Although 6th is the most likely (individually) ...
57.7% chance we pick in the top 5.
Go.... balls!
GDT: 2019 Draft Lottery
- Thread starter jkutswings
- Start date
Although 6th is the most likely (individually) ...
57.7% chance we pick in the top 5.
Go.... balls!
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,243
- 14,753
Lil Sebastian Cossa
Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
- Jul 6, 2012
- 11,436
- 7,446
But in that listing, you still had bona-fide star players in 4-7. I mean, I'm not going to be angry if I get an Ivan Provorov or Mark Schiefele level player from the draft.
But even so the odds of a superstar player don't ever really get higher than 18% for any team.
Steve Yzerlland
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2018
- 8,221
- 4,050
haulinbass
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2014
- 1,425
- 1,088
Yes, players outside the top 3 can certainly turn into star players. Nobody here would ever argue that. I mean really?
The issue is the low probability of picks outside of the top 3 turning into elite players. Even 3rd OA gets risky but much better odds of success than say 4-8.
Do I really need to pull up all the 4-8 draft picks since 2008 multiple times per week around here to show how bad the odds of landing elite players in this range are? You are rolling the dice 4-8. If NHL scouts could see anything clear within this range we would see the consistency in the drafting. But instead what we get are results like pick 4 and 5 busting and pick 8 becoming elite. In this range its just potential, it cannot be predicted with great accuracy how these players develop from the draft on out. The talent is usually so clear at 1-2 its typically unmistakable. Obviously some years you get a McDavid and other years a Hischier. But most times, you get a for sure star player here.
Nobody here is claiming that you can't successfully rebuild a team without top 3 picks. These people are claiming without those picks the odds of being successful are significantly less. That it is your best bet is to land those top odds while you can. Nobody is claiming that even with top 3 picks things can't go wrong, but the reality is teams with top 3 picks have won the cup by a much higher margin than teams without post salary cap.
There is literally nothing here to argue about. For some reason people who don't believe we need top picks want to make some crazy argument against undeniable facts. If you don't care if we land top 3 picks and you believe in this team, good for you. But you guys don't need to jump on those of us who want to see this team take the road of highest possible odds of success.
SuperScript29
Registered User
- Nov 17, 2017
- 2,135
- 1,752
I know there are good players on that list, and I too would be very happy if we landed a player like Scheifele. But there's a small chance that you'll get a player that good at #7. If you're drafting 1st overall on the other hand, not only will you have a higher chance of a star player, you may get superstars like McDavid, MacKinnon, Matthews, Tavares, Stamkos, Hall, etc, players like this are a tier or more above guys like Scheifele.
I really hope we land one of Hughes or Kakko, the odds of success is much higher with them than any of the other players.
haulinbass
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2014
- 1,425
- 1,088
I still have a lot of work to do in my scouting. I will say that so far the only player outside the top 2 I like the idea of the Wings drafting is Bowen Byram. This kid has a lot of potential to be a 1-2D. Love his skating and ability to slow the game down and make plays. Excellent on zone entries with his ability to shift speeds up or down depending on the situation. Pretty smart on the defensive side as well. He is certainly a guy that has the potential to play big minutes.
In my opinion he is more refined and has a better overall package to be successful in todays NHL than the D at the top of the 2018 draft outside of Dahlin.
Not a huge fan of most the forwards in our anticipated window so far. Don't want to go any further into detail on my thoughts until I put more time in though or else I'll be eating shit for it down the road. But I do feel pretty comfortable speaking on Byram at this point.
In my opinion he is more refined and has a better overall package to be successful in todays NHL than the D at the top of the 2018 draft outside of Dahlin.
Not a huge fan of most the forwards in our anticipated window so far. Don't want to go any further into detail on my thoughts until I put more time in though or else I'll be eating shit for it down the road. But I do feel pretty comfortable speaking on Byram at this point.
Even if you remove Boston, that's still 9 out of the last 10. It's impossible to deny the impact elite players taken in those spots have, but you're certainly putting up a fight... For some reason.
Elite players win titles. Elite players are found in the first few picks far more often. Incredible how these non-controversial facts turn into a round and round debate.
The Wings will be a worse team with a worse pick. It's that simple.
Wasn't Scheifele kind of a reach at seven too? I recall that being kind of a surprise that he went so early, and I think people had doubts about Cheveldayoff because that was his first pick running the show. Obv he made the team right away and Cheveldayoff was vindicated.
Steve Yzerlland
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2018
- 8,221
- 4,050
Last word on hockey said his NHL comparison is Drew Doughty. If he could even be half of that would warrant us taking him.
obey86
Registered User
- Jun 9, 2009
- 8,013
- 1,274
This is definitely true but a bit misleading. There are 3x the number of teams that have had top 3 picks since 2000 vs. teams that haven't had top 3 picks (I went back to 2000, because even though the salary cap wasn't instituted until 2006, top 3 picks from the 2000 draft would still hypothetically be in their primes/young enough/good enough to be star players for their teams post salary cap), so right there you're comparing the results of 24 teams vs the results of 7 teams - which obviously isn't a fair comparison. If your single criteria for having a successful rebuild/successful team/cup contender is the be all end all of winning a cup then yes, again I suppose your statement is correct. However, many of the teams without top 3 picks have been very successful and have been top level cup contenders (which is all anyone can reasonably hope for, unless you think Tampa Bay has been an unsuccessful franchise in recent history, or Washington was an example of a bad rebuild until last year, i'm guessing you don't think those things) even if they never quite pulled off the feat.
Since the 2000 draft these are the teams that have had top 3 picks (24 teams):
Minnesota
Ottawa - 1 SC loss
Pittsburgh - 3 SC wins, 1 SC loss
Washington - 1 SC win
Anaheim - 1 SC win
Carolina - 1 SC win
St. Louis
Chicago - 3 SC wins
Philadelphia - 1 SC loss
Phoenix/Arizona
Tampa Bay - 1 SC loss
LA - 2 SC wins
Atlanta/Winnipeg
NYI
Colorado
Florida
Boston - 1 SC win, 1 SC loss
Edmonton - 1 SC loss
Columbus
Montreal
Buffalo
Toronto
New Jersey - 1 SC loss
Dallas
And here are the teams that haven't had a top 3 pick in that timespan (7 teams):
Calgary
San Jose - 1 SC loss
Nashville - 1 SC loss
Vegas - 1 SC loss
Vancouver - 1 SC loss
NYR - 1 SC loss
Detroit - 1 SC win, 1 SC loss
So yes, it is true when someone says teams with top 3 picks have won more cups, and at a higher rate than teams without those picks.
However, looking at the teams that haven't had a top 3 pick and their continued success (for the most part, outside of Calgary) in the cap era. It's really hard for me to look at those teams and say something like wow "If only San Jose had that top 3 pick, they would have been able to win a cup over the last 10" or "Nashville lost in the finals because they were missing that top 3 pick." I just don't buy that line of thinking - considering how successful and how much sustained winning teams like Nashville, San Jose, NYR, , and Detroit (57% of the teams in the sample) have had in the post cap era -- even if not resulting in a cup (minus DET). For example, post cap, DET, SJ, NYR, and NSH are all in the top 10 in playoff wins.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,243
- 14,753
Really? Not saying that is their "issue" per se, but man I could think of a bunch of top 3 picks that would probably have put them over the top.
saska sault
Registered User
For not doing a full tank, for spending to the cap, for actually trying to be competitive and build a proper culture around this team... Maybe the hockey God's will bless us! Either way, very happy with how this year turned out. Was much more enjoyable to watch compared to the last two years in my opinion and we are getting a very high draft pick.
Steve Yzerlland
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2018
- 8,221
- 4,050
obey86
Registered User
- Jun 9, 2009
- 8,013
- 1,274
You can't just magically plop top 3 picks onto a roster, even in a hypothetical. You're ignoring the opportunity cost of adding "a bunch of top 3 picks" to their roster. If they were ever bad enough to add "a bunch of top 3 picks" to their roster, that means they wouldn't have had players like Suban, Weber, Josi, whoever, etc over the years who have kept them competitive and away from drafting top 3.
haulinbass
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2014
- 1,425
- 1,088
As much as I respect that you went this far to try and bring some facts and legitimate argument to the table. I just don't really quite understand how this is a legitimate argument against any of my points. Basically, in roughly 20 year span nearly all teams end up becoming so bad that at some point they end up drafting in the top 3. I don't think that is overly surprising to anyone. So basically, I could argue that drafting outside the top 3 wasn't good enough to prevent these teams from landing in the bottom 3 at some point in what was then the future.
I mean really, if we are going to go into something like this. Then we must also take the next 12 steps and break these teams down farther to understand what this data actually means. For starters, Red Wings carried success into the salary cap era. They would likely not have had the success they did without it. Vegas is an expansion team that is not at all comparable to any of these other teams. They got to hand select a team and pickup those players who beat the low odds that we are discussing and developed into good players. Vegas isn't selecting a player in the expansion draft who at the time of being drafted had a 9% chance of panning out, they are selecting the player he now is. NSH and SJ are examples of two teams that did a wonderful job of making trades (outliers), I don't like my chances of our team replicating that success. Vancouver drafted Sedins 2nd and 3rd overall in 1999, without them 2 picks they wouldn't have been as good as they were during those years. That leaves what Calgary and NYR. NYR had one of the best goaltenders in the world, in his prime a game-changer much like Price. We know goalies typically don't get drafted high. Your odds of landing a goaltender of this caliber are extremely low, but if you do, ya you can win with a mediocre team. I don't even want to be winning in that fashion. NYR was a grind and battle it out team when they had the success they did. They were admittedly sort of entertaining to watch, esp in the playoffs. But I also didn't have to watch them 82+ games per year or else I would likely feel different about it.
Obviously teams go up and down, prime windows are short. Drafting 1-2 doesn't mean you are going to dominate for 20 years and win multiple Stanley Cups. But drafting 1-2 overall gives you a chance. Its proven, if you didn't need them picks then you wouldn't have been able to provide a list showing that nearly every team in 20 years has had them. So, still, drafting top 2 gives you the best odds of getting elite players. From there, the management must make sure they put enough good players around those elite. I don't understand how this is debatable?
How in the world is drafting in the top 3 not your best chance of gaining elite players? If you land elite players how in the world don't you have a better chance of putting an elite team together? Like why/how are we possibly stretching ways to argue against this? When have I ever said it is impossible to have a good team without drafting in top 2? When have I ever said you cannot find an elite player outside the top 2?
Last edited:
jkutswings
hot piss hockey
- Jul 10, 2014
- 11,025
- 8,777
I don't know nearly enough about individual players as the rounds progress, but from a concept/strategy standpoint, I would have no issue with taking a center and then going fairly heavy on defense.
jkutswings
hot piss hockey
- Jul 10, 2014
- 11,025
- 8,777
Or that they were lucky during one or more draft lotteries. And I think Frk It meant that there are several players taken in the top 3 over the years that could have made a difference for the Sharks (as a single top 3 caliber addition), as opposed to saying that the Sharks would have won a Cup if they suddenly had 2 or more top 3 players.
Gniwder
Registered User
They have Byram going to Flyers at 10. That about invalidates it for me.
2019 NHL Mock Draft - NHL - DraftSite.com
Snuggs
Registered User
- Jun 24, 2018
- 2,272
- 1,088
Yeah... and on top of that, outside of the first pick. The players I do know in the 2nd/3rd/4th rounds... I don't even want, like, or unfortunately don't know/ haven't heard of.
NickH8
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2015
- 3,689
- 3,838
I've lost what we're all arguing about to begin with. I think we all agree a top 3 pick would be excellent.
same people making the same arguments ad nauseam.
I barely read the posts in the tank threads anymore. Its just people arguing about the same shit that was argued about 3 years ago. yawn.
marcmadsen
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2016
- 110
- 94
I think you may have jumped the gun a little bit on that quote. The article is actually written as follows, "In terms of a stylistic comparison, Byram’s game is reminiscent of Drew Doughty, however this is not comparing skill level." They're saying stylistically they are similar. They are not saying they are similar from a skill perspective. But I do agree with you, even if he ends up being half as good as Doughty he would be a selection worth making
I love following prospects and especially love the draft but I absolutely hate the lead up.
I hate the lottery.
I hate the artificial, televised theatrics.
I hate the importance of luck.
I hate how failure is embraced and even encouraged/welcomed.
I hate how entrenched people get towards (or against) certain prospects when the future is so unknown.
I hate the lottery.
I hate the artificial, televised theatrics.
I hate the importance of luck.
I hate how failure is embraced and even encouraged/welcomed.
I hate how entrenched people get towards (or against) certain prospects when the future is so unknown.
Last edited:
