News Article: Sens big losers of draft, per TheScore

[SpezDispenser]

I wonder what the other offers were on 11. I bet there were a few teams calling and jersey felt most comfortable moving one space only, probably went to Ottawa and suggested the swap.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I have to think Dorion thought he'd be able to unload one of Weircioch or Chiasson rather than the third.

 

[BondraTime]

What's the last thing this team needs? 2nd/3rd line tweeners. Especially with 11/12th overall. Had Brown gone the pick before us, this place would be up in arms over not trading up.

If the difference between getting a potential 1st/2nd line forward and a 2nd/3rd line forward is a 3rd, do that every day of the week. If we ended up with McLeod, We would have had one of the worst drafts in the league. It would be status quo, another safe guy for a team full of safe guys.

 

[Viletho]

I wonder what the other offers were on 11. I bet there were a few teams calling and jersey felt most comfortable moving one space only, probably went to Ottawa and suggested the swap.

Dorion said in his interview that he is the one who called NJ saying to them : Do you mind switching pick, i'll give you a 3rd. We are high on someone.

He also tried with Colorado but they didn't wanted to switch

I guess NJ figured it was probably Brown and they said yes, since they were probably Ok with having McLeod. Maybe they even had Mcleod before Brown.

 

[L'Aveuglette]

I feel like only a few posters are somewhat upset over us giving up a 3rd, but really, no one should be at all. We ended up picking a top-7/8 guy despite being 12th, while losing only said 3rd round pick.

Doesn't really matter how exactly it happened. We made out like gangbusters given our drafting position. Be grateful and move on.

 

[BonkTastic]

Doesn't really matter how exactly it happened. We made out like gangbusters given our drafting position. Be grateful and move on.

Exactly.

Complaining about paying a 3rd round pick to guarantee the guy you want is like paying for home insurance and then complaining that your house didn't get robbed

"what am I paying all of this money for? I didn't even get robbed! I'm just throwing away perfectly good money every month that I could have used on beer instead!".

Just like a monthly payment to your insurance company protects your valuables, the 3rd rounder was the insurance cost that we paid to GUARANTEE Brown (heck, knowing how actual insuracne companes operate, Brown was a hell of a lot more guaranted with the price we paid than your valuables are under your home insuracne plan... lousy inuance companies, buncha jackals... ).

We didn't have to pay the 3rd rounder. We chose to. No one talked us into it. We could have not paid to swap picks, and New Jersey could have picked Brown. Would they have taken Brown over McLeod ? We have no idea. We'll never know unless Ray Shero decides to volunteer that information, which knowing how the Devils front office operates, will probably never happen.

Flat out - we liked a guy enough that we didn't want to take ANY chance, whether it was a 50% chance or a 5% chance, that anyone else would take him. We wanted him, and the prospect of someone getting to him before we could was unacceptable to the org. That's how much we like the kid. The fact that we liked someone THAT much and ended up getting him makes me really excited about the pick.

 

[Xspyrit]

http://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-expected-value-of-nhl-draft-picks-1.317819

No. 9
...
Best: Dion Phaneuf, Logan Couture, Kyle McLaren
Worst: Brent Krahn, Petr Taticek, Brian Lee

No. 11
...
Best: Jarome Iginla, Anze Kopitar, Jeff Carter
Worst: Kyle Beach, Lauri Tukonen, Jeff Heerema, David Cooper

Thank you Murray!

EDIT NOTE : SARCASM

It's a pretty big possibility that other teams were in talk with NJ to move up, Ottawa probably wanted to make sure they got their guy. I have no problem with that move.

99% sure it was the case. I wish that people had more imagination to realize that if some trades really do happen, it means that there was a LOT of trade talks during the draft then

The Sens probably didn't trade up because they thought the Devils would take Brown. They probably traded up to make sure nobody else moved up to 11 to take him. It came with a cost, but to get your guy, it's a relatively insignificant cost.

