2017 Draft

[BadgerBob 297]

3 minutes ago, F.Michael said:

Hmm - If they were bought in the arena - I bet he paid $12 plus.

Was in Minneapolis this past December at the Vikings new home for a Monster Truck event (my 3 lil'dudes love that redneck $hit).

A 16 oz Tall Boy Blue Moon was $15...Bastards.

Blue Moon at a Monster Truck event? Bold move. Hopefully all those busch light boys were nice to you!

[kipwinger 8,521]

When I first moved to DC I was sitting in a hockey bar watching a Wings game drinking Labatts.  I had about 6 of them.  When I cashed out the total was 42 dollars.  I assumed there must have been a big mistake given what I was drinking and asked the bartender what was up.  "You're drinking 'imports'" she says.  I was floored.  I can drink quality micros for 8 bucks, or Labatts for 7.  Needless to say I have not tasted a Labatts in about 3 years.

[kipwinger 8,521]

1 minute ago, F.Michael said:

I think we need to include in this list guys such as Larkin (who's been in his sophomore slump since last season), Sheahan, Jurco, Ferraro, McCollum,  and Frk.

My point being is we haven't had much luck lately - as in no Dats, or Hank, or Lids...I understand it's a crapshoot, and there's very few generational talents.

Well when you said last "several" years I assumed you weren't reaching back to 2009 lol.  Seems like a stretch.

Also, there are almost ZERO generational talents outside the top 3-5 in any draft.  We haven't picked anywhere close to that so you kinda need to temper your expectations. 

Also also, even Datsyuk and Zetterberg weren't DATSYUK and ZETTERBERG when they were drafted.  It's not like we drafted them knowing that they were diamonds in the rough.  They just turned out that way.  Lucky for us, but not like it was some keen insight.  If anybody had any inclination that they would turn out to be that good they obviously would have been drafted WAY higher.  They were picked for the same reasons Tatar and Nyquist and Filppula and Hudler were picked.  They just massively exceeded expectations. 

Point is, given where we've drafted and how other similarly ranked picks have turned out I'd say we've done much better than average.  We have very few draft busts, which seems to make people think it's the norm.  It isn't.  For many teams in the league, a 3rd-5th round pick will never see the light of day.  We have routinely turned those picks into serviceable NHL players, and occasionally turned them into stars.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

15 minutes ago, BadgerBob said:

Blue Moon at a Monster Truck event? Bold move. Hopefully all those busch light boys were nice to you!

Ahhh the only beer named after the sound it makes when you open the can

12 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

When I first moved to DC I was sitting in a hockey bar watching a Wings game drinking Labatts.  I had about 6 of them.  When I cashed out the total was 42 dollars.  I assumed there must have been a big mistake given what I was drinking and asked the bartender what was up.  "You're drinking 'imports'" she says.  I was floored.  I can drink quality micros for 8 bucks, or Labatts for 7.  Needless to say I have not tasted a Labatts in about 3 years.

It's hard to even find a Labatt in Seattle... But I can get a triple hop pineapple stout IPA in about 2 seconds flat.

[kipwinger 8,521]

Just now, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Ahhh the only beer named after the sound it makes when you open the can

It's hard to even find a Labatt in Seattle... But I can get a triple hop pineapple stout IPA in about 2 seconds flat.

Lucky for you.  In general micros are infinitely better than mass produced beer.  Some of the experimental breweries get carried away from time to time, but that's the point of being an experimental brewery I suppose.  Either way, I'd still rather drink a Bell's Two Hearted over a Molson, Labatt, Bud, etc. any day of the week.

[LeftWinger 4,951]

In order: Patrick, Tippett, Vilardi. Then maybe Mittelstadt. All four of those before Hischier or Liljegren. If we're trading a top 3 pick down in the draft, I hope means we're acquiring a defenseman in return. If we're just trading down because Holland wants an experimental type player off the radar, then ya, pissed I will be. If he selects Liljegren or Hischier with at least any of my top three left on the board, yes, I will be pissed. And to answer my question, if he just goes off the board with a #3 and drafts a player out of left field, I'll go crazy. That's when he need to be tarred, feathered and fired.

If we're also trading up to the bottom of the 1st, I'm hoping for Hague. 

If we get the #5 or #6 and my top three are gone, drafting Liljegren or Hischier is fine. Although in that situation, then I think I'd rather trade down and get Hague. 

FWIW, just because we're fans and they have nhl jobs doesn't mean that we aren't knowledgeable or capable of judging talent.  I can list a few folks here and some who I know personally that if they got the job these scouts have, they could be damn good scouts in the nhl. Just because you're a former player or have a degree in sports business doesn't make anyone any smarter than the other when it comes to judging talent. Especially if all you do is travel around and watch games. Judging talent is not that hard. Especially in today's world when besides your own opinion, you have the world at your fingertips to get others analysis of each player. 

