GDT: 2017 NHL Entry Draft (Rds 2-7 Sat, Jun 24 7am PT/10am ET, NHL Net/Rogers Sportsnet)

[hohosaregood]

You can say that for pretty much any prospect we would have picked up maybe outside of the top-5. Giving up on the 18 year old kids is going to do nothing other than make you angry about something you have no control of. I would rather live in optimism than drown myself in pessimism.

How naive of you to believe that good things still happen to sharks fans

 

[Juxtaposer]

You can say that for pretty much any prospect we would have picked up maybe outside of the top-5. Giving up on the 18 year old kids is going to do nothing other than make you angry about something you have no control of. I would rather live in optimism than drown myself in pessimism.

Yunno, there's a nice little middle ground between optimism and pessimism called "realism".

 

[OrrNumber4]

Except here's the thing: Norris was ranked near absolutely no one's first round until after he destroyed the combine.

How do you know?

That is extremely optimistic. I think it's more likely we get zero top-6 forwards than getting two, never mind a top line forward.

You may be right. Let us wait and see.

More like "Swiss miss" the net, am I right?

And their goalies and defense have more holes than Swiss cheese. Mueller-Josi in front of Hiller would be so lulzy

Better than American goalies, who can just never seem to build a wall in net.

Yunno, there's a nice little middle ground between optimism and pessimism called "realism".

Where does your absolutism fit on the scale?

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

Yunno, there's a nice little middle ground between optimism and pessimism called "realism".

And taking the approach that none of our forwards pan out as top-6 is realism? Why is that the case? Because it is your opinion?

You look at the scouting reports for Norris and are upset and yet you ignore the upside of the other picks because well? It looks like you are choosing to look at the negative side of everything here.

 

[Juxtaposer]

And taking the approach that none of our forwards pan out as top-6 is realism? Why is that the case? Because it is your opinion?

You look at the scouting reports for Norris and are upset and yet you ignore the upside of the other picks because well? It looks like you are choosing to look at the negative side of everything here.

Okay, I didn't say that at all. You're putting words in my mouth that I never said I said I thought it might be foolish to think that we could get two top-6 forwards out of Chmelevski, Checkhovich, Reedy, and Norris, never mind a top line forward, and that it was more likely that we'd get zero. And I've been very complimentary of our draft on the second day. I just don't see the use in putting lofty explanations on players that almost none of us have seen. I've seen Norris (so stop saying I "looked at scouting reports" to make my judgement ) and Reedy but I've never seen the other two and I don't feel comfortable projecting late round players I've never seen (which is why I'm reserving judgement Ferraro). As for Reedy, there's a reason he was a 4th round pick: he had a very mediocre season. I still think there's talent there and hopefully an NHL future in some capacity, but I wouldn't exactly say he fell.

When was the last time we drafted a legit top-6 forward in any round? Hertl, Coyle, Couture, and hopefully Meier and Labanc. That's hopefully five in a decade, and four of them are/were 1st round picks. The simple odds are against the Sharks pulling two top-6 forwards out of one mediocre draft with a mediocre first round selection.

A second reason: every time this board declares a pick to be a steal, whether rightly (Roy) or wrongly (Alexis Vanier, for example), they usually turn out irrelevant. I don't think people understand just how hard it is for even a promising late round pick to become a legit top-6 forward/top-4 D. Look at Chartier and Sadowy, look at Freddie Hamilton. Look at Matt Nieto. All seemed to be promising potential top-6 forwards, according to this forum.

This forum has a long history of vastly overstating prospects. It's not exclusive to Sharks fans, but I think we're pretty bad on average. Remember when people were disappointed that Marek Viedensky was "only" projected to be a Michal Handzus? Remember the hype about Sean Kuraly after a good couple of days at a WJC camp in August? How about the utter outrage when we traded Sgarbossa for Winnik and Galiardi?

