[GDT] NHL Draft Lottery

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

but the team would be a ####load more entertaining to watch if they weren't the 27th worst offensive group in the league.

It's an opportunity cost situation as well as a cap situation. If the Flames weren't paying Dougie 5.75 at the cost a 1st and 2 2nds, could they have instead drafted one of those guys and signed a capable defender? Could they have drafted one of those guys, stunk the joint out next season and then done the hamonic deal?

I'm not trying to re-live the picks here, but it's hard to argue the Flames are building through the draft when they have no picks in the first three rounds this year so far, their second year in 4 where they won't be drafting in the 1st round.

So in effect what you're saying is that the picks we did use to acquire a top first pairing and top 2nd pairing d-men should have been retained despite the fact you also insist this team can't draft worth a damn?

Makes sense.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yikes.

Particularly grim for the Stars, Rangers, Sens and Habs.

However, this is simply not a good way to look at it. In nearly every case, teams have only two picks with notable time. A couple have more. The four above basically have none. So 10-15 goal per season player drafted four years ago heavily skews this chart even though a kid drafted in 2017 will eventually become a 30 goal scorer. We're just not far enough out to have any real idea of these drafts, beyond perhaps 2014.

Which is why we need to go back farther to look at how the cream of the crop got to the top today. But that also puts us outside the start of our rebuild.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

but the team would be a ####load more entertaining to watch if they weren't the 27th worst offensive group in the league.

It's an opportunity cost situation as well as a cap situation. If the Flames weren't paying Dougie 5.75 at the cost a 1st and 2 2nds, could they have instead drafted one of those guys and signed a capable defender? Could they have drafted one of those guys, stunk the joint out next season and then done the hamonic deal?

I'm not trying to re-live the picks here, but it's hard to argue the Flames are building through the draft when they have no picks in the first three rounds this year so far, their second year in 4 where they won't be drafting in the 1st round.

It's tough.

IMO there is a big argument to be made about the Hamonic picks since you gave up a lot for a guy who is more of a #4 d-man when that was a position of strength within your prospects but that Hamilton deal is one you make every day.

Cap space isn't and wasn't an issue with this team, you had no real d-men in the pipeline, & you were getting a 22 year old d-man that was coming off a 42 point season who still has the potential to be a #1 d-man and already is a #2.

Sure if you assume worst case result and say Flames would have taken Barzal, Sprong, and whomever then it looks bad but the fact that you got a sure thing holds some extra value here too.

Plus the Flames still had two 2nd round picks and got the guys they wanted in the 2nd round anyways (Andersson & Kylington).

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Particularly grim for the Stars, Rangers, Sens and Habs.

However, this is simply not a good way to look at it. In nearly every case, teams have only two picks with notable time. A couple have more. The four above basically have none. So 10-15 goal per season player drafted four years ago heavily skews this chart even though a kid drafted in 2017 will eventually become a 30 goal scorer. We're just not far enough out to have any real idea of these drafts, beyond perhaps 2014.

Which is why we need to go back farther to look at how the cream of the crop got to the top today. But that also puts us outside the start of our rebuild.

Agreed. Even a 10 year charting doesn't take into account the bruins drafting Marchand, Bergeron, Lucic and Krejci prior to 2008.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

but the team would be a ####load more entertaining to watch if they weren't the 27th worst offensive group in the league.

Are they really the 27th worst offensive group in the league? That is to say, was this season's offensive struggles a clear indication of the potential for this group of players? It is basically the same group that was league average in scoring the season before, and in the top ten with basically the same group the season prior to that.

Do you really believe that the Flames scored anywhere near their potential this past season?

[Flash Walken]

Textcritic, please define what 'building through the draft' means.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Textcritic, please define what 'building through the draft' means.

Drafting players to fill core roles on the team that will eventually win a championship. The Flames have a good number of their own drafted players playing in their top-nine forward group, and they have a group of drafted defensemen that look like they will be ready to step into top-four roles over the course of the next three years.

The timeline for building and development is not linear, and it is not the same for every team. Like you point out above, the Bruins continue to get indispensable contributions from players they drafted more than a decade ago.

[Red]

Sounds like we have to adapt the model of the current 4 top teams. They have had great success at the draft table recently, so I guess that's the formula.
What about the top 4 from the previous 3 years?
These teams were in the top 4 since 2014/15 season. Are these very good drafting teams?

Washington
Pittsburgh
Chicago
Colorado
Dallas
StLouis
NYR
Montreal
Anaheim

I think good drafting is essential, but very short sided when we only look at a select few that hit the jackpot.

[Macindoc]

The narrative that teams can only successfully build through the draft is a false one. Although the draft is the easiest way to aquire a young player with a cheap contract, such a comparison is clearly flawed, because if a team traded a young player or prospect for another equally good prospect, the latter could no longer be included in this statistic.

To show how silly this collective stat is, if the Flames were to trade Bennett straight up for McDavid, they would be even worse off in the number of goals scored by Flames draft picks, while immensely improving the team.

