ATD 2011 Draft Thread II

[Leafs Forever]

Gadsby was the top defenseman left on my list after Seibert went, but I don't know that he was particularly better than a couple of guys who are left.

I'm still not convinced that his defensive game was anything special, to be honest.

I supposed that depends on your definition of "special".

 

[BillyShoe1721]

I paid a steep price to get this pick, but for a number of reasons, I had to do it, not the least of which is that this is the lowest this guy has fallen in the past 5 or 6 ATDs that I checked.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will start my team off with a guy who even the great Eddie Shore feared, Earl Seibert!

Is there a reason that he's still available? He's gone mid-40s to early 50s in all the drafts that I have checked. Either way, I'm excited about profiling him! PM'ing next.

Man, I was counting the remaining guys I viewed as strong #1 defensemen, and then counting the teams ahead of me who I thought might take a D, and I was getting worried for a while there. But everything worked itself out in the end. If Seibert had dropped, I would have considered him for sure, but I like the offensive edge this player has and it's nice to have the decision made for me.

For the second draft in a row, Inglewood is pleased to select a big, tough defender who can do it all:

Bill Gadsby

An 7-time Allstar, Gadsby earned his 3 first-team selections the hard way due to his prime overlapping almost perfectly with the prime years of Red Kelly and Doug Harvey. Three of his second-team allstar selections came behind that legendary duo. In a different era, it's not hard to imagine Bill Gadsby earning more than 3 first-team selections.

Gadsby led all defensemen in scoring 3 times, and finished second to Kelly or Harvey on another 5 occasions.

In total, his scoring amongst defensemen looks as such: 1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,4,4,6,7,7. He also placed 9th in total league scoring in 1956, and came 3rd, 3rd, and 7th in assists. He was the first defenseman in NHL history to record 500 points.

On top of his elite offensive resume, Gadsby was a strong defensive player who played an extremely physical game. His willingness to sacrifice his body in the line of duty earned him a reported 600 stitches in his face over the course of his 20 year NHL career.

Sadly, Gadsby had the supreme misfortune of playing his first 15 seasons in Chicago and New York, where he never had a prayer of winning the Stanley Cup.

There go #1 and #2 on my list. Both good picks considering where they were selected.

 

[markrander87]

In the past, I've thought he was kind of a one-trick pony, but I've found a quote that kind of dispelled that for me.

It's all yours.

Thats great thanks!! Do you have the source??

 

[Dreakmur]

Thats great thanks!! Do you have the source??

He's undrafted, but I'll PM you.

 

[overpass]

The thing that bothers me about Gadsby is that he played on some really bad teams in his prime. It's hard to picture any team with some of the other defencemen taken recently ever being that bad. He changed teams a couple of times, but his departure and arrival didn't change the course of any franchises.

See the 1954-55 season. Gadsby was 27. Chicago had a 3-13-3 record (.250 W%). They traded Gadsby to New York and improved, going 10-27-14 (0.327 W%) the rest of the way. The Rangers were 6-9-3 (0.417 W%) when Gadsby arrived. With Gadsby on the team they were 11-26-15 (0.356 W%). Both teams were worse with Gadsby.

In the three seasons before Gadsby, New York averaged 59 points. In Gadsby's first three seasons there, they averaged 64 points. Chicago averaged 48 points in Gadsby's last three seasons there, and 47 points in the three seasons after he left.

The Rangers sent Gadsby to Detroit after the 1960-61 season. In the three seasons prior to that they averaged 56 points. In the three seasons after Gadsby left they averaged 58 points. Detroit averaged 64 points in the three seasons prior to acquiring Gadsby. After picking him up they averaged 69 points in three seasons.

Teams tended to improve slightly after acquiring Gadsby, and stayed about the same without him. His record just doesn't have a lot of team success on it, or evidence of making an impact, relative to other defencemen taken around here. Like Chris Pronger, for example.

Sure, this is crude analysis, and there are many factors that drive team success. But maybe the Hockey News panel, many whom watched Gadsby in his prime, knew what they were doing when they ranked him as the 99th best player in history as of 1996. I don't think most people would say that list underrated Original Six players, either.

Edit: Lol, just checked to see whose player I was slagging and it was the only guy who said he liked my Pronger pick. Nothing personal, arrbez. At least you'll have a lot of time to counter this argument before the voting.

 

[nik jr]

Gadsby was the top defenseman left on my list after Seibert went, but I don't know that he was particularly better than a couple of guys who are left.

