Saturday, December 4, 2010

Food for thought

What a first round draft pick might look like

I wanted to know what calibre of players will be available in next year's draft. I made this list assuming everyone keeps their top 6-7 forwards, 2-3 defencemen, and one goalie, and then listing the top players that wouldn't make the list (putting myself in the shoes of the GM to recognize injuries and future growth). It's not a science but it should give us a rough idea of what kind of players will be available.

Forwards: Saku Koivu, David Booth, Bendan Morrow, Matt Moulson, Sam Gagner, Olli Jokinen, Brian Gionta, Chris Kunitz, Patrice Bergeron, Logan Couture, Justin Williams, Ales Hemsky, Tomas Holmstrom, Tim Connolly, Blake Comeau, David Jones, Ryan Smyth, Andrew Ladd, Andrew Brunette, Stephen Weiss, Ray Whitney, Michael Ryder, Alex Kovalev, Tuomo Ruutu, Scott Hartnell, Matt Stajan, Alex Steen, Valtteri Filppula, Pascal Dupuis, Devin Setoguchi, Ryan Malone, Matthew Lombardi, Steve Sullivan, Jason Pominville, Troy Brouwer, Dustin Penner.

Defencemen: Erik Johnson, Paul Martin, James Wisniewski, Ed Jovanoski, Braydon Coburn, Dennis Siedenberg, Zach Bogosian, Matt Carle, Shea Weber, Joni Pitkanen, Dennis Wideman, Tom Gilbert, Ian White, Jay Bouwmeester, Kurtis Foster, Ryan Suter, Victor Hedman, Jordan Leopold, Dion Phaneuf, Brent Seabrook, Marek Zidlicky, Andy Greene, Kimmo Timonen.

Goalies: Mikka Kiprusoff, Chris Mason, Marty Turco, Jonathan Bernier, Niklas Backstrom, Steve Mason, Kari Lehtonen, Cam Ward, Tomas Vokoun, Dan Ellis, Antii Niemi, Jonas Hiller.

Analysis: It's going to be tough to go from last place to first by picking up Ryan Malone. There might be a good undrafted 2010 rookie available, like Jeff Skinner. Or a 2011 rookie - but it's less likely he will make an impact on your roster right away. Maybe keeping ten players is too much? I would be open to considering something in the seven to nine range - just putting it out there.

7 comments:

  1. Finally a post I agree with. 8's a solid number personally speaking. Also Wiz would be a keeper at the 10 mark for me. Just sayin'... and could there be a new leader sunday morning? If so - ill enjoy it while I can seeing as how the standings are probably as close as I've seen them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think this is something worth talking about. Protecting fewer players would make the yearly draft a lot more interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. On the other hand, NHL teams retain their entire roster other than players they lose to free agency or retirement - and they manage to be dynamic and interesting and crawl out of the basement every now and then, other than the Islanders. Over the long term we will still see a lot of change with 10 protected. I think it just means more emphasis on drafting rookies and developing slowly. Which may be a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It depends on whether we want play this game in the short- or long-term.

    If we want short-term excitement, then we protect fewer players. Less emphasis on "building for the future" because the future is always right around the corner. There is correspondingly less incentive to trade since impact players can be had for free. It also means each year is a bit more a crapshoot - its not necessarily the best GM that wins, but rather the GM who chose the roster with the fewest injuries and most improved players.

    On the other hand, protecting a deeper roster means that decisions we make today can have implications a couple years down the road. Oliver Ekman-Larssen is not an impact player this year, but ought to be in the future. That has long term value and makes for a more interesting dynamic between rebuilding teams and teams looking to win now.

    Since we're just in IDEA MODE, how's this: what about a slightly smaller protected regular roster, and a 2 or 3 player "farm team" roster. Farm players can't be held for longer than their, say, 22nd birthday. They do not count for points on the scoring roster. They can be brought up to the main squad at any time, but once up they cannot be sent back down.

    Sort of the best of both worlds - better free agent pool to draft every year, while allowing teams to plan for future a bit too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Some jackass who always emails me his comments said...

    Just a thought re: the keeper league. I don't think necessarily the keeping of 10 players is going to be such a big issue. I would still be dropping a lot of players I like every year including some of my counting players.

    What I wonder is maybe for next year though, considering how close the pool is now, part of the explanation might be that the dropping of six players equals out the teams too much. Maybe if it was just dropping your lowest four or even three (one at each position), it might better reflect the interesting picks made in the later rounds. On the other hand, it does encourage people to take less chances on risky players.

    But I don't know. It's a trial year right? Maybe keeping things as contemplated for one year provides a good base level from which to make changes to the league in subsequent years.

    ReplyDelete
  6. closeness in the pool is exciting. I think we keep the rules as is. We need a baseline to judge whether or not a change is necessary. If the person who wins this year wins next year with virtually an identical scoring roster, then we should look to reduce the number of players protected.

    PS - I am disappointed that Micah has not adopted the team name of "Milan Micahleks". You only have to switch one letter people! How perfect is that?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Definitely leaning towards keeping things the same for my tenure as Commissioner. The farm team idea is worth considering in the future - I know some keeper leagues do it successfully.

    Dickie, I have made the change to Micahleks and join you as having an awkward player-based vaguely sexual team name.

    Also changed Fightin' Irish to the Teeyotes. I can finally sleep at night.

    ReplyDelete