Worth selecting a goalie in the 1st round??

Discussion in 'NHL Draft - Prospects' started by Boondock Saint, Apr 12, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. Boondock Saint

    Boondock Saint Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I posted an analysis on the Oilers board for all those thinking of taking a goalie in the first round of this draft to solve your present goaltending woes.

    Of the 17 goalies taken in the first rounds of '94-'99, 5 are starters, and three are back-ups. At least three more are still showing promise however.

    However, only 1 of the five starters is starting for the team that actually drafted him, and only three others could still start for the team that drafted them.


    http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=70069


    Still worth selecting a goalie in the first round??

    Thoughts??
     
  2. Hockeycrazed07

    Hockeycrazed07 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Disturber of Feces.
    Location:
    Buena Vista, VA
    Home Page:
    I'm willing to bet similar numbers are in forwards or D. How many of those drafted are top-line players/top-2 D, which is similar to being a starter? How many are 2nd line/top-4? How many didn't make it? If you're going to do an analysis, do a complete one so we get the full picture, and not just a part of the picture.

    ~Crazed.
     
  3. ohlund2.2

    ohlund2.2 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver

    Wow, you know how much work he must've put into this?

    Doing one with forwards or D would take forever.
     
  4. Boondock Saint

    Boondock Saint Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ya, good call, Crazed.....

    I should've done a more complete analysis....

    For instance, I could have included the effect of drafting a goalie in the first round on the crime rate in that city.... or whether or not it had any effect on how many people converted to hinduism in that year.... just to get a more complete picture that is....

    It's an analysis on the success of drafting a goalie in the first round....

    Since posting at HF is my full-time job, I'll spend all day tomorrow making sure you get the info you need......
     
  5. Hockeycrazed07

    Hockeycrazed07 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Disturber of Feces.
    Location:
    Buena Vista, VA
    Home Page:
    So basically, what you're saying is that you're willing to do an analysis of goaltenders taken over multiple drafts (as I read your post on the Oilers board), but not forwards or D in the 1st round of any one draft?

    I'm willing to bet the worst position statistically is defensemen. How many top-2's are taken in the 1st round? Having not done my own analysis, though, I'm not about to post as if it's fact. It's merely supposition on my part. If I did my own analysis, would anyone agree with me that D shouldn't be drafted in the 1st?

    Give me a break!
    ~Crazed.
     
  6. Boondock Saint

    Boondock Saint Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I never said that goaltenders shouldn't be taken in the first round of the draft.

    In fact, I hope the Oilers do take a goaltender in the first round, as they aren't very deep at the goaltending position.

    Some posters on the Oilers have JDD slated as the starter in Edmonton by 2006, so I analyzed where past goaltenders picked in the first round are in their careers four years after being drafted. And it showed that JDD isn't likely to be starting in Edmonton in 2006. This was the clearly stated purpose behind my post.

    But, I guess I once again underestimated the idiocy of certain posters who can't even read a longer post and comprehend it's meaning.

    WHERE DID I SAY YOU SHOULDN'T DRAFT A GOALIE IN THE FIRST ROUND???

    My post claimed that a goalie drafted in the first round isn't likely to be an NHL starter four years later.....

    Any other words you want to put in my mouth now that I'm still here???
     
  7. DaveyCrockett

    DaveyCrockett Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:
    I think the point Boondack is trying to make is that goaltenders take a very long time to develop. You would probably find that an equal proportion of fowards/defensemen taken in the first round become decent players. However, goalies take around 6+ years to develop into starters. The question is whether you get value out of the first round pick. Think about it, most teams who traded their goalies got less value than a first round pick and still had to pay all the salary and extra development costs of the goalie up until that point. There are exceptions to this, but in general, due to a long development time, drafting a goalie in the first round is a poor decision value-wise.
     
  8. Lowetide

    Lowetide Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    13,281
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    161
    It's extremely pertinent for a team like Edmonton, because their goalie depth is so poor. They may have to deal for a goalie before Deslauriers is ready, let alone someone like Schwarz.

    Fine job, Boondock, as always.
     
  9. ZombieMatt

    ZombieMatt Registered User

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    5,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was thinking about this today, and I will outright say that if I were an NHL GM I would not draft a goaltender in the first round.

    The numbers are not very convincing when they stand alone, and furthermore, goaltenders take longer to mature. I would toss a couple 3-7th rounders at goalies, and if that fails, I'd sign or trade for one.
     
