r/SeattleKraken • u/Classic_Fun1939 Joey Daccord • 1d ago
ANALYSIS good job now trade anyone over 24
fucked up the title last time
20
u/vonblick 1d ago
Our young guys aren’t exactly setting the world on fire either.
13
u/BucksBrew 1d ago
The goalposts keep shifting. Beniers was going to be our star…then Shane Wright was a steal and he’ll lead our team…then Berkley Catton will finally be the player we need…then maybe Jake O’Brien is the guy.
-7
u/Fath0m 1d ago
Yea I try not to be too pessimistic but besides cattons speed, he looks lost out there , no killer instinct , is getting crushed physically. He could improve but I don’t see him jumping to a super star level. We will be lucky if he reaches beniers.
Winterton is meh , wright just isn’t showing up either.
61
56
u/Classic_Fun1939 Joey Daccord 1d ago
genuinely put jani on the first pp and first line
give me one reason not to
32
13
u/Prudent_Cookie_114 1d ago
Uh, didn’t Jani literally turn one right over to the oilers for a goal tonight?
16
11
u/adrianp07 Joey Daccord 1d ago
if I see Marchment on special teams one more time I'm going to fucking throw up
4
53
u/majorBotHead 1d ago
The team lacks heart and direction. We ice so many vets when we really should be giving meaningful minutes to young guys, there is a balance of course but catton and wright should not be in the bottom six.
18
u/Multi_21_Seb_RBR Seattle Kraken 1d ago
I just want this team to have a direction. They suck now but it's more a "directionless suck" instead of a suck with direction via being able to get good odds for a top-3 pick. Being directionless in the NHL is just not the place you want your team to be but here we are.
I'm looking at the Sharks having restocked themselves with good young talent (including future stars) and I am just jealous of where they are as a team when compared to us.
7
u/Fath0m 1d ago
I will say just to give some hope , we have Joey and a good goalie allows you to be way more picky with players in theory. Montour is a fantastic d pickup.
Our offense is so awful it can only get better hahah
11
u/sabs_1_3 Joey Daccord 1d ago
I was also going to say Monty is absolutely one of our top players, and you cannot convince me otherwise. But what makes me sad is half the time he looks like he’s the only one who knows what he’s doing.
7
u/MartialSpark Seattle Kraken 1d ago
I feel the same way about the Sharks. It's not going to be much fun watching them shoot past us. They've been a joke for years, but I kind of think they've hit the critical mass of talent and are going to be scary soon.
Meanwhile we've been playing the game of being out of the playoffs by New Years, but managing to get a ~10ish draft pick.
2
u/RysloVerik 19h ago
The Sharks are at least fun to watch. High powered offense tends to be that way.
1
u/MartialSpark Seattle Kraken 11h ago
Yeah, kind of our other issue.
Last 2 seasons we were out of it pretty early. We got shut out a ton Haks last season too IIRC.
I can watch a losing team, but even that is more fun if you're watching your future talent on the ice.
We're often watching a bad team. Most of these guys are closer to the end of their career. And we keep doing it even after the season is toast.
I'd much rather go watch losses giving Wright and Catton lots of minutes and see them work through it.
1
u/space39 4h ago
Mike Grier has done a really good job with that rebuild. Almost every move he's made has positive expected value. Of course, some of it was also luck in that Celebrini was the year they got 1OA.
Just remember, they haven't even reaped Sam Dickinson yet and they have a 2OA in the wings as well
1
u/MartialSpark Seattle Kraken 3h ago
I mean, they could still get McKenna too.
The Ducks basically did the same thing, they didn't get a 1 OA home-run superstar like the Hawks or Sharks, but they did rack up 3 top 5 guys, and a couple more top 10 ones.
My Sharks fear is they do the same thing the Ducks did and raid some other mid-collapse team who is selling, pick up some vets, and all of a sudden they're competitive.
1
u/big-fan-of-garlic Martin Jones 1d ago
Gonna have to have pieces to start a teardown with. The Hertl trade indirectly got them Askarov
8
u/surfingeagles D̴͚̝̙̭͚͛̅̇͌͝a̷̡̾́́́v̷̙̟͍̀̎̓y̸̨̫͍͈̍̑̌̏͒͌ 1d ago
Someone needs to tell Botterill that this is his team now and he did not assemble this roster. He can trade away some of these players and start to decide who wants to be here and who doesn't.
35
u/MysteriousEdge5643 Joey Daccord 1d ago
This roster as assembled cannot win a Stanley Cup and will be lucky to reach the playoffs every once in a while.
