Silver Seven Senators Remain at Odds with Outside Scouting Consensus

R2010

Registered User
May 23, 2011
1,913
972
If he ends up being Cody Ceci that’s a good pick.

Cody Ceci had a couple promising years. Lassi has not really shown much of a positive development. At the same age the sens were talking about how great Ceci was in the AHL meanwhile Mann is talking about how much more time Lassi needs.

Both players look way worse than the 4-5 players taken immediately after them. Not ideal scouting wise. We have a good scouting staff but we do better at going for skill than two-way players. We usually hit when our scouts target skill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gab6511

Beech

Cicc' a porta
Nov 25, 2020
2,865
981
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Almost all of Ottawa's success is due to drafting. To insinuate they're bad at drafting because they have been losing during their rebuild is specious at best.

I'm sure you realize that though.

If you can't clearly see the issue has been retaining our talent, mixed with bad pro scouting I dunno what to tell you.

The fact that we are good drafting and developing team is the very reason we are able to have such a promising future so quickly after trading elite players that we developed.

there are those that will defend the teams drafting, I am not one of them. We can go draft by draft. We can count the players, we can do a qualitative analysis. It will only lead to debate. And the sock-puppet accounts will surface and so on and it will lead no where. If you feel that pro scouting and trading away talent is at the heart. Good. Have your belief. It is simply not one I share.

What I do look at: 20th finish in a mathematical average of between 10 and 22. With the lion's share of all teams averaging a 15. With 14 years and thus 6 playoff spots. In a league that is 30 and then 31 teams, so better than half make it. They made it less than half of the time. 4 playoff wins. A max of 4 series get played by anyone team. 14 years, 56 series...4 wins... 6 years in the playoffs, so 4 out of 24.

As for losing in rebuild. Fell free to redo, less the last 4 years. The numbers are only marginally better. Oh yea, a strike shortened season where the team was sinking like a stone. Had it gone so much as an extra 2 games, they may have missed. The Hambergular run which was a minor miracle. 4-5 coaches in that 10 year span, 6 out of 10 appearances..ohh...rock star status..4 wins in 10 years...ohhh...the 70's Montreal Canadians here.

Trades? well, you need to read the few thousand posts that defend the trades. People like @Ice-Tray will be up one side of you, down the other. There are a few dozen others on here that will defend the teams free agents to death. Again, Ice-tray being chief among them.

So, drafting is not the issue, trades are not the issue, free agency is not the issue...Gord Wilson is that you!!!!! Then how do we explain the mess? Please reply to Ice-tray.... I will make a list off the Pro and Con: Draft, Trades, free agency..You guys can then fight it out among your self...

JPG and Stone were here in 2017/2018, right? as was the whole crew. The last 14 years are no accident. They are a result of poor drafting 04-14...By the 07-08 season the team was starting to feel it. And it hit its peak in 17/18 when the total collapse occurred. Erik Karlsson aside, can you send me a list of the teams d man draft 04-14. Eleven years, one guy and "the Ceci"..which some here have as Bobby Orr and others as Frank Orr, the Mechanic down the street.

Lets hope the last 5-6 years and moving forward are way better.
 

Ice-Tray

Registered User
Jan 31, 2006
16,288
8,100
Victoria
there are those that will defend the teams drafting, I am not one of them. We can go draft by draft. We can count the players, we can do a qualitative analysis. It will only lead to debate. And the sock-puppet accounts will surface and so on and it will lead no where. If you feel that pro scouting and trading away talent is at the heart. Good. Have your belief. It is simply not one I share.

What I do look at: 20th finish in a mathematical average of between 10 and 22. With the lion's share of all teams averaging a 15. With 14 years and thus 6 playoff spots. In a league that is 30 and then 31 teams, so better than half make it. They made it less than half of the time. 4 playoff wins. A max of 4 series get played by anyone team. 14 years, 56 series...4 wins... 6 years in the playoffs, so 4 out of 24.

As for losing in rebuild. Fell free to redo, less the last 4 years. The numbers are only marginally better. Oh yea, a strike shortened season where the team was sinking like a stone. Had it gone so much as an extra 2 games, they may have missed. The Hambergular run which was a minor miracle. 4-5 coaches in that 10 year span, 6 out of 10 appearances..ohh...rock star status..4 wins in 10 years...ohhh...the 70's Montreal Canadians here.

Trades? well, you need to read the few thousand posts that defend the trades. People like @Ice-Tray will be up one side of you, down the other. There are a few dozen others on here that will defend the teams free agents to death. Again, Ice-tray being chief among them.

So, drafting is not the issue, trades are not the issue, free agency is not the issue...Gord Wilson is that you!!!!! Then how do we explain the mess? Please reply to Ice-tray.... I will make a list off the Pro and Con: Draft, Trades, free agency..You guys can then fight it out among your self...

