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

Balanced prospect pool paying dividends for San Jose Sharks

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-31-2013, 08:35 PM
  #1
HF Article
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 12,507
vCash: 500
Balanced prospect pool paying dividends for San Jose Sharks


Last season, San Jose Sharks General Manager Doug Wilson spoke adamantly about how the team would be going through a refresh rather than a restart. He would add small doses of youth along the way instead of tearing down his veteran squad for a full-fledged rebuild.



It makes a lot of sense – you keep the puck moving and continue your winning ways without skipping a beat – but it is easier said than done and very few teams actually have the luxury to see a plan like this through.

The reason Wilson can actually go this route is because he and his staff have stocked the cupboards at every position.… read more



More...


Last edited by WTFetus: 10-31-2013 at 08:54 PM.
HF Article is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2013, 08:55 PM
  #2
slocal
Global Moderator
Dukelicious.
 
slocal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Central Coast CA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,396
vCash: 574
Man, I wish Craig would be the OP. His articles are solid enough where he should get the initial glory.

That being said, I'm going to have to wait to read this till after the little goblins stop coming to my door.

__________________

Verba movent, exempla trahunt
slocal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2013, 08:59 PM
  #3
KirbyDots
Registered User
 
KirbyDots's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mountain View, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,000
vCash: 500
Nice article! Always a good read Craig!

KirbyDots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2013, 09:40 PM
  #4
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 10,332
vCash: 500
Fantastic article. Thanks.

Gilligans Island is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 07:46 AM
  #5
ScottyDont
Registered User
 
ScottyDont's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philly (<3 in SJ)
Country: United States
Posts: 1,176
vCash: 500
This sounds more exciting then Mueller:

Quote:
Early on, Michael Brodzinski is making a case that he might just be the first player from the Sharks 2013 draft to make it to the show. The fifth round selection is an offensive-defenseman with boom-or-bust potential, and his first handful of collegiate games for the University of Minnesota have only perpetuated his legend. He is a scary player to watch when the team is up a goal, but down a goal, there are not many better options in the NCAA. If he can work on limiting his turnovers and playing more of a responsible game for the majority of the time, he is going to race up the depth charts.

ScottyDont is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 10:07 AM
  #6
sr228
Registered User
 
sr228's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,113
vCash: 500
Another good write up Craig!

I know you haven't been shy about being a huge fan of Brodzinski but the comment about him being the first from the 2013 draft to make the NHL is bold. I've been lucky enough to be able to watch 3 Minnesota games so far and while his offensive skills and instincts are undeniable he's a huge adventure everywhere else on the ice.

He's in a very good position to learn how to play sound, positional defense and how to pick his spots better playing for Lucia and I'm looking forward to seeing big improvements in that part of his game. Boom or bust is a very accurate description for him.

Joakim Ryan has taken a decent sized step forward in his all around play so far from what I understand. Not sure he's going to be an NHLer (or even signed once he's done with college) but I've been told he's been great.

Also, I really, really hope Gogol isn't in the org long enough to ever see a minute of NHL time.

sr228 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 10:32 AM
  #7
sharski
Registered User
 
sharski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,035
vCash: 500
I'm confused

I thought everyone said that we had the worst prospect pool in the league... some of this stuff is actually kind of positive

sharski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 11:04 AM
  #8
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,695
vCash: 1040
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharski View Post
I'm confused

I thought everyone said that we had the worst prospect pool in the league... some of this stuff is actually kind of positive
People who don't know what they are talking about say that. The Sharks prospect pool has been consistently good even when it's been rated the worst in the league. It continues to produce NHL talent on a yearly basis, most players playing well above their draft positions. Guys like Demers and Braun paying FAR above their draft predictions. The Sharks consistently find and turn undrafted players into NHlers as well (Desjardins, Irwin, Tennyson). Hell even our first rounders lately have been great picks.

I think the pundits are just starting to come around and realize how good our drafting system is. Not implying Craig is among them, just we have been notoriously poorly ranked for years by the media.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 11:05 AM
  #9
Sleepy
2014 Avenged
 
Sleepy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharski View Post
I'm confused

I thought everyone said that we had the worst prospect pool in the league... some of this stuff is actually kind of positive
This.

Sleepy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 11:05 AM
  #10
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 67,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharski View Post
I'm confused

I thought everyone said that we had the worst prospect pool in the league... some of this stuff is actually kind of positive
1 - Craig is new writer this year.

2 - Sharks (organization) never hype their prospects. Ergo, those who rank the prospect are often very conservative in their assessments of potential.