[kipwinger 8,521]

Scouts tend to judge players based on a set of characteristics that the scouts themselves value.  Which is totally fine.  Judging something based off of your own experience as an NHL player makes sense in some cases, but not always.  If you're Kirk Maltby or Kris Draper you certainly know something about training, preparation, attention to detail, etc.  But you probably don't know jack about offensive ability.  So their subjective evaluations can become myopic sometimes.  I think there's a danger of promoting TOO MUCH from within to fill your scouting ranks because your organization can trend toward inside the box thinking.  It's easy to imagine an organization full of scouts who value grit, competitiveness, etc. to undervalue an exceptionally skilled play because of perceived shortfalls in "effort" or something.  And that could be a huge mistake a few years down the road. 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

When I first moved to DC I was sitting in a hockey bar watching a Wings game drinking Labatts.  I had about 6 of them.  When I cashed out the total was 42 dollars.  I assumed there must have been a big mistake given what I was drinking and asked the bartender what was up.  "You're drinking 'imports'" she says.  I was floored.  I can drink quality micros for 8 bucks, or Labatts for 7.  Needless to say I have not tasted a Labatts in about 3 years.

I can get a 6 pack of Labatt pints for $6 here. It's my cheap beer of choice. I prefer Founders or Bells but that s*** gets expensive. Last time I was in Toronto they had ButtWider as a premium import. I laughed.

As far as the draft goes, Id rather take a bigger guy, provided he can skate, them use the second and a couple 3rds to move up into the mid 1st and get a d. Failing that, use at least 3 of the next 4 picks on D and hope for a home run.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[LeftWinger 4,951]

7 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Scouts tend to judge players based on a set of characteristics that the scouts themselves value.  Which is totally fine.  Judging something based off of your own experience as an NHL player makes sense in some cases, but not always.  If you're Kirk Maltby or Kris Draper you certainly know something about training, preparation, attention to detail, etc.  But you probably don't know jack about offensive ability.  So their subjective evaluations can become myopic sometimes.  I think there's a danger of promoting TOO MUCH from within to fill your scouting ranks because your organization can trend toward inside the box thinking.  It's easy to imagine an organization full of scouts who value grit, competitiveness, etc. to undervalue an exceptionally skilled play because of perceived shortfalls in "effort" or something.  And that could be a huge mistake a few years down the road. 

Maybe having draper and Maltby as scouts is the reason most of our team are bottom 6 players...I guarantee that a handful of members here could scout just as good or maybe better than those two. Like I said, give some of us the official piece of paper and there isn't much difference.

[kipwinger 8,521]

I agree.  And I think as NHL teams have become run more like businesses, and less like self identifying clubs, they have tended to embrace organizational theories that value things like diversity in points of view and modes of operating.  Less of "this is the way we've always done it".  But it still remains in some very identifiable ways.  I used to always say that if you had a "really big guy" you should immediately shop him to San Jose because they'll give you a much better smaller player in return just because your guy is huge (see: Brenden Dillon for Jason Demers trade with Dallas). 

[LeftWinger 4,951]

The last few years, Holland has done us right at the draft. Mantha, Larkin,  Svechnikov. I'm willing to bet that if Datsyuk played his last season here and we weren't looking to dump his cap hit, Holland would've drafted Chychrun in our draft position. 

[kipwinger 8,521]

3 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

Maybe having draper and Maltby as scouts is the reason most of our team are bottom 6 players...I guarantee that a handful of members here could scout just as good or maybe better than those two. Like I said, give some of us the official piece of paper and there isn't much difference.

I don't know that we could "do better".  I mean, I don't know the first thing about the individual, daily, commitments it takes to be an NHLer.  And for guys like Maltby and Draper, who had good long careers, that stuff is self evident.  I just think that it's something you have to be aware of, because what made YOU successful might not be what will make someone else successful.  And there's a real danger of passing on someone with great potential because they don't do it like you do. 

[LeftWinger 4,951]

Which is why I would not be happy if they passed on what we all know they need, to draft more of what they have. 

Patrick, Tippett, Vilardi. If we're top 5, one of those three should be left for us.

[kipwinger 8,521]

I read an article recently about how Teemu Selanne was starting up a hockey school for scorers and I found it really interesting.  The gist is that hockey types tend to view defense and effort and what not as something that can be learned, and that scoring is a "natural" ability.  I mean, how many times have you heard NHL scouts, coaches, etc. say of a guy's offensive abilities, "he's got things we can't teach"? 

