Crunching the Numbers: Why Re-Building is Harder than Ever

[njx9]

People keep mentioning boom/bust players to pick as if that is a legit plan.

First off... Boom busts more often than not or busts and Busts are worse than safe picks.

Also who the hell really knows who is a "boom" player? vs a safe player?

Is Chychrun a boom/bust or safe?

Safe players don't win games. At some level, scoring 50 Luke Glendenings is a coup for your draft process, given the low odds of finding actual NHL players in later rounds (let alone undrafted). But it's not going to win you many games. Either take the risks, or accept that this team will forever sit around 6th-16th and will never win another championship. Or prioritize top three picks (and find a way to get really lucky and beat the odds). *shrug*

On Chychrun, I have no idea, but I'm pretty sure the team's scouts do.

 

[StargateSG1]

Chychrun is safe. 15 teams did pass him, because they know that he has almost reached his full potential. TOP4 defenceman, but only 2nd pairing.

Dion Phaneuf -esque.

Chychrun wasn't passed on because the other 15 teams passed on him.
Chychrun was passed because somehow Kenny thought he could get Stamkos, without even sniffing out the level of interest from the player, aka doing his homework.

As a result, Stamkos refused to even talk to Kenny, he only met with Toronto.

Regardless of how Cholo/Hronek work out, it's border line weird behavior from the GM of the Original 6 team.

 

[FlashyG]

Besides, what makes more money? 5 playoff appearances with 1 cup finals and 5 playoff misses, or 10 playoff 1st round exits?

That's a very interesting question.

The first variable would be how many games each series goes and the second variable would be how many rounds you'd win in the 4 appearances that don't get you to the finals.

If, for the sake of argument you got eliminated in the first round in 4 of the 5 playoff appearances and went to the finals in the other you'd play a minimum of 8 series and a minimum of 16 home games. In the second example you'd be guaranteed a minimum of 10 series and 20 home games.

Of course there are other factors, in your first example your odds of being the home team are probably greater which increases your odds of getting an extra home game per series. You'd also probably profit far greater from the increased ticket prices in the division finals, conference finals and Stanley Cup finals than you would in any first round series which would likely make up for the fewer overall home dates.

 

[Red Stanley]

Don't you think it's odd to be spending 80 million dollars on the bottom 3 potential team?
Thought so.

Thank you for answering your question for me. Now will you be so kind as to answer mine?

 

[BinCookin]

Safe players don't win games. At some level, scoring 50 Luke Glendenings is a coup for your draft process, given the low odds of finding actual NHL players in later rounds (let alone undrafted). But it's not going to win you many games. Either take the risks, or accept that this team will forever sit around 6th-16th and will never win another championship. Or prioritize top three picks (and find a way to get really lucky and beat the odds). *shrug*

On Chychrun, I have no idea, but I'm pretty sure the team's scouts do.

nice "statements" what im saying is those are meaningless because no one knows who is boom/bust or who is safe.

Chychrun i used as an example because everyone is upset we skipped him. And im not sure if he is any good.

How about Hronek is he a boom/bust? or safe pick?
Jake Bean? Boom Bust or safe.

my point is the only real player i know is a boom or bust is that 5'6'' guy drafted this year... because he pretty much has to be as good as Gaudreau, or he wont make the league at all.

Do you think Mantha is a "safe" pick? Do you think Larkin is a "safe" pick?

I would say Larkin in retrospect was an amazing pick. but really we can only play this game about 4-5 years after any draft.

 

[avssuc]

Frk It, impressive post. All I could say is "wow."

But all I have to contribute is no, KH doesn't understand

Agree 100% on all of this. Great work, please email this to Wings management.

 

[Run the Jewels]

Ok, well you can think that.

But when Bob McKenzie polled 10 NHL scouts in 2012 for his final rankings, 8/10 had Yakupov #1.

So again.... pretty confident most teams would have done the same thing. You don't draft for need with a #1 pick. And you don't really see defenseman taken #1 in general, mostly because they are much harder to project.

Yeah, some drafts simply don't have that can't miss #1 prospect. That seems to have been the case on a couple of occasions when Edmonton was picking first overall. And then they lucked out on getting McDavid, I think I recall the Leafs had the best odds of the remaining teams during that draft lottery of getting the #1 overall pick.

 

[StargateSG1]

Thank you for answering your question for me. Now will you be so kind as to answer mine?

