We get into discussions of Chiarelli's draft record on here at least once every six month. Sometimes, it ventures back and we discuss the whole sordid history of Bruins drafts going back to 78-80 when, over three drafts, the Bruins collected Secord, Bourque, McCrimmon, Crowder, Krushelnyski, Pederson, Fergus, Kasper, Hillier and Thelven. Ah, the days.
It's interesting in this era because the team is at the top of the league due largely to trades, smart signings, and drafts just before the Chiarelli regime. In other words, it's about the only real hole in Chiarelli's resume. You have to wonder why, don't you? I mean, you watch the Behind the B footage, and they clearly have some key organizational thinking about what this team looks for in players. I'll cite the argument about Seguin. Chiarelli called him "another one of those 30-35 goal scorers..." and the discussion moved to the idea of trading him as a result. I take that to mean that this regime sees 30-35 goal scorers as bad value for the money you have to pay them. You pay them close to what a 40+ goalscorer gets, but their impact isn't comparably high.
When you hear something like that, you get the sense that they have a very complex set of ideas about what kind of player they want, yet we've consistently seen them miss and sometimes miss badly on draft day. Spooner has now played more games than Hamill did before the final year of his Bruins contract. Fraser will get there with one more game. Caron has played the most games of any Chiarelli pick not named Seguin. Colborne can't make an impact in Calgary. Calgary. But we know all this because it gets rehearsed so often.
What is the issue? Lack of credible scouting? I doubt that, though the second shakeup of Chiarelli's career suggests that may be part of it. Bad risk/reward thinking? Maybe. Hamill seemed like a risk because of his size and the fact that his great offensive year came out of nowhere. Colborne was the big, soft, might not want it kid with great hands. Subban's a goalie, and one who excelled in Jr. on reflexes and athleticism. For most of these guys, there was a potential high reward, but also a good chance they could crash and burn.
I wonder if there's some quality they look for - a quality that would make the kid a good fit in Boston - and that quality is just really hard to judge in an 18 year old kid. Professionalism. Emotional intelligence. That kind of thing. It might explain why they can identify guys like Boychuk and McQuaid and Bartkowski and Krug, but not similarly effective players in the draft.
Maybe that's not it, but rather than the usual "Chia Pete stinks at Drafting" (so far, yes...) I wonder if anyone has any theories on why.