2015 NHL Entry Draft

[princedpw]

Here's a scouting report on Noah Hanifin from Scott Wheeler: http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2015/4/29/8510095/2015-nhl-draft-noah-hanifin-profile-and-scouting-report

This doesn't sound that great:

If he can work on adding an elusive, heavy release, it will be a welcome tool. If not, he's not going to be inhibited as an offensive threat because of it.

What doesn't sound that great about it?  The fact that he won't be held back offensively by the lack of an "elusive, heavy release" doesn't seem bad.

A defenseman' shot speed isn't the thing I'd prioritize.  The elite defensemen like Lidstrom, Doughty, Pronger, Chara , Etc may have good shots but it is really their 3-zone puck possession abilities across the board that makes them so valuable. 

I'm curious to know if there are statistical comparisons for a guy like Hanifin -- same age, college defenseman with similar offensive stats?  Are there NHL allstar defensemen who were in college in the U.S. like Hanifin? How did they perform at the same age.  I wonder if Hanifin is a riskier pick than Strome or Marner because there are fewer comparables?

 

[Joe S.]

Here's a scouting report on Noah Hanifin from Scott Wheeler: http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2015/4/29/8510095/2015-nhl-draft-noah-hanifin-profile-and-scouting-report

This doesn't sound that great:

If he can work on adding an elusive, heavy release, it will be a welcome tool. If not, he's not going to be inhibited as an offensive threat because of it.

What doesn't sound that great about it?  The fact that he won't be held back offensively by the lack of an "elusive, heavy release" doesn't seem bad.

Joe may have missed the "won't be held back"...I misread it as "he'll be held back offensively".

Yup. That's exactly it. I misread it.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Here's a scouting report on Noah Hanifin from Scott Wheeler: http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2015/4/29/8510095/2015-nhl-draft-noah-hanifin-profile-and-scouting-report

This doesn't sound that great:

If he can work on adding an elusive, heavy release, it will be a welcome tool. If not, he's not going to be inhibited as an offensive threat because of it.

What doesn't sound that great about it?  The fact that he won't be held back offensively by the lack of an "elusive, heavy release" doesn't seem bad.

Joe may have missed the "won't be held back"...I misread it as "he'll be held back offensively".

Yup. That's exactly it. I misread it.

But you read it correctly when I wrote, "Joe, he's Luke Schenn!", right?

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

And you, mister, have just insured the Leafs draft Crouse with their first pick.  Leafs Nation thanks you. 

Come on man, be real, we all know that if the Leafs draft Crouse it'll be Kessel's fault.

Feschuk - Why the Maple Leafs HAD to WASTE the 4th overall pick to protect first line fatty.

 

[freer]

And you, mister, have just insured the Leafs draft Crouse with their first pick.  Leafs Nation thanks you. 

Come on man, be real, we all know that if the Leafs draft Crouse it'll be Kessel's fault.

Feschuk - Why the Maple Leafs HAD to WASTE the 4th overall pick to protect first line fatty.

It is just too bad that Kessel won't be around come next season. So Crouse I think NOT!

 

[Highlander]

Any pro athelete didnt get to pro level being a "loser".  Doesn't anyone here feel that Phil has something to prove, after the shipwreck of a season we just went through. He has stated time and again he wants to remain here. The question is "remain here to be part of the problem" or "part of the solution".
We are going to have a new coach and a new GM (more than likely) so everyone will have something to prove, at least the few who remain.
Kessel is still a pure sniper and exciting to watch.  I think he will rebound and if he does enough, his trade value next year will  increase, dramatically.
Kessels don't grow on trees and I don't want to give him away for a 6th.

 

[Pick]

And that's where you and I differ. Why is Montreal a ridiculous benchmark? Isn't that where we'd like to be? Would you be happy with second place?

Because it's a level of success born out of a different era. It's not repeatable and it's not a reasonable expectation to have. Every team can't be the most successful team. 

But even still, that's when we get back to the central theme here. The issue isn't whether or not the Leafs have been successful or really even how successful they've been, it's why they haven't been successful. On one side is reasonable, consistent and logical explanations and on yours it's...nothing. No explanation. Just vague references to culture and curses.

I've been around a long time my friend and witnessed all the eras I write about. I remember a time when we were the best. Can you say the same?

No. Of course, I wasn't around for the Titanic either but I'm pretty sure it sank because of an Iceberg and not sea monsters.

You seem like the kind of guy who likes to have the last word. You also don't read and understand my posts. I never talked of sea monsters. Cultural issues are very real and anybody in industry knows what I mean.

Do yourself a favor. Check-out the Leafs winning percentage since '67. Where do they fall overall compared to other teams? Are they in the top 50% or bottom? are they in the bottom 33%.

You'll find that the Leafs are in the bottom 33%. How does a team in the center of the hockey universe stink so bad for so long?

If you look at the big picture you'll soon reject the 'logical', 'reasonable' excuses you provide. The problem lies elsewhere and sea monsters are not needed to provide the cause.

Leafs problems go beyond the hockey department and up to the upper management level. That's why so many 'hockey' people haven't been successful here. The strong ones, the ones who could confidently shove the shirts aside were successful. Those men were Imlach and Quinn and Fletcher for a short period. Otherwise, as Paul Maurice commented a while ago about his time with the Leafs: "....I never had control of that team....there were too many people around...."

Go ahead, have the last word but keep in mind that I have argued with people like you for almost 50 years. The counter-arguments remain the same and so does the losing. I've got history on my side.

 

[PCB]

And that's where you and I differ. Why is Montreal a ridiculous benchmark? Isn't that where we'd like to be? Would you be happy with second place?

Because it's a level of success born out of a different era. It's not repeatable and it's not a reasonable expectation to have. Every team can't be the most successful team. 

But even still, that's when we get back to the central theme here. The issue isn't whether or not the Leafs have been successful or really even how successful they've been, it's why they haven't been successful. On one side is reasonable, consistent and logical explanations and on yours it's...nothing. No explanation. Just vague references to culture and curses.

I've been around a long time my friend and witnessed all the eras I write about. I remember a time when we were the best. Can you say the same?

No. Of course, I wasn't around for the Titanic either but I'm pretty sure it sank because of an Iceberg and not sea monsters.

You seem like the kind of guy who likes to have the last word. You also don't read and understand my posts. I never talked of sea monsters. Cultural issues are very real and anybody in industry knows what I mean.

Do yourself a favor. Check-out the Leafs winning percentage since '67. Where do they fall overall compared to other teams? Are they in the top 50% or bottom? are they in the bottom 33%.

You'll find that the Leafs are in the bottom 33%. How does a team in the center of the hockey universe stink so bad for so long?

If you look at the big picture you'll soon reject the 'logical', 'reasonable' excuses you provide. The problem lies elsewhere and sea monsters are not needed to provide the cause.

Leafs problems go beyond the hockey department and up to the upper management level. That's why so many 'hockey' people haven't been successful here. The strong ones, the ones who could confidently shove the shirts aside were successful. Those men were Imlach and Quinn and Fletcher for a short period. Otherwise, as Paul Maurice commented a while ago about his time with the Leafs: "....I never had control of that team....there were too many people around...."

Go ahead, have the last word but keep in mind that I have argued with people like you for almost 50 years. The counter-arguments remain the same and so does the losing. I've got history on my side.

Bravo Pick, well said and right on target.

 

[Kin]

You seem like the kind of guy who likes to have the last word. You also don't read and understand my posts. I never talked of sea monsters.

Yes. That was an metaphor. One doesn't need to live through something to understand something.

Do yourself a favor. Check-out the Leafs winning percentage since '67. Where do they fall overall compared to other teams? Are they in the top 50% or bottom? are they in the bottom 33%.

Again, whether or not the Leafs have been particularly successful is not being disputed.

You'll find that the Leafs are in the bottom 33%. How does a team in the center of the hockey universe stink so bad for so long?

For half that time it was because of a crazy owner who sabotaged the team. For the rest of the time they had intermittent periods of reasonable success when they had competent management and then periods of failure when they had incompetent management. It's not rocket science.

And, to head things off, "it's not rocket science" is an idiom. Not a contention that you mentioned rocket science.

Leafs problems go beyond the hockey department and up to the upper management level.

Again, not a dispute. I've referenced Ballard about a dozen times now without you acknowledging it. Ownership bears a great deal of the blame, not a disputed point.

The counter-arguments remain the same and so does the losing.

For this to be a counter argument, you first have to make an argument. You haven't. You've made vague and meaningless references to "elsewhere" and a "big picture". Those aren't arguments. They're not contentions. There's not even a supposition. It's just rambling nonsense.

 

[Pick]

You seem like the kind of guy who likes to have the last word. You also don't read and understand my posts. I never talked of sea monsters.

Yes. That was an metaphor. One doesn't need to live through something to understand something.

Do yourself a favor. Check-out the Leafs winning percentage since '67. Where do they fall overall compared to other teams? Are they in the top 50% or bottom? are they in the bottom 33%.

Again, whether or not the Leafs have been particularly successful is not being disputed.

You'll find that the Leafs are in the bottom 33%. How does a team in the center of the hockey universe stink so bad for so long?

For half that time it was because of a crazy owner who sabotaged the team. For the rest of the time they had intermittent periods of reasonable success when they had competent management and then periods of failure when they had incompetent management. It's not rocket science.

And, to head things off, "it's not rocket science" is an idiom. Not a contention that you mentioned rocket science.

Leafs problems go beyond the hockey department and up to the upper management level.

Again, not a dispute. I've referenced Ballard about a dozen times now without you acknowledging it. Ownership bears a great deal of the blame, not a disputed point.

The counter-arguments remain the same and so does the losing.

For this to be a counter argument, you first have to make an argument. You haven't. You've made vague and meaningless references to "elsewhere" and a "big picture". Those aren't arguments. They're not contentions. There's not even a supposition. It's just rambling nonsense.

If the reasons given are vague its because I don't work in the upper offices of MLSE to fully understand the problems. I have enough experience to offer suggestions, but these can never be verified so why bother? We're just Leaf fans exchanging thoughts for fun.

My argument is easy to understand really, and it's not anything new but I'm not sure I know what your argument is anymore. Reading your last post...it sounds like you agree with me.

 

[Kin]

My argument is easy to understand really, and it's not anything new but I'm not sure I know what your argument is anymore. Reading your last post...it sounds like you agree with me.

My position has never changed. What happened under Ballard is irrelevant to what's happening now. The Leafs are as capable of putting together a winning team as anyone else if they have competent management and ownership. What's plagued them over the last 25 years has been poor management decisions brought on by an ownership group that wasn't interested in rebuilding. If they hire the right hockey people, give them the latitude to make decisions and fund the team properly there's nothing inherent to the market or the franchise that will prevent success.

If "it's ownership" had been your position that would have been easy to state. That's not vague. It wasn't and now you're backtracking and that's fine.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

The more I read about him the more I'm hoping the Leafs can move a Kessel or Phanuef + the NSH pick to a team in the 7-12 range for Matthew Barzal.

 

[Pick]

My argument is easy to understand really, and it's not anything new but I'm not sure I know what your argument is anymore. Reading your last post...it sounds like you agree with me.

My position has never changed. What happened under Ballard is irrelevant to what's happening now. The Leafs are as capable of putting together a winning team as anyone else if they have competent management and ownership. What's plagued them over the last 25 years has been poor management decisions brought on by an ownership group that wasn't interested in rebuilding. If they hire the right hockey people, give them the latitude to make decisions and fund the team properly there's nothing inherent to the market or the franchise that will prevent success.

If "it's ownership" had been your position that would have been easy to state. That's not vague. It wasn't and now you're backtracking and that's fine.

That's pretty much what my argument is.....the problems go beyond players coaches and managers....the problems are at the upper levels of management.

But blaming it on 'ownership' has its problems too, because ownership changed many times over the last 45+ years...and if anything Leaf ownership has been one of the healthiest in the league for many years now capable of providing as much $$ to the hockey operation as any in the league and willing to hire highly regarded people to manage and coach the team.

As ownership changed a culture persisted...and I'm not any more vague about the details as someone who was there at ice level. I end this discussion with a comment by someone who witnessed the situation from ice level. Commenting on his experience in Toronto, Paul Maurice stated "....I never had control of that team....too many people around"

Thanks Nik the Trik.

 

[Bender]

Culture is definitely a vague way of attributing loss. It's in no way quantifiable or verifiable.

Ownership has never really been all that healthy since the Conn Smythe days. After Ballard you had Stavro who didn't have the will to sink more money into players, then you had the teachers pension fund who pretty much never wanted a rebuild and now you have joint ownership between two rival media conglomerates. None of these sound healthy. This is the farthest thing from the Illitch family in Detroit.

 

[Kin]

But blaming it on 'ownership' has its problems too, because ownership changed many times over the last 45+ years...and if anything Leaf ownership has been one of the healthiest in the league for many years now capable of providing as much $$ to the hockey operation as any in the league and willing to hire highly regarded people to manage and coach the team.

And over those 45 years the team has experienced varying levels of success, as we've gone over. When they had disastrous ownership, with Ballard primarily, they essentially had no success for 25 years. With the best ownership they had, Stavros when he could pay the bills, the Leafs were a pretty successful club. There was a 10 year period where they made 4 conference finals. That's not a cup, no, but it's not nothing either.

Good ownership will yield good results and contrary to what you say next, "good ownership" doesn't just mean having money and a willingness to spend it. Recent iterations of MLSE have been willing to spend, but they've wanted to spend for immediate results, nixing any attempt to rebuild the team correctly. They've spent, and acted, impatiently and the results have been bad. No GM can turn a bad team into a good one just with money. The cap just doesn't allow that.

As ownership changed a culture persisted...and I'm not any more vague about the details as someone who was there at ice level. I end this discussion with a comment by someone who witnessed the situation from ice level. Commenting on his experience in Toronto, Paul Maurice stated "....I never had control of that team....too many people around"

Yeah, I read that in your last post. Problem is it doesn't really mean anything and certainly doesn't speak to an issue with "culture" or "environment", just sloppy management.

 

[bustaheims]

Culture is definitely a vague way of attributing loss. It's in no way quantifiable or verifiable.

Not only that, but it's such a fluid and loose concept, that it's really hard to attach any meaning to it. It's become one of those things that people talk about when teams aren't doing well, but, as we've seen, things can change pretty rapidly. I mean, did Chicago have a culture problem during the almost 50 years they went without a Cup, or did they just have an owner who didn't care? There's a lot more evidence to support the latter. What about the Rangers for the 50+ years they went without one, or was it just a matter of them not being able to put together a roster that was good enough? The Wings from the late 50s into the early 90s? They went through a stretch where they only made the playoffs 3 times in 17 years. Was that a culture thing or a talent thing?

Funny thing about "team culture." It's often to pointed to as blame when a team is struggling, but it's very rarely talked about when a team is winning. In those cases, it's usually about talent, drafting and development, etc. You know, more quantifiable things.

 

[Kin]

Funny thing about "team culture." It's often to pointed to as blame when a team is struggling, but it's very rarely talked about when a team is winning. In those cases, it's usually about talent, drafting and development, etc. You know, more quantifiable things.

Exactly. It's like "chemistry" or anything else of that nature. Good teams have it because they're good teams.

 

[Frank E]

Funny thing about "team culture." It's often to pointed to as blame when a team is struggling, but it's very rarely talked about when a team is winning. In those cases, it's usually about talent, drafting and development, etc. You know, more quantifiable things.

Exactly. It's like "chemistry" or anything else of that nature. Good teams have it because they're good teams.

How do you prove that statement? 

 

[Kin]

Funny thing about "team culture." It's often to pointed to as blame when a team is struggling, but it's very rarely talked about when a team is winning. In those cases, it's usually about talent, drafting and development, etc. You know, more quantifiable things.

Exactly. It's like "chemistry" or anything else of that nature. Good teams have it because they're good teams.

How do you prove that statement?

It's just psychology 101. People are happier and work better in a group when they're getting the results they want.

 

[bustaheims]

How do you prove that statement?

Can you disprove it? It's one of those things that can't be proven or disproven, because it's entirely subjective and artificial. There's no measurable effects or tangible data on either side. It is, in essence, as meaningless a statement as its opposite.

Good teams are good teams, and, therefore, appear to have chemistry. Bad teams are not good teams, and, therefore, appear to be lacking in chemistry/culture/whatever. Though, what Nik says about happiness and success being linked is 100% accurate.