Luke Schenn: One more chance?

[Kaberle15]

It is fascinating to read the comments about Schenn's future after each season.

After years one and three, he was an untouchable who would be a key contributor in the Leafs resurgence.

After years two and four, he was seen as a bust.

At the end of his career, he will likely be considered somewhere in between the two extremes.  Thus, he should be considered a tradeable commodity, but not one that is given away for very little in return.

Good to know that he is in year 5!

 

[Mike1]

It is fascinating to read the comments about Schenn's future after each season.

After years one and three, he was an untouchable who would be a key contributor in the Leafs resurgence.

After years two and four, he was seen as a bust.

At the end of his career, he will likely be considered somewhere in between the two extremes.  Thus, he should be considered a tradeable commodity, but not one that is given away for very little in return.

Speaks about how up & down Luke Schenn has been in his first four years. One thing that doesnt get considered enough when talking about Luke is the fact that he has never played infront of good goaltending ever at the NHL level. When you are developing a young defencemen, how do you expect him to gain confidence & play at a high level when he is worried about making mistakes all the time?

People talk now about how "he shouldnt have made the team at 18" after the fact. In his rookie season he had alot of poise, played a simple game & was a solid decision maker. How does he get worse three years later inspite of being more experienced? Thats the real question that should be asked.

When Randy Carlyle first came in, Simmons did an article on Luke & talked about his relationship with Wilson. Near the end of the article Simmons asked Carlyle what Schenn needed to do to get better & Randy mentioned how Luke needed to develop better practice habits. Which is a pretty interesting little nugget there & could also be a reason. Points also to a leadership issue in the locker room when you have young guys slacking off, nobody in there to put them in there place & point them in the right direction.

 

[Zee]

I don't know what to think of Schenn anymore.  Maybe he'll still develop into a great blueliner, maybe not, but when I look at his draft year and the defenseman taken AFTER him, I cringe.  Why did we move up to the #5 spot to get him when we could have had Karlsson, Del Zotto, Myers or Gardiner (ok we have  him now) without moving draft spots?

 

[maplesyrup]

I don't know what to think of Schenn anymore.  Maybe he'll still develop into a great blueliner, maybe not, but when I look at his draft year and the defenseman taken AFTER him, I cringe.  Why did we move up to the #5 spot to get him when we could have had Karlsson, Del Zotto, Myers or Gardiner (ok we have  him now) without moving draft spots?

I think because he was considered to be one of the group of defensmen in that draft that was considered to be a "can't miss" where as the guys you mentioned weren't really. I also think Fletch knew there was a reasonable chance he'd be NHL ready long before a couple of those other guys. I still think it was a reasonable manoeuvre at the draft but yeah, well, we're the Leafs so...

I hope our #5 this year proves to be a better player.

 

[Corn Flake]

I don't know what to think of Schenn anymore.  Maybe he'll still develop into a great blueliner, maybe not, but when I look at his draft year and the defenseman taken AFTER him, I cringe.  Why did we move up to the #5 spot to get him when we could have had Karlsson, Del Zotto, Myers or Gardiner (ok we have  him now) without moving draft spots?

I think because he was considered to be one of the group of defensmen in that draft that was considered to be a "can't miss" where as the guys you mentioned weren't really. I also think Fletch knew there was a reasonable chance he'd be NHL ready long before a couple of those other guys. I still think it was a reasonable manoeuvre at the draft but yeah, well, we're the Leafs so...

I hope our #5 this year proves to be a better player.

Because letting him jump directly to the NHL at 18 was a really really bad idea. Had they left him alone in junior for at least one more year, I think things might have been different for him.

For the record, where he was drafted was where nearly every scouting report and team had him ranked.  Not like the Leafs made a choice no other team would have at the time.

 

[ZBBM]

I don't know what to think of Schenn anymore.  Maybe he'll still develop into a great blueliner, maybe not, but when I look at his draft year and the defenseman taken AFTER him, I cringe.  Why did we move up to the #5 spot to get him when we could have had Karlsson, Del Zotto, Myers or Gardiner (ok we have  him now) without moving draft spots?

This kind of reasoning drives me a little nuts.  If there's one thing we all know after what, 40 years of drafts, is that there are almost no sure things in terms of evaluating player talent.  The fact that Schenn has played as a regular in the league since day one means he has already paid off more than 95% of all other draft choices.

You could just as easily name every defensemen who (1) was taken after Schenn that year AND (2) has never played an NHL minute and say, "See? Luke's been a success."  And you'd be just as correct as comparing him to cherry-picked lower choices after the fact.

 

[Corn Flake]

Remember when people were mad that Fletch didn't take Filatov at #5?

 

[maplesyrup]

I don't know what to think of Schenn anymore.  Maybe he'll still develop into a great blueliner, maybe not, but when I look at his draft year and the defenseman taken AFTER him, I cringe.  Why did we move up to the #5 spot to get him when we could have had Karlsson, Del Zotto, Myers or Gardiner (ok we have  him now) without moving draft spots?

I think because he was considered to be one of the group of defensmen in that draft that was considered to be a "can't miss" where as the guys you mentioned weren't really. I also think Fletch knew there was a reasonable chance he'd be NHL ready long before a couple of those other guys. I still think it was a reasonable manoeuvre at the draft but yeah, well, we're the Leafs so...

I hope our #5 this year proves to be a better player.

Because letting him jump directly to the NHL at 18 was a really really bad idea. Had they left him alone in junior for at least one more year, I think things might have been different for him.

For the record, where he was drafted was where nearly every scouting report and team had him ranked.  Not like the Leafs made a choice no other team would have at the time.

It's difficult to say. With some guys, there is little to gained if held back. It's the exception to the rule I know but I will tell you, I wish I had a time machine to go back and see what that might have done for Luke. 

 

[Zee]

I don't know what to think of Schenn anymore.  Maybe he'll still develop into a great blueliner, maybe not, but when I look at his draft year and the defenseman taken AFTER him, I cringe.  Why did we move up to the #5 spot to get him when we could have had Karlsson, Del Zotto, Myers or Gardiner (ok we have  him now) without moving draft spots?

This kind of reasoning drives me a little nuts.  If there's one thing we all know after what, 40 years of drafts, is that there are almost no sure things in terms of evaluating player talent.  The fact that Schenn has played as a regular in the league since day one means he has already paid off more than 95% of all other draft choices.

You could just as easily name every defensemen who (1) was taken after Schenn that year AND (2) has never played an NHL minute and say, "See? Luke's been a success."  And you'd be just as correct as comparing him to cherry-picked lower choices after the fact.

I don't think they're "cherry picked" at all.  I named 4 of the next 6 D men taken in that draft.    Only ones I didn't mention were Colten Teubert and Luca Sbisa.  Teubert hasn't panned out yet and Sbisa is at least on the same level as Schenn and was taken at #19

 

[hockeyfan1]

...letting him jump directly to the NHL at 18 was a really really bad idea. Had they left him alone in junior for at least one more year, I think things might have been different for him.

If Burke had been the G.M at the time of Schenn's drafting, I doubt he would have had him stay with the Leafs.  Why?  Because I remember Burke as having said that keeping Schenn at the NHL level wasn't right for him.  Another year in junior would have been more appropriate. 

Then again, Schenn showed good potential the more he played with the Leafs -- having been paired with Kaberle -- or so everyone thought.  In hindsight, it would have been more prudent for the Leafs to have just 'seasoned' him off to junior.

 

[ZBBM]

I don't know what to think of Schenn anymore.  Maybe he'll still develop into a great blueliner, maybe not, but when I look at his draft year and the defenseman taken AFTER him, I cringe.  Why did we move up to the #5 spot to get him when we could have had Karlsson, Del Zotto, Myers or Gardiner (ok we have  him now) without moving draft spots?

This kind of reasoning drives me a little nuts.  If there's one thing we all know after what, 40 years of drafts, is that there are almost no sure things in terms of evaluating player talent.  The fact that Schenn has played as a regular in the league since day one means he has already paid off more than 95% of all other draft choices.

You could just as easily name every defensemen who (1) was taken after Schenn that year AND (2) has never played an NHL minute and say, "See? Luke's been a success."  And you'd be just as correct as comparing him to cherry-picked lower choices after the fact.

I don't think they're "cherry picked" at all.  I named 4 of the next 6 D men taken in that draft.    Only ones I didn't mention were Colten Teubert and Luca Sbisa.  Teubert hasn't panned out yet and Sbisa is at least on the same level as Schenn and was taken at #19

Not mentioning people IS cherry-picking.  And that's a side issue to my main point anyhow.

 

[hockeyfan1]

author=Corn Flake link=topic=926.msg72830#msg72830 date=1337790660]
...letting him jump directly to the NHL at 18 was a really really bad idea. Had they left him alone in junior for at least one more year, I think things might have been different for him.

If Burke had been the G.M at the time of Schenn's drafting, I doubt he would have had him stay with the Leafs.  Why?  Because I remember Burke as having said that keeping Schenn at the NHL level wasn't right for him.  Another year in junior would have been more appropriate. 

Then again, Schenn showed good potential the more he played with the Leafs -- having been paired with Kaberle -- or so everyone thought.  In hindsight, it would have been more prudent for the Leafs to have just 'seasoned' him off to junior.

 

[Corn Flake]

It's difficult to say. With some guys, there is little to gained if held back. It's the exception to the rule I know but I will tell you, I wish I had a time machine to go back and see what that might have done for Luke.

It is quite difficult, but looking back on the trend in Toronto when we have rushed our young prospects to the NHL right out of the gate... most fail, or greatly disappoint.  I think 99 out of 100 draftees should NOT be moved directly to the NHL and I for one am glad that Burke has kept Kadri down in the AHL for a painfully long time, despite all the criticism and whining.  For bloody once our high 1st rounder isn't being rushed. 

 

[Kin]

It is quite difficult, but looking back on the trend in Toronto when we have rushed our young prospects to the NHL right out of the gate... most fail, or greatly disappoint.

