HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must use the RUMOR prefix in thread title. Proposals must contain the PROPOSAL prefix in the thread title.

True value/impact of a top 10 pick in your lineup today

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-19-2011, 01:27 PM
  #26
Retsmra2010*
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Danglefest View Post
Im taking all of this as a way to say hey everyone on HF Boards lets start to temper our views on TOP 10 picks as surefire hockey gods that warrant each teams superstar in return to pry away from any given team....

WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY NEEDED...youd think everyone on this board has a crystal ball
This thread should be stickied.

Retsmra2010* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2011, 01:54 PM
  #27
gifted88
Dante the poet
 
gifted88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,392
vCash: 500
Doesn't matter at all where you draft imo. It's all about who you are getting your information from, having a talented and reliable scouting team means everything come draft day.

gifted88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2011, 02:27 PM
  #28
GAGLine
HFBoards Sponsor
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,097
vCash: 500
All of those numbers prove absolutely nothing. Winning isn't only a product of good drafting. Good trades and good free agent signings are just as important. And then there are other factors such as whether a team can attract the top free agents, or whether they are willing/able to spend to the cap. Finding the right role players is important, as is coaching, and a bit of luck as well. Many different factors go into producing a winning team.

There is no guaranteed way to win. Drafting a top 10 player doesn't guarantee team success. This isn't the NBA. However, drafting a player in the top 10 gives the team a MUCH, MUCH greater chance of getting an impact player.

This is the current top 20 players in scoring and where they were drafted:

Player Games Goals Assists Points Drafted
Sidney Crosby413234661st overall 2005
Steven Stamkos473528631st overall 2008
Daniel Sedin462732592nd overall 1999
Martin St Louis47193857Undrafted
Henrik Sedin46947563rd overall 1999
Brad Richards4618365464th overall 1998
Henrik Zetterberg46163551210th overall 1999
Corey Perry4924265028th overall 2003
Loui Eriksson4617324933rd overall 2003
Eric Staal462225472nd overall 2003
Anze Kopitar4616314711th overall 2005
Alex Ovechkin471630461st overall 2004
Patrick Sharp4625194495th overall 2001
Ryan Kesler4625194423rd overall 2003
Dany Heatley471825432nd overall 2000
Matt Duchene461825432nd overall 2009
Joe Thornton451330431st overall 1997
Jarome Iginla4619234211th overall 1995
Nicklas Lidstrom4611314253rd overall 1989
Nicklas Backstrom471131424th overall 2006

10 players were selected in the top 4 of their respective drafts.

14 were 1st round picks. 1 2nd rounder, 3 3rd rounders (though Lidstrom was equivalent of a 2nd rounder at 53rd overall), a 7th rounder and 1 undrafted.

Of course a top 10 pick isn't necessary to win, but you'd be naive to think it doesn't help.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2011, 07:44 PM
  #29
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin27NYI View Post
tavares?
i wanted a 10 year study so id have 100 picks to look at... makes figuring out percentages easier

i didnt think it fair to include the last 2 years since the jury is still out on how many of these picks will pan out so i went back 3 years and counted back the 10 drafts before that to get my 100 for my study

tavares seems like a good player, but islanders are still bottom feeders this year so he is another example that getting a good draft pick in the top 10 doesnt immediately turn you into a success story. im sure he will have a good career and make islander fans happy though

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2011, 07:52 PM
  #30
BeautyDuster
Registered User
 
BeautyDuster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 82
vCash: 500
I think the moral of the story is that there is more to building a great team than drafting. Its simply one piece of the puzzle. In my opinion its the strong foundation upon which a team must be built. I have a feeling this is well known by most GMs.

BeautyDuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2011, 10:17 PM
  #31
Crede777
Deputized
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 8,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
Columbus drafts top 10 almost every year but never makes the playoffs because they draft bad no matter where they draft.
Obviously you're off the mark.

Drafting Brule wasn't a bad pick, neither was Klesla, Nash, Zherdev, Brassard, Filatov, or Voracek. Hindsight is 20/20 and you're not factoring in pre-draft performance and hype.

You're completely neglecting the value of player development. Also count how many top 3 draft picks the Jackets have had. It isn't as if #1 and #10 are the same in quality. Your analysis should be more focused on top 4 picks, not top 10.

Crede777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-20-2011, 06:34 PM
  #32
theIceWookie
#LeafHysteriaAlert
 
theIceWookie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOOMUCHBREWER View Post
Crappy management, coaching, and player development staff will screw the pooch no matter how high they draft.

Good management, coaching, and player development staff will succeed no matter how low they draft.

You give teams like the Islanders, Florida, Columbus extra picks every year and they'll still be terrible (note the management has changed for all of these franchises so this applies to past regimes).

You give Detroit even just a couple top 10 picks and they'd develop a star every time.
I wouldn't be so sure. Detroit is actually pretty bad in past ten years at developing first round talent.

theIceWookie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 12:18 PM
  #33
Qvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
the following study is a real look at just what drafting in the top 10 actually means for teams now. Everyone says that the only way to build a winner is to get high draft picks and to keep them. So lets see how the top 10 picks from 1999-2008 actually help their teams win
You have a problem here at the heart of your study, in that the issue as you define it is imprecise. When people say you need high draft picks and keep them in order to win, what exactly do they mean by "high draft picks"? Why top ten picks, particularly? For my part, my intuitive assumption would be that they refer to top 3 picks, maybe top 5.


Quote:
Point 1/ Detroit is the only team with no top 10 picks from this 10 year study, and they are also the most successful team during the decade.
Anaheim is another winner with no significant input from own high draft picks.

Quote:
Point 3/ 18 picks or 18% of top 10 picks drafted during this study had little or no impact for their teams in the NHL and most are completely out of the NHL picture at this time. proving that you got an almsot 1 in 5 chance of walking away with nothing for your pick
Well, there you have a bit of an insecurity factor from including quite recent drafts...

Quote:
Point 4/ an additional 34 picks are no longer with the team that drafted them... proving that by the time a drafted player is around 28 years old the odds he is still with your team is less then 50%
Er, no. Because the vast majority of the players in your sample are much younger than 28. What you're getting is an average of a diverse group of players where the oldest ones are 28.

Quote:
Point 5/ no team has more then 5 picks from these 10 years with their team now. Columbus and Minnesota both have 5 and with all due respect to these two teams, they are both likely to miss the playoffs this year. Even with tremendous success in the draft and managing to add 5 top picks to your team in a 10 year period still can leave you with a sucky team. Proving, good drafting helps... bad drafting doesnt, and just because a pick is top 10 doesnt mean it will be good. Detroit had no top 10 picks and is a favorite to win another cup. They draft good wherever they draft. Columbus drafts top 10 almost every year but never makes the playoffs because they draft bad no matter where they draft. Its your skill at drafting that determins if you can build through the draft... not the position you draft in.
I basically agree with the conclusion, but I'm not sure you're really demonstrating it with the method you use.

Quote:
Point 6/ Obviously first overall picks usually work out. During my study I see the following 14 impact franchise players were drafted... Eric Staal, Johnathon Towes, Patrick Kane, Rick Nash, Drew Doughty, Ilya Kovalchuck, Marian Gaborik, Evengny Malkin, Sydney Crosby, Dany Heatley, Steven Stamkos, Daniel Sedin, Henrick Sedin, and Alexander Ovechkin. 7 went first overall. only 7 of the next 90 picks were of a true franchise impact quality.
Yes, and this is actually something of an argument against the definition of your sample. The correlation between draft position and outcome is a curve that drops off very steeply - it is dramatically better for 1st overall than it is for 1-3 overall, much better for 1-3 overall than for top 5 and much better for top 5 than for top 10. It's not easy to find a natural cut-off point, but what's for sure is that it definitely ought to be higher than tenth. Players drafted 7 or 8-10 have success rates that are much more similar to players drafted 15-20 than they are to players drafted in the top 3.

Finally, why are you listing players who were drafted by some other team in the top 10 and subsequently signed or traded for? Surely that rather destroys the premiss of what you're looking at, which is the neccessity of building through high draft picks?

A simpler and better way to do this is simply look at the profiles of championship-winning teams over the past 10 or 20 years. Forget about establishing a causal link (which is what it would amount to if you take the claim literally) - there isn't one. You don't have to build with high draft selections to win a championship. We know this for sure, because teams have won championships without them. For the question to even be meaningful, what you're looking for is correlation. Is it a distinctive trait of most championship winning teams that they rely largely on a core acquired through high draft selections? If it is, then you can reasonably argue that there is a connection.

So, let's look at cup winners since 1991.

