View Single Post
Old
04-29-2009, 08:29 AM
  #16
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Then you have to be lucky enough to have that pick in a good year where there IS a superstar talent available, assuming your scouting staff figures out who it is -- no foregone conclusion even if your scouting staff is good, since scouting is such an imprecise science. And this assumes you have the first overall pick, which is a different level of sucktitude entirely. Lower picks, even in the top five, have a much lower chance of yielding such a player.
Sure.

Again though, the point is moot. We aren't going to do this (at least not intentionally.) But we CAN trade for a top pick. Obviously we would not do this if we didn't feel the talent was there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
One top five pick may or may not net you a superstar player. That's regardless of your scouting staff. It's good to take that chance now and again if your scouting staff has a guy they really like, but then often the team you're trying to trade the pick from will realize they have a potential gem and will be reluctant to trade -- that pick may cost you a mint.
You keep asking for guarantees. There aren't any.

We can only look at probabilities here. And if you draft low long enough, you're probably going to wind up without a superstar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I'm not looking for guarantees, but the suck-and-draft strategy isn't necessarily any better than the slow-and-steady approach.
You say that you aren't looking for guarantees and follow it up by saying "isn't necessarily any better."

No it isn't necessarily better, its just more likely to be better. Esp if you have a good scouting staff. Teams without superstars don't win cups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I'm not saying they haven't had good players. I'm saying drafting high has failed to make them contenders. I'm pointing out that the suck-and-draft strategy, as a way to build a winning team, has a significant failure rate.
Nobody denies this, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about how to get a superstar. We don't have any and its because we don't draft high... ever. Unless of course we win a lottery in a season where anyone can win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
It's not a miracle solution. It's a gamble. One that doesn't necessarily have a better success rate than the slow-and-steady method the Habs have been using. If you draft poorly neither method works. If you draft well, both can work... but slow-and-steady is safer and potentially just as effective.
Except that it isn't. There isn't a cup winner in history that didn't have a superstar on it (regardless of where they were drafted.) The closest one might be Calgary and they were packed with HOFers.

Slow and steady isn't bad, but you need a superstar to go along with it or you won't win. Price may be the guy and hopefully he is. But it would be nice if we could get him some offensive support. Its not coming via the free agent market.

The way we've built, we can be competitive in the future, but we'll be up against the Crosbys, OVs and Toews on other teams. Those players are going to get better and we don't have equivalent guys to match them.

You say slow and steady is "safer" well, "safe" doesn't get you a superstar most of the time. No risk, no reward. If we see the kid that we think can put us over the hump we need to go for it. We've got enough prospects that we can afford to do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Enough star players have been drafted low and exceeded expectations to say that this only proves that the Habs have been unlucky with players exceeding expectations.
You can't continue to draft middle of the pack and expect to draft superstars. It certainly hasn't happened for us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Chad Kilger, Scott Thornton, Patrick Stefan, Roman Hamrlik... there are tons of top five picks that have amounted to good-but-not-great players, or worse.
Right, there are no guarantees. If you draft higher, the odds are better. And again, we wouldn't make the trade if we didn't think it was worth it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Go look at the top five picks from the nineties. They are staggerignly hit-or-miss. Statistically the odds are probably better, yes, but the odds that you won't turn that top five pick into a superstarare pretty significant -- and some years, there might just not be such a player available.
You think top five is hit or miss? Go take a look at the 15-20 slots or 25-30 positions. How do they stack up compared to those top five players? 1-5 is the best by far. Then comes 6-10, then 11-16. Your odds of drafting a superstar are exponentially higher in the top five.

The biggest risk comes in not taking one. That's why we don't have superstars and other teams do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Columbus and Atlanta have zero playoff wins between them to show for it. That strategy is far from being the be-all end-all. It's an alternative, it's riskier, more expensive (you lose out on attendance) and the success rate in terms of team-building is similar.


Teams take that route when they have no other choice. The NHL not like junior where you expect a rebuild every three years.
Again, you're avoiding what I'm saying.

We need a superstar. We've done a good job with the 'slow and steady' method (partially because we got lucky on the lottery) and now its time to augment what we have. I'm not saying we should tank for five years. We should've done that five years ago because we'd be in better shape now. Unfortunately that time has passed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Certainly, but blowing the team up back in the nineties might very well not have yielded said superstar. Suck-and-draft isn't a surefire strategy and wouldn't necessarily have resulted in a better team in 2008-2009. It might have, or it might have resulted in a worse team with lower attendance.

I simply want to point out that drafting high, whether by drafting picks or sucking-and-drafting, isn't a panacea or a necessity. What it is is a gamble. It does have a higher probability of bringing you a superstar, but all you get is a probability, and it's a costly strategy to implement.
Your odds are better if you do it. Detroit's the only team that has won a cup without a top pick in their lineup in recent memory. And they had a dynasty that started with Yzerman.

As I said above, superstars can carry a team and they speed up the development of younger players. Kostitsyn would have been a lot better by now if we had a superstar to play with him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I'm not adverse to trading for a high pick to try for that star guy, I just don't think it's the make-or-break thing you seem to think it is, as far as team-building goes.
Do you think that a team needs a superstar to win? I do.

If Andrei Markov is your best player, you won't win the cup. Ditto with Koivu. I'm sorry but its true. We'd better hope that Price turns into the star that we all hope that he can be because I don't see another superstar on the horizon for us. If you agree that we need a superstar, then it becomes a discussion about how to get one. Personally, I'd say the best way is to do it via a pick. They're easier to get than established superstars, cost less and you get to develop them yourself. Plus you get to enjoy them during their early to mid 20s.

The other way is FA. Probably not going to happen and I'm fine with that because most of the time they aren't worth the cash. Regardless, we won't get them anyway.

Right now, I see us going after Vinny. Hopefully he's the answer but I just can't help but think that we're going to regret that contract down the line.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 04-29-2009 at 08:41 AM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote