In my opinion, the above shows just how over-rated draft picks have become in the last few seasons, particularly on HFBoards. The way people talk around here, 1st round picks are the surest way to build a team full of stars, but in reality, only 65% of first-rounders even become full-time NHL'ers (100+ games played). And that makes no mention of what kind of impact that player will actually have -- Rico Fata played 230 NHL games. Enough said. So the next time you complain about Feaster giving up a 5th rounder for PL3, consider the fact that that pick had about a 14% (about 1/7) chance of becoming an NHL regular.
And before folks come out and attack me, let's be clear -- I'm not saying draft picks are useless, just that they've become extremely over-rated around these parts of late. So lets stop whining every time our GM trades away a late-round draft pick, shall we?
Funny thing is, P3L has played less than 1/7 of the games he could have possibly played for the Flames.
So in that case, holding on to the draft pick would have been the correct strategy.
No, it wouldn't have. There's a 68% likelihood that a 5th round pick will never play a single NHL game, where PL3 has already played 40.
As for becoming an NHL regular (100+ games played), there's an 86% chance that player picked will never get there, whereas PL3 is almost half-way there.
In my opinion, the above shows just how over-rated draft picks have become in the last few seasons, particularly on HFBoards. The way people talk around here, 1st round picks are the surest way to build a team full of stars, but in reality, only 65% of first-rounders even become full-time NHL'ers (100+ games played). And that makes no mention of what kind of impact that player will actually have -- Rico Fata played 230 NHL games. Enough said. So the next time you complain about Feaster giving up a 5th rounder for PL3, consider the fact that that pick had about a 14% (about 1/7) chance of becoming an NHL regular.
And before folks come out and attack me, let's be clear -- I'm not saying draft picks are useless, just that they've become extremely over-rated around these parts of late. So lets stop whining every time our GM trades away a late-round draft pick, shall we?
Of course draft picks are not certain to be stars or even NHL players.
But if you don't draft players, you have zero chance.
Most star players in the NHL were obtained through the draft. The fact that the draft is not a certainty doesn't make it any less valuable when it's the only realistic way to obtain premium talent.
Last year Chicago used a 5th round pick to select a twice passed over forward named Andrew Shaw. He's now playing for Chicago on the third line and has 10 goals in about a third of the season. Now good scouting (and likely a lot of luck) was involved in this selection, but the fact remains that the more picks you have, the better the chance of winning the lotto.
The difficulty in selecting NHL players makes it more valuable (and necessary) to stock pile picks. Not less.
Last edited by slappipappi: 03-24-2012 at 08:06 AM.
its a 5th round pick, arguing about trading it is stupider than actually trading it. it was during the summer, who gives a ****? its time to forget it and move on
Draft picks are about sustainability. If you do not maintain your draft picks you do not have that feeder system of players coming in to keep your team competitive. If you draft poorly things really hurt long term. The Flames are in a situation where they need some of that top end talent, and the only way to get it is to draft it, unless some team wants to give away a great young player for more draft picks, which is unlikely. I can understand the trepidation of relying on the draft, but that is the only way the team can achieve a critical mass of young talent to become competitive again.
Of course draft picks are certain to be stars or even NHL players.
But if you don't draft players, you have zero chance.
Most star players in the NHL were obtained through the draft. The fact that the draft is not a certainty doesn't make it any less valuable when it's the only realistic way to obtain premium talent.
Last year Chicago used a 5th round pick to select a twice passed over forward named Andrew Shaw. He's now playing for Chicago on the third line and has 10 goals in about a third of the season. Now good scouting (and likely a lot of luck) was involved in this selection, but the fact remains that the more picks you have, the better the chance of winning the lotto.
The difficulty in selecting NHL players makes it more valuable (and necessary) to stock pile picks. Not less.
My point was not that draft picks are useless, just that they've become (in my opinion, extremely) over-valued in the last few years. I just think that we need to be more realistic about what can be expected of a drafted player. Even looking at the 2nd round of the draft, your odds are 1/3 for drafting a player that will be a regular NHL'er. To put it another way, 20/30 guys taken in the 2nd round of last year's draft will never hit that 100-game mark. To me, that's pretty significant and it gets much worse as you get into the later rounds of the draft.