91&92 Penguins: Yup. Lemieux and Jagr, without whom there is no way they win those cups.
93 Canadiens: No. Only important player drafted high was Shayne Corson (come to think of it, was he still with the Habs then?). They won that cup mainly with players they drafted in lower rounds and then developed.
94 Rangers: Haha. Oh wait, there's Brian Leetch. But this was archetypically a traded-for cup-winner.
95, 00 & 03 Devils: No. Other than Scott Niedermayer, there were no important players on any of the Devils' cup winners who were drafted by them with a high pick. Those teams were built on trades and lower picks. Even on compensation.
96&01 Avalanche. No. Those teams were built on trades, and lower picks. There was not a single key player on either team who was a high Avalanche draft pick.
97, 98, 02 Red Wings; Just Yzerman. In the main, the core was assembled in other ways. The 08 team didn't have a single player drafted high by the Wings. (Actually, by that time there weren't any active players left who had been drafted high by the Wings )
99 Stars: Not really. There was Mike Modano and Derian Hatcher, but they were hardly the basic reason the Stars went all the way - many other players were equally important.
04 Lightning: Lecavalier. Just a part of the core.
06 Hurricanes: Staal. And Ladd, but he did not play a big role. Again, just one part of the core.
07 Anaheim: No significant player drafted high.
09 Penguins: Absolutely. The whole core (except Gonchar) were high Pens picks.
10 Blackhawks: Toews and Kane, who were the better part of that team's core.

I note the following.

1. There is no consistent trend or clear correlation between winning championships over the past 20 years and having a core acquired with high draft selections. None. There are a few teams who had it, roughly as many who didn't have it at all while the most normal scenario is a core consisting partly of own high draftees but mainly of lower draftees or acquisitions.

2. When you bear in mind that a) players drafted very high also have a very high likelihood of becoming team core players, b) Players of that type are much more rarely traded than other players, c) Most teams draft in the lower third at least once or twice every decade and d) a very significant proportion of NHL stars were high draft selections, this more than accounts for what presence there is of high draftees on championship teams.

3. Of three really clear examples of high draftee cores, two were the last two cups. That explains right there why this ridiculous issue keeps reappearing. As we know, according to NHL Logic any experience accrued during the past season is ten to twenty times truer than any other experience, which is why goaltending is now irrelevant while high draft picks are indispensible.

You can try looking at it from the opposite angle: Find the teams with lots of high picks during the past decade, see how they fared cup-wise and how much their selections mattered. It will yield the same result.


Last edited by Qvist: 01-21-2011 at 04:32 PM.
Qvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 04:44 PM
  #34
Qvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
all this parinoia about trading a pick and regretting it forever is crazy. you will regret trading a pick if you make a bad trade. if you trade a pick for Tom Kurvers and the pick turns into Scott Nidermayer then you will regret it. You always regret making bad trades.

but if you trade a pick that is a bust and the guy you trade for turns out to be dustin byfuglin, then you dont regret it. Making good trades even if they involve draft picks are what you never regret.
Actually, that's really irrational. It makes no difference whatsoever if the player drafted with the pick you trade is a success or a bust. What matters is if the player the original owner of the pickwould have drafted if they retained the pick is a bust or a success. The Leafs might well have drafted Scott Lachance with the pick they gave up for Kurvers. Just like the Islanders might just as well have taken David Perron as Alex Plante with the pick they sent to the Oilers in the Smyth trade in 07. The point might seem obvious, but nevertheless it is apparently too subtle to register with the great hockey-discussing public, who prefer to charge ahead regardless.

Qvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 04:58 PM
  #35
Qvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky Bobby View Post
Interesting study. Good work.

A lot of what I take from that is that drafting high isn't the only way to have success. You can draft high but if the team doesn't make other keys moves such as signings, trades or properly developing players the team probably won't succeed. And if your going to be a bad team be a really bad team and get those top 1-3 draft picks to draft a franchise or star player.

Like Tampa Bay who drafted Vinny and went on to win a Stanley Cup but also made key acquisitions like Dave Anderychuk, St. Louis, Brad Richards.
Like Pittsburgh did with Malkin and Crosby but also made key acquisitions such as Gonchar and Kunitz
Like Carolina did in getting Eric Stall and surrounding him with Brindamour, Cullen, Cole and an emerging star goalie in Ward
Like Chicago did in getting Kane but also making one-sided trades such as the Versteeg and Sharp deals. And a key free agent deal in Brian Campbell (who yes is overpaid but he certainly helped them win the cup).

On the other side of it is teams like:
Atlanta who drafted Kovalchuk and Heatley but failed to build a good supporting cast around them
Colombus who drafted Nash but are limited by a self-imposed cap, and haven't had another difference maker on the team to make them a good team
Islanders who drafted Luongo but traded him for peanuts, drafted Speeza then traded him and Chara for Yashin and also made so many other organizational mistakes that I could write a Masters Degree Thesis on them as an example of how not to run a business.
Yes. Which really is pretty self-evident when you think about it, isn't it? All it really amounts to is the conclusion that in order to become The One among thirty teams who win 16 playoff games and hence the cup, you have to do many different things right. There is no magic bullet, and if there is anything astounding in that it's the fact it's even neccessary to point it out.

