12'/13' Draft Thread: Offensive flash is a beauty but defensive presence rules.

[ErnieLeafs]

For me... you take a goaltender wherever you have him ranked, if you believe he's the best athlete.

Where I think teams get caught up is going the "draft by positional need" route... where they jump on the hype train and end up making a mistake. Rick Dipietro and Jack Campbell are examples of that.

There are misses all over the draft with goalies, its similar to players. I would never reach for one unless its can't miss like Fleury or Price.

That last part is exactly the way I look at it. If you look at a goalie's track record in junior, and you can reasonably say that he's the best player for your organization at your pick, there shouldn't be an issue taking him.

 

[613Leafer]

Drafting a goalie OFF THE BOARD in the 1st can hurt you, but when there is a guy rated in the 1st, and has the ability + potential, there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with taking a goaltender in the 1st round. I wouldn't be caught dead taking one in the top 10, but that's just me. Anywhere after that, if his play and potential warrant it, there shouldn't be an issue picking one. Fucale is a mid-round pick in the 1st, and would represent great value to any organization after the 12th pick.

If we had a second 1st rounder, and it was between 12-25, he would be my target, as long as there wasn't a forward or defenseman that represented higher potential.

Exactly.

Schneider, Rask, Price, Varlamov, Dubnyk, etc are all relatively recent 1st round draft picks, and starting goalies on their respective teams.

There are tons of busts for forward/D picks in the first round as well. There's something like a 60% success rate of 1st rounders becoming NHLers, and I'm pretty confident the 40% that don't become NHLers aren't all goalies... Also that 60% includes anyone who became a full-time NHLer, meaning it's full of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th liners. I would trade a 3rd liner for a 50-50 shot at a starting goalie.

 

[Epictetus]

Where are your stats to back that up? Usually every draft produces NHL starters in the first 1-3 rounds, with only ~10 or so goalies getting picked in that range.

And then every draft also usually produces somebody from the later rounds (4-7), but there are FAR more picks used in that time. The success rate is actually astronomically small.

Here are some stats to back that up, I put them in a thread during the draft last year. It's regarding the 2003-2006 drafts, anything after that is probably too soon for goalies.

I think the results speak for themselves:
-18/33 goalies drafted in the first three rounds turned into NHLers (55%)
-4/67 turned into NHLers in the 4th round or later (6%)

[Rest of Post]

Good research.

However, I do not think you read my post carefully enough. I specifically said first round, not every other round, which means that I have no problem taking a goaltender in the 2nd, 3rd round, etc (your stats include the first round with the second and third rounds). Moreover, I also said 'elite', which a goaltender has to be if he is taken in the first round, since this position demands that you play the majority of games and only one can be on the ice, as opposed to other positions like d-men or forwards. I don't think any team will be happy if their first round pick on a goaltender only develops into a back-up.

When you consider the other avenues it takes to aquire a goaltender, drafting one in the first round and developing him is a worthless pursuit, since the numbers are against it. Take a forward or d-men, always.

I'd be surprised if the odds are better in the later rounds.

Success rates of goaltenders taken in the later round, meaning rounds 2-7, are much higher.

Drafting a goalie OFF THE BOARD in the 1st can hurt you, but when there is a guy rated in the 1st, and has the ability + potential, there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with taking a goaltender in the 1st round. I wouldn't be caught dead taking one in the top 10, but that's just me. Anywhere after that, if his play and potential warrant it, there shouldn't be an issue picking one. Fucale is a mid-round pick in the 1st, and would represent great value to any organization after the 12th pick.

If we had a second 1st rounder, and it was between 12-25, he would be my target, as long as there wasn't a forward or defenseman that represented higher potential.

See, you are already justifying the weakness of your position by referring to a 'second 1st round pick'. It doesn't exactly show confidence if you have to presuppose a 2nd first round pick to justify your position. It also changes things since you allow room for failure because you have another first round pick (based on the discussions in this thread, I am assuming the other first round pick is top 10?).

Moreover, I don't understand why you "would not be caught dead" taking one in the top 10, but are fine with taking one in the rest of the first round. Why can't you extend the same arguments that you have for not taking one in the top 10 to the rest of the first round?

That last part is exactly the way I look at it. If you look at a goalie's track record in junior, and you can reasonably say that he's the best player for your organization at your pick, there shouldn't be an issue taking him.

That's the thing, though. Goaltenders are the toughest position to judge from the change in junior to professional. Players are bigger, more skillful, etc. It demands the most. When you take this development concern into consideration along with the other avenues available towards getting a goaltender, it is not smart asset managment.

 

[613Leafer]

Moreover, I don't understand why you "would not be caught dead" taking one in the top 10, but are fine with taking one in the rest of the first round. Why can't you extend the same arguments that you have for not taking one in the top 10 to the rest of the first round?

I think it's because the ~top 10 (actually, more acurately the top 5) draft picks tend to have very high odds (relatively speaking) of becoming impact NHLers when picking a forward/D.

When picking the top goalie prospect in the draft, I think the odds are usually slightly better than 50-50 that they'll become a good NHLer, which isn't something you'd want to use a top 5 pick on (unless it was a very rare talent such as Price).

But once you get into the latter half of the 1st round, the odds of the Forwards/D getting picked of having a meaningful impact on the team aren't particularly good, there's usually 1-2 good F/D out of those second half picks, and a handful of secondary players. I'd say the odds associated with the top goalie prospect are quite a bit better.

 

[Tigers]

draft round

So in case anyone wanted to actually look at data before forming opinions here are the rounds that the top 25 winning goalies of last year were drafted.

8th Rinne
1st Fluery
7th Lundqvist
5th Smith
5th Kiprusoff
2nd Howard
3rd Quick
9th Thomas
Undrafted Niemi
2nd Bryzgalov
3rd Anderson
1st Lehtonen
1st Luongo
1st Brodeur
5th Miller
2nd Crawford
1st Ward
2nd Pavelec
Undrafted Hiller
9th Halak
1st Varlamov
1st Price
9th Vokoun
2nd Garon
9th Elliott

 

[ErnieLeafs]

Good research.

However, I do not think you read my post carefully enough. I specifically said first round, not every other round, which means that I have no problem taking a goaltender in the 2nd, 3rd round, etc (your stats include the first round with the second and third rounds). Moreover, I also said 'elite', which a goaltender has to be if he is taken in the first round, since this position demands that you play the majority of games and only one can be on the ice, as opposed to other positions like d-men or forwards. I don't think any team will be happy if their first round pick on a goaltender only develops into a back-up.

When you consider the other avenues it takes to aquire a goaltender, drafting one in the first round and developing him is a worthless pursuit, since the numbers are against it. Take a forward or d-men, always.



Success rates of goaltenders taken in the later round, meaning rounds 2-7, are much higher.



See, you are already justifying the weakness of your position by referring to a 'second 1st round pick'. It doesn't exactly show confidence if you have to presuppose a 2nd first round pick to justify your position. It also changes things since you allow room for failure because you have another first round pick (based on the discussions in this thread, I am assuming the other first round pick is top 10?).

Moreover, I don't understand why you "would not be caught dead" taking one in the top 10, but are fine with taking one in the rest of the first round. Why can't you extend the same arguments that you have for not taking one in the top 10 to the rest of the first round?



That's the thing, though. Goaltenders are the toughest position to judge from the change in junior to professional. Players are bigger, more skillful, etc. It demands the most. When you take this development concern into consideration along with the other avenues available towards getting a goaltender, it is not smart asset managment.

