Quick links: Login | Sign up | Site Rules | Support TMLfans
Started by Nik, December 03, 2015, 10:40:29 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on December 03, 2015, 11:11:40 AMThis is a boring answer, but I'll be pretty happy with whoever we pick with our 1st this year I think. Staying in the bottom-5 and selecting a Chychrun/Puljujarvi/Laine/Tkachuk would be nice, but getting Nylander would be a good consolation prize (and potentially a blessing in disguise depending on if the brothers are able to Sedin-it up). Although I mean winning the lottery would be swell too.I haven't had much time to really think about that Pittsburgh pick. Largely because, like I've mentioned before, draft rankings are all over the place for that spot. You mentioned the one mock draft has us taking Julien Gauthier with it. Well the other mock draft that you looked at has him going 6th overall. Names like Gauthier, Brown, Sam Steel, Max Jones are probably the higher profile names we'll be hearing about there. Alex DeBrincat, the very under-sized goal scoring machine in Erie, is also someone that would likely warrant a look.
Quote from: herman on December 03, 2015, 12:19:49 PMLet's say all 7 of our NHL impending UFAs move for 1 pick each, that will be potentially 20 picks in 2016 (probably spread to 2017). And if Kyle Dubas is allowed to play, our latter round picks are going to be multiplied further by dropping down.
Quote from: Nik the Trik on December 03, 2015, 12:25:15 PMQuote from: herman on December 03, 2015, 12:19:49 PMLet's say all 7 of our NHL impending UFAs move for 1 pick each, that will be potentially 20 picks in 2016 (probably spread to 2017). And if Kyle Dubas is allowed to play, our latter round picks are going to be multiplied further by dropping down.That strikes me as a little unlikely. While I'm sympathetic to the idea of casting a wide net, at some point you have to take into account things like where 20 prospects would play in two or three years. My guess is we'd be far more likely to trade up than down in that scenario.
Quote from: herman on December 03, 2015, 12:49:09 PMI think excess picks would go more towards acquiring known quantities, a la Marincin-type deals, or pot-sweetners to move Lupul/Bozak/Phaneuf, rather than the gamble of moving up (unless it gets us into Top 2 picking). Outside of the top 20, picks are generally sitting on the same value plateau post-draft.
Quote from: Nik the Trik on December 03, 2015, 12:57:34 PMSure but if you have an excess of 2nd's and 3rd's then you can make some pretty meaningful moves up even within that context. Remember, the Leafs very well may have three picks in the top 35. If, just as a hypothetical, they have the #3, #21 and #33 picks then trading up could take the #21 into the top 10 and #33 into the top 20 or 25.
Quote from: Nik the Trik on December 03, 2015, 01:27:08 PMAlso, the problem with some of the analysis of the inherent value of the various draft picks is that they sort of assume an inherent symmetry in the people doing the picking. A terrible GM, with a not very good eye for talent, is probably just as likely to make a bad pick at #27 as he is at #42. When all that gets aggregated, it might very well result in the value of the #27 pick only being incrementally higher than the #42. If you believe that skill or whatever you'd want to call it plays at least a minor role in the draft I don't know how much value that sort of macro-analysis actually helps when a team of scouts is looking at the group of players they could select at those two spots.
Quote from: herman on December 03, 2015, 02:10:13 PMThat's an interesting point; are there GM stat trackers? Like NHL-level PPG for everyone drafted under a particular GM's purview?
Quote from: herman on December 03, 2015, 02:10:13 PMThe value of the macro-analysis, for me, is that it neutralizes all the variance from scouting skills, development strategies, etc. and paints a pretty clear picture that quantity trumps perceived quality after most of the first round of picks. And because some teams still try to trade up to get their guy, it's a behaviour that can be exploited.Moving up in the draft has a steep cost that appears to climb exponentially as you near the top. In the 2nd round on, moving up is like trading two or three lottery tickets for one (because it has your favourite numbers on it).
Quote from: Nik the Trik on December 03, 2015, 03:42:41 PMThe only way to make that argument is if you think the scouting process is as random as picking numbers for the lottery. I think most people would reject that. So I guess I struggle to see how "neutralizing" the variances in scouting ability/development process helps in the context here when the Leafs have invested a lot of money in those things.
Page created in 0.056 seconds with 22 queries.