Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
First of all, let me say that I agree with this.
But I would also like to point out that in practice, recent history is spotty at best.
As an example, look at Chicago (as they are a team that most would agree have rebuilt successfully):
2006: 6 picks in the top 100, only Toews, a lottery pick, to show for it
2007: 5 picks int eh top 100, only Kane #1 overall to show for it
2010: 6 picks in the top 100, nothing of consequence to show for it
2011: 6 picks in the top 100, too early to tell but Saad, and we'll see how McNeil and Danault turn out
I have rummaged through the draft history looking for examples of teams loading up picks and how it turned out, and it is actually pretty shocking how poorly it usually turns out.
Again, not saying I am against it, because I am not - I want the Flames to move some vets this year and load up. Just saying.
Just goes to show that, before you start loading up draft picks, you need to ahve your scouting and development systems where they need to be.
|
Look at the meat of the roster, aside from Kane and Toews:
Hjalmersson drafted in the fourth round, 1 of 3 fourth round picks they had that draft.
The year they drafted Barker in the first, they had 2 seconds, and drafted Bolland and Bickell. That same draft, they drafted Troy Brouwer with their second of three 7th round picks. The year before that they drafted Seabrook with their first, Corey Crawford with one of their two 2nd rounders.
Multiple second rounders is the difference between getting Tim Ramholt and getting Tim Ramholt and maybe Shea Weber, Corey Crawford, or Matt Carle. Sure, the flames could've end up with Ramholt and another dud, but it's the potential for more. Having 2 picks is better odds than 1, and if the flames have shown anything in their last 25 years, it's that they need better drafting odds.