Cody Hodgson

[nfreeman]

Just to play Devils advocate, I'm guessing you picked the players you did because they are the best ones from that draft after Kassian. It would appear that at least half the other GM's suck at it too.

 

You're right -- there were plenty of washouts drafted after Kassian too.  And it wouldn't be fair to draw any conclusions based on one draft.  My point is that over a lengthy period, Darcy consistently fared poorly in drafting forwards -- and that in evaluating the Kassian/Hodgson debacle, it's fair to include the original drafting sin.

That pick might be a good illustration of focusing too much on need at the draft.

The Sabres clearly were in desperate need of a power forward. Kassian was the consensus as the most talented tough guy available.

Most fans were ecstatic with the pick, me included.

 

Indeed.  But GMs don't get evaluated by how happy the fans are on draft day.  They need to make the right picks and assemble good teams. 

 

I find Darcy guilty on both counts.

[Iron Crotch]

Yes they lost a ton of talent with Vrbata, Riberio and Klinkhammer.

 

That would be like the Sabres losing Ennis, Girgensons and Stewart.

 

To discuss two threads at once (trade speculation thread), Ribero is a guy everyone said "oh, he has problems" and "oh, he is a bad locker room guy"...  David Poile signed him for only $1 million per year and the dude is playing absolutely spectacular hockey this year for the Preds (GWG yesterday) and by all accounts fits in very well with his new teammates.

 

I think there is a 99% chance CoHo gets bought out this summer.  The only way to avoid that would be to somehow trade him for a late-round draft pick.  But, I highly doubt any team would do that knowing they could get him for cheaper after the buy-out.

[TrueBlueGED]

Just to play Devils advocate, I'm guessing you picked the players you did because they are the best ones from that draft after Kassian. It would appear that at least half the other GM's suck at it too.

Just going off of this, I tend to be pretty skeptical about any GM's ability to consistently "beat the market" with projecting what 17 year olds look like to 24 year old professionals. Detroit routinely has a farm system which seems to overperform relative to their usual draft position, but just looking at it on face I have a real hard time coming up with any other team that seems to consistently find good forwards year after year.

[inkman]

Just going off of this, I tend to be pretty skeptical about any GM's ability to consistently "beat the market" with projecting what 17 year olds look like to 24 year old professionals. Detroit routinely has a farm system which seems to overperform relative to their usual draft position, but just looking at it on face I have a real hard time coming up with any other team that seems to consistently find good forwards year after year.

I think we've all come to the consensus that after the top (5-15) depending on year, it really is just a crap shoot. Now what I need in a GM is when he hits on a guy after that point in the draft, they aren't passengers like Pominville, Vanek, Stafford or Roy. I need driver, yes, most come from the lottery but landing a top six good possession physical player later in the draft brings you from also ran to cup contender.

[nfreeman]

Just going off of this, I tend to be pretty skeptical about any GM's ability to consistently "beat the market" with projecting what 17 year olds look like to 24 year old professionals. Detroit routinely has a farm system which seems to overperform relative to their usual draft position, but just looking at it on face I have a real hard time coming up with any other team that seems to consistently find good forwards year after year.

OK, but would you agree that there is an average, and some are better than average while others are worse? And that in many cases, those who are above average are not there by accident?

 

Darcy's 1st round forwards:

 

1999-- Barrett Heisten -- #15

2000 -- artem Kryukov --#22

2001 -- Jiri Novotny -- #20

2002 -- Paille -- #20

2003 -- Vanek -- #5

2004 -- Stafford -- #13

2005 -- Marek Zagrapan -- #13

2008 -- Ennis -- #26

2009 -- Kassian -- #13

2011 -- Armia -- #16

2012 -- Griggy -- #12

2012 -- zemgus -- #14

 

 

So -- out of a dozen forwards in the first round, we have:

 

Zero great players

3 good players (Vanek, Ennis, Zemgus)

2 incompletes (Griggy and Armia)

2 journeymen (Paille and Stafford)

5 washouts (Heisten, Kryukov, Novotny, Zagrapan, Kassian)

 

That is freaking terrible no matter how you slice it.

 

I highly doubt there have been many other GMs in NHL history who got to run 17 drafts and who did that poorly.

[deluca67]

That pick might be a good illustration of focusing too much on need at the draft.

The Sabres clearly were in desperate need of a power forward. Kassian was the consensus as the most talented tough guy available.

Most fans were ecstatic with the pick, me included.

Most fans were ecstatic, myself included, because Kassian was so far outside the model of the typical Regier player. My biggest contention of the trade was that it symbolized Regier beginning to backtrack by moving an then unknown asset for another soft forward. Kassian has disappointed many during his time in Vancouver, Hodgson has completely disappeared. Hodgson's contract is the only thing keeping him on an NHL roster at this point. He needs to be in the AHL finding his passion and learning to play the game.  

