POLL: Was 2017 Draft a Bust?
- Thread starter Dotter
- Start date
Not sure how you can look at this draft as anything other than a Huge disappointment. Ras is/will be a good player, and he's a top 10 pick so it should be expected. Literally everyone else (besides maybe Lindstrom) has disappointed. I remember not many people (myself included) liked this draft at all, and so far it looks like we were right. If there were one word to describe this draft, it would be mediocre.
Lucky for Wright and his staff, the 2018 draft looks like a home run so far, hopefully they learned from the 2017 draft
Lucky for Wright and his staff, the 2018 draft looks like a home run so far, hopefully they learned from the 2017 draft
I mean the 3rd round on is a crapshoot. We just been spoiled with an insane amount of good luck.
izlez
We need more toe-drags/60
- Feb 28, 2012
- 4,626
- 3,515
What are people disliking about Kotkansalo at this point?
So, he's a 3rd rounder, who is playing behind 1st and 2nd rounders that are older than him. Is that a red flag at this point? Or are people actually watching lots of BU games to form an opinion?
So, he's a 3rd rounder, who is playing behind 1st and 2nd rounders that are older than him. Is that a red flag at this point? Or are people actually watching lots of BU games to form an opinion?
Hated this draft then, still hate it now. I didn't like the Rasmussen pick on draft day. I've grown to accept it, and am now a fan of his, but I still think far more talented players were left on the table.
Lindstrom looks decent, should make the team one day. Other than them, it's a whole lot of junk.
Lindstrom looks decent, should make the team one day. Other than them, it's a whole lot of junk.
Pavels Dog
Registered User
Don’t know what’s so wrong with Lindstrom and Kotkansalo. For a 4th rounder, Setkov is also still a nice prospect.
Rasmussen will have a long career.
Overall you can’t say a draft is a bust if you can get 2-3 players from it. I think we will.
Rasmussen will have a long career.
Overall you can’t say a draft is a bust if you can get 2-3 players from it. I think we will.
ShelbyZ
Registered User
- Apr 8, 2015
- 3,816
- 2,577
I'm somewhere between bust and too early to say, so I picked too early to say.
While it's certainly concerning that it's tracking toward all the CHL guys outside of Rasmussen being non-factors, I'm going to reserve judgement until we see what happens with Lindstrom, Adams, Kotkansalo, Petruzelli and Setkov.
IMO, 2017 being a pretty shallow draft should factor into the grade.
It's also possible that 2016 doesn't do too much better. Smith could end up a 4th line plug, Larsson could get held back by his serious groin injury and Cholowski and/or Hronek could from go from promising to taking a wrong turn at the intersection of Kindl Dr. and Brendan Smith Ave.
While it's certainly concerning that it's tracking toward all the CHL guys outside of Rasmussen being non-factors, I'm going to reserve judgement until we see what happens with Lindstrom, Adams, Kotkansalo, Petruzelli and Setkov.
IMO, 2017 being a pretty shallow draft should factor into the grade.
It's also possible that 2016 doesn't do too much better. Smith could end up a 4th line plug, Larsson could get held back by his serious groin injury and Cholowski and/or Hronek could from go from promising to taking a wrong turn at the intersection of Kindl Dr. and Brendan Smith Ave.
Sure you can. If none of the players make a noticeable impact on the team, then what's the point?
TCNorthstars
Registered User
Mantha is definitely not a bust nor will he ever be considered a bust.
Mantha is definitely not a superstar nor will he ever be considered a superstar.
He was however, a very good pick up at #20 in the draft.
TCNorthstars
Registered User
I voted no. A bust would be 0 NHL players and the Wings have at least 1 legit NHL player. Only one may be a less than average draft but not a bust.
Shaman464
No u
Drafting an NHL player at #10 is shooting fish in a barrel. What is scary is that might be all they got, a warm body whose career is described as “well he made the NHL at least”.
Steve Yzerlland
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2018
- 8,208
- 4,042
iDangleDangle
We Like Our Team
This.
Even if Ras becomes effective in his role, it's not the type of player I like to see being picked in the top 10.
izlez
We need more toe-drags/60
- Feb 28, 2012
- 4,626
- 3,515
If more than 3 players need to make a noticeable impact on the team for it to not be considered a bust, probably 95% of all drafts in history are busts
I think Rasmussen will be better than that, but I agree the scale for weighing the success of a draft has to be adjusted a bit for picking higher. Also, what constitutes being an "NHLer." I think the unspoken agreement is someone like Helm or Gator is what a lot of us are thinking when we think of a draft pick who became an NHLer. Not a guy like Sproul or XO who technically made the league but never really stuck. Or even a guy like Marchenko who lasted a bit longer but didn't really have a career of any note.
RabidBadger
Mazur detractors will look like dummies!
If there are 3 Nhl regulars that come from that draft then Kenny knocked it outta the park. I doubt more than 3 teams will hit that mark.
newfy
Registered User
- Jul 28, 2010
- 14,771
- 8,326
Is that the best case scenario or are you just being dramatic? I'll give you a hint, thats not the best case... youre being dramatic
Outside of the Canucks (Pettersson) and the Hawks (Jokiharju 29 and Evan Barrett 90) no one has really made contact on their picks yet. Edit: obviously Heiskinen is a true stud too.
This draft may have had a a couple great players in it, but it wasn't very deep.
He didn't say that. He said they (2-3 players) need to make a noticeable impact. It goes to the point I just made in my previous post. If a guy makes the league and plays 20 games before going back to Europe or the AHL for the rest of his career, that doesn't make me think the draft went any better than if he didn't play any games. If the guy comes up and plays somewhat regularly for four or five years, yeah, I think that's a success then.
I did a quick Look at the draft years of 2010-14 for Anaheim, Boston, Buffalo, Calgary, Carolina, and Chicago. Using 100 games as a floor for success, all of them had at least two successful drafts in those five seasons, most I think had 3, while Carolina and Chicago each had four successful drafts. So, it's not a crazy high bar for success.
BTW, I used 100 games for that time span because I figured anyone picked outside of the first round is going to be in lower leagues for at least a few years unless they dramatically out perform their draft position. So, a guy who was drafted in 2010 probably wouldn't see any significant NHL time until 2013 at the earliest. I know it's imperfect, but I'm just trying to get a ballpark here.
TCNorthstars
Registered User
I've seen some articles that use the 100 game threshold for success, while others have done 200 games. I saw one that was 160 games because that is the point where they earn a pension.
As for the viability of individual draft picks, this was a good article (although a few years ago now):
Cullen: Updated NHL Draft Pick Values, Observations
Using this as some kind of scoring:
10 - Generational
9 - Elite Player
8 - First Line, Top Pair D
7 - Top Six Forward, Top Four D
6 - Top Nine Forward, Top Six D
5 - NHL Regular
4 - Fringe NHLer
3 - Very Good Minor Leaguer
2 - Minor Leaguer, under 50 NHL games
1 - 10 or fewer NHL games
The #9 pick ranks out at 5.03 on that scale.
izlez
We need more toe-drags/60
- Feb 28, 2012
- 4,626
- 3,515
I mean, technically my post was in response to the statement that you can call a draft a bust if you don't have 2-3 players making an impact for YOUR TEAM. So he did say 3. and he did say your team. I'd stand by 95% for 3 players and probably 90% for 2
Going forward, we can ignore the part about "your team"... but I think you need to move your bar a bit. For example... who the **** Klas Dahlbeck?
Are we really saying our 2007, 2010, and 2011 drafts were successful, and 2017 already has no chance of reaching those levels?
SuperScript29
Registered User
- Nov 17, 2017
- 2,126
- 1,740
It's absurd calling a bunch of 19 year olds busts when they haven't really gotten the chance to prove themselves, but I'll humor our top pick for the sake or argument. Rasmussen may not be having the greatest rookie season, but he has shown some good stuff and I think with some experience, he'll turn into a top-6 player.
It's also worthy to mention that some of the guys taken behind him aren't really doing better than him either. One guy to mention is Vilardi, because many fans complained that we did not draft him, but this guy is really made of glass and I'm glad we dodged him.
It's also worthy to mention that some of the guys taken behind him aren't really doing better than him either. One guy to mention is Vilardi, because many fans complained that we did not draft him, but this guy is really made of glass and I'm glad we dodged him.
Unfriendly Ghost
Kasper
It depends on how Lindstrom develops. If it's just Rasmussen, I'm inclined to give it a thumbs down.
