Oilers at the Draft, 2008

This is Sam Gagner in (I believe) the uniform of the Sioux City Musketeers. It isn’t a great uniform (or a great name for a team, good grief there probably aren’t 11 hockey fans alive who could identify a musket and that assumes Charlton Heston is a hockey fan) but it is unique and I hadn’t seen it before so that’s why I’m posting it. There is a slight chance it is the uniform of the Milton Icehawks but I googled Gilll Hardware, Sioux City and came up with an address so without going all MATLOCK on this question we’ll go with the Musketeers. I will only add there appear to be 4,000 Home Hardware stores near Milton.

The Edmonton Oilers don’t own their first, second or third round picks in the upcoming draft. I would guess these selections will be (approx) #4, #34 and #70 because there are picks given out for a few reasons after some of the early rounds (not signing your first round pick I believe, also it seems like the Southleast division gets a few extra picks every year so Bettman may just award them pell-mell, willy-nilly).

The Oilers do own the Anaheim pick. I believe the NHL is staying with that rule that says your draft pick depends on where you finish in the playoffs as opposed to the clubs outside the second season. Can someone confirm that for me? Was I dreaming last spring? The NHL just makes stuff up as they roll along and it’s honestly hard to keep track.

The Oilers will probably draft in the 25-30 range, so for the sake of our conversation here today let’s say it is #27. Good? Good. The deepest draft in recent years was 2003 and I’ve read many (some learned, some like me) say that the 2008 Entry Draft is top drawer as well, so let’s use the 2003 draft as a comparable and once and for all put the Dustin Penner deal on a straight line:

  • The Edmonton Oilers traded (using picks above, didn’t look before I lept) F Nikolai Zherdev, D Mike Egener and F Jonathan Filewich for Dustin Penner.

Those are the three players in the slots listed above (my guesses as to the ANA picks from EDM). Just to finish the thought, the Oilers would get a Jeff Tambellini at #27.

I think that an NHL team drafting outside the top 10 should probably try to get as many top 100 picks as possible. Why? After the top 10 (and there’s even a tier above that, the top 5 or 6 most seasons) the chances of getting a top quality NHL player becomes more hit and miss. Fewer Hemsky’s, more Niinimaki’s. That’s why I was never able to work up the anger others felt over the Parise Vs. Pouliot debate. The Oilers were drafting in the middle of the first round, the guy they targeted (Robert Nilsson) was selected and they dealt down to get another pick in the top 100.

Hell I’d do that every year just based on the math. Tell me I’m wrong. Seriously.

Let’s approach it a different way. If I said to you that Sam Gagner needed to play in 700 NHL games in his career to “cover the bet”, would you agree with me? The 6th overall pick in 2003 was Milan Michalek, do you believe he’ll play 700 NHL games? He’s at 254 now and he was drafted 4.5 years ago (plus he’s 23 right now) so he’ll certainly make it. The #6 pick from the previous year was Scottie Upshall who sits at 130 right now and I’d say he’s a fair bet to do it. We’ll use 700 NHL games for a top 6 pick but you may be more comfortable with a different number and I don’t want to get bogged down in minutiae so if you want it to be 1,000 NHL games for the line in the sand we’ll got with it.

Now, when we get to the next set of players, say 11-25, the odds of them playing 1,000 NHL games is not great. Is 700 a stretch? Let’s look at the the 2001 draft to see who is on track and who isn’t. These players would have turned 20 around 2003 and should be in the NHL by now if they’re going to do anything. I would suggest that our line in the sand for career GP (11-25) should be 700 games. Let’s say a player turning 20 in 2003 has a 10-year window beginning the fall he turns 20 in order to cover 500 of the 700 game bet. If we take the lockout year from the mix, and average the 500 games over 10 years, any player making the grade currently from the 2001 draft would need to have played in 200 NHL games by the end of this season (4 seasons times 50 games). That sounds steep. How many are on track:

  • #11: Fredrik Sjostrom 251 (check)
  • #12: Dan Hamhuis 295 (check)
  • #13: Ales Hemsky 322 (check)
  • #14: Chuck Kobasew 271 (check)
  • #15: Igor Knyazev 0
  • #16: RJ Umberger 202 (check)
  • #17: Carol Colaiacovo 80
  • #18: Jens Karlsson 0
  • #19: Shaone Morrisonn 250 (check)
  • #20: Marcel Goc 188
  • #21: Colby Armstrong 169
  • #22: Jiri Novotny 127
  • #23: Tim Gleason 236 (check)
  • #24: Lukas Krajicek 207 (check)
  • #25: Alexander Perezhogin 128

A few things to note. First of all, as a group the NHL scouting fraternity does a wonderful job at picking the best players. Remember, they are evaluating 17-year olds and projecting them forward and these numbers show just how good they are. I don’t know what happened to Knyazev and Karlsson but maybe they were injured (like Colaiacovo), and there are several players here who are behind the curve but should catch up. I would list Armstrong, Novotny and Perezhogin among that group and the one player I’m worried about is Goc who looks like his offense is completely gone. We may be more than halfway through his NHL career at this time.

I know there are weak years and strong years so let’s nick the second tier and say 2001 was freakishly strong for a draft. Would you agree that we can handicap the top 25 like this:

  1. Picks one through six: 1,000 games
  2. Picks seven through ten: 700 games
  3. Picks eleven through twenty-five: 500 games

Is that fair? If Sam Gagner doesn’t play in 1000 games his career will be a disappointment? Well let’s not get silly, if he finishes at 888 but the Oilers win the Stanley then it will be a good career but does it make sense as a general rule? It strikes me as being a little harsh but I’m fine with that since most fanbased stuff like this is giddy the other way.

Okay, let’s say that the Oilers draft #27 and the draft is deep enough for them to select someone with similar value to the 11-25 group in 2001.

My question to you is this: in a deep draft year when you’re selecting 27th and the St. Louis Blues call you and offer #42 and #67 do you take it?

I think you do. More in the next installment.

written by

The author didn‘t add any Information to his profile yet.
Related Posts

42 Responses to "Oilers at the Draft, 2008"

  1. godot10 says:

    //My question to you is this: in a deep draft year when you’re selecting 27th and the St. Louis Blues call you and offer #42 and #67 do you take it?//

    You do what the Patriots do. You pick a player if there is a player you want badly who won’t be there at #42. You trade it if there isn’t. Or it the player you want is going to go at #15, you trade up to get him.

    There is no predetermined answer. It depends on who is left on the board, and how highly one desires them.

  2. Lowetide says:

    Well Jesus godot10 if you don’t want to play that’s fine, but could you pretty please play along?

    As it pertains to value in a typical season and using previous drafts as a backdrop, do you believe dealing down is a better bet?

  3. Black Dog says:

    Um, is Gagner available at #67? ;)

    Hmm, that’s a tough one. I think in a deep draft you go with your #27 pick. I think the odds are better that you get a player at 27 then with the 42 and the 67.

    Similar to the Nash deal, although of course if you can get Nash with the 42 then I guess that blows my argument, doesn’t it?

  4. Lowetide says:

    BDHS: I think in a deep draft a team can get two chips instead of one and have a pretty good chance at making it work. The Parise V Pouliot argument is the reverse example and looks awful for the Oilers but the idea makes sense imo.

    I may not be explaining this well but basically the premise for the post was this:

    1. If you have a pick say 15-25 and get an offer for two in the 40-70 range it is a good bet in a deep draft.

    2. The difference between 1-10 and 11-25 is so great that you are actually better off dealing that pick for two farther down.

    Now obviously if you are picking at 11 you don’t trade down for 42 and 67, but I think there’s a case to be made here.

  5. HBomb says:

    What about this? How about dealing up as part of a strategy to relieve some cap issues? Hear me out…..

    So I think we can have the general consensus that Lowe might have to choose between one of his two “big” RFA’s, Stoll and Pitkanen, due to salary concerns (mostly due to that godawful Souray deal, but I digress). It’s safe to assume he’ll get Nilsson and Gilbert done, and the guys like Pouliot and Jacques…we shall see what happens.