[qwksndmonster]

Most fans were ecstatic, myself included, because Kassian was so far outside the model of the typical Regier player. My biggest contention of the trade was that it symbolized Regier beginning to backtrack by moving an then unknown asset for another soft forward. Kassian has disappointed many during his time in Vancouver, Hodgson has completely disappeared. Hodgson's contract is the only thing keeping him on an NHL roster at this point. He needs to be in the AHL finding his passion and learning to play the game.  

Hodgson needs to be away from Ted Nolan if he's going to remember how to play hockey again.

[bunomatic]

Hodgsons problem isn't Ted Nolan his problem is himself. I'm not sure you can coach fire or passion into someone. Imo thats whats lacking from this kid. Seems like he's going through the motions.

[Marvelo]

 

So -- out of a dozen forwards in the first round, we have:

 

Zero great players

3 good players (Vanek, Ennis, Zemgus)

2 incompletes (Griggy and Armia)

2 journeymen (Paille and Stafford)

5 washouts (Heisten, Kryukov, Novotny, Zagrapan, Kassian)

 

That is freaking terrible no matter how you slice it.

 

I highly doubt there have been many other GMs in NHL history who got to run 17 drafts and who did that poorly.

 

 

Speaking of Artem "The Russian Concussion" Kryukov, look at these career stats in the RSL and KHL. We are not worthy!  :worthy:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artem_Kryukov

[Jsixspd]

Yes they lost a ton of talent with Vrbata, Riberio and Klinkhammer.

 

That would be like the Sabres losing Ennis, Girgensons and Stewart.

That's too reasonable and logical. It detracts from my "It's Darcy's Fault" message.    ;)

[LGR4GM]

OK, but would you agree that there is an average, and some are better than average while others are worse? And that in many cases, those who are above average are not there by accident?

 

Darcy's 1st round forwards:

 

1999-- Barrett Heisten -- #15

2000 -- artem Kryukov --#22

2001 -- Jiri Novotny -- #20

2002 -- Paille -- #20

2003 -- Vanek -- #5

2004 -- Stafford -- #13

2005 -- Marek Zagrapan -- #13

2008 -- Ennis -- #26

2009 -- Kassian -- #13

2011 -- Armia -- #16

2012 -- Griggy -- #12

2012 -- zemgus -- #14

 

 

So -- out of a dozen forwards in the first round, we have:

 

Zero great players

3 good players (Vanek, Ennis, Zemgus)

2 incompletes (Griggy and Armia)

2 journeymen (Paille and Stafford)

5 washouts (Heisten, Kryukov, Novotny, Zagrapan, Kassian)

 

That is freaking terrible no matter how you slice it.

 

I highly doubt there have been many other GMs in NHL history who got to run 17 drafts and who did that poorly.

So basically I see that DR was an idiot when it came to drafting. 

[inkman]

So basically I see that DR was an idiot when it came to drafting.

I'm not sure he's any worse than the rest of the lot

[TrueBlueGED]

OK, but would you agree that there is an average, and some are better than average while others are worse? And that in many cases, those who are above average are not there by accident?

 

Darcy's 1st round forwards:

 

1999-- Barrett Heisten -- #15

2000 -- artem Kryukov --#22

2001 -- Jiri Novotny -- #20

2002 -- Paille -- #20

2003 -- Vanek -- #5

2004 -- Stafford -- #13

2005 -- Marek Zagrapan -- #13

2008 -- Ennis -- #26

2009 -- Kassian -- #13

2011 -- Armia -- #16

2012 -- Griggy -- #12

2012 -- zemgus -- #14

 

 

So -- out of a dozen forwards in the first round, we have:

 

Zero great players

3 good players (Vanek, Ennis, Zemgus)

2 incompletes (Griggy and Armia)

2 journeymen (Paille and Stafford)

5 washouts (Heisten, Kryukov, Novotny, Zagrapan, Kassian)

 

That is freaking terrible no matter how you slice it.

 

I highly doubt there have been many other GMs in NHL history who got to run 17 drafts and who did that poorly.

 

I'm not sure he's any worse than the rest of the lot

 

What Ink said. After pick 10, players drafted are a coin flip to even make the NHL, and if they do make it the most likely outcome is 3rd line player. Regier's spread (and I disagree with your rankings of Vanek and Stafford in particular) looks pretty normal to me--if you traced every team 10 years I doubt you find many appreciably better in the range those players were picked. Better players taken in the ballpark? Sure. Those better players consistently going to the same team? Probably not.

[nfreeman]

What Ink said. After pick 10, players drafted are a coin flip to even make the NHL, and if they do make it the most likely outcome is 3rd line player. Regier's spread (and I disagree with your rankings of Vanek and Stafford in particular) looks pretty normal to me--if you traced every team 10 years I doubt you find many appreciably better in the range those players were picked. Better players taken in the ballpark? Sure. Those better players consistently going to the same team? Probably not.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree -- on Vanek (who DR selected #5 in a loaded draft ahead of many players who turned out to have better careers) and Stafford (who had one good year, not-coincidentally in a contract year, and who has been a huge disappointment in a top-6 role), and especially on Darcy.  He had 17 freaking years worth of #1 picks and delivered 3 good forwards.  I just don't see how you can make excuses for that level of production -- especially with no data to back it up.

[LGR4GM]

We'll have to agree to disagree -- on Vanek (who DR selected #5 in a loaded draft ahead of many players who turned out to have better careers) and Stafford (who had one good year, not-coincidentally in a contract year, and who has been a huge disappointment in a top-6 role), and especially on Darcy.  He had 17 freaking years worth of #1 picks and delivered 3 good forwards.  I just don't see how you can make excuses for that level of production -- especially with no data to back it up.

I agree with you.  I also note that in 2012 when Kevin Devine became head of Amateur Scouting, things changed.  He pushed Darcy for Zemgus and Zadorov (we have video evidence of this 2nd one) and was also the one who keyed on Ristolainen.  Now last year you could say GMTM ran most of the 1st 2 rounds but if Devine managed to get Zemgus, Zadorov, Ristolainen and 1 of the seconds to hit in the 2 years he was in charge that is pretty good numbers for him.

 

PS. I know for Darcy we were just talking forwards but I think the larger picture is also interesting.

[qwksndmonster]

Hodgsons problem isn't Ted Nolan his problem is himself. I'm not sure you can coach fire or passion into someone. Imo thats whats lacking from this kid. Seems like he's going through the motions.

I don't think Hodgson is ever going to be a blood and guts player and have the fire.  He was a fine complimentary piece on our terrible team last year, though, so what happened?   I certainly don't blame Nolan, some players and coaches just don't mesh.

[TrueBlueGED]

We'll have to agree to disagree -- on Vanek (who DR selected #5 in a loaded draft ahead of many players who turned out to have better careers) and Stafford (who had one good year, not-coincidentally in a contract year, and who has been a huge disappointment in a top-6 role), and especially on Darcy.  He had 17 freaking years worth of #1 picks and delivered 3 good forwards.  I just don't see how you can make excuses for that level of production -- especially with no data to back it up.

 

I'm going to make an assumption here that you think Detroit is a quality drafting team. Well, they haven't taken a forward as good as or better than Stafford in the 1st round since Keith Primeau 3rd overall in 1990. 

[bunomatic]

I don't think Hodgson is ever going to be a blood and guts player and have the fire.  He was a fine complimentary piece on our terrible team last year, though, so what happened?   I certainly don't blame Nolan, some players and coaches just don't mesh.

Thats true. I view ol hodgy as a wet noodle. Really does nothing for the team in its current state which can be said for many of the players. I'm hoping that as they build this team even the complimentary pieces will have that fire. 

[nfreeman]

I'm going to make an assumption here that you think Detroit is a quality drafting team. Well, they haven't taken a forward as good as or better than Stafford in the 1st round since Keith Primeau 3rd overall in 1990. 

 

Are you joking, or just deliberately misleading?  Detroit took 2 forwards in the 1st round during the SEVENTEEN-YEAR Darcy period, and both (Sheahan and Mantha) are better than Stafford.

[Patty16]

Are you joking, or just deliberately misleading?  Detroit took 2 forwards in the 1st round during the SEVENTEEN-YEAR Darcy period, and both (Sheahan and Mantha) are better than Stafford.

 

They are?

They are prospects, with 18 NHL goals combined.   Mantha could be better at some point, just like many thought Armia would when we took him

[dudacek]

Are you joking, or just deliberately misleading?  Detroit took 2 forwards in the 1st round during the SEVENTEEN-YEAR Darcy period, and both (Sheahan and Mantha) are better than Stafford.

 

No. They are expected to be better than Stafford.

One has played at similar level to what Stafford did in his first two seasons.

The other has never played an NHL game.  

 

Interestingly enough, Sheahan was Darcy's target the year we took Pysyk. Detroit swooped in and picked him just in front of us.

[TrueBlueGED]

Are you joking, or just deliberately misleading?  Detroit took 2 forwards in the 1st round during the SEVENTEEN-YEAR Darcy period, and both (Sheahan and Mantha) are better than Stafford.