3 - Sharks have traded a number of picks over the years so may not have **drafted** the entire prospect pool. In fact, there's a healthy list of undrafted free agents they sign.


Last edited by LadyStanley: 11-01-2013 at 11:19 AM. Reason: extra character
LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 11:10 AM
  #11
sr228
Registered User
 
sr228's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharski View Post
I'm confused

I thought everyone said that we had the worst prospect pool in the league... some of this stuff is actually kind of positive
According to many, no blue chip prospects equals a poor prospect pool.

Anyone who takes any time to watch, research, learn about the Sharks prospects knows that they have a good stable of prospects. However, the group as a whole still ranks below average when compared to the rest of the league (meaning they're probably somewhere between #17-#23 among the 30 teams depending on who you ask).

sr228 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 11:21 AM
  #12
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 11,698
vCash: 500
Nieto and hertls stellar play this year if sustained will go a long way for us in the ranking.

Also if Demers cements a #4 spot and Braun continues to lead ice time. While they can't be considered prospects; I feel thus is where the HF analysis falls short. Graduation rate isn't really taken into account over like a 7 year period.

Many will argue the vlasic factor. But Braun is a late draft pick on the TOP PAIRING. He's not a number 1, but his two way play is undeniable against toughs.

Too much of the rankings are centered around potential.

do0glas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 11:48 AM
  #13
hohosaregood
Drunken Snacking
 
hohosaregood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Texas!
Posts: 19,158
vCash: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by do0glas View Post
Nieto and hertls stellar play this year if sustained will go a long way for us in the ranking.

Also if Demers cements a #4 spot and Braun continues to lead ice time. While they can't be considered prospects; I feel thus is where the HF analysis falls short. Graduation rate isn't really taken into account over like a 7 year period.

Many will argue the vlasic factor. But Braun is a late draft pick on the TOP PAIRING. He's not a number 1, but his two way play is undeniable against toughs.

Too much of the rankings are centered around potential.
At this point, what would you say Braun is? #2-#3 defenseman? I know #2 is pushing it but he's gotten to a very high level of play right now.

hohosaregood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 11:50 AM
  #14
sr228
Registered User
 
sr228's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by do0glas View Post
Nieto and hertls stellar play this year if sustained will go a long way for us in the ranking.

Also if Demers cements a #4 spot and Braun continues to lead ice time. While they can't be considered prospects; I feel thus is where the HF analysis falls short. Graduation rate isn't really taken into account over like a 7 year period.

Many will argue the vlasic factor. But Braun is a late draft pick on the TOP PAIRING. He's not a number 1, but his two way play is undeniable against toughs.

Too much of the rankings are centered around potential.
To be fair, when it comes to ranking prospects their potential / projection is pretty much all people have to go on.

sr228 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 12:00 PM
  #15
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 11,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stalockrox View Post
To be fair, when it comes to ranking prospects their potential / projection is pretty much all people have to go on.
Depends on what you make the cutoff. What value do you give graduating prospects? I'd think that'd have the most value to a farm ranking. Why grade on potential when you can look at tangible results?

For instance, you can grade the most recent two or even three drafts on projection. But you also have the three before that where you could grade graduation. Especially since most projections are 3-5 years.

do0glas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 12:08 PM
  #16
sr228
Registered User
 
sr228's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by do0glas View Post
Depends on what you make the cutoff. What value do you give graduating prospects? I'd think that'd have the most value to a farm ranking. Why grade on potential when you can look at tangible results?

For instance, you can grade the most recent two or even three drafts on projection. But you also have the three before that where you could grade graduation. Especially since most projections are 3-5 years.
Because they are ranking prospects, not players who have cemented themselves in the NHL. Right now, Hertl and Nieto are both still considered prospects and what they're doing in the NHL will be part of the next ranking but including a player like Braun who's in his 4th NHL season doesn't make any sense to me at all.

The number of players a team graduates certainly tells you a lot about their drafting and developing but I don't think they should be included when looking at a team's prospect pool.

sr228 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 12:18 PM
  #17
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 11,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stalockrox View Post
Because they are ranking prospects, not players who have cemented themselves in the NHL. Right now, Hertl and Nieto are both still considered prospects and what they're doing in the NHL will be part of the next ranking but including a player like Braun who's in his 4th NHL season doesn't make any sense to me at all.

The number of players a team graduates certainly tells you a lot about their drafting and developing but I don't think they should be included when looking at a team's prospect pool.
The rankings just seem like nothing then.

