Be honest..

[chaps80 1,591]

30 minutes ago, kliq said:

In the latter rounds. I don't think I have ever heard anyone say that the Wings are great at drafting in the first round. With the exception of the past few years and Kronwall, our first round picks have not been the best, I dont think anyone is arguing that.

 The Wings also didn't draft in the first round 5 times from 2000-2010, and the highest they picked was 15th in 2010. That's the result of being a yearly contender.

[Buppy 1,720]

In the drafts from 2005-2013 (more recent drafts are too soon to judge), looking at picks between 19-35 (which is the range of most of our first picks): (Groupings might be a bit subjective, and some of the more recent players might move up or down, but it shouldn't make much difference.)

82 of 153 (53.6%) either never made the NHL or played only a short time.

35 (22.9%) are regular NHL players, but not particularly good ones.

25 (16.3%) are pretty good.

11 (7.2%) are impact players.

For the Wings picks:

2 of 7 - 28.6% (McCollum and Ferraro) fall in the bust category. Maybe you could put Kindl there too, he's kind of borderline.

3 of 7 - 42.9% (Sheahan, Smith, and Jurco) in the 2nd group. Again, maybe Kindl.

Mantha maybe too early to tell, but so far seems the third group is likely. 14.3% there.

No impact players seem likely, though I suppose Mantha has a chance.

So overall, a little better at finding NHL talent, but a little worse for finding higher-end talent. We also had a few trades. 29th pick for 41 & 47, which ended up being Emmerton and Matthias. Bust there. 19th pick for Quincey. That would probably go in the 2nd group. Plus picked up a few extra picks trading down, but still in the 19-35 range: Nestrasil, Ouellet, and Bertuzzi. All in all, given the low probability of finding a high-end player, doing so is more luck than anything. 

 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

A while back i looked at what type of player you get at different points of the draft. First 5 had the best chance of an elite player, obviously, but plenty of busts. 6-10 had a lot of goos players with some busts. 15-25 getting a 3rd line forward or 4-6 d was pretty common. After that you were leas likely to get a high end player. Rounds 3 and later were actually pretty similar as to your odds of getting an NHL player. At 18 there are just too many variables to accurately predict pro potential. They all have holes in their games that could prevent them from even making an AHL team, and most have at least one trait that could land them in the NHL.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

5 hours ago, greenrebellion said:

Our drafting has been lauded for years as being excellent. Onus is on you to prove a position opposite common wisdom.

Dude. i dont know how to spell it out for you any plainer. im not arguing our drafting is bad. im arguing that our first selections for the past 10 years have been bad. thats it. you continue to take off on a whole other argument that we probably share the same view on. either address my actual point or move on

 

Edited December 16, 2016 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[krsmith17 7,191]

The thing is though, our drafting in the first round based on position really hasn't been that bad at all... I thought the original argument was that Holland shouldn't be trusted to make the pick if we draft top 5 or 10? We can joke and say Holland would just trade it anyway for two seconds anyway or he'd go way off the board and pick someone that would be available in the second, but really, I still have enough confidence in Holland (as much as that has diminished over the past couple years...) that he would make the right pick in that situation... Maybe...

[greenrebellion 415]

5 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Dude. i dont know how to spell it out for you any plainer. im not arguing our drafting is bad. im arguing that our first selections for the past 10 years have been bad. thats it. you continue to take off on a whole other argument that we probably share the same view on. either address my actual point or move on

 

Has our first selections been bad for the last ten years? How do you know? What teams are you comparing it to?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

3 hours ago, greenrebellion said:

Has our first selections been bad for the last ten years? How do you know? What teams are you comparing it to?

IMO YES. Why are you asking me to state the same thing 3 or 4 times???

The only good first selections we've had are Mantha and Larkin in the last 10 years. I'm not comparing that to anyone, but if you would like to (saying this now for the 2nd time) go ahead and compare that to the 29 other teams in the league and prove me wrong. This is getting ridiculous.

Edited December 16, 2016 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[greenrebellion 415]

16 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

IMO YES. Why are you asking me to state the same thing 3 or 4 times???

The only good first selections we've had are Mantha and Larkin in the last 10 years. I'm not comparing that to anyone, but if you would like to (saying this now for the 2nd time) go ahead and compare that to the 29 other teams in the league and prove me wrong. This is getting ridiculous.

Well we are pretty good with first round picks.  2006-2015 - way too soon to tell on 2016

2 of 7 - Larkin / Mantha should be very good

4 of 7 - significant playing time (adds in Shaehan and Smith)

So since the origin of this whole chain of dialogue was someone stating "with our luck, we'd draft a bust in the top 5," I'd like to point out that we actually have good luck at drafting in the first round and we haven't drafted all that early.  So we don't have bad luck drafting and there is nothing to worry about.

Stating that our "first selections" have been bad is not only pure conjecture without a comparison to other teams.  But worst than that is meaningless unless you are trying to make the point that first selections requires a different skill set than second and third selections.  But I think we both agree that is absurd and that viewing the entire drafts including all rounds is a much more meaningful way to look at the Wings drafting "luck."

 

Edited December 16, 2016 by greenrebellion

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

55 minutes ago, greenrebellion said:

Well we are pretty good with first round picks.  2006-2015 - way too soon to tell on 2016

2 of 7 - Larkin / Mantha should be very good

4 of 7 - significant playing time (adds in Shaehan and Smith)

So since the origin of this whole chain of dialogue was someone stating "with our luck, we'd draft a bust in the top 5," I'd like to point out that we actually have good luck at drafting in the first round and we haven't drafted all that early.  So we don't have bad luck drafting and there is nothing to worry about.

Stating that our "first selections" have been bad is not only pure conjecture without a comparison to other teams.  But worst than that is meaningless unless you are trying to make the point that first selections requires a different skill set than second and third selections.  But I think we both agree that is absurd and that viewing the entire drafts including all rounds is a much more meaningful way to look at the Wings drafting "luck."

 

Again, not talking about first round picks. I say first selections because I'm including guys like Frk who are 2nd rounders. IMO the distinction between a late 1st and high 2nd just because of the round is pretty arbitrary.

Sheahan and Smith are crap picks IMO. I think they are both pretty valueless players.

"with our luck, we'd draft a bust in the top 5," - Correct, this is how the dialogue started. And my response was pretty much yeah our first selections have been pretty crap lately. That's it. If we had more top 5 picks to compare to I would have, but we don't. You seem intent on misrepresenting the conclusion I'm trying to reach. I'm not arguing about first round picks, I'm not arguing about the wings overall drafting ability, and I'm not arguing about any of the 29 other teams. So if you are going to respond to those points, and not mine, AGAIN, then you are wasting your time and I suggest we drop it.  

Edited December 16, 2016 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[greenrebellion 415]

I very carefully in my reply differentiated "first round picks" and "first selections."  I am very aware that they aren't the same.  My point was, that arbitrarily choosing first round selections as a measure of draft "luck" is both pointless without a comparison to other teams first round selections and meaningless since some arbitrary subset of a draft isn't deterministic of drafting "luck."

The Wings overall drafting ability (including all rounds) would be far more relevant in the potential outcome of a top five pick versus some arbitrary "first selection" metric (and you haven't even yet shown we underperform on that metric), we could very well be above average in your metric given our low draft positioning (as many of our first selections fall to the second round).  

So again, I fail to see your first selection metric as providing evidence that we would pick a bust if we had a top five pick.  And if anything, I believe that our first selections show we'll be just fine with a top five pick given how low we generally draft our first selections.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

8 minutes ago, greenrebellion said:

I very carefully in my reply differentiated "first round picks" and "first selections."  I am very aware that they aren't the same.  My point was, that arbitrarily choosing first round selections as a measure of draft "luck" is both pointless without a comparison to other teams first round selections and meaningless since some arbitrary subset of a draft isn't deterministic of drafting "luck."

The Wings overall drafting ability (including all rounds) would be far more relevant in the potential outcome of a top five pick versus some arbitrary "first selection" metric (and you haven't even yet shown we underperform on that metric), we could very well be above average in your metric given our low draft positioning (as many of our first selections fall to the second round).  

So again, I fail to see your first selection metric as providing evidence that we would pick a bust if we had a top five pick.  And if anything, I believe that our first selections show we'll be just fine with a top five pick given how low we generally draft our first selections.

Well if I was trying to prove something about draft luck, or top 5 picks, or about our low drafting position that would be all fine and good... But I'm not commenting on any of those things. Despite my best efforts, you continue to commit red herrings and misrepresent my point lol.

Look, in regards to our first selections, we had good players like Kronwall, Fischer, Hudler, Howard, Franzen coming in almost every year. Then after Franzen we have an unusual string of bad first selections for about 8 years up until Mantha. That's it. That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to develop a "metric" or argue the "potential outcome of a top 5 pick".

F. Micheal made an off-hand comment about our luck lately drafting and I made an off hand comment about our first selections being bad as of late. THAT IS LITERALLY IT. How else do I need to explain this to you? 

[greenrebellion 415]

1 minute ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Well if I was trying to prove something about draft luck, or top 5 picks, or about our low drafting position that would be all fine and good... But I'm not commenting on any of those things. Despite my best efforts, you continue to commit red herrings and misrepresent my point lol.

Look, in regards to our first selections, we had good players like Kronwall, Fischer, Hudler, Howard, Franzen coming in almost every year. Then after Franzen we have an unusual string of bad first selections for about 8 years up until Mantha. That's it. That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to develop a "metric" or argue the "potential outcome of a top 5 pick".

F. Micheal made an off-hand comment about our luck lately drafting and I made an off hand comment about our first selections being bad as of late. THAT IS LITERALLY IT. How else do I need to explain this to you? 

I guess my point is that our first selections have been good as of late.  With Larkin and Mantha coming in back to back years and could be very solid talents in the league.  Without further comparison to other teams, there is no evidence that your literal point that our "first selections have been bad as of late" is even remotely true.  Its just random conjecture and I'd rather we discuss facts rather than spread fear by implication that we can't make first selections and thus we may not be able to make a top five pick, which was an implied point you were making.  

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

5 minutes ago, greenrebellion said:

I guess my point is that our first selections have been good as of late.  With Larkin and Mantha coming in back to back years and could be very solid talents in the league.  Without further comparison to other teams, there is no evidence that your literal point that our "first selections have been bad as of late" is even remotely true.  Its just random conjecture and I'd rather we discuss facts rather than spread fear by implication that we can't make first selections and thus we may not be able to make a top five pick, which was an implied point you were making.  

Finally, we're getting somewhere. Lets look at our first selections since 2000.

1. Kronwall - Great
2. Grigorenko - Crap
3. Hudler - Great
4. Howard - Great
5. Franzen - Great
6. Kindl - Crap
7. Emmerton - Crap
8. Smith - Crap
9. McCollum - Crap
10. Ferraro - Crap
11. Sheahan - Crap
12. Jurco - Crap
13. Frk - Crap
14. Mantha - Great
15. Larkin - Great
16. Svechnikov - Too Soon
17. Cholowski - Too Soon

Now if you're in love with Smith and Sheahan or something, we can debate that. But IMO I see a solid 8 years of bad selecting with our first pick, from Kindl to Frk. It's not "random conjecture" lol.

And before you start reading too much into things again, all I meant by my comment was that our first selections have been unusually bad as of late. That's it. I get that you think I think we're going to blow a potential top 5 pick (I don't), but that's not at all the point i'm trying to argue.

[greenrebellion 415]

Alright, so let's compare this to the Penguins first selections since 2007 (a period at which for the most part they have drafted relatively low so its comparable to Wings.  2006 they drafted second overall.

2007 - Angelo Esposito - Crap

2008 - Nathan Moon - Crap

2009 - Simon Despres - Crap

2010 – Beau Bennett - Crap

2011 - Joe Morrow - Crap

2012 - Derrick Pouliot - Crap

2013 - Tristan Jarry - Crap

2014 - Kasperi Kapanen – (Borderline, might still end up being serviceable, but not "great")

2015 - Daniel Sprong (too soon)

2016 - Filip Gustavsson (too soon)

 

So I'd say the Wings compare pretty favorably.

Edited December 16, 2016 by greenrebellion

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

24 minutes ago, greenrebellion said:

Alright, so let's compare this to the Penguins first selections since 2007 (a period at which for the most part they have drafted relatively low so its comparable to Wings.  2006 they drafted second overall.

2007 - Angelo Esposito - Crap

2008 - Nathan Moon - Crap

2009 - Simon Despres - Crap

2010 – Beau Bennett - Crap

2011 - Joe Morrow - Crap

2012 - Derrick Pouliot - Crap

2013 - Tristan Jarry - Crap

2014 - Kasperi Kapanen – (Borderline, might still end up being serviceable, but not "great")

2015 - Daniel Sprong (too soon)

2016 - Filip Gustavsson (too soon)

 

So I'd say the Wings compare pretty favorably.

What does that have to do with the wings? Are trying to imply that because the Penguins also made poor selections our bad first picks are now justified? Again, i think youre reading too much into this. i do not think the wings are bad drafters. 

[greenrebellion 415]

28 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

What does that have to do with the wings? Are trying to imply that because the Penguins also made poor selections our bad first picks are now justified? Again, i think youre reading too much into this. i do not think the wings are bad drafters. 

Nope, just saying that compared to the league, our first selections are very good.  I think you might have inflated expectations of how often a "first selection" should be "great" versus "crap."

 

On 12/15/2016 at 0:22 PM, greenrebellion said:

What do you mean "with our luck," we have a very strong draft record.

You quoted the above post and replied:

On 12/15/2016 at 0:37 PM, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Go look at our first picks from the last 10 years. They're really not very strong.

And again I say, they are strong!!! Look at how successful we have been in first picks compared to a team like the Penguins with similar drafting positions.  We are very lucky that our first selections have turned out so well!!  

 

Edited December 16, 2016 by greenrebellion
.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

45 minutes ago, greenrebellion said:

Nope, just saying that compared to the league, our first selections are very good.  I think you might have inflated expectations of how often a "first selection" should be "great" versus "crap."

 

 

You quoted the above post and replied:

 

And again I say, they are strong!!! Look at how successful we have been in first picks compared to a team like the Penguins with similar drafting positions.  We are very lucky that our first selections have turned out so well!!  

 

I mean if you think our first selections from 05-12 were good choices, then we will have to respectfully agree to disagree. We passed on a lot of better players with those picks.

[greenrebellion 415]

19 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I mean if you think our first selections from 05-12 were good choices, then we will have to respectfully agree to disagree. We passed on a lot of better players with those picks.

Please don't makeup straw man arguments.  No where did I ever imply that 05-12 were good choices.

 

On 12/15/2016 at 0:22 PM, greenrebellion said:

What do you mean "with our luck," we have a very strong draft record.

On 12/15/2016 at 0:37 PM, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Go look at our first picks from the last 10 years. They're really not very strong.

So when you made the above reply, what I gather that you actually meant based on your more recent postings was:

"Go look at our first picks from the last 10 years. They're really not very strong, but that could be completely expected given our late draft position and how much of a crap shoot these later picks are, I'm not sure and don't care to research it.  In actuality, I don't really dispute your point that our drafting is strong."

And if this is what you actually meant (and it clearly isn't what you meant, you are just shifting your position now)...then why did you even bother disputing my original post that simply concluded "we have a very strong draft record."  You were trying to cite evidence that our draft record, or at least our first selection draft record is poor.  Which is simply untrue unless you view it in a vacuum and think that some arbitrarily high number of late first round or second round picks should be stars. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

8 minutes ago, greenrebellion said:

Please don't makeup straw man arguments.  No where did I ever imply that 05-12 were good choices.

 

 

 

So when you made the above reply, what I gather that you actually meant based on your more recent postings was:

"Go look at our first picks from the last 10 years. They're really not very strong, but that could be completely expected given our late draft position and how much of a crap shoot these later picks are, I'm not sure and don't care to research it.  In actuality, I don't really dispute your point that our drafting is strong."

And if this is what you actually meant (and it clearly isn't what you meant, you are just shifting your position now)...then why did you even bother disputing my original post that simply concluded "we have a very strong draft record."  You were trying to cite evidence that our draft record, or at least our first selection draft record is poor.  Which is simply untrue unless you view it in a vacuum and think that some arbitrarily high number of late first round or second round picks should be stars. 

So then you agree 05-12 we made poor first selections?

You show me where I shifted positions. You misinterpreted my original post about first selections, and began debating against a ton of different points that I never made. And I've spent most of this thread trying to explain that to you and drag you back on topic, but to no avail, cause here we go again. I never said late first round and high 2nd round picks should be stars. I said as of late our first selections have been weak. THAT'S IT. My position has not changed. I don't know what you find so confusing about this. 

[greenrebellion 415]

4 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

So then you agree 05-12 we made poor first selections?

You show me where I shifted positions. You misinterpreted my original post about first selections, and began debating against a ton of different points that I never made. And I've spent most of this thread trying to explain that to you and drag you back on topic, but to no avail, cause here we go again. I never said late first round and high 2nd round picks should be stars. I said as of late our first selections have been weak. THAT'S IT. My position has not changed. I don't know what you find so confusing about this. 

Your position was never 05-12 were poor.  Your position was that the last 10 years were poor so you have shifted your position.  And the last 10 years of picks are simply not poor as you have two potential stars drafted over the last 10 years, which is about as much as you could possibly expect to find over that time period.  And if you go back 15 years you'll find that there are even more great players picked.  

Edited December 16, 2016 by greenrebellion

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

7 minutes ago, greenrebellion said:

Your position was never 05-12 were poor.  Your position was that the last 10 years were poor so you have shifted your position.  And the last 10 years of picks are simply not poor as you have two potential stars drafted over the last 10 years, which is about as much as you could possibly expect to find over that time period.  And if you go back 15 years you'll find that there are even more great players picked.  

You are correct. I originally said 10 years off the cuff, not thinking this was going to be such a point of contention and have since refined my point. At this point of the convo you should be well aware of that and my position (I hope), and that I am referring to the 8 years prior to the Mantha selection.

You did not answer my question though. I will restate. Do you believe from 05-12 we made poor first selections?

[greenrebellion 415]

Just now, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

You are correct. I originally said 10 years off the cuff, not thinking this was going to be such a point of contention and have since refined my point. At this point of the convo you should be well aware of that and my position (I hope), and that I am referring to the 8 years prior to the Mantha selection.

You did not answer my question though. I will restate. Do you believe from 05-12 we made poor first selections?

Yes, if you are refining your position, then yes I agree that 05-12 had poor results with the only cavaet being that we ended up with four players out of it that had significant NHL playing time, which is most likely a well above average success rate for our average first selection draft position over that period.  Nonetheless, none of them really ended up as much more than fillers with limited trade value.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 minutes ago, greenrebellion said:

Yes, if you are refining your position, then yes I agree that 05-12 had poor results with the only cavaet being that we ended up with four players out of it that had significant NHL playing time, which is most likely a well above average success rate for our average first selection draft position over that period.  Nonetheless, none of them really ended up as much more than fillers with limited trade value.

Wow, we did it! We finally got to the same conclusion. And who would've guessed we'd agree?? Wowzers, and it only took an entire page of thread to get there.

Now we can go back to talking about tanking or whatever this thread is about.

[greenrebellion 415]

11 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Wow, we did it! We finally got to the same conclusion. And who would've guessed we'd agree?? Wowzers, and it only took an entire page of thread to get there.

Now we can go back to talking about tanking or whatever this thread is about.

Listen, with the Wings performance thus far this season, I'd much rather debate nothing over 100 posts then watch another Wings game where they have 8 shots through two periods!

[DickieDunn 2,571]

And again I say, they are strong!!! Look at how successful we have been in first picks compared to a team like the Penguins with similar drafting positions.  We are very lucky that our first selections have turned out so well!!  
 

One team is not the league

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk