Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,058
- 6,635
I don't think the poster was saying we are being referred to as _the_ winners but that we are "winners" as in "among those that did best".
Honestly I think most people on this board would admit we had at least a productive draft in the first 5 rounds. Yes the last two seem like stinkers but the damage is mainly "philosophical" as opposed to "applied". We all know the odds of any pick in that range turning into anything are minuscule. Yes the thinking stinks but the actual harm is nearly zero.
That non-Canuck fans and analysts generally view our draft as a positive should count for something as we rarely if ever get unwarranted praise from anyone.
I think the harm is legitimate. Not because the odds are already stacked against each pick, but because the methodology hasn't changed: This team is still enigmatic at the draft table. I am almost never assured that they get value at each position.
Demko's fine as he was ranked as a 1st round talent. However, this team has had first hand experience with goaltending value via trade. What is a matured goalie actually worth these days? If not much, why sink a high pick into one? That's more process than value, but it is about realized value too...
The rest is just questionable work. Sometimes I think I overvalue what other teams are doing because of their history. I give them the benefit of the doubt. But really, those teams consistently impress on the draft floor. Year in, year out. That's what this team needs to get to in order to stand a chance, and they're just so far away...
To anyone paying attention, were we going with BPA's in these rounds generally ? or going way off the board ?
I'd say BPA until pick 66. Then it became more about which scout was allowed to pick, rather than getting value IMO.