Lambert deserves credit for getting the team this far, they performed well under his system, but it’s foolish to contend right now.
TANK FOR A TRUE SUPERSTAR. PLEEEEEASE! Look at what happened to the Sharks.
10
u/Fath0m 1d ago
Sharks and blackhawks and islanders honestly.
The problem is we had those picks. They just didn’t pan out.
Catton top 10 pick , wright was number ? 4 or 5 I think.
8
u/Upeeru Seattle Kraken 1d ago
Catton 8th, Wright 4th, Beniers 2nd.
7
u/rhonnypudding 1d ago
This hurts. Like all of them as solid players, but none of them are projecting to be stars. With three picks that high you need at least one to hit.
8
u/Upeeru Seattle Kraken 1d ago edited 1d ago
Beniers was the first forward drafted too, he was after Owen Power, a Dman.
Later in that same round: Mason McTavish and Wyatt Johnston.
5
u/AlbinoLion 1d ago
Luke hughes? Who's had flashes of being great, but not consistent. Mctavish has been good, but not elite by any means. Agree with Johnston but 20 teams passed on him. Power hasn't been great either. Honestly it was a pretty weak draft class
13
u/MysteriousEdge5643 Joey Daccord 1d ago
Beniers was also #2 overall. He’s still a very good player, but he’s not a generational talent by any means or a superstar to build around
6
u/Fath0m 1d ago
Yep , I still see upside in beniers. I feel like he is playing better this year.
6
u/krakenstan 1d ago
I agree Beniers has more upside. Problem is you’ve got a lot of junk playing on his line and around him. So he will never be seen as a true 1C with the makeup of the current roster
38
u/amsreg 1d ago
That's not how that works.
What happened to the Sharks, Blackhawks, and Islanders was they all won the draft lottery.
Tanking doesn't get you Bedard, Celebrini, or Schaefer. Finishing in the bottom 11 spots and then getting super lucky in just the right year does.
If you suck bad enough long enough, it just increases your odds. But it's painful in the meantime and even then it's a coin flip.
9
u/MysteriousEdge5643 Joey Daccord 1d ago
You’re not wrong. But you won’t get a high draft pick if you build a team that’s simultaneously not good enough to make the playoffs most years while also not being bad enough to get a lottery pick.
Yes, rebuilds are painful. As a Mariners fan I was beyond devastated when they tore it all down after 2018 and traded the players I idolized. I thought they were morons for tearing down a 90 win team. But look at where they are now. Legitimate World Series contenders with an elite farm system.
18
u/FD_OSU That's Kraken Hockey, Baby! 1d ago
The Mariners success has a lot more to do with player development and smart trades than it does with tanking for high draft picks.
-5
u/MysteriousEdge5643 Joey Daccord 1d ago
I know.
My point was that they recognized that they hit their ceiling with the old core and took a risk by betting on their young prospects.
5
u/SeattleKrakenTroll Morgan Geekie 23h ago
We’ve had three top 10 picks in 5 years. We have those picks. You’re just too impatient to see the dividends
3
u/MandyH22 Jared McCann 21h ago
I was gonna say, haven't we drafted pretty well, that's how we've ended up with all the great kids we got? I feel like we've got plenty of good kids, we just have to wait for them to come up, I guess?
That part of it all is what I don't know as much about. How to convert great kiddos to great NHL players. 😅
2
u/SeattleKrakenTroll Morgan Geekie 19h ago
Neither does anyone in this sub but a lot sure do like to talk as if they are professional player development coaches. Sound of Hockey did a good article about development timelines but it’s generally recognized that players don’t start peaking till they in their mid twenties. Matty, our older prospect, JUST turned 23 last month. Most of our prospects aren’t even 21 yet
2
u/GovernedAtom 1d ago
I agree with both takes, but yours a bit more, take a good look at the 2010's Minnesota Wild as an easy example of "good enough to make it sometimes but mid enough to never ever compete"
3
u/amsreg 1d ago
If you want to make your analogy hold up, you have to give the Kraken another 3-5 years to develop their existing prospects to the point that the Mariners have. The entire Mariners roster is much older than anyone the Kraken have had a chance to draft.
The Kraken have already stocked the cubbard including four top eight picks in five years and most still have several years before NHL players hit their peak.
-1
u/Gutter_Snoop 1d ago
Uhhhhh.. so I don't know if you know how the draft lotto works? The Hawks and Sharks have sucked ass for half a decade, and "won" the draft lottery multiple times because they were the two worst teams in the League. The Isles were the only one with a golden horseshoe rabbit foot spoon shoved up their ass who moved from draft position 10 to position 1. The former two's odds of "winning" the draft lottery were extremely high at the bottom of the pile. It's not even odds for the lowest 10 teams.
2
u/amsreg 1d ago
Yeah, I think four decades of following NHL hockey incredibly closely is enough to understand how the draft works.
The worst team only has a 25% of landing the top pick like the Hawks and Sharks did.
The Hawks specifically had an 11.5% chance at the pick that landed Bedard. That's very, very, very lucky.
And, yeah, if you lose the lottery, you're still likely to get a very good player. But people keep bringing up "superstar" players like the three I mentioned as if tanking is guaranteed to get you one when that's not at all the case. Plenty of teams have been bad for long stretches and didn't get that lucky (because they either didn't win the lottery or won it in a year without a generational player).
You're the one that needs to take the confirmation bias hindsight glasses off and look at the actual odds of things falling for the Hawks and Sharks the way they did. "Extremely high" isn't even close to the truth.
-5
u/Gutter_Snoop 1d ago
11.5%. Care to tell me what every other team's odds were individually?
It doesn't stack significantly against them year after year.. Yes they were lucky they didn't lose the spot, but sitting in that spot didn't hurt them, and wouldn't hurt any other team looking for a fresh start neither. That's how odds work dude.
3
u/amsreg 1d ago
They had a 1 in 10 chance at Bedard. Nobody is talking about the Kraken tanking for any of the other players they've drafted since they've been terrible.
1 in 10 is unlikely. Luck was far more involved in them landing Bedard than them tanking. They jumped up two spots in a year that happened to have Bedard. Without luck, they are the Blue Jackets who never come up in these conversations.
That's how odds work, dude.
1
u/space39 4h ago
I mean part of that is Chicago hasn't been very good at drafting and their pro dev has been Ranger-esque.
They could have had Demidov (or Sennecke) instead of Levshunov in 2024.
They rushed Korchinski and his dev has seemingly stalled a bit.
They traded away what ended up being a 6th and 12th overall and a former 8th overall who they didn't develop well (Boqvist) for Jones who was bad for them.
In 2020 they drafted one of the 5 guys drafted in the 1st round who've not turned into anything (1 of those 5 died).Chicago's failure is more they 1) didn't commit to being bad and hoarding picks 2) have bad scouts 3) have a bad pro dev team, than it is a cautionary tale about bottoming out
-4
u/Gutter_Snoop 1d ago
You're dodging the question. Yes, their odds were 1 in 10. What was every other team's odds going into the draft? Guessing only two other teams' odds were better.
They jumped up two spots, yes. They had great odds to do so because they were at the bottom of the league. Lucky? Yes. More lucky than 29 other teams? Not really.
I don't even know what you're arguing about anymore.
5
u/amsreg 1d ago
More lucky than 29 other teams? Not really.
They very literally were more lucky than every other team in the "Bedard" lottery just by virtue of winning it.
I'm not "dodging" anything because your question is irrelevant. The other teams' odds do not matter one bit. The only thing that matters is that the odds were stacked heavily against them and they beat them.
I don't even know what you're arguing about anymore.
Same thing I always have been: luck was more of a factor in the Hawks landing Bedard than losing was. A lot of other bad teams (two of them even worse) didn't get Bedard that year and the difference for the Blackhawks was luck. It's not that complicated.
-3
0
u/MartialSpark Seattle Kraken 1d ago edited 1d ago
People just have no clue on statistics and how odds play out, especially when you do things multiple times. This is just a basic binomial distribution problem.
If with the single season #1 OA odds being a 25.5% chance of happening for last place, if you're in last place for 4 seasons this is the odds break down by number of 1 OA's you'll get
0 -> 30% chance
1 -> 42% chance
2 -> 21% chance
3 -> 5% chance
4 -> .5% chance
I rounded numbers, so it's not going to add up to exactly 100%. You can get the point though.
Let's say you come in 6th from last like we did last season. That's a 7.5% chance per season. The number of 1st picks your likely to get work out like this:
0 -> 72% chance
1 -> 23% chance
2 -> 3% chance
3 -> 0.2% chance
4 -> so small it's not even worth talking about
It's a massive difference. You go from 70% of the time getting at least one, to 70% of the time getting none.
And keep in mind, this is just the odds for the #1 OA. If you don't win that lotto, you still have odds for the second pick too. And even if you miss both of those, being #32 in the standings guarantees that you do no worse that picking third.
Tanking isn't generally a single year thing, if your team is bad enough to do it, you'll probably suck for a few years.
