TrueBlueGED Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 What does that have to do with McDavid? Because I don't think many of us will be as disappointed as you think we will be. Obviously McDavid is the pie in the sky, but it's not all about him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buftex Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 I understand the "tank" concept... and I understand the advantages to finishing with the worst record, etc etc. But, maybe I am just old...it goes against everything I love about sports... and as an old Celtics fan, I can testify, banking on the draft (when it has the lottery proponent included as in the NBA and NHL) to build your teams fortunes is kind of fool-hardy. So much has to go right for it all to work out... the Penguins are very much the exception than the rule. That said, I still have my fingers crossed that this hair-brained idea works! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Amerk Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Yup, and there's sometimes a Corey Perry sitting at pick 29. But what are the odds of either of those things happening? I would say that around 13 of the 50 number 1 draft picks were actual franchise players. So, approximately a 25% chance that if the Sabres choose first, their selection is a franchise-changer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 I would say that around 13 of the 50 number 1 draft picks were actual franchise players. So, approximately a 25% chance that if the Sabres choose first, their selection is a franchise-changer. How many have been NHL first line players? While a true franchise player like Crosby would be nice, just getting a legit first liner in here is still a big step forward seeing as how the Sabres currently have none. And while we're talking percentages, what would everyone guess are the chances of the Sabres bringing in a first line NHL player as a FA? I'd say we'd be lucky if that number is 10%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) I would say that around 13 of the 50 number 1 draft picks were actual franchise players. So, approximately a 25% chance that if the Sabres choose first, their selection is a franchise-changer. +257 Edited March 8, 2014 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Wow, with the four injuries the last two nights, the Sabres went from Bad to Worse. I feel more and more confident in tank nation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zippyfeet Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 this has been the most painful chapter in Sabres history to watch. 41 years of watching. just one before i die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 I would say that around 13 of the 50 number 1 draft picks were actual franchise players. So, approximately a 25% chance that if the Sabres choose first, their selection is a franchise-changer. As CV said, even a 1st line player would be a huge step in the right direction. Besides, that 25% is a much better chance than any other method gives of acquiring a franchise player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Lets just get through this year and then one more. These drafts are huge to bring in star players. We're already well underway with turning this thing around as far as legit grade a prospects on d in our pipeline. Plus Murray is doing things like he did at the deadline will hopefully pay dividends in a couple of years. We just need a couple of top line forwards and I think we will be very competitive in 2 to 3 years time. Also, as has been said mcdavid would be amazing but based on write ups of next years draft and seeing some of those guys at the world juniors this year there should be no less than 4 or 5 real game changers in next years draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Just so everyone understands, next years draft is not McDavid or bust. Some believe that Eichel could actually challenge him for the #1 spot. If this team loads up with 3 top 4 or 5 picks over the next two years, plus the talent they have accumulated over the last 2 drafts we don't become playoff contenders we become CUP contenders within 3 to 4 years. Or we can just settle for playing for at best 5th to 8th in conference and win a round maybe two for the rest of the Sabres existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 I understand the "tank" concept... and I understand the advantages to finishing with the worst record, etc etc. But, maybe I am just old...it goes against everything I love about sports... and as an old Celtics fan, I can testify, banking on the draft (when it has the lottery proponent included as in the NBA and NHL) to build your teams fortunes is kind of fool-hardy. So much has to go right for it all to work out... the Penguins are very much the exception than the rule. That said, I still have my fingers crossed that this hair-brained idea works! As you try to comfort yourself with the thought of first round bust remember the that Larry B was a lottery pick. The pens, hawks,Bruins, ducks are the rule the wings the exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) I would say that around 13 of the 50 number 1 draft picks were actual franchise players. So, approximately a 25% chance that if the Sabres choose first, their selection is a franchise-changer. Not exactly right. Based on the historical data, if you consider an arbitrary (randomly-selected) draft, there is a 25% chance that the player chosen first overall will become a franchise player. Next year is not an arbitrary draft. It is a specific draft with a specific top prospect. While it is certainly not 100% sure that McDavid will be a franchise player, he also certainly has a better chance than an arbitrary top prospect. Crosby had a far greater than a 25% chance when he was drafted and so will