Prospect Info: The 2018 NHL Entry Draft Discussion Thread

[Gecklund]

Top talent? Charlie ****ing Coyle is a top talent at the NHL level?

Any team with Meier-Hertl-Coyle as their top line is going to lose a lot more games than they win. Any team with any one of those guys as their best players is a lottery team.

Hertl and Meier are two of our best players. We aren’t a lottery team.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

Hertl and Meier are two of our best players. We aren’t a lottery team.

Are they our best player? I said any team with those guys as their best player would be a lottery team. Those guys are all worse than Burns without question. Probably also worse than Thornton. Then it gets dicey with Pavelski, Couture, Vlasic, and Jones. In the 2017-2018 regular season, I would say that our MVPs were Couture, Pavelski, and Jones; probably in that order. We had two players with at least 20 more points than Hertl. Couture scored 12 more goals and 15 more points.

Over the course of a full season, a team whose best player is Hertl is a lottery team. Hertl is an elite defensive forward who drives play at an elite rate and makes those around him better. He’s also never scored 50 points. He can be the difference between the dominance of Hertl-Thornton-Pavelski and the decentness of Karlsson-Thornton-Pavelski. But he cannot carry a line on his own.

Hertl is an F1 who needs to play with an effective F3 and F2 to score.

 

[Gecklund]

Are they our best player? I said any team with those guys as their best player would be a lottery team. Those guys are all worse than Burns without question. Probably also worse than Thornton. Then it gets dicey with Pavelski, Couture, Vlasic, and Jones. In the 2017-2018 regular season, I would say that our MVPs were Couture, Pavelski, and Jones; probably in that order. We had two players with at least 20 more points than Hertl. Couture scored 12 more goals and 15 more points.

Over the course of a full season, a team whose best player is Hertl is a lottery team. Hertl is an elite defensive forward who drives play at an elite rate and makes those around him better. He’s also never scored 50 points. He can be the difference between the dominance of Hertl-Thornton-Pavelski and the decentness of Karlsson-Thornton-Pavelski. But he cannot carry a line on his own.

Hertl is an F1 who needs to play with an effective F3 and F2 to score.

You actually said any team with them as their best players. But that’s okay I understand your point now. Also I’d definitely take those guys over Jumbo right now. We have no idea how well he’s going to play this season after coming off a major knee surgery in consecutive years.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

You actually said any team with them as their best players. But that’s okay I understand your point now. Also I’d definitely take those guys over Jumbo right now. We have no idea how well he’s going to play this season after coming off a major knee surgery in consecutive years.

Right, I did say players, and that was my mistake.

At any rate, even if I do say players, where do Meier/Hertl rank on our team at this point? We can’t afford another drop in play from Burns/Pavelski or we are no longer a playoff team. If those guys drop enough for Hertl/Meier to catch them as our best player, we aren’t a playoff team.

This year’s playoffs, and this season as a whole were basically a preview of what the future holds for a Sharks team whose management continues to draft for the lowest risk, pretty good NHL player, and whose management is totally content with making the playoffs every year and seeing what happens.

 

[Lebanezer]

If you look at the way the Sharks' roster is built and break it down by acquisition type you have

Players acquired via trade (7):
Thornton, Burns, Kane, Jones, Dillon, Fehr and Hansen

Players acquired via Free Agency (9):
Boedker, Donskoi, Goodrow, Karlsson, Sorensen, Ward, Heed, Martin and Dell

Players acquired via the draft (10):
Couture, Hertl, Labanc, Meier, Pavelski, Tierney, Braun, Demelo, Ryan and Vlasic

I've bolded the "core pieces" as they currently stand. (People will argue that Kane shouldn't be a part of this group, but given his extension, I think it's pretty clear the Sharks consider him part of the core.)

The Sharks best and most important players at each position were acquired via trade. If you want to argue that Thornton is no longer the Sharks best forward, that's fine, but up until recently he was obviously the Sharks best player. Anyone who wants to argue that Jones sucks, that's also fine, but he's the #1 goalie right now, and his back up was UFA signing, plus the system is devoid of goalies. People can also argue Burns vs. Vlasic if they want, but that's not really the point of all this.

The point of all this was simply that Tim Burke and the scouting staff have gotten away with poor picks in the earlier part of the draft because Doug Wilson has managed to acquire the most crucial team needs via trades. In some ways it's a credit to Doug that he's managed to take the players drafted and 1st round picks and either turn them into core players, or attempt to turn them into core players. Michalek turned into Heatley, Bernier turned into Campbell, Wishart and Carle and a 1st turned into Boyle, Setoguchi and Coyle and 1st turned into Burns, 1st for Kane etc. Of course the begs the question, should he even have to do that? If the scouting staff had taken a different approach and drafted Jeff Carter instead of Michalek or Getzlaf instead of Bernier, or Bergeron instead of Hennessey, or Weber instead of Carle, or Kopitar instead of Setoguchi etc. etc. etc. would those trades have even been necessary? I in no way want to discount the work that the scouting staff has done in Europe, or in the later rounds, because they've clearly done very well. However, you would think that had the drafting been better in the early parts of the draft, fewer pieces would have had to been moved to accommodate for those failings. If that had been the case, it's not difficult to surmise that the depth of the Sharks could have been better and the prospect cupboard less bare at all times. Overall, the poor early round drafting has had a trickle down effect on the rest of the roster decisions. That issue seems entirely fixable, and if it's fixed, it could do a lot for the future of the franchise. If the status quo remains the same, then I think it's safer to assume that future 1sts and players drafted in the 1st are more likely to be traded than to become the franchise cornerstones we hope they can be. Which in turn means, that the Sharks will always be looking outside the organization for solutions.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Very well said. Especially the bolded.

The Sharks’ current method of drafting may produce more sure fire NHLers like Hertl, Meier, and Coyle, but if they want to re-tool the core without tanking, they’ll need to do something to what Boston did by selecting their future #1D in Charlie McAvoy in the middle of the first round.

McAvoy is a defenseman who had a higher points-per-game in the NCAA in his draft year than Joshua Norris did in the NCAA in his draft+1 year. Why can Boston get players like McAvoy at #14OV, while we get players like Norris at #19OV?

I understand griping about the Meier pick. I think people are being premature with Barzal, but odds are that the Sharks missed out on a franchise-caliber player when they drafted Meier. However, not only was no such player drafted after Hertl or Coyle, but could the Sharks have done any better? Hertl is one of the top players of his draft. Outside of good-but-not-superstar Klingberg, who drafted after Coyle can easily outstrip him?

Consider the Mueller and Goldobin picks; while there were several balls dropped (OTTOMH, Point, Arvidsson, Pastrnak originally in 2014 and Mantha, Burakovsky, and Theodore in 2013), did the Sharks miss out on a superstar? Would their situation be substantively different today had they drafted Point and Theodore and those players are magically developed in the same manner? The massive issue with the Sharks's drafting is their pick position. Making the playoffs results in middling picks. If you look at the chances of drafting an all-star member after pick #14, it is like 2%, and I would bet that the moving average is trending downwards.

Since the 2003 draft, how many superstar forwards were drafted outside of the top-5 of the draft? I can name five: Kopitar, Giroux, Benn, Tarasenko, and Kucherov...and two of those are really stretching it.

How many defensemen? Again, I can name five: Green, Subban, Letang, Karlsson, and Josi, and there is still some stretching going on.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

I understand griping about the Meier pick. I think people are being premature with Barzal, but odds are that the Sharks missed out on a franchise-caliber player when they drafted Meier. However, not only was no such player drafted after Hertl or Coyle, but could the Sharks have done any better? Hertl is one of the top players of his draft. Outside of good-but-not-superstar Klingberg, who drafted after Coyle can easily outstrip him?

