Recently many posters and bloggers who I respect a lot have suggested that the value of draft day has been reduced. I agree. The amount it has been reduced is where I get off the train.
Here's why.
1. Even though scouts are terrific at identifying talent, they're not perfect.
Of the players who won major awards in the summer of 2004, Martin St. Louis (undrafted), Scott Niedermayer (third overall), Martin Brodeur (20th overall), Andrew Raycroft (135th overall), Kris Draper (62nd overall) seem to indicate that while the top end of the draft is important the lower reaches also have value.
2. Not all players will leave their teams at 27. I think people have looked at the 27 ufa age (25 for Crosby) and concluded that all players will leave for a new team as soon as possible. I just don't see it happening, and Jarome Iginla is very likely to be a perfect current example. The Flames now have the ability to match any offer, they also have a strong enough team to contend. Just as importantly, they have created an atmosphere Iginla feels comfortable with and that imo is one of the main reasons many 27 year olds will re-sign.
3. Teams that sign rfa's only have so many first rounders. I don't think there's much doubt some team is going to try and raid another at some point. I'd target Ottawa to be honest, probably Spezza. Having said that, once you sign the guy you have mondo dollars AND the picks devoted to said player and it's unlikely the NHL is going to let you do this more than once an offseason. After all, signing two free agents means you've given up a draft pick 8 years hence and that borders on the ridiculous. If it is a current loophole, it'd be closed pdq.
4. Seven years of NHL player has exceptional value. When an NHL player makes the grade, there is a period of time that all of them take to adjust and then begin making progress. Let's say it's two seasons. That leaves 5 seasons of exceptional quality and your team didn't have to do anything at all save stand in line to make the pick. The window of opportunity for most NFL teams is less than five years and NHL teams are probably going to have a hard time keeping their foundation together for longer. Drafting for a window (as the Oilers seem to have done) makes great sense.
All true, and early signs are that GMs are still taking it very seriously. Darryl Sutter doesn't like the fact that he doesn't have a pick in the 2nd round, and has said he wants more, as an example.
3. Teams that sign rfa's only have so many first rounders. I don't think there's much doubt some team is going to try and raid another at some point. I'd target Ottawa to be honest, probably Spezza. Having said that, once you sign the guy you have mondo dollars AND the picks devoted to said player and it's unlikely the NHL is going to let you do this more than once an offseason. After all, signing two free agents means you've given up a draft pick 8 years hence and that borders on the ridiculous. If it is a current loophole, it'd be closed pdq.
You know LT - the Spezza thing is ballsy and I don't know if the NHL has done an under the table deal to avoid raiding RFAs (as they certainly have in the past) but it is a very strategic thing to consider. If it works then you have Spezza for several years and we are a contender (so the the picks are pretty much irrelevent). If it fails then you have damaged a serious competitor's cap postion and this will hurt them hard in the future. I think it is such a a no lose situation - that if we don't do it - the NHL has clearly agreed to restrict RFA movement in an illegal manner.
You know LT - the Spezza thing is ballsy and I don't know if the NHL has done an under the table deal to avoid raiding RFAs (as they certainly have in the past) but it is a very strategic thing to consider. If it works then you have Spezza for several years and we are a contender (so the the picks are pretty much irrelevent). If it fails then you have damaged a serious competitor's cap postion and this will hurt them hard in the future. I think it is such a a no lose situation - that if we don't do it - the NHL has clearly agreed to restrict RFA movement in an illegal manner.
Agree completely. Can't take credit for it, though, speeds was the one that brought it to my attention.
On the flipside of the "RFA raiding" method of acquiring players, how much would it hurt a club (successful coup or not) in terms of the old boys' network?
We've all heard (true or not) how Ted Nolan has basically been banished from the NHL in part due to the old boys' network. To be sure, this is an extreme case, but from a quick glance of Carolina's transactions since their offer to Fedorov, the team hasn't made any significant trades in recent history. Lack of trading partners? No tempting offers? Who knows.
From my standpoint: It's best not to burn bridges. (and would Lowe really do that to Muckler?)
On the flipside of the "RFA raiding" method of acquiring players, how much would it hurt a club (successful coup or not) in terms of the old boys' network?
We've all heard (true or not) how Ted Nolan has basically been banished from the NHL in part due to the old boys' network. To be sure, this is an extreme case, but from a quick glance of Carolina's transactions since their offer to Fedorov, the team hasn't made any significant trades in recent history. Lack of trading partners? No tempting offers? Who knows.
From my standpoint: It's best not to burn bridges. (and would Lowe really do that to Muckler?)
A couple of things... Nolan hasn't been banished because of an old boys club... he tried to cut Muckler's legs from underneath him and steal his job back in Buffalo.
If you are a GM, are you going to hire a guy who A). Wants your job, and B). Has shown that he's willing to stab you in the back to get it?
That's why he's banished.
__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
On the flipside of the "RFA raiding" method of acquiring players, how much would it hurt a club (successful coup or not) in terms of the old boys' network?
We've all heard (true or not) how Ted Nolan has basically been banished from the NHL in part due to the old boys' network. To be sure, this is an extreme case, but from a quick glance of Carolina's transactions since their offer to Fedorov, the team hasn't made any significant trades in recent history. Lack of trading partners? No tempting offers? Who knows.
From my standpoint: It's best not to burn bridges. (and would Lowe really do that to Muckler?)
No bridges to burn - the Sens never trade with us anyway - but I agree with you that this is a consideration.
I can however picture Muckler whistling a version of "why can't we be friends" pretty much non-stop this August
In looking to analyze the usefulness of the draft as we move forward, I started in trying to gauge how useful it has been in the most recent era of the NHL. Before I list some numbers, I'll point out that the closest thing I could find to a scouting budget was an article that said Tampa Bay saved $1,000,000 by cutting their scouting payroll in half to 12 (8 full time) which the article quoted Jay Feaster as suggesting was a more average size.. So if anyone can come up with a more accurate number than $1,000,000 for a team's scouting budget, please do!
The following is a list of draft years and the amount of players in them who have played 100 or more games in the NHL (info from hockeydb.com). I've used the 1st, 2nd, 8th, and 9th rounds as an indication of the top and bottom end of the draft... Could have used all rounds but I'm lazy! The bracket numbers after the first round indicate how many of the top 10 picks of that year went on to play 100 or more NHL games... And finally, using 100 games is slightly lenient for some of the earlier years (it calls Steve Kelly a success) and slightly harsh for the most recent year (it calls Mike Ryder a failure), but occurs to me as a reasonable central mark for success.
1994
----
1)16/26 (7/10)
2)14/26
8)00/26
9)08/26
1995
----
1)20/26 (9/10)
2)08/26
8)01/26
9)01/26
1996
----
1)15/26 (8/10)
2)08/26
8)04/26
9)03/26
1997
----
1)14/26 (9/10)
2)05/26
8)02/26
9)02/26
1998
----
1)20/27 (9/10)
2)07/27
8)00/27
9)00/27
Basically, close to two-thirds of the first round picks (65%), close to one third of the second round (32%), and virtually none of the 8/9 round players became successfully contributing members of an NHL club. I realize perhaps a Round 3-9 would have been a better indicator of the depth of an average draft than just 8 and 9, but what we have is a system in which the only round in which a player is more likely to become an NHL player than not in is round one.
If you operate under the assumption that you have a 2/3 chance to pick an NHL player in the first round, why scout at all? I know people talk all the time about the ISS rankings and other prospect guides - how accurately do these ratings tend to mesh with actual occurences on draft day? The biggest reason to implement a system even close to scouting that I can think of is to weed out the Mikhnov's et al who have no intention of working their way up your organization, and that would take interviews - not road trips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowetide
1. Even though scouts are terrific at identifying talent, they're not perfect.
Of the players who won major awards in the summer of 2004, Martin St. Louis (undrafted), Scott Niedermayer (third overall), Martin Brodeur (20th overall), Andrew Raycroft (135th overall), Kris Draper (62nd overall) seem to indicate that while the top end of the draft is important the lower reaches also have value.
The question I ask is.. If we assume the ISS is reasonably accurate at picking which players will go in the first round and that we're happy with 65% in it, is it really worth $1,000,000 to a club every year to take the gamble on finding a Raycroft or Draper? In poker, they talk about pot odds - basically, if you have a 1/4 chance in making your hand, the percentages dictate that you should call any bet that is 1/4 or less of the size of the pot. Is the pot (Raycroft-esque players) worth the bet in this case? I would wager no, simply because the percentage of later-round players who become successful is so diminished. I know that means turning a very consciously blind eye to a wealth of talent after the first round, but it appears (to my very untrained eye) that $1,000,000 would be better spent in a situation where it has a higher percentage chance of tangible usefulness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowetide
2. Not all players will leave their teams at 27. I think people have looked at the 27 ufa age (25 for Crosby) and concluded that all players will leave for a new team as soon as possible. I just don't see it happening, and Jarome Iginla is very likely to be a perfect current example. The Flames now have the ability to match any offer, they also have a strong enough team to contend. Just as importantly, they have created an atmosphere Iginla feels comfortable with and that imo is one of the main reasons many 27 year olds will re-sign.
It remains to see how this will play out.. If an "even" playing field has truly been created, I suspect that you'll be absolutely right in this regard. After seven seasons of dedication to any one particular club, it's not likely that a player would simply pick up and leave for comparable money. If there were extenuating circumstances that dictated a player signing out of town (Ie, if he fell out of favour with fans) then it's not likely your club or player would want to sign another contract anyway, which to me sounds perfectly fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowetide
3. Teams that sign rfa's only have so many first rounders. I don't think there's much doubt some team is going to try and raid another at some point. I'd target Ottawa to be honest, probably Spezza. Having said that, once you sign the guy you have mondo dollars AND the picks devoted to said player and it's unlikely the NHL is going to let you do this more than once an offseason. After all, signing two free agents means you've given up a draft pick 8 years hence and that borders on the ridiculous. If it is a current loophole, it'd be closed pdq.
Raiding RFA's seems like the kind of play a team could only make once, and could only really make if the player involved was someone they really wanted anyway.. To bring poker back into this, if you're bluffing and you get caught, you'd better hope you have a drawing hand. How does this affect the overall usefulness of scouting/the draft anyway? Setting an amount of draft picks as compensation implies that these picks are indeed worth something. There is a finite amount of draft picks. If scouting isn't important to one team, it should be to another (and the picks are first round, right, so at 65% you're basically giving up at least one, possibly two contributing NHL players by doing this?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowetide
4. Seven years of NHL player has exceptional value. When an NHL player makes the grade, there is a period of time that all of them take to adjust and then begin making progress. Let's say it's two seasons. That leaves 5 seasons of exceptional quality and your team didn't have to do anything at all save stand in line to make the pick. The window of opportunity for most NFL teams is less than five years and NHL teams are probably going to have a hard time keeping their foundation together for longer. Drafting for a window (as the Oilers seem to have done) makes great sense.
The one thing I worry about is that intuitively, it seems that the seven years after that UFA age are likely the most productive of a player's career.. It would be good to check this against the numbers of various NHL players aged 34 and older, but I would suggest for example that age 27-34 covers more of a player's peak than 20-27 does.
I don't believe in tearing a system down without suggesting a superior or more efficient one to replace it, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave it at that. If there's one draft that you have better than 50% odds in and you've got to get a top 10 pick to ensure success (most of the time at least), why pay $1m per year to get the same information that organizations like HF throw around for free? It's an awful lot of money just for propriety, an awful lot of money simply for an organization to feel it had a hand in determining its fate, and an awful lot of money that could be used elsewhere.
A couple of things... Nolan hasn't been banished because of an old boys club... he tried to cut Muckler's legs from underneath him and steal his job back in Buffalo.
If you are a GM, are you going to hire a guy who A). Wants your job, and B). Has shown that he's willing to stab you in the back to get it?
That's why he's banished.
Do you have any links to articles I could read about this? I've long been curious as to why such an apparently successful coach was effectively black-listed.. If what you're saying is true I'd like to read more about it.
If you operate under the assumption that you have a 2/3 chance to pick an NHL player in the first round, why scout at all?
For several reasons. We always talk about the Oilers drafting, but since 2001 they have not only gotten some usable parts (Hemsky, Markkanen, Stoll) but have some nice things for the future. PLUS their scouts found the time to spot Conklin and Bergeron.
Also, there's always a chance that your going to end up winning the bet. Hemsky, for instance is already (imo) a bet won. Middle first round pick with tremendous skills. Has warts, no doubt. But he is indeed a talent worthy of a higher pick and if they did a re-draft today Hemsky would go higher.
For several reasons. We always talk about the Oilers drafting, but since 2001 they have not only gotten some usable parts (Hemsky, Markkanen, Stoll) but have some nice things for the future. PLUS their scouts found the time to spot Conklin and Bergeron.
Also, there's always a chance that your going to end up winning the bet. Hemsky, for instance is already (imo) a bet won. Middle first round pick with tremendous skills. Has warts, no doubt. But he is indeed a talent worthy of a higher pick and if they did a re-draft today Hemsky would go higher.
Is that all luck?
Did the Oilers reach to take Hemsky where they did? Is that a choice they could have made only based on their scouting reports, and not based on published rankings? (I'm not being challenging here, I really don't know). As far as I can tell, yes, it is all luck. Maybe my perspective skews my perception here, but I can bet that for every reach (ninimaki-esque) that has been an outright success, there's been more than a fair share of complete failures. The one thing I would look for (and openly accept if it is the case) is an organization with a significantly higher or lower conversion rate, over a reasonable time frame, before I would call a draft pick's success a result of scouting talent. Also, I should point out that I'm not suggesting that scouting is useless, but why pay so much money for information that's available for free?
Also, I should point out that I'm not suggesting that scouting is useless, but why pay so much money for information that's available for free?
Because all the scouting reports in the world won't make up for seeing them play live multiple times. I have to think that if scouting weren't important, teams wouldn't be doing it. Obviously the investment is something teams feel is very worth their while.
Did the Oilers reach to take Hemsky where they did? Is that a choice they could have made only based on their scouting reports, and not based on published rankings?
He was CSB#9 NA skater, which would mean that he went about where he should have gone based on their number (Oilers took him 13th). Players who were rated higher and went later included RJ Umbarger (CSB#5) and Colby Armstrong (CSB#8). So in that way the Oilers did see something they liked and chose wisely imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showerhead
As far as I can tell, yes, it is all luck. Maybe my perspective skews my perception here, but I can bet that for every reach (ninimaki-esque) that has been an outright success, there's been more than a fair share of complete failures. The one thing I would look for (and openly accept if it is the case) is an organization with a significantly higher or lower conversion rate, over a reasonable time frame, before I would call a draft pick's success a result of scouting talent. Also, I should point out that I'm not suggesting that scouting is useless, but why pay so much money for information that's available for free?
I suspect it is mostly luck but there is an element of real ability to (as baseball people say) put a dollar sign on the muscle. Ottawa would be an example of a team that seems to be able to identify quality better than others. Examples of that are Havlat (28th), Alfredsson (133rd) and the kid they got last season (Meszaros, #23) looks like another.
It's an interesting question. I remember Montreal went just with the Baseball central scouting for a time and failed miserably. Hockey does seem to be a little more predictable though, even at 18 years old.
is there a published list like ISS that has thier historical draft rankings. If so, we could compare their success to actual success of the teams' scouting departments which is reflected in their picks. It might be kinda usefull to see if , in hindsight, an organization was better off firing their scouts and using ISS.
3. Teams that sign rfa's only have so many first rounders. I don't think there's much doubt some team is going to try and raid another at some point. I'd target Ottawa to be honest, probably Spezza. Having said that, once you sign the guy you have mondo dollars AND the picks devoted to said player and it's unlikely the NHL is going to let you do this more than once an offseason. After all, signing two free agents means you've given up a draft pick 8 years hence and that borders on the ridiculous. If it is a current loophole, it'd be closed pdq.
What if...
...the RFA compensation really does look like this?
Quote:
Up to $660,000 - No compensation
$660,000 to $1 million - One 3rd round draft pick
$1 to $2 million - One second round pick
$2 to $3 million - One 1st and one 3rd round pick
$3 to $4 million - One 1st, one 2nd and one 3rd round pick
$4 to $5 million - Two 1sts, one 2nd and one 3rd round pick
Over $5 million - Four 1st round picks
That's what is being rumoured right now and I have no idea if it is true or not. Given the atmosphere on this board I won't say whether or not this came from a blog and I won't say if the gentleman's name rhymes with 'Shmenjamin.'
If that's the case, what value do your draft picks have now? How about that scouting budget?
I don't believe in tearing a system down without suggesting a superior or more efficient one to replace it, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave it at that. If there's one draft that you have better than 50% odds in and you've got to get a top 10 pick to ensure success (most of the time at least), why pay $1m per year to get the same information that organizations like HF throw around for free? It's an awful lot of money just for propriety, an awful lot of money simply for an organization to feel it had a hand in determining its fate, and an awful lot of money that could be used elsewhere.
What a hoot showerhead - thanks for taking the effort to put some number to the rambling BS I've been spinning for the last couple of days.
In another thread I suggested we dump the scouting staff and use the extra $2 million saved to buy a high quality UFA contract each year (ie using the money on a known quantity rather than a lottery ticket).
I also then half-jokingly said we should just let speeds do the drafting (assuming he does it for free). I'm now completely serious about this concept - call it "open source" drafting and you could even be taken seriously
Recently many posters and bloggers who I respect a lot have suggested that the value of draft day has been reduced. I agree. The amount it has been reduced is where I get off the train.
Here's why.
1. Even though scouts are terrific at identifying talent, they're not perfect.
Of the players who won major awards in the summer of 2004, Martin St. Louis (undrafted), Scott Niedermayer (third overall), Martin Brodeur (20th overall), Andrew Raycroft (135th overall), Kris Draper (62nd overall) seem to indicate that while the top end of the draft is important the lower reaches also have value.
I'm not sure I get how this applies to draft pick value being reduced. Obviously if you have scouts that perform MUCH better than everyone else it will be an advantage, but how much so in the new CBA?
But does anyone have scouts that perform that much better than anyone else? So much better than averaging the independant scouting sources that it's worth ~ 1 mil a year that could instead be used on real players? When the time you own a player has dropped from 9-13 years to 7 years? And of those 7 years the first 3 years are at a deep discount, afterwards teams face potential RFA raids that will increase the cost of RFA's, perhaps significantly (see new RFA compensation posted below)?
Quote:
2. Not all players will leave their teams at 27. I think people have looked at the 27 ufa age (25 for Crosby) and concluded that all players will leave for a new team as soon as possible. I just don't see it happening, and Jarome Iginla is very likely to be a perfect current example. The Flames now have the ability to match any offer, they also have a strong enough team to contend. Just as importantly, they have created an atmosphere Iginla feels comfortable with and that imo is one of the main reasons many 27 year olds will re-sign.
true
Quote:
3. Teams that sign rfa's only have so many first rounders. I don't think there's much doubt some team is going to try and raid another at some point. I'd target Ottawa to be honest, probably Spezza. Having said that, once you sign the guy you have mondo dollars AND the picks devoted to said player and it's unlikely the NHL is going to let you do this more than once an offseason. After all, signing two free agents means you've given up a draft pick 8 years hence and that borders on the ridiculous. If it is a current loophole, it'd be closed pdq.
under the old CBA one could only make an offer sheet if you had all your picks available in a row, with the exception of 1st rounders, I think you had to have 4 of your next 5 1sts avail when paying 4 1sts in comp, or 5 of 6 for 5 1sts comp.
So an offer sheet to Spezza would mean you can't offer another offer sheet of that size for 4 years.
Quote:
4. Seven years of NHL player has exceptional value. When an NHL player makes the grade, there is a period of time that all of them take to adjust and then begin making progress. Let's say it's two seasons. That leaves 5 seasons of exceptional quality and your team didn't have to do anything at all save stand in line to make the pick. The window of opportunity for most NFL teams is less than five years and NHL teams are probably going to have a hard time keeping their foundation together for longer. Drafting for a window (as the Oilers seem to have done) makes great sense.
Thoughts?
That player has exceptional value provided he's far cheaper than he should be given his on-ice performance. Let's look at, say, Hemsky. He cost the Oilers a 13th overall pick, in other value cost that might be something like 15th overall and 3rd rounder. Compensation for a 1.99 mil player is a 2nd rounder, and 2.99 mil player is a 1st and a 3rd, according to:
Up to $660,000 - No compensation
$660,000 to $1 million - One 3rd round draft pick
$1 to $2 million - One second round pick
$2 to $3 million - One 1st and one 3rd round pick
$3 to $4 million - One 1st, one 2nd and one 3rd round pick
$4 to $5 million - Two 1sts, one 2nd and one 3rd round pick
Over $5 million - Four 1st round picks
It would cost some team a 2nd rounder if they bid 1.99 mil on Hemsky, a 1st and a 3rd if they bid 2.99 mil. Either case is less than he cost to draft, provided the team finishes in the top half of the standings, and that's after he's shown to not be a complete bust.
What would a team have to bid on Hemsky for EDM to not match? I don't know, but I do know that in either case Hemsky can't be as valuable as he would be if the Oilers can sign him for 1.2 mil like under the old system. In this system there's no way the Oilers should be able to sign him for under 1.99 mil, at least one team out there has to think Hemsky to be worth a 2nd round pick. OK, they might rationalize that EDM would match; they'd be right. What about at 2.99 mil, is it automatic EDM would match there? Even if that is "too much" for Hemsky to make, once you win the player you can always take him to arb when his contract expires if he doesn't play up to that level.
Note to Mr. Kevin Lowe, GM Edmonton Oilers from HF Oiler Board:
- seriously consider trading 2005 draft picks (save ???? down the road)
- seriously consider free open source scouting (save $2 million)
- do not run minor league team (save $1 million?)
- do not qualify any prospect not in top 10 (save $1 million?)
- tender UFA/RFA offer sheets to Iginla or Forsburg with savings
- make playoffs and do serious damage with resulting financial benefits
Recently many posters and bloggers who I respect a lot have suggested that the value of draft day has been reduced. I agree. The amount it has been reduced is where I get off the train.
Here's why.
1. Even though scouts are terrific at identifying talent, they're not perfect.
Of the players who won major awards in the summer of 2004, Martin St. Louis (undrafted), Scott Niedermayer (third overall), Martin Brodeur (20th overall), Andrew Raycroft (135th overall), Kris Draper (62nd overall) seem to indicate that while the top end of the draft is important the lower reaches also have value.
2. Not all players will leave their teams at 27. I think people have looked at the 27 ufa age (25 for Crosby) and concluded that all players will leave for a new team as soon as possible. I just don't see it happening, and Jarome Iginla is very likely to be a perfect current example. The Flames now have the ability to match any offer, they also have a strong enough team to contend. Just as importantly, they have created an atmosphere Iginla feels comfortable with and that imo is one of the main reasons many 27 year olds will re-sign.
3. Teams that sign rfa's only have so many first rounders. I don't think there's much doubt some team is going to try and raid another at some point. I'd target Ottawa to be honest, probably Spezza. Having said that, once you sign the guy you have mondo dollars AND the picks devoted to said player and it's unlikely the NHL is going to let you do this more than once an offseason. After all, signing two free agents means you've given up a draft pick 8 years hence and that borders on the ridiculous. If it is a current loophole, it'd be closed pdq.
4. Seven years of NHL player has exceptional value. When an NHL player makes the grade, there is a period of time that all of them take to adjust and then begin making progress. Let's say it's two seasons. That leaves 5 seasons of exceptional quality and your team didn't have to do anything at all save stand in line to make the pick. The window of opportunity for most NFL teams is less than five years and NHL teams are probably going to have a hard time keeping their foundation together for longer. Drafting for a window (as the Oilers seem to have done) makes great sense.
