Prospect Info: Sharks Prospect Info & Discussion Thread XX

[Cas]

Anyone have news on Beaupit? I think Sharks need to sign him by June 1 or they lose his rights and he heads back to the draft.

He flunked out of the WHL, so I can't imagine they see any future for him.

 

[hohosaregood]

He flunked out of the WHL, so I can't imagine they see any future for him.

I randomly checked in on Ben Gaudreau and he's basically funking out of the OHL too

 

[Lebanezer]

I randomly checked in on Ben Gaudreau and he's basically funking out of the OHL too

 

[Gecklund]

He flunked out of the WHL, so I can't imagine they see any future for him.

I’d agree but still he’s a Grier pick so not sure if they just give him the shot.

 

[Cas]

I’d agree but still he’s a Grier pick so not sure if they just give him the shot.

He's only technically a Grier pick - the scouting team that did all the work was still Wilson's, and they obviously had no idea how to evaluate goalies.

 

[Sendhelplease]

I’d agree but still he’s a Grier pick so not sure if they just give him the shot.

I certainly hope not. I like that Grier has been ruthless with Doug Wilson's mistakes, I hope he holds himself to the same standard.

 

[Star Platinum]

I’d agree but still he’s a Grier pick so not sure if they just give him the shot.

Grier was named general manager on July 5, 2022. The draft that year was held on July 7-8 that year. Hard to say that Grier was very prepared for that draft. The 2023 draft is one where he had no excuse not to own it. If the 2024 draft goes well beyond the Celebrini pick (which any GM could make), then I think we have good reason to believe Grier knows what he's doing in the draft. If he flubs the #14 pick and doesn't have any success stories from later in the draft to compensate, then maybe you start thinking that 2023 was more luck than skill.

 

[rekrul]

Grier was named general manager on July 5, 2022. The draft that year was held on July 7-8 that year. Hard to say that Grier was very prepared for that draft. The 2023 draft is one where he had no excuse not to own it. If the 2024 draft goes well beyond the Celebrini pick (which any GM could make), then I think we have good reason to believe Grier knows what he's doing in the draft. If he flubs the #14 pick and doesn't have any success stories from later in the draft to compensate, then maybe you start thinking that 2023 was more luck than skill.

Trading down was a poor draft decision by Grier, going from #11 for depth of #27 Bystedt #34 Cam Lund #45 Havelid when Mateuchuk was on the board. Lot o average never adds up to quality in prospects. Most panned the move at the time, you trade down in the NFL not the NHL

 

[themelkman]

Trading down was a poor draft decision by Grier, going from #11 for depth of #27 Bystedt #34 Cam Lund #45 Havelid when Mateuchuk was on the board. Lot o average never adds up to quality in prospects. Most panned the move at the time, you trade down in the NFL not the NHL

Thats just blatantly false. All the data shows having more picks in the NHL is the optimal strategy because players are picked very young and are unpredictable in what their outcomes will be.

I know nothing about NFL drafting but I dont see why trading down would make any sense when players are much closer to finished products when drafted and join teams very soon.

 

[Jargon]

Trading down was a poor draft decision by Grier, going from #11 for depth of #27 Bystedt #34 Cam Lund #45 Havelid when Mateuchuk was on the board. Lot o average never adds up to quality in prospects. Most panned the move at the time, you trade down in the NFL not the NHL

I think whether it was a good decision or not remains to be seen but I think the fact that Grier JUST arrived and our prospect pool was depressingly sad, I don’t think telling his staff to pick for quantity is unreasonable. We still don’t know how that’ll work out exactly but it wasn’t an egregious error or anything.

 

[LilLeeroy]

Trading down was a poor draft decision by Grier, going from #11 for depth of #27 Bystedt #34 Cam Lund #45 Havelid when Mateuchuk was on the board. Lot o average never adds up to quality in prospects. Most panned the move at the time, you trade down in the NFL not the NHL

It's hard to find good players, whether trading up or down, when you're working from a Doug Wilson Jr. draft board though. There were definitely good players available at those picks.