  10. Cerebral

    Cerebral Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2003
    Messages:
    22,665
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Teacher
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta
    Players at certain positions often take a lot longer to mature and grow into their eventual role in the NHL than others. I'm thinking that it takes stud d-men, goaltenders and power forwards a lot longer to become dominant NHL players than any other position/type of player. The reason why a lot of these players are not with the teams that originally drafted them is because GM's give up on them prematurely. Bertuzzi, Giguere, Jovanovski, Pronger and Guerin are all examples of players who were essentially given up on too early. I don't think GM's should avoid drafting goaltenders (or power forwards for that matter) in the first round - I just think they need to be prepared to give those players time to adjust and grow into the players they'll eventually be.
     
  11. DaveyCrockett

    DaveyCrockett Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:
    It makes the most sense to draft NCAA and Euro goalies and let them develop in that system. The reason is that most organizations only have one prime development spot, starter/split-starter on their AHL affiliate. This is why teams often give up or trade their goalie prospects, there is really only room for one top-level prospect and if a goalie has a bad season, its is hard to be patient with him for this very reason. Goalies in the NCAA have 4 seasons(used to be 3 due to opt-in rule) after they are drafted to develop. They don't take up a spot on an AHL affiliate. CHL players usually need to make the jump to the AHL 2-3 seasons after their draft year and this causes teams to be less patient with them. Euro goalies can stay in their system for an even longer period than NCAA goalies but due to the different style of play and ice surface size, they usually need to come over 4 years after they are drafted. However, goalies drafted in the top-5 are usually ready for NHL duty in 3-4 years (barring injury) so it really doesn't matter what system they come from since they don't take up the AHL starting job for more than a season or two. In short, taking CHL goalies who aren't considered franchise guys, is a bad idea as there isn't sufficient time or space for them to develop and give full value for the 1st round pick. NCAA goalies are the best, Euro goalies are ok, CHL goalies are bad value.
     
  12. Jackman5

    Jackman5 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    You want research, here you go! I went back to 1990-93 & these are all the D selected in the first two rounds. More than ten years later, I think it is safe to pass judgement on who made the cut.
    1990:#7 Sydor,8 Derian Hatcher,9 Slaney,10 Berehowsky,13 Michael Stewart,16 Dykhuis,23 Slegr,24 David Harlock,26 Nicolas Perreault,30 Rod Pasma,35 Mike Muller,37 Ivan Droppa,41 Etienne Belzile,42 Terran Sandwith.
    6 out of 14, and I would consider Sydor and Hatcher the only top two men on the list.
    1991: 3 Niedermayer,4 Lachance,5 Aaron Ward,7 Matvichuk,13 Phillipe Boucher,17Brent Bilodeau, 25 Eric Lavigne, 27 Staios,29 Cullimore,30 Ozolinsh,31 Martin Hamrlik,32 Pushor,37 Darcy Werenka,41 Francois Groleau
    9 out of 14, Niedermayer,Ozolinsh definite top 2, Boucher took longer to bloom but could also be considered a top 2 guy now.
    1992: 1 Roman Hamrlik,3 Rathje,5 Kasparaitis,11 David Cooper,14 Gonchar,17 Sergei Bautin, 18 Jason Smith,20 David Wilkie,26 Drew Bannister,27 Boris Mironov,29 Toumas Gronman,30 Chris O'Sullivan,39 Justin Hocking, 43 Marc Hussey,48 Mattias Norstrom.
    7 out of 15, Gonchar is heads above the rest, but Rathje,Hamrlik, and Mironov all are or have been top 2 guys.
    1993:2 Pronger,11 Witt,12 Kenny Jonsson,16 Nick Stajduhar,20Mike Wilson,22 Anders Eriksson,26 Stefan Bergqvist,27 Bicanek,30 Nikolai Tsulygin,34 Lee Sorochan,36 Niinimaa, 38 Denis Tsygurov,40 McCabe,44 Jamie Allison,45 Vlastimil Kroupa, 47 Rory Fitzpatrick,48 Jonathan Coleman,
    6 out of 17, Pronger and McCabe the only top 2 guys, although Niinimaa deserves consideration.
    So 28 out of 60 panned out, about 50% and 12 (?) of the 60 became top 2 guys-20%.
    Who gave up on Pronger? Hartford got Shanahan! And that deal would have never happened if Brendan hadn't been banging Janney's wife.
     
  13. Boondock Saint

    Boondock Saint Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, I'll take the first rounders out of this:

    '90 - :7 Daryl Sydor,8 Derian Hatcher,9 John Slaney,10 Drake Berehowsky,13 Michael Stewart,16 Dykhuis

    4 years after being drafted: Sydor, Hatcher, Berehowsky, Slaney all played a significant number of games with the team that drafted them, Dykhuis played with a different team

    '91 - :3 Niedermayer,4 Lachance,5 Aaron Ward,7 Matvichuk,13 Phillipe Boucher,17Brent Bilodeau

    4 years later: Niedermayer, Lachance, Matvichuk all were full-time with the team that drafted them, Boucher was full-time in LA, Ward and Bilodeau were in the minors although Ward has become a regular player

    '92 - :1 Roman Hamrlik,3 Rathje,5 Kasparaitis,11 David Cooper,14 Gonchar,17 Sergei Bautin, 18 Jason Smith,20 David Wilkie

    4 years later: Hamrlik, Rathje, Kasparitis, Gonchar, Smith, Wilkie were all full-time with the team that drafted them, although Smith and Kaspar were traded later that year.

    '93 - :2 Pronger,11 Witt,12 Kenny Jonsson,16 Nick Stajduhar,20Mike Wilson,22 Anders Eriksson,26 Stefan Bergqvist

    4 years later: Witt, Jonsson, Eriksson were all full-time with the team that drafted them. Pronger and Wilson were full-timers elsewhere.

    In total:

    Out of 17 goalies taken in the first round, only one was starting four years later (Luongo). 5 others spent the year in a back-up role. (Storr, Cloutier, Biron, Boucher, Denis)

    Out of 28 d-men, 20 were full-time players four years later.

    Goalies on NHL rosters four years later: 6/17 = 35%

    D-men on NHL rosters four years later: 20/28 = 71%


    Thanks to Jackman5 for compiling that list for me.
     
  14. zeppelin97

    zeppelin97 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Messages:
    756
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    destroying things
    Home Page:
    I think you should definately cutoff up until 95 draft, because it does skew the analysis.

    Heres the 1st round picks from 90-96 drafts (no goalies selected in 1st round in 92 or 93)
    trevor kidd -backup
    brodeur -starter

    Jocelyn Thibault -starter

    jamie storr - sucks
    Eric Fichaud - ???
    Dan Cloutier - starter
    Evgeni Ryabchikov - who?

    Jean-Sebastien Giguere - starter
    Martin Biron -starter
    Brian Boucher -backup
    Marc Denis -starter

    craig hiller - ?

    6 starters, 6 backups (or out of league). Not bad....If we combine the 90-99 drafts, it looks worse of course, but as stated we still need to see how ahonen, nornen, ouellett, finley, and a few others pan out.
     
  15. Blue Bullet

    Blue Bullet Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Bon Accord, AB
    Home Page:
    One thing nobody seems to mention is that their are only two positions for goalie on an NHL team. If a forward or d-man do not live up to their potential they can still make the NHL at bottom pairing d-man or 4th line players. However with goalies when this happen they end up in the AHL.

    Also for d-men to make their team full time in 4 yrs, that can mean they are only playing 10-15 minutes a night learning the position. You sort of can't do that with goalies. Could you imagine a goalie playing one periood a night for development. Therefore, the only way to devlop them is to have they play a lot of minutes in the minors until their ready for the backup role and build them up for the starter position.

    Maybe when people are doing statisitical analyais they should take number of available positions into play. Therefore not getting a starting goalie from the middle of the 1st round and saying that was a bad pick is like selecting a forward at the same pick who turns into a checking line center and saying that was a bad pick because he doesn't get 60 points a season. Goalies just don't have any room for failure.
     
  16. Hockeycrazed07

    Hockeycrazed07 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Disturber of Feces.
    Location:
    Buena Vista, VA
    Home Page:
    Great, now how many of those D were top-2, which equates to #1 keepers? In 1990, only two would even be considered (Hatcher and Sydor). That's two out of 7. In '91, I'd say only Niedermayer. That's 1 out of 6. Is this worth continuing?

    Just because there are fewer goaltending positions on the ice, don't equate the number of starting keepers to game-breaking defensemen. 1 out of 6 is only 17%. If half of the keepers you listed were starters (and I'm too lazy to check, but I would assume that they are), then the numbers are similar and I'm wrong.

    ~Crazed.
     
  17. stardog

    stardog Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    5,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Dude you are being way to hard on him. As I read it, his point was NOT to say that a goalie SHOULDNT be taken in the first round, but to question if a certain team would use thier pick on a goalie. It is a valid question and I applaud his work on it.
     
  18. stardog

    stardog Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    5,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    So if you were a GM and had the opportunity you wouldnt draft one of Lehtonen or Fluery? I understand your point as you can usually trade for a ecent goalie or sign one, but franchise types do not come along every day, and when they do, they are held on to usually.

    I just think it would be awful foolish to pass on a guy like Maffy or Lehtonen if given the chance IMO.
     
