Confirmed with Link: Michal Handzus to Chicago for SJ's own 2013 4th round pick back

[SJeasy]

And this doesn't account for their place in the draft etc...

How are your golden boys Detroit doing this year?

You can't go year by year for analysis, you have to take at least 5 years increments to get a reasonable read.

Detroit was golden at grabbing top talent late. Not so hot recently. Detroit never drafted quantity. NJ, SJ, Colorado and Montreal were the kings of quantity when I did the study. My current issue is that SJ is down on the quantity side and down again on quality. When I did the study I accounted for pick position and quantity of picks. I used a system where a #1 pick was worth 250 points, a #250 pick worth 1 point. The fewer points expended to get an NHL player the better. There was also a 1-5 scale on skill ratings of those players. 5 best, 1 worst.

 

[OldAsianSharksFan]

Bruce Garrioch ‏@SunGarrioch 2m

Michal Handzus had the choice four teams _ including the Winnipeg Jets when he made his decision to go to Chicago. #TRADTRACKER

I rather we rip off a Western Conf foe than an Eastern Conf team.

A 4th is a steal for Handzus

 

[Barrie22]

You have to compare to what other teams do. You can't just look at your own team. Ideally, a team grabs 9 NHL players every 3 years. 2 of them as top 6/top 4 and 7 bottom of the lineup players. There is a big dichotomy in career length for top 6/top 4 and bottom of the lineup players (~15 years vs ~5 years). Huge turnover at the bottom of the lineup. No team hits the ideal, the compensation is in unsigned players like Matt Read, etc.

In recent drafting, DW has been far below par. There was a point at which the Sharks were #2 in drafting from the 2nd round onwards. Not anymore (since 2003). The Sharks are also behind the eight ball in drafting top 3/top pairing. At this point in their history, they should have about 4 of those. They have Marleau with Couture and Michalek as marginal for that rating. On the defensive side, Ehrhoff is their claim to fame with honorable mention to Rathje and Hannan, none of whom are solidly top pairing.

so the sharks downfall in drafting, started right at the exact same time they started making the playoffs for the past 10 years? nope that doesn't seem odd to me.

 

[magic school bus]

Bruce Garrioch ‏@SunGarrioch 2m

Michal Handzus had the choice four teams _ including the Winnipeg Jets when he made his decision to go to Chicago. #TRADTRACKER

Garrioch can't even get a hashtag right.

 

[Coily]

Garrioch can't even get a hashtag right.

Welcome to Trad Cntr

 

[SJeasy]

so the sharks downfall in drafting, started right at the exact same time they started making the playoffs for the past 10 years? nope that doesn't seem odd to me.

They had made the playoffs for 6 of 7 years prior. Bad argument.

And DL was more active trading than DW was initially. What DW has done is gone to packaging picks to move up where DL was not quite as active in pulling that maneuver.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Love this deadline. Clear out deadspace, lower the cap and get good pick, to boot. Now, if they trade Clowe sooner than later, they'll still have time to use some of their acquired futures and get a good player(s) from another team.

 

[OrrNumber4]

They had made the playoffs for 6 of 7 years prior. Bad argument.

And DL was more active trading than DW was initially. What DW has done is gone to packaging picks to move up where DL was not quite as active in pulling that maneuver.

Yes, being 3rd to 8th seed vs. 1-3rd seed.

Dean Lombardi definitely traded down; DW obviously prefers to trade up.

I mean, what you are crictizing is the Sharks's overall strategy, not their actual drafting strategy. A big reason they don't have a lot of those talented players is because they've traded picks away for rentals.

 

[Nighthock]

Another nice return ... Dayum Doug!

 

[Led Zappa]

Yes, being 3rd to 8th seed vs. 1-3rd seed.

Dean Lombardi definitely traded down; DW obviously prefers to trade up.

I mean, what you are crictizing is the Sharks's overall strategy, not their actual drafting strategy. A big reason they don't have a lot of those talented players is because they've traded picks away for rentals.

And Thornton's and Boyle's and Burn's....

 

[Wedontneedroads]

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

2 2nd's and a 4th for Murray and Handzus. Also 5.6+ off the cap.

WTG DW!

 

[SJeasy]

Yes, being 3rd to 8th seed vs. 1-3rd seed.

Dean Lombardi definitely traded down; DW obviously prefers to trade up.

I mean, what you are crictizing is the Sharks's overall strategy, not their actual drafting strategy. A big reason they don't have a lot of those talented players is because they've traded picks away for rentals.

No, the reason they don't have 4 top 3/top pair is that they blew it in the early years. Falloon, Rathje, Stuart, Zyuzin. You have to load up when you have top 3 picks. The Sharks weren't wanting for top picks.

I criticize their strategy primarily for two things. They overvalue size early (other teams have the same fault). They overvalue drafting defensemen early. There is a higher success rate for forwards by a large percentage early in the draft. A lot of #1 dmen have been picked after the first round, not so much on top 3 forwards. If a dman is to be taken early, a lot more research has to be done by the scouts.

 

[JodyShelleysNo1Fan]

Wow, build a statue of Doug Wilson in front of HP now.