McDavid. Sam Reinhart (or whoever is the top pick this year) probably has a less than 25% chance of becoming a franchise player. Several recent years have had top prospects who were expected to be great players, but not franchise players (i.e., very unlikely to happen.) Those years balance out the Crosby, Stamkos and McDavid years where top prospects are expected to be (and, more often than not, do become) franshice players to give an overall hit rate of 25%. Edited March 8, 2014 by carpandean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buftex Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 As you try to comfort yourself with the thought of first round bust remember the that Larry B was a lottery pick. The pens, hawks,Bruins, ducks are the rule the wings the exception. Well, if by "Larry B" you are referring to Larry Bird, you are not correct. The NBA didn't start the draft lottery until 1985, when Patrick Ewind was the top prize. In referencing the Celtics, I was referring to the 1998 draft...Rick Pitino left the college game to coach the team because of the money (obviously), and the fact that the Celtics had 2 lottery picks, and, by far, the greatest mathematical chance of landing the #1 pick, to grab Tim Duncan. Instead, the Spurs got him. They had gutted their roster, assuming Duncan was theirs...the drafted Chauncey Billups and Ron Mercer....two guys who they traded away not long afterwards...the franchise was, basically in a tailspin for a decade after that debacle... it is just a big gamble, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Amerk Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Not exactly right. Based on the historical data, if you consider an arbitrary (randomly-selected) draft, there is a 25% chance that the player chosen first overall will become a franchise player. Next year is not an arbitrary draft. It is a specific draft with a specific top prospect. While it is certainly not 100% sure that McDavid will be a franchise player, he also certainly has a better chance than an arbitrary top prospect. Crosby had a far greater than a 25% chance when he was drafted and so will McDavid. Sam Reinhart (or whoever is the top pick this year) probably has a less than 25% chance of becoming a franchise player. Several recent years have had top prospects who were expected to be great players, but not franchise players (i.e., very unlikely to happen.) Those years balance out the Crosby, Stamkos and McDavid years where top prospects are expected to be (and, more often than not, do become) franshice players to give an overall hit rate of 25%. While I agree that McDavid looks special, there are never any guarantees. Remember what prompted the draft lottery to begin with? Another "can't-miss" player - Alexandre Daigle: Leading up to the 1993 NHL Entry Draft, Daigle was considered a "can't miss" prospect and NHL superstar-in-waiting. The Senators were even accused of deliberately losing games late in the 1992–93 season, their first in the NHL, in order to guarantee the first overall selection and the right to draft him. This prompted an investigation by the NHL, who soon implemented a draft lottery to prevent such things from happening again. The Senators subsequently finished dead last in the 1992–93 league standings, thus securing the rights to the first overall pick. As the draft approached, the Quebec Nordiques, who were hosting the event, were reportedly so eager to draft the next French-Canadian superstar that they were rumored to have offered star players such as Owen Nolan, Peter Forsberg, Ron Hextall, and draft picks, but Ottawa management disregarded all offers. Daigle was selected first overall by the Senators, ahead of future superstars Chris Pronger and Paul Kariya, who were picked second and fourth, respectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) While I agree that McDavid looks special, there are never any guarantees. Remember what prompted the draft lottery to begin with? Another "can't-miss" player - Alexandre Daigle: You missed (or did not address) my point (and skipped the part where I said it wasn't 100% sure - i.e., not a guarantee.) My point is that the hit rate among former "can't miss" (franchise-wise, not just "will definitely be good") prospects is likely much higher than the average of 25% amongst the top rated prospects each year. Let's say, just for the sake of having numbers, that on 1 in 5 prospects is "can't miss". If the chance is 12.5% of a non "can't miss" top rated (for a given year) prospect becoming a franchise-level players, then the hit rate for "can't miss" prospects could be 75% to get your 25% overall hit rate (0.8*0.125+0.2*0.75 = 0.25). So, is another year worth a 75% chance of a franchise changing player? Keep in mind that the "bust" rate amongst those prospects is most likely not the remaining 25%, since there is some chance that they become just a very good (but not franchise) player. We've got a lot of other assets in the pipeline, to which it would be really nice (but not necessary) to add the next great player. It's not a requirement to make a great team, but it certainly makes the job easier. Just to be clear, if this year's crop of top prospects were coming out next year instead (in place of McDavid, etc.), then nobody would be calling for another year of tanking. Edited March 10, 2014 by carpandean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 As we continue to debate the pros and cons of tanking or not in multiple threads, can we all at least agree to stop with bringing up the word guarantee in regard to any of this. I think it's been well established by now that no regular poster here has ever argued that any method is guaranteed to work in getting a franchise player or building a consistent cup contender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.