If we really want a single guiding concept, I suggest this: Asset management. Draft well, develop well, trade well, sign prudently, and your asset heap is growing. That's what allows you to address problems rather than, as half of the GMs in the league are, being held captive by them. If you do that well enough, you get rich enough to be able throw whatever it takes at the most obvious and fool-proof solution - such as the Avalanche, who always traded well and drafted better than anyone (just check the number of NHLers drafted by the Avs below the first round and you'll see) - and could then go out and splash out what it took to get Ray Bourque or Theo Fleury or Patrick Roy at the right time. The Wings have it, the Devils have it - or at least, had it. And the Sharks and Blackhawks seem to have picked it up too.

Qvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 07:05 PM
  #36
Kaoz*
Ima Krejciist.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
91&92 Penguins: Yup. Lemieux and Jagr, without whom there is no way they win those cups.
Also, Bob Errey (15th overall)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
93 Canadiens: No. Only important player drafted high was Shayne Corson (come to think of it, was he still with the Habs then?). They won that cup mainly with players they drafted in lower rounds and then developed.
This team may not have had any of their own high draft picks, but they certainly racked up enough of other teams young top draft picks.

Damphousse (24 years old, Toronto's 6th overall), Muller (26 years old, Jersey's 2nd overall pick), Bellows (28 years old, Stars 2nd overall pick), Haller (21 years old, Sabres 14th overall pick), Daigneault (26 years old, Vancouver 10th overall pick).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
94 Rangers: Haha. Oh wait, there's Brian Leetch. But this was archetypically a traded-for cup-winner.
Kovalev (20 years old, 15th overall pick, 3rd leading scorer in the playoffs)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
95, 00 & 03 Devils: No. Other than Scott Niedermayer, there were no important players on any of the Devils' cup winners who were drafted by them with a high pick. Those teams were built on trades and lower picks. Even on compensation.
Bill Guerin (1995) (23 years old, 5th overall pick, tied for 5th scoring race in playoffs), Neidermyer (95, 00, 03) (3rd overall pick, top pairing dman), Daneyko (95, 00, 03) (18th overall), Brian Rolston (95) (21 years old, 11th overall), Martin Brodeur (95,00,03) (20th overall, carried entire team on his back all 3 years), Sykora (00) (22 years old,18th overall, 3rd leading scorer in playoffs) etc etc etc...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
96&01 Avalanche. No. Those teams were built on trades, and lower picks. There was not a single key player on either team who was a high Avalanche draft pick.
Alex Tanguay (01) (20 years old, 12th overall, 3rd leading scorer in playoffs. Martin Skoula (01) (20 years old, one of the top dman for the run, 17th overall)

Also in 01, Forsberg was essentially Colorado's pick (6th overall) due to the Lindros debacle... neither player played for their respective draft teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
97, 98, 02 Red Wings; Just Yzerman. In the main, the core was assembled in other ways. The 08 team didn't have a single player drafted high by the Wings. (Actually, by that time there weren't any active players left who had been drafted high by the Wings )
Wings are the exception to the rule, however drafting plays a huge part in their success. They're just far better at it then every other team, and can pick first round talent in rounds 5-7.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
99 Stars: Not really. There was Mike Modano and Derian Hatcher, but they were hardly the basic reason the Stars went all the way - many other players were equally important.
Mike Modano was a key player for the Stars cup run, he was their top scorer in that playoff run. That's key, they don't win without him. Matvichuk (8th overall) was also another key player for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
04 Lightning: Lecavalier. Just a part of the core.
Another key part of the core

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
06 Hurricanes: Staal. And Ladd, but he did not play a big role. Again, just one part of the core.
Staal was one of two reasons they won the cup that season. Leading scorer in the playoffs. Cam Ward the other reason was also a Carolina first rounder, 25th overall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
07 Anaheim: No significant player drafted high.
Two thirds of the second line were first round picks (Getzlaf - 19th overall and Perry - 28th overall).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
09 Penguins: Absolutely. The whole core (except Gonchar) were high Pens picks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
10 Blackhawks: Toews and Kane, who were the better part of that team's core.
Seabrook as well (14th overall)



In summary, you may say top 10 picks aren't that important. I disagree wholly. In the event you have the chance to make a top 10 pick, you take it every time because it's quite obvious historically that there are a couple of simple truths.

1. Drafting well equates to success.
2. The higher you draft, the better your chances of drafting well.

Yes, there are most certainly other factors that you need to consider to be successful. It also obviously helps if you can draft well in the later rounds. But simply put, if you can draft high each season your chances of success are multiplied, as your chances of drafting high end players are multiplied. Talent drafted in the first round are often key parts to cup teams, and missing out on those picks is a recipe for failure. It may not be the only ingredient for success, but without it things aren't likely to go your way.

Kaoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 07:22 PM
  #37
KrugLife
Registered Champion
 
KrugLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Winchesterfieldville
Country: United States
Posts: 2,591
vCash: 500
Jeez man, you're gonna make your keyboard short-circuit

KrugLife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 05:14 AM
  #38
Qvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,337
vCash: 500
Don't tell me. You missed all the 74 places in this thread where it's made clear that we're talking about TOP TEN PICKS? As well as the myriad places in my post where it is made clear that I am talking about OWN HIGH PICKS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Also, Bob Errey (15th overall)
Bob Errey was a) not a high draft pick and b) not a core part of those teams.
Quote:
This team may not have had any of their own high draft picks, but they certainly racked up enough of other teams young top draft picks.

Damphousse (24 years old, Toronto's 6th overall), Muller (26 years old, Jersey's 2nd overall pick), Bellows (28 years old, Stars 2nd overall pick), Haller (21 years old, Sabres 14th overall pick), Daigneault (26 years old, Vancouver 10th overall pick).
Which appears to show that you can win cups by trading for good players.


Quote:
Kovalev (20 years old, 15th overall pick, 3rd leading scorer in the playoffs)
Not a high draft pick.

Bill Guerin (1995) (23 years old, 5th overall pick, tied for 5th scoring race in playoffs), Neidermyer (95, 00, 03) (3rd overall pick, top pairing dman), Daneyko (95, 00, 03) (18th overall), Brian Rolston (95) (21 years old, 11th overall), Martin Brodeur (95,00,03) (20th overall, carried entire team on his back all 3 years), Sykora (00) (22 years old,18th overall, 3rd leading scorer in playoffs) etc etc etc...

Niedermayer, as pointed out. Guerin was only part of one of those teams. None of the remainder were high picks.
Quote:
Alex Tanguay (01) (20 years old, 12th overall, 3rd leading scorer in playoffs. Martin Skoula (01) (20 years old, one of the top dman for the run, 17th overall)
Not top ten picks.

Quote:
Also in 01, Forsberg was essentially Colorado's pick (6th overall) due to the Lindros debacle... neither player played for their respective draft teams.
Forsberg was not drafted by Colorado.

Quote:
Wings are the exception to the rule, however drafting plays a huge part in their success. They're just far better at it then every other team, and can pick first round talent in rounds 5-7.
Yeah, and who says drafting isn't important. Read the ****** question, at least to the point where you get the general gist, before sitting down to write a reply that wastes everyone's time.

Quote:
Mike Modano was a key player for the Stars cup run, he was their top scorer in that playoff run. That's key, they don't win without him. Matvichuk (8th overall) was also another key player for them.
Matvichuk, fair enough. But were the Stars a championship team built primarily on own high draftees? I don't think so. That core wasn't even enough to make them a playoff team, until it was supplemented by an avalanche of acquired established stars.
Quote:
Staal was one of two reasons they won the cup that season. Leading scorer in the playoffs. Cam Ward the other reason was also a Carolina first rounder, 25th overall.
....which is not a high pick.
Quote:
Two thirds of the second line were first round picks (Getzlaf - 19th overall and Perry - 28th overall).
Yeah...neither of which is a high pick.

Quote:
Seabrook as well (14th overall)
Further repetition should be superfluous.

Quote:
In summary, you may say top 10 picks aren't that important. I disagree wholly.
What, you mean that you actually understood that it was about top ten picks, and yet you still sat down and wrote the above?

Quote:
In the event you have the chance to make a top 10 pick, you take it every time because it's quite obvious historically that there are a couple of simple truths.

1. Drafting well equates to success.
2. The higher you draft, the better your chances of drafting well.

Yes, there are most certainly other factors that you need to consider to be successful. It also obviously helps if you can draft well in the later rounds. But simply put, if you can draft high each season your chances of success are multiplied, as your chances of drafting high end players are multiplied. Talent drafted in the first round are often key parts to cup teams, and missing out on those picks is a recipe for failure. It may not be the only ingredient for success, but without it things aren't likely to go your way.
Yeah. Sure. It's just that you have completely redfined the question into something totally different from what anyone else is talking about. What you are arguing is, in essence, that you need first-round picks. No **** Sherlock.

Qvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 08:11 AM
  #39
Kaoz*
Ima Krejciist.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
Yeah. Sure. It's just that you have completely redfined the question into something totally different from what anyone else is talking about. What you are arguing is, in essence, that you need first-round picks. No **** Sherlock.
Ah now, no need to get pissy cause you feel your point is threatened. Guy even brought out the disappointed shaky head smiley.

First, if you're trying to justify the value of top 10 first round picks by looking at past cup winners and determining how many top 10 picks were key cogs to their teams without first determining if that team was in a position to draft in the top 10 your reasoning is fairly flawed right from the get go.

