Jargon
Registered User
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.
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).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.
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.
Personally, I'm just here to accrue @Sandisfan pointsAm I one of them?
My ratio looks way better solely because of them.Personally, I'm just here to accrue @Sandisfan points
I think part of the reason people are more angry than usual is because of how horrible the Sharks have looked.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.
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?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.
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.
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 whateverthat'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).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
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.
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.
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.
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.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).