A Few Notes on the '05, '06 and '07 Drafts
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Feb 12, 2012 8:04 PM PST
Email
PrintI just wanted to throw in my two cents on Murray's comments on the 05-07 Drafts.
First off, I seriously doubt that Murray is in any way questioning Brian Burke with those comments. The '05, '06 and '07 drafts were the tail end of Alain Chainey's decade at the helm of the Anaheim draft boards as the organization's Director of Amateur Scouting. The club demoted Chainey in 2008 in favor of former Hurricanes scout and QMJHL specialist, Martin Madden. Murray's statements are likely an indictment of Chainey's performance at the end of his tenure as Director, as well as a reinforcement of the notion that the general manager's office made the right change by installing Madden.
It's cute to go back and look at NHL games played and, with the value of hindsight, refer to drafts as "bad." And I'm sure that's what Murray's doing, but I thought I would give a few of my notes on some of the players Anaheim drafted in those years, especially the good picks.
2005
Bobby Ryan - Burke was vocal about the fact that this pick belonged to Chainey and company. And rightfully so, because Bobby Ryan is not a "Burke-pick." Should the organization have gone with Jack Johnson, who came to the Draft in his maize and blue necktie to reinforce the message that he was playing for Michigan and NOT an NHL team in the coming season? Meh. Ultimately, Ryan was the only star forward in the cupboard between the NHL debut of Getzlaf and Perry and the moment the Ducks picked Emerson Etem.
Brendan Mikkelson - Who did I like? Future WCHA forwards Ryan Stoa, Mason Raymond and Paul Stastny. But the Ducks were looking defense. The blueline diamond in the rough of that second round turned out to be Vlasic, who had a good year and playoffs prior to the Draft but nowhere near the level of his breakout year the following season. Ultimately, the Ducks went with talent (a common tiebreaker), as Mikkelson was the best skating defenseman available at that point.
Jason Bailey and Bobby Bolt - The forward depth had thinned considerably at this point, but I think what's notable about these picks is that, in these rounds, Tim Burke of San Jose picks Alex Stalock and the Kings find Jonathan Quick in Avon Old Farms. Francois Allaire had been lauded for providing irreplaceable goaltending evaluation and scouting, and these were rounds where, if the Ducks weren't insistent on forwards, there were gems to be had, especially at a position where Anaheim seemed to sleep in the Allaire years.
Brian Salcido - Despite playing at Shattuck St. Mary's with his more famous draft classmates and having a good career in Colorado, Salcido was probably drafted for the city on his birth certificate (Los Angeles). He was ushered into and out of the Anaheim system rather quickly, and it felt like a PR stunt.
Jean-Philippe Levasseur - and then they picked a goalie.
2006
Mark Mitera - I interviewed Mitera after his first year in the pros, which sadly found him in Bakersfield. The 2006 Draft class saw a lot of bad luck, but Mitera got the worst of it. He blew out his knee at the beginning of his senior season. Then, to make matters worse, after an entire year away from hockey, he was sent to the ECHL while the Ducks scrambled to address their lack of a minor league affiliate.
This was a great pick, as the Ducks went shopping in a program that had done wonders for Matt Hunwick and Jack Johnson, and plucked the team's sturdiest shutdown defenseman and a player whose character put a C on his chest. A healthy Mitera who got to start his pro career in the AHL might have been quite the NHLer.
Bryce Swan - A physical forward, I would definitely call this a "Burke-pick," as far as the GM's guidelines for the pugnacity and truculence that he wants in his cupboard. Swan suffered a laundry list of injuries after being drafted, but the Ducks still liked him. He just refused to sign a contract. Not everyone wants to play in the NHL. It would have been nice to draft Milan Lucic, the physical forward that Draft buzz had sneaking into the top two rounds, and I'm surprised neither Burke nor Chainey was swept up in Lucic-fever, but they liked Swan more.
