Chip McCleary: Kekalainen at the Draft: 2009-2010 The 4th (but not final) installment.

When I first started reading this article I was impressed. It didn't take long for that feeling to fade.

Not grading a draft a yet is stupid. I'm not going to pull any punches here. Don't even mention a grade. You're writing an opinion piece from the start so don't hold back or just don't make mention of a grade.

The next thing that was bothering me is the snarky remarks about Blues fans who are impatient or called for someone to be traded as if you had any more control over these decisions than they did. Recognize what it really is when some fans call for a trade especially for a younger player who they don't know much about--emotions. There were conflicting reports on Tarasenko ever coming over and it made some fans nervous. It's not a stretch when you look at how well the Blues have held onto European, especially, Russians since than the last lockout.

"The #2 ranked European skater by Central Scouting, Tarasenko was just about universally described as having top-10 talent – but the entire “he’s a Russian” stigma hung over him and affected his draft status. Fortunately for Blues fans, Kekalainen ignored it and focused on talent – and Tarasenko has that in spades."

The last sentence is categorically incorrect. If Jarmo had ignored such fears he would have taken Tarasenko over Schwartz. What allowed the Blues to draft Tarasenko was first of all having young depth on the right side of their defense--namely Polak, Erik Johnson and Petro at the time. The depth at their right side Dmen along with having drafted Schwartz allowed them to take a swing for the fences. No doubt during an interview Taraseko mentioned he wanted to play in North America. At the time the fear was a bit stronger against drafting Russian players too high in the draft because of some problems that had been happening at that time of getting them over here and then not going back.

Jarmo had by this time felt he could take bigger swings earlier on. Tarasenko was ranked second overall among European skaters by Central Scouting(not the greatest ranking system). The only question was would he eventually come over versus who could afford to take the chance and be patient. Many of the team before when Tarasenko was drafted felt the risk wasn't worth the reward. The Blues must have also thought so for with their first pick they chose a Canadian.

They traded from strength for patience they could afford. WHile a Russian who played over in NA in juniors went far higher than Tarasenko.

Now it might be beneficial for some to see what players were drafted after the players the Blues selected and how they have done. You won't be able to make too many conclusions about how to grade the players until say probably ten plus years from now. In some cases sooner but that's the exception rather than the rule. For instance, right now the Blues have won their first round pick extravaganza trade with Colorado. But that doesn't mean that will be the case in two years. It looks likely the Blues will have won the trade but the final word has not been written.


In none of the examples do you give us any criteria that we can use to judge the success of a draft pick. You don't say players taken as this spot are such a percent likely to make the NHL and here's an example of a big success and here's the average games played, goals scored from this slot. I think you should add something from that instead of snarky remarks about how someone sounded crying some player is bad. You claim Jake Allen is bad. You will say I didn't say that and then after a weak apology launch into the whole he has holes in his game thing. Suggest others are saying Allen is a multi-Vienza winning goaltender who will unquestionably lead the Blues to the promise land. I have not heard anyone say that. But people are excited and rightfully so. No one has done what Allen has since Cujo. When Cujo played in St. Louis those were exciting times on the ice.

Statistical breakdown of the Blues goaltending this year and why it shouldn't be hard to improve and make Blues strong Cup threats again.

http://tinyurl.com/cu6qkjm

Not grading a draft a yet is stupid. I'm not going to pull any punches here. Don't even mention a grade. You're writing an opinion piece from the start so don't hold back or just don't make mention of a grade.
- BluemanGuruu

Anyone who covers the draft even semi-seriously knows you can't accurately grade a draft after even 3-4 years. The baseline is typically 5 years - and sometimes, you need even more than that. That's why the grade for 2009 and 2010 is "incomplete." Arguably, 2008 should be incomplete too - but there's enough there to reasonably grade it.

Then again, I guess I could take a guess at how everyone's going to do and guess the grade for the draft accordingly, then watch people complain that I'm too optimistic or too pessimistic (or both - by two different people who swear I couldn't be more wrong). I prefer to stick with what's known, whenever possible - and at this point, no one knows exactly how good (or bad) that draft is for teams outside of a handful of picks that are pretty obvious one way or another at this point.

In none of the examples do you give us any criteria that we can use to judge the success of a draft pick. You don't say players taken as this spot are such a percent likely to make the NHL and here's an example of a big success and here's the average games played, goals scored from this slot.
- BluemanGuruu

Why would I? What picks have historically done in some prior range of drafts have no bearing on how a pick from the '09 draft, the '10 draft, or any other draft going forward is going to do. There's also the noise in looking at specific spots in a round ("hey, if you're drafted #170, you're probably not making the NHL - but #171? Well, you've got a chance to have a decent career - mainly because Pavel Datsyuk was taken there and he went on to become a superstar ... so maybe you can too!") or even by round (same idea, except there's about 30x more data points to sort of smooth things out - but it's still subject to distortions by unusually good players), the fact that injuries occur and distort future performance, and the fact that as you reference recent drafts more than mature drafts, the more conclusions may change in just a couple years based on what players do and don't do. I don't have the time to spend trying to smooth out the data set of over 8,000 drafted players to account for numerous known and unknown variables to try and say, "in general, a player drafted at _______ should do ______________."

You're looking for an analysis of the NHL draft in general. That wasn't the topic of this article - or the prior 3. If you're interested in that, write it up on MyHockeybuzz and I'll link to it and others can comment on it if they wish. I'll even give you a hint on how it's going to read:
-- drafted earlier = higher chance of making it to the NHL
-- drafted later = lower chance of making it to the NHL
-- no guarantees either way; early picks may bust, later picks may hit.

I think you should add something from that instead of snarky remarks about how someone sounded crying some player is bad.
- BluemanGuruu

See above. This article (and the series of 4) isn't "here's who Kekalainen drafted, what should we have expected on average?" It's "here's who Kekalainen drafted, what did they do and how did he do relative to everyone else and who he had available to pick from?" The objective for '09 and '10 isn't to see what those guys might be expected to do; it's to see what those guys are really doing now and what they're likely to do in the future. Thus, expected performance is irrelevant - especially where it's clear actual performance is going to deviate one way or another.

You claim Jake Allen is bad.
- BluemanGuruu

I said his fundamentals were bad. Note the difference. I stand by that comment, too - though they've improved some during this most recent call-up. I also said (if you happen to recall) that if (when) teams figure it out, they'll look to exploit those weaknesses. See: 3rd period, Anaheim - when they started trying to shoot high more.

That said, he's played a grand total of nine (9) NHL games and has yet to have to deal with adversity in the NHL. Anyone proclaiming he's good/great is drawing on the same insufficient data.

You will say I didn't say that and then after a weak apology launch into the whole he has holes in his game thing. Suggest others are saying Allen is a multi-Vienza winning goaltender who will unquestionably lead the Blues to the promise land.
- BluemanGuruu

If I say something, I'll admit it. If I didn't, I'll let you know that too. I don't have a problem with either one. I do, however, have a problem with someone taking a statement I've made and extrapolating from it and demanding that I own that too.

The comment about Allen being a "multi-Viezna" (sic) winner is a gross exaggeration, and you know it - because no one said anything close to that. Not me, not another user, ... it's nothing more than a straw man comment. I also didn't raise the initial comment comparing Allen to Quick, either - that was someone else who stated that they both play the same style of butterfly. That said, similar to the above, there are undoubtedly Blues fans who think Allen is the de facto #1 guy and the next great Blues goalie solely because he's 8-1-0 right now, and that Halak and Elliott are both virtually on the next bus out of town. (Maybe even the same people who saw Sonne put up 100 points in the WHL and penned him in as a top-6 guy for years to come.)


If you actually want to discuss the article and its contents, fine. That's what this section is for. If you want to complain that this article should have done something differently, like I said - write it up and I'll link to it. If you want to complain about my opinions, though, ... I've got better things to worry about.

Great stuff Chip...I've enjoyed all of these.

Love reading these Chip. They don't seem to get a lot of recognition but even as a Leafs fan, they're thoroughly informative and entertaining.

When I first started reading this article I was impressed. It didn't take long for that feeling to fade.

Not grading a draft a yet is stupid. I'm not going to pull any punches here. Don't even mention a grade. You're writing an opinion piece from the start so don't hold back or just don't make mention of a grade.

The next thing that was bothering me is the snarky remarks about Blues fans who are impatient or called for someone to be traded as if you had any more control over these decisions than they did. Recognize what it really is when some fans call for a trade especially for a younger player who they don't know much about--emotions. There were conflicting reports on Tarasenko ever coming over and it made some fans nervous. It's not a stretch when you look at how well the Blues have held onto European, especially, Russians since than the last lockout.

"The #2 ranked