[Trade] Douglas Murray to Pittsburg for 2013 and 2014 second round picks

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

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.

They should be doing it every year a with every player with perceived value around the league is coming up for contract and is not in the long-term plans of the organization.

If you are in the 5th place or higher at the deadline, perhaps you hold onto some guys in an effort to make noise in the playoffs, but if you're 8, 9, 10, you deal guys like Sarich, Hannan, Morrison, Jackman.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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.

You're going to have to share that data or your analysis because it defies both common sense and what I've noticed from looking at past drafts. A huge number of later round steals have been drafted by teams that had multiple picks around that selection.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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.

Where do you get this stuff from? I've met a few scouts (not that I have contacts, just saw them and struck casual conversation) and that definitely is not how it works.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by opendoor

You're going to have to share that data or your analysis because it defies both common sense and what I've noticed from looking at past drafts. A huge number of later round steals have been drafted by teams that had multiple picks around that selection.

But you're comfortable presenting your unsupported view.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But you're comfortable presenting your unsupported view.

You're asking for it now.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You're asking for it now.

equal standards is all. But yeah, you're probably right.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

They should be doing it every year a with every player with perceived value around the league is coming up for contract and is not in the long-term plans of the organization.

If you are in the 5th place or higher at the deadline, perhaps you hold onto some guys in an effort to make noise in the playoffs, but if you're 8, 9, 10, you deal guys like Sarich, Hannan, Morrison, Jackman.

Sure but what I was talking about it a little more extreme then your view. A bottom team like the Flames should be doing a total sell off.

But yeah, sure.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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.

Can you give us any bit of evidence that teams change their drafting philosophy based on the amount of picks they have? That's the first step in your argument long before you should be analyzing the actual draft picks.

Florida's obviously spending a lot of time looking at the top 5 picks, it makes sense as their in the basement. But, especially this year, a winning streak to end the season could push them right out of lottery pick territory so they need to do their due diligence on all the conceivable first rounders really. So if Florida acquired a mid 1st tomorrow, I doubt they their scouting staff makes any special arrangement. If the team they acquired the 1st from happens to win the Cup, no sweat they're already looking at all the players who could fall down to that 31st pick anyways.

Which brings me to my second point, teams don't even know where they are going to draft. The King's were fighting for a playoff spot all season last year, the CHL regular season ended before the King's had secured a spot in the NHL playoffs. Could you imagine the Kings management face if they asked who they should be drafting with that 30th pick and the scouting staff responded with an "oh sorry, thought you might be picking around the 15th, all our guys are taken." That's not how it works, they're making a big list with a ton of names on them. Doesn't matter if the team has 1 pick in the 5th round or 7, they'll just go through the list and pick the best ones available (usually, team needs aside).

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Can you give us any bit of evidence that teams change their drafting philosophy based on the amount of picks they have? That's the first step in your argument long before you should be analyzing the actual draft picks.

Florida's obviously spending a lot of time looking at the top 5 picks, it makes sense as their in the basement. But, especially this year, a winning streak to end the season could push them right out of lottery pick territory so they need to do their due diligence on all the conceivable first rounders really. So if Florida acquired a mid 1st tomorrow, I doubt they their scouting staff makes any special arrangement. If the team they acquired the 1st from happens to win the Cup, no sweat they're already looking at all the players who could fall down to that 31st pick anyways.

Which brings me to my second point, teams don't even know where they are going to draft. The King's were fighting for a playoff spot all season last year, the CHL regular season ended before the King's had secured a spot in the NHL playoffs. Could you imagine the Kings management face if they asked who they should be drafting with that 30th pick and the scouting staff responded with an "oh sorry, thought you might be picking around the 15th, all our guys are taken." That's not how it works, they're making a big list with a ton of names on them. Doesn't matter if the team has 1 pick in the 5th round or 7, they'll just go through the list and pick the best ones available (usually, team needs aside).

Oy...guys. Start a new thread or take it to the Back Burner forum. #derailed

[Canada 02]

current 8th and 9th place teams selling; the GM of the 14th place team should take note

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Can you give us any bit of evidence that teams change their drafting philosophy based on the amount of picks they have? That's the first step in your argument long before you should be analyzing the actual draft picks.

Florida's obviously spending a lot of time looking at the top 5 picks, it makes sense as their in the basement. But, especially this year, a winning streak to end the season could push them right out of lottery pick territory so they need to do their due diligence on all the conceivable first rounders really. So if Florida acquired a mid 1st tomorrow, I doubt they their scouting staff makes any special arrangement. If the team they acquired the 1st from happens to win the Cup, no sweat they're already looking at all the players who could fall down to that 31st pick anyways.

Which brings me to my second point, teams don't even know where they are going to draft. The King's were fighting for a playoff spot all season last year, the CHL regular season ended before the King's had secured a spot in the NHL playoffs. Could you imagine the Kings management face if they asked who they should be drafting with that 30th pick and the scouting staff responded with an "oh sorry, thought you might be picking around the 15th, all our guys are taken." That's not how it works, they're making a big list with a ton of names on them. Doesn't matter if the team has 1 pick in the 5th round or 7, they'll just go through the list and pick the best ones available (usually, team needs aside).