Of course there are gems to be found in the later rounds of the draft, I'm not claiming otherwise. But you've hand-picked the one example that suits your argument and ignored the rest. Calgary has also drafted game-breakers such as Juuso Puustinen, Kevin Lalande, Kristofer Persson and Jiri Cetkovsky in the 5th round. That's like saying "my friend won on a lottery ticket once so I'm spending all my money on lottery tickets." OK, I know, it's an extreme example but it follows the same flawed logic.
its a 5th round pick, arguing about trading it is stupider than actually trading it. it was during the summer, who gives a ****? its time to forget it and move on
I was actually trying to get into a broader discussion about the emphasis placed on draft picks and used PL3 as an example of a pick that we traded away that people got particularly (and IMO unreasonably) upset about.
No, it wouldn't have. There's a 68% likelihood that a 5th round pick will never play a single NHL game, where PL3 has already played 40.
As for becoming an NHL regular (100+ games played), there's an 86% chance that player picked will never get there, whereas PL3 is almost half-way there.
I guess to make my point clearer, P3L wound up being useless for the Flames this season (such a player is generally available via free agency / waivers), and I'd rather roll the dice on a 5th round pick, with 0.01% chance that the Flames luck out and find a Datsyuk or a Zetterberg.
It's a minor annoyance at most - not like it's bothering me to the point of jumping off a bridge or anything.
PL3 is an obsolete player though, very few teams carry an enforcer any more, they carry guys who will/can scrap and can play an energy game and contribute a bit in other areas, and we have several of those (Jackman, TKO, Bouma, Desbiens (?)).
PL3 is an obsolete player though, very few teams carry an enforcer any more, they carry guys who will/can scrap and can play an energy game and contribute a bit in other areas, and we have several of those (Jackman, TKO, Bouma, Desbiens (?)).
We gave up something for nothing of use.
It is true that it's a bit of a black mark on Feaster's record. But at the end of the day it is a 5th round pick non the less. We got an even higher 5th back for this draft so...meh.
So there's a chance 65% of drafting an NHL player who will play more than 100 games in the first round, therefore in approximately 3 years, you've drafted 2 players good for the NHL (on average).
In 3 years, you'll draft an NHL player good for 100+ games out of the second round, and you'll get the same in 4 years from the third round. It will take 5 years to get a player from the 4th round, you'll get two players in 6 years from the 5th and 6th rounds, and a team gets one player on average from the 7th round.
Hence in 12 years of drafting, you should have 21 NHL calibre players (play more than 100 games). You may be able to have a new team every 12 years from the draft alone.
But obviously it's not as simple as that as there's thirty teams. There are many players that play for more than 12 years, some players don't last 12 years (but play 100+ games) and some players go undrafted but still play in the NHL. This is because a player only lasts about 240 games on average.
My point was not that draft picks are useless, just that they've become (in my opinion, extremely) over-valued in the last few years. I just think that we need to be more realistic about what can be expected of a drafted player. Even looking at the 2nd round of the draft, your odds are 1/3 for drafting a player that will be a regular NHL'er. To put it another way, 20/30 guys taken in the 2nd round of last year's draft will never hit that 100-game mark. To me, that's pretty significant and it gets much worse as you get into the later rounds of the draft.
Of course there are gems to be found in the later rounds of the draft, I'm not claiming otherwise. But you've hand-picked the one example that suits your argument and ignored the rest. Calgary has also drafted game-breakers such as Juuso Puustinen, Kevin Lalande, Kristofer Persson and Jiri Cetkovsky in the 5th round. That's like saying "my friend won on a lottery ticket once so I'm spending all my money on lottery tickets." OK, I know, it's an extreme example but it follows the same flawed logic.
I'll agree there is definately a bandwagon of draft pick hoarders lately, including myself. I was adamant to trade pending UFA's at the deadline because I believe in asset retention, even if the asset changes forms (player or pick). I hate to see a sunk cost.
There are other ways to add talent. Swap in a trade and hope to come out on top. You can dip into the NHL free agent pool, where most of the singings are for players that have played at the NHL level. You can dip into college F.A's or international F.A's and hope they're NHL calibre. You could have professional tryouts too I suppose.
I would like to see the odds on the other means as comparison. Then we could say for certain what the best way is to collect talent.
