HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Jim Matheson article: Some draft info

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-03-2007, 12:03 AM
  #51
barrel_master
Amber Heard
 
barrel_master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Behind Enemy Lines View Post
I'd like the Oil to move up to top three:

Turris is my pick.

fallback - Voracek



Ellerby with the Isles pick
I almost hate to say this but, I think moving up is over-rated sometimes. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Oil do the same thing Mr Bugg is doing on the mock draft board. Moving down for multiple 2nd round picks esp. if they deem the avalible tallent warrants a move down.

barrel_master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 12:18 AM
  #52
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel_master View Post
I don't know, honestly, if what prednergast says is true, I think this is probably just a "below average" year in terms of drafting. Having this many picks, even if the prospects are uncertain, still helps us a great deal and is, IMO a reason to be optimistic.
Please don't misunderstand me, I am still optimistic but I am not over the moon.

We will still get a good player and perhaps two really good players but I just wish we would have a really bad season in a great draft year.

We have a good possibility of two top 10 picks and that is really one of the only positives of the season.

It's funny that in one thread I get criticized for always being positive and now I am being told I should be more opitimistic.

I am optimistic but by the same breath, Prendergast was speaking the truth as this independent draft source has shown and IMO I would rather him do that then throw sunshine up our shirt about Mikhnov for example.

I have no problem with criticism or negativity but Prendergast got criticized heavily for overhyping the prospects and now he is getting criticized for making an honest statement. I would rather have the latter.

We will still get a good player but there is a good chance that he will not be blue-chip and may not turn out to be star. It's a crapshoot (more than usual) this year and realistically fans have to realize that.

hockeyaddict101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 12:33 AM
  #53
Behind Enemy Lines
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel_master View Post
I almost hate to say this but, I think moving up is over-rated sometimes. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Oil do the same thing Mr Bugg is doing on the mock draft board. Moving down for multiple 2nd round picks esp. if they deem the avalible tallent warrants a move down.
Disagree. Imagine if the Oil had bit the bullet in past years and nabbed Pitkanen or Gaborik, as they had been alleged to be considering (in moving up). There is a greater degree of certainty with high draft picks that drops as the first round goes on. (Note: there is never 100% certainty with 17 year old kids).

This team needs difference makers. Three have emerged from the pack. Sitting at the sixth pick, this is Edmonton's best change to get a difference maker. To trade down would be a major mistake, imo.

I will be hugely disappointed if the Oil move out of this 'hard earned' draft position to add more lottery tickets instead of going after the big prize.

Behind Enemy Lines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 12:33 AM
  #54
barrel_master
Amber Heard
 
barrel_master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyaddict101 View Post
Please don't misunderstand me, I am still optimistic but I am not over the moon.

We will still get a good player and perhaps two really good players but I just wish we would have a really bad season in a great draft year.

We have a good possibility of two top 10 picks and that is really one of the only positives of the season.

It's funny that in one thread I get criticized for always being positive and now I am being told I should be more opitimistic.

I am optimistic but by the same breath, Prendergast was speaking the truth as this independent draft source has shown and IMO I would rather him do that then throw sunshine up our shirt about Mikhnov for example.

I have no problem with criticism or negativity but Prendergast got criticized heavily for overhyping the prospects and now he is getting criticized for making an honest statement. I would rather have the latter.

We will still get a good player but there is a good chance that he will not be blue-chip and may not turn out to be star. It's a crapshoot (more than usual) this year and realistically fans have to realize that.
That's all very fair. Personaly, I don't know if we'll get any "good" players out of this draft. I just feel that the % chance that we get something out of this draft is pretty decent.

barrel_master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 12:41 AM
  #55
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel_master View Post
That's all very fair. Personaly, I don't know if we'll get any "good" players out of this draft. I just feel that the % chance that we get something out of this draft is pretty decent.
No doubt and the player I hope we get if Couture. (I am assuming the top three are gone) Again from Redline.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/junio...12_094639_3076

It seems he feel a bit because of his mono and not because he is lessor prospect.

He was top 4 right until December. Mostly in the 3 spot. Went to number 1 in January and then dropped to 6 in Feb with an injury asterick next to his name.

I believe without that injury he stays in the top three.

hockeyaddict101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 12:45 AM
  #56
barrel_master
Amber Heard
 
barrel_master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Behind Enemy Lines View Post
Disagree. Imagine if the Oil had bit the bullet in past years and nabbed Pitkanen or Gaborik, as they had been alleged to be considering (in moving up). There is a greater degree of certainty with high draft picks that drops as the first round goes on. (Note: there is never 100% certainty with 17 year old kids).

This team needs difference makers. Three have emerged from the pack. Sitting at the sixth pick, this is Edmonton's best change to get a difference maker. To trade down would be a major mistake, imo.

I will be hugely disappointed if the Oil move out of this 'hard earned' draft position to add more lottery tickets instead of going after the big prize.
IF we just disagree with the optimal % chance of getting a player (either through moving up in drafts or moving down in them) then so be it. But let me ask you this, over the history of NHL drafts how much more productive have 1st round picks been over picks made in later rounds? I'm not talking % wise either, in absolute terms if all the best 1st round players where placed on a team to play against all the best players from the other rounds would the result really be that lop sided? Multiple picks later on are just extra chances to get those "gems" that teams don't take in the first round. And although I do think that early selections are more desireable, I don't think the difference between an early selection and multiple later selections is that different in terms of getting a decent player.

barrel_master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 12:50 AM
  #57
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Behind Enemy Lines View Post
I'd like the Oil to move up to top three:

Turris is my pick.

fallback - Voracek



Ellerby with the Isles pick
If the price isn't too high I have no problem with that but I wouldn't give the moon to do it.

Not this year, the separation between the picks isn't high enough.

hockeyaddict101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 01:05 AM
  #58
barrel_master
Amber Heard
 
barrel_master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyaddict101 View Post
If the price isn't too high I have no problem with that but I wouldn't give the moon to do it.

Not this year, the separation between the picks isn't high enough.
I hold a similar position. Honestly, if Lowe and co. think that one of the guys is the next Sakic I imagine/hope that he does trade down. It's most likely though that he just makes a judgement and tries to read and play the %'s as best he can.

barrel_master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 01:09 AM
  #59
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel_master View Post
I hold a similar position. Honestly, if Lowe and co. think that one of the guys is the next Sakic I imagine/hope that he does trade down. It's most likely though that he just makes a judgement and tries to read and play the %'s as best he can.
There will be a lot of trades this year. Teams will target a player and perhaps trade up or conversely if the player they want is gone, they may trade down.

I expect a lot of movement.

hockeyaddict101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 01:11 AM
  #60
Behind Enemy Lines
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel_master View Post
IF we just disagree with the optimal % chance of getting a player (either through moving up in drafts or moving down in them) then so be it. But let me ask you this, over the history of NHL drafts how much more productive have 1st round picks been over picks made in later rounds? I'm not talking % wise either, in absolute terms if all the best 1st round players where placed on a team to play against all the best players from the other rounds would the result really be that lop sided? Multiple picks later on are just extra chances to get those "gems" that teams don't take in the first round. And although I do think that early selections are more desireable, I don't think the difference between an early selection and multiple later selections is that different in terms of getting a decent player.
There are always 'gems' who emerge in later picks. But that of course depends on your scouting staff both identifying them and selecting them. I'd rather have fewer quality picks than roll the dice on finding difference makers later in the draft. For me, I'd rather reduce the risk (which is very high) in identifying and selecting 18 year old prospective NHL players by picking higher where there is greater certainty of getting a player than adding picks.

Here is a link to a statistic analysis of the NHL draft. One of several online:

http://hockeyanalysis.com/?p=316

"As you can see, there is a fairly steady decline in the odds of drafting a NHL calibre player the deeper you go in the draft. Beyond the early second round (>40th overall) the odds of drafting an NHL First line player are quite slim and even having a draft pick develop into an NHL regular is quite poor (~15% chance at best). The flip side of this is that top 5 picks are almost certainly going to be NHL Regulars or better and top 10 picks do very well as well. Beyond that things get much less predictable as even mid-first round picks (position 11-20) have ~25% chance of being a complete dud and only about a 40% chance of becoming an NHL regular or better."

Like I said, I'll take a Gaborik in hand versus 2 potential gems in the bush.

Behind Enemy Lines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 01:25 AM
  #61
Bank Shot
Registered User
 
Bank Shot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel_master View Post
IF we just disagree with the optimal % chance of getting a player (either through moving up in drafts or moving down in them) then so be it. But let me ask you this, over the history of NHL drafts how much more productive have 1st round picks been over picks made in later rounds? I'm not talking % wise either, in absolute terms if all the best 1st round players where placed on a team to play against all the best players from the other rounds would the result really be that lop sided? Multiple picks later on are just extra chances to get those "gems" that teams don't take in the first round. And although I do think that early selections are more desireable, I don't think the difference between an early selection and multiple later selections is that different in terms of getting a decent player.
Nah there's a huge difference.

Look at any draft year. Here's 1997.

First Round: (30 picks)
Hossa
Thornton
Marleau
Jokinen
Luongo

Brewer
Mara
Samsonov
Boynton
Cleary
Hannan
Morrow

Other rounds240 picks)

Clymer
Huselius
Tallinder
Afinogenov
Melichar
Nieminen
Corvo
Mair
Chimera
Calder
York
Cooke
Campbell
Aebischer
Fedoruk
Nagy
Laaksonen
A.Ference
Rachunek
McLean

So while the later rounds produced more actual NHLers the first round produced 5 superstars and the later rounds only 1. Also the first round produced 9 guys that I would consider first line/ top pairing guys while the later rounds only produced 5.

Bank Shot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 01:36 AM
  #62
barrel_master
Amber Heard
 
barrel_master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Behind Enemy Lines View Post
There are always 'gems' who emerge in later picks. But that of course depends on your scouting staff both identifying them and selecting them. I'd rather have fewer quality picks than roll the dice on finding difference makers later in the draft. For me, I'd rather reduce the risk (which is very high) in identifying and selecting 18 year old prospective NHL players by picking higher where there is greater certainty of getting a player than adding picks.

Here is a link to a statistic analysis of the NHL draft. One of several online:

http://hockeyanalysis.com/?p=316

"As you can see, there is a fairly steady decline in the odds of drafting a NHL calibre player the deeper you go in the draft. Beyond the early second round (>40th overall) the odds of drafting an NHL First line player are quite slim and even having a draft pick develop into an NHL regular is quite poor (~15% chance at best). The flip side of this is that top 5 picks are almost certainly going to be NHL Regulars or better and top 10 picks do very well as well. Beyond that things get much less predictable as even mid-first round picks (position 11-20) have ~25% chance of being a complete dud and only about a 40% chance of becoming an NHL regular or better."

Like I said, I'll take a Gaborik in hand versus 2 potential gems in the bush.
Fair enough, I really like that study so much so that I may re-evaluate my general positions on draft strategy.

barrel_master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 01:45 AM
  #63
barrel_master
Amber Heard
 
barrel_master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bank Shot View Post
Nah there's a huge difference.

Look at any draft year. Here's 1997.

First Round: (30 picks)
Hossa
Thornton
Marleau
Jokinen
Luongo

Brewer
Mara
Samsonov
Boynton
Cleary
Hannan
Morrow

Other rounds240 picks)

Clymer
Huselius
Tallinder
Afinogenov
Melichar
Nieminen
Corvo
Mair
Chimera
Calder
York
Cooke
Campbell
Aebischer
Fedoruk
Nagy
Laaksonen
A.Ference
Rachunek
McLean

So while the later rounds produced more actual NHLers the first round produced 5 superstars and the later rounds only 1. Also the first round produced 9 guys that I would consider first line/ top pairing guys while the later rounds only produced 5.
I dont know, if we're picking at random how but this draft

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl1994e.html

or this one

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl1998e.html

HOnestly, at this juncture, a part of me thinks that it's only the fans that put such a huge emphasis on picking early. We're generally too small to encapsulate all the data presented to us for 60+ players so most fans just focus on the top 10 or so while ignoring the rest. At this point I still belive that over the course of NHL history 1st rounders and non-1st rounders still are comparible on absolute terms.

barrel_master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 02:05 AM
  #64
Behind Enemy Lines
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel_master View Post
I dont know, if we're picking at random how but this draft

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl1994e.html

or this one

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl1998e.html

HOnestly, at this juncture, a part of me thinks that it's only the fans that put such a huge emphasis on picking early. We're generally too small to encapsulate all the data presented to us for 60+ players so most fans just focus on the top 10 or so while ignoring the rest. At this point I still belive that over the course of NHL history 1st rounders and non-1st rounders still are comparible on absolute terms.
Funny, I again have a different viewpoint. I think fans tend to overstate the impact of the draft and NHL prospects. It is so difficult to make the NHL let alone become a front line player. Every high scoring junior or collegiate is the 'next great player' yet very seldom does it play out that way.

Drafting is an imperfect science as it considers very young kids playing in different leagues and against different levels of competition. Most are physically and emotionally immature. Who will continue to grow and develop? Whose skills will peak at 18 instead of 28? Who has the will and determination to battle their way to a roster spot in the game's best league? There will always be surprises - those that can't miss but do; and those that shouldn't make it, but do.

For my two cents, I'll bet on the top five or ten. And flip the picks to better my odds of success anyday.

Behind Enemy Lines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 02:13 AM
  #65
Bank Shot
Registered User
 
Bank Shot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel_master View Post
I dont know, if we're picking at random how but this draft

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl1994e.html

or this one

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl1998e.html

HOnestly, at this juncture, a part of me thinks that it's only the fans that put such a huge emphasis on picking early. We're generally too small to encapsulate all the data presented to us for 60+ players so most fans just focus on the top 10 or so while ignoring the rest. At this point I still belive that over the course of NHL history 1st rounders and non-1st rounders still are comparible on absolute terms.
Yeah okay I didn't take the best route on that arguement. And I would agree that there are probably as many good players in the NHL that are non-first rounders as there are first rounders, but that is only because of the sheer volume of picks outside the first round.

It takes 8 times as many picks to produce the same volume of players. If you compare just 1st rounders to just 2nd rounders then the amount and quality of first rounders absolutely dwarfs the amount and quality of second rounders.

Bank Shot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 04:41 AM
  #66
ChrisB
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 275
vCash: 500
Yea, I'd prefer to hang onto the two high first rounders. If you pick twice in the top tenish area you're pretty certain to get some NHL regulars. Top ten guys usually work out, I know I know we can cite the names of Sather's eccentric draft picks. But assuming you go with consensus guys - they can usually play - that's why they're consensus guys. We're in a good position right now to pick up a couple guys like Couture/JVR or Mayorov/Ellerby who are considered to have top six /top 4 upside. Even if we don't get a star out of this we can get some solid contributors.

ChrisB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 04:59 AM
  #67
Hemsky4PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Billeting Ales
Posts: 6,684
vCash: 500
I'm pretty optimistic heading into this draft. The Oiler have been good judges of talent, they just haven't had the positioning to get "their guy".

They wanted Gaborik in 2000 and tried to deal with the Isles but didn't have enough to make it happen.

They wanted Pitkanen in 2002, but the Flyers made a better offer to Tampa.

They wanted Phaneuf in 2003, but couldn't move up.

The guys they have historically been interested in have panned out. Hopefully this year they have the high picks needed to either move up to get "their guy" or are lucky enough to have "their guy" be available when they make their selections.

The Oilers have also proven that they go off the map with mid-level first round picks (Niinimaki, Mikhnov). Let's hope they have 5-6 and 10-11. That gives them ammo to make a deal or at worst positioning to get solid prospects.

Hemsky4PM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2007, 09:31 AM
  #68
s7ark
Moderator
TheWorstEver
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,802
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel_master View Post
I almost hate to say this but, I think moving up is over-rated sometimes. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Oil do the same thing Mr Bugg is doing on the mock draft board. Moving down for multiple 2nd round picks esp. if they deem the avalible tallent warrants a move down.
Sorry, we have 3 1sts and I think 2 2nds this year and you want more depth? I am exactly the opposite. I want Lowe to trade up for a top 3 pick to get his guy, whoever that is, hopefully Turris.

I mean if all the guys you like are gone and then next few are all rated about the same then sure, dropping for an extra 2nd is ok. But not with our 1st. Our 1st we need to trade up or at least draft where we are.

__________________
Fire Eakins. Fire MacT. Fire Lowe. Clean house.
s7ark 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 12:32 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.