John de Gray - There were scouting reports that said that, but for a lack of offensive production from the blueline, John de Gray was a first-rounder. That's not the kind of player you can really regret picking in the third round, especially when all of ONE of the subsequently picked defensemen in that draft has managed a multi-season NHL career.
Matt Beleskey - Definitely a Burke-pick. Bulls captain, plenty of grit, plenty of character. His skating ability kept him available in the 4th Round, but you figured he could work on that, and he did. The Ducks got exactly what they hoped here.
Petteri Wirtanen - The Ducks took a shot in the dark with a small-ish forward. They might have seen a better return with even smaller forward Benn Ferriero, who Tim Burke and the Sharks took in the seventh round. But Wirtanen was a reasonable shot in the dark and a late rounder that the organization liked enough to actually sign and develop for a season. It's worth noting that current Ducks Director of Amateur Scouting Martin Madden has gone with college players as his final picks in the last two seasons, which is why I made specific note of Tim Burke's approach, as that has worked out for the Sharks on numerous occasions.
2007
Logan MacMillan - This was a bad pick, but it was also a pick that Burke created. Anaheim did not have a first round draft pick. Burke packaged together 2003 8th rounder Shane O'Brien with a third round pick to get a first rounder out of Tampa. Does the fact that the Ducks weren't even supposed to be there that day mean that they should have wasted the pick? No, but you can certainly imagine parallel dimensions where this scouting failure never came to light. Also, we can all imagine a scouting staff that had no problem saying they liked Logan MacMillan more than Max Pacioretty or David Perron.
He had a run-in with the law at the start of his pro career, but MacMillan's ultimate failing was that he was never as good offensively as his numbers indicated. With his stats inflated by linemate Jakub Voracek, MacMillan made it into the first round discussion, but he was just never going to be a first-round player.
Eric Tangradi - If the Ducks never picked in the first round, I think Burke still would have gotten his man in Tangradi. I said it was a mistake to trade him when Murray shipped him to Pittsburgh, and most agree that Murray was thoroughly fleeced in that deal. A Tangradi concussion on a suspension-drawing hit may keep the spotlight from ever thoroughly shining on Murray's mistake, but despite Murray's failure to properly VALUE Eric Tangradi, the power forward was a second round steal. (read the link for details on him, and look up the DiDomenico video if you can...priceless)
Maxime Macenauer - A little bit of speed, a little bit of scoring ability and a whole lot of gamble. There were no guarantees with Macenauer, but the fact that he's still in the cupboard-- and the team's first rounder from this year isn't --bodes pretty well for the scouting department's performance in this draft.
Justin Vaive - As far as gigantic players, whose fathers played the NHL game and were attending good college programs, Justin Vaive was a good pick. Might he just as easily have come to nothing and ended up in the ECHL. Well, yeah, but Anaheim had three more picks that round (the 4th), and the thinking was sound.
Steven Kampfer - One of the greater tragedies in Ducks' draft history, Kampfer suffered a criminal injury on the ice and a criminal injury off the ice. The physical toll alone could have ended his hockey career, but each injury came with mental effects as well. Still, he followed through with his NHL dream and got a Stanley Cup ring, even if his name wasn't engraved on the trophy. A good pick, and a player teams still wanted despite the tragedies that derailed his development.
Sebastian Stefaniszin and Mattias Modig - The Ducks finished the 4th round with two netminder picks. Goalie development is akin to pitcher or quarterback development. There is no science, and the mental aspects of the position can bust even the most talented players. Still, it's worth noting that Modig is good; he just didn't want to play for us.
Brett Morrison - Fun fact: Brett Morrison and Bryce Swan played together at St. Francis Xavier University last year and for the two years prior to that. Sometimes you blow a second round pick on a guy, and he ends up in the same place as a fifth-round throwaway.
The draft is a funny thing. I don't know if you ever really have 'good' or 'bad' ones. Bad things certainly happen to your players. Luck strikes both ways-- on draft day and in the subsequent developing years. Were there bad investments in the '05, '06 and '07 Ducks drafts? Yes . . . and for every draft before and after that. But there was very little in the way of Ponzi schemes and investment in Buggy Whip futures. Possibly nothing that would alleviate any blame falling on the current regime, especially when the current regime shipped many of the tangible and still valuable assets of the prior regime out-- Tangradi, Gardiner, etc.
This article is user-generated. It does not necessarily reflect the views of Anaheim Calling. Please do not link this article as representative of Anaheim Calling content or viewpoints . . . unless it's really really good.
41 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You make a fair argument, but i still think at the end of the day you have to ask did that draft make the team/franchise better. Outside of the bobby ryan pick you have to say that no, they did not.
I can understand that injuries and outside factors all contribute to the end result, but we all get judged on results, and most of those players have not gone onto successful careers in the nhl. The results being poor, thus the draft can be judged as poor.
I think that’s a pretty one dimensional way of looking at things. It forces us to shoe-horn everything into this idea of “results”. Parros rarely, if ever scores, so does he get good results? What about Brookbank? Moreover, not everyone you draft will lace them up for your team. A lot of prospects get moved for proven players and then their development is out of your hands. If another team ruins your prospect, therefore ensuring said prospect does not make it to the NHL and produces not games played, can he still be considered a bad pick?
I think there’s simply too much gray area. That’s not to say that you can’t have good or bad drafts, but I think we need to be a little more relaxed in how we define that. As Arthur noted above, Burke created a first round choice in 2007. Is getting that extra asset the sign of a good draft?
I just think that “results” is too much of a black/white standard.
Put it this way, who came second in the 100m sprint at the last 2 olympics? In fact look at the detroit game recently, was a good game adn we played well, next year will we remember that it was a good game, or that it was a loss. in 2 years time? in 3 years time? Winning is the only thing that matters in sport (and mostly in life as well). As for Parros and brookbank, i have stated my opinion on them previously (although brookbank seems to have played better of late). I dont think this team needs a player like Parros, if players like Vis, Perry etc are going to fight then he isnt doing his job. I can accept that he is a better player than most enforcers, but our skill players are tougher than most anyway.
As for moving prospects, thats fine if your getting a return for your investment. moving a prospect for picks or another prospect in theory is shifting assets and benefits the franchise. Prospects that dont make it, and arent moved for another asset are essentially bad debt and have cost the franchise.
by BennyLightning on Feb 13, 2012 2:33 AM PST up reply actions
we all get judged on results
Actually, no. Scouts do not get judged on whether a player blows his knee out, whether his agent makes it tough to sign him or whether he gets attacked by a football player in a parking lot. They do not lose their job over those things.
The results being poorBy what standard are you determining these to be poor? Because Bob Murray says so??? The 2007 draft class produced three players who played NHL games (Tangradi, Kampfer, Macenauer). The Ducks 2002 class produced two (Joffrey Lupul and Tim Brent). The Ducks’ 2004 class basically produced one (Ladislav Smid). In the fabled 2003 class, the Ducks’ two first rounders account for half of the four NHLers they correctly picked (one of which was 8th rounder Shane O’Brien).
Bob Murray doesn’t have the cupboard he wished he had, okay. But the ONLY reason he has a cupboard that feels like it suffered three consecutive first round busts is because he traded away Tangradi and Gardiner. Mitera blew his knee out, but we would have the equivalent of a 2007 first rounder if we had Tangradi, and if Murray had made an offer to Beauchemin instead of trying to spread that money over several inept defensemen, we’d still have Gardiner. Chainey should go to the OC Register and say the team is recovering from some mismanagement and bad trades.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Feb 12, 2012 9:47 PM PST up reply actions
As a rule of thumb, I don’t take any GM seriously if he says his team had a bad draft after the man traded two of the three NHL players from that Draft to other teams.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Feb 12, 2012 9:53 PM PST up reply actions
after the man tradedtwothree of the three NHL players from that Draft to other teams.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Feb 13, 2012 1:01 PM PST up reply actions
Scouts may not, but the GM should. Well not really but you can understand what i mean. I can agree that there are a lot of variables that can go into the development of a prospect, but in hind sight we look back and judge a result. Did those players contibute to the franchise.
