this will be it for George......

895

Registered User
Jun 15, 2007
8,380
6,998
2 NHLers in one draft is decent. 4 NHLers with two of them being very good is about as well a draft as you can hope for.

Of course personnel decisions after drafting them weren't so great. But really. Knocking Mcphee for his drafting? It's his greatest strength.
 

Chokingdogs

Registered User
Apr 18, 2006
1,956
692
2 NHLers in one draft is decent. 4 NHLers with two of them being very good is about as well a draft as you can hope for.

Of course personnel decisions after drafting them weren't so great. But really. Knocking Mcphee for his drafting? It's his greatest strength.

Rodney+Dangerfield.jpg


are you new to capland?

of all player/personnel duties a GM has responsibility for, the drafting realm has been makfi's weakest, followed closely by free agents.
 

Liberati0n*

Guest
It's an almost unanimous judgment that McPhee's drafting (after like 2003) has been excellent. How much credit he vs. the scouts (whom he probably chooses) deserves is of course debatable/unknown, but that goes for any GM.
 

Capathetic

Registered User
May 26, 2011
3,338
247
The drafting is good IMO. Seeing as we seem to have plenty to watch at the wjc each year. It's the decisions further along the path of development that concern me. Most younger players seem to hit a wall and only mojo comes to mind as far as improving their production ect.
 

Devil Dancer

Registered User
Jan 21, 2006
18,439
5,406
of all player/personnel duties a GM has responsibility for, the drafting realm has been makfi's weakest, followed closely by free agents.

I don't agree with that at all. GMGM is a solid drafting GM, his problem is he can't build a defense, regardless of the source of the players. There are a lot of GMs that fail to draft their way out of a rebuild, but the Caps did it under GMGM. He hasn't surrounded those picks with the right pieces, but that's not an indictment of his drafting.
 

Langway

In den Wolken
Jul 7, 2006
32,267
8,894
While McPhee's drafting has been adequate enough and has supplied a pipeline of talented players, they have failed to draft and develop role players. Shooting for upside has its risks and that's one of them.

Stay-at-home D and industrious bottom six forwards are a weak point within their scouting spectrum. They need to be better at finding those types from the second round and thereafter. Those are the glue guys on the cheap that can really bring a team together (and at least provide the option to free up resources so that they actually go to a strong top six rather than overpaying for third-liners).

The closest thing to being drafted and developed bottom sixers in recent memory are players they ultimately gave up on: Perreault & Eakin. Hard to see anyone even on the horizon that fits the bill. Maybe Stephenson but that's due more to hockey IQ than physicality. Their failure to do so resulted in them taking Wilson early and targeting a guy like Latta from other teams. (And claiming a scrub like Volpatti.)
 
Last edited:

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
30,433
14,292
While McPhee's drafting has been adequate enough and has supplied a pipeline of talented players, they have failed to draft and develop role players. Shooting for upside has its risks and that's one of them.

Stay-at-home D and industrious bottom six forwards are a weak point within their scouting spectrum. They need to be better at finding those types from the second round and thereafter. Those are the glue guys on the cheap that can really bring a team together (and at least provide the option to free up resources so that they actually go to a strong top six rather than overpaying for third-liners).

The closest thing to being drafted and developed bottom sixers in recent memory are players they ultimately gave up on: Perreault & Eakin. Hard to see anyone even on the horizon that fits the bill. Maybe Stephenson but that's due more to hockey IQ than physicality. Their failure to do so resulted in them taking Wilson early and targeting a guy like Latta from other teams.

There have been stages of this under GMGM. Guys like Sutherby and Pettinger come to mind, maybe even Halpern. And countless defensemen. Almost all show early promise and then overstay based on local overvaluation. Relatively few are ever abandoned early and then catch fire somewhere else.

When was the last time this team had a guy on the level of, say, Konowalchuk?
 

Liberati0n*

Guest
While McPhee's drafting has been adequate enough and has supplied a pipeline of talented players, they have failed to draft and develop role players. Shooting for upside has its risks and that's one of them.

Stay-at-home D and industrious bottom six forwards are a weak point within their scouting spectrum. They need to be better at finding those types from the second round and thereafter. Those are the glue guys on the cheap that can really bring a team together (and at least provide the option to free up resources so that they actually go to a strong top six rather than overpaying for third-liners).

The closest thing to being drafted and developed bottom sixers in recent memory are players they ultimately gave up on: Perreault & Eakin. Hard to see anyone even on the horizon that fits the bill. Maybe Stephenson but that's due more to hockey IQ than physicality. Their failure to do so resulted in them taking Wilson early and targeting a guy like Latta from other teams. (And claiming a scrub like Volpatti.)

DiPauli? Identifying a guy like Latta and targeting him (not in that trade obviously) where he was in his development is a good thing to do regardless of their own ability to bring guys like that up.
 

NoMoreChoking

Registered User
Sep 30, 2009
2,192
0
McPhees problem isn't so much drafting talent, it's failing to develop them and get rid of them when they show no signs of improving. I'm all for patience but damn
 

Capathetic

Registered User
May 26, 2011
3,338
247
Gmgm- bring in a real coaching staff already. Were seeing the effects of a first year defensive and goalie coach first hand. Who would imagine this team could've gotten worse in either area? Save your former alumni and buddies for the golf course and bring in some guys with winning pedigree.
 

artilector

Registered User
Jan 11, 2006
8,351
1,187
I don't mind not drafting role players. They're (relatively) easy to find as UFAs or inexpensive trades. And as Laich shows, having one in the system is no guarantee that you won't end up having to pay through the nose to retain him.. well, if you're the Caps, at least.
 

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
64,387
19,084
I don't mind not drafting role players. They're (relatively) easy to find as UFAs or inexpensive trades. And as Laich shows, having one in the system is no guarantee that you won't end up having to pay through the nose to retain him.. well, if you're the Caps, at least.

Laich wasn't performing at "role-player" level when he signed his extension. Look what Hendricks got. I think you have to replenish these type of guys through the draft too. UFA bottom 6 guys are either trash or overpriced.
 

Hivemind

We're Touched
Oct 8, 2010
37,009
13,425
Philadelphia
This is depressing. 7.5 years later?

I was right about that draft. Oh so wrong about George being gone. Fak U, Ted.

My wife keeps telling me to start rooting for the Sharks.

Wish I could care for them, much as I do for the Craps.

Huge Sigh in SF.
Huh? What? You couldn't have been much more wrong about the draft. 2006 was excellent for the Capitals.

ok draft< because we had the #4 PICK. Love Backstrom. Like the Russian keeper enough. The rest?? my guess typical GMGM post 1st round prowess.

Maybe 1 of the 3 2nd rounders will be seen in Hershey. Maybe.
Well, two of the there second rounders saw Hershey, and all three got AHL action. Neuvirth became an NHLer, beyond that.

More to the point, five of the players drafted by the Capitals in the draft (Backstrom, Varlamov, Neuvirth, Osala, Perreault) saw NHL action. Two (Backstrom, Neuvirth) are still with the Capitals, while the other three were traded (disappointing ultimate returns not withstanding). Additionally, Bouchard was traded for a player who saw NHL action (Kundratek).

Getting four NHL regulars in one draft is pretty great. You can say all you want about the asset management afterwards (though turning a #23 pick into a #11 + 2nd rounder is good), bu the draft itself paid dividends.

DiPauli? Identifying a guy like Latta and targeting him (not in that trade obviously) where he was in his development is a good thing to do regardless of their own ability to bring guys like that up.
DiPauli, as well as a few others (Mitchell, Heinrich, Lewington) fit the mold of depth role players, but there are serious doubts about their ability to play in the NHL. They're stretches, at best.
 

Ridley Simon

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
18,127
9,066
Marin County — SF Bay Area, CA
Huh? What? You couldn't have been much more wrong about the draft. 2006 was excellent for the Capitals.


Well, two of the there second rounders saw Hershey, and all three got AHL action. Neuvirth became an NHLer, beyond that.

More to the point, five of the players drafted by the Capitals in the draft (Backstrom, Varlamov, Neuvirth, Osala, Perreault) saw NHL action. Two (Backstrom, Neuvirth) are still with the Capitals, while the other three were traded (disappointing ultimate returns not withstanding). Additionally, Bouchard was traded for a player who saw NHL action (Kundratek).

Getting four NHL regulars in one draft is pretty great. You can say all you want about the asset management afterwards (though turning a #23 pick into a #11 + 2nd rounder is good), bu the draft itself paid dividends.

5 picks in the first 2 rounds. One was the #4. We are giving accolades for success at the #4? Neuvirth is a success? Really?