This team has more prospects "projected" for a top six role, but a team that has actually graduated more prospects to the top six over the last five years has/had a worse prospect pool? That makes no sense lol. I know that they won't change it, but it does a lot of teams a discredit and takes out any actual analysis of what these prospects can do against their initial ranking

do0glas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 12:22 PM
  #18
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 11,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hohosaregood View Post
At this point, what would you say Braun is? #2-#3 defenseman? I know #2 is pushing it but he's gotten to a very high level of play right now.
Sorry missed this.

He still hasn't shown the ability to qb his team at ES offensively. He has a job on that pairing defensively that he has been arguably better than vlasic at. I say that simply because he can turn a defensive steal into an offensive chance better due to his skating.

I don't want to label him. That pairing is different. A lot if teams would use Boyle as their number 1 and put someone like Hannan or Stuart next to him.

We have a legit two way number 1 pairing. Vlasics scoring pace is exciting, but unless Braun starts taking more of that load they will regress. So who knows, but I'm perfectly happy with him not scoring for now, or even at a 20 point pace as long as vlasic pushes 30.

do0glas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 12:29 PM
  #19
bigwillie
Registered User
 
bigwillie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 6,972
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to bigwillie
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharski View Post
I'm confused

I thought everyone said that we had the worst prospect pool in the league... some of this stuff is actually kind of positive
The problem with prospect rankings is that they usually deal exclusively with mostly hype and some actual player potential, but very rarely do they ever actually correlate with results. Although the Sharks prospect pool rarely ever has the hype behind it and are therefore always ranked fairly low, they get results better than half the teams in the league. No one every goes back 5 or 10 years to look at how prospect pools panned out to rank them.

I also think the Sharks are ranked low because they draft for certain attributes that they value and feel can translate to the NHL level over the media's predraft rankings or anything like that. They march to the beat of their own drum, and the media tends to underrate them because of it.

bigwillie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 12:30 PM
  #20
Juxtaposer
Outro:Divina Comedia
 
Juxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bay Area
Country: United States
Posts: 38,186
vCash: 50
Great stuff. Only gripe is I'm pretty sure Viedensky is Slovakian, not Czech.

Juxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 12:32 PM
  #21
sr228
Registered User
 
sr228's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by do0glas View Post
The rankings just seem like nothing then.

This team has more prospects "projected" for a top six role, but a team that has actually graduated more prospects to the top six over the last five years has/had a worse prospect pool? That makes no sense lol. I know that they won't change it, but it does a lot of teams a discredit and takes out any actual analysis of what these prospects can do against their initial ranking
Looking at what a prospect ends up doing once they're an NHLer against what was expected of them would be interesting. But that shouldn't have anything to do with an orgs prospect rankings since the simple fact that the player has cemented themselves as an NHLer (usually by a specified number of games played) means they are no longer a prospect.

sr228 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 12:45 PM
  #22
Led Zappa
Registered User
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 50,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stalockrox View Post
Looking at what a prospect ends up doing once they're an NHLer against what was expected of them would be interesting. But that shouldn't have anything to do with an orgs prospect rankings since the simple fact that the player has cemented themselves as an NHLer (usually by a specified number of games played) means they are no longer a prospect.
I'm sure there's a mathematical equation that could be used to account for this. Everything regarding prospect rankings is a guess anyways. If they had an overall number that gave weight to success in addition to current rankings it would be worth knowing.

Anything would be better than continually reading "Though the Sharks are ranked fairly low in our prospect rankings they have an excellent record for prospects who end up playing in the NHL" lol.

__________________


If you understood everything I said, you’d be me - Miles Davis

Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 12:49 PM
  #23
sr228
Registered User
 
sr228's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
I'm sure there's a mathematical equation that could be used to account for this. Everything regarding prospect rankings is a guess anyways. If they had an overall number that gave weight to success in addition to current rankings it would be worth knowing.
Do you mean giving an org a better ranking because of the players they've graduated in the past?

sr228 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 12:53 PM
  #24
Led Zappa
Registered User
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 50,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stalockrox View Post
Do you mean giving an org a better ranking because of the players they've graduated in the past?
Yes, kinda. I'm not saying that should be the official ranking, but a secondary number of drafting history vs projected ranking should be done. If we can do Corsi we can do this

Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2013, 12:57 PM
  #25
sr228
Registered User
 
sr228's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
Yes. I'm not saying that should be the official ranking, but a secondary number of drafting history vs projected ranking should be done. If we can do Corsi we can do this
A secondary ranking based on a teams ability to turn prospects into NHLers would be great, especially if it was weighted by their initial prospect rankings! I bet the Sharks would rank much better in that scenario.

sr228 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 11:59 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.