Prospect Info: Blues 2024-2025 Prospect Thread

[LetsGoBooze]

people wanting a top 10 picked stud blue chip sure fire #1D defense prospect in the pipeline. No more, no less.

This. I wouldnt care if we didnt select another Dman the entire draft, so long a we added one blue chipper.

 

[STL fan in MN]

At the risk of staying the obvious, I think a lot of the recent posts in this thread (in some ways this whole subforum) boil down to people wanting a top 10 picked stud blue chip sure fire #1D defense prospect in the pipeline. No more, no less.

I completely agree. And I do want that too.

There’s just one problem. D picked in the top-10 are faaaar from sure fire.

 

[Celtic Note]

Speaking of defensemen, ESPN had a survey of the best defenseman this past year as voted by players and GMs.

Here is the ranking with where they were drafted.

1. Makar - 4th
2. Hughes - 7th
3. Miro - 3rd
4. Fox - 66th
5. McAvoy - 14th
6. Hedman - 2nd
7. Josi - 38th
8. Slavin - 120th
9. Morrissey - 13th (took 9 years to become that good after draft, certainly a late bloomer)
10. Doughty - 2nd

Honorable Mentions
Dahlin - 1st
Dobson - 12th
Toews - 108th
Karlsson - 15th
Letang - 62nd
Pietrangelo - 4th
Theodore - 26th
Hamilton - 9th
Reilly - 5th
Seider - 6th
Ekblad - 1st
Faber - 45th
Sergachev - 9th

Here is the breakdown of where those 23 were drafted:

8 - top 5 (35%)
4 - 6-10
12 - top 10 total (52%)
4 - 11-15
16 - top 15 total (70%)
1 - 16-32
17- 1st round total (74%)
2-2nd round
2-3rd round
2-4th round

 

[MissouriMook]

I’ve been hoping Lindstein might become our Josi, but I just don’t think there is enough offensive potential there. I will be ecstatic, though, if he becomes our Theodore. Just about the same draft position.

 

[Celtic Note]

I’ve been hoping Lindstein might become our Josi, but I just don’t think there is enough offensive potential there. I will be ecstatic, though, if he becomes our Theodore. Just about the same draft position.

What do you think the liklihood he becomes as good as Josi is as far as a percentage. 15%? 5%?

 

[Meatwagon]

What do you think the liklihood he becomes as good as Josi is as far as a percentage. 15%? 5%?

.0001% If Lindstein is half the player of Josi we would be tickled shitless.

Josi was/is an absolute beast of a defenseman and if he’s the benchmark, Lindstein will fall short

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

When you look at the top 3 defensemen on the Blues most successful team, I find it interesting that one was a Top 5 pick, one was a strategic trade acquisition (Bouwmeester) with a shiny pedigree, and one was a diamond in the rough (credit to Blues’ scouting) in Parayko.

We spend a lot of time talking about how to acquire the Top 5 pick guys, but the teams that drafted Bogosian and Schenn in that draft never were able to build around them. Nor were the Blues able to build around their #1 overall defenseman. A lot of those guys don’t turn into the defensive cornerstone.

I think a team has a lot more control over trying to outs outscout and out develop to create value with non-prime picks. And it’s impossible for us to speculate a trade similar to Bouwmeester where we can get a top pairing caliber guy in his prime years. But the Blues need a move like that to move from a rising young talent team to a playoff contender (and that’s probably still a couple years off). It feels like we were waiting for that last piece of a top pairing LHD for ages prior to Bouwmeester.

I expect we have one more season of non-playoff hockey before this starts to look like a rising young team that is exciting to watch (even if they’re not a true threat for a playoff run). I don’t see how we can see those types of moves coming beforehand.

 

[kimzey59]

Speaking of defensemen, ESPN had a survey of the best defenseman this past year as voted by players and GMs.

Here is the ranking with where they were drafted.

1. Makar - 4th
2. Hughes - 7th
3. Miro - 3rd
4. Fox - 66th
5. McAvoy - 14th
6. Hedman - 2nd
7. Josi - 38th
8. Slavin - 120th
9. Morrissey - 13th (took 9 years to become that good after draft, certainly a late bloomer)
10. Doughty - 2nd

Honorable Mentions
Dahlin - 1st
Dobson - 12th
Toews - 108th
Karlsson - 15th
Letang - 62nd
Pietrangelo - 4th
Theodore - 26th
Hamilton - 9th
Reilly - 5th
Seider - 6th
Ekblad - 1st
Faber - 45th
Sergachev - 9th

Here is the breakdown of where those 23 were drafted:

8 - top 5 (35%)
4 - 6-10
12 - top 10 total (52%)
4 - 11-15
16 - top 15 total (70%)
1 - 16-32
17- 1st round total (74%)
2-2nd round
2-3rd round
2-4th round

I know a lot of people are going to point at those top 10 picks and try to make some kind of case that it's "essential" to pick in the top 10 to find a #1 D man.

