NEW: Sharks' Rookie Faceoff Reaction!

[coooldude]

This better not be too sobering or it's going to make me need a drink. I propose bringing on only irrationally optimistic Sharks prospectors, aka the Craig Buttons of the Sharks. Where do you find those guys??

It wasn't *too* sobering. It was basically
- Smith looked young at first, then good, and likely next year has the chance to carry the team as 1C, mostly very positive tourney and "big game player"
- Bystedt didn't show much but hasn't lost his potential as a 3C or 4C, less likely 2C or 2nd liner
- Havelid is looking like an NHLer but not likely like a 3/4, more like an Addison 5/6
- Furlong - maybe 5/6 but not likely more
- Pohlkamp maybe has NHL tools but doesn't jump off the page and also 5/6 potential not more.

 

[timorous me]

It wasn't *too* sobering. It was basically
- Smith looked young at first, then good, and likely next year has the chance to carry the team as 1C, mostly very positive tourney and "big game player"
- Bystedt didn't show much but hasn't lost his potential as a 3C or 4C, less likely 2C or 2nd liner
- Havelid is looking like an NHLer but not likely like a 3/4, more like an Addison 5/6
- Furlong - maybe 5/6 but not likely more
- Pohlkamp maybe has NHL tools but doesn't jump off the page and also 5/6 potential not more.

Thanks--I'll be listening! I actually started the episode last night but didn't get to the Peters part.

I know people were down on Bystedt in the WJC, but I do wonder how much his success was impacted by coaching and usage in that tournament. I know he's not lighting it up in Sweden, either, though, so I don't know. I saw some good signs in some games, though, but he does need to get stronger in battles and on the puck and more intense. I still see him as a future 3C who could possibly put up a relatively decent amount of points if surrounded by quality teammates and if he gets some PP time, which I'd also expect.

Furlong is a guy who's always going to be easy to overlook but as @Kcoyote3 was saying last week, he's so smart and savvy in how he defends, and I think not a bad skater or bad with the puck (even if his offensive ceiling is limited) that I really do see a future NHLer there--if things pan out, maybe in the Justin Braun mold.

 

[OrrNumber4]

The way I think about prospects is during their post-draft development (roughly ages 18-24), they need a significant "step up" in their game to reach a higher level. In my opinion, Bystedt has done this once; that gives him that bottom-6 designation. But he has a few years to make another large step and become a top-6 player. Someone like Eklund made one step and is now a top-6 forward. Another one, and he'll be a top-line player.

With mid- and later-round picks, they need 2 or 3 of those jumps to make the NHL. Take someone like Ethan Cardwell; he's already gone through 3 or 4 of these and is still likely to top out as a 4th line kind of guy.

 

[timorous me]

The way I think about prospects is during their post-draft development (roughly ages 18-24), they need a significant "step up" in their game to reach a higher level. In my opinion, Bystedt has done this once; that gives him that bottom-6 designation. But he has a few years to make another large step and become a top-6 player. Someone like Eklund made one step and is now a top-6 forward. Another one, and he'll be a top-line player.

With mid- and later-round picks, they need 2 or 3 of those jumps to make the NHL. Take someone like Ethan Cardwell; he's already gone through 3 or 4 of these and is still likely to top out as a 4th line kind of guy.

Eklund's obviously struggling to score lately--though that's nothing unique to the team in general--but I like that he's continuing to do a lot of things right, even if he's getting a little worn down by the grind (the schedule and all the losses).

I'm excited to see, even if the rest of the season isn't as good in terms of points as we'd like, how he comes out next season (ideally with a little more talent around him in the top six), because like you said, he's already shown some important development and I think has more room to grow yet. (I also think he could be a really good influence for Bystedt, especially in terms of getting his fellow Swede to add more grit to his game.)

 

[Juxtaposer]

It wasn't *too* sobering. It was basically
- Smith looked young at first, then good, and likely next year has the chance to carry the team as 1C, mostly very positive tourney and "big game player"
- Bystedt didn't show much but hasn't lost his potential as a 3C or 4C, less likely 2C or 2nd liner
- Havelid is looking like an NHLer but not likely like a 3/4, more like an Addison 5/6
- Furlong - maybe 5/6 but not likely more
- Pohlkamp maybe has NHL tools but doesn't jump off the page and also 5/6 potential not more.