 

[Star Platinum]

Thats just blatantly false. All the data shows having more picks in the NHL is the optimal strategy because players are picked very young and are unpredictable in what their outcomes will be.

I know nothing about NFL drafting but I dont see why trading down would make any sense when players are much closer to finished products when drafted and join teams very soon.

Well, NFL teams have a 53 man roster with a high injury attrition rate, so unless the guy is a true difference making player (usually quarterbacks), you want to have lots of picks. Plus unlike the other three U.S. sports, football players are not draft eligible until after their third season from when they entered college, so you have a much better track record of them playing against higher level competition. Still, like any league, tons of examples of draft busts.

NHL rosters have 23 man rosters with 20 active for games, so there are a lot fewer spots to dole out per team.

My thoroughly uneducated guess is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I agree generally with the @rekrul position that trading down in the NHL is probably a mistake most of the time because the chance of a guy being an impact player really goes down fast in the NHL draft. But, at the same time, I don't think those later round picks should be treated as the disposable throw-in garbage that DW treated them as in order to trade for mediocre veterans because even if your later round picks aren't all going to be impact players, let alone even replacement level NHL players, you still want to have a lot of organizational depth. It's a losing numbers game and the Sharks eventually found that out the hard way.

Trading down should be a situational choice where your pick is about to come up and you like say about six guys equally and figure moving down 4-5 spots means you'll still get a player you like while maybe not getting the player you like the best, but you also get more lottery tickets in the process. 11-27 is too much of a trade down IMO - there's no way you're getting a guy at 27 that's anywhere near as good as you would get at 11 most of the time. And I think we have enough information now to know that that particular trade was a mistake.

The thing I don't like to do with drafts is the 20/20 hindsight analysis where something like maybe 3 guys out of 10 that were drafted after the pick you made a mistake on end up being better than whatever you did with the pick (use it or trade it). If it's more like 7 or 8 out of 10, then yeah you blew it, but that kind of 20/20 hindsight ignores the fact that although 3 out of 10 guys ended up being better, 7 out of 10 of them were mistakes. Drafting is an inexact art and even the best GM's are going to have their share of mistakes. What you are hoping for is to have a GM that is right more often than he is wrong and has a couple of big successes to his credit.

 

[Celly4Celebrini]

Thats just blatantly false. All the data shows having more picks in the NHL is the optimal strategy because players are picked very young and are unpredictable in what their outcomes will be.

I know nothing about NFL drafting but I dont see why trading down would make any sense when players are much closer to finished products when drafted and join teams very soon.

NFL has 22 guys that play each snap, and shorter career spans. A good career is 6-7 years. Its nearly double that in the NHL. you simply dont need as many players, and theres less turnover year to year.

 

[themelkman]

NFL has 22 guys that play each snap, and shorter career spans. A good career is 6-7 years. Its nearly double that in the NHL. you simply dont need as many players, and theres less turnover year to year.

Makes sense, I didnt factor in the increased number of players you need on the field. Like I said I am not a football guy, but I know in the NHL all the writing I have read says that more draft picks = more chances of impact players.

 

[Sendhelplease]

Trading down was a poor draft decision by Grier, going from #11 for depth of #27 Bystedt #34 Cam Lund #45 Havelid when Mateuchuk was on the board. Lot o average never adds up to quality in prospects. Most panned the move at the time, you trade down in the NFL not the NHL

This is an absurd take, that trade was a coup by Grier and you can make a reasonable argument that Bystedt is a better prospect than the Conor Geekie who was taken at 11 by the Coyotes. I would much rather have Bystedt, Lund, and Havelid than Geekie or Mateychuk.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

This is an absurd take, that trade was a coup by Grier and you can make a reasonable argument that Bystedt is a better prospect than the Conor Geekie who was taken at 11 by the Coyotes. I would much rather have Bystedt, Lund, and Havelid than Geekie or Mateychuk.