Thoughts?
This years daft for the oilers hs less importance then other years
even with the swing back draft pick
enless they grab a pick in the top 10-15--they are grabbing someone that more then likely will be ready for the nhl in 4-6 year insead if 2-4
We've seen in the past that many players who are drafted later and later turn out to be gems. These players are mostly likely to be loyal to the team and stay beyond the age of 27 years old.
I mean, I agree with those who say that the draft is less important today just by virtue of before, when you drafted a player, he was your until the ages of 31. It was important to make the correct choice and teams could benefit from good picks longer.
If that's the case, what value do your draft picks have now? How about that scouting budget?
I do think the value of the pick is less than what it was in years past. The degree is where I'm picking up the argument, and I just don't see the value being that much worse.
If a team went to the extreme and decided not to bother going to the draft (I'm not suggesting this, just using it as an example) they would cut off a stream of procurement that has been vital in the past AND opt out of the opportunity to tap into the least expensive talent available to a team. Doesn't make sense.
So then, where do we peg the value of draft picks? I think we'll see this week, because if they truly have far less value there's not much use of the Oilers signing Marc Antoine Pouliot. He'll get a nice bonus plus a contract and be useless this upcoming season.
Not only that, they can hope he falls to #25, draft him and pay far less.
I'm using the ridiculous to make a point, but at some point the idea that draft picks have little value has to reach its nadir and begin to rise again. I think the difference between then and now is pretty small. I think a team that continues to value a draft pick while others mail it in will begin to see the results in a real way within two years.
I think a lot of you are in for a big surprise if you think the cap devalues draft picks. In the NBA where there is a luxury tax, mid level exceptions and where you can pay 3 or 4 players the majority of your payroll that is true. But I think the NHL will be much closer to the NFL because you need to fill so many spots, in the NFL 1st day picks 1st-3rd rds are treated as gold. Take a look at this offseason Travis Henry a RB that rushed for 1200 yards 2 straight seasons is in the prime of his career couldn't find a team because Buf wanted a 2nd rd pick. in fact only the Jags and Titans were willing to part with a 3rd pick. Shaun Alexander and Edjarin James 2 of the most productive RB's in football could of been had for a 2nd rd pick yet there were no takers. The raiders got the most talened WR in football Randy Moss in the prime of his career for the 7th overall pick.
the fact that the UFA age has been reduced also makes the draft more important, teams are going to be forced to make tougher decicions on who they want to pay big early and if you have young players in the system capable of stepping up and taking those positions it saves you from overpaying for players that may not be worth what they are asking. An example of this is what the Eagles did last year with their 2 probowl corners Troy Vincent and Bobby Taylor who were both FA's asking for big dollars more than they were worth. because the Eagles had drafted well and had Lito Sheppard and Sheldon Brown waiting in the wings they didn't have to overpay.
I think the value of drafting needs to be put into context:
- for the rich teams who could buy off their shortcomings during the old CBA , drafting will become more important.
- for the poor teams who could not afford FAs during the old CBA , drafting will become less important (however, see caveats below).
In Oiler's case, I think they should be more liberal in trading away picks and prospects for immediate help. Their strategy needs to shift away from being overly concerned about youth & the future. They need to think more in terms of veterans & the present.
Having said all that, I'm not sure if I would completely agree with simply disbanding our scouting department. Again, I think there needs to be a shift in strategy.
What I would like to see is a more intense focus on the creme of the crop, with serious attempts on trading up to get those picks (of course, that's easier said than done).
What this means is that instead of sweating over who to take at #25, we should focus our energy in assessing whether or not it's worthwhile to say, package our #25 & Brewer for the a shot at, say, J.Johnson. Outside of that (unless they up the draft age), use HF ranking, a dart, or something.
I like this strategy b/c:
1) outside of the cream of the crop, the odds are you'll end up with a plumber. So why waste your scouting resources when these types of guys will be cheap and plentiful in the open market.
2) trading away a core player like Brewer is a viable option now as you'll now more than likely find a pretty reasonable substitute in the open market during the off season (before or after the draft).
3) I agree with LT that if we can have a superstar spend his formative years in Edm, there's a better chance for us to retain him once he's reached UFA status when other big market teams may also bid for his service.
BTW, as for drafting Hemsky...if I recall correctly, I think a major reason might have been the fact Gretz, Lowe & company were chummy with Hull's GM (or was it the owner?). So they (along with Phx w/ Gretz) were probably fed more inside scoop on the kid than most other teams. Not sure if I would classify that as luck or acumen.
To try to get an idea of how much better one team's scouting can be than another, I went through each draft from 1990-1999 and counted the players who went on to play 100 or more games for three different teams: New Jersey (regarded as a great example of drafting), the New York Rangers (I had no preconceived idea and expected average results), and of course Edmonton (who as we all know had a rather awful showing at the draft in the 1990's.
The Results:
1st Round Summary Devils: 9/12 = 75%
2nd Round Summary Devils: 7/16 = 44%
Rest of the Draft for Devils:19/85 = 22%
1st Round Summary Rangers: 5/10 = 50%
2nd Round Summary Rangers: 2/10 = 20%
Rest of the Draft for Rangers:13/88 = 15%
1st Round Summary Oilers: 6/14 = 43%
2nd Round Summary Oilers: 5/11 = 45%
Rest of the Draft for Oilers:10/92 = 11%
The results indicate that New Jersey dominated both teams in the first and later rounds, while in the second round were actually slightly outperformed by the Oilers. New York showed to be slightly below average in all rounds (recall the 65% and 35% numbers as average for the 1st and 2nd rounds respectively) while performing reasonably well in the rest of the draft. Edmonton showed below 50% for the first round, a major disappointment, but actually showed a very positive score above the average for the second round.
However, as good as percentages are for measuring success rates, it may be better to look at the actual success. First off, a difference in strategy can be seen between the Devils and the other two teams. Notice how New Jersey had 28 picks in the first two rounds over the 10 year period while New York had 20 and the Oilers 25. New Jersey also had the least amount of picks in later rounds (incidentally there were some years where the Oilers had multiple picks in the 8th or 9th round) indicating that the Devils either didn't trade for those late round picks or traded them away. Regardless, it's immediately apparent that in addition to high conversion rates New Jersey also aimed to keep as many picks as possible in the areas of the draft with the highest probability of success. A solid recipe for organizational strength, yes?
Over the course of 10 years, New Jersey cranked out 36 credible NHL players to New York's 20 and Edmonton's 21, despite all teams having a comparable amount of total picks. This is the most accurate gauge of success and also the one that shows good scouting to be worth its salt. Some of the difference can be made up for simply with strategy (aiming for the cream of the crop as choppystride pointed out, or at the very least the top two rounds) but I think this really shows how impressive good scouting is.
The million dollar question then, is this: would the ~10,000,000 the Rangers or Oilers would have spent over this period on scouting have been better used elsewhere? Simple odds dictate that each team underperformed in all rounds other than the Oilers' second, and there are several scouting sources that could at least give those teams a gauge for what round a player should be picked in (I realize, just at this moment, that this entire argument assumes that BPA is the ideal strategy, as opposed to needs-based). Is the only reason that the Rangers/Oilers didn't do even worse that they had reasonable scouting talent? Or do the 65% and 35% odds dictate that they could have picked randomly as long as they had an idea of what round a player should go in and have done better?
I realize that this is a very longwinded post (like most of my posts, I suppose) that basically comes down to the same conclusion that many people have made and asks the same question that Mr. Sakich (and others, I'm sure) have already asked. I personally suspect that while having great scouts is a tremendous asset, having average or poor scouts is not worth the money.
PS - I also apologize to LT in that I've strayed from the original intention of his post - I've longwindedly debated drafting's usefulness and not touched upon the degree to which that usefulness is changing.
All true, and early signs are that GMs are still taking it very seriously. Darryl Sutter doesn't like the fact that he doesn't have a pick in the 2nd round, and has said he wants more, as an example.
