Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I think one of the problems with evaluating a draft in the future is that when you look at busts they are compared to the best player that wasnt chosen.
So if Jankowski is a bust it isnt fair to compare him to the best of TT, Ceci, Gergunsen oe Gaunce because we couldnt have had all of those players we would have only have had one. So if you wanted to draft TT and both he and Jankoski are busts but gergensen is an all star you shouldnt really be outraged because you would have also been upset if the flames drafted gergensen.
So if in the future you want to complain about this pick i think it is important to compare him to the player you would have picked and not to the field.
Also even if Jankowski is a bust that doesnt mean he was the wrong pick because we are looking at probabilities rather than absolutes. You might have to draft 10 Jankowskis to get a bonified number 1 center and 1 second line center but if you draft 10 Gaunces you might get 8 number 3 center and 1 number 2 center. So years down the road if Gauce is a number 2 center and Jankowski is a wash out does that mean he was the wrong choice? I dont think it does as what we were trying to draft was a number 1 center and that comes with higher risk.
So even if he doesnt pan out it might still have been the right choice as if you keep taking the high rish, high reward players eventually you should get rewarded.
|
Disagree. Calgary, like any team that "misses" had the chance to draft any of those kids. So even though they can only chose one of them, the choice is their choice, based on their scouting and internal discussion
If I am asked to choose between 10 stocks, and do my due diligence and research and my selection is a bust, I am not going to limit the comparison to choice #2 because their were 9 alternatives on the table. It was my matrix that put them a pecking order.
Unless the staff flat out says the choice two was player X, you can't really limit comparisons because you don't know who was on their board.