Options at the Draft

I think it probably was based on your post Scott. I have a horrible memory for the exact details of a given article. It’s helpful that Derek recently posted his article about the value of those high picks. It really helped me to clarify my line of thinking, especially after review your article as well.

Based on your numbers, the odds of getting a high-end player in the first 15 picks is quite high, but after that, it drops some, but not a lot for forwards, and a lot more sharply for defensemen, and with goalies its next to blind luck. So, based on that information, targetting forwards with high upside and some kind of flaw seems to be the best bet for those late firsts early seconds.

However, my perception is that while those early 1st’s are treated like the gold they are, the later 1st and even 2nds are substantially less costly to acquire, yet still provide a reasonably good shot at getting a player who could be a top tier player. Based on their perceived value by NHL GMs, and therefore what it would cost to get one, they seem a better value to try to acquire.

I expect that my view here is also biased by the Oilers apparent success with them last year.

While there has not been a study on it, I expect that there would also be a substantial savings in real dollars when resigning players who have been drafted, which also has real value to an NHL Team, especially for those high-end players that your study looks at.

Finally, what your study does not examine is the value of getting those checkers, faceoff specialists, and other players who are very useful and valuable to all NHL teams, but that you write off as easily available in free agency. My original post was an expression of my beleif that the odds of drafting one of these players is a fair bit higher in the late 1st early 2nd rounds than later on, and that the value of getting one or the other of these players with those picks might be worth dropping a little early on if there is little perceived difference in value of the 1st player on your draft list with the 5th.

As for Landeskog, I do have some minor reservations about his jump this year in points, and its sustainability. Moreso, this is related to looking at team needs. Based on the Players under contract and the players in the pipeline, I see the centre / 1/2 D hole much more concerning long-term, and considering how highly valued players who can fit either role are in the NHL, it seems more important to target one of the prospects who could fit there.