Author Topic: Mitch Marner: what now?  (Read 38097 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Guilt Trip

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 3583
  • CarltonTheBear was...
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #870 on: July 03, 2019, 12:49:29 AM »
That's a good idea. Save a percentage on the cap by developing players.

TMLfans.ca

Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #870 on: July 03, 2019, 12:49:29 AM »

Offline Nik Bethune

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26041
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #871 on: July 03, 2019, 03:00:39 AM »
While Nik's point makes intuitive sense, the counterargument would be that the 1, 4, and 8 (at least) picks hardly represent player "development" --  you, me, and Joe Blow from Kokomo could have made those choices and then sat back and watch 34, 16, and 29 unroll their natural talents.

An argument so mind-bendingly wrong it falls apart if you look at any one draft in isolation, let alone a pattern of them. Be sure to mention to the Oilers how idiot-proof drafting in the top 10 is.
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

Offline OldTimeHockey

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 2472
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #872 on: July 03, 2019, 05:49:11 AM »
While Nik's point makes intuitive sense, the counterargument would be that the 1, 4, and 8 (at least) picks hardly represent player "development" --  you, me, and Joe Blow from Kokomo could have made those choices and then sat back and watch 34, 16, and 29 unroll their natural talents.

An argument so mind-bendingly wrong it falls apart if you look at any one draft in isolation, let alone a pattern of them. Be sure to mention to the Oilers how idiot-proof drafting in the top 10 is.

What's crazy about the Oilers, and something I didn't realize until an article I read yesterday, is they are also in cap hell and can't sign players to try to push them into a playoff spot, never mind contention.

Online Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 17442
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #873 on: July 03, 2019, 09:12:21 AM »
While Nik's point makes intuitive sense, the counterargument would be that the 1, 4, and 8 (at least) picks hardly represent player "development" --  you, me, and Joe Blow from Kokomo could have made those choices and then sat back and watch 34, 16, and 29 unroll their natural talents.

An argument so mind-bendingly wrong it falls apart if you look at any one draft in isolation, let alone a pattern of them. Be sure to mention to the Oilers how idiot-proof drafting in the top 10 is.

They failed to develop their 10-ten picks, huh? I'll wait with rapt anticipation your precise explanation of exactly what they did that ruined, I say ruined, Yakupov and Puljujarvi -- who would be superstars today if only they had been chosen to by some other team.

Or, you know, maybe their "idiocy" was in who they drafted.  Except, as you should know, it isn't idiocy -- because scouting isn't physics. 

Either way, my idea rewards teams that actually do develop players that are (supposedly) less talented.

Offline Nik Bethune

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26041
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #874 on: July 03, 2019, 09:17:00 AM »
They failed to develop their 10-ten picks, huh? I'll wait with rapt anticipation your precise explanation of exactly what they did that ruined, I say ruined, Yakupov and Puljujarvi -- who would be superstars today if only they had been chosen to by some other team.

Or, you know, maybe their "idiocy" was in who they drafted.  Except, as you should know, it isn't idiocy -- because scouting isn't physics. 

Which is of course what is just so hilariously contradictory about what you're saying. On the one hand, top 10 picks aren't developed at all by the teams they're drafted by. They're fully formed hockey geniuses that any idiot or Joe Schmoe can take. On the other teams of highly paid hockey evaluators regularly can't identify these fully developed undeniably destined for greatness all-stars. They may as well draft with a dart board!

Kudos though. Usually you just pick one thing to be wrong about.

The only thing your idea does is draw entirely meaningless distinctions based on arbitrary round numbers.
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

Offline Zee

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 12033
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #875 on: July 03, 2019, 09:23:07 AM »
It's fun to look back on past drafts and where guys were expected to go vs. how they're currently doing. I remember the Matthews draft year the "consensus" was

1. Matthews
2. Laine
3. Puljujarvi

That was supposed to be the lock, but Columbus "reached" taking Dubois 3rd overall which had people freaking out cause Puljujarvi dropped to the Oilers.  It's funny that had the Oilers originally had the 3rd pick they probably would have still taken Puljujarvi, and look how that's turned out so far.  I guess the Columbus scouts knew what they were doing going for Dubois.  Puljujarvi may still turn out to be a good NHLer but so far the Columbus scouting should get a pat on the back for that pick even though it was really high in the draft and supposed to be "easy" to make a pick there.

Offline Nik Bethune

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26041
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #876 on: July 03, 2019, 09:27:40 AM »
It's fun to look back on past drafts and where guys were expected to go vs. how they're currently doing. I remember the Matthews draft year the "consensus" was

1. Matthews
2. Laine
3. Puljujarvi

That was supposed to be the lock, but Columbus "reached" taking Dubois 3rd overall which had people freaking out cause Puljujarvi dropped to the Oilers.  It's funny that had the Oilers originally had the 3rd pick they probably would have still taken Puljujarvi, and look how that's turned out so far.  I guess the Columbus scouts knew what they were doing going for Dubois.  Puljujarvi may still turn out to be a good NHLer but so far the Columbus scouting should get a pat on the back for that pick even though it was really high in the draft and supposed to be "easy" to make a pick there.

Well, the Nylander draft is a perfect example of that. There were huge calls for the Leafs to take Ritchie over Nylander and even then that was after everyone apparently agreed that by drafting 8th they would miss out on Jake Virtanen who was going to be the real prize from 6-10.
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

Online Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 17442
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #877 on: July 03, 2019, 09:44:22 AM »
They failed to develop their 10-ten picks, huh? I'll wait with rapt anticipation your precise explanation of exactly what they did that ruined, I say ruined, Yakupov and Puljujarvi -- who would be superstars today if only they had been chosen to by some other team.

Or, you know, maybe their "idiocy" was in who they drafted.  Except, as you should know, it isn't idiocy -- because scouting isn't physics. 

Which is of course what is just so hilariously contradictory about what you're saying. On the one hand, top 10 picks aren't developed at all by the teams they're drafted by. They're fully formed hockey geniuses that any idiot or Joe Schmoe can take. On the other teams of highly paid hockey evaluators regularly can't identify these fully developed undeniably destined for greatness all-stars. They may as well draft with a dart board!

Kudos though. Usually you just pick one thing to be wrong about.

The only thing your idea does is draw entirely meaningless distinctions based on arbitrary round numbers.

Ladies and gents, at this point Nik has two options:

1.  Try to answer my question, bolded above.  If he dares.
2.  Continue to try to repair his bruised overripe peach of an ego.

Hmmmmm at this point I'm going with #2.


Offline Nik Bethune

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26041
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #878 on: July 03, 2019, 09:50:36 AM »
Ladies and gents, at this point Nik has two options:

1.  Try to answer my question, bolded above.  If he dares.
2.  Continue to try to repair his bruised overripe peach of an ego.

Hmmmmm at this point I'm going with #2.

Excitingly, I'm going with surprise option #3 which is to continue to ignore stupid questions.
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

Online Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 17442
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #879 on: July 03, 2019, 10:00:03 AM »
Ladies and gents, at this point Nik has two options:

1.  Try to answer my question, bolded above.  If he dares.
2.  Continue to try to repair his bruised overripe peach of an ego.

Hmmmmm at this point I'm going with #2.

Excitingly, I'm going with surprise option #3 which is to continue to ignore stupid questions.

Heh.  Never stop being precious, Nik.  It's endearing.

Offline Nik Bethune

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26041
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #880 on: July 03, 2019, 10:04:17 AM »
Heh.  Never stop being precious, Nik.  It's endearing.

I wish I could say the same about you trying to get personal when it's clear that your nonsense has been seen through but, well, I've gotten used to it being your only move.
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

Online CarltonTheBear

  • Administrator
  • Sittler Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 25042
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #881 on: July 03, 2019, 10:07:06 AM »
ZBBM, man, you're reaching here. I really don't get what you're trying to argue. Are you saying Edmonton did nothing wrong in the drafting in development of Yakupov and Puljujarvi? Cause boy that's bad.

Offline herman

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 17640
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #882 on: July 03, 2019, 10:21:01 AM »
They failed to develop their 10-ten picks, huh? I'll wait with rapt anticipation your precise explanation of exactly what they did that ruined, I say ruined, Yakupov and Puljujarvi -- who would be superstars today if only they had been chosen to by some other team.

Good draft picks can always be ruined by expectations and circumstance. They might’ve reached on these picks, but blinded by the slot, treated them according to that number rather than an honest assessment. Edmonton has a track record here that is hard to dispute: too much expectation on their top picks, ridiculously bad handling of teens transitioning to a completely new country, confidence crushed in prime development years, player reputations railroaded and dragged through the mud that is Edmonton media.

The Leafs, to get to where they are today, did both right with 16, 29. Nylander could’ve been dropped into the Carlyle tire fire as a saviour and been burned out for his lack of defense. They let him excel in Sweden and then pulled him into the AHL once Modo started to show no signs of fixing their imminent implosion. Hell, Frederik Gauthier played playoff minutes because of the development program.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2019, 10:26:55 AM by herman »

Offline Nik Bethune

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26041
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #883 on: July 03, 2019, 10:34:53 AM »
They failed to develop their 10-ten picks, huh? I'll wait with rapt anticipation your precise explanation of exactly what they did that ruined, I say ruined, Yakupov and Puljujarvi -- who would be superstars today if only they had been chosen to by some other team.

Good draft picks can always be ruined by expectations and circumstance. They might’ve reached on these picks, but blinded by the slot, treated them according to that number rather than an honest assessment. Edmonton has a track record here that is hard to dispute: too much expectation on their top picks, ridiculously bad handling of teens transitioning to a completely new country, confidence crushed in prime development years, player reputations railroaded and dragged through the mud that is Edmonton media.

The Leafs, to get to where they are today, did both right with 34, 16, 29. Nylander could’ve been dropped into the Carlyle tire fire as a saviour and been burned out for his lack of defense. They let him excel in Sweden and then pulled him into the AHL once Modo started to show no signs of fixing their imminent implosion.

I really didn't want to entertain this nonsense as deserving of dissection but...

There's no question that there is no hard and fast quantifiable proof of what the best way to develop a player is. This is because developing players is a mixture of various approaches that need to be individually suited to every player. David Pastrnak, who very well may be the most successful player from Nylander's draft, did get thrown into the NHL quickly. Nylander didn't.

The problem is in making the leap from "there is no simple formula" to "clearly there's effectively no such thing as player development". Because the question posed here can be applied to anyone. If we're only supposed to give credit for "player development" if a player is drafted outside of the first ten picks, then what specific things did those teams do to develop their players? What did the Leafs do with Johnsson? If they had the secret to develop Johnsson, how come they didn't with guys they took 100 picks ahead of him?

Truth is,  when it comes to player development, all we do is let the narrative serve the facts. Some guys thrive at being thrown in the deep end, for others it's too much too soon. We don't know until we see it. But to deny we've seen it once the results, or lack thereof, are in front of us is just wilful ignorance at best.

The thing is that aside from yet another meaningless detour into semantics that certain posters delight in rather than talking about actual ideas, this isn't even relevant to the point. If "development" is a canard and who does or doesn't succeed is just blind luck, it's still not a reason for a team to be punished because they got particularly lucky in a few drafts in a row.
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

Online Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 17442
    • View Profile
Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #884 on: July 03, 2019, 03:45:40 PM »
They failed to develop their 10-ten picks, huh? I'll wait with rapt anticipation your precise explanation of exactly what they did that ruined, I say ruined, Yakupov and Puljujarvi -- who would be superstars today if only they had been chosen to by some other team.

Good draft picks can always be ruined by expectations and circumstance. They might’ve reached on these picks, but blinded by the slot, treated them according to that number rather than an honest assessment. Edmonton has a track record here that is hard to dispute: too much expectation on their top picks, ridiculously bad handling of teens transitioning to a completely new country, confidence crushed in prime development years, player reputations railroaded and dragged through the mud that is Edmonton media.

The Leafs, to get to where they are today, did both right with 16, 29. Nylander could’ve been dropped into the Carlyle tire fire as a saviour and been burned out for his lack of defense. They let him excel in Sweden and then pulled him into the AHL once Modo started to show no signs of fixing their imminent implosion. Hell, Frederik Gauthier played playoff minutes because of the development program.

So, my claim was that post-draft development "played at best a minor role" with the Leafs' 3 top 10 picks.  I guess we can argue over whether their handling of Marner & Nylander constituted something more than a minor role; I don't think it did, but you disagree, obviously. 

To generalize that, with the examples from EDM, makes our disagreement clearer.  If post-draft player development of top 10 picks is a major factor in success or not, there would have to be some great difference in how EDM handled Yak and Puljujarvi as opposed to say Draisatl and RNG (and of course the jury's still out on Puljujarvi).  Maybe there has been, but I'm skeptical.

Anyway, this is all a side issue to the main point of my original post, which was to suggest there are ways you could conceive of really rewarding teams' player development without getting rid of a salary cap.

TMLfans.ca

Re: Mitch Marner: what now?
« Reply #884 on: July 03, 2019, 03:45:40 PM »