Having Mateychuk or someone like McGroarty would be nice but yes the value we got out of the trade was a win. Maybe we could've drafted some different guys like Luneau. Hutson, etc. but oh well.

 

[Hodge]

Having Mateychuk or someone like McGroarty would be nice but yes the value we got out of the trade was a win. Maybe we could've drafted some different guys like Luneau. Hutson, etc. but oh well.

Nobody listed in this post has done jack shit at the NHL level

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Nobody listed in this post has done jack shit at the NHL level

Well yeah this is a prospect thread and we're talking about a draft in which only a few players have made the NHL. Like I said, value wise it was a good trade. My point is say we drafted Luneau and Hutson in round 2 that year our D pipeline looks much better than it currently is.

 

[Hodge]

Well yeah this is a prospect thread and we're talking about a draft in which only a few players have made the NHL. Like I said, value wise it was a good trade. My point is say we drafted Luneau and Hutson in round 2 that year our D pipeline looks much better than it currently is.

Based on what? Those guys could easily fail to develop into anything meaningful.

If we're going to do hindsight analysis on draft picks, let's at least wait until they've actually proven something in the NHL.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Based on what? Those guys could easily fail to develop into anything meaningful.

If we're going to do hindsight analysis on draft picks, let's at least wait until they've actually proven something in the NHL.

Based on the fact our D prospect pool sucks and they have looked good in their respective leagues so far. Why are you taking this so serious?

Not sure why it's such a big deal I said our prospect pool would look better having Hutson/Luneau instead of Lund/Havelid.

 

[Hodge]

Based on the fact our D prospect pool sucks and they have looked good in their respective leagues so far. Why are you taking this so serious?

Not sure why it's such a big deal I said our prospect pool would look better having Hutson/Luneau instead of Lund/Havelid.

Lund and Havelid have also looked good in their respective leagues. You have no idea who will end up being better NHL players. The most likely outcome is that all 4 will fail to make it.

 

[themelkman]

Having Mateychuk or someone like McGroarty would be nice but yes the value we got out of the trade was a win. Maybe we could've drafted some different guys like Luneau. Hutson, etc. but oh well.

Yeah exactly the issue is not the trade, and it’s too early to say it’s an issue anyways.

If one of those three becomes a regular NHLer, that’s a pretty fine outcome for 11th overall.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

You have no idea who will end up being better NHL players.

Exactly. That's why I ended my original thought with "oh well".

Again I have not projected these guys in NHL lineups, commented on potential, or anything like that. I simply said our prospect pool would look better if we drafted those 2 as examples. I'd take Luneau or Hutson over Havelid every day of the week. Whether or not they become NHL defenseman is not a point I've made.

 

[Hodge]

Exactly. That's why I ended my original thought with "oh well".

Again I have not projected these guys in NHL lineups, commented on potential, or anything like that. I simply said our prospect pool would look better if we drafted those 2 as examples. I'd take Luneau or Hutson over Havelid every day of the week. Whether or not they become NHL defenseman is not a point I've made.

Yeah I just remember the original complaint on draft day was that we missed out on future superstar Frank Nazar.

Then the guy gets injured and misses an entire year and comes back to barely score a point per game in college hockey, basically identical stats to Lund while being much smaller.

Nobody knows about any of these kids outside maybe the top 2 or 3 picks. Past that, it's always smart to trade down and turn 1 lottery ticket into several.

 

[JotAlan]

I see a lot of people saying that Celebrini will immediately score more than Smith. I think they are offensive talents of similar level, I would give Macklin a slight advantage. But I would like to know how you see their maximum offensive potential.
I believe Macklin has more floor and Smith has more ceiling. Offensively I would say Smith will produce a little, very little, better in the long run.