JPG and Stone were here in 2017/2018, right? as was the whole crew. The last 14 years are no accident. They are a result of poor drafting 04-14...By the 07-08 season the team was starting to feel it. And it hit its peak in 17/18 when the total collapse occurred. Erik Karlsson aside, can you send me a list of the teams d man draft 04-14. Eleven years, one guy and "the Ceci"..which some here have as Bobby Orr and others as Frank Orr, the Mechanic down the street.

Lets hope the last 5-6 years and moving forward are way better.

Feel free to keep my name outcha mouth buddy, I want nothing to do with whatever this was that you posted.
 

Wallet Inspector

Registered User
Jan 19, 2013
5,661
4,887
Drafting Thomson over Heinola is a perfect example of a GM trying way too hard to look like the smartest guy in the room.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,113
30,329
View attachment 459385
SCF in 2007 and an overall finish of 8th in the league.
Never finished in the top 10 since. 14 years
highest finish 12th on 2 occasions. Lowest 31st once, 30th twice.
average finish 20th
number of years in the playoffs : 6 of 14
number of playoff series wins: 4

Can you please explain the good drafting again? I may have missed something. It seems that 1) this team has drafted fairly high, fairly regularly 2) near negligible success.

Buffalo is about the only team that is below us. Florida is close..otherwise, much of the league is better than the Sens.

Even the Blue team matches the Sens in terms of playoff appearances. No wins (Thank God). But their average finish is ~ 15th. The highest is around 10th, the lowest is around 22 for average finish. At 20th, the Sens are comfortably near the absolute bottom.

If this is good drafting, Holly Cow what will happen when we hit a bad patch!!!! Can you finish 33 in a 32 team league?

So, this is a bit of a shallow approach at incorporating where teams pick into the equation. It's certainly a worthwhile endeavor, but teams trade picks, so looking at where we finished and concluding that we were advantaged in the draft as a result so our drafting is overrated leaves a lot to be desired in terms of analysis.

For starters, we can look at the actual pick placement each team had, rather than using finish in the standings as a proxy.

The next hurdle is how do you value 1st OA relative to 3rd, or 5th? People have done the work for us in the past, Michael Schuckers did some "pick value" charts back as far as 2011, but I like the blue bullet model myself as it incorporates more than just games played and tries to account for quality of player too.

Now that we have the picks, and a way of assigning value to those picks, we can tabulate the sum value of all picks made by each team, teams with more picks and/or higher picks would show up as having an advantage while teams with fewer or lower picks would be down the list.

As for a time frame, lets go with 2007-2019, as 2020 and 2021 haven't really had enough time to graduate many prospects:

TEAMBlue Bullet Picks value
Edmonton Oilers874.2
Buffalo Sabres693.2
Colorado Avalanche639.4
Florida Panthers638.1
New York Islanders592.7
Columbus Blue Jackets528.4
Tampa Bay Lightning528.1
Carolina Hurricanes527.2
Toronto Maple Leafs494.4
New Jersey Devils493.7
Philadelphia Flyers491.8
Los Angeles Kings458.5
Chicago Blackhawks453.4
Vancouver Canucks420.4
Montreal Canadiens414.7
Dallas Stars396.7
Boston Bruins394.9
Ottawa Senators392.5
Anaheim Ducks379.3
New York Rangers377
St. Louis Blues356.8
Detroit Red Wings347.1
Calgary Flames343
Nashville Predators341
Winnipeg Jets330.4
Minnesota Wild309.9
Phoenix Coyotes299.9
Arizona Coyotes293.7
Washington Capitals285.4
San Jose Sharks234.5
Pittsburgh Penguins195
Atlanta Thrashers185
Vegas Golden Knights131.1
Seattle Kraken0
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Alright, so there you go an objective way of looking at who was advantaged based on their pick placement and quantity, teams with a higher pick value should have the advantage wrt drafting based on the number and quality of picks, while teams lower obviously are disadvantaged. Some teams, like VGK, and Seattle obviously participated in fewer drafts in the range so are at the bottom. Others like Winnipeg/Atlanta and Phoenix/Arizona should be combined to compare to the other teams, both would shoot up the list past Ottawa.

If you want to argue we haven't drafted well, have at it, but being advantaged because we had better picks is an objectively bad argument
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deku

Beech

Cicc' a porta
Nov 25, 2020
2,865
981
So, this is a bit of a shallow approach at incorporating where teams pick into the equation. It's certainly a worthwhile endeavor, but teams trade picks, so looking at where we finished and concluding that we were advantaged
----------------

If you want to argue we haven't drafted well, have at it, but being advantaged because we had better picks is an objectively bad argument
mick,

My argument is simple. o4-14 can be reviewed on a year by year bases. Hockeydb is available to everyone. You can go through it and render judgement. I believe you will come to the same conclusion that I did. It is poor.

Then do Boston, Tampa Bay, Chicago, LA, STL, Winnipeg/Atlanta and another 2-3 teams that have done well from 08-2021. You will notice a definitive pattern.

Now do Buffalo, Arizona, Miami(Florida), and 2-3 other teams that experienced a poor 08-2021 (not necessarily every year, but large chunks). Again, you will see a pattern.

If you repeat the draft analysis from ~ 2012-2020, you will see the up and coming, those that arrived (Florida) and those that are heading to a fall. Boston so messed up the 15 draft and so messed up the 3 picks in a row, they will be paying a huge price real soon. As will Washington who has failed to restock the cupboards. Pittesburg, LA and Chicago. The latter two have already collapsed.

Ottawa drafted poorly 04-14. Who cares where the picks were? and we tend to over analyse. At the end it is a simple concept. Draft a good player, one who makes your team and contributes to winning. In an 11 year dead span, my counting showed 6 players that are worthy of playing in your: top 6 forwards, top 4 D and 1 goalie. So 11 years, produced 6 of 11 players needed. That is a player every 2 years. Imagine if the NHL was purely draft based. So no trades, no free agency. The Sens would have had 6 legitimate top 11 and in 11 years. More or less a life span of a player. In fact, you can probably add the 03 and 02 draft and not add any quality top 11 player. So 6 players in 13 years.

By comparison, and yes it is still early, the 15-20 draft appears to have produced 8 top 11. Possibly 9, if any of the goalies materialize. And should L. brown develop, should any other pick (Greig, Jarvanti, Kleven, Sokolov, Thompson) develop, you could be looking at 10-12. So, 11-12 top 11 players in 6 years.

Drafting 02-14 was poor. Drafting 15-2020 appears to be rock solid. The 08-2021 poor performances were thanks to 02-14 draft successes/failures.

That is why I find it ridicules when the team's drafting, pre 2015 is defended or even heralded!!!... The Sens have had 3 eras: 1995-2001. Rock solid, aided by a few first overall. It led directly to the 03 ECF and the 07 SCF. 2002-2014. Very poor, hurt by some high finishes and reckless trading of picks. It led to a 14 year poor period 08-2021. 2015-2021/possibly beyond. Looking good as a draft. Looking good for FYOUS.

I do not believ that free agency or trades or budget concerns have hurt anywhere near as bad as poor picks (The Ceci's, Lazars, Cowens, Lees, O'Briens, Noesens, Pumpels, Eaves, Meszeros??????, Klepis..and these are the 1st rounders). I count 10 of 13 first rounders (from a #9 overall to a #29) as busts or partial busts. 10 of 13!!!!! That is insane.
 
Last edited:

Beech

Cicc' a porta
Nov 25, 2020
2,865
981
Feel free to keep my name outcha mouth buddy, I want nothing to do with whatever this was that you posted.
Ice-Tray. I thought that you were the defender of the faith?

So I take it that you agree with the other guys that the issue is, Pro scouting. And so trades and free agency. And another issue is not retaining our talent. Kind of a 180 from your previous stand(s).
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,113
30,329
mick,

My argument is simple. o4-14 can be reviewed on a year by year bases. Hockeydb is available to everyone. You can go through it and render judgement. I believe you will come to the same conclusion that I did. It is poor.

Then do Boston, Tampa Bay, Chicago, LA, STL, Winnipeg/Atlanta and another 2-3 teams that have done well from 08-2021. You will notice a definitive pattern.

Now do Buffalo, Arizona, Miami(Florida), and 2-3 other teams that experienced a poor 08-2021 (not necessarily every year, but large chunks). Again, you will see a pattern.

If you repeat the draft analysis from ~ 2012-2020, you will see the up and coming, those that arrived (Florida) and those that are heading to a fall. Boston so messed up the 15 draft and so messed up the 3 picks in a row, they will be paying a huge price real soon. As will Washington who has failed to restock the cupboards. Pittesburg, LA and Chicago. The latter two have already collapsed.

Ottawa drafted poorly 04-14. Who cares where the picks were? and we tend to over analyse. At the end it is a simple concept. Draft a good player, one who makes your team and contributes to winning. In an 11 year dead span, my counting showed 6 players that are worthy of playing in your: top 6 forwards, top 4 D and 1 goalie. So 11 years, produced 6 of 11 players needed. That is a player every 2 years. Imagine if the NHL was purely draft based. So no trades, no free agency. The Sens would have had 6 legitimate top 11 and in 11 years. More or less a life span of a player. In fact, you can probably add the 03 and 02 draft and not add any quality top 11 player. So 6 players in 13 years.

By comparison, and yes it is still early, the 15-20 draft appears to have produced 8 top 11. Possibly 9, if any of the goalies materialize. And should L. brown develop, should any other pick (Greig, Jarvanti, Kleven, Sokolov, Thompson) develop, you could be looking at 10-12. So, 11-12 top 11 players in 6 years.

