2015 NHL Entry Draft

[Heroic Shrimp]

Seeing as it's a term that's getting tossed around an awful lot these days, for kicks does anybody have any good examples they've come across of the egregious use of the term "generational talent"?  I heard a Detroit fan on the radio a couple of days ago call Patrick Kane a generational talent.  I mean, just how short are human generations these days, anyway?

A generation is considered to be 8 years.

I can't speak for your family, but most humans I know don't reproduce after 8 years.

 

[Kin]

Seeing as it's a term that's getting tossed around an awful lot these days, for kicks does anybody have any good examples they've come across of the egregious use of the term "generational talent"?  I heard a Detroit fan on the radio a couple of days ago call Patrick Kane a generational talent.  I mean, just how short are human generations these days, anyway?

A generation is considered to be 8 years.

A generation of what? Ants?

In the sense that we use the word today, it's typically thought to mean 15-20 years. So the Baby Boom Generation is people born from 45-60, Generation X is 60-75 or 80, Millenials are 80-99 and so on.

 

[Kin]

With regards to hockey, though, I have to figure it just means the guys with the highest compete level.

 

[rdowdall]

Chicago is in cap trouble and they need defensive depth.  At least that is what Maguire was stating on the radio this morning. 

Would it make sense for the Leafs to offer to take Sharp, or Hossa off their hands?  What picks do you think the Leafs could get from them?  The 54th this year and their first next year? I think we would need to send back some defence (obviously not Phanuef).  Would parting with Gardiner in this type of trade make sense? Or should the team wait and see how he responds to Babcock?

 

[Kin]

Chicago is in cap trouble and they need defensive depth.  At least that is what Maguire was stating on the radio this morning. 

Would it make sense for the Leafs to offer to take Sharp, or Hossa off their hands?  What picks do you think the Leafs could get from them?  The 54th this year and their first next year? I think we would need to send back some defence (obviously not Phanuef).  Would parting with Gardiner in this type of trade make sense? Or should the team wait and see how he responds to Babcock?

Sharp or Hossa will be valuable commodities. They won't need to bribe teams to get rid of them. Likewise, they need to straight up create cap space and taking back someone like Gardiner doesn't really help them. What they'll probably do is move Sharp for picks/prospects and plug in young players to help them with their depth issues.

 

[rdowdall]

Chicago is in cap trouble and they need defensive depth.  At least that is what Maguire was stating on the radio this morning. 

Would it make sense for the Leafs to offer to take Sharp, or Hossa off their hands?  What picks do you think the Leafs could get from them?  The 54th this year and their first next year? I think we would need to send back some defence (obviously not Phanuef).  Would parting with Gardiner in this type of trade make sense? Or should the team wait and see how he responds to Babcock?

Sharp or Hossa will be valuable commodities. They won't need to bribe teams to get rid of them. Likewise, they need to straight up create cap space and taking back someone like Gardiner doesn't really help them. What they'll probably do is move Sharp for picks/prospects and plug in young players to help them with their depth issues.

I wonder how much of a market there is for a guy like Sharp though.  Did they choose not to move him last summer because they couldn't get the deal that they wanted for him, or because they felt he was more valuable to the team than Leddy? 

How much different would the Blackhawks be today if they had moved Sharp instead of Leddy?  The deal for Leddy was himself and Kent Simpson for Ville Pokka, Anders Nilsson and T.J. Brennan.  That's an ok return for a top 4 d-man if Pokka and Nilsson pan out, but it doesn't seem like the type of offer that blows your socks off. 

I get why you move him if you feel that Sharp is more important to your team than Leddy, or if you think you can plug a hole on your defence but not up front.  In hindsight though, would they prefer to have another top four d-man to play instead of Runblad or Timmonen, as opposed to playing Sharp on the third line?

 

[Kin]

I get why you move him if you feel that Sharp is more important to your team than Leddy, or if you think you can plug a hole on your defence but not up front.  In hindsight though, would they prefer to have another top four d-man to play instead of Runblad or Timmonen, as opposed to playing Sharp on the third line?

Well, my guess would be that coming off his big year last year they figred that if they were going to make one last big run at a cup Sharp would be more valuable than Leddy in that regard. That may not have worked out for them the way they hoped but I think they knew that they just had the one year regardless.

And I think the market for Sharp will be pretty strong. Not as strong as if he'd had another huge year obviously but strong enough that they'll be able to get his salary off the books, which they desperately need to do, and get some good, low-cost pieces back.

 

[rdowdall]

I get why you move him if you feel that Sharp is more important to your team than Leddy, or if you think you can plug a hole on your defence but not up front.  In hindsight though, would they prefer to have another top four d-man to play instead of Runblad or Timmonen, as opposed to playing Sharp on the third line?

Well, my guess would be that coming off his big year last year they figred that if they were going to make one last big run at a cup Sharp would be more valuable than Leddy in that regard. That may not have worked out for them the way they hoped but I think they knew that they just had the one year regardless.

And I think the market for Sharp will be pretty strong. Not as strong as if he'd had another huge year obviously but strong enough that they'll be able to get his salary off the books, which they desperately need to do, and get some good, low-cost pieces back.

Yeah, Sharp probably isn't a candidate for a traditional salary dump, because he is pretty useful, and someone like Montreal or Florida could probably use a winger of his ilk. 

I wonder in the salary dump option for picks is dead, or at least muted with the current landscape of the NHL.  Just looking around the league I'm not sure there are many teams that would be forced to go that route.  LA would probably like to get rid of Richards, but then does that sort of deal make sense for the Leafs?  I guess it would depend on what they get with him, and what they would have to send back. 

The Leafs should be in a position where they could use this sort of deal to their advantage, but I am not sure if there are teams out there that need to make use of it.

I'm just wondering if there are other avenues that the Leafs could use to get some more picks in the next couple of drafts.

 

[Bullfrog]

If you think Marner is going to be the better player, should probably take him.

Agreed, but, if there you don't think there's going to be any real difference in terms of what the two players will contribute towards a winning team, you take Strome because he's much more likely to end up playing the more valuable position.

I disagree. I think the whole concept that centre is a more valuable position is a bit overblown. Perhaps still valid, but not an overly important decision. If their potential is basically equal, I take the better skater every time.

I think you're contradicting yourself - it's a bit overblown, but still valid, but not overly important? 

Centre has the normal offensive responsibilities but is also expected to go deep into their own zone (not patrol the half-wall and out as a winger roughly does) and help out the D.  A very good two-way C can be extremely important to a team, and the fact that their D responsibilities are so much more than wingers means their ability to impact the game at both ends is so much greater.  A winger is more or less confined to an area on D (in theory) while a C is expected to go all over the rink for his D responsibilities.

You're right, I wrote that terribly and this follow-up will probably be as bad.

Not overly important: was supposed to mean that their position isn't particularly important in choosing who to draft, even if talent is considered equal. A convoluted way of saying: pick the best player available. Now, I realize he stated "all things being equal." However, I don't think they're ever equal in the minds of the teams. There's usually something that tips the balance; whether it's speed, "family pedigree", lack of grunting during interviews, something.

The overblown part is that I find an extremely talented winger to be just as valuable as an extremely talented centre. I'd be just as comfortable with a hall-of-famer winger playing with a very good center man as I would the other way around.

Centre may require a slightly different skillset and certainly different responsibilites, but I'm not overly convinced the talent level requirement varies. To do what Rick Nash and Kessel do requires an incredible amount of talent (or Jere Lehtinen for that matter.)

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Not overly important: was supposed to mean that their position isn't particularly important in choosing who to draft, even if talent is considered equal. A convoluted way of saying: pick the best player available. Now, I realize he stated "all things being equal." However, I don't think they're ever equal in the minds of the teams. There's usually something that tips the balance; whether it's speed, "family pedigree", lack of grunting during interviews, something.

I've used the whole 'if they're equal players go with the centre' line too before, and I do believe it as far as how I judge these players. But it's a scouts entire job to find the differences between these players and decide who is going to be the better hockey player going forward. If a scout went up to Shanny/Hunter and just told them to flip a coin I can't imagine that scout would be employed for very much longer.

 

[rdowdall]

Not overly important: was supposed to mean that their position isn't particularly important in choosing who to draft, even if talent is considered equal. A convoluted way of saying: pick the best player available. Now, I realize he stated "all things being equal." However, I don't think they're ever equal in the minds of the teams. There's usually something that tips the balance; whether it's speed, "family pedigree", lack of grunting during interviews, something.

I've used the whole 'if they're equal players go with the centre' line too before, and I do believe it as far as how I judge these players. But it's a scouts entire job to find the differences between these players and decide who is going to be the better hockey player going forward. If a scout went up to Shanny/Hunter and just told them to flip a coin I can't imagine that scout would be employed for very much longer.

What if they pulled the coin out of Shanahan's ear before flipping it?

 

[Highlander]

that coin would have two faces or two tails.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

I get why you move him if you feel that Sharp is more important to your team than Leddy, or if you think you can plug a hole on your defence but not up front.  In hindsight though, would they prefer to have another top four d-man to play instead of Runblad or Timmonen, as opposed to playing Sharp on the third line?

Well, my guess would be that coming off his big year last year they figred that if they were going to make one last big run at a cup Sharp would be more valuable than Leddy in that regard. That may not have worked out for them the way they hoped but I think they knew that they just had the one year regardless.

And I think the market for Sharp will be pretty strong. Not as strong as if he'd had another huge year obviously but strong enough that they'll be able to get his salary off the books, which they desperately need to do, and get some good, low-cost pieces back

Yeah, Sharp probably isn't a candidate for a traditional salary dump, because he is pretty useful, and someone like Montreal or Florida could probably use a winger of his ilk. 

I wonder in the salary dump option for picks is dead, or at least muted with the current landscape of the NHL.  Just looking around the league I'm not sure there are many teams that would be forced to go that route.  LA would probably like to get rid of Richards, but then does that sort of deal make sense for the Leafs?  I guess it would depend on what they get with him, and what they would have to send back. 

The Leafs should be in a position where they could use this sort of deal to their advantage, but I am not sure if there are teams out there that need to make use of it.

I'm just wondering if there are other avenues that the Leafs could use to get some more picks in the next couple of drafts.

Seidenberg, Semin, Lecavalier, Andrew Macdonald, Voynov, Milan Michalek are guys who would be candidates for traditional salary dump IMO (less so macdonald). I'm pretty sure the Leafs would end up with picks in taking those contracts off of other teams hands.

Pittsburgh are rumored to be looking for a 1st. The Leafs could move the first for a few 2nds. I'd look for beau Bennett too which may be a bit rich for Pitts but they're not playing him a ton as of yet, but there are definitely options for picking up more picks outside of dealing roster players ( though I hope they rake that route if a suitable offer appears).

 

[CarltonTheBear]

What if they pulled the coin out of Shanahan's ear before flipping it?

Dubas would probably just spoil the magic and tell Shanny how the trick was done.

 

[Kin]

What if they pulled the coin out of Shanahan's ear before flipping it?

Dubas would probably just spoil the magic and tell Shanny how the trick was done.

True fact*, Dubas recently sent out a MLSE wide email detailing the 58 major ways he counted that Avengers 2 deviated from the source material.

*Not a true fact.

 

[rdowdall]

What if they pulled the coin out of Shanahan's ear before flipping it?

Dubas would probably just spoil the magic and tell Shanny how the trick was done.

True fact*, Dubas recently sent out a MLSE wide email detailing the 58 major ways he counted that Avengers 2 deviated from the source material.

*Not a true fact.

There is always fine print....

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Seeing as it's a term that's getting tossed around an awful lot these days, for kicks does anybody have any good examples they've come across of the egregious use of the term "generational talent"?  I heard a Detroit fan on the radio a couple of days ago call Patrick Kane a generational talent.  I mean, just how short are human generations these days, anyway?

A generation is considered to be 8 years.

A generation of what? Ants?

In the sense that we use the word today, it's typically thought to mean 15-20 years. So the Baby Boom Generation is people born from 45-60, Generation X is 60-75 or 80, Millenials are 80-99 and so on.

I suppose there are those valid social and cultural generational divisions.  I always took it in the purely biological sense, of the general average age of people when they reproduce to make the next generation, a time frame of roughly 20-25 years.

But either way, yeah, not 8 years.

 

[Kin]

I suppose there are those valid social and cultural generational divisions.  I always took it in the purely biological sense, of the general average age of people when they reproduce to make the next generation, a time frame of roughly 20-25 years.

21 years to be precise. Or 23 if you only start counting from when Riker grew the beard, like a sensible person.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Having looked at those videos someone posted, Marner definitely comes across as a small, speedy sniper with a quick release.  That type of talent is coveted by teams who want and need a player with an diligent approach to scoring.

Strome, on the other hand, or one shall say, at first glance, seems a bigger, slightly slower but deft shooter, someone who plays as though he's already figuring out his options before going ahead with the play or shot.  Excellent in that regard, Strome would appeal to a team who covets a player who plays intelligently and carefully fully capable of results warranted.

Both are talented.  Both are good.  It will depend on what the Leafs see as being more adept for them for the long term, and which would fit their style based on the kind of team management has in mind to forge for the long haul.

 

[Highlander]

So if we trade Kessel for the Devils pick, then we draft Marner whom is similar to Kessel and what have the 5th or 6th pick as well, I would pull the trigger on that at this point and I was a huge Phil fan, but don't think he is coachable, he won't fit in with Babs.
And someone very good will be available at 5 or 6