Confirmed Trade: [TOR/STL/MIN] O'Reilly, Acciari, Pillar to TOR; Abramov, Gaudette, ‘23 1st, ‘23 3rd, ‘24 2nd to STL; ‘25 4th to MIN

[TimeZone]

I think what is so especially pathetic about your replies is that you can't even own your own statements that you began, because you are attributing a point to me yet you can't find me making it; you made it. Otherwise quote me. Tell me the number of the post where it was "my point" about 20-32 ... just that one measure of accountability ... or nah ...

The entire discussion has been about how rare it is to select a quality NHL talent in the back half of the Draft, in fact if we go back to my original posts we can quite literally see I was specifically talking about players selected in the last 10 positions of the very first round, so not even 20-32 if you'd like to get technical. You then provided a list of individuals Drafted well out of the first round, and then even went as far as to post several top 5 selections for unknown reasons, when they're completely and totally irrevelant to the discussion.

Kyrou wasn't a first round pick, Thomas is quite literally the only late first there who still plays on their team.

4 late first rounders who turned into quality NHLers over the course of nearly two decades? I rest my case.

Your chances of playing 200+ games in the NHL being drafted in the back 10 picks of the first round are extremely low, the NHL massively overrated their Draft picks compared to other professional sports leagues.

You've managed to take things completely and totally off topic and then proclaim yourself the victor, all while contributing aboslutely nothing of value to the original topic, the last 10 picks in the First round, where the Maple Leafs first round selection is guaranteed to be. No, I don't care about Jordan Kyrou being picked 35th in the second round when discussing the 28th pick in the NHL draft, a Draft pick that historically has a more than 75% chance of producing a 4th line player, or worse.

The numbers aren't on your side, could they pull a stud with the pick? Sure, but the numbers suggest that's far less likely to transpire than you seem to comprehend.

 

[Bluesish]

It's equally if not more likely a team has one or more players ranked higher than their 35th selection who was selected in the 27-34 range.

This is quite literally why we aren't discussing second round picks, the only individuals moving goal posts are the individuals listing second round and oddly enough, top 15 talent in a discussion that has been about players selected in the 20-32 from the beginning. You aren't comprehending that 200 games was simply the floor showcasing how unlikely it is to select a quality NHLer at the end of round 1.

First bolded is an unintelligible conclusory argument with zero support.

Italics is also conclusory and fails to address the fluid draft board argument because your first argument lacks clarity and reasoning.

Third bolded is you moving the goalposts again after pocket 99s showed the Blues beat the data's metric with regularity. Furthermore, the data stated this was the average NOT the floor. These are not interchangeable terms as your argument suggests.

Once again, you showed that you don't even understand the data you cite. You also failed to address counter arguments about variances in scouting staffs i.e. that not all scouts are equal. Please go touch some grass before you come back and make the same arguments. This is getting tiresome.

 

[TimeZone]

That's just a guideline though - even the author barely endorses the accuracy of the conclusion:

"There is not necessarily an equal gap from one rating point to the next, so this could clearly be more refined, but the simplicity is part of why this works for me".​

Each team will have a different internal value weighting for every individual pick and each team has different success rates in that pick range based on what the team is looking to acquire in current life cycle of the team. It's a nice trivia stat, but his analysis has nothing to do with the tea in China, he just mashes a bunch of data points together.

EDM during the decade of darkness or Peter Chiarelli years where we traded for a guy like Griffin Reinhart, has objectively worse drafting capabilities than a majority of teams, but this analysis would just have you put them all in a bucket and normalize the % chance of not finding a Yakupov at #1. Some teams have analytics departments assisting the GM, some teams have one token analytics guy. Some teams like VAN turn over a bunch of GMs because the owner refuses to do a rebuild, so you end up with a different vision every two years, and thus an entirely different draft approach. Some teams reach like the Kotka pick.

