Prospect Info: San Jose Sharks top prospect

[KirbyDots]

the million$ question, Neito>Coyle?
at the time of the trade Coyle had sky high value, but Neito's game might have a better all around translation to the NHL.
Drafting is one place where you can't really fault DW,(outside of Setoguchi over Kopitar)

I watched them both play at BU, mostly on the same line. They were both relatively equal at the time. Coyle has more size and is dominating physically, but Nieto is faster, more skilled, and in my opinion plays a more intelligent game. They complimented each other greatly, often Nieto would make a slick pass to Coyle crashing the net or Coyle would win a battle along the boards and pass to a sniping Nieto. In a sense it seems like a microcosm of the Sharks recent tendencies toward looking for speed and skill in the draft rather than size.

 

[SJeasy]

I will never understand why this debate happens every time we have one of these polls. Best prospect is not who is closest to the NHL. Its who is most valuable to the organization, it's the player that you would keep if you could only keep 1 of your prospects.

Choosing Konrad is ridiculous. Yes he may be in the NHL next year but does anyone think he is going to be more than a #4? Who cares if he gets in 20 games? Hamilton was in the lineup last year and he should be no where near the top of the list.

I'm even ok with the Brodzinski choice because he shows so much offensive potential and in his first year of college really impressed.

The Sharks top prospect is clearly Goldobin. He has an absurdly high level of skill and could end up being a top line player.

Only other logical choices are Mueller (could be a #2 D-man), Tierney (keeps getting better and could be a top 6 forward), and I'd even accept Bergman as he could be a top 2 or 3 d-man.

Don't get me wrong I like KA and I think he'll be a servicable NHLer but rating prospects is all about the value they can bring to the team not if they'll ever play, and I'd a take a potential top 3-6 forward with star ability over a definite #4 or #5 dman any day!

I agree with the gist of your argument that it should be the guy with the highest ceiling, but it has to be mitigated somewhat with the chance of reaching it. While I agree that Goldobin is the most "skilled", his size, skating and defensive awareness are extremely questionable. (If he is slow, he better be really big.) Enough so that I would rate another lesser "skilled" prospect as highest.

Your argument is good enough that it should cause some here to question their overrating of Petrecki and Doherty some years ago. I hope it was a learning experience for them.

 

[Led Zappa]

That's only part of the argument. All orgs graduate prospects to the NHL. The complete argument is how many and how good compared to other orgs. The best argument might be skill/player graduated to the NHL. It should not be an argument based purely on quantity. The ultimate measurement should tie drafting/developing to winning a cup. What commonalities do winning orgs display relative to their peers?

There is no question that the Sharks are good for quantity, but it doesn't tie to winning. Montreal had a window where they topped the league for quantity and they didn't win within the window and didn't have a very good overall record to boot. NJ was right there for quantity in the same window and they did win as did Colorado. Detroit absolutely failed the quantity test yet they were the winningest team in the window.

It's way more complicated than even you laid out. We've been over this many times. Unless your gonna do another league comparison using things like draft pick number / games played etc... it's a useless debate.

I simply posted a quick list to show the Sharks have a pretty good record bringing prospects into the league. At some decent levels considering the draft pick level should be obvious to people who've been around here a while.

I mean we could say any team that doesn't get 2 top 5 draft picks within a couple years won't win the cup unless a miracle happens, so why give a **** about prospects at all? That's what recent history seems to say.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I will never understand why this debate happens every time we have one of these polls. Best prospect is not who is closest to the NHL. Its who is most valuable to the organization, it's the player that you would keep if you could only keep 1 of your prospects.

Choosing Konrad is ridiculous. Yes he may be in the NHL next year but does anyone think he is going to be more than a #4? Who cares if he gets in 20 games? Hamilton was in the lineup last year and he should be no where near the top of the list.

I'm even ok with the Brodzinski choice because he shows so much offensive potential and in his first year of college really impressed.

The Sharks top prospect is clearly Goldobin. He has an absurdly high level of skill and could end up being a top line player.

Only other logical choices are Mueller (could be a #2 D-man), Tierney (keeps getting better and could be a top 6 forward), and I'd even accept Bergman as he could be a top 2 or 3 d-man.

Don't get me wrong I like KA and I think he'll be a servicable NHLer but rating prospects is all about the value they can bring to the team not if they'll ever play, and I'd a take a potential top 3-6 forward with star ability over a definite #4 or #5 dman any day!

Potential is overrated. I doubt Tierney is a top-6 forward. I HIGHLY doubt Mueller is a top-pair defenseman, let alone a middle pair defenseman. Goldobin has tons of skill but a long ways to go. Brodzinski will probably never make the NHL. Choosing Bergman over Abeltshauser is absurd.

Maybe, just maybe, I value the guy who has tons of tools, a great character, and actual professional experience doing good over a bunch of maybes.

 

[SJeasy]

It's way more complicated than even you laid out. We've been over this many times. Unless your gonna do another league comparison using things like draft pick number / games played etc... it's a useless debate.

I simply posted a quick list to show the Sharks have a pretty good record bringing prospects into the league. At some decent levels considering the draft pick level should be obvious to people who've been around here a while.

I mean we could say any team that doesn't get 2 top 5 draft picks within a couple years won't win the cup unless a miracle happens, so why give a **** about prospects at all? That's what recent history seems to say.

Even pick#/games played doesn't do it. What you showed with the list is that the Sharks are pretty good on the complementary players. That is a corollary to winning it all. It's a difference maker for teams that do win, but it isn't the core issue. The core issue is franchise players and you don't need top picks to do it although it is harder. The Hawks got Keith after the first round. The Kings got Kopitar at #11. The Ducks got Perry and Getzlaf in the late first. The Sharks could have drafted any of these players easily; they didn't. And top picks don't even guarantee a good team, the Isles and Oil have proven that. Both teams fail the complementary players test.

 

[Led Zappa]

Even pick#/games played doesn't do it. What you showed with the list is that the Sharks are pretty good on the complementary players. That is a corollary to winning it all. It's a difference maker for teams that do win, but it isn't the core issue. The core issue is franchise players and you don't need top picks to do it although it is harder. The Hawks got Keith after the first round. The Kings got Kopitar at #11. The Ducks got Perry and Getzlaf in the late first. The Sharks could have drafted any of these players easily; they didn't. And top picks don't even guarantee a good team, the Isles and Oil have proven that. Both teams fail the complementary players test.

If the Ducks were such a great draft org because they drafted Perry and Getzlaf then they'd have even more franchise players. It's luck pure and simple. You try and average your skill and your luck to come up with a good average and hope you hit the jackpot here and there if you don't have top 2 picks.

The Sharks haven't had top 2 picks for years and they haven't lucked out either. Other than that they've been above average and judged so by those who have done studies as linked to the last time we had this discussion.

 

[SJeasy]

If the Ducks were such a great draft org because they drafted Perry and Getzlaf then they'd have even more franchise players. It's luck pure and simple. You try and average your skill and your luck to come up with a good average and hope you hit the jackpot here and there if you don't have top 2 picks.

The Sharks haven't had top 2 picks for years and they haven't lucked out either. Other than that they've been above average and judged so by those who have done studies as linked to the last time we had this discussion.

No it isn't. If it was luck, they might as well get a dartboard rather than spending millions a year on scouts. A very bad argument.

The Sharks have had top picks (90s, Rathje, Zyuzin, Marleau, Stuart) and didn't hit. They didn't hit late either. They need to modify their criteria to get top players not just complementary ones.

 

[Kitten Mittons]

Different era, Easy. That was almost 2 decades ago.

 

[Led Zappa]

No it isn't. If it was luck, they might as well get a dartboard rather than spending millions a year on scouts. A very bad argument.

The Sharks have had top picks (90s, Rathje, Zyuzin, Marleau, Stuart) and didn't hit. They didn't hit late either. They need to modify their criteria to get top players not just complementary ones.

Except the bolded wasn't my entire argument.

Maybe you can explain to me why the Ducks and the Wings for that matter don't have 6 or 8 franchise players by now if they are so good at drafting that they can identify franchise players in the lower picks and not just luck into them.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

All the Sharks prospects suck ass. So who cares. Am I doing it right?

 

[sr228]

All the Sharks prospects suck ass. So who cares. Am I doing it right?

Nope because everything about the Sharks org sucks ass.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Nope because everything about the Sharks org sucks ass.

Oh that's right.

 

[Nolan11]

No it isn't. If it was luck, they might as well get a dartboard rather than spending millions a year on scouts. A very bad argument.

The Sharks have had top picks (90s, Rathje, Zyuzin, Marleau, Stuart) and didn't hit. They didn't hit late either. They need to modify their criteria to get top players not just complementary ones.

Didn't the draft order in Marleau and Thornton's draft come down to a coin toss that we lost between us and Boston? And lecavier was the pick we traded away? No, lady luck does not wear teal, at least not normally.

I would say pavs, demers and Braun were luck. Couture getting mono his draft year was lucky for us. Heck, hertl is looking a steal at 17. Guess we balance out, some.

 

[SJeasy]

Except the bolded wasn't my entire argument.