Tangradi, was part of the whitney trade, wasnt a great move yes, but he contributed to a solid move, thus he had value to this franchise. Gardiner is almost in an identical situation. Mikkelson was claimed off waivers without playing a lot for this club, thus his value is very limited to us, in that he didnt contribute to the ducks roster (often), and that he didnt garner this franchise a further asset when he left.
Im not arguing why the cupbaord is bare, i can see why it is and agree with your reasoning with why it is. My arguement is that the drafts can be considered poor, as they didnt really contribute to this franchise (as a whole). One player a draft doesnt make a draft good or bad, its a collection of players as a whole, and what they can bring the franchsie. If you bought shares before the GFC and then they went down, it doesnt mean you made a bad choice, but it does mean that in hindsight it was bad for you. If Mitera was a share would you be happy with the return he gave you? The answer should be no. Players are the currency of the franchise and while you may win and lose some, whether by coincidence or design, we ran a string of outs, over all.
Just how i feel. and maybe its my nature/background/whatever, but i believe you can only be judged on the result. A student can try hard, but still fail the class. Is this very different? Sure credit points for trying (making the “right” pick), but still ultimately a failed exercsie.
by BennyLightning on Feb 13, 2012 2:45 AM PST up reply actions
I think that’s a cultural type of thinking that is very detrimental. It’s the reason parents insist teacher’s give their children A’s, because it doesn’t matter what was done; it matters if you win. That’s the type of thinking that is very dangerous for society as a whole.
by Daniel AC on Feb 13, 2012 8:26 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
I think entitlement leads to a lot of those issues. I feel the desire to “win” leads to cutting corners like cheating. Still very detrimental. I think the difference here is that there isn’t really a way Murray can cheat to make drafted players turn out better, to inflate the results. Thus the results are solely the players. There are tons of reason they may not have the desired results but it doesn’t change that fact that they’re not desirable. That being said I still think there’s a valid point about Murray trading away the only decent picks from those drafts. Didn’t Gardiner come in 08 though?
by DavidBL on Feb 13, 2012 9:56 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
You should never judge drafts in hindsight. That would be the central point of this fan post.
Judging selections of a draft class in hindsight is like judging numbers on a lottery ticket in hindsight. And based on that thinking, 2005 was a terrible draft. The Ducks had a chance to grab Sidney Crosby. Anaheim should fire those lottery balls, as it led to “poor results.”
Murray assumes Ducks fans think like you do. He assumes Anaheim fans don’t really remember the drafts and will judge on how many players they’ve seen or heard “contribute.”. And he’s hoping that will save his job, since he had FOUR first round picks in 09-10 and Fowler and Etem fell into his lap. The highlights of his regime have come down to the Burke assets he unloaded for Draft picks and being in the right place at the right time. He wants Ducks fans to give him credit for it because he thinks we’re Draft-stupid. I’m not Draft-stupid.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Feb 13, 2012 10:20 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
Sorry guys i just cant agree with you.
For the life of me i cant think of a situation where society doesnt value success. Tangradi, Gardiner, and now even Max have been moved for other players or picks, thus i see them to have value (the quality of the move is irrelevant in this instance). Im not arguing that Murray undervalued them or made bad moves, and thats why the cupboard is bare. We used them, thus they have/had value. Players like Mikkelson and Swan had no value whats soever to this franchise, as they didnt bring another asset in nor play here.
Those drafts had too few of those picks turn into tangible assets thus i consider them poor. They may have been the “right” pick at the time, but the result was poor. What will Murrays drafts look like in a few years…who knows.
by BennyLightning on Feb 13, 2012 1:38 PM PST up reply actions
I think you’re saying what Murray’s saying, but I don’t think you’re implying what Murray’s implying.