 

[hohosaregood]

The only reason we won't get two top 6 forwards out of this draft is because our depth will be so good that they'll be stuck in the bottom 6

 

[LadyStanley]

Puck Daddy graded Sharks C on draft

 

[Celly4Celebrini]

the Norris pick reminds me ally of the Coyle pick and hopefully they follow similar career paths

 

[Lebanezer]

Okay, I didn't say that at all. You're putting words in my mouth that I never said I said I thought it might be foolish to think that we could get two top-6 forwards out of Chmelevski, Checkhovich, Reedy, and Norris, never mind a top line forward, and that it was more likely that we'd get zero. And I've been very complimentary of our draft on the second day. I just don't see the use in putting lofty explanations on players that almost none of us have seen. I've seen Norris (so stop saying I "looked at scouting reports" to make my judgement ) and Reedy but I've never seen the other two and I don't feel comfortable projecting late round players I've never seen (which is why I'm reserving judgement Ferraro). As for Reedy, there's a reason he was a 4th round pick: he had a very mediocre season. I still think there's talent there and hopefully an NHL future in some capacity, but I wouldn't exactly say he fell.

When was the last time we drafted a legit top-6 forward in any round? Hertl, Coyle, Couture, and hopefully Meier and Labanc. That's hopefully five in a decade, and four of them are/were 1st round picks. The simple odds are against the Sharks pulling two top-6 forwards out of one mediocre draft with a mediocre first round selection.

A second reason: every time this board declares a pick to be a steal, whether rightly (Roy) or wrongly (Alexis Vanier, for example), they usually turn out irrelevant. I don't think people understand just how hard it is for even a promising late round pick to become a legit top-6 forward/top-4 D. Look at Chartier and Sadowy, look at Freddie Hamilton. Look at Matt Nieto. All seemed to be promising potential top-6 forwards, according to this forum.

This forum has a long history of vastly overstating prospects. It's not exclusive to Sharks fans, but I think we're pretty bad on average. Remember when people were disappointed that Marek Viedensky was "only" projected to be a Michal Handzus? Remember the hype about Sean Kuraly after a good couple of days at a WJC camp in August? How about the utter outrage when we traded Sgarbossa for Winnik and Galiardi?

I know for me personally I look at each player when they're drafted and look for the red flags. If like Vanier they can't skate, or like Shoemaker, Ausmus, Watson, they have no offensive ability whatsoever, I don't see much of a chance they pan out. Especially after checking up on them in their draft +1 year. Players like Nieto and O'Regan I worry about their size, and if they're dynamic enough to overcome that. Nieto obviously wasn't, and O'Regan had a good 1st season in the AHL, but didn't look great in the NHL. We'll see what he can do going forward, but top 6 seems unlikely. When trying to analyze players who don't seem to have a clear hindrance, I'm more likely to be optimistic that they could make the NHL. Now whether or not I see a top 6 player all depends on how they perform in their draft +1 year. With this year's draft, it's the same, there are guys where I have concerns, but fortunately none in the Shoemaker vein. I worry about McGrew, injury and size, and a little bit about Ferraro and Chekhovich because of their size, but that's pretty much it. So now it's just about seeing how the 2017 crop performs. The prospect camp will be a telling start, and then after that, it's up to them. Overall though, I like the look of this draft class.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

Okay, I didn't say that at all. You're putting words in my mouth that I never said I said I thought it might be foolish to think that we could get two top-6 forwards out of Chmelevski, Checkhovich, Reedy, and Norris, never mind a top line forward, and that it was more likely that we'd get zero. And I've been very complimentary of our draft on the second day. I just don't see the use in putting lofty explanations on players that almost none of us have seen. I've seen Norris (so stop saying I "looked at scouting reports" to make my judgement ) and Reedy but I've never seen the other two and I don't feel comfortable projecting late round players I've never seen (which is why I'm reserving judgement Ferraro). As for Reedy, there's a reason he was a 4th round pick: he had a very mediocre season. I still think there's talent there and hopefully an NHL future in some capacity, but I wouldn't exactly say he fell.

When was the last time we drafted a legit top-6 forward in any round? Hertl, Coyle, Couture, and hopefully Meier and Labanc. That's hopefully five in a decade, and four of them are/were 1st round picks. The simple odds are against the Sharks pulling two top-6 forwards out of one mediocre draft with a mediocre first round selection.

