2015 NHL Entry Draft

[LuncheonMeat]

Interesting discussion re Crouse, but since we won't be picking him at 4 (the universe would de-Bang if we did) it's kind of academic with respect to the Leafs.

Unless.  Unless we snag another 1st rounder in trade.  Just as a hypothetical ... say we got another pick in the 6-10 range.  Would you take him over the other prospects likely to be available then?  (Which, I guess, is the same as saying, is he a for-real Top 10?)

Crouse scares me, but if I were selecting this year (God help the Leafs if I were), I would take one of Provorov, Barzal or Zacha first. 

 

[Joe S.]

Leafs haven't finished first since the early sixties. No leaf has won the Calder since the mid-sixties. No Leafs has won a major trophy since Keon won the Conn Smythe in '67. No Leaf has led the league in scoring. I can't remember the last time a Leaf was chosen to the 1st or 2nd all-star team. That's a dismal record!

Not to be an ass, but Sundin was a second team all star twice and McCabe once. Gilmour won the selke, Mogilny won the Byng and Blake won the Masterton.

It doesn't change the argument much, but it's still more than nothing.

 

[Pick]

Yes I can....and I think it's an important distinction.

I don't think anybody would argue that Nylund, Benning, Iafrate, Courtnall, Clark, Damphousse were all highly rated prospects when Leafs drafted them. But they were all thrust into a dysfunctional environment and Leafs were never able to take full advantage of the huge potential that group offered.

This year there won't be much strategy or skill required when Leafs pick. They'll just wait for their turn and pick the best player available. Let's hope he has more luck than Nylund or Iafrate (or more recently, Schenn or Kadri).

Except that you really just explained why they can't be separated when you're looking at why a team is successful - which what this whole discussion has been about. You can't just have one. You need to have both. Detroit has both drafted and developed well. It's not about environment. Plenty of players have developed perfectly fine in terribly dysfunctional environments - including a number of the guys you listed. It's about having the right development strategies and plans in place to compliment a smart drafting philosophy. They are absolutely intertwined and inseparable when it comes to building a team successfully - and, really, that means more about picks outside the 1st round. It's having success in later rounds that builds championship teams.

Of course you need both, but you're missing the point. Drafting and development are separate activities.

For example, Thommie Bergman scouted Steen and recommended him to management. With this advice Leafs drafted. At that point Bergman hands over the rest of Steen's career to others. Bergman wasn't on the ice with Steen every day at practice. Bergman didn't decide where Steen would start and he certainly wasn't part of the decision to  trade him. All of that rested on the shoulders of others in the organization.

Same with Nylander. Bergman scouted and recommended him but Bergman won't decide where Nylander plays next year or if he will be used at center or the wing. Bergman won't be there everyday at practice to coach the kid. All of that will be the responsibility of others.

The point I'm trying to make is that no matter what Leafs do to improve scouting and drafting, these efforts will be lost if the players that are drafted aren't handled properly.

 

[Pick]

Let's hope he has more luck than Nylund or Iafrate (or more recently, Schenn or Kadri).

Iafrate was great in his time with the Leafs, and had a good NHL career. Injuries derailed him.

Iafrate was a great prospect - Norris trophy material - but that never happened. In Toronto he wasn't great.... he under performed and was part of some of the worst Leafs' teams in the history of the organization.

He's a great example of how this team has mishandled great talent.

 

[Pick]

Leafs haven't finished first since the early sixties. No leaf has won the Calder since the mid-sixties. No Leafs has won a major trophy since Keon won the Conn Smythe in '67. No Leaf has led the league in scoring. I can't remember the last time a Leaf was chosen to the 1st or 2nd all-star team. That's a dismal record!

Not to be an ass, but Sundin was a second team all star twice and McCabe once. Gilmour won the selke, Mogilny won the Byng and Blake won the Masterton.

It doesn't change the argument much, but it's still more than nothing.

You're not being an ass at all....you helped me prove my point. I look at the  list and I think....That's It? Is that all the center of the hockey universe was capable of producing?

No Norris trophy, no Art Ross or Hart trophy winners in 50 years? Not even a single Calder winner? Not one Leaf on the first all-star team since Salming?

If only one defenseman was picked to the first all-star team instead of two, Leafs wouldn't have placed a player on the first all-star team since???? Mahavolich??

What's going on here?

 

[Kin]

My point basically is that Toronto is a special place with special problems. This theory is based on the dismal record that goes back almost 50 years and continues today. Scouts, coaches, managers, change but the results are always disappointing. One has to conclude that scouts, coaches and managers aren't the problem.

Except that's not true. The first Fletcher era, the Quinn years, those weren't "disappointing". The only way those years could be legitimately called disappointing is if the only thing that wouldn't be disappointing is a Cup win and that doesn't put Toronto in unique territory. St. Louis hasn't won a cup, neither has Vancouver or Buffalo.

Different managers, different coaches have gotten different results here. Cup wins? No, but that's just a function of what multiple people have said to you that you haven't addressed. At no point did any of these managers try a full and patient rebuild.

You say that this failure to produce elite talent can't be blamed on bad management, coaching, drafting and developing but that doesn't make any sense because if a team had poor management, coaching, drafting and developing....they wouldn't develop great players which is the central point you're making. Bad drafting and developing will result in a bad team which is what the Leafs have mostly had in the post-Ballard era. It's an explanation that absolutely explains what has happened to the Leafs with no loose ends.

You're hearing hooves and thinking zebras, not horses.

 

[Tigger]

The only thing to add overall, for me, is that the Leafs were subjected to considerable shock and awe after the first lockout, failed to embrace the changes at the time and that continued, well, up to now.

Let's hope he has more luck than Nylund or Iafrate (or more recently, Schenn or Kadri).

Iafrate was great in his time with the Leafs, and had a good NHL career. Injuries derailed him.

Iafrate was a great prospect - Norris trophy material - but that never happened. In Toronto he wasn't great.... he under performed and was part of some of the worst Leafs' teams in the history of the organization.

He's a great example of how this team has mishandled great talent.

Rupturing his knee in 1990 ( surgery then ain't what it is now ) and Gary Leeman were devastating to his time in Toronto.

Schenn? Uh, JVR? Kadri, well, we don't really know what he is yet.

 

[Pick]

My point basically is that Toronto is a special place with special problems. This theory is based on the dismal record that goes back almost 50 years and continues today. Scouts, coaches, managers, change but the results are always disappointing. One has to conclude that scouts, coaches and managers aren't the problem.

Except that's not true. The first Fletcher era, the Quinn years, those weren't "disappointing". The only way those years could be legitimately called disappointing is if the only thing that wouldn't be disappointing is a Cup win and that doesn't put Toronto in unique territory. St. Louis hasn't won a cup, neither has Vancouver or Buffalo.

Different managers, different coaches have gotten different results here. Cup wins? No, but that's just a function of what multiple people have said to you that you haven't addressed. At no point did any of these managers try a full and patient rebuild.

You say that this failure to produce elite talent can't be blamed on bad management, coaching, drafting and developing but that doesn't make any sense because if a team had poor management, coaching, drafting and developing....they wouldn't develop great players which is the central point you're making. Bad drafting and developing will result in a bad team which is what the Leafs have mostly had in the post-Ballard era. It's an explanation that absolutely explains what has happened to the Leafs with no loose ends.

You're hearing hooves and thinking zebras, not horses.

You're missing the big picture. The Burns and Quinn eras were successful. Modestly successful. Take the most successful Leaf seasons since '67 (5 seasons in which Leafs reached the final 4)  and place them alongside Montreal's achievements during that time and the most successful Leaf seasons become insignificant.

Compare to a number of other teams and see how Leafs performance over the last 45+ years ranks. About half the teams in the league today can boast winning a Stanley Cup since '67; a few more made it to the final.. Leafs haven't even managed to make it to the final in that time.

That's why the successes under Burns and Quinn remain as high points of achievement here. 

The 'successes' in the Burn's and Quinn eras do not hurt my argument, they support it.

This team is a lot worse than you think. Once you begin to understand that, then you can see where I'm coming from

 

[Pick]

The only thing to add overall, for me, is that the Leafs were subjected to considerable shock and awe after the first lockout, failed to embrace the changes at the time and that continued, well, up to now.

Let's hope he has more luck than Nylund or Iafrate (or more recently, Schenn or Kadri).

Iafrate was great in his time with the Leafs, and had a good NHL career. Injuries derailed him.

Iafrate was a great prospect - Norris trophy material - but that never happened. In Toronto he wasn't great.... he under performed and was part of some of the worst Leafs' teams in the history of the organization.

He's a great example of how this team has mishandled great talent.

Rupturing his knee in 1990 ( surgery then ain't what it is now ) and Gary Leeman were devastating to his time in Toronto.

Schenn? Uh, JVR? Kadri, well, we don't really know what he is yet.

So you believe Iafrate fulfilled his promise in Toronto?

 

[Kin]

You're missing the big picture. The Burns and Quinn eras were successful. Modestly successful. Take the most successful Leaf seasons since '67 (5 seasons in which Leafs reached the final 4)  and place them alongside Montreal's achievements during that time and the most successful Leaf seasons become insignificant.

The Canadiens are the most successful franchise in the history of the league. Using them as a benchmark is ridiculous.

But still, over the last twenty years neither franchise has had much in the way of success. Once the Leafs were freed from the shackles of a lunatic owner they've done about as well as the Canadiens.

Compare to a number of other teams and see how Leafs performance over the last 45+ years ranks. About half the teams in the league today can boast winning a Stanley Cup since '67; a few more made it to the final.. Leafs haven't even managed to make it to the final in that time.

Except nobody is disputing that the Leafs have been largely unsuccessful over that time period. The dispute is whether or not that lack of success can be attributed to bad management or to...the thing you can't guess that is unrelated to the general operation of a hockey team and can't be explained.

That's why the successes under Burns and Quinn remain as high points of achievement here. 

The 'successes' in the Burn's and Quinn eras do not hurt my argument, they support it.

This team is a lot worse than you think. Once you begin to understand that, then you can see where I'm coming from

At this point, I'm not even convinced you know where you're coming from.

 

[Pick]

My point basically is that Toronto is a special place with special problems. This theory is based on the dismal record that goes back almost 50 years and continues today. Scouts, coaches, managers, change but the results are always disappointing. One has to conclude that scouts, coaches and managers aren't the problem.

Except that's not true. The first Fletcher era, the Quinn years, those weren't "disappointing". The only way those years could be legitimately called disappointing is if the only thing that wouldn't be disappointing is a Cup win and that doesn't put Toronto in unique territory. St. Louis hasn't won a cup, neither has Vancouver or Buffalo.

Different managers, different coaches have gotten different results here. Cup wins? No, but that's just a function of what multiple people have said to you that you haven't addressed. At no point did any of these managers try a full and patient rebuild.

You say that this failure to produce elite talent can't be blamed on bad management, coaching, drafting and developing but that doesn't make any sense because if a team had poor management, coaching, drafting and developing....they wouldn't develop great players which is the central point you're making. Bad drafting and developing will result in a bad team which is what the Leafs have mostly had in the post-Ballard era. It's an explanation that absolutely explains what has happened to the Leafs with no loose ends.

You're hearing hooves and thinking zebras, not horses.

A patient rebuild started in 1969 with the promotion of Dorey, Ley, Pelyk, Quinn and a year later, with McKenny and Glennie. The rebuild continued in the 70's with the addition of Sittler, Kehoe, Thompson, ferguson, Harrison, Dupere.......that group wouldn't have made the play-offs if Chicago wasn't moved to the West division. Think about it.

After the WHA hurt an already weak team. Another rebuild started. Sittler, Salming, Turnbull, McDonald, Williams and Palmateer could only manage one playoff victory (not counting the preliminary rounds).

A third rebuild started in the 80's. Draft choices Nylund, Benning, Iafrate, Clark, Courtnall, Damphousse and later Richardson joined Vaive and Derlago and later Thomas. The result? Worse than the seventies.

When you look at the big picture, rebuilds were attempted with much patience (sometimes too much patience) but all ended in disaster.

In fact, the most success this organization has had in the last 60 years (yes 60) came off the backs of veteran teams. Imlach, Fletcher (draft Schmaft) and Quinn all relied heavily on vets and less on the draft.

 

[Kin]

When you look at the big picture, rebuilds were attempted with much patience (sometimes too much patience) but all ended in disaster.

None of those teams assembled the talent necessary to compete with the dynasties of the day. They were always half-measures of a rebuild that were then sabotaged by the craziest person to ever own a professional sports franchise. You can't win without good management and the Leafs never had that. They never took proper advantage of their financial clout when they could and never had the patience for a proper rebuild.

The Ballard years are over. Move on.

 

[Pick]

You're missing the big picture. The Burns and Quinn eras were successful. Modestly successful. Take the most successful Leaf seasons since '67 (5 seasons in which Leafs reached the final 4)  and place them alongside Montreal's achievements during that time and the most successful Leaf seasons become insignificant.

The Canadiens are the most successful franchise in the history of the league. Using them as a benchmark is ridiculous.

But still, over the last twenty years neither franchise has had much in the way of success. Once the Leafs were freed from the shackles of a lunatic owner they've done about as well as the Canadiens.

Compare to a number of other teams and see how Leafs performance over the last 45+ years ranks. About half the teams in the league today can boast winning a Stanley Cup since '67; a few more made it to the final.. Leafs haven't even managed to make it to the final in that time.

Except nobody is disputing that the Leafs have been largely unsuccessful over that time period. The dispute is whether or not that lack of success can be attributed to bad management or to...the thing you can't guess that is unrelated to the general operation of a hockey team and can't be explained.

That's why the successes under Burns and Quinn remain as high points of achievement here. 

The 'successes' in the Burn's and Quinn eras do not hurt my argument, they support it.

This team is a lot worse than you think. Once you begin to understand that, then you can see where I'm coming from

At this point, I'm not even convinced you know where you're coming from.

And that's where you and I differ. Why is Montreal a ridiculous benchmark? Isn't that where we'd like to be? Would you be happy with second place?

I've been around a long time my friend and witnessed all the eras I write about. I remember a time when we were the best. Can you say the same?

BTW....keep it amicable, eh...we're all Leaf fans.

 

[Kin]

And that's where you and I differ. Why is Montreal a ridiculous benchmark? Isn't that where we'd like to be? Would you be happy with second place?

Because it's a level of success born out of a different era. It's not repeatable and it's not a reasonable expectation to have. Every team can't be the most successful team. 

But even still, that's when we get back to the central theme here. The issue isn't whether or not the Leafs have been successful or really even how successful they've been, it's why they haven't been successful. On one side is reasonable, consistent and logical explanations and on yours it's...nothing. No explanation. Just vague references to culture and curses.

I've been around a long time my friend and witnessed all the eras I write about. I remember a time when we were the best. Can you say the same?

No. Of course, I wasn't around for the Titanic either but I'm pretty sure it sank because of an Iceberg and not sea monsters.

 

[L K]

Except nobody is disputing that the Leafs have been largely unsuccessful over that time period. The dispute is whether or not that lack of success can be attributed to bad management or to...the thing you can't guess that is unrelated to the general operation of a hockey team and can't be explained.

I think based on the entire sports team that we can confidently say that the entire city is |cursed| with bad management.

 

[ensco]

In the last 50 years, how many times have the Leafs finished above the Habs in the regular season standings.

I'm guessing 4-5 times in the Quinn era ... maybe one or two other times ... and that's it.

 

[showmethemoneyman]

my choices for the draft
Once the two obvious are gone
My choice in order would be
1. Marner
2.Strome
3.Hanifin
For Nashville's pick , there are a number of good Ds rated at around their pick i would assume BPA would get us a good one.

 

[bustaheims]

The point I'm trying to make is that no matter what Leafs do to improve scouting and drafting, these efforts will be lost if the players that are drafted aren't handled properly.

And, it doesn't matter how much they improve their development system or how they handle their prospects if they can't identify talent at the draft. The two go hand in hand. In order to be successful, you can't have one without the other. They are inextricably linked. They are two halves of the same whole.

 

[Tigger]

The only thing to add overall, for me, is that the Leafs were subjected to considerable shock and awe after the first lockout, failed to embrace the changes at the time and that continued, well, up to now.

Let's hope he has more luck than Nylund or Iafrate (or more recently, Schenn or Kadri).

Iafrate was great in his time with the Leafs, and had a good NHL career. Injuries derailed him.

Iafrate was a great prospect - Norris trophy material - but that never happened. In Toronto he wasn't great.... he under performed and was part of some of the worst Leafs' teams in the history of the organization.

He's a great example of how this team has mishandled great talent.

Rupturing his knee in 1990 ( surgery then ain't what it is now ) and Gary Leeman were devastating to his time in Toronto.

Schenn? Uh, JVR? Kadri, well, we don't really know what he is yet.

So you believe Iafrate fulfilled his promise in Toronto?

I don't think management mishandled him into rupturing his knee or becoming completely tentative after. He went from freight train to angry stay at home defenseman. On the bright side, the decision to trade him and not Leeman eventually lead to Gilmour.

 

[Jolly good show chaps]

So Nashville are eliminated in the first round.