I'm not justifying any weakness.....are you some kind of FBI script analyst? I say "second 1st round pick" because I believe our pick will be high this season, and the likelihood of BPA and need lining up at the goaltender position are astronomically low where we should be picking. Fucale isn't a top 10 pick, and shouldn't be picked as one. Now, If our pick was between 12-25, there's a good chance I take Fucale, as he may have the highest potential in that range, depending who slips out of the top 10.

and I wouldn't be caught dead taking one in the top 10 unless it was a sure-fire goalie like Price. Picks in the top 10 generally SHOULD be NHL players. It's not always the case, but you don't use a top 10 pick on a goalie that is anything short of stellar, and projects to be your #1. It's just poor value. I PERSONALLY don't like the idea of taking one in the top 10 under other circumstances, that doesn't mean teams don't do it,

 

[ErnieLeafs]

So in case anyone wanted to actually look at data before forming opinions here are the rounds that the top 25 winning goalies of last year were drafted.

8th Rinne
1st Fluery
7th Lundqvist
5th Smith
5th Kiprusoff
2nd Howard
3rd Quick
9th Thomas
Undrafted Niemi
2nd Bryzgalov
3rd Anderson
1st Lehtonen
1st Luongo
1st Brodeur
5th Miller
2nd Crawford
1st Ward
2nd Pavelec
Undrafted Hiller
9th Halak
1st Varlamov
1st Price
9th Vokoun
2nd Garon
9th Elliott

Now what about the goalies taken in those rounds that DIDN'T or HAVE YET to make it?

 

[Tigers]

Now what about the goalies taken in those rounds that DIDN'T or HAVE YET to make it?

The more relevant thing would be too look at a list of scorers, assist leaders +/-, atoi, corsi, vukota, whatever it is that floats your boat for evaluating top skaters and compare the histogram to goalies. It will not look the same.

 

[ErnieLeafs]

The more relevant thing would be too look at a list of scorers, assist leaders +/-, atoi, corsi, vukota, whatever it is that floats your boat for evaluating top skaters and compare the histogram to goalies. It will not look the same.

Lol... I'm admittedly a hands-on, X's and O's guy, not so much an advanced stats guy.

 

[613Leafer]

So in case anyone wanted to actually look at data before forming opinions here are the rounds that the top 25 winning goalies of last year were drafted.

8th Rinne
1st Fluery
7th Lundqvist
5th Smith
5th Kiprusoff
2nd Howard
3rd Quick
9th Thomas
Undrafted Niemi
2nd Bryzgalov
3rd Anderson
1st Lehtonen
1st Luongo
1st Brodeur
5th Miller
2nd Crawford
1st Ward
2nd Pavelec
Undrafted Hiller
9th Halak
1st Varlamov
1st Price
9th Vokoun
2nd Garon
9th Elliott

Now what about the goalies taken in those rounds that DIDN'T or HAVE YET to make it?

Yep. You have to look at success rate. Not just # of successful goalies from each round.

How many Gustavsson, Scrivens, Owuya, Rynnas, etc type of free agent signings are there for every Niemi, Hiller, etc?

Also it looks like 14/25 "winningest" goalies from last year came from rounds 1/2/3 of the draft... But look at how many goalies get selected every year from the first 3 rounds vs the last 4 rounds. A LOT more goalies get selected later in the draft. The success rate is very low when you consider that.

Drafting a goalie with a later round pick is essentially the philosophy of "throw enough "stuff" at a wall, and something will stick eventually".

 

[Tigers]

Drafting a goalie with a later round pick is essentially the philosophy of "throw enough "stuff" at a wall, and something will stick eventually".

The thing is, that's true of goalies, but not true of scorers. So if you take a goalie over a skater, you essentially increase your odds of failure. In the top 25 scorers last year, 18 1st rounders, 4 2nd rounders, 1 3rd, 1 7th, 1 9th and 1 undrafted (St. Louis)

 

[613Leafer]

Drafting a goalie with a later round pick is essentially the philosophy of "throw enough "stuff" at a wall, and something will stick eventually".

The thing is, that's true of goalies, but not true of scorers. So if you take a goalie over a skater, you essentially increase your odds of failure. In the top 25 scorers last year, 18 1st rounders, 4 2nd rounders, 1 3rd, 1 7th, 1 9th and 1 undrafted (St. Louis)

10/18 were top 5 picks though.

I'm not suggesting spend a top 5 pick on a G. More that we use a late 1st on a goalie. Using that metric, there's only 8 forwards in the top 25 in scoring drafted with a later 1st, and that's considering the fact that MANY more forwards get drafted than goalies with later 1st round picks.

And yet 7 of the top 25 goalies last year were 1st round picks, despite what I would argue is goalies being picked 1/10th as often as forwards, or something similar to that number at the very least.

 

[Tigers]

10/18 were top 5 picks though.

I'm not suggesting spend a top 5 pick on a G. More that we use a late 1st on a goalie. Using that metric, there's only 8 forwards in the top 25 in scoring drafted with a later 1st, and that's considering the fact that MANY more forwards get drafted than goalies with later 1st round picks.

And yet 7 of the top 25 goalies last year were 1st round picks, despite what I would argue is goalies being picked 1/10th as often as forwards, or something similar to that number at the very least.

2 things

4 of the 7 goalies on that list taken in the first round were top five picks,

They're picked at a significantly lower rate because you have a significantly lower number on your team. Typically 2 goalies, 21 skaters.

scratch that three things

Using a histogram, it doesn't matter what the ratio that they're taken at over all is. The fact is that top goalies are less likely to come from the top rounds than top scorers are, and this variablity makes it a less successful strategy. A similar review could be completed for other statistical categories.

 

[BertCorbeau]

If you think a goalie is the BPA, you take him .. That should be your strategy

 

[Johny Drama]

I think that would definitely be ideal. Would love to get top prospects for both of those positions. Our organization is pretty thin at both, from the NHL level all the way down to Junior.

As for taking chances with picks, this is why (especially as a "rebuilding" team), we simply should have had more picks over the last 4 years. I don't know if I pointed it out in this thread, but 29 picks in 4 years (1 more than by default, 7X4) is simply not acceptable.

We would have had far more draft flexibility if we'd had another 5-6 picks. In that same time frame:
-Edmonton has drafted 34 times.
-St. Louis has drafted 39 times
-Chicago has drafted 37 times
etc.

This draft would be a great one to have a couple extra 2nd rounders or even an extra 1st.

Completely agree. Said this numerous times, we trade away draft picks from rounds 2 to 4 far too easily IMO. In fact, I think we are missing our 3rd and 4th rounders this year. One thing the club has done is build up the depth in the club and have one of the top minor league squads in the league. This is something that I believe is important to maintain, so any holes in the lineup can be filled internally.

You look at the history of the draft, and there is always players taken in rounds two through 4 who turnout to be top players. Won't list them, as there are a ton. I know its a bit of a crapshoot as to who comes out of those rounds and becomes an impact player, but its sort of like buying a lotter ticket for a draw that only contains 90 tickets. More tickets you buy, more chance you have of hitting the jackpot and, of course, the opposite is true.

 

[ErnieLeafs]

Completely agree. Said this numerous times, we trade away draft picks from rounds 2 to 4 far too easily IMO. In fact, I think we are missing our 3rd and 4th rounders this year. One thing the club has done is build up the depth in the club and have one of the top minor league squads in the league. This is something that I believe is important to maintain, so any holes in the lineup can be filled internally.

You look at the history of the draft, and there is always players taken in rounds two through 4 who turnout to be top players. Won't list them, as there are a ton. I know its a bit of a crapshoot as to who comes out of those rounds and becomes an impact player, but its sort of like buying a lotter ticket for a draw that only contains 90 tickets. More tickets you buy, more chance you have of hitting the jackpot and, of course, the opposite is true.

Look no further than one of my favourite players, and one of my all-time favourite Spitfires, Adam Henrique. This is a guy who was a do-it-all player here in Windsor. PP, PK, 5 on 5, 4 on 4, all of it. He scored HUGE goals for the Spitfires, and was a leader, through and through. I wanted this guy SO BAD in his draft year, there probably hasn't been a player I've wanted more in the last few years. He was arguably the Spitfires most important forward on BOTH of the Memorial Cup winning teams, as he provided a steady presence on the bench, and was an extremely vocal leader for the team. He was reliable, and did anything he was asked to do.

