Babchuk's no-trade clause is limited to 10 teams he cannot be traded to.
__________________ "I think the eye test is still good, but analytics can sure give you confirmation: what you see...is that what you really believe?" Scotty Bowman, 0 NHL games played
Look for situations on hockeydb where teams have a ton of picks in any particular year - almost invariably, little comes of it.
An example from memory is Chicago the year they drafted Toews - I think they had 6 picks in the top 100 and other than Toews (who was a slam dunk lottery pick) they got nothing else out of it. If you look, you will find that happens surpsisingly often.
What I mean by spreading the scouting staff thin is that they will follow certain players that tehy are interested in. They can only handle so many. And with a whole bunch of extra picks, teams will end up making selections without having done their due diligence.
Keep in mind, I am not talking about 1 or 2 extra picks, I am talking about multiple extra picks. IT can become a waste.
In that mess of what I would consider non-sense, you're overlooking the fact that a lot of the times the extra draft picks go into moving up in the draft.
And even ignoring that, a team with 8 picks aren't looking at 8 players they think may go around that time. If they did and another team grabbed that player, their ####ed. And I know that's not entirely what you're saying but it's close enough to it. Teams aren't spread thin with extra draft picks.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
In that mess of what I would consider non-sense, you're overlooking the fact that a lot of the times the extra draft picks go into moving up in the draft.
And even ignoring that, a team with 8 picks aren't looking at 8 players they think may go around that time. If they did and another team grabbed that player, their ####ed. And I know that's not entirely what you're saying but it's close enough to it. Teams aren't spread thin with extra draft picks.
No - look at the the history, there are lots of examples of teams loading up on picks and the resulting returns are usually less than spectacular.
Obviously teams look at more than just 7 or 8 players. Only an idiot would assume that they only look at the minimum number that they are drafting. However, there are limits to how many players that a team can do its due diligence on. The more picks you have, the more leg work you need to do to be properly prepared - it's pretty straight-forward. And the results (purely anecdotal, I readily admit) seem to back that up.
Pitt's is getting bigger and tougher now Boston has to get in the action.
Philly needs a goalie just to get into the P/O Kipper could bring in that Stud C-man in a 1 for 1 deal. Rangers need some help plz call Feaster we are having a massive sale this week lol.
What I mean by spreading the scouting staff thin is that they will follow certain players that tehy are interested in. They can only handle so many. And with a whole bunch of extra picks, teams will end up making selections without having done their due diligence.
Completely disagree. Their job is to follow all the draft eligible players. They focus in on the players they are interested in partway through the year. They make a list. This whole process is the same whether they have 12 picks or 6 picks. Obviously if they project to have a high first rounder they may send more scouts to watch the Jones/MacKinnon/Drouin/etc kids play in the playoffs.
Every year they make a list with 100, maybe more players. Having more picks merely allows them to select more of these players. Their job is to have done their due diligence on all the players on their list.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
No - look at the the history, there are lots of examples of teams loading up on picks and the resulting returns are usually less than spectacular.
Obviously teams look at more than just 7 or 8 players. Only an idiot would assume that they only look at the minimum number that they are drafting. However, there are limits to how many players that a team can do its due diligence on. The more picks you have, the more leg work you need to do to be properly prepared - it's pretty straight-forward. And the results (purely anecdotal, I readily admit) seem to back that up.
Then back it up with some examples.
Nashville had a ton of picks in 2003. Maybe even the most picks in the last decade, not sure. While a lot of teams built cores on that draft because it was so special, the way I see it if Nashville doesn't have 3 2nd round picks they don't grab Weber. They did their diligence with Glazachev and Klein, luckily they were able to grab Weber with their 4th pick in the top 50.
Completely disagree. Their job is to follow all the draft eligible players. They focus in on the players they are interested in partway through the year. They make a list. This whole process is the same whether they have 12 picks or 6 picks. Obviously if they project to have a high first rounder they may send more scouts to watch the Jones/MacKinnon/Drouin/etc kids play in the playoffs.
Every year they make a list with 100, maybe more players. Having more picks merely allows them to select more of these players. Their job is to have done their due diligence on all the players on their list.
Completely disagree. Their job is to follow all the draft eligible players. They focus in on the players they are interested in partway through the year. They make a list. This whole process is the same whether they have 12 picks or 6 picks. Obviously if they project to have a high first rounder they may send more scouts to watch the Jones/MacKinnon/Drouin/etc kids play in the playoffs.
Every year they make a list with 100, maybe more players. Having more picks merely allows them to select more of these players. Their job is to have done their due diligence on all the players on their list.