What's there to answer, really?

If he thinks he has a playoff roster capable of "anything can happen",
while he constructed the team of overpaid bottom 6 players and terrible D destined for losing, don't you see a problem?
How can he fix something he doesn't want to fix?
How can he make trades when he doesn't want to trade?

I find it odd that some people even attempt to still defend him.

Perhaps he deserved the benefit of the doubt after Nick retired, but it has been 5 years
and counting.

 

[Run the Jewels]

Cholowski is a pure boom/bust pick and plenty of people hate him, the pick, and his development.

The key is, Holland isn't drafting the boom/bust picks hfboards members want.

I wouldn't call Choloswki boom or bust. He has the size and speed to likely make it as a depth d-man at a bare minimum. He has some tantalizing skills that may result in him having a higher ceiling than Chychrun. Or he could be Jakub Kindl 2.0 and basically end up having a 300 game NHL career as a fringe NHL'er. I don't think anyone truly views Cholowski and being a boom prospect do they? I mean are we seriously talking 50+ point d-man on a fairly consistent basis?

 

[njx9]

nice "statements" what im saying is those are meaningless because no one knows who is boom/bust or who is safe.

The team doing the scouting and the drafting knows how it's identified them. It's not complicated.

Chychrun i used as an example because everyone is upset we skipped him. And im not sure if he is any good.

Ok? If the organization looked at Chycrhun and thought "nah, while he might be a 1D, he might also bust" and simultaneously looked at Cholowski as "well, he's probably a 4D at best, but not much worse otherwise", then they made the incorrect choice. I have no idea if that was their calculus, but given the last 5 years, it's not unreasonable to think that they'd play it safe.

Do you think Mantha is a "safe" pick? Do you think Larkin is a "safe" pick?

I would say Larkin in retrospect was an amazing pick. but really we can only play this game about 4-5 years after any draft.

No idea, but again, my opinion is irrelevant. That said, I think it's clear that Mantha was very much a boom/bust guy, given some of the comments about him at the time.

 

[Ezekial]

I wouldn't call Choloswki boom or bust. He has the size and speed to likely make it as a depth d-man at a bare minimum. He has some tantalizing skills that may result in him having a higher ceiling than Chychrun. Or he could be Jakub Kindl 2.0 and basically end up having a 300 game NHL career as a fringe NHL'er. I don't think anyone truly views Cholowski and being a boom prospect do they? I mean are we seriously talking 50+ point d-man on a fairly consistent basis?

I guess I've always seen Cholo as a wildcard with a pretty high ceiling, but would take some aligning stars for him to reach it. I don't think he has a super low floor, but I do think his floor is less than an NHL regular. So maybe "pure boom or bust" might be an exaggeration, but it certainly wasn't a safe pick in my mind. It was a calculated risk.

Ok? If the organization looked at Chycrhun and thought "nah, while he might be a 1D, he might also bust" and simultaneously looked at Cholowski as "well, he's probably a 4D at best, but not much worse otherwise", then they made the incorrect choice. I have no idea if that was their calculus, but given the last 5 years, it's not unreasonable to think that they'd play it safe.

That's not how the organization views it though, just because you don't even see him as an NHLer doesn't make it so. I'm sure our front office sees him as having top pair potential.
The organization loved Cholo, traded back got their guy and Hronek. Hronek + Cholowski can easily be > Chych, hell both players could be better players in the long run.

That also opens the argument that we could've had Chych and Hronek instead of Cholo and Givani Smith, but I'm not going to speculate any further on a hypothetical swap of our drafted players if the trade never happened.

 

[Flowah]

So, why do you guys keep freaking out over what Holland said about trying to make the playoffs? And why do you keep going back to the old "can't get elite talent with mid to late first round picks"? Sounds like you firmly believe we'll be drafting even higher next year.

We picked #9 this season. That's a mid first. We're likely to finish about the same. Firmly out of the playoffs, but not bad enough for a legit high pick.

I'm "freaking out," which apparently some people use in place of "disagree strongly with" because Ken Holland's words and actions indicate that he has no intention of doing the things necessary to get that high pick.

 

[njx9]

That's not how the organization views it though, just because you don't even see him as an NHLer doesn't make it so. I'm sure our front office sees him as having top pair potential.
The organization loved Cholo, traded back got their guy and Hronek. Hronek + Cholowski can easily be > Chych, hell both players could be better players in the long run.

I'm still not sure why we're arguing about my opinion of the players, when I've repeatedly stated that it's irrelevant? Nor am I sure why anyone's arguing about what the players actually will be, when that has literally nothing to do with whether they were boom/bust or 'safe' picks the day they were drafted.

 

[Frk It]

People keep mentioning boom/bust players to pick as if that is a legit plan.

First off... Boom busts more often than not or busts and Busts are worse than safe picks.

Also who the hell really knows who is a "boom" player? vs a safe player?

Is Chychrun a boom/bust or safe?

Cholowski is a pure boom/bust pick and plenty of people hate him, the pick, and his development.

The key is, Holland isn't drafting the boom/bust picks hfboards members want.

It's going to be subjective at the end of the day. I didn't dislike the Cholowski pick because I thought Cholowski wasn't a boom/bust pick, but rather because I thought Chychrun had just as good potential but with a much higher starting point. Same with Fabbro. This year, I do think we were overly conservative with our picks for a franchise that needs a new core and possessed 10 picks.

We've done it before. Tatar was a great boom/bust pick. AA was a great boom/bust pick. Pulkkinen was a boom/bust pick, even if it didn't work out like we hoped. We need to get back to that type of drafting. If you look at our forwards we have taken in rounds 2-7 the last 4 years... Smith, Pearson, Turgeon, Nastasiuk, Bertuzzi... where are the skilled players?

Up until these last two first round selections, I have by and large liked most of our picks. I think the last two years have been somewhat controversial. We seem to be fairly conservative with our 1st round picks as a whole, in my opinion.

 

[Cyborg Yzerberg]

weaker #1s. RNH, though, hasn't had a bad career. Looking at numbers of other guys taken in the first ten picks of that draft, it's not like he stands out as being any sort of bust.

That was my inclination, as well. Just thought I'd throw it out for discussion's sake.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Back to Frk It's original post, isn't part of the problem that the team hasn't seemed to prioritize boom/bust players? I feel like maybe the scouting is fine, but the decision making is overly conservative (moreso given that that would fit in with other decision making on the team).

Jurco, Saarijarvi, Tatar, Nyquist, Pulkkinen, Frk, Hronek, Mrazek, Mantha, Melen, Almqvist, Sproul, Cholowski, Setkov, Athanasiou... the list goes on.

Wings just don't get credit for boom/bust picks when they bust or turn into pretty good players, which is what 99% of boom/bust types do. Sure we could draft a whole bunch of Johnny Gaudreau prospects, but you'd need to consider that it's a strategy that can lead to almost zero NHLers being produced and a team where the top 5-10 picks barely have anything of value surrounding them, leading to a rebuild that doesn't lead anywhere for a looooong time. Prospects can have "boom" to them even if they don't start out as complete longshots to even make the show.

If you look at our forwards we have taken in rounds 2-7 the last 4 years... Smith, Pearson, Turgeon, Nastasiuk, Bertuzzi... where are the skilled players?

Already on the roster or drafted in the 1st. Tatar/AA/Mantha/Svech/Nyquist/Larkin/Rasmussen.
Also I think you're ignoring some guys like Gilmour/Holmstrom/Vähatalo. Maybe more but I'm not sure what fits the "skilled" criteria, Bertuzzi for example is skilled in my book.

 

[Frk It]

Wings just don't get credit for boom/bust picks when they bust or turn into pretty good players, which is what 99% of boom/bust types do. Sure we could draft a whole bunch of Johnny Gaudreau prospects, but you'd need to consider that it's a strategy that can lead to almost zero NHLers being produced and a team where the top 5-10 picks barely have anything of value surrounding them, leading to a rebuild that doesn't lead anywhere for a looooong time. Prospects can have "boom" to them even if they don't start out as complete longshots to even make the show.

Yeah, but so is drafting a bunch of guys who top out as 40-45 pt middle six forwards and middle pairing defenseman.

So might as well go for broke.

Already on the roster or drafted in the 1st. Tatar/AA/Mantha/Svech/Nyquist/Larkin/Rasmussen.
Also I think you're ignoring some guys like Gilmour/Holmstrom/Vähatalo. Maybe more but I'm not sure what fits the "skilled" criteria, Bertuzzi for example is skilled in my book.

Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but keep drafting skilled players until you have an elite one in the NHL.

 

[Dotter]

That's a very interesting question.

The first variable would be how many games each series goes and the second variable would be how many rounds you'd win in the 4 appearances that don't get you to the finals.

If, for the sake of argument you got eliminated in the first round in 4 of the 5 playoff appearances and went to the finals in the other you'd play a minimum of 8 series and a minimum of 16 home games. In the second example you'd be guaranteed a minimum of 10 series and 20 home games.

Of course there are other factors, in your first example your odds of being the home team are probably greater which increases your odds of getting an extra home game per series. You'd also probably profit far greater from the increased ticket prices in the division finals, conference finals and Stanley Cup finals than you would in any first round series which would likely make up for the fewer overall home dates.

You also have to account for the decline in ticket sales after Thanksgiving when the team flames out vs. higher regular season ticket sales if the team's playoffs start in
December where every point matters.

It's not black and white like the picture people are trying to paint.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Yeah, but so is drafting a bunch of guys who top out as 40-45 pt middle six forwards and middle pairing defenseman.

So might as well go for broke.



Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but keep drafting skilled players until you get an elite one in the NHL.

We are drafting skilled players. You're saying, draft ONLY guys who are defined solely as skill guys and have zero business in a bottom 6/3rd pair role? That's an idea, but I personally don't buy into the idea that Hronek/Saarijarvi for example have much higher ceilings than Lindstrom/Kotkansalo. Or that Rasmussen has no skill just because he has tools to play a game that isn't based on dangling and flash. Our late round forward picks can be discussed but we've clearly focused on D lately. During Wright's tenure, we've made 4 forward picks in the first 2 rounds: Larkin/Svechnikov/Smith/Rasmussen. Doesn't look like a bad group of players to me. What do we really expect in terms of forward talent in rounds 3 and beyond?

 

[Red Stanley]

What's there to answer, really?

If he thinks he has a playoff roster capable of "anything can happen",
while he constructed the team of overpaid bottom 6 players and terrible D destined for losing, don't you see a problem?
How can he fix something he doesn't want to fix?
How can he make trades when he doesn't want to trade?

I find it odd that some people even attempt to still defend him.

Perhaps he deserved the benefit of the doubt after Nick retired, but it has been 5 years
and counting.

Yeah, I see a problem with people freaking out over the word playoffs all the while claiming the team will finish bottom 3. Then citing mid first round picks as purgatory, even though the logic follows that we'll be picking pretty high. You still haven't explained how you bridge those two opposing points of view without using examples of things that happened BEFORE we missed the playoffs, because what has happened SINCE we missed the playoffs has been the opposite. The bolded part describes a tanking team, so there's also that.

 

[BinCookin]

I'm still not sure why we're arguing about my opinion of the players, when I've repeatedly stated that it's irrelevant? Nor am I sure why anyone's arguing about what the players actually will be, when that has literally nothing to do with whether they were boom/bust or 'safe' picks the day they were drafted.

Simple man... You are saying:

"Detroit needs to stop taking "safe" picks"...

our response is:

No they are not, and please define what a safe pick is... because if you cant do it... im suggesting no one can.

Rasmussen could be a homerun pick, no one has any idea at this point.

 

[Red Stanley]

We picked #9 this season. That's a mid first. We're likely to finish about the same. Firmly out of the playoffs, but not bad enough for a legit high pick.

I'm "freaking out," which apparently some people use in place of "disagree strongly with" because Ken Holland's words and actions indicate that he has no intention of doing the things necessary to get that high pick.

Fair enough, even though I disagree that #9 is a mid first. I also don't see why we can't get a lottery pick as one of the bottom teams (bottom 3 as per the quotes). That should automatically dismiss any fear of "trying to make the playoffs". The actions so far should also not point to that being the case. But I guess we'll agree to disagree on that.

 

[BinCookin]

I'm "freaking out," which apparently some people use in place of "disagree strongly with" because Ken Holland's words and actions indicate that he has no intention of doing the things necessary to get that high pick.

Has a single GM in the NHL specifically stated that 2017-2018 year they will be tanking and missing the playoffs for sure??

I mean i think every GM at least "pretends" they have a chance.
if not for the fans, than as respect to the players they have. At least to give them some minor confidence at least.

 

[Wingsfan 4 life]

Why are we still taking anything Holland, or any GM says publicly, at face value?

 

[Red Stanley]

Why are we still taking anything Holland, or any GM says publicly, at face value?

And to expand on that question, why take only certain things at face value and completely ignore others?