Consider the Mueller and Goldobin picks; while there were several balls dropped (OTTOMH, Point, Arvidsson, Pastrnak originally in 2014 and Mantha, Burakovsky, and Theodore in 2013), did the Sharks miss out on a superstar? Would their situation be substantively different today had they drafted Point and Theodore and those players are magically developed in the same manner? The massive issue with the Sharks's drafting is their pick position. Making the playoffs results in middling picks. If you look at the chances of drafting an all-star member after pick #14, it is like 2%, and I would bet that the moving average is trending downwards.

Since the 2003 draft, how many superstar forwards were drafted outside of the top-5 of the draft? I can name five: Kopitar, Giroux, Benn, Tarasenko, and Kucherov...and two of those are really stretching it.

How many defensemen? Again, I can name five: Green, Subban, Letang, Karlsson, and Josi, and there is still some stretching going on.

Regarding Barzal, it’s not premature. He scored 85 points this year; more than Tavares. His underlying numbers on a terrible team this season were fantastic; Tavares’ were poor. And we’re all sitting here clamoring for a $84 million dollar deal for Tavares that will mostly pay him that money while he is past his prime.

Hertl was a great pick in a weak draft; no doubt. The thing is, Teravainen was “the guy”, and he is still roughly equal to Hertl in an apples to oranges fashion.

Now, Coyle is an interesting one. I was thinking about this last night. Coyle was selected at #28OV; 2 spots after Evgeny Kuznetsov. I realize that people will immediately jump at my throat and tell me that I’m using revisionist history on a pick that we couldn’t even have made. And I realize this may be a bit of a reach, but, let’s just say that Kuznetsov was available at #28. Do you think there is any chance that we would have picked him over Charlie Coyle? I strongly doubt it. Kuznetsov was the risky European with the high potential. Coyle was the safe American with the high floor. I strongly doubt we would have drafted Kuznetsov if he was available. We were just in agreement that Kuznetsov definitely is that superstar #1C that we don’t have, so you definitely have to agred he is definitely another one. I realize that you can’t blame DW for not picking a player that was literally not even available, but it’s just an example of another #1C available very close to where we drafted that we can be almost certain that we wouldn’t have picked. Klingberg is also edging towards a superstar defenseman, but I don’t think it’s fair to say we should have picked some guy who went in the 3rd round.

We had an opportunity to pick Giroux, and we picked Ty Wishart, a big safe defenseman at #16. Giroux was picked at #22.

We had an opportunity to pick Anze Kopitar, and we picked Devin Setoguchi, a hard working, physical Canadian kid, at #8.

Barzal is a dead horse that has been beaten but meets the same criteria. Kuznetsov I touched on.

2017 might be too early for us to say, but Joshua Norris Vs. Eeli Tolvanen May become a similar thing. I’m sure there are a few other situations that we are missing, although I actually do think you make a good point, and it’s an interesting way to look at it.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Regarding Barzal, it’s not premature. He scored 85 points this year; more than Tavares. His underlying numbers on a terrible team this season were fantastic; Tavares’ were poor. And we’re all sitting here clamoring for a $84 million dollar deal for Tavares that will mostly pay him that money while he is past his prime.

Matt Carle looked like a future Norris winner after his first season. Things happen. Barzal starts taking on more responsibility and can't handle it. I believe that post-November Meier scored at the same ES rate as Barzal.

Now, Coyle is an interesting one. I was thinking about this last night. Coyle was selected at #28OV; 2 spots after Evgeny Kuznetsov. I realize that people will immediately jump at my throat and tell me that I’m using revisionist history on a pick that we couldn’t even have made. And I realize this may be a bit of a reach, but, let’s just say that Kuznetsov was available at #28. Do you think there is any chance that we would have picked him over Charlie Coyle? I strongly doubt it. Kuznetsov was the risky European with the high potential. Coyle was the safe American with the high floor. I strongly doubt we would have drafted Kuznetsov if he was available.

