ATD 2017 Draft Thread IV

[Iceman]

How does Thornton compared to Dionne?

 

[jarek]

How does Thornton compared to Dionne?

In what way?

 

[jarek]

Alright.. so I WAS going to use something like this in the Ted Harris bio as it seemed pretty credible at first glance.. then I looked at the 1st defense pair RD.

 

[Iceman]

In what way?

In an all time sense. Careers are panning out pretty similarly.

Dionne has more top-10 finishes I guess.

 

[Stoneberg]

Sorry gents mark's on vacay and I crashed early last night.

This guy's probably not the best D available but with the slim pickings at RD we'll grab him now, Brent Seabrook, D.

Seabrook is a big, physical, right shot, shut down type D who can move the puck. He seems like a great fit alongside the smaller Sjöberg, and will slide nicely in to our PK2.

 

[VanIslander]

Dionne has often pondered how he would have done if he was in Montreal and Lafleur was in L.A. (He felt he deserved a cup contender rather than expansion middling team, though he never exactly put it that way, it was implied).

Joe Thornton, in contrast, was CLEARLY traded to an expansion team because he was NOT seen as a Stanley Cup champion calibre competitor:

... the architect of that trade, Bruins GM Mike O’Connell, defended the team’s decision. “I asked myself if Joe Thornton could lead us to the Stanley Cup and my answer was no,†O’Connell told the New England Hockey Journal, adding that the Bruins knew they could build around young players like Patrice Bergeron who have the “championship character†it takes to win. The Bruins won the Cup in 2011.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/joe-thornton-sharks-captaincy/

So, Thornton is like the opposite of a Dionne in a way.

 

[jarek]

Sorry gents mark's on vacay and I crashed early last night.

This guy's probably not the best D available but with the slim pickings at RD we'll grab him now, Brent Seabrook, D.

Seabrook is a big, physical, right shot, shut down type D who can move the puck. He seems like a great fit alongside the smaller Sjöberg, and will slide nicely in to our PK2.

I get why you did this but there's a couple of D available who are better at what Seabrook brings, just without the right shot. Does matching the shot side really justify taking an inferior player?

 

[jarek]

Dionne has often pondered how he would have done if he was in Montreal and Lafleur was in L.A. (He felt he deserved a cup contender rather than expansion middling team, though he never exactly put it that way, it was implied).

Joe Thornton, in contrast, was CLEARLY traded to an expansion team because he was NOT seen as a Stanley Cup champion calibre competitor:


http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/joe-thornton-sharks-captaincy/

So, Thornton is like the opposite of a Dionne in a way.

I don't get this. Thornton at the time was a big, bruising, elite offensive center. What was he missing, exactly?

 

[Johnny Engine]

Alright.. so I WAS going to use something like this in the Ted Harris bio as it seemed pretty credible at first glance.. then I looked at the 1st defense pair RD.

Well, they obviously weren't going for the 20 best Canadiens there, but that's a fine example of why projections are a dangerous game

 

[jarek]

Well, they obviously weren't going for the 20 best Canadiens there, but that's a fine example of why projections are a dangerous game

Not only that but.. to leave out Lafleur AND Henri Richard? What the hell?

There is no credible all-Montreal team that doesn't have those two players on it.

I don't give a crap about how good of a two-way player Rousseau is. There is no amount of defensive excellence Rousseau can provide that could offset how much Lafleur dwarfs him offensively.

 

[VanIslander]

I don't get this. Thornton at the time was a big, bruising, elite offensive center. What was he missing, exactly?

Goldilocks didn't backcheck much.

If the opposition pissed him off he'd drop the gloves or take a retalitory penalty.

He did forecheck in San Jose,... at times... but still.... backchecking and penalty killing didn't interest him.

Give him the puck and he'll grit his teeth, float and pass.

Yeah! I wasn't surprised he was traded. I was NOT alone. There were several who questioned his competitiveness, not just the Bruins GM.

 

[seventieslord]

THE ULTIMATE CANADIENS TEAM
If you were picking an all-time Montreal Canadiens' team but could pick only one of Jacques Plante or Patrick Roy or one of Rocket Richard or Guy Lafleur, who would you choose? TSN made those hard calls and many more in assembling the ultimate Habs’ club organized along the lines of a real team. The result: a squad that spans seven decades of team and individual greatness.

...so it seems that's the parameter they set for themselves. Within that parameter, they made the right choice. I don't quite get what the point of it was, though.

 

[VanIslander]

I don't give a crap about how good of a two-way player Rousseau is. There is no amount of defensive excellence Rousseau can provide that could offset how much Lafleur dwarfs him offensively.

It's funny how Bowman has been asked what made the Habs dynasty he coached. He first mentioned the Big 3 on D, then the "competitive" goalie, then the centers, how Lemaire gave the team a solid 4 down the middle and let Lafleur back on wing.

His praise of Lafleur was indirect and not early in his description.

Rumour has it Lafleur didn't like Bowman's coaching instructions. Though - to be fair - Gretzky describes his juniors coach with the Greyhounds: "I hated him", as they guy wanted Gretzky to be a team player and backcheck, contrary to his style.

Thornton, Lafleur, Gretzky... some guys have the skillset NOT to backcheck but to play opportunistically, to pass and control the play once teammates recover pucks. Some coaches appreciate that. Some don't.

 

[Stoneberg]

I get why you did this but there's a couple of D available who are better at what Seabrook brings, just without the right shot. Does matching the shot side really justify taking an inferior player?

Depends on the gap between the players, but also the situation. If we'd taken another left shot we would have ended up with 5 lefties and one righty on our D (granted Lapointe was known to usually play the right side). I can't speak for others but I would certainly knock a team that ended up with 5LD and only 1RD, just as I will knock D pairings that have two dmen of the same handedness' with no support for one of them playing their off side. How significantly would depend on the scenario, I'm not just going to give 50% value to a dman playing his off side unless it's a guy who's not good with the puck who definitely never played that side. It'll be the same for forwards playing out of position for me, I'll evaluate it case by case.

Also there have already been many dmen taken who were certainly lesser parts of their teams defensive core than Seabrook was as Chicago's #2 during his prime and their cup runs so it's not like he's some scrub.

 

[VanIslander]

...could pick only one of Jacques Plante or Patrick Roy or one of Rocket Richard or Guy Lafleur

1. Richard
2. Roy
3. Plante
4. Lafleur

That was easy. Give me psycho intense Maurice and Patrick and their grandmothers and we'll mop the ice with most teams!

 

[jarek]

Goldilocks didn't backcheck much.

If the opposition pissed him off he'd drop the gloves or take a retalitory penalty.

He did forecheck in San Jose,... at times... but still.... backchecking and penalty killing didn't interest him.

Give him the puck and he'll grit his teeth, float and pass.

Yeah! I wasn't surprised he was traded. I was NOT alone. There were several who questioned his competitiveness, not just the Bruins GM.

Is this really the same player we're talking about? Joe Thornton, who in the playoffs at least, was said to have sacrificed some of his offense to play better defensively?

Depends on the gap between the players, but also the situation. If we'd taken another left shot we would have ended up with 5 lefties and one righty on our D (granted Lapointe was known to usually play the right side). I can't speak for others but I would certainly knock a team that ended up with 5LD and only 1RD, just as I will knock D pairings that have two dmen of the same handedness' with no support for one of them playing their off side. How significantly would depend on the scenario, I'm not just going to give 50% value to a dman playing his off side unless it's a guy who's not good with the puck who definitely never played that side. It'll be the same for forwards playing out of position for me, I'll evaluate it case by case.

Also there have already been many dmen taken who were certainly lesser parts of their teams defensive core than Seabrook was as Chicago's #2 during his prime and their cup runs so it's not like he's some scrub.

Didn't realize you had so many LD already!

Would you really punish a guy that severely for playing his off side? That seems way too harsh to me.

As seventies pointed out already, something like 65-75% of current D are left shots. At some point, you have to go with the superior talent over which side they shoot from.

 

[seventieslord]

I hate the ignorant **** I have to deal with sometimes around here.

You mean when you say something factually incorrect and multiple people tell you that it's incorrect?

What's next, you're gonna say we're fake news?

 

[895]

Within the constraints imposed on that 'Ultimate Canadiens team' it still made no sense whatsoever to include Mike Komisarek.

 

[seventieslord]

Within the constraints imposed on that 'Ultimate Canadiens team' it still made no sense whatsoever to include Mike Komisarek.

.....yeah. Some of it was indefensible. I was only commenting on the Richard/Lafleur thing.

 

[Stoneberg]

Didn't realize you had so many LD already!

Would you really punish a guy that severely for playing his off side? That seems way too harsh to me.

As seventies pointed out already, something like 65-75% of current D are left shots. At some point, you have to go with the superior talent over which side they shoot from.

Yeah the 50% was an extreme example of course, like a pure defensive defenseman who was known not to handle the puck well playing a side he never played. Obviously for more talented guys (the majority of guys in the ATD) I will be much more forgiving, depending on the situation. If it's a guy who's clearly out of position I'd probably give most ATD caliber guys 85-95% value, but it's certainly not something I'm going to completely overlook when evaluating teams as if they can easily just switch sides and be equally as good on their off side.

 

[VanIslander]

You mean when you say something factually incorrect and multiple people tell you that it's incorrect?

I can't square it with my experience.

Sometimes you're a Cassandra.

So be it.

 

[seventieslord]

I can't square it with my experience.

So for the record, do you now accept he was never sent down to the AHL or anywhere else?

(I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you that Thornton had defensive shortcomings when he got to the NHL and our fact checking was specifically on your AHL note.)

 

[895]

VI, memory is a funny thing.

I swear to god I grew up in a grey stone house. Even now when I think back to it, it's stone.

Last year on a road trip I drove by it. Was made of bricks. At first I thought the new owners re-faced it or something but I dug out some old photos and yep, it was brick the entire time.

 

[VanIslander]

So for the record, do you now accept he was never sent down to the AHL or anywhere else?

(I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you that Thornton had defensive shortcomings when he got to the NHL and our fact checking was specifically on your AHL note.)

He wasn't on the ice in 6-9 games I went to his rookie season.

It's entirely possible - as I've mentioned - that he was in the press box as a healthy scratch (in the line-up but NOT dressed!) for a LOT of games. That'd explain a lot.

Though, I still recall at least one report of the coach's comments on him being SENT somewhere (I thought back to juniors). Yeah, memory is a funny thing.

 

[jarek]

Yeah the 50% was an extreme example of course, like a pure defensive defenseman who was known not to handle the puck well playing a side he never played. Obviously for more talented guys (the majority of guys in the ATD) I will be much more forgiving, depending on the situation. If it's a guy who's clearly out of position I'd probably give most ATD caliber guys 85-95% value, but it's certainly not something I'm going to completely overlook when evaluating teams as if they can easily just switch sides and be equally as good on their off side.

Makes sense. I personally couldn't justify more than a 5-10% hit, unless there's clear evidence the player was incapable of playing their off side.