Confirmed Signing with Link: Vesey signs with the New York Rangers Part 2

[Der Jaeger]

No, it's obviously true that the higher the pick, the better the odds of pulling a good player. The difference is that if I have a 23-year-old Mika Zibanejad and you have an 18-year-old who was just drafted at #6, odds are I wind up with a better player when all is said and done because Zbad turned out better than most #6 overalls. But for now, you get to be up and coming since your farm includes a 6th overall draftee and the Rangers farm does not.

The exception to this rule are the first 2-3 picks of the draft, which are far more likely to produce stars than even the next few picks. Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Toews, Kane, Staal, Doughty, Bobby Ryan, Hedman, Tavares, Duchene, Hall, Seguin, McDavid, Eichel were all drafted in the top 3. But once you're out of the top 2/3 picks, you're more likely to get Al Montoya, Griffin Reinhart or Brett Connolly than Scheifele or Forsberg.

You do check on what you're writing, right? You do realize that Zibanejab was picked 6th overall in 2011?

Other 6th overall picks since the lockout:
Derick Brassard
OEL
Hampus Lindholm
Sean Monahan

Plenty of busts at 6th overall too, and with the more recent players being too early to tell. But I'd take those players ver Zibanejad, or trade one for Zibanejad, even!

 

[Riptide]

Obviously a #5 has a better chance than #45. But #5 has only a 50% chance of being a top-6 player whereas a #45 has less than 10% chance. This is where the problem comes in: you get a #5 and #35, you also acquire #25, #45 and #55 in a fire sale, and now you sit there thinking you have a monster future. You don't.

• #5 is just as likely to be a role player as a top-6 guy
• #25 is more likely never to play in the NHL than to be top-6, and most likely will be a role player
• #45 has a 20% chance to crack the NHL and about 8% to be top-6
• #55 is a bit worse than #45

So from this plethora of picks, from having this great farm, statistically, you're likely to wind up with one second liner and one third liner. If your team drafts worse than average (due to luck or skill), you may get nothing or a scrub NHLer. If your team is really good, maybe you'll get a solid but unspectacular first liner like Stepan (averaged 61 points per 82 games the last 3 season) plus a solid but unspectacular second liner like Kreider.

Not to mention that other than perhaps the #5 pick, those picks are almost certainly going to take 3-5 years before they're likely to become impact NHLers - if they ever make it. Looking at Pittsburgh as an example, people look at Crosby, Malkin, Staal and Maatta and drool over Sprong. Yet they ignore guys like Bennett (5+), Pouliot (3+) and Dumoulin (5) who took years to become impact players - or who still haven't. The latter is a MUCH more common development path then the former.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

You do check on what you're writing, right? You do realize that Zibanejab was picked 6th overall in 2011?

Other 6th overall picks since the lockout:
Derick Brassard
OEL
Hampus Lindholm
Sean Monahan

Plenty of busts at 6th overall too, and with the more recent players being too early to tell. But I'd take those players ver Zibanejad, or trade one for Zibanejad, even!

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Promise of a future does not equate to present performance.

 

[daveleaf]

I think the Rangers got a good prospect out of it that didn't cost them anything.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

I think the Rangers got a good prospect out of it that didn't cost them anything.

Man, this sums up a mountain of doodie....

 

[Der Jaeger]

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Promise of a future does not equate to present performance.

Think Vesey equals Eichel and Reinhart as NHL rookies? The Sabres promise of the future equalled present performance last season with 2 rookies scoring 20 goals each while the team improved 27 points. How high is that mountain of doodle?

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I think the Rangers got a good prospect out of it that didn't cost them anything.

Exactly. Even if he turns out to be a career 3rd liner who gets 30 points a season... We got him for free. Worst case scenario, he is a bust and we send him down, without a single buck counting against the cap

 

[Tawnos]

You do check on what you're writing, right? You do realize that Zibanejab was picked 6th overall in 2011?

Other 6th overall picks since the lockout:
Derick Brassard
OEL
Hampus Lindholm
Sean Monahan

Plenty of busts at 6th overall too, and with the more recent players being too early to tell. But I'd take those players ver Zibanejad, or trade one for Zibanejad, even!

Uh... yeah, his post is exactly about how Zib is a 6th overall. The 10 6th overall picks leading up to Zibanejad are Koivu, Upshall, Michalek, Montoya, Brule, Brassard, Gagner, Filatov, OEL, Connolly. The only player who had a better 5th year than Zib is OEL. You probably could make the argument that Gagner's lockout year was better than Zib last year and I wouldn't argue too much. Michalek was on the same level. Point being, of 10 players, Zibanejad rates better than or equal to 8 or 9 of them after 5 years.

Obviously, Brassard and Koivu developed into better players than Zibanejad is right now. Gagner slipped backwards after year 5. Michalek has had some real injury problems.

So much of this depends on where you are as an organization, but in a vacuum, if you asked me right now who I'd rather have between Zibanejad and Matthew Tkachuk, I would choose Zibanejad. One is a top-6 player while the other might be a top-6 player.

Is it better to have a young NHLer or a prospect? Young NHLer.

 

[Der Jaeger]

Uh... yeah, his post is exactly about how Zib is a 6th overall. The 10 6th overall picks leading up to Zibanejad are Koivu, Upshall, Michalek, Montoya, Brule, Brassard, Gagner, Filatov, OEL, Connolly. The only player who had a better 5th year than Zib is OEL. You probably could make the argument that Gagner's lockout year was better than Zib last year and I wouldn't argue too much. Michalek was on the same level. Point being, of 10 players, Zibanejad rates better than or equal to 8 or 9 of them after 5 years.

Obviously, Brassard and Koivu developed into better players than Zibanejad is right now. Gagner slipped backwards after year 5. Michalek has had some real injury problems.

So much of this depends on where you are as an organization, but in a vacuum, if you asked me right now who I'd rather have between Zibanejad and Matthew Tkachuk, I would choose Zibanejad. One is a top-6 player while the other might be a top-6 player.

Is it better to have a young NHLer or a prospect? Young NHLer.

100% agreed. But I don't see how his entire argument tracks at all. All NHLers are prospects at one time. Poo-pooing a team for collects a ton of prospects doesn't make sense. It ups the odds that you develop more young NHL players, unless a team drafts really poorly or their player development program/decisions are terrible.

I didn't understand from what he wrote that he used the 6th pick purposely because Zibanejad was taken there. I understand your point.

 

[Tawnos]

100% agreed. But I don't see how his entire argument tracks at all. All NHLers are prospects at one time. Poo-pooing a team for collects a ton of prospects doesn't make sense. It ups the odds that you develop more young NHL players, unless a team drafts really poorly or their player development program/decisions are terrible.

I didn't understand from what he wrote that he used the 6th pick purposely because Zibanejad was taken there. I understand your point.

Well, first of all, I think luck is a larger part of this than people like to admit. For one thing, a team like Edmonton hasn't been able to draft a franchise player until McDavid, despite how long they spent rebuilding before. And it isn't like they went off the board. Hall was the expected #1... Seguin is the better player. RNH was the expected #1... Landeskog is the better player. Yakupov was the expected #1, though honestly that might turn out to be the worst top-5 ever. My point here is that the Oilers ended up with 3 number 1 picks in a row, took the expected guy, and it hasn't really worked. They improved marginally and missed out on what looks like a phenomenal first 6 picks in 2013. Is that drafting poorly or bad player development? Nah, it's just bad luck. Not all years are going to produce the player you need to build your team around.

I think both paths, the full rebuild and the one the Rangers are on, are legit. I'd rather see my team stay competitive, but that's just me.

Oh, and I think part of Beacon's point is that trading 1 aging asset for 1 young bonafide NHLer has the same value as trading 3 or 4 of your aging assets for the chance to draft one bonafide NHLer, particularly when there's still a chance that none of those draft picks impacts your team.

 

[Riptide]

Uh... yeah, his post is exactly about how Zib is a 6th overall. The 10 6th overall picks leading up to Zibanejad are Koivu, Upshall, Michalek, Montoya, Brule, Brassard, Gagner, Filatov, OEL, Connolly. The only player who had a better 5th year than Zib is OEL. You probably could make the argument that Gagner's lockout year was better than Zib last year and I wouldn't argue too much. Michalek was on the same level. Point being, of 10 players, Zibanejad rates better than or equal to 8 or 9 of them after 5 years.

I always hate that argument. Well look at all these #6 picks that were meh or failed. You have no clue how one GM would have valued their options and whether they would have picked the same guy or not. I mean one doesn't have to look any further then the draft we just had where Columbus passed on Puljujarvi for PLD. Really, there's only 3 drafts where a very good player wasn't picked within a couple of picks of #6. Not to mention that the drafting over the last half decade or so has gotten significantly better than that of the 10-15 years previously.

For example:
2010: Connolly #6 (who was a reach considering he was injured most of that season), Skinner #7, Grandlund #9
2009: OEL #6, Kadri #7
2008: Filatov #6, C.Wilson #7, Boedker #8
2007: Gagner #6, Voracek #7, Couture #9
2006: Brassard #6, Okposo #7

2003: M.Michalek #6, R.Suter #7, Phaneuf #8
2002: Upshall #6, Lupul #7, PMB #8

 

[Beacon]

You do check on what you're writing, right? You do realize that Zibanejab was picked 6th overall in 2011?

Yes, that's literally why I chose him and why I chose to cite the #6 overall pick. There's more hype about a new #6 than about someone like Zbad even though he turned out better than most #6 overalls because of the shiny new toy syndrome.

My point was that teams that have developed young talent who actually win games get less credit than someone who has a brand new #6 overall pick who has no better than a 50-50 chance of becoming as good as Zibanejad.

