Thread: Prospect Info: Prospect Index 2012-2013
View Single Post
Old
01-11-2013, 01:21 PM
  #814
jfb392
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubi Doo View Post
I disagree: Myers, Ennis, Armia, and Grigs can all be viewed as risky picks, though none were reaches.
Well, only two of those really occurred under the old ownership that loved their safe picks and "xth best drafting record since the lockout" (somewhere near the top of the pile).
They probably could have fired their already miniscule scouting staff during that time and just went off of service lists and ended up just as well off.
They basically rarely stepped outside of their comfort zone (the CHL, which is scouted to death and therefore less likely to surprise) and seemingly when they had a choice between high upside and average upside, they'd opt for the average player with less risk.
I'm not sure if they ever came out and said it (or even came close to implying it), but it was basically a measure to ensure that they could replace talent they lost to free agency with cheaper homegrown bodies, which ends up being an endless cycle of averageness.

Basically the way I look at is this: you're better off drafting and developing someone that has the potential to be an important part of your team rather than someone that is just a spare part type.
It may seem obvious, but if you look at it in terms of value, I think it becomes clear.
Would you rather spend a draft pick and time developing a scorer or pay for one?
If you're trading for a good one, you're bound to give up something equally as good or even better, depending on the situation.
If you're getting one in free agency, they're right around the end of their prime, are statistically very likely to disappoint, and you're likely overpaying.
If you draft one, it's a draft pick and time that you're giving up and you could end up with something that is very valuable.
Now replace "scorer" in the question with "checker" and think about it.
They don't hold much value on the market, are readily available, and while checkers are important to teams, they're not going to win you games like a scorer will.

So when it comes down to it, it's great that Kea is showing positive signs.
However, was the third round really a good time to pick up a 4C?
Not in my books when top six + 3C/top four D/starters with a decent shot of reaching their potential were still on the board.

jfb392 is offline