Almost certainly the case that the Sharks wouldn't have drafted Kuznetsov. But, let me check myself...the Sharks used their next three first rounders on Europeans, including a floater like Goldobin.

We were just in agreement that Kuznetsov definitely is that superstar #1C that we don’t have, so you definitely have to agred he is definitely another one.

Kuznetsov is having a beast of a playoffs, but just like Couture having a star-level playoffs in 2016 doesn't make him a superstar #1C, Kuznetsov needs to show more. I'd say the same for Carlson as well.

We had an opportunity to pick Giroux, and we picked Ty Wishart, a big safe defenseman at #16. Giroux was picked at #22.

We had an opportunity to pick Anze Kopitar, and we picked Devin Setoguchi, a hard working, physical Canadian kid, at #8.

Barzal is a dead horse that has been beaten but meets the same criteria. Kuznetsov I touched on.

True misses by the Sharks, But consider your sample size is fourteen years. You're essentially asking the Sharks's scouts to find a needle in a haystack...and maybe they need to do it once-in-a-while, but when you have a few top-5 picks, the needle starts glowing and maybe you get a metal detector.

Let us try and break it down mathematically. The chance of a single team drafting a star player anywhere outside of the top-14 in a draft is, optimistically, ~2%. Charitably, let us say that the Sharks's D&D team is 5x better than the average NHL's teams scouting department (which in the age of technology, research, and copycats is an absurd assumption). So each year, the Sharks have a 10% chance of drafting that essential cornerstone player. Is that really a viable strategy? Is that something you can hang a scouting department over? I prefer a results-oriented approach, but have to acknowledge the shackles the Sharks are dealing with.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

Matt Carle looked like a future Norris winner after his first season. Things happen. Barzal starts taking on more responsibility and can't handle it. I believe that post-November Meier scored at the same ES rate as Barzal.



Almost certainly the case that the Sharks wouldn't have drafted Kuznetsov. But, let me check myself...the Sharks used their next three first rounders on Europeans, including a floater like Goldobin.



Kuznetsov is having a beast of a playoffs, but just like Couture having a star-level playoffs in 2016 doesn't make him a superstar #1C, Kuznetsov needs to show more. I'd say the same for Carlson as well.



True misses by the Sharks, But consider your sample size is fourteen years. You're essentially asking the Sharks's scouts to find a needle in a haystack...and maybe they need to do it once-in-a-while, but when you have a few top-5 picks, the needle starts glowing and maybe you get a metal detector.

Let us try and break it down mathematically. The chance of a single team drafting a star player anywhere outside of the top-14 in a draft is, optimistically, ~2%. Charitably, let us say that the Sharks's D&D team is 5x better than the average NHL's teams scouting department (which in the age of technology, research, and copycats is an absurd assumption). So each year, the Sharks have a 10% chance of drafting that essential cornerstone player. Is that really a viable strategy? Is that something you can hang a scouting department over? I prefer a results-oriented approach, but have to acknowledge the shackles the Sharks are dealing with.

Did Matt Carle score like a present Norris winner? Barzal had 9 more 5V5 points post-November than Meier all season and 3 more 5V5 points, post-November than any Shark did in the entire season. (Meier had 26 in that time frame and Pavelski had 28) Barzal was actually 3rd in the NHL in that time frame in 5V5 points lol.

Kuznetsov had 83 points this season and 77 a couple years ago. That’s 10 and 16 more than Couture has ever had. He’s legit. He is also carrying his team as the true #1C while Couture did things behind Joe Thornton. He is also playing better than Couture did in 2016.

I get that the Kopitar, Giroux, and even the Kuznetsov things may be too long ago, but things like that tend to repeat themselves with the same scouting staff. If one of your employees had sexually harassed a woman in 2015, and he had been in trouble for similar incidents in 2005 and 2006, along with some moderately baseless allegations in 2010, those incidents in 2005 and 2006 would play a big role in your decision to fire him. Similarly, when a franchise cornerstone type player is so seldom available where the Sharks pick, it’s important to note what they did do in the recent past and the more distant past. When there is a clear pattern apparent in 2015, as well as 2005 and 2006, it becomes a bit more concerning.