Teemu disagrees.  He argues that you can teach skills and habits that increase the probability of scoring just like you can teach any other facet of the game.  Scoring, in essence, is the product of same types of learning that every other aspect of the game is.  And I tend to believe him considering how wildly good he was at it for so long.

So if your entire organization is filled with guys who have never been scorers, and don't know how to do it, then how are they going to know what raw skills to look for in a prospect?  And how are they going to know how to develop those skills?  Chances are all that potential will be overlooked in favor of what you DO know how to evaluate. 

Here's the link to the article for those who are interested: http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/super-scorer-teemu-selanne-doing-his-part-to-keep-finland-the-no-1-team-in-the-world

Edited March 14, 2017 by kipwinger

[Jacksoni 418]

6 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

Which is why I would not be happy if they passed on what we all know they need, to draft more of what they have. 

Patrick, Tippett, Vilardi. If we're top 5, one of those three should be left for us.

Dunno I think that redhead dude would be good for us. Adds colors, you know?

[kipwinger 8,521]

Given that we're most likely to draft 6th or 7th I'd like to see us target Glass or Mittelstadt.  Mittelstadt is supposedly the more creative player, which is something I value in a top end center.  Glass is young for the draft (17) and he's already putting up impressive numbers.  I'd expect him to explode a year from now.  Both have good NHL frames at over 6 feet and 200 lbs.

[BadgerBob 297]

2 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Given that we're most likely to draft 6th or 7th I'd like to see us target Glass or Mittelstadt.  Mittelstadt is supposedly the more creative player, which is something I value in a top end center.  Glass is young for the draft (17) and he's already putting up impressive numbers.  I'd expect him to explode a year from now.  Both have good NHL frames at over 6 feet and 200 lbs.

From what I saw of Mittlestadt this weekend, no thanks. Didn't stand out against his peers at all, looked invisible at times even, and got knocked off the puck pretty easily.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

I think this notion that Draper and Maltby skew are scouting one way is completely unfounded

[kipwinger 8,521]

12 minutes ago, BadgerBob said:

From what I saw of Mittlestadt this weekend, no thanks. Didn't stand out against his peers at all, looked invisible at times even, and got knocked off the puck pretty easily.

He's 18 and underdeveloped physically so that's to be expected.  His physique will develop as he matures.  But it doesn't hurt that he's got a really big frame.  I haven't watched him personally like you have.  But I tend to value skating, puckwork, on ice vision, and hockey smarts more in a young kid than I do strength.  He'll get there, especially (as I've said) because of his frame. 

[Dabura 12,207]

The Devils are 0-8-2 in their last ten and are coming off a regulation loss to Arizona.
 

F*** you, NJD.

[kipwinger 8,521]

3 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I think this notion that Draper and Maltby skew are scouting one way is completely unfounded

That wasn't what I was saying at all.  I'm not blaming them for anything.  I was saying that guys like Draper and Maltby think hockey in a particular way, which is likely influenced by what made them successful.  That's totally fine.  But that they might be less successful at recognizing the raw characteristics or traits that would make a different type of player successful.  It's really not that keen of an insight.  No different that suggesting that a former defenseman would be better at evaluating defensive prospects than a former forward.  Not that it can't be done by a forward, but rather that a defenseman might have different, and in this case more useful, insights based on their own understanding of the necessary skillset.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

That wasn't what I was saying at all.  I'm not blaming them for anything.  I was saying that guys like Draper and Maltby think hockey in a particular way, which is likely influenced by what made them successful.  That's totally fine.  But that they might be less successful at recognizing the raw characteristics or traits that would make a different type of player successful.  It's really not that keen of an insight.  No different that suggesting that a former defenseman would be better at evaluating defensive prospects than a former forward.  Not that it can't be done by a forward, but rather that a defenseman might have different, and in this case more useful, insights based on their own understanding of the necessary skillset.

Agreed, just think some might interpret your argument that way. Lefty over here thinks he and his drinkin pals are NHL caliber scouts for pete's sake.

I'm more going back to F. Michael's comment about trusting Central Scouting more because they're "unbiased". I don't buy that. Bias is everywhere, and in every scout. Just because they don't have positional needs to fill, doesn't change that. Malts and Drapes I'm sure have their biases as well. But as you said Hockey is run like a business now. All the elite scouting talent will be concentrated with the big clubs, and they guard those scouting reports very heavily I'm sure. We are fed 2nd tier, secondary caliber scouting information for the most part. I'd trust any NHL organization's scouting staff over Central, amateur scouts, internet board speculation, or Lefty's buds.  

[kipwinger 8,521]

4 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Agreed, just think some might interpret your argument that way. Lefty over here thinks he and his drinkin pals are NHL caliber scouts for pete's sake.