Exactly this. I don't understand why some people are thinking all kind of stuff when this is almost 100% sure what happened. Phones were ringing, other teams wanted to trade up because they thought a steal was possible. Dorion has been the most proactive, that is all.

The thing I'd love to know though is: was NJ going to pick McLeod with that 11th pick anyway? Because if so, we could have saved that 3rd round pick altogether and drafted Brown anyway. Clearly, either they wanted McLeod all along (but then they had to make sure we weren't going to draft him ourselves), or they weren't feeling so strongly about Brown that they were ok losing him for McLeod + 3rd rd pick.

What's the best way to conduct a negotiation like this? Do you start by asking them: "who are you going to draft with that pick?" (see: Burke and Murray re: Kadri/Cowen) and you offer a trade if they want the guy you want, but then they can also be bluffing to extract value from you. Or you just offer the 3rd round pick without disclosing who you want? Either way, it seems to me the side who initiates the trade discussion is automatically at a disadvantage.

I think it's more about observation and things you hear. They have several people around the table, they can see/hear a lot of things. Talks might have heating up about Jost/Brown still available and several teams with an upcoming pick might have came up with offers. Sens have been more proactive than others and made sure they were going to get Brown who was probably very high on their list.

I mean, do you really think they care about a 3rd round pick if they get out of the draft with the 6th/7th best prospect on their private internal ranking? The team is very young, they already have ton of quality prospects, they can afford to sacrifice a 3rd round pick to insure that they get out of this draft with a big satisfaction feeling. That Brown succeed or not is a different story. But they got what they wanted on draft day.

Now, the real question people should ask themselves instead of giving credit to these stupid articles :

Would you sacrifice a 3rd round pick to draft the ~6th best prospect on your private internal ranking or you just go with your ~11/12th best prospect? (particularly if there is a big drop off between the 2)

Here's a post ranking all the teams succes since 2000, the link is specific to Ottawa, but he did every team.

https://tifubyjoiningreddit.wordpre...-have-the-ottawa-senators-drafted-since-2000/

His analysis is more in depth than the chart posted, but here's his summary.

That's incredible giving that Muckler's drafting is in there (2002-2007) and it stops in 2012. Pretty sure our results are/will be much better if you only take 2008 to 2016

What "watch list"!?! It's a third round pick! People trade those like cigarettes in prison at the trade deadline.

People crying over losing a third clearly lack a grip with reality. This draft was three rounds deep.

Sweet baby Jesus I can't believe some people are whining about tossing a non-value pick for Logan Brown.

Admit there is an entertainment value though

I would pay a 3rd round pick just for that

 

[Langdon Alger]

Muckler was GM when we drafted Lee, not Murray.

 

[BonkTastic]

Thank you Murray!

What does Bryan Murray have to do with John Muckler's craptastic draft picks?



I mean, you have even identified the Muckler era in the same post...

That's incredible giving that Muckler's drafting is in there (2002-2007)

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

I think some folks are in a bit of panic mode simply because a few "experts" or publications that no one reads listed us as a loser. I've never read The Score so I have no idea if the know anything or not, but I have read THN a lot.....The Hockey News has gone badly downhill the last 4-5 years. Ever since they decided to become crusaders for their pet peeves in the game (mostly fighting, then CHL labor talks) they've dropped into the abyss. Their rankings, insights, opinions have really gone insane....seems they care more about rocking the boat and acting like a bunch of hippies changing the world and less about the sport itself.

But yeah, feels like the concern here is just a bit of small market insecurity bleeding through. Montreal and Toronto had a good draft, and some folks are getting a bit panicky.

 

[OgieO]

I think X was being serious when he said "thank you Murray"... as in, thank heavens we drafted better under Murray because that 2005 draft really stings. I confess I recall having Staal ahead of Kopitar so I'm not one to gloat. Staal is still light years better than Lee though.

If memory serves, scuttlebutt around that draft was that we had Price in our sights and were surprised when he was taken 5. One reporter had that story anyway, not sure if it was legit or made up.

