Carl Neill | D

[Phat Fingers]

4 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

*With the context that we were a contending club. 

 

While our drafting wasn't stellar by any means, you need to maintain that context. We're were drafting late and trading picks a LOT (which made sense as a contender).

 

Without that context it looks a lot worse than it was, in isolation. 

 

Yes,

 

the higher pick gives higher odds. How does one explain Boeser, Demko, Trymakin, Forsling, McCann, Gaudette  and Lockwood. 

 

Only Virtannen and Juolevi were higher choices than MG had.  Cody was his best chance. Based on JB's. penchant of trading away seconds, MG had equal odds of drafting players of similar quality.  

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

 

Yes,

 

the higher pick gives higher odds. How does one explain Boeser, Demko, Trymakin, Forsling, McCann, Gaudette  and Lockwood. 

 

Only Virtannen and Juolevi were higher choices than MG had.  Cody was his best chance. Based on JB's. penchant of trading away seconds, MG had equal odds of drafting players of similar quality.  

 

As I said, it wasn't stellar but we also traded away a LOT of picks. They still managed to find Cannata, Conauton, Rodin, Corrado, Labate, Grenier, Hutton, Subban and Cassels with later picks. Jury's still out on a lot of those but it's not the complete black hole it's made out to be.

[Boudrias]

10 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

As I said, it wasn't stellar but we also traded away a LOT of picks. They still managed to find Cannata, Conauton, Rodin, Corrado, Labate, Grenier, Hutton, Subban and Cassels with later picks. Jury's still out on a lot of those but it's not the complete black hole it's made out to be.

Sorry JR but they are all long shots other than Hutton.  

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Boudrias said:

Sorry JR but they are all long shots other than Hutton.  

 

I didn't claim they were going to win Norris or scoring titles.

[Boudrias]

Just now, J.R. said:

 

I didn't claim they were going to win Norris or scoring titles.

I didn't think I suggested that. I guess my downer comment was more about the depth of the prospect pool versus most other NHL orgs. It has been improving with the Linden era but still has a long way to go.

[aGENT]

Just now, Boudrias said:

I didn't think I suggested that. I guess my downer comment was more about the depth of the prospect pool versus most other NHL orgs. It has been improving with the Linden era but still has a long way to go.

 

Nobody is arguing that...

[Phat Fingers]

1 hour ago, J.R. said:

 

As I said, it wasn't stellar but we also traded away a LOT of picks. They still managed to find Cannata, Conauton, Rodin, Corrado, Labate, Grenier, Hutton, Subban and Cassels with later picks. Jury's still out on a lot of those but it's not the complete black hole it's made out to be.

 

JR,

 

normally I agree with you, but the Gillis regime was almost a complete black hole. The best player was Horvat, whom we gave up Schnieder for. Hutton was the only other player who could be a solid NHLer. That is it, all others are questionable. 

 

 

We got a few players in 8 years from the GM that was going to make us into the next Detriot. GMMG did a lot of things right, and the Chicago Wolves did not help one bit. It does still fall at the GM's feet. 

 

Defending Gillis's amature scouting and drafting record is not  a 'hill worth dying for'. 

 

Comparing The two records only shows how much better JB is at drafting than MG. 

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

 

JR,

 

normally I agree with you, but the Gillis regime was almost a complete black hole. The best player was Horvat, whom we gave up Schnieder for. Hutton was the only other player who could be a solid NHLer. That is it, all others are questionable. 

 

 

We got a few players in 8 years from the GM that was going to make us into the next Detriot. GMMG did a lot of things right, and the Chicago Wolves did not help one bit. It does still fall at the GM's feet. 

 

Defending Gillis's amature scouting and drafting record is not  a 'hill worth dying for'. 

 

Comparing The two records only shows how much better JB is at drafting than MG. 

 

^^^ Not considering context.

 

Was it awesome? No. But considering context it's nowhere near as bad as you're making it out to be. Note, that does not mean there wasn't clear room for improvement.

[Phat Fingers]

3 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

^^^ Not considering context.

 

Was it awesome? No. But considering context it's nowhere near as bad as you're making it out to be. Note, that does not mean there wasn't clear room for improvement.

 

Hodgson Bust, Sauve Bust, Schoeder Bust, Rodin (longshot that still may payoff), Trade for Ballard, Bust, Guance, could work out, Horvat good, great and awesome but what a price to pay, Shinkaruk trending into a bust. Jensen Bust, Canaata is a career AHLer, McNally, Bust. Corrado weak NHLer for now. 

 

 

There are others that don't come readily to mind. A poor list for any franchise.  2 top 10 picks, with many examples of players taken after that are bonified stars in the NHL. 

 

 Context is relevant, but in that context how do you explain Boeser? Demko? Trymakin? Lockwood? McCann? Etc. Not trying to be obnoxious or rude. I just think we can dispense with any defence of the Gillis draft record. As I said, he did alot of things right, Utica may be the biggest impact on our development system. 

 

It it is what it is. At this stage we are lucky that MG is not still at the helm. JB has weaknesses and we can compare those as well, but in the case of drafting I know whom I want at our draft table next year. 

 

EW

 

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

 

Hodgson Bust, Sauve Bust, Schoeder Bust, Rodin (longshot that still may payoff), Trade for Ballard, Bust, Guance, could work out, Horvat good, great and awesome but what a price to pay, Shinkaruk trending into a bust. Jensen Bust, Canaata is a career AHLer, McNally, Bust. Corrado weak NHLer for now. 

 

 

There are others that don't come readily to mind. A poor list for any franchise.  2 top 10 picks, with many examples of players taken after that are bonified stars in the NHL. 

 

 Context is relevant, but in that context how do you explain Boeser? Demko? Trymakin? Lockwood? McCann? Etc. Not trying to be obnoxious or rude. I just think we can dispense with any defence of the Gillis draft record. As I said, he did alot of things right, Utica may be the biggest impact on our development system. 

 

It it is what it is. At this stage we are lucky that MG is not still at the helm. JB has weaknesses and we can compare those as well, but in the case of drafting I know whom I want at our draft table next year. 

 

EW

 

 

You were complaining about the depth drafting earlier, not the 1st rounders (which we traded away a lot of and/or were largely late). And again, I'm not saying those years were great but they're hardly as horrible as you're making them out to be, with context.

 

By all means Hodgson and Schroeder hurt but you can hardly blame them for drafting Hodgson at the time given the WJC etc he'd just had. Most teams probably would have drafted him there too. Plus if I'm not mistaken, that was Gillis first year. Likely he was relying heavily on the previous regime's scouting intel.

 

Same largely goes with Schroeder, except  he was a relatively late pick at 22 and more of a crap shoot.

 

Didn't have a pick until the 4th the following year.

 

Jensen at 29 (crap shoot) the next. But sure, Jenner would have been great there if you want to Cap'n Hindisght.

 

Gaunce looks fine the next year.

 

Then Horvat and Shink (now Granlund).

 

So yeah the first 3 years don't look great but most would have taken Hodgson too and they clearly improved as they went along. Far too much whining considering IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

[Phat Fingers]

IMO Horvat is a great pick and consolation for giving up Schnieder.  Gillis only gave up one 1st. That was for Ballard.

 

I remember he wanted Tinordi and when that bust was gone he traded away the 1st and Grabner (currently leading the league in scoring) for Ballard.  Hodgson was a spectacular bust. His record is similar record to Burke and Nonis. 

 

 

[Ghostsof1915]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Did Dave Taylor of the LA Kings have a big hand in building the Kings into a cup contender and pilling up it's prospect pool before being moved to director of amateur scouting? I hope we don't do the same thing here. Because it's not like theres a Dean Lombardi lurking in the GM woods. 

[vancan2233]

So how is that blueliner doing? what's his name?

[numb3r 16]

 

[Guest]

Just now, numb3r 16 said:

 

I wonder whether you guys think he'll make the big club?

[Phat Fingers]

On November 23, 2016 at 3:32 PM, J.R. said:

 

You were complaining about the depth drafting earlier, not the 1st rounders (which we traded away a lot of and/or were largely late). And again, I'm not saying those years were great but they're hardly as horrible as you're making them out to be, with context.

 

By all means Hodgson and Schroeder hurt but you can hardly blame them for drafting Hodgson at the time given the WJC etc he'd just had. Most teams probably would have drafted him there too. Plus if I'm not mistaken, that was Gillis first year. Likely he was relying heavily on the previous regime's scouting intel.

 

Same largely goes with Schroeder, except  he was a relatively late pick at 22 and more of a crap shoot.

 

Didn't have a pick until the 4th the following year.

 

Jensen at 29 (crap shoot) the next. But sure, Jenner would have been great there if you want to Cap'n Hindisght.

 

Gaunce looks fine the next year.

 

Then Horvat and Shink (now Granlund).

 

So yeah the first 3 years don't look great but most would have taken Hodgson too and they clearly improved as they went along. Far too much whining considering IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I can find some reasons to doubt MG at drafting, I can understand drafting Hodgson in context, but what a cock up when we traded him. No excuse and in many ways that trade was the one that sank MG. Other than Tanev, whom Dave Gagner was responsible for, MG first 4 years were littered with really poor amature scouting. 

 

Schoeder was a blown pick, straight up. How does one scout Jensen and fail to see Skinner. Gaunce is decent, the Ballard trade was another cock up. AV wouldn't even play him.  Maybe make a trade, but get a much better return than Ballard. 

 

JR I really do like your prespective, it's not often I disagree with your position. But I do here, so agree to disagree.

 

EW

[aGENT]

7 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

 

Well, I can find some reasons to doubt MG at drafting, I can understand drafting Hodgson in context, but what a cock up when we traded him. No excuse and in many ways that trade was the one that sank MG. Other than Tanev, whom Dave Gagner was responsible for, MG first 4 years were littered with really poor amature scouting. 

 

Schoeder was a blown pick, straight up. How does one scout Jensen and fail to see Skinner. Gaunce is decent, the Ballard trade was another cock up. AV wouldn't even play him.  Maybe make a trade, but get a much better return than Ballard. 

 

JR I really do like your prespective, it's not often I disagree with your position. But I do here, so agree to disagree.

 

EW

All I'm saying was that it was somewhere between lacklustre and meh, given context.

 

Not quite the abysmal pit of nothingness it's made out to be 

[rizzuto&hatoum]

On 2016-11-23 at 11:32 AM, J.R. said:

 

You were complaining about the depth drafting earlier, not the 1st rounders (which we traded away a lot of and/or were largely late). And again, I'm not saying those years were great but they're hardly as horrible as you're making them out to be, with context.

 

By all means Hodgson and Schroeder hurt but you can hardly blame them for drafting Hodgson at the time given the WJC etc he'd just had. Most teams probably would have drafted him there too. Plus if I'm not mistaken, that was Gillis first year. Likely he was relying heavily on the previous regime's scouting intel.

 

Same largely goes with Schroeder, except  he was a relatively late pick at 22 and more of a crap shoot.

 

Didn't have a pick until the 4th the following year.

 

Jensen at 29 (crap shoot) the next. But sure, Jenner would have been great there if you want to Cap'n Hindisght.

 

Gaunce looks fine the next year.

 

Then Horvat and Shink (now Granlund).

 

So yeah the first 3 years don't look great but most would have taken Hodgson too and they clearly improved as they went along. Far too much whining considering IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

Hodgson drafted June 2008, led WJC scoring January 2009.

[Phat Fingers]

18 minutes ago, J.R. said:

All I'm saying was that it was somewhere between lacklustre and meh, given context.

 

Not quite the abysmal pit of nothingness it's made out to be 

 

 

This is the CDC... Black or white, there is no grey! . 

 

Subtle and nuanced points are not allowed. LOL

 

 EW

[aGENT]

9 minutes ago, rizzuto&hatoum said:

Hodgson drafted June 2008, led WJC scoring January 2009.

Fair enough. Too many moons ago for my booze addled memory  

 

Still, he was highly touted for some reason (can't be bothered to look it up) and that latter WJC would seem to have affirmed the choice. 

 

Shame it went down the crapper from there!