 

[Beacon]

Are you guessing on this, or do you have anything to back these numbers up?

I am not guessing. A couple of years ago on the Rangers forum, I went over the picks from 1990 to 2007 draftees and a guy drafted in the second half of the first round has a 50-50 chance of a real NHL career (not just a cup of coffee), a second rounder is about 20%, a third rounder a little over 10%.

A #10 overall pick has significantly worse than 50-50 odds of being top-6F/top-4D, but nobody remembers Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson (2009), Cody Hodgson (2008), Keaton Ellerby (2007), Luc Bourdon (2005), Boris Valabik (2004), Eric Nystrom (2002), Dan Blackburn (2001), Mikhail Yakubov (2000), Branislav Mezei (Branislav Mezei). Who was the best guy drafted at #10 in recent year? Andrei Kostitsyn? Michael Frolik?

Not exactly world-beaters, but when you just drafted a guy at #10, you're an up-and-comer. You have a top-10 pick. Surely, his floor is as a second liner and he has a good chance to become a star.... right?

Now let's try, say, #8 which I chose at random:

Between 2000 and 2010, 11 guys were drafted: Alexander Burmistrov, Scott Glennie, Mikkel Boedker, Zach Hamill, Peter Mueller, Devin Setoguchi, Alexandre Picard, Braydon Coburn, Pierre-Marc Bouchard, Pascal Leclaire, Nikita Alexeev. Of them, 7 (about two-thirds) didn't even play 300 NHL games. Only 2 scored over 100 career goals. Do you see any world beaters here? But 8th overall pick, we got an 8th overall pick, surely that will make us into contenders any day now.

In 1999, the Islanders had 3 top-10 picks (#5, #8 and #10) plus another late first rounder. This came on top of having a #9 pick in 1998 and a bunch of other early picks in the years earlier. The team was a huge up-and-comer. Then they went nowhere and wound up with 2 scrubs in Rupp and Pyatt, a second liner in Brett Connolly, and 2 minor leaguers in Mezei and Kudroc. Then back to the drawing board. Milbury was a terrible GM, but this flop is not all that uncommon.

EDIT: Your way of looking at it was incredibly unfair which is why you get what you get. You basically list all the guys who made the NHL in the random early positions, but leave out the majority that failed.

 

[Der Jaeger]

I am not guessing. A couple of years ago on the Rangers forum, I went over the picks from 1990 to 2007 draftees and a guy drafted in the second half of the first round has a 50-50 chance of a real NHL career (not just a cup of coffee), a second rounder is about 20%, a third rounder a little over 10%.

A #10 overall pick has significantly worse than 50-50 odds of being top-6F/top-4D, but nobody remembers Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson (2009), Cody Hodgson (2008), Keaton Ellerby (2007), Luc Bourdon (2005), Boris Valabik (2004), Eric Nystrom (2002), Dan Blackburn (2001), Mikhail Yakubov (2000), Branislav Mezei (Branislav Mezei). Who was the best guy drafted at #10 in recent year? Andrei Kostitsyn? Michael Frolik?

Not exactly world-beaters, but when you just drafted a guy at #10, you're an up-and-comer. You have a top-10 pick. Surely, his floor is as a second liner and he has a good chance to become a star.... right?

Now let's try, say, #8 which I chose at random:

Between 2000 and 2010, 11 guys were drafted: Alexander Burmistrov, Scott Glennie, Mikkel Boedker, Zach Hamill, Peter Mueller, Devin Setoguchi, Alexandre Picard, Braydon Coburn, Pierre-Marc Bouchard, Pascal Leclaire, Nikita Alexeev. Of them, 7 (about two-thirds) didn't even play 300 NHL games. Only 2 scored over 100 career goals. Do you see any world beaters here? But 8th overall pick, we got an 8th overall pick, surely that will make us into contenders any day now.

In 1999, the Islanders had 3 top-10 picks (#5, #8 and #10) plus another late first rounder. This came on top of having a #9 pick in 1998 and a bunch of other early picks in the years earlier. The team was a huge up-and-comer. Then they went nowhere and wound up with 2 scrubs in Rupp and Pyatt, a second liner in Brett Connolly, and 2 minor leaguers in Mezei and Kudroc. Then back to the drawing board. Milbury was a terrible GM, but this flop is not all that uncommon.

EDIT: Your way of looking at it was incredibly unfair which is why you get what you get. You basically list all the guys who made the NHL in the random early positions, but leave out the majority that failed.

I've done these types of studies before, and you're missing some parts.

What equals "real NHL career?" What's your metric? I did this for NFL draft picks over 15 years, and used a Harvard studies metric of playing in 54 NFL games over their first 4 seasons. Which meant that a player: played a lot from his rookie season on; and signed a second contract after year three. Typically, busts won't get that far.

Also, did you do draft picks 1-15 and then 16-30 (or through the end of the 1st round for that year)? If you're just taking the top 15 pick by pick, you get 10 overall players, and your sample size is way too