Jump to content

2018 UFA Thread


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, aylbert said:

You can’t judge any draft, in any year, that way.   It’s like looking back at the weather...  you can only project so much.

Pearson is fair, the others were missed by everybody in the second too; so it’s really unfair to say Lou should have reached in the first for them...    especially when GMs get mocked for reaching ten spots away from consensus rankings.

 

I just thought it was an interesting article and seeing Hellebuyck go after Matteau made me want to vomit. Lol. In this article's defense though, Lou never should have elected to use that first-rounder on Matteau. That was the draft he should have skipped. But whatever... it's history. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm so fvcking livid about this FA period. LeBron signed in LA? Really? Wtf, is Ray doing anything? If I find out Ray didn't even call his agent to inquire about coming to NJ I'm going to be pissed. 

I like to tell people I’m an architect, Art Vandeley.

Others have already hit on this note, but no. Hallsy is younger, healthier, and is coming off his 1st career Hart trophy, certainly wouldn't trade him for Karlsson. The list of players I'd trade Hall

Posted Images

Should we go back to 1994 when we drafted some dude named Elias in the second round (51st overall) and laugh at all the people who passed on him?

A list that includes our own team, who picked Vadim Sharifijanov in the first round (25th overall). 

Second guessing is ridiculous. Everybody knows that whatever position you draft, the guy may not live up to his potential or he may exceed it. Just because you pick #10 doesn't mean that he'll be the 10th best guy that year. In fact, even true of #1. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slasher72 said:

I just thought it was an interesting article and seeing Hellebuyck go after Matteau made me want to vomit. Lol. In this article's defense though, Lou never should have elected to use that first-rounder on Matteau. That was the draft he should have skipped. But whatever... it's history. 

That sh!t wouldn't have happened if I were in charge. Nobody named Matteau should have ever worn a Devils jersey. I was pissed enough about Mike Mottau, just because it was close. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

Should we go back to 1994 when we drafted some dude named Elias in the second round (51st overall) and laugh at all the people who passed on him?

A list that includes our own team, who picked Vadim Sharifijanov in the first round (25th overall). 

Second guessing is ridiculous. Everybody knows that whatever position you draft, the guy may not live up to his potential or he may exceed it. Just because you pick #10 doesn't mean that he'll be the 10th best guy that year. In fact, even true of #1. 

Over a certain period of time you need to produce a certain number of bona fide NHL players, a few gems and not too many first round duds depending on where in the first round you're drafting and who is available (so no obvious reaches).  That was Conte and his group pretty much until 2004, but after that things took a real nose dive to the point that the Devils would have been one the three worst teams in the league for two or three years straight but for Schneider playing at his best.  After 2004, the best players Conte drafted until he left were Henrique, Larsson, Severson and Wood.  Unless you have a Crosby or McDavid on your roster, your team is going to really suck at some point.

I remember hearing somewhere that you can trace the decline in the Devils drafting fortunes to the departure of a particular scout.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Penguin Dollar Store pickup.  No issues with this at all, Bingo needs help, and he should provide it.  He's a pretty solid AHLer, can score some at that level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Daniel said:

Over a certain period of time you need to produce a certain number of bona fide NHL players, a few gems and not too many first round duds depending on where in the first round you're drafting and who is available (so no obvious reaches).  That was Conte and his group pretty much until 2004, but after that things took a real nose dive to the point that the Devils would have been one the three worst teams in the league for two or three years straight but for Schneider playing at his best.  After 2004, the best players Conte drafted until he left were Henrique, Larsson, Severson and Wood.  Unless you have a Crosby or McDavid on your roster, your team is going to really suck at some point.

I remember hearing somewhere that you can trace the decline in the Devils drafting fortunes to the departure of a particular scout.

Do you happen to know which scout?  It would be pretty amazing that their entire house of cards fell because of one scout leaving (and I honestly don't really doubt it).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DevsMan84 said:

Do you happen to know which scout?  It would be pretty amazing that their entire house of cards fell because of one scout leaving (and I honestly don't really doubt it).

Honestly, even if you gave me a name, I probably wouldn’t know.  A guy who used to have the seats next to my brother mentioned it to me while we were chatting during an intermission a few years back.  The name didn’t mean anything to me when we were talking about it.

Edited by Daniel
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CarterforPresident said:

New signing. 

Screenshot_20180725-153557_Reddit.jpg

I don’t know why, but I find it so silly that you took a screenshot of a reddit post and uploaded it to the forums rather than just copy and paste the twitter link.

and for clarity I mean “silly” as in “I chuckled” and not as in “you’re dumb” so please don’t take offense.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Daniel said:

Over a certain period of time you need to produce a certain number of bona fide NHL players, a few gems and not too many first round duds depending on where in the first round you're drafting and who is available (so no obvious reaches).  That was Conte and his group pretty much until 2004, but after that things took a real nose dive to the point that the Devils would have been one the three worst teams in the league for two or three years straight but for Schneider playing at his best.  After 2004, the best players Conte drafted until he left were Henrique, Larsson, Severson and Wood.  Unless you have a Crosby or McDavid on your roster, your team is going to really suck at some point.

I remember hearing somewhere that you can trace the decline in the Devils drafting fortunes to the departure of a particular scout.

There's no way anyone can trace it to the departure of a particular scout.  Some guys are better than others at this, but no one's perfect.  For years we heard about how great Hakan Andersson is and how amazing he is at figuring out who the star Swedes are going to be, but he's still in Detroit and they still pick a Swedish player pretty much every year, and the last time he worked his magic was on Gustav Nyquist, who was drafted 10 years ago.  

It's a luck business, and some people are looking for the wrong things which doesn't help, but I don't believe anyone has a huge permanent edge in this business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Triumph said:

There's no way anyone can trace it to the departure of a particular scout.  Some guys are better than others at this, but no one's perfect.  For years we heard about how great Hakan Andersson is and how amazing he is at figuring out who the star Swedes are going to be, but he's still in Detroit and they still pick a Swedish player pretty much every year, and the last time he worked his magic was on Gustav Nyquist, who was drafted 10 years ago.  

It's a luck business, and some people are looking for the wrong things which doesn't help, but I don't believe anyone has a huge permanent edge in this business.

In the case of Andersson, you’re talking about someone whose greatest hits were the result of taking advantage of inefficiencies that don’t exist anymore.  With Conte, you are talking about someone who all the sudden could not seem to draft a decent player from anywhere in any round for the life of him, and at the end passed on at least four exceptional players for a guy who has disappointed tremendously, but that he absolutely had to have according to Shero.   It’s quite plausible that the loss of someone in Conte’s staff contributed to his incompetence at the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Daniel said:

In the case of Andersson, you’re talking about someone whose greatest hits were the result of taking advantage of inefficiencies that don’t exist anymore.  With Conte, you are talking about someone who all the sudden could not seem to draft a decent player from anywhere in any round for the life of him, and at the end passed on at least four exceptional players for a guy who has disappointed tremendously, but that he absolutely had to have according to Shero.   It’s quite plausible that the loss of someone in Conte’s staff contributed to his incompetence at the end.

Again, I just don't find this to be an accurate portrayal of what happened to the Devils under David Conte.

First off, the Devils were short picks almost every year because the NHL team was trying to win and because draft problems dating back a while was already causing shortages in the Devils' organization.  After 2005, the Devils didn't get supplemental picks for having free agents signed away.  Second, it's not like the guys the Devils were drafting were horrendous players - everyone they took in the 1st round was at least a suitable player in a 2nd tier league.  A guy like Bergfors - he was a good player and maybe with a little different path he could've been a consistent 20-25 goal guy.  Maybe if Josefson doesn't have so many injuries early on in his career he becomes a top 9 forward.  There's just a lot of uncertainty that comes with drafting.  I don't think Conte exactly had the right ideas, but he wasn't whiffing on everything.  The draft years 2011-13 each produced a player beyond the first round who plays on the team currently.

Zacha has not been great so far, but it's not impossible to see why he was taken that high.  Would I rather have a different guy, sure, but I don't see one pick as emblematic of a bad process.  The rest of the picks kinda speak for themselves.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Triumph said:

Again, I just don't find this to be an accurate portrayal of what happened to the Devils under David Conte.

First off, the Devils were short picks almost every year because the NHL team was trying to win and because draft problems dating back a while was already causing shortages in the Devils' organization.  After 2005, the Devils didn't get supplemental picks for having free agents signed away.  Second, it's not like the guys the Devils were drafting were horrendous players - everyone they took in the 1st round was at least a suitable player in a 2nd tier league.  A guy like Bergfors - he was a good player and maybe with a little different path he could've been a consistent 20-25 goal guy.  Maybe if Josefson doesn't have so many injuries early on in his career he becomes a top 9 forward.  There's just a lot of uncertainty that comes with drafting.  I don't think Conte exactly had the right ideas, but he wasn't whiffing on everything.  The draft years 2011-13 each produced a player beyond the first round who plays on the team currently.

Zacha has not been great so far, but it's not impossible to see why he was taken that high.  Would I rather have a different guy, sure, but I don't see one pick as emblematic of a bad process.  The rest of the picks kinda speak for themselves.

In isolation, you can say this pick or that pick was understandable, and in a sense most of them were.  But when Adam Henrique is the crown jewel of your efforts for a period of ten years, you’re doing something seriously wrong.  I’m not saying you need to bat 1.000, but something better than .050 would be nice,

And if it’s all just a combination of luck and having a philosophy of some sort (e.g. wanting big guys, fast guys, skill guys, character guys, etc.) you might as well just fire most of your scouting staff, pay a few bucks to subscribe to the Athletic and a few other drafting publications that have prospect rankings, do some interviews to weed out the psychopaths, and just draft based on that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conte jumped the shark for me the second he took Adrian foster with the last pick of the 1st round in 2001 when the dude wasn’t even there to go up on stage because they never thought someone would take him that high.  I was already starting to get irritated after using 2 firsts in 3 years on goalies to protect themselves if Marty left.  I know they pulled off the Parise coup and Zajac was a good pick but I was pretty much done with Conte after Foster.  Also, while they deserve credit, Parise was kind of a no brainer.   In such a deep draft, it was pretty telling that they didn’t land anyone else worth a damn in 2003 (Vrana, etc.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Daniel said:

In isolation, you can say this pick or that pick was understandable, and in a sense most of them were.  But when Adam Henrique is the crown jewel of your efforts for a period of ten years, you’re doing something seriously wrong.  I’m not saying you need to bat 1.000, but something better than .050 would be nice[/quote]

I never said Conte should still be a head scout or anything like that.  Just that he had a more challenging job than he is being given credit for and he got some rotten luck besides.  Some picks are downright bad, obviously.

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

And if it’s all just a combination of luck and having a philosophy of some sort (e.g. wanting big guys, fast guys, skill guys, character guys, etc.) you might as well just fire most of your scouting staff, pay a few bucks to subscribe to the Athletic and a few other drafting publications that have prospect rankings, do some interviews to weed out the psychopaths, and just draft based on that.  

Can you refrain from hyperbole for once in a debate?  It's exhausting.  Seeing players is obviously important, but there's also clear flaws that come with trusting a scout's eyes over everything else.  Scouting is still vital, but head scouts and general managers have to make sure that scouts are looking for the right things.  If they're not looking for the right things then bad decisions will tend to be made.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

Someone beat me to it, but the Rangers must have missed the board haha

It's funny cause at first i actually typed something mocking the Rangers... but KNEW someone would love to bring it up so i left it out lol

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

Should we go back to 1994 when we drafted some dude named Elias in the second round (51st overall) and laugh at all the people who passed on him?

A list that includes our own team, who picked Vadim Sharifijanov in the first round (25th overall). 

Second guessing is ridiculous. Everybody knows that whatever position you draft, the guy may not live up to his potential or he may exceed it. Just because you pick #10 doesn't mean that he'll be the 10th best guy that year. In fact, even true of #1. 

In the end, one just doesn't know how it will all turn out.  Determining a player's mental makeup is hardest of all.  A lot of that is based on highly subjective valuations.  There are more objective values assigned to determining a physical skill set.  Great scouts just have an innate feel for the mental aspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Triumph said:

 

Can you refrain from hyperbole for once in a debate?  It's exhausting.  Seeing players is obviously important, but there's also clear flaws that come with trusting a scout's eyes over everything else.  Scouting is still vital, but head scouts and general managers have to make sure that scouts are looking for the right things.  If they're not looking for the right things then bad decisions will tend to be made.

Maybe when you stop throwing out the word "luck" the way journalists these days throw out words like "collusion" or "meddling."  Using the word "luck" as a euphemism for "when things don't turn out the way my models say they should" is much more exhausting to everyone here.

This all started when I suggested that it was plausible that the Devils ability to find talent in the draft really took a nosedive because a certain person in the scouting department left.  You say it's completely implausible because luck has more to do with it than anything else and one guy couldn't make a difference.  Then you say well it's obviously not just luck it's that the scouts have to look for the right things, in other words, they need to be good scouts?   Well what is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Triumph said:

There's no way anyone can trace it to the departure of a particular scout.  Some guys are better than others at this, but no one's perfect.  For years we heard about how great Hakan Andersson is and how amazing he is at figuring out who the star Swedes are going to be, but he's still in Detroit and they still pick a Swedish player pretty much every year, and the last time he worked his magic was on Gustav Nyquist, who was drafted 10 years ago.  

It's a luck business, and some people are looking for the wrong things which doesn't help, but I don't believe anyone has a huge permanent edge in this business.

Not sure who (scout)  it was, but someone said Tedenby, Josefson,  can't think of the D-mans name (starts w/ U) the next coming. None panned out even close. Therefore whoever was the Euro scout that lobbied for these guys,  sucked. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, vadvlfan said:

Not sure who (scout)  it was, but someone said Tedenby, Josefson,  can't think of the D-mans name (starts w/ U) the next coming. None panned out even close. Therefore whoever was the Euro scout that lobbied for these guys,  sucked. 

Alexander Urbom, picked 73rd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Maybe when you stop throwing out the word "luck" the way journalists these days throw out words like "collusion" or "meddling."  Using the word "luck" as a euphemism for "when things don't turn out the way my models say they should" is much more exhausting to everyone here.[/quote]

Ah the goalpost shift.  If you don't think picking which 18-20 year olds are going to be NHLers in 3-5 years involves luck, I don't know what to tell you.  Nobody has the ability to pick future NHLers every time, or else we would see that manifest itself - we don't.  Teams miss all the time, and it's not just some teams missing - everyone misses, constantly.  I defy anyone to demonstrate that any team has skill relative to the others in the NHL draft.  It appears like some teams are better than others, maybe, over the short-term, but is that skill?  Will we see that continue?  

43 minutes ago, Daniel said:

This all started when I suggested that it was plausible that the Devils ability to find talent in the draft really took a nosedive because a certain person in the scouting department left.  You say it's completely implausible because luck has more to do with it than anything else and one guy couldn't make a difference.  Then you say well it's obviously not just luck it's that the scouts have to look for the right things, in other words, they need to be good scouts?   Well what is it?

I say it's completely implausible because it is completely implausible.  The idea that the Devils went from superb drafters - and indeed, between 87 and 95 their drafts are incredible - to mediocre to bad, which they pretty much were after 1998, because of one person leaving, is ridiculous.  It's throwing a dart and drawing a bullseye around that dart.  The fact that no one can even name this person makes it even more obvious - wouldn't we all know who this superscout is?  He must be crushing it for another organization, pulling out NHLers all the time.

But I realize you have a point here.  There is clearly SOME skill in drafting, the problem is that the agglomeration of such skill doesn't look much different from luck.  Take a sport like golf where (and I may be wrong, I don't really follow golf) it seems like there's a lot of different golfers winning major tournaments these days.  There's no one like Tiger Woods consistently winning them anymore.  Most of these tournaments are won by a few strokes over the course of 4 rounds - it takes an incredible amount of golfing skill to win a tournament, but in looking at it from a bird's-eye view where guy A beats guy B because he sank a few putts that the other guy missed, and a month later, guy C does the same to guy D, the difference between these players over that short span looks like luck even though it takes a ton of skill to actually make it to this level.  I don't think the NHL draft takes the amount of skill that professional golf does, but yeah, I do think there's value to getting eyeballs on a player versus just picking off a spreadsheet.  Since no one picks off a spreadsheet, we don't have a test case here.  I think spreadsheet drafting could've straight up beaten older NHL drafts, but man some of those look ugly - we also know now about certain rules changes that made some players better at the expense of others.  

My point about 'scouts looking for the right things' is that I think NHL teams have in the past looked for attributes that to me, do not help NHL teams win games, but these scouts and GMs were convinced that they do.  So when your scouting staff is looking for things that don't help your team win games, it's more likely that they pick players who don't help your team win games.  But sometimes they do anyway, because they're not entirely focused on that side stuff and everyone knows you've got to score goals and stop them in order to win games, so they're also looking for players who do that.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, vadvlfan said:

Not sure who (scout)  it was, but someone said Tedenby, Josefson,  can't think of the D-mans name (starts w/ U) the next coming. None panned out even close. Therefore whoever was the Euro scout that lobbied for these guys,  sucked. 

The d-man you're thinking of is Urbom, but he was a third round pick.  But their ability to pick anyone from any country was horrible from 2005 through 2015.  Even if you take out Nico, there's a pretty good chance that two drafts under Castron and his group will produce more quality NHL players than Conte's last ten, and two of his involved top six picks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.