Second, you obviously fail to connect the dots. Again, because there was a lot to read in the last post we'll get straight to the point this time, looking at the above posts which point out how important a successful teams top draft picks are to them we can deduce the following:

1) Hitting on those first round picks is very very important to icing a successful team (more so in the new cap era NHL, but you did the work, so it's only fair not to point out you're talking about two different era's, but I just did, so....)

2) Your chances of hitting in the first round are exponentially higher the closer you get to #1 overall.

Therefore, using common sense, and this fails many so don't feel bad, looking at the two points above the VALUE of a top 10 pick is immense.

If we're talking about impacts, as someone else pointed out, look at the best players in the NHL today. You quickly realize that many of the most impactful players today were top 10 picks in their respective classes.

It's not hard.

Kaoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2011, 03:46 PM
  #40
BylsMafia
Registered User
 
BylsMafia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 755
vCash: 500
As a sabres fan i wouldn't say Tim Connolly is much as a benefit for the sabres since he isn't as good as i expected a 5th overall pick to be.

BylsMafia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2011, 03:47 PM
  #41
nmbr_24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeautyDuster View Post
I think the moral of the story is that there is more to building a great team than drafting. Its simply one piece of the puzzle. In my opinion its the strong foundation upon which a team must be built. I have a feeling this is well known by most GMs.
I think you got it exactly right.

I would like to add that in these days of the salary cap, developing your draft picks into NHL quality players is even more important since a young player will be more cost controlled and allow a team to sign UFA's and trade for players who are making big money.

I am fairly certain that percentages also show that the lower the draft pick, the less likely the player will make an impact in the NHL. So while it is important to make good trades and have good signings, higher picks have a bigger chance of turning into NHL players and enable a team to have the cap space to make the team into a contender.

In short, teams need to develop their picks, make good trades and make good UFA signings in order to compete for the cup.

That's a little bit of a no brainer though.

nmbr_24 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2011, 03:57 PM
  #42
Kaoz*
Ima Krejciist.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,635
vCash: 500
We can leave out the childish name calling and general immaturity can't we?

Weird I could have sworn the topic we're posting in is about the true value/impact of top 10 picks in your lineup today, it's kinda the title no? Apparently it's changed to determining whether or not you need to have a core built of top 10 picks to win the cup... m'kay.

So realizing that the point of the thread is not to determine the latter, but rather to discuss the former, it's pretty easy to establish that if you believe both of the following:

1. drafting is very important to successful clubs, and considering the list posted where just about ALL cup winning teams are led to the cup by former first round picks it's pretty cut and dry).

2. the best draft picks usually tend to be the ones closest to the top.

Then it's pretty hard to sit here and argue that a top 10 pick isn't extremely valuable. Also, discounting a former top 10 picks contribution to a team simply because they were drafted by another team in a thread about the value of top 10 picks doesn't seem the most logical course.

You chose to go through the list of teams that have won the cup in the past 20 years, set 2 standards that
a) they must be drafted by the team that won
b) they must be picks 1 through 9 , not 11 or 12... pick #10 is a high pick, #11 is not.

and then after discovering that this wasn't necessarily the case a decade ago when teams were not governed by a cap, and trading was far more prevalent jump to the conclusion that top 10 picks aren't as valuable as most people think? Then why dismiss the top 10 picks on the team that weren't drafted by the cup club?

If the point of your post was to show that you can use hockeydb to look up when players were drafted and who won the cup that year, then well done. If it was to show drafting isn't the only key to winning, that's common sense. If you're in any way trying to draw a correlation between your post and the actual value/impacts of top 10 picks, you have some sketchy logic there.

But yes, I agree we're done. When someone resorts to name calling and such in a response they're not worth the time.


Last edited by Kaoz*: 01-23-2011 at 04:20 PM.
Kaoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 03:16 AM
  #43
Qvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,337
vCash: 500
Okay, I'll go through this again, slowly and carefully.

The point in question is the popular belief that in order to win cups, you need to have high draft picks which you use to build the main core of your cup winner. This is also known as the "Tank to win" theory.

The OT defined "a high draft pick" as a top 10 pick. As you would have seen if you had paid attention when you were reading, I didn't agree with this definition, but since it was being used as the point of reference, I referred to it nonetheless.

My point was further that it does not in fact seem to be the case that there is any significant correlation between icing a cup winner and possessing a core built up with own high picks - generally the core of cup-winning teams consist primarily of players drafted lower than this, traded for or signed.

Hence, there seems no good reason to assume that you neccessarily must have a core acquired in this way in order to win cups.

Among the many things this argument does not imply are these: That top ten picks aren't valuable, that first-round picks aren't important, that you don't need first-round picks to win cups, that drafting isn't important to winning cups.

