Prospect Info: Michael DiPietro (Mikey)

[ginner classic]

I would much rather have too many centres.

One goalie prospect is enough, pretty much.

Jack Cambell? Was he enough?

You need goalies at every level. You need to draft them, sign them as UFA's and occasionally trade for them. Your starting goalie plays more minutes than anyone else on the team. The difference between an elite starter and above average starter may be 20 goals against. The difference between an above average starter and a bottom 5 starter is another 25 goals against.

They are absolutely worth drafting and you need 4 in the pipeline at all times beyond your starter and backup.

We had close to a decade of a goalie glut. That ended two years ago. Winnipeg, Calgary, Dallas and Philly impaled themselves on bad ones.

If we had kept the 2nd rounder last year, Carter Hart was my absolute BPA. Above Clague. DiPietro is pretty darn close to Carter Hart quality.

Love this pick.

 

[F A N]

So no, I would pretty much never bother to draft a goalie as long as this is true. You need as many shots at skaters as you can get, and every pick spent on a goalie is most importantly a pick that is not being spent on a skater. That is how I see it anyway. All a draft pick is, is securing the exclusive rights to offer a player a contract, for a short amount of time. This is not a particularly valuable thing to have for a goalie. The last time there was a bidding war on a free agent goalie was when Jim Benning bid against himself for Miller.

Name the 3 best goalies who actually hit the UFA market prior to the year Miller did.

that doesn't change my point that you are more likely to get a top goalie as an undrafted free agent than you are a top forward.

This is what I am saying, it is the opportunity cost. Every pick frittered away on a goalie is one that was not used on a forward or a defenseman. There is just no reason to really use one of your draft picks on a goalie when they are pretty easy to find outside of the draft for the most part, compared to skaters.

Meh. You can always talk about odds. Name the last Cup winner who was backstopped by a goalie that the team didn't draft who beat a team in the Cup finals that was backstopped by a goalie the team drafted? Technically not the 2008 Red Wings but the 2007 Ducks. In the Cup era, that has happened one time.

 

[F A N]

I think at this point in time, when we lack prospects and NHL players in every position but goal, using a pick on a goalie when we don’t have that many picks might not be the most astute thing to do.

We have enough depth in goal to punt that down a year or two.

But isn't that drafting for need? Don't get me wrong, I understand the argument. I have said in the past that drafting a goalie high is a matter of choice (a reason I give Benning credit for drafting Demko), but we can't say that Dipietro is being drafted "high" here. And I think at some point you reach a BPA argument. These days, a potential #1 goalie in the NHL is usually drafted in the late first or early second. Dipietro, IMO, belongs in that category. McKenzie had him going 41st and the 2nd goalie taken in the draft. There are some independent scouting services that had him as the first goalie taken (i.e. late first to early 2nd round). Early in the 3rd round, is he the BPA? Granted, I had Lipanov as my BPA at 33 and he was still available but I think where Dipietro was taken he could legitimately be considered as the BPA.

I mean if you hit on one, you don’t have a need for like 5 years. So we have two chance, one with Marky and the other with demko.
If they both suck, then get one from the open market. Goalies are not hard to acquire, at all. Look at the UFA market, there are barely any 20+ goal scorers or top 4 D anymore and there are a whole bunch of goalies looking for work.

Like I said earlier, punt the desire to pick a goalie down a year or two and it won’t make a difference.

Goalies are not that hard to acquire but top 15 type #1 goalies are and even legitimate #1 goalies are hard to come by on the UFA market but every year there's a 20+ goal scorer or two or three or four available as a UFA. This season, with Bishop gone, Miller actually ranks as one of the best UFA goalies available and he was the best UFA goalie available 3 summers ago. Last season who was the best UFA goalie? Reimer? Hutton? Chad Johnson? What about the year before? Niemi? And who was the last UFA #1 goalies who decided to test free agency when their team wanted to re-sign them to a longish contract to be a #1 goalie?

Like any player, the best way to acquire the player is to draft them.

 

[valkynax]

Eh...is this kid related to the epic bust know as Rick DiPietro...?

 

[DFAC]

Eh...is this kid related to the epic bust know as Rick DiPietro...?

No relation at all.

 

[Nick Lang]

Wow, I love this guy. What a great pick!

Benning for President!

 

[thedean]

Love this pick, the fuss over using a pick on a goalie is silly.

Mediocre goalie can be had by other means, elite goalies get drafted and generally never move teams. Unless they play for Vancouver lol.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Jack Cambell? Was he enough?

You need goalies at every level. You need to draft them, sign them as UFA's and occasionally trade for them. Your starting goalie plays more minutes than anyone else on the team. The difference between an elite starter and above average starter may be 20 goals against. The difference between an above average starter and a bottom 5 starter is another 25 goals against.

They are absolutely worth drafting and you need 4 in the pipeline at all times beyond your starter and backup.

We had close to a decade of a goalie glut. That ended two years ago. Winnipeg, Calgary, Dallas and Philly impaled themselves on bad ones.

If we had kept the 2nd rounder last year, Carter Hart was my absolute BPA. Above Clague. DiPietro is pretty darn close to Carter Hart quality.

Love this pick.

You said a lot of things but with nnthing to support it.

Why 4? Is there a study somewhere that shows you need 4 in the pipeline? Where does that come from?

If you are going to disagree with me, please try contradicting some of the things that I said rather than saying a few truisms with no support. Why are they "worth drafting" over and above taking a forward?

Do you agree it is easier to find a goalie outside the draft than a forward? Can we start there?

 

[arttk]

But isn't that drafting for need? Don't get me wrong, I understand the argument. I have said in the past that drafting a goalie high is a matter of choice (a reason I give Benning credit for drafting Demko), but we can't say that Dipietro is being drafted "high" here. And I think at some point you reach a BPA argument. These days, a potential #1 goalie in the NHL is usually drafted in the late first or early second. Dipietro, IMO, belongs in that category. McKenzie had him going 41st and the 2nd goalie taken in the draft. There are some independent scouting services that had him as the first goalie taken (i.e. late first to early 2nd round). Early in the 3rd round, is he the BPA? Granted, I had Lipanov as my BPA at 33 and he was still available but I think where Dipietro was taken he could legitimately be considered as the BPA.



Goalies are not that hard to acquire but top 15 type #1 goalies are and even legitimate #1 goalies are hard to come by on the UFA market but every year there's a 20+ goal scorer or two or three or four available as a UFA. This season, with Bishop gone, Miller actually ranks as one of the best UFA goalies available and he was the best UFA goalie available 3 summers ago. Last season who was the best UFA goalie? Reimer? Hutton? Chad Johnson? What about the year before? Niemi? And who was the last UFA #1 goalies who decided to test free agency when their team wanted to re-sign them to a longish contract to be a #1 goalie?

Like any player, the best way to acquire the player is to draft them.

It’s hard to apply the BPA mindset when comparing goalies to skaters.
The value of top6 forwards are sky rocketing and the value of goalies are not that high. Just look at the UFA marker, a lot of starters available and barely any 2nd line forwards and maybe 1 first line forward available. Ditto with Dman.
So unless the goalie you are selecting is like Price caliber, i think it’s hard to say oh DiPietro is the BPA when there are potential top6 guys on the board still. The value is just not the same.

Plus I think scoring and good d is always a need in this league, you will never see a team say, you know what, we score too much or we are too good at defense, let’s stop drafting top6 and top4 guys. So as long as you are taking the best skater, not goalie, you are not going to regret it.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Love this pick, the fuss over using a pick on a goalie is silly.

Mediocre goalie can be had by other means, elite goalies get drafted and generally never move teams. Unless they play for Vancouver lol.

Is Bobrovsky elite? He was not drafted. He has two Vezinas. Schneider was traded. Luongo was traded twice.

I already said there are a few guys who are the cream of the crop that are good every year, sure. My point though is that it is much harder to find an elite forward outside the draft than an elite goalie. You have to compare the two. It is like you guys are not reading what I am saying.

You guys keep making points about goalies in isolation. The point isn't about drafting a goalie it is about not using a draft pick on a skater. You need to expend draft choices on scorers because they are extremely important and almost impossible to find outside the draft. Goalies are also important, but much easier to find outside the draft. You see? Without comparing the two you are not engaging my argument.

Things like "you need 4 goalies in the pipeline" and "you should not draft a goalie in the 1st round, but after pick 50 it's okay." These are just truisms. There is no basis established for these kind of statements.

 

[Canucker]

Is Bobrovsky elite? He was not drafted. He has two Vezinas. Schneider was traded. Luongo was traded twice.

I already said there are a few guys who are the cream of the crop that are good every year, sure. My point though is that it is much harder to find an elite forward outside the draft than an elite goalie. You have to compare the two. It is like you guys are not reading what I am saying.

Do you need to compare the two? If you think you can find an elite player, be it at the draft or as a free agent, you do what you can to get the elite player, no matter what the position. I'm sure if they felt like there was a player available at that point that could be an elite center or defenseman they would have picked him over the goalie (at least I like to think that, being that this is Benningville, who knows?).

 

[cc]

I'm not usually a fan of drafting goalies but drafting a goalie every 2 or 3 years or so is reasonable, especially if you can draft one of the best goalies from the draft with a mid round pick

It's hard to know how goalies will develop so it's always good to have some goalies in the pipeline. You need to have promising prospects at every position.

 

[xtr3m]

Funny story about Micheal DiPietro: When one team at the NHL told him “We don’t think you can play in the NHL with our team, you’re too small” at the combine, he fired back with “well, I guess you have a problem with winning, then.”

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/jeff-mareks-favourite-radar-picks-2017-nhl-draft/

 

[ginner classic]

You said a lot of things but with nnthing to support it.

Why 4? Is there a study somewhere that shows you need 4 in the pipeline? Where does that come from?

If you are going to disagree with me, please try contradicting some of the things that I said rather than saying a few truisms with no support. Why are they "worth drafting" over and above taking a forward?

Do you agree it is easier to find a goalie outside the draft than a forward? Can we start there?

Fair enough. Busy couple days and I threw some cliches in that post because I don't have the time to craft a meaningful reply.

I think it's insanely difficult to project 17 and 18 year old goalies. So there is significant variances in outcomes. Goalies emerge from 17 all the way to their mid-twenties. I don't agree that drafting them is a mistake though.

Five years ago there were probably 45 goalies that could carry a starter's role. Since then that number has dropped a lot. Four or five teams were devastated by goaltending. We have not seen the Rinne and Lundqvist types emerge, and a number of NCAA free agents that looked to have that potential have busted. Based on recent scarcity alone, I think you will see a bit of a scramble over the next couple of years.

A few other quick points...

I am not sold on Markstrom.

Demko is not a sure thing. The NHL transition is obviously very challenging.

Gaertig was not great.

 

[Bgav]

Funny story about Micheal DiPietro: When one team at the NHL told him “We don’t think you can play in the NHL with our team, you’re too small†at the combine, he fired back with “well, I guess you have a problem with winning, then.â€

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/jeff-mareks-favourite-radar-picks-2017-nhl-draft/

Haha amazing

 

[Street Hawk]

Is Bobrovsky elite? He was not drafted. He has two Vezinas. Schneider was traded. Luongo was traded twice.

Getting a goalie via UFA is all about timing. Calgary needed one this summer and the biggest fish on the market was Bishop and his rights were dealt to Dallas for a 4th rounder and he signed with them. Plus at this age (turning 31 in Q4), he got a 6 year deal. MAF had to be moved by Pitt and he had a M-NTC and didn't want to go to Calgary from reports. Who were they going to acquire? It ended up being Mike Smith. Cost was a former 3rd round pick and a conditional 3rd rounder that rises to a 2nd rounder if the Flames make the playoffs which they should do, especially with the acquisition of Hamonic. So, Calgary gave up a 2nd (high pick) and a 3rd rounder they picked 3 drafts ago.

Young up and comer like Jones and Lehner netted 1st round picks. Talbot netted a 2nd and 3rd. Those are significant draft picks right? They became available because the starter in front of them had lots of term on their contracts, (Quick/Anderson/Lundqvist). Imagine if Buffalo offered the same package to NYR that they did to Ott, would the Rangers have taken it? Then, the Oilers don't have Talbot. Say, they have Lehner instead. Are the Oilers as good with Lehner as they were with Talbot? How fortunate were EDM and SJ that Jones/Talbot were available at that time? Niemi was a UFA so SJ had an opening. EDM, well, goalie graveyard since Roloson a decade ago.

What did Schneider cost NJ? 1st round pick.

So I'm fine with drafting a goalie. As goalies don't tend to leave their clubs once they become the starter (ie. get to UFA), only moved if they get pushed out by a younger, cheaper, equally as good or better option. Limited destinations for UFA goalies, maybe 4-5 openings a year if you are lucky because of timing of when other guys are UFA. If you hit on a goalie, you are set for a decade. Now, did the Canucks need Dipietro in the 3rd round?? No... I personally would have liked Nate Schnarr (the C from Guelph). Felt an insurance goalie could be taken in round 4. Looking at the draft, if they took Schnarr, then the best option after taking Rathbone in round 4, would be in round 5 where I would have picked Eriksson Ek as my insurance goalie. But they felt that they would be putting all of their eggs into Demko's basket and if he doesn't work out, then what? So, they opted to have some insurance.

Calgary has been loading up on goalies. Gillies in 3rd Rd in 2012. MacDonald in 2nd Rd in 2014, Parsons in 2nd round 2016. Factor in a 2nd for Elliott and a likely future 2nd in 2018 for Smith. That's 4 2nd round picks plus 2 3rds (as Hickey was a 3rd that went in the Smith deal). That's overkill. But, that's what happens when you don't have a #1 goalie. You never draft goalies when you need one. You do it when your #1 established guy is 29/30. Gives your pick 4-5 years to develop making your #1 34/35 when your pick is NHL ready. That's why you should take a goalie in the mid rounds even if your starter is only 26-28. Never know if the pick will develop.

Same with Philly. Storlar 2nd round in 2012, Sandstrom 3rd round 2015, Hart 2nd round 2016. Signed Alex Lyon out of Yale in 2016. They've been searching for a consistent starter for like a quarter of a century since Hextall of the late 80's. They'd get someone like Snow/Boucher to have a run of 3-4 years, then they would go south.

I liked that Montreal saw Cayden Primeau still available in round 7 and swapped a 2018 7th rounder to Philly to grab him. Price is 30 this year, so if you can land a goalie prospect who fell in the draft in round 7, might as well grab him and hope he develops in the NCAA over the next 3 years. Worth a shot.

So, to me, if you never draft a goalie, you have to be prepared to pay a the price in terms of assets to acquire one. There was a run on undrafted NCAA goalies last season. See if any of them actually pan out. O'Connor from a couple of years ago doesn't appear to be an NHL goalie.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Getting a goalie via UFA is all about timing. Calgary needed one this summer and the biggest fish on the market was Bishop and his rights were dealt to Dallas for a 4th rounder and he signed with them. Plus at this age (turning 31 in Q4), he got a 6 year deal. MAF had to be moved by Pitt and he had a M-NTC and didn't want to go to Calgary from reports. Who were they going to acquire? It ended up being Mike Smith. Cost was a former 3rd round pick and a conditional 3rd rounder that rises to a 2nd rounder if the Flames make the playoffs which they should do, especially with the acquisition of Hamonic. So, Calgary gave up a 2nd (high pick) and a 3rd rounder they picked 3 drafts ago.

Young up and comer like Jones and Lehner netted 1st round picks. Talbot netted a 2nd and 3rd. Those are significant draft picks right? They became available because the starter in front of them had lots of term on their contracts, (Quick/Anderson/Lundqvist). Imagine if Buffalo offered the same package to NYR that they did to Ott, would the Rangers have taken it? Then, the Oilers don't have Talbot. Say, they have Lehner instead. Are the Oilers as good with Lehner as they were with Talbot?

What did Schneider cost NJ? 1st round pick.

Cool. Now do forwards. We need a 40 goal scoring winger and/or a 70 point playmaking centre. Go.

New Jersey traded for one of the best goalies on the planet in his prime and all it cost them was a 1st round pick. How much to acquire one of the best centres on the planet in his prime? How much to acquire Drew Doughty in his prime?

Once again if you are not comparing goalies to skaters you are not addressing my argument. Every draft pick spent on a goalie is a draft pick not spent on a not-goalie. That is the crux of my position that seems to get ignored with every post about how like goalies are super important and stuff.

 

[DanCloutiersFiveHole]

Cool. Now do forwards. We need a 40 goal scoring winger and/or a 70 point playmaking centre. Go.

New Jersey traded for one of the best goalies on the planet in his prime and all it cost them was a 1st round pick. How much to acquire one of the best centres on the planet in his prime? How much to acquire Drew Doughty in his prime?

Once again if you are not comparing goalies to skaters you are not addressing my argument. Every draft pick spent on a goalie is a draft pick not spent on a not-goalie. That is the crux of my position that seems to get ignored with every post about how like goalies are super important and stuff.

This is a bit disingenuous. Schneider hadn't had a full season as a starting goaltender. As such, his value was diminished a bit by the limited sample size despite the obvious talent. And to say "all it cost them was a 1st round pick" isn't entirely fair either. It was a top 10 pick. Comparing Doughty's value to Schneider's when he was traded is apples to oranges. Apples to Apples: Johnathan Quick vs Drew Doughty.
EDIT: Also, these deals for potential franchise goaltenders don't come around every year. It's like citing the Tyler Seguin trade as precedent for why you don't actually need to draft top line centers

 

[pitseleh]

This is a bit disingenuous. Schneider hadn't had a full season as a starting goaltender. As such, his value was diminished a bit by the limited sample size despite the obvious talent. And to say "all it cost them was a 1st round pick" isn't entirely fair either. It was a top 10 pick. Comparing Doughty's value to Schneider's when he was traded is apples to oranges. Apples to Apples: Johnathan Quick vs Drew Doughty.
EDIT: Also, these deals for potential franchise goaltenders don't come around every year. It's like citing the Tyler Seguin trade as precedent for why you don't actually need to draft top line centers

Jonathan Quick would cost a hell of a lot less than Drew Doughty to acquire in a trade. And ditto for potential Jonathan Quick compared to potential Drew Doughty. There aren't really any examples of great goalies going for king's ransoms either, but there is for skaters.

...

There is some question begging in this thread. You can't assume the need for goalie prospects then argue from that they are necessary.

I think there are at least three key things about goalies:

- First, the correlation between being a high pick and a quality player is much lower for goalies than for skaters. An elite (e.g. clear first round caliber) goalie prospect is much more likely to become a quality goaltender, but beyond that there isn't much difference between in success rates. The correlation between draft round and success is much stronger for skaters, especially in the top-100.

- Second, goalies tend not to establish themselves as starters until their mid-20s, with the exception of the rare elite prospect. The biggest value of draft picks is getting cost controlled players, not just getting players. With fewer years of useful team control, you are less likely to get value from a goalie prospect, all else being equal.

- Third, teams are bad at evaluating goaltenders. The difference between a very good and average goalie might be an extra save every 6-8 games. That is hard to suss out just using your eyes. Moreso than for skaters, teams should be using numbers to inform their goalie decision-making.

The first two are the reasons why I would be hesitant to use a pick in the first three rounds or so on a goalie, unless you are looking at an elite prospect. I think Oettinger in this draft would fit that mould, and I would have been ok with taking him at 33, although I still think most of his value would come from the fact that he's someone who could probably be in the NHL at a younger age than most others. I don't know enough about DiPietro to have an informed opinion on it, but consensus seems to be he's not at that level.

The last is why I don't place much weight on teams having poor goaltending for long stretches. Smart GMs have been able to find good goaltenders at low cost. The fact that there are a lot of dumb GMs out there doesn't justify drafting goalies.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Let the dumb GM's draft the goalies. Then get them for cheap when they toss them away (Dubnyk.)

 

[DanCloutiersFiveHole]

Jonathan Quick would cost a hell of a lot less than Drew Doughty to acquire in a trade. And ditto for potential Jonathan Quick compared to potential Drew Doughty. There aren't really any examples of great goalies going for king's ransoms either, but there is for skaters.

...

There is some question begging in this thread. You can't assume the need for goalie prospects then argue from that they are necessary.

I think there are at least three key things about goalies:

- First, the correlation between being a high pick and a quality player is much lower for goalies than for skaters. An elite (e.g. clear first round caliber) goalie prospect is much more likely to become a quality goaltender, but beyond that there isn't much difference between in success rates. The correlation between draft round and success is much stronger for skaters, especially in the top-100.

- Second, goalies tend not to establish themselves as starters until their mid-20s, with the exception of the rare elite prospect. The biggest value of draft picks is getting cost controlled players, not just getting players. With fewer years of useful team control, you are less likely to get value from a goalie prospect, all else being equal.

- Third, teams are bad at evaluating goaltenders. The difference between a very good and average goalie might be an extra save every 6-8 games. That is hard to suss out just using your eyes. Moreso than for skaters, teams should be using numbers to inform their goalie decision-making.

The first two are the reasons why I would be hesitant to use a pick in the first three rounds or so on a goalie, unless you are looking at an elite prospect. I think Oettinger in this draft would fit that mould, and I would have been ok with taking him at 33, although I still think most of his value would come from the fact that he's someone who could probably be in the NHL at a younger age than most others. I don't know enough about DiPietro to have an informed opinion on it, but consensus seems to be he's not at that level.

The last is why I don't place much weight on teams having poor goaltending for long stretches. Smart GMs have been able to find good goaltenders at low cost. The fact that there are a lot of dumb GMs out there doesn't justify drafting goalies.

The thing is though is that nobody is saying that it's equivalent. If you have a choice between Doughty and Quick in the draft, you take Doughty every time. Doughty is worth more, but don't kid yourself and pretend that it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg to get Quick. If you have a choice between a Troy Brouwer or Chris Higgins type and a range from Richard Bachman to Quick then it's at least in the realm of debate that you take the goalie.
Teams already are loath to use high picks on goalies, it's why you almost never see them taken in the first round, and certainly not the top 10. But in the early third round, I have a hard time believing it isn't worth a little risk to grab a guy who keep give you some options in net down the road.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

The thing is though is that nobody is saying that it's equivalent. If you have a choice between Doughty and Quick in the draft, you take Doughty every time. Doughty is worth more, but don't kid yourself and pretend that it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg to get Quick. If you have a choice between a Troy Brouwer or Chris Higgins type and a range from Richard Bachman to Quick then it's at least in the realm of debate that you take the goalie.
Teams already are loath to use high picks on goalies, it's why you almost never see them taken in the first round, and certainly not the top 10. But in the early third round, I have a hard time believing it isn't worth a little risk to grab a guy who keep give you some options in net down the road.

It would probably cost a lot to get Quick, but that is mostly because of reputation and he's a winner and all that. It is more about name value. Realistically, teams have been able to acquire goaltending of similar value for not very much. Teams do not get defenders of similar value to Doughty for cheap. Or it is exceptionally rare. So it is a bit of a false choice.

I suppose I can concede that if the only players available are guys that you think absolutely top out as bottom-six forwards or bottom-pairing defenders, then you can make the case that it makes sense to think about the goalie. I have a hard time believing this is the case at 64th overall.

 

[pitseleh]

The thing is though is that nobody is saying that it's equivalent. If you have a choice between Doughty and Quick in the draft, you take Doughty every time. Doughty is worth more, but don't kid yourself and pretend that it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg to get Quick. If you have a choice between a Troy Brouwer or Chris Higgins type and a range from Richard Bachman to Quick then it's at least in the realm of debate that you take the goalie.
Teams already are loath to use high picks on goalies, it's why you almost never see them taken in the first round, and certainly not the top 10. But in the early third round, I have a hard time believing it isn't worth a little risk to grab a guy who keep give you some options in net down the road.

(I lost a more substantial reply to a website error, sorry.)

I think the issue is twofold.

First, you aren't more likely to get a goalie with Bachman to Quick potential in the third round than in the seventh. I think the data is pretty compelling in that regard. See, for example:

http://nhlnumbers.com/2016/7/11/dra...-the-likelihood-of-goaltenders-making-the-nhl
http://donttellmeaboutheart.blogspot.ca/2014/11/nhl-draft-pick-value-chart.html
http://www.tsn.ca/the-significant-risk-of-drafting-a-goalie-early-1.512123

Like I say, I don't know enough about DiPietro to know if he is one of those elite talents, but consensus appears to be that he is not. He wasn't even the highest rated goalie left based on a number of lists, whereas someone like Oettinger was basically universally hailed as the best goalie prospect (and that is supported based on his ridiculous numbers).

Second, you also are never getting a player with just Brouwer or Higgins type upside. But even if the skater upside is less probable than the goalie of reaching Quick upside, you may nonetheless get better value from having the Brouwer type player because they will generally contribute while cost controlled for a longer period. That aspect can't be ignored in the analysis.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

(I lost a more substantial reply to a website error, sorry.)

I think the issue is twofold.

First, you aren't more likely to get a goalie with Bachman to Quick potential in the third round than in the seventh. I think the data is pretty compelling in that regard. See, for example:

http://nhlnumbers.com/2016/7/11/dra...-the-likelihood-of-goaltenders-making-the-nhl
http://donttellmeaboutheart.blogspot.ca/2014/11/nhl-draft-pick-value-chart.html
http://www.tsn.ca/the-significant-risk-of-drafting-a-goalie-early-1.512123

I had much the same response as you, except, if there is little difference between 3rd and 7th, then why expend a draft pick at all?

Again, a draft pick is nothing more than the exclusive rights to offer an ELC, and it is the ELC that brings the value. You can offer an ELC to any number of undrafted goaltenders and there is not very often a real bidding war to do so. I see little reason to expend a draft pick to secure those rights when you can instead use the draft pick on a skater.

EDIT: Your first link said what I was trying to say pretty well --

Put another way - generational goaltending talents that are identified early in their development such as Carey Price (5th overall), Tuukka Rask (21st overall) or Cory Schneider (26th overall) are still entirely reasonable selections in the early rounds. Teams should avoid riskier selections that are essentially stabs in the dark in the mid-range of rounds 3 and 4, where skaters of higher value can still be obtained.

emphasis on the dependent clause mine.

 

[Craz1bo1]

Weird coincidence: He wears #64 for the Spitfires and he was drafted 64th overall by the Canucks.