I look at it differently. Nearly half of the guys on that list(48%) were drafted outside of the top 10.
And it's even more glaring when you actually go through every teams #1.
#1 overall- 2(Dahlin, Ekblad)
Top 5- 9(Jones, Makar, Heiskanen, Doughty, Hughes, Sanderson, Hedman, Reilly, Pietrangelo)
Top 10- 5((Werenski, Seider, Nurse, Sergachev, Hughes)
Rest of 1st Round- 7(Fowler, McAvoy, Matheson, Dobson, Sanheim, Carlsson, Morrissey)
Outside of 1st Round- 9(Weegar, Slavin, Spurgeon, Josi, Fox, Letang, Vlasic, Dunn, Parayko)

Literally 50/50.

Granted, some of those guys don't really "deserve" to be called a #1 D man(cough Vlasic cough); but it still doesn't really paint a rosy picture in regards to drafting D men in the top 10. You're talking 50/50 odds between those players working out and a later pick developing.

That's a huge reason why I'm against the "bottom out" rebuild method. You might be able to build an offense that way, but it's FAR from a guarantee in regards to building a defense and this is still very much a defense oriented League.


Of course, the real morale of the story is that 17 year old defensemen are a complete crapshoot. Just way too early in the development curve to properly forecast.

 

[Majorityof1]

I know a lot of people are going to point at those top 10 picks and try to make some kind of case that it's "essential" to pick in the top 10 to find a #1 D man.

I look at it differently. Nearly half of the guys on that list(48%) were drafted outside of the top 10.
And it's even more glaring when you actually go through every teams #1.
#1 overall- 2(Dahlin, Ekblad)
Top 5- 9(Jones, Makar, Heiskanen, Doughty, Hughes, Sanderson, Hedman, Reilly, Pietrangelo)
Top 10- 5((Werenski, Seider, Nurse, Sergachev, Hughes)
Rest of 1st Round- 7(Fowler, McAvoy, Matheson, Dobson, Sanheim, Carlsson, Morrissey)
Outside of 1st Round- 9(Weegar, Slavin, Spurgeon, Josi, Fox, Letang, Vlasic, Dunn, Parayko)

Literally 50/50.

Granted, some of those guys don't really "deserve" to be called a #1 D man(cough Vlasic cough); but it still doesn't really paint a rosy picture in regards to drafting D men in the top 10. You're talking 50/50 odds between those players working out and a later pick developing.

That's a huge reason why I'm against the "bottom out" rebuild method. You might be able to build an offense that way, but it's FAR from a guarantee in regards to building a defense and this is still very much a defense oriented League.


Of course, the real morale of the story is that 17 year old defensemen are a complete crapshoot. Just way too early in the development curve to properly forecast.

50-50 isn't really equal when half are from 10 picks and the other half is from the other 200+ picks. I like my odds better picking in the top 10.

 

[Frenzy31]

That is true. However, I don’t quite understand why Lindstein isn’t seen as a blue chipper. He was argueably the best dman in WJC. And for all the talk of his lack of O, he outscored ASP without the PP time.

He is playing at a higher level than Pie did in his D1 year. And frankly, he may be our best prospect.

 

[BleedBlue14]

That is true. However, I don’t quite understand why Lindstein isn’t seen as a blue chipper. He was argueably the best dman in WJC. And for all the talk of his lack of O, he outscored ASP without the PP time.

He is playing at a higher level than Pie did in his D1 year. And frankly, he may be our best prospect.

Draft position/not really having a visibly elite skill set.

Fwiw of the list above. I’m not sure many picked outside of the top 10 were considered blue chips until they solidified a spot in the NHL. There’s so much variance in guys within their first 50 games that it’s really hard to tell until they fully solidify their role going forward.

 

[MissouriMook]

What do you think the liklihood he becomes as good as Josi is as far as a percentage. 15%? 5%?

Defensively, maybe 20%-30%. Offensively, probably less than 5% unless he takes a big step this season.

 

[Renard]

I know a lot of people are going to point at those top 10 picks and try to make some kind of case that it's "essential" to pick in the top 10 to find a #1 D man.

