Stickytape
New member
Kind of a nothing question, but do you think Marner will wear 93?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nik the Trik said:Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:If you can tell me with a straight face that going into this draft you expected that a player of the caliber of Dermott would be our second pick, then I'll eat my old Leafs ball cap I wear when I mow the lawn.
Well, I mean, that depends on his caliber which we've both admitted we actually know nothing about.
The two players I was hoping the Leafs would take at #24 actually got drafted at #46 and #60. So clearly my pre-draft preferences didn't really jive much with how actual NHL scouts evaluated these players.
Again though, you're essentially ignoring the actual reason the Leafs made these trades. If they'd wanted the #24 pick in the draft, they'd have kept it. They thought that the #34, #61 and #68 picks were more valuable and if you'd asked me that before the draft, I'd have probably agreed.
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:And the three guys together are only "better" than hypothetical 24 if their cumulative positive impact is greater than 24's. And even that is very debatable, that dudes self published study notwithstanding.
Well, no, it's not debatable. Because we'd be debating the future. Again, this isn't an argument between you thinking he's a bad prospect and me thinking he's a good one. It's you thinking he's a bad prospect whose selection undermines the entire draft and me saying you have no idea what you're talking about because we don't know enough about any of these guys and what they'll do to provide that sort of hyperbolic instant analysis.
You seem to sort of be jumbling two different complaints. One, that Dermott is a bad choice at #34 and two, that the Leafs shouldn't have traded down to #34 to begin with. As to the latter, I disagree. Like I said, the Leafs could have traded down to #34 and taken either of the guys I was hoping they'd taken at #24 and there were other prospects like Harkins available who were rated quite highly pre-draft. So trading down to #34 didn't affect their ability to take a prospect I'd have been happy with at #24 so the fact that they traded down to #34 and were able to draft two additional high upside prospects because of it seems on its face a good thing.
As to the former complaint, I really think to justify your reaction you need something more substantive than "the aggregated scouting rankings might have this guy 8 or 9 places lower than where they drafted him".
It would be kind of cool, but really, I can't see it happeningStickytape said:Kind of a nothing question, but do you think Marner will wear 93?
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:Another part of the disagreement is whether, given the fact that they apparently decided he was the guy they really wanted to pick second this year (which boggles my mind, but there you have it), they could have accomplished that with the next pick after 34. It seems like a risk worth taking, to try to squeeze in another, higher-rated guy before taking Dermott.
Nik the Trik said:Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:Another part of the disagreement is whether, given the fact that they apparently decided he was the guy they really wanted to pick second this year (which boggles my mind, but there you have it), they could have accomplished that with the next pick after 34. It seems like a risk worth taking, to try to squeeze in another, higher-rated guy before taking Dermott.
Except that almost certainly wouldn't have happened. Their next pick was at 61. 7 of the 8 scouting services you and LK mentioned had him ranked higher than that. The aggregate ranking, which you seem to think is pretty important, would have had him anywhere from 10-20 spots before then. It also assumes that these teams don't really know what other teams are thinking about players when the Leafs decision to take Dermott where they did was almost certainly informed at least in part by what they knew other teams thought of him.
And, again, you're just flat-out ignoring the reason to trade down because it doesn't suit your narrative. Picking Dermott doesn't necessarily mean he was "the player" they wanted to target. What it means was that he was one of a group of players they were happy with, who they thought would be available when they made the pick and resultingly, they could supplement the draft with other picks. Again, Bracco and Dzierkals play into this conversation. Their value is key when weighing Dermott against all of these terrific prospects you think the Leafs should have taken at 24.
But please, don't try to walk it back too much. You didn't just say "he was the wrong player to target". You said his selection undermined everything else the Leafs did. That's just nonsense.
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:Not only do I SEEM to think the aggregate opinion of scouts is important, it is important. As opposed to, say, your random opinion.
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:I shouldn't have to remind you that every pick is important but especially the highest ones.
The skill, we need more skill on our team. You get a big, strong guy and it?s hard to develop their skill. The guys that do have skill, you can develop them physically and get them stronger. That?s how I look at it. I think Detroit has been doing that for years. You can get them stronger but you can?t put hockey sense in a player.
The rules have changed and the skilled players have a better chance to get things done on the ice.
Highlander said:Agreed totally with Herman, does anyone know whom will be Marlie bound or are most like Marner going to play on their junior or Swedish league teams for the next year(s).
Highlander said:Agreed totally with Herman, does anyone know whom will be Marlie bound or are most like Marner going to play on their junior or Swedish league teams for the next year(s).
Volx said:More about Leafs new latvian prospect http://volx2.tumblr.com/post/122681063203/martins-dzierkals-zem-lupas