Also, you can draft a star without them being a franchise cornerstone. Perhaps the Sharks have a more successful run from 2006-2014 (when Hertl arrived) if they had picked another Hertl level player in that time frame. Or even 2006-2010 when Couture arrived

 

[Juxtaposer]

@OrrNumber4

I know you love your Matt Carle cautionary tale, but when was the last time a 20 year old center scored 85 points in his rookie season and didn’t turn into a #1C?

Kuznetsov scores 83 points this season, something Couture has never even come close to. He’s on another level from Couture. There were eight centers who scored more than Kuznetsov.

 

[Maladroit]

Matt Carle had a really good career before whatever happened in Tampa. He may not have been a Norris winner but he was a top-pairing defenseman on a Stanley Cup finalist. Anyway Carle's rookie season wasn't even in the same stratosphere as Barzal's.

 

[hohosaregood]

Barzal's good enough that the Islanders don't need to bring back Tavares. Don't really think we need to bring in a "1C" that can't beat out a rookie.

 

[Gecklund]

I understand griping about the Meier pick. I think people are being premature with Barzal, but odds are that the Sharks missed out on a franchise-caliber player when they drafted Meier. However, not only was no such player drafted after Hertl or Coyle, but could the Sharks have done any better? Hertl is one of the top players of his draft. Outside of good-but-not-superstar Klingberg, who drafted after Coyle can easily outstrip him?

Consider the Mueller and Goldobin picks; while there were several balls dropped (OTTOMH, Point, Arvidsson, Pastrnak originally in 2014 and Mantha, Burakovsky, and Theodore in 2013), did the Sharks miss out on a superstar? Would their situation be substantively different today had they drafted Point and Theodore and those players are magically developed in the same manner? The massive issue with the Sharks's drafting is their pick position. Making the playoffs results in middling picks. If you look at the chances of drafting an all-star member after pick #14, it is like 2%, and I would bet that the moving average is trending downwards.

Since the 2003 draft, how many superstar forwards were drafted outside of the top-5 of the draft? I can name five: Kopitar, Giroux, Benn, Tarasenko, and Kucherov...and two of those are really stretching it.

How many defensemen? Again, I can name five: Green, Subban, Letang, Karlsson, and Josi, and there is still some stretching going on.

If we had Pastrnak/Point/Arvidsson and Theodore on our team and they developed the same we would be a great team

Meier-Thornton-Pavelski
Couture-Hertl-Pastrnak/Arvidsson
Kane-Tierney-Labanc
doesn't matter

Vlasic-Braun
Ryan-Burns
Theodore-Dillon

or

Meier-Point-Labanc
Couture-Hertl-Boedker
Kane-Thornton-Pavelski

 

[Friday]

Barzal's good enough that the Islanders don't need to bring back Tavares. Don't really think we need to bring in a "1C" that can't beat out a rookie.

The Islanders are begging Tavares to stay, if that wasnt the case they would have moved him at the deadline.

 

[Harbessix]

Has anyone’s draft predictions changed following the results of the combine?

 

[Kcoyote3]

Has anyone’s draft predictions changed following the results of the combine?

I think someone else mentioned Drury as a riser, I could see that.

I also think Svechnikov will win the Calder trophy.

 

[Harbessix]

I wish we could find out which players they met with in the extra two days they stayed. Was it players they didn’t have time to meet with during the week or second interviews type deal?

 

[OrrNumber4]

Did Matt Carle score like a present Norris winner? Barzal had 9 more 5V5 points post-November than Meier all season and 3 more 5V5 points, post-November than any Shark did in the entire season. (Meier had 26 in that time frame and Pavelski had 28) Barzal was actually 3rd in the NHL in that time frame in 5V5 points lol.

That’s fair. Maybe I was looking at ES scoring/60 and saw the equivalency.

had 83 points this season and 77 a couple years ago. That’s 10 and 16 more than Couture has ever had. He’s legit. He is also carrying his team as the true #1C while Couture did things behind Joe Thornton. He is also playing better than Couture did in 2016.

That’s true, but I still would need to see him build off this season before calling him an established #1C. That doesn’t take away from his play this season or this playoff run.

Also, you can draft a star without them being a franchise cornerstone. Perhaps the Sharks have a more successful run from 2006-2014 (when Hertl arrived) if they had picked another Hertl level player in that time frame. Or even 2006-2010 when Couture arrived

That’s fair enough. On that note, the Sharks have done pretty well getting value from their “failed” draft picks.

@OrrNumber4

I know you love your Matt Carle cautionary tale, but when was the last time a 20 year old center scored 85 points in his rookie season and didn’t turn into a #1C?

Kuznetsov scores 83 points this season, something Couture has never even come close to. He’s on another level from Couture. There were eight centers who scored more than Kuznetsov.

85 points I can’t remember, but Scott Gomez and Paul Stastny, just in recent memory, had very productive first seasons and didn’t amount to franchise-caliber centers. Extending it to other forwards, you have Panarin and Guentzel.

Plus, there are players like Eric Staal who had fabulous +1 seasons who quickly came down to Earth.

If we had Pastrnak/Point/Arvidsson and Theodore on our team and they developed the same we would be a great team

Meier-Thornton-Pavelski
Couture-Hertl-Pastrnak/Arvidsson
Kane-Tierney-Labanc
doesn't matter

Vlasic-Braun
Ryan-Burns
Theodore-Dillon

or

Meier-Point-Labanc
Couture-Hertl-Boedker
Kane-Thornton-Pavelski

Obviously those are superior rosters, but are those rosters (especially without Thornton) competing for a cup? Not to mention the whole butterfly effect.

 

[DRW204]

hey Sharks fans,

doing an office mock draft pool, i have you guys taking Jake Wise (pick after is OTT: A. Thomas). The next D i have going is Tychonick. Unsure if you guys would go F or D though.

Any thoughts?

 

[Juxtaposer]

85 points I can’t remember, but Scott Gomez and Paul Stastny, just in recent memory, had very productive first seasons and didn’t amount to franchise-caliber centers. Extending it to other forwards, you have Panarin and Guentzel.

Plus, there are players like Eric Staal who had fabulous +1 seasons who quickly came down to Earth.

I never saw Gomez in his prime so I won’t comment on that. But Stastny was an established #1C through his prime and so was Eric Staal. Panarin is an elite forward, have you watched him? And Guentzel plays with Crosby, you can’t possibly include him in this comparison.

Barzal may not score 85 points without the insulation of Tavares, but even if he scored 70 points next season that’s still very good first line center production in this era.

 

[Maladroit]

I would take Paul Stastny and Scott Gomez's careers over what Timo Meier's career is likely to be every day of the week.

 

[ThorNton Apologist]

Has anyone’s draft predictions changed following the results of the combine?

Still love Lundestrom. Seeing his VO2 Max scores only help my belief that SJ may actually pick him

 

[Harbessix]

Still love Lundestrom. Seeing his VO2 Max scores only help my belief that SJ may actually pick him

Have we ever picked a Swede in round one? I feel like Bergman and Bergvik are the only two Swedes drafted by the Sharks in like a decade

 

[ThorNton Apologist]

Have we ever picked a Swede in round one? I feel like Bergman and Bergvik are the only two Swedes drafted by the Sharks in like a decade

We seem to like Swiss and Czech players just fine. I think Lundestrom is a good fit. Plays a new style of game not necessarily break away speed but he’s creative and can play a grinding puck possession game. Also plays in SHL could be more NHL ready than some CHL players.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Still love Lundestrom. Seeing his VO2 Max scores only help my belief that SJ may actually pick him

Why do you like him? From everything I’ve read he’s a really safe, low-upside pick. A Swedish Josh Norris.