PHI / PIT

[Lee]

So you think you could get a 4th overall pick in any relatively close NHL draft for Thomas Hickey? 8th overall for Zach Hamill? Just a couple of examples. Obviously, there are examples at the other end of the spectrum as well.

My point is that prospects, while yes they are the lifeblood of the league over the long haul, they don't win championships.

Let's say that PA keeps up his pace from last year. I will get more for him in a years time than I paid for him now. Gotta make some risky moves and have the pan out if I'm going to make it in this league.

[Scott]

Lee.. everybody has there way of doing things and thinking. Unfortunately, they're wrong and you're right.

/the end

[armandtanzarian]

Round NHLers % Success Top Players % Top
Round 1 292 65% 94 21%
Round 2 139 31% 25 6%
Round 3 114 25% 27 6%
Round 4 84 19% 14 3%
Round 5 54 12% 9 2%
Round 6 64 14% 13 3%
Round 7 32 7% 6 1%
Round 8 40 9% 5 1%
Round 9 18 4% 3 1%

% Top means a player that went on to become a top 4 forward or top 2 defenseman in the NHL.

Based on 1987-2001 Draft Statistics

[armandtanzarian]

more interesting numbers:

What Are Your Odds Of Making It As A Pro Hockey Player?

The best way to put this in perspective is to be aware of your odds of making it to "the show".

In 1985, a study was done in Ontario, Canada for all 10 year-old hockey players. At this time, there were 22,000 10 year-olds playing hockey in Ontario. Of these players only 110 made it to the OHL (Ontario Hockey League) and 22 more received scholarships to Division 1 schools.

This means that only 132 out of those 22,000 made it into the top feeder leagues for the NHL. Of those 132 players, only 7 played in the NHL. Those are astonishing numbers.

[armandtanzarian]

Since 1979 - odds of draft pick making the NHL.

[armandtanzarian]

So going on the above numbers. Picks and prospects are total gambles. And it is not just opinion, it is mere fact. Some people in here understand that, others do not.

[kimmer]

Your team is successful Kyle, which means your method of computation on prospect valuing and ceiling works for you.
The biggest problem (not even a problem really) with this is that, everyone here has their opinions on a prospect based either on what they read in articles (which shouldn't be a good enough indication for judging their value most of the time), or they claim to have "watched" or "followed" them play for as long as they say they have.

Please, don't get me wrong on making this statement, but I think a lotta people do tend to think they're experts when it comes to prospect hunting/scouting, in turn giving them a lot more value to a certain prospect they really like, and deem their opinion on them more valuable then the actual scouts involved in determining their value. Not all scouts/HF writers are intelligent, nor right for that matter, but I'm a big believer of the "experts know better" concept in their respective fields of expertise here partly because of my outright admittance of lack of knowledge in them.

I could watch a few games of these prospects play and I couldn't make the judgement so confidently about them like so many BBKLers do. I honestly get more out of the colour commentators talking about them in-game based on provided scouting reports/stats. This is why I almost never talk trades about prospects with a strong opinion. They will almost never convince me on a regular basis when they tell me "yo this prospect is gonna be sick down the road... I watch him like every day" or "you value HFboard reviews? lol". I'd rather talk NHLer deals. This isn't to say that you are completely bullshitting about your opinion on that prospect, but it doesn't mean that I have to take yours to heart.

[kimmer]

BTW, Zac Dalpe is sick, I watch him play like every day

[armandtanzarian]

Thats just it. I do not have access or time to study and watch all prospects that may or may not be drafted into the NHL. I have never claimed to be any sort of knowledge on prospects. That is why i posted the chart above. I can read up as much as i want on a particular player but that still means nothing to me except by increasing the small odds that said player may make the NHL. I always go on pure numbers and past performance over potential or "that player is gonna be sick" mentality. That is the gambling part which everyone has to do. But in no way should proven NHL talent with full time roster positions be equal in value to some of the prospects being traded in here one for one. I learned my lesson the hard way in getting the 7th overall pick last year. I gave way too much and it was one of the worst moves i have ever made. The prospect knowledge in this league is amazing and i totally respect it but it also unbalances the player values in here because everyone becomes experts, like you said. Some of the more successful GM's in here know that and can easily take advantage of the pick and prospect love to get ridiculous returns. That is my weakness. I do not know enough about prospects to be able to use acquiring them as a tool in flipping players for even better ones. Scott is the man when it comes to that. Not many people can do what he has done with such large rosters in such a large league. Mad respect!

[KapG]

So going on the above numbers. Picks and prospects are total gambles. And it is not just opinion, it is mere fact. Some people in here understand that, others do not.

I prefer dealing in prospects who are a year or two removed from their drafts and have been developing for a bit, not the ones straight out of the draft. You can get a better idea which prospects are going to have a legit shot at making the NHL that way IMO.

I don't think you are taking that into consideration when making your argument here. Maybe you are though and im missing it?

Anyways, im all for picking up NHL players, I just prefer the younger ones, especially if im going to be giving up good assets.

[armandtanzarian]

Oh I am considering that for sure. I mean some of those players that you describe could be undrafted or even were drafted very late which would obviously go against the chart i posted. If you have a lot of prospect knowledge and follow them very closely you obviously have a better chance of picking a player that could potentially be a career NHLer. My whole argument is based on the fact that those "developing prospects" have yet to actually do anything or crack and NHL roster and they are getting put on the same plate as someone who has already been there and now has a proven track record of being successful in the NHL. I totally understand the value some of those blue chip prospects have and the odds are fully with them that they will make the NHL and develop nicely. The problem is when you consider the value that all of the GM's in here give all of those prospects as well as every other drafted player, the numbers dont add up. There are not that many prospects out there that will actually crack an NHL roster yet if you were to take a poll in here of all the GM's and there thoughts on players it would be vastly different. Every GM has opinions on there own players and who might crack the lineup. That is why i posted the odds chart. Come back down to earth and be realistic about the likelihood of these players actually making the big leagues and staying.

Just for fun i would love to do a poll of every GM in here and have them give a percentage of making the NHL fulltime on each prospect they own, add up the league totals then average, then compare to the actual stats. The outcome of that would speak volumes on the value of prospects in this league.

[Shep]

lol why does it bother you so much Kyle? Let people have fun with their prospects.

[Chris]

Kyle, I respect your opinion, but I don't think you're seeing the entire picture.

I mentioned earlier to Lee that I felt he was taking a step back by trading for P.A. Parenteau. And the reason for that is because he's trading continuity for competitiveness - even though that competitiveness likely won't be enough to win. The fact remains is that he no longer has high draft picks, he no longer has a top prospect in his system (I don't see any average/above-average prospects either), and he's essentially stuck with the team he has for the next little while.

Continuity seems to take a backseat to the present around here. Look at Steve's team. He's loaded from top to bottom. He doesn't trade his best prospects for mediocre players like Parenteau. He's patient with his line-up, and waiting for his prospects to develop before shifting out players he feels are replaceable for futures when his prospects are proven NHL players. Or if I have to choose myself, I'm using stop-gaps in certain areas of my line-up and aiming for the best upside players I can find to ensure that when I am competitive, it will be because I picked the right horses to carry me to war.

Prospects might not win BBKL championships, but they lead to it. When you're loaded with assets, you're giving yourself ammunition to procure more assets if necessary or due to injuries, retirements, etc. Prospects means continuity. When you have continuity in the line-up, you can trade for guys like Parenteau. When you don't, you're taking the risk that someone will pay more for Parenteau tomorrow, than Lee did yesterday.

At least blue-chip prospects imply blue-chip play. So why give up Oleksiak + for Parenteau?

[Lee]

Kyle, I respect your opinion, but I don't think you're seeing the entire picture.

