The Data-Based Drafting Thread (what players would a Potato pick?)
- Thread starter Melvin
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Unless Eliteprospects has his birthday wrong he was definitely eligible last year.
Diversification
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2019
- 3,498
- 4,626
If that is the case, when does the effect wear off with a potato approach? Or does it wear off? Because if it semi-reliably lasts for a certain number of seasons, at some point the player becomes a moveable asset with positive value even if they don't ultimately pan out.
If so, potato drafting in and of itself would be a viable strategy for acquiring players that have real value by tricking teams into taking them before they turn back into pumpkins. Call it the turning potatoes into magic beans approach to continue the vegetable-related theme.
Melvin
21/12/05
It's a good question, but I think it should apply regardless of your draft strategy.
Being able to identify quickly which players are on the right path and recycling the rest into new picks is a strategy I am obsessed with lately. I think teams should be much, much more aggressive than they currently are.
Melvin
21/12/05
Just felt like throwing it out there that the Potato had both Rossi and Lundell ahead of Lafreniere in the 2020 draft. Feeling pretty OK about that right now.
Diversification
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2019
- 3,498
- 4,626
I agree that we should be taking advantage of a market inefficiency in that GMs to become invested in their prospects rather than coldly evaluating their likely upside and their current trade value. Certainly, GMs likely covet each other's prospects for the same reason.
I would say, however, that 'recycling' is not the correct term. This strategy is more like refurbishing and then flipping. Any time you can turn say a shiny asset whose value is about to peak for an earlier round pick or a prospect that your scouting has identified as a someone about to break out that's a big competitive advantage.
Reverend Mayhem
Serial Hanlon's Razor Ignorer
- Feb 15, 2009
- 29,383
- 6,625
Yeah, for the most part. Use a 58OA to select a Kucherov, flip him for a 15OA or higher, technically you have gained organizational value. Not that you would do that now, of course but say you do that in his rookie season. You like that short term, but long term you're probably dropping expletives. That's where you should lean on the pro scouting side who didn't get eyes on him (the asset) and fall in love. It can be difficult, like selling a stock. Take Spencer Martin for example. His value is probably at an all-time high, but he could be the next Ben Bishop and it could keep rising. Even though you got decent return on investment, you didn't get max value.
That's really what prospects are, stocks. To find the risers, you have identify what traits each stock possesses and if those can be translated into something that will increase their value.
Diversification
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2019
- 3,498
- 4,626
Yes, there are downsides. Kucherov would be a good example. I was more thinking of it like this: Say you're drafting in the 5th round or beyond. I think that most (all?) organizations are leaning heavily on their draft list by that point, which was made in a good faith effort to find late round diamonds in the rough that could plausibly turn into NHLers.
What I'm saying, is that there might also be a shadow list to consider and at that point you have to make a judgement. Is it better to spend your 5th rounder on a player with a 5% chance (or whatever) of rounding into an NHL regular or is it more worthwhile to spend it on someone from your shadow list, which is composed of players whose stock is about to rise for reasons other than their potential such as future deployment vs current deployment, etc. That way you catch players on the rise who you can turn around and flip as sweeteners on other deals that help your club in the short term?
That could come in the form of moving up a round or 2 in a future draft as you say. Or it could be used in pro player deals. The point is, it would generate value out of basically nothing and would come about more or less because of a change in drafting mandate where the point isn't to draft a player but rather an asset, especially if there's not much to like in the later rounds.
theguardianII
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2020
- 4,038
- 1,987
I get concerned when a draft prospect doesn't improve much his draft year.
Players like Nolan Patrick, not enough games but carried a #1 status for way too long IMO.
Wright is close to the same, just not showing improvement.
Sort of like the kids were oversized for their age so looked really impressive but didn't really grow too much more and didn't improve that much either.
Lafreniere was a little like that, outstanding numbers, looked to be a franchise player out of the box, but then another year went by, still damn good and better than most, but to HIS standard, not much improvement.
For Canuck fans, a little like the Juloevi draft, Sergachev was showing massive leaps in improvement along with his growth but Juloevi stagnated. OJ was definitely an asset that was held on to too long.
Bedard is the next prospect to watch, dominating scoring vs his peer group. How much can he improve though? Will he? Or is it simply he is so much better he is not challenged and gets bored? Perhaps next year a European pro league is better for him, like Mathews or Pettersson, they come out ready to play. A new challenge with more bigger stronger foes.
Players like Nolan Patrick, not enough games but carried a #1 status for way too long IMO.
Wright is close to the same, just not showing improvement.
Sort of like the kids were oversized for their age so looked really impressive but didn't really grow too much more and didn't improve that much either.
Lafreniere was a little like that, outstanding numbers, looked to be a franchise player out of the box, but then another year went by, still damn good and better than most, but to HIS standard, not much improvement.
For Canuck fans, a little like the Juloevi draft, Sergachev was showing massive leaps in improvement along with his growth but Juloevi stagnated. OJ was definitely an asset that was held on to too long.
Bedard is the next prospect to watch, dominating scoring vs his peer group. How much can he improve though? Will he? Or is it simply he is so much better he is not challenged and gets bored? Perhaps next year a European pro league is better for him, like Mathews or Pettersson, they come out ready to play. A new challenge with more bigger stronger foes.
Melvin
21/12/05
I haven't looked at 2022 yet, but I'll be surprised if Wright ends up in the top-5.
And yeah, I 100% agree. If a first-round pick goes back to juniors after being drafted, they absolutely have to put up at least Horvat-level numbers to be on the right track. Guys like Juolevi and Virtanen who just kinda repeat their numbers from the year before rarely work out. This is why I wanted to trade Juolevi in 2018.
I haven't looked at 2022 yet, but I'll be surprised if Wright ends up in the top-5.
And yeah, I 100% agree. If a first-round pick goes back to juniors after being drafted, they absolutely have to put up at least Horvat-level numbers to be on the right track. Guys like Juolevi and Virtanen who just kinda repeat their numbers from the year before rarely work out. This is why I wanted to trade Juolevi in 2018.
Do you have that post you made about if you straight up trade away any prospect who flatlines in D+1 flagged somewhere?
Melvin
21/12/05
I've made that point a few times. Here's one of them:
Melvin said:
I think I had another one where I went further back into the draft history. But it pretty much holds up no matter how far back you go. You get burned occasionally by a Grabner but you come out way ahead in the long run.
The Canuck’s could save a ton of $$ and come our way ahead if they just let Melvin and his potato run the draft and took his advice on when to trade said prospects
Melvin
21/12/05
There is a PR element to it that I have the luxury of not worrying about. You have to cultivate interest in the team by hyping up guys like Virtanen and Juolevi. Trading these guys after their D+1 all the time would piss a lot of people off, especially people on these forums.
Reverend Mayhem
Serial Hanlon's Razor Ignorer
- Feb 15, 2009
- 29,383
- 6,625
I think it could be done, maybe you piss people off. A lot of people if you are trading for a 30+ year old. Not as many if you are trading for a lower pick per se. But still probably some. Hype is a double-edged sword. Sure, you are hyping up fans...but you could also generate value in negotiation.
I think it depends on the trade. I’m sure more fans of nyi were happy to trade reinhart for the 15th ovr pick than the ones upset about it
What's crazy is that Reinhart was in his D+3 and really didn't seem like anything that special in those 3 seasons. And they still got pick 16 and 33.
Melvin
21/12/05
Yeah the Reinhardt trade is my go to example on how to sell high on a first round pick who is tracking poorly. Yet teams so rarely do this. They cling to their Olli Juolevi and their Niklas Jensens until they have no value left.
It depends on the prospect, too.
I tried suggesting a couple years ago that we should sell high on Mikey Dipietro and people lost their minds about it.
I’d be interested in knowing what D+1 offers for these sort of players would look like. For one thing, I’m not sure how much of this is endowment effect versus sunk-cost fallacy (or something else).
True. I can be apart of the people that you mention here, but not when it comes to/came to Dipietro.
Personally, I've always been on the trade Dipietro train for years now. Trade him while his value was at its highest since he's 4 years younger than Demko. How much more value was he possibly going to build up in 6-7 years playing 20-30 games behind Demko was my thought. Is that extra value really worth the risk was my reasoning. I didn't think he would ever be better than Demko so he wouldn't push for Demko's job given that Demko would be 31 by the time Dipietro hit free agency at 27 (provided we didnt sign him past 27). By the time Demko would have aged out (lets say 34), Dipietro would be 30 and we'd be needing a young upcoming goalie again.
Its probably too late now, however I'd still check the market on him and if I could get a 2nd. I'd take it and run.
You can’t really sell high on goalies, especially prospects. Even starters don’t have that much value. Unless you are selling to the oilers
theguardianII
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2020
- 4,038
- 1,987
In junior it does not take 4 years to figure out if a player can play at that level. Sure at the NHL level there is a learning curve or maturity concern but good is good and "scouting guru's" can estimate talent fairly well.
OJ was never going to be what Benning etal hyped him to be, it was really obvious immediately. A top 5 pick, even a defence man, should be able to show something when he arrives to debut for the big times.
For 5 years JB was touting excuse after excuse and during that time all that happened was OJ trade value declined by the minute.
Sometimes as soon as there is doubt, the team has a couple of choices, hold on and hope he improves or used the perceived value.
Just being a #5 pick has value, being a Dman adds. At year d+3 Benning should still have been able to get a better return. By d+5 it is way too late
A junior GM or coach and even some amateur coaches/Gm's have to recognize talent within months, weeks or days and they are not "Scouting Guru's"
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
PICK ONLY ONE TEAM - 4 Nations Face-Off - ChampionWagers: 20Staked: $21,310.00Event closes- Updated:
-