All right...I see what's being referenced here now. I don't want to write a dissertation on this, but here's the general deal.
One of the things that folks don't get is the difference in results between drafting and developing. A lot of people look at the results and go, "well, that team can't draft" because they haven't produced a 200 game NHL player since 'Nam. And that may be true. But in some cases, it's development. The scouts are doing fine and the development team is doing poor. So players are dying on the vine or dying on their way to the market.
How do you tell?
Well, that's a great question. For me, I trust my eyes. I watch the players we take in our draft year and write my thoughts on them (assuming I didn't have to already). There have been an irrationally high number of players in the last several years that I'd consider DOA picks - dead on arrival. No chancers. No drafts (ND). That's infuriating. That's on the scouts. This is our problem, in particular. It's not everyone's, but it's ours.
I think someone mentioned that we have one development coach or something. That's not true. Now that [rival organization, which I won't name] has finally increased their staff beyond two dev coaches, there isn't a team out there that has less than two at last check. The Penguins have been heavily invested in development for a while now. We have and had a lot of respected names in the development realm.
That's part of the reason why it seemed like we could scrape some changes out of an ashtray and find out that it's a 1932 Washington quarter. Justin Schultz, Sheary, O'Connor now, Kuhnhackl completely re-did his game, Dumoulin doesn't work half as well in almost any other org, Bryan Rust turning into what he turned into is like finding a wallet full of more wallets, Dominik Simon was a double passover I think and he played, Matt Murray won two Cups somehow, Blugers looked like a player here for most of his career, according to a graph UDFA ZAR was the best defensive forward in hockey history, etc. etc. A lot of these players do almost nothing outside of their time here, right? Some of these guys that have played for us in the last three years aren't even in the league anymore...
It's because this organization really puts the work into developing these players and the organization has that mindset...and as much as you guys strangely don't like to hear it, Sullivan is a big part of that...Ty is a big part of that, when Gonchar and Jacques Martin were here, they were a big part of that. I've heard good reviews on Matt Cullen, but I don't know him and have never talked to him.
Around the league for the last 6, 7, 8 years whatever it's been, Pittsburgh is known as a place where players trying to find their game really get a shot and really get some help. And not just Pittsburgh, the Baby Pens (via Pittsburgh) were really active in trying to brings guys in and they earned their way up into NHL deals and NHL playing time...I mean, come on, Conor Sheary is a walk on that ends up top line in the Cup Final scoring OT goals...that's wild.
Does everyone work out here? No...not everyone works out anywhere. I don't know if there's an org that has a bigger discrepancy in scouting ability/results vs. "throwaway player" development/results (for lack of a better term). If it's not the best in the league over the last decade by a comfortable margin, I might eat a Christmas ornament right off my tree...
Other clubs recognized this and started picking guys off, so there's been some attrition in that regard. I'm optimistic about Dubas and Spezza in this regard to sort of reboot this whole thing. And importantly, start drafting better so that there's something to develop. You watch these AHL games over the last couple, two, three years...these guys coming in...woof, it stinks. And when you look back at the notes, that's the expected result really. What is it again? We've got ~95 NHL skater games since the 2015 or 2016 draft and the majority of them are Calen Addison's in Minnesota? Something like that...
And I think the other point was: Do teams have influence before they're on the farm teams? The answer is yes, absolutely, if you're worth a damn. Development doesn't just happen...it's not a video game. Players don't improve linearly on their own. You need professional influence more often than not. Now, we draft a lot of college bound players, so you usually can't influence organizations and all that kind of stuff as much...but you're involved right after you turn off your microphone at your draft table if you're a good organization that cares about development. Drafting a player at 18 and sitting around expecting them to be pro ready at 20 is not the way you go. You get to them in the summer, you're on the nutrition path, you're on the off-ice workout path, you're going over the games played with them, all that kind of stuff...
