2018-19 Iowa Wild and other Wild Prospects Discussion

[CreaseAndAssist]

1 hour ago, IllaZilla said:

 

The day Fletcher was introduced, during his press conference he promised to change the Wild into a fast, aggressive skating team like the Penguins...

 

Sounds about as laughable as Walz trying to convince a season ticket holder that the team might try to snag Evgeni Malkin.  

[IllaZilla]

48 minutes ago, CreaseAndAssist said:

 

Sounds about as laughable as Walz trying to convince a season ticket holder that the team might try to snag Evgeni Malkin.  

 

I think it was an admirable intention, but he didn't do himself any favors extending a very slow player for seven years and then giving him a NMC to boot. Kind of put a crimp in the ability of the team to acquire those players that could make them faster and more aggressive...

 

As far as Walz dangling Malkin out there, I wonder if that spiel was made to every season ticket holder, or only the ones that threatened to bail. Because I bet it was only made to the ones who threatened to leave. People were giddy over the signing of the pair of "superstars" in Parise and Suter, so let's try it again! Dangle some "superstar" out there to try and get them to sign on the dotted line. That's all that matters...

Edited August 16, 2018 by IllaZilla

[Alexandron]

21 hours ago, IllaZilla said:

Yeah, they did. But I would have too. Just because he never got to play for the Wild, I still would have included Leddy as one of the Wild’s draft successes. But I would also have included Sheppard. He stuck around the NHL for six seasons and averaged about 50 games per season. Is that great for being a top 10 pick? Probably not. But we’re not looking at the value of the pick, just that a player was drafted by the Wild and played a significant amount of games in the NHL. And we would have to decide what “significant” means. 

It is a very good question IllaZilla– What is significant means for a hockey player and for a fan watching that player’s play? How to determine right his significance for the team and for the fans as well?

I think significant means the real value, the real production, the real influence for the team in helping to advance to the top of Stanley Cup. I do not think the significant means how many games and how many minutes the player played in NHL, because even he played lots of games there he still could present a weak significant ballast/ be very unnoticeable for the team during that time.

 

[IllaZilla]

2 hours ago, Alexandron said:

It is a very good question IllaZilla– What is significant means for a hockey player and for a fan watching that player’s play? How to determine right his significance for the team and for the fans as well?

I think significant means the real value, the real production, the real influence for the team in helping to advance to the top of Stanley Cup. I do not think the significant means how many games and how many minutes the player played in NHL, because even he played lots of games there he still could present a weak significant ballast/ be very unnoticeable for the team during that time.

 

 

Well, I wasn’t referring to the overall significance of a player. I was referring what we want to define as a significant amount of games to be with the NHL club to be considered a draft success. Is it 82  games? 100 games? 164 games?

[rottenrefs]

11 hours ago, IllaZilla said:

 

Well, the team definitely improved under his leadership, record-wise. They went from middle of the pack under Risebrough to top ten in the league. So he was definitely doing something right there.

 

He was not afraid to make trades to try and improve the team, or sign free agents. Some of his trades worked (Pominville trade), and some didn't (Hanzal trade). Some of the free agents signings worked (Parise) and some didn't (Vanek).

 

I think Fletcher's downfall was the teams inability to perform in the Playoffs. Whether it was injuries or "the hot goaltender", there was always something that seemed to pop up during the Playoffs that derailed the Wild's post-season efforts. Whether these things were entirely his fault or not, hard to say. But he had already fired his hand-picked coach Mike Yeo, so the next person on the hot seat was himself, since he couldn't fire the team. And unfortunately, the team failed to show up once again in the Playoffs and it cost him his job.

That's very true, but I do believe he gave too much power to certain players and as we all speculated, it tied his coaches hands as a result. Way too often under Yeo the lines we saw were often mind-boggling. Far worse have been the PP lines. Then it trickled into Boudreau's realm too. 

[IllaZilla]

8 hours ago, rottenrefs said:

That's very true, but I do believe he gave too much power to certain players and as we all speculated, it tied his coaches hands as a result. Way too often under Yeo the lines we saw were often mind-boggling. Far worse have been the PP lines. Then it trickled into Boudreau's realm too. 

 

Did he give too much power to certain players or was he told to listen to certain players?

Because there is a big difference. If he let the inmates run the asylum, then that’s on him. But if he was told to let the inmates run the asylum, then no matter what his vision for the team was, it was never going to come to fruition if his managing of the team was always interfered with. 

[Alexandron]

12 hours ago, IllaZilla said:

 

Well, I wasn’t referring to the overall significance of a player. I was referring what we want to define as a significant amount of games to be with the NHL club to be considered a draft success. Is it 82  games? 100 games? 164 games?

Let's say 2 full seasons (164 games). I think one season definitely is not enough to determine a significant draft success.

