Luke Schenn: One more chance?

[Corn Flake]

We are talking about players being kept up in the NHL in their draft year or generally quite early vs. spending time in development.  You know, this Schenn vs. Kadri?

Sure. Kadri hasn't shown he can be a good NHL player yet. I'm with you there.

What is confusing me is the idea that there's some sort of sweeping philosophical shift there between Schenn and Kadri's development. Schenn showed in his rookie year, and intermittently since then, that he could be a decent NHL defenseman. They didn't keep him up for any other reason.

If the "Kadri treatment" is keeping guys out of the NHL if they're unable to play at a sufficient level to be in the NHL then I don't know if anyone, anywhere, has ever advocated anything else for any prospect.

It's not a sweeping shift.. it's more of a subtle change in thinking on how prospects are developed through the system.

Schenn had a very good rookie camp. He was kept up.  Kadri had a very good rookie camp as well. He was not kept up. Right there is the the first evidence of a difference. 

3 camps later and Kadri still goes down. Which I think we both agree was the right choice. It was an unpopular decision to send him down all 3 times, but it was the right one all 3 times.

Wilson said with Schenn he could coach him through the tough times and help him.  With Kadri, Wilson said he needs to go down to learn how to not do the things that made him a liability. Another difference in thinking.

Burke has said 100 times that in general he believes players need to spend a good amount of time developing in the AHL. He has been ragged on for 2 years now by all sorts of corners for being mean and nasty by keeping Kadri in the AHL.  But it's the right choice. 

 

[bustaheims]

I mentioned them all now.  My point still stands that there was no reason to move up in that draft.  You only move up to get a player you think is head and shoulders above anyone else you can get at your own draft position.  Hindsight being 20/20 and all, but Schenn is nowhere near head & shoulders above any defenseman taken in the top 20 with the exception of Teubert

Right now, maybe not, but at the time of draft, the consensus from the scouts was that he would be.

 

[Kin]

Schenn had a very good rookie camp. He was kept up.  Kadri had a very good rookie camp as well. He was not kept up. Right there is the the first evidence of a difference.

Well, it would be, if we accept that the decisions being made with regards to both of those players was entirely predicated on how they played in camp. I don't think that's the case. I think that was a factor but I think there was a lot more "NHL-ready" buzz surrounding Schenn then there was for Kadri. I think, for instance, that Schenn's play in his first 9 games was a significantly bigger factor in keeping him up. 

Wilson said with Schenn he could coach him through the tough times and help him.  With Kadri, Wilson said he needs to go down to learn how to not do the things that made him a liability. Another difference in thinking.

See, I don't look at it as a difference in philosophy so much as it is having a philosophy that is adaptable to the needs of specific players. Some players will be better served by AHL time, others won't. Tailoring your approach to different players differently doesn't necessarily represent a shift in philosophy.

Burke has said 100 times that in general he believes players need to spend a good amount of time developing in the AHL. He has been ragged on for 2 years now by all sorts of corners for being mean and nasty by keeping Kadri in the AHL.  But it's the right choice.

Like you say, I don't think we disagree on your final sentence but I think you're saying it as in "Kadri should be kept in the AHL because it's the best possible thing for his development" and I'm saying "Kadri should be kept in the AHL because he's not good enough to be in the NHL" and that it's the best thing for his development by default.

As a general rule, I'd probably lean the other way. If a player is good enough to be contributing to an NHL team, the best place for them is probably the NHL.

 

[Kin]

I mentioned them all now.  My point still stands that there was no reason to move up in that draft.  You only move up to get a player you think is head and shoulders above anyone else you can get at your own draft position.  Hindsight being 20/20 and all, but Schenn is nowhere near head & shoulders above any defenseman taken in the top 20 with the exception of Teubert

Hold on. Are you trying to say that there's a bunch of NHL teams who should have drafted Pavel Datsyuk in '98 in the 1st round instead of the bums they drafted?

Man, I bet there's egg all over their faces.