I'm still not convinced that his defensive game was anything special, to be honest.

that is also my concern.

i have found multiple sources that call him an offensive d-man or a PP specialist. i have also read he was at his best defensively late in his career. gadsby was apparently always a big hitter. i have only seen games of him from the mid '60s.

but i cannot read new york times articles for free, so i am missing a large source of information.

 

[jarek]

The thing that bothers me about Gadsby is that he played on some really bad teams in his prime. It's hard to picture any team with some of the other defencemen taken recently ever being that bad. He changed teams a couple of times, but his departure and arrival didn't change the course of any franchises.

See the 1954-55 season. Gadsby was 27. Chicago had a 3-13-3 record (.250 W%). They traded Gadsby to New York and improved, going 10-27-14 (0.327 W%) the rest of the way. The Rangers were 6-9-3 (0.417 W%) when Gadsby arrived. With Gadsby on the team they were 11-26-15 (0.356 W%). Both teams were worse with Gadsby.

In the three seasons before Gadsby, New York averaged 59 points. In Gadsby's first three seasons there, they averaged 64 points. Chicago averaged 48 points in Gadsby's last three seasons there, and 47 points in the three seasons after he left.

The Rangers sent Gadsby to Detroit after the 1960-61 season. In the three seasons prior to that they averaged 56 points. In the three seasons after Gadsby left they averaged 58 points. Detroit averaged 64 points in the three seasons prior to acquiring Gadsby. After picking him up they averaged 69 points in three seasons.

Teams tended to improve slightly after acquiring Gadsby, and stayed about the same without him. His record just doesn't have a lot of team success on it, or evidence of making an impact, relative to other defencemen taken around here. Like Chris Pronger, for example.

Sure, this is crude analysis, and there are many factors that drive team success. But maybe the Hockey News panel, many whom watched Gadsby in his prime, knew what they were doing when they ranked him as the 99th best player in history as of 1996. I don't think most people would say that list underrated Original Six players, either.

That's some very interesting stuff about Gadsby. I wonder how much of an impact this would have on an ATD team.

 

[Dreakmur]

that is also my concern.

i have found multiple sources that call him an offensive d-man or a PP specialist. i have also read he was at his best defensively late in his career. gadsby was apparently always a big hitter. i have only seen games of him from the mid '60s.

but i cannot read new york times articles for free, so i am missing a large source of information.

He was definately a great offensive defenseman and he was definately a great open ice hitter.

Aside from his unknown defensive abilities, I would also be concerned about his below average skating.

 

[nik jr]

He was definately a great offensive defenseman and he was definately a great open ice hitter.

Aside from his unknown defensive abilities, I would also be concerned about his below average skating.

source for below average skating?

 

[Leafs Forever]

On the Gadsby views:

-It's intriguing stuff overpass, but there is way too much "measurement error" so to speak and other factors that could play into it to take it for much (no offense). With more research, probably more than it's worth, on what else was happening with those teams it could count for something more.

-I think LOH mentions his defense was good as his offense, which is promising. A good globe and mail search for Gadsby seems in order ir arrbez wants to.

 

[Dreakmur]

source for below average skating?

A book called Hockey's Golden Era.

 

[vecens24]

I know I'm not in the draft but I've got some decent Gadsby quotes from "Detroit Red Wings Greatest Moments and Players" by Stan Fischler:

Gadsby was equally adept at both shot blocking and puck carrying

He worked especially well with Gordie Howe and XXXXXXXX on a club that appeared destined to win the Stanley Cup during the 1964 playoffs against Toronto. With Gadsby playing the best defense of his life, the Wings moved into a 3-2 series lead

Don't know what to make of the second quote....whether or not it is an almost backhanded slap or what, but either way he did play his best defensively it seems in the playoffs.

And from Legends of Hockey:

While playing with the Hawks, Gadsby established himself as a terrific competitor who was equally adept at leading a rush as he was on the defensive aspects of the game.

Obviously I think this proves he was more than adequate in his defensive ability considering how capable of leading a rush he really was.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

For what it's worth (probably not much), Gadsby had the worst +/- in the league 1/4 of the way through the 1960 season. He did log lots of minutes with awful teams, so I suppose that isn't necessarily surprising.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=871855

 

[jarek]

Maybe Gadsby is one of those players that was good defensively during different points in his career. I've never seen him being mentioned in an all encompassing way as good defensively.

 

[Dreakmur]

I've got lists from Nylad and papershoes. So regardless of if the trade goes, we've got that pick covered

 

[jarek]

The trade is fine, we just have to actually get there.. lolz.

 

[overpass]

I know I'm not in the draft but I've got some decent Gadsby quotes from "Detroit Red Wings Greatest Moments and Players" by Stan Fischler:

Don't know what to make of the second quote....whether or not it is an almost backhanded slap or what, but either way he did play his best defensively it seems in the playoffs.

And from Legends of Hockey:

Always good to have more people weighing in. Gadsby's best team success argument is definitely Detroit making 2 straight finals after he joined the team. Although I don't think Gadsby was the #1 defenceman on those teams. This is where we could use the veteran hockey observers like pappyline.

On the Gadsby views:

-It's intriguing stuff overpass, but there is way too much "measurement error" so to speak and other factors that could play into it to take it for much (no offense). With more research, probably more than it's worth, on what else was happening with those teams it could count for something more.

-I think LOH mentions his defense was good as his offense, which is promising. A good globe and mail search for Gadsby seems in order ir arrbez wants to.

No offence taken. You're right that there's a ton of "measurement error." But what about the fact that Gadsby barely cracked the THN top 100 in 1996?

Just to follow up on my Seibert comment earlier, here is the source for my earlier comments on why he left hockey. BTW, some of my criticisms of Gadsby (team success and THN ranking) also apply to Seibert.

 

[jarek]

Always good to have more people weighing in. Gadsby's best team success argument is definitely Detroit making 2 straight finals after he joined the team. Although I don't think Gadsby was the #1 defenceman on those teams. This is where we could use the veteran hockey observers like pappyline.



No offence taken. You're right that there's a ton of "measurement error." But what about the fact that Gadsby barely cracked the THN top 100 in 1996?

Just to follow up on my Seibert comment earlier, here is the source for my earlier comments on why he left hockey. BTW, some of my criticisms of Gadsby (team success and THN ranking) also apply to Seibert.

Now, if Seibert never had any team success, I might agree with you, however.. he single handedly carried the Blackhawks to a Stanley Cup. His coach said the guy played 55 minutes a game during the playoffs. I'd say he was an impact player that improved the teams he was on.

 

[chaosrevolver]

I paid a steep price to get this pick, but for a number of reasons, I had to do it, not the least of which is that this is the lowest this guy has fallen in the past 5 or 6 ATDs that I checked.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will start my team off with a guy who even the great Eddie Shore feared, Earl Seibert!

Is there a reason that he's still available? He's gone mid-40s to early 50s in all the drafts that I have checked. Either way, I'm excited about profiling him! PM'ing next.

Was actually considering him at 43 over Nighbor, but decided to go with a forward instead.

 

[overpass]

Now, if Seibert never had any team success, I might agree with you, however.. he single handedly carried the Blackhawks to a Stanley Cup. His coach said the guy played 55 minutes a game during the playoffs. I'd say he was an impact player that improved the teams he was on.

You're right. I meant to say and really should have said that those criticisms are not as strong for Seibert as for Gadsby. Seibert was 27 spots higher than Gadsby on the THN list and played on two Cup winners. But during the years he was getting all-star spots, his teams were above .500 only 3 out of 10 times.

 

[jarek]

You're right. I meant to say and really should have said that those criticisms are not as strong for Seibert as for Gadsby. Seibert was 27 spots higher than Gadsby on the THN list and played on two Cup winners. But during the years he was getting all-star spots, his teams were above .500 only 3 out of 10 times.

One thing I read is that Seibert played basically as well as he wanted to. The exact quote was something along the lines of "if a manager paid him 7,500, that's all he would get out of him". I read stuff like, he was the best defender of the era, and the only thing that kept him from rising above Shore was his own attitude (I guess in this case it would be greed). I don't think that really has a bearing on his overall on-ice attitude, as LoH lauds his leadership qualities and he still put up those great seasons to be consistently named an all star, but I just thought that was an interesting tidbit. I get the feeling that Seibert never truly reached the potential that he could have reached.

 

[nik jr]

Now, if Seibert never had any team success, I might agree with you, however.. he single handedly carried the Blackhawks to a Stanley Cup. His coach said the guy played 55 minutes a game during the playoffs. I'd say he was an impact player that improved the teams he was on.

almost nothing happens in hockey single handedly.

how do you know seibert was even the best player on that team?

 

[jarek]

almost nothing happens in hockey single handedly.

how do you know seibert was even the best player on that team?

By the admission of his own coach: "The biggest reason we won," coach Bill Stewart asserted, "was that we had Earl Seibert on our defense. The big guy played about 55 minutes a game."

 

[thatguy17]

is anybody going to be here awhile? i may have to go in about an hour and a half and i dont know who to give my shortlist to

 

[jkrx]

is anybody going to be here awhile? i may have to go in about an hour and a half and i dont know who to give my shortlist to

Im going to be on now for a while forward so I can take a list.