I mentioned earlier to Lee that I felt he was taking a step back by trading for P.A. Parenteau. And the reason for that is because he's trading continuity for competitiveness - even though that competitiveness likely won't be enough to win. The fact remains is that he no longer has high draft picks, he no longer has a top prospect in his system (I don't see any average/above-average prospects either), and he's essentially stuck with the team he has for the next little while.

Continuity seems to take a backseat to the present around here. Look at Steve's team. He's loaded from top to bottom. He doesn't trade his best prospects for mediocre players like Parenteau. He's patient with his line-up, and waiting for his prospects to develop before shifting out players he feels are replaceable for futures when his prospects are proven NHL players. Or if I have to choose myself, I'm using stop-gaps in certain areas of my line-up and aiming for the best upside players I can find to ensure that when I am competitive, it will be because I picked the right horses to carry me to war.

Prospects might not win BBKL championships, but they lead to it. When you're loaded with assets, you're giving yourself ammunition to procure more assets if necessary or due to injuries, retirements, etc. Prospects means continuity. When you have continuity in the line-up, you can trade for guys like Parenteau. When you don't, you're taking the risk that someone will pay more for Parenteau tomorrow, than Lee did yesterday.

At least blue-chip prospects imply blue-chip play. So why give up Oleksiak + for Parenteau?

I'm fine with being stuck with my lineup. Something like 18 out of my 23 roster players are just entering/ barely into their prime years.

[Chris]

When I say "stuck" I meant you're not going have the same flexibility you might have had prior to this trade.

[Lee]

We have different philosophies on how to build a team. I spent the last year trading my crap NHLers for prospects. There was not a single player that I would have kept entering this off season. Now, I have 7/8 solid wingers, 6/6 solid dmen and 2/4 solid centers. I've identified the areas in which I need to improve.

[armandtanzarian]

Kyle, I respect your opinion, but I don't think you're seeing the entire picture.

I mentioned earlier to Lee that I felt he was taking a step back by trading for P.A. Parenteau. And the reason for that is because he's trading continuity for competitiveness - even though that competitiveness likely won't be enough to win. The fact remains is that he no longer has high draft picks, he no longer has a top prospect in his system (I don't see any average/above-average prospects either), and he's essentially stuck with the team he has for the next little while.

Continuity seems to take a backseat to the present around here. Look at Steve's team. He's loaded from top to bottom. He doesn't trade his best prospects for mediocre players like Parenteau. He's patient with his line-up, and waiting for his prospects to develop before shifting out players he feels are replaceable for futures when his prospects are proven NHL players. Or if I have to choose myself, I'm using stop-gaps in certain areas of my line-up and aiming for the best upside players I can find to ensure that when I am competitive, it will be because I picked the right horses to carry me to war.

Prospects might not win BBKL championships, but they lead to it. When you're loaded with assets, you're giving yourself ammunition to procure more assets if necessary or due to injuries, retirements, etc. Prospects means continuity. When you have continuity in the line-up, you can trade for guys like Parenteau. When you don't, you're taking the risk that someone will pay more for Parenteau tomorrow, than Lee did yesterday.

At least blue-chip prospects imply blue-chip play. So why give up Oleksiak + for Parenteau?

Thats a good post dude. Very informative and I appreciate your view.

[armandtanzarian]

lol why does it bother you so much Kyle? Let people have fun with their prospects.

Only slightly annoying when I hear so much that more than 75% of the league will only trade for players under 24. Thats a fine balance

[KapG]

lol why does it bother you so much Kyle? Let people have fun with their prospects.

Only slightly annoying when I hear so much that more than 75% of the league will only trade for players under 24. Thats a fine balance

leaves more aging vets for you though .

[MSP4LYFE]

lol why does it bother you so much Kyle? Let people have fun with their prospects.

Only slightly annoying when I hear so much that more than 75% of the league will only trade for players under 24. Thats a fine balance

Your team is built on "H2H players", and productive veterans, if this league had a different philosophy your team wouldn't be anywhere near as successful as it is now, or in the future. You saw a flaw in the BBKL value system and have exploited it, embrace the indifference, don't bash it...