We spend a lot of time blasting the Bruins' drafts. And why not? I'd say it's the weakest element of the Chiarelli tenure, as his only first round pick who will be making a significant contribution to the big club in 2013-14 is Hamilton. Caron is on his last leg; Kessel, Hamill, and Colborne are gone; and he has dealt two first picks. The best thing you can say so far is that he has never had a first rounder = nothing. Even Hamill was swapped for Bourque. And you can give him credit for Kessel turning into Seguin and Hamilton, and Seguin turning into Eriksson etc. Not a total waste of time, but when you look at last year's final four, the Penguins were built around first round picks; Chicago the same; LA less so, but Brown and Kopitar are huge contributors. So it seems fair to hope the Bruins will make a first round pick at some point who is worth more in Boston than on the trade market (in the way Hamilton might be; not the way that the "Bruins Daily*" piece suggests Caron is - you know, Boston likes him but no one else wants him?).
I thought about a project, just to kill time while there's no hockey: who had the best first decade of the millenium when it comes to the draft? You could do it fairly simply, and I'm pretty sure I've seen that done where someone talks about Datsyuk and Zetterberg and how great Detroit's drafting has been (between '98 and '05, they drafted Datsyuk, Fischer, Zetterberg, Kronwall, Kopecky, Hudler, Fleischmann, Filppula, Howard, Franzen, Kindl, Helm and Abdelkadr - 14 guys who will play for them next year and a superb defenseman with a heart condition). There's also this, which, somewhat surprisingly, shows the Bruins as having been the 7th best team in terms of average games played per draft pick: http://www.topcornerhockey.com/module_1-7yrs.html
Neither is what I want, though. Pittsburgh has done fantastically in the draft since, and not just because of the series of first and second overall picks they've made. Letang was a 3rd rounder, and they got Moulson, Kennedy and Goligoski past the second round, too. Still, that's nothing compared to that Wings list, and Detroit rarely had a first rounder; when they did, it wasn't top 20 most years. How would you design a rating to really get at the effectiveness of a team's drafting? I'm thinking you'd want to downplay successes at the top of the draft and weight late gems a little higher relatively speaking. You'd want to look at production as well as overall games played so that you get credit for drafting an NHL player, but more credit for drafting as he produces more for the team. You might even want to add a "bust" metric that reflects top 10 picks that were wasted on players like Zach Hamill.
Anyone heard of something like this that has a bit of complexity to it? Anyone good at this sort of thing? Olsonic? If I were an owner, or a President/GM, I'd be looking for something like this the next time I was doing what the Bruins have done - revisit the scouting and development department.
*Dear Boston Globe: if this garbage is not written by, endorsed by, or in any way affiliated with the Boston Globe, why is it featured prominently on BDC? Pollutes your brand, if you ask me.