2018 NHL Draft: Quantity vs. Quality?

[Machinehead]

Quantity always.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Quantity always.

Yup, good thing we had the opportunity to draft Darin Olver, Bruce Graham, Dane Byers and Zdenek Bahensky because of all of the extra picks in 2004.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Why not both? If the Rangers are high on Boqvist per se and they get the feeling Chicago is going to take him at 8, see if you can swap with Van for one of our later 2nd rounders. You still keep quantity and ensure you get some quality. Also, most of the GM's drafting in the top 10 are not very good. They are ripe to be taken advantage of. I have no problem paying to move up if a GM is going to be stupid.

If not, stay where you're at.

 

[silverfish]

Yup, good thing we had the opportunity to draft Darin Olver, Bruce Graham, Dane Byers and Zdenek Bahensky because of all of the extra picks in 2004.

Those are the picks you're complaining about when we had 6OA and 19OA in that same draft and came away with Montoya and Korpikoski? And not to mention that two of those extra picks became Dubi and Callahan?

 

[Machinehead]

Yup, good thing we had the opportunity to draft Darin Olver, Bruce Graham, Dane Byers and Zdenek Bahensky because of all of the extra picks in 2004.

That's because of our scouting, not because of where we picked.

We picked 6th overall in that draft, how did it go?

 

[FireGerardGallant]

Yup, good thing we had the opportunity to draft Darin Olver, Bruce Graham, Dane Byers and Zdenek Bahensky because of all of the extra picks in 2004.

Good thing in 2012 the Leafs traded the 30th and 39th picks for the 22nd pick. That 22nd pick became stud forward Tyler Biggs while Anaheim were able to get some scrubs named Rickard Rakell and John Gibson

 

[Gardner McKay]

Yup, good thing we had the opportunity to draft Darin Olver, Bruce Graham, Dane Byers and Zdenek Bahensky because of all of the extra picks in 2004.

I'm sorry it isn't quite that simple. Maybe without those extra picks we don't take Dubinsky or Callahan. Dubinsky was literally the last of our 4 picks in the second round. Maybe they play it safe on someone else in the fourth instead of taking a risk with Callahan.

Also, our scouting team then was drastically different (and worse) than our scouting team now.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Those are the picks you're complaining about when we had 6OA and 19OA in that same draft and came away with Montoya and Korpikoski?

It’s a start. I’ve complained about those picks, too. At least Montoya and Korpikoski became NHL players.

 

[silverfish]

It’s a start. I’ve complained about those picks, too. At least Montoya and Korpikoski became NHL players.

I think it's a really poor draft to complain about if you're in the quality over quantity train.

That draft had both. They f***ed up the quality and nailed the quantity.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Good thing in 2012 the Leafs traded the 30th and 39th picks for the 22nd pick. That 22nd pick became stud forward Tyler Biggs while Anaheim were able to get some scrubs named Rickard Rakell and John Gibson

As opposed to the Devils trading up to get Parise and the Sharks trading up to Couture. I think someone also mentioned that the Sens traded up to get Karlsson. Stupid. Should have kept the extra picks.

 

[Ghost of jas]

I think it's a really poor draft to complain about if you're in the quality over quantity train.

That draft had both. They ****ed up the quality and nailed the quantity.

How did they nail the quantity?

 

[SML2]

More picks also means more chances to miss. See the 2004 Rangers’ draft. There should be a healthy balance, but, looking at the Ranger prospect pool, it appears to me that they should prioritize high end talent over depth.

You're right. I use this philosophy. See if I made more money, I could possibly lose more money. I don't want to risk having the chance to do the right thing with it. Not this guy. Keep it out of my hands so I don't blow half of it on expensive booze and cheap women. I'd probably waste the rest of it.

 

[silverfish]

How did they nail the quantity?

Quantity allowed them to draft guys like Dubinsky and Callahan.

 

[Lion Hound]

How about Quality picks in Quantity? Why settle for anything less?

 

[Ghost of jas]

I'm sorry it isn't quite that simple. Maybe without those extra picks we don't take Dubinsky or Callahan. Dubinsky was literally the last of our 4 picks in the second round. Maybe they play it safe on someone else in the fourth instead of taking a risk with Callahan.

Also, our scouting team then was drastically different (and worse) than our scouting team now.

Yes, I have more faith in this scouting staff. But that doesn’t take away that by staying with quantity over quality got them two middle six forwards, instead of targeting top end talent.

 

[silverfish]

Yes, I have more faith in this scouting staff. But that doesn’t take away that by staying with quantity over quality got them two middle six forwards, instead of targeting top end talent.

but they had the 6OA in that draft!

 

[Ghost of jas]

Quantity allowed them to draft guys like Dubinsky and Callahan.

So, with all of the extra picks, they ended up with two middle six forwards. If they do that this time, this board will melt down.

 

[Ghost of jas]

but they had they 6OA in that draft!

Which they also f***ed up. I’d say that they got neither quality nor quantity.

 

[Off Sides]

I don't think the highest ceiling picks will be moved, so trading up from #9 to say #5 or #6 or so seems like they'd just be trading to get a prospect who has pretty much a similar ceiling as they could just get at #9.

The later 1sts, similarly I feel as if any team trading earlier picks will be doing so because they feel they can get a similar ceiling prospect by trading the earlier pick.

While I'd like to think the Rangers could identify the difference between two or more prospects who are in the same or similar tier, I think that has more to do with luck than draft prowess/ scouting skill.

For example if a tier 3 prospects was the last of that tier left on the board, then yes I could see trading up to get him rather than staying where they were and getting a tier 4, yet I don't think the trading team makes that move if there is an obvious difference between the prospects. So if the Rangers moved up it would be more about which favorites the Rangers had in that tier, which would concern me because favorites do not equate to higher ceilings.

 

[silverfish]

So, with all of the extra picks, they ended up with two middle six forwards. If they do that this time, this board will melt down.

Okay but if they shoot for quality over quantity, maybe they don't have the extra 2nd rounder and walk away with only Darin Olver. That's why quantity matters, so you can hit on those guys who somehow end up being middle-6 players with long careers in the 2nd round or later.

 

[True Blue]

Quantity always.

Then why now trade away all of your first rounders and double up on the second and third?

 

[FireGerardGallant]

How about Quality picks in Quantity? Why settle for anything less?

That's the hope but not every draft pick will be a success that's why the more picks you can afford to mess up on a pick or two and still land nhl talent

 

[Gardner McKay]

Yes, I have more faith in this scouting staff. But that doesn’t take away that by staying with quantity over quality got them two middle six forwards, instead of targeting top end talent.

Where was Shea Weber drafted? What about PK Subban? What about Erik Karlsson? Faulk? Kucherov? Gaudreau?

Just because we haven't hit on those picks in the past, doesn't mean we won't. Law of averages and whatnot. We have great management. Great scouting. Where did we draft Lundqvist? Skjei? Kreider? Buchnevich? Late first or late rounds.

I have no problem making a small trade if someone falls drastically and the opportunity is there for us to move up. We have enough picks. But you need quantity. You can find quality by having quantity.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Okay but if they shoot for quality over quantity, maybe they don't have the extra 2nd rounder and walk away with only Darin Olver. That's why quantity matters, so you can hit on those guys who somehow end up being middle-6 players with long careers in the 2nd round or later.

I’d rather take risks on getting high end talent. From my vantage point, the only thing that makes this rebuild become successful is breaking the mold of prior approaches. If you going to do this, go big. Having extra chances at getting middling talent seems like a waste of time.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Yes, I have more faith in this scouting staff. But that doesn’t take away that by staying with quantity over quality got them two middle six forwards, instead of targeting top end talent.

They target top end talent and did so because they had enough picks. When those didn't pan out they still ended up with two 2nd line forwards because of the quantity.