 

[jason2020]

I think some folks are in a bit of panic mode simply because a few "experts" or publications that no one reads listed us as a loser. I've never read The Score so I have no idea if the know anything or not, but I have read THN a lot.....The Hockey News has gone badly downhill the last 4-5 years. Ever since they decided to become crusaders for their pet peeves in the game (mostly fighting, then CHL labor talks) they've dropped into the abyss. Their rankings, insights, opinions have really gone insane....seems they care more about rocking the boat and acting like a bunch of hippies changing the world and less about the sport itself.

But yeah, feels like the concern here is just a bit of small market insecurity bleeding through. Montreal and Toronto had a good draft, and some folks are getting a bit panicky.

The interesting thing is its the Toronto media the smaller players could it be maybe due to that massive blockbuster trade many bloggers etc were expecting by the Leafs at the draft did not happen.

 

[Larionov]

There is nothing more ridiculous than trying to handicap winners and losers on a draft of 18 year olds. Outside of a few obvious no brainers in the top two or three, you have no idea how these kids will develop over the next few years. The best analogy might be a long range weather forecast - you make the forecast based on the best information you have and making projections based on past experience, but the bottom line is that things can, and do, change.

Even in the NFL, where they are drafting 22/23 year old young men as opposed to teenagers, you have to wait a couple of seasons before you can properly evaluate a team's draft. I would say that in the NHL, you have to wait at least four seasons before you can look back on a team's draft and give it any kind of a grade...

 

[trentmccleary]

It wasn't a high price.
It's done.
Now all that remains is for Brown to prove that he was worth it by clearly being better than Mcleod.

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

It wasn't a high price.
It's done.
Now all that remains is for Brown to prove that he was worth it by clearly being better than Mcleod.

The draft +1 year is going to be particularly cruel to McLeod in this head to head. Good chance Brown gains Keller as a line mate and McLeod loses Nylander. I would be surprised if it just snowballs from there.

 

[Frank8]

Again

The hard numbers say we are most definitely better than average

I touched on this earlier but allow me to further illustrate why this isn't true.

The Sens are 5th in Games Played By Picks and 11th in Points By Picks since 2005. While that looks good at first glance, the 6 place differential between 5th and 11th suggests that the overall quality of those picks is worse than the majority of other teams in the league.

If you add another column to this chart representing the differential between GP Rank and PTS Rank, the order from best to worst would be as follows:

Boston +14
Pittsburgh +12
Colorado + 9
Tampa + 7
Chicago + 7
Dallas + 6
Philadelphia +6
Columbus +4
Minnesota +4
Carolina +3
NYI +2
Florida +2
St. Louis +1
NJD +1
LA 0
Montreal 0
Vancouver 0
Edmonton -1
Winnipeg -1
Washington -1
Calgary -1
Anaheim -3
Arizona -3
San Jose -4
NYR -4
Nashville -5
Detroit -6
Ottawa - 6
Buffalo -10
Toronto -12


Although the Sens have more picks graduating to the NHL than 25 teams, those picks are less productive than picks on 27 other teams. Put another way, if you took a sample size of 100 drafted players from any other team other than Buffalo or Toronto, they would have more points than 100 drafted players from the Sens.

Winning teams aren't built on strong drafting alone, but I think we can agree there's a correlation. Look at the top 5 teams above - BOS, PIT, COL, TB and CHI. Four of those teams have either won or appeared in nine Stanley Cups since 2005.

COL is the outlier - lots of point producing picks but lacking other ingredients to win. But food for thought: Players drafted by the Avalanche since 2005 have played 528 fewer games but have scored 650 more points than players drafted by the Sens.

It raises the question, are we good at drafting more average players than other teams or are we relying on drafted players more out of necessity? Have guys like Boro, Wier, Cowen, etc., padded the GP column for Sens draft picks when they might not be NHL regulars on other teams?

Just look at our draft history if you need further proof that we have a tough time selecting elite talent: Since 2002 we've drafted three 60+ players. Foligno (who did it once with another team), Karlsson, and Stone. Three in 14 years.