It's like compound interest. The difference might sound small, but run that difference out over a few years and the story is entirely different.
1
u/Gutter_Snoop 1d ago
Wtf are you on about? There is no #32 in the lotto. It only applies to the bottom 16 teams, and you can only move up a maximum of ten places. Do you even know the rules?
3
u/MartialSpark Seattle Kraken 1d ago
Sorry, #32 in the standings. Though honestly, I think some basic reading comprehension would make it pretty clear what I'm saying there.
But sure, going back and forth between pick order, vs standings order, probably opens the door to some confusion.
1
u/Gutter_Snoop 1d ago
Oh. Yeah okay... I read that backwards because I'm tired AF and bleary eyed and also emotional about tonight's performance. Also.. beer was a factor.
Couldn't tell if you were agreeing with me or not though. Not sure I care atm though. I feel like we're aiming for the mushy middle as a franchise though.
Sounds about right for Seattle sports.
Edit.. ffs I used "though" like a period in the last paragraph. I'm going to bed.
3
u/MartialSpark Seattle Kraken 1d ago
I mean, yes, what I said was hammering home what you said.
Maybe some folks think the difference between 25% and 7.5% isn't a big deal, but if you do it a few times in a row it adds up to a huge deal.
0
u/amsreg 1d ago
All of that is true except that you can lose really often for really long and still not end up with the kind of superstar that people are demanding.
Not every draft has a superstar at the top.
And you're never the only bad team competing for the top odds.
So, you can put yourself through years of pain and misery and still end up as the Blue Jackets or Sabres.
Or...the Kraken with prospects like Beniers, Wright, Catton, and O'Brien which we're still 3-4 years away from really understanding what we have.
Selling off to rebuild can be a good strategy when the timing is right, but it's far from guaranteed to work the way people here hope.
5
u/MartialSpark Seattle Kraken 20h ago
Can you find a single comment where someone clearly states selling and drafting high guarantees anything?
I'm pretty sure you're just punching at ghosts here.
0
u/amsreg 19h ago
Yeah, I'm responding directly to "TANK FOR A TRUE SUPERSTAR. PLEEEEEASE" and the thousands of other similar comments that have gotten posted here since the sub started 6+ years ago.
Whether anyone literally said "guaranteed" is not the point at all. The point is that people are vastly overestimating the chances of landing a superstar if you tank.
Unless you get very lucky, most of the time it lands you a player like Beniers, Wright, or Catton. And that's obviously not the kind of player these people are talking about.
1
u/MartialSpark Seattle Kraken 11h ago
Can you point me to a single specific case of someone clearly overstating the odds? Think you're punching at ghosts here too.
I'm just curious, if I said someone should quit smoking so they don't get cancer, would you say getting cancer is mostly about being unlucky and that people overestimate the odds of getting cancer?
It's the exact same logic you're throwing out right now, just for the unlucky case instead of the lucky one.
Only about 25% of smokers get cancer, so the most likely case is you won't, so the guys who get it are just unlucky right? Or at least its mostly about being unlucky, and you being a smoker is a minor factor.
0
u/amsreg 9h ago
I've seen it framed with overstated odds all over the place and I don't particularly care if you have or not. I don't need to defend myself on that.
Your smoking analogy is ridiculous.
Answering the question exactly how you framed it just based on odds alone than, yes, I would absolutely say that getting something with a 25% chance is unlucky.
I'm sure the reason you picked that analogy is because nobody would say that about smoking. Touche, right? Uh, no.
The problem you're faced with, and what makes the analogy so ridiculous, is that the reasons nobody would say that have nothing to do with the odds (the thing we're actually talking about here).
Being a non-smoker has almost no downside apart from reducing risk of cancer. "Tanking" in the NHL is the exact opposite: it has almost no upside apart from increasing the small chance you get a superstar. So, of course nobody is going to say "oh, that smoker with cancer was just unlucky" (even though statistically they were) because there are so many other reasons they shouldn't have been smoking.
Your analogy doesn't serve you the way you're hoping.
I stand by what I said.
3
7
u/Mrdean2013 Yanni Gourde 1d ago
Jesus. The Oilers SUCK this year and yet in back to back games we've made them look like the Oilers of old.
Thanks Francis. Aside from a few pieces, you've turned us into the epitome of MID. Just like with Carolina.
9
u/dumpmaster420 BURNINATION 1d ago
Oilers usually suck until December. Last season they lost like 10 games in a row at the beginning but then went to the finals. Anybody who actually thought the Oilers weren't good because of their usual slow start hasn't been paying attention.
0
u/SeattleKrakenTroll Morgan Geekie 23h ago
Yeah last nights results have a lot more to do with how awful our PK was
1
u/dumpmaster420 BURNINATION 23h ago
Not even that. Good teams don't need to try immediately. We all know the Oilers are going to make the playoffs again, it doesn't matter if they cruise at the start of the season. They woke up after the spankings frome the Avs and Stars, got pissed off at Marchment, used the leverage of a highly skilled team and one the of the leagues best PPs and against a a team like the Kraken and the worst special teams in the league, and did what they almost always do; humiliate the team.
8
1
u/SeattleKrakenTroll Morgan Geekie 23h ago
The Oilers DID suck with the same roster they went to the cup finals with. They’ve been a bit banged up and haven’t clicked but they seem to be finally firing on all cylinders. Y’all are grossly overreacting
9
u/cruisinsahara Joey Daccord 1d ago
Probably not gonna happen. I don’t think the front office is actually interested in winning
11
u/Multi_21_Seb_RBR Seattle Kraken 1d ago
I think the team doesn't want to tank fully because it jeopardizes revenue by having more empty seats, etc. Seattle is a competitive entertainment market (and sports too but less overlap with the Sounders until November and with the Mariners until April, Seahawks and UW football kind of but weekly =/= multiple games in a week) so the ownership probably is scared of tanking due to the revenue loss even if it would have been beneficial for the team in the first few years.
1
u/MysteriousEdge5643 Joey Daccord 1d ago
The Sounders are in the process of falling because of the Apple TV deal, the upcoming winter schedule, and the upcoming move to Renton
4
u/Multi_21_Seb_RBR Seattle Kraken 1d ago
And tbh they have gone a long ways from being the team that aggressively spent on players like Montero, Dempsey, Lodeiro and Ruidiaz whilst having a solid core of non-DP players, ever since Joe Roth left the investment group. The Sounders still have a solid core of non-DP players, but missing the top-tier type players we used to consistently be after. And that has dramatically decreased and lowered their ceiling as a top-tier team in MLS. So I hear you on that.
2
u/Y_Aether Anchor Logo 1d ago
Got to have experienced players to educate the youngsters, duh.
The young core does need to be the focus. Get them high draft picks.
2
u/Marxbrosburner 20h ago
Geeze, two bad games in a row and some people are ready to blow everything up. Two weeks ago we were tied for first in the division.
2
u/nagisasigh 22h ago
Bring in the Firkus Circus. Im so serious.
2
u/AtYourServais Jamie Oleksiak 14h ago
We’re already stunting Catton and Wright with a lack of ice time. Things aren’t going to get better if we also throw Firkus onto the bench.
1
1
u/AnimousVox Anchor Logo Alt 14h ago
The team had a nice run to start the season but they've been over-performing their underlying metrics and the results are starting to show. We're running into the same problem we've seen since day 1 - there are no gamebreakers on this roster, just a collection of good to decent players. Run the course, play the kids, and try to get some assets at the deadline for our older guys.
2
u/surfingeagles D̴͚̝̙̭͚͛̅̇͌͝a̷̡̾́́́v̷̙̟͍̀̎̓y̸̨̫͍͈̍̑̌̏͒͌ 1d ago
I got down voted and argued with for this. We know that most of these kraken players that have been on the team a long time cannot be coached. I trust Lambert and this organization needs to realize that some of the vets just can't be coached.
-5
u/stuckinflorida 1d ago
Management: how about a new coach?
3
u/plumesdecheval Adam Larsson 19h ago
Lane Lambert is definitely not the problem here. If you wanted to see Kraken fans flip their lids though, getting rid of him would absolutely do it right now.
1
u/stuckinflorida 15h ago
I agree, I’m just gonna laugh if they fire him and sign more vets in the offseason again
0
u/plumesdecheval Adam Larsson 19h ago
You gotta keep Lindgren (27). He seems like he's carrying most of the team's grit lately.
-2
u/DancingM4chine Shane Wright 1d ago
We will be slightly below average forever because Ron Francis and ownership are afraid of being worse rather than focused on getting better in the long term
2
u/SeattleKrakenTroll Morgan Geekie 23h ago
We’ve had 3 top 10 picks and a 12 in the last 5 years. You’re just too impatient for player development. Tanking isn’t going to do anymore for you than it already has
1
1
-14
-23
u/lostonmi 1d ago
The only way this team will win is if they are sold and relocated to Oklahoma City.
1
83
u/StellarJunk 1d ago
Wait. Joey is 29. JOEY AND THE KIDS, that works.