There's too many variables that can create large swings in the drafting success of any given range of picks at any given point in time. It's way to simplistic to use his calculation as a benchmark against one trade. If you really want to use his analysis because it has a "large" sample size league-wide, then we would need an analysis league wide of the other half of the trade which is - "% chance pure rental player traded for late first round pick has helped team win cup'. I would imagine that this is also not a high probability. Then the response from people will be that not all rental players are created equally and not all teams they are added to are created equally, ie - a team like Tampa adding players like Perry is not the same as previously iterations of the Leafs adding Foligno...then we are back at square one.


I actually think the opposite. IMO the amount that teams overrate picks 16-32 is less than the contention gap between the 7-8 strong playoff teams and the bubble teams that happened to filter into the playoffs in a given year. I have trouble believing that a team like LA adding 3 playoff attempts with Chychrun results in a higher % chance of winning a cup, than finding an impactful player in their expected pick range with their next two firsts.

Tampa has had success bringing in players with limited term with first round picks off the top of my head. Goodrow(not a rental but was brought in with limited term), David Savard.

 

[North Cole]

Tampa has had success bringing in players with limited term with first round picks off the top of my head. Goodrow(not a rental but was brought in with limited term), David Savard.

Sure, but that's not league wide, that's Tampa. The very team on the acquiring side of this trade has not had good success bringing in rentals/limited term players for late first round picks.

If you are going to stand by the authors analysis because its a league wide sample, I don't think you can respond with data on only Tampa's success at adding deadline low term players. Especially after you have multiple posts to Blues fans telling them that their teams above average late first round drafting doesn't refute the source you keep posting, because it's just one team and not league wide...

Like, I don't even think this is a bad trade and I'm hopeful that the GM of my favourite team also trades his 1st for a good player. I just don't think your messaging has been very consistent in this discussion. You seem to be using, back half of round 1/last 10 picks of round 1/late first round picks, all interchangeably which I don't think they are. The first one certainly is not interchangable with the others.

 

[FourRings]

Good move for the Leafs. People don’t like it because it’s TOR.

 

[yurnxt]

The entire discussion has been about how rare it is to select a quality NHL talent in the back half of the Draft, in fact if we go back to my original posts we can quite literally see I was specifically talking about players selected in the last 10 positions of the very first round, so not even 20-32 if you'd like to get technical. You then provided a list of individuals Drafted well out of the first round, and then even went as far as to post several top 5 selections for unknown reasons, when they're completely and totally irrevelant to the discussion.




You've managed to take things completely and totally off topic and then proclaim yourself the victor, all while contributing aboslutely nothing of value to the original topic, the last 10 picks in the First round, where the Maple Leafs first round selection is guaranteed to be. No, I don't care about Jordan Kyrou being picked 35th in the second round when discussing the 28th pick in the NHL draft, a Draft pick that historically has a more than 75% chance of producing a 4th line player, or worse.

The numbers aren't on your side, could they pull a stud with the pick? Sure, but the numbers suggest that's far less likely to transpire than you seem to comprehend.

The point is that the Blues are perfectly capable of picking impact players, even in the late 1st round, the 2nd round and Hell, even beyond, see Parayko in the 3rd round, Blais in the 6th ETC. This is their track record and that track record is immutable per history. This obviously doesn't guarantee that they will 100% strike gold with another impact player with what was the Leafs 1st rounder in the 2023 draft, but the point is that the pick absolutely has value to the Blues and their fans because they have largely remained a consistent contender the past decade plus on the backs of successful picks in that range and with zero picks anywhere near the top ten because they were contender year after year after year racking up more(I suspect/depending on the exact reference range) regular season victories than any other team in that time period. It's literally what their team building model is based off of.

Furthermore, it's quite possible some of these 1st rounders aren't even selected because they may be traded in an effort to go with more of a retooling than a scorched Earth rebuild.

 

[TimeZone]

First bolded is an unintelligible conclusory argument with zero support.

Italics is also conclusory and fails to address the fluid draft board argument because your first argument lacks clarity and reasoning.

Third bolded is you moving the goalposts again after pocket 99s showed the Blues beat the data's metric with regularity. Furthermore, the data stated this was the average NOT the floor. These are not interchangeable terms as your argument suggests.