I definitely wouldn’t consider this assessment “down” by any means. Isn’t this already how we feel about those guys?

 

[coooldude]

I definitely wouldn’t consider this assessment “down” by any means. Isn’t this already how we feel about those guys?

I agree, I was expecting much more of a downer when I read the description!

 

[Kcoyote3]

I definitely wouldn’t consider this assessment “down” by any means. Isn’t this already how we feel about those guys?

After now interacting with a bunch of Sharks fans outside the HF bubble, we are extremely rational overall. Most people crucify you if every 1st rounder isn’t projected to be a 1st liner lol. Think that’s where Sheng was coming from, plus we did have some other people like Steven hyping up prospects more.

 

[CaptainShark]

I definitely wouldn’t consider this assessment “down” by any means. Isn’t this already how we feel about those guys?

The only one that I saw in a bit more positive light was Havelid, but that´s probably due to my complete lack of knowledge in judging prospects

 

[tiburon12]

After now interacting with a bunch of Sharks fans outside the HF bubble, we are extremely rational overall. Most people crucify you if every 1st rounder isn’t projected to be a 1st liner lol. Think that’s where Sheng was coming from, plus we did have some other people like Steven hyping up prospects more.

Just hop on reddit or Sharks twitter for 2 mins and one can grok that this place is actually super rational. At least our small board/community (can't say for other teams with more active posters).

 

[CaptainShark]

After now interacting with a bunch of Sharks fans outside the HF bubble, we are extremely rational overall. Most people crucify you if every 1st rounder isn’t projected to be a 1st liner lol. Think that’s where Sheng was coming from, plus we did have some other people like Steven hyping up prospects more.

I think that’s because we have some very knowledgeable contributors who set all of us other posters, who would usually act like those other posters you described, straight.

That and experience with for example Labanc, Chmelevski, Goldobin, Checkhovic, etc.

 

[OrrNumber4]

HF is properly moderated. That's why it's a great forum for discussion. Personal attacks, tomfoolery, etc. are not allowed. On the other hand, any hockey opinion is accepted and nobody is banned for wrong-think (at worst, you might be asked to post in the appropriate place) as long as people are acting in reasonably good faith.

That being said, maybe hockey subforums on reddit are bad, and I'm not a real big reddit user overall, but CMV might be the most useful discussion resource on the planet.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

It wasn't *too* sobering. It was basically
- Smith looked young at first, then good, and likely next year has the chance to carry the team as 1C, mostly very positive tourney and "big game player"
- Bystedt didn't show much but hasn't lost his potential as a 3C or 4C, less likely 2C or 2nd liner
- Havelid is looking like an NHLer but not likely like a 3/4, more like an Addison 5/6
- Furlong - maybe 5/6 but not likely more
- Pohlkamp maybe has NHL tools but doesn't jump off the page and also 5/6 potential not more.

Sharks should have drafted Casey and Hutson instead of Lund and Havelid IMHO

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Sharks should have drafted Casey and Hutson instead of Lund and Havelid IMHO

Or Firkus, Luneau, or Poitras.

Drafting Bystedt over Kulich looks horrendous too.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Or Firkus, Luneau, or Poitras.

Drafting Bystedt over Kulich looks horrendous too.

I had Howard one spot ahead of Kulich, but I was extremely high on Kulich relative to public consensus after Kulich's dominant U18 and his 1st year Czech league stats, pretty comparable to what Necas did in his 17 year old season as well.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Sharks should have drafted Casey and Hutson instead of Lund and Havelid IMHO

Yeah, thanks, we know.

 

[Hodge]

Drafting Bystedt over Kulich looks horrendous too.

Way too dramatic when we still have no idea what Bystedt or Kulich will turn into at the NHL level

 

[CupfortheSharks]

You can look at almost every draft by every team and say “they should have drafted player x instead of player y.” Drafting the best 18 year old is difficult and hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Alaskanice]

You can look at almost every draft by every team and say “they should have drafted player x instead of player y.” Drafting the best 18 year old is difficult and hindsight is 20/20.

And yet they say it.

 

[Juxtaposer]

You can look at almost every draft by every team and say “they should have drafted player x instead of player y.” Drafting the best 18 year old is difficult and hindsight is 20/20.

At the same time, the trade should and will be graded by how the players selected turned out. You don’t turn 11th overall into 28th, 34th, and 45th unless you think you’re going to out-draft the field. I said this on the day of the trade and I’ll say it again now.

If the Sharks had taken Kulich, Casey, and Hutson, all of whom were BPAs at their slots, our prospect pool looks twice as good and the rebuild is probably sped up by a year. I won’t blame Grier exactly for the situation since he had literally just been named GM days before, so realistically that was a DWJr. draft, but it’s still a setback that none of the players selected look like they’re likely to be impact players. Especially when you compare them to the BPA at 11th, whom I wanted at that slot on the day of the draft, Nazar.

 

[OrrNumber4]

At the same time, the trade should and will be graded by how the players selected turned out. You don’t turn 11th overall into 28th, 34th, and 45th unless you think you’re going to out-draft the field. I said this on the day of the trade and I’ll say it again now.

If the Sharks had taken Kulich, Casey, and Hutson, all of whom were BPAs at their slots, our prospect pool looks twice as good and the rebuild is probably sped up by a year. I won’t blame Grier exactly for the situation since he had literally just been named GM days before, so realistically that was a DWJr. draft, but it’s still a setback that none of the players selected look like they’re likely to be impact players. Especially when you compare them to the BPA at 11th, whom I wanted at that slot on the day of the draft, Nazar.

It's perfectly fine to say x team should have drafted someone else, but such statements must be weighted.

Certain models and measurements might suggest that one prospect is better than another (meaning higher potential or better likelihood of making the NHL). But when talking about late first and 2nd round talents, the error bars are so high that you need to wait 5-7 years (at least) to see how it all plays out.

 

[Hodge]

You don’t turn 11th overall into 28th, 34th, and 45th unless you think you’re going to out-draft the field.

This is exactly backwards. You turn 11 into 28, 34 and 45 because you think you can't outdraft the field. It's an acknowledgement that you're not going to be the one team per decade that lands a star at 11th overall and are better off taking as many shots as possible at finding a decent depth NHLer.

 

[Sendhelplease]

This is exactly backwards. You turn 11 into 28, 34 and 45 because you think you can't outdraft the field. It's an acknowledgement that you're not going to be the one team per decade that lands a star at 11th overall and are better off taking as many shots as possible at finding a decent depth NHLer.

Also turning 11 into 28, 34, and 45 is excellent value for the Sharks based on most pick value models. I haven't seen anything to suggest that Nazar has a better chance of being more valuable than Bystedt, Lund, and Havelid combinned.

 

[Hodge]

Also turning 11 into 28, 34, and 45 is excellent value for the Sharks based on most pick value models. I haven't seen anything to suggest that Nazar has a better chance of being more valuable than Bystedt, Lund, and Havelid combinned.

The draft is just so random that trading down in that position is obviously the prudent move. Even if you think you have a perfect evaluation of every prospect at the time of the draft (which nobody does) there is simply no predicting how these guys will develop post-draft. Unless you’re getting a genuine sure thing which is usually only possible with the top 1-3 picks, trade down and get more darts.

 

[Juxtaposer]

This is exactly backwards. You turn 11 into 28, 34 and 45 because you think you can't outdraft the field. It's an acknowledgement that you're not going to be the one team per decade that lands a star at 11th overall and are better off taking as many shots as possible at finding a decent depth NHLer.

Sure, you could also take it as a “we have absolutely no f***ing clue what to do and are hoping to get lucky”, but that’s kinda my point. Stupid, top to bottom.

 

[Hodge]

Sure, you could also take it as a “we have absolutely no f***ing clue what to do and are hoping to get lucky”, but that’s kinda my point. Stupid, top to bottom.

How is it stupid to objectively increase your odds of drafting a NHL player?

When it comes to the draft nobody has any clue what to do beyond the obvious lottery picks. The only way to beat the system is to accumulate as many picks as possible especially in the top ~40.