Re: Malcolm Subban
posted at 3/13/2012 1:19 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Malcolm Subban
[QUOTE]And how many of those 16 achieved stardom for the teams that drafted them? That is clearly a big part of the argument here. The Bruins have Tuukka Rask and they did not draft him, just as I would prefer. And putting Varlamov and Dipietro in there is quite an enormous stretch. One is a backup goalie on a bad team after being a backup goalie on another team. The other has never been a decent goalie and is considered a total bust as a #1 overall pick (just before Heatley and Gaborik...). Even Schnieder has never been a starting goalie. So your 16 is reduced to a small handful if we're looking at actual success, and success for the team that drafted them. What's more, a high number of the 44 were complete busts. So, I respect your opinion on this, but I am sticking with mine that you don't draft goalies in the first few rounds. Again, just my personal perferance. Some teams draft goalies high, and some succeed. Many don't.
Posted by Fletcher1[/QUOTE]
I regret putting Dipietro and Varlamov in there, because I could have made my point without them. But truth be told I don't think it's an enormous stretch at all. Again, this is a spectrum. Varlamov and Dipietro (who is a fabulous goalie when healthy) are clearly on the lower end--but one is a starter (not on a bad team, just a young team--fighting for a playoff spot too) and the other would be if he was healthy.. Even if I grant you that they shouldn't be on the list, that just brings the percentage down to 32%, not down to a hand-full as you may instinctively think.
There are a few other holes in your stance that I would like to apply some pressure to. First, noting that many teams that draft 1st round-goaltenders do not maintain them in the organization is a non-sequitur to your position that young goalies are tougher to evaluate than other position players. Because there is only one goalie allowed per-game, many organizations are willing to part ways with a young asset (like toronto was) when they feel they are stable in net. This could be because of a solid veteran buying the club a few more years, or because another young prospect also looks to have a bright future.
Nothing in this process makes the talent evaluation process tougher for a goalie, it just means that teams are willing to move them because they are valuable, and because teams don't want a commodity sitting on the bench or in the minors that could otherwise make the NHL team (the money making team) better.
I put the number of quality 1st round draft picks at 38%, but let me just be skeptical (or delusional) and put the number at 25%. Even that number would allow me to pick 11 goalies, all long-time starters, several hall-of famers, Vezina trophy winners, several stanley cup MVPs:
Which notably leaves out the budding young goalies that you say, "are only backups" (which is another complete non-sequitur to the statement that you shouldn't draft goalies because it's tougher to evaluate them):
Each of these young goalies has looked so good that their respective teams could EASILY part with Tim Thomas, Jonathan Quick, and Roberto Luongo... tell me another team that could suffer that loss?
Come on fletch, look at this objectively man. The actual numbers really matter.
@Shaunk yeah, the 2003 draft was an absolute smoke show. Loaded with talent. That was a serious outlier. NHL.com ranked it as one of the top-3 draft classes EVER.
Here's the quote: "The first round of that draft could go down as the most productive in the history of the League -- 29 of the 30 players have played in the NHL; 13 have played at least 300 games; nine have been All-Stars, including Eric Staal (No. 2, Carolina) three times and Dion Phaneuf (No. 9, Calgary) and Ryan Getzlaf (No. 19, Anaheim) twice."