Hopefully this helps debunk the myth that we're a great drafting team.

I don't hate the move to get Brown, I question it based on the Sens track history assessing talent. Hopefully he's the elite player we need.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Well were right next to Detroit on that new chart of yours and I would say they're also a really good drafting team.

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

You're seeming to be completely ignoring half the data displayed there showing average draft rankings and number of top 10 picks. You'd also see Ottawa rocket up that board if the year was changed from 2005 to 2008 (ie when the Muckler era of horror ended).

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

COL is the outlier - lots of point producing picks but lacking other ingredients to win. But food for thought: Players drafted by the Avalanche since 2005 have played 528 fewer games but have scored 650 more points than players drafted by the Sens.

This is cherry-picking a stat, though. Since 2005, Colorado has had a first overall pick, a second overall pick and a third overall pick. Pretty hard to screw those up. Comparatively, the Sens' three highest picks in that time frame are 6, 9 and 9 – the latter two of which were spent on defencemen. Can't rank the quality of a defensive defenceman by the amount of points scored (not that I'm defending Cowen or Lee – they couldn't defend themselves, let alone a defensive zone.) But basing your assessment of drafting prowess by virtue of points per player drafted seems a bit flawed, in my eyes.

That said, I do agree with the second part of your argument. A few guys we've drafted probably wouldn't see ice time on other teams.

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

Well were right next to Detroit on that new chart of yours and I would say they're also a really good drafting team.

Not to mention Anaheim and Nashville who are both two of the top 10 drafting teams in the league.

 

[Frank8]

Well were right next to Detroit on that new chart of yours and I would say they're also a really good drafting team.

Detroit's core was drafted before 2005 and they shelter prospects. You'll notice they're also last in first place picks. Try again.

 

[bigfatfist]

I've seen this chart standardized for pick position, which makes more sense. You can't add this diferential column on to all teams without it - else high picks will pull everything up. Other posters are quote right non pointing out that a team with high picks closer to 2005 will appear more successful on average.

My main problem is not adjusting you points differential column for position. The Lightning took Slater Koekoek and Vasilevski. ..D and goalies don't add to your measure.

 

[Frank8]

This is cherry-picking a stat, though. Since 2005, Colorado has had a first overall pick, a second overall pick and a third overall pick. Pretty hard to screw those up. Comparatively, the Sens' three highest picks in that time frame are 6, 9 and 9 – the latter two of which were spent on defencemen. Can't rank the quality of a defensive defenceman by the amount of points scored (not that I'm defending Cowen or Lee – they couldn't defend themselves, let alone a defensive zone.) But basing your assessment of drafting prowess by virtue of points per player drafted seems a bit flawed, in my eyes.

That said, I do agree with the second part of your argument. A few guys we've drafted probably wouldn't see ice time on other teams.

Which is why I prefaced it with "Food for thought". And yes, points only isn't a perfect way of looking at quality, but there isn't much discrepancy between positions taken by team.

 

[DJB]

The losers are the devils that traded back to draft a 3rd line winger instead of a top 6 C.

 

[Micklebot]

I touched on this earlier but allow me to further illustrate why this isn't true.

The Sens are 5th in Games Played By Picks and 11th in Points By Picks since 2005. While that looks good at first glance, the 6 place differential between 5th and 11th suggests that the overall quality of those picks is worse than the majority of other teams in the league.

If you add another column to this chart representing the differential between GP Rank and PTS Rank, the order from best to worst would be as follows:

Boston +14
Pittsburgh +12
Colorado + 9
Tampa + 7
Chicago + 7
Dallas + 6
Philadelphia +6
Columbus +4
Minnesota +4
Carolina +3
NYI +2
Florida +2
St. Louis +1
NJD +1
LA 0
Montreal 0
Vancouver 0
Edmonton -1
Winnipeg -1
Washington -1
Calgary -1
Anaheim -3
Arizona -3
San Jose -4
NYR -4
Nashville -5
Detroit -6
Ottawa - 6
Toronto - 12
Buffalo -10

Although the Sens have more picks graduating to the NHL than 25 teams, those picks are less productive than picks on 27 other teams. Put another way, if you took a sample size of 100 drafted players from any other team other than Buffalo or Toronto, they would have more points than 100 drafted players from the Sens.

Winning teams aren't built on strong drafting alone, but I think we can agree there's a correlation. Look at the top 5 teams above - BOS, PIT, COL, TB and CHI. Four of those teams have either won or appeared in nine Stanley Cups since 2005.

COL is the outlier - lots of point producing picks but lacking other ingredients to win. But food for thought: Players drafted by the Avalanche since 2005 have played 528 fewer games but have scored 650 more points than players drafted by the Sens.

It raises the question, are we good at drafting more average players than other teams or are we relying on drafted players more out of necessity? Have guys like Boro, Wier, Cowen, etc., padded the GP column for Sens draft picks when they might not be NHL regulars on other teams?

Just look at our draft history if you need further proof that we have a tough time selecting elite talent: Since 2002 we've drafted three 60+ players. Foligno (who did it once with another team), Karlsson, and Stone. Three in 14 years.

Hopefully this helps debunk the myth that we're a great drafting team.

I don't hate the move to get Brown, I question it based on the Sens track history assessing talent. Hopefully he's the elite player we need.

Here's some stats on Sens picks vs league average from 2000-2012.

First, specific to Ottawa:

Position|Drafted|GP|PTS
Center |18 |3465 |1859
LW |18| 906| 385
RW |13| 1261| 483
D |41 |4232| 1156
G |8| 656| 11
Unspecified |8 |0| 0
Total| 106| 10520| 3894

First thing you might notice is that we drafted 41 D out of 106 picks. That's a bit above average, and will certainly affect raw pts, and pts per game numbers. In fact, we've actually drafted more d in the first round than any team during this period (with a couple mulligans we'd like back in Cowen and Lee).

Category|League Avg.|Ottawa|Difference
Draftees |106 |106| +0
100+ GP |23| 27| +4
100+ GP (%)| 22% |25%| +3%
Total GP| 8939| 10520| +1581
Skater PTS| 3426| 3883| +457
Skater PPG |0.40| 0.39| -0.01
AVG PTS| 36| 40| +4
AVG GP| 84 |99| +15

Ok, so here, you'll notice the only category we fall below average (slightly) in is pts/g, which makes sense when you draft more D than average as they tend to score less.

Now, as other's have mentioned, not every draft pick is equal, some teams have more 1st rounders, other's have higher picks on average.

Courtesy of some hard work found here, where he used the standards from Cullen's article on TSN to define successful picks we can see Ottawa success round by round relative to the league:

Round|Expected Success Rate|Actual Success Rate
1 |60 – 66%| 73%
2 |26 – 32%| 30%
3 |21 – 26%| 20%
4+ |10 – 15%| 15%

Some quick excerpts from the article:

Their first round success rate ranks 8th best in the league while their average points per player and average games played rank 6th and 3rd respectively...The Senators have also selected the most defensemen of any team in the first round (7).

The Senators success rate of 30 percent in the second round met expectations and ranks 11th highest in the league. Their average points per draftee ranks 6th while their average games played ranks 9th

In the third round the Senators fell below expectations with a success rate of 20 percent...As a whole their third round drafting ranks 12th in average points and 11th in average games played. The Senators third round drafting is their weakest area but compared to the league average they still rank in the middle of the pack.

In the depth rounds the Senators have drafted very well with 10 players skating in 100 games or more. Their success rate of 15 percent is the fourth highest of all teams studied.

So, while it's nice that you think that Ottawa is a poor drafting team, the evidence seems to consistently suggest otherwise. Now, the argument is a bit different for those suggesting Ottawa is an elite drafting team, I'm not sure that's a fair assessment either, but we are certainly not a poor one.