Quote:
Originally Posted by codynw
It's not just McDavid in next years draft. The whole class is supposedly full of potential superstars. In terms of quality, it's being compared to the 2003 draft. That pick should be 100% off limits.
|
I see that this is a pretty strongly held idea on CP, I'm not really sure who's called it that, though I'm not saying you're wrong. If we were to agree that it is full of potential superstars, how many of the first rounders do you think it's realistic to assume will have fruitful NHL careers? I think you could make an optimistic argument that 20/30 of those picks turned into good NHL players if it's realistic to compare it to the 2003 draft:
List of first round picks in 2003
So if we just assume that this draft is definitely as good as 2003 and that we have a 66% chance of getting a great player, we also have to factor in if every single one of those 20/30 players is going to be BETTER than Ryan O'Reilly. We can stay optimistic though and say that 15/20 of those guys will have a better career and that puts us at having a 50% chance of drafting a player better than RoR, still decent for sure.
Even in that case, it's a 50/50 call on getting a better player (and not necessarily exceptionally better) or a worse player/bust. Or if we lose the pick, we get a very good player 100% of the time.
Essentially what I'm saying is do you think a 50% chance of a better player is worth the risk involved? This shouldn't really be a YES/NO situation, but you can definitely make strong arguments for each side.
Also remember that we are using pretty much the most optimistic scenario we can come up with here to get those numbers.