Drafting 02-14 was poor. Drafting 15-2020 appears to be rock solid. The 08-2021 poor performances were thanks to 02-14 draft successes/failures.

That is why I find it ridicules when the team's drafting, pre 2015 is defended or even heralded!!!... The Sens have had 3 eras: 1995-2001. Rock solid, aided by a few first overall. It led directly to the 03 ECF and the 07 SCF. 2002-2014. Very poor, hurt by some high finishes and reckless trading of picks. It led to a 14 year poor period 08-2021. 2015-2021/possibly beyond. Looking good as a draft. Looking good for FYOUS.

I do not believ that free agency or trades or budget concerns have hurt anywhere near as bad as poor picks (The Ceci's, Lazars, Cowens, Lees, O'Briens, Noesens, Pumpels, Eaves, Meszeros??????, Klepis..and these are the 1st rounders). I count 10 of 13 first rounders (from a #9 overall to a #29) as busts or partial busts. 10 of 13!!!!! That is insane.

You were the one bringing up where we picked. The reality is the value of our picks from 2007 to 2019 was 20th out of 30, so the expectation should be set accordingly.

Every team has misses, you can pine over the Lazar's and Ceci's that we've picked but Ceci has twice the games played as any other 15th OA drafted from 2007 to 2019, even Lazar ranks 6th out of 13th in pts from a 17th OA pick in that date range, it's great that you can identify guys you feel we busts, but until you do the work and go through every team you won't see the big picture, both those guys as disappointing as they were for those who were hoping for another Karlsson were about what you should expect for a pick in that range and until you use the same standard to judge each team your analysis will be meaningless.

You may think you're seeing a pattern, but it's pretty clear you are failing to see the forest among the trees, your expectations for what a good or bad drafting team is simply doesn't align with the reality of how often draft picks bust.

Earlier someone posted comparative charts and a tableau link that showed exactly how all the NHL teams picks picked relative to one another, Ottawa faired pretty well with the most picks to become NHL players, and above average picks hitting their threshold for elite (worth noting the use of elite is pretty generous, but that's semantic). If we had less draft Capitol than average as shown by the table I posted, and ended up with more guys that played regularly than any other team, and we had an above average number of guys who met their higher threshold for quality picks, it looks very much like we outperformed expectations based on where we picked when using the same standard against all teams.
 

Masked

(Super/star)
Apr 16, 2017
6,339
4,564
Parts unknown
This is like people complaining that Vladimir Guerrero only gets a base hit instead of a home run when he goes up to the plate with runners on. The Senators can't hit a home run with every first rounder.

Assen na yo!
 

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
mick,

My argument is simple. o4-14 can be reviewed on a year by year bases. Hockeydb is available to everyone. You can go through it and render judgement. I believe you will come to the same conclusion that I did. It is poor.

Then do Boston, Tampa Bay, Chicago, LA, STL, Winnipeg/Atlanta and another 2-3 teams that have done well from 08-2021. You will notice a definitive pattern.

Now do Buffalo, Arizona, Miami(Florida), and 2-3 other teams that experienced a poor 08-2021 (not necessarily every year, but large chunks). Again, you will see a pattern.

If you repeat the draft analysis from ~ 2012-2020, you will see the up and coming, those that arrived (Florida) and those that are heading to a fall. Boston so messed up the 15 draft and so messed up the 3 picks in a row, they will be paying a huge price real soon. As will Washington who has failed to restock the cupboards. Pittesburg, LA and Chicago. The latter two have already collapsed.

Ottawa drafted poorly 04-14. Who cares where the picks were? and we tend to over analyse. At the end it is a simple concept. Draft a good player, one who makes your team and contributes to winning. In an 11 year dead span, my counting showed 6 players that are worthy of playing in your: top 6 forwards, top 4 D and 1 goalie. So 11 years, produced 6 of 11 players needed. That is a player every 2 years. Imagine if the NHL was purely draft based. So no trades, no free agency. The Sens would have had 6 legitimate top 11 and in 11 years. More or less a life span of a player. In fact, you can probably add the 03 and 02 draft and not add any quality top 11 player. So 6 players in 13 years.

By comparison, and yes it is still early, the 15-20 draft appears to have produced 8 top 11. Possibly 9, if any of the goalies materialize. And should L. brown develop, should any other pick (Greig, Jarvanti, Kleven, Sokolov, Thompson) develop, you could be looking at 10-12. So, 11-12 top 11 players in 6 years.

Drafting 02-14 was poor. Drafting 15-2020 appears to be rock solid. The 08-2021 poor performances were thanks to 02-14 draft successes/failures.

That is why I find it ridicules when the team's drafting, pre 2015 is defended or even heralded!!!... The Sens have had 3 eras: 1995-2001. Rock solid, aided by a few first overall. It led directly to the 03 ECF and the 07 SCF. 2002-2014. Very poor, hurt by some high finishes and reckless trading of picks. It led to a 14 year poor period 08-2021. 2015-2021/possibly beyond. Looking good as a draft. Looking good for FYOUS.

I do not believ that free agency or trades or budget concerns have hurt anywhere near as bad as poor picks (The Ceci's, Lazars, Cowens, Lees, O'Briens, Noesens, Pumpels, Eaves, Meszeros??????, Klepis..and these are the 1st rounders). I count 10 of 13 first rounders (from a #9 overall to a #29) as busts or partial busts. 10 of 13!!!!! That is insane.

Id say that black hole period carried through The White pick and maybe the Brown pick. I think Logan will be fine but it wasn’t really until Brady, Bath + picks that Dorion and co got their drafting act together.
 

JD1

Registered User
Sep 12, 2005
15,986
9,549
Id say that black hole period carried through The White pick and maybe the Brown pick. I think Logan will be fine but it wasn’t really until Brady, Bath + picks that Dorion and co got their drafting act together.

If your standard for a draft pick is that there isn't a single player chosen after your pick that becomes a better player than your pick, you're going to be perpetually disappointed

In White's case, he was chosen 21st. 6 years later, he's within the top 31 picks in terms of both games played and points. And he's missed 40+ games to injury since he's become a full time NHL player

I don't think there's any way to rationalize White as a black hole pick given his draft position and productivity
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCraigAnderson

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
If your standard for a draft pick is that there isn't a single player chosen after your pick that becomes a better player than your pick, you're going to be perpetually disappointed

In White's case, he was chosen 21st. 6 years later, he's within the top 31 picks in terms of both games played and points. And he's missed 40+ games to injury since he's become a full time NHL player

I don't think there's any way to rationalize White as a black hole pick given his draft position and productivity

I get that White’s outcome is in the acceptable range for the pick. He’s just not a good player and ultimately not a good pick in a string of bad picks . Similar to Ceci … acceptable but not good.

Your team is going nowhere if all you get out of the first round are White/Ceci type players.
 

Beech

Cicc' a porta
Nov 25, 2020
2,865
981
You were the one bringing up where we picked. The reality is the value of our picks from 2007 to 2019 was 20th out of 30, so the expectation should be set accordingly.

Every team has misses, you can pine over the Lazar's and Ceci's that we've picked but Ceci has twice the games played as any other 15th OA drafted from 2007 to 2019, even Lazar ranks 6th out of 13th in pts from a 17th OA pick in that date range, it's great that you can identify guys you feel we busts, but until you do the work and go through every team you won't see the big picture, both those guys as disappointing as they were for those who were hoping for another Karlsson were about what you should expect for a pick in that range and until you use the same standard to judge each team your analysis will be meaningless.

You may think you're seeing a pattern, but it's pretty clear you are failing to see the forest among the trees, your expectations for what a good or bad drafting team is simply doesn't align with the reality of how often draft picks bust.

Earlier someone posted comparative charts and a tableau link that showed exactly how all the NHL teams picks picked relative to one another, Ottawa faired pretty well with the most picks to become NHL players, and above average picks hitting their threshold for elite (worth noting the use of elite is pretty generous, but that's semantic). If we had less draft Capitol than average as shown by the table I posted, and ended up with more guys that played regularly than any other team, and we had an above average number of guys who met their higher threshold for quality picks, it looks very much like we outperformed expectations based on where we picked when using the same standard against all teams.
Good..

Now, can you explain the 20th overall finish (10-22 are the boundaries)
The 5 finishes in the bottom 20
Only 3 finishes in the top 15
a 12th as a high point

If all of this is evidence of a successful draft. I will ask again, what happens when they hit a bad period? there is relatively little room to slide any further. Luckily for the Sens; Buffalo, Arizona, Vancouver and 1-2 other misfits are in the dump with them. Otherwise, their numbers would look so much worse.

At the end, this is not about metrics..It is about a scoreboard and a standings table. Every metric known to man and those that may later be formulated can show me that the Sens did great at the draft. I then look at the scoreboard and the standings table and say, we have a problem.

A team that fairs well in the draft, should as a minimum be mid range in the above values. Like say 15th in average standing. Like say 5 top 10's to counter the 5 bottom 10's. Like say 3 top 3's to counter the 3 bottom 3's. And so on. 14 years. That is a longtime to see things average themselves out.

I don't care what metric may tell you the Sens draft well....The scoreboard and the standing table tell the the final story. And if you and others can look at the standings and still declare: good drafting..well, it explains why Muckler and Murray stayed in their jobs as long as they did. Ditto for Mann's predecessors and the amateur scouting department (02-16)
 

Beech

Cicc' a porta
Nov 25, 2020
2,865
981
Id say that black hole period carried through The White pick and maybe the Brown pick. I think Logan will be fine but it wasn’t really until Brady, Bath + picks that Dorion and co got their drafting act together.
it is far less about any one year, than the bigger picture.

You cannot dissect the process so deeply that every one pick is over analysed. You will have misses and hits. Misses in high picks, hits in low. The issue is; Over chunks of time, like say: 3 years. In theory you should have 3 first, 3 second and 12 picks in rounds 3-6. In that 3 year period, you must end up with that number. Not necessarily every year must be a straightforward 6. But in any 3 year, you must total: 3/3/12. If more, great.

Now the 3 first must produce 1-2 top 11 players. The 3 second must produce 1-2 top 11. The 12 other must produce 1 top 11. So that in a 3 year period you have: 3-5 top 11.

You need 11. Average age is 20-33. so 14 years. That is 3.5 cycles @ 3-5 per 3 year cycle. You end up at 11-15 top 11 players. No magic.

My argument is simple. Do this exercise with the Sens 02-14. They will fail. So a poor drafting team. We have the analytics telling us a good drafting team, but a scoreboard and standings table saying otherwise.
 

Xspyrit

DJ Dorion
Jun 29, 2008
30,703
9,650
Montreal, Canada
Ask other teams what they think of our drafting/development. They have a lot of our former draft picks among their players...

Since 2008, Ottawa has been one of the best teams at the draft table, particularly when you account the position of the draft picks. Also, note that the 1st round picks in 2010 and 2014 were traded for prospects/players that ended up being Bobby Ryan* and Kyle Turris*. Say what you want about these 2, they played 862 games for the Ottawa Senators, scored 224 goals and 540 points (0.63 PPG = 51 pts / 82 GP). Oh and also did very well in the playoffs (67 GP, 20 Goals, 21 Assists, 41 Pts, 0.61 PPG = 50 pts / 82 GP)

The 3 highest picks from 2008 to 2017 (10 drafts) were a 6th OA, a 9th OA and a 11th OA pick (traded up from 12th OA). There was also 2 picks at 15th OA, one was traded up from 18th OA... The rest were from 17th to 28th (and no 1st round picks in 2010 + 2014)

I'm sure at least 50% of teams have had higher picks than 6+9+11 during that period. Despite that, this is what has been produced in ONLY 10 drafts

Tier 1 (Impact players/Top-6/Top-4) : Karlsson, Stone, Zibanejad, Chabot, Hoffman, Turris*, Ryan*, Lehner

Tier 2 (great/good support players) : Pageau, Silfverberg, Zack Smith, Dzingel, Ceci, White

Tier 3-4 (great/good depht players & short term careers) : Borowiecki, Lazar, Grant, Sorensen, Noesen, Cowen, Wiercioch, Wideman, Harpur, Claesson, Prince (didn't list "cup of coffee" guys with less than 100 GP)

Remains to be seen : Batherson, Formenton, Logan Brown, Driedger, Daccord, Dahlen, Bowers, Wolanin, Jaros, Chlapik, Lajoie

6 star/impact players, 2 top-6 forwards acquired via trading a first rounder, 6 more good secondary pieces, a lot of depth pieces and among those who remain to be seen, at the very least Batherson and Formenton are going to be good/great NHLers for a long time, plus a few more will certainly do something (like Driedger)

If you don't think it's extremely impressive, I don't know what to tell you

2018-present looks extremely promising too and since we went into our first real rebuild, the picks were much higher than usual, than they have been since the first 4-5 years of the (new era) franchise. In only 3 drafts (not talking about the unknown 2021 yet) :

Tkachuk, Pinto, Stutzle, Sanderson, Greig
Bernard-Docker, Sogaard, Jarventie, Kleven, Sokolov, Merilainen

Crookshank, Thomson, Daoust
Gruden, Kastelic, Guenette, Reinhardt


lol it's going to be an insane haul.
 
Last edited:

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
it is far less about any one year, than the bigger picture.

You cannot dissect the process so deeply that every one pick is over analysed. You will have misses and hits. Misses in high picks, hits in low. The issue is; Over chunks of time, like say: 3 years. In theory you should have 3 first, 3 second and 12 picks in rounds 3-6. In that 3 year period, you must end up with that number. Not necessarily every year must be a straightforward 6. But in any 3 year, you must total: 3/3/12. If more, great.

Now the 3 first must produce 1-2 top 11 players. The 3 second must produce 1-2 top 11. The 12 other must produce 1 top 11. So that in a 3 year period you have: 3-5 top 11.

You need 11. Average age is 20-33. so 14 years. That is 3.5 cycles @ 3-5 per 3 year cycle. You end up at 11-15 top 11 players. No magic.

My argument is simple. Do this exercise with the Sens 02-14. They will fail. So a poor drafting team. We have the analytics telling us a good drafting team, by a scoreboard and standings table saying otherwise.

My point was the Sens started hitting on non consensus picks somewhere around Brady.

The reason the Sens have struggled through this rebuild is there hasn’t been much contribution from anyone drafted in years before Brady.

The years before were terrible drafting years for any org.

Now they are getting scoffed at taking kids like Brady (vs Zadina) , Sanderson (vs Rossi types ), Pinto, Klevin, Boucher but seemingly hitting on them.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,113
30,329
Good..

Now, can you explain the 20th overall finish (10-22 are the boundaries)
The 5 finishes in the bottom 20
Only 3 finishes in the top 15
a 12th as a high point

Go look at the table I posted and the post explains how it was derived. 20 the comes from our rank on that table, and combining Arizona with Pheonix, as well as Winnipeg with Atlanta. I excluded VGK and Seattle.


If all of this is evidence of a successful draft. I will ask again, what happens when they hit a bad period? there is relatively little room to slide any further. Luckily for the Sens; Buffalo, Arizona, Vancouver and 1-2 other misfits are in the dump with them. Otherwise, their numbers would look so much worse.
The draft is just one component of how teams are built, you can draft well and suck or draft poorly and win. If we hit a rut in our drafting, like we did in 2011-2014 it likely means we go to UFA or trade route more to fill out the roster, or rely on guys already in the system

At the end, this is not about metrics..It is about a scoreboard and a standings table. Every metric known to man and those that may later be formulated can show me that the Sens did great at the draft. I then look at the scoreboard and the standings table and say, we have a problem.

This just such an incredibly flawed argument idk where to go. It's like saying because the roof on my house is leaking and the windows don't seal properly because they haven't been replaced in thirty years and the electronical work is a mess, that my foundation must be cracked. Well no, these are all seperate issues that can be evaluated individually. Fix the roof, windows and electrical and the house is fine.

A team that fairs well in the draft, should as a minimum be mid range in the above values. Like say 15th in average standing. Like say 5 top 10's to counter the 5 bottom 10's. Like say 3 top 3's to counter the 3 bottom 3's. And so on. 14 years. That is a longtime to see things average themselves out.
Again, where are you coming up with this assumption? Being good at drafting and being good in the standings are not a linear relationship, you draft well and it helps, but that can easily be offset by a bad trade or UFA signing eating up the budget. We also operate at a lower budget than most teams which is obviously going to have an impact.

I don't care what metric may tell you the Sens draft well....The scoreboard and the standing table tell the the final story. And if you and others can look at the standings and still declare: good drafting..well, it explains why Muckler and Murray stayed in their jobs as long as they did. Ditto for Mann's predecessors and the amateur scouting department (02-16)

The standings don't tell the story about drafting, they tell the story about the on ice product. If you can't accept that there are numerous variable that combine into that final result, and that you can be good at some but terrible at others, then I don't know how to help you. Look at it the same way you would player evaluation, I guy can have fantastic hands, a great shot, be tough as nails, but if he skates like Happy Gilmour, he's best to take up golf because he's never going to be a good hockey player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deku

Beech

Cicc' a porta
Nov 25, 2020
2,865
981
Go look at the table I posted and the post explains how it was derived. 20 the comes from our rank on that table, and combining Arizona with Pheonix, as well as Winnipeg with Atlanta. I excluded VGK and Seattle.
------------
Gilmour, he's best to take up golf because he's never going to be a good hockey player.
I disagree. I see them as linear. This is where we clearly are far apart.

I believe in one metric..more, one credo. Draft well and wins will come. Draft well and the next young player will join you. Which will mean; youth and competition. It will mean, teams will be less likely to sign crazy contracts to compensate for holes. It will mean that teams will be less inclined to trade draft picks for short term relief. Less likely to chase UFA's etc. The system as it is designed allows for fantastic latitude. 11 players constitute your core. Top 6 F, top 4 D, 1 goalie. In an age period of about 14 years, if you consider a 19 year old rookie and a productive 32 or 33 year old.. So you need about 0.9 players a year. Achieve that metric and the world is your oyster. It is 6 players every ~7 years.

The Sens 02-14 produced 6 such players in 14 years. That is ~ 0.4 players per year. 1/2 of what is needed.

1/2...there is your metric.

All Eugene has to do is open Hockeydb every May 1. See from 3 years previous to 8 years previous (inclusive). If he counts 6 top 11. Good draft, everyone gets a raise. 7 or more, excellent draft, everyone deserves a raise and free tequila. 5 or less, firings!
 

Ice-Tray

Registered User
Jan 31, 2006
16,288
8,100
Victoria
Ice-Tray. I thought that you were the defender of the faith?

So I take it that you agree with the other guys that the issue is, Pro scouting. And so trades and free agency. And another issue is not retaining our talent. Kind of a 180 from your previous stand(s).

I mildly objected to your labelling and usage of my name in your post. I made no comments on the substance of your post.
 

Beech

Cicc' a porta
Nov 25, 2020
2,865
981
Just a terrible way to evaluate drafting
you are right. The better way is a metric that shows the Sens have drafted above average since the early 2000's. So the last 4 years and the 08-17 up/down period was what?

The roughly 10 players that have left. How many cups in their cupboards. So we have just been stocking the rest of the league??? Who? How many awards/cups for ex Sens drafted in the 2000's?

-Other than Karlsson, no nominee for a major award...forget an actual win. 5 major awards, 3 nominees per. So 15 per year. Times now roughly 20 years, so 300 spots. Erik is the only one, with 3 nominations. My apologies if someone snuck in a nominee that I may have forgotten.
-Other than the traditional, "throw in a guy" from each team. How many all-stars? (Brady in 2020...Not a Marketing move? considering the game was in STL). And the ballot stuffing when the game was here in 2012????
-Other than minor periods, no goalie that they drafted.
-Karlsson and a so-so Ceci is the only Dman of substance in the 2000's (00-14). 15 years, 2 dmen. One so-so.
-Virtually no rookie of the year candidate since Alfredson
-no Senator draft in the 2000's has remotely competed for an Art Ross
-no Senator draft in the 2000's has remotely competed for a Richard
-no first or second all-star other than Karlsson and Alfredson (drafted in teh 1990's)
-One HOF, Hossa, drafted in the 1990's. Only Karlsson drafted since will be considered. So now 15 years of 2000's drafting (00-14), no one will remotely be considered for an HOF spot other than EK. 4 players a year into the HOF. So from roughly 2000-2020. 80 spots, one Sen.

Please tell me what a poor draft looks like? And then tell me what you consider Pittsburgh's, Boston, LA, Chicago, Tampa? Do this exercise for them and see those numbers jump (HOF numbers for the 2000's are still 2-3 years away).

so a draft that has yielded minor talent and has only produced 6 of the 11 essential players needed. You guys are 100% right. The draft has been dynamite. (00-14 only)
 

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
Sens Remain at Odds with Outside Scouts

Ottawa continues to take the unconventional approach


.

So do 95% of Ottawa fans …

They hated the EK trade, hated the Pinto pick, hated the MD trade, hated the Klevin pick , hated the Levi pick, hated the Brady pick, hated the Sandy pick, hated the Boucher pick … it goes on and on…

Dorion should know he’s doing a good job when more people disagree with him. He should worry about any move fans, the hive mind, general consensus or what we like such as Ryan, White, and hopefully not Chabot or Brady.
 

SlapJack

Scum bag Sens
Dec 6, 2010
1,983
1,260
you are right. The better way is a metric that shows the Sens have drafted above average since the early 2000's. So the last 4 years and the 08-17 up/down period was what?

The roughly 10 players that have left. How many cups in their cupboards. So we have just been stocking the rest of the league??? Who? How many awards/cups for ex Sens drafted in the 2000's?

-Other than Karlsson, no nominee for a major award...forget an actual win. 5 major awards, 3 nominees per. So 15 per year. Times now roughly 20 years, so 300 spots. Erik is the only one, with 3 nominations. My apologies if someone snuck in a nominee that I may have forgotten.
-Other than the traditional, "throw in a guy" from each team. How many all-stars? (Brady in 2020...Not a Marketing move? considering the game was in STL). And the ballot stuffing when the game was here in 2012????
-Other than minor periods, no goalie that they drafted.
-Karlsson and a so-so Ceci is the only Dman of substance in the 2000's (00-14). 15 years, 2 dmen. One so-so.
-Virtually no rookie of the year candidate since Alfredson
-no Senator draft in the 2000's has remotely competed for an Art Ross
-no Senator draft in the 2000's has remotely competed for a Richard
-no first or second all-star other than Karlsson and Alfredson (drafted in teh 1990's)
-One HOF, Hossa, drafted in the 1990's. Only Karlsson drafted since will be considered. So now 15 years of 2000's drafting (00-14), no one will remotely be considered for an HOF spot other than EK. 4 players a year into the HOF. So from roughly 2000-2020. 80 spots, one Sen.

Please tell me what a poor draft looks like? And then tell me what you consider Pittsburgh's, Boston, LA, Chicago, Tampa? Do this exercise for them and see those numbers jump (HOF numbers for the 2000's are still 2-3 years away).

so a draft that has yielded minor talent and has only produced 6 of the 11 essential players needed. You guys are 100% right. The draft has been dynamite. (00-14 only)

Each and every one of your points is myopic home team whining at best. Just the Art Ross example alone is ludicrous. Edmonton must be one of the best drafting teams in the league by a MILE since they've captured 4 out of the last 5 trophies there. They're absolute shit at it.

Hell, how many Art Ross trophies have been won over the last 40 years by Pittsburgh and Edmonton players? Most of them? It's not an indication of stellar drafting, they simply lucked into being in the right place at the right time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deku

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->