Many things could contribute to a low number of goals scored by draft picks, including picking later in the draft, trading picks for good young prospects, keeping prospects in development longer, and picking defensemen and goaltenders rather than forwards with high picks. It's not just a measure of making poor draft selections or developing them poorly.

People point out how things have come together for Winnipeg this year. They have to remember that over the period in question, the Jets on average drafted higher than the Flames, and their GM was frequently criticized for never making a trade to meet a team need, resulting in a very slow development curve for the team. And that team missed the playoffs 4 of the past 5 seasons. This successful season was a result of that patience, but so was the previous half decade of futility.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

The Flames have rebuilt through the draft. At some point you have to pivot and start supplementing a young core by acquiring the types of key players that the core lacks. Treliving did this and acquired a good defensive dman of which we were lacking and had none coming up. He will likely continue to do this by signing or acquiring a top 6 forward this summer. At that point IMO we won’t have any major holes.

The Flames rebuilt through the draft. They have traded some picks to supplement the core. They will draft again in the future to keep the pipeline strong (which it is at the moment even though some picks were traded). I don’t see any issue. Unless one mistenly assumes we’re still rebuilding. Or mistakenly thinks we’re nowhere near contending. At least IMO of course.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Agreed. Even a 10 year charting doesn't take into account the bruins drafting Marchand, Bergeron, Lucic and Krejci prior to 2008.

And that is where the real problem lies.

From 2003 to 2008 the Flames drafted 3 impact players: Brodie, Phaneuf, & Backlund.

Then they also got nothing in return for Iginla, Regehr, Kipper, Bouwmeester that really helped this team long term. Their best young asset (Phaneuf) was traded for spare parts and a guy who was never more than a 4th line center here.

So they had limited assets that carried over, or really helped kickstart the rebuild. Treliving actually did a great job getting assets for Hudler, Russell, and Glencross to give us some extra ammo but still it was all 2nd or 3rds.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't see anyone taking a contrary position here, and pretty much all of us would agree that successful teams are built through the draft. The Flames ARE BUILDING THROUGH THE DRAFT. Six or seven of their top-nine forwards this year were drafted by the Flames. They can likely afford to move a defenseman this summer precisely because they have drafted players that look ready to add to the blue line.

Yeah I don't see a contrarian point at all.

You draft a lot (they did) you draft well (they did) and then at some point you make a decision to move futures for the now to meet the core that was drafted.

That's not abandoning drafting at all.

Hell he could be wrong, at this point he is given the past season, but I get the logic.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I've had him on my ignore list for probably 8 years at this point.

But if you're going to respond to him like Bingo does, you should probably address the meat of his argument instead of nibbling around the edges to dismiss him.

His point was that the Flames shouldn't be moving futures for immediate help. No?

I answered that directly

LOL!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Are they really the 27th worst offensive group in the league? That is to say, was this season's offensive struggles a clear indication of the potential for this group of players? It is basically the same group that was league average in scoring the season before, and in the top ten with basically the same group the season prior to that.

Do you really believe that the Flames scored anywhere near their potential this past season?

I don't like that argument. Yes, we were the 27th (best) offence last year. Potential doesn't count for anything if it isn't utilized properly (i.e.: bad coaching/system) or if it just isn't actually there (i.e.: Curtis Lazar).

And to that point, If you swap out Joe Colborne's 19 goals that weren't replaced at all, that helps explain the drop from "average" to "awful". But what good, really, did Colborne's goals do for us?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I don't like that argument. Yes, we were the 27th (best) offence last year. Potential doesn't count for anything if it isn't utilized properly (i.e.: bad coaching/system) or if it just isn't actually there (i.e.: Curtis Lazar).

In a question about drafting I think it is a pretty important discussion to have. If you believe the Flames current group of players is no better than bottom-sixth of the league in offensive production, then there is clearly a case to be made that they have drafted very poorly. If, on the other hand you are sceptical that this number accurately reflects how much skill this group has, then you are more likely to believe that they have drafted relatively well.

I tend to believe that the Flames are MUCH better offensively than their 2017-18 goal-totals would indicate. Hence, I see fewer gaping holes and missed players in their drafting record.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Drafting players to fill core roles on the team that will eventually win a championship. The Flames have a good number of their own drafted players playing in their top-nine forward group, and they have a group of drafted defensemen that look like they will be ready to step into top-four roles over the course of the next three years.

The timeline for building and development is not linear, and it is not the same for every team. Like you point out above, the Bruins continue to get indispensable contributions from players they drafted more than a decade ago.

Well there's the disconnect.

You think 'building through the draft' means making selections at the draft like 29 other teams in the league do every year.

I think 'building through the draft' means the prioritization of organizational moves that result in a net addition of draft picks to better one's odds in comparison to other teams in the league, especially as it pertains to picks in the first 3-4 rounds.

All of our favourite prospects were acquired doing the second method. Parsons, Dube, Fox, Phillips, Rasmus, Kylington; all drafted in years where the Flames had multiple picks in a given round, and a high round at that.

I'd like to see someone compile all the picks made since the 2004 lockout, who made them and what rounds they were in (resolute, get on it).

I'd bet you the Flames are middle of the road to bottom 3rd.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well there's the disconnect.

You think 'building through the draft' means making selections at the draft like 29 other teams in the league do every year.

I think 'building through the draft' means the prioritization of organizational moves that result in a net addition of draft picks to better one's odds in comparison to other teams in the league, especially as it pertains to picks in the first 3-4 rounds.

All of our favourite prospects were acquired doing the second method. Parsons, Dube, Fox, Phillips, Rasmus, Kylington; all drafted in years where the Flames had multiple picks in a given round, and a high round at that.

I'd like to see someone compile all the picks made since the 2004 lockout, who made them and what rounds they were in (resolute, get on it).

I'd bet you the Flames are middle of the road to bottom 3rd.

Every draft is about adding assets. Period.

Teams that find three players; one that has an impact, one that plays a depth role, and one that is a tweener ... do quite well.

The Flames have done a much better job of that in the last three drafts, and that's the section run by the current GM in the current set up.

If you want to analyze draft picks in the 80s fill your boots, but it's not all that pertinent to this discussion, at least in my focus.

I want the machine in place to build success. The current machine can't do a damn thing about faulty machines in the past. To harbour that world honestly must mean you like failure and bitching more than logic.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'd like to see someone compile all the picks made since the 2004 lockout, who made them and what rounds they were in (resolute, get on it).

I'd bet you the Flames are middle of the road to bottom 3rd.

Probably, but what point would that prove? We already know Darryl Sutter was not a great GM in this regard. But he left over half a decade ago, and before our rebuild, so there's nothing of value to be had. You would be far better off looking up how many games, goals, wins, etc. players you drafted have given you from this year's roster.

Also, I would partially disagree with the rest of your point. Building through the draft means getting core or impact players in the draft. While adding more picks gives better odds, a whole bunch of losing lottery tickets has no value. You need to get wins whether you make two picks in a draft or a dozen.

And to that end, I'll segway into something I noticed for the Bruins when I was looking up the previous chart: Between 2007-2013, they sucked at building through the draft.
2007: Nada
2008: Joe Colborne (never played for them), Michael Hutchinson (never played for them)
2009: Nada
2010: Tyler Seguin (traded early), Ryan Spooner
2011: Dougie Hamilton (traded early),
2012: Matt Benning (never played for them)
2013: Nada

Seven years, and they pulled only three players of any note that even suited up for them. The two major names were dealt after only three seasons. The Bruins are bloody lucky that they hit a home run in 2014 with Pastranak, or else they'd be staring at the abyss right now. And they did that with only five picks for the entire draft.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Probably, but what point would that prove? We already know Darryl Sutter was not a great GM in this regard. But he left over half a decade ago, and before our rebuild, so there's nothing of value to be had. You would be far better off looking up how many games, goals, wins, etc. players you drafted have given you from this year's roster.

Also, I would partially disagree with the rest of your point. Building through the draft means getting core or impact players in the draft. While adding more picks gives better odds, a whole bunch of losing lottery tickets has no value. You need to get wins whether you make two picks in a draft or a dozen.

And to that end, I'll segway into something I noticed for the Bruins when I was looking up the previous chart: Between 2007-2013, they sucked at building through the draft.
2007: Nada
2008: Joe Colborne (never played for them), Michael Hutchinson (never played for them)
2009: Nada
2010: Tyler Seguin (traded early), Ryan Spooner
2011: Dougie Hamilton (traded early),
2012: Matt Benning (never played for them)
2013: Nada

Seven years, and they pulled only two players of note that even suited up for them. Both were dealt after only three seasons. The Bruins are bloody lucky that they hit a home run in 2014 with Pastranak, or else they'd be staring at the abyss right now. And they did that with only five picks for the entire draft.

Not just Pastrnak. Brad Marchand went from a good top-six winger in his mid-twenties to a bonafide top-line star in the space of the past two years. Where would the Bruins be without that crazy late emergence?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Every draft is about adding assets. Period.

Teams that find three players; one that has an impact, one that plays a depth role, and one that is a tweener ... do quite well.

The Flames have done a much better job of that in the last three drafts, and that's the section run by the current GM in the current set up.

If you want to analyze draft picks in the 80s fill your boots, but it's not all that pertinent to this discussion, at least in my focus.

I want the machine in place to build success. The current machine can't do a damn thing about faulty machines in the past. To harbour that world honestly must mean you like failure and bitching more than logic.

What is your evidence that the last 3 drafts have been better than the 3 previous to those ones?

How many teams have drafted less frequently than Calgary in just the last 4 years?

My whole argument, for years at this point, is that the organization is too asset poor to be trading draft picks away for players, and given their dismal record finding players deep in the draft, they need to prioritize moving assets that have value now for futures that may not have as much value now.

When Tre was moving out guys like Hudler and Russell for picks and the team still made noise anyway, I thought that was great.

When the team moved a bunch of picks and were awful, I thought that was not so great.

Why are you trying so hard to dismiss my arguments like referring to ancient history when I'm talking about drafting as recently as 5 years ago?