THE VALUE OF A DRAFT PICK?

Jason Gregor
February 25 2011 02:25AM

Every year during the month leading up to the NHL trade deadline there are heated debates in chat rooms, on blogs, at coffee rooms, around water coolers and here on the Nation about what is a fair or good return in a trade. It is much easier to debate when actual players are moved, but when people start tossing around draft picks the air becomes much more grey.

What is the true value of a draft pick? Is a 2nd rounder fair return on a eight-year veteran 3rd pairing D-man? Many of us seem to think it is, but is it really?

I don't have the answer to either question, so I decided to take a look at a decade of drafting and see if the numbers can shed any light on how we should value a draft pick. Without even doing any research it seems obvious that a 1st rounder has the most value, and then a 2nd, but will the value drop accurately from a 3rd, to a 4th and so on?

I'm not sure there is a perfect outline in determining how valuable a pick becomes for each individual team, but we need some guide lines so I came up with the following.  

BUST (Fewer than 100 games)
SHORT LIVED (Out of league and less than 300 Games played)
DECENT PLAYER
DOMINANT PLAYER (considered an elite player by fans/media outside their city)
 
I'm sure the biggest argument will come from who is listed as a dominant player. I didn't put many players in the dominant category, even if they were first liners, Dion Phaneuf, on their own team for many years. I wanted to go as recent as possible with my ten-year window, but it is too early to tell how picks in 2006-2010 will develop, so I used the drafts from 1996-2005.
 
**If you want to add a player or two from the decent to the dominant player, I'm sure you can, but it won't affect the amount of actual NHL players each draft year provided.***
 
Of course this isn't a perfect system, because you will have guys who played 800 games and didn't produce many points, and might have averaged only 13 minutes a night, lumped in with guys who played 1000 games and scored a fair amount of points. I'm sure we could try to come up with a formula to rank the importance of certain players by using salary, ice-time, points, special teams play and quality of competition, but unless you are a magician I doubt you'll find a formula that we'll all agree with.
 
This is just a guideline, and after seeing the results it seems clear that draft picks, outside of the first round, are over-valued in my opinion. The great news is even after reading this we will all still debate that if Mike Fisher is worth a first and more then Dustin Penner must be worth a first and at least a second.
  
1996  
 
1st ROUND (25 picks)
11... Busts
2...   Short Lived
12... Decent players
 
2nd ROUND (26 picks)
17... Busts
1...   Short Lived 
8...   Decent players
 
3rd ROUND (28 picks)
20...Busts
1...  Short lived
6...  Decent players
1... Dominant player (Chara)
 
4th ROUND (28 picks) 
22...Busts
2...  Short Lived
4.... Decent players
 
5th to 9th ROUND (133 picks)
 
115..Busts
5...    Short Lived
12...  Decent players
1...    Dominant player (Tomas Kaberle, 8th rounder)
 
In 1996 there was 240 picks and two of them became dominant players (1.0%), 42 are decent players (17.5%), 11 were short lived (4.5%), and 185 were busts (77.0%).
 
The first round produced no dominant first liner, while 48% turned into decent players, 8% had short lived careers and 44% were busts.
 
In the 2nd round the chance of success dropped significantly,  30.7% became decent players, 0.33% had a short lived stint and 65.3% turned out to be busts. 
 
In every round the chance of a decent or dominant player continued to drop: 25% in the 3rd round, 14.2% in the 4th and only an average of 9.8% in the final five rounds.
 
Out of the 241 picks only 44 of them (18.2%) turned into regular NHL players.
 
 
1997  
 
1st ROUND (26 picks)
11...  Busts
2...   Short Lived
10... Decent players 
3…  Dominant players (Joe Thornton, Roberto Luongo and Marian Hossa)
 
2nd ROUND (27 picks)
22... Busts
2...   Short Lived 
3...   Decent players
 
3rd ROUND (27 picks) 
22...Busts
2...  Short lived
3...  Decent players
 
4th ROUND (26 picks) 
22...Busts
2...  Short Lived
2.... Decent players
 
5th to 9th ROUND (140 picks)
 
121..Busts
3...    Short Lived
16...  Decent players

 
In 1997 there was 246 picks, three of them became dominant players (1.3%), 34 became decent players (13.8%), 11 were short lived (4.5%), and 198 were busts (80.4%).
 
The first round produced three dominant first liners (10%), while 38.4% turned into decent players, 7.7% had short lived careers and 42.3% were busts.
 
In the 2nd round the chance of success was minimal, only 11.1% became decent players, 7.4% had a short lived stint and 81.5% turned out to be busts. 
 
The 3rd round had the exact same success rate as the 2nd, but after that the chances of drafting an NHL player dropped to 7.7% in the 4th, but then rose to 11.4% in the combined final five rounds.
 
Out of the 246 picks only 37 of them (15.0%) turned into regular NHL players.
 
   
1998  
 
1st ROUND (27 picks)
5...   Busts
3...   Short Lived
18... Decent players
1…  Dominant player (Vincent Lecavalier)

 
2nd ROUND (31 picks)
22... Busts
3...   Short Lived 
6...   Decent players
 
 
3rd ROUND (28 picks) 
16...Busts
5...  Short lived
6...  Decent players
1... Dominant player (Brad Richards)
 
4th ROUND (28 picks) 
20...Busts
4...  Short Lived
4.... Decent players
 
5th to 9th ROUND (144 picks)
123..Busts
5...    Short Lived
15...  Decent players
1...    Dominant player (Pavel Datsyuk, 6th rounder)
 
In 1998 there was 258 picks and three of them became dominant players (1.1%), 49 are now decent players (19.1%), 20 were short lived (7.8%), and 185 were busts (72%).
 
The first round produced one dominant first liner, while 46.2% turned into decent players, 11.5% had short lived careers and 42.3% were busts.
 
In the 2nd round the chance of success dropped again, 30.7% became decent players, 0.33% had a short lived stint and 65.3% turned out to be busts. 
 
In every round the chance of a decent or dominant player continued to drop: 25% in the 3rd round, 14.2% in the 4th and only 9.8% in the final five rounds.
 
Out of the 258 picks only 52 of them (20.1%) turned into regular NHL players.
 
 
 
1999  
 
1st ROUND (28 picks)
12... Busts
6...   Short Lived
8...  Decent players
2… Dominant players ( Daniel and Henrik Sedin)
 
2nd ROUND (38 picks)
28... Busts
6...   Short Lived 
4...   Decent players
 
 
3rd ROUND (30 picks) 
21...Busts
2...  Short lived
7...  Decent players

 
4th ROUND (30 picks) 
27...Busts
2...  Short Lived
1.... Decent player
 
5th to 9th ROUND (146 picks)
 
130..Busts
6...   Short Lived
8...   Decent players
2...   Dominant players (Ryan Miller, 5th round, Henrik Zetterberg, 7th round)
 
In 1999, 272 players were drafted, four of them became dominant players (1.5%), 28 became decent players (10.2%), 22 had short lived careers (8.1%), and 218 were busts (80.2%).
 
The first round saw 7.1% turn into dominant first liners, while 28.6% turned into decent players, 21.4% had short lived careers and 42.9% were busts.
 
The 2nd round in 1999 produced very few NHL players. Only 10.5% (four of 38) became decent players, 15.8% had a short lived career, while 73.7% turned out to be busts. 
 
The following rounds weren’t much better. Drafting a decent or dominant player was low: 23.3% in the 3rd round, 3.3% in the 4th and only 7.7% in the final five rounds.
 
Out of the 272 picks only 32 of them (11.8%) turned into regular NHL players.
 

2000

1st ROUND (30 picks)
10... Busts
4...   Short Lived
14... Decent players
2...   Dominant players (Dany Heatley and Marian Gaborik)
 
2nd ROUND (34 picks)
23... Busts
10... Decent players
1...   Dominant players (Ilya Bryzgalov. He was waived by Anaheim later on.) 
 
3rd ROUND (31 picks)
25...Busts
3...  Short Lived
3...  Decent players
 
4th ROUND (34 picks)
31...Busts
1… Short Lived
2.... Decent players 
 
5th to 9th ROUND (162 picks)  
148...Busts
6…   Short Lived
7...   Decent players
1...   Dominant player (Henrik Lundqvist, 7th rounder)
 
In 2000 there was 291 picks and four of them became first liners (1.4%), 36 turned into decent players (12.4%), 14 were short lived (4.8%), and 237 were busts (81.4%).
 
In the first round you had a 6.7% chance of getting a first liner, while 46.7% turned into decent players, 13.3% had short lived careers and 33.3% were busts.
 
The 2nd round produced one first liner, 2.9%, ten decent players, 29.4%, while the other 23 players, 67.7%, turned into busts.
 
This year the odds of drafting an NHL player dropped even quicker than usual. In the 3rd round only 9.6% became players, the fourth round had 6.5%, while the final five rounds averaged only 4.9%.
 
Out of the 291 picks only 40 of them (13.7%) turned into regular NHL players. 
 

2001

1st ROUND (30 picks)
6... Busts
4... Short lived
18..Decent players
2... Dominant players (Ilya Kovalchuk and  Jason Spezza) 
 
2nd ROUND (33 picks)
23... Busts
1...   Short lived
9...   Decent players 
 
3rd ROUND (34 picks)
28...Busts
2...  Short lived
4...  Decent players 
 
4th ROUND (34 picks)
29...Busts
1.... Short lived
4.... Decent players 
 
5th to 9th ROUND (158 picks)
133...Busts
10... Short lived
15... Decent players
 
2001 had 289 picks and two of them became first liners (0.7%), 50 turned into decent players (17.3%), 18 were short lived (6.2%), and 219 were busts (75.8%).
 
In the first round you had a 6.7% chance of getting a first liner, while 60% turned into decent players, 13.3% had short lived careers and 20% were busts.
 
The 2nd round produced a 31.4% chance of getting a decent player, while 3.0% were short lived and 65.7% turned into busts.
 
The odds of getting a decent player didn’t drop as much as usual in the subsequent rounds. In the 3rd round it was 11.7%, same as the fourth round, while the final five rounds had a higher than average 9.4%.
 
Out of the 289 picks only 52 of them (18.0%) turned into regular NHL players.
 

2002

1st ROUND (30 picks)
7... Busts
1... Short lived
21..Decent players
1... Dominant player (Rick Nash) 
 
2nd ROUND (33 picks)
24... Busts
8...   Decent players
1...  Dominant player (Duncan Keith) 
 
3rd ROUND (33 picks)
26...Busts
2...  Short Lived
5...  Decent players 
 
4th ROUND (35 picks)
31...Busts
1.... Short lived
3.... Decent players
 
5th to 9th ROUND (160 picks)
148...Busts
5...    Short lived
7...    Decent players
 
2002 saw 291 players drafted with two of them becoming first liners (0.7%), 44 turned into decent players (15.1%), nine were short lived (3.0%),and 236 ended up being busts (81.2%).
 
In the first round you had a 3.3% chance of getting a first liner, while 70.1% turned into decent players, 3.3% had short lived careers and 23.3% were busts. 
 
In the 2nd round the chances of success dropped significantly from the first round. An almost equal 3.1% became dominant players, but now only 24.2% became decent players and 72.7% turned out to be busts. 
 
Once again the odds of drafting a quality NHLer dropped to 15.1% in the 3rd round, 8.6% in the fourth round and only a 4.3% chance in the final five rounds combined.
 
Out of the 291 picks only 46 of them (15.8%) turned into regular NHL players.
 

2003

1st ROUND (30 picks)
2... Busts
2... Short lived
18..Decent players
8... Dominant players (Eric Stall, Ryan Suter, Jeff Carter, Brent Seabrook, Ryan Getzlaf, Zach Parise, Ryan Kesler, Mike Richards.) 
 
2nd ROUND (38 picks)
24... Busts
4… Short Lived
9...   Decent players
1...  Dominant player (Shea Weber) 
 
3rd ROUND (33 picks)
26...Busts
4...  Short Lived
3...  Decent players
 
4th ROUND (35 picks)
32...Busts
1.... Short lived
2.... Decent players
 
5th to 9th ROUND (156 picks)
135...Busts
8...    Short lived
13...  Decent players
 
***Loui Eriksson, Corey Perry and Patrice Bergeron are very close to being in the dominant category, which could make this draft look even better in a few years.***
 
2003 has widely been considered one of the greatest drafts ever, and that was mostly from an exceptional first round. There are lots of top-end players in this draft class.There was 292 players drafted with nine of them becoming dominant players (3.0%), 45 turned into decent players (15.5%), 19 were short lived (6.5%),and 219 ended up being busts (75%).
 
In the first round you had a 26.6% chance of getting a first liner, while 60% turned into decent players, 6.7% had short lived careers and 6.7% were busts. 
 
In the 2nd round the success rate drop significantly. Only 2.4% became dominant players, while 23.7% became decent players, 10.5% had short lived careers and 63.4% turned out to be busts. 
 
Similar to 2001, the later rounds produced more decent players than most years. The 3rd round produced 9.1% while it dipped to 5.7% in the fourth round, but it rose to an average of 8.3% in the final five rounds combined.
 
Out of the 292 picks only 54 of them (18.5%) turned into regular NHL players.
 

2004

1st ROUND (30 picks)
8... Busts
6... Short lived
14..Decent players
2... Dominant players (Alex Ovechkin and Evgeni Malkin) 
 
2nd ROUND (35 picks)
26... Busts
2… Short Lived
7...   Decent players

3rd ROUND (33 picks)
25...Busts
3...  Short Lived
5...  Decent players 
 
4th ROUND (31 picks)
24...Busts
2.... Short lived
5.... Decent players
 
5th to 9th ROUND (162 picks)
143...Busts
9...    Short lived
10...  Decent players
 
***Keep in mind I did some projections with this draft year. Guys like Dave Bolland, Kris Versteeg, Mikhail Grabovski and Alex Goligoski were only around 200 games, but I put them in the decent category, because barring an injury they all look like guys who will play well beyond 300 games.***
 
2004 saw the second Russian player go first overall and Alex Ovechkin has lived up to the hype of being the first overall pick. His draft year had 291 players taken, but it produced only two dominant players (0.7%), 41 turned into decent players (14.1%), 22 were short lived (7.6%),and 226 ended up being busts (77.6%).
 
In the first round you had a 6.7% chance of getting a first liner, while 46.7% turned into decent players, 20% had short lived careers and 26.6% were busts. 
 
Once again the 2nd round produced a smaller return with only 20% becoming decent players, while 5.7% had short lived careers and 74.3% turned out to be busts. 
 
Once again the chance of getting a decent player dropped, but not drastically, in the later rounds. The 3rd round produced 15.1% while it rose a bit to 16.1% in the fourth round, and then dropped to an average of 6.2% in the final five rounds combined.
 
Out of the 291 picks only 43 of them (14.7%) turned into regular NHL players.
 

2005

1st ROUND (30 picks)
10... Busts
1... Short lived
15..Decent players
4... Dominant players (Sidney Crosby, Bobby Ryan, Jack Johnson and Anze Kopitar). 
 
2nd ROUND (31 picks)
20... Busts
4…  Short Lived
6...   Decent players
1...   Dominant player (Paul Stastny)
 
3rd ROUND (30 picks)
23...Busts
2...  Short Lived
5...  Decent players 
 
4th ROUND (34 picks)
28...Busts
3.... Short lived
3.... Decent players
 
5th to 7th ROUND (105 picks)
94...Busts
3...  Short lived
8...  Decent players
 
***Again I did some projections on players who look to pass 300 games and become decent players.***
 
2005 was the first year the draft dropped to seven rounds, but the numbers didn’t change that much. There were 230 players drafted with five of them becoming dominant players (2.2%), 37 turned into decent players (16.1%), 13 were short lived (5.6%),and 175 ended up being busts (76.1%).
 
In the first round you had a 13.3% chance of getting a first liner, 50% turned into decent players, 3.4% had short lived careers and 33.3% were busts. 
 
In the 2nd round the success rate drop significantly, where only 22.5% became decent players, 12.9% had short lived careers and 64.5% turned out to be busts. 
 
The 3rd round produced a 9.1% rate on a decent player, while it dipped to 5.7% in the fourth round, but it rose to an average of 8.3% in the final five rounds combined.
 
Out of the 230 picks only 42 of them (18.2%) turned into regular NHL players.
 

WRAP UP

During this ten year span there was 2703 picks, -- I don't say players because Jarret Stoll, Matt Lombardi and Lance Ward were drafted twice, and I'm sure there is more, but I didn't catch all of them. I only counted Stoll and Lombardi once in the final tally of decent players. Ward was a short-lived player -- so I'm going to say there was 2700 for argument sake.

***Feel free to let me know which other players were drafted twice, and I can re-adjust the stats, although, unless there are many, the percentages won't change that much, if any.***

In total, there was 2700 players drafted and only 439 of them (16.2%) turned into NHL players.

Thirty six of them are dominant players, which equates to only 1.3% of the drafted players.
403 of them became decent NHLers, which amounts to 14.9% of the draft picks.

Here is a breakdown of the each round during this ten-year span.

FIRST ROUND (286 picks)

25 became dominant players.   (8.8%)
148 turned into decent players. (51.7%)
113 were short lived or busts    (39.5%)

Of the 25 dominant players, 17 of them came in the top ten picks of a round.

SECOND ROUND (326 picks)

4 became dominant players.  (1.2%)
70 turned into decent players. (21.5%)
252 were short lived or busts. (77.3%)

THIRD ROUND (307 picks)

2 became dominant players.   (0.6%)
47 turned into decent NHLers. (15.2)
259 were short lived or busts.  (84.2)

FOURTH ROUND (315 picks)

27 became decent players.      (8.6%)
288 were short lived or busts.  (91.4%)

FIFTH ROUND (325 picks)

1 became a dominant player.   (0.03%)
22
turned into decent players.  (6.8%)
302
were short lived or busts.  (92.9%)

SIXTH ROUND (295 picks)

1 became a dominant player.   (0.03%)
26
turned into decent players.  (8.8%)
268 
were short lived or busts.  (90.9%) 

SEVENTH ROUND (308 picks)

became a dominant player.   (0.06%)
28
turned into decent players.  (9.1%)
268 
were short lived or busts.  (90.3%) 

EIGHTH ROUND (267 picks)

1 became a dominant player.   (0.04%)
19 
turned into decent players.  (7.1%)
247 
were short lived or busts.  (92.5%) 

NINTH ROUND (271 picks)

16 turned into decent players.  (5.9%)
255 
were short lived or busts.  (94.1%)  

CONCLUSION

It seems pretty clear that after the first round (60.5%) your chances of finding a decent NHL player become increasing lower. A second round pick will give you a 23.7% chance, you'll have a 15.8% in the 3rd round, only 8.6% in the fourth, 7.1% in the fifth, a little boost up to 9.1% in the sixth and 9.7% in the 7th round.

None of these numbers are shocking, but when people suggest that getting a 2nd rounder for "fill in the blank" is a good trade, keep in mind that you essentially have a one in four chance of turning that pick into a player. I understand that when a team is trading away an UFA that getting something is better than nothing, but unless that something actually pans out, the draft pick, in many cases, turns out to be a whole lot of nothing.

***For those who suggest I should have used players drafted in the first 30 picks in 1996-1999 to ensure it was an even 30 players for each first round, I get your point. However, the 2nd to 7th rounds in many years have a different amount based on compensatory picks so you can't use a set 30 picks for each round.***

CANADIAN TEAMS

If you are curious how the Canadian teams matched up v. one another during this ten year span here is a quick look at them.

Ottawa had elven first rounder out of their 92 picks, and three were in the top-ten. Their best pick is between Marian Hossa, 12th overall in 1997 or Jason Spezza, 2nd overall in 2001. They have done very well with their first round picks: Hossa, Spezza, Chris Phillips (1st), Martin Havlat (26th), Anton Volchenkov (21st), Tim Gleason (23rd), Patrick Eaves (29th) and Andrej Meszaros (23rd). They've produced 18 decent players and two dominant players out of their 92 picks for a solid 21.7% success rate.

Vancouver had 88 picks, ten in the first round with three in the top ten, and produced three dominant players along with eight decent ones. Their best picks were the Sedin twins 2nd and 3rd in 1999, but Ryan Kesler, 23rd overall, in 2003 was a quality pick as well. Their overall success rate is 12.5%, but with three dominant players they would grade out fairly well.

Montreal had 20 of their 94 picks turn into decent players. Andrei Markov, 6th round 1998, would most likely be their best pick. They've had three top-ten picks, Carey Price (5th, 2005), Andrei Kostitsyn (10th, 2003) and Mike Komisarek (7th, 2001) and eleven overall. They never hit a grand slam with any of their picks, but they sit with a respectful 21.2% success rate of turning picks into players.

Calgary called out 98 names, ten of them in the first round and three in the top ten. Their highest pick was 6th, twice, and they blew it both times on Rico Fata and Daniel Tkaczuk in 1998 and 1997 respectively. Their best pick was Dion Phaneuf, 9th overall, in 2003. They've seen 13 of their picks (13.2% success) become decent NHLers, but none have been very productive offensively. Derek Morris has the most points of any of their picks during this span with 382 in 927 games.

During this span the Leafs didn't seem to believe in holding onto first round picks. Out of their 92 picks, only six came in the first round, 10th, 17th, 21st and 24th three times. They did okay with Nik Antropov (10th, 1998), Brad Boyes (24th, 2000) and Alex Steen (24th, 2002), but they have since traded all three of them away along with their other first rounders, Carlo Colaiacovo and Tukka Rask. Their other first rounder, Luca Cereda (24th, 1999), never played a game in the NHL. So essentially the Leafs don't have one first rounder from this ten-year span still in the organization. Out of their 12 picks (13.0% success rate) who became regulars in the NHL, Kaberle was clearly their best selection.

Edmonton has produced 12 decent players out of 105 picks. They had twelve first round picks, the highest being sixth where they took Boyd Devereaux. Their best pick was Ales Hemsky, 13th overall, in 2001 and they had an 11.4% success rate in this time frame. Ask any Oiler fan and they will tell you their drafting was a big reason why, outside of the surprise Cup run in 2006, they were a bubble playoff team during this decade.

Ddf3e2ba09069c465299f3c416e43eae
One of Canada's most versatile sports personalities. Jason hosts The Jason Gregor Show, weekdays from 2 to 6 p.m., on TSN 1260, and he writes a column every Monday in the Edmonton Journal. You can follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/JasonGregor
Avatar
#1 Robin Brownlee
February 25 2011, 05:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props

Nice work.

Avatar
#2 Woodguy
February 25 2011, 07:27AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

Hey, these are stats???!?!?

WATCH THE DAMN GAMES AND STICK YOUR STATS UP YOUR @$%

YOU CAN MAKE STATS SAY ANYTHING!!

Actually, nice work.

Picks are always undervalued at the deadline and overvalued at the draft.

These stats show how ludicrously good Stu (MBS) McGregor did last year.

Hall, Pitlik, Hamilton, Marincin are all looking like NHL players with Martindale and Blaine probably having a reasonable shot at it too.

You also can't count out Bunz, Davidson, Czerwonka, Pelss and Jones, but they would have to be considered long shots at this time (with Davidson having the best chance)

Imagine if the Oilers got 6 NHL players out of one draft? Wow.

Avatar
#3 Hemmertime
February 25 2011, 10:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

Khabibulin put on IR for Eye infection, Gerber called up. Makes sense, didnt look like Khabby has been able to see the puck for months.

Avatar
#4 Jeff
February 25 2011, 02:27AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

First. Now go to bed Gregor!

Avatar
#5 oilers2k11
February 25 2011, 06:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

I wonder what the Oilers percentage is in drafting busts, short lived, decent, and dominant players..my guess is something like.. Busts=75% Short Lived=15% Decent=9.5% Dominant=0.5%

By the way, I scored an Absolute Beauty of a bat-out-of-the-air-backhander in NHL 11 last night.

Avatar
#6 Truth
February 25 2011, 07:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Nice! I've always thought something like this would be a good read.

On a completely unrelated note, Dipietro is not a dominant player? Three other players Milbury traded that day are. How is this guy making a living analyzing hockey?

Avatar
#7 book¡e
February 25 2011, 09:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
The Beaker wrote:

ummmm what? How are you even equating the 4th for a 6th and 7th to a 1st for six 7ths? I know you said you wouldnt do it but I thought everyone just thought that was obvious. Doing that isnt even remotely the same thing.

He is noting that 6-7 late rind picks would give you an equal chance at finding NHLers as a Single 1st round pick. The problem here is that there is a very crude measure of player quality.

At some point a large number of late picks would provide a better likelihood of a better draft outcome.

Avatar
#8 book¡e
February 25 2011, 09:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@Banger

Also, there needs to be a recognition that you are frequently only trading the remainder of a player's contract. Some people only look at the quality of player and that is misleading.

Avatar
#9 Team Couturier
February 25 2011, 10:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Here's a little math for you all:

Hemsky - dominant player Simmonds - Decent player Teubert - Decent player Clifford - Decent player

So how does that add up to a good trade? Answer: It doesn't.

Hang up the phone.

Avatar
#10 John Chambers
February 25 2011, 10:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

The mark of a strong GM is the ability to evaluate when owning picks vs. trading picks offers your franchise greater value. Ie, when to go-for-it, and when to maximize the return of your veteran players.

I applaud K Lowe for trading away picks and never-to-be prospects to load up for our cup run in '06. Without Spacek, Rollie, and Samsonov, we're facing an uphill battle getting past the first round.

Given this excellent research, any team poised for the playoffs are of sane mind if they sell off their 2nd through 7th round picks, even for a rental.

For a player like Fisher, Nashville should feel at ease with trading away a first-rounder for several years utility out of a capable centre.

The other factor to add into this is, what is the value of a draft pick relative to the value of a UFA? Logically, I'm wise to pursue as many low-cost UFA's during the offseason as possible, as their cost seems less than drafting and developing them.

After all, I can buy Kurtis Foster for nothing; I can sell him for a 2nd or 3rd rounder.

Avatar
#11 Chickenplucker
February 25 2011, 10:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@They're $hittie

And Ovechkin's goals are down. Must be the 2 year European jinx.

Malkin: 1.18 pts/game and Conn Smythe winner. Not good at all.

Avatar
#12 Chickenplucker
February 25 2011, 11:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
They're $hittie wrote:

didnt deserve to win the conn smythe showing up for only the last series. I am not saying they are not good i am saying they are overrated. Ovechkin is awesome, but how many people said he would be the most dominant player for years and now have him rated behind 3 or 4 other guys.

Conn Smythe year: 24 play-off games, 36 points(which led the team), averaged over 20 minutes of ice time per game.

Who deserved it?

Elite players are going to move a couple of positions depending on the year and how they are performing compared to the other elite players.

Avatar
#13 Rogue
February 25 2011, 12:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Great job, Gregor. ON writers strike a blow again! Puts a whole new spin on the"2nd round pick". Also gives me a new appreciation for SMBM.

Avatar
#14 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
February 25 2011, 03:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
They're $hittie wrote:

never said that either, he was critizided during the whole playoff until that lat series. With out winning the Washington series Malkin does not even get the chance to perform in the finals.

I think you have a different recollection of events then most people do.

Avatar
#15 CSimpson18
February 25 2011, 02:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Really interesting read, thanks for all the work. Hate to nitpick, but how are Bobby Ryan or Jack Johnson dominant players but Corey Perry isnt?

Avatar
#16 DoubleJ
February 25 2011, 04:14AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Another way to look at draft picks value is during the trade deadline you get picks for players meaning the players is more valueable then the pick.

At the deadline your picks are more valueable get you better players.

If we traded Hemsky and get a first round pick a nhl player and a prospect.

lets guess the pick is between 16 to 20 th mark. you can trade that pick for a pretty good player at the draft.

ie) Calgary got Cammalleri for their 13 th pick.

you can move later round picks for actuall nhl players as well ie) Brodziak

Getting picks is not a bad thing for players. IMO.

Avatar
#17 pelhem grenville
February 25 2011, 04:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

WOW!!!!...so much midnight oil burned and this is all you can come up with professor gregor?~~~ wow!!!is this the fruit that is now blooming after all the book learnin' you've been doin' that Brownlee was crackin'on you about??? it's certainly paid off...a very interesting read and the concept is much clearer when it's laid out like this... as a resident knuckle-dragger i can say all these numbers make perfect sense albeit overwhelmingly so...EYE OPENING TO SAY THE VERY LEAST! One thing,anyone saying from now on that ' we got a second rounder back for fill in the blank ' should now have a better idea that that player isn't going to be as good as the second round is cranked up to be and that's the truly shocking part of this whole body of work....that dramatic drop off from 60% to less than 25% from 1st to 2nd rounds.

Does this mean that we don't want 'high' draft picks[seconds and even worse thirds] back if those draft picks aren't anywhere near as valuable as we thought before?

again...quite the compilation professor

Avatar
#18 Broiler
February 25 2011, 05:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Great read and wonderful research, Really highlights the importance of scouting, Stu MacGregor do your magic.

Avatar
#19 Petr's Jofa
February 25 2011, 06:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Great work Jason,

60.5% to 23.7 is a huge drop from 1st to second round. Is there an easy way to divide up the 1st round a bit more? I'm curious to see how fast the success rate drops once the highly touted prospects are taken with the first 5 or so picks.

Is the chance of success picking 20 to 30th in the 1st round much better than picking in the second round?

Avatar
#20 book¡e
February 25 2011, 07:09AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Nice work - well put together.

Interesting that there is almost no difference from the 4th round upwards. You could trade a 4th round pick for 2 8th round picks and come out ahead.

Avatar
#21 Oilcruzer
February 25 2011, 07:27AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Bird in hand. Nice job.

The dominant player is nice dressing. It basically comes down to this though...

"will he play in the show or not?"

Based on this, a PROVEN player is worth miles more than a prospect who is developing or than a player who is as yet undrafted.

But...It's also sexy to take the draft picks.

I.E. "I'll take what's behind door number 3!"

Avatar
#22 stevezie
February 25 2011, 07:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I thought the biggest surprise was the lack of difference between rounds four and seven. According to this, trading a fourth for sixth and seventh would be a very good idea.

Avatar
#23 Oilcruzer
February 25 2011, 07:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
stevezie wrote:

I thought the biggest surprise was the lack of difference between rounds four and seven. According to this, trading a fourth for sixth and seventh would be a very good idea.

Ah, but would you trade a first rounder for 6 seventh rounders?

(neither would I)

There's too much potential in those first rounders.

Avatar
#24 Truth
February 25 2011, 07:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

and by three I mean two.

Avatar
#25 Truth
February 25 2011, 07:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Truth wrote:

and by three I mean two.

and by trade I mean pass over in drafting. Man is it early.

Avatar
#26 Death Metal Nightmare
February 25 2011, 08:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

thanks for the article Gregor! the tedious work is much appreciated!

Avatar
#27 Banger
February 25 2011, 08:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Good read, I bet that was a lot of work to get all this done.

The only i would say is you cant be so quick to look at a trade with "Player A" for a second rounder and say its a nothing trade, even if the player doesnt play a single game in the NHL. What other impact did that trade have on the team? Did it free up some money that allowed you to sign or re-sign guys that made your team better and needed a raise? There are always lots of trickle down effects that happen from a trade and trying to research that would put you in the nut house, but i think you get my point.

Good read, I like reading about these types of things.

Avatar
#28 Ogden Brother Jr. - Team Strudwick for coach
February 25 2011, 08:07AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

This might possibly be the best bit of information that I've come across on the internet in a very long time. Good job Gregor.

Avatar
#29 Dodd
February 25 2011, 08:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Truth

Haha you said "DiPietro." Ha you also said "Milbury".

I'm thinking "hunches" and "very specific needs" are probably what dominate the later rounds, as opposed to definable skills and measurable depth... maybe that's why we see nearly the same percentages between 4th and 7th round.

Okay that's enough "quotations" for today.

Avatar
#30 I tried it at home
February 25 2011, 08:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Nice work Gregor, informative and easy to understand. Just to give us masochists a real thrill though, you could of put a small note under each year reminding us who Edmonton picked in the first round. Just think of how much more fun rushhour would be this morning with that many pi88ed off drivers lol

Avatar
#31 The Beaker
February 25 2011, 08:25AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Oilcruzer wrote:

Ah, but would you trade a first rounder for 6 seventh rounders?

(neither would I)

There's too much potential in those first rounders.

ummmm what? How are you even equating the 4th for a 6th and 7th to a 1st for six 7ths? I know you said you wouldnt do it but I thought everyone just thought that was obvious. Doing that isnt even remotely the same thing.

Avatar
#32 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
February 25 2011, 08:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Glad to see this is getting mainstream recognition, draft picks have been drastically over valued by vans for a long time.

This also highlights how rediculous alot of people were with their insistance that Pendergast era was horrible drafting.

Avatar
#33 Nabs99
February 25 2011, 09:01AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Thanks for all your hard work, great read. I've always wondered about those percentages.

Avatar
#34 They're $hittie
February 25 2011, 09:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Perry is a more dominant player than seabrook kessler and suter. Malkin had two dominant years that is it and two good years and his ppg this year does not say dominance. I am not saying Perry is better than Malkin or the other way. Why does everyone overrate European players who play good for one or two years. He is good but he is not even top ten anymore. Niklas Lidstrom now there is a dominant European player with consistancy.

Check the waiver wire, Marek Svatos anyone?

Avatar
#35 The Beaker
February 25 2011, 09:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

Glad to see this is getting mainstream recognition, draft picks have been drastically over valued by vans for a long time.

This also highlights how rediculous alot of people were with their insistance that Pendergast era was horrible drafting.

ummmmm overvaluing draft picks - yes Using the word "rediculous" to describe how people thing that drafting was bad? - no

People might be overstated about it but its definitely not rediculous. Some teams get lucky, others get unlucky but there HAS to be some skill involved somehow.

Avatar
#36 Crackenbury
February 25 2011, 09:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Best article I've seen posted here to date. I always felt that the success rate for anyone drafted past the first round was failrly low, but I had no idea it was as bad as it is. Send a copy to Tambellini, those 2nd and 3rd round draft choices for roster players don't look so good anymore. Unless of course, it's a salary dump or the player is leaving anyways or they're poison in the room or...

Avatar
#37 ryanDTN34
February 25 2011, 09:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Great read Gregor! Don't agree with your evaluation of so called "dominant" players. You consider bobby ryan a dominant player but corey perry is not. I would consider perry more dominant then bobby ryan for sure.

Avatar
#38 Ender
February 25 2011, 09:42AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Props, Gregor. If I'd have been asked before, I'd have sided with your theory but had no way to back it up. It's very nice to have the numbers to prove the point.

Along with your article about the perils of drafting defencemen, you are starting to assemble a pretty solid reference guide on how and how not to draft in the NHL.

Avatar
#39 Quicksilver ballet
February 25 2011, 09:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Maybe the NHL could benifit from having kids drafted at age 19 instead of 17-18 yr olds, maybe that trims the also rans by 25%.

NHL teams may also benifit having a couple spots available on American league rosters to allow for a couple 19 yr olds if need be, times are changing.

Avatar
#40 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
February 25 2011, 09:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
The Beaker wrote:

ummmmm overvaluing draft picks - yes Using the word "rediculous" to describe how people thing that drafting was bad? - no

People might be overstated about it but its definitely not rediculous. Some teams get lucky, others get unlucky but there HAS to be some skill involved somehow.

Do a little more digging and you'll find the drafting was middle of the pack during the Pendergast years.

Avatar
#42 Ryan A
February 25 2011, 09:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Above and beyond the call of duty here at the nation! We truly are spoiled by the writers! Excellent job to all of you! This is Cutting Edge....and he's a junior out of the ........mahahahaha.

Avatar
#43 Mr Debakey
February 25 2011, 09:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

"Is there an easy way to divide up the 1st round a bit more? I'm curious to see how fast the success rate drops once the highly touted prospects are taken with the first 5 or so picks."

I did something like this a few years ago. If memory serves, the big drop-off comes in the 10-12 range.

But, when you use only a 10-year window, one guy can really screw up the numbers. Horcoff makes the 99th pick look way better than the entire second round.

Avatar
#44 Crash
February 25 2011, 09:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

To assemble a piece like this one would certainly take a good chunk of time.

The information is much appreciated.

Excellent article.

Avatar
#45 Quicksilver ballet
February 25 2011, 09:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Those are sobering numbers to absorb. Almost justifies beg,borrowing or stealing your way into the top ten, maybe even the top six in this years entry draft. To move a Hemsky and/or a Penner for anything near middle to late first round could very well be tragic.

Avatar
#46 Wazzle
February 25 2011, 10:10AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

From Gregor's Twitter. Oilers have recalled goaltender Martin Gerber.

Avatar
#47 positivebrontefan
February 25 2011, 10:11AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Wow Gregor! Nice job! How much tylenol did you eat through to get through all those stats and spread sheets. Gives me a head ache just thinking about it. Thanks for the great info!

Other than the Nucks, being in the low teen or below success percentage rate it means mediocrity. Look at how the Oilers, Leafs and Calgary have done in the past 6-8 years. Other than some magic in two playoff runs they have been less than mediocre with Calgary being slightly better based on the performance of Kiprosoff and Iginla. Yeah, I said it Calgary has been slightly better than Edmonton with a bonafide star or two. Vancouver has ridden an otherwise mediocre draft record on the home run of the Sedins...but still don't have a Cup.

Senators had a good run for a number of years with their good picks.

Go Stu MacGregor!!!

Avatar
#48 Kaiser Wilhelm
February 25 2011, 10:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Beauty of an article Jason; thanks for the work.

I dunno about the rest of you clowns, but this does not make me very happy about the possibility of trading players for picks. I love the draft, and the feeling that every 7th round pick is going to be the next Zetterburg, but when you look at those numbers. . . If 83 or 27 head out the door, there had sure as heck better be a proven prospect with a high pick coming back--at LEAST.

Avatar
#49 Jagrbaum
February 25 2011, 10:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Mike Green taken 24th(or 25th?) overall in 2004? Not considered dominant with his 30 goal defenseman ability? I know he's struggled but c'mon hes good, you know it.

Career 365gms 79g 165a 244pts 58+/- 286PIM 878SOG 41ppg 72ppa

Included in that is 3 straight seasons of 56pts+ and two PPG seasons at 73pts+

Avatar
#50 David S
February 25 2011, 10:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

"Hockey and Peace" - An epic tale by Jason Gregor.

*Tips hat*

Comments are closed for this article.