    Anyways, say they don’t move 16 or 25 in some sort of package deal closer to the deadline. If the Anaheim pick plus Stoll can move you up into the 10-15 range, or if said pick plus Pitkanen gets you into the 5-10 range….do you consider it?

    Personally, I’d consider it if it was Stoll. I think they need to sign Pitkanen in addition to Gilbert, because that’s potentially the top pairing for the next 5 years on this hockey team. If it means shedding salary in the form of Stoll for a draft pick upgrade, or dealing off Staios at the deadline for some youngster with upside…..it has to be considered. If Lowe could offload Roloson, he’d be doing himself a favor cap-wise.

    This team would be in a hell of a lot better position if they didn’t have “new 44″ on the books at 5.4 per. The Roloson contract is the second biggest weight…..people talk about the number of 2 million per season (or more) players on the Oilers roster (tied with the Leafs for the most in the league), but if they trade their Moreaus, Staioses, Pisanis, etc….they’re going to be worse off next year, no matter what anyone on HF says to the contrary. Rock, meet hard place…..

    It’s a delicate balance. At one end of the spectrum, you’ve got the Oilers with lots of good players, but no superstar making the big bucks (my thinking is that any successful team needs at least one and at most two of these). At the other end you have Tampa, with essentially three guys chewing up half the payroll. This is the trap that Calgary might be falling into with Iginla/Phaneuf/Regehr/Kiprusoff accounting for, what 23 million between the four of them? You need a good mix. Look at where the Oilers and Bolts are in the standings, and watch what happens to the Flames next year when they can’t afford Langkow or Huselius (unless they dump Tanguay to the Habs for picks/prospects).

    Anyways, your original question about dealing down? 9 out of 10 years, I’d say yes. But look at the guys who went in the 20′s in 2003….Getzlaf, Richards, Perry. This year, I’d say hold OR try to move up into the teens if the opportunity presents itself.

    Speaking of moving up….if Cliff Fletcher was smart, he’d offer Sundin to the Ducks for the Oilers 1st rounder and some expiring salary (Weight) and would try to get two of the top five picks. With a little luck, he could end up with Stamkos and Schenn and set up the Leafs to actually be good in the long-term.

    Whew, what a rant. Trying to get my mind off the awful 26th birthday present the Oilers gave me last night, but it’s not working. Thank goodness I had a great buzz going after dinner at Coliseum Steak & Pizza, otherwise it would have seemed even worse….

  6. Jonathan says:

    //My question to you is this: in a deep draft year when you’re selecting 27th and the St. Louis Blues call you and offer #42 and #67 do you take it?//

    First off, this caveat:
    //There is no predetermined answer. It depends on who is left on the board, and how highly one desires them.//

    That said, statistically, I still say no. Looking at the Entry Drafts from 1993-2004 (because I didn’t feel like going further back, and further ahead is undecided) I weighed the selection at 27 vs. 42 and 67. 7 times out of 12 the 27th pick was the best, and 2 times out of 12 it was a wash by my estimation. So only 25% of the time did those two picks pan out better, most recently in 2002, where I’d take Marius Holtet and Gregory Campbell over Mike Morris.

    The players of note picked at 27 include: Jeffs Tambellini, Schultz, and Woywitka, Scott Gomez, Ben Clymer, Cory Sarich, and Rhett Warrener, vs. Gregory Campbell (67), Mike Commodore (42), Alex Henry (67), Jeff Paul (42), Gordie Dwyer (67), Brad Isbister (67) and Dave Scatchard (42).

    Basically, I think you’re going to get the best player at 27, and you’re more likely to get 1 NHL’er out of the 27th pick than out of the 42nd and 67th picks.

  7. Lowetide says:

    Colisuem Steak and Pizza. Good times there no doubt about it, last time I was there Louise and I were having lunch at the Oilers TC scrimmages and MacT and the coaching staff walked in.

    I wanted to go over and say “give Pouliot a chance MacT, I’ve studied it and think he’s a MacT type” but you know I didn’t want to look like an idiot.

    :-)

  8. Lowetide says:

    So maybe we’re arguing how far back to go? What if it was 33 and 67? Moving back 8 slots to pick up the JFJ pick?

    Or is it (all things considered) always a better bet to trade UP?

    HBomb: You brought up so many good points there I can’t even respond to all of them, but I’d rather keep Pitkanen and my pick than trade up UNLESS the Oilers can sign a free agent for 4M or so who can do what Pitkanen can do.

  9. HBomb says:

    Coliseum S & P is an Edmonton institutuion. Gotta love that place – I make a point of going there for dinner before games at least 3-4 times per season.

    In fact, it’s something that you could add to Grabia’s laundry list of arguments against a downtown arena, it’s so good.

  10. godot10 says:

    //As it pertains to value in a typical season and using previous drafts as a backdrop, do you believe dealing down is a better bet?//

    It is a false argument. One decides to use a pick, trade up or trade down based on who is on the board when it comes to your pick, and whether opposition research suggests one can get him lower, not on the supposed quality of the draft.

    The supposed “quality” of the draft is irrelevant if there is somebody on the board who you think will be a hockey player who won’t be available X picks later.

    To draft successfully, one has to be know the value of a particular player, and one has to know how other teams value a particular player.

    Example is Nash. The Oiler liked Nash, but just as important to getting him was knowing other teams (i.e. New Jersey) liked Nash, so the Oilers knew they had to trade up to get him.

    Success in the draft is not just the accumulation of picks wherever they happen to fall, or in a large numbers of picks, but making draft position (and the quality of the draft) somewhat irrelevant by moving up and down the board based on who is on the board.

  11. Lowetide says:

    Thanks, godot10.

  12. HBomb says:

    HBomb: You brought up so many good points there I can’t even respond to all of them, but I’d rather keep Pitkanen and my pick than trade up UNLESS the Oilers can sign a free agent for 4M or so who can do what Pitkanen can do.

    Oh, I’d rather keep Pitkanen too. Outside of Hemsky, the guy has the most raw upside of anyone in the entire system right now (it may seem blasphemous, but there’s a guy who didn’t play for Dallas last night but wears #56 normally that I think he’s a poor man’s version of), so I think it’s very important they sign him. 5 million a year is no issue with me, if they can lock him in for 6 years or so.

    Rather than trying to find someone who can do what Pitkanen does for 4, you perhaps move Staios and try to find someone who does what HE does for about 1.5 million. I think you have a lot easier time finding that player. Sort of like if Reasoner wants 1 million….you let him walk and try to identify this year’s Josef Vasicek (a nice bargain at 750k).

    Individually, moves like this don’t make or break you, but it’s like stock market investment. Make enough of the right little moves, and suddenly you’re sitting with a nice collection of players, a team on the rise that’s suddenly an attractive UFA destination (or more attractive, it’s all relative), and 5-10 million in cap space to add the piece that puts you over the top.

    That’s what the next 110 games is all about, in my mind. Pruning the tree, locking up the core, and preparing for a return to the playoffs in 2010 and strong contention (a la Buffalo 2006 & 2007) in 2011 and 2012 (aka the last two years of the Hemsky and Penner deals).

    Watching Burke potentially draft Luke Schenn this June is going to be tough….but there’s no time machine available to you, me or Kevin Lowe to change that. The best we can hope for is that the kids somehow keep that pick in the 6-10 range (i.e. away from Doughty, Stamkos, Schenn, etc.), go through next year, maybe get a crack at Tavares, and build for the long-term.

  13. Eetu says:

    “I believe the NHL is staying with that rule that says your draft pick depends on where you finish in the playoffs as opposed to the clubs outside the second season. Can someone confirm that for me?”

    I’m the last person you should trust with this stuff (I’m the one who forgot that Pitkänen was playing for the Oilers, remember), but as far as I know, they changed the draft order rules last year and they won’t be changing it back.

    I don’t think it made much sense to use the reverse order of regular season standings for the playoff clubs. The new rules (playoff clubs drafting according to their “final position”) are much better.

    NBA style draft lottery would be nice, too. That way the non-playoff teams wouldn’t be automatically awarded for being as bad as possible.

  14. HBomb says:

    Regarding this draft positioning thing, I think it’s a hybrid of the old way and what the NFL does.

    From what I remember, the new rule is that the four conference finalists have spots 27-30, and the remainder of the draft spots are still determined by regular season finish.

  15. Jonathan says:

    Let’s try something else. We’ll compare the number of NHL’ers in the 25-29 slot vs. 31-45. That’s 1 pick in the late 1st round for every three early 2nd round picks. Because you still get late bloomers from more recent drafts, I’ll look at 1998-2001.

    1998-
    1998 was a good, not great draft, with Vincent Levalier going 1st overall, and guys like Mathieu Biron, Simon Gagne and Alex Tanguay all going in the first round. It’s also the draft where Andrei Markov and Pavel Datsyuk were stolen in the 6th round, and perhaps most significantly, the Pittsburgh Penguins selected Toby Petersen. Here’s what are focused picks look like:

    For 25-29, Jiri Fischer, Mike Van Ryn, Scott Gomez, Ramzi Abid and Jonathan Cheechoo have all played in the NHL, with Abid at one end and Gomez/Cheechoo on the other. Fischer looked good until that heart condition cut his career short, and Van Ryn’s a useful player. 31-45 yielded 12 players who had at least a cup of coffee, with the standouts being Mike Fisher and Mike Ribeiro. Aside from those two players, only Ossi Vaananen, John Erskine, Artem Chubarov and Andrew Peters have had significant chunks of time in the big league. If I had to trade one group for the other, I’d take 25-29.

    1999-
    1999 was a miserable draft year, highlighted by Patrik Stefan going 1st overall, and Brian Burke maneuvering his way into the Sedin Twins. The best player to come out of the draft went 210th overall to the Red Wings, Henrik Zetterberg. Anyway:

    25-29 is an ugly group, with Martin Havlat being far and away the best, and nobodies like Mikhail Kuleshov, Ari Ahonen, Kristian Kudroc and Michal Sivek rounding out the group. They all played in the NHL, except for my favorite, Ahonen, who carved out a five year career as goaltender with the Albany River Rats before going back to Finland.
    However, the 31-45 group looks no better, with the best players being Mike Commodore, Jordan Leopold and Alex Auld. Two Oiler picks were in here with Tony Salmeleinen at 41 and Alexei Semenov at 36. It’s mostly garbage, but there’s a greater volume of garbage in 31-45 so I’d take that group.

    2000-
    The 2000 draft was a good one. It should have been all about the expansion teams (Heatley, Gaborik and Klesla went 2,3,4 to Atlanta, Minnesota and Columbus), but Mike Milbury (on TV now because he’s a fantastic commentator and a poor GM) stole the show. Bypassing Heatley, he snagged Rick DiPietro 1st overall, and because he now had a goaltender of the future, he traded Roberto Luongo and Olli Jokinen to Florida for Mark Parrish and Oleg Kvasha. With the #5 pick he grabbed Raffi Torres. The better late round picks included Roman Cechmanek at 171, Henrik Lundqvist at 205, and, by the Oilers, Matthew Lombardi at 215.

    25-29 boasts a bunch of role players, including Steve Ott, Brian Sutherby, Martin Samuelsson and Justin Williams, and one pretty good defenceman in Niklas Kronwall. 31-45 includes Nick Shultz, and Ilya Bryzgalov (with Jarret Stoll falling just outside the cutoff at 46 to Calgary). All told, the group contains 9 NHL’ers, and this seems to have been a fairly top-heavy draft. The groups are pretty much a wash in my opinion, with Bryzgalov likely to be the best player of them all.

    2001-
    Another draft stolen by Mike Milbury, who traded the #2 pick (Jason Spezza) and Zdeno Chara to Ottawa for Alexei Yashin. Wow. Kovalchuk went 1st overall, and Hemsky slipped to 13th (thankfully). Not a great draft all told, with the best late round steals going to LA (Cristobal Huet) and ANA (Martin Gerber).

    25-29 has one good player in Alexander Perezhogin, and bit players like Jason Bacashihua, Jeff Woywitka, Adrian Foster and Adam Munro. 31-45 is similar in that it has one good player (Derek Roy at 32) and not much after. The “notables” would be Fedor Tyutin, Kyle Wanvig and Karel Pilar. Edge to 31-45 because of Derek Roy.

    Sorry for the insanely long post. My conclusion- keep the high picks. In a good draft you’re more likely to hit a homerun, and in a bad draft, even at 3:1, it’s a close thing.

  16. Lowetide says:

    Good comments all. It does seem (based on the posts here) that the smart money is on keeping the first round pick (#27) and then waiting for the 4th round.

    I suspect the Oilers will add some picks at the deadline anyway, but even if they do that pick at #27 is probably going to be a “safe” pick (as opposed to Niinimaki or Plante as an example).

  17. Matt says:

    HBomb is right about the draft order… conference finalists get #27 & #28, Finals loser #29, champ #30. Also, I have no idea what you’re talking about with the sandwich picks.

    Anyway, I think you’re too pessimistic about where ANA’s pick will be; I think high teens is just as likely as #27.

    Also, one thing that wasn’t brought up here is the salary structure for entry level contracts. This came up somewhere else, but it’s awfully tough for a first-rounder (especially a high one, superstars excluded) to earn his money in the first year or so of his contract. A 2nd-rounder gets ~ the minimum, so if they’re good enough to make your team, they’re earning their salary, QED.

    The next best thing to drafting a superstar is drafting Shea Weber.

  18. Lowetide says:

    Matt: I may be wrong on this, but didn’t the Oilers get a “sandwich pick” for not signing Jesse Niinimaki?

  19. kanadienkyle says:

    As an aside, the uniform Gagner is wearing is indeed that of the Sioux City Musketeers. They also sport a bright yellow uniform.

    The team was named the Musketeers as a reference to the 3 Musketeers because they draw fans from 3 states (SD, Iowa and Nebraska). Their unsung hero award is called the D’Artagnan.

  20. jon k says:

    Although there’s a lot of stuff that could happen between now and the draft, I suspect we see Lowe move up at the draft, likely at a significant cost.

    Given that the team likely needs to shed some salary if Lowe is planning on retaining the likes of Pitkanen and the rest of the costly D-core, I could see Stoll, Torres, or some other established assets being dealt along with Anaheim’s first to move into the 10-15 pick range.

  21. HBomb says:

    Given that the team likely needs to shed some salary if Lowe is planning on retaining the likes of Pitkanen and the rest of the costly D-core, I could see Stoll, Torres, or some other established assets being dealt along with Anaheim’s first to move into the 10-15 pick range.

    I think Torres isn’t even someone worth discussing moving at this point. Given that he’s suffered a season-ending knee injury, my guess is that he is here through trade deadline 2009, at minimum.

    Sure you can trade him this summer, but his value is going to be GREATLY deflated.

  22. Bruce says:

    Sorry for the insanely long post.

    No apology required, Jonathan, that was great. Amazing that Mike Milbury came up with The Very Worst Performance Ever By A General Manager At The Entry Draft in 2000 and very nearly topped (bottomed?) it in 2001, yet still kept his job for five years. Islanders just might have been a decent team with Luongo, Chara, Jokinen, Spezza, and Heatley.

    From an Oilers perspective the trade down of [Parise or Getzlaf] for the Pouliot and Jacques picks has been a disaster — I continue to hold out some hope that one of these guys may yet be a player, but their time to become one for the Oilers is fast running out. In the meantime the organization has wasted a lot of precious development time on these guys.

    On the flip side, early returns suggest that the trade up for the Riley Nash pick seems more promising, although it’s way too early to pass judgement. Let’s hope so. If it does work out, the Oilers experience will suggest trading up is a good idea; if it doesn’t, maybe the conclusion will be trading with the Oilers is a good idea.

  23. Ducey says:

    Don’t the Oilers have someones third round pick as well?

  24. Black Dog says:

    Yes, Torres name has been brought up as tradebait but until he proves he is ok he is going nowhere. Similar to Stoll last summer.

    Not to digress but I really think the Oilers have no choice but to keep Pitkanen. If, say, Camalleri was the return then you consider it but the big Finn and Gilbert give you a top pair for years to come and that’s nothing to sneeze at.

    Anyways back to the argument at hand. I’m still saying you have to keep the #27 but of course it depends on the draft position you’re trading for – a #33 is more palatable then a #42 of course. But a move of six spots (unless you’re talking 7 to 1 or 13 to 7, something like that) really makes it less of an argument then, does it not?

  25. Lowetide says:

    BDHS: Yeah, agree it is less of an issue if you’re moving down 6 notches.

    The NFL has a sheet that indicates what each selection is worth (I’ve never seen it but Mel Kiper has mentioned it) as in “the 14th overall pick is worth #29 and #99) or whatever.

    I wonder if the NHL has such a sheet?

  26. speeds says:

    Yes, LT, the comp pick that EDM received for not signing Ninnimaki was 45 OV, which they used to select Jeff Petry.

    Another reason that a spectacular bust can be better than slow but steady bust.

  27. speeds says:

    LT:

    There is no such sheet, but you can make your own by using Oilswell’s graph (or was it Vic, or Rivers, or MC?) that displays the probability of selecting players at each spot. In fact, I thought you’d already looked at that, but maybe not given this post?

  28. speeds says:

    ducey:

    EDM has PHI’s 2009 3rd from the Pitkanen trade.

  29. speeds says:

    Found the graph I was looking for, from Vic at IOF. But the scale is in %, which I’m guessing refers to the % of picking a player that hits some benchmark, and not strictly GP as per your thread. I have seen that graph elsewhere, but can’t find it here. Anyways:

    chart

    thread

  30. speeds says:

    This chart shows, roughly, that an 18th overall pick is equivalent in value to having the 39th and 40th picks.

    At least, if I remember how probabilities work, which I probably do not.

  31. speeds says:

    With regards to your specific example, the value is very close using this graph.

    27th OV is worth only slightly more than 42nd and 67th.

    You have a 15% chance of landing a player at 27OV, a 9% chance at 42OV, and a 5.5% chance at 67OV.

    I forget exactly how to add this up with probabilities (I think you can simply add them up, right?)

    With 27 OV, you will get a player 15% of the time, and you won’t 85% of the time (using whatever the benchmark is in this example, as to qualify as a success/failure).

    With the other option, you will get 2 players 0.495% of the time, and you will get 2 busts 85.995% of the time, meaning that you’ll get 1 player 13.51 % of the time.

    Again, this assumes I remember how to calculate probabilities, which is an assumption about which I’m somewhat skeptical.

  32. Lowetide says:

    What are the odds that speeds can calculate probabilities? :-)

    Thanks for the graph speeds, I’d read the darn thing but forgotten about it over time (I remember Vic mentioning that ppg and gp marched in lock step, at least for the forwards when placed on a graph side by side).

    Anyway, a fun exercise that while we’re add it suggests Lowe paid dearly but may have been right re: Nash.

  33. Bank Shot says:

    Riley Nash is falling off the Higgins pace a bit.

    He’s still doing better then Matt Moulson did in his 18 year old year at Cornell though.

    Moulson has 7 points in 16 games as an NHL rookie this year.

  34. Bruce says:

    I knew that draft choices change hands fairly often in trades and as compensation, but I’m not sure I realized quite how often. In the 2007 Entry draft, none of the top 8 were moved and only 1 of the top 12, but after that it was open season. Check it out:

    Round 1: 13/30 = 43%
    Round 2: 17/31 = 55%
    Round 3: 18/30 = 60%
    Round 4: 14/30 = 47%
    Round 5: 12/30 = 40%
    Round 6: 7/30 = 23%
    Round 7: 11/30 = 37%
    ————————-
    Totals: 92/211 = 44%

    And that doesn’t even take into account those picks that were traded more than once, e.g. 8 of the 13 traded picks in the first round changed hands on two occasions; in 2007 there were 21 exchanges of first rounders. And the #41 pick belonged at various times to 5 different teams!

  35. Andy Grabia says:

    Speaking of moving up….if Cliff Fletcher was smart, he’d offer Sundin to the Ducks for the Oilers 1st rounder and some expiring salary (Weight) and would try to get two of the top five picks. With a little luck, he could end up with Stamkos and Schenn and set up the Leafs to actually be good in the long-term.

    That sounds way too sensible to be a possibility for Toronto.

  36. HBomb says:

    Not to digress but I really think the Oilers have no choice but to keep Pitkanen. If, say, Camalleri was the return then you consider it but the big Finn and Gilbert give you a top pair for years to come and that’s nothing to sneeze at.

    Camalleri? Meh, nice player, but considering the lack of size in the top five as it is, he’s not the guy I’d be looking for.

    If LA calls about Pitkanen and I’m Kevin Lowe, knowing that Dustin Brown probably isn’t going anywhere, I’m asking about Alexander Frolov. He seems under-utilized with the Kings and would fit in nicely in the Oilers top six (put him with Horcoff/Hemsky and have Penner with Nilsson and Gagner on the 2nd line, with Torres/Cogliano/Pisani and Moreau/Pouliot/Brodziak as the bottom six).

  37. rickibear says:

    Hbomb: You mean GlenX-Cogliano-Pisani.

  38. Dennis says:

    http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080201.wsptduha1/GSStory/GlobeSportsHockey/home/?pageRequested=1

    That’s a piece from Mirtle’s boyfriend talking draft order.

    It’s relevant for this dicussion and from a personal standpoint it brings to light one of the best predictions I ever made; plus, along the way proving one of the things I’ve always said.

    Before the Oilers went into Mtl one season, I bet my Habs buddy that one of the beaties, more than likely Matheson, would point out Higgins early career success and say this was one of the 987 players that the Oilers really wanted to draft. The caveat of course was that the Oilers were in position to draft him but decided to move down a spot in a deal with the Habs and along the way picked up an additional 6th rounder or something like that.

    Along with drafting Jesse Bustamakki in the first round.

    Anyway, sure enough, Matty almost goes word for word what I predicted he’d say:)

  39. Andy Grabia says:

    That’s a piece from Mirtle’s boyfriend talking draft order.

    I didn’t even have to read it to know who wrote it. I hear he had a really amazing piece in the G&M today. :)

  40. Vic Ferrari says:

    It would be the opposite IMO Lowetide. Generally speaking the odds will favour moving up in a strong draft and moving down in a weak draft. At least when weighed against the history of the thing.

    On the draft probabilities in general, oilswell did some terrific work on the subject at one point. I’m sure he posted it on IOF as well as HF, you’ll find it with a quick search I’m sure.

    Of course obviously it all depends on whether or not there is a player that you covet still available, or whether or not you have the next seven guys ranked evenly.

    The Isles did a live blog from the draft last season, and it was interesting for more than just the fact that the PR guy openly accused Darren Dreger of being in the pocket of MLSE and knowingly publishing false information at their instruction.

    It was interesting because Snow actually used the term “Best Player Available” when talking about the foolishness of drafting for present need. He also talked about a player that they drafted about 65th overall (by my dodgy memory). He said that they had thought he would go higher and had just failed to make a deal to move up 15 spots to get him. But the other teams passed on him, so they got him anyways. As it turned out, they were lucky to have failed in negotiating a move up in the draft order, they would have lost an additional pick with nothing extra to show for it.

    That’s the thing, it really is a guess. Riley Nash is looking like a good pick at this very early juncture, and he may have been taken in the early 20s if Lowe had not moved up to take him. Or he may have fallen in the second round. We’ll never know.

  41. Lowetide says:

    Vic: Good stuff, I’ll look for the oilswell info.

  42. Schitzo says:

    One other factor to consider re: Speed’s post – a #27 sitting at the same probability as a pair of lower picks fails to take into account the minor league system of the team in question.

    I think the worst thing the Oilers could do this year is trade down and take the shotgun approach of landing lots of lower picks. We’re already at 50 contracts, where the heck are we going to develop these guys?

    I’d much rather see one first rounder, put all the eggs in one basket, and develop him properly so you can actually give him ice time and linemates.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

© Copyright - Lowetide.ca