Speculation: Sharks future depth

[FeedingFrenzy]

Another rule is that when you draft a player, the elite talents go in the top 5 and they're often the only ones who immediately project to be elite players. After that, who knows what you get. There kind of is an obsession with drafting elite players at the draft when it's clear that it's kind of a gamble.

agree with this. There are very few busts in the Top5 for a reason.

I wonder how many current players were-
1st rd picks
2-4th rd picks
5-7th rd picks

And of those, what % are considered elite present day?

 

[Episkey]

Sure, except that currently we have two prospects on a similar trajectory as Pavelski in Tierney and Chartier. They both still have a ways to go, but they are both late round picks and are both consistently exceeding expectations. Will they become elite players? Unknown, but the Sharks do seem to have a knack for late round picks. Pavelski is the poster boy, but Wingels and Braun are also two great examples.

Tierney was a second round pick, behind Hertl in 2012. Also, how is Chartier on a similar trajectory to Pavelski? It's awesome to see Chartier have the draft+1 season that he had, but Pavelski's production actually decreased in his draft+1 season in the USHL. He did break out the next year in college, but every late round pick that is exceeding expectations is not going to be the next Pavelski or have a similar career path. It's extremely rare. While it's nice to think that Chartier could end up a 70-80pt winger, his career is much more likely to turn out like Wingels than Pavelski.

 

[hockeyball]

Who seriously thought Pavelski would be an elite scoring winger like 3-4 years ago especially after coming off a career high assist year? Crazy stuff happens when you least expect it.

Exactly. I think everyone of those prospects listed above has a far better chance of being an elite player than Pavelski did after he was drafted.

My problem is just when we watch an immature player (immature meaning both physically, mentally, and simply not fully developed as a player) and make concrete claims about their maximum potential. It's easy to look at McDavid and go "That kids going to be a star", beyond that it's a crap shoot. Sure, Stromme is probably going to be an NHLer, but he's also just as likely to top out as a mediocre 1st liner or decent 2nd liner as he is to be elite. You could pick a kid with all the tools in the first round like Werenski, but a 2nd rounder like Roy could end up the better player. It happens ALL the time. I know Jux watches a lot of prospects, but so do the scouts, and if watching a 17 year old could tell you everything you need to know about a players potential you would never have Keiths or Datsyuks or Pavelski's.

 

[hockeyball]

Tierney was a second round pick, behind Hertl in 2012. Also, how is Chartier on a similar trajectory to Pavelski? It's awesome to see Chartier have the draft+1 season that he had, but Pavelski's production actually decreased in his draft+1 season in the USHL. He did break out the next year in college, but every late round pick that is exceeding expectations is not going to be the next Pavelski or have a similar career path. It's extremely rare. While it's nice to think that Chartier could end up a 70-80pt winger, his career is much more likely to turn out like Wingels than Pavelski.

I simply mean they are non 1st round picks that are exceeding expectations consistently.

 

[Le Rosbeef]

That is probably the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on here, and there have been some ridiculous ones.

There is reason we're "obsessed" with elite players. You don't win the Stanley Cup without them. When you have 2nd liners playing on your first line, you end up being Arizona and New Jersey.

If you're happy icing a bunch of 2nd liners on our first line, great. I'm not.

Pavelski is the exception, not the rule. It's tiring seeing people just assume that one of our mediocre prospects will magically turn into Pavelski. I don't think you understand how rare and special Pavelski is.

I find some of the continual bickering over semantics tiring too Jux, so we're equal there.

I am happy with a team that wins.

This team isn't drafting in the top 5. Deal with it. It's also no guarantee of success (how well have the Oilers done of late, remind me?)

My irk is the constant establishment of a glass ceiling on players when the truth is, not you, nor I know how they are going to pan out. Pavelski is an example, which you can choose to disregard because you're tired of it of seeing him used as an example, not the rule, but all 31 other NHL teams passed on him repeatedly and he's become something very good. According to the past set of criteria, he was a scrub. There are NO rules.

Stop acting like you can predict the margins for a player's ceiling. You can't.

 

[FeedingFrenzy]

As someone said SJ may have a larger group of prospects now BUT there really are NO top line forwards or top 2 Dmen at this time.

And what magic pixie dust did the Sharks have in order to draft these top line or 2D??

 

[TheHockeyRant]

It is true the Sharks do not NEED to have future top line forwards or top 2 Dmen in their prospect pools right this second.
Trades are possible
Free agency is possible
Future development is possible (Pavs and Vlasic are perfect examples)

It would just be nice to have that is our back pocket for a rainy day. So for those thinking we are complaining about it. No no no.
An observation is not complaining.

Saying that it's snowing outside it's someone crying about the weather it's someone saying "hey look it's snowing."

 

[hockeyball]

It is true the Sharks do not NEED to have future top line forwards or top 2 Dmen in their prospect pools right this second.
Trades are possible
Free agency is possible
Future development is possible (Pavs and Vlasic are perfect examples)

It would just be nice to have that is our back pocket for a rainy day. So for those thinking we are complaining about it. No no no.
An observation is not complaining.

Saying that it's snowing outside it's someone crying about the weather it's someone saying "hey look it's snowing."

The issue isn't that your saying it, it's that you are not only making a prediction, you are predicting something you cannot truly know and then closing the book on it.

As an example:

It is true the Sharks do not NEED to have future top line forwards or top 2 Dmen in their prospect pools right this second....It would just be nice to have that is our back pocket for a rainy day.

How do you know we don't? Because I expect if you were to ask the Sharks and their scouts if they have any top-line forwards or top 2 d-men in their system they would have a VERY different opinion than you. You can claim that you are being less biased, and that might be true, but you are also forming your opinion on significantly less information than they are. They likely have hundreds of hours of research into some of those prospects. They've spoken personally to their junior coaches, watched them play live, interviewed them, analyzed all of their fitness results, etc.

The point is you don't see any elite prospects in that group right now, that does not mean there are none.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I find some of the continual bickering over semantics tiring too Jux, so we're equal there.

I am happy with a team that wins.

This team isn't drafting in the top 5. Deal with it. It's also no guarantee of success (how well have the Oilers done of late, remind me?)

My irk is the constant establishment of a glass ceiling on players when the truth is, not you, nor I know how they are going to pan out. Pavelski is an example, which you can choose to disregard because you're tired of it of seeing him used as an example, not the rule, but all 31 other NHL teams passed on him repeatedly and he's become something very good. According to the past set of criteria, he was a scrub. There are NO rules.

Stop acting like you can predict the margins for a player's ceiling. You can't.

Here's the problem: I'm not giving players hard ceilings. What I'm saying is you cannot count on players exceeding expectations. I am not saying for 100% sure that Timo Meier, for example, cannot be a star 1st liner. What I am saying is that he his most likely scenario is good 2nd liner (which is still a very useful good player and given his skillset I'd be stoked to have him!) and that it would be irresponsible to pencil him in as anything more than that. Mueller may very well turn out to be a top-pairing defenseman (even though I'm betting against it). But to pencil him into the top pair and act like we don't have to do anything drastic to get a top-pairing defenseman would be ridiculous.

My opinion purely comes from the odds. There are so so so so so many things in hockey you cannot control, from bounces off of stanchions to the development of an overage 7th round pick. I, we all, know better than to act like we can predict these things. But what we can and should do is give ourselves the best possible odds of success.

So I dislike counting on a player to exceed his likely ceiling. I'm not saying he can't, but the odds are that he won't and that's what I would take into consideration if I were building a hockey team.

And teams with zero elite players don't win hockey games. You could argue that the Sharks have five elite players (Thornton, Pavelski, Burns, Vlasic, Couture), and we just drafted 9th overall. Even Arizona has an elite player. Bottom line is that we need replacements for Thornton, for Burns, for Pavelski and for Vlasic.

Sure, except that currently we have two prospects on a similar trajectory as Pavelski in Tierney and Chartier. They both still have a ways to go, but they are both late round picks and are both consistently exceeding expectations. Will they become elite players? Unknown, but the Sharks do seem to have a knack for late round picks. Pavelski is the poster boy, but Wingels and Braun are also two great examples.

In the end, I expect at least one of Hertl, Meier, Tierney, Chartier, Mueller or Roy will end up as a first liner/top pairing. If I was going to take a shot in the dark on each my wild predictions on where they will top out would be:

Hertl: 75 point 1st line center
Meier: 70 point 1st line RW
Tierney: 2nd line center (50p)
Chartier: 2nd line winger (50p)
Mueller: 30 point #2 dman
Roy: 50 point #1 dman

You're probably right. The odds of one of them becoming a legit top-line player are pretty decent. I just wouldn't count on it. It's totally possible that all of them do, but it's more likely that none of them do, and we have to be prepared for that.