Seabrook? Bouchard got us Kundratek? An AHL defenseman? That's good for a 2nd rounder?

Yes, Perrault worked. But that's about all that's I would consider good about it. The 2 goalies have had spotty careers. The only players were Backstrom and MP. Where is Osala now?

Some of the quotes you used from me were the day of the draft, btw. The AHL piece. I wasn't wrong. You can pick all you want, but George waived on a lot of talent in that 2nd round. Don't remember you being around then to show what you wanted or thought. Hindsight, eh?
 

Liberati0n*

Guest
5 picks in the first 2 rounds. One was the #4. We are giving accolades for success at the #4? Neuvirth is a success? Really?

Seabrook? Bouchard got us Kundratek? An AHL defenseman? That's good for a 2nd rounder?

Yes, Perrault worked. But that's about all that's I would consider good about it. The 2 goalies have had spotty careers. The only players were Backstrom and MP. Where is Osala now?

Some of the quotes you used from me were the day of the draft, btw. The AHL piece. I wasn't wrong. You can pick all you want, but George waived on a lot of talent in that 2nd round. Don't remember you being around then to show what you wanted or thought. Hindsight, eh?

It's pretty hard to draft successful NHL goalies. Last time I checked (like two days ago) Varlamov was in the top 10 for save percentage. Neuvirth is mediocre but he's an NHL goalie. They could have easily made a different/wrong pick at #4, but they didn't and it's worked out at least as well as anyone could have hoped. Perreault in the 6th round is incredible value.

The fact that you would actually argue it wasn't a very good draft is disturbing. You're just tanking your own credibility by doing it.
 

Hivemind

We're Touched
Oct 8, 2010
37,009
13,425
Philadelphia
5 picks in the first 2 rounds. One was the #4. We are giving accolades for success at the #4? Neuvirth is a success? Really?
Our #4 pick looks a lot better than the #2 pick, Jordan Staal, does he not? The #4 pick in 2005 was Benoit Pouliot. The #4 pick in 2007 was Thomas Hickey. You could make a pretty convincing argument that Backstrom was the best #4 pick of the entire decade, with Pietrangelo being his only legitimate competition.

Neuvirth is 3rd among all goalies taken in the 2006 in games played, only trailing Steve Mason and Semyon Varlamov. Leland Irving was taken in the 1st round and has been a complete bust. Jhonas Enroth was taken at #46, and while showing some promise, hasn't proven nearly as much as Neuvirth. It's taken until this year for #11 pick Jonathan Bernier to get regular starts.
Yes, Neuvirth is absolutely a draft succcess.

Seabrook? Bouchard got us Kundratek? An AHL defenseman? That's good for a 2nd rounder?
Getting a depth player like Kundratek is par for the course for a second rounder. Kundratek's 30 NHL games played is already above the 50th percentile for 2nd rounders (a mere 22 games played). Only reason I brought up Seabrook is because you doubted our guys would even reach the AHL, which they clealry did.

Yes, Perrault worked. But that's about all that's I would consider good about it. The 2 goalies have had spotty careers. The only players were Backstrom and MP. Where is Osala now?
Osala was traded, and then faded. But for a freaking 5th rounder, certainly not bad. Seeing any NHL action at all puts him way ahead of 2/3 of 5th rounders. The fact we got a 5th rounder that would be coveted enough to be part of a trade for an NHL player is a success.

Some of the quotes you used from me were the day of the draft, btw. The AHL piece. I wasn't wrong. You can pick all you want, but George waived on a lot of talent in that 2nd round. Don't remember you being around then to show what you wanted or thought. Hindsight, eh?
You said that our 2nd rounders wouldn't even play in Hershey. You were clearly and demonstrably wrong.
You need to adjust what you consider a draft success to be more in line with reality.
http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf
 

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
30,433
14,292
Hey, GMGM has had good drafts and bad drafts. What a concept.
 

Ridley Simon

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
18,127
9,066
Marin County — SF Bay Area, CA
It's pretty hard to draft successful NHL goalies. Last time I checked (like two days ago) Varlamov was in the top 10 for save percentage. Neuvirth is mediocre but he's an NHL goalie. They could have easily made a different/wrong pick at #4, but they didn't and it's worked out at least as well as anyone could have hoped. Perreault in the 6th round is incredible value.

The fact that you would actually argue it wasn't a very good draft is disturbing. You're just tanking your own credibility by doing it.

Disturbing? Are you sure you want to use that word, and then talk about credibility? What that guy did to those women in Cleveland is disturbing. The atrocities in the Central African Republic are disturbing.

Anyone's view of a hockey draft, no matter what it is...is for sure NOT disturbing.

I don't agree with you. Obviously. 10 picks, 5 in the top 50. I'd expect more than 1 player from a haul like that, making a difference on the team. The fact that he traded away almost all of it for peanuts just exacerbates the situation.

Oh well, we can disagree.
 
Last edited:

Ridley Simon

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
18,127
9,066
Marin County — SF Bay Area, CA
Our #4 pick looks a lot better than the #2 pick, Jordan Staal, does he not? The #4 pick in 2005 was Benoit Pouliot. The #4 pick in 2007 was Thomas Hickey. You could make a pretty convincing argument that Backstrom was the best #4 pick of the entire decade, with Pietrangelo being his only legitimate competition.

Neuvirth is 3rd among all goalies taken in the 2006 in games played, only trailing Steve Mason and Semyon Varlamov. Leland Irving was taken in the 1st round and has been a complete bust. Jhonas Enroth was taken at #46, and while showing some promise, hasn't proven nearly as much as Neuvirth. It's taken until this year for #11 pick Jonathan Bernier to get regular starts.
Yes, Neuvirth is absolutely a draft succcess.


Getting a depth player like Kundratek is par for the course for a second rounder. Kundratek's 30 NHL games played is already above the 50th percentile for 2nd rounders (a mere 22 games played). Only reason I brought up Seabrook is because you doubted our guys would even reach the AHL, which they clealry did.


Osala was traded, and then faded. But for a freaking 5th rounder, certainly not bad. Seeing any NHL action at all puts him way ahead of 2/3 of 5th rounders. The fact we got a 5th rounder that would be coveted enough to be part of a trade for an NHL player is a success.


You said that our 2nd rounders wouldn't even play in Hershey. You were clearly and demonstrably wrong.
You need to adjust what you consider a draft success to be more in line with reality.
http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf

That draft had a load of talent. Comparing #4 picks from different years is foolish, and doesn't equate. Look at the top 14 picks from 2006. 1 guy hasn't done much, the rest are good to great players. It was a very very deep draft, so to judge it on slotting is not genuine.

Neuvirth and Varlamov played out of necessity, as the team had NO veteran G's to keep them in lesser roles. Again, pointing at Bernier, Enroth or Irving isn't genuine. You think Neuvirth would have the 3rd most starts had be been behind Ryan Miller, Mikka Kiprusoff, or Jonathon Quick? If you do, then I don't know what to tell you

I said Perrault was a good pick. Albeit wasted by your boy George.
 

Hivemind

We're Touched
Oct 8, 2010
37,009
13,425
Philadelphia
That draft had a load of talent. Comparing #4 picks from different years is foolish, and doesn't equate. Look at the top 14 picks from 2006. 1 guy hasn't done much, the rest are good to great players. It was a very very deep draft, so to judge it on slotting is not genuine.

Neuvirth and Varlamov played out of necessity, as the team had NO veteran G's to keep them in lesser roles. Again, pointing at Bernier, Enroth or Irving isn't genuine. You think Neuvirth would have the 3rd most starts had be been behind Ryan Miller, Mikka Kiprusoff, or Jonathon Quick? If you do, then I don't know what to tell you

I said Perrault was a good pick. Albeit wasted by your boy George.

Who among the 5-14 picks would you prefer to Backstrom? Seems to me he picked the best player available. What's not to like about that pick? Would you have preferred James Sheppard or Peter Meuller or Derrick Brassard?

Do you seriously prefer Enroth or Irving to Neuvirth? Do you think Varlamov wasn't worth the 23 pick? Even after another team traded the 11th and a 2nd for him?

And who said GMGM was my boy? Drafting simply isn't his problem. He's been an excellent drafter for about a decade now. Just because he leaves a lot to be desired in other areas doesn't mean he's a poor drafter.
 

Halpysback*

Guest
He has the same thing Shero has going, except with soft Swedes. Shero can pick a PMD out of a hat and only drafts them because he knows he can beat the curve on those players, GMGM has the same deal with soft swedes. Wish he was better at zeroing in on a more useful player type like good all-around wingers for Blues or above average Cs for Sharks.
 

