Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby steelhammer on Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:14 pm

mikey287 wrote:Every year, we draft dollar bills in the hopes of them turning into $100 bills. We see Derrick Pouliot as a guy that could turn into a 20, maybe a 10...at that same spot, we see a forward that could turn into a 10...maybe a 10 and a 5...maybe just a 5...it just doesn't matter what position they play, I'd rather have the 20 and either use it or buy something with it later...no reason to short change yourself purposefully...

The point is, they aren't drafting "a forward who can play...years earlier" because they didn't feel one was available at the spots we drafted. It's not like it's a secret that we need forwards in the organization, they're aware. A lot of organizations do this. BPA is the way to go almost universally.

I think also people have "plan" and "strategy" mixed up with "we're drafting the BPA because that's what you do" ...I don't think Shero is sitting in his office going 'that's right, all the defensemen! ha ha ha ha!" thinking that he'll one day get a monopoly. It's not like we're going out of our way to draft d-men (the Isles used all 7 of their picks on d-men in this past draft)...we're just taking who we feel is good and going to be good...and if they happen to be a defenseman four times in a row or whatever, then fine, now we have a strength. Top pairing d-men are harder to find than top line forwards, top-4 d-men are harder to find than top-6 forwards...

I'm not at all concerned.


The problem here though is that you are talking about BPA as an unprovable Freudian-like axiom. From your standpoint, anyone the Pens selected with their pick was the BPA. Speaking of which: "Can you believe Maatta fell to #22? Why did all of the other GM's pass on him? Perhaps there is something terribly wrong with him since 20 other teams looked him over." See, it works both ways. A cursory look at their first two choices though shows that they went with the Conveniently Most Scouted Player (CMSP). In the future, if the Pens are simply going to pick their CMSP, at least trade down and get some more value out of the pick instead of practically going off the board with the #8 pick.
steelhammer
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,279
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:31 am
Location: Hold on, I have a stat for that.

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby columbia on Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:18 pm

Which Fs did Shero idiotically pass over when he drafted Despres and Morrow?
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 45,840
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby mikey287 on Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:56 pm

steelhammer wrote:
mikey287 wrote:Every year, we draft dollar bills in the hopes of them turning into $100 bills. We see Derrick Pouliot as a guy that could turn into a 20, maybe a 10...at that same spot, we see a forward that could turn into a 10...maybe a 10 and a 5...maybe just a 5...it just doesn't matter what position they play, I'd rather have the 20 and either use it or buy something with it later...no reason to short change yourself purposefully...

The point is, they aren't drafting "a forward who can play...years earlier" because they didn't feel one was available at the spots we drafted. It's not like it's a secret that we need forwards in the organization, they're aware. A lot of organizations do this. BPA is the way to go almost universally.

I think also people have "plan" and "strategy" mixed up with "we're drafting the BPA because that's what you do" ...I don't think Shero is sitting in his office going 'that's right, all the defensemen! ha ha ha ha!" thinking that he'll one day get a monopoly. It's not like we're going out of our way to draft d-men (the Isles used all 7 of their picks on d-men in this past draft)...we're just taking who we feel is good and going to be good...and if they happen to be a defenseman four times in a row or whatever, then fine, now we have a strength. Top pairing d-men are harder to find than top line forwards, top-4 d-men are harder to find than top-6 forwards...

I'm not at all concerned.


The problem here though is that you are talking about BPA as an unprovable Freudian-like axiom. From your standpoint, anyone the Pens selected with their pick was the BPA. Speaking of which: "Can you believe Maatta fell to #22? Why did all of the other GM's pass on him? Perhaps there is something terribly wrong with him since 20 other teams looked him over." See, it works both ways. A cursory look at their first two choices though shows that they went with the Conveniently Most Scouted Player (CMSP). In the future, if the Pens are simply going to pick their CMSP, at least trade down and get some more value out of the pick instead of practically going off the board with the #8 pick.


- It's their BPA. Not mine. Not yours. Not ISS. I mean, if we have a history of missing badly on our first round picks or develop one, well, then you got something...but so far, Staal was awesome, Esposito got hurt and was traded before his value depreciated, Despres looks to be an NHL regular this year, Morrow looks more promising now than a year ago and Bennett/Pouliot the jury is still out on them. So, it's a small sample size still. But so far, we've made the best of our first round picks under Shero.

- The Penguins weren't the only team that saw Derrick Pouliot as a top-12 or so pick (Pens considered him higher than that, they could have gotten even a couple spots higher in the draft, and still would have drafted Pouliot - they love him). Conversely, I had heard from one team that they didn't find him to be a first round talent at all. So, you have to trust your scouts and hope for the best...

- Yes, I can believe Matta fell to 22...not a lot of flash to his game, and he wasn't amazing during the year, if anything his stock rose late because of the playoffs that he had and the extra exposure from playing in the Memorial Cup...if he didn't have that, he would have been a fringe first rounder in my opinion. It's not that there's anything wrong with Maatta, it's just not there's nothing great about him...not all that surprised that he was available around that 22 spot...decent value for Pittsburgh and a player they were probably very comfortable with...

- Trading down is a lot easier said than done. There's no price you can put on picking the guy you want either.

- Wouldn't have been able to trade down and still get Maatta. Might not have been able to trade down and still get Pouliot, too risky.
mikey287
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,105
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA - @MichaelFarkasHF

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby BurghersAndDogsSports on Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:58 pm

columbia wrote:Which Fs did Shero idiotically pass over when he drafted Despres and Morrow?


Not a valid point. Nobody is saying to never pick d-men or that every pick or any pick were really terrible.
But the points above and before about drafting the BPA and hoping to turn $1 to $10 is crazy to me. Until
this discussion started nobody was saying anything about BPA including the Pens, the word out and about
was there was a strategy to it including reporters, national writers and those siting his experience from Nashville.

I have just never heard, in any sport or situation, of drafting and loading up on one position because its slightly more coveted in the hopes
that you can eventually (further down the road) trade them for an equal part and probably a prospect (even
though the trade year for d-men seems to be 5 - 7 after drafting them).
Last edited by BurghersAndDogsSports on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BurghersAndDogsSports
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,065
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby czwalga on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:00 pm

steelhammer wrote:
mikey287 wrote:Every year, we draft dollar bills in the hopes of them turning into $100 bills. We see Derrick Pouliot as a guy that could turn into a 20, maybe a 10...at that same spot, we see a forward that could turn into a 10...maybe a 10 and a 5...maybe just a 5...it just doesn't matter what position they play, I'd rather have the 20 and either use it or buy something with it later...no reason to short change yourself purposefully...

The point is, they aren't drafting "a forward who can play...years earlier" because they didn't feel one was available at the spots we drafted. It's not like it's a secret that we need forwards in the organization, they're aware. A lot of organizations do this. BPA is the way to go almost universally.

I think also people have "plan" and "strategy" mixed up with "we're drafting the BPA because that's what you do" ...I don't think Shero is sitting in his office going 'that's right, all the defensemen! ha ha ha ha!" thinking that he'll one day get a monopoly. It's not like we're going out of our way to draft d-men (the Isles used all 7 of their picks on d-men in this past draft)...we're just taking who we feel is good and going to be good...and if they happen to be a defenseman four times in a row or whatever, then fine, now we have a strength. Top pairing d-men are harder to find than top line forwards, top-4 d-men are harder to find than top-6 forwards...

I'm not at all concerned.


The problem here though is that you are talking about BPA as an unprovable Freudian-like axiom. From your standpoint, anyone the Pens selected with their pick was the BPA. Speaking of which: "Can you believe Maatta fell to #22? Why did all of the other GM's pass on him? Perhaps there is something terribly wrong with him since 20 other teams looked him over." See, it works both ways. A cursory look at their first two choices though shows that they went with the Conveniently Most Scouted Player (CMSP). In the future, if the Pens are simply going to pick their CMSP, at least trade down and get some more value out of the pick instead of practically going off the board with the #8 pick.



Once again the, 'going off the board'. You have no clue what the other teams are doing.



I think the people ******** are NFL fans first.... in football you draft for need. In the NHL you draft the guy you think is going to be the best player in a few years.... it's a crapshoot.


