Thursday, April 24, 2008

Prediction

Brian Burke will not go to Toronto this year. So says TSN, Burke, Ducks CEO Mike (don't call me Dan) Schulman, and presumably owner Henry Samueli. Unless the Leafs want to let Cliff Fletcher drive the Leafs' little schoolbus for the next year, at which point Burke's contract will be up (barring an extension), another name will have to be drawn out of a hat. Also, the Leafland media is gradually coming to the realization that the Leafs GM position is perhaps not the equivalent of Guy Who Counts Roomfull Of Cash Because Nobody Knows How Much Is In There job, and publicly offering up said job will probably not bring Ken Holland, Lou Lamoriello or Bob Gainey racing their Segways to the MLSE offices, slapping and shoving each other up the escalator, jamming papers back into their briefcases while simultaneously shouting their names to Richard Peddie's secretary.

I'll pause while you enjoy that image.

Right then. So with none of those candidates interested and/or available, who are the most likely candidates for the Leafs job? I can't seem to find anyone in my usual website roundabout willing to write loud, boisterous columbs, no bold predictions or top 150 candidates for Who Should Run This Crappy Team. Even TSN, with a hockey staff roughly the size of the old Stasi, just keeps churning out the same stories about Brian Burke's status with the Ducks. Sure you hear lots of names thrown around, but nobody's willing to make blind foolish predictions. That won't do. So, as a public service, I'll submit to you the Loyal Reader my list of options for the Leafs GM position.

1. Colin Campbell
2. Doug Armstrong
3. Neil Smith

That's it. This isn't the Vancouver Canucks or Sacramento Bumwads, this is the New York Yankess of the NHL. As many have correctly stated, this team doesn't need to take chances with new candidates, bright young up-and-comers or former player agents. No sir. If you're the Leafs, you go out and buy the best name. If he fails, go buy the next best name, and so forth. The salary cap only serves to increase MLSE's profits and since it has no effect on management salaries, there's no reason to shop Zellers when you can peruse Harrod's instead. These three are are the best available, have the most experience, good media skills and the high profile necessary to front the biggest hockey market in the NHL. I don't know how you qualify "biggest," there's a few U.S. markets that dwarf Toronto of course, but between the large southern Ontario population and the large capacity on the back of the bandwagon, I think it's a safe bet that the Leafs have the largest, if most lethargic, apathetic and delightfully unhappy, fanbase.

The best of these candidates is Doug Armstrong, former assistant GM and GM of the Dallas Stars who, with the exception of the Brad Richards trade made at this year's trade deadline, was responsible for building a perennial division and conference challenger. Since 2002-2003 the team has averaged 104.8 points per season, won a Stanley Cup in 1999 with Armstrong as Assistant GM, and hired Dave Tippett who, in five seasons, has compiled a 235-121-28-26 regular season record. He was fired following a bad loss to Los Angeles last November, a loss for which he, as GM, was entirely responsible and should have been able to personally prevent.

Neil Smith won a Stanley Cup in 1994 with the Rangers, he's used to big media, used to a corporate atmosphere but is a second choice. He hasn't been a GM since 2000 (not counting his six week tenure for the Islanders) and may be viewed as a consolation prize.

My prediction is that despite Armstrong's rep, Colin Campbell will get the job. He's an ex-league disciplinarian, like Brian Burke, and has seemingly wanted the Leafs job for a while since he turned down the Flyers GM job in November 2006. Assuming that's true, he comes in motivated and perfectly able to handle the Leaf media, since as the NHL's sheriff he's faced FAR tougher questions than whether Jiri Tlusty is really a long-term solution. I imagine after years in a pretty thankless job he'd love to run the Leafs, though not having a Stanley Cup or NHL GM experience won't be in his favor. Richard Peddie was pretty clear, he wanted a guy with a Stanley Cup and long-term experience, so that would appear to erase Campbell's chances entirely. Still, I can't see them going with a successful though still relatively unknown Armstrong or lack of any recent success Smith so my guess, which is not an argument for or against, is Campbell.

The other thing that I keep thinking about is the league's suspension and discipline policies. Campbell was unwilling to make any bold statements or set precedents when given the opportunity by Chris Pronger this year. The league, rightfully so, is being hammered from all sides about its inability to make consistent suspension decisions and create any kind of meaningful standards. Matthieu Schneider said today on Bob McCown's radio show that he was unimpressed with the inconsistency shown in the Chris Simon and Chris Pronger suspensions, NHLPA head Paul Kelly endorsed the idea of having specific guidelines for suspensions rather than treating each incident in a vacuum and fans, goaded by the media, are growing increasingly frustrated with with the seemingly random, out-of-a-hat method of deciding the length of suspensions and amount of fines. This would appear to be the ideal time to make a regime change and implement some of the many player, management and league suggestions. It's perfect, Campbell gets the job he wants, the league brings in a few face to restructure the rules and utopia arrives. Pretty hard to make any substantial guesses without much inside information, but it's very easy to make foolish, unaccountable ones.

So my reasons aren't very good but it's not about reasons, it's about who's right. Look, I've won my playoff hockey pool two or maybe three years in a row, so I think I know how to hire an NHL General Manager. If they hire Campbell I'm not sure how they spin their flip-flop as they seemed pretty determined to get a Stanley Cup winning GM. Ultimately it's foolish to make any predictions, nobody knows anything about the process or how they're interviewing. Still, with the draft on June 20th and free agency starting July 1st, you'd think they'd want somebody on the job in the next month or so and therefore you'd hear more rumors and news. There are long-term decisions to be made this summer; this isn't dumping veterans for prospects at the deadline. Fletcher made the deadline deals he could to "set the table," as he said, for the next GM. You can't let him make the upcoming long-term team decisions unless he's going to be around long-term, otherwise you handcuff the new guy.

In writing this I realize why there aren't many articles out there listing the Top 5 Leaf GM candidates, and instead lots of just general name throwing. One reason seems to be that it's possible the Leafs have truly sealed off any leaks and nobody knows anything. That was no more on display than with the Brian Burke predictions, saying he was the first choice, his negotiations with the Ducks were unclear, and that he was leaving the door open to take the Leafs job. Burke has been the number one rumor since John Ferguson Jr. was fired, despite all his rantings to the contrary (Brian Burke does not speak, he RANTS. "...and would you like fries or salad?" "THIS OFFER IS AN ACT OF DESPERATION FROM A SERVER TRYING TO SAVE HER JOB. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU HAVE OFFERED A GROSSLY INFLATED NUMBER OF SIDE CHOICES." Here's the original article the Burke Rant Template comes from), and there really hasn't been a strong second choice to rumor over. In theory then it should be pretty quiet until the decision is made, what with the ability of the MLSE board to keep quiet, at least in this matter.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Round 2: DING!!!

Over the last four days in Edmonton, a lot of snow has fallen. Estimates range from the conservative (16 cm) to the accurate (16 billion jillion cm). In Prince George, previous home of Sporticourse (before it existed, but whose destiny lay forward...), there was a lot more snow. Annually, Prince George would receive between 1 and 100 billion jillion katillion cm of snow. The difference is that in Prince George, as a result of being a smaller, more boring town stocked sky-high with individuals whose sole skill is to operate heavy machinery, actually will plow a street now and then. The City of Edmonton's road map is unlike the one you'll find on Google or Mapquest; it only shows freeways, bus routes, and rich neighbourhoods. Those get plowed, but anything upper-middle class or less gets you a big one of these. As a result, Prince George may get more snowfall but Edmonton receives a far higher volume of Actual Snow and Slush (the A.S.S. volume). In other words, one week after wearing shorts and promenading (like walking, only with Lululemons) the river valley, baseball interest=shot and playoff hockey interest resumes!

A very nice first round, though had Washington coverted any of their 16 third period shots in last night's game seven, my hockey pool would have a real smooth veneer to compliment a single rough edge (picking the Rangers in seven; thought Brodeur could push it at least that far). The second round looks fantastic, despite that interest begins to wane by now with warmer weather and only American teams remaining. With only one of those still true this year, the second round will be far more watchable, especially considering these reasons:

Detroit vs. Colorado
Hockey's best non-traditional rivalry is renewed and with much of the original cast from the late 1990's, at least for Colorado. The Avs bring back Adam Foote and Peter Forsberg to compliment Joe Sakic and Milan Hejduk, while Ryan Smyth, Jose Theodore, Andrew Brunette, John-Michael Liles and Scott Hannan will enjoy their first taste of the famed rivalry. For Detroit Henrik Zetterberg, Pavel Datsyuk, Tomas Holmstrom, Niklas Lindstrom and the surprising Johan Franzen and Jiri Hudler will look to pick up where they left off against Nashville.
That's my best impression of the bland, uninsightful series summaries you have to read this time of year. It's that or worse: the overbaring, unnecessarily loud opinionated shrieking from TSN's panel. THIS TEAM IS SOFT THEY CAN'T WIN. YES THEY CAN THEY ARE SOOOOO GREAT. YOU WERE ONCE A MEDIOCRE BACKUP. HAHAHAHA. (repeat for each team analysis).
Detroit's goaltending looked shaky last round but they had the puck the whole series so they made it through. Colorado was outshot in every game against the Wild and thus looks comfortable playing a containment-style defense against Detroit, who will stick with their puck-control style. Colorado has the better goalie and more playoff-proven offensive depth, so I go with them in 7.

San Jose vs. Dallas
Both teams came out of grueling first-round series playing two very physical teams. This series should be a little more skillful and thus would appear to favor San Jose, though Dallas won the season series. Well, sort of, going 4-2-2. Sharks looked great at times against Calgary, a very tough team to ever look good against, have the better goalie (Nabokov, just nominated for the Vezina), the best forward (Joe Thornton) and the best defenseman (Brian Campbell). I didn't get to watch much of the Dallas-Anaheim series but of beating the defending champion Ducks you'd have to say, in the words of the record executive in Guitar-Queer-O, "That's pretty goddamn impressive." Still, Sharks in 6.

Montreal vs. Philadelphia
Montreal has a rookie goalie with an A+ ceiling while Philly has a proven goalie with a B+ ceiling. Biron held pretty steady though seven games against Washington, while Carey Price had a meltdown in game 5 and let in another 5 goals in game 6. In the other five games he only let in five goals though, so he can match up with anybody when he's playing well. Montreal has more scoring while Philly is more physical. Both teams are coming off seven-game series but while Montreal looks like a team who'll be stronger after overcoming the underdog Bruins, the Flyers could be worn out after a really tough series fighting off Ovechkin, Semin, Backstrom and Green. Montreal in 6.

Pittsburgh vs. NY Rangers
This is a toss-up. Stingy defense, great goaltending and enough scoring against WAY more than enough scoring, an underrated defense and a young goalie who was excellent against the Senators. It's really only because of Montreal's youth and inexperience, but I say both the Rangers and Penguins are the Eastern Conference frontrunners for the Cup. At this point I'd say that the winner here goes to the Finals, though I might retract in a few weeks. This series to me is like the Carey Price-Martin Biron matchup. You know what you'll get from the Rangers but Pittsburgh has the better top-end talent and thus the higher ceiling. I'll go with the ceiling; Penguins in 6.


These are the same picks as I made in my hockey pool, of which I am one point back of the top spot. I've won the last two years (or three, can't remember, that will probably be corrected in the comments section soon enough) so the pressure's on since I'm due to fall off this year. There really isn't a series that you try to avoid, no Minnesota, Boston or Calgary anymore. All these teams are legit and feature real superstars. There's even some old rivalries renewed, not just Detroit-Colorado but Montreal-Philly and Pittsburgh-New York. Should be fun.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Dave Nonis fired!

...a few days ago. So the shock has subsided somewhat, though the arguments for and against (mostly against) have remained pretty boisterous. Deserved or not? Here's a quick look at Dave Nonis in Vancouver:

The Good:
-Traded for Roberto Luongo. This could be the whole list frankly, because this was a trade where, right after I heard it, thought holy GOD, that's an incredible steal for Vancouver. This was when Bertuzzi was still considered an elite player, albeit one who needed out of Vancouver after SteveMooregate and probably starting his decline. Still, playing with Olie Jokinen in Florida I still figured him for 30-40 goals in what was still being called the "New NHL." WELL. Bertuzzi hardly played the following year due to injury, only 8 games for Florida, and was traded to Detroit for promising prospect (and future Canadian World Junior hero) Shawn Matthias and some conditional picks. Vancouver, with Luongo signed to a long-term contract, would win the division, set a team record for points and went to the second round of the playoffs. Luongo set team records for wins, shutouts, shutout streak, saves in a single game, and save percentage while finishing second in Vezina, Hart, and Pearson trophy voting. It's already considered, after just two years, one of the most lopsided trades in NHL history. The other players in the deal cancel themselves out, in my mind.
-What, more? That's not enough for you? Guess you're qualified to own the Canucks. Okay then, he also managed to dump Dan Cloutier to Los Angeles after acquiring Luongo, signed Willie Mitchell (the next Canuck captain?), replaced Marc Crawford with subsequent Coach of the Year Alan Vigneault, and currently has the team set up with lots of room under the salary cap with which to pursue desperately needed scoring. In other words, the team has the NHL's best goalie, excellent defensive depth, and money to spend on goal-scoring.

The Bad:
-Missed the playoffs two of the last three years.
-A team on the rise clearly took a step backwards after winning the division last year.
-Failed to acquire scoring at the deadline, with the rumored Brad Richards-for-a-LOT deal not going through.
-Um. That's all I can think of. He only had the job three years. Go read the Stupid Draft Analysis From Hell I did a while ago for his draft record.

Addressing The Bad:
-Yes, they missed the playoffs two of the last three years but last year they won the friggin' DIVISION. A very, very tough division no less. The year before that they barely missed out despite having more wins than powerhouse and Finals-bound Edmonton, so nothing to be ashamed of. Still, in 2005-2006 they were considered a Cup favorite and missing the playoffs was certainly unexpected, but most GMs get a few years on the job before you hold them accountable. They're also not judged on their first seasons either since that's when they're still using the old regime's players and staff. True, Nonis was the Assistant GM but he wasn't the Boss, as nobody could be under Brian Burke. You do what you're told or YOU'LL BE YELLED AT LOUDLY. Gms aren't coaches, they aren't judged year-to-year and generally get at least five years to show results. You can also add in that a season after a lockout is going to be more prone to fluxuations and unpredictability than a normal season, especially considering the many rule changes. So one write-off season, one division title, and...
-Yes, the team took a step back in 2007-2008 but look at this: Sami Salo missed 19 games (that's their powerplay right there), Aaron Miller missed 25, Mattias Ohlund 29, Brenden Morrison 43, Kevin Bieksa 48, and Lukas Krajicek 43. That's a stunning amount of injuries and except for Morrison, all to defenseman. Missing the playoffs this past season was certainly a disappointment, especially after leading the division at one point, but you could make the argument they were lucky to have any shot at all.
-Just to counter-point myself, despite all those injuries to the defense they still finished 6th best in the NHL in total goals against. So there wasn't much better they could have been defensively had they been healthy.
-Counter-counter-point: Yeah, but they would have had more goal scoring from the defense, especially from Salo, which would have made a difference.
-The Richards trade. Click that link and read where Darren Dreger says the proposed deal was for Cory Schneider (their top goalie prospect), Luc Bourdon (top defense prospect, arguably), and a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks. That seems like a monster price to pay for a very good player to be sure, but also one with a $7.8 million contract and only 62 points by the time the season was over. That's a big chunk of the cap gone, as well as two good prospects and three draft picks when $7.8 million this summer might get you Marian Hossa. If that was the price then that's an excellent trade not made.
-Counter-point: I realize that Bourdon has tailed off in his development (not exactly the next Dion Phaneuf, as some had hoped) and Schneider won't play in Vancouver maybe ever because of Luongo. These are definitely tradeable prospects then, not keepers, but if you can keep them for another trade while spending your $7.8 million somewhere else this off-season, that's a smarter deal to me.

I know that new ownership often means new personnel and that's probably why Nonis was fired. New owners like their own guys and a fresh start. If you weren't sure about Nonis, you wouldn't want him taking this team forward at a point where they have so much cap room and flexibility. Even when a new GM comes in the coach doesn't usually last (not that they last long anyways), so from this angle it wasn't unexpected. Here's the thing though: you don't actually HAVE to fire them. When Brian Colangelo took over the Toronto Raptors, he took over a mess of a team with a coach who'd been voted the worst in the NBA. Colangelo ripped apart the roster but decided to keep Sam Mitchell as coach and the team would win the division and Mitchell Coach of the Year. These intact transitions can be done with success. If you look at Dave Nonis' record, this is a terrible decision. It would be one thing if the official reason from owner Francesco Aquilini had simply been "We want our own guy," but to blame it on missing the playoffs (and implicitly on Nonis' record) is foolish, ignorant, and a bad sign of things to come for Canuck fans. Maybe he hires Doug Armstrong or Neil Smith and stays the hell out of their way, but hiding behind this idiotic rhetoric is pretty underwhelming.

Nonis to the Leafs? Naw, they'll put Dougie in there.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Jose at the Bat

Like most baseball fans, who watch the game from a distance and don't know any players or have much inside information, I don't know what to think about Jose Canseco. These days when one thinks of Canseco, steroid scandal and "author" come to mind. If you take another few minutes, you might think first 40 homer, 40 steals season, 1986 Rookie of the Year, Simpsons guest star, and producer of maybe the greatest baseball blooper of all time. When I read his first book on the plane ride back from Mexico (a four hour trip, still left lots of time to read the paper), I enjoyed it. What I mean, of course, is that I enjoyed it the way a parent enjoys their kid's first drawing on the fridge: with a cheerfully exaggerated "GOOD FOR YOU!" It's disorganized, simplistic and lacks anything resembling style or elegance. Yet it does satisfy one's voyeuristic indulgence, as any fan living far away from any baseball team will undoubtedly have, and holds nothing back when discussing baseball's steroid use, as names and teams are thrown around with ridiculous abandon. So that's pretty entertaining.

I finished reading a great article on Canseco that further complicated my impression of him. He's a polarizing figure to say the least. A bad writer who wrote, arguably, the most important book in triggering baseball's steroid catharsis. A cheerful, engaging, regular-guy personality but, according to Pat Jordan's article, regularly failed to show at charity events. In his own book, Canseco re-tells a number of well-publicized events in his personal life, always blaming someone else, portraying events as wrongly presented or exaggerated in the media, or just dismissing them as irrelevant. Jordan's article creates a figure who is lazy, foolish, irresponsible, lacks foresight, and is constantly in need of structure imposed upon him. He thinks he's misunderstood, Jordan implies he isn't. I don't know what to think.

As a player, Canseco was pretty much everything you watch sports for. Big, fast, powerful, everything he did was done with excess and spectacle. No short home runs that scraped the back of the outfield fence. In his prime, he was the best combination of power and speed in the game, the first 40-40 player of course, but also a player who could give fans those Bo Jackson kinds of visuals. The upper-deck home run at the Skydome, flexing his biceps at Red Sox fans chanting "steroids," the bodybuilder physique, the dalliances with Madonna and bloopers, like the one above, that simply could not have been done by anyone else. I liked Canseco in 1998 with Toronto, he had a really good year with 46 homers and 107 RBI's but of course was overshadowed by McGwire and Sosa chasing the home run record. He hit some very, very long homers, stole 29 bases (BUT that's in 46 attempts, a 63% success rate which = ew) and arguably had his best season since 1991. After 1998 he was injured, which was a common theme for most of his career, why he only played an average of 99 games from 1992-1997, and why he was basically finished as an impact player after 1999.