Never claimed teams changed their drafting philosophy.

And with respect to your LA example, I also never said that teams ony address a certain draft position (already said that).

The bottom line is that, IMO, from looking at past drafts, it doesn't seem to be overly effective to load up picks in one year. It seems to be better to have a couple extra picks for several years (like the Boston example above) than a whole bunch of picks in one year. But, as I said, it is only anecdotal observation on my part.

[MikeN]

Good pick up. I'd not say they over paid, as shot blockers win cups, and he is a top 20 shot blocker.

[Oil Stain]

You might see a trend of teams with a tonne of picks missing on most of them because generally teams with a lot of picks are sellers. They are sellers because their staff is generally below average at talent procurement. So they get a tonne of picks and miss on them. Vicious cycle.

In 2002, Detroit had 2 seconds and a third at the top of their draft. They drafted Hudler, Fleischmann, and Filppula. All 3 have played over 400 NHL games.

But whether a team is good or bad at drafting, more picks is always better then fewer.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Never claimed teams changed their drafting philosophy.

Sorry, maybe I meant more scouting philosophy. If a team doesn't change the way it scouts regardless of how many picks they have, none of your argument matters. It just comes down to how good the scouting staff is, how deep the draft is and, as always, luck.

If they are changing the way they scout, by spreading out too thin like you said, provide some evidence to support it. As of now, I don't buy it. The scouting staff does what it does year after year regardless of if the team has 5 draft picks or 15. They might as well be Santa, they're making a list and checking it twice.

[Schultzie]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

current 8th and 9th place teams selling; the GM of the 14th place team should take note

Unfortunately it could also be spun that the 8th and 9th place teams are now more likely to drop out of the playoff race, giving the 14th place team a better chance of making it if they stand pat or become buyers. I don't know with this team any more.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Sorry, maybe I meant more scouting philosophy. If a team doesn't change the way it scouts regardless of how many picks they have, none of your argument matters. It just comes down to how good the scouting staff is, how deep the draft is and, as always, luck.

If they are changing the way they scout, by spreading out too thin like you said, provide some evidence to support it. As of now, I don't buy it. The scouting staff does what it does year after year regardless of if the team has 5 draft picks or 15. They might as well be Santa, they're making a list and checking it twice.

But one place where more picks gives diminishing returns is if you believe you have good scouting staff. If you theoretically have correctly ranked all of the players in the draft correctly (never happens) then each additional draft pick nets you a slightly worse player. Now that doesn't change the fact that you get an extra player. I don't think anyone is disputing that extra picks are better. But the quality of the extra picks is theoretically not as good as the first pick.

So if you are adding extra picks you are better adding them over multiple drafts rather than all at once. This also spreads out when you have to make decisions on players, when their entry level deals expire, when they become ufa's etc.

So if we go full fire sale here I would rather have a few extra seconds this year and a few extra next year then all of them in once year.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

But one place where more picks gives diminishing returns is if you believe you have good scouting staff. If you theoretically have correctly ranked all of the players in the draft correctly (never happens) then each additional draft pick nets you a slightly worse player. Now that doesn't change the fact that you get an extra player. I don't think anyone is disputing that extra picks are better. But the quality of the extra picks is theoretically not as good as the first pick.

So if you are adding extra picks you are better adding them over multiple drafts rather than all at once. This also spreads out when you have to make decisions on players, when their entry level deals expire, when they become ufa's etc.

So if we go full fire sale here I would rather have a few extra seconds this year and a few extra next year then all of them in once year.

Sure, I wont argue with any of that. But none of this is really his argument. His argument, without trying to put words into his mouth, is that more picks spread out the scouts and make them worse and their job more difficult. Or close enough to that.

I'd prefer spread out picks as well for development reasons on top of that. A lot easier to put a young prospect into his role, whatever it may be, while playing in the AHLwhen he's not competing with another equal or better prospect.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by opendoor

You're going to have to share that data or your analysis because it defies both common sense and what I've noticed from looking at past drafts. A huge number of later round steals have been drafted by teams that had multiple picks around that selection.

Common sense to me suggests that while more picks is certainly better there may be diminishing returns due to limited scouting resources. The size of that effect could significant or it could be negligible, and you'd need to do a rigorous analysis to find out which.

[Stay Golden]

SJ wins this trade in my mind by a landslide. 2nd round pick this year and most likely a 2nd round in 2014. The Pens should win 2 rounds of playoff hockey.

Murray unless he can rejuvenate new young legs is too slow and plodding. Even Sarich beats him in a race.
The Pens will soon find out how slow he is and he hasn't been nasty to play against like he used to be.

[MikeN]

I don't think they took him for speed, more of the fact he is a great shot blocker. Blocked shots help win games in the playoffs, if he can do that then he is golden But IMO it was more of the depth move then anything.