This is not true at all and I emphatically proved it a while back with a comprehensive list showing that scouting goalies is and always has been almost entirely about luck. Top goaltenders have always been more abundant outside of the top of the draft than any other position by an order of magnitude. It is more than just about the goalie as back up goalies are cheap and easily acquired and the chance of drafting a legitimate starter in the first round are very slim. Goalies are and always have been the most volatile and unpredictable position to draft and they carry the most risk high in the draft as the odds of them becoming a core piece of a contender is lower than any other position.
Then...factor in the fact that the relative rarity of even getting any real value from them while they are cheap and being paid entry level salary. It is close to zero as goalies typically mature/break out around the age that they are nearing, or at UFA status where any team can poach the asset that you spent a 1st round pick and years of development on.
Scouting goalies is voodoo as the position is dependant far more on the mental side than any other position. This is extremely difficult to spot in 18 year old boys and this among the other reasons that I listed is why scouts have universally downgraded the position as a priority. There will be outliers that are so far ahead of their peers that they will tempt a team to reach but the trend does not lie and you need only to talk to a scout to understand this.
This has nothing to do with being close minded on the issue as it is just how the world works and taking bad risks on high leverage acquisitions is just poor business.
Using Askarov, Wallstedt, Cossa amd Knight as examples of why you should take goalies high is nonsensical. Not one of them has proven anything at the NHL level and if you have been paying attention over the decades, goalies like these often end up being backups who never fully realize their potential. You are also entirely missing the point that these players have provided zero value as of yet whereas you may have already got multiple cheap and successful seasons from other positional picks on entry level contracts.
Currently
- Askarov is in his D+5 with 16 NHL games and has already been traded for an underwhelming return for a former 11th OA selection because he was blocked by Saros as is apt to happen at this position and a significant reason why drafting goalies this high is risky.
From Askarov's own draft class........ Both Devon Levi (7th round) and Nico Daws (3rd rd) have already contributed more than Askarov and could potentially end up being better. Even our own Jakub Dobes (5th rd) has almost caught him as has Joel Blomqvist (2nd rd). There is a very good chance that he will not be the best goalie in his class and that goalie is likely to have been picked much later as Blomqvist is the closest to Askarov in his own class and that was 41 picks later. This not to suggest that he is not a top tier goalie prospect but it is unveiling the lack of return and certainty on a premium asset (11th OA pick). If he was a forward or D and he was entering his D+6 with almost zero NHL experience and becoming a UFA and the conclusion of the following season we would be universally annoyed with the selection even if he was showing potential. Why are you holding a goalie to a different standard and if your answer is the expected development time for goalies then you are in agreement with me and don't even realize it.
- Knight is in his D+6 and has 85 games played but is universally considered to be a disappointment thus far as well as an awful pick at 13 in a stacked draft.
- Wallstedt is in his D+4 with 5 NHL games under his belt and is having a terrible season
- Cossa is in his D+4 with 1 NHL game under his belt and Detroit traded up to get him....Dallas took Wyatt Johnston with that pick in the very same draft lol
Go back and look at the drafts and not one of your examples has justified their draft position as of yet. All four could very easily end up being busts and none of them are guaranteed starters in the NHL as is common with high pedigree goalies who can never get the mental side of their game together and succumb to the pressure of failed expectations. Maybe they all turn out great, we have no idea and this is part of the problems with taking goalies that high. You often don't know much more about their future 4 or 5 years after selecting them whereas with other positions you have much greater certainty.
Even naming Oettenger is a relatively weak call as he nearly slipped to the second round and was not a starting goalie until he was in his D+5 and two years away from UFA.
At the end of the day all you really have is Vasilevskiy and he wasn't a starter until his D+5 just like Oettenger but Tampa did risk a higher pick at 19 OA so I will give you that one but this is just anectdotal evidence in the context of the greater discussion. There is zero evidence to support picking goalies with high leverage picks as the success stories are outliers and are dwarfed by the vast majority of top goalies who go mid second or later.
If a team feels strongly that they have a generational goalie then I can understand them taking a flyer on him but the problem is that they will do so with far less confidence than a skater with generational talent and that goalie would be luck to sniff the top ten with today's understandable bias against selecting goalies with high picks.
Can't believe I got sucked into to another silly conversation where anecdotes are used to obfuscate the truth. Feel free to believe what you want to believe but don't limp into the world of rational discourse and expect to come out unscathed.
.