I look at it differently. Nearly half of the guys on that list(48%) were drafted outside of the top 10.
And it's even more glaring when you actually go through every teams #1.
#1 overall- 2(Dahlin, Ekblad)
Top 5- 9(Jones, Makar, Heiskanen, Doughty, Hughes, Sanderson, Hedman, Reilly, Pietrangelo)
Top 10- 5((Werenski, Seider, Nurse, Sergachev, Hughes)
Rest of 1st Round- 7(Fowler, McAvoy, Matheson, Dobson, Sanheim, Carlsson, Morrissey)
Outside of 1st Round- 9(Weegar, Slavin, Spurgeon, Josi, Fox, Letang, Vlasic, Dunn, Parayko)

Literally 50/50.

Granted, some of those guys don't really "deserve" to be called a #1 D man(cough Vlasic cough); but it still doesn't really paint a rosy picture in regards to drafting D men in the top 10. You're talking 50/50 odds between those players working out and a later pick developing.

That's a huge reason why I'm against the "bottom out" rebuild method. You might be able to build an offense that way, but it's FAR from a guarantee in regards to building a defense and this is still very much a defense oriented

League.


Of course, the real morale of the story is that 17 year old defensemen

are a complete crapshoot. Just way too early in the development curve to properly forecast.

For those who have forgotten, we had a first overall pick, and selected a defenseman named Eric Johnson. We expected him to be a "true number one" defenseman.
We didn't ignore the pundits in making the selection. Johnson was the consensus choice.
But Johnson was a swing and miss.

This is why I didn't want us to tank in order to draft near the top.

 

[Celtic Note]

I know a lot of people are going to point at those top 10 picks and try to make some kind of case that it's "essential" to pick in the top 10 to find a #1 D man.

I look at it differently. Nearly half of the guys on that list(48%) were drafted outside of the top 10.
And it's even more glaring when you actually go through every teams #1.
#1 overall- 2(Dahlin, Ekblad)
Top 5- 9(Jones, Makar, Heiskanen, Doughty, Hughes, Sanderson, Hedman, Reilly, Pietrangelo)
Top 10- 5((Werenski, Seider, Nurse, Sergachev, Hughes)
Rest of 1st Round- 7(Fowler, McAvoy, Matheson, Dobson, Sanheim, Carlsson, Morrissey)
Outside of 1st Round- 9(Weegar, Slavin, Spurgeon, Josi, Fox, Letang, Vlasic, Dunn, Parayko)

Literally 50/50.

Granted, some of those guys don't really "deserve" to be called a #1 D man(cough Vlasic cough); but it still doesn't really paint a rosy picture in regards to drafting D men in the top 10. You're talking 50/50 odds between those players working out and a later pick developing.

That's a huge reason why I'm against the "bottom out" rebuild method. You might be able to build an offense that way, but it's FAR from a guarantee in regards to building a defense and this is still very much a defense oriented League.


Of course, the real morale of the story is that 17 year old defensemen are a complete crapshoot. Just way too early in the development curve to properly forecast.

If I look at Cup winners since the salary cap it seems there are generally two types of roster construction that have success. There are those with multiple elite to even generational forward talents and a middling #1 D or they have an elite D. There are also those that use a depth of forward talent that is very good, has at least one standout and have an elite/upper tier #1D. We aren’t on that 1st path. This is why I didn’t extend the list to merely players that hold a #1 D on their respective teams. If the goal is the winning a Cup, then we shouldn’t be looking at inferior teams / players. If the goal is to simply to make the playoffs, then sure expand away.

Right now we are charting neither of the above directions aside from the pack the forwards with depth approach, but we are still missing the other side of the coin and outside of Thomas there is no one that I see as having close to certainty being at that elite level offensively. We do have some players that have high upside, but the likelihood of them reaching that isn’t high enough to pencil that in nor is it especially likely IMO.

Personally, my goal is to win a Cup. I want us to give ourselves the highest percentage chance of that happening. We currently aren’t doing that, but I would look for every opportunity to do so. At this moment in our “RE”, we need most of our top end prospects to reach their max potential for us to assemble a Cup caliber team IMO. That’s not particularly inspiring to think about, but I think it’s a fair and objective statement.

Personally, I prefer making higher probability moves and strategies to the “hope and a prayer” strategy I see some peddling. Winning a Cup is already a low probability. We don’t need to make this harder.

