2013-2014 Hartford Wolf Pack/Greenville Road Warriors Thread Part II

[slipknottin]

I haven't watched much of Fast but I love how slipknottin is sure of what a prospect won't become become he plays in the NHL more than a handful of games and is picking fights with anyone that says anything different, even though it seems they watched more of Fast.

I've watched fast every home game this year.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I've watched fast every home game this year.

Ok fine, some people watched him in Sweden too. I just think it's incredibly arrogant to make definitive predictions about a guy that's played almost no games in the NHL.

 

[Blue Blooded]

Here are some Hartford ES stats courtesy of @joshweissbock:

Miller and Fast look good, McIlrath and Haley less so.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I was getting excited about McIlrath but honestly, I'm getting frustrated. The guy seemed like a high risk low ceiling guy and they took him at 10. I feel like they overreacted to a softness on the team and took a guy who would never be a top D-man and in fact wasn't even a safe pick. So the best we could do is hope for a physical top 4 guy with limited offensive upside and even then that's if he pans out as he's a risky player. Where's the value?

 

[Raspewtin]

Here are some Hartford ES stats courtesy of @joshweissbock:

Miller and Fast look good, McIlrath and Haley less so.

Well, considering McIlrath and Haley have been on the team the whole time, while the Pack played like sewage, the poor stats are no surprise.

Remember that Fast just came back form injury recently, and Miller barely belongs in the AHL.

 

[Blue Blooded]

Well, considering McIlrath and Haley have been on the team the whole time, while the Pack played like sewage, the poor stats are no surprise.

Remember that Fast just came back form injury recently, and Miller barely belongs in the AHL.

That's true, but part of the Pack's uptick in play is likely due to Miller and Fast (the other being Hensick and the goaltending upgrade).

Plus, these stats only concern the games the players have participated in. So the fact that the team was bad before Miller/Fast has no effect on their stats. Neither does the fact that the team has been better while McIlrath has missed time affected his.

 

[Raspewtin]

That's true, but part of the Pack's uptick in play is likely due to Miller and Fast (the other being Hensick and the goaltending upgrade).

Plus, these stats only concern the games the players have participated in. So the fact that the team was bad before Miller/Fast has no effect on their stats. Neither does the fact that the team has been better while McIlrath has missed time affected his.

Not exactly true. The entire team was blanked multiple times with no Miller/Fast/Hensick. I think they were shutout 5 times in a row once? Of course GF will be down and GA will be up. Danny Syvret is garbage, but he has a positive ES GF/GA differential.

Also, you don't really believe that the Pack are playing better because McIlrath is injured, do you?

 

[Cassano]

Worst defender in terms of ES efficiency with 10+ GP. Yikes.

 

[Beacon]

Plenty. He has in no way loui eriksson upside.

I would actually be shocked if he ever became even a 20 goal scorer.

Of the people who watch Hartford, you are the only one who thinks that Fast can't be a 20 goal scorer. Hagelin is on pace for 21 goals over 82 games this year and has a career pace of 19 goals per 82 games. I don't Fast's potential is any less than that.

Well, I've watched him play a fair bit and I completely disagree with you. I think he has - wait for it - 30 goal upside.

As his absolute highest potential, I do think 30 goals is his possible ceiling. I wouldn't bet money on it, but I wouldn't be stunned if it happens. I would be surprised if he averages less than 20 goals per season in his prime.

Like I said. The hype train is getting out of control. He has 9 goals...

It's still 35 goal pace for a rookie who was 21 at the start of the season and has no prior experience playing in North American-sized rinks.

hope for a physical top 4 guy with limited offensive upside and even then that's if he pans out as he's a risky player. Where's the value?

While the hype around top-10 picks is enormous, the reality is that in the decade prior to MCI, of all the #10 picks, only one player became a second liner and there were more busts who failed to make the NHL than there were top-9F/top-5D players.

If you can pull a quality second pair defenseman as your #10 draft selection, you did a very good job. Expecting a #10 selection to be a star or even a top-6F/top-4D player is going to leave you disappointed (literally) 90% of the time.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

If you can pull a quality second pair defenseman as your #10 draft selection, you did a very good job. Expecting a #10 selection to be a star or even a top-6F/top-4D player is going to leave you disappointed (literally) 90% of the time.

1) The #10 pick is just one pick. That may be an outlier, and it just happened that specifically #10 did worse than expected. I'd be interested in seeing a range.

2) There were better picks available at #10 that year, so it doesn't matter what there was in the past, we could have gotten Fowler or Teresenko.

3) He wasn't a safe pick for top 4. At that pick either pick a relatively safe guy to make the top 4 or shoot for the stars for a top pairing guy. We got neither.

 

[3rdlineglory]

This place must have been awful in the summer of 2010.

 

[Beacon]

1) The #10 pick is just one pick. That may be an outlier, and it just happened that specifically #10 did worse than expected. I'd be interested in seeing a range.

It isn't an outlier. That's how things go.

2) There were better picks available at #10 that year, so it doesn't matter what there was in the past, we could have gotten Fowler or Teresenko.

That's true for any pick. To expect them to always draft the best player is ridiculous. That's like expecting a stock broker to choose the best stock for the year.

And no, I don't care that people are claiming, "I knew to draft Tarasenko even in 2010!"

For one, you are probably imagining it. Maybe you said Tarasenko or Player X or Player Y, and now you only remember saying Tarasenko because the others went bust. Two, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Getting an occasional hit means nothing.

I remember this board being mad that we got some tap dancer who want projected as a second rounder. Turned out Stepan was better than anyone else available at that point in the draft (played the most games, scored the most points overall and per game).

Until I see people make off-the-board successful calls like Stepan, they need to not whine that the team didn't get the player who turned out to be the best.

So long as the team's draft picks are consistently better than most in the same position, we should be happy.

3) He wasn't a safe pick for top 4. At that pick either pick a relatively safe guy to make the top 4 or shoot for the stars for a top pairing guy. We got neither.

Nobody is truly safe at #10, but he was decently safe. The odds of a huge guy who can skate not playing in the NHL are slim. At worst, he is on the third pair. At best, he is a more mobile, tougher Beukeboom.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Of the people who watch Hartford, you are the only one who thinks that Fast can't be a 20 goal scorer. Hagelin is on pace for 21 goals over 82 games this year and has a career pace of 19 goals per 82 games. I don't Fast's potential is any less than that.




As his absolute highest potential, I do think 30 goals is his possible ceiling. I wouldn't bet money on it, but I wouldn't be stunned if it happens. I would be surprised if he averages less than 20 goals per season in his prime.




It's still 35 goal pace for a rookie who was 21 at the start of the season and has no prior experience playing in North American-sized rinks.




While the hype around top-10 picks is enormous, the reality is that in the decade prior to MCI, of all the #10 picks, only one player became a second liner and there were more busts who failed to make the NHL than there were top-9F/top-5D players.

If you can pull a quality second pair defenseman as your #10 draft selection, you did a very good job. Expecting a #10 selection to be a star or even a top-6F/top-4D player is going to leave you disappointed (literally) 90% of the time.

Completely agreed with everything you posted about Fast, but not about McIlrath at 10.

If you recall back to that draft, damn near everyone on this board - and I mean like 90%+ - wanted either Fowler or Tarasenko. I know McIlrath was a riser, but it was STILL a Jessiman-esque, off the board pick, which gave us all uncomfortable flashbacks.

He's ours now and I'm rooting like hell for a long-term Chara-like development (I can't emphasize that enough), but if it doesn't happen, we will have the right to be pissed, because he won't be a consensus #10 that we picked as expected and then busted, which, oh well, happens fairly frequently... he'll be an off the board pick - when at least two top five consensus guys had slipped to us - that busted. The prospect is not pleasant.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

It isn't an outlier. That's how things go.



That's true for any pick. To expect them to always draft the best player is ridiculous. That's like expecting a stock broker to choose the best stock for the year.

And no, I don't care that people are claiming, "I knew to draft Tarasenko even in 2010!"

For one, you are probably imagining it. Maybe you said Tarasenko or Player X or Player Y, and now you only remember saying Tarasenko because the others went bust. Two, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Getting an occasional hit means nothing.

I remember this board being mad that we got some tap dancer who want projected as a second rounder. Turned out Stepan was better than anyone else available at that point in the draft (played the most games, scored the most points overall and per game).

Until I see people make off-the-board successful calls like Stepan, they need to not whine that the team didn't get the player who turned out to be the best.

So long as the team's draft picks are consistently better than most in the same position, we should be happy.



Nobody is truly safe at #10, but he was decently safe. The odds of a huge guy who can skate not playing in the NHL are slim. At worst, he is on the third pair. At best, he is a more mobile, tougher Beukeboom.

1) Do you have stats for the picks around #10? I'm just saying that specifically #10 could be a bad number in recent years just randomly.

2) "That's true of any pick". If there were players that were legit possible picks at #10, who cares that history says #10 is a bad pick, they could have picked someone better. It was Tarasenko and Fowler that were the conventional picks, not McIlrath who was an off the board pick. You're making it sound like all 3 were equally as conventional.

3) Just being big and a good skater guarantees you'll be in the NHL? Really?

 

[Beacon]

I don't care what the board consensus was. In 2008, the board consensus was Jared Staal, who's now a crappy AHLer. The only other player whose name was chanted on this board was Kirill Petrov who is a meh KHLer now. Not one person wanted Stepan, an off the board pick.

In 2011, everyone wanted a big guy like Biggs, Armia or McNeill. One is a crappy AHLer, borderline ECHLer, and the other two are a meh AHLers right now and most don't view them as more than potential bottom-6ers or worse. The three combined couldn't get you J.T. Miller in a trade.

Most of our selections, this board is clamoring for someone who turns out to be a minor leaguer. So one time some of the people here get it right with Tara. Who cares?

Think of it this way: imagine you had a stock broker whose stock picks rose twice the rate of a good market and fell half the rate of a bad market. Would you be happy with him or would you demand he always picks the best stock of the year, citing the one time you guessed that Google would be a good stock?

 

[Kwayry]

Nobody is truly safe at #10, but he was decently safe. The odds of a huge guy who can skate not playing in the NHL are slim. At worst, he is on the third pair. At best, he is a more mobile, tougher Beukeboom.

It was reported that either the Stars or the Ducks would have picked him at #11 or #12

Larry Brooks, in the New York Post, writes that had the Rangers traded down, like many wanted, the Dallas Stars would have selected Mcilrath with the 11th pick overall.

Mcilrath had met with Dallas and Anaheim, picks 11 and 12, the day before the draft.

…This is what I speculated last night when he said he met with those two teams. The Rangers got their guy, and they wouldn’t have if they traded down.

Mike Heika of the Dallas Morning News: The Dallas Stars will be going with “drafting the best player available†approach, but if 2 players are close, they’ll go with the defenseman. Some believe they might consider Jack Campbell if he’s available. After the big 3 defenseman that will be gone by the 11th pick, the next group of Dmen are: Derek Forbort, Jon Merril, Dylan McIlrath and Jarred Tinordi. Derek Forbort and Dylan McIlrath are more in the range of the Stars pick than Merril and Tinordi.

As far as Tarasenko is concerned, hindsight is 20/20 but he was pick #16, and not even the Blues first choice, as they chose Schwartz before him at #14.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

EDIT: you know what, let's leave it alone. The debate has been had a million times. As I said in my previous post, he's ours now, and I'm rooting for him to produce real value either as a player or a chip. My apologies for engaging.

 

[E-Train]

I don't care what the board consensus was. In 2008, the board consensus was Jared Staal, who's now a crappy AHLer. The only other player whose name was chanted on this board was Kirill Petrov who is a meh KHLer now. Not one person wanted Stepan, an off the board pick.

In 2011, everyone wanted a big guy like Biggs, Armia or McNeill. One is a crappy AHLer, borderline ECHLer, and the other two are a meh AHLers right now and most don't view them as more than potential bottom-6ers or worse. The three combined couldn't get you J.T. Miller in a trade.

Most of our selections, this board is clamoring for someone who turns out to be a minor leaguer. So one time some of the people here get it right with Tara. Who cares?

Think of it this way: imagine you had a stock broker whose stock picks rose twice the rate of a good market and fell half the rate of a bad market. Would you be happy with him or would you demand he always picks the best stock of the year, citing the one time you guessed that Google would be a good stock?

Great post. The line about the '08 2nd round is absolutely correct. The crying around here about the Stepan pick was brutal.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

To be fair HF is full with a bunch of manly men who are way tougher than a ***** ass tap dancer. Can you really blame the hate?

 

[NYR Sting]

Well, at least the Rangers did us one sort of favor by passing on Tarasenko and picking McIlrath: years of hilarity around here.

 

[darko]

This place must have been awful in the summer of 2010.

Oh you have no idea.

 

[mike14]

Not that I really want to get involved in the draft hindsight, but calling McI an off the board pick is just wrong. Central had him 17 th amoung NA skaters, ISS at 31, hockey news at 26, mckeens at 15 and red line at 22. Same thing with jessiman who was expected to go topic 20, with some scouts predicting top 10.

You can certainly argue they were taken a few spots too high or we should have gone after player x but to say they were off the board is incorrect

 

[RangerBoy]

From: @HawkCrawford
Sent: Feb 4, 2014 10:19a

Is on ice for AM skate. RT @Milliner06: Status on McIlrath? Will he return by Tuesday, or the latest this weekend?

sent via TweetDeck
On Twitter: http://twitter.com/HawkCrawford/status/430722242931359744

 

[Bardof425*]

Worst defender in terms of ES efficiency with 10+ GP. Yikes.

The WolfPack is a revolving door with no continuity. Advanced stats (as previously argued) are just a data point and not a way to judge a player and that is more true in a situation like the Pack where every game there are new factors out of the player's control that will impact his stats. At what point a player suited up for the Pack means everything; they were great early, putrid for a long while and now competitive. A rising tide lifts....

 

[Bardof425*]

1) The #10 pick is just one pick. That may be an outlier, and it just happened that specifically #10 did worse than expected. I'd be interested in seeing a range.

2) There were better picks available at #10 that year, so it doesn't matter what there was in the past, we could have gotten Fowler or Teresenko.

3) He wasn't a safe pick for top 4. At that pick either pick a relatively safe guy to make the top 4 or shoot for the stars for a top pairing guy. We got neither.

Hindsight of course is 20/20 and I know there were those advocating for Fowler and Tarasenko at the time but those guys had different risks. Fowler is/was soft and we already had MDZ and Vlad couild have stayed in Russia (and still may go back; who knows). If you re-did the draft alot of teams would take Tarasenko before 17; not just us. We really got to get past this. McI prior to his recent injury bug was developing nicely for a Dman his size. Patience I believe will win out here. He won't be more valuable than Tarasenko but he will fill a gaping hole on our team and that is why he was picked in the first place.