lidstrom: 3rd round, 1989
holmstrom: 10th round 1994
datsyuk 6th round, 1998
zetterberg: 7th round, 1999
kronvall: 1st round, 2000
filppula: 3rd round, 2002
hudler: 2nd round, 2002
franzen: 3rd round, 2004
add to that a couple of young depth players (jonathan ericsson, tomas kopecky) and it's truly an embarassment of riches... in contrast, the flames' 07/08 team dressed only 5 players that were drafted by the organization (lombardi, moss, boyd, nystrom, phaneuf), and only the defenseman was given a top-line role....
calgary's selections in the same rounds of the same drafts, by comparison, would look like this, 1st round in bold (unless marked with an **, where there was no first round selection):
- Veli-Pekka Kautonen (before lidstrom), kent manderville**
- Mike Peluso (before holmstrom), chris dingman
- Brent Gauvreau (before datsyuk), blair betts**
- Blair Stayzer (before z'berg), saprykin
- Brent Krahn (before kronwall)
- Eric Nystrom, Brian McConnell 2nd round (before hudler), and lombardi 3rd (before filppula)
- calgary had 2 selections in the 3rd round of 2004. prust went before franzen. boyd went after. kris chucko
god, that's depressing....
brutal, brutal, brutal
in other news, did anyone know that valtteri filppula looks like this:
glad i could help out.
Posts
13 comments:
Kris Chucko. Whatever Flames scout was convinced this kid was going to be an NHLer (let alone worthy of a first round selection) should be booted out of the Saddledome wearing only a potato sack and a dunce cap.
I had an interesting conversation with someone the other day regarding Detroits drafting record. He made the very excellent point that it probably has more to do with Detroit's development systems than their scouts. For instance, if they actually had a good idea of how good Datsyuk or Zetterberg to be, why didn't they take them earlier on?
I think he's on to something.
yeah, but how many of detroit's draft pick are dating elisha cuthbert???
calgary 1, detroit 0
t probably has more to do with Detroit's development systems than their scouts.
to a certain extent, agreed. i think the mere fact that they RETAIN a lot of their prospects through the system and into the NHL says a lot about their organization.
on the other hand, we could've sent kris chucko to grand rapids on draft day and my bet is that he'd still suck, currently...
though they rarely get a first round pick, detroit has managed to create a viable NHLer in every draft for the past decade (save for 2001):
1998: fischer, datsyuk
1999: z'berg
2000: kronwall, kopecky
2002: hudler, filppula, ericsson
2004: franzen
2006: logan pyett
2007: tbd
like, wow....
on the other hand, we could've sent kris chucko to grand rapids on draft day and my bet is that he'd still suck, currently...
I will never defend Chucko.
though they rarely get a first round pick, detroit has managed to create a viable NHLer in every draft for the past decade (save for 2001):
But I mean, the Flames picked Lombo in what, the third round? Does that mean we have a good eye for talent late in the draft, or does that mean we simply missed him the first two times?
They picked what, 6 players before Zetterberg? That's not exactly great talent identification, at least not by the procurement department.
Comparing your hockey team to Detroit on a regular basis is just a recipe for zoloft prescriptions and AA meetings...
I will never defend Chucko.
uhhh, you can't, dude... it's best not to try....
;)
They picked what, 6 players before Zetterberg? That's not exactly great talent identification
detroit's 1st pick in 99 was the fourth round, so they only selected 3 before z'berg. and while i see what you're saying, we used those 6 rounds to take saprykin, dan cavanaugh, craig anderson, roman rozakov, matt doman, jesse cook, cory pecker (haha), matt underhill, and blair stayzer.
available selections past the first round: auld, commodore, leopold, hagman, F.kaberle, weinhandl, havelid, comrie, radevojevic, C. kelly, M. tjarnqvist, F. federov, rachunik, erat, kostopoulos, vrbata, exelby, parros (!!!), finger, & D. murray [in addition to zetterberg, of course].
THAT is not great talent idenification....
My point though is that IF Detroit had drafted our players and we drafted theirs, they still would've ended up with more quality hockey players than us.
Again though, with Zetterberg, if Detroit (or any other team) had any idea he was going to be as good as he is right now, they would have traded up to get a higher pick to secure him.
Now I may be right about their development systems having a large impact, or I could be wrong, but my logic stands: If they knew he was that good he would have been drafted higher.
Regardless, it's inarguable to say that Detroit's done far better than us in picking and keeping good hockey players within their system, for whatever reason. I'm really just nitpicking for healthy debate's sake.
K:
it's kindof a chicken-or-egg argument. are the drafted detroit players statistically BETTER, or are they developped better....? there is some merit to arguing that the flames' development system can't be terrible, if you look at the players that have come thru here (st.louis, stillman, hull, giguere). it's just that those players largely weren't drafted by us....
i am also arguing for argument's sake, fyi. nothing better to do, really.... ;)
I think an added variable in this debate may be the dynamics of the draft itself: for instance, I have the feeling that a lot of teams kind of "know" how the teams before them are going to draft. I think that's part of the reason Sutter traded down last year and still got Backlund - he got wind roughly how the teams ahead were picking, so he felt safe dropping down and adding a pick because there was a good chance the guy he was going after was still going to be around.
MG/WI, you're both absolutely right, teams do draft down, the Flames do get some good players, but no one will ever convince me that if Detroit knew Zetterburg was good enough to be a top 5 guy in the league they would ever gamble by waiting 7 rounds. 1 maybe, 2 in a stretch. Maybe 3 if they had a very arrogant GM. The risk/reward ratio for that plan just doesn't work, no matter how you slice it.
Sorry, I'm really repeating myself, but I just think it's gotta be a mix of factors, not just good scouting.
K:
zetterberg was a fluke.
better ?
;)
NO!!! I CAN'T DEAL WITH CONSENSUS!!!
Post a Comment