later rounds yet they get a complete pass for somehow failling to manifest that same ability in the 1st and 2nd rounds.

Anyway, it's 5am and I'm off to bed.

Vaasa 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 05:41 PM.

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.