How they almost ended up with a nickelback goal scoring song. Hah at your own risk
Prospect Info: The 2018 NHL Entry Draft Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Juxtaposer
- Start date
- Status
LadyStanley
Registered User
The Nemesis
Semper Tyrannus
Sharks won't draft him. Pete already has his favorite son on the team. There's no more room in his heart.
Painful Quandary
Registered User
You have me picturing DeBoer inviting DeMelo over for Christmas and giving him handmade coupons for icetime as a gift.
The Nemesis
Semper Tyrannus
Meanwhile Jack gets a pack of socks wrapped up with a tag on it that reads "To: Jake"
I believe Deboer legally change his son's name to "Not Dylan"
Gecklund
Registered User
I think I’ve decided why the Sharks aren’t great in the first round. I think they are scared of moving down. I’ve really only been paying attention to the draft since the Hertl pick but this is what I have. Since that pick they have really only traded down for Goldobin. I don’t think they were targeting Goldobin though because in my mind he is not the kind of Sharks pick like ever. I think they were targeting McCann or Pastrnak (maybe even Scherbak) but these three players went the three picks before them. In 2015 they picked Meier with the 9th pick who many had ranked 12-15. I think they could have traded down a little there but not a huge jump. In 2017 they took Norris with the 19th pick who many had ranked between 25-35. This is the big one that made me think about it. I think they were afraid to trade down because with the Goldobin pick they lost their guy(s). So now instead of trading down and risking losing their guy they take who they want at their pick.
Going by this logic I see the Sharks taking Wise, McCleod, Samuelsson, Olofsson, or Hallander. All seem like stereotypical Sharks pick but I’d actually be okay with all of them. Order in which I’d like them Wise, Samuelsson, Olofsson, Hallander, McCleod.
Going by this logic I see the Sharks taking Wise, McCleod, Samuelsson, Olofsson, or Hallander. All seem like stereotypical Sharks pick but I’d actually be okay with all of them. Order in which I’d like them Wise, Samuelsson, Olofsson, Hallander, McCleod.
JoeThorntonsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
This isn’t a bad theory, but the Mueller pick sort of contradicts it. They made sure to trade a 2nd round pick just to move up 2 spots to draft Mirco Mueller. That was pretty terrible.
In general, I think the Sharks pay way too much attention to attributes like character, VO2 max test performance, combine performance, etc. This allows us to hit pretty often on some pretty solid complimentary players in Coyle, Hertl, and Meier. For 6 first round picks since 2010, I think that drafting 3 top-6 forwards and 3 busts is pretty solid. (Let’s just assume for the sake of discussion that Norris busts) Considering that one of those forwards is a complimentary 1st liner in Hertl, and Meier looks to be trending that way, that is a very good, and respectable set of first round picks. However, it isn’t great. To win a Stanley Cup, you need great.
In theory, this isn’t a terrible way to go about doing things when you have a superstar like Joe Thornton in his prime. These pieces rarely tend to lose value quickly, so they can always be traded for valuable assets (ex. Coyle, Mueller), and they can usually step into your NHL lineup fairly soon. Hertl was on our top line at age 22 and he was a big reason we went to the SCF. Even if Teravainen is better now (I don’t think he is, but it’s close), Hertl was significantly better at the time. We wouldn’t have made the SCF in 2016 if we didn’t draft the safe, strong, soon to be ready complimentary piece in Hertl in 2012.
However, we no longer have Joe Thornton in his prime. We have top-end talent on defense in Burns, who is 33 years old, and then arguably Couture/Vlasic/Jones depending on how you define “top-end talent”, but we’re missing top-end talent everywhere else, and we don’t have any of it coming up anywhere. The closest is Meier and Hertl who both could absolutely be top-end complimentary players; in Hertl’s case, he already is. But, had we just gone for the risky boom or bust pick in 2015, we would have our franchise center in Barzal. I’ll just re-post the list:
Since 2010, had we picked the boom or bust, high potential player:
Emerson Etem instead of Charlie Coyle
Teuvo Teravainen instead of Tomas Hertl
Hunter Shinkaruk instead of Mirco Mueller
Joshua Ho-Sang instead of Nikolay Goldobin
Mathew Barzal instead of Timo Meier
So, we would have drafted only 2 NHL players instead of 3. (The jury is out on Ho-Sang, but let’s say he busts) But, we would have drafted two first line playmakers; one of whom is a franchise center, rather than two first line forecheckers and a 2nd line forechecker. I would much rather take Teravainen and Barzal over Hertl, Meier, and
Looking at 2017, it’s too early to call, and I’m not entirely sure who was considered the boom or bust pick with the highest potential when we picked. I think it was either Kailer Yamamoto or Eeli Tolvanen? Either way, those players are looking a hell of a lot more exciting than Joshua Norris right now.
That is why, at #21OV, if Ryan Merkley is available, I would take him. Even if the most likely scenario is that Bode Wilde/Jett Woo become solid 2nd pairing guys, while Merkley busts, I would still take Merkley because of the still realistic scenario that Merkley becomes a franchise defenseman, while Woo/Wilde become 2nd pairing guys.
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
Wilde has just as high an upside as Merkley but an even bigger bust potential. Merkley’s failings are “fixable” things like character and defensive effort. Wilde’s is hockey IQ.
From what we’ve heard about the 9th/Hertl-Shattenkirk/Oshie trade-that-wasn’t, I think DW/Burke were genuinely afraid that Meier would be taken before 9th overall. No chance they would have traded down and risk him being taken.
From what we’ve heard about the 9th/Hertl-Shattenkirk/Oshie trade-that-wasn’t, I think DW/Burke were genuinely afraid that Meier would be taken before 9th overall. No chance they would have traded down and risk him being taken.
JoeThorntonsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
Really? My bad. I know that Wilde’s stats are pretty nice as well. In that case, replace him with K’Andre Miller or another “safe” defenseman in my post for the sake of simplicity.
I don’t know much about these prospects, for the record. So, my posts regarding this draft are more about philosophy of drafting, rather than these specific prospects.
Last edited:
OrrNumber4
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2002
- 16,804
- 6,273
I think the problem with this kind of analysis is that it is still too early for half those players. Barzal could come crashing down to earth next year. Goldobin could take off and develop into a top-6 forward. Ho-Sang can get claimed off waivers, wake up, and become a 30-30 forward.
Regarding the Sharks's draft philosophy, Tim Burke appears to believe that failing to get an NHL player with a first rounder is the biggest blunder he could make. By certain metrics (pick position vs. games played), the Sharks actually look exceptionally good; top-5 if not top-3 in the league.
The Sharks also do seem to outsmart themselves at times. For that, you could maybe blame Dean Lombardi!
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
Le Rosbeef
Registered User
- Jul 27, 2007
- 3,544
- 1,058
That's a solid post.
There is another aspect to this and that's fan perception. I personally think the Sharks fanbase is quite demanding/outspoken at times. Ironically, that might lead a team to make less aggressive (more self-preservation) moves than it might otherwise do towards a 'safer pick'.
Maybe more fans should be openly 'green-lighting' these kind of home run picks and accepting of them if they don't play out? Who knows, it might produce a better outcome...
Seems like the Sharks would rather draft a player thats got a 75% chance of being a 3rd liner than drafting a guy thats got a 50% chance of being a 1st liner. Its safe, but its so boring.
Yes and no. Things would be different if the Sharks were able to trade Marleau and Thornton when they had value rather than let them walk as a UFA. JoeThorntonsRooster would be writing something different.
To me that is one of the major events that define the Sharks today. DW hands out NMC non-strategically.
hohosaregood
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 33,070
- 13,697
I dunno if thats really the case. They just go for more rounded out prospects rather than ones focused on puck skills and offensive flair. Seems like a common thing online where a prospect that's known to be a two-way forward is less well regarded than an offensive prospect. I do understand the thought process and production rate studies probably back that up too but I'd like to keep an open mind.
Sharksrule04
Registered User
The Sharks drafting issues come from Burke. I agree with a previous post where someone said that he aims to just get someone who will be a guaranteed NHLer in the first round. Personally I hate this strategy. Yes it's embarrassing if a first rounder doesn't at least make the NHL in my opinion, but you should be reaching for the stars in the first round. Aiming for a player with top notch skill who can change a franchise. I try not to get too upset with the Sharks when they make their off the board picks every year but it's pretty frustrating to see the players we could have if they were better at drafting in the first round. I prepare for the draft every year by reading up on all of the top 50-70 ranked players and every year I'm pretty much disappointed with who we take. I give the team and Burke the benefit of the doubt but hindsight is looking pretty definitive at this point that they had some major misses on consensus picks.
JoeThorntonsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
It’s really hard for me to see Barzal falling off after he did what he just did. Maybe he’ll score closer to 70 points next year if Tavares leaves Long Island and he struggles with top competition, but he’s still pretty clearly an elite #1C.
Goldobin and Ho-Sang are both pretty close to bust territory, but if you gave me the option to acquire one or the other for free, I’m taking Ho-Sang for sure.
Indeed. I think it’s hilarious when people cite Tommy Wingels and Matt Nieto as reasons that we have a great drafting team. Like, yeah, two borderline AHLers that we gave away for free within less than a decade of drafting either one are definitely reasons our scouting staff is great!
Used As A Shield
Registered User
- Aug 10, 2011
- 3,964
- 1,211
Agree with everything you said, and even if Goldobin didn't work out, I still feel like those are the types of picks worth taking.
Sharksrule04
Registered User
Well Nieto was a waste of a 2nd rounder but Wingels I think was a very good pick and player. Don't forget those few seasons were he was producing very well while providing a physical game and solid defensive play. Getting him in the mid to late rounds is a steal.
JoeThorntonsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
Yeah. Ho-Sang was the true boom or bust guy there but Goldobin also fit the bill as well. I don’t have a problem with the pick. My bigger problem is actually with us trading him for Hansen.
Wingels was a solid pick, but he’s hardly an endorsement of the Sharks having a strong scouting staff/drafting team.
Nieto wasn't a waste of a 2nd round pick. He wasn't what we'd hope he would be but he wasn't a waste. Getting a mid-to-late 2nd round pick to put any games in for the team is at the very least not a waste. You can be disappointed in a player later on while the pick not be a waste. However, when it comes to the point of drafting, I'm not using either of them as some sort of beacon for the team's scouting. It's not that impressive to get role players in the draft.
Gecklund
Registered User
Adam Mascherin officially re-entered the draft as of 15 minutes ago. Do we take a chance on him?
Maladroit
Registered User
I don't understand why we couldn't trade a 5th round pick or something for his negotiating rights.
- Status