Who seriously thought Pavelski would be an elite scoring winger like 3-4 years ago especially after coming off a career high assist year? Crazy stuff happens when you least expect it.

Pavelski is a special, special animal. That's why I have such a problem with this "Next Pavelski" stuff I feel like we're always saying. Pavelski is so damn special and rare.

 

[FeedingFrenzy]

Alot of these players who are projected elite are just that, projected. And these projections come from scouts. Scouts don't always get it right. Plenty of players over the years have "exceeded" their projection or "failed to". Bottom line is until the player is given an opportunity, we'll never know.

 

[hockeyball]

Here's the problem: I'm not giving players hard ceilings. What I'm saying is you cannot count on players exceeding expectations. I am not saying for 100% sure that Timo Meier, for example, cannot be a star 1st liner. What I am saying is that he his most likely scenario is good 2nd liner (which is still a very useful good player and given his skillset I'd be stoked to have him!) and that it would be irresponsible to pencil him in as anything more than that. Mueller may very well turn out to be a top-pairing defenseman (even though I'm betting against it). But to pencil him into the top pair and act like we don't have to do anything drastic to get a top-pairing defenseman would be ridiculous.

My opinion purely comes from the odds. There are so so so so so many things in hockey you cannot control, from bounces off of stanchions to the development of an overage 7th round pick. I, we all, know better than to act like we can predict these things. But what we can and should do is give ourselves the best possible odds of success.

So I dislike counting on a player to exceed his likely ceiling. I'm not saying he can't, but the odds are that he won't and that's what I would take into consideration if I were building a hockey team.

And teams with zero elite players don't win hockey games. You could argue that the Sharks have five elite players (Thornton, Pavelski, Burns, Vlasic, Couture), and we just drafted 9th overall. Even Arizona has an elite player. Bottom line is that we need replacements for Thornton, for Burns, for Pavelski and for Vlasic.



You're probably right. The odds of one of them becoming a legit top-line player are pretty decent. I just wouldn't count on it. It's totally possible that all of them do, but it's more likely that none of them do, and we have to be prepared for that.



Pavelski is a special, special animal. That's why I have such a problem with this "Next Pavelski" stuff I feel like we're always saying. Pavelski is so damn special and rare.

Players can just as often not meet expectations as well. Ask Alexander Daigle. Imagine if we had somehow drafted Stromme. By what you've said you'd be thrilled and be pretty happy overall. What if Stromme then only ended up being a 2nd liner, or worse. Getting an elite prospect is no guarentee either. Does Stromme have a better shot at being a 1st liner than Meier? Yah sure, is it possible Meier ends up being the better player? Entirely.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Players can just as often not meet expectations as well. Ask Alexander Daigle. Imagine if we had somehow drafted Stromme. By what you've said you'd be thrilled and be pretty happy overall. What if Stromme then only ended up being a 2nd liner, or worse. Getting an elite prospect is no guarentee either. Does Stromme have a better shot at being a 1st liner than Meier? Yah sure, is it possible Meier ends up being the better player? Entirely.

You're right. I'm not saying that it isn't possible that Meier is better than Strome. But it is far more likely that Strome is the superior player. Getting an elite prospect doesn't make them a guarantee, but they have MUCH higher odds of panning out than just a good prospect. It's all in the odds.

 

[hockeyball]

I think the issue is we drafted 9th, and I don't think Barzal or Rantannen are any more of an elite prospect than Meier. In reality we are not comparing the expectations of Meier and Stromme, we are comparing the expectations of Meier and Barzal. You like Barzal more, but in reality he's not anymore an elite prospect than Meier, at least not until some time passes and one out-performs the other. Obviously the Sharks and quite a few other teams think Meier is the better bet right now, that's really all we have to go on.

Basically, we were not getting an elite prospect from this draft no matter what, so being angry we chose Meier over Barzal for that specific reason really doesn't make a lot of sense.

I agree, we need some elite PLAYERS, thankfully we do have Pavelski and Burns for awhile longer (hopefully assuming Burns is re-signed). I think one of those prospects ends up elite, so that gives us 3 long term. That's one elite forward, one elite d-man, and one more of either. We also do now have as close as you are going to get to an elite goalie prospect. If Jones meets expectations we have a top-end to elite goalie, and at least 3 elite players. It's not as bad as you are making it seem. I don't think we are winning a cup just yet, but in 2-3 years if a few things go our way we should have a real solid window.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I think the issue is we drafted 9th, and I don't think Barzal or Rantannen are any more of an elite prospect than Meier. In reality we are not comparing the expectations of Meier and Stromme, we are comparing the expectations of Meier and Barzal. You like Barzal more, but in reality he's not anymore an elite prospect than Meier, at least not until some time passes and one out-performs the other. Obviously the Sharks and quite a few other teams think Meier is the better bet right now, that's really all we have to go on.