Injuries help contribute to any player's legend, whether Bo Jackson, Sandy Koufax, Bobby Orr or Bill Walton. With Canseco, the injuries seem to have hurt his legacy since they were attributed to his steroid use, a debatable contention. I think that's unfortunate and shows a bias against Canseco, since he certainly is not receiving the same proportional adulation ascribed to his fellow Tragically Injured. Last year he only received 6 Hall of Fame votes, or 1.1%, and less than the 5% necessary to remain on the ballot for another year. This for a player with careers numbers of 462 HRs (31st all-time, more than HOFers Carl Yastrzemski, Duke Snider and Al Kaline), 1407 RBI's (63rd all-time, more than HOFers Robin Yount and Joe Medwick), AVG/OBP/SLG of .266/.353/.515. This isn't an essay to get Jose Canseco into the Hall of Fame, his career wasn't that good, just a point that he was swept away pretty quickly for a high-impact player. Clearly, his career numbers were overshadowed by his cartoony persona and current steroid association. Maybe his NHL comparable would be Eric Lindros, just not impactful (not a real word, but a sports word) long enough. That would be an interesting stat analysis for another day...

These are the endless circles you run around in when you talk about Jose Canseco. I don't think he should be in the Hall of Fame but do think he should have generated more debate. His career is rightly degraded because of his admitted continuous steroid use, yet with no rules against steroids at the time it's hard to hold him as accountable as an athlete caught today. His terribly bad book ratted out former teammates and friends for the sake of making money and raising his own profile, yet he was the only person to bravely (I guess) speak out and draw attention to the extent of the problem. You can't dismiss him as a loony toon, even though he is, because of how important he's become to baseball in the last few years. You also can't give him any credit because it seems like he did it accidental, that highlighting baseball's culture of PED's was a bemusing side note while he made a few bucks. I guess what you can do is write blog entries and throw up your hands.

Friday, April 11, 2008

Isn't that the damnest thing

Watching Ottawa-Pittsburgh and Washington-Philly tonight, both are terrific games and make me wish I hadn't said I don't care about the playoffs. That was a shortlived lie. The best part of the first game is that to this point (3-3, 9:00 of the third), Martin Gerber has been brilliant. All we heard this year from out east, after the Sundin trade nonsense and the Leafs' GM search ("Which GM candidate can eat the most earthworms in 30 seconds? Find out next, on 'The Biggest Loser: Search for the Leafs' GM'") was about Ottawa's goaltending situation. Gerber's terrible! Emery is killing the team! It's Bryan Murray's fault! Woe is all things Senator! Why can't this team EVER have a goalie!?!?!?! It's only two games of course, but this is some of the best goaltending this team has had, probably THE best. Hilarious.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Potpourri

I didn't want to post a whole bunch of playoff predictions because I don't care. No Oilers of course but even besides that, I'm just not that into it this year. There doesn't seem to be a lot of compelling storylines for some reason, but it just might be that it's supposed to be in the 20's this weekend. So no predictions. Go, I dunno, Montreal!

I heard some interesting reaction to TSN's overblown-yet-still-cheap-looking production of the NHL's lottery draft. Some people think the lottery is a waste, just give teams the picks in the order they finished in. As for teams tanking, who cares, their season's been lost for months anyways. The other side thought that the draft odds (where the last placed team, Tampa Bay, had a 48% chance of winning the first overall pick) favored the Lightning too much, and would rather see more balanced odds that gave all the bottom five teams a legitimat shot at the top pick.

Here's what I, the smartest, wisest, most insightful writer on this blog, would do. The whole point of the draft is to re-alocated talent to bad teams to counter the balance of power in the league. Right? But, you don't want teams intentially losing games to gain a better draft pick since that's wrong and fans are paying $200 a ticket, hence the need for some kind of element of chance. Right? You also cannot create draft rules based on specific types of drafts, such as ones with a clearcut number one pick like this year (or 2005, 2004, or next year). Right? Though even in drafts that have no dominant player at the top, teams with the top pick have a huge advantage; whether they keep the pick or trade it away, they have a big step over other teams in terms of how they rebuild their team. Right? So why should only the dead-last team be given such a heavily-weighted opportunity for the top pick? ALL of the bottom five NHL teams are terrible, there's nothing that makes the last-placed team dramatically worse (and thus more deserving of the top pick) than the other four. According to NHL.com, here are the point totals for the bottom five teams in the standings over the last three years since the lockout:

2007-2008
Tampa Bay-71
Los Angeles-71
Atlanta-76
St. Louis-79
New York Islanders-79

2006-2007
Philedephia-56
Phoenix-67
Los Angeles-68
Washington-70
Chicago-71

2005-2006

St. Louis-57
Pittsburg-58
Chicago-65
Washington-70
Boston-74

So between the last and fifth-last place teams, there's been a difference of 8, 15 and 17 points, going in reverse order. A small sample size of course, but the spread is shrinking. My guess is that trend will probably continue because of all the three-point games. In any case, since all five lottery teams are terrible, why not take their point totals, add them all together and give them the exact weighted percentage that they earned. For example, this season the bottom five teams combined to earn 376 points. Here's the percentage breakdown for each team:

Tampa Bay-18.8%
Los Angeles-18.8%
Atlanta-20.2%
St. Louis-21%
New York Islanders-21%

That adds up to 99.8% because of how I rounded it off, but you get the idea. So, take the percentage of points each team contributed to the combined total, REVERSE them so that, in this case, Tampa and Los Angeles each have a 21% chance at winning the lottery, and draw teams' chances accordingly. I'm going to leave this proposal as is for now to see if any problems show up. Yup, already see some, but I'll leave those for another post.


This Blue Jays-Oakland series is pretty awful to watch as a Jays' fan. The A's are in fullblown rebuild mode, the Jays don't face any of Oakland's top two pitchers in the three game series, Toronto comes in having swept the defending World Series champs, they're in Toronto, etc. As of the eighth inning of game three, Toronto's best relief pitcher has blown two games (9-8 and 6-3), they've been outpitched by a journeyman and two rookie starters, and they've left 46 runners on base, an average of 15.3 per game, or 1.703 per inning (for a reference point, a pitcher allowing 1.703 baserunners per inning is most likely throwing out the Ceremonial First Pitch from his Ceremonial Wheelchair). Maybe they salvage one game, as the bottom of the ninth starts with Frank Thomas up...

Saturday, April 5, 2008

Draft comparison

This is going to be an epic post so read it at your own risk/in sections. With the draft lottery results announced Monday, there's the usual talk about team's futures, what teams are bare in the prospect pantry, what teams build their organization "the right way," and all that second-guessing that goes with being a fan or in the media. I was reading an article about the Leafs draft record and wondered just how bad their draft record history has actually been, how it compared with a baseline team, oh say, the Oilers, then realized there were lots of teams I hoped to prove the Oilers could out-draft (Flames, Canucks), and figured what the hell, lets do all the Canadian teams. This will probably be a lot of work for little to comment on, but there's always a story to be found for the biased fan.

I went ten years back, starting with the 1998 draft, because ten years seemed like a reasonable amount of time to fairly evaluate a player's development and if the organization stuck with them. I looked at the first three rounds of the draft rather than the first three picks since that shows both how well a team drafts in the higher rounds, as well as how much they value keeping those draft picks rather than trading them off. To me, anything after the fourth round is pretty random, hence the cutoff after three rounds. Teams are listed in alphabetical order rather than draft order, just for consistency's sake. I also listed which two players were drafted immediately afterwards, since I figured that's a fair way to evaluate comparables at that point in the draft and who management was likely deciding between. Two players is admittedly arbitrary, but I wanted a limited scope of players who were both immediately available and would save me some time. Keeping a small scope, at least for this exercise, was important because I wanted to show both good and bad decisions in a proper context. It doesn't make sense to rip a team because, say, Player A was drafted 3rd but Player B, drafted 18th, turned into a superstar, since obviously a lot of other teams missed the ball as well. How Henrik Zetterberg lasted until the 7th Round in 1999 is a bigger question and for a different post, preferably by someone else. Players with a bracketed number next to their name are the ones drafted, followed by the two players drafted afterwards. I also gave a subjective opinion on which Canadian team did the best and worst in their three rounds' worth of pick. Onward...

1998 NHL Draft
1st Overall Pick: Vincent Lecavalier

1st round
Calgary Rico Fata (6th), Manny Malholtra, Mark Bell
Edmonton Michael Henrich (13th), Patrick DesRochers, Mattieu Chouinard
Montreal Eric Chouinard (16th), Martin Skoula, Dmitri Kalinin
Ottawa Mattieu Chouinard (15th), Eric Chouinard, Martin Skoula
Toronto Nik Antropov (10th), Jeff Heerema, Alex Tanguay
Vancouver Brian Allen (4th overall), Vitali Vishnevski, Rico Fata


2nd round
Calgary Blair Betts (33rd), Andrew Peters, Petr Svoboda
Edmonton No picks
Montreal Mike Ribeiro (45th), Justin Papineau, Norm Milley
Ottawa Mike Fisher (44th), Mike Ribeiro, Justin Papineau, Chris Bala (58th), Todd Hornung, Denis Arkipov
Toronto Petr Svoboda (35th), Chris Nielsen, Christian Berglund
Vancouver Artem Chubarov (31st overall), Stephen Peat, Blair Betts


3rd Round
Calgary Paul Manning (62nd), Lance Ward, Brad Richards
Edmonton Alex Henry (67th), Jarkko Ruutu, Jamie Hodson
Montreal Francois Beauchemin (75th), Alexei Volkov, Mike Pandolfo
Ottawa Julien Vauclair (74th), Francois Beauchemin, Alexei Volkov
Toronto Jamie Hodson (69th), Kevin Holdridge, Eric Cole
Vancouver Jarko Ruutu (68th), Jamie Hodson, Kevin Holdridge, Justin Morrison (81st), Brian Gionta, Matt Walker

The first round shows some impact players that are still in the league. Toronto would rather have have Tanguay over Antropov, but that's not a huge error since Antropov had 56 points this year. No glaring errors in the second round either, though I bet Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver would love to have taken Mike Fisher. The third round is getting into crap shoot territory but Paul Manning over Brad Richards? Jamie Hodson over Eric Cole? Brian Gionta would have looked great in Vancouver this year wouldn't he? Better than Justin Morrison anyways. Ouch. Best: Montreal. Worst: Edmonton. Just a terrible draft.

1999 NHL Draft
1st Overall Pick: Patrick Stefan

1st round
Calgary Oleg Saprykin (11th), Denis Shvidki, Jani Rita
Edmonton Jani Rita (12th), Jeff Jillson, Scott Kelman
Montreal No picks
Ottawa Martin Havlat (26th), Ari Ahonen, Kristian Kudroc
Toronto Luca Cereda (24th), Mikhail Kuleshov, Martin Havlat
Vancouver Daniel Sedin (2nd), Henrik Sedin (3rd), Pavel Brendl, Tim Connolly


2nd round
Calgary Dan Cavanaugh (38th), Alexander Buturlin, Alex Auld
Edmonton Alexei Semenov (36th), Nolan Yonkman, Dan Cavanaugh, Tony Salmelainen (41st), Mike Commodore, Andrei Shefer
Montreal Alexander Buturlin (39th), Alex Auld, Tony Salmelainen, Matt Carkner (58th), David Inman, Peter Reynolds
Ottawa Simon Lajeunesse (48th), Brett Lysak, Brett Clouthier, Teemu Sainomaa (62th), Stepan Mokhov, Mike Zigomanis
Toronto Peter Reynolds (60th), Ed Hill, Teemu Sainomaa
Vancouver No picks


3rd Round
Calgary Craig Anderson (77th), Mattias Weinhandl, Johan Asplund
Edmonton Adam Hauser (81st), Mark Concannon, Niclas Havlid, Mike Comrie (91st), Cory Campbell, Branko Randivojevic
Montreal No picks
Ottawa Chris Kelly (94th), Andre Lakos, Mathias Tjarnqvist
Toronto No picks
Vancouver Tanner Kaunisviita (69th), Niklas Hagman, Jason Jaspers

What a crappy draft. Despite being hailed as one of the deepest in years (sound familiar?) the best player (Zetterberg) came out of the seventh round, the first round was full of busts (Stefan, Brendl, Rita) and great talent derailed by injury (Havlat, Connolly). Edmonton got its best player in the third round, Comrie, but otherwise there's nothing inspiring on this board at all. Ug, moving on. Best: Vancouver. Worst: Toronto.

2000 NHL Draft
1st Overall Pick: Rick DiPietro

1st Round
Calgary Brett Krahn (9th), Mikhail Yakubov, Pavel Vorobiev
Edmonton Alexei Mikhnov (17th), Brooks Orpik, Kris Kolanos
Montreal Ron Hainsey (13th), Vaclav Nedorost, Artem Kryukov, Marcel Hossa (16th), Alexei Mikhnov, Brooks Orpik
Ottawa Anton Volchenkov (21st), David Hale, Nathan Smith
Toronto Brad Boyes (24th), Steve Ott, Brian Sutherby
Vancouver Nathan Smith (23rd), Brad Boyes, Steve Ott


2nd round
Calgary Kurtis Foster (40th), Tero Maatta, Libor Ustrnul, Jarret Stoll (46th), Jared Aulin, Gerard Dicaire
Edmonton Brad Winchester (35th), Daniel Widing, Andy Hilbert
Montreal No picks
Ottawa Mattieu Chouinard (45th), Ilya Bryzgalov, Jarret Stoll, Antoine Vermette (55th), Aleksander Suglobov, Matt DeMarchi
Toronto Kris Vernarsky (51st), Shane Endicott, Alexander Tatarinov
Vancouver No picks


3rd Round
Calgary No picks
Edmonton Alexander Ljubimov (83rd), Peter Hamerlik, Ramzi Abid
Montreal Josef Balej (78th), Tyler Hanchuck(79th), Ryan Bayda, Alexander Kharitonov
Ottawa Jan Bohac (87th), Kurt Sauer, Libor Pivko
Toronto Jean-Francois Racine (90th), Alexei Tereschenko, Sergei Kliazmin
Vancouver Thatcher Bell (71st), Mattias Nilssen, Sergei Zinovjev, Tim Branham (93rd), Alexander Dzozdetsky, Dominic Moore

A top-heavy draft for sure. No glaring errors except for Vancouver taking Nathan Smith instead of Brad Boyes, who Toronto wonderfully traded for a broken-down Owen Nolan. Like the 1999 draft, a true lack of impact players drafted by Canadian teams, with the exception of Ottawa. Best: Toronto, just because of Boyes. Worst: Vancouver, also because of Boyes.

2001 NHL Draft
1st Overall Pick: Ilya Kovalchuk

Calgary Chuck Kobasew (14th), Igor Knyazev, R.J. Umberger
Edmonton Ales Hemsky (13th), Chuck Kobasew, Igor Knyazev
Montreal Mike Komisarek (7th), Pascal Leclair, Tuomo Ruutu, Alexander Perezhogin (25th), Jason Bacashihua, Jeff Woywitka
Ottawa Jason Spezza (2nd), Alexandr Svitov, Stephen Weiss, Tim Gleason (23rd), Lukas Krajicek, Alexander Perezhogin
Toronto Carlo Colaiacovo (17th), Jens Karlsson, Shoane Morrisonn
Vancouver R.J. Umberger (16th), Carlo Colaiacovo, Jens Karlsson


2nd round
Calgary Andrei Taratukhin (41st), Tomas Slovak, Doug Lynch
Edmonton Doug Lynch (43rd), Igor Pohanka, Martin Podlesak, Ed Caron (52rd), Kiel McLeod, Noah Welch
Montreal Duncan Milroy (37th), Tim Jackman, Karel Pilar
Ottawa No picks
Toronto Karel Pilar (39th), Fedor Tyutin, Andrei Taratukhin
Vancouver No picks


3rd Round
Calgary No picks
Edmonton Kenny Smith (84th), Aaron Johnson, Drew Fata
Montreal Thomas Plekanec (71st), Brandon Nolan, Craig Anderson
Ottawa Neil Komadoski (81st), Jay Harrison, Henrik Juntunen
Toronto Brenden Bell (65th), Fedor Fedorov, Robin Leblanc, Jay Harrison (82nd), Henrik Juntenen, Kenny Smith, Nicolas Corbeil (88th), Tuomas Nissinen, Owen Fussey
Vancouver Fedor Fedorov (66th), Robin Leblanc, Grant McNeill

Pretty good showing for each Canadian team. Each team drafted an NHLer in the first round, and Edmonton, Ottawa and Montreal came away with franchise players. Best: Narrowly to Montreal, for getting Komisarek and Plekanec. Worst: Vancouver.


2002 NHL Draft
1st Overall Pick: Rick Nash

1st Round
Calgary Eric Nystrom (10th), Keith Ballard, Steve Eminger
Edmonton Jesse Niinimaki (15th), Jakub Klepis, Boyd Gordon
Montreal Chris Higgins (14th), Jesse Niinimaki, Jakub Klepis
Ottawa Jakub Klepis (16th), Boyd Gordon, Denis Grebeshkov
Toronto Alexander Steen (24th), Cam Ward, Martin Vagner
Vancouver No picks


2nd round
Calgary Brian McConnell (39th), Rob Globke, Joakim Lindstrom
Edmonton Jeff Deslauriers (31th), Janos Vas, Lee Falardeau, Jarret Stoll (36th), Tim Brent, Josh Harding, Matt Greene (44th), Matthew Daley, David LeNeveu
Montreal Matthew Daley (45th), David LeNeveu, Alexei Kaigorodov
Ottawa Alexei Kaigorodov (47th), Alexei Shkotov, Kirill Koltsov
Toronto Matt Stajan (57th), Jiri Hudler, Maxime Daigneault
Vancouver Kirill Koltsov (49th), Sergei Anshakov, Anton Kadeykin, Dennis Grot (55th), Vladislav Evseev, Matt Stajan


3rd Round
Calgary Matthew Lombardi (90th), Jesse Lane, Derek Krestanovitch
Edmonton Brock Radunske (79th), Matt Jones, Marcus Jonasen
Montreal No picks
Ottawa No picks
Toronto Todd Ford (74th), Arttu Luttinen, Michael Tessier, Dominic D'Amour (88th), Tomas Troliga, Matthew Lombardi
Vancouver Brett Skinner (68th), Erik Christiensen, Joe Callahan, Lukas Mensator (83rd), Marek Chvatal

Some nice picks in here, no real lapses save Brett Skinner over Erik Christiensen and Alex Steen over Cam Ward. Though given Toronto's ability to draft goalie prospects then trade them, not a big loss. Best: Edmonton, for their second round alone. Worst: Vancouver.

2003 NHL Draft
1st Overall Pick: Marc-Andre Fleury

1st Round
Calgary Dion Phaneuf (7th), Andrei Kostitsyn, Jeff Carter
Edmonton Marc-Antoine Pouliot (22nd), Ryan Kesler, Mike Richards
Montreal Andrei Kostitsyn (8th), Jeff Carter, Hugh Jessiman
Ottawa Patrick Eaves (29th), Shawn Belle, Danny Richmond
Toronto No picks
Vancouver Ryan Kesler (23rd), Mike Richards, Anthony Stewart


2nd round
Calgary Tim Ramholt (39th), Cory Urquhart, Matt Smaby
Edmonton Colin McDonald (51st), Corey Crawford, Evgeni Tunik, Jean-Francois Jacques (65th), Colin Fraser, Jonathon Filewich
Montreal Cory Urquhart (40th), Matt Smaby, Petr Vrana, Maxim Lapierre (61th), David Backes, David Lifton
Ottawa No picks
Toronto John Doherty (57th), Jeremy Colliton, Michal Barinka
Vancouver Marc-Andre Bernier (60th), Maxim Lapierre, David Backes


3rd Round
Calgary Ryan Donally (97th), Grigory Shafigulin, Matt Nickerson
Edmonton Mikhail Zhukov (72nd), Daniel Carcillo, Clarke MacArthur, Zack Stortini (94th), Rick Kozak, Jonathon Boutin
Montreal No picks
Ottawa Philippe Seydoux (100th), Konstantine Zakharov, Aaron Dawson
Toronto Martin Sagat (91st), Alexander Sulzer, Ivan Khomutov
Vancouver No picks

Great draft, that whole first round has played in the NHL except for Hugh Jessiman, who went 12th. Booboos go to Edmonton, for trading the 17th pick (Zack Parise, 31 goals last year, 32 this year) for two later pick (Marc-Antoine Pouliot and J.F. Jacques). Pouliot has played pretty well for Edmonton since being called up this year, but Jacques hasn't stuck despite playing pretty well for Springfield in the AHL. Other booboos to Toronto, for trading their 1st round pick, along with Brad Boyes and Alyn McCauley to San Jose the year before for Owen Nolan. Had they not made that trade, they keep Boyes and McCauley and have a chance to draft one of Ryan Kesler, Mike Richards, or Corey Perry. Shitty. Best: Calgary, for getting Phaneuf at number 6. Worst: Tie, Toronto and Edmonton.

2004 NHL Draft
1st Overall Pick: Alexander Ovechkin

1st Round
Calgary Kris Chuko (24th), Rob Schremp, Cory Schneider
Edmonton Devan Dubnyk (14th), Alexander Radulov, Petteri Nokelainen, Rob Schremp (25th), Cory Schneider, Jeff Schultz
Montreal Kyle Chipchura (18th), Lauri Korpikoski, Travis Zajac
Ottawa Andrei Meszaros (23rd), Kris Chuko, Rob Schremp
Toronto No picks
Vancouver Cory Schneider (26th), Jeff Schultz, Mark Fistric


2nd round
Calgary No picks
Edmonton Roman Tesliuk (44th), Ryan Garlock, Adam Pineault, Geoff Paukovich (57th), Kirill Lyamin, Kyle Wharton
Montreal No picks
Ottawa Kirill Lyamin (58th), Kyle Wharton, Brandon Dubinsky
Toronto No picks
Vancouver No picks


3rd Round
Calgary Dustin Boyd (98th), Tyler Kennedy, J.T. Wyman
Edmonton No picks
Montreal Alexei Yemelin (84th), Brian Gifford, John Lammers
Ottawa Peter Regin (87th), Clayton Barthel, Jeff Glass (89th), Justin Pogge, Alexander Edler
Toronto Justin Pogge (90th), Alexander Edler, Rob Bellamy
Vancouver Alexander Edler (91st), Rob Bellamy, Dan Lacosta

Now we get into some serious top-heavy drafts. Washington wins this draft even if they had used the rest of their picks on arena personnel. Edmonton and Vancouver take goalies in the first round but at this point, neither is as good a prospect as Justin Pogge who Toronto picked later, probably by accident, at 90th. That's a nice third round string of Jeff Glass, Pogge and Alexander Edler in a row. Two gold-medal Canadian junior goalies and a good young defenseman for Vancouver. Oopsies: Edmonton for taking Dubnyk over Radulov (still early in both careers but Radulov is good), and Vancouver for taking Schneider when, yes I'm looking three spots instead of two, they could have had Mike Green at 29th. Best: Pretty tough since there were lots of gaps, but marginally Vancouver and Edmonton for each having two prospects (Dubnyk, Schneider, Schremp and Edler) who are still relevent. Worst: Toronto saves it's poor draft by grabbing Pogge, so Calgary is barely the worst having only Dustin Boyd remaining as a factor. Still, this is a pretty even draft for the six Canadian teams.

2005 NHL Draft
1st Overall Pick: Sidney Crosby (James Duthie interviewing Brian Burke after Burke picked Bobby Ryan at #2: "Are you surprised Bobby Ryan fell this far to number 2?")

1st Round
Calgary Matt Pelech (25th), Joe Finley, Matt Niskanen
Edmonton Andrew Cogliano (24th), Matt Pelech, Joe Finley
Montreal Carey Price (5th), Gilbert Brule, Jack Skille
Ottawa Brian Lee (9th), Luc Bourdon, Gilbert Brule
Toronto Tuuka Rask (21st), Matt Lashoff, Nicklas Bergfors
Vancouver Luc Bourdon (10th), Anze Kopitar, Marc Staal


2nd round
Calgary No picks
Edmonton Taylor Chorney (36th), Scott Jackson, Jeff Frazee
Montreal Guillaume Latendresse (45th), Dustin Kohn, Tom Fritsche
Ottawa No picks
Toronto No picks
Vancouver Mason Raymond (51st), Chris Durand, Andrew Kozek


3rd Round
Calgary Gord Baldwin (69th), Vitaly Anikeenko, Richard Clune, Dan Ryder (74th), Perttu Lindgren, Shea Guthrie
Edmonton Danny Syvret (81st), Phil Oreskovic, Mikko Lehtonen, Robbie Dee (86th), Marc-Andre Gragnani, T.J. Hensick
Montreal No picks
Ottawa No picks
Toronto Vitaly Anikeenko (70th), Richard Clune, Jon Quick, Phil Oreskovic (82nd), Mikko Lehtonen, Mark Fraser
Vancouver No picks

Ah, the big draft after the lockout. Obviously as we get to more recent drafts it becomes hard to paint winners and losers, mistakes from good judgement, so we'll have to go by What We Still Think Is True about chosen players. Luc Bourdon may turn into an impact defenseman and a solid pick, but knowing Anze Kopitar put up 20 goals last year and 77 points this year will make it tough choice to live down. It's not like Kopitar came out of nowhere either, he was the top-ranked European skater. A good pick for the Leafs in Tuuka Rask went bad as a result of poor asset management; he was traded for Andrew Raycroft who's now likely on his way out of Toronto. They already had Pogge too, so perhaps Cogliano, who's even from Toronto, would have been a better pick. Don Cherry thought so on Coach's Corner, so it must be true. Best: Montreal, who got Price and Latendresse. Worst: Calgary so far.

2006 NHL Draft
1st Overall Pick: Erik Johnson

1st Round
Calgary Leland Irving (26th), Ivan Vishnevskiy, Nick Foligno
Edmonton No picks
Montreal David Fischer (20th), Bob Sanguinetti, Claude Giroux
Ottawa Nick Foligno (28th), Chris Summers, Matt Corentte
Toronto Jiri Tlusty (13th), Michael Grabner, Riku Helenius
Vancouver Michael Grabner (14th), Riku Helenius, Ty Wishart


2nd round
Calgary No picks
Edmonton Jeff Petry (45th), Jhonas Enroth, Shawn Matthias
Montreal Ben Maxwell (49th), Milan Lucic, Nigel Williams, Mattieu Carle (53rd), Artem Anisimov, Denis Bodrov
Ottawa No picks
Toronto Nikolai Kulemin (44th), Jeff Petry, Jhonas Enroth
Vancouver No picks


3rd Round
Calgary John Armstrong (87th), Jonas Ahnelov, Aaron Marvin (88th), Aaron Snow, Kaspars Daugavins
Edmonton Theo Peckham (75th), Tony Lagerstrom, Vladimir Zharkov
Montreal Ryan White (66th), Kirill Tulupov, Eric Gryba
Ottawa Eric Gryba (68th), Steve Mason, Robin Figren, Kaspars Daugavins (90th), Daniel Larsson, Harrison Reed
Toronto No picks
Vancouver Daniel Rahimi (82nd), John DeGray, Ryan Hillier

Getting even more speculative in our judgements now. No top-end talent acquired here, but a few smallish errors. Steve Mason looks like a real good goalie prospect for Columbus, so maybe Montreal would rather have him than Eric Gryba. They have enough young goalies though, so not a big miss. Yeah I know you could draft him and trade him later, but he only developed as well as he did because he got playing time, something he wouldn't have got in Montreal's system playing behind Price and Halak. Also, Claude Giroux almost made the Flyers this year, so he might have been a better pick for the Habs than David Fischer. Giroux's even French. Fischer's still in school, so hard to tell at this point. Vancouver loses points for drafting Grabner when they could have had Wishart, a solid defenseman and a former Prince George Cougar no less. Best: Gee. Um. I dunno, Toronto for getting Tlusty? Worst: Undetermined/Everyone else.

2007 NHL Draft
1st Overall Pick: Patrick Kane

1st Round
Calgary Mikael Backlund (24th), Patrick White, David Perron
Edmonton Sam Gagner (6th), Jakub Voracek, Zack Hamill, Alex Plante (15th), Colton Gillies, Alexei Cherepanov, Riley Nash (21st), Max Pacioretty, Jonathon Blum
Montreal Ryan McDonagh (12th), Lars Eller, Kevin Shattenkirk, Max Pacioretty (22nd), Jonathon Blum, Mikael Backlund
Ottawa Jim O'Brien (29th), Nick Ross, T.J. Brennen
Toronto No picks
Vancouver Patrick White (25th), David Perron, Brendan Smith


2nd round
Calgary No picks
Edmonton No picks
Montreal No picks
Ottawa Ruslan Bashkirov (60th), Wayne Simmonds, Mark Katic
Toronto No picks
Vancouver Taylor Ellington (33rd), Josh Godfrey, Tommy Cross


3rd Round
Calgary John Negrin (70th), Evgeni Dadonov, Drayson Bowman
Edmonton No picks
Montreal Olivier Fortier (65th), Garrett Klotz, Spencer Machacek
Ottawa Louie Caporusso (90th), Tyson Sexsmith, Justin Vaive
Toronto Dale Mitchell (74th), Luca Cunti, Jason Gregoire
Vancouver No picks

Oh God finally done this stupid idea. A hard draft to gauge since the player most thought was the best talent, Cherepanov, wasn't drafted until later and might take a while to get to the NHL. Kyle Turris also hasn't played yet so it's hard to say how he'll compare to Kane and Gagner. David Perron made the Blues this year and Mikael Backlund didn't make the Flames, but the Flames are also a very good team and the Blues are the very opposite. Still, Perron looks like a pretty good player. Biggest Oops goes to Edmonton, twice, if Cherepanov turns into a superstar (and better than Gagner) but otherwise no glaring errors for anyone. Best: Edmonton, easily, for getting the best player of any Canadian team. Worst: Toronto, who hates draft day and tries its best to get rid of as many picks as possible so it won't have to sit there all day.

So I won't do that again, it got going pretty fast after a while but there's just way too much information to distill and contemplate. First conclusion: Most of the draft is teams drafting a non-factor with other non-factors following them. Most players who are drafted do nothing, so it's probably more fair for fans to be thankful when any of them actually make it. Second conclusion: Some commentators (Bill Watters on Sportsnet for one), say Edmonton has among the best young talent in the NHL. If that's true, then why does Edmonton have so many Oopses on the list? Well first, I know a bit more about them than other teams so this list probably isn't fair. The biggest reason, however, is that there's more than one way to assemble and develop young talent. The draft is important, sure, but by trading one very good draft pick (Ryan Smyth, 6th in 1994), the Oilers picked up Robert Nilsson (who had more points than Smyth this past year, though in more games), a first-rounder (Alex Plante, jury still out), and Ryan O'Marra (jury still out, but at least made it out of the ECHL). Also, because of the trade, the Oilers were beyond awful in their last twenty games. As a result, they slid way down the standings and were able to draft Sam Gagner. So four pieces of their youth movement came from one trade. That's a pretty cold way of looking at it since I still wish they hadn't traded Smyth, but a couple of good choices can clearly offset some glaring mistakes. In other words, the draft isn't the only way to build a young talent base.

Friday, April 4, 2008

Opening Day ! (v 2.0)

Opening Day/night in Toronto, with the retirement of Chili Palmer's number. Or rather, Roberto Alomar doing his best Chili Palmer impression while the Jays do their best impression of retiring numbers: Putting His Name On The Level Of Excellence. I really tried to find a Get Shorty clip showing the Travolta strut because Alomar looked just like him, same clothes too. Nice ceremony, great to see Paul Beeston get his due. Alomar was my favorite player when I was younger, as he was for probably every kid that age. I did everything I could to emulate him: played second base, wore #12, tried the backhand jump-throw whenever possible, tried, foolishly, to switch-hit, same batting stance, same basestealing stance, and paid out whatever necessary for his assorted baseball cards. Just too bad Alomar's exit wasn't more positive, there were a lot of negatives around at that time for the league (with the 1994 Players' strike) and for the team, who were bought by Interbrew in 1994 and failed to impress during the Gord Ash era. Certainly the Ash era was an unsuccessful one but no worse than the Riccardi era. A better drafting record certainly, having grabbed Vernon Wells, Orlando Hudson, and Michael Young in the 1997 draft alone, while drafting Roy Halladay in 1995. Riccardi has what, Aaron Hill? That's good, but anyone else?

Marcum looks great through five, 0 runs/1 hit/5 K's/53 pitches. Looks so far like last year's offensive production is still the norm though, with only two hits themselves. Good pitcher's dual at least, would be a shame to waste Opening Night/Alomar/Marcum all at once.

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Nuts...

Great finish to a crummy season, Roloson lets in another terrible goal and two bounces don't go their way. I actually thought Calgary played better than the shotclock (30-17 Oilers) indicated, very close for the most part, no room to move but somehow thrilling at the same time. Hard to draw much of a conclusion out of this game about Calgary's playoff chances; on one hand seeing them struggle against a non-playoff team while they fight for their own seeding, yet maybe they are a pretty good team that struggled against a really good team that only found itself in the last two or three months. I think Calgary can win a series of attrition, both literally and figuratively, but against Detroit or Anaheim they'll be in tough. I'll post some playoff predictions when the seedings are sorted out.