Tank Nation UNITE!!!
- Thread starter sickbeast
- Start date
- Status
TML fan said:
Using this handy draft pick value chart we can see what those picks were worth individually:
http://statsportsconsulting.com/main/wp-content/uploads/Schuckers_NHL_Draftchart.pdf
Basically, that came from a study where somebody analysed the performance of all the draft picks from a large span of time and attempted to give each pick a numerical value. That way you could look at the picks almost as currency. It's obviously not an exact science, but according to that study the 30th overall pick has a value of 265, and the 39th overall pick has a value of 209. Combined that gives 474. The 22nd overall pick was given a value of 324. So from that we definitely overpaid. Those two picks should have been able to "buy" us the 13th/14th overall pick.
That's easy to say in hindsight. It's the way things panned out. The scouts were ranking Biggs around that spot at the time. Some scouts were comparing him to Milan Lucic (comparisons are always dangerous). Burke was looking to make the Leafs bigger and stronger at the time and he was probably looking for what he thought was quality over quantity. You can't say the Kurvers deal was just a fluke of the draft and then say the Biggs deal was just the opposite. You win some, you lose some, that's just a fact. Hopefully, if you good and somewhat lucky, you're win more than you lose.Nik the Trik said:
bustaheims
Active member
slapshot said:
There were scouts that had Biggs slotted as a 3rd round type talent. That should have been a pretty big red flag to anyone considering taking him in the 1st round. Regardless, Biggs was never seen as a significantly better talent than what would have been available to the Leafs with their other picks. Once you get into that part of the draft rankings, the difference between players for large swathes is negligible at best. There was no need to trade up to get him. He may have been available to them later, and, if not, a similarly talented player with size would have been.
I don't know who the scouts were that you speak of labeling him for 3rd round? I read a bunch of scouting assessments that year and don't recall that, not to say there wasn't any. However, here is the Central Scouting report for that year http://www.nhl.com/ice/draftprospectbrowse.htm?cat=1&year=2011bustaheims said:
Like I say, it's easy to say this in hindsight, but if Biggs had panned out, people wouldn't be so harsh on the trade. If you want to target bad move up trades, what about Luke Schenn?
Kin
New member
slapshot said:
I didn't say the Kurvers deal was a fluke of the draft, whatever it is you think that means, I said that it was defensible independent of how the draft turned out. Likewise, the deal to draft Biggs was bad regardless of how it turned out. Biggs was not seen as some sort of can't miss prospect, he wasn't someone expected to go in the top 10 who unexpectedly dropped. There were lots of equivalent prospects available and all the Biggs deal did is sacrifice getting two of them for one. That's not hindsight, the deal was bad on principle as the chart CtB linked to shows.
Nik the Trik said:
If a team is sold on a guy for whatever reason, they try things like that. It's a gamble granted. Is it bad to gamble, you could argue that, but that's what they pay scouts for to see if a given player is worth it? Apparently they thought he was. It hasn't worked out. If he had turned into something special, people would be saying what a great deal.
Kin
New member
slapshot said:
Right and what I'm saying is that they shouldn't and it's a bad decision that the numbers don't support. Just saying "it's a gamble" doesn't actually mean anything. There's doubling down on 11 and doubling down on 17. Both are gambles but one has a higher probability of success than the other.
My criticism is independent of hindsight, your defense of it is entirely hindsight-dependent.
bustaheims
Active member
slapshot said:
http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/puck/article.php?articleid=955
Biggs comes in at 78 on this list, which would put him right in the middle of the 3rd round. I remember there being others than had him well outside the 1st round (or, at least, far enough to make trading up to pick him seem asinine). It was a minority opinion, but it was still enough that it should have been a red flag.
As for Schenn, that also turned to be a bad deal in hindsight, but, in that case, there was a consensus that he was a top 10 talent, if not top 5. There were some questions about his foot speed and such, but the game hadn't quite evolved into what we see now and those concerns were minimized. If Schenn was in the draft this year, he'd probably in a similar position to Biggs - with most scouts calling him a late first, but a vocal minority calling him out as a mid-round pick.
slapshot said:
He's not really spinning it. The math pretty much speaks for itself. Nik isn't criticizing the deal as being a horrible deal, which it is, but he is criticizing the decision to make the deal.
I wanted to respond to the original post. If you want to look at it from a stand point of how to defend the deal, then the Biggs deal is really indefensible. Why make the deal? There isn't really a reason to do the deal. Your throwing away draft picks in an almost grandstanding way as if to say "Hey everyone, look what we know", and then it backfired horribly. There is no need to do that when you are in the position the Leafs are in. To add insult to injury, you had to make a deal just to recoup a pick in the first round because you have already burned three high end picks on an enigmatic right winger.
If you want to look at impact that those deals had on the Leafs future, then that is a slightly different story. Impact wise, the Rask deal or the Kessel deal probably had a higher negative impact on the Leafs future success than the trading up to get Biggs scenario. But that wasn't what Nik was saying.
bustaheims
Active member
jonasTSN1050: Leafs take with 27 of 102 possible points over their final 51 games. That's a 44-point pace over an 82-game season.
LuncheonMeat
New member
bustaheims said:
The way I see it, 27+44 = 9.5.
On a side note, the Leafs had an unbelievably bad season. What's harder to believe is that they were able to sustain such poor results over such a long stretch. You'd think even just by virtue of a little luck they would have won more games than that.
On another side note, Monday is going to be kinda fun!
Auston Matthews just broke a NTDP (US under-18 team) scoring record previously held by Patrick Kane. He also beat Eichel's best season by about 20 points. I know there are more lottery rules involved, but next years tank is going to be interesting.
- Status