There are plenty of if and but statements to refute evidence provided for the most successful strategies but very little on the if we go this contrary direction we increase our probability front. If anything people are clinging to outliers. Speaking of, when was the last time the Blues drafted an Adam Fox caliber player where he was drafted? Have we ever in the history of our organization done that? We have drafted an elite D at #4. What is our closest drafted player to his level of play and what was their position? If we were a phenomenal defensive drafting organization like Nashville, I wouldn’t be as concerned. But we aren’t. We do well with goalies and forwards. I have more faith in us pulling a rabbit out of the hat when it comes to forwards. We at least have some history with that.

Our organization wants to forgoe high draft picks, but look at the statistical breakdown for the key performance indicators that high draft selections make relative to their counterparts. This evidence shows an exponential curve that represents the success rates of those picks. So for every drop in draft position there in a multiplied/amplified diminishing return, not an additive one.

For someone who wants to disregard that evidence, lets consider how our scouts rank players for each draft. We have tiers. In the Dvo draft, he was the very last person in that tier. If we fall one draft spot, we very likely miss that tier entirely. If we move up in the draft, we may actually move up a tier. I think most of us generally think highly of our scouting. So, what could they do if we were drafting in a higher tier? How much better would we be?

We may very well be able to win with the current “be middle of the pack” drafting strategy, but the likelihood of that approach yield a Cup is lower then if we were drafting higher unless people feel our front office is inept. In that case, we are screwed either way.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

That is true. However, I don’t quite understand why Lindstein isn’t seen as a blue chipper. He was argueably the best dman in WJC. And for all the talk of his lack of O, he outscored ASP without the PP time.

He is playing at a higher level than Pie did in his D1 year. And frankly, he may be our best prospect.

To me, a blue chip Dman is someone who is going to score ~50 points and positively impact their own side of the ice. For some that means being big and physical and clearing the crease and owning the boards. For others, it means having an elite stick and being a menace in the neutral zone. For others it means they skate so damn well nobody can get the puck away from them once they get it.

I’m high on Lindstein, and I see a path for him to become a top-4 fixture for us. But the man ain’t gonna come in to NA and drop a 10/40/50 stat line all of a sudden. I personally see Lindstein as more of an Anton Stralman type. Which is perfectly fine! More than enough to justify spending a first-round pick on him, for sure. But that -- to me -- doesn't mean he is a blue chipper.

 

[Majorityof1]

For those who have forgotten, we had a first overall pick, and selected a defenseman named Eric Johnson. We expected him to be a "true number one" defenseman.
We didn't ignore the pundits in making the selection. Johnson was the consensus choice.
But Johnson was a swing and miss.

This is why I didn't want us to tank in order to draft near the top.

We've not tanked but still missed the playoffs and not gotten an elite top D many more times than we picked Top 5 and not gotten one. We are 1 for 2 in my memory in picking top 5 and getting a 1D.

And our miss was some bad luck with early career fluke injury. He still was a 1000 games played and a #2/3 D for most of them. Disappointing overall as a #1, but not a total bust. The other top 5 pick is the first Blue in history to lift the cup as a Blue. I want to try that Top 5 pick thing again.

 

[joe galiba]

Speaking of defensemen, ESPN had a survey of the best defenseman this past year as voted by players and GMs.

Here is the ranking with where they were drafted.

1. Makar - 4th
2. Hughes - 7th
3. Miro - 3rd
4. Fox - 66th
5. McAvoy - 14th
6. Hedman - 2nd
7. Josi - 38th
8. Slavin - 120th
9. Morrissey - 13th (took 9 years to become that good after draft, certainly a late bloomer)
10. Doughty - 2nd

Honorable Mentions
Dahlin - 1st
Dobson - 12th
Toews - 108th
Karlsson - 15th
Letang - 62nd
Pietrangelo - 4th
Theodore - 26th
Hamilton - 9th
Reilly - 5th
Seider - 6th
Ekblad - 1st
Faber - 45th
Sergachev - 9th

Here is the breakdown of where those 23 were drafted:

8 - top 5 (35%)
4 - 6-10
12 - top 10 total (52%)
4 - 11-15
16 - top 15 total (70%)
1 - 16-32
17- 1st round total (74%)
2-2nd round
2-3rd round
2-4th round

based on the number of D drafted in the top 10, that is about a 25% hit rate

 

[PocketNines]

At the risk of staying the obvious, I think a lot of the recent posts in this thread (in some ways this whole subforum) boil down to people wanting a top 10 picked stud blue chip sure fire #1D defense prospect in the pipeline. No more, no less.

