|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 18, 2003 21:45:03 GMT -5
I didn't realize until now that Savard had to give Edmonton a fourth or fifth round draft choice to sign Julien. Now it sarts to make sense. (Savards penchant to give up draft choices)
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 18, 2003 21:45:27 GMT -5
I wonder if the Oilers wanted Traverse
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 18, 2003 22:00:30 GMT -5
Given the impact a coach can have, I don't think a 4th or 5th is a terrible loss... but it does fit into his pattern of giving up picks without really worrying about it.
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jan 18, 2003 22:03:20 GMT -5
Here's a pattern that I was worried about...7 pts out of a possible 24...a 4th or 5th to replace MT with the man you wanted...I'd have paid it too.
CO
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jan 18, 2003 22:05:34 GMT -5
. Now it sarts to make sense. (Savards penchant to give up draft choices) It's getting boring, dude. It's not funny. It's not interesting anymore. Get a new act. By the way, if you want someone's AHL coach, you can't pay in Canadian Tire money.
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Jan 18, 2003 22:11:41 GMT -5
Yea, I reported that on the original thread.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 19, 2003 14:31:22 GMT -5
Yea, I reported that on the original thread. Sorry HabWest. It must have been one of the posts I missed. You get the credit. I was surprised when I first read it. I assumed that since he was a coach in the AHL we didn't have to give anyone anything to get him. My argument is not with the choice of Julien. He has a good recent record, he doesn't cost a fortune (Savard never should have given the failing Therrien an extension in the first place) and a fourth or fifth won't kill the team. Savard does have a pattern of giving up or throwing in draft choices (Savage deal) as though they are worthless. When Houle was drafting it was true, but come draft day we miss the picks. Moving up from 15th to 14th was another example.
|
|
|
Post by Habsolutely on Jan 19, 2003 20:03:51 GMT -5
It's getting boring, dude. It's not funny. It's not interesting anymore. Get a new act. By the way, if you want someone's AHL coach, you can't pay in Canadian Tire money. Agree.. 200 %.. very boring... zzz
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stanley on Jan 20, 2003 9:38:59 GMT -5
I think the value of the coach in the NHL is getting lower...way lower than it was..
Look at the NFL, look at what Te TBay Bucs gave to get Gruden out of the Raiders (a coach that the Raiders didn't want anymore cause he didn't get along with the owner) 2 1st round picks, 2 2nd round picks and 8 million dollars...
I have no problems with giving a 4th round pick for a good coach..even if he doesn't have the effect Gruden had on Tampa...
Anyways..GO RAIDERS!!!!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Gord on Jan 20, 2003 9:51:04 GMT -5
This does shatter another common complaint about Savard as well, though admittedly there's a degree of self-interest in this one. That is to say, there are detractors who say Savard cannot admit when he's made a mistake. Weinrich for Traverse, for example.
He's the one who gave Therrien his extension, but he's the one who eats crow and fires him in the middle of it. He didn't have much of a choice, really, but it just goes to show that pride and ego didn't make him let Therrien ride out his contract. Critical mass was reached, and he made the right decision.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 20, 2003 12:39:01 GMT -5
This does shatter another common complaint about Savard as well, though admittedly there's a degree of self-interest in this one. That is to say, there are detractors who say Savard cannot admit when he's made a mistake. Weinrich for Traverse, for example. He's the one who gave Therrien his extension, but he's the one who eats crow and fires him in the middle of it. He didn't have much of a choice, really, but it just goes to show that pride and ego didn't make him let Therrien ride out his contract. Critical mass was reached, and he made the right decision. Things still had to get pretty bad for him to act, just like with Berezin - the only other mistake he's owned up to. And soon he'll have to own up not being able to get anything for Hackett over a 2 year period for trading the guy...
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Jan 20, 2003 13:28:16 GMT -5
Things still had to get pretty bad for him to act, just like with Berezin - the only other mistake he's owned up to. And soon he'll have to own up not being able to get anything for Hackett over a 2 year period for trading the guy... Are you trying to suggest he's had two years to trade Hackett, when we are all very familiar with Hackett's injury record for those past two years? Hackett has had to prove his trade value by his play this year, and now we can hope for a trade... but as the Weinrich-Traverse trade showed, a UFA in the last year of his contract isn't worth all that much. I'll be thrilled if we got a second rounder for him, let's put it that way. Granted, Sam Pollock might have been able to get more for him, but then again it was easier to pull the wool over inept GM's eyes in those days....
|
|
|
Post by darz on Jan 20, 2003 14:40:31 GMT -5
Given the impact a coach can have, I don't think a 4th or 5th is a terrible loss... but it does fit into his pattern of giving up picks without really worrying about it. agreed. if you get your man, a 4th, 5th ain't much. remember trader phil gave a 1st rounder (i believe 5th overall) to quebec to get bergeron's services.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jan 20, 2003 16:06:26 GMT -5
Things still had to get pretty bad for him to act, just like with Berezin - the only other mistake he's owned up to. Offering Audette to all 29 other teams -- if the reports were true -- doesn't sound like the act of a man who's too proud to try and cut his losses. Not intervening when the same player is benched repeatedly and used sparingly on the fourth line doesn't suggest that either. Nor does putting Czerkawski on waivers and then assigning him to Hamilton.
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Jan 20, 2003 17:02:13 GMT -5
Good point JV.
Besides, we have to factor in human nature. I am loath to criticize the man for being like others. How many of us are about to rush off and start admitting we made mistakes? I know that I'm not and, from the way positions are defended, many others on this board aren't either. Savard doesn't appear any different than most folks on this question to me.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Ranchod on Jan 20, 2003 23:33:55 GMT -5
Given that about 1.4% of all 5th round picks ever pan out, why all the fuss over losing these meaningless late round picks?
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 20, 2003 23:37:03 GMT -5
Because of that 1.4%. In any case, I'd have given up a 1st to toss MT. A 4th rounder (get it RR?) is cheap to me.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 20, 2003 23:47:14 GMT -5
RR - I like the way someone else once put it - late round picks are pocket change.
Can I have all your pocket change ?
It's not because it's not worth much that it should be given away.
If you take the total of all the picks we've given away, we've probably given away almost a "Tucker" or a "Markov" - ie, one late-round gem.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jan 21, 2003 0:20:26 GMT -5
It's not because it's not worth much that it should be given away. If you take the total of all the picks we've given away, we've probably given away almost a "Tucker" or a "Markov" - ie, one late-round gem. Nothing is being "given" away. AS for the value of picks, yes they're worth something even if they're in later rounds. But you don't need to come up with a gem (often a result of great good fortune) in the 5th round or later if you up the odds in the first 3 or 4 by doing your job well. Markov was a great pick, but if you need to take 6 or 7 shots in the dark every year and cross your fingers because there are potentially fatal flaws in your first three picks (like an inability to skate, for instance) then you should never trade a pick. Otherwise, picks are bargaining chips like everything else, and when you make the judgment that one is worth giving, you give it. It's amazing that this whole thread stems from Savard's use of a pick to get Julien out of the Oilers' system and behind our NHL bench.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Jan 21, 2003 0:41:20 GMT -5
I’m still debating how insignificant a 4th or 5th rounder is in the bigger scheme of things. Choices: Making playoffs or a 4th rounder. Getting rid or Therrien or a 4th rounder. Wasting talent in Hamilton because of inept handling or a 4th rounder. Losing value of current players or 4th rounder. Restoring the CH to respectability or a 4th rounder. Allowing Savard to concentrate on trades and draft instead of watching over MT or a 4th rounder. Getting more sleep because the CH is in better hands or a 4th rounder. Remind me again how important that 4th or better yet, a 5th rounder is in the big scheme of things? Sheesh.................