But couldn't you say the same thing about all prospects as a general rule? The vast majority of picks/prospects don't end up making the NHL and it's a very slim minority that get into the league right away.

I don't know if there's any evidence that guys who get thrown into the league quickly have any greater or smaller chance of washing out then anyone else.

 

[Corn Flake]

...letting him jump directly to the NHL at 18 was a really really bad idea. Had they left him alone in junior for at least one more year, I think things might have been different for him.

If Burke had been the G.M at the time of Schenn's drafting, I doubt he would have had him stay with the Leafs.  Why?  Because I remember Burke as having said that keeping Schenn at the NHL level wasn't right for him.  Another year in junior would have been more appropriate. 

Then again, Schenn showed good potential the more he played with the Leafs -- having been paired with Kaberle -- or so everyone thought.  In hindsight, it would have been more prudent for the Leafs to have just 'seasoned' him off to junior.

Yeah Schenn had a nice rookie camp and everyone fell in love with him and for some reason, assumed he was ready.  He had a good rookie year but even things like the number of fights he got into tells me it was the wrong thing to do to keep him up.

I frankly don't like or believe in this concept that you can earn a job at camp. I don't think prospects should ever be given that treatment.. I think they should be told that the team is going to do what is best for their development, whether that means staying up or going down for 3 years, no matter how good a camp you have.

I hope everyone is prepared for the Kadri treatment being applied to whoever gets picked at #5 this year.  Which is the right thing to do.

 

[Kin]

Just so I'm clear, the "Kadri treatment" is...what? Giving him an extended run with the NHL club in his second pro season and then sending him down when he stinks? Doing the same in his third season?

The only thing that Kadri's development should tell us is that guys will be put in the league where they can play competently. If Kadri had played really well with the Leafs, he'd have stuck with the Leafs. Right now he's an AHL-level player and so he's in the AHL.

 

[Corn Flake]

If Kadri had played really well with the Leafs, he'd have stuck with the Leafs. Right now he's an AHL-level player and so he's in the AHL.

We are talking about players being kept up in the NHL in their draft year or generally quite early vs. spending time in development.  You know, this Schenn vs. Kadri?

Kadri had a very good rookie training camp but was sent down. If Mgmt. followed the same pattern they did with Schenn, Kadri probably would have stayed up.  He had a good camp again the next year but went to the AHL.  He got his NHL shots but showed he wasn't ready.  Process repeated for 3 camps and seasons now.  To put it differently, he's in the AHL because he isn't ready for the NHL.

So the "Kadri treatment" would be about letting prospects develop in lower levels until they are ready... whether that takes 1 or 3 seasons or more.  It was an unpopular choice to keep sending him back down but they did and he will probably benefit greatly for it in the long run.

 

[Kin]

We are talking about players being kept up in the NHL in their draft year or generally quite early vs. spending time in development.  You know, this Schenn vs. Kadri?

Sure. Kadri hasn't shown he can be a good NHL player yet. I'm with you there.

What is confusing me is the idea that there's some sort of sweeping philosophical shift there between Schenn and Kadri's development. Schenn showed in his rookie year, and intermittently since then, that he could be a decent NHL defenseman. They didn't keep him up for any other reason.

If the "Kadri treatment" is keeping guys out of the NHL if they're unable to play at a sufficient level to be in the NHL then I don't know if anyone, anywhere, has ever advocated anything else for any prospect.

 

[bustaheims]

If the "Kadri treatment" is keeping guys out of the NHL if they're unable to play at a sufficient level to be in the NHL then I don't know if anyone, anywhere, has ever advocated anything else for any prospect.

A number of people have been clamouring for Kadri to be up and stay up with the Leafs, regardless of his actual performance.

 

[Zee]

I don't know what to think of Schenn anymore.  Maybe he'll still develop into a great blueliner, maybe not, but when I look at his draft year and the defenseman taken AFTER him, I cringe.  Why did we move up to the #5 spot to get him when we could have had Karlsson, Del Zotto, Myers or Gardiner (ok we have  him now) without moving draft spots?

This kind of reasoning drives me a little nuts.  If there's one thing we all know after what, 40 years of drafts, is that there are almost no sure things in terms of evaluating player talent.  The fact that Schenn has played as a regular in the league since day one means he has already paid off more than 95% of all other draft choices.

You could just as easily name every defensemen who (1) was taken after Schenn that year AND (2) has never played an NHL minute and say, "See? Luke's been a success."  And you'd be just as correct as comparing him to cherry-picked lower choices after the fact.

I don't think they're "cherry picked" at all.  I named 4 of the next 6 D men taken in that draft.    Only ones I didn't mention were Colten Teubert and Luca Sbisa.  Teubert hasn't panned out yet and Sbisa is at least on the same level as Schenn and was taken at #19

Not mentioning people IS cherry-picking.  And that's a side issue to my main point anyhow.

I mentioned them all now.  My point still stands that there was no reason to move up in that draft.  You only move up to get a player you think is head and shoulders above anyone else you can get at your own draft position.  Hindsight being 20/20 and all, but Schenn is nowhere near head & shoulders above any defenseman taken in the top 20 with the exception of Teubert