Tracking the Improbable...

Aode · Post by **Aode** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:21 pm

[img:315:466]http://www.clint.ca/argue/argue.jpg[/img]

BF44 · Post by **BF44** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:23 pm

Aode wrote:picture

Man, that's so wrong on so many different levels of.......

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Hollywood · Post by **Hollywood** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:29 pm

Aode wrote:Picture

Shhhhhhhhh......The adults are talking.

Aode · Post by **Aode** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:39 pm

Hollywood wrote:
Aode wrote:Picture
Shhhhhhhhh......The adults are talking.

hey, if I'm old enough to be drafted, I should be old enough to vote!!!

YouTube · Post by **cprice12** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:42 pm

BringBackZezel wrote:
cprice12 wrote:
Hollywood wrote:
cprice12 wrote: Yeah, that team would be better than .500.
That would be the best offensive team in the history of the league.
Precisely. Would you say that just having, lets say 3 of them on the team would be a pretty damn good team? Maybe a first line of Crosby, Ovechkin, and Thornton?

I'd like to have maybe 2 or 3 of them on the Blues in 2 or 3 years.

Now I realize that there are no Crosbys or Ovechkins in this years draft, but wouldn't you like to have a Thornton type player for 7 years than a Guerin for 3?
Having dominant players would be nice, yes.

But drafting #1 overall numerous years in a row may also get you players like: Chris Phillips('96), Bryan Berard ('95), Ed Jovanovski ('94), Alexandre Daigle ('93), Roman Hamrlik ('92)
Some of those guys are good players, sure. But not worth sucking and being last three straight years for. The best players in those drafts weren't taken first overall.

The NHL draft is way too much of a crap shoot (even to some degree with the early picks) to be placing all of your eggs in one basket by trying to rebuild your team primarily through the draft.

Now, I'm not saying I don't want to draft 1st overall. If we finish last, I'll certainly take the #1 pick. But if I were in charge, I wouldn't necessarily try to get the #1 pick a few years in a row. The franchise might not survive that type of a run, PLUS, if you are drafting guys like are listed above, you won't have a great team like you had hoped. Then what do you do?

If next year there was a can't miss guy like a Crosby or Ovechkin, I wouldn't be as upset with finishing last this year. But can't-miss players like that just don't come around very often. And sometimes elite players don't develop into elite players until they have been in the league a few years, and those guys may have been drafted late in the 1st or 2nd round.

I dunno. I'm not saying that plan won't work, because it's possible you draft three studs three years straight at #1 overall. I just feel it is too much of a gamble, and if it doesn't work out, not only does your team suck and obviously aren't competitive, but you are thin on young talent as well.
There's a flaw in your arguement:

The players you list were drafted a decade ago, and you fail to acknowledge that more recent #1 overalls have been much better:
Joe Thornton, Vincent Lecavalier, Patrik Stefan, Rick DiPietro, Ilya Kovalchuk, Rick Nash, Marc-Andre Fleury, Alex Ovechkin, Sidney Crosby, Erik Johnson.

Of those in the NHL, only the goalies and Stefan aren't all-world caliber players.

Erik Johnson hasn't played a game in the NHL yet...so let's not call him an all-world caliber player just yet.
That means 6 of the 10 are all-world caliber players and the the half dozen or so #1 picks before that were not all-world caliber players.
So approximately six of the last 16 or so have been all-world caliber players, and one still needs to prove it.

6 of 16, eh? That's 38%. 38% of the #1 picks over the past 16 years have lived up to #1 pick status, with the jury still out on Erik Johnson.
That doesn't thrill me.

Like I've said many times, trying to rebuild your team primarily through the draft is a pretty good gamble. I think with the #1 pick last year, the young guys on defense and a couple young guys up front, we have a good start. Trade a few UFA's at the deadline and pick up a few more prospects, young players, or decent picks, sign a couple free agents on offense...and I think we will have improved dramatically and are on our way.

Besides...we're talking about the upcoming draft this offseason, correct? There aren't any all-world caliber players that they know of in that draft.
So why the obsession with wanting to get that #1 pick?

I guess you'll feel it would be in the Blues' best interest to suck again next year and hopefully there will be a "can't miss" guy in that draft? What if there isn't? Then what do you do? You're team obviously sucks because you will have finished at or near the bottom of the league three years straight, you've traded away all of your vets, you may have a handfull of decent/good young players, but nobody "Crosby-like" or "Ovechkin-like".
Then what?

Question: Who on that list would you not take in exchange for Guerin?

How would we get one of those players or similar players, in exchange for Guerin?
Someone is going to trade the #1 overall pick for him?
I don't think so. We'd be lucky to get at best a mid-first round pick for him.

I'm not saying it's an exact science. I'm simply saying that more recently there has been GREAT success with drafting #1 overall...and it's very hipocritical to stand on try and make a claim that the Blues first 30 games don't matter because they're playing so well right now, then use drafts from 1993 to make a case against high draft picks.

My theory isn't an exact science either.
But to suggest the odds are great that a #1 overall pick next year would bring us an elite player, is a stretch.
And I only went back that far in examples because that was the last time so many years straight were so-so #1 picks. Over the last 16 years, elite players have only been drafted at the #1 slot about 38% of the time. I wouldn't call that "Great success".
In my opinion...the odds are against us getting an elite guy at #1 in any given year based on the history of the draft. It's all luck. Teams get lucky if there happens to be an elite player when they draft #1 overall, or teams get lucky that a player later in the draft develops into an elite player that nobody really saw coming and passed over for other players.

If we finish last, I'll obviously take the #1 pick. But by no means am I thinking that doing that over a few years is the safest and most likely or smartest way to succeed over the long haul.

Look, I may be way off base and proven wrong if we do finish near the bottom over the next couple years and get a lot better that way. Maybe you'd be right.
I'm just giving you my opinion....which, believe it or not, is all you are giving me.
The difference is, I'm not trying to preach my way as the only way, and I can admit there is more than one way to win a cup.

illownyou · Post by **illownyou** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:46 pm

Well said, Curt. Spoken like a sensible grown man. :D

bluenotebacker · Post by **bluenotebacker** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:51 pm

Curt's post was too long to actually read, what did he say?

YouTube · Post by **cprice12** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:22 am

Just looking at offense...
I looked at the top 30 scorers in the NHL right now and where they were drafted and what the average draft position for the top 30 is.

Here they are:

Crosby (1)
St. Louis (259)
Ovechkin (1)
Heatley (2)
Lecavilier (1)
Hossa (12)
Savard (91)
Thornton (1)
Jagr (5)
Selanne (10)
Briere (24)
Straka (19)
Whitney (23)
Nylander (59)
Kariya (4)
Iginla (11)
Brind'Amour (9)
Sakic (15)
Malkin (2)
Jokinen (3)
Marleau (2)
Afinogenov (69)
Langkow (5)
Kovalchuk (1)
Alfredsson (133)
Kozlov (45)
Vanek (5)
Semin (13)
Frolov (20)
McDonald (294)

The top 30 scorers this year have an average draft position of 38th overall. (I put the two players in the top 30 that weren't drafted, after the last player drafted in the draft before their first year in the league)

The top 5 scorers this year are dominated by #1 overall picks (three)...but after that it really drops off.

Two of the top 30 weren't drafted, which includes Martin St. Louis (2nd in scoring) and McDonald (30th in scoring).

In the top 30 there are:
five #1 overall picks
three #2 overall picks
one #3 overall pick
one #4 overall pick
three #5 overall picks
16 who were picked #10 or later (3 of whom are in the top 7 in scoring)

Just food for thought.

Hollywood · Post by **Hollywood** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:31 am

In those last two posts, you could not skew the numbers anymore in your favor.

Hysterical. I think they call that fuzzy math.

1) You can not tell me that you buy into that 38th overall crap can you? 38th is not even first round. There are a total of 5 people on your list that are not first rounders. (and 2 of them were over #200, those are called exceptions to the rules and should be thrown out of any real comparisons)

2) Why are you ignoring some of the first overalls to come up with your 38% number? 6 of 16. Come on.

That means 6 of the 10 are all-world caliber players and the the half dozen or so #1 picks before that were not all-world caliber players

Half dozen or so? Sounds like you really did your homework on that. You are guessing and exaggerating. If you are just going to guess at this, how is anyone supposed to take anything you say seriously?

38% huh? Since 1984 (I picked 1984 because that is about a time frame when I can intellignetly talk hockey, prior to that, I was too young to really pay attention and don't know enough about the players to defend my arguement) the first overall picks since 1984 were as follows....

Mario Lemieux, Wendel Clark, Joe Murphy, Pierre Turgeon, Mike Modano, Mats Sundin, Owen Nolan, Eric Lindros, Roman Hamrlik, Alex Daigle, Ed Jovo, Bryan Berard, Chris Phillips, Joe Thornton, Vinny Lecavalier, Patrik Stefan, Rick DiPietro, Kovalchuk, Rick Nash, MA Fleury, Ovechkin, Crosby, Johnson.....
Now I ask you, which 6 in a row were not world caliber players? You said

and the the half dozen or so #1 picks before that were not all-world caliber players

So I want to know which 6 in a row were not. Remember I am using your numbers here. The 6 prior to the last 10 (your numbers) were Bryan Berard, Jovo, Daigle, Hamerlik, Lindros, and Nolan. I think you could argue 5 of the 6 are. 4 at least.

3) Again using your numbers here, look at your scoring list. You notice most of them are mid-first rounders. You also said....

Someone is going to trade the #1 overall pick for him (Guerin)?
I don't think so. We'd be lucky to get at best a mid-first round pick for him.

Also, please remember....

16 who were picked #10 or later (3 of whom are in the top 7 in scoring)

Remember I am using your numbers and comments here.

YouTube · Post by **cprice12** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:48 am

Hollywood wrote:In those last two posts, you could not skew the numbers anymore in your favor.

Hysterical. I think they call that fuzzy math.

How did I skew anything?
I'm just giving you the numbers.
Simple math really.

1) You can not tell me that you buy into that 38th overall crap can you? 38th is not even first round. There are a total of 5 people on your list that are not first rounders. (and 2 of them were over #200, those are called exceptions to the rules and should be thrown out of any real comparisons)

If you throw out the two guys who weren't drafted, you have to then throw out two of the #1 picks. That's how you do it, statistically speaking. And I didn't toss out the guys who weren't drafted, because this sort of thing isn't uncommon. Every so often there are superstars who are drafted way down the line. It happens almost every year.
I think if you toss out two #1's and the two guys who weren't drafted, the average draft number is still around 22.

2) Why are you ignoring some of the first overalls to come up with your 38% number? 6 of 16. Come on.

I didn't ignore any of them.

That means 6 of the 10 are all-world caliber players and the the half dozen or so #1 picks before that were not all-world caliber players
Half dozen or so? Sounds like you really did your homework on that. You are guessing and exaggerating. If you are just going to guess at this, how is anyone supposed to take anything you say seriously?

Failure to pin down an exact number was done on purpose because judging whether someone is a world class player is subjective.

38% huh? Since 1984 (I picked 1984 because that is about a time frame when I can intellignetly talk hockey, prior to that, I was too young to really pay attention and don't know enough about the players to defend my arguement) the first overall picks since 1984 were as follows....

Mario Lemieux, Wendel Clark, Joe Murphy, Pierre Turgeon, Mike Modano, Mats Sundin, Owen Nolan, Eric Lindros, Roman Hamrlik, Alex Daigle, Ed Jovo, Bryan Berard, Chris Phillips, Joe Thornton, Vinny Lecavalier, Patrik Stefan, Rick DiPietro, Kovalchuk, Rick Nash, MA Fleury, Ovechkin, Crosby, Johnson.....
Now I ask you, which 6 in a row were not world caliber players? You said

and the the half dozen or so #1 picks before that were not all-world caliber players
So I want to know which 6 in a row were not. Remember I am using your numbers here. The 6 prior to the last 10 (your numbers) were Bryan Berard, Jovo, Daigle, Hamerlik, Lindros, and Nolan. I think you could argue 5 of the 6 are. 4 at least.

Yup, that is them.
So it's five who aren't elite players in the league...not six. I stand corrected.
Berard - Good solid player...elite player? Eh.
Jovo - Overrated
Daigle - I don't have to comment on him...he was a flop
Hamerlik - Good defenseman, but not world class
Lindros - World class player for a while, then brain turned to mush
Nolan - Great player in his day.

and I was looking at Chris Phillips in that list too. He's a good player, but nothing outstanding.

Are any of those guys Hall of Fame guys? No.
BBZ made a comment about getting an elite player for 7 years by drafting high. If a player maintains elite status over 7 years, I think he may qualify for the HOF, when his career is over, no?
Eh...that's another debate.

Yes, a couple of those five players are/were very good players and would be an asset to any team. But not something that is exclusive to the #1 overall pick by any means. And certainly not worth tanking multiple seasons to acquire. Not from where I stand.

3) Again using your numbers here, look at your scoring list. You notice most of them are mid-first rounders. You also said....

Someone is going to trade the #1 overall pick for him (Guerin)?
I don't think so. We'd be lucky to get at best a mid-first round pick for him.

I didn't say I'd be against trading Guerin for a mid-first round pick...I'd say we'd be lucky to get that for him. My comment was in response to BBZ implying we could get a #1 overall pick for Guerin.
Would I trade Guerin for a mid-round pick? Probably...but only if we had no plans on resigning him.
But it doesn't matter what I think. If we keep gaining ground on the 8th place team, we won't be trading our leading goal scorer.
No way, no how.

Also, please remember....

16 who were picked #10 or later (3 of whom are in the top 7 in scoring)
Remember I am using your numbers and comments here.

Exactly. Meaning over half of the top 30 scorers right now, weren't picked by teams who finished near the bottom of the standings.
Meaning, you don't have to suck royal ass to get good draft picks.

Hollywood · Post by **Hollywood** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:05 am

We are really getting off base here as to what the first overall pick is worth. I say it is great to have, you say it does not matter that much. I never said Guerin could bring in the first overall pick. The reason being...if you have the first overall pick, you have no use for Guerin. In fact, if you have a top 10 pick, you have no use for Guerin. (IE: the Blues)

All I have been saying all along, no matter what the Blues do in the next 10 games, IMO they should be sellers. I don't care if they go 10-0-0, they should be sellers at the deadline.

As for your comment about Guerin, you say you would trade him for a first as long as we had no interest in resigning him. Why? We traded Weight and had ever intention of resiging him. Worked pretty good for us too.

I think if you toss out two #1's and the two guys who weren't drafted, the average draft number is still around 22.

So a late first rounder huh? About what we would get for Guerin???? Hmmm....

Berard - Good solid player...elite player? Eh.
Jovo - Overrated
Daigle - I don't have to comment on him...he was a flop
Hamerlik - Good defenseman, but not world class
Lindros - World class player for a while, then brain turned to mush
Nolan - Great player in his day.

Gonna have to disagree here... Berard was an elite d-man until his injury. You have to discount injury here. Those can happen to anyone.

Jovo - Perenial all star. One of the top dmen in the league if you ask me. No sure how you get overrated from him. Look at the numbers.

Daigle - flop

Hamerlik - terrific dman. Probably not worthy of first overall, but a fantastic dman and an asset to any team he plays on.

Lindros - Best player in the game until his injury. Definately world class

Nolan - One of the best players in the last 20 years.

Nolan is definately HOF material. The rest are too young to make a valid judgement on.

Again, all of this is besides the point. The discussion here is really should the Blues be sellers at the deadline. IMO, the answer is a RESOUNDING yes.

bamabluesfan · Post by **bamabluesfan** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:12 am

I am still waiting on someone to tell me how the St. Louis Blues could stay in business by missing the playoffs or tanking for multiple years in order to get those high draft picks?

Ladies and gentlemen your 2011 stanley cup champions... the Portland Blues....

To say there is no logical reason to keep Guerin is BS, he is on pace to score high 30s or low 40s in goals this year. If the blues can sign him to a decent contract why do you not keep 30 or 40 goal scorer? Explain the logic that trades away a known commodity for an unknown.

Putting asses in seats has to be one of the top 2 objectives for management and a Cup should be the other, they cannot sacrifice attendence while they are attempting to build a cup winner. I find it funny that in all of the discussions not one of the proponents of a firesale has addressed the financial ramifications. There has been talk of cap hits and salaries, but not one logical reasoned solution in regards to the effect of multiple losing seasons will have on attendence and therefore revenues. Most of us are not casual fans, we keep up with the prospects, what the other teams are doing and how they are doing. We will continue to follow this team no matter how pissed off we are at the team or management. Casual fans dont, they jump on and off the bandwagon with the success and failures of the team. Those are things that management has to consider when they are planning what they are gonna do. Barring a total collapse there will be no firesale, there will be trades, but dont look for them to gut this team for picks and prospects. And if they can get 2 17k crowds in the door for playoff games they will.

Hollywood · Post by **Hollywood** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:17 am

So they stick with the status quo for "2 games of 17K" as opposed to trying to improve the team for the long run and maybe get 12 games at 17k? How has attendence been this year? Pretty good? You think they want to stick with lousy regular season attendance year after year in exchange for 2 playoff games? C'mon Dave, that makes no sense.

As for why they trade a 30-40 goalscorer....easy. They know they are not going to win the cup this year. Get something of value for him! What do you think teams would be willing to part with to get a 40 goal scorer on their team for a playoff run? Then, if you really want him for next year, you resign him in the off season a la Doug Weight last year.

bamabluesfan · Post by **bamabluesfan** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:46 am

Hollywood wrote:So they stick with the status quo for "2 games of 17K" as opposed to trying to improve the team for the long run and maybe get 12 games at 17k? How has attendence been this year? Pretty good? You think they want to stick with lousy regular season attendance year after year in exchange for 2 playoff games? C'mon Dave, that makes no sense.

As for why they trade a 30-40 goalscorer....easy. They know they are not going to win the cup this year. Get something of value for him! What do you think teams would be willing to part with to get a 40 goal scorer on their team for a playoff run? Then, if you really want him for next year, you resign him in the off season a la Doug Weight last year.

I am not saying stick with the status quo for 2 playoff games, I simply think that revenue will be important enough to them for that to be a consideration. As for attendence this year, it has been like ass, but it is getting better as the team has gotten better.

I dont have a problem in particular with trading Guerin, any team making a serious cup run will have a low 1st rounder and probably wont want to give anything significant in terms of prospects. I just dont think it is in the teams best interest to gut the team and pack it in for next year. If they trade Guerin or Tkachuk, I would like to see them get something other than picks, I would prefer thtey get someone that can contribute this year.

Looking into my crystal ball (/smirk) I think that probably they will trade Rucinsky (NYR), Cajanak (maybe), a goalie and probably one or two dmen (Salvador, Backman, or Jackman) or Brewer if he doesnt want to resign with the blues.

Dont get me wrong I am not saying keep everyone, I am just saying I dont see the logic in trading everyone that a GM calls about.

ksbluesfan · Post by **ksbluesfan** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:47 am

Unfortunately for the Blues, they're only averaging 11,610 this season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2007

That's the worst in the league.

Hollywood · Post by **Hollywood** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:48 am

I would like to see them get something other than picks, I would prefer thtey get someone that can contribute this year.

Similar to the deal they got for Weight last year you mean?

YouTube · Post by **cprice12** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:48 am

Hollywood wrote:Again, all of this is besides the point. The discussion here is really should the Blues be sellers at the deadline. IMO, the answer is a RESOUNDING yes.

It really depends on how we play up to the deadline.
And trade deadline day should be very interesting to say the least.

I don't think they should be big sellers. Small sellers, yes. Try and see what you can get for a few guys (Drake, Rucinsky, a d-man, maybe a goalie), sign a few others, sign a couple free agents forwards in the offseason (I haven't looked at the list of available free agents yet though).

All I have been saying all along, no matter what the Blues do in the next 10 games, IMO they should be sellers. I don't care if they go 10-0-0, they should be sellers at the deadline.

If we go 10-0-0 over our next 10 games, with Detroit being three of those games...we shouldn't be selling anyone...I'll take a stand with this team if that happens. You don't break up a team at the deadline that will have gone 22-2-4 over their last 28 games.

You're not going to get much better than that, so what's the point in selling to get better?

bamabluesfan · Post by **bamabluesfan** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:11 am

Hollywood wrote:
I would like to see them get something other than picks, I would prefer thtey get someone that can contribute this year.
Similar to the deal they got for Weight last year you mean?

Essentially didnt they just get a first rounder? Werent the others throw ins? I forget exactly what they got, I do recall they traded up with Carolina's pick to draft Berglund (I think). If they arent making the playoffs then that deal is fine, if they are in the hunt they have to get someone that can play in STL this year. Keep the casual fans interested.

Personally If they are gonna try to trade and resign ala weight, why not package and try to get a big deal done? I think Tkachuk would do that if he knew he would get an offer from the blues in the offseason, maybe Guerin too. I know it is a pipe dream but Guerin & Tkachuk for Gomez and langenbrunner/Brylin... yeah I know I should lay off the dope at work. Just do something that doesnt diminish their image with the casual fans.

BTW do we still have the rights to Vladimir Orszagh? If so where does he fit in next year?

bamabluesfan · Post by **bamabluesfan** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:12 am

cprice12 wrote:
Hollywood wrote:Again, all of this is besides the point. The discussion here is really should the Blues be sellers at the deadline. IMO, the answer is a RESOUNDING yes.
It really depends on how we play up to the deadline.
And trade deadline day should be very interesting to say the least.

I don't think they should be big sellers. Small sellers, yes. Try and see what you can get for a few guys (Drake, Rucinsky, a d-man, maybe a goalie), sign a few others, sign a couple free agents forwards in the offseason (I haven't looked at the list of available free agents yet though).

All I have been saying all along, no matter what the Blues do in the next 10 games, IMO they should be sellers. I don't care if they go 10-0-0, they should be sellers at the deadline.
If we go 10-0-0 over our next 10 games, with Detroit being three of those games...we shouldn't be selling anyone...I'll take a stand with this team if that happens. You don't break up a team at the deadline that will have gone 22-2-4 over their last 28 games.
You're not going to get much better than that, so what's the point in selling to get better?

You never know maybe we could get another Garth Butcher type trade done......

ksbluesfan · Post by **ksbluesfan** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:14 am

bamabluesfan wrote: Essentially didnt they just get a first rounder? Werent the others throw ins? I forget exactly what they got, I do recall they traded up with Carolina's pick to draft Berglund (I think).

The Carolina Hurricanes acquired center Doug Weight and winger Erkki Rajamaki from the St. Louis Blues for forwards Jesse Boulerice, Mike Zigomanis and Magnus Kahnberg, as well as a first-round pick in 2006 (Berglund), a fourth-round pick in 2006 (Reto Betta) and a fourth-round pick in 2007.