Official 2014 NHL Draft thread

[Weave]

I can't get worked up about the lack of success Darcy has had with mid-to-late round picks., 2nd round picks hit at maybe a 25% rate, or once every 4 years. 3rd round picks are near 10%, so once in 10 years, 4th round picks and later are even less. I think it's pretty clear that we've hit on 2nd round and later picks at at least the normal rate.

 

Darcy did have a really bad dry spell for a good bit in the 1st round. That, and a lack of 2nd round picks for a few years has hurt this team.

[Hoss]

I can't get worked up about the lack of success Darcy has had with mid-to-late round picks., 2nd round picks hit at maybe a 25% rate, or once every 4 years. 3rd round picks are near 10%, so once in 10 years, 4th round picks and later are even less. I think it's pretty clear that we've hit on 2nd round and later picks at at least the normal rate.

 

Darcy did have a really bad dry spell for a good bit in the 1st round. That, and a lack of 2nd round picks for a few years has hurt this team.

 

Meh. I don't like the "nobody else is doing well there so it's okay." This debate came up with the Bills about needing a wide receiver that doesn't care that you've got somebody draped all over you. When was the last time that team had a receiver who makes the catch when somebody is all over him?

 

It'd be nice to have a GM who finds a few legitimate studs in the mid-to-late rounds despite the fact that not many other teams do.

Edited November 9, 2013 by DStebb

[Weave]

Meh. I don't like the "nobody else is doing well there so it's okay." This debate came up with the Bills about needing a wide receiver that doesn't care that you've got somebody draped all over you. When was the last time that team had a receiver who makes the catch when somebody is all over him?

 

It'd be nice to have a GM who finds a few legitimate studs in the mid-to-late rounds despite the fact that not many other teams do.

 

29 other teams would like to have GM's that hit more often in late rounds too.

 

It seems to me that scouting has gotten so good, quantifying performance so accurate, that you just aren't going to see much in the way of 3rd round + diamonds. they are all getting sniffed out now and get selected earlier. Sure, there will be an occassional surprise, but the simple fact is, the success rate on all those kids, by all those teams, is extremely small. we all want to have the exception, but judging this GM because he hasn't been that exception is rather irrational, innit?

[CallawaySabres]

We better get used to silver linings around here so here is one about there being no consensus #1 guy - You know with our luck, we would not get the first pick with the worst record. That 25% won't be good enough and so when we pick 2nd, it won't be heartbreaking knowing that we did not lose a legit superstar.

[North Buffalo]

Meh. I don't like the "nobody else is doing well there so it's okay." This debate came up with the Bills about needing a wide receiver that doesn't care that you've got somebody draped all over you. When was the last time that team had a receiver who makes the catch when somebody is all over him?

 

It'd be nice to have a GM who finds a few legitimate studs in the mid-to-late rounds despite the fact that not many other teams do.

 

Eric Moulds...

 

And agree about mid to late round studs needed.

 

Just can't get out of my my Zetterberg in DT. If only.

Edited November 9, 2013 by North Buffalo

[Robviously]

29 other teams would like to have GM's that hit more often in late rounds too.

 

It seems to me that scouting has gotten so good, quantifying performance so accurate, that you just aren't going to see much in the way of 3rd round + diamonds. they are all getting sniffed out now and get selected earlier. Sure, there will be an occassional surprise, but the simple fact is, the success rate on all those kids, by all those teams, is extremely small. we all want to have the exception, but judging this GM because he hasn't been that exception is rather irrational, innit?

I still think the Sabres are actually better than many (most?) teams when it comes to finding late round talent. I broke down every Blackhawks draft of the past 8 years a few weeks back and if you take away Toews and Kane, they didn't add a lot we should be jealous of. They just happened to have high picks in two years where it really paid off.

[bunomatic]

No need to agree with me as it imo but to me success at the draft is how many draftees of this team are wearing rings. Here or elsewhere.

