Sharks: Kaspar vs Schremp

[trahans99]

I was just looking at the 2004 first round draft picks and didn't realize Kaspar from the 67's was a first rounder

I saw him play a lot in the last month or so and he had some nice moves every so often but the majority of the time wasn't even noticeable. Whats even more shocking is that he was picked ahead of Schremp and watching them play each other, Schremp looked by far the better prospect.

So do you think San Jose made a mistake w/ picking Kaspar? Would you rather have Schremp or Kaspar?

Click to read more...

 

[Blind Gardien]

Boy, I'd be worried about that Kaspar pick. I guess I saw him 8-10 times this year. I would definitely take Schremp ahead of him (and I'm not in the group that has a really high opinion of Schremp). Heck, there are several others picked after him too I'd much rather have (Meszaros, Green, Bolland off the top of my head).

Like you say, he does some nice things now and then. He has skill. But he's less noticeable on average than Schremp by quite a bit. Petruzalek sometimes looked like he was making Kaspar look good, instead of the vice versa that should be expected. Of course, the knock on Kaspar heading into the draft pretty much jives with the way he played, it's only that I think maybe one would have expected even a somewhat-floaty-inconsistent 19-year old NHL 1st rounder to have more impact than Kaspar did.

I have to wonder where he'll ever fit with San Jose. They could never find a spot for Zalesak. How on earth will they ever do anything with Kaspar?

 

[spintheblackcircle]

I have to wonder where he'll ever fit with San Jose. They could never find a spot for Zalesak. How on earth will they ever do anything with Kaspar?

Because Kaspar is twice the player Miro is?

 

[X-SHARKIE]

I wanted Kaspar on the draft day actually, but at 28th overall, him along with Carl Soderberg, Mike Green, & Bruce Graham were my wants. I was kind of upset when the Sharks used a 2nd and a 3rd to move up to 22nd overall, and grab Kaspar.

Schremp & Meszaro's specifically were still on the board and I would've loved either, as they are bonafide prospects who are safe bets to be impact NHL players IMO.

Kaspar is an enigma on the other hand. Sometimes you see him and you think you're seeing the next Marian Hossa, other times he just looks like a braindead hockey player who can't put fourth his immense skill. He could be the next Marcel Hossa and that scares me.

Overall I think this year, being his first NA year was a bad year, but not a total loss. He stepped it up in the playoffs and was a point shy of averaging a point a game. The biggest improvement in Kaspar's game came on his vision and playmaking. It vastly improved.

After watching him dominate in his first few games in the OHL, and seeing him light up a Pacific Teams prospect tournament, I don't question his size & skill package, but I do question his dedication, his consistancy, his instincts and if he really cares about his team or just himself, because he will soak and he does shy away from traffic.

Overall I think Petruzalek actually hurt his development because those two were so focused on setting each other up.

IMO it's too early to call, but I would definitley rather have Schremp or Meszaro's at this stage.

But the Sharks develope these pups better then anyone so we'll see. I think he needs to be in the AHL next year so they can controll his development.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

Schremp by a mile, Kaspar has a decent shot, that's about where it ends.

 

[ZombieMatt]

I'm not confident in Schremp's ability to do anything at the NHL level, but I'll leave that aside and just mention Kaspar.

Lukas Kaspar might be the most misdiagnosed player of the 2004 Draft. Going in he was described as a soft goal scorer. This season he demonstrated an ability to play a physically competitive game and appeared to be far more of a playmaker. Yes, he floated from time to time and was inconsistent, but just because he was not the player people expected when they read scouting reports about him during the summer, does not mean he was a failure.

 

[Blind Gardien]

Because Kaspar is twice the player Miro is?

Well, it's an interesting theory. I'll be curious to see how that plays out. Certainly on my junior team I'd take Zalesak in his junior prime over Kaspar. But that's not to say that Kaspar might not have room to really improve and continue his development in the pros, where Zalesak sort of stalled. Anyway, they are interesting players to compare IMO, especially with the Batovsky/Petruzalek connection and everything. One thing's for sure is that teams will often make an extra effort to give their 1st rounder a chance, where the 4th rounder can get left out in the cold more easily.

 

[Wondercarrot]

Yes, he floated from time to time and was inconsistent, but just because he was not the player people expected when they read scouting reports about him during the summer, does not mean he was a failure.

i saw him play quite a bit this year, not having read the scouting reports didn't know what really to expect and i thought he was extremely disappointing.
Playmaker or scorer, it doesn't really matter because it is not his skills that are in question. He is lazy, soft and quite simply doesnt seem to care much that he's those things.
Failure might be too strong a word but he certainly was disappointing.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

I think Kaspar has a Zubrus upside. Reminds me a lot of Dainius.

I don't know many people who love Dainius, but he is still useful enough despite his inconsistent play.

I don't think many hockey purist will like Kaspar but with some work he can be a servicable scoring NHLer.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

I'm not confident in Schremp's ability to do anything at the NHL level, but I'll leave that aside and just mention Kaspar.

Lukas Kaspar might be the most misdiagnosed player of the 2004 Draft. Going in he was described as a soft goal scorer. This season he demonstrated an ability to play a physically competitive game and appeared to be far more of a playmaker. Yes, he floated from time to time and was inconsistent, but just because he was not the player people expected when they read scouting reports about him during the summer, does not mean he was a failure.

IMO, Schremp has at least one skill that will make a differance at the NHL level and that's his shot. At the very least he should be a factor on the power play.

 

[Habsfan 32]

I'd take Schremp.

 

[bert]

Put Kaspar on the Knights and see how he looks, he is built way way way more for the pro game over Schremp, he has a better shot is bigger and faster. Plus in the mem cup he was playing with two players that are no more then third or fourth liners against the best teams in the country. His centerman Petruzalek was injured when they play together they are very lethal. If you noticed he played the point on the pp. He was very dangerous against both Kelowna and Rimouski.

He was the most dangerous 67 all year, there is no question the talent is evident he just has to be more consistent.

But thanks for the insight Trahans good to see you noticed he was a first round pick.

 

[Levitate]

IMO, Schremp has at least one skill that will make a differance at the NHL level and that's his shot. At the very least he should be a factor on the power play.

a lot of prospects with great shots have come and gone and never made a great impact in the NHL. just having a great shot will not make a good NHL player. Now schremp probably has more going for him than just his shot, I'm just saying I wouldn't rely on that making him successful just by itself.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

a lot of prospects with great shots have come and gone and never made a great impact in the NHL. just having a great shot will not make a good NHL player. Now schremp probably has more going for him than just his shot, I'm just saying I wouldn't rely on that making him successful just by itself.

I disagree. I think Schremp's shot is a significant enough weapon to make him a threat at the NHL level by itself. Add in his playmaking ability and hockey sense and IMO things are looking good for him.

 

[Cerebral]

Put Kaspar on the Knights and see how he looks, he is built way way way more for the pro game over Schremp, he has a better shot is bigger and faster.

You really think that Kaspar has a better shot than Schremp's? I personally haven't seen Kaspar shoot but he must have an absolute cannon if it's true...

 

[Levitate]

I disagree. I think Schremp's shot is a significant enough weapon to make him a threat at the NHL level by itself. Add in his playmaking ability and hockey sense and IMO things are looking good for him.

Brendl had (has) an amazing shot but it's not exactly bringing him great success wherever he goes...

 

[bert]

Kaspar has a very heavy slapper, i prolbably over exagerated about the better shot they are very close. Kaspar does have a very good shot though. If Kaspar was more consistent he would be one hell of a player. He plays alot like Marian Hossa.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Brendl had (has) an amazing shot but it's not exactly bringing him great success wherever he goes...

Brendl lacks heart and desire. Schremp doesn't have that problem.

 

[X-SHARKIE]

I think in the end that although Kaspar struggled this year, he developed. He improved in areas like his vision and creativity. He's learned what it takes to play in NA. That's all you can really ask for out of a European Junior scorer in his first year of North American hockey.

I was quite down on Kaspar untill he turned it around and put up a very good playoff run and a memorial cup. I need to see more effort like that.

I would like to see him in the AHL next fall. He has the skill to play there, and mabey a more hands on approach by the Sharks will help his development.

 

[DaaaaB's]

I'd take Schremp although I'm not that high on either one.

 

[Levitate]

Brendl lacks heart and desire. Schremp doesn't have that problem.

which was partly my point. just saying a guy has a great shot and therefor will play in the NHL and have some success in some capacity doesn't work IMO. you have to have more...drive and desire to do better and compete hard, or be a good skater to go along with it, be a good physical player, etc etc...something else other than just banking on one skill

 

[czechhockeyfan]

I think in the end that although Kaspar struggled this year, he developed. He improved in areas like his vision and creativity. He's learned what it takes to play in NA. That's all you can really ask for out of a European Junior scorer in his first year of North American hockey.

I was quite down on Kaspar untill he turned it around and put up a very good playoff run and a memorial cup. I need to see more effort like that.

I would like to see him in the AHL next fall. He has the skill to play there, and mabey a more hands on approach by the Sharks will help his development.

I haven´t seen Kaspar this season barring a few games on TV from WJCH so I can´t say if Kaspar improved his game. However his vision and creativity were already very good when he played in Czech contests in previous years. I really don´t think you can improve these things that much. You are either creative or not, you can improve decision making with the experiences but vision and creativity?
Still I insist he shouldn´t have been first round pick.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

Put Kaspar on the Knights and see how he looks, he is built way way way more for the pro game over Schremp, he has a better shot

Yeah, o.k. BTW how many goals did Lukas have while Robbie was wiring pucks past goalies all year long in London??? I'd be amazed if there were 5 juniors with better shots than Robbie, and Lukas sure as heck isn't one of them.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

just saying a guy has a great shot and therefor will play in the NHL and have some success in some capacity doesn't work IMO.

I agree, however Robbie's shot is exceptional. That said he has more than just his wicked shot, he can pass tape to tape, runs a PP like a pro, has a fiesty side, he can stickhandle well in small spaces, IMO the kid is beyond just being a guy with a great shot. his development between the WJC's and the Memorial Cup was quite significant IMO.