I’ve mentioned before that certain players seem to pair up well as mentors. Coffey’s mentoring of Lidstrom taught me this lesson well. I think Drake will be an ideal model for Cleary; Kopecky too will benefit but I see him as Holmstrom’s kid with a few lessons with Draper thrown in for good measure.

Posted by srt on 09/22/07 at 05:55 PM ET

The 1989 draft class was excellent, without a doubt. But you also have to remember that it was a once-in-a-lifetime sort of thing.

There were 12 rounds then, as opposed to seven the past two years and eight the decade before that.

The Berlin Wall was falling, and Europe was being opened up for the first time. Sure, there were a few Czechs, Swedes and Finns from time to time prior to that, but this was the first draft where Russians were being looked at heavily.

The Wings were very astute to recognize this, and they used it to their advantage. It ended up being the foundation for a semi-dynasty that is just now dying today. Unfortunately for the Wings, that revolutionary mindset was lost after that draft, and from 1992-97, their drafting was the worst in the league by far.

Posted by Thomas on 09/22/07 at 07:30 PM ET

Sorry, I couldn’t finish that article. I had to go lie down after the laughing fit I had reading the Tkachuk quotes about winning and Stanley Cup rings.

Considering the guy has been past of the first round twice (never to the SCF) in his fifteen year career, his lifetime record in the playoffs is 34-51, and he’s racked up 3 penalty minutes for each point he’s scored in postseason play, I can’t for the life of me figure out why a writer of Wigge’s caliber would include anything coming out of Tkachuk’s piehole on the subject.

Posted by shep from california on 09/22/07 at 07:48 PM ET

Thomas: pointing to the history of that moment is right and a good observation. Your claim that everything fell apart after that is, of course, wrong. Aside from your well publicized research, I would point you Northeast, toward Sweden, and ask you to note the consistently cutting edge scouting.

I was also thinking about your ‘findings’ regarding the poor drafting. When I asked you to narrow it down to consistent cup contenders or winners from that same time, the list of competitors narrowed down to three. Being in the top three of that category, even if at the bottom, is amazing especially since the other two, Colorado and Dallas did not win the cup as many times. An organization only has so much time and energy, and we had a great time with a near dynastic run.

Also, and this is a question for everyone not just Thomas: Are we so sure that the Wings, or any other organization, is looking for *stars* with every draft choice versus filling particular roles. So, if I’m looking to develop more grit in my organization (a oft repeated argument against the Wings) my drafting choices would be a lot different than, say, looking for scorers, play makers and the like. Wing drafting during the 92-97 period, which is much narrower than the time frame you argued for earlier, might have been a product of an entirely different paradigm than the one that led to the 89 draft; we were, I believe, looking to get the Captain any and all help we could.

Posted by srt on 09/22/07 at 09:23 PM ET

Thomas: pointing to the history of that moment is right and a good observation. Your claim that everything fell apart after that is, of course, wrong.

No. It’s not.

I said that their drafting between 1992 and 1997 was the worst in the league. And it was. You can throw 1991 in there as well. Not a single significant NHL player drafted the entire time.

Not one scoring line forward. Not one top two pairing defenseman (not for any length of time anyway). Not one starting goalie.

Point out another team that went that same six-year span without producing one single significant player.

You can’t do it because there isn’t one.

I would point you Northeast, toward Sweden, and ask you to note the consistently cutting edge scouting.

They have a scout based in Sweden. How, exactly, is that “cutting edge”?

As for the “consistent” part, the Wings have produced *TWO* significant NHL players from 1998 to present. Two. Datsyuk in 1998. Zetterberg in 1999. Two.

When I asked you to narrow it down to consistent cup contenders or winners from that same time, the list of competitors narrowed down to three.

Contrived criteria.

That’s like me asking you to give me a list of the leading scorers on the first Wednesday of months with 31 days. Ooh, Pavel Vorobiev had a three point night on Jan 4th. Guess that makes him better than Crosby.

The funny part is, there were three teams other than Detroit in that contrived list. Detroit, Colorado, Dallas and New Jersey. Guess who was far and away the worst?

Being in the top three of that category, even if at the bottom, is amazing

Wow, that’s the most blatant attempt at spin I have ever seen.

It was a list of four teams. Detroit, Dallas, Colorado and New Jersey.

Detroit was 4th. And it wasn’t even a close 4th.

Are we so sure that the Wings, or any other organization, is looking for *stars* with every draft choice versus filling particular roles.

They aren’t.

Valterri Filppula, for example, was never picked with any sort of expectation or hope that he would be a star player. How do I know? BECAUSE THEY *#$%@& TOLD ME WHEN HE WAS PICKED. He was picked because the Wings figured he was a safe bet to come over and play a 3rd line role. They were right, he’s a 3rd line plugger.

That’s why I laugh whenever Wings clowns talk about how much potential he has, and about how he’s going to score 25 goals this year and all that nonsense. The team that picked him picked him because they expected him to come over and play a 3rd line role. Nothing more. It’s not a matter of him being a prospect that they are developing. It’s a matter of a plugger with a ceiling being able to reach that ceiling and make a living in the league. Period.

Wing drafting during the 92-97 period, which is much narrower than the time frame you argued for earlier,

Actually, it’s not. The period I argued earlier was from when Ken Holland took over until the present day. The period I just discussed today was 1992-1997, which came before Holland. I praised the Wings for their 1989, 90 and 91 drafts (the latter two were average, but average drafting would be a huge step up for the Wings), and then pointed out how horrible they were from 1992 through the time when Bowman began to step away.

Their drafting from 1998-present is better than it was from 1992-1997 (because they produced two significant players from 98-present vs zero from 1992-97), but the Wings are still far and away the worst in the league in drafting from 1992 on. You could even tack on 1991 and 1990, and they are still the worst.

might have been a product of an entirely different paradigm than the one that led to the 89 draft; we were, I believe, looking to get the Captain any and all help we could.

Yeah, spin it however you want.

They traded a lot of picks for players to fuel Cup runs. Nobody is criticizing that. Good strategy. Colorado did it too. The difference is that Colorado used the picks they had to produce players who made it, players who made significant NHL contributions.

But if your argument was that they were drafting pluggers to play with Yzerman, well, that’s bad for two reasons.

1 - That’s a dumb strategy. Why would you draft pluggers when you can draft skill players and *sign* pluggers for nothing.

2 - They weren’t successful at it even if that *was* their hare-brained strategy.

There are a lot of things to praise about the Wings when they were still a good team. A lot of things. They did a lot of things the right way.

The draft was simply not one of them.

Posted by Thomas on 09/22/07 at 11:49 PM ET

1992 - Darren McCarty and Dan McGillis (whom they traded for Maltby)
1993 - not much
1994 - Mathieu Dandenault and TOMAS HOLMSTROM
1995 - not much
1996 - not much

Well, I guess Thomas is right. Holmstrom turned out to be a great pick though.

Posted by Luc on 09/23/07 at 12:04 AM ET

Darren McCarty is a plugger. Dan McGillis is a plugger. Maltby, whom they traded McGillis for, is also a plugger. Dandenault was a plugger.

Holmstrom was almost a significant player. But he’s never been capable of playing a scoring line role. He’s one-dimensional, doesn’t play defense, isn’t very physical, doesn’t skate well, doesn’t pass well, can’t stickhandle to save his life. He stands in front of the net and scores goals, and he’s really good at it. But that’s just not enough to make him a significant player.

You forgot 1997. Again, not much.

1998 - Datsyuk.
1999 - Zetterberg.
2000 - 3rd pairing-caliber defenseman (which is not significant).
2001 - Nothing.
2002 - Nothing.
2003 - Potential backup goalie (which is not significant)
2004 - Nothing (Franzen is a 3rd line-caliber player, McGrath is an ECHLer and everyone else’s rights have been lost)

Too early to tell on 2005-present. Kindl has potential. I am a fan of Abdelkader’s, but I overrate him. ‘06 draft looks REALLY bad outside of Pyett, who went in the 7th because he can’t skate. ‘07 is lacking in both depth and quality, but we will see how Smith does.

Look guys, I am not making this up. It’s not like I am saying it to bash the Wings. Their drafting has been HORRIBLE.

Posted by Thomas on 09/23/07 at 12:26 AM ET

Jiri Fischer had a lot of potential. I don’t think he was third-pairing caliber. I agree Holmstrom is not the most elegant but the guy scored 30 goals last year and 29 the year before. 36 skaters did better than him last year. He had as many as Jagr! No mattter how he scored those goals, it is still a significant contribution.

We’ll see how Filppula, Franzen, Hudler and Howard will fare in the future. We’ll see what Grigorenko will do in the future, but we can surmize that his car crash wasn’t in his scouting sheet. I don’t think anybody expected much of Datsyuk and Zetterberg, but they fared well.

Drafting is tricky. Not a lot of team drafts consistently well. If we look at Quebec/Colorado in the same period (92-97). We also have to remember the Nordiques had the first pick for 3 consecutive years (Sundin, Nolan, Lindros)just before.

92-Todd Warriner, Manny Fernandez, Anson Carter
93-Jocelyn Thibault, Adam Deadmarsh
94-Wade Belak, Milan Hejduk, Chris Drury, Tim Thomas (lol, didn’t remember that one!)
95- Marc Denis, Brent Johnson
96- Dan Hinote, Samuel Pahlsson
97- Ville Nieminen, David Aebischer.

They drafted three very good players in that span: Deadmarsh, Hejduk and Drury. Of all of them, only Hejduk still contributes to the team.

It is difficult to draft superstars.

Posted by Luc on 09/23/07 at 08:09 AM ET

I see that it was Kronwall you referred to as a third-pairing defenseman. I think it is a harsh evaluation too. We should wait and see what he does playing a full season. The guy looked good in the gold-winning swedish team at the last Olympics. He wasn’t a third-pairing D.

Posted by Luc on 09/23/07 at 08:12 AM ET

Alright, I tried to grant you legitimacy but now I’m just laughing.

1) Asking for a comparison between legitimate Stanley Cup contenders during the period in question is as arbitrary as asking for a asking for the leading scorer on a particular day.

HAHAHAHAH

2) Saying that the Wings were operating under a different draft paradigm during their quasi Cup dynasty is spinning the argument.

HAH: The funniest part of this is that you make a case that Filpulla was drafted as a third liner and nothing more. Which is precisely my point! The Wings drafted to fill in lower rung positions which basically means picking players with lower potential. That most these players don’t pan out is almost a given. This is also why a comparison between high-calibar teams during the period is the only way to argue for Detroit’s poor drafting.

3) “Holmstrom was almost a significant player. But he’s never been capable of playing a scoring line role. He’s one-dimensional, doesn’t play defense, isn’t very physical, doesn’t skate well, doesn’t pass well, can’t stickhandle to save his life.”

AAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHhh

This was the moment I realized you have no idea what you’re taking about.

Well, I suspected it before but this was a hilarious confirmation. Thanks for the laughs....and go ahead do your quote followed by “No. It isn’t” strategy.

Posted by srt on 09/23/07 at 08:43 AM ET

Assume for the sake of argument that the drafting has been horrible.  How does that improve (for any hypothetical team with this issue)?

Fire everyone currently making decisions and hire someone else?  Who?  Anyone good is presumably already employed, and the only people likely available are available because they are bad.

Draft the most skilled player available at each pick?  How do you determine that when you are trying to project a teenager over the next several years, and even with the best skill set you may run into injuries, car accidents, drug abuse, illness, heart problems, etc. that derail the entire plan.  Not to mention that young men develop phyically at different rates, and some might not be able to handle some of the changes involved in playing in the NHL emotionally.

Draft the largest player at the time?  Difficult when draft positions are lower and the teams with higher positions have already taken the bigger, taller guys.

Only draft from particular leagues or countries?  There is some talent everywhere.  If a team makes a decision to ignore the NCAA, they might miss a player who would fit perfectly with their team in a few years.

Only take the highest scorers in a league?  Every sport is full of busts that tore up the minors or college, but could not transition to the professional ranks.  In that case Martin St. Louis would have found a team with less trouble, but would the pressure of performing under a large contract so early messed up his development when he was young?

Trade everyone on the team for picks, stink for a couple of years so they are higher, and draft at random in the hopes that someone will work out or can be traded for someone who will?

And sometimes there are other factors--who is signable to an affordable contract (more significant in football and baseball, I think), will playing for a hometown team make him more or less comfortable, do you need immediate contribution or can you wait a few years and take a player who might be less ready now but you believe to have a higher ceiling, etc.

If it was that easy to draft, then Ryan Leaf would never have gone before Peyton Manning.  People are strange and unpredictable, and stats help with groups but not with individual people.

So what strategy would Thomas recommend?

(Or anyone else, for that matter--at one time or another, every team has made bizarre draft decisions.  What can anyone else think of that plays into such a crapshoot?)

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 09/23/07 at 09:57 AM ET

Jiri Fischer had a lot of potential.

Wait, now we evaluate draft picks from ten years ago on potential?

I don’t think he was third-pairing caliber.

He was a second pairing defenseman for a year. It’s bad that his career was cut short the way it was, but if you’re going to give the Wings a free pass because of his affliction, then you’ve got to give free passes to a heck of a lot of teams for a heck of a lot of players who got hurt.

The only logical way to do it is to judge players on what they did, not what they might have done.

I agree Holmstrom is not the most elegant but the guy scored 30 goals last year and 29 the year before. 36 skaters did better than him last year. He had as many as Jagr! No mattter how he scored those goals, it is still a significant contribution.

Right, but he’s incapable of playing on a scoring line. He’s a 3rd liner and PP specialist. That’s not a significant NHL player.

We’re splitting hairs here though. Even if you were to give the Wings a pass on Holmstrom, that’s still three significant NHL players in eleven years (1992-2003).

Drafting is tricky.

Not as tricky as people make it out to be.

92-Todd Warriner, Manny Fernandez, Anson Carter
93-Jocelyn Thibault, Adam Deadmarsh
94-Wade Belak, Milan Hejduk, Chris Drury, Tim Thomas (lol, didn’t remember that one!)
95- Marc Denis, Brent Johnson
96- Dan Hinote, Samuel Pahlsson
97- Ville Nieminen, David Aebischer.

They drafted three very good players in that span: Deadmarsh, Hejduk and Drury. Of all of them, only Hejduk still contributes to the team.

Couple things.

1. You forgot Mark Parrish.
2. If you’re going to talk about guys like Franzen and Filppula, then you’re going to have to add guys like Tomi Kallio and Brian Willsie (41p with Washington in 05-06). I’d prefer to keep it limited to significant players, but if we’re going to add in everyone who gets a cup of coffee in the NHL, then the Avs’ superiority becomes even more apparent.

They drafted three very good players in that span: Deadmarsh, Hejduk and Drury. Of all of them, only Hejduk still contributes to the team.

Still contributing to the team is irrelevant. The Wings traded their picks away for players they needed for runs. The Avs used their picks on prospects and traded those prospects for players they needed for runs. This isn’t about picking guys and keeping them forever. This is about being able to identify significant NHL-caliber prospects.

The Draft is great in that it provides every team with the opportunity to infuse seven (used to be more) potential assets for free every single year. The smartest teams FULLY utilize those opportunities to their advantage. Trading their picks for players is fine, but they missed on all but three of the picks they actually made from 1992-2003.

Posted by Thomas on 09/23/07 at 12:09 PM ET

The funniest part of this is that you make a case that Filpulla was drafted as a third liner and nothing more. Which is precisely my point! The Wings drafted to fill in lower rung positions which basically means picking players with lower potential.

I said that they picked one particular player to fill a particular role. You now claim that all their picks were used on role players.

That’s revisionist history. Spin. Nothing more.

The Wings drafted to fill in lower rung positions which basically means picking players with lower potential. That most these players don’t pan out is almost a given.

OK, so now you’re saying that they weren’t trying to draft good players, they were going for role players. But that because they were going for role players, it stands to reason that those players would flop.

If there were a greater chance that a projected role player would flop, why would you waste picks on them instead of drafting someone who has a chance to be a star?

That makes no sense at all. Sorry, you’re spinning and you’re wrong.

This is also why a comparison between high-calibar teams during the period is the only way to argue for Detroit’s poor drafting.

I don’t know why you keep bringing this up. It’s contrived nonsense to compare them only to three other teams.

But the thing that you can’t seem to understand is that if you compare them to the other three teams in question, THE WINGS COME OUT ON BOTTOM. If you compare them to the rest of the league, THE WINGS COME OUT ON BOTTOM. Thus, making your ridiculous, contrived little distinction is pointless.

Posted by Thomas on 09/23/07 at 12:33 PM ET

Assume for the sake of argument that the drafting has been horrible.

I’ve already proven that it is. It’s not a question or an argument.

How does that improve (for any hypothetical team with this issue)?

Fire everyone currently making decisions and hire someone else?  Who?  Anyone good is presumably already employed, and the only people likely available are available because they are bad.

By that logic, once the GMs of the 1960’s were done, teams wouldn’t have GMs.

There are tons of guys out there who are capable of being a GM. Especially when you’re only trying to replace Ken Holland.

I’ve made no secret about the fact that Jimmy Nill is FAR more capable than Holland.

Draft the most skilled player available at each pick?

That’s a good strategy, yes.

How do you determine that when you are trying to project a teenager over the next several years, and even with the best skill set you may run into injuries, car accidents, drug abuse, illness, heart problems, etc. that derail the entire plan.  Not to mention that young men develop phyically at different rates, and some might not be able to handle some of the changes involved in playing in the NHL emotionally.

Wow. So you’re saying that you can’t determine who the most skilled player available is because of all the variables that player might run into in the future?

You obviously don’t understand the point of scouting or statistical analysis. You don’t understand the concepts of player talent evaluation or projection of production.

Determining the most skilled player available when it’s your turn at the podium is not difficult.

Draft the largest player at the time?  Difficult when draft positions are lower and the teams with higher positions have already taken the bigger, taller guys.

Who the hell said anything about drafting the largest player? That’s a mistake that a lot of teams make, and it bites people in the ass year after year.

I have to give the Wings credit here. Neither they nor the Avs have falled into that trap, in general.

Only draft from particular leagues or countries?  There is some talent everywhere.  If a team makes a decision to ignore the NCAA, they might miss a player who would fit perfectly with their team in a few years.

Actually, beyond the 3rd round, there is a strategic reason to never select anyone outside the NCAA, unless you know for certain that you’re going to sign the guy and bring him over immediately.

Before that though, you’re right, draft the BPA.

Trade everyone on the team for picks, stink for a couple of years so they are higher, and draft at random in the hopes that someone will work out or can be traded for someone who will?

The Blackhawks are the only team I have ever heard of who have drafted at random (they didn’t have a scouting staff - at all - for years).

If it was that easy to draft, then Ryan Leaf would never have gone before Peyton Manning.  People are strange and unpredictable, and stats help with groups but not with individual people.

See, that’s where you’re wrong. It’s not *easy* to draft, per se, but there are people who understand how to do it better than others. If you understand the CBA, understand statistics and can evaluate player talent, you’re going to draft a lot better than others.

This has been proven statistically.

So what strategy would Thomas recommend?

I’ve laid out my strategy numerous times on numerous forums.

What can anyone else think of that plays into such a crapshoot?

The draft is not a crapshoot. Some teams approach it that way, but if you know what you’re doing, it’s not a crapshoot.

Posted by Thomas on 09/23/07 at 12:50 PM ET

To recap:  Anything Detroit does is horrible.  Whatever.

In the real world, Detroit’s done just about as good of a job in the draft as any team can do when a) it rountinely traded away 1st-3rd round picks for established players for years and years and b) even when they kept picks they were no earlier than 25th.

Taking a moment to interrupt Thom’s self-flagellatory diatribe to inject a little rationality, Detroit hasn’t had a ton of picks.  They haven’t had any early picks.  They haven’t had a pick in the top 15 since 1991.  As a general rule, players taken in the range Detroit normally selects (25-30) only become ‘significant NHLers’ around 20-30% of the time, at best.

Just looking at Detroit’s ‘drafting’ record over a period of time without taking into account any of those factors and then trying to lambaste the team about it is stupid, biased, and just simply critically uninformed.  Almost as stupid as lauding what Colorado does on draft day.  Gods, they keep just about all of their picks, have had tons of early picks, and the 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 drafts didn’t land anyone who could crack Detroit’s Top6/top 4/ starting goalie spots with the possible exception of Liles.

Really, the only reason the 1998 draft wasn’t a complete debacle was that the Avs had FIVE top 30 picks… and they still managed to screw up 3 of them.  The Avs’ 1997 draft sucked.  So did the 1996 draft.  So did the 1995 draft.

It’s just sort of funny to read an Avs fan ripping the Wings drafting… and believe me, Thom’s been ripping the Wings drafting for about a decade now… when all you have to do is look at how sparse the Avs success has been in the draft.

Take note, everyone: this is what happens when you buy your makeup over the internet and don’t read the warning lables.  Death by Concealer is no way to go.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 09/23/07 at 07:21 PM ET

It’s worse reading someone whose entire presence upon this website is based upon his bashing of the Red Wings’ drafting abilities absolutely lose his lunch with three successive, batshit-insane diatribes that always come back to the same stuff--the magic of statistics and things that come out of bottom...all because he was baited, and took the bait like a good fish, and thrashed, and thrashed, and thrashed. 

Honestly...Whatever.  After a while you start scrolling through the noise.

Posted by George James Malik from South Lyon, MI on 09/24/07 at 02:36 AM ET

Sorry. Honest, I wasn’t trying to bait anyone.  :(

I’m honestly curious.  It’s easy to look back in any sport and say, “oh, they never should have traded this guy because they should have known he would be this good after six years,” or someone else was a waste of a draft pick because it was obvious from some numbers that he would never develop properly as a professional, but if there was some magic number that was a 100% accurate predictor of the future then no team would ever make mistakes because they would all have the prospects aligned in the same order and each would pick the next best prospect when their spot came up.  Descriptive statistics are a lot more useful as an analytical tool than a predictive one at this point.  I wondered which factors teams value the most when eveluating prospects, or if it depends on the individual team or even the particular ideas of each scout.

(Plus my cold meds have my brain fuzzy.  I love my little nephew, but 2 year olds are germ-spewing machines.)

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 09/24/07 at 04:31 AM ET

Oh, you didn’t bait him, Bill did by posting the comment in the first place.  It was a big, fat, Canadian Nightcrawler of bait, and it worked.

You just asked Thomas an honest question, and he gave you his usual slate of answers/babble. 

Without my own ranting and raving about how draft success in itself is about the art of picking what one could call “statistical anomalies” instead of “sleeper picks,” I’d imagine that teams use a combination of descriptive and predictive statistics as they probably need some sort of metric or matrix to describe where the player is now compared to his peers, what his realistic “upside” is, and what his “home run” potential could be. 

Besides, Baroque, you on cold medicine made a lot more sense than Thomas did

Posted by George James Malik from South Lyon, MI on 09/24/07 at 05:53 PM ET

To recap:  Anything Detroit does is horrible.

I actually said that Detroit does a lot of things well. You apparently skipped that part.

In the real world, Detroit’s done just about as good of a job in the draft as any team can do when a) it rountinely traded away 1st-3rd round picks for established players for years and years and b) even when they kept picks they were no earlier than 25th.

Cool. Back it up.

I don’t want a cherry-picked list of a couple guys here and there that the Wings picked and a bunch of guys you “forgot” to add to other teams’ lists.

Let’s have it. Do it right. Post a list of every pick the Wings made, as well as their draft postion, then do the same for every other team. Then post the statistics of each of those players. Then calculate which NHL teams had the highest percentage of good picks and we’ll compare.

I’ve already done this, and I have told you the results, but that’s apparently not enough. So you go ahead and do it yourself, then post all the results here for everyone to see.

Taking a moment to interrupt Thom’s self-flagellatory diatribe to inject a little rationality, Detroit hasn’t had a ton of picks.

I’ve already accounted for that, and you know this. We’ve had this discussion enough times over the years, Eric.

It doesn’t matter what criteria you use. Picks past the 3rd round, picks before the 3rd round, percentage of picks who made the NHL, percentage of picks that made significant contributions in the NHL, and any of the above for any span from 1992-present. Slice it in any way you want, contrive the criteria any way you want, the Wings are still amongst the worst.

As a general rule, players taken in the range Detroit normally selects (25-30) only become ‘significant NHLers’ around 20-30% of the time, at best.

Data and methodology, please.

Just looking at Detroit’s ‘drafting’ record over a period of time without taking into account any of those factors and then trying to lambaste the team about it is stupid, biased, and just simply critically uninformed.

Nobody here did that, Eric.

And you know this. Every time you have contrived some sort of criteria, I have provided the numbers to prove your assertion incorrect.

Just because this is a new forum doesn’t mean I have forgotten your past arguments. I don’t need an “ericpedia” to remember them.

Almost as stupid as lauding what Colorado does on draft day.  Gods, they keep just about all of their picks,

Not true.

have had tons of early picks,

They gave away significant pieces in 1998 and 2001 to get their early picks. So, no, they haven’t had tons of early picks.

and the 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 drafts didn’t land anyone who could crack Detroit’s Top6/top 4/ starting goalie spots with the possible exception of Liles.

You forgot Vrbata and Svatos, both of whom would EASILY make Detroit’s top 6. Hell, Richardson probably would too. Last time I checked, you were looking at either Draper or Maltby on a scoring line this year, and neither of them are anywhere close to the offensive player (much less defensively) that Richardson is.

Really, the only reason the 1998 draft wasn’t a complete debacle was that the Avs had FIVE top 30 picks… and they still managed to screw up 3 of them.

No. They didn’t.
Tanguay is a scoring line forward. Regehr is amongst the best defensive defensemen in the game. And Skoula is a 2nd pairing defenseman for the best defensive team in hockey.

Five picks in the first 30. 60% of them are quality NHLers. Not bad.

But then again, that’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about Colorado, and this isn’t a comparison between the two teams. As much as you want to deflect things back to Colorado, we’re talking about DETROIT here.

It’s just sort of funny to read an Avs fan ripping the Wings drafting… and believe me, Thom’s been ripping the Wings drafting for about a decade now…

...and with good reason…

Take note, everyone: this is what happens when you buy your makeup over the internet and don’t read the warning lables.

You’re not Eric. Eric was an arrogant ass, but he wasn’t a complete idiot.

Posted by Thomas on 09/24/07 at 06:43 PM ET

It’s worse reading someone whose entire presence upon this website is based upon his bashing of the Red Wings’ drafting abilities absolutely lose his lunch with three successive, batshit-insane diatribes that always come back to the same stuff--the magic of statistics and things that come out of bottom...all because he was baited, and took the bait like a good fish, and thrashed, and thrashed, and thrashed.

I wasn’t baited.

I praised the 1989 Draft and gave the reasons for it. Other people wanted to argue about the draft, so we did that.

Posted by Thomas on 09/24/07 at 06:44 PM ET

I’m honestly curious.  It’s easy to look back in any sport and say, “oh, they never should have traded this guy because they should have known he would be this good after six years,” or someone else was a waste of a draft pick because it was obvious from some numbers that he would never develop properly as a professional, but if there was some magic number that was a 100% accurate predictor of the future then no team would ever make mistakes because they would all have the prospects aligned in the same order and each would pick the next best prospect when their spot came up.

Some teams do that.

What you don’t seem to understand is that there’s a difference between picking the right player and having him bust, and picking a player who never had the potential to be anything but a wasted pick.

Descriptive statistics are a lot more useful as an analytical tool than a predictive one at this point.

Not really. Descriptive statistics allow you to see trends that predict outcome in similar current prospects.

I wondered which factors teams value the most when eveluating prospects, or if it depends on the individual team or even the particular ideas of each scout.

It depends on the individual team, obviously. Not really the individual scout. You have to have the same philosophy as the team you work for, or else it doesn’t work.

...which is one of the two reasons I am not a scout anymore.

Posted by Thomas on 09/24/07 at 06:51 PM ET

Besides, Baroque, you on cold medicine made a lot more sense than Thomas did

There’s only so much calculus that I can teach a 3rd grader, George.

Posted by Thomas on 09/24/07 at 06:51 PM ET

Thomas, take your meds dude.

Posted by cementslinger from Midland MI on 09/24/07 at 09:47 PM ET

Thom, you’re laughable.  That you’ve managed to concoct some convoluted, hackneyed “methodology” which you claim supports your position is only testament to you being able to so easily self-delude.

You’ve so thoroughly overrated Colorado prospects and underrated Detroit prospects for well nigh a decade that you’ve scabbed over the ability to be even remotely objective.  Colorado’s drafting has been no better than Detroit’s, and that’s giving the Avs a ton of credit they really don’t deserve considering they’ve had many more early picks than Detroit has had.

It’s why the Avs prospect system is in a shambles right now with the only two young players of any note already up on the NHL team and the depth is so absent as to make the Avs unable to field their own AHL franchise of late.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 09/25/07 at 08:58 PM ET