HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

NHL Draft - Quality Vs. Quantity a Myth?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-10-2012, 06:11 PM
  #76
robdicks
Registered User
 
robdicks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Welland ON
Posts: 5,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interactif View Post
The point is an argument has been made by some that Leafs should not drop down in the draft because we need quality and not quantity, now read the original post, it should be as clear as mountain water when you see the players that were drafted that are termed quantity picks given the Leafs may flop picks with TB, WASH, or BUFF.
Yeah and what if the Leafs trade down to 8 and pick a player at a similar level to Zach Hamill. They pick up that extra 2nd rounder and draft a player at the same level as Nick Ross (who was actually a 1st rounder). Then the 5th we traded away turns out to be a player like Phil Kessel. What a draft that would be huh?

robdicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 06:18 PM
  #77
416Leafer
Registered User
 
416Leafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interactif View Post
And actually it is 7/10 for the 09-10 season not 8/10, just want to be accurate when citing stats.
LOL. Thanks for the condescending correction that is actually incorrect.

Top Ten 2009-2010

Sedin (3rd overall)
Crosby (1st overall)
Ovechkin (1st overall)
Backstrom (4th overall)
Stamkos (1st overall)
St. Louis
B. Richards
Thornton (1st overall)
P. Kane (1st overall)
Gaborik (3rd overall)

So just to be clear, you may want to "be accurate when citing stats"

416Leafer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 06:41 PM
  #78
Interactif
Meet The New Boss
 
Interactif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrannigansLaw View Post
What's you're saying is definitely true but when you boil it all down, it comes down to whether we trust our scouts to be able to make the homerun pick in the later portions of the first round. To my knowledge this has only happened once and we pissed it on Raycroft.

Simply put, I don't trust our scouts' ability to draft high end talent late in the first round, they're great at finding potential depth NHLers but not cornerpieces. We need to give them the best chance possible and to do that we need to either stay at 5 or move up.
To be honest, our picks have been traded away too often, Morrison would have had a gimme with Seguin in 2010, would have been interesting to have seen his list for 2007, the pick that went to SJ that ultimately went to STL. Schenn and Kadri were his only 2 legit relatively high picks, he has done well in the later rds, 2009 has the potential to be a good draft for us, as is 2011. His earlier picks are not bad considering where we were picking, Kule, Reimer, Frattin, Hayes, Gunnarson, Stalberg, Tlusty, and probably Holzer next year. No homeruns though yet, but some fine picks late that are NHL caliber players.

Interactif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 06:44 PM
  #79
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 30,509
vCash: 500
This isn't really a quality vs quantity selection, since you're talking about quality picks made later in the first round.

Would you rather have Percy and Biggs or Gabriel Landeskog?

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 06:55 PM
  #80
Rockinz
Leafs 4 the cup
 
Rockinz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Leaf Land
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,110
vCash: 500
this thread is a bunch of rubbish...

Quality is = to 1st rounders... Most of the guys you have on that list are...

How many guys were busts in between all those "quantity picks"

what a joke

Rockinz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 07:02 PM
  #81
Interactif
Meet The New Boss
 
Interactif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockinz View Post
this thread is a bunch of rubbish...

Quality is = to 1st rounders... Most of the guys you have on that list are...

How many guys were busts in between all those "quantity picks"

what a joke
Specific example, what exactly in my the OP is rubbish? Blanket generalizations don't carry much weight Rockinz, if you have a point let me address it by using a specific an example I can rebutt.

Interactif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 07:34 PM
  #82
Cyris
Global Moderator
The one who knocks!
 
Cyris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Planet From Sun.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,914
vCash: 1269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interactif View Post
Specific example, what exactly in my the OP is rubbish? Blanket generalizations don't carry much weight Rockinz, if you have a point let me address it by using a specific an example I can rebutt.
Its rubbish because you use "selective" information to backup your opinions.
You list all the players picked later that turned out great but ignore the much larger number of guys picked in between that didn't.

BTW the guys picked with our traded draft picks from the Schenn trade:
Colin Wilson
Shawn Lalonde
Mat Clark

Nothing to complain about. No later quality there.

Cyris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 07:46 PM
  #83
Interactif
Meet The New Boss
 
Interactif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyris View Post
Its rubbish because you use "selective" information to backup your opinions.
You list all the players picked later that turned out great but ignore the much larger number of guys picked in between that didn't.

BTW the guys picked with our traded draft picks from the Schenn trade:
Colin Wilson
Shawn Lalonde
Mat Clark

Nothing to complain about. No later quality there.
Really? I clearly outlined in the OP what the critaria was given the Leafs are picking 5 with 3 teams with 2 picks in the 10 to 20 range, you want to make a counter argument using stats you are free to do so, but I haven't seen one person try yet. Are you up to it?

Interactif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 07:51 PM
  #84
Edgeworth*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,847
vCash: 500
I honestly would prefer to trade down. Either with Tampa or Washington. Getting to pick Faksa/Girgensens and then Maata/Gaunce/Wilson/whoever would be a great step forward.

Edgeworth* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 07:54 PM
  #85
Edgeworth*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyris View Post
Its rubbish because you use "selective" information to backup your opinions.
You list all the players picked later that turned out great but ignore the much larger number of guys picked in between that didn't.

BTW the guys picked with our traded draft picks from the Schenn trade:
Colin Wilson
Shawn Lalonde
Mat Clark

Nothing to complain about. No later quality there.
The toskala trade had a lot of "nothing" pieces but if you actually look at it we lost:

Eller, Pulashj and Craig Smith.

Eller and Smith both have 2C potential and are day 1 starters on their teams. Pulashj looks like he could be a 4-5 D-man. Honestly trading down is the smarter move imo. These playoffs have shown that having a full team is much better then having a great top line.

Edgeworth* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 07:54 PM
  #86
JMcLeaf
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
 
JMcLeaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: ♫d(-_-)b♫
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 16,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interactif View Post
Really? I clearly outlined in the OP what the critaria was given the Leafs are picking 5 with 3 teams with 2 picks in the 10 to 20 range, you want to make a counter argument using stats you are free to do so, but I haven't seen one person try yet. Are you up to it?
It's risky to trade down. If you have great scouting you can pull it off, but there is much greater chance of picking a dud the later you go in the draft. Here are some disappointing picks between 10-20 from 2004-2008:

2004
Tukonen
Thelen
Nokelainen
Schwarz
Chipchura

2005
Zagrapan
Pokulok
O’Mara
Bourret
Parent
Kindl
McArdle

2006
Tlusty
Helnius
Wishart
Lewis
Mitera
Fischer

2007
Plante
Gillies
MacMillan
Esposito

2008
Beach
Boychuk
Pickard

JMcLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 07:56 PM
  #87
Interactif
Meet The New Boss
 
Interactif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgeworth View Post
I honestly would prefer to trade down. Either with Tampa or Washington. Getting to pick Faksa/Girgensens and then Maata/Gaunce/Wilson/whoever would be a great step forward.
When I read people would want to trade our 2nd(34th) and a prospect in our system to move to #2 to pick Gally, you have to give your head a shake.

Basically we are saying for argument's if a deal can be made of flipping picks of Faksa/Wilson/Dansk and Ross/D'amigo/Holzer is a massive overpayment anyway you look at it.

Interactif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 07:58 PM
  #88
mapes
Registered User
 
mapes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 20,335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrannigansLaw View Post
Who knows how Filatov would've turned out had he drafted him. I mean, is there any franchise with a worse track record of developing top prospects than Columbus?

We're probably somewhere near the bottom but Columbus easily takes the cake in that regard. Brassard, Brule, Klesa, Filatov, LeClaire, Picard..the only ones they've managed to not screw up was Rick Nash and Voracek, who they traded anyway. That organization is just a mess.
That's true. I'd argue they screwed Voracek up a bit too.

I remember being mad at moving up since I really wanted Hodgson but then excited saying "Yes Filatov!" Then disappointment. I didn't like the idea of a shutdown dman in the top 5. Outside the top 5 maybe but not a top 5 pick. I warmed up to Schenn over that summer though. I had the same reaction when we picked Kadri instead of Cowen or MPS. Actually even more of a reaction since that draft I paid attention to BIG TIME. But out of the 3, I still think Kadri might end up as the best but it's tough to say. Hes taking longer to develop but I think he has the highest upside. Tough to say on that one and the jury is still out.

mapes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 08:01 PM
  #89
mapes
Registered User
 
mapes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 20,335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robdicks View Post
Yeah and what if the Leafs trade down to 8 and pick a player at a similar level to Zach Hamill. They pick up that extra 2nd rounder and draft a player at the same level as Nick Ross (who was actually a 1st rounder). Then the 5th we traded away turns out to be a player like Phil Kessel. What a draft that would be huh?
If we trade back, I will turn on him pretty quick. Ive defended Burke many times but trading back is not what we need. We don't need depth, we need stars. We need top line talent. Yes some guys have been drafted later and done well but your best chance is staying at 5.

mapes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 08:02 PM
  #90
showtime8
Registered User
 
showtime8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgeworth View Post
I honestly would prefer to trade down. Either with Tampa or Washington. Getting to pick Faksa/Girgensens and then Maata/Gaunce/Wilson/whoever would be a great step forward.
Depends what you could get from each team.

I don't think its a bad idea to just stay put and select with the picks that the Leafs have.

showtime8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 08:05 PM
  #91
Interactif
Meet The New Boss
 
Interactif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMcLeaf View Post
It's risky to trade down. If you have great scouting you can pull it off, but there is much greater chance of picking a dud the later you go in the draft. Here are some disappointing picks between 10-20 from 2004-2008:

2004
Tukonen
Thelen
Nokelainen
Schwarz
Chipchura

2005
Zagrapan
Pokulok
O’Mara
Bourret
Parent
Kindl
McArdle

2006
Tlusty
Helnius
Wishart
Lewis
Mitera
Fischer

2007
Plante
Gillies
MacMillan
Esposito

2008
Beach
Boychuk
Pickard
Finally, I commend you for atleast not making the blanket rubbish retort without providing some background to it.

Fair to say in the top 7 there have been flops also, Filatov, Wilson, Turis, Hickey, Alzner, Pouliot, Brule, Barker, Wheeler, Montoya, Olesz, Zherdev, Pitkanan, Whitney, Upshall, Schenn?

No guarantees either way we go, top 7 picks don't guarantee quality do they?

Interactif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 08:12 PM
  #92
JMcLeaf
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
 
JMcLeaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: ♫d(-_-)b♫
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 16,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interactif View Post
Finally, I commend you for atleast not making the blanket rubbish retort without providing some background to it.

Fair to say in the top 7 there have been flops also, Filatov, Wilson, Turis, Hickey, Alzner, Pouliot, Brule, Barker, Wheeler, Montoya, Olesz, Zherdev, Pitkanan, Whitney, Upshall, Schenn?

No guarantees either way we go, top 7 picks don't guarantee quality do they?
Not even the 1st overall pick guarantees quality. The higher your pick the more likely you are to find quality though.

JMcLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 08:18 PM
  #93
Interactif
Meet The New Boss
 
Interactif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMcLeaf View Post
Not even the 1st overall pick guarantees quality. The higher your pick the more likely you are to find quality though.
1st overall picks usually turn out, even in 03 when Pitt took a goalie over some very good players to choose from. That would have been a year to seriously consider spreading and trading down.

Depends on the landscape, I said this a couple of times it depends on the draft. I can see quality 16 picks in for sure, 20 if you want to stretch it and even into the 2nd rd. This is why I wouldn't be dissapointed if we moved down, if Forsberg is not there at #5.

Interactif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 08:20 PM
  #94
Beleafer4
Registered User
 
Beleafer4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 416Leafer View Post
.... 7/10 top scorers from last season were top 5 picks, 4/10 from the year before, and 8/10 from the year before that...

And considering there are only 5 lottery picks per year versus 205 other picks every year...and those 5 picks produce over half the top 10 scorers on average. Yes, statistically it does make a HUGE difference.

As for the winner of the scoring race, Martin St. Louis was the last non-lottery pick to win the scoring race, and that was in 2003-2004. Iginla and Forsberg (6th overall) are the only other non-lottery picks to win the Art Ross since Trottier in 78-79... So... When you said its "50-50" with lottery picks and lower first rounders, what you really meant was its almost never a non-lottery pick.
Eliminate 1st overall (because we wont be getting yakupov), and see how many others are from 2-5. Keep in mind too that d.sedin would have been #1 if it hadnt been for him wanting to play with his brother. Then see how many with them were found later in the first round. And who cares about top ten, see how many top 30 scorers (a good first liner) were picked from 2-5 vs. other parts of the first round.


Dont pick in terms of draft position, pick based on prospects available. If the guys left at 5 isnt head and shoulders above the guy at #11, might as well trade down and grab #19 too.

Beleafer4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 08:22 PM
  #95
Brown Dog
Registered User
 
Brown Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interactif View Post
Finally, I commend you for atleast not making the blanket rubbish retort without providing some background to it.