[Weave]

I still think the Sabres are actually better than many (most?) teams when it comes to finding late round talent. I broke down every Blackhawks draft of the past 8 years a few weeks back and if you take away Toews and Kane, they didn't add a lot we should be jealous of. They just happened to have high picks in two years where it really paid off.

 

Detroit keeps getting brought up as an example because of Datsyuk and Zetterberg. How many Zetterbergs or Datsyuk's have been drafted in the late rounds since Datsyuk and Zetterberg? It's been a good decade or more since a skater with anywhere near their success has come out of a mid-to-late round., Detroit certainly didn't expect those two to be what they became or they would have been 1st round selections for the Red Wings, not 7th round selections. Those two were luck. When guys are hitting in the 5% range it comes down to luck as much as anything.

[North Buffalo]

Detroit keeps getting brought up as an example because of Datsyuk and Zetterberg. How many Zetterbergs or Datsyuk's have been drafted in the late rounds since Datsyuk and Zetterberg? It's been a good decade or more since a skater with anywhere near their success has come out of a mid-to-late round., Detroit certainly didn't expect those two to be what they became or they would have been 1st round selections for the Red Wings, not 7th round selections. Those two were luck. When guys are hitting in the 5% range it comes down to luck as much as anything.

 

Probably true, and the Sabres sure haven't had any luck lately with Darcy at the helm when it comes to drafting. Pending outcome of some of the recent drafts.

[TrueBlueGED]

No need to agree with me as it imo but to me success at the draft is how many draftees of this team are wearing rings. Here or elsewhere.

 

Well, I'm glad I don't have to agree :P

 

I think judging individual draft picks based upon team accomplishments is crazy.

[bunomatic]

I suppose the only stat that counts is how many games in the league the draftee plays because almost every stat including goals and assists can be broken down to a team accomplishment. If you play surrounded by crappy team mates chances are your personal stats will be worse and vice versa. Its a team game.

[SabresBillsFan]

Me personally after watching the Sabres blue and gold with Devine. Devine seemed set at Risto at 8 and then another scout mentioned Zadorov at 16. I'm thinking the scouting staff has a huge input in these picks. I highly doubt Regier is watching a lot of these kids on tape.

Edited November 9, 2013 by SabresBillsFan

[TrueBlueGED]

I suppose the only stat that counts is how many games in the league the draftee plays because almost every stat including goals and assists can be broken down to a team accomplishment. If you play surrounded by crappy team mates chances are your personal stats will be worse and vice versa. Its a team game.

 

Hyperbole. Teammates can certainly impact production, but a quality NHL player is going to produce something in spite of his surroundings. So the stats might be worse, but they won't be nonexistent.

 

But your measure of judging draft picks by rings is crazy. By that measure, Sean Thornton is a better draft pick than Rick Nash.

[SwampD]

Hyperbole. Teammates can certainly impact production, but a quality NHL player is going to produce something in spite of his surroundings. So the stats might be worse, but they won't be nonexistent.

 

But your measure of judging draft picks by rings is crazy. By that measure, Sean Thornton is a better draft pick than Rick Nash.

[bunomatic]

Hyperbole. Teammates can certainly impact production, but a quality NHL player is going to produce something in spite of his surroundings. So the stats might be worse, but they won't be nonexistent.

 

But your measure of judging draft picks by rings is crazy. By that measure, Sean Thornton is a better draft pick than Rick Nash.

 

I get what you're saying. But if the cup is the ultimate goal then maybe he is ? If Sean Thornton is on 5 cup winners after his career is over and Rick Nash hasn't won one I have no problem saying maybe Thornton deserves more credit than he gets. In my mind Nash never accomplished much because the whole idea is to win a cup. Without the cup what has he accomplished ? A whole bunch of missed playoffs or 1 and outs ? Nash might end his career with 1000 pts but without a cup what has he accomplished ? Thats all I'm saying. There has to be a better way to quantify what being a cup winner means to a g.m.s draft record. How many players a g.m. has drafted who have won a cup should count towards some sort of measure of success. Question- G.M. #1 has drafted 27 players who've won the cup. G.M. #2 has drafted 4 that have won the cup. Who's the better G.M.?

Edited November 9, 2013 by bunomatic

[LGR4GM]

The sheer stupidity of some these arguments... And I dislike Regier ... However when he has had draft picks in rounds 1-3 he has found good players. Haven't won a cup? How many cups does Hasek have? What about Crosby? Stamkos? Dumbest thing ever... Measuring cups to draft picks.

[Hoss]

The sheer stupidity of some these arguments... And I dislike Regier ... However when he has had draft picks in rounds 1-3 he has found good players. Haven't won a cup? How many cups does Hasek have? What about Crosby? Stamkos? Dumbest thing ever... Measuring cups to draft picks.

 

Well Crosby has one and Hasek has two so I'm not really sure what you're getting at... One cup would be enough for Regier to be the greatest GM in team history.

[bunomatic]

The sheer stupidity of some these arguments... And I dislike Regier ... However when he has had draft picks in rounds 1-3 he has found good players. Haven't won a cup? How many cups does Hasek have? What about Crosby? Stamkos? Dumbest thing ever... Measuring cups to draft picks.

 

You of all people feel cups aren't important in relation to draft picks. Why do you draft people and for you in particular because you spend such a vast amount of time arguing for or against certain players that are draft age why do you list qualities such as hockey I.Q. and grit and other intangibles if it isn't in the hopes that those intangibles will lead those particular players to one day raise the cup ? How can the stanley cup not be intertwined with the drafting of players. Thats why you draft players.

[Derrico]

Hat trick for dal colle tonight. Generals keep rolling.

[TrueBlueGED]

I get what you're saying. But if the cup is the ultimate goal then maybe he is ? If Sean Thornton is on 5 cup winners after his career is over and Rick Nash hasn't won one I have no problem saying maybe Thornton deserves more credit than he gets. In my mind Nash never accomplished much because the whole idea is to win a cup. Without the cup what has he accomplished ? A whole bunch of missed playoffs or 1 and outs ? Nash might end his career with 1000 pts but without a cup what has he accomplished ? Thats all I'm saying. There has to be a better way to quantify what being a cup winner means to a g.m.s draft record. How many players a g.m. has drafted who have won a cup should count towards some sort of measure of success. Question- G.M. #1 has drafted 27 players who've won the cup. G.M. #2 has drafted 4 that have won the cup. Who's the better G.M.?

 

See, I think you're conflating GM quality with drafted player quality. Also, a GM cannot solely be judged by his draft record, nor can a player solely be judged by how much his team wins. A GM can be a very good drafter, and poor in other aspects of the job. The inverse is also true.

 

I strongly disagree with judging individual players on team accomplishments. You're building a team today, from scratch. Would you honestly select a fourth line player over a 30 goal scorer just because of ring count? Sean Thornton is a replacement level player no matter how many Cups he wins by the end of his career. He could be on the next six winners in a row and I still wouldn't give him any real credit. Even if he ended up scoring a few goals that helped, he's not doing anything 300 other NHL players couldn't do.

[LGR4GM]

Stamkos. Pavelski. Sedins. Ovechkin. Kovalchuk. Tavares. All of these players must be garbage as they haven't won a cup. That is the logic being expounded and it's idiotic. Measuring individual players to cups to draft picks to gms is ludicrous.

 

 

Dal Colle, who are his line mates? I want to know if he is generating the offense or just along for the ride.

[Robviously]

See, I think you're conflating GM quality with drafted player quality. Also, a GM cannot solely be judged by his draft record, nor can a player solely be judged by how much his team wins. A GM can be a very good drafter, and poor in other aspects of the job. The inverse is also true.

 

I strongly disagree with judging individual players on team accomplishments. You're building a team today, from scratch. Would you honestly select a fourth line player over a 30 goal scorer just because of ring count? Sean Thornton is a replacement level player no matter how many Cups he wins by the end of his career. He could be on the next six winners in a row and I still wouldn't give him any real credit. Even if he ended up scoring a few goals that helped, he's not doing anything 300 other NHL players couldn't do.

Stamkos. Pavelski. Sedins. Ovechkin. Kovalchuk. Tavares. All of these players must be garbage as they haven't won a cup. That is the logic being expounded and it's idiotic. Measuring individual players to cups to draft picks to gms is ludicrous.

 

 

Dal Colle, who are his line mates? I want to know if he is generating the offense or just along for the ride.

I don't even think this is the argument Bunomatic is making. I'm not sure anyone is saying that the only metric you should use to judge an individual player is how many rings they have.

 

But should you judge how well a team drafts based on how many championships they've won? For the NFL, I'd say yes but I'm less convinced for the NHL. You need to draft well, but trades and free agent signings are a big part of winning the Cup too. A team could draft really well, but never win a Cup because their GM can't identify and acquire their missing pieces (*cough cough* Regier *cough*).

 

And I'd say it's almost impossible to build a complete team just through the draft. You're scouting 17 year olds to try to figure out what they'll be like in 10 years. Even if you're great at drafting, what are the chances you've got size, speed, leadership, team chemistry, brains, etc. all addressed without any additional trades/signings?

Edited November 10, 2013 by Robviously

[bunomatic]

I don't even think this is the argument Bunomatic is making. I'm not sure anyone is saying that the only metric you should use to judge an individual player is how many rings they have.

 

But should you judge how well a team drafts based on how many championships they've won? For the NFL, I'd say yes but I'm less convinced for the NHL. You need to draft well, but trades and free agent signings are a big part of winning the Cup too. A team could draft really well, but never win a Cup because their GM can't identify and acquire their missing pieces (*cough cough* Regier *cough*).

 

And I'd say it's almost impossible to build a built a complete team just through the draft. You're scouting 17 year olds to try to figure out what they'll be like in 10 years. Even if you're great at drafting, what are the chances you've got size, speed, leadership, team chemistry, brains, etc. all addressed without any additional trades/signings?

 

Thank you. I'm not saying based soley on the record of cups won. You and blue have managed to reply and explain to me what I was simply asking with out calling me stupid, dumb ,idiotic and resorting to personal attacks and I appreciate that. All I was saying is there should be some sort of accolade to G.M.s who have drafted well and won cups and I guess there is anyways. They get the cudos from their peers which is enough. And to you Lgr I always thought of you as a pretty intelligent poster. You've gone a long way to proving me wrong. I'm confident if you and I were sitting having a beer you wouldn't talk to me the same way you have here. Maybe you were having a bad day.

Edited November 10, 2013 by bunomatic

[bunomatic]

Stamkos. Pavelski. Sedins. Ovechkin. Kovalchuk. Tavares. All of these players must be garbage as they haven't won a cup. That is the logic being expounded and it's idiotic. Measuring individual players to cups to draft picks to gms is ludicrous.

 

 

Dal Colle, who are his line mates? I want to know if he is generating the offense or just along for the ride.

 

No that is not the logic being expounded. That is not what I am trying to say. This is more about the G.M.s Lgr than the players. If you read the post that was in response to you you'd get that. But you just keep on with your tough guy act Lgr. It looks good on you. No need to join in the conversation and show some civility.

[Hoss]

Me personally after watching the Sabres blue and gold with Devine. Devine seemed set at Risto at 8 and then another scout mentioned Zadorov at 16. I'm thinking the scouting staff has a huge input in these picks. I highly doubt Regier is watching a lot of these kids on tape.

 

I think most people that have watched that see clearly that Darcy isn't doing the drafting anymore.