Prospect Info: Sharks Prospect Info & Discussion Megathread XXI: "New, improved, and wayyyy too much info" Edition

[Zarzh]

That trade was one of the best value trades we’ve had that has ended up the worst. At the time, the trade itself LOVED it and still do. The picks have been terrible though. Can’t say I would have taken Hutson (and most of us can’t) but I would have gone Kulich, Chesley, and Casey so 2/3 for sure better already.

Hutson is the easiest pick out of the last few drafts (except for Artamonov), Casey might be fine but his offense seems less sustainable so far. There's like 5 viable picks for 11 that could have filled a major need, Bystedt could as well technically, but there just wasn't much talent in the 2nd round that you should expect good results.

 

[Gecklund]

Hutson is the easiest pick out of the last few drafts (except for Artamonov), Casey might be fine but his offense seems less sustainable so far. There's like 5 viable picks for 11 that could have filled a major need, Bystedt could as well technically, but there just wasn't much talent in the 2nd round that you should expect good results.

I’m talking without hindsight cause I think that’s cheating. You can’t judge a team for missing a player every single team passed one.

 

[Zarzh]

I’m talking without hindsight cause I think that’s cheating. You can’t judge a team for missing a player every single team passed one.

Hutson had ridiculous pre-draft stats and ability. There's some nuance early in the draft, but past a point you should just take the player who scores too much for their league.

 

[Gecklund]

Hutson had ridiculous pre-draft stats and ability. There's some nuance early in the draft, but past a point you should just take the player who scores too much for their league.

Great and there’s multiple players every year that defy that. You’re also completely ignoring development and pretending he’d be the exact same player on the sharks and we don’t know that.

 

[Zarzh]

Great and there’s multiple players every year that defy that. You’re also completely ignoring development and pretending he’d be the exact same player on the sharks and we don’t know that.

That's more true of Casey than Hutson.

Like who? The players who break the rule are rare that you would destroy the field with let's say picks 15 and 30.

 

[Shark Finn]

You can look back to basically every damn draft and go "they should've picked player A over B".

 

[OrrNumber4]

You can look back to basically every damn draft and go "they should've picked player A over B".

Sure. But isn't the slippery slope of this argument "you can't criticize a team's drafting because there are always better choices"?

Put another way, how many times, since the lockout, have the Sharks actually taken the best player (or someone at least in the conversation) left on the board? The ones that come to mind are Hertl, Labanc, Ferraro, Braun, Bonino, Wingels, and Demers. Maybe the jury is still out for some of those later years, but is that a good record for a team that wants to be a contender?

Edit: Even Labanc doesn't qualify. Olofsson was drafted after him, and I belive Middleton was the last man of the draft that year (though I might be getting that confused with Keaton). Let me add Wingels as well.

 

[jMoneyBrah]

Sure. But isn't the slippery slope of this argument "you can't criticize a team's drafting because there are always better choices"?

Perhaps I’m just being silly, but specifically using the slippery slope example of an argument as rebuttal strikes me as incredibly unpersuasive. The fact that a lazy and causally dubious counter claim can be made is true of any argument. How can any topic be explored if this is all that is required to invalidate an idea?

Put another way, how many times, since the lockout, have the Sharks actually taken the best player (or someone at least in the conversation) left on the board? The ones that come to mind are Hertl, Labanc, Ferraro, Braun, Bonino, Wingels, and Demers. Maybe the jury is still out for some of those later years, but is that a good record for a team that wants to be a contender?

How many of the decision makers from those Sharks eras are still in the room on draft days now? I can hear critiques of the Wilson regime’s drafts. I can hear critiques of Grier lead drafts. Unless we are to believe there is something systemic to a hockey club being located in the city of San Jose that somehow durably influences their draft day selections, I don’t follow why one would have any bearing on the other.

There are probably markets where that argument could credibly be made, I’ve seen no evidence that San Jose is one of them.

 

[tiburon12]

Sure. But isn't the slippery slope of this argument "you can't criticize a team's drafting because there are always better choices"?

Put another way, how many times, since the lockout, have the Sharks actually taken the best player (or someone at least in the conversation) left on the board? The ones that come to mind are Hertl, Labanc, Ferraro, Braun, Bonino, Wingels, and Demers. Maybe the jury is still out for some of those later years, but is that a good record for a team that wants to be a contender?

Edit: Even Labanc doesn't qualify. Olofsson was drafted after him, and I belive Middleton was the last man of the draft that year (though I might be getting that confused with Keaton). Let me add Wingels as well.

How does how the Sharks fare compare to the rest of the league? that'd be interesting to look at.

Also, Hertl was not the best pick, Vasilevskiy was still on the board.