You can say a draft didn’t work out the way you wanted and that it’s nobody’s fault, which is what Murray should say. But he chooses years that imply that Drafts when poorly up until the Ducks demoted this one guy and Murray took over the reins of the franchise, then they got a thousand times better. That’s just stupid.
I don’t really get your point, so I probably shouldn’t continue to talk to you about it. But for anyone reading this, I’ll clarify that if Murray hadn’t so obviously thrown Chainey under the bus, there’s nothing wrong with saying some Drafts didn’t go the way you planned— they never do.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Feb 13, 2012 2:56 PM PST up reply actions
Having not actually been there to hear his speach i cannot comment on the tone or his implications, however from what i read i can see how you can come to the conclusion that, that was what he was saying. Alternatively, its possible that he simply meant that we didnt get a lot out of those draft years. It may be that your like of Burke, and dislike of Murray has made it seem more than it was? Again i wasnt there, so cant and shouldnt comment on that.
Fair enough. Ive never really had a way with words. How i managed to collect a post grad is actually beyond me, VERY good supervisors most likely. Anyway, no harm no foul.
by BennyLightning on Feb 13, 2012 3:38 PM PST up reply actions
As someone who studied communications in his postgraduate work, I can tell you unequivocally that Murray is trying to pass blame. He is trying to turn those drafts into a justification for current struggles. He’s essentially saying, “see what a poor cupboard I inherited. Didn’t I do good work?” it’s accusation by omission, “I’m not saying YOU messed this up; I’m just saying it was messed up.”
As For results, I have two responses. First, just because something is done a particular way, that doesn’t make it the right way. Drafting is little more than strategic gambling, as Arthur alluded to. As such, all gambling Is inherently poor gambling so it can’t be evaluated as good or bad. You can say someone is taking mor or less risk, but everyone takes risks. There are factors that simply can’t be accounted for. Which brings me to my next point…
Results is a poor standard to use for an inexact science. What does results mean? Does it mean games played, does it mean tractability? Does it mean temporary impact, i.e., if we draft a player who helps us win the Cup in his first season and then dies in a car accident, was that a poor pick because he never played 100 games? There isn’t a clear brightline for me as to what results is. As long as a GM, or staff, isn’t making crazy off the wall picks, it’s hard to say they didn’t generate results.
by Daniel AC on Feb 13, 2012 4:14 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I don’t have a particular preference for Burke. You’re thinking of Jen. She was the one who said that Murray was throwing Burke under the bus. He wasn’t. And I’ll repeat that in case it wasn’t clear from this:
First off, I seriously doubt that Murray is in any way questioning Brian Burke with those comments. The ‘05, ’06 and ’07 drafts were the tail end of Alain Chainey’s decade at the helm of the Anaheim draft boards as the organization’s Director of Amateur Scouting.He was throwing Chainey under the bus. There is nothing remarkably bad about these drafts. Certainly not when compared to what the Ducks took out of the ‘97, ’00, ’01, ’02 or ’04 Drafts. Politically, it’s convenient to blame the dearth of talent in the cupboard on a guy you’ve already demoted and replaced, which is what happened with Chainey.
Just wanted to clarify that part of my point. I still have no idea what you’re talking about, so nothing against your actual point.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Feb 13, 2012 5:47 PM PST up reply actions
i guess you guys are valuing the process and im valuing the finished product (as an assessment tool). I can see the value in your arguement, but ultimately i dont agree.
by BennyLightning on Feb 14, 2012 12:18 PM PST up reply actions
Wow… I have to admit I had no idea about Kampfer’s story, or the fact he was ever a Duck. He looked pretty solid in the first half of the Bruins cup season, another very poor Murray trade.
Like you say, it’s hard to complain the cupboard is bare when you’ve given away 3 of the most talented guys from those years for nothing.
