Cut me a bit of slack, working off a touch screen HTC. Great phone terrible keyboard. Doesn't help that i never proof read anything either.
Don't misunderstand, I agree with you, I rethink that draft all the time, my toss up 1st pick is Staal, Getz, or Weber. I think any of those three would have made the pens even better, but hey, they got the cup anyway so . . . I love the typo, spiced up a valid point, it adds to the post, makes me think and laugh and wish I could un-think
Are you a scout or do you work in a scouting department somewhere 'cus you make it sound like this is fact...teams employ a lot of scouns for that very reason, there are 7 rounds in a draft and teams want to make sure they know the players they're selecting.
It's not luck that players past the 3rd turn into very good NHLers. You say it's the teams developmental program but teams pick certain players knowing what they're talent and skill levels are so that they can put them into a situation where they can be developed. Yes, it's hit or miss, as it turns out so are a LOT of 1st and 2nd round picks. But teams put a lot of effort into scouting late round picks.
Where did I say that they didn't put a lot of effort into late round picks. I'm simply stating that they put a lot more emphasis on the earlier rounds than the later ones. I think Easy had the numbers at some point showing where the Sharks were in comparison to the rest of the league with early round success. If I remember right, they were in the middle of the pack on the lower end. Not awful but not good either.
Don't misunderstand, I agree with you, I rethink that draft all the time, my toss up 1st pick is Staal, Getz, or Weber. I think any of those three would have made the pens even better, but hey, they got the cup anyway so . . . I love the typo, spiced up a valid point, it adds to the post, makes me think and laugh and wish I could un-think
*and now I have to edit, dang iPhone.
No kidding. And correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Weber a late 2nd rounder?
Pavelski wasn't a first round pick though. He was far from a first round pick.
I know he wasnt a first round pick. What I was saying is that the scouting staff seems to be targeting guys who have work ethic now as opposed to before where they targeted guys with all the skill but no work ethic.
And in the 20 years of drafting (since Lidstrom came in) the Wings have done, there are a lot more that didn't make it and didn't come close. Just look at their 2003 draft year. All they got was Jimmy Howard out of that. In the year they got Datsyuk, they picked Jiri Fischer, Ryan Barnes, Tomek Valtonen, Jake McCracken, Brent Hobday, Carl Steen, Adam DeLeeuw, Jeremy Goetzinger, David Petrasek, and Petja Pietilainen. Of which, only Jiri Fischer saw significant NHL time. They definitely find more gems than most but it is still more luck with that level.
Off the top of my head the Sharks have Murray, Pavs, Clowe, Mitchell, McCarthy, Demers & Braun on their NHL roster today that were all late round draft picks. When almost a 1/3 of your roster is 3rd round and beyond I think it goes from luck to good scouting - but again, this is just my opinion.
Off the top of my head the Sharks have Murray, Pavs, Clowe, Mitchell, McCarthy, Demers & Braun on their NHL roster today that were all late round draft picks. When almost a 1/3 of your roster is 3rd round and beyond I think it goes from luck to good scouting - but again, this is just my opinion.
And/Or good development. It's like the nature or nurture argument, I tend to believe it's a lot of both.
I'm not saying we have the best scouts, but they do an decent enough job, and seem to be getting better. The combination of the development staff and the scouting staff however is apparently working.
That said, we are not developing any 'top-end' late round talent. Though I think Murray comes close, Demers may, and Pavelski and Clowe are pretty solid.
Off the top of my head the Sharks have Murray, Pavs, Clowe, Mitchell, McCarthy, Demers & Braun on their NHL roster today that were all late round draft picks. When almost a 1/3 of your roster is 3rd round and beyond I think it goes from luck to good scouting - but again, this is just my opinion.
Except the issues are about how they select in the 1st round because it is a thread about Steve Bernier. They've had 22 first round picks. They've had one great pick (Patty Marleau), one good pick thus far (Logan Couture), seven solid picks (Rathje, Hannan, Stuart, Friesen, Sturm, Michalek, and Setoguchi), and eleven busts (Falloon, Nazarov, Kozlov, Riihijarvi, Zyuzin, Jillson, Goc, Morris, Bernier, Kaspar, and Wishart). Then they have Coyle and Petrecki yet to be determined.
My bust are those that were either dealt before they developed and/or performed well below expectations.
Marleau is an obvious win. Couture is looking like a win. Among the solid picks there were questions at the time of the scouting staff when they passed up Kopitar for Setoguchi. Those questions were there in '03 when they picked Michalek over a decent amount of defensemen that the Sharks needed badly and one of them being Ryan Suter and their thought process at the time was getting the most NHL ready player there. Not the best but the most NHL ready player. That is a red flag to me.
Not every pick that they made that were even busts were bad picks at the time but things just didn't work out for them. That happens. My main concern about the group is not their success percentage but their thought process when drafting is not a line of thinking that I agree with using with your best picks.
The gem comment was not in reference to 1st round picks.
And I used the word all on my own. It was not meant to compare to deep draft gems. Try and forget I used it. I am simply comparing their first round success to ours. Kinda where this discussion started, since Bernier was a first round pick.
And I used the word all on my own. It was not meant to compare to deep draft gems. Try and forget I used it. I am simply comparing their first round success to ours. Kinda where this discussion started, since Bernier was a first round pick.
