Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
I'm saying that there is a greater, unnecessary risk in these "types" of draft strategies. That doesn't mean that the player is guaranteed to hit or miss. That's not my point at all.
|
I think you show a misunderstanding of how the draft works when you call that a type of strategy. You know what the strategy is in the draft? Find some NHLers. You know how they do that? They make a list of the kids of they like best. You know how they execute the draft? They take the kids higher on their list that are left. That's pretty much every team's strategy. Their strategy is identical but their lists are completely different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
But when the, for a lack of a better term, standard or "consensus" picks in that range are fantastically rated prospects who are widely considered by professional scouts to be the better prospect, that the alternative unnecessary risk.
|
Consensus in an illusion created by fans who read a lot of scouting publications. The reality is there is no consensus and that teams have completely different lists. Choosing the prospects your scouts like best is not risky, its the only alternate unless you want to fire them all or overrule them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
What the Bruins did during the 2015 draft, ignoring the Hamilton trade, is one of the most unnecessary risks I have ever seen in an entry draft. Their draft looked bad the day after, and it looks even worse today. I don't need to be a professional scout to be able to say that.
|
They took the players they liked best. The took the players highest on their list. Time will tell whether their scouts were wrong or not. There was nothing riskier in their approach than another team's approach. You just don't like their picks because the independent scouting services didn't like their picks as much as they did.