Once again, you showed that you don't even understand the data you cite. You also failed to address counter arguments about variances in scouting staffs i.e. that not all scouts are equal. Please go touch some grass before you come back and make the same arguments. This is getting tiresome.

I'm sorry, what? You don't believe the odds are high that teams generally have at least a single player ranked higher than their eventual selection taken in the previous 7 spots in the NHL Entry Draft? That's quite the statement.

The goalposts were moved by the two of you from the beginning, the initial post was discussing the bottom 10 picks in the first round, yet somehow it managed to turn into players selected in the top 5, and well into the second round.

I've stated numerous times that the Blues have been solid in this regard, but the reality is they've quite literally still only managed to Draft 4 quality NHL players in this particular area of the Draft, that's it, four.

The data didn't state that, I stated it was the floor, and it was merely used as an example as to how difficult it is to select a quality NHL player with a late first round Draft selection, there are a plethora of NHL players who have 200+ NHL games who possess little to no value as an asset, which at the end of the day is all that matters.

Stay consistent, little dude.

 

[TimeZone]

Sure, but that's not league wide, that's Tampa. The very team on the acquiring side of this trade has not had good success bringing in rentals/limited term players for late first round picks.

If you are going to stand by the authors analysis because its a league wide sample, I don't think you can respond with data on only Tampa's success at adding deadline low term players. Especially after you have multiple posts to Blues fans telling them that their teams above average late first round drafting doesn't refute the source you keep posting, because it's just one team and not league wide...

Like, I don't even think this is a bad trade and I'm hopeful that the GM of my favourite team also trades his 1st for a good player. I just don't think your messaging has been very consistent in this discussion. You seem to be using, back half of round 1/last 10 picks of round 1/late first round picks, all interchangeably which I don't think they are. The first one certainly is not interchangable with the others.

Tampa was one example off the top of my head, I also utilized them as they've quite literally been to the Stanley Cup finals 3 seasons in a row, it wasn't a random example.

Colorado traded their first round pick for Darcy Kuemper who had one year left on his deal as well, I think it's important to look at top 5 teams in particular if you're going to compare them to the Leafs, as using a mid caliber team trading for a rental to squeak into the playoffs wouldn't make an overly great example either.

I'm not a huge fan of the trade, but I also recognize the odds of that first round pick becoming a quality NHL player, let alone a player the caliber of ROR is quite small, something that has evidently went over the heads of several Blues fans in this thread.

 

[centipede2233]

Tampa literally traded a first round pick for David Savard....

David saward was 29 on Tampa, not 30 something

 

[TimeZone]

The point is that the Blues are perfectly capable of picking impact players, even in the late 1st round, the 2nd round and Hell, even beyond, see Parayko in the 3rd round, Blais in the 6th ETC. This is their track record and that track record is immutable per history. This obviously doesn't guarantee that they will 100% strike gold with another impact player with what was the Leafs 1st rounder in the 2023 draft, but the point is that the pick absolutely has value to the Blues and their fans because they have largely remained a consistent contender the past decade plus on the backs of successful picks in that range and with zero picks anywhere near the top ten because they were contender year after year after year racking up more(I suspect/depending on the exact reference range) regular season victories than any other team in that time period. It's literally what their team building model is based off of.

Furthermore, it's quite possible some of these 1st rounders aren't even selected because they may be traded in an effort to go with more of a retooling than a scorched Earth rebuild.

& my point is that while it's quite possible, it's still statistically unlikely the Blues will select a quality NHL player with a said pick, it's completely and totally possible, sure, but less likely to transpire than many seem to comprehend in this thread.

I'm not denying the pick has value, it's an asset, but it's far from a slam dunk the selection will result in an NHL regular, let alone a high quality player down the line.

 

[DFC]

1sts are getting really overrated in recent years. As a fan of the team who will face the Leafs in Round 1, I really wish they didnt make this deal.

 

[stl76]

1sts are getting really overrated in recent years. As a fan of the team who will face the Leafs in Round 1, I really wish they didnt make this deal.

Guess Tampa better load up by adding Barbashev for a '24 2nd + Thompson

 

[TimeZone]

David saward was 29 on Tampa, not 30 something

David Savard was 30 years old when he was traded to the Tampa Bay Lighting less than two years ago.

 

[PocketNines]

The entire discussion has been about how rare it is to select a quality NHL talent in the back half of the Draft, in fact if we go back to my original posts we can quite literally see I was specifically talking about players selected in the last 10 positions of the very first round, so not even 20-32 if you'd like to get technical. You then provided a list of individuals Drafted well out of the first round, and then even went as far as to post several top 5 selections for unknown reasons, when they're completely and totally irrevelant to the discussion.

The entire discussion is you claiming the Blues are getting bad picks (you also called ROR "garbage" so you are literally not knowledgeable even slightly) when the facts overwhelmingly prove that the Blues do phenomenally well with the picks they have gotten.

Have you acknowledged that the Blues were so successful in drafting that their last two head scouts are now NHL GMs?
(No you have not – you're not capable of that kind of honesty.)

Have you acknowledged that the Blues while attracting almost no UFAs managed to draft their way from a dead last team into the most winning team in the West in the 2010s?
(No you have not – you aren't capable of that kind of accountability.)

You can move around your "100 games" metric to "200 games" arbitrarily (it's so dumb) but the bottom line is the Blues have literally ONE player in the top 40 picks of the draft in the last 10 years that they didn't get good value out of and that's Klim Kostin who went #31 in 2017 and he will likely meet your 100 games metric pretty easily too.

On an overall scale, what we are arguing about you are cataclysmically wrong and staggeringly dishonest, end of story.

 

[Sinistril]

Imagine calling a guy with 0 NHL games a "homerun", Jake Neighbors is also far from a sure thing.

Barbashev is a second round pick, as was Kyrou.

You have roughly a 15% chance of playing 200+ NHL games in the back half of round #1.

Of all the "value" you pointed out, there's literally one player listed among late first round draft picks who actively plays on your roster.

15% is really high...

 

[trellaine201]

I don’t think fans care for the Leafs and are jealous of this:move and other moves they made over the years. Steep price to pay yesterday but its win now think later.

 

[Ridge1982]

This is rich coming from a St. Louis fan. Take your draft picks and go.

How quickly an Avs forget that it took them two decades to get past the second round. Take your championship and wait another twenty or more years to win it again.

 

[centipede2233]

David Savard was 30 years old when he was traded to the Tampa Bay Lighting less than two years ago.

Yes you are right, but still dubas traded for foligno who was 33 and o reilly whose 32…savard still 2 yrs younger

and yes 2 yrs is a big deal in hockey at that age for a lot of players

 

[JoeSakic13]

How quickly an Avs forget that it took them two decades to get past the second round. Take your championship and wait another twenty or more years to win it again.

I’d rather that instead of 1 cup in 55 years.

Good luck on the rebuild btw!

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

hopefully this isn't the only Toronto/Blues deal

Hopefully Barbashev is next

 

[PocketNines]

hopefully this isn't the only Toronto/Blues deal

Hopefully Barbashev is next

There are only two assets left ... 2024 first OR Knies and I doubt either gets spent on Barbashev

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

There are only two assets left ... 2024 first OR Knies and I doubt either gets spent on Barbashev

they still have all their top prospects it's not as cut and dry as you make it sound

 

[Mike Liut]

hopefully this isn't the only Toronto/Blues deal

Hopefully Barbashev is next

You spelled Parayko wrong

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

You spelled Parayko wrong

I mean I wouldn't be against that but he's not needed

 

[PocketNines]

they still have all their top prospects it's not as cut and dry as you make it sound

The reported price is two seconds for Barbashev which is reasonable and the Leafs have none of those until 2026 and no first next year. As for your prospects I'd rather have a single random 2d round pick and let our scouts pick with it than anyone you have besides Knies.