I've personally been super articulate on this exact point for five years so from my perspective the main issue is that this was a staggering unforced error that took five years for the group to see fully. It's an aggregate failure on our ability to learn. So, the hockey we have had to endure is appropriate.

 

[MissouriMook]

...

Personally, my goal is to win a Cup. I want us to give ourselves the highest percentage chance of that happening. We currently aren’t doing that, but I would look for every opportunity to do so. At this moment in our “RE”, we need most of our top end prospects to reach their max potential for us to assemble a Cup caliber team IMO. That’s not particularly inspiring to think about, but I think it’s a fair and objective statement.

Personally, I prefer making higher probability moves and strategies to the “hope and a prayer” strategy I see some peddling. Winning a Cup is already a low probability. We don’t need to make this harder.

...

What types of "higher probability moves and strategies " are you suggesting? "Tanking" is a really broad term that gets thrown around a lot, but no iteration of that is really a guaranteed path to building a contender with elite talent. Look at the Utah franchise as an example. Ignoring the rink issues, how many years have they been collecting bad contracts in exchange for draft picks and "tanking" in one form or another. Just look at their draft history over the last 10 years. Here are their top picks each year in that time frame:

2015 - Dylan Strome (3 OA)
2016 - Clayton Keller (7 OA)
2017 - PO Joseph (23 OA) *
2018 - Barrett Hayton (5 OA)
2019 - Victor Soderstrom (11 OA; after trading w/PHI from 14 OA)
2020 - Traded 18 OA to NJ for Taylor Hall
2021 - Dylan Guenther 9 OA (from VAN after for forfeiting 11 OA)
2022 - Logan Cooley (3 OA)
2023 - Dmitri Simashev (6 OA)
2024 - Tij Iginla (6 OA)

* - Traded 7 OA to Rangers for "win now" players (NYR picked Lias Andersson)

A decade of futility and not a single "elite" player to show for it, mainly because it is really hard to be bad enough get a 1 OA pick even when you're trying to be bad. Sometimes you end up with players that are good enough to keep from being the worst team in the league and sometimes you're competing against other teams in your race to the bottom.

Now look at the recent Blackhawks teams. Since winning the division in 2016-17, they have finished above .500 once (2 games over) and have been intentionally bad for several years. They've managed to land a generational forward in Bedard, but now they're getting good/great players from drafting lower and adding pricey (non-elite) free agents to keep their fan base engaged. And for what? Bedard alone isn't going to make them a Cup contender and they will probably be a middle-of-the-pack franchise in a couple of years but will struggle to move any higher. Time will tell.

And don't even get me started with Edmonton and what they did with multiple 1 OA picks for years. After years of futility, it took them another nine years after finally drafting Draisaitl at 3 OA and McDavid at 1 OA in consecutive years just to sniff the finals and they still didn't win a Cup because of other deficiencies on their roster.

There just isn't a "proven" strategy that I have ever seen that can reliably put you in a position to win a Cup by being bad enough to draft elite or generational talent. Pittsburgh and Chicago are the only ones that have done it in the last 20 years, and even they had to get lucky with when they were bad. You have to accumulate prime assets through the draft (excelling at amateur scouting), trades (excellent pro scouting and savvy deal-making), and development (excelling at getting the most out of the players you draft, regardless of position). Most importantly, you have to have a lot of "puck luck" along the way. I would rather build a really good team that is perennially in the playoffs and hope to get a break with a player that puts you over the top for a Cup than to have to sit through season after season of ineptitude in the hopes that the team was bad enough at the right time to draft high and get a Connor McDavid and a Rasmus Dahlin instead of a Nail Yakupov and an Erik Johnson.

 

[Bobby Orrtuzzo]

 

[Celtic Note]

based on the number of D drafted in the top 10, that is about a 25% hit rate

How did you get that number?

Do you know what it is for the rest of the draft?

 

[mk80]

They have won the ECHL’s Kelly Cup the last 3 years. Ironically they beat KC this year, and KC is affiliated with Seattle

 

[Celtic Note]

50-50 isn't really equal when half are from 10 picks and the other half is from the other 200+ picks. I like my odds better picking in the top 10.

I would add, how many of those top 10 picks turned out productive even if not elite? Now compare that to later picks.