Thanks for killing my next two posts…
"I'm not a lady. I'm a DUCK!" - Connie Moreau, D2: Mighty Ducks
Managing Editor - Anaheim Calling
Sorry, Sticks. Don’t mind me. Just ranting in the margin.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Feb 13, 2012 10:22 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
10 minute misconduct. Looks like you’re editing while I’m gone :)
"I'm not a lady. I'm a DUCK!" - Connie Moreau, D2: Mighty Ducks
Managing Editor - Anaheim Calling
Once again, Bob Murray secretly reads the blog. Arthur’s comments on Macenauer are almost creepy when considered with today’s move.
"I'm not a lady. I'm a DUCK!" - Connie Moreau, D2: Mighty Ducks
Managing Editor - Anaheim Calling
If he trades Bobby Ryan and Matt Beleskey for a couple of first rounders, he can claim that the Ducks didn’t have any draft picks between 05 and 07 and that he singlehandedly saved this franchise.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Feb 13, 2012 1:06 PM PST up reply actions
Wow
I think everyone is looking a little too much into Murray’s comments here. I think there is a clear difference between the drafts mentioned and the ones that proceeded it. The prospects we have now are probably considered better league wide and therefore are easier for Murray to use as “bullets” to get what he needs in trades or call ups. With the exception of Bobby Ryan, none of those prospects really panned out to play any NHL time with our team or other teams. I would consider those bad drafts, but its hard to truly compare when the picks from the more recent drafts are only getting their shots at the NHL now and in the next few seasons. I can say that the fact that DSP, Sbisa, Fowler, and Bonino are all contributing bodes well, but its still too soon to tell. Another aspect that people are forgetting is the RC vs BB factor. I think when you have a coach that didn’t tend to develop young players well then it makes it difficult to succeed and their development can be stalled. Look at guys like Festerling and Mickelson, maybe BB could have gotten better performances with them like he has with Beleskey, Sbisa, and Bonino. Just a thought?
I would like to add one thing as well. I know people tend to be very harsh on Murray here (and trust me the evidence is there that he has made bad moves) but I believe every fan thinks his GM is terrible and should be fired. Which makes me believe that there are very few great GMs (and they usually tend to get “bought” by the bigger franchises) and everyone else should be satisfied with having someone who is somewhat competent (which I believe Murray to be). Right now everyone seems to be calling for the Kings GM, but I honestly think he’s done a good job there. And a few years ago everyone was calling for the Rangers GM, but they are cup contenders now due to his moves. The fact is GM’s make bad decisions, and most of the time you just have to wait it out and let them learn from the mistakes, because in all honesty everyone else out there is just as bad……or worse!
So…you didn’t read what Arthur wrote in th comments?
by Daniel AC on Feb 13, 2012 6:03 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I did
“You should never judge drafts in hindsight. That would be the central point of this fan post.”
If that is the central point then how do you judge a draft at all? I’m sorry, but I feel that Arthur’s point was two fold: 1-Uncontrollable things can happen with prospects and therefore it shouldn’t be the “drafters” fault if things don’t pan out well and 2-That Murray was specifically making a statement about Chainey’s performance being terrible and his being amazing. Well I’m sorry but I don’t buy either argument. Murray’s comment was, “The team is currently suffering due to bad drafts in ‘05, ’06, and ’07, but said that they’ve overhauled their drafting since then and have had three strong drafts in a row”. It would seem that all he was saying is that there were bad drafts in those years (due to the fact that not a lot of those players went on to play steady minutes in the NHL) and now we’ve had strong drafts. Is he “throwing Chainey under the buss”? No, he’s simply saying things didn’t work out, they made a change, and now things are going better. He doesn’t mention Chainey, or anyone else by name. He is simply stating a fact. Their pool of prospects was not highly ranked during those years, now it is and it started with the picks made during the last three years. Don’t see why this is such a big deal is all. Maybe Chainey was unlucky and maybe we are really luck now, but either way results are results and thats all Murray was commenting on.