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 21, 2003 2:20:02 GMT -5
Nothing is being "given" away. Well, in some cases, yes it is. Assets are being wasted, which amounts to giving them away. If Blouin wasn't going to play regardless, why give up a 7th for him ? You don't need to, but you'd still like to. Once you have a couple of players in the top few rounds, do you then not care about getting another one ? Inability to skate - a purely hypothetical example, right ? ;-) If we'd drafted well in the top 2 rounds that year(say we got Simon Gagné and Brad Richards), would you then not care about not getting Markov ? Essentially, if you can get one dark horse out of the later rounds in addition to 2 players from the top rounds, you can get yourself a much stronger team through the draft. Agreed, I guess I just disagree with AS's way of giving them up, often, and not getting any back (like he could have for Robidas, for instance - or for Weinrich rather than getting Traverse). When picks are used as spare change that goes in all directions, that's fine by me, but when you're always giving them up and not getting any in return, it adds up over time. Well, that for once is a decent investment of a pick, *if* AS really thinks he's the right guy and he'll be around for a few seasons. But a 4th for Quintal, a 7th for Blouin, a downgrade of a pick in the Savage-Berezin deal, an 8th for Dackell, a 5th or 6th (I forget) for Odjick, a 5th in the Chow deal, etc, etc, once you've given up 7 late-round picks or so, to me it equals to having lost one real late-round dark horse pick, and I just dunno if it's worth it, compared to options that would have been "free".
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 21, 2003 3:04:07 GMT -5
A fourth or fifth rounder is definitely not a guarantee of a successful NHL player. You need five fifth round draft choices to find one quality NHL player. It's a numbers game. We can point to some great choices that made it big and thousands of forgettable names nobody remembers.
I wonder what round pick Savard will get back when some team wants to hire Therrien. I know I could use some of the $600,000 contract extension.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 21, 2003 3:15:54 GMT -5
NOT TRUE!!!
There is no foundation to the rumor that Andre Savard has obtained DNA samples from Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky and delivered them to the Raelians and Cloneaid. It is also unsubstantiated that the clones have already been born and that Savard is stockpiling draft picks for the 2021 draft as part of his 18 year plan.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jan 21, 2003 9:18:09 GMT -5
Once you have a couple of players in the top few rounds, do you then not care about getting another one ? Of course you do, all things being equal. My point was only that making sure you have all of your late round picks every year because you "might get lucky" is not really a strategy in itself. And "getting lucky" is what this is all about. It's like buying more lottery tickets. You're the guy who's always pointing out that it's a crap shoot from the 10th pick (overall) down, and statistically that's pretty much the size of it. Because judging by the numbers that make it from the 4th round and beyond, it looks to be more like just good fortune than brilliant scouting. If it were brilliant scouting that produced Andrei Markov, there'd be ten guys every year who emerge as solid players who were drafted in the late rounds (6 thru 9). But that's not happening. In fact, if you go to hockeydb.com and look at the drafts by round, and the number of NHL games played by each draftee, you're faced with the overwhelming evidence that even if you had a solid scouting staff and three picks in each of rounds 6 through 9, your chances of landing an Andrei Markov would hardly shoot through the roof. In fact, it's entirely possible that you could go five straight years without uncovering a single NHLer, let alone a player who may be an all-star down the road.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jan 21, 2003 9:41:07 GMT -5
Since I'm not doing any work anyway, I went to db and checked 1996 as an example. In rounds 6, 7, 8 and 9 all 26 NHL teams with their scouting staffs were able to uncover 5 players, two of them depth players and three with real value. Dackell in the 6th, Dan Hinote and Pavel Kubina in the 7th, Kaberle in the 8th and Sami Salo in the 9th. That's 5 players out of 104 picks, so 1 in 20 from that year. I think the 5th round produced squat. But maybe you're right. They're longshots even if you do your homework, but they're worth having. Let's put it this way: you don't want to show up for the draft without any picks after the 4th round year after year. But if you give up a 7th or 8th here and there it's not going to greatly affect your ability to draft a guy like Andrei Markov. Assuming that drafting Markov is a sign of brilliant scouting, you only need one or two picks out of the last four rounds to grab him. So not having a 7th and 9th but having 6th and 8th round picks will be fine. If, on the other hand, getting Markov is mostly luck and a result of Markov's surprising development, then not having those 7th and 9th picks will only make it slightly less probable that you'll find him, rather than a great deal less probable. If the "odds" of finding a real player in round 9 are something like 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 (how many Sami Salo's have been drafted in round 9 each year?), you're not giving up much.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 21, 2003 9:51:28 GMT -5
how about a stronger draft than 1996?
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jan 21, 2003 10:31:27 GMT -5
how about a stronger draft than 1996? Is there such a thing when you're talking about rounds 5 thru 9? 1995. Last 5 rounds (120+ picks) Hrdina (5th) Worrell (7th) Robidas (7th) Axelson (7th) Grand-Pierre (7th) D. Markov (9th) Pretty consistent. It's one in 20 or so. And with the rounds now 30 picks each, it'll be even lower because the first pick in the 5th round is no longer 131st overall but 151st. Anyway, I can't tell if it's luck or skill. Looks like luck because it's never the same team grabbing gems in the 6th and later rounds. So if you have 20 of these picks over a four year period odds are you will end up with one player (and of course a player could be a fringe d-man like Robidas) who will stick for a year or longer in the NHL. If you have 16 such picks over a four year period, instead of your alloted 20, your chances of lucking out are reduced, but considering where they started it's not some huge deal. Of course, when you see names like Markov and Axelson you think "these picks are valuable", but it's misleading. They're valuable in the aggregate. Each one, by itself, has very modest value. If Savard is doing his job, 6 or 7 picks instead of 9 or 10 each year doesn't concern me in the least. It really is a function of making your picks work for you. By the way, 5th round picks is where I draw the line. 4th rounders are not monopoly money. You should hang on to those, no question.
|
|
|
Post by The Habitual Fan on Jan 21, 2003 10:41:33 GMT -5
Excuse me if I'm missing a bigger point here, but the fact is Julien was under contract to another team, Edmonton. To hire an employee from another organization requires the losing team be given something back in return. Pierre McGuire on the Fan in Toronto yesterday said that Kevin Lowe was very high on Julien and initially was going to turn down the request from Montreal, but since it was a job Julien coveted he agreed. Take McGuire for what you will.
I'm sure if Montreal could have paid less they would have, but to get the guy they wanted it is worth the pick. They certainly weren't going to give up a good prospect in return and why would Edmonton want a player with no potential, so unless its cash, it has to be a pick. If Julien is as promising a coach as what hockey people (writers, news media) have said then I have no problem with a mid round pick.
Another note from somewhere on the weekend, Savard was going to fire Therrian a couple of weeks ago, but waited til Bob Hartley found a job so he wouldn't be second guessed in the French press.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 21, 2003 16:41:31 GMT -5
Thanks JV!
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 21, 2003 18:15:06 GMT -5
JV, it's just the general trend that gets to me. We're talking low percentages, but giving them up and not getting any back just makes the percentages even worse.
My take on the draft has always been that you want one of your top 2 picks to make it, and one of the later rounds - combined you get 2 players, which is what you need every year to maintain a team. I think AS is sacrificing too readily some of those lesser picks, including some of those 3d and 4th rounders.
I really wouldn't care if we got back roughly as many as we gave up, it's just the general trend that annoys me - giving up picks but not getting any back.
Get a 3d rounder for Rosie, a 6th rounder for Robidas, a 4th rounder for Weinrich, etc - those are the deals that aren't being made I'd want to see, and which would make me lose interest in the lower round picks we gave up, since it would be close enough to even.
|
|