There are definitely some tradeoffs to be debated on quality (higher picks) vs. quantity (number of picks). However, there is something to be said for having too much quantity in any one draft.
Every team right now starts out with a pick in each round of each draft, so 7 in total. If you hold onto all your picks and you end up with 2 NHL regulars out of those 7 picks, you're laughing. Some rebuilding teams have accumulated as many as 12-14 picks in a draft and have either used them all or packaged some of them to trade up in draft position.
-------------------------
Consider the 2008 draft for the New York Islanders.
At that time in their rebuild (which had just started), and given the depth of the draft class, they were looking for quantity over quality to replenish their abysmal prospect pool. They went in with some extra picks from deals made at the deadline, and then traded down twice in the first round (from 5th to 7th, then again to 9th, where they drafted Josh Bailey), acquiring later picks in that draft as well as the next draft (2009).
They selected 13 times in 2008 in total. The strategy of collecting lottery tickets has absolutely paid off. 4 of those picks are NHL regulars (Josh Bailey, Travis Hamonic, David Ullstrom, Matt Martin); 3 others remain in their system with a good chance of cracking the NHL lineup within the next year or so (2 of those 3 have high upside, Kevin Poulin and Matt Donovan); they retain rights on one more who plays in Europe and may come over (Kirill Petrov); and finally one other pick turned out to be an NHL regular with another club (Jared Spurgeon).
Now, on the other side of the coin is that in the process of attaining all these picks, they traded down to nine from five to pick Josh Bailey. Although an NHL regular, he's certainly not a star in the league or could really even be considered a core member of the team. Hamonic in the second round isn't a superstar either, but is a bit of a different story. However, yet another angle is that picking Bailey at 9 doesn't seem so bad when you consider that five through eight went Luke Schenn, Filatov, Colin Wilson, Mikkel Boedker; while Cody Hodgson and Kyle Beach when ten and eleven.
In contrast, the same Islanders went into the 2009 draft with a number of picks also (I think it was 11 or 12, but can't remember). They held the first overall plus another first (26th). They took a different approach and traded up a couple times (burning some of the extra picks in the process, mostly 2nd-4th rounders, 5 in total) to land at 12th overall. They of course kept the #1 and drafted John Tavares. The 12th overall that they did so much wheeling and dealing to attain was used to pick Calvin de Haan who may become a 2nd or 3rd pairing defenseman if he can manage to get and stay healthy, which is in serious doubt right now. A couple of their later-round selections may pan out or already have (goalie Anders Nilsson, NHL regular Casey Cizikas and recently-turned-pro-from-NCAA Anders Lee).
Two different approaches (quality vs. quantity) in two different drafts that, coupled with some luck (especially in the later rounds of 2008) have given the franchise a large share of the players that are making up the NHL (playoff-bound) team on the ice today and over the next few years.
-------------------------
Not sure how much of the above is directly transferable to the case of the Flames at the 2013 draft. First of all, I don't think the 2013 draft class is comparable to the 2008 or 2009 classes. Just an interesting case study in quantity vs. quality picks.
As for the suggestion above of attaining potentially 4 or 5 first round picks, I'm not so sure that's the best idea. Presuming that you would certainly want all of those picks to become a part of your system for their entry-level deals, that gives you potentially 4 or 5 entry-level contracts expiring in the same year or within a year of each other, without any one of them being a superstar-level player (i.e. top 5 pick). Not quite the same situation as the Oilers, but similar. I think a big part of building a team is staggering the big contracts and having a diversity in age groups. You can't just go all in one year and construct a World Juniors team. Having 3 first rounders is certainly a good thing. Doing a combination of trade-downs to end up with 4 or 5 might get to be too many all in the same draft. Could just as easily pay off big time though.
Just some thoughts.
|