No team in the NHL hits homeruns every year and has dry stretches where they don't hit the mark. And there's a lot of variables that whatever metric you're applying does not take into consideration.
-----------
And I don't understand your top 11 valuation whatsoever. It seems to be more stringent looking at Ottawa picks than other teams.
Nobody is saying that Ottawa is the greatest drafting team and they they're infallible. But over time they have been quite good with peaks and valleys that are expected of any team. There's literally a thread on the prospects board right now where other team's fans continually list Ottawa near the top, with several analytic methodologies sparkled in there to back up those assertions.
At worst, they're average for the NHL.
I believe that you win thanks principally to top 11's. Your top 2 lines, thus 6 forwards, your top 4 Dmen and your starting goalie. These are valued assets and are rarely available in trade or reasonable free agency. Only poor GM's would trade away a top 11 player, unless he is certain of getting one back. And unless you are a very poor GM, you should never trade a top 11 for a player(s) who is not in the top 11. It is the Stone for Brannstrom trade (let's hope that Sokolov develops into a top 11).
Free agency can get you a top 11..but they are 27 and older, will want big dollars and the transplant can be "a shock". Hello Dadonov. Perhaps the best example of a huge mistake may come to be, Tavares.
So, you had better draft yourself a top 11 contingent. The bulk you keep, the rest you may trade. And you will, thanks to being in a small market, lose some in free agency. Failure to do so, will mean poor results, an insufficient supply to use in trades and as some leave, your stock will be empty.
You live and die by your supply of top 11's. I don't impose this on Ottawa alone. You can painstakingly go through the entire league. And you will notice that from year one to about year 14/15 prior to any one season, a team that has done well in its top 11 drafting, is doing well in its play. In some instances, very few of those top 11 it may have drafted are still with them, but they were most likely used in trades to acquire top 11's. Best example: Mark Methot for Nick Foligno, a key in the 17 ECF. Heatly for Hossa (long term mistake, short term trip to the Cup Final in 07).
There is no magic. Analysis may show Ottawa has done better than Tampa in terms of total players in the league since about 2000. And yes, they have played more games. And collectively more points. I did that exercise 4 years ago. I even corrected for the round and pick number. I was so proud!! I thought that I had discovered new science...Well 3 cups for Tampa and a 4th appearance. 3 added trips to the ECF. Then I redid the analysis based purely on top 11 assessment. They ate the Sens lunch. Who cares if three to four, 3rd line player plays 10 years and get 300 points each. You need a 1st line player to play 10 years and get 800.
As for them being an average NHL drafting team. Again, inconsistent with the results. And any argument of "small market" and not keeping players, is not backed by reality. For 14 years, they stood at the podium and missed way more than they hit in rounds 1 and 2. And their 3-6/7/8 (as they may have existed) fared only marginally better. Hockeydb is available to you.