For some reason, this does not prevent you from assuming that arguing against these is somehow relevant to this discussion. To this you add gems of logic such as this:

Quote:
Also, discounting a former top 10 picks contribution to a team simply because they were drafted by another team in a thread about the value of top 10 picks doesn't seem the most logical course.
I have to admit that this is one particular brain fart that I find genuinely fascinating, and it's not just you committing it either. It seems perfectly logical provided you don't think about it very carefully. The problem of course is that "top ten pick" isn't a kind of player, but a way to acquire a player - and what the discussion concerns is whether that particular way of acquiring players gives you access to a kind of talent you can't otherwise get.

Once someone is traded, it is 100% irrelevant to that issue whether he was drafted 1st overall or signed as an undrafted College FA. In fact, choosing to include them directly contradicts the basic point you would be trying to prove, which is that you need high draft picks in order to assemble a winner (why would you, if such players can be acquired via trade?). "Players drafted in the top ten" (or in the top 5 or whatever) include everything from total busts to superstars. To argue that what number of players with that background you have on a team says anything about that team is simply plainly nonsensical. The issue is "by what means was a winning core assembled"?

Quote:
You chose to go through the list of teams that have won the cup in the past 20 years, set 2 standards that
a) they must be drafted by the team that won
b) they must be picks 1 through 9 , not 11 or 12... pick #10 is a high pick, #11 is not.
I think you'll find you are going to encounter that particular problem no matter where you put the cut-off point, so unless you propose to define ALL draft picks as "high", that isn't actually an argument.

Quote:
and then after discovering that this wasn't necessarily the case a decade ago when teams were not governed by a cap, and trading was far more prevalent jump to the conclusion that top 10 picks aren't as valuable as most people think?
"Not neccessarily the case"? It was the case with one, single team. It also was not the case with 3 out of 5 of the post-lockout winners. Which means that so far there is no case for any proposition that you must have a series of top draft picks to win.

Quote:
If the point of your post was to show that you can use hockeydb to look up when players were drafted and who won the cup that year, then well done. If it was to show drafting isn't the only key to winning, that's common sense. If you're in any way trying to draw a correlation between your post and the actual value/impacts of top 10 picks, you have some sketchy logic there.
You seem to suffer from delusions of adequacy. Your attempts to demonstrate my "sketchy logic" have been textbook pieces of illogicity or worse. You have yet to even respond meaningfully to points made, and being called names is the least of your problems.

Qvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 03:43 AM
  #44
Spezz101
Registered User
 
Spezz101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 209
vCash: 500
Alexander Daigle look no further for the bust of all busts. Ottawa was accused of tanking the season so they could draft the next "great one" they signed him to the highest contract ever to a rookie (at the time im sure theres been bigger since) and he had a good rookie season, talent dropped off the next year so far that they sent him back to the Q and the next season point totals dropped even lower and he went through a seven game series without a point the next season was the nail where he only got 16 points with the sens before we shipped him to philly and hes been a journeyman ever since

Spezz101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 09:43 AM
  #45
Kaoz*
Ima Krejciist.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
Okay, I'll go through this again, slowly and carefully.
...

You seem to suffer from delusions of adequacy. Your attempts to demonstrate my "sketchy logic" have been textbook pieces of illogicity or worse. You have yet to even respond meaningfully to points made, and being called names is the least of your problems.
Please, get off your high horse and spare us the elitest, condescending attitude.

Nearly every team you listed was built off their first round picks, picks that not only contributed to their playoff runs, but that in most cases were key players for their team. Now this is probably as far as you will read before your typical "lulz, we're talking about top 10 picks only" response, but I'll continue on for the hell of it.

The title of the thread we are currently in is "True value/impact of a top 10 pick in your lineup today". It is meant to discredit the value most HF posters, and fans in general place on top 10 picks. That much is obvious if you look at the following statement from the OP found in post #3.

Quote:
im not saying to trade number 1 or number 2 picks... but in most years, you can safely trade away a 9 or a 10 pick for a rental and end up being ok. getting value for the pick.

specially if you resign the rental. good ufa signings are just as valuable as good drafting is.
You can safely trade away a top 10 pick for a rental? Then the OP must know something NHL GM's don't, because this doesn't happen. Personally I think it's vice versa, and NHL GM's know something the OP doesn't, and that is that drafting is a major key to success. Obviously the higher the pick, the more value, so by this line of logic a top 10 pick is extremely valuable. Yes, you can and should use later 1st round picks that weren't necessarily in the top 10, like Cam Ward, Ryan Getzlaf, and Corey Perry to establish that premise, as had that team (Carolina or Anaheim in this example) picking in the top 10 they may very well have grabbed their respective players much higher. You should also take into account the value and impact of the players those picks were eventually traded for, and how well they performed playing with different teams (the 93 Habs for instance were built off of other teams young top 10 picks, which points to the fact that their respective teams made a mistake in trading them in the first place and should have valued them more then they did). It all speaks to the value people place on those top 10 picks, and rightly so.

