Historical Expectations of the Draft

[Stephen]

This is a bit of a difficult question to express, but for those of you who have followed hockey for many decades, what were people's expectations and attitudes for high first round picks coming into the league in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s before the proliferation of the internet and round the clock coverage of sports?

For example, in present times, the media and the internet allows for a ton of discussion on even the most obscure prospects one, two or even three years before they're even draft eligible in a lot of cases. Everybody's game is dissected and hyped and we can closely follow the successes and failures of any pick and discuss them with other fans with ease. How did this work in the past?

Obviously there were hyped prospects like Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux or even a Gilbert Perreault who received a lot of advance press, but for a run of the mill high end first round prospect, in the 1970s and 1980s, what kind of attitudes and expectations would people have? Did people expect a guy drafted in the top ten like Rick Vaive to be a superstar? Or what kind of development curve did people typically expect for their picks? Conversely, when a highly rated prospect like a Dale McCourt or Joe Murphy disappointed, was that failure sensationalized like an Alexandre Daigle? Or was it just an attitude of the luck of the draw?

Click to read more...

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I don't go too far back, but it was the 90s where it became a whole lot easier to find out about prospects, as media sources just exploded.

You had to be pretty dedicated to be even knowledgeable about the top prospects in the 80s.

This is from an American perspective - which is probably relevant.

 

[Stephen]

Yeah, the question I ask is because the scorched earth/tank/build through the draft method is quite often seen as the way to build it right, and high draft picks are universally celebrated by fans these days as signs for better things to come.

Back in the 1970s, Sam Pollock seemed to have his way with 'clueless' GMs who would trade high firsts for journeymen packages year after year like it was a video game. Just makes me think that perhaps at one point without the oversaturation of prospects coverage, these juniors weren't seen as the bright future that they are now.