 

[Negatively Positive]

2 2nd's and a 4th for Murray and Handzus. Also 5.6+ off the cap.

WTG DW!

Watch him only get a 7th for Clowe

 

[Kitten Mittons]

Watch him only get a 7th for Clowe

White+Rahimi.

 

[Coily]

White+Rahimi.

Colin White that is.

 

[19sharks19]

Awesome.

Clint would have been a great coach in his good days of old.

 

[Barrie22]

They had made the playoffs for 6 of 7 years prior. Bad argument.

And DL was more active trading than DW was initially. What DW has done is gone to packaging picks to move up where DL was not quite as active in pulling that maneuver.

oh so that doesn't help your case any more now either. so the sharks have been successful for 16 out of the past 18 years in the league, even though they still don't meet your criteria of drafting.

so the sharks must be good at something right? lol

 

[Church Hill]

You can't go year by year for analysis, you have to take at least 5 years increments to get a reasonable read.

Detroit was golden at grabbing top talent late. Not so hot recently. Detroit never drafted quantity. NJ, SJ, Colorado and Montreal were the kings of quantity when I did the study. My current issue is that SJ is down on the quantity side and down again on quality. When I did the study I accounted for pick position and quantity of picks. I used a system where a #1 pick was worth 250 points, a #250 pick worth 1 point. The fewer points expended to get an NHL player the better. There was also a 1-5 scale on skill ratings of those players. 5 best, 1 worst.

That's not a particularly statistically rigorous method to do it, honestly. It seems like a lot of work but the results still have a lot of holes. If I were to do such a study (I may if I find more free time), I would evaluate since the year 2000 to about 2006 and mathematically determine some probability of a player drafted making the NHL given his draft position (you could subdivide by rounds, or by 10s). Something like p(NHL | #1) == 90%, p(NHL | #5) = 5%, etc. This would be taken on average from all non-Sharks teams over the years. Then you can simply compare the Sharks drafting in that period of time to the other teams with as much precision (round vs 10 spots vs 5 spots vs at minimum 2 spots) as you'd like.

It's still not statistically foolproof, but it gives you a real idea of the amount of players drafted appearing in the NHL. Only once you have that footing can you begin grouping these players based on skill, lines, etc.

I haven't proofread the above since I'm running out now, hopefullly it makes sense

 

[OrrNumber4]

No, the reason they don't have 4 top 3/top pair is that they blew it in the early years. Falloon, Rathje, Stuart, Zyuzin. You have to load up when you have top 3 picks. The Sharks weren't wanting for top picks.

I criticize their strategy primarily for two things. They overvalue size early (other teams have the same fault). They overvalue drafting defensemen early. There is a higher success rate for forwards by a large percentage early in the draft. A lot of #1 dmen have been picked after the first round, not so much on top 3 forwards. If a dman is to be taken early, a lot more research has to be done by the scouts.

Again, the Sharks's organization has changed a lot since 1991. The group is not just the same. Practically every franchise struggles at drafting right out of the gate.

 

[CrazedZooChimp]

And Thornton's and Boyle's and Burn's....

We didn't trade any picks or prospects for Thornton, and Burns we got a pick pack (although it was trading a 1st for a 2nd). Sooo...not really. We did most of our dumping of picks (or prospects who actually panned out) for rentals. I suppose Coyle might pan out.

edit: should add, most of those rentals sucked.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Watch him only get a 7th for Clowe

I doubt gm's are like a lot of the 13 year olds on this site. I'm sure they'll take more of a Shero approach and look at the body of work and the past vs this years goal production. Oddly enough, Clowe is 2nd on the team in assists.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

That's not a particularly statistically rigorous method to do it, honestly. It seems like a lot of work but the results still have a lot of holes. If I were to do such a study (I may if I find more free time), I would evaluate since the year 2000 to about 2006 and mathematically determine some probability of a player drafted making the NHL given his draft position (you could subdivide by rounds, or by 10s). Something like p(NHL | #1) == 90%, p(NHL | #5) = 5%, etc. This would be taken on average from all non-Sharks teams over the years. Then you can simply compare the Sharks drafting in that period of time to the other teams with as much precision (round vs 10 spots vs 5 spots vs at minimum 2 spots) as you'd like.

It's still not statistically foolproof, but it gives you a real idea of the amount of players drafted appearing in the NHL. Only once you have that footing can you begin grouping these players based on skill, lines, etc.

I haven't proofread the above since I'm running out now, hopefullly it makes sense

We can argue til we're blue in the face about who is better at what. The Sharks have made their money with trades and getting lucky in the later rounds. They have their issues with drafting in certain areas. They have their issues with signing personnel for depth positions. Overall, they're in a better position than most but some of their weaknesses is catching up with them. However, they've shown some signs of going in a different direction.

They can make improvements which is what they ought to be striving for. The personnel at the NHL level seems to be making that transition in some respects. A lot of where they can improve is at the scouting and development level. They better hope Hertl turns into something significant and they find a good young winger through this transition either by trading Clowe or using their pick(s). They need a lot of help there.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

White+Rahimi.

At least that cluster**** became a 2nd rounder...