It's like an active manager with stock-picking. The more stocks you add to your 'favorites' list, the more your performance is likely to mimic the index
However, there are limits to how many players that a team can do its due diligence on. The more picks you have, the more leg work you need to do to be properly prepared - it's pretty straight-forward. And the results (purely anecdotal, I readily admit) seem to back that up.
That just isn't how it works. Their job is to follow all draft eligible players. By mid season they've identified players they like and players they don't but this list of players they like is far greater than you are suggesting. Probably around 100.
They don't need to do more leg-work for more picks, they are doing their job the same way each year.
What are you basing this one? I've read as many books, articles and interviews that I could get my hand on over the years. Based on what I've read and seen you are not correct in this case.
Your anecdotal evidence is neither here nor there IMO. We can easily find some years that a team had a ton of picks and ended up with a lot of good players.
Nashville had a ton of picks in 2003. Maybe even the most picks in the last decade, not sure. While a lot of teams built cores on that draft because it was so special, the way I see it if Nashville doesn't have 3 2nd round picks they don't grab Weber. They did their diligence with Glazachev and Klein, luckily they were able to grab Weber with their 4th pick in the top 50.
I couldn't care less if you disagree. I have looked through the data several times and that is a trend that I see. If you want to look and see what your analysis finds, go ahead.
As for 2003, any team that had a lot of picks that year would likely do well. But that is cherry-picking. Look at it year by year. There is usually a team pretty much every year that has several extra picks. It usually reults in very little for them.
I guess it results in very little if you're expecting a team to draft top pairing or top line players with those picks.
Tell that to the flames though who've drafted their only notable players in the last 5 - 10 years with multi-picks per round in the 3rd, say, when Prust was drafted or chicago in the 4th when they drafted Hjalmerson.
We've argued this before so I'm going to step out, but your logic isn't clear the the proof is in the pudding. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary is meaningless.
Bruce Garrioch@SunGarrioch2m
The Carolina Hurricanes made a hard pitch for the D Douglas Murray but were outbid by Pittsburgh's Ray Shero. #Tradetracker
Give em Sarich!
Give'em Babchuk back too please.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
I guess it results in very little if you're expecting a team to draft top pairing or top line players with those picks.
Tell that to the flames though who've drafted their only notable players in the last 5 - 10 years with multi-picks per round in the 3rd, say, when Prust was drafted or chicago in the 4th when they drafted Hjalmerson.
We've argued this before so I'm going to step out, but your logic isn't clear the the proof is in the pudding. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary is meaningless.
Yes, we agree that more picks is better in the long run. But no, I never said anything about top pairing and top line picks.
And I understand that people are reading my posts from the initial perspective that more picks has to be better. Again, that is obviously true.
But I think it is better to have a couple extra picks each year, as opposed to having a bunch of extra picks in one year. That is all.
Also, too many picks in one year can also cause problems with respect to contract limits etc (if you are fortunate enough to have a bunch of successful picks.
I couldn't care less if you disagree. I have looked through the data several times and that is a trend that I see. If you want to look and see what your analysis finds, go ahead.
As for 2003, any team that had a lot of picks that year would likely do well. But that is cherry-picking. Look at it year by year. There is usually a team pretty much every year that has several extra picks. It usually reults in very little for them.
The key is multiple picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, that is how the Bruins were successful.
2003:
Two second rounders: Bergeron and Marjamaki
2004:
Two second rounders: Krejci and Karsums
2006:
Two Second Rounders: Alexandrov and Lucic
Third Rounder: Marchand
2010:
Two Second Rounders: Knight and Spooner (Two names that might help them get Iginla.)
If you have lots of picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds you are more likely to get a sleeper.
Agree though that they key is 2 or 3 extra picks per year, loading up all in on year means you are drafting players you necessarily don't have ranked as high.
Last edited by SuperMatt18; 03-25-2013 at 02:41 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to SuperMatt18 For This Useful Post:
I'd be happy just to clear out Babchuk's contract, open up a contract spot, and open up a spot for Breen/etc next year... don't care what comes back.
You also have to consider that Ramage and Wotherspoon will probably be pretty close to NHL ready too and could push for a 6/7th spot at camp. Don't forget that Carson has had a solid year in Abbotsford after years of injury problems.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
Nashville with four picks in the top 50 of the 2003 draft springs to mind. They skipped on Shea Weber three times before finally picking him with their 4th pick. Konstantin Glazachev was picked before both Weber and Klien in the 2nd but they loaded up and it paid off.
You can't do stuff like this every year but the Flames should be doing it for this year and next.