A second reason: every time this board declares a pick to be a steal, whether rightly (Roy) or wrongly (Alexis Vanier, for example), they usually turn out irrelevant. I don't think people understand just how hard it is for even a promising late round pick to become a legit top-6 forward/top-4 D. Look at Chartier and Sadowy, look at Freddie Hamilton. Look at Matt Nieto. All seemed to be promising potential top-6 forwards, according to this forum.

This forum has a long history of vastly overstating prospects. It's not exclusive to Sharks fans, but I think we're pretty bad on average. Remember when people were disappointed that Marek Viedensky was "only" projected to be a Michal Handzus? Remember the hype about Sean Kuraly after a good couple of days at a WJC camp in August? How about the utter outrage when we traded Sgarbossa for Winnik and Galiardi?

Do you ever remember the Sharks drafting as many players with the speed and skill sets that we did this year, in any other draft year? Seriously? Because I do not remember that.

The reason I said what I did is not because the Sharks churn out top-6 forwards on a regular basis. It is because the Sharks went for speed and skill in this draft. Something I do not remember them doing in previous drafts. The reason we have a chance (as small as it is) for multiple prospects to pan out as top-6 Forwards is because of the number of these type of players drafted. Am I going to be upset if they don't end up as top-6 Forwards. Hell no. That is why they are called prospects.

So, you can do two things. You can quote what happend in the past and use stats to pre-determine that they are never going to work out. Or you hope that they will and let them prove themselves. I am going the latter route.

 

[OrrNumber4]

When was the last time we drafted a legit top-6 forward in any round? Hertl, Coyle, Couture, and hopefully Meier and Labanc. That's hopefully five in a decade, and four of them are/were 1st round picks. The simple odds are against the Sharks pulling two top-6 forwards out of one mediocre draft with a mediocre first round selection.

First of all, at his best, Bonino was a top-6 forward. Secondly, players like Goldobin belong in the "hopefully" category. Thirdly, your whole analysis is a little unfair, considering the jury is out on so many players.

Between 2007 and 2014, the Sharks have picked 34 forwards, with 7 being top-6 forwards or in the "hopeful" category. That's not adjusted for pick quality (Sharks frequently have not had a first rounder), but ultimately, that's about a 20% success rate getting top-6 forwards/hopefuls per pick. So there is a 67% chance the Sharks get at least one top-6 forward and a 23% chance of at least two top-6 forwards.

A second reason: every time this board declares a pick to be a steal, whether rightly (Roy) or wrongly (Alexis Vanier, for example), they usually turn out irrelevant. I don't think people understand just how hard it is for even a promising late round pick to become a legit top-6 forward/top-4 D. Look at Chartier and Sadowy, look at Freddie Hamilton. Look at Matt Nieto. All seemed to be promising potential top-6 forwards, according to this forum.

This forum has a long history of vastly overstating prospects. It's not exclusive to Sharks fans, but I think we're pretty bad on average. Remember when people were disappointed that Marek Viedensky was "only" projected to be a Michal Handzus? Remember the hype about Sean Kuraly after a good couple of days at a WJC camp in August? How about the utter outrage when we traded Sgarbossa for Winnik and Galiardi?

I'm glad you are saying this, but you've been right alongside all the hype and naysayers...yet you haven't changed?

 

[spintops]

Okay, I didn't say that at all. You're putting words in my mouth that I never said I said I thought it might be foolish to think that we could get two top-6 forwards out of Chmelevski, Checkhovich, Reedy, and Norris, never mind a top line forward, and that it was more likely that we'd get zero. And I've been very complimentary of our draft on the second day. I just don't see the use in putting lofty explanations on players that almost none of us have seen. I've seen Norris (so stop saying I "looked at scouting reports" to make my judgement ) and Reedy but I've never seen the other two and I don't feel comfortable projecting late round players I've never seen (which is why I'm reserving judgement Ferraro). As for Reedy, there's a reason he was a 4th round pick: he had a very mediocre season. I still think there's talent there and hopefully an NHL future in some capacity, but I wouldn't exactly say he fell.

When was the last time we drafted a legit top-6 forward in any round? Hertl, Coyle, Couture, and hopefully Meier and Labanc. That's hopefully five in a decade, and four of them are/were 1st round picks. The simple odds are against the Sharks pulling two top-6 forwards out of one mediocre draft with a mediocre first round selection.

A second reason: every time this board declares a pick to be a steal, whether rightly (Roy) or wrongly (Alexis Vanier, for example), they usually turn out irrelevant. I don't think people understand just how hard it is for even a promising late round pick to become a legit top-6 forward/top-4 D. Look at Chartier and Sadowy, look at Freddie Hamilton. Look at Matt Nieto. All seemed to be promising potential top-6 forwards, according to this forum.

This forum has a long history of vastly overstating prospects. It's not exclusive to Sharks fans, but I think we're pretty bad on average. Remember when people were disappointed that Marek Viedensky was "only" projected to be a Michal Handzus? Remember the hype about Sean Kuraly after a good couple of days at a WJC camp in August? How about the utter outrage when we traded Sgarbossa for Winnik and Galiardi?

On the flip side this forum has a long history of hating our "safe first round picks" Couture, Hertl, etc. I think guys over rate "insider rankings". Just because a mock site has Norris as the 35th prospect doesn't mean the sharks/every other team in the NHL dide.

 

[rangerssharks414]

Puck Daddy graded Sharks C on draft

Draft grades that come in a week after the draft are so stupid.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Do you ever remember the Sharks drafting as many players with the speed and skill sets that we did this year, in any other draft year? Seriously? Because I do not remember that.

The reason I said what I did is not because the Sharks churn out top-6 forwards on a regular basis. It is because the Sharks went for speed and skill in this draft. Something I do not remember them doing in previous drafts. The reason we have a chance (as small as it is) for multiple prospects to pan out as top-6 Forwards is because of the number of these type of players drafted. Am I going to be upset if they don't end up as top-6 Forwards. Hell no. That is why they are called prospects.

So, you can do two things. You can quote what happend in the past and use stats to pre-determine that they are never going to work out. Or you hope that they will and let them prove themselves. I am going the latter route.

Please, stop putting words my mouth! I didn't "pre-determine" anything about any of our picks by using stats! I like our draft class after Norris a lot! I'm very excited that the Sharks actually picked talented players in the late rounds!

I just wanted to temper expectations because your statement seemed really aggressively optimistic. That's literally all. Stop accusing me of making statements that I never did.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

Please, stop putting words my mouth! I didn't "pre-determine" anything about any of our picks by using stats! I like our draft class after Norris a lot! I'm very excited that the Sharks actually picked talented players in the late rounds!

I just wanted to temper expectations because your statement seemed really aggressively optimistic. That's literally all. Stop accusing me of making statements that I never did.

This is what I don't understand. I am aggressively optimistic when I say this.

I think there is a very good chance that we end up getting two top-6 F in this draft. Maybe even one of them as a top-line forward.

But you are not aggressively pessimist when you say this?

I think it's more likely we get zero top-6 forwards than getting two, never mind a top line forward.

Either way, I think it is pointless arguing about this because I am ok with a wait and see approach. I will let the players prove themselves and be ok with whatever the outcome is. Till then, I am going hope (not expect) that they can end up being top-6 forwards.

 

[LadyStanley]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-trade-value-first-round-pick/
From Friedman

My location on the floor put me next to the San Jose table. Nice moment when the Sharks drafted Mario Ferraro 49th from USHL Des Moines. He came to the table, where a full walkaround happened with firm handshakes, “thank yous,” “we’re glad to have yous,” and everyone looking everyone else in the eye. When I was younger, I was told I had a terrible handshake and didn’t look people in the eye when I did it. Some of that is ADD, but that shouldn’t be an excuse. I’m positive that wasn’t the only time it happened, but Ferraro and the Sharks was an example of the way that moment should go.

 

[hohosaregood]

I always try to match handshake strength with the other person because I don't really like making the other person's hands and knuckles go squish but some people have really weak handshakes.

 

[weastern bias]

“thank yous"

“we’re glad to have yousâ€Â

I like to imagine this was the literal pronunciation and we just drafted Jason Mewes

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I always try to match handshake strength with the other person because I don't really like making the other person's hands and knuckles go squish but some people have really weak handshakes.

Or shake with the wrong hand. Drives me crazy.