Basically, we were not getting an elite prospect from this draft no matter what, so being angry we chose Meier over Barzal for that specific reason really doesn't make a lot of sense.

I agree, we need some elite PLAYERS, thankfully we do have Pavelski and Burns for awhile longer (hopefully assuming Burns is re-signed). I think one of those prospects ends up elite, so that gives us 3 long term. That's one elite forward, one elite d-man, and one more of either. We also do now have as close as you are going to get to an elite goalie prospect. If Jones meets expectations we have a top-end to elite goalie, and at least 3 elite players. It's not as bad as you are making it seem. I don't think we are winning a cup just yet, but in 2-3 years if a few things go our way we should have a real solid window.

Every single draft publication had Barzal several spots over Meier. Many people would argue that Barzal is an elite prospect. You're revising history. Just because Meier was drafted higher than Barzal doesn't make him the better prospect.


Pavelski is 31 and Burns is 30. How long do you think they're going to be elite? Five years, tops? I'd say three each. That doesn't really do a lot for me.

 

[SactoShark]

Every single draft publication had Barzal several spots over Meier. Many people would argue that Barzal is an elite prospect. You're revising history. Just because Meier was drafted higher than Barzal doesn't make him the better prospect.


Pavelski is 31 and Burns is 30. How long do you think they're going to be elite? Five years, tops? I'd say three each. That doesn't really do a lot for me.

You're at least the 2nd person to say that. I've seen Meier over Barzal in at least 2 rankings and another had Meier 13 and Barzal 12. Which ones are you referring to?

 

[Juxtaposer]

You're at least the 2nd person to say that. I've seen Meier over Barzal in at least 2 rankings and another had Meier 13 and Barzal 12. Which ones are you referring to?

HockeyProspect: Barzal 12, Meier 13 (there's that one).
ISS Hockey: Barzal 8, Meier 14.
Future Considerations: Barzal 9, Meier 14.
McKeen's: Barzal 11, Meier 13.
Central Scouting: Barzal 11, Meier 10 (there's another one).
McKenzie: Barzal 9, Meier 12.
Hockey Prospectus: Barzal 6, Meier 11.
Damien Cox: Barzal 9, Meier 11.
Craig Button: Barzal 15, Meier 8 (ah Craig Button).
The Hockey Writers: Barzal 6, Meier 10.
Corey Pronman (ESPN): Barzal 6, Meier 26.
THN: Barzal 8, Meier 13.

Consensus has Barzal at 9 and Meier at 13. That's about where I think each should have been drafted.

I apologize for misspeaking, but I think my point wasn't off the mark. Several scouts and hockey people have said that if Barzal had been healthy all season, he might have challenged Marner and Strome.

 

[Led Zappa]

You forgot the most important one.

NHL: Barzal 16, Meier 9

 

[SactoShark]

HockeyProspect: Barzal 12, Meier 13 (there's that one).
ISS Hockey: Barzal 8, Meier 14.
Future Considerations: Barzal 9, Meier 14.
McKeen's: Barzal 11, Meier 13.
Central Scouting: Barzal 11, Meier 10 (there's another one).
McKenzie: Barzal 9, Meier 12.
Hockey Prospectus: Barzal 6, Meier 11.
Damien Cox: Barzal 9, Meier 11.
Craig Button: Barzal 15, Meier 8 (ah Craig Button).
The Hockey Writers: Barzal 6, Meier 10.
Corey Pronman (ESPN): Barzal 6, Meier 26.
THN: Barzal 8, Meier 13.

Consensus has Barzal at 9 and Meier at 13. That's about where I think each should have been drafted.

I apologize for misspeaking, but I think my point wasn't off the mark. Several scouts and hockey people have said that if Barzal had been healthy all season, he might have challenged Marner and Strome.

Thanks for the list. That's actually helpful as searching these out makes my head spin.

I know what you're saying, and I can't disagree that Barzal was the higher ranked player on average (that's very apparent in your list there). But it also seems like splitting hairs when most of those have the two of them within 2-5 spots of each other.

Boston had 3 shots at Barzal and passed on all 3. (Not implying anything really, but it's funny)

 

[matt trick]

What are other examples of highly touted players sliding? Cam Fowler, Esposito, and Cherepanov (RIP), are three I recall going much later than expected. Fowler obviously worked out tremendously for the Ducks, while Espo was a bust. We will never know with Cherepanov, sadly.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Thanks for the list. That's actually helpful as searching these out makes my head spin.

I know what you're saying, and I can't disagree that Barzal was the higher ranked player on average (that's very apparent in your list there). But it also seems like splitting hairs when most of those have the two of them within 2-5 spots of each other.

Boston had 3 shots at Barzal and passed on all 3. (Not implying anything really, but it's funny)

I think that's more of a reflection on Boston scouting.

What are other examples of highly touted players sliding? Cam Fowler, Esposito, and Cherepanov (RIP), are three I recall going much later than expected. Fowler obviously worked out tremendously for the Ducks, while Espo was a bust. We will never know with Cherepanov, sadly.

Guess who else was a faller? Jeremy Roy.

Tarasenko, but that was the 'Russian Factor'. Brandon Gormley too I guess. Forsberg and Grigorenko. It seems like a toss up. Fowler and Gormley both fell in their draft year, one turned out to be a steal and one hasn't made the NHL. Forsberg and Grigorenko both fell, one is a future star and another is a borderline NHLer so far. So by that logic, one of Barzal and Connor will be a star, and the other will be a bust.

 

[hohosaregood]

I think that's more of a reflection on Boston scouting.



Guess who else was a faller? Jeremy Roy.

Tarasenko, but that was the 'Russian Factor'. Brandon Gormley too I guess. Forsberg and Grigorenko. It seems like a toss up. Fowler and Gormley both fell in their draft year, one turned out to be a steal and one hasn't made the NHL. Forsberg and Grigorenko both fell, one is a future star and another is a borderline NHLer so far. So by that logic, one of Barzal and Connor will be a star, and the other will be a bust.

Sorta opposite proof: Lindholm wasn't ranked in the top 10 by a lot of places. Went 6th and looking to be a star defenseman.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Sorta opposite proof: Lindholm wasn't ranked in the top 10 by a lot of places. Went 6th and looking to be a star defenseman.

Oliver Ekman-Larsson was also considered a serious reach and he obviously turned out to be a star. However, my counterpoint to that would be that they were both playing in Europe, and therefore may have been underscouted. I kinda doubt that's the case for Meier. Besides, for every Lindholm and Ekman-Larsson, there's a Thomas Hickey or ten.

 

[hohosaregood]

Oliver Ekman-Larsson was also considered a serious reach and he obviously turned out to be a star. However, my counterpoint to that would be that they were both playing in Europe, and therefore may have been underscouted. I kinda doubt that's the case for Meier. Besides, for every Lindholm and Ekman-Larsson, there's a Thomas Hickey or ten.

Hmm you bring up an interesting point. Damn scouting. Too complicated.

 

[OrrNumber4]

By the by, lets not forget that while Pavelski and Couture are great players and legit top-line talents, they are not ideal as the backbone of your forward core. If you have a Scott Niedermayer on defense and a Martin Brodeur in goal, sure, you can have a weak forward group. But Couture and Pavelski are great complementary players. You need an all-world, all-star player (if not players) as the backbone of the forward group.

But because it is easier to see high-level forward talent at a young age, those players are going to be snapped up early in the draft.

 

[Sharksrule04]

That is probably the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on here, and there have been some ridiculous ones.

There is reason we're "obsessed" with elite players. You don't win the Stanley Cup without them. When you have 2nd liners playing on your first line, you end up being Arizona and New Jersey.

If you're happy icing a bunch of 2nd liners on our first line, great. I'm not.

Pavelski is the exception, not the rule. It's tiring seeing people just assume that one of our mediocre prospects will magically turn into Pavelski. I don't think you understand how rare and special Pavelski is.

While I understand obsessing over elite prospects, people need to calm down with the obsession. The Sharks have several elite (Vlasic/Pavs) or near elite (Couture) players who were not top 2-3 picks. Our prospect pool currently has no elite players but we have some very good ones which is better than it was 2-3 years ago. Considering we never pick in the top 5 and rarely ever pick in the top 15 it's not easy to just pluck "elite" talent. Just because we don't have the next Patty Kane or Sidney Crosby doesn't mean our prospects are a joke.