[CreaseAndAssist]

3 hours ago, IllaZilla said:

 

Did he give too much power to certain players or was he told to listen to certain players?

Because there is a big difference. If he let the inmates run the asylum, then that’s on him. But if he was told to let the inmates run the asylum, then no matter what his vision for the team was, it was never going to come to fruition if his managing of the team was always interfered with. 

 

I think that is a superb question.  I think it is indeed plausible based on what we've seen be deployed on the ice that perhaps there has to be a certain level of player consent to line combinations.  If true, I am not sure why ANY coach would want to be in that situation.  

[Alexandron]

Here below is a schedule for up coming soon a Traverse City NHL Prospect Tournament. We are in a Ted Lindsay Division against of pretty good teams. Interesting who is going to play for our team this year? Last year we played not bad at all. I think in general we had a good pretty solid team. We lost only one last game then. Kunin, Ek, Greenway, Sokolov, Lodnia, Mason Shaw, Soucy as well as other players from Iowa Wild played there too. Unfortunately, Mason Shaw was badly injured(ACL tear) during that tournament and missed the entire season after. Hope, Khovanov will play this tournament together with Sokolov. I liked that's pair chemistry after development camp this summer, may be because of their better communication, which is important too. Hope, also to see  Belpedio and both Johanssons . Those tournaments bring lots of heart plays, which I like it for years.

 

https://www.centreice.org/page/show/483955-nhl-prospect-tournament

 

 

[rottenrefs]

17 hours ago, IllaZilla said:

 

Did he give too much power to certain players or was he told to listen to certain players?

Because there is a big difference. If he let the inmates run the asylum, then that’s on him. But if he was told to let the inmates run the asylum, then no matter what his vision for the team was, it was never going to come to fruition if his managing of the team was always interfered with. 

That is of course a very deep question. I know initially when foolish activities between line choices and such first started taking place when Todd Richards was coach my alert meter immediately jumped all over Fletcher and Leipold for allowing those types of actions taking place, then railed on Yeo (and Leipold and Fletcher) for much of the same thing all over again but it obviously got worse... And as time went on it kept getting more questionable.

[sweetshot]

On ‎8‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 9:15 AM, CreaseAndAssist said:

 

I think that is a superb question.  I think it is indeed plausible based on what we've seen be deployed on the ice that perhaps there has to be a certain level of player consent to line combinations.  If true, I am not sure why ANY coach would want to be in that situation.  

To add to your comment I'd like to say that I'm not sure why any GM would want to be in that situation, either. Not to point any fingers.

[CreaseAndAssist]

7 hours ago, sweetshot said:

To add to your comment I'd like to say that I'm not sure why any GM would want to be in that situation, either. Not to point any fingers.

 

Fenton obviously was willing to roll with it.  No doubt he was painted into a corner by the owners comments just prior to him being hired.  

[IllaZilla]

Hey kids! Let's have some fun with numbers!

 

Here's how the various teams stack up with both Alexandron's draft success rate (164 games) and Fargo's draft success rate (100 games). A few things:

• These numbers come from the 2000-2018 drafts. So the impacts of the last three or four drafts really aren't factored in here, but I didn't want to exclude them in case a team had a player that qualified for our "success" rate (like Auston Matthews).
• The Atlanta/Winnipeg teams are in here three times, once for the Atlanta franchise, once for the Winnipeg franchise, and a third time combining the two. Including them like this really didn't change anything.
• League average is at the bottom.
• This does not take into account if the player drafted remained with the team (ex. Nick Leddy).
• This does not take into account where the player was drafted (ex. 1st round vs 7th round).

I sorted them on the 100+ Success%, and it really didn't make much of a difference.

 

Team	Total Picks	164+	100+	164+ Success%	100+ Success%
ANA	135	32	37	24%	27%
PIT	135	26	35	19%	26%
OTT	143	31	37	22%	26%
CBJ	159	27	41	17%	26%
LAK	156	31	37	20%	24%
BUF	152	33	36	22%	24%
EDM	158	28	37	18%	23%
NAS	155	24	36	15%	23%
CAR	134	22	28	16%	21%
DET	149	23	31	15%	21%
MIN	137	23	28	17%	20%
MTL	142	25	29	18%	20%
NYR	147	24	30	16%	20%
DAL	147	24	30	16%	20%
WAS	143	27	29	19%	20%
CHI	186	28	37	15%	20%
TOR	147	22	29	15%	20%
SJS	135	21	26	16%	19%
FLA	152	27	29	18%	19%
STL	152	24	28	16%	18%
TBL	160	18	29	11%	18%
BOS	133	21	24	16%	18%
CAL	141	23	25	16%	18%
ATL	96	15	17	16%	18%
NYI	149	22	26	15%	17%
PHL	147	22	25	15%	17%
COL	150	22	25	15%	17%
ATL/WPG	154	21	25	14%	16%
PHO	149	16	24	11%	16%
NJD	146	17	23	12%	16%
WPG	58	6	8	10%	14%
VAN	129	15	17	12%	13%
Average	143	23.1	28.7	16%	20%

 

Like it or not, based on these defined success rates, the Wild do Ok with drafting. Top third of the league.