In terms of 1st round picks, the Sharks have had a better success rate. Then again, the Wings have had 10 less picks in that same amount of time.
And they're judged on results just like everyone else in pro sports. If you don't judge talent and pick well, you will get fired. Simple as that.
I couldn't agree more that it's fair as armchair fans to 'judge' them on their results. The fact that we have several key players contributing for our team that were drafted or players that were acquired through trading players that we drafted AND are a team that has consistently been contending for a Cup for the past few seasons is enough to justify for me that they've done at the very least, a fairly good job.
However, as for "you will get fired", it's not a decision you or I as simple fans can make unless you're going to pony up the millions to own the team though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd
This notion you have that since they can't predict the future, they don't have any accountability is disgusting.
You should go check out what's happening in Libya and then tell me my notions are disgusting. What a bizarre overreaction to a different opinion from your own...
I couldn't agree more that it's fair to judge them on their results. The fact that we have several key players contributing for our team that were drafted or players that were acquired through trading players that we drafted AND are a team that has consistently been contending for a Cup for the past few seasons is enough to justify for me that they've done at the very least, a fairly good job.
As for "you will get fired", it's not a decision you or I as simple fans can make unless you're going to pony up the millions to own the team though...
You should go check out what's happening in Libya and then tell me my notions are disgusting. What a bizarre overreaction to a different opinion from your own...
This response, as most of your responses in this thread, has merely been you side-stepping the issues presented. A great way to have an intelligent discussion. The GM making deals doesn't give the pick a pass. The reason why it was dealt was because, more often than not, the pick was a failure.
You should go check out what's happening in Libya and then tell me my notions are disgusting. What a bizarre overreaction to a different opinion from your own...
Seriously? That's your argument? Things can be varying degrees of disgusting and I'm fairly certain Pink never insinuated that a lack of accountability on part of the Sharks' organization for their shoddy draft record is on the same plane as a dictatorial massacre.
This response, as most of your responses in this thread, has merely been you side-stepping the issues presented. A great way to have an intelligent discussion. The GM making deals doesn't give the pick a pass. The reason why it was dealt was because, more often than not, the pick was a failure.
What issues would you like me to address? I think, holistically speaking, the Sharks have been a reasonable, not spectacular, but reasonable drafting team over the past 5-6 seasons.
I look at Ryane Clowe (6th round), Joe Pavelski (7th round), Devin Setoguchi and Logan Couture (both first round picks) - 4 of our top 7 forwards as relatively recent draft acquisitions. I look at Michalek, Cheechoo, Carle, Wishart who were all Sharks draft picks who (in essence) turned into two all-star calibre players in Heatley and Boyle via trade. I don't sit here and think, damn you wasted all those picks, Doug. Sorry if that bothers you.
I won't ever look at Setoguchi and say "Damn you Sharks for taking Setoguchi over Kopitar at 11!" because, at the time you make a judgement call. If you think he fits your needs or may be a better player than someone else, you draft the kid. If not, you don't. And for every one of these you get 'right' (as proven only with time and hindsight), I'm sure there's a dozen you could say didn't work out.
Pouliot, Brule, Skille, Lee, Bourdon were all taken before Setoguchi. That's a lot of "fail" from other teams than our own. Then you can say, every team in the NHL passed on Pavelski (repeatedly) before he was drafted - should their coaching staffs all be fired? Seems an irrational line of thinking to me.
Personally I don't know enough about drafting and scouting to know why any given drafting decision is made - people earn a living analysing these kids and frankly, me sat here behind with the luxury of a keyboard still doesn't make me remotely qualified to judge them and their work. The notion that they should somehow be 'accountable' to me is laughable.
I merely have a platform to voice an opinion, that's all. The problem is that often, this platform allows us to self-annoint as (excuse my cynicism) 'experts' when in reality, most of us (not all), have probably never seen more than a few of these kids actually play more than half a dozen times, let alone met them or interviewed them. Yet we still enjoy making all-encompassing and sweeping judgements about their suitability. In fact, much of what we base it on ends up being derived from third, fourth and fifth-hand re-hashes of stuff we've read on the web or seen on TSN... it's a fallacy.
Now given I don't have that expertise, I'm inclined to believe that you don't either (sorry, that might be an infair assumption), I find your 'disgust' at my view quite odd.
I honestly believe we've done a reasonable job of drafting and utilising those assets to be competitive. I suspect other teams might have better statistical records than us, but on the whole I think Wilson and his team does a pretty good job in the many facets of the job he does. The fact I can't add much more to that I guess just means I'm incapable of joining your 'intelligent discussion' (sorry to disappoint...) but I'm not sure what else I can add to it...
Seriously? That's your argument? Things can be varying degrees of disgusting and I'm fairly certain Pink never insinuated that a lack of accountability on part of the Sharks' organization for their shoddy draft record is on the same plane as a dictatorial massacre.
Perspective, Turnstyles. If he's seriously 'disgusted' by my viewpoint I'm worried for his mental state. I suspect he was just becoming reliant on hyperbole to elevate his point but thankfully I trust most of us can see that. I thought I'd join the party for effect.
noun - a strong distaste; nausea; loathing.
- repugnance caused by something offensive; strong aversion:
