Thread: Prospect Info: Prospects & Minor League Teams Thread
View Single Post
01-22-2010, 06:24 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,471
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by TheDaysOf 04 View Post
because it is too big of a risk that they might not pan out. Goalies are probably the hardest to develop, and you just have a better chance with a forward or defensemen making it to the NHL even if they don't live up to their first round potential.

I was thinking about this topic, sort of, after seeing an ESPN mock draft with the Bucs taking a Safety @ #3, which is incredibly unusual. I remember my friends, who rooted for the Redskins, arguing over who to take in 2004 @ #5...S Sean Taylor or TE Kellen Winslow Jr.. The biggest argument against Taylor was YOU NEVER TAKE A SAFETY THAT HIGH!!! No evidence, just no one does that. It sort of reminded me of various passages in Moneyball where the old timer scouts would freak out when Billy Beane suggested drafting players on statistical merit and not on traditional "tools". I don't pretend to know the stats on this, but I was thinking about taking goalies in the 1st round and how it's much more common now then it was in the past (10-15 years ago?). Wasn't there only one or two ever taken in the 1st round until the last ten years?

Personally, I think the resistance to drafting goalies early is one of those things we just sort of believe, but don't have a lot of evidence for, since not enough attempts are made. While I agree with idea that forwards/defenseman contributing even if they don't fulfill their potential. You need 12 forwards and 6 defenseman vs. 2 goalies, so it's obvious that the threshold for playing the NHL is lower for skaters over goalies.

I'd would also submit that goalie is the most important player on the team. You aren't going to win without top goaltending.

So I've established that A) it's harder to make the NHL as a goalie because there are less jobs and B) only the best of those goalies are generally able to goaltend a team to glory. Seems to me that spending quality assets on goaltenders only makes sense and even after tempering that with the risk noted above, it's odd that we don't see more goalies taken in the 1st round.

My original reason for asking Shadeslayer is saying Helenius problems is not sufficient rationale for his statement. I wanted to make sure that's what he meant. If we'd have taken Varlamov how would you feel?

LastoftheBrunnenG is offline