They liked a guy and they picked him. No one on this board has the knowledge to justify otherwise... the only thing you can do is in 5 years say they made the right or wrong decision, but it's still a crapshoot.
czwalga
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,476
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:36 pm

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby czwalga on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:03 pm

BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:
columbia wrote:Which Fs did Shero idiotically pass over when he drafted Despres and Morrow?


Not a valid point. Nobody is saying to never pick d-men or that every pick or any pick were really terrible.
But the points above and before about drafting the BPA and hoping to turn $1 to $10 is crazy to me. Until
this discussion started nobody was saying anything about BPA including the Pens, the word out and about
was there was a strategy to it.

I have just never heard, in any sport or situation, of drafting and loading up on one position because its slightly more coveted in the hopes
that you can eventually (further down the road) trade them for an equal part and probably a prospect (even
though the trade year for d-men seems to be 5 - 7 after drafting them).




All you have to do is take a look at what garbage 5/6 defense men are earning these days and what their trade value is worth to justify taking Dmen is every round.
czwalga
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,476
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:36 pm

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby BurghersAndDogsSports on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:07 pm

czwalga wrote:
steelhammer wrote:
mikey287 wrote:Every year, we draft dollar bills in the hopes of them turning into $100 bills. We see Derrick Pouliot as a guy that could turn into a 20, maybe a 10...at that same spot, we see a forward that could turn into a 10...maybe a 10 and a 5...maybe just a 5...it just doesn't matter what position they play, I'd rather have the 20 and either use it or buy something with it later...no reason to short change yourself purposefully...

The point is, they aren't drafting "a forward who can play...years earlier" because they didn't feel one was available at the spots we drafted. It's not like it's a secret that we need forwards in the organization, they're aware. A lot of organizations do this. BPA is the way to go almost universally.

I think also people have "plan" and "strategy" mixed up with "we're drafting the BPA because that's what you do" ...I don't think Shero is sitting in his office going 'that's right, all the defensemen! ha ha ha ha!" thinking that he'll one day get a monopoly. It's not like we're going out of our way to draft d-men (the Isles used all 7 of their picks on d-men in this past draft)...we're just taking who we feel is good and going to be good...and if they happen to be a defenseman four times in a row or whatever, then fine, now we have a strength. Top pairing d-men are harder to find than top line forwards, top-4 d-men are harder to find than top-6 forwards...

I'm not at all concerned.


The problem here though is that you are talking about BPA as an unprovable Freudian-like axiom. From your standpoint, anyone the Pens selected with their pick was the BPA. Speaking of which: "Can you believe Maatta fell to #22? Why did all of the other GM's pass on him? Perhaps there is something terribly wrong with him since 20 other teams looked him over." See, it works both ways. A cursory look at their first two choices though shows that they went with the Conveniently Most Scouted Player (CMSP). In the future, if the Pens are simply going to pick their CMSP, at least trade down and get some more value out of the pick instead of practically going off the board with the #8 pick.



Once again the, 'going off the board'. You have no clue what the other teams are doing.



I think the people ******** are NFL fans first.... in football you draft for need. In the NHL you draft the guy you think is going to be the best player in a few years.... it's a crapshoot.


They liked a guy and they picked him. No one on this board has the knowledge to justify otherwise... the only thing you can do is in 5 years say they made the right or wrong decision, but it's still a crapshoot.


If that is true its a different theory, reread some of the posts I was discussing with earlier. Everyone was arguing strategy strategy strategy.
If the Pens truly want to draft and trade for defense prospects only then really we are discussing two different things:

1. Is all this just coincidence that they like the d players better that were available when they picked.
2. Or is there a definite strategy.

I personally will argue against that as a strategy all day. If it truly was BPA then its not as easy of a discussion for me. I mean of course I would like a forward sprinkled in the picks or trades, I would probably even reach for one maybe. But it wouldnt make me raise an eyebrow as completley ignoring a position that makes up 66% of your skaters on purpose.
BurghersAndDogsSports
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,065
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby BurghersAndDogsSports on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:09 pm

czwalga wrote:
BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:
columbia wrote:Which Fs did Shero idiotically pass over when he drafted Despres and Morrow?


Not a valid point. Nobody is saying to never pick d-men or that every pick or any pick were really terrible.
But the points above and before about drafting the BPA and hoping to turn $1 to $10 is crazy to me. Until
this discussion started nobody was saying anything about BPA including the Pens, the word out and about
was there was a strategy to it.

I have just never heard, in any sport or situation, of drafting and loading up on one position because its slightly more coveted in the hopes
that you can eventually (further down the road) trade them for an equal part and probably a prospect (even
though the trade year for d-men seems to be 5 - 7 after drafting them).




All you have to do is take a look at what garbage 5/6 defense men are earning these days and what their trade value is worth to justify taking Dmen is every round.


The same as you could look at we have zero forward prospects, a few aging wingers for next year and zero forwards signed in a few seasons minus Crosby and Neal?
BurghersAndDogsSports
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,065
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby columbia on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:12 pm

Shero's #1 picks:

2006: F
2007: F
2008: N/A
2009: D
2010: F
2011: D
2012: D & D

3/7 isn't enough for people craving forwards?
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 45,840
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby BurghersAndDogsSports on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:16 pm

columbia wrote:Shero's #1 picks:
2006: F
2007: F
2008: N/A
2009: D
2010: F
2011: D
2012: D & D and trading for a D prospect.
2012: already have 3 or 4 other internally highly touted prospects and no forward prospects.

3/7 isn't enough for people craving forwards?


There is fixed it for you. I think going back 5 years in the draft is plenty of a sample size anyways.
Last edited by BurghersAndDogsSports on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BurghersAndDogsSports
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,065
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby Steve on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:16 pm

I've never heard Shero specifically say he was loading up on defensmen with the master plan of trading them for wingers or centers or goalies later - is this yet another plan or assumption that was conjured on this board, or did I just miss Shero's quotes confirming that this indeed is his plan?

As for the draft, I agree with those who say to take the best available player. It's all about collecting assets - and the more we have, the more options we have. If we end up with 8 young all star defensmen, (or any other position), I really fail to see why this is an issue - we certainly won't have trouble moving some of them for similar players at a different position.

Especially when we have a GM who for the most part, has a good track record with his trades...
Steve
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,669
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:56 am
Location: Maryland

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby BurghersAndDogsSports on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:19 pm

Steve wrote:I've never heard Shero specifically say he was loading up on defensmen with the master plan of trading them for wingers or centers or goalies later - is this yet another plan or assumption that was conjured on this board, or did I just miss Shero's quotes confirming that this indeed is his plan?

As for the draft, I agree with those who say to take the best available player. It's all about collecting assets - and the more we have, the more options we have. If we end up with 8 young all star defensmen, (or any other position), I really fail to see why this is an issue - we certainly won't have trouble moving some of them for similar players at a different position.

Especially when we have a GM who for the most part, has a good track record with his trades...


I dont think is was made up on this board. It has generally been the consensus among media types alike. Its not like this a brand new theory.
BurghersAndDogsSports
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,065
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby czwalga on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:23 pm

BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:
czwalga wrote:
BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:
columbia wrote:Which Fs did Shero idiotically pass over when he drafted Despres and Morrow?


Not a valid point. Nobody is saying to never pick d-men or that every pick or any pick were really terrible.
But the points above and before about drafting the BPA and hoping to turn $1 to $10 is crazy to me. Until
this discussion started nobody was saying anything about BPA including the Pens, the word out and about
was there was a strategy to it.

I have just never heard, in any sport or situation, of drafting and loading up on one position because its slightly more coveted in the hopes
that you can eventually (further down the road) trade them for an equal part and probably a prospect (even
though the trade year for d-men seems to be 5 - 7 after drafting them).




All you have to do is take a look at what garbage 5/6 defense men are earning these days and what their trade value is worth to justify taking Dmen is every round.


The same as you could look at we have zero forward prospects, a few aging wingers for next year and zero forwards signed in a few seasons minus Crosby and Neal?




Why can't you just accept that shero obviously has a plan and you dont know what it is so you're just going to ***** about it....
czwalga
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,476
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:36 pm

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby BurghersAndDogsSports on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:33 pm

czwalga wrote:
BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:
czwalga wrote:
BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:
columbia wrote:Which Fs did Shero idiotically pass over when he drafted Despres and Morrow?


Not a valid point. Nobody is saying to never pick d-men or that every pick or any pick were really terrible.
But the points above and before about drafting the BPA and hoping to turn $1 to $10 is crazy to me. Until
this discussion started nobody was saying anything about BPA including the Pens, the word out and about
was there was a strategy to it.

I have just never heard, in any sport or situation, of drafting and loading up on one position because its slightly more coveted in the hopes
that you can eventually (further down the road) trade them for an equal part and probably a prospect (even
though the trade year for d-men seems to be 5 - 7 after drafting them).




All you have to do is take a look at what garbage 5/6 defense men are earning these days and what their trade value is worth to justify taking Dmen is every round.


The same as you could look at we have zero forward prospects, a few aging wingers for next year and zero forwards signed in a few seasons minus Crosby and Neal?




Why can't you just accept that shero obviously has a plan and you dont know what it is so you're just going to ***** about it....



I would like to apologize to the world and to the board for having an opinion on the drafting and the personnel decisions of the almighty GMRS who clearly is above criticism for any and all moves by an intellectual misfit like myself. The plan he has in place of loading up on d-men and leaving the forward prospect pool and immediate future of forwards under contract empty is very hard to decipher for us peon mental midgets that must bow to my maker and beg for forgiveness.

I clearly am so far off base from those who assume he has a plan beyond the scope the human mind can understand. I now will go to Church of the Shero I created in an empty warehouse next to Peter Griffins Church of the Fonz.
Last edited by BurghersAndDogsSports on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BurghersAndDogsSports
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,065
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby Steve on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:35 pm

BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:
Steve wrote:I've never heard Shero specifically say he was loading up on defensmen with the master plan of trading them for wingers or centers or goalies later - is this yet another plan or assumption that was conjured on this board, or did I just miss Shero's quotes confirming that this indeed is his plan?

As for the draft, I agree with those who say to take the best available player. It's all about collecting assets - and the more we have, the more options we have. If we end up with 8 young all star defensmen, (or any other position), I really fail to see why this is an issue - we certainly won't have trouble moving some of them for similar players at a different position.

Especially when we have a GM who for the most part, has a good track record with his trades...


I dont think is was made up on this board. It has generally been the consensus among media types alike. Its not like this a brand new theory.


I'm not sure the "media types" have access to the same scouting information as Shero. I haven't heard Shero state that this is his plan, and perhaps if it is, we'll never hear about it anyway.

Regardless, I believe the best route is to take the best player available based on the information provided by the scouts etc.
Steve
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,669
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:56 am
Location: Maryland

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby BurghersAndDogsSports on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:37 pm

Steve wrote:
BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:
Steve wrote:I've never heard Shero specifically say he was loading up on defensmen with the master plan of trading them for wingers or centers or goalies later - is this yet another plan or assumption that was conjured on this board, or did I just miss Shero's quotes confirming that this indeed is his plan?

As for the draft, I agree with those who say to take the best available player. It's all about collecting assets - and the more we have, the more options we have. If we end up with 8 young all star defensmen, (or any other position), I really fail to see why this is an issue - we certainly won't have trouble moving some of them for similar players at a different position.

Especially when we have a GM who for the most part, has a good track record with his trades...


I dont think is was made up on this board. It has generally been the consensus among media types alike. Its not like this a brand new theory.


I'm not sure the "media types" have access to the same scouting information as Shero. I haven't heard Shero state that this is his plan, and perhaps if it is, we'll never hear about it anyway.

Regardless, I believe the best route is to take the best player available based on the information provided by the scouts etc.


That could be true, but I think media types would have some idea. all i am stating is that I discussed this because everyone was saying it was part of the plan. Now everyone is saying its was just simply the BPA. They are just completely separate arguments thats all.
BurghersAndDogsSports
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,065
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby neophool on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:39 pm

hey didn't read the last 5 pages are we still complainging about the pens not taking Peter Forsberg in round 1?
neophool
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,360
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:36 am
Location: The Dumps

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby Steve on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:49 pm

BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:
Steve wrote:
BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:
Steve wrote:I've never heard Shero specifically say he was loading up on defensmen with the master plan of trading them for wingers or centers or goalies later - is this yet another plan or assumption that was conjured on this board, or did I just miss Shero's quotes confirming that this indeed is his plan?

As for the draft, I agree with those who say to take the best available player. It's all about collecting assets - and the more we have, the more options we have. If we end up with 8 young all star defensmen, (or any other position), I really fail to see why this is an issue - we certainly won't have trouble moving some of them for similar players at a different position.

Especially when we have a GM who for the most part, has a good track record with his trades...


I dont think is was made up on this board. It has generally been the consensus among media types alike. Its not like this a brand new theory.


I'm not sure the "media types" have access to the same scouting information as Shero. I haven't heard Shero state that this is his plan, and perhaps if it is, we'll never hear about it anyway.

Regardless, I believe the best route is to take the best player available based on the information provided by the scouts etc.


That could be true, but I think media types would have some idea. all i am stating is that I discussed this because everyone was saying it was part of the plan. Now everyone is saying its was just simply the BPA. They are just completely separate arguments thats all.


Yeah I agree - and I'm not really taking any sides with the trading-later plan, because I don't know either way.
Steve
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,669
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:56 am
Location: Maryland

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby Nizzy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:52 pm

mikey287 wrote:Every year, we draft dollar bills in the hopes of them turning into $100 bills. We see Derrick Pouliot as a guy that could turn into a 20, maybe a 10...at that same spot, we see a forward that could turn into a 10...maybe a 10 and a 5...maybe just a 5...it just doesn't matter what position they play, I'd rather have the 20 and either use it or buy something with it later...no reason to short change yourself purposefully...

The point is, they aren't drafting "a forward who can play...years earlier" because they didn't feel one was available at the spots we drafted. It's not like it's a secret that we need forwards in the organization, they're aware. A lot of organizations do this. BPA is the way to go almost universally.

I think also people have "plan" and "strategy" mixed up with "we're drafting the BPA because that's what you do" ...I don't think Shero is sitting in his office going 'that's right, all the defensemen! ha ha ha ha!" thinking that he'll one day get a monopoly. It's not like we're going out of our way to draft d-men (the Isles used all 7 of their picks on d-men in this past draft)...we're just taking who we feel is good and going to be good...and if they happen to be a defenseman four times in a row or whatever, then fine, now we have a strength. Top pairing d-men are harder to find than top line forwards, top-4 d-men are harder to find than top-6 forwards...

I'm not at all concerned.


Or you just draft the 10 dollar bill in Forsberg and with Crosby in a year or so he's worth 100...

Seriously it gets to a point where 6 nhl caliber prospect defenseman is just complete over kill. Why not draft forwards and develop them into the system instead of going for trade. Bennett will be a bust, kid just looks like glass. He won't make it. I honestly hope they trade him in some package asap.
Nizzy
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,596
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Steel City

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby Nizzy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:52 pm

mikey287 wrote:Every year, we draft dollar bills in the hopes of them turning into $100 bills. We see Derrick Pouliot as a guy that could turn into a 20, maybe a 10...at that same spot, we see a forward that could turn into a 10...maybe a 10 and a 5...maybe just a 5...it just doesn't matter what position they play, I'd rather have the 20 and either use it or buy something with it later...no reason to short change yourself purposefully...

The point is, they aren't drafting "a forward who can play...years earlier" because they didn't feel one was available at the spots we drafted. It's not like it's a secret that we need forwards in the organization, they're aware. A lot of organizations do this. BPA is the way to go almost universally.

I think also people have "plan" and "strategy" mixed up with "we're drafting the BPA because that's what you do" ...I don't think Shero is sitting in his office going 'that's right, all the defensemen! ha ha ha ha!" thinking that he'll one day get a monopoly. It's not like we're going out of our way to draft d-men (the Isles used all 7 of their picks on d-men in this past draft)...we're just taking who we feel is good and going to be good...and if they happen to be a defenseman four times in a row or whatever, then fine, now we have a strength. Top pairing d-men are harder to find than top line forwards, top-4 d-men are harder to find than top-6 forwards...

I'm not at all concerned.


Or you just draft the 10 dollar bill in Forsberg and with Crosby in a year or so he's worth 100...

Seriously it gets to a point where 6 nhl caliber prospect defenseman is just complete over kill. Why not draft forwards and develop them into the system instead of going for trade. Bennett will be a bust, kid just looks like glass. He won't make it. I honestly hope they trade him in some package asap.
Nizzy
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,596
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Steel City

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby columbia on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:55 pm

Nizzy wrote:
mikey287 wrote:Every year, we draft dollar bills in the hopes of them turning into $100 bills. We see Derrick Pouliot as a guy that could turn into a 20, maybe a 10...at that same spot, we see a forward that could turn into a 10...maybe a 10 and a 5...maybe just a 5...it just doesn't matter what position they play, I'd rather have the 20 and either use it or buy something with it later...no reason to short change yourself purposefully...

The point is, they aren't drafting "a forward who can play...years earlier" because they didn't feel one was available at the spots we drafted. It's not like it's a secret that we need forwards in the organization, they're aware. A lot of organizations do this. BPA is the way to go almost universally.

I think also people have "plan" and "strategy" mixed up with "we're drafting the BPA because that's what you do" ...I don't think Shero is sitting in his office going 'that's right, all the defensemen! ha ha ha ha!" thinking that he'll one day get a monopoly. It's not like we're going out of our way to draft d-men (the Isles used all 7 of their picks on d-men in this past draft)...we're just taking who we feel is good and going to be good...and if they happen to be a defenseman four times in a row or whatever, then fine, now we have a strength. Top pairing d-men are harder to find than top line forwards, top-4 d-men are harder to find than top-6 forwards...

I'm not at all concerned.


Or you just draft the 10 dollar bill in Forsberg and with Crosby in a year or so he's worth 100...

Seriously it gets to a point where 6 nhl caliber prospect defenseman is just complete over kill. Why not draft forwards and develop them into the system instead of going for trade. Bennett will be a bust, kid just looks like glass. He won't make it. I honestly hope they trade him in some package asap.


You're complaining about Shero not drafting enough Fs with high picks and then you decry his most recent F #1 pick.
That seems odd, to say the least. It sounds like you don't think he is capable of drafting at all.
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 45,840
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby Nizzy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:56 pm

columbia wrote:Which Fs did Shero idiotically pass over when he drafted Despres and Morrow?


Despres and Morrow fell. Kind of like Maatta, had no problem with that pick.

you dont take the 10th rank defenseman of the entire draft with the 8th pick overall.

Forsberg was the number 1 european because yakupov already in NA. Sweden has been putting out legit top end prospects. There's not a god damn reason why he wasn't picked. Oh know, the same scout that watched Morrow said we need his line mate too...Could have turned Staal into a lesser 3rd line option, and a long term option for Crosby oh and a top 4 potential defenseman with Dumo.

Philly got lucky with Couturier falling to 8. He shut down malkin. We had our future stud winger fall to us.

HERP DERP SHERO MARCH

NUDDOR DEE.

Another Goligoski type that can't play defense.
Nizzy
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,596
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Steel City

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby Nizzy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:00 pm

columbia wrote:
You're complaining about Shero not drafting enough Fs with high picks and then you decry his most recent F #1 pick.
That seems odd, to say the least. It sounds like you don't think he is capable of drafting at all.


He could actually be labeled as a poor drafter. His draft success after Staal is 100% based on drafting big names just to trade them later.

Besides Staal which was a great pick and could have gone so many ways (Kessel, Backstrom, Toews) the only prospects he's gotten to the Pros are finally Strait, Bortuzzo, and Jeffrey.

He literally just drafts bigger names. I fully believe 100% he drafted Esposito to trade him months later like he did.

Shero's a great GM though, for his average drafting skills at best, he KILLS it in the trade value.

edit: so I guess you could look back on it and say that he's a great drafter. Because he takes his weakness in drafting and turns it into his strength... but its like you have a gem in Forsberg fall and you don't have any stud winger prospects... I just don't get it.
Last edited by Nizzy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nizzy
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,596
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Steel City

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby columbia on Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:01 pm

I didn't realize that you have Portland season tickets, but ok.
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 45,840
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am

Re: Can we talk about the Draft some more?

Postby Nizzy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:05 pm

columbia wrote:I didn't realize that you have Portland season tickets, but ok.


i'm just displeased with the pick... ugh when is october
Nizzy
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,596
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Steel City

PreviousNext

Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Defence21 and 2 guests

e-mail