It's relative to the pool of players available beyond each pick. Let's say we won't discuss trading up for selections because that's impossible to quantify each individual scenario and result in any meaningful way.
What progress, from say the 10-12 picks after Ben Roger, are you tracking that makes you feel like our draft pick is singularly worse than the others? Did you initially have that grouping of picks rated highly? If you're picking from a weaker pool of talent within that grouping, maybe drafting for another variable like size is theoretically a better approach? Maybe philosophically you look at all of the players' assessments and determine that any of the next 10-12 names on the board are going to be roughly equivalent in value. Maybe some organizations value character? Some IQ? Some athleticism? And some, perhaps, size?
This also doesn't mean that the pick isn't bad. It's obviously a bad pick anytime you make a selection and the player doesn't turn into anything beyond that. But it's also an infinitesimal argument because you could say any player, picked after someone you selected and who outperforms the player you selected, would have been a better pick. You look at long-term averages to determine the real value of your drafting. If you get 6 players from 1 draft and 1 each from the next 3 drafts, does that mean you're a good drafting team or a bad drafting team? Or is it more reflective of the quality of the drafts, the positions you pick from, etc.? If you don't get any players from a draft does that mean it was a failure? Or is it even realistic to have that expectation to begin with?
Progression in what regards though? And compared to what baseline? Because progress means absolutely nothing if it doesn't end with a positive result. Like, over a large scale model of 5 years or 10 years, how many players at picks 32 to 62 are having meaningful NHL careers? The probabilities, on that scale, are indicative of the expectation for draft picks in that range. Defensemen selected in the 2nd round typically have a 12% chance of a meaningful career (more than 200GP). There were 13 defensemen taken in the 2nd round in 2021, which means 1.56 players are expected to have meaningful careers.
That's great but, again, what does progress mean relative to the picks that came after him? Are we grading him on a standalone basis but others relative to the picks around them? Because the insinuation every time someone says "that was a bad pick" about a draft selection is that there was a better pick to be made. Was there a better pick to be made after Ostapchuk?
But isn't progressing compared to what and compared to who?
After Ben Roger?
Knies and Moser are the obvious ones. Moser was an off the board pick, wouldn’t have even looked his way, but he was there.
Colton Dach, Aatu Raty, Vincent Iorio, Riley Kidney, Evan Nause, Jack Peart, Sean Behreans, Helanius, Kapenen were all ranked in that range or higher, were all taken from 50-64, and have all progressed well or very well. I liked Svosil a lot, was ranked in the top 50, went 20 picks after and looks to be an NHL D already
Every single pick taken after Roger in the 2nd was signed by their team, or still with their team. They all still have those picks. The Sens don’t.
After Ostapchuk there are quite a few guys taken that I’m sure the other team wouldn’t trade for Ostapchuk, even if I would.
Scott Morrow went the pick right after him, and is looking unbelievable. Pinelli went 3 picks after and looks great.
We should be, and are, thrilled with Ostapchuk. He has progressed amazingly.
Progression based on what you expect from your pick. If, 2 years ago, we know what Boucher and Roger progressed into now, do we take them where we did? I think that’s a resounding, and very obvious, no.
The same way we looked at our 2020 draft a year after, and 2 years after, and could say that it was an extremely good draft, and our guys were progressing extremely well.
Absolutely some teams value some things more than others, that was what the quip and inference from the recap was trying to relay.
