Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
The Flames already technically qualify as “one of those teams” thanks to Huberdeau. That’s pretty good evidence the condition doesn’t actually mean anything.
A poster earlier argued that finding guys like Wolf or Pastrnak in later rounds wasn’t a viable strategy. But “picking top 5” isn’t a viable strategy either, it’s not even a strategy. It’s a result of poor play and a lot of luck after the season ends. Not a strategy.
The strategy is focusing on scouting and development. Having high picks makes it easier to maximize the success of that strategy because that’s where it’s harder to miss, but picking high isn’t a strategy itself.
People focus way too much on successful results and really simple metrics and try to suggest that should be the strategy, but it’s the same as saying the strategy should be to “win the Stanley Cup.” It’s great that there are top 5 picks on every team that wins, but what does that actually mean? Probably not what people think, as Washington, Florida, and Vegas are very, very different teams than Pittsburgh or Chicago.
|
It’s not a strategy.
And if it were a strategy, how many do you need? Just one? Two? Three? Further, I’d say that there are equally as important players, or even more so, on most cup winning team tgat were drafted outside of the top 5 picks.