 

[Tigger]

My point still stands that there was no reason to move up in that draft.  You only move up to get a player you think is head and shoulders above anyone else you can get at your own draft position.  Hindsight being 20/20 and all, but Schenn is nowhere near head & shoulders above any defenseman taken in the top 20 with the exception of Teubert

Well, you don't have the luxury of hindsight at the draft and Luke was ranked 3rd among North American skaters at the time. Myers was ranked 5th and yet Pietrangelo (6th) was taken ahead of both Tyler and Luke. Karlsson was ranked 5th among European skaters.

Del Zotto, Gardiner, Sbisa, Teubert weren't ranked in the top 10.

Fwiw there were significant questions around Bogosian and Doughty at times since the draft too.

Anyone know what the conditional picks given up to get Schenn turned out to be? My sense is that it wasn't a terribly unreasonable move to get a highly ranked player that many thought would be a blue chip prospect.

 

[Kin]

Anyone know what the conditional picks given up to get Schenn turned out to be? My sense is that it wasn't a terribly unreasonable move to get a highly ranked player that many thought would be a blue chip prospect.

The picks ended up being the #68 pick in '08 and the #37 pick in '09

 

[bustaheims]

Anyone know what the conditional picks given up to get Schenn turned out to be? My sense is that it wasn't a terribly unreasonable move to get a highly ranked player that many thought would be a blue chip prospect.

Matt Clark and Shawn Lalonde. Clark is an AHL/depth dman with the Ducks and Lalonde is filling a similar role with the Hawks (the Islanders traded the picks).

 

[Zee]

I mentioned them all now.  My point still stands that there was no reason to move up in that draft.  You only move up to get a player you think is head and shoulders above anyone else you can get at your own draft position.  Hindsight being 20/20 and all, but Schenn is nowhere near head & shoulders above any defenseman taken in the top 20 with the exception of Teubert

Hold on. Are you trying to say that there's a bunch of NHL teams who should have drafted Pavel Datsyuk in '98 in the 1st round instead of the bums they drafted?

Man, I bet there's egg all over their faces.

No, I'm saying we shouldn't have drafted Schenn.

 

[maplesyrup]

So, apart for somewhat higher hopes for Schenn, the overall feeling is that Fletch's deal to move up to get him was a perfectly reasonable thing for him to do at the time (as I said?)

 

[bustaheims]

No, I'm saying we shouldn't have drafted Schenn.

So, you're advocating the time machine method over the listening to the scouts method? Because, really, at the time, that would have been the only reason to take any of those other guys ahead of Schenn.

 

[Kin]

No, I'm saying we shouldn't have drafted Schenn.

But those teams that didn't draft Datsyuk...hoo boy. He's a very good player and they used their picks on less good players. Talk about your miscues.

That's why I think I should be put in charge of an NHL team. I'd tell my scouting staff straight up to forget about drafting busts and instead only drafting the guys who turn out to be the best NHL players available. You ask me, that'd be a "winning" strategy.

 

[Zee]

No, I'm saying we shouldn't have drafted Schenn.

But those teams that didn't draft Datsyuk...hoo boy. He's a very good player and they used their picks on less good players. Talk about your miscues.

That's why I think I should be put in charge of an NHL team. I'd tell my scouting staff straight up to forget about drafting busts and focus instead on drafting the guys who turn out to be the best NHL players available. You ask me, that'd be a "winning" strategy.

Well, the problem with taking a player like Schenn is how the game is currently played.  Coming out of the lockout, the league was trying to focus on speed and offense, two things that Schenn sorely lacks.  So, given that the draft is a total crapshoot outside of the few years where you have franchise players at 1-2 like Crosby, Ovechkin etc, wouldn't you want your scouts to focus on players who have speed and offensive upside?  Why move up in the draft to take a slow lumbering d-man who is more suited to the 1995 NHL then the 2008 NHL?  He was a bad pick pure and simple.

 

[maplesyrup]

He was a bad pick pure and simple.

As it turns out, we could have done better but I think it's too early to brand him as a "bad" pick.

 

[ZBBM]

I don't know what to think of Schenn anymore.  Maybe he'll still develop into a great blueliner, maybe not, but when I look at his draft year and the defenseman taken AFTER him, I cringe.  Why did we move up to the #5 spot to get him when we could have had Karlsson, Del Zotto, Myers or Gardiner (ok we have  him now) without moving draft spots?

This kind of reasoning drives me a little nuts.  If there's one thing we all know after what, 40 years of drafts, is that there are almost no sure things in terms of evaluating player talent.  The fact that Schenn has played as a regular in the league since day one means he has already paid off more than 95% of all other draft choices.

You could just as easily name every defensemen who (1) was taken after Schenn that year AND (2) has never played an NHL minute and say, "See? Luke's been a success."  And you'd be just as correct as comparing him to cherry-picked lower choices after the fact.

I don't think they're "cherry picked" at all.  I named 4 of the next 6 D men taken in that draft.    Only ones I didn't mention were Colten Teubert and Luca Sbisa.  Teubert hasn't panned out yet and Sbisa is at least on the same level as Schenn and was taken at #19

Not mentioning people IS cherry-picking.  And that's a side issue to my main point anyhow.

I mentioned them all now.  My point still stands that there was no reason to move up in that draft.  You only move up to get a player you think is head and shoulders above anyone else you can get at your own draft position.  Hindsight being 20/20 and all, but Schenn is nowhere near head & shoulders above any defenseman taken in the top 20 with the exception of Teubert

Exactly -- it's impossible to accurately quantify how good draft picks will be.  That's why complaining about a draft decision on the basis of ex post facto comparisons of people taken later is pretty empty.  It's like going after the teams that took whoever they took right before Zetterberg or Kaberle for being stupid.  They should have known, don't you see?

 

[Zee]

I don't know what to think of Schenn anymore.  Maybe he'll still develop into a great blueliner, maybe not, but when I look at his draft year and the defenseman taken AFTER him, I cringe.  Why did we move up to the #5 spot to get him when we could have had Karlsson, Del Zotto, Myers or Gardiner (ok we have  him now) without moving draft spots?

This kind of reasoning drives me a little nuts.  If there's one thing we all know after what, 40 years of drafts, is that there are almost no sure things in terms of evaluating player talent.  The fact that Schenn has played as a regular in the league since day one means he has already paid off more than 95% of all other draft choices.

You could just as easily name every defensemen who (1) was taken after Schenn that year AND (2) has never played an NHL minute and say, "See? Luke's been a success."  And you'd be just as correct as comparing him to cherry-picked lower choices after the fact.

I don't think they're "cherry picked" at all.  I named 4 of the next 6 D men taken in that draft.    Only ones I didn't mention were Colten Teubert and Luca Sbisa.  Teubert hasn't panned out yet and Sbisa is at least on the same level as Schenn and was taken at #19

Not mentioning people IS cherry-picking.  And that's a side issue to my main point anyhow.

I mentioned them all now.  My point still stands that there was no reason to move up in that draft.  You only move up to get a player you think is head and shoulders above anyone else you can get at your own draft position.  Hindsight being 20/20 and all, but Schenn is nowhere near head & shoulders above any defenseman taken in the top 20 with the exception of Teubert

Exactly -- it's impossible to accurately quantify how good draft picks will be.  That's why complaining about a draft decision on the basis of ex post facto comparisons of people taken later is pretty empty.  It's like going after the teams that took whoever they took right before Zetterberg or Kaberle for being stupid.  They should have known, don't you see?

I agree that the draft is a crapshoot and you can't tell how good a player will be at 18, but my point is made above, the Leafs took the slowest d-man in the entire draft.

As it turns out, we could have done better but I think it's too early to brand him as a "bad" pick.

He might still turn out to be good, but given the scouts knew he was slow and had 0 offensive upside, I would say that's a bad pick. 

 

[maplesyrup]

Jeff Ware = "bad pick." Luke Schenn (at this point) = "decent" pick... Zee, as a Leaf fan, you have to know the difference.

 

[Tigger]

Thanks Nik and Busta, yeah that doesn't scream unreasonable to me, I mean, even if those picks had turned out to be really lucky it's still not much to give up for what the consensus views as a pretty good player.

I think the reasoning behind a 'not drafting him @#5' pov is more rightly placed in his skillset as a defensive dman than anything else but I'm not seeing that here, and even then, I don't think anyone looked at Myers and Karlsson then the way they do now if it's a defenceman the Leafs were bent on drafting.

I think it's pretty early to say Luke was a bad pick by most any definition, defencemen take a lot of time to develop, nor do I think the characterization of his game as 'slow and lumbering' or 'slowest in the entire draft' is at all fair.

How the hell does a player get ranked 3rd in North America if that's true?

 

[Kin]

Well, the problem with taking a player like Schenn is how the game is currently played.  Coming out of the lockout, the league was trying to focus on speed and offense, two things that Schenn sorely lacks.  So, given that the draft is a total crapshoot outside of the few years where you have franchise players at 1-2 like Crosby, Ovechkin etc, wouldn't you want your scouts to focus on players who have speed and offensive upside?  Why move up in the draft to take a slow lumbering d-man who is more suited to the 1995 NHL then the 2008 NHL?  He was a bad pick pure and simple.

1. Because the NHL Draft isn't a total crapshoot. It exists between that nebulous stretch between "total crapshoot" and "exact science". Schenn, when drafted, was not seen as someone who'd have trouble adapting to the new NHL. That was why he was rated as highly as he was.

2. Were the Phoenix Coyotes the fastest team in the playoffs? Are the Rangers? Everyone raved about the Leafs speed this year. Where'd that get them? Physical play, good defensive work, blocking shots...those things still matter. There are a lot of players around the league who aren't burners but are still very valuable. Schenn is a guy who's shown he can be a good NHL defenseman despite the fact that he's probably a long shot for short track medals in Sochii.

3. Because "lumbering" is not a word that was used to describe Schenn when he was a prospect. I'm still not sure it should be. He's put on considerable mass since coming to the NHL and it's slowed him down some but in his lighter days he was not noticeably hurting the team with his footspeed.

 

[Zee]

Jeff Ware = "bad pick." Luke Schenn (at this point) = "decent" pick... Zee, as a Leaf fan, you have to know the difference.

OK, Schenn can actually play in the league unlike Ware, but I think the Leafs could have made a better pick just by focusing on skillset alone.  Forget the defensman in the "Komisarek mold", which is what Schenn is.  Look for guys who can skate and have a good shot.

 

[Zee]

Well, the problem with taking a player like Schenn is how the game is currently played.  Coming out of the lockout, the league was trying to focus on speed and offense, two things that Schenn sorely lacks.  So, given that the draft is a total crapshoot outside of the few years where you have franchise players at 1-2 like Crosby, Ovechkin etc, wouldn't you want your scouts to focus on players who have speed and offensive upside?  Why move up in the draft to take a slow lumbering d-man who is more suited to the 1995 NHL then the 2008 NHL?  He was a bad pick pure and simple.

1. Because the NHL Draft isn't a total crapshoot. It exists between that nebulous stretch between "total crapshoot" and "exact science". Schenn, when drafted, was not seen as someone who'd have trouble adapting to the new NHL. That was why he was rated as highly as he was.

2. Were the Phoenix Coyotes the fastest team in the playoffs? Are the Rangers? Everyone raved about the Leafs speed this year. Where'd that get them? Physical play, good defensive work, blocking shots...those things still matter. There are a lot of players around the league who aren't burners but are still very valuable. Schenn is a guy who's shown he can be a good NHL defenseman despite the fact that he's probably a long shot for short track medals in Sochii.

3. Because "lumbering" is not a word that was used to describe Schenn when he was a prospect. I'm still not sure it should be. He's put on considerable mass since coming to the NHL and it's slowed him down some but in his lighter days he was not noticeably hurting the team with his footspeed.

The Leafs problems this year had nothing to do with team speed.  I have no idea where you're going with point #2 other than to show how the NHL has totally forgotten their own rules and are letting teams play the clutch and grab style of years gone by.  I really believe that there'll be a new crackdown starting again next season on obstruction after this year's playoff performances.  That is, if we even have a season this fall which is by no means assured.