He's a perfect example of the value you can scoop up in the 3rd round. He is a guy who works as hard as anyone in the league, is one of the most coachable players you'll find, and a genuinely solid character to have both on and off the ice.

 

[Johny Drama]

Look no further than one of my favourite players, and one of my all-time favourite Spitfires, Adam Henrique. This is a guy who was a do-it-all player here in Windsor. PP, PK, 5 on 5, 4 on 4, all of it. He scored HUGE goals for the Spitfires, and was a leader, through and through. I wanted this guy SO BAD in his draft year, there probably hasn't been a player I've wanted more in the last few years. He was arguably the Spitfires most important forward on BOTH of the Memorial Cup winning teams, as he provided a steady presence on the bench, and was an extremely vocal leader for the team. He was reliable, and did anything he was asked to do.

He's a perfect example of the value you can scoop up in the 3rd round. He is a guy who works as hard as anyone in the league, is one of the most coachable players you'll find, and a genuinely solid character to have both on and off the ice.

He's turned out to be a really good player, and example of what I'm talking about. I really wish we would look to try and stockpile picks in this range as opposed to trading them for guys like Jamal Mayers, David Steckel and Jonas Frogren.

Really hope Nonis has a different outlook than Burke.

 

[613Leafer]

He's turned out to be a really good player, and example of what I'm talking about. I really wish we would look to try and stockpile picks in this range as opposed to trading them for guys like Jamal Mayers, David Steckel and Jonas Frogren.

Really hope Nonis has a different outlook than Burke.

Yep. Better have more tickets to the lottery where you MIGHT get a really really good player as compared to trading those tickets for players that you KNOW won't take this team anywhere and who can easily be acquired for nothing via free agency every year.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

Don't look now, but the other prospect I pimped along with my favorite comrade Nichushkin long before they were known on this board, Justin Bailey has more goals than Radek Faksa and is already tied for 2nd on the Kitchener Rangers. Not bad for a slow start and for a raw kid playing his first season out of highschool hockey.

Kid is going in the first round, those that thought he was a 2nd rounder, not happening, his stock is rising.

 

[ErnieLeafs]

Really like the two American forwards, Compher and Fasching. I actually like Fasching more, as he has ideal size in terms of what our forward group needs. At 6'2, 215 lbs, he's already got a man's body, with growth still to come. Already a pretty good skater, he's a banger around the crease, and has a really nice skill-set.

I think (offensively) he projects higher than Biggs does, with similar (possibly bigger in the end) size.

 

[613Leafer]

This draft is really looking like a good one. Probably not 2003 good, but maybe 2008 good.

There's might be 2-3 top line/top pairing/#1 G available in the ~20-35 range. Could really pay off longterm if we could nab an extra late 1st and another 2nd.

 

[Budsfan]

CENTRAL SCOUTING PLACES JONES AT TOP OF PROSPECT RANKINGS

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=413581

Defenceman Seth Jones is rated first ahead of Nathan MacKinnon at the top of the Central Scouting Bureau list

http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=77886

 

[TheMadHatTrick]

Been watching some clips of Frederik Gauthier and really like what I see. I know a few on here have been pumping his tires, and I'm on board. If we're in the 8-15 range he's definitely near the top of my board. Big guy (6'5), smooth skater, nice shot, good compete, excellent defensively. Not saying he'll be as good, but he reminds me a little of Sean Couturier in the way he moves out there.

 

[ErnieLeafs]

Been watching some clips of Frederik Gauthier and really like what I see. I know a few on here have been pumping his tires, and I'm on board. If we're in the 8-15 range he's definitely near the top of my board. Big guy (6'5), smooth skater, nice shot, good compete, excellent defensively. Not saying he'll be as good, but he reminds me a little of Sean Couturier in the way he moves out there.

Gauthier and Mantha are the guys I'm going to have a look at next.

 

[Leaf Rocket]

Gauthier and Mantha are the guys I'm going to have a look at next.

Haven't seen mantha but I question Gauthier's offensive potential.