but said that they’ve overhauled their drafting
If he was speaking only to the luck of the draw in terms of how many of those players went on to play NHL minutes, he wouldn’t have addressed it as though it were a problem that could be fixed. ’We’ve done our best to get luckier’ ??? I don’t think so.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Feb 13, 2012 7:24 PM PST up reply actions
And in terms of how I would evaluate a Draft, hindsight is really only valuable for laughs i.e. “look at all the guys the Ducks passed on for Chad Kilger.” Okay, but 10 teams passed on Jarome Iginla, and Hartford took Giguere 13th when they could have gotten Mikka Kiprusoff in the fifth round. Two sentences in, and we’re nowhere near a valuable discussion on what knowledge a team actually had at the time it made its selections, whether someone should be praised, whether someone should be fired (or demoted), and whether something went wrong that can actually be fixed (or overhauled). It is possible to look back in context and avoid revisionist history of the failings of your amateur scouting department.
Giving the impression that you were picking duds, but you’ve done something to address that, and you won’t have duds anymore is stupid. Especially when we all know that the reason Murray’s draft classes will be better is that he had far more first and second round picks, because he was unloading players like Pronger, who led to a loss of picks in the first place. I’ve liked Madden’s late round moves, but IT’S THE NHL DRAFT. Tim Burke is the only guy who consistently wows me in the late rounds, and that’s because he’s probably the only Dir of Am Scouting that watches as much NCAA hockey as I do.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Feb 13, 2012 7:49 PM PST up reply actions
I guess I'm still confused
If you don’t think anyone does a good job in the draft, then basically you’re saying everyone should just keep there job regardless? You tried disputing the idea that everyone is responsible for results by saying that scouting is unpredictable. I work in computer graphics, half of my job is unpredictable elements, but at the end of the day I get judged on results. Everyone does. You could make the argument that being a GM has the same random elements as drafting. You try your best by educating yourself through scouting, but at the end of the day sports in general are very random. There was a change in drafting, as well as Murray acquiring more picks, and an overall change in what they were looking for. Is it luck? Of course, but what isn’t in sports?
by Kevin Riach on Feb 13, 2012 10:57 PM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
I think he’s saying that we can evaluate a draft based on the information people had at the time, i.e., did the person make sensible choices based on the information given. Moreover, was there something that a scout should have noticed but didn’t. I think that’s a fair way to evaluate this. However, when a plethora of scouts call a pick a good pick and then that guy never sees the NHL, how do you say who made the wrong decision when everyone thought the same thing?
I think you’re also missing a point. Murray had more first and second round selections because he got to dismantle a Cup winner, something Burke didn’t have the opportunity to do because he was building one. If you pick a couple times in the first round, and a pair of top 10 talents fall into your lap, it’s easy to say you had a good draft year.
As for results, see my earlier comments. “Results” is a flawed standard with no bright line. Moreover, it decreases the amount of analysis we can do about the draft. Method counts for something. Getting good results is not sufficient. If you constantly cut corners to get results, it eventually catches up with you. What happens when Murray doesn’t shop those prospects and he lets them rot in the minors like Deschamps. Was Descahmps a poor pick, or poorly managed by the club? If you only look at results, you cannot answer that question, because it doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is that he didn’t play. As a result, it’s impossible to know if there’s a deficiency in scouting or development. Then we waste more time as an organization, because we never know the true cause of the problem.
Wow great points
That makes a lot of sense to me and I get where you guys are coming from now. The only thing I would add is that it seems more like poor picks vs poor development due to the fact that most of those guys have not had an impact on our team or the teams they were traded to. That leads me to believe that they just aren’t that talented. Just my opinion.
I can buy that if there’s a fair justification. I think another thing we need to consider in these evaluations is how many picks actually “made it”. If we’re converting 1-2 picks out of these “bad” drafts, and everyone else is doing 1-2 as well. Is it really a “bad” draft?
Good Point
Some drafts are just “bad drafts” for everyone. Just not a great year for talent or an extreme case of bad luck league wide. I think it would be more interesting to look at these drafts from a league wide stance as well and see how many NHL GP each team’s prospects ended up with. Its hard to get a feel for how everyone in the league did, but that is a very good point.
by Kevin Riach on Feb 14, 2012 11:40 AM PST up reply actions
The NHL Draft is a long process (unlike the NBA), a long development process (unlike the NFL), and you send scouts to every nook and cranny of the world (unlike the MLB). And still, after all that, in a particularly stellar year, you’re hoping to convert half of your picks into professional players and half of those into regular NHLers. There are plenty of years where pulling one player (your first rounder) out of 8 picks is a good year.
But of course there’s a strategy, it just isn’t one based on hindsight. I don’t know if I have to explain NHL Draft strategy, but I’ll just explain one aspect of it. Most people stick to the board for the first couple of rounds, which makes sense because you’re talking about a Top 50 or so who have been anointed by the aggregate of thousands of scouting reports, not to mention the fact that those guys have avoided injury, red flags, development setbacks and all that good stuff— a lot of lists are ‘similar’ at the top for this reason.
In late rounds, you usually see scouting departments wander into free development systems. This is the part of the Draft where the talking heads praise Detroit’s staff as a team of geniuses for coming up with Datsyuk and Zetterberg and saving the Red Wings from having to find players without early round picks. Except, that’s what EVERYBODY does. In the late rounds, everyone goes with some free development guy that maybe ONE scout came back and liked while he was on a trip scouting someone else, or else they take a shot with some CHL or NCAA guy that everyone else has left for dead. It doesn’t work a lot, for Detroit or anyone else. It didn’t work for Jimmie Svensson after Zetterberg or Andrei Samokhvalov before Datsyuk, but if you can get it to the point where it works for even 5% of your picks after the fifth round, you’re ahead of the game, which Detroit (but really San Jose— I mean, God, look at Tim Burke’s body of work after the 5th round, not to mention WHEN he plucks those kids) is.
Did Chainey find a lot of late round success here? No. But did he go with several wild cards and boom or bust picks for his early rounders? Also, no. He stuck to the board early on and went into free development wild cards late. These are standard drafts. A year later, Anaheim couldn’t trade down far enough to get Jake Gardiner where he was projected. In context, that was a more overvalued pick than anything here. Implying that anything more than injury or bad trades are to blame for why the Ducks haven’t seen much from these drafts is a shitty thing to insinuate about a staff that showed up to work for those three years. They didn’t insist on drafting some second rounder at second overall or anything like that.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Feb 14, 2012 2:21 AM PST up reply actions
What’s the story on Modig then? I see he’s decently rated in the Pittsburgh system, was he specific about not playing for us or did we give up on him?
I agree with Arthur and Daniel here. When you count the players that Murray has given away (Tangradi, Kampfer, maybe Modig depending on the story), players that were no brainers at their position but just got horribly unlucky with injuries (Mitera) and the fact that for a couple years there we were famous for ruining prospects by shuttling them between ECHL, AHL and in some cases NHL (Mikkelson, Salcido), they really are OK drafts.
Calling the cupboard bare because you have made moves that have given the best prospects of the bunch away is misleading at best, and at worst it’s just playing blame deflector and throwing other people under the bus because you know your entire body of work is crap.
I think Modig is playing in the ECHL. Pittsburgh has Brad Thiessen, so I’m pretty sure he’ll stay their primary development target in terms of goalies for the near future. As I recall, Modig didn’t want to sign a contract with Anaheim, which prompted the trade to Pittsburgh, where he signed a contract.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Feb 14, 2012 2:36 AM PST up reply actions
Thats somewhat interesting to me then, given the relative success we have had bringing through European goalies. But I guess at the time our AHL affiliate was up in the air and he wasn’t willing to come over for a team that didn’t have a solid plan for his development?
by bhlloy on Feb 14, 2012 8:07 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
Our success with overseas goaltenders was tied to Francois Allaire. If a young European or Asian goaltender enjoys an Allaire camp, like Gerber, bryz and hiller all did, then they would try to join Allaire in Toronto
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Feb 14, 2012 5:45 PM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
CK Photo Galleries