Zoidberg Jesus

Trotzkyist
Oct 25, 2011
3,814
0
I don't agree with you. Obviously. 10 picks, 5 in the top 50. I'd expect more than 1 player from a haul like that, making a difference on the team. The fact that he traded away almost all of it for peanuts just exacerbates the situation.

The fact that he ultimately traded the return on Varlamov for peanuts has nothing to do with his drafting ability. And I think you need to adjust your expectations for second round picks.

I'd break up that second round into four groups:

Impact players: Lucic and Carle
Middling players: Neuvirth, McGinn, Kulemin, Petry, Enroth, Matthias, Anisimov, and McBain
Grinders: Nodl, Emmerton, Weber
Guys who never made it: The remaining 20 guys

That's less than a third of that years second rounders ever making it past a 4th line or 3rd pairing role. What McPhee got by drafting Neuvirth was a perfectly average return. Throw in arguably a top 10 center and a top 10 goalie in the first round and a middling player from the sixth and I don't know how you can complain about that draft. Can you really pick 15 teams that did better than the Caps that year?
 

Ridley Simon

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
18,127
9,066
Marin County — SF Bay Area, CA
Who among the 5-14 picks would you prefer to Backstrom? Seems to me he picked the best player available. What's not to like about that pick? Would you have preferred James Sheppard or Peter Meuller or Derrick Brassard?

Do you seriously prefer Enroth or Irving to Neuvirth? Do you think Varlamov wasn't worth the 23 pick? Even after another team traded the 11th and a 2nd for him?

And who said GMGM was my boy? Drafting simply isn't his problem. He's been an excellent drafter for about a decade now. Just because he leaves a lot to be desired in other areas doesn't mean he's a poor drafter.

Backstrom is a great player. I never said otherwise. But you were talking about this pick at #4 as being some triumphant choice, which disregarded the draft. Backstrom fell to George, and he didn't screw it up. (And per your question, only Kessel or Giroux are perhaps better than Nick that were 1st rounders after him). Again, that's not the points.

George (or the team, whomever it was) certainly is better at drafting now than they were in the mid 00's. When I made that post, it was on the heels of stellar drafts from the early 2000's. Even the Semim/Green draft wasn't proven. So to laude George for his post 06 drafting has nothing to do with this.

The 06 draft, on its own as a load of players was fine. Considering 5 picks in the top 50ish? Not so much.
 

Ridley Simon

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
18,127
9,066
Marin County — SF Bay Area, CA
The fact that he ultimately traded the return on Varlamov for peanuts has nothing to do with his drafting ability. And I think you need to adjust your expectations for second round picks.

I'd break up that second round into four groups:

Impact players: Lucic and Carle
Middling players: Neuvirth, McGinn, Kulemin, Petry, Enroth, Matthias, Anisimov, and McBain
Grinders: Nodl, Emmerton, Weber
Guys who never made it: The remaining 20 guys

That's less than a third of that years second rounders ever making it past a 4th line or 3rd pairing role. What McPhee got by drafting Neuvirth was a perfectly average return. Throw in arguably a top 10 center and a top 10 goalie in the first round and a middling player from the sixth and I don't know how you can complain about that draft. Can you really pick 15 teams that did better than the Caps that year?

That's being kind to Neuvirth. How many of those other middling players would we take straight up for him, right now? All but 2? And the "remaining 20 guys" had 2 picked by George (one was 5th overall!). And you talk about half that 2nd round as being worthwhile. So 1 of every 2. Caps has 3 players. 1 that wouldn't be top 10 now for that 2nd round, and 2 that shouldn't have been drafted. I'd says you made my point for me.

I applauded Backstrom and Varlamov at the time, and hated the rest. I was wrong on Perrault. Where else was I wrong?
 

NobodyBeatsTheWiz

Happy now?
Jun 26, 2004
23,413
1,964
The Burbs
Pick a team at random, and see how their 2006 draft compares to the Caps.

Edit: Just went back and looked at the draft for all 30 teams. Two conclusions:

1: It wasn't a very good draft, at all.
2: The Bruins are the only team that could be argued to have a better draft than the Caps. There's not even anyone else you can begin to make a cogent argument for.

So if you'd like to continue bashing George for this draft, your credibility for all things George is pretty much destroyed.

And just a reminder, I desperately want George gone.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->