Should teams pick a G in the first round?

[PhillyNucksFan]

I think you need to define what a 'franchise' player is. Generally, those are reserved for superstars like Joe Thornton, Peter Forsberg, Nik Lidstrom, etc etc. Does a franchise guy include players like Paul Mara, Scott Hannan, and Nick Boynton? Does a franchise guy include players like Justin Williams, Ales Hemsky, or Mark Bell? What about Todd Harvey, Brad Ference, or Dean McAmmond?

I think it's just that more former 1st round skaters are still hanging around the NHL, whereas former 1st round goalies will find themselves out of work if they aren't top 2 at their position in the organization. Whereas former first round skaters can find their niche as 4th liners/3rd pairing D.

Smart organizations don't pick a goalie because they need one (*cough*Chicago-Adam Munro*cough*). Smart organizations realize it'll be 4-5 years at least before most goalies even get a sniff at the NHL. But smart organizations realize that a couple more years in waiting is maybe worth the sacrifice of not impressing a very small percentage of fans by tossing out a 20-21 year old on the 3rd line to score 30 points a year.

Yes, those examples of Thornton et all are franchise, and No, Paul Mara et all are not franchise players.

The point of original post was simply, "is it worth 4-6 years of patience and development to select a highly touted G in the first round?".


This is ONE of the reasons why smart organizations dont take G, (unless Luongo-type or Fleury-type) in the first round, because sure, these 1st rounders may not be franchise players, but they have higher potential of being 2nd liner, 3rd liner or even 4th liner heart and soul of any given team.

There are only 2 spots on an NHL team for a goaltender, whereas there are 12 for F and 6-7 for D.

If they (1st rounders) dont turn out to be bonnafide superstars, sure, I can and most fans probably could live with solid 2nd liners. But a first round G being a possible career backup G? I wouldnt say that is a good use of resource.

Of course, the payoff is also higher if you do select a Luongo-type in the first round. Great pick, period. But how many Luongos are there?
Is Montoya this year's Luongo?

 

[db23]

But there are really only 30 spots in the NHL where a first round drafted goalie can be termed a "success". First rounders who become backup goalies aren't consdidered to have fulfilled their potential. That is a tough standard. A defenceman who plays in the top 5 on his team is generally considered to be a success. Look at Chris Phillips in Ottawa, who was a first overall draft pick. A forward who is in the top 9 on a team is generally considered a success unless he was a really high draft pick. Radek Bonk was the third overall pick ten years ago, and Montreal was quite happy to pick him up as a third line centre.

 

[Lisa Needs Braces]

IMO it depends on the teams needs....... if your team doesn't have many good bluechip forward or defense prospects then i wouldn't consider taking a goalie in the first or second rounds because usually your better players are in those rounds so you could pick up a really good player who would hopefully make an impact within 2 or 3 years.

Goalies are hard to scout. They take longer to develop properly so quite often you could get a steal in the late rounds of the draft without using your first rounder. (eg. henrik lunquist) Its easier to acquire picks in the later rounds so you could take some gambles on goalies and hope one turns out.

unless there is extremly good talent in a couple goalies in the draft (eg. Fleury, Luongo) where you are picking I wouldn't take a goalie with a first rounder.

 

[cj]

For the thread poster, consider this:

Before the 2004 draft, the Canucks had never taken a goaltender in the first round.
Is it a coincidence they've had so many goalie problems over the years? Maybe.

Let me also ask you this, when was the last time the Canucks drafted a franchise player in the first round? Is Nathan Smith any less of a dissapointment than Matthieu Chouinard?

There are more risks associated with a goaltender than with a defenseman or forward simply because there are only two spots available and development is typically slower, but I'd also say the potential payoff is bigger. It's a high-risk, high reward kind of pick. No different than say, picking a highly skilled offensive player who can only really play on your top two lines if he makes it to the NHL. Those picks only look bad when they don't pan out, but if they do, the GM who made the pick is deemed a genius. Go figure.

 

[PecaFan]

Of course goalies should be picked in the first round. No one would ever say "Should forwards be picked in the first round?" or "Should defensemen be drafted in the first round?" Every reason cited to skip goalies like "some bust", "some can be found in the mid to late rounds" applies to the other positions.

Any bias in numbers towards later rounds for goalies has been self-fulfilling. For years, it was "common knowledge" that you didn't draft goalies early. So they didn't. So by definition the top NHL goalies all came from later rounds. Even today this bias still exists, as goalies are 10% of the players drafted, yet only 3% of the top 20 picks.

All three positions have essentially the same "success" curve when you graph games played vs draft position. Players drafted early play lots of games, players drafted late play few games.

http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/rsrch/papers/archive/2000-04.pdf
is an excellent paper on this, you can see this in figure 2. Because of the limited number of goalies taken high, the graph is a bit sparse in the top 20. Over time, as goalies are now taken higher much more often, this will fill in.

 

[Vipers]

It works both ways...there are a few #1 goalies who are 1st rounders. Taking them isnt neccessarily BAD, but when there are so many good goalies avaialble late, why bother?

Indeniable Laprise, if you mean like this year, Shantz, Brown, Lacasse and Peters
and others could be somewhere 1st goalie. But when you have the chance to pick up a Luongo or a MAF you pick a special player who can develop faster.

 

[db23]

Goalies are in a different universe than skaters. I would not use a premium pick on them because they are so difficult to project. If you go around the league, and analyze the top two goalies on each team, I think they would average somewhere around the 5th round in term of where they were drafted (counting free agents as 10th round picks). That is not the case for skaters. I imagine they would average no later than the middle of the second round.

Someone with more time and patience could check that out....

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

For the thread poster, consider this:

Before the 2004 draft, the Canucks had never taken a goaltender in the first round.
Is it a coincidence they've had so many goalie problems over the years? Maybe.

Let me also ask you this, when was the last time the Canucks drafted a franchise player in the first round? Is Nathan Smith any less of a dissapointment than Matthieu Chouinard?

There are more risks associated with a goaltender than with a defenseman or forward simply because there are only two spots available and development is typically slower, but I'd also say the potential payoff is bigger. It's a high-risk, high reward kind of pick. No different than say, picking a highly skilled offensive player who can only really play on your top two lines if he makes it to the NHL. Those picks only look bad when they don't pan out, but if they do, the GM who made the pick is deemed a genius. Go figure.

I think you just repeated, in another words and phrases, of what I said throughout the thread?

High risk = high payoff .

Smith Vs Chouinard?? Please, dont compare a goaltender vs a F as their aspects of the game are completely different and the path to success is also different.

I'm just saying, once again, is it worth to pick a G in the first round as each team theoretically will pick only once. (of course, discarding trades, compensations, etc etc). Should you invest your only 1st round pick on a seed which you may never taste the fruit. (a big "may", but could be a probable one)

From management's perspective, I wouldnt want to take a G in the first round, of course, once again, unless its luongo/fluery type, which have success written all over them since junior.

Canucks never taken a G in the first round, sure, but are you telling me that this is the reason why Vancouver is called the "Goalie Grave"?

I dont know......... but with Canucks drafting history and scouting staff...... I dont trust them.. and yes.. I just DONT TRUST THEM.. Canucks scouting has been near the bottom for the past 10 years!

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

I don't usually like it when teams draft goalies in the first round. Only really great ones should be, and only starting at around 10th to 20th.

Top 10, you're usually wasting a precious ressource unless the guy is one-of-a-kind.

The problem is in five parts:

Years of service

Your goalie is not going to give you as many years of service as a skater. It can be a difference of 2-3 years and sometimes, 6-7 years or more. That's enormous. Heck, often, by the time he is ready, you have spent more time developing him than you have left before he hits unrestricted free agency and ****s you hard like most of the moneysucking, disloyal SOBs will in this league.

Risk

It goes without saying but if they give you fewer years of service, it's because they are farther away from making it to the NHL. Which means they are more difficult to assess in drafts.

Maintenance

Goalies are a real headache for most organizations. They need games (not minutes, like skaters) to play in. This is true at every level. You need to manage this at the NHL level as well as the AHL (which becomes even more complicated if you are sharing a farm). You can dump the rest in the ECHL. Yay.

In Europe, part of the problem is solved, you don't have to stick your nose in this business. Then again, you're ****ed because you're not in control. So if you 26th overall goalie is stuck behind a veteran in Europe for the year, you're ****ed. He just wasted a year of development and so did you.

In waiver drafts (as well as expansion drafts), once again your goalies are usually a pain in the ass and nothing more.

Priorities

On a team of 20 skaters, you can always find room for a raw skater. Doesn't matter what your team is trying to accomplish. But if you're in a pressure situation to perform (either because you're a big contender or because you have sucked for too many years and your owner is now telling you you MUST make the playoffs this year) then the young developing goalies are going to take a backseat.

Value

Finally, with all the problems above, you're often in situations where you need to part with goalies. And while their stock has skyrocketed in drafts because GMs are dumb enough to grab them that early, their stock has stayed relatively the same in transactions.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

I don't remember what year it was, but 4 goalies were taken in the 1st round and all of them are goalie consider as #1 with their respective team.
These players are: Giguère, Biron, Cloutier and Denis.

Not always bad to draft a goalie in the 1st round. Also, they are relatively young.

I believe it's very bad. In fact, those four illustrate what's wrong with it.

Giguere: His team gave up on him and dumped him. Then his new team didn't have the time to develop him and dumped him again for peanuts.

Biron: Came in the league relatively early but is taking forever to make the next step into a solid #1. In the last two years, I've read more and more posts on the general forum and especially the Sabres forum from people who are tired of him. The Sabres are stuck with three young goalies and can't trade them because they have low value around the league. And they are managing a nightmare because you need to find ice time for the three. This has led to various weird situations in Buffalo the last two years.

Denis: I believe he had to be sacrificed because of an expaansion draft and dumped for a 2nd rounder. What good is it if you spend a first rounder, then spend CASH to develop him and then dumbly trade him for a 2nd rounder?

Cloutier: This guy utterly sucks. And he's been around as much as Monica Lewinski if not more. Everybody is still waiting for him to take the next step, a step he'll never be able to take unless a miracle happen.

All in all, those four perfectly illustrate my five-point theory in the previous post.

 

[Bluenote13]

Look at the rangers, how many "first round Gs" they have taken are playing for them right now!?!?

Jealousy will get you absolutely nowhere my friend

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

Jealousy will get you absolutely nowhere my friend

Well.. I'm a canucks fan............. from Goalie Graveyard....

tell me about it..