[IllaZilla]

18 hours ago, sweetshot said:

To add to your comment I'd like to say that I'm not sure why any GM would want to be in that situation, either. Not to point any fingers.

 

Well, it was a promotion. And if Fenton has any ideas of his own, he just has to wait a year. If the team flames out in the first round again, then he can go to Leipold and say "We tried it your way with just "tweaks". But this team needs more than "tweaks". We need to do A, B and C."

Edited August 19, 2018 by IllaZilla

[4Check]

3 hours ago, IllaZilla said:

 

Well, it was a promotion. And if Fenton has any ideas of his own, he just has to wait a year. If the team flames out in the first round again, then he can go to Leipold and say "We tried it your way with just "tweaks". But this team needs more than "tweaks". We need to do A, B and C."

It looks like he tried "A" (Nino & Zucker) to AZ.   I assume "A" would have allowed "B".  My guess?   He was going to flip Domi.   

[sweetshot]

8 hours ago, IllaZilla said:

Hey kids! Let's have some fun with numbers!

 

Here's how the various teams stack up with both Alexandron's draft success rate (164 games) and Fargo's draft success rate (100 games). A few things:

• These numbers come from the 2000-2018 drafts. So the impacts of the last three or four drafts really aren't factored in here, but I didn't want to exclude them in case a team had a player that qualified for our "success" rate (like Auston Matthews).
• The Atlanta/Winnipeg teams are in here three times, once for the Atlanta franchise, once for the Winnipeg franchise, and a third time combining the two. Including them like this really didn't change anything.
• League average is at the bottom.
• This does not take into account if the player drafted remained with the team (ex. Nick Leddy).
• This does not take into account where the player was drafted (ex. 1st round vs 7th round).

I sorted them on the 100+ Success%, and it really didn't make much of a difference.

 

Team	Total Picks	164+	100+	164+ Success%	100+ Success%
ANA	135	32	37	24%	27%
PIT	135	26	35	19%	26%
OTT	143	31	37	22%	26%
CBJ	159	27	41	17%	26%
LAK	156	31	37	20%	24%
BUF	152	33	36	22%	24%
EDM	158	28	37	18%	23%
NAS	155	24	36	15%	23%
CAR	134	22	28	16%	21%
DET	149	23	31	15%	21%
MIN	137	23	28	17%	20%
MTL	142	25	29	18%	20%
NYR	147	24	30	16%	20%
DAL	147	24	30	16%	20%
WAS	143	27	29	19%	20%
CHI	186	28	37	15%	20%
TOR	147	22	29	15%	20%
SJS	135	21	26	16%	19%
FLA	152	27	29	18%	19%
STL	152	24	28	16%	18%
TBL	160	18	29	11%	18%
BOS	133	21	24	16%	18%
CAL	141	23	25	16%	18%
ATL	96	15	17	16%	18%
NYI	149	22	26	15%	17%
PHL	147	22	25	15%	17%
COL	150	22	25	15%	17%
ATL/WPG	154	21	25	14%	16%
PHO	149	16	24	11%	16%
NJD	146	17	23	12%	16%
WPG	58	6	8	10%	14%
VAN	129	15	17	12%	13%
Average	143	23.1	28.7	16%	20%

 

Like it or not, based on these defined success rates, the Wild do Ok with drafting. Top third of the league.

Fantastic job with the numbers!! I sort of did my own thing from 2000 thru 2010 for 4 teams--would've taken me 8 hours to post it so I didn't. Question--do you think the total amount of games played for each draft pick be included if it's a significant number--say above 800? For example, Chicago had 2 players with about 1000(1004 and 995) total games played and 3 players with approx 800(791, 822, 827) total games played that were drafted between 2000 and 2010. I don't know how one would work that into the equation for determining draft success, though. And that was quite a run for CBH so the comparison might be a bit unfair.

[sweetshot]

13 hours ago, sweetshot said:

Fantastic job with the numbers!! I sort of did my own thing from 2000 thru 2010 for 4 teams--would've taken me 8 hours to post it so I didn't. Question--do you think the total amount of games played for each draft pick be included if it's a significant number--say above 800? For example, Chicago had 2 players with about 1000(1004 and 995) total games played and 3 players with approx 800(791, 822, 827) total games played that were drafted between 2000 and 2010. I don't know how one would work that into the equation for determining draft success, though. And that was quite a run for CBH so the comparison might be a bit unfair.

I should've used CHI not CBH.

[IllaZilla]

13 hours ago, sweetshot said:

Fantastic job with the numbers!! I sort of did my own thing from 2000 thru 2010 for 4 teams--would've taken me 8 hours to post it so I didn't. Question--do you think the total amount of games played for each draft pick be included if it's a significant number--say above 800? For example, Chicago had 2 players with about 1000(1004 and 995) total games played and 3 players with approx 800(791, 822, 827) total games played that were drafted between 2000 and 2010. I don't know how one would work that into the equation for determining draft success, though. And that was quite a run for CBH so the comparison might be a bit unfair.

 

You could. Kind of a “Good, Better, Best” ranking. But again, we would have to designate how many games we consider “Good, Better, and Best”. What I found interesting is Chicago had the highest amount of draft picks from 2000-2018, yet their overall success rate was one of the lower ones (15%). Or Anaheim’s success rate of 27%. First thing Fenton needs to do is hire Anaheim’s scouting staff!

[CreaseAndAssist]

On 8/20/2018 at 5:28 AM, IllaZilla said:

 

You could. Kind of a “Good, Better, Best” ranking. But again, we would have to designate how many games we consider “Good, Better, and Best”. What I found interesting is Chicago had the highest amount of draft picks from 2000-2018, yet their overall success rate was one of the lower ones (15%). Or Anaheim’s success rate of 27%. First thing Fenton needs to do is hire Anaheim’s scouting staff!

 

I hope we see a house cleaning of the scouting staff.  I think Fenton will do so; kind of based on his decision to send John Anderson out in favor of his own guy in Dean Evason.  He wants his own guys...but Fletcher locked those guys up for another year.  Flahr's basically a lame duck as Kurvers has his job.  

[IllaZilla]

5 hours ago, CreaseAndAssist said:

 

I hope we see a house cleaning of the scouting staff.  I think Fenton will do so; kind of based on his decision to send John Anderson out in favor of his own guy in Dean Evason.  He wants his own guys...but Fletcher locked those guys up for another year.  Flahr's basically a lame duck as Kurvers has his job.  

 

Be nice to see whose recommendation it was to draft Johansson this past draft. Yes, Fenton called his name, but still, there had to be a lot of convincing voices in the room to pull the trigger in the first round on a general consensus third rounder...

[rottenrefs]

11 hours ago, CreaseAndAssist said:

 

I hope we see a house cleaning of the scouting staff.  I think Fenton will do so; kind of based on his decision to send John Anderson out in favor of his own guy in Dean Evason.  He wants his own guys...but Fletcher locked those guys up for another year.  Flahr's basically a lame duck as Kurvers has his job.  

Very true but who's protecting all the others? Ten days in from when Fenton was hired I was hoping to see some name changes among scouts and a few others but it seems while the cover changed all the content is still the same... So to speak.

[IllaZilla]

20 minutes ago, rottenrefs said:

Very true but who's protecting all the others? Ten days in from when Fenton was hired I was hoping to see some name changes among scouts and a few others but it seems while the cover changed all the content is still the same... So to speak.

 

We’re probably not going to see big changes to the scouting staff until next season, unfortunately. I’m sure there are guys Fenton wants to get in here, but they may be under contract to another team. So he may have to be patient and wait for their contracts to expire. Flahr is already out. Hopefully Guy LaPointe will be out soon too. I would expect by next draft Fenton will have his guys in place and maybe the Wild will stop drafting “safe” players. 

[CreaseAndAssist]

7 hours ago, IllaZilla said:

 

Be nice to see whose recommendation it was to draft Johansson this past draft. Yes, Fenton called his name, but still, there had to be a lot of convincing voices in the room to pull the trigger in the first round on a general consensus third rounder...

 

I think that was Flahr.  This was their last draft.  The picks seemed to fit like what they've drafted before which to me sounds like the old staff more or less made the selection.  

[CreaseAndAssist]

1 hour ago, rottenrefs said:

Very true but who's protecting all the others? Ten days in from when Fenton was hired I was hoping to see some name changes among scouts and a few others but it seems while the cover changed all the content is still the same... So to speak.

 

Contracts.  Fletcher re-signed a bunch of these people to deals.  Those that didn't get that contract were let go.  

[rottenrefs]

2 hours ago, IllaZilla said:

 

We’re probably not going to see big changes to the scouting staff until next season, unfortunately. I’m sure there are guys Fenton wants to get in here, but they may be under contract to another team. So he may have to be patient and wait for their contracts to expire. Flahr is already out. Hopefully Guy LaPointe will be out soon too. I would expect by next draft Fenton will have his guys in place and maybe the Wild will stop drafting “safe” players. 

Let's hope!!

 

1 hour ago, CreaseAndAssist said:

 

Contracts.  Fletcher re-signed a bunch of these people to deals.  Those that didn't get that contract were let go.  

Well that's sad. Wonder if they'll work harder? That's a rhetorical question but one wonders.