Too early to tell, but certainly not a fan of the picks from the 3rd round and on.
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.
Mantha was drafted in 2013 and I still don't know if he is bust or superstar
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”.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.
Wings will draft KnightOh shoot, the stats I was looking at were from last year.
Either way, what are you referring yo Cady? Knight goes to Boston Collage, KP goes to Quinnipiac....no?
I thought it was a bust on the day of the draft. Definitely too early but it doesn't change the fact that not a single player from that draft intrigues me very much
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 bustsSure you can. If none of the players make a noticeable impact on the team, then what's the point?
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”.
definitely
11 picks,one of them a top 10 and the best case scenario at this point is a second line winger and a bottom pairing defenseman
and that's if things go well
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.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.
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.
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 2He 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.