Trading the pick down
View Single Post
06-15-2008, 10:20 PM
Sent to HF Minors
Join Date: May 2007
I knew this was coming from someone who can't read.
I'm not suggesting that 20 and 30 are the same. 30 is ranked below 20 and that's how we should judge them now.
But guess what. Sometimes #20 busts. Sometimes #30 succeeds. That's not an excuse to draft 30 over 20, but it's a possibility, you've got to admit that.
But ON TOP OF THAT, #60 may succeed. Or #120 may succeed.
Let me put some random percentages just for illustration purposes only.
Let's say #20 has a 35% chance of being a top-6 forward.
Let's say #30 has a 30% chance of being a top-6 forward.
#20 is obviously superior to #30, but...
#60 has a 10% chance of being a top-6 forward.
#120 has a 5% chance of being a top-6 forward.
Now which is better, 30+60+120 or just 20?
Not only do you have a better chance that at least one of the 3 picks will be a top 6 forward, you may actually wind up getting lucky and pulling out more than one top forward.
Now every draft these percentages change and none of them are exact. But the point is that I think that 30+60+120 gives us more chances to get a top player and we would actually stand a chance to get more than one real player.
Who knows, maybe we can pull a Dubinsky at #30, a Callahan at #60 and a Marc Savard at #120. They all went around those picks.
We probably wouldn't get THAT lucky, but even if we got one of those players it would probably be better than the average #20 pick in any given draft.
Originally Posted by
You do realize that there are rankings for a reason, right? The guy ranked at #20 is there because he's projected to be a better player than guys in the latter rounds. Therefore, statistically speaking, that #20 guy has a better chance of developing into the better player. Obviously everything is a crapshoot anyway, but I'd much sooner bet on a 1st-rounder than anyone in the latter rounds.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Beacon