Prospect Info: 2013 Draft Thread | "Falling Flat for Horvat"

[Beerfish]

You are complaining that over the 5 years macgregor has been head scout he hasn't been good enough and when someone points out statistically he is right on track if not better you just say we havn't had a homerun so it doesn't count. he has only been head scout for 5 years we have no idea if any of the 2nd rounders will turn out as good as either of them but feel free to base you argument on nothing other than "I don't think he is good"

People really understate the significance of the advantage of drafting 1st or high in EACH round not just the 1st. The Oilers should be hitting well above average on their 2nd rounders and even 3rd rounders for this reason.

 

[I am the Liquor]

Aequitas good post. Was just going to post something similar.

Lots of studies have been done to show that picks outside of top 10 are risky. You guys can google it and get exact #s but here is a rough summary (by memory):

Top 10 - 85 percent success rate

1st rd - 65 percent success rate

2nd rd - 20-25 percent success rate

After that its pure luck....about 12 % of players make it.

And I believe studies were done to show that no team is that much better than others (especially in rounds 3-7).

We are well below that.

 

[Neilio]

Feel free to point out draft successes outside of the first round.

Fact of the matter we have none.

If you think Lander is that then I suppose you consider MAP and JFJ draft successes too.

I think we need a bit more time to judge Stu's track record. Not many players outside of the first round are going to play and play well as 18 year olds. Most don't get a sniff of the NHL for 4 or 5 years. But looking at our draft record, I think that the second round may be where Stu is at his weakest. He seems to be able to find some players of interest in later rounds.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00005632.html

Its certainly an improvement over the Pendegrast/Fraser eras.

 

[doubledown99]

We are well below that.

Fine but what are we missing? 1 or 2 players since Stu took over?

I won't argue prior to Stu because we sucked - I agree.

I'm just saying with Stu we need more time to evaluate. Luck still plays a big part in all this.

 

[The Nuge]

Fine but what are we missing? 1 or 2 players since Stu took over?

I won't argue prior to Stu because we sucked - I agree.

I'm just saying with Stu we need more time to evaluate. Luck still plays a big part in all this.

This! Maybe Marincin or Gernat are late blooming #1 dmen. We don't know. Let everyone pan out before we start claiming things one way or the other

 

[I am the Liquor]

I borrowed this from the Prospects board.......

Stats from between 97-06
Forwards and d-men counted as successful picks from 1997-2004 had to play at least 125 NHL games. From 04-06, 80 were required. For goalies, at least 51 if drafted between 97-04, and at least 25 if drafted between 04-06.

National Hockey League – Top 30

1. Buffalo - 10yrs – 91 draft picks – 28 NHL Players = 30.7% success rate (1)

2. Boston - 10yrs – 85 draft picks – 26 NHL Players = 30.5% success rate (1)

3. Ottawa - 10yrs – 92 draft picks – 26 NHL Players = 28.2% success rate (2)

4. Pittsburgh - 10yrs – 95 draft picks – 27 NHL Players = 28.4% success rate

5. Colorado - 10yrs – 96 draft picks – 27 NHL Players = 28.1% success rate (1)

6. San Jose - 10yrs – 78 draft picks – 21 NHL Players = 27.0% success rate (3)

7. Montreal - 10yrs – 90 draft picks – 24 NHL Players = 26.6% success rate (2)

8. Anaheim - 10yrs – 74 draft picks – 19 NHL Players = 25.6% success rate

9. Nashville - 9yrs – 88 draft picks – 20 NHL Players = 24.0% success rate (3)

10. NY Rangers -10yrs – 100 draft picks – 23 NHL Players = 23.0% success rate

11. Columbus - 7yrs – 74 draft picks – 17 NHL Players = 22.9% success rate (3)

12. Minnesota - 7yrs – 61 draft picks – 14 NHL Players = 22.9% success rate (1)

13. Chicago - 10yrs – 110 draft picks – 25 NHL Players = 22.7% success rate

14. Toronto - 10yrs – 84 draft picks – 19 NHL Players = 22.6% success rate (1)

15. Dallas - 10yrs – 91 draft picks – 20 NHL Players = 21.9% success rate

16. Los Angles - 10yrs – 97 draft picks – 21 NHL Players = 21.6% success rate (1)

17. Washington - 10yrs – 92 draft picks – 19 NHL Players = 20.6% success rate (1)

18. Florida - 10yrs – 92 draft picks – 19 NHL Players = 20.6% success rate (1)

19. NY Islanders - 10yrs – 97 draft picks – 20 NHL Players = 20.6 % success rate (1)

20. Vancouver - 10yrs – 84 draft picks – 17 NHL Players = 20.2% success rate

21. Detroit - 10yrs – 85 draft picks – 17 NHL Players = 20.0% success rate (2)

22. Carolina - 10yrs – 80 draft picks – 16 NHL Players = 20.0% success rate (2)

23. Philadelphia - 10yrs – 89 draft picks – 17 NHL Players = 19.1% success rate (1)

24. Edmonton - 10yrs – 98 draft picks – 18 NHL Players = 18.3% success rate (6)

25. St. Louis - 10yrs – 89 draft picks – 15 NHL Players = 16.8 % success rate (3)

26. Atlanta - 8 yrs –78 draft picks - 13–NHL Players = 16.6% success rate (1)

27. Calgary - 10yrs – 99 draft picks – 16 NHL Players = 16.1% success rate

28. Tampa Bay - 10yrs – 102 draft picks – 16 NHL Players = 15.6% success rate (2)

29. New Jersey - 10yrs – 91 draft picks – 14 NHL Players = 15.3% success rate (6)

30. Phoenix - 10yrs – 86 draft picks – 13 NHL Players = 15.1% success rate (1)

Not from Stu's era, but you get the idea. Its still early, but like I have said, the cracks are starting to show already.

 

[The Nuge]

Nvm misread it

 

[CupofOil]

Feel free to point out draft successes outside of the first round.

Fact of the matter we have none.

If you think Lander is that then I suppose you consider MAP and JFJ draft successes too.

You're talking about draft failures as if these guys are busts already.
Fourier pointed out nicely that a lot of the draft picks are tracking well considering where they were picked.

MacGregor has only been on the job for 5 years so a lot of his picks are still in the development phase. Most non-1st rounders take years to make the big show so it's way too early to declare a lot of these guys busts or successes.
Hell, everybody pretty much gave up on Rajala and he is now doing very well in the AHL.
The point is that it's way too early to evaluate Stu's picks yet.
The failures of the Pendergrast era are irrelevant now.

 

[McDoused]

No one is going to argue that drafting before Stu sucked but it's way to early to right of 3rd-7th round picks. I wasn't a big fan of our second round picks but I don't hate them either. Pitlick and Hamilton both showed NHL potential and looked like solid picks. I swear if they were properly developed that they would still be able to crack the NHL.

 

[AlowlyMcOilersfan]

No one is going to argue that drafting before Stu sucked but it's way to early to right of 3rd-7th round picks. I wasn't a big fan of our second round picks but I don't hate them either. Pitlick and Hamilton both showed NHL potential and looked like solid picks. I swear if they were properly developed that they would still be able to crack the NHL.

I think both picks were just drafting for need. We needed size in our system.

 

[I am the Liquor]

You're talking about draft failures as if these guys are busts already.
Fourier pointed out nicely that a lot of the draft picks are tracking well considering where they were picked.

MacGregor has only been on the job for 5 years so a lot of his picks are still in the development phase. Most non-1st rounders take years to make the big show so it's way too early to declare a lot of these guys busts or successes.
Hell, everybody pretty much gave up on Rajala and he is now doing very well in the AHL.
The point is that it's way too early to evaluate Stu's picks yet.
The failures of the Pendergrast era are irrelevant now.

Irrelevant? I dont think so. We are in the bind we are in now in large part due to our futility at the draft table.

Way too early? What is an acceptable time frame? Stu's first draft was five years ago. Should we wait seven years? Ten? Fifteen?

 

[I am the Liquor]

No one is going to argue that drafting before Stu sucked but it's way to early to right of 3rd-7th round picks. I wasn't a big fan of our second round picks but I don't hate them either. Pitlick and Hamilton both showed NHL potential and looked like solid picks. I swear if they were properly developed that they would still be able to crack the NHL.

Can you say they arent being developed properly? What would be your reasons/basis for that?

 

[doubledown99]

Irrelevant? I dont think so. We are in the bind we are in now in large part due to our futility at the draft table.

Way too early? What is an acceptable time frame? Stu's first draft was five years ago. Should we wait seven years? Ten? Fifteen?

So what are you arguing IATL?

We agree the drafting before Stu was horrendous. Oilers management agreed as well and made change to Stu.

His first draft was 2008. Ebs was a good pick. The others we will see. How long before we evaluate? Well I think giving a player till he is 22-24 is about appropriate so Maybe we can start evaluating 2008 now but there is still time even for that draft. We had 5 picks and looks like only 2 will make it. So 40% (20% for sure but Harti looks like he will be a player). So I'm ok with that. Could he have made better picks? Probably... But every team can say that. A successful draft is considered to be 2 players and I think we are on track

 

[joestevens29]

So what are you arguing IATL?

We agree the drafting before Stu was horrendous. Oilers management agreed as well and made change to Stu.

His first draft was 2008. Ebs was a good pick. The others we will see. How long before we evaluate? Well I think giving a player till he is 22-24 is about appropriate so Maybe we can start evaluating 2008 now but there is still time even for that draft. We had 5 picks and looks like only 2 will make it. So 40% (20% for sure but Harti looks like he will be a player). So I'm ok with that. Could he have made better picks? Probably... But every team can say that. A successful draft is considered to be 2 players and I think we are on track

Harti wasn't his pick. KP demanded that one.

 

[I am the Liquor]

So what are you arguing IATL?

We agree the drafting before Stu was horrendous. Oilers management agreed as well and made change to Stu.

His first draft was 2008. Ebs was a good pick. The others we will see. How long before we evaluate? Well I think giving a player till he is 22-24 is about appropriate so Maybe we can start evaluating 2008 now but there is still time even for that draft.

2008 is a wash outside of Eberle. I dont think Hartikainen does anything for us in the NHL.

2009 is looking questionable as is 2010. 2011 looks sketchy too with players like Saad, Jenner, Rattie, Xavier Oullette, Wotherspoon and Scott Harrington all taken after Musil. I would take everyone of the dmen over Musil right now, never mind the forwards.

Adam Lowry, Anthony Camara and Vincent Trocheck were taken after Samu Perhonen.

It is starting to look like Stu has been rolling snake eyes outside of the first round. And that's not good. Not good at all.

 

[doubledown99]

Harti wasn't his pick. KP demanded that one.

Fine but he was still head amateur scout so he should credit too

 

[doubledown99]

2008 is a wash outside of Eberle. I dont think Hartikainen does anything for us in the NHL.

2009 is looking questionable as is 2010. 2011 looks sketchy too with players like Saad, Jenner, Rattie, Xavier Oullette, Wotherspoon and Scott Harrington all taken after Musil. I would take everyone of the dmen over Musil right now, never mind the forwards.

Adam Lowry, Anthony Camara and Vincent Trocheck were taken after Samu Perhonen.

It is starting to look like Stu has been rolling snake eyes outside of the first round. And that's not good. Not good at all.

Again if Stu gets a couple players from each draft we should be happy. There will always be better players but all teams miss. If Saad, Jenner, Lowry were so exceptional and shouldn't have been missed, other teams wouldn't have bypassed them either in the 1st rd.

 

[joestevens29]

Fine but he was still head amateur scout so he should credit too

Why? KP with his buddy buddy within the organization got the pick. Had nothing to do with Stu.

 

[doubledown99]

Why? KP with his buddy buddy within the organization got the pick. Had nothing to do with Stu.

Because the scouting team still arrives at the decisions together. From what I know, I don't recall hearing the entire staff being against the pick and Harti only getting picked because of KP. Unless you can provide some proof to the contrary.

 

[Wheathead]

Any interest in Adam Tambellini?

I'm not joking.

Could he be a decent 3rd/4th round pick?

 

[McDNicks17]

Any interest in Adam Tambellini?

I'm not joking.

Could he be a decent 3rd/4th round pick?

Stu dipped into the BCHL for Khaira, so you never know.

Big center with skill and committed to a top notch school in North Dakota.

Wouldn't be a bad pick.

 

[I am the Liquor]

Again if Stu gets a couple players from each draft we should be happy. There will always be better players but all teams miss. If Saad, Jenner, Lowry were so exceptional and shouldn't have been missed, other teams wouldn't have bypassed them either in the 1st rd.

But we bypassed them in the third round. For a Euro goalie. How's he doing btw?

Stu's resume consists of first overall picks and Jordan Eberle. So far that is the extent of it. Klefbom may turn into something. We'll see.

Other than that it has been disappointing across the board. Early or not, other teams have outperformed us each and every year.

That should raise an eyebrow.

 

[doubledown99]

But we bypassed them in the third round. For a Euro goalie. How's he doing btw?

Stu's resume consists of first overall picks and Jordan Eberle. So far that is the extent of it. Klefbom may turn into something. We'll see.

Other than that it has been disappointing across the board. Early or not, other teams have outperformed us each and every year.

That should raise an eyebrow.

It's still early to judge....could the drafting have been better? Sure...maybe. Could it have been worse? Sure...maybe.

We still have to let it play out a bit then analyze and evaluate it against other teams.

 

[bucks_oil]

Harti wasn't his pick. KP demanded that one.

So we can't count that one because although he was the boss and the man responsible, it wasn't his idea?

That's cool... I guess I should go ask for a raise.

But even if we play that way (the selective credit game)... Stu would still be 1/4 in his first draft. That'd be good for top 10 in the above ten-year analysis. And that 1 is a first line winger.

It's at least a passing grade, no?

 

[CupofOil]

Irrelevant? I dont think so. We are in the bind we are in now in large part due to our futility at the draft table.

Way too early? What is an acceptable time frame? Stu's first draft was five years ago. Should we wait seven years? Ten? Fifteen?

Of course the Pendergrast era is iirrelevant. There is a new head scout in charge now so Pendergrast being a failure doesn't mean that Stu will be a failure.

And yes, it's too early to judge Stu's picks. All of his picks are between roughly 18-23 years old.
Hartikainen who was in his 1st draft i believe is still a developing player, it's too early to call him a bust.
Guys like Lander, Marincin, Pitlick, Musil etc. Are still very early in their pro careers and some aren't even out of junior yet.
It's going to take time to evaluate his draft performances.