View Single Post
06-07-2011, 05:24 PM
Sent to HF Minors
Beacon's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,517
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
if everyone after #9 is 2nd and 3rd line talent and he is 1st line talent then wouldn't you think despite size he'd be ranked higher? I can see putting him lower than equal talents due to his size, but if his upside is really that much higher?

When Savard was 18, everyone knew he has All-Star potential. People openly discussed that he could be a Hall of Fame quality player. His OHL coach was quoted in the Blueshirt Bulletin when they profiled Savard shortly after the draft as saying that Savard can "score at will" in juniors.

The guy had 139 points as a 17 year old BEFORE being drafted.

But he slipped all the way to the 4th round because he was small and absolutely horrible defensively. (You hear that MDZ? You too can learn to play competent defense.)

The same year, the Rangers also drafted Dube. He too did not go in the first round despite getting over 100 points in his pre-draft season. He was regarded as a better prospect than Savard for about three years after they were drafted. He failed. Savard became an All Star.

That's how high-risk, high-reward works.

But to say that anyone who has much higher potential will always be drafted above players with limited potential is false.

If your high potential comes with even higher risk, you will not go high.

And that's why Sundstrom and Malhotra were drafted in the top-10, with everyone fully knowing their limited potential, whereas Savard went in the fourth round.

Sometimes a player with much higher potential is ranked far lower because his risk is so high.

Beacon is offline