 

[ezcreepin]

What types of "higher probability moves and strategies " are you suggesting? "Tanking" is a really broad term that gets thrown around a lot, but no iteration of that is really a guaranteed path to building a contender with elite talent. Look at the Utah franchise as an example. Ignoring the rink issues, how many years have they been collecting bad contracts in exchange for draft picks and "tanking" in one form or another. Just look at their draft history over the last 10 years. Here are their top picks each year in that time frame:

2015 - Dylan Strome (3 OA)
2016 - Clayton Keller (7 OA)
2017 - PO Joseph (23 OA) *
2018 - Barrett Hayton (5 OA)
2019 - Victor Soderstrom (11 OA; after trading w/PHI from 14 OA)
2020 - Traded 18 OA to NJ for Taylor Hall
2021 - Dylan Guenther 9 OA (from VAN after for forfeiting 11 OA)
2022 - Logan Cooley (3 OA)
2023 - Dmitri Simashev (6 OA)
2024 - Tij Iginla (6 OA)

* - Traded 7 OA to Rangers for "win now" players (NYR picked Lias Andersson)

A decade of futility and not a single "elite" player to show for it, mainly because it is really hard to be bad enough get a 1 OA pick even when you're trying to be bad. Sometimes you end up with players that are good enough to keep from being the worst team in the league and sometimes you're competing against other teams in your race to the bottom.

Now look at the recent Blackhawks teams. Since winning the division in 2016-17, they have finished above .500 once (2 games over) and have been intentionally bad for several years. They've managed to land a generational forward in Bedard, but now they're getting good/great players from drafting lower and adding pricey (non-elite) free agents to keep their fan base engaged. And for what? Bedard alone isn't going to make them a Cup contender and they will probably be a middle-of-the-pack franchise in a couple of years but will struggle to move any higher. Time will tell.

And don't even get me started with Edmonton and what they did with multiple 1 OA picks for years. After years of futility, it took them another nine years after finally drafting Draisaitl at 3 OA and McDavid at 1 OA in consecutive years just to sniff the finals and they still didn't win a Cup because of other deficiencies on their roster.

There just isn't a "proven" strategy that I have ever seen that can reliably put you in a position to win a Cup by being bad enough to draft elite or generational talent. Pittsburgh and Chicago are the only ones that have done it in the last 20 years, and even they had to get lucky with when they were bad. You have to accumulate prime assets through the draft (excelling at amateur scouting), trades (excellent pro scouting and savvy deal-making), and development (excelling at getting the most out of the players you draft, regardless of position). Most importantly, you have to have a lot of "puck luck" along the way. I would rather build a really good team that is perennially in the playoffs and hope to get a break with a player that puts you over the top for a Cup than to have to sit through season after season of ineptitude in the hopes that the team was bad enough at the right time to draft high and get a Connor McDavid and a Rasmus Dahlin instead of a Nail Yakupov and an Erik Johnson.

Not that I disagree with this sentiment, but I think it's fair to also point out that teams like Edmonton and Arizona/Utah have had really, really bad management for the past decade and a half. The Oilers were lucky and unlucky in the fact that they were able to draft #1 overall multiple years, but could never really figure out how to build a team. Their defense sucked for many years because they could neither draft nor develop any form of a top 4. As well, their #1 selections were good players but never first overall in terms of performance. It took them getting really lucky with Draisaitl's development and getting the best offensive player to possibly play the sport before they could sniff the playoffs. Despite 2 generational talents, they have still had a hard time -- I blame this on management.

I think Utah is in a much better spot now with BArmstrong at the helm (at least in terms of drafting, idk about him as a legit GM yet). Sure, they've drafted high in most drafts for the past decade, but unfortunately they've never supplanted the team with free agent talent around the young guys (also they would never pay for that anyway). They've only really had maybe 2 good drafts in 15 ish years (2016 and 2021), thus their scouting has been suspect. So along with being cheap, these young players have really had to fight and claw their way to find out what winning is like. I just looked this up: Did you you the Coyotes have only had 3 coaches since 2009-2010????? I think the game passed Tippett by as well as players getting older and retiring, but Tocchet is a good coach and Tourigny idk yet. I dont necessarily think the coaching is awful, but it's hard to say when the team is filled with who-the-heck-knows-at-any-given-point so it could be a combo of both. I put a lot of Airzona/Utah and Edmonton's issues over the years with management specifically because they've had opportunities to be better and have fallen short many of those years.

 

[joe galiba]

How did you get that number?

Do you know what it is for the rest of the draft?

I just counted the D drafted top 10, from 2007 until 2020 and it roughly comes out to about one out of 4 was on the ESPN survey
some of the other 75% are busts, some are JAGS, and some are good but not studs