GDT: 2022 NHL Draft, Rd 1 Thursday 7/7 ESPN 4:00pm, Rds 2-7 Friday 7/8 NHL Network 8am

Sysreq

Registered User
Apr 9, 2015
2,957
1,219
I really feel Geekie was overvalued. I think he was a big bodied Canadian that was able to use his size in a Junior league - we see ‘em every year. Some of the scouting reports on Geekie bring into question some fundamental flaws - not just in skating, but concerns about his ability to really be the central piece on a line instead of just making solid pass. If Geekie was 6’1, I don’t think he would even be considered a second round pick. Size works against kids - but it doesn’t translate to the higher levels. I think that’s what scared the Sharks away.

Bystadt on the other hand has played against men in the SHL, has done best-on-best in WJC, and shown he can compete. His tool box is deeper and his game more complete.

Both players need to work on skating, both players need to add more mass and learn to use it better to protect the puck. They are actually very, very similar. When I look at it from the outside though, I am not sure one can really be said to be more “sure fire” or blue-chip than the other.

The draft is all about probability though. Each time up at the podium is a little lottery ticket. We turned an over-valued 6’4 Canadian 3rd-line Center into a under-valued 6’4 Swedish 3rd-line Center and 2 early second round picks. People should be thrilled.

Let’s be real - it wasn’t a great draft class. Outside of a few picks, there wasn’t a ton there due to disruptions from COVID. I think the Sharks punting as many picks to ‘23 should be a clear sign that this draft wasn’t that great.

At the end of the day, I feel better about our odds of having a full time NHL’r after the 3-to-1 than I would have by taking anyone left at 11.
 

sharks_dynasty

Registered User
Oct 25, 2006
1,039
1,041
San Jose, CA
It’s very hard to predict players at the ripe age of 18. Some of them have not hit their stride yet and will only bloom into who they are meant to become in later years. That’s why drafting is not an exact science. Do you invest in players that are hitting on all cylinders at 18 and may peak out shortly thereafter, or have a good trajectory and may only hit on all cylinders a few years later but have higher long term upside?

None of us has a crystal ball and we can’t see into the future the picks that will take us by surprise many years later. The picks themselves will determine how well they do. All we can hope for is that the brain trust that scouts and makes the selections have done the best they could based on their drafting thesis. I am personally optimistic and hope some of these long term projects turn out to be key pieces for a future winning team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan

timorous me

Gristled Veteran
Apr 14, 2010
1,839
2,841
A couple of our higher picks here, including Bystedt, were labeled as being somewhat weak in terms of "compete" and that sort of thing. I'd be really interested (but, like, could someone else please do this instead of me?) in going through certain prognosticators and seeing guys they label as lacking in that aspect of their game and seeing if that continues to be an issue 3, 5, or more years down the line?

Because if, in fact, a number of guys who as 17 and 18 year olds aren't always consistent or best at giving it their all 100% of the time ends up not actually being a telling factor of how they end up performing later on in their careers, then maybe the Sharks have something in mind here in terms of taking advantage of a systemic bias against certain kids.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad