Tyrell Goulbourne

[Beef Invictus]

Acquiring someone for free to play on the 4th line is one thing. Using a draft pick to get someone exclusively for the 4th line? That's stupid. Especially in the 3rd round. It's not the 1990s. Large bodies clogging the neutral zone and doing nothing else well are cap inefficient. Drafting the best talent you can and trying to put together a decently talented roster top to bottom is cap efficient. Leaving talented players on the board to take a less talented dude who, if all the stars align, tops out at the 4th line? That's not efficient use of draft picks. Or of cap space, since it's likely that guy will have very limited skills...like Rinaldo.

 

[Appleyard]

To a certain extent that is what I am saying, but it is not a blanket statement. In the first round, I wouldn't draft a 4th liner. In the third round, the chances of a guy reaching the NHL at all, let alone regularly, let alone above the fourth line, is very minimal. If there is player A who has a shot to be a 2nd-3rd liner, but the scouts or GM or whomever feel that that is a long shot, and player B has a much better shot at becoming a solid 4th liner, then yes I would take the 4th liner. Again, if this was the first round no, I wouldn't take the "safer" 4th line pick. This isn't really a generalized "I'd do this in all situations" scenario, it is very much fact sensitive.

And also, that analogy is wholly off-point. (keeping in the Wal-Mart line) It would be more like saying I'm going to pick something up at Wal-Mart because there's a better chance they will have the item need, even if may not be as high quality as going to the farmer's market. If you go to the farmer's market and get what you need, it's probably higher quality, but they may not have the item you need because the selection is smaller or the item still may not taste as good as the one at Wal-Mart if they do have it.



Not sure I'd agree with that. That doesn't really make a lot of sense. You don't think there are players that are drafted with the intent of being on the 4th line? Only players that were supposed to be more are good fourth liners? What about guys that weren't drafted at all that play on the fourth line (or higher for that matter)?

The problem is that the chance of him becoming a 4th liner to begin with was no-where near 'safe'. Players who produce like he has done in juniors don't get to the NHL unless they are pretty much a goon and play sub 8.

0.5 PPG in juniors is what is needed in virtually every circumstance to become even a decent NHL 4th liner.

Just look at the list I posted... there are not many good NHL 4th liners missing off it... though I guarantee I have missed probably 5 decent ones!

 

[Beef Invictus]

The problem is that the chance of him becoming a 4th liner to begin with was no-where near 'safe'. Players who produce like he has done in juniors don't get to the NHL unless they are pretty much a goon and play sub 8.

0.5 PPG in juniors is what is needed in virtually every circumstance to become even a decent NHL 4th liner.

Just look at the list I posted... there are not many good NHL 4th liners missing off it... though I guarantee I have missed probably 5 decent ones!

He's retired, but Lappy had 1.47 ppg.

 

[RJ8812*]

Acquiring someone for free to play on the 4th line is one thing. Using a draft pick to get someone exclusively for the 4th line? That's stupid. Especially in the 3rd round. It's not the 1990s. Large bodies clogging the neutral zone and doing nothing else well are cap inefficient. Drafting the best talent you can and trying to put together a decently talented roster top to bottom is cap efficient. Leaving talented players on the board to take a less talented dude who, if all the stars align, tops out at the 4th line? That's not efficient use of draft picks. Or of cap space, since it's likely that guy will have very limited skills...like Rinaldo.

 

[GKJ]

To a certain extent that is what I am saying, but it is not a blanket statement. In the first round, I wouldn't draft a 4th liner. In the third round, the chances of a guy reaching the NHL at all, let alone regularly, let alone above the fourth line, is very minimal. If there is player A who has a shot to be a 2nd-3rd liner, but the scouts or GM or whomever feel that that is a long shot, and player B has a much better shot at becoming a solid 4th liner, then yes I would take the 4th liner. Again, if this was the first round no, I wouldn't take the "safer" 4th line pick. This isn't really a generalized "I'd do this in all situations" scenario, it is very much fact sensitive.

How many good organizations do you see drafting guys for the 4th line in the entire draft, let alone in the middle of the draft? Holmgren did that every year just about. Hextall, in his first draft, did not. Because it's stupid.

And some people are saying that you can find 4th liners for free. Yes, to a degree. The good teams in this league still have a little better standard than that. They have 4th liners who could be 3rd liners for other teams or even their own at times. This is why Chicago gets 3rd round picks for Brandon Bollig.

 

[Random Forest]

How many good organizations do you see drafting guys for the 4th line in the entire draft, let alone in the middle of the draft? Holmgren did that every year just about. Hextall, in his first draft, did not. Because it's stupid.

And some people are saying that you can find 4th liners for free. Yes, to a degree. The good teams in this league still have a little better standard than that. They have 4th liners who could be 3rd liners for other teams or even their own at times. This is why Chicago gets 3rd round picks for Brandon Bollig.

What did we get for Tye McGinn?

 

[GKJ]

What did we get for Tye McGinn?

3rd round pick, since we have a GM who is more intelligent than his predecessor.

That trade was also made because the Sharks said they were going to offer sheet him. Holmgren would have let him walk, like he did Carcillo.

 

[Embiid]

Acquiring someone for free to play on the 4th line is one thing. Using a draft pick to get someone exclusively for the 4th line? That's stupid. Especially in the 3rd round. It's not the 1990s. Large bodies clogging the neutral zone and doing nothing else well are cap inefficient. Drafting the best talent you can and trying to put together a decently talented roster top to bottom is cap efficient. Leaving talented players on the board to take a less talented dude who, if all the stars align, tops out at the 4th line? That's not efficient use of draft picks. Or of cap space, since it's likely that guy will have very limited skills...like Rinaldo.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

Whatever happened to "we need cheap players to fill in on the 4th line and bottom pair" when we were trading crappy prospects and late round picks? I'd rather pick a solid 4th liner that has a better chance at reaching his potential than a guy who might be a 2nd/3rd liner with a lower shot at reaching the potential. That is not necessarily so in all cases, but for the most part, I don't have any issue drafting for the fourth line (or the third pair) from the 3rd out. Someone did the percentages a while back, but third rounders have something like a 7% chance to be NHL regulars or something like that. Drafting for the top line or drafting for the 4th line is really irrelevant at that point. It's like complaining that you picked the wrong scratch-off ticket because one you had a chance to win $1,000,000 but the other one only had a chance to win $500,000. You have such a very little shot at winning, it doesn't really matter.

have you been reading this thread at all? guys like Rinaldo,Klotz and Ghoul can all be found in round 7 or even in a post draft signing. wasting draft picks on players like that isn't very smart.
As far as the percentages go I still would rather take a shot on a skill guy then a clown who brings little to nothing to the table.
Does Radel Fazleev have a good chance to make the NHL? maybe not but I want my GM taking a chance on a guy like that than a stupid goon.
So yes it matters.