Fair to say in the top 7 there have been flops also, Filatov, Wilson, Turis, Hickey, Alzner, Pouliot, Brule, Barker, Wheeler, Montoya, Olesz, Zherdev, Pitkanan, Whitney, Upshall, Schenn?

No guarantees either way we go, top 7 picks don't guarantee quality do they?
It stands to reason that the deeper you go in the first round, the less likely you are to land an impact player. That's not to say you can't land an impact player later in the first round or even after the first round, it just becomes less likely.

I would argue that a team that lacks high end prospects is not ideally positioned to be taking the gamble of trading down on draft day, especially since the Leafs will always spend to the cap and can therefore afford to add supporting players using means other than the draft.

Brown Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 08:22 PM
  #96
Beleafer4
Registered User
 
Beleafer4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
This isn't really a quality vs quantity selection, since you're talking about quality picks made later in the first round.

Would you rather have Percy and Biggs or Gabriel Landeskog?
If you traded down from #2, you would have gotten a hell of a lot more than the #22 and #25.

And I would rather have biggs and percy + the 16th overall (which is fair value for 5th overall) than another schenn.


Last edited by Beleafer4: 06-10-2012 at 08:29 PM.
Beleafer4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 08:25 PM
  #97
JMcLeaf
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
 
JMcLeaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: ♫d(-_-)b♫
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 16,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interactif View Post
1st overall picks usually turn out, even in 03 when Pitt took a goalie over some very good players to choose from. That would have been a year to seriously consider spreading and trading down.

Depends on the landscape, I said this a couple of times it depends on the draft. I can see quality 16 picks in for sure, 20 if you want to stretch it and even into the 2nd rd. This is why I wouldn't be dissapointed if we moved down, if Forsberg is not there at #5.
I'm definitely not denying that there could be some quality around the 16th pick. What we have to consider though is how many players will our scouts like around that 10-20 range. If there are only 1 or 2 guys they really like then it's pretty risky to trade down and hope that those players are available. If there are like 5+ guys they like in that 10-20 range then sure a trade down scenario could make some sense. Im really hoping we stay put at 5 though because there are about 7 guys I really like.

JMcLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 08:26 PM
  #98
Beleafer4
Registered User
 
Beleafer4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mapes View Post
If we trade back, I will turn on him pretty quick. Ive defended Burke many times but trading back is not what we need. We don't need depth, we need stars. We need top line talent. Yes some guys have been drafted later and done well but your best chance is staying at 5.
Actually your best chance isnt at 5. Search past #5 picks and count how many current "stars" there are.

Hint: Vanek kessel and price are the only ones

Beleafer4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 08:29 PM
  #99
Brown Dog
Registered User
 
Brown Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beleafer4 View Post
Eliminate 1st overall (because we wont be getting yakupov), and see how many others are from 2-5. Keep in mind too that d.sedin would have been #1 if it hadnt been for him wanting to play with his brother. Then see how many with them were found later in the first round. And who cares about top ten, see how many top 30 scorers (a good first liner) were picked from 2-5 vs. other parts of the first round.


Dont pick in terms of draft position, pick based on prospects available. If the guys left at 5 isnt head and shoulders above the guy at #11, might as well trade down and grab #19 too.
This only works, though, if you're not targeting a specific player. I highly doubt many teams put all the time, money, and effort into scouting only to say, "we're happy with anybody projected to go #5 to #11." The only time teams really look to trade down is when they know the guy they want is not going to be picked until later in the draft. And even then they need another team eager enough to trade up that they're willing to sacrifice assets.

Brown Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 08:30 PM
  #100
Interactif
Meet The New Boss
 
Interactif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Dog View Post
It stands to reason that the deeper you go in the first round, the less likely you are to land an impact player. That's not to say you can't land an impact player later in the first round or even after the first round, it just becomes less likely.

I would argue that a team that lacks high end prospects is not ideally positioned to be taking the gamble of trading down on draft day, especially since the Leafs will always spend to the cap and can therefore afford to add supporting players using means other than the draft.
If we do move down it will be between 10-12 for our 1st pick, and our 2nd pick is no worse than in the 16-21 range. Is there really that much difference from #5 to 10-12 this draft? I don't think so. Another thing is if we move up, we are potentially losing 3 to 4 players to do so, providing we have to give up a prospect and a pick, coupled with the missed opportunity of gaining an additional 1st rder.

Too expensive for 1 prospect in this draft, certainly one that has played only 8 games this season.

Interactif 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 01:08 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.