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

[Jargon]

I think Nem (who I generally agree with) and Hodge (who I definitely almost never do) are both right about this draft so sometimes the world is chaos and we have to accept things that are beyond our control.

 

[Gecklund]

I like talking about prospects, and that's what I've been doing but when you come in swinging with "these kids are trash", you're gonna get some pushback from some people.

See but that’s not what I said. I said this draft is trash. I said there were guys that were better. (Which is obviously all my opinion but I thought that went without saying).

 

[jarr92]

He was off the board. Not peoples next pick after those two. I'm not going to rehash it. It's still vivid in my memory. I was at the draft party and paying particular attention in those days. The board was so livid I even remember asking Randy Hahn why the Sharks went so far off the board, "since you guys knew way more than me about prospects". He told me these kids are so young you don't really know what they'll be and the Sharks spend a lot more time watching and interviewing these kids than we can know. It didn't bother him at all. I learned a lot about draft day that day.

Timo Meier (9th overall)

VARIOUS SCOUTING REPORTS "A physically dominant winger with the ability to play in a skill or character role. In the offensive end, Meier is very aware and gets himself into spaces where he can easily make seeing eye passes or snap hard, accurate shots. Can impact the game in a number of...

hfboards.mandatory.com

 

[themelkman]

Ill admit I was just meh on Meier, but I am happy hes finally really looking good.

 

[hohosaregood]

Am I one of them?

Personally, I'm just here to accrue @Sandisfan points

 

[TheBeard]

Personally, I'm just here to accrue @Sandisfan points

My ratio looks way better solely because of them.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

I'm so ignorant on these players that I don't know if this draft was good or not. I think it's about 99% certainty that come the first night of the new season, I will have completely forgotten this draft and in 2 or 3 years if any of these guys are called up I will be like, oh yeah, that draft. They all blend together now. I think the only thing I will say is I wish the Sharks were a little more transparent on what their plan is. Grier said expect some rough spots and that's fine, but I see what Chicago did this weekend, trading away players and completely tearing it down and I guess from a trading aspect, I thought the Sharks would have been a little more active, especially with the NHL caliber players.

 

[jarr92]

You don't actually understand what I've been saying if you think this is it.



Strawmanny exaggeration. You don't have to have conversations about why the players are going to turn out on the high end. Just have a conversation that's more than "these are terrible players with no translatable skills (your words)" and scoffing at the suggestion that we need to wait and see what happens with them before forming final opinions.

And you used the goalie comment as an example of your flawed thinking? Not from my perspective. From this side of things it looks like you made a strident, overly reductive point, and now are trying to walk it back into a net positive now that it's been shown to be demonstrably incorrect.

"I don't like this goalie class" is a valid opinion.

"there are no goalies worth drafting" (which was appended with "before the 7th round" later on when the tide started turning) is not. That's barstool sports radio Stephen A Smith level hot take.



Again, the entire time I've been having this discussion I've said it's not about being positive. It's about being a bit more cautious and patient. It's not leaping to an immediate conclusion in the strongest possible terms.



Because you've dug your heels in and made every counter-argument about either calling the opposing views appeals to authority or misrepresnting them as people trying to force you to be "positive." Or the uncalled for "lol it's funny to see a mod saying this" as if I'm not supposed to have an opinion on how people conduct themselves when it hurts the overall atmosphere of the board.


I apologize for getting overly frustrated with what happened here over the last couple of days. It's not been just you that I've been frustrated with. and I probably don't need to get that frustrated.

But last night the moment the trade happened things went nuts. Then just as it calmed down the Bystedt pick came in and it was right back to molten hot rage. And now a day later we get to the first pick for the sharks and while it's not as pronounced given that it's a smaller audience this morning, it's just more of the same.

This board has been wrong far more than it's been right about prospects. Myself included. but instead of learning over time to dial it back and not leap to the first hard conclusion, it feels like the instinct to dig in and crystalize the strongest opinion as fast as possible has gotten worse. It used to be that people got strident over the 1st rounder and then the later round picks were just more of an issue of confusion or uncertainty. now it's like we watch the Sharks pick a 4th or 5th round pick and its treated as being a mistake on the same level as the 1st.

I just want people to chill out and be able to disagree without it turning into hyperbole from either side.

I think part of the reason people are more angry than usual is because of how horrible the Sharks have looked.

Reimer was the only reason the Sharks were picking 11th instead of 8th or 9th. The fact that the Sharks traded so far down to get more picks (especially after already wasting the 2nd on Hill) makes it feel a bit like a wasted bad season. When your team looks as horrible as the Sharks did for most of the year, you expect to get a legit blue chip prospect in return at the draft. Obviously none of us know how the picks will turn out, but the outcome thus far has certainly been a bit frustrating.

 

[TheBeard]

I think part of the reason people are more angry than usual is because of how horrible the Sharks have looked.

Reimer was the only reason the Sharks were picking 11th instead of 8th or 9th. The fact that the Sharks traded so far down to get more picks (especially after already wasting the 2nd on Hill) makes it feel a bit like a wasted bad season. When your team looks as horrible as the Sharks did for most of the year, you expect to get a legit blue chip prospect in return at the draft. Obviously none of us know how the picks will turn out, but the outcome thus far has certainly been a bit frustrating.

Well, as I've said before, I thought the board consensus was if you're not picking top 5 then it's pointless, so does it really matter if we're picking 8th, 9th, 11th or 27th?

 

[Selachimorpha]

Don't hate this years crop, but there isn't really anything to get too excited about (like an Eklund) - which is difficult to stomach after another crap season.

The success of these prospects will really depend on their development, so hopefully the Sharks have a plan in place for them all. Based on some scouting reports, the earliest we'll see one of them sniff the NHL is 4 years from now. Whereas had we picked 11, we may have seen someone in 2 years. So maybe this is a sign to all current players not to expect any internal help anytime soon, and if they want to compete, they can waive clauses and move on? One can hope.

 

[one2gamble]

Grier better get that development department staffed up asap......

 

[The Nemesis]

I think part of the reason people are more angry than usual is because of how horrible the Sharks have looked.

Reimer was the only reason the Sharks were picking 11th instead of 8th or 9th. The fact that the Sharks traded so far down to get more picks (especially after already wasting the 2nd on Hill) makes it feel a bit like a wasted bad season. When your team looks as horrible as the Sharks did for most of the year, you expect to get a legit blue chip prospect in return. Obviously none of us know how the picks will turn out, but the outcome thus far has certainly been a bit frustrating.

that's not on the Sharks though. That's on peoples' expectations. Everything I read about this draft is that you had a small-ish top group of highly interesting blue chip(ish) prospects and then it broke wide open. I'd seen the group listed as being as large as 10 players, which put the Sharks in the worst possible position for that considering they sat 11th. But it was Wright, Slafkovsky, Cooley, Nemec, Jiricek as the "core" guys, and then it was Gauthier, Geekie, Savoie, and Kasper behind them. Lekkerimaki and Kemell were kind of up there, but industry consensus seemed to be much softer on them (and that would seem to be for good reason given that they fell to 15th and 17th respectively)

At 11 the team was not getting a strong blue-chip talent. They were getting a guy with potential and warts. Not the kind of prospect that hugely boosts the stock of the pool like Eklund did.

So they seem to have made a decision to use the flat, broad, tiered nature of this draft to cast a wide net. Trade back and get 3 top-50 picks. Maybe go for a couple of Bs and a B- instead of one B+. Or maybe figure they can take the guys they picked and fix them enough to have another Bordeleau or, taking a step down a Coe/Guschin, Robins type who improves on their stock after being drafted. It's just that instead of going for undersized high skill guys they've gone for ones with more physical tools and less tangible results.

Bystedt is supposed to be solid across the board tools wise without any big A+ skills (something I normally think of as a bit of a red flag, but not a prospect-sinking issue) where a shift to the wing might help him. If nothing else he's a decent skater for being 6'4 and isn't an offensive black hole. That's something to work with.

Lund has been reported to be a strong skater with a good shot to go with being 6'2 185 already.

Havelid is smallish in a departure from other players in this class, but is skilled and apparently plays a solid two-way game

Fisher has size (6'2, 195) and is supposedly toolsy with strong offensive track record (standard USHS disclaimer) while being competent defensively. He's viewed as a boom-or-bust type guy from what little I've read.

Beaupit has the physical tools (he's 6'5) but needs refinement to get him to be more consistent in the net. But of course goalies are a weird voodoo-y gamble so almost anyone you pick that's not a headlining goalie prospect is either tools without results or results with limited tools. They're clearly looking to take some swings with the combo of Mann, Chrona, Gaudreau, and Beaupit and that's mostly the best you can ask for from the position.

Furlong is a long-term project who went from being undersized (I saw something that listed him at 5'9 in 2020) to having solid NHL size to go with good instincts/hockey IQ, but who needs work on his consistency and perhaps a nudge to his skating.

Bystedt looks like maybe the most disappointing because he appears to be a bit of a "high floor, moderate ceiling" type unless he has a big breakout, but overall it looks like the Sharks had a plan and went for it. Bigger projects with more runway but who have the upside to turn into something valuable. Maybe it works. Maybe it blows up in their faces. It's gonna be a couple years before we can even begin to know for sure.

 

[hohosaregood]

that's not on the Sharks though. That's on peoples' expectations. Everything I read about this draft is that you had a small-ish top group of highly interesting blue chip(ish) prospects and then it broke wide open. I'd seen the group listed as being as large as 10 players, which put the Sharks in the worst possible position for that considering they sat 11th. But it was Wright, Slafkovsky, Cooley, Nemec, Jiricek as the "core" guys, and then it was Gauthier, Geekie, Savoie, and Kasper behind them. Lekkerimaki and Kemell were kind of up there, but industry consensus seemed to be much softer on them (and that would seem to be for good reason given that they fell to 15th and 17th respectively)

At 11 the team was not getting a strong blue-chip talent. They were getting a guy with potential and warts. Not the kind of prospect that hugely boosts the stock of the pool like Eklund did.

So they seem to have made a decision to use the flat, broad, tiered nature of this draft to cast a wide net. Trade back and get 3 top-50 picks. Maybe go for a couple of Bs and a B- instead of one B+. Or maybe figure they can take the guys they picked and fix them enough to have another Bordeleau or, taking a step down a Coe/Guschin, Robins type who improves on their stock after being drafted. It's just that instead of going for undersized high skill guys they've gone for ones with more physical tools and less tangible results.

Bystedt is supposed to be solid across the board tools wise without any big A+ skills (something I normally think of as a bit of a red flag, but not a prospect-sinking issue) where a shift to the wing might help him. If nothing else he's a decent skater for being 6'4 and isn't an offensive black hole. That's something to work with.

Lund has been reported to be a strong skater with a good shot to go with being 6'2 185 already.

Havelid is smallish in a departure from other players in this class, but is skilled and apparently plays a solid two-way game

Fisher has size (6'2, 195) and is supposedly toolsy with strong offensive track record (standard USHS disclaimer) while being competent defensively. He's viewed as a boom-or-bust type guy from what little I've read.

Beaupit has the physical tools (he's 6'5) but needs refinement to get him to be more consistent in the net. But of course goalies are a weird voodoo-y gamble so almost anyone you pick that's not a headlining goalie prospect is either tools without results or results with limited tools. They're clearly looking to take some swings with the combo of Mann, Chrona, Gaudreau, and Beaupit and that's mostly the best you can ask for from the position.

Furlong is a long-term project who went from being undersized (I saw something that listed him at 5'9 in 2020) to having solid NHL size to go with good instincts/hockey IQ, but who needs work on his consistency and perhaps a nudge to his skating.

Bystedt looks like maybe the most disappointing because he appears to be a bit of a "high floor, moderate ceiling" type unless he has a big breakout, but overall it looks like the Sharks had a plan and went for it. Bigger projects with more runway but who have the upside to turn into something valuable. Maybe it works. Maybe it blows up in their faces. It's gonna be a couple years before we can even begin to know for sure.

This is mostly what I've been seeing too. All of these kids seem to have the tools, and signs of having good hockey IQ too but they're also works in process at this stage of their development. I think there's totally a scenario where we revisit a bunch of these kids in a year, and they're awesome. But...I kinda wish we went with some of the more hyped guys like Firkus or Lambert or whatever

 

[SharksFan17]

I'm glad they went for a few more bites at the dartboard approach and it will be nice to get a few more guys with size to go with our smaller young playmakers coming up. hope springs eternal and there's always next year and some other cliches I can't currently recall

 

[Alaskanice]

Nem, I agree wholeheartedly with your claim that this is solely about a fan and their expectations. Sometimes, I get flustered by others here who play the “know it all” and try to force that in the face of opposition.
As for your points about the Sharks, I trust they know what they know because this is their lives. They are paid to do this. Some act as if they’re just throwing darts.

 

[spintops]

I am a quality over quantity guy and would prefer we take a shot on a blue chip type prospect. That said, I don't think there really were blue chippers at #11 in this draft. Not my favorite pick but I don't hate the approach.

 

[jarr92]

that's not on the Sharks though. That's on peoples' expectations. Everything I read about this draft is that you had a small-ish top group of highly interesting blue chip(ish) prospects and then it broke wide open. I'd seen the group listed as being as large as 10 players, which put the Sharks in the worst possible position for that considering they sat 11th. But it was Wright, Slafkovsky, Cooley, Nemec, Jiricek as the "core" guys, and then it was Gauthier, Geekie, Savoie, and Kasper behind them. Lekkerimaki and Kemell were kind of up there, but industry consensus seemed to be much softer on them (and that would seem to be for good reason given that they fell to 15th and 17th respectively)

At 11 the team was not getting a strong blue-chip talent. They were getting a guy with potential and warts. Not the kind of prospect that hugely boosts the stock of the pool like Eklund did.

So they seem to have made a decision to use the flat, broad, tiered nature of this draft to cast a wide net. Trade back and get 3 top-50 picks. Maybe go for a couple of Bs and a B- instead of one B+. Or maybe figure they can take the guys they picked and fix them enough to have another Bordeleau or, taking a step down a Coe/Guschin, Robins type who improves on their stock after being drafted. It's just that instead of going for undersized high skill guys they've gone for ones with more physical tools and less tangible results.

Bystedt is supposed to be solid across the board tools wise without any big A+ skills (something I normally think of as a bit of a red flag, but not a prospect-sinking issue) where a shift to the wing might help him. If nothing else he's a decent skater for being 6'4 and isn't an offensive black hole. That's something to work with.

Lund has been reported to be a strong skater with a good shot to go with being 6'2 185 already.

Havelid is smallish in a departure from other players in this class, but is skilled and apparently plays a solid two-way game

Fisher has size (6'2, 195) and is supposedly toolsy with strong offensive track record (standard USHS disclaimer) while being competent defensively. He's viewed as a boom-or-bust type guy from what little I've read.

Beaupit has the physical tools (he's 6'5) but needs refinement to get him to be more consistent in the net. But of course goalies are a weird voodoo-y gamble so almost anyone you pick that's not a headlining goalie prospect is either tools without results or results with limited tools. They're clearly looking to take some swings with the combo of Mann, Chrona, Gaudreau, and Beaupit and that's mostly the best you can ask for from the position.

Furlong is a long-term project who went from being undersized (I saw something that listed him at 5'9 in 2020) to having solid NHL size to go with good instincts/hockey IQ, but who needs work on his consistency and perhaps a nudge to his skating.

Bystedt looks like maybe the most disappointing because he appears to be a bit of a "high floor, moderate ceiling" type unless he has a big breakout, but overall it looks like the Sharks had a plan and went for it. Bigger projects with more runway but who have the upside to turn into something valuable. Maybe it works. Maybe it blows up in their faces. It's gonna be a couple years before we can even begin to know for sure.

The Sharks finishing 11th instead of 8th or 9th is on the Sharks management though. The difference between the Sharks and Detroit was 3 points. The Sharks easily could have traded Reimer/Bonino to secure a slightly better pick for Savoie or Kasper once they knew playoffs weren't happening. That's what other similarly placed teams did at the deadline. This draft was an expected outcome after that didn't happen, but it still adds a layer of frustration to everything (for me anyways).

Also IMO Nazar was still a blue chip-ish prospect, but yeah we have to wait at least 3 years to know for sure.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if Bystedt ends up better than expected, as that seems to happen every time analysts think the Sharks reached.

 

[The Nemesis]

This is mostly what I've been seeing too. All of these kids seem to have the tools, and signs of having good hockey IQ too but they're also works in process at this stage of their development. I think there's totally a scenario where we revisit a bunch of these kids in a year, and they're awesome. But...I kinda wish we went with some of the more hyped guys like Firkus or Lambert or whatever

The one thing is that a lot of these guys have lost much of the last two years of proper and complete development to the coronapocalypse. It's entirely possible that some of them would've fared far better if they hadn't taken a giant detour since 2020.

As for Lambert, the fact that he went from a guy who was considered a top tier pick to lasting to the very, very, very end of the round without it being related to injuries or something striking. Instead there was just a lot of concern over his compete level and the fact that he's switched teams as much as he has (he's basically switched teams every year for the last few years, going from Pelicans to HIFK to JYP and back to Pelicans) and putting up 2 consecutive iffy seasons in Liiga (15 pts in 46 games last year, 10 points in 49 games this season)

 

[The Nemesis]

The Sharks finishing 11th instead of 8th or 9th is on the Sharks management though. The difference between the Sharks and Detroit was 3 points. The Sharks easily could have traded Reimer/Bonino to secure a slightly better pick for Savoie or Kasper once they knew playoffs weren't happening. That's what other similarly placed teams did at the deadline. This draft was an expected outcome after that didn't happen, but it still adds a layer of frustration to everything (for me anyways).

Also IMO Nazar was still a blue chip-ish prospect, but yeah we have to wait at least 3 years to know for sure.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if Bystedt ends up better than expected, as that seems to happen every time analysts think the Sharks reached.

But that's a different kettle of fish because that's on previous management (DW Sr and Will, chiefly) and not on either Grier or the scouting department. Grier just got hired a couple days ago, so he hasn't had time to do much of anything except the Kunin trade and the scouting department has to make the best of what they're given. So getting mad at them now for having to get something out of the situation they've been dropped into isn't really fair to them.

 

[The Nemesis]

I am a quality over quantity guy and would prefer we take a shot on a blue chip type prospect. That said, I don't think there really were blue chippers at #11 in this draft. Not my favorite pick but I don't hate the approach.

Sheng had a quote yesterday from Grier (or maybe DW Jr, I can't remember) that basically confirmed what we'd suspect happened: When it came time for their pick ,the guys they were targeting were gone. Seems like maybe they were hoping that at least one of Kemell, Geekie, or Lekkerimaki would have a fan in the top 10 and someone (likely from that 7-10 group of Korchinski, Kaspar, Savoie, and Mintyukov) would fall back to them. Ottawa taking DeBrincat for the 7th was probably the initial monkey wrench.

 

[Hobocop]

I'm so ignorant on these players that I don't know if this draft was good or not. I think it's about 99% certainty that come the first night of the new season, I will have completely forgotten this draft and in 2 or 3 years if any of these guys are called up I will be like, oh yeah, that draft. They all blend together now. I think the only thing I will say is I wish the Sharks were a little more transparent on what their plan is. Grier said expect some rough spots and that's fine, but I see what Chicago did this weekend, trading away players and completely tearing it down and I guess from a trading aspect, I thought the Sharks would have been a little more active, especially with the NHL caliber players.

Yeah, after the rough season I'd like to have a prospect to point to as a potential core piece of the future for the Sharks, but there just isn't one in this group. Once we traded down it felt like one of our drafts from the early 2010s. The kind you'd restock with after a disappointing playoff exit, not one to build the future of your team around.

I do like that after a couple years of taking mostly small forwards with our picks, we swung the other way and added some size and some defense this time around. We were lacking in both (prospect-wise).

 

[LadyStanley]

Smiles



Future prospect?

 

[hohosaregood]

Yeah, after the rough season I'd like to have a prospect to point to as a potential core piece of the future for the Sharks, but there just isn't one in this group. Once we traded down it felt like one of our drafts from the early 2010s. The kind you'd restock with after a disappointing playoff exit, not one to build the future of your team around.

I do like that after a couple years of taking mostly small forwards with our picks, we swung the other way and added some size and some defense this time around. We were lacking in both (prospect-wise).

We're getting to the point where we have a well stocked prospect pool, like we've really filled out the 5-20 spots nicely with a group of guys that would be competitive against most other teams' 5-20s but it's still missing the blue chip tier of kids comparable to Eklund.

 

[hohosaregood]

Pronman gives out draft a B grade. We're gambling on size and upside in his mind. I would agree with that.

2022 Draft Grade: B
Filip Bystedt at 27 was a tad high for me overall by the Sharks, but I get what they were trying to do. In terms of pure upside he was easily top 20 in the draft and I appreciate the swing. There was a clear bet on tools in size and skating in this draft to go with the highly skilled undersized defenseman Mattias Havelid. I could see at least one quality regular from this class, and if either Bystedt or Cam Lund hit I think you’re getting a real player.

 

[jMoneyBrah]

Firstly, @The Nemesis and the other mods, in case no one says it, thanks for all you do around here. Indeed, since FtF did whatever it did in the post Plank/TCY days, HFSharks has been my primary place to get my Sharks talk fix. And as much as one can reasonably coral online communities into civil discourse, you and the other mods have done an admiral job. As an aside, if I could make one ask: can we bring back Lord Passington in some fashion? Those will never not be hilarious.

Acknowledging that my opinion is not worth much, since I don't follow Jr. Hockey, research the draft, and have nearly no viable opinion on any of the players drafted: I'm pretty disappointed with the top of the Sharks draft. Part of the disappointment stems from the lack of discernible vision the team has been operating with, made so readily visible when the Sharks cap off a trifecta of shit seasons holding the 11th overall pick instead of something more valuable. And instead of simply taking the BPA at that position, and saying "okay maybe it's a middle 6er with top 6 upside, but we got the highest quality piece we could", to that parlay it into the 27th, 34th, and 45th picks, and then proceed to go off-the board with some of those picks... it's simply not a satisfying experience in any way for this Sharks fan. What, as a Sharks fan, am I supposed to look at from the last two days that's going to re-assure me the team is headed in the right direction and that brighter days lay ahead? If I'm an Arizona, Buffalo, or Chicago fan I can easily wrap my head around what the team is doing; and if I'm going to be getting non-competitive teams for the immediate future, I can find solace, enjoyment, and entertainment in the crop of exciting young players coming soon and understand the team is committing to restocking the organization with high-end talent.

Of course, time can change that feeling. Yes, perhaps the hockey-world consensus is indeed wrong and Bysetdt, Lund, and Havelid as a group will prove to be more valuable than having one of Geekie, Mateychuk, Nazar, etc. But for today, the Sharks unwillingness to communicate a rational vision of how they intend to revamp a roster that is clearly not threatening contention for the foreseeable future; their seeming lack of urgency to turn over the front-office, hiring their new GM a mere two days before the draft; it all feels like a veneer of competency has worn away and what's revealed is not pretty.

My feeling is that, of the 25ish years of following the Sharks, this moment now, after the last season and this draft, is the lowest esteem I've ever had for the organization.

All that said, perhaps this is the bottom; this is the point we look back on 3,4,5 seasons from now and say "that was when all the shit from the downslide piled up, and after that was the beginning of the ascent". I like the Grier hiring. I remain confident that Junior has a solid approach to scouting and drafting, and I'm encouraged to hear words being said about a commitment and investment in the development infrastructure of the org.