Prospect Info: 2013 Penguins Development Camp

[themethod7]

That said though, you're right Sjb141, the Pens have actually taken some boom or bust types like Veilleux and Esposito early on too.

The main point is that we have precious few forward prospects in the system who have been drafted in the first 3 rounds, and only two of those could be considered skill guys - Blueger and Guentzel.

I think these two guys are part of the reason we've seen RS avoid early round forwards recently - in that draft ('07, his 2nd with the Pens), he left Pacioretty and Perron on the board in the first round and took Esposito. The year before that, he took Staal* over Toews, Backstrom, and Kessel, but even with a top-5 pick, it wasn't a slam dunk - imagine Kessel riding shotgun with Crosby. I get it, hindsight is 20/20, but when your first and second round picks don't even play a single game on the parent club...

Also, looking at that draft, kudos to SJ for taking Couture 9th overall when he was barely ranked in the top-20, and Colorado for taking Shattenkirk at 14, 20 spots ahead of his ranking. Just goes to show how much stock to put in those rankings, especially when they had Tangradi ranked higher than P.K. Subban...

*Not arguing whether or not this was the "right" pick - Staal played a big role in our cup win, so I'm not suggesting any of the other 3 taken afterwards would unquestionably have been a better pick.

 

[Fire Shero*]

But then there's Bennett who was an early round pick. Unless Shero starts using the early picks on forwards he will have to continue to overpay for forwards in free agency or trade for them. The pens have a nice surplus of dman, but not every team willing to trade wingers necessarily just want defensive prospects. So who knows how many trades we miss out on because we lack respectable forward prospects.

 

[Freeptop]

Not really though. Unproven Dmen prospects don't fetch that much, and not many of them will get the NHL time to return proven talent. We just traded arguably our best prospect for Joe Morrow at the TDL.

Arguably, the biggest benefit to having a large stable of high potential defensemen prospects is not that you would trade away the prospects - but that they would make established NHL defensemen expendable. This provides two benefits: 1) You can trade away an established NHL defenseman veteran, who is likely to bring back a better return than a prospect, and 2) you can replace higher priced veteran defensemen with cheaper talent on entry-level contracts.

Trading away Joe Morrow for Brendan Morrow simply wasn't a good trade, but to point to that one as the sole example while ignoring the other trades is a clear case of cherry picking. The way it is supposed to work is the way it was done with Whitney and Goligoski - they'd already established themselves as NHL players by the time they were traded, but other players in the system had made them expendable.

Granted, sometimes you get lucky and get to trade Noah Welch for Gary Roberts, but I do think the general idea is to move out the older guys and replace them from within, instead of having to pay free agent prices for defensemen in the future. I really hope that Scuderi is the last high-priced blue-line signing for many years, considering the pipeline of defense prospects the team has.

All that said, I still say "best player available." If that's a defenseman, fine. If that's a forward, go for it. If you truly believe that a goalie is the best player available at that point, select him. It never makes sense to select a lesser prospect, particularly when picking late in the round. You never know what your needs will turn out to be by the time they're ready. Unfortunately, I think Shero and Heinbuck have a bit of a tendency to rate defensemen above forwards in general (though not quite to the degree that people around here make it out to be).

 

[Fire Shero*]

Arguably, the biggest benefit to having a large stable of high potential defensemen prospects is not that you would trade away the prospects - but that they would make established NHL defensemen expendable. This provides two benefits: 1) You can trade away an established NHL defenseman veteran, who is likely to bring back a better return than a prospect, and 2) you can replace higher priced veteran defensemen with cheaper talent on entry-level contracts.

Trading away Joe Morrow for Brendan Morrow simply wasn't a good trade, but to point to that one as the sole example while ignoring the other trades is a clear case of cherry picking. The way it is supposed to work is the way it was done with Whitney and Goligoski - they'd already established themselves as NHL players by the time they were traded, but other players in the system had made them expendable.

Granted, sometimes you get lucky and get to trade Noah Welch for Gary Roberts, but I do think the general idea is to move out the older guys and replace them from within, instead of having to pay free agent prices for defensemen in the future. I really hope that Scuderi is the last high-priced blue-line signing for many years, considering the pipeline of defense prospects the team has.

All that said, I still say "best player available." If that's a defenseman, fine. If that's a forward, go for it. If you truly believe that a goalie is the best player available at that point, select him. It never makes sense to select a lesser prospect, particularly when picking late in the round. You never know what your needs will turn out to be by the time they're ready. Unfortunately, I think Shero and Heinbuck have a bit of a tendency to rate defensemen above forwards in general (though not quite to the degree that people around here make it out to be).

I don't buy the whole best player available argument. The pens desperately need forwards, any half decent forward drafted would instantly be our best forward prospect. Whereas if they draft a decent dman, he will get stuck in the logjam of dmen already in the organization. When you have a team like the pens who are stacked at one position and are pathetic at others, you go for the best forward. Sure, if the pens have a handful of solid forward prospects and a handful of solid defensive prospects, take the best player available.

 

[BlindWillyMcHurt]

I believe that the Penguins do take BPA.

On their board, of course.

 

[lastcupever75]

I think these two guys are part of the reason we've seen RS avoid early round forwards recently - in that draft ('07, his 2nd with the Pens), he left Pacioretty and Perron on the board in the first round and took Esposito. The year before that, he took Staal* over Toews, Backstrom, and Kessel, but even with a top-5 pick, it wasn't a slam dunk - imagine Kessel riding shotgun with Crosby. I get it, hindsight is 20/20, but when your first and second round picks don't even play a single game on the parent club...

Also, looking at that draft, kudos to SJ for taking Couture 9th overall when he was barely ranked in the top-20, and Colorado for taking Shattenkirk at 14, 20 spots ahead of his ranking. Just goes to show how much stock to put in those rankings, especially when they had Tangradi ranked higher than P.K. Subban...

*Not arguing whether or not this was the "right" pick - Staal played a big role in our cup win, so I'm not suggesting any of the other 3 taken afterwards would unquestionably have been a better pick.

Not sure I get that last part.

So if toews goes on to lead the hawks to 5 cups. Will the staal pick still be considered good because he was a somewhat useful part on the 1 SC team?

 

[BlindWillyMcHurt]

No... it's just that people get their PCP's in a twist (still!) over that guy and everyone seems to have to walk on eggshells when they dare talk about him like he isn't the second coming of Mark Messier.

 

[Nietzsche Zone Play]

But then there's Bennett who was an early round pick. Unless Shero starts using the early picks on forwards he will have to continue to overpay for forwards in free agency or trade for them. The pens have a nice surplus of dman, but not every team willing to trade wingers necessarily just want defensive prospects. So who knows how many trades we miss out on because we lack respectable forward prospects.

The only forward Shero has overpaid for in FA over the past couple years is Glass, and that is only a $550k overpayment at most. Obviously not every team will be looking for defensive prospects, but enough have that they've been able to fill the top 6 - and it's easy to make the argument that the entire top 6 is underpaid.

 

[themethod7]

Not sure I get that last part.

So if toews goes on to lead the hawks to 5 cups. Will the staal pick still be considered good because he was a somewhat useful part on the 1 SC team?

Just trying to avoid the ****storm that inevitably follows the mere mention of the Staal vs. Toews/Backstrom/Kessel saga, it's been discussed ad nauseum; I was merely noting that as part of the larger "Ray Shero and the case of the missing forwards" discussion.

 

[Shady Machine]

I don't buy the whole best player available argument. The pens desperately need forwards, any half decent forward drafted would instantly be our best forward prospect. Whereas if they draft a decent dman, he will get stuck in the logjam of dmen already in the organization. When you have a team like the pens who are stacked at one position and are pathetic at others, you go for the best forward. Sure, if the pens have a handful of solid forward prospects and a handful of solid defensive prospects, take the best player available.

That's why your name is Wingerz. BPA all the way in theory. The problem is that humans have bias and preference. BPA is a subjective measure. It's certainly possible that Shero and co tend to overrate defensemen and that's a legitimate discussion. What you said doesn't really make sense. Why would you intentionally draft a worse hockey player?

 

[Ogrezilla]

That's why your name is Wingerz. BPA all the way in theory. The problem is that humans have bias and preference. BPA is a subjective measure. It's certainly possible that Shero and co tend to overrate defensemen and that's a legitimate discussion. What you said doesn't really make sense. Why would you intentionally draft a worse hockey player?

come on man, you know you need to draft for what you'll need years down the road.

 

[Sjb141]

I don't buy the whole best player available argument. The pens desperately need forwards, any half decent forward drafted would instantly be our best forward prospect. Whereas if they draft a decent dman, he will get stuck in the logjam of dmen already in the organization. When you have a team like the pens who are stacked at one position and are pathetic at others, you go for the best forward. Sure, if the pens have a handful of solid forward prospects and a handful of solid defensive prospects, take the best player available.

Of course you don't...

Anyways, draft hindsight is one of my least favorite things ever. I think it's more important that things make sense at the time, and so far, they have. Poliout over Forsberg was tough for me, b/c I like the kid, but it was a perfectly reasonable decision. Despres was a no brainer, as was Maata.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

I don't like that line of thought at all -- never did. If Despres and Maatta were such no brainer picks, then they wouldn't have even been left for the Pens to select.

 

[Waffle Fries]

I don't like that line of thought at all -- never did. If Despres and Maatta were such no brainer picks, then they wouldn't have even been left for the Pens to select.

This comment doesn't really make any sense to me at all. Both were projected to go much higher in the draft than they did, just because a player falls a bit doesn't mean they are no longer a good pick.

By this logic the only players that are 'no brainers' would be gone before any team picks.

So was Seth Jones not a no brainer for Nashville? Shinkaruk for Vancouver?

There are a lot of people that are still mad we didn't get Forsberg, and he fell past his original projection. Was he no longer a 'no brainer' for Washington to snag?

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

I think you just misunderstood me completely -- pretty sure we're on the same side here.

Calling Despres and Maatta no-brainers, to me, seems to diminish the quality of the selection. As in "well, anybody would've taken Despres and Maatta at that spot." If they were such no-brainers, then they both would've been gone a few spots before at least, but clearly other teams liked prospects better than those two.

 

[Waffle Fries]

Then could you elaborate on how Despres and Maatta weren't no brainers to select since they were still there when the Pens selected?

 

[themethod7]

Angelo Esposito was a no brainer for us at #20. Just sayin'.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

Then could you elaborate on how Despres and Maatta weren't no brainers to select since they were still there when the Pens selected?

...OK? Instead of Despres, Pens could've chosen to select Ferraro, Ryan O'Reilly, Klingberg, Alex Chiasson, Jakob Silfverberg, Budish, Drew Moore, Robin Lehner, Stefan Elliot, Pirri, Tomas Tatar, or any other player in the 2nd round that would've still been on the board, but they.... didn't? Clearly it wasn't a no-brainer for Boston, who picked Caron, or Chicago, who picked Olsen, or Tampa, who picked Ashton.

Despres at any of those spots would've been a "no-brainer" and yet those teams chose to pass over him, just like the Pens could've passed over him too for other similarly rated prospects. But they... didn't.

Is it such a hard concept to grasp? Or are you going to bring Seth Jones into this again and argue picking in the Top-5 of the first round is the same as the bottom-5? Or that the 29 other GMs would've selected the exact same players in the same situation?

 

[Le Magnifique 66]

Angelo Esposito was a no brainer for us at #20. Just sayin'.

He was. That was a horrible draft class, after our pick the best players were Subban in the mid 2nd and Benn that was selected by the Stars in the 5th round. Probably the best player that year after Kane. He was passed up by every team including Dallas 5 times

 

[Sjb141]

I think you just misunderstood me completely -- pretty sure we're on the same side here.

Calling Despres and Maatta no-brainers, to me, seems to diminish the quality of the selection. As in "well, anybody would've taken Despres and Maatta at that spot." If they were such no-brainers, then they both would've been gone a few spots before at least, but clearly other teams liked prospects better than those two.

Fair point. I think what I meant was at the time, it seemed like the gulf in talent between who we took and who else was available was pretty large.

But I agree that phrasing does seem to diminish us making a good pick - I think I kind of think of guys in 'tiers' and those 2 picks were the last of a really good 2nd grouping of players, hence, to me at least, 'no brainers.'

 

[Waffle Fries]

Is it such a hard concept to grasp? Or are you going to bring Seth Jones into this again and argue picking in the Top-5 of the first round is the same as the bottom-5? Or that the 29 other GMs would've selected the exact same players in the same situation?

The concept that doesn't make sense to me is that because a player is available, it's not a 'no brainer'

When we picked Despres, we hadn't selected a defenseman in the first round since 2002. Fleury, Geno, Sid, Staal, Esposito, No pick, and then Despres.

Our cupboard of defensive prospects wasn't full then the way it is now. Despres was ranked 18th by TSN and fell to us. So for our situation, and a player of his caliber, yeah that was a no brainer. Just because he fell there doesn't mean it wasn't.

 

[stepdad gaary]

The concept that doesn't make sense to me is that because a player is available, it's not a 'no brainer'

When we picked Despres, we hadn't selected a defenseman in the first round since 2002. Fleury, Geno, Sid, Staal, Esposito, No pick, and then Despres.

Our cupboard of defensive prospects wasn't full then the way it is now. Despres was ranked 18th by TSN and fell to us. So for our situation, and a player of his caliber, yeah that was a no brainer. Just because he fell there doesn't mean it wasn't.

lets say the Pens had Despres ranked as the 12th best player in the draft. If he falls to us, thats a no brainer. Some other team might have him ranked 35th and pick 28th, therefore, not a no brainer.

You're getting too caught up on the "no brainer" terminology. It doesn't really matter. The pens typically pick the highest player on their board at the given pick. That doesn't mean the player that they pick is always head and shoulders above a guy they pass on.

Say they ranked Despres at 15th or something. That doesn't mean it was a no-brainer to rank him there. The 16th guy is probably not that far behind but they trust their rankings and go with the top guy.

If someone offered you $1 or 99 cents, its a no brainer to take the $1. That doesn't mean that the 99 cents is so much worse.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

Fair point. I think what I meant was at the time, it seemed like the gulf in talent between who we took and who else was available was pretty large.

But I agree that phrasing does seem to diminish us making a good pick - I think I kind of think of guys in 'tiers' and those 2 picks were the last of a really good 2nd grouping of players, hence, to me at least, 'no brainers.'

Fair enough -- I get where you're heading with the talent/pedigree angle. In the '09 draft, though, there are definitely some high-quality 2nd rounders in that talent-tier that, had they been selected at the 30-spot at the time, wouldn't necessarily have been considered "reaches," but the Pens elected to take Despres anyway.

And it's too early I think to say Maatta was where Group 1 or 2 whatever ended, with every one else taken the next 20 spots or so on a lower lever.

 

[Darth Vitale]

Angelo Esposito was a no brainer for us at #20. Just sayin'.

He got us Pascal Dupuis. That Hossa guy was just a distraction.

I think Espo and Macaroni are rough equivalents. High upside, fell in the draft because of injury reasons... probably won't amount to much but might be useful in a trade.

 

[Waffle Fries]

lets say the Pens had Despres ranked as the 12th best player in the draft. If he falls to us, thats a no brainer. Some other team might have him ranked 35th and pick 28th, therefore, not a no brainer.

You're getting too caught up on the "no brainer" terminology. It doesn't really matter. The pens typically pick the highest player on their board at the given pick. That doesn't mean the player that they pick is always head and shoulders above a guy they pass on.

I'm just saying for the pedigree Despres had, and our organizational needs at the time, the Penguins taking him was a no brainer, and just because he was still available when we picked doesn't make it otherwise.