  19. DaveyCrockett

    DaveyCrockett Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:
    I think its more of a consensus that picking a goalie who has franchise written all over him is equal to any other top-5 draft pick regardless of position. Those guys aren't the issue. The point is that it isn't worth taking goalies who aren't projected to go top-5 and be franchise guys. The reasoning is, that all goalies aside from a select few franchise guys, take 6+ years to develop so teams rarely see any sizeable return on their investment of a first round pick and the costs of development. There is rarely room in an organization to develop a goalie for 6+ years.
     
  20. Vlad The Impaler

    Vlad The Impaler Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    12,096
    Likes Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Montreal
    No.

    And selecting them top 10-15 is an even bigger mistake.

    Drafting them top 4-5 is just being plain stupid.

    Of course, with all of the above, exceptions can be made depending on the overall quality of the skaters available. There are years where really, you might as well take a goalie in the first round but they'd be exceptions.
     
  21. Tadite

    Tadite Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,956
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    129
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    Home Page:

    I have to agree. I think that a honest to god top level goalie is so increadibly rare and so hard to project that I would not take the risk for a 1st round pick. I think its better to just trade for a guy.

    Kari is the only goalie in 4 years that I would have drafted in the first round..... including Fluery.
     
  22. DaveyCrockett

    DaveyCrockett Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:
     
  23. a89mogilny89

    a89mogilny89 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student, Webmaster
    Location:
    Section 114, Row 15
    Home Page:
    My sentiments exactly. :teach:
     
  24. stardog

    stardog Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    5,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    So you are telling me if you had a pick somewhere in the 25-30 realm you would NOT have taken Maffy?
    I think that would be an incredibly foolish mistake. I honestly don't have any idea why you WOULDNT take Maffy ANYWHERE in the first round. And I highly doubt that you will find a GM or expert that would agree with that.

    Basing it on position is one thing, but it would be a foolish move to have this set rule and not deviate from it when a goalie of Maffy's caliber is available. Very foolish.

    How about Dipietro? Would you pass on him with a later first round pick simply because you dont think a goalie is worthy of a first rounder?

    Am I reading this right? Are you saying that a goalie (whomever he may be) is NOT worth a first round pick based solely on his position?
    Or are you saying that the goalies in question (MAF Rick D) themselves aren't worthy of a first round selection.
    Because then it becomes an issue of talent or upside, and you are saying that thier talent and upside isn't first round material.

    Or possibly you may think that the other 30 players drafted in the first round will be better at thier position than the goalie in question is at his.

    If you were to do the 04 draft and the 00' draft over again, where would you place the two of them in terms of comparative talent (to the other players drafted in round 1) and draft position?

    As far as trading for the guy, what do you think it would cost to trade for Brodeur or Luongo? A helluva lot more than a first rounder, that much I can guarantee. I can almost guarantee that neither of thier teams will trade them.
    That is the potential of these two guys (meaning MAF and Rick D have Broduer/Luongo type potential).
    Will they achieve it? Who really knows, but the risk for these rare types would be well worth the reward IMO.

    And while you never can tell who is going to be a bust or success, MAF and D both seem to be pretty safe bets. At the very LEAST, just as safe as the other guys chosen in the first round, which is why you definatley take him when you can.
    There ARE NO guarantees that they will become a success, but there arent any either for the other players drafted, and when drafting, since there are NO guarantees, you draft whom you feel the best player is. If he works out then GREAT. If not then who is to say the other guy you may have drafted willl as well?

    With thier upside, they were both deserving of a lofty draft status. And since the draft is a crapshoot anyways....well, you get my point.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2004
  25. stardog

    stardog Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    5,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Such as Lehtonens draft year where there was a big drop after the top four.

    Again though, drafting a goalie who has the potential of Maffy in the first round is a mistake how? Or we can use Luongo, Lehtonen or Dipietro as well (for the obvious reasons-drafted so high).
    Were thier respective teams stupid to take them so high?

    I totally see your point when it comes to a guy like Krahn, Finley or Leclaire, (although, with the exception of Krahn, I don't see a problem with the other 2 guys draft position) as at thier draft time, they werent projected to be future franchise, world beaters. They were projected to be very good starting netminders, which is easier for a team to aquire.

    But I don't see why it is a stretch (let alone stupid) to draft a guy who has such a high obtainable upside to where he COULD be a major franchise player.

    I also understand it is easier to come by a quality goalie than a quality Dman or forward. But, the kind of goalies that WERE drafted in the top 5 recently aren't your every day, run of the mill net minders.

    Personally, I see what the point everyone is trying to make is.
    I just think that you draft the best asset available. And certainly, a franchise/ hall of fame type goalie is a very valuable asset to have (and I am not saying any of these three ARE HOFers, but they all have the potential to be).

    And this isnt directed towards Vlad, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone wouldn't take either Maffy or Dipietro in the first round.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2004
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"