 

To be completely honest, I was lazy. I just looked at the drafted players and their NHL production without clicking on each to see their position (for reference, I used this: http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/draft.html).

 

The more general point is they have just as many total washouts with high picks, and quite the dearth of great players. I feel like you (and plenty of others) expect 1st round picks to be top-6 players like clockwork, and that's just not what history has taught us about the draft. Dan Paille being a great 4th liner and borderline 3rd liner at pick #20? It's about what you should expect. Drew Stafford averaging over .5ppg at 13 overall? That's a good pick. And so on.

 

If identifying talent is a GM or organiation-level skill...why don't the Ducks have 3 more Corey Perrys skating around the organization? I'm sorry but getting a player of that caliber where they got him is not a repeatable skill, it's luck. 

[nfreeman]

They are?

They are prospects, with 18 NHL goals combined.   Mantha could be better at some point, just like many thought Armia would when we took him

No. They are expected to be better than Stafford.

One has played at similar level to what Stafford did in his first two seasons.

The other has never played an NHL game.  

 

Interestingly enough, Sheahan was Darcy's target the year we took Pysyk. Detroit swooped in and picked him just in front of us.

 

Well, Sheahan is much younger and has the same production this year, in less ice time, than Stafford (and was pretty close last year too if you prorate games played).

 

Would any NHL GM that had Sheahan or Mantha trade either of those players for Stafford?

 

To be completely honest, I was lazy. I just looked at the drafted players and their NHL production without clicking on each to see their position (for reference, I used this: http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/draft.html).

 

The more general point is they have just as many total washouts with high picks, and quite the dearth of great players. I feel like you (and plenty of others) expect 1st round picks to be top-6 players like clockwork, and that's just not what history has taught us about the draft. Dan Paille being a great 4th liner and borderline 3rd liner at pick #20? It's about what you should expect. Drew Stafford averaging over .5ppg at 13 overall? That's a good pick. And so on.

 

If identifying talent is a GM or organiation-level skill...why don't the Ducks have 3 more Corey Perrys skating around the organization? I'm sorry but getting a player of that caliber where they got him is not a repeatable skill, it's luck. 

 

Not like clockwork, but substantially more often than what Darcy produced.

 

And the Corey Perry example is a straw man.  There's a huge difference between a solid top-6 forward and an MVP-level player -- and of course no one expects a team to regularly find MVP-level players drafted outside the top 5.  But 3 good forwards in 17 years is unacceptably poor performance -- and I don't think it can be explained away as simply a matter of good luck/bad luck.  Some luck?  Of course.  But not the whole thing -- if that were the case, why bother having a scouting department at all?  Why not just buy McKean's for $20 and just tick down their rankings? 

[TrueBlueGED]

Well, Sheahan is much younger and has the same production this year, in less ice time, than Stafford (and was pretty close last year too if you prorate games played).

 

Would any NHL GM that had Sheahan or Mantha trade either of those players for Stafford?

 

 

Not like clockwork, but substantially more often than what Darcy produced.

 

And the Corey Perry example is a straw man.  There's a huge difference between a solid top-6 forward and an MVP-level player -- and of course no one expects a team to regularly find MVP-level players drafted outside the top 5.  But 3 good forwards in 17 years is unacceptably poor performance -- and I don't think it can be explained away as simply a matter of good luck/bad luck.  Some luck?  Of course.  But not the whole thing -- if that were the case, why bother having a scouting department at all?  Why not just buy McKean's for $20 and just tick down their rankings? 

 

And much like your Detroit rebuttal, it's not like Regier was taking a forward every single year. And FWIW, I do think teams could aggregate various "amateur" scouts' opinions (people like Corey Pronman, for instance) and do essentially as well as having a huge scouting staff. You'll undoubtedly miss out on some diamonds in the rough that very few people watch play, but when you're trying to project what kind of pros 17 year old kids will be 8 years down the line, I think there's a truly overwhelming degree of luck involved.

[nfreeman]

And much like your Detroit rebuttal, it's not like Regier was taking a forward every single year. And FWIW, I do think teams could aggregate various "amateur" scouts' opinions (people like Corey Pronman, for instance) and do essentially as well as having a huge scouting staff. You'll undoubtedly miss out on some diamonds in the rough that very few people watch play, but when you're trying to project what kind of pros 17 year old kids will be 8 years down the line, I think there's a truly overwhelming degree of luck involved.

 

Detroit took 2 -- both of whom are more highly valued by NHL GMs than Stafford (I'll assume you agree with this) -- in 17 years, while Darcy took 12.  That's a huge difference.