I'm more going back to F. Michael's comment about trusting Central Scouting more because they're "unbiased". I don't buy that. Bias is everywhere, and in every scout. Just because they don't have positional needs to fill, doesn't change that. Malts and Drapes I'm sure have their biases as well. But as you said Hockey is run like a business now. All the elite scouting talent will be concentrated with the big clubs, and they guard those scouting reports very heavily I'm sure. We are fed 2nd tier, secondary caliber scouting information for the most part. I'd trust any NHL organization's scouting staff over Central, amateur scouts, internet board speculation, or Lefty's buds.  

I mean, over time the results of any particular scout speak for themselves, and the cream certainly rises to the top.  But it doesn't always start that way.  Maltby and Draper and Fischer weren't given jobs because they'd demonstrated keen hockey insights regarding drafting and player development.  They had no results, or even a resume, to qualify them for their job in the same way Hakan Andersson does.  They were given jobs because they were good Red Wings and the organization rewarded them.  Same reason Osgood is a commentator despite his relative unsuitability for the job lol.  Every team does it to some extent.  The Oilers made Kevin Lowe and Craig McTavish executives despite their unsuitability for the job.  The Avs did the same with Sakic and Roy.

I don't know whether Malts and Draper are any good at their jobs or not.  And they're certainly biased (which isn't bad and is true of everyone).  I just think it's good for all organizations to be aware of the fact that any evaluator comes with a set of preconceived ideas about players that A) might not be useful for particular types of players, and B) have the potential to become insular if not counter balanced by other evaluators with a different set of preconceived ideas which are different yet complimentary. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

7 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I mean, over time the results of any particular scout speak for themselves, and the cream certainly rises to the top.  But it doesn't always start that way.  Maltby and Draper and Fischer weren't given jobs because they'd demonstrated keen hockey insights regarding drafting and player development.  They had no results, or even a resume, to qualify them for their job in the same way Hakan Andersson does.  They were given jobs because they were good Red Wings and the organization rewarded them.  Same reason Osgood is a commentator despite his relative unsuitability for the job lol.  Every team does it to some extent.  The Oilers made Kevin Lowe and Craig McTavish executives despite their unsuitability for the job.  The Avs did the same with Sakic and Roy.

I don't know whether Malts and Draper are any good at their jobs or not.  And they're certainly biased (which isn't bad and is true of everyone).  I just think it's good for all organizations to be aware of the fact that any evaluator comes with a set of preconceived ideas about players that A) might not be useful for particular types of players, and B) have the potential to become insular if not counter balanced by other evaluators with a different set of preconceived ideas which are different yet complimentary. 

Well we agree again. I just doubt that these systems of evaluation aren't already in place. I find it hard to imagine that ours, or any NHL organizations scouting staff, is a troup of yes-men.

Draper, Maltby, and Fischer have the experience of playing on winning teams at the NHL level. I want those guys insights when it comes to scouting. But that doesn't mean organizations don't listen to their scouts who didn't play, in favor of former players.

[kipwinger 8,521]

24 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Well we agree again. I just doubt that these systems of evaluation aren't already in place. I find it hard to imagine that ours, or any NHL organizations scouting staff, is a troup of yes-men.

Draper, Maltby, and Fischer have the experience of playing on winning teams at the NHL level. I want those guys insights when it comes to scouting. But that doesn't mean organizations don't listen to their scouts who didn't play, in favor of former players.

I agree for the most part.  My understanding is that a whole series of scouts evaluate each player, score them, and then pool their scores to determine the final draft ranking.  This likely mitigates the affect that any one scout has on the final determination.  But like I said, this wouldn't be affective if too many of your scouts valued the same types of traits, or tended to undervalue or not recognize, others.

I do think that quite a lot of teams promote "yes men" however.  Not that people think to themselves "I'm going to hire a guy just because he thinks like I do".  I imagine they know these people for years, have lots of conversations about hockey in which they seem to have "similar ideas" (i.e. say the kinds of things each other like to hear) and so naturally think the person "fits right in" to the organizational culture.  Again, look at Lowe and McTavish.  Great players, but idiot managers who just keep turning to each other for insights that neither of them had to begin with.  All because they were buddies and presumably liked how the other thought about hockey.

Sometimes its important for organizations to hire people who don't "fit in". I don't have a problem with the Wings promoting guys like Malts or Draper.  But if I needed to hire any new scouts I'd be damn sure whoever I got hadn't spent years as a penalty killing, depth forward, with limited offensive ability.

In any organization, if you've picked people well to begin with, you don't need to find more people to reinforce what you're (presumably) doing well.  You should look for people to complement, innovate, and add to what you're already doing.

Edited March 14, 2017 by kipwinger