Maybe you can explain to me why the Ducks and the Wings for that matter don't have 6 or 8 franchise players by now if they are so good at drafting that they can identify franchise players in the lower picks and not just luck into them.

Another horrific argument as a counter.

The chances don't come that often. When they do, you have to hit them. Detroit's strength is skill level per converted pick. Not a lot of reserves and 4th liners on the ones that do succeed for them. Just a 33% batting average for the Sharks would have netted 2 franchise players late. The Sharks are batting 0%. I don't expect scouts to be perfect, but I do expect a batting average above .000 in that regard. The Sharks batting average is great in the late rounds, but it is like they are singles hitter who never hits a homerun. You wouldn't construct a championship baseball lineup with all singles hitters.

And in terms of dartboards, the Sabres didn't do well a while back when they dropped all their in person scouting. Their conversion rate fell. I would also fire any scout who responded with the luck argument. They are paid to be better than their peers. If they aren't, the org might as well subscribe to the CSB reports and use them (doesn't work).

 

[Led Zappa]

Another horrific argument as a counter.

The chances don't come that often. When they do, you have to hit them. Detroit's strength is skill level per converted pick. Not a lot of reserves and 4th liners on the ones that do succeed for them. Just a 33% batting average for the Sharks would have netted 2 franchise players late. The Sharks are batting 0%. I don't expect scouts to be perfect, but I do expect a batting average above .000 in that regard. The Sharks batting average is great in the late rounds, but it is like they are singles hitter who never hits a homerun. You wouldn't construct a championship baseball lineup with all singles hitters.

And in terms of dartboards, the Sabres didn't do well a while back when they dropped all their in person scouting. Their conversion rate fell. I would also fire any scout who responded with the luck argument. They are paid to be better than their peers. If they aren't, the org might as well subscribe to the CSB reports and use them (doesn't work).

I'll take that as a no. You can't explain why others didn't take Getlaf and Perry and why the Ducks didn't take other players that other teams did that became better than players they did.

It's a combination of talent and luck on picks and the Sharks luck end hasn't shown it's head on a franchise player type hit. Period. They have had some lucky hits however. Pavelski probably being the luckiest talent to late pick ratio. Apparently you think Pav's is a single. I disagree.

But you keep going down that road that there is some magic formula that only the Ducks and Wings know about. I'll stick to the reality that the Sharks are a pretty damn good drafting org. You can keep on coming up with anecdotes as to why they aren't contrary to many other studies out there that say they are.

 

[hohosaregood]

Another horrific argument as a counter.

The chances don't come that often. When they do, you have to hit them. Detroit's strength is skill level per converted pick. Not a lot of reserves and 4th liners on the ones that do succeed for them. Just a 33% batting average for the Sharks would have netted 2 franchise players late. The Sharks are batting 0%. I don't expect scouts to be perfect, but I do expect a batting average above .000 in that regard. The Sharks batting average is great in the late rounds, but it is like they are singles hitter who never hits a homerun. You wouldn't construct a championship baseball lineup with all singles hitters.

And in terms of dartboards, the Sabres didn't do well a while back when they dropped all their in person scouting. Their conversion rate fell. I would also fire any scout who responded with the luck argument. They are paid to be better than their peers. If they aren't, the org might as well subscribe to the CSB reports and use them (doesn't work).

Come on Detroit's drafting sucked ass for a good stretch of time and they don't have an extraordinary number of homeruns during the 2000s either.

 

[SJeasy]

I'll take that as a no. You can't explain why others didn't take Getlaf and Perry and why the Ducks didn't take other players that other teams did that became better than players they did.

It's a combination of talent and luck on picks and the Sharks luck end hasn't shown it's head on a franchise player type hit. Period. They have had some lucky hits however. Pavelski probably being the luckiest talent to late pick ratio. Apparently you think Pav's is a single. I disagree.

But you keep going down that road that there is some magic formula that only the Ducks and Wings know about. I'll stick to the reality that the Sharks are a pretty damn good drafting org. You can keep on coming up with anecdotes as to why they aren't contrary to many other studies out there that say they are.

There aren't many championship orgs out there. It isn't luck because they keep coming up with it. Like the 60s, 70s Habs, the Isles (whose management helped Florida to the finals), Detroit, and possibly now Colorado (guys who played for the winning management team). Bowman in Chicago has the Detroit/Montreal pedigree. Yzerman has the same pedigree. Chiarelli in Boston was there for the big years with Ottawa.

The reason that they draft differently is that they use at least slightly different criteria. They know which picks deserve the risk taking. And it is risk, so they won't bat 1.000 either (why they don't have 6 or 7 franchise players in the time period). The point is that they aren't batting .000.

