Is importance of draft picks and prospects in general overrated?

[FrankSidebottom]

Do you think people pay too much attention to prospects and overvalue draft picks vs what actually contributing players their teams have?

I mean, people sometimes get really mad when their teams trade picks away for needed rentals during the window. And it’s like usually they think about 20-25 OA picks in the mold of some guaranteed superstar while it’s more often than not a guy like Anthony Mantha or even worse. In 4 years. Maybe. They prefer some magic beans over established players.

I think everyone saw this type of arguments.

“My magic bean is better, he projects to hit 55 points in four years while your established guy only hits 50 points IRL. You suck”
“My magic beans are better than your magic beans because reasons”

More often than not players do not meet expectations let alone exceed them. Yet we still value them as some silver bullets. Contending teams routinely give away their picks and don’t give a # about what these maybes may bring (or may not, or they do but way less) in many years. They just win with established players.

Click to read more...

 

[JaegerDice]

I will say 'Yes, slightly', for two reasons.

1) Once you get past the first 15-20 picks in a good draft, your late 1st rounder isn't worth much more than a 4th rounder in terms of likelihood to make the NHL, let alone likelihood to make an impact.

2) Development matters. I'd trade a 2nd round pick for a former 3rd round pick that's showing good progress in the minor leagues 2 years after the fact any day.

Either way, I understand the thirst for picks and prospects, because in the cap era, you should be collecting as many lottery tickets as you can.

Whether you cash in that lottery ticket at the draft and hope they can help fill out your depth, or package the lottery ticket (pick or prospect) with some other stuff for another asset that can help you now, they're easier to move and therefor have more inherent value than contracted NHL players. $1,000,000 in cash is worth more to most people than a car valued at $1,000,000 cause it's a lot easier to find somebody that takes cash than it is to find somebody who wants to buy a $1,000,000 car.

 

[FrankSidebottom]

I will say 'Yes, slightly', for two reasons.

1) Once you get past the first 15-20 picks in a good draft, your late 1st rounder isn't worth much more than a 4th rounder in terms of likelihood to make the NHL, let alone likelihood to make an impact.

2) Development matters. I'd trade a 2nd round pick for a former 3rd round pick that's showing good progress in the minor leagues 2 years after the fact any day.

Either way, I understand the thirst for picks and prospects, because in the cap era, you should be collecting as many lottery tickets as you can.

Whether you cash in that lottery ticket at the draft and hope they can help fill out your depth, or package the lottery ticket (pick or prospect) with some other stuff for another asset that can help you now, they're easier to move and therefor have more inherent value than contracted NHL players. $1,000,000 in cash is worth more to most people than a car valued at $1,000,000 cause it's a lot easier to find somebody that takes cash than it is to find somebody who wants to buy a $1,000,000 car.

Mostly agree, but sometimes (in a desert or in an emergency situation) you just need a car whatever it takes. Money wouldn’t help you there.

 

[FrankSidebottom]

I will say 'Yes, slightly', for two reasons.

1) Once you get past the first 15-20 picks in a good draft, your late 1st rounder isn't worth much more than a 4th rounder in terms of likelihood to make the NHL, let alone likelihood to make an impact.

2) Development matters. I'd trade a 2nd round pick for a former 3rd round pick that's showing good progress in the minor leagues 2 years after the fact any day.

Either way, I understand the thirst for picks and prospects, because in the cap era, you should be collecting as many lottery tickets as you can.

Whether you cash in that lottery ticket at the draft and hope they can help fill out your depth, or package the lottery ticket (pick or prospect) with some other stuff for another asset that can help you now, they're easier to move and therefor have more inherent value than contracted NHL players. $1,000,000 in cash is worth more to most people than a car valued at $1,000,000 cause it's a lot easier to find somebody that takes cash than it is to find somebody who wants to buy a $1,000,000 car.

And sometimes it’s like you’re offered a case with cash, but you don’t know how much is in it. And nobody knows yet everyone believes they’ve got the best one and others underrate their case. Some 5 cases with real $1,000,000, but 32 guys think they are the ones with a million and don’t want to trade it for $700,000 even though mathematically it’s right.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

It’s overrated once you’ve filled out your team and you’re talking about the value of picks after the first two rounds. Most teams that are contenders don’t need the value that comes with mid and late round finds. By the time they’ll reach the NHL, the team is ready to rebuild and can restock with high picks. It’s important to have the high picks to be able to quickly replace around the edges of your roster with ELC’s.

For the teams that are not contenders, it’s underrated. You need all the cheap young talent you can get on ELC’s until you can build a core that can contend. Most of them don’t work out anyway, so you have to keep trying and cycling in players to give a shot in the league to see what works and what doesn’t.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

I think it's significantly overrated, especially when you look at how people on here value late 1st round and 2nd round picks.

Pairing a 1st and a 2nd with a few plusses at the TDL can get your team a legit top 6 or top 4 threat. In the offseason a late 1st with a few plusses can get you a top line guy and a 2nd can get your team a 2nd liner. Most late 1sts and 2nd round picks don't equate to that except in very rare instances.

2nd and 3rd round picks are thrown around in the off-season and can get your team a middle 6 or bottom 4 defender. Again, the value of that roster player exceeds what the average points per game is of that pick more often than not. I know someone will cite Kucherov or Point or Bratt or Gaudreau, but those are incredibly rare instances that not even the team picking them can truly predict.

In most drafts the value is concentrated in the top 10 and top 15 with the odd steal here or there in the late 1st through 2nd. 2021 is a prime example of that when you look at the players selected in the top half of the first. The only one that looks totally out of place is Ottawa's pick at 10.

 

[ijuka]

I mean, people sometimes get really mad when their teams trade picks away for needed rentals during the window.

Rentals are what are overrated, FAR moreso than picks and prospects.

 

[John Mandalorian]

Do you think people pay too much attention to prospects and overvalue draft picks vs what actually contributing players their teams have?

I mean, people sometimes get really mad when their teams trade picks away for needed rentals during the window. And it’s like usually they think about 20-25 OA picks in the mold of some guaranteed superstar while it’s more often than not a guy like Anthony Mantha or even worse. In 4 years. Maybe. They prefer some magic beans over established players.

I think everyone saw this type of arguments.

“My magic bean is better, he projects to hit 55 points in four years while your established guy only hits 50 points IRL. You suck”
“My magic beans are better than your magic beans because reasons”

More often than not players do not meet expectations let alone exceed them. Yet we still value them as some silver bullets. Contending teams routinely give away their picks and don’t give a # about what these maybes may bring (or may not, or they do but way less) in many years. They just win with established players.

Yes and no. Yes, it’s often the case that draft picks are over valued. However, it cuts both ways and the escalation of trade prices in the form of draft picks is also out of control. It’s safe to say Chiarot wasn’t worth a first and because of this, it should not be used as precedent/a benchmark in the future.

 

[FrankSidebottom]

Rentals are what are overrated, FAR moreso than picks and prospects.

Maybe, but I also referred to non-rental trades as well. Do you remember people crying when Tampa traded a bunch of magic beans for the young, cost-controlled and already productive player in Hagel? I ‘member.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Yes.

Many ways to build a team.

Look no further than Vegas or Florida.

 

[Pavels Dog]

It may surprise you to know that most good players were once prospects drafted using draft picks

 

[StreetHawk]

Do you think people pay too much attention to prospects and overvalue draft picks vs what actually contributing players their teams have?

People have this assumption that all draft picks their club will make in rounds 1 and 2 will make it. Not likely to be the case and a good number that do make up, don't hit their ceiling.

You need them, but up to the GM and scounts/developmental coaches to turn them into something.

 

[FrankSidebottom]

It may surprise you to know that most good players were once prospects drafted using draft picks

It may surprise you to know a bust/underachiever rate even of first rounders.

 

[Pavels Dog]

It may surprise you to know a bust/underachiever rate even of first rounders.

The successful ones are worth it though.

 

[FrankSidebottom]

The successful ones are worth it though.

It depends, sometimes they are and sometimes they aren’t. At some point real results mean more than fancy figures and projections. At some point even rebuilding teams need to win and not to gamble on maybes. It seems that for some people here deep prospect pools are more important than actual wins.

 

[Peat]

I think there's a crowd that overrates them.

And I think there's a crowd that underrates them, due to not appreciating how important the lottery wins are to a squad and how important the cheap cap is on org-grown players. There's other ways to gain the benefits of both but the draft is the easiest if an org doesn't suck.

I also think people ignore the importance of drafting and developing in being able to build teams even if they never play for you, or they play for you and need to be traded to keep growing. Vegas don't have Mark Stone if Erik Brannstrom wasn't developing really strongly. Florida don't have Tkachuk without Huberdeau or Reinhart without making a great pick on Devon Levi in the 7th round. You can't get Sam Reinhart for a 1st and 7th straight up, but you can with good drafting.

It's always easiest to make examples with your own team. For me, the Penguins back to back wins were impossible without the cadre of developed picks from long ago that formed the team's core, the wave of cheap useful players they'd got from the 10-12 drafts, and trading about 3 1sts and a few other bits to bulk it all out. I don't think it could have been done without all of those things. If this team had spent picks like water all through the Shero era - wouldn't have happened. If Rutherford hadn't been willing to spend picks to get needful things - wouldn't have happened.

Balance is needed. There's different ways to get all the pieces needed but balance is needed and, sooner or later, a team that keeps spending and spending hits the wall. Penguins have found that out too.

 

[Guttersniped]

Do you think people pay too much attention to prospects and overvalue draft picks vs what actually contributing players their teams have?

I mean, people sometimes get really mad when their teams trade picks away for needed rentals during the window. And it’s like usually they think about 20-25 OA picks in the mold of some guaranteed superstar while it’s more often than not a guy like Anthony Mantha or even worse. In 4 years. Maybe. They prefer some magic beans over established players.

I think everyone saw this type of arguments.

“My magic bean is better, he projects to hit 55 points in four years while your established guy only hits 50 points IRL. You suck”
“My magic beans are better than your magic beans because reasons”

More often than not players do not meet expectations let alone exceed them. Yet we still value them as some silver bullets. Contending teams routinely give away their picks and don’t give a # about what these maybes may bring (or may not, or they do but way less) in many years. They just win with established players.

With rentals, if a team isn’t very good at the time then fans might be right to complain.

Fans are often also think longterm, while a GM might not be, because only one side is in danger of getting fired from a very lucrative job.

It depends on the team, the assets and the rental.

But fans of true contenders are usually fine with losing assets to win now, so you’re taking a very brave stand on conventional accepted wisdom here.

It’s not news that prospects might not make it.

And fans typically are more invested in their team’s prospects, you cracked the code there too. So what?


And there’s a theoretical trade value to every pick. Once analytics came to pro sports, teams started developing pick value charts. I believe it started in the NFL but NHL teams have had them for years and years.

There’s public articles and studies with different attempts at pick value charts.

This 2011 study was an early first example.

Dom at the Athletic wrote an article about it.

Here’s his chart:

He then wrote a 2023 article with the value of every team’s 2023 draft picks.

 

[Ratbath]

It’s situational but in general (and absolutely on these boards) picks and prospects are overrated compared to established players. But that totally makes sense because it’s way more fun to argue about things that have no answer yet

 

[Guttersniped]

It depends, sometimes they are and sometimes they aren’t. At some point real results mean more than fancy figures and projections. At some point even rebuilding teams need to win and not to gamble on maybes. It seems that for some people here deep prospect pools are more important than actual wins.

“Rebuilding” teams is just another word for losing, and someone has to lose.

Rebuilding is like bankruptcy, no team wants to do it, but if you pretend you don’t need to do it when the situation is dire, you only make things worse and postpone the inevitable.

And several rebuilding teams derailed with horrific team building errors. It was the terrible trades, UFA signings, cap management, bad hires etc that ended up doing them in.

No one here makes any team decisions, if their
team isn’t winning they’re understandably invested in their prospects, and not in giving them away to other teams for whatever.

It’s very rare these days for a team’s best prospect* to get traded so it’s also understandable why posters roll their eyes at trades with them in it.
*It’s different for top contenders, though even they typically have untouchables.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

I mean, for all the issues Anthony Mantha has, I think most teams would consider getting an Anthony Mantha level player/career at 20th overall would consider it a success. Picks in that range are pretty hit or miss for having any NHL career of significance.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Your magic beans comment is condescending, I think what you're forgetting is that every NHL great was once a Draft Pick (or well they were eligible to get drafted, and were signed as a UDFA).

I think with established players, there is something to be considered in terms of NHL Salary Cap Structure. That is not to say trading for rentals, and trading first round picks even for rentals, is ever the wrong move. The issue becomes when teams trade away the next crop of NHL players for what is ultimately an extreme long-shot chance of accomplishing anything in the postseason with a player that barely moves the needle in that regard and does not fit well in for a team's long-term salary cap structure and thus will require either overpayment to re-sign or they walk with that 1st round pick out the door.

Would you a trade a pick that becomes Claude Giroux (22nd overall) or David Pastrnak (25th overall) for a 3rd line forward for a quarter season and lose in the first round anyways? Well, no, of course not. That is obviously as extreme as it gets, but at least within the realm of possibilities (on the extreme side). At the end of the day, it's all about calculated risk. Where a team falls within its "window" and how realistic that "window" is and the quality of player being traded all play a role in terms of when it's "worth it" to trade away picks for an established player (particularly a rental) or not.

 

[ijuka]

Maybe, but I also referred to non-rental trades as well. Do you remember people crying when Tampa traded a bunch of magic beans for the young, cost-controlled and already productive player in Hagel? I ‘member.

Well that's definitely not a rental. But I'm not sure I'd still call two first-round picks "magic beans". And Raddysh himself scored half a point per game on Blackhawks, along with 20 goals.

This is your example of picks and prospects being overrated?

 

[biturbo19]

They're both underrated and overrated depending on the details of the situation.

It really depends on what sort of value you can get out of them. At the end of the day, the only way to reliably get true "core" impact players on affordable contracts, is to draft and develop them. Particularly when it comes to acquiring Top-6C and Top-4D. In that sense, it's almost impossible to "overrate" their importance, particularly high-end picks and bluechip prospects.

When it comes to winger prospects though, they tend to be severely overrated. That's just a component of the market for "developed" wingers being incredibly soft though. Solid ones get shipped around for barely anything all the time, even on reasonable contracts. They're just not seen as at all important unless they're an actually "elite" winger, which is rare. Unless you're throwing out "low value" picks on them, or getting a guy who is a bluechipper "impact winger"...those picks turn into overrated prospects.


Draft picks that get turned into good young Top-6C/Top-4D prospects however, are probably still almost underrated. They're so hard to come by if you don't just draft and develop them yourself. That makes them the best way to retain "value" in a pick even if you do just end up wanting to deal them as liquid capital down the line somewhere for an established player.

 

[UnSandvich]

On here, they're a bit overrated.
Most other places, a bit underrated.

 

[Stive Morgan]

Having good scouting and development is far more valuable than how high you pick (well, outside of the first round at least)