You seem to have taken the OP's intent differently, in that he's trying to prove that a cup team does not need to have a core built of top 10 picks to win it all. Whatever works for ya, have at that line of conversation till you're content.

Personally, I'm done talking with you about it. It's a shame, were you a little less sarcastic/full of yourself in your responses the conversation might have been worth the time.

Kaoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 09:59 AM
  #46
Finnish your Czech
Puljujärvi2Leafs pls
 
Finnish your Czech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Finland
Posts: 47,373
vCash: 50
maybe in 1999 drafting even 1st overall was a crapshoot, but with the exponential increase in scouting skill, the first few picks in the draft are almost guaranteed to give you impact players. IMO, players drafted top1-6 are guaranteed to be impact players in the NHL (top 6 forwards, top 4 dmen), unlike in say, 1999 where the 1st, 4th and 6th overall picks combined for 537 nhl games and 222 nhl points.

Finnish your Czech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2011, 10:09 AM
  #47
zeus3007*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Red Deer, Alberta
Posts: 13,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
im anticipating someone will tell me my study means nothing cause i dont account for what teams get when they trade first round picks... but that is actually the point of my entire study here

the posters on this site... and media too in the real world... and even many gms i think, all believe now that the only way to success is to have top picks leading your team.

they probably think this because pittsburg and chicago happened to win the last 2 cups with top picks.

yes i know

but many many many teams get top picks and never win the cup. pittsburg got lucky and drafted the best player the game has seen since lemieux/gretzky retired. there is only 1 crosby. they also happened to draft whitney and fleury and malkin and staal in back to back to back to back to back years. no other team has any type of record to compare to this.

chicago meanwhile had a couple ufa signings that probably helped as much as their two top picks did. they also broke the nhl rules by basically overspending around 15% cap space to get a single season out of a super loaded lineup. im not sure that winning a cup when you have 15% more spending being done then anyone else, is actually a way most teams would want to pattern themselves after to try to win too.

chicago won... no one can take that away from them... but having to give away versteeg, byfuglin, ladd, and 3-4 other key depth pieces was a very very steep price to pay and they are in a very realistic danger of missing the playoffs this year.

other teams that won a cup led by draft picks {anaheim. carolina, tampa] had very short runs at the top and missed the playoffs the next year too.

I dont deny that having a top number 1 pick is a good thing... and most number 2s are pretty decent too... but teams that think they will be powerhouses every year after getting one or two of these guys drafted are just dreaming.

all this parinoia about trading a pick and regretting it forever is crazy. you will regret trading a pick if you make a bad trade. if you trade a pick for Tom Kurvers and the pick turns into Scott Nidermayer then you will regret it. You always regret making bad trades.

but if you trade a pick that is a bust and the guy you trade for turns out to be dustin byfuglin, then you dont regret it. Making good trades even if they involve draft picks are what you never regret.

sometimes its hard to tell if you should regret trading away picks/prospects or not. Calgary moved Bret Hull to win a cup. Hull went on to be one of the top 10 scorers in NHL history. Maybe Flame fans would have enjoyed him in Calgary more then the cup? I cant say... its not always 100% clear cut.

It is however very very very possible to trade a top 10 pick and actually win the trade. most top 10 picks are going to be second liners at best... if you trade one for a second liner now, there is at least a 50-50 chance you will break even on the trade.

im not saying to trade number 1 or number 2 picks... but in most years, you can safely trade away a 9 or a 10 pick for a rental and end up being ok. getting value for the pick.

specially if you resign the rental. good ufa signings are just as valuable as good drafting is.
I'm not commenting on everything you said, just the bolded part. Drafting is only part of the process, but if your team doesn't draft well, they won't do well (look at Columbus, Florida as the best examples). But if you don't develop your own players, you won't be a contender either. Its a combination of drafting, developing AND making the key UFA signing or trade to polish off your team. Detroit, the most successful team of the past ten years, built their core with the draft (no top tens, which shows how amazing their scouting is), but without world class player development, their guys probably wouldn't have reached top potential. And making the key moves to add depth guys like Rafalski, Brad Stuart and Dan Cleary just put them over the top. I don't think its that GM's think that the only way to be successful is by drafting, but I do think that they look at Detroit, and see a team that has built its core without UFA and trades, and that is what teams are trying to copy.

zeus3007* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:01 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.