No, that would your moronic mischaracterization of my argument.
Feel free to list the core/star players our system has produced for us, particularly past the first round. Once you do that for yourself, my argument becomes crystal clear. Or should.
So you say I mischaracterize your argument... and then do nothing to clarify it.
At this point, I have no idea what you're actually arguing. As far as I can tell, you're now harping on about "core/star players our system has produced for us".
....a trade. A core player we had to get from another team, in fact. Nobody is saying it was a bad move, just that yet again the talent has to come from outside.
This is a core player our system has produced for us. We produced Luke Schenn, then traded him. Unless you now want to argue that core players drafted and developed internally are magically better than those acquired by other means...
Correct. Another top level player that we traded for, because we can't seem to draft one ourselves. Just like Mats Sundin 20 years ago, or Doug Gilmour.
I don't get this. Why is it bad that we trade for Kessel? If we hadn't, we likely get Tyler Seguin. And how does this impact negatively on our scouts?
Again, you're including guys we brought in by trade. We're discussing the Leaf amateur scouting department here.
Exactly, limiting the assessment of our scouting department only to players we've retained is idiotic. It's not a reflection of our scouting, it's a reflection of our manager's asset management. If our scouting department identifies players that are subsequently used down the road as assets to acquire better players, are they not doing a good job?
Rielly looks like he could be a frontline player for us. Kadri is still a possibility but has not been that guy yet, save the shortened season. You're then listing a 3rd line forward, a backup goalie, and a fourth defenceman as proof that we draft well? There's nothing special about any of that.
Again, I don't understand how this is an indictment of our system. You still haven't provided what you would qualify as adequate in the pep world of drafting and developing. And you stubbornly refuse to look at any other team, or league averages, to determine a sort of objective reference point for what can be considered 'success'.
All you're doing is arguing in a vacuum still, repeating the same old drivel that the Leafs don't draft and develop talent well.
Feel free to provide that list of core/star players anytime man.
You've done absolutely nothing but prove my point here. I think my favourite part was "and that's just off the top of my head", like you just came up with some huge impressive list. Amusing. The Leafs have made some wise trades and bad ones too. But we're not talking about those, we're talking about the performance of our scouting staff in recent years and the results at the NHL level.
So, talk about the performance of the scouts, but ignore the assets we used to acquire current core/star players? So the scouts only get credit based on management's decision to retain players?
As for Bolland being better than a second rounder, do you mean the player or, if he walks away this offseason, the sum value of what he gave us this season? I think that's a debatable statement.
One more thing...you keep mentioning "the average team". Is that your bar for the Leafs? Serious question.
Most 2nd round picks do not turn into NHLers (if I remember the stats correctly. Admittedly I could be wrong on this).
The 'average team' isn't my bar for the Leafs. I would like them to be an elite team. But in assessing the performance of their scouts, it's stupid to do so in a vacuum. Knowing the success rates of the 'average team' in drafting would give a better indication of the Leafs performance. Or, I mean, we could just use our guts, and our internal expectations... of course, that's entirely subjective.
This last bit isn't meant to be condescending or snarky... but I am legitimately confused as to what exactly you are arguing. Are you arguing that our scouts suck? Or that our management sucks? You variously mention our "system", "the Leafs amateur scouting department", and our "scouting staff". Because they're not one and the same. I would happily concede the Leafs have been poorly managed in recent memories, in particular the Fletcher/JFJ years. But it's unfair to pin poor management on our scouting department. The scouts can't magically make star players out of draft picks they don't have...
And again, you still haven't shown a single NHL team that does a better job drafting and developing players than Toronto.