As for your studies, it is possible to lie with stats and to overstate cases which is frequently the case at FTF. I never said the Sharks are bad, what I did say was that they don't have the winning formula and it isn't just luck. If you want bad, go to the first 10 years of CBJ, current Edmonton, Carolina or Florida for the decade of the 00's.

 

[SJeasy]

Come on Detroit's drafting sucked ass for a good stretch of time and they don't have an extraordinary number of homeruns during the 2000s either.

One, they tweaked it in the 00's and not for the better. Two, some of it is still there and they just haven't hit recently although it is still possible with current guys. Their winning picks didn't look that good early which is to be expected from late homeruns. But those same guys really turned it on late. It is possible that they will still hit with Nyqvist and Tatar who are right in character with their 90s penchant of picking for skill. They don't quite have the same organizational charisma that they once had for attracting high end complementary players. They also ran into bad luck with Fischer who would have been into his defensive prime right now.

Detroit has a few chinks in the armor that are beginning to show. They need to fix those. They blew it with Flipper on a lowball and then spent the same for much less with Weiss. They are hanging onto guys who can't keep up like the vets did in their winning years (Bert, Cleary). And, they are having no luck attracting primary or secondary pieces on defense. Their whole formula was to grow their own franchise guys and buy the rest. They are easy to detail because their whole formula was so dramatically different from the 29 other teams, particularly in drafting.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Basically, it sounds like some people are complaining that SJeasy is being too harsh on the Sharks's drafting record...but the issue is, SJeasy just has high standards...he's holding them to the standard of being the best drafting team in the league.

 

[hohosaregood]

I just take issue with people putting Detroit on a pedestal.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

So I did this last year, but we didn't finish in time.

If you leave polls open for 4 days, we won't finish. Have the polls be 1 day, 2 tops. That's the only way to get these lists done.

 

[Sandisfan]

I agree

If you leave polls open for 4 days, we won't finish. Have the polls be 1 day, 2 tops. That's the only way to get these lists done.

I agree.

Should be 2 days for each. Top 10 in 20 days then 1 day each for next 10 would get top 20 in 30 days.

 

[SJeasy]

Basically, it sounds like some people are complaining that SJeasy is being too harsh on the Sharks's drafting record...but the issue is, SJeasy just has high standards...he's holding them to the standard of being the best drafting team in the league.

Thank you.

I am strict. I am not calling any org excellent unless it is top 3 in the league. I am one of those old school guys when it comes to grading on a curve. Only 10% get A's.

The other issues involve quantity vs quality and the integration between drafting and winning. The three point thing and winning a cup is pretty well documented and drafting is the easiest way to cover the points.

I bristle at the luck argument because although it is involved, it is not the dominant factor, particularly when the Sharks have made almost no headway in any conf. finals. The fact that certain orgs have repeated the process for winning with different groups also speaks against the luck argument.

Reading comprehension is an issue. I have never said the Sharks are the worst, but many read it as such despite the disclaimers. What I think is that they have holes in their game through which you could drive a truck. Their scouting grade would be in the B-B+ range for quantity. Their scouting grade would be around B for getting complementary players (top 6/top 4). They would get an F for missing on franchise players. The student who gets 2 B's and an F is not going to be valedictorian (win a cup).

 

[Led Zappa]

Thank you.

I am strict. I am not calling any org excellent unless it is top 3 in the league. I am one of those old school guys when it comes to grading on a curve. Only 10% get A's.

The other issues involve quantity vs quality and the integration between drafting and winning. The three point thing and winning a cup is pretty well documented and drafting is the easiest way to cover the points.

I bristle at the luck argument because although it is involved, it is not the dominant factor, particularly when the Sharks have made almost no headway in any conf. finals. The fact that certain orgs have repeated the process for winning with different groups also speaks against the luck argument.

Reading comprehension is an issue. I have never said the Sharks are the worst, but many read it as such despite the disclaimers. What I think is that they have holes in their game through which you could drive a truck. Their scouting grade would be in the B-B+ range for quantity. Their scouting grade would be around B for getting complementary players (top 6/top 4). They would get an F for missing on franchise players. The student who gets 2 B's and an F is not going to be valedictorian (win a cup).

Without top 5 picks? In the last decade?

 

[OrrNumber4]

Without top 5 picks? In the last decade?

So, I think that value is kind of one with a large inflection point.

Say the Sharks draft Giroux or someone similar in the late first. All of a sudden, they go from an F to an A-. Then one more guy and they go to an A+...

I would agree that outside of the 2003 draft, finding those franchise-quality players outside of the top-5ish or so is incredibly difficult.