Prospect Info: 2020 NHL Entry Draft (Round #1 - 10/6/20 @ 7pm ET)
- Thread starter rt
- Start date
- Status
- Oct 26, 2006
- 18,545
- 11,375
I do hope that Armstrong will keep the overseas scouting levels high. I think that was one of Chayka's organizational strengths - or at least he augmented it considerably from what it was before. Otherwise, I'm with you - I'm way happier with Armstrong than I was with Chayka and BA hasn't even done anything yet.
Yeah, he made a lot of deals, but I feel a lot of them were minor tinkerings, shifting AHL guys who we were loaded up on and weren't getting the right playing time for the opposite on another squad. In the grand scheme of things, I wouldn't really even count them when evaluating his trading. Still, I think it showed he at least had a pulse on the team at all levels and was willing to make even the smallest of moves if it could improve the team in some way.
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
That's the thing about innovation- nobody can realize the possibility until the innovation actually happens. And it may take years to happen.
Not sure how much you follow football, but people talk about Bill Walsh as the West Coast offense creator and innovator that gave birth to that offense and led the 49ers to Super Bowls in the 80s. What doesn't come up is that he started working on the West Coast offense in the late 60s as an assistant with Cincinnati.
Sports is one of those areas where bigger, stronger, faster is not the only rule, but it also takes staffs putting together the right pieces and systems to maximize achievement. Any innovation to gain a leg up on finding these players should be a good thing.
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
I don’t think I’d be willing to watch an entire football game for less than a hundred dollars.
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
Point remains the same. With innovation, you either are on fire with it or you get burned.
Still not certain we got burned in draft evaluation. What was done on the testing side of things doesn't necessarily equate 100% with the other parts to the process.
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
It’s the most f***ed out word in the English language. You know what a better one is? Mastery.
The buzzword cult makes me nauseous.
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
I get it - if you look at it, mastery is simply having a distinct process that sets you apart from others at a similar skill level. Usually what sets people apart is that innovation, but I don't know if either can be conflated in the same way. You can be innovative but not a master.
An example might be a double-decker aircraft. Innovative? Absolutely. But mastered? I would not call it that because it didn't fit into airlines plans and ultimately, the aircraft will now likely be built significantly less.
Sports environment is tricky though
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
Opiates has a fantastic practical application. They ended up being maybe a little more of a problem than we hoped for. Innovation is the opiate of the f***tard.
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
Obviously I don’t mean real innovation. I mean every asshole who has the word in the their LinkedIn profile. And manages to squeeze in “visionary”. Those people should be put on an island someplace.
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
Ehhhhh you're already getting one. For free and against your wishes. Lol. I gotta be the most ignore listed member on this thing. Haha.
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
Makes sense - people inflate their vision on their own. I don't think that we have enough information on the prospects quite yet, but I know that for the first time in a long time, there is a set of players under the age of 25 to be excited about. That goes for players in the NHL and prospects. Difficult to think of a time when both applied. Maybe when Yandle first came in and we put Turris, Boedker, and Tikhonov out there. I think we have a deeper and better group of prospects than that moment
Whatever adjective wants to apply: visionary, out of the box, etc. - it is just different enough from the norm that I think it also puts others on notice that there may be some other ways to arrive at conclusions about prospects. That still may remain to be seen regarding how the prospects pan out, but it would be interesting to see just how the picks pan out - even those traded away.
I think it was a early as about four or five years ago where our prospect pool was ranked #1, and looked what happened. Just goes to show where a player is drafted means diddley. I don't get excited about a player until I see them in the NHL. Everything else is window dressing. If you look at our team and our prospects, we don't a first line forward of the bunch. Hopefully some one will take a big step and surprise. I mean, we have the coaching staff to help and put them in a position to succeed.
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
I think it was a early as about four or five years ago where our prospect pool was ranked #1, and looked what happened. Just goes to show where a player is drafted means diddley. I don't get excited about a player until I see them in the NHL. Everything else is window dressing. If you look at our team and our prospects, we don't a first line forward of the bunch. Hopefully some one will take a big step and surprise. I mean, we have the coaching staff to help and put them in a position to succeed.
Hayton looks like he has 2nd line C, but I think he will wind up being the real deal. I understand what you are sayimg here, but that's where finding the gems later are. Not every 1st round pick is guaranteed success, but they are usually the safest to achieve it.
I look at it in this fashion: in 2015-16, Strome played his D+1 year with Erie. Put up just under 2 points per game, yada, yada. D+2 - got 7 games with AZ, went back and put up over 2 per game. He was the 3rd overall pick.
Jenik adjusted to NA at the end of D+1. Exploded with D+2 year up until injury. While every draft is different, we got Jenik roughly 60 picks later than when a more "sure thing" in Strome was taken.
I do think that Tocchet was not the right hire - granted, I liked Tippett, so think of that what you will. But, if the ideas within drafting bear the fruit of players who consistently wind up proving their pick value or increasing that value, it says something. Name a prospect that has had this much POSITIVE discussion around say, Jenik or Macceli. Strome would have discussion, but was it all positive? Domi is probably the last one, but you expect that our of your 1st round picks. Finding these players in the later rounds are the real ways to build, and again, this is more intuition than any study on my part, but I think people will be surprised (in a good way) by the development of:
Hayton
Jenik
Callahan
Farinacci
I am holding out on Bergkvist and Crotty, although I think Crotty has a good opportunity to get to the NHL soon.
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
_Del_
Registered User
- Jul 4, 2003
- 15,426
- 6,738
I wasn't talking about that. Or even you, necessarily. Mostly just this "Arizona simply has to trade everything for picks because they don't have any. Also, they should trade everyone for peanuts for money"-narrative in the (mostly) amateur media and their consumers.
I mean, it sucks, obviously. We'd be better off with the two picks, obviously. I just don't get the apocalyptic hot takes.
I mean, it sucks, obviously. We'd be better off with the two picks, obviously. I just don't get the apocalyptic hot takes.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 14,546
- 12,436
Ain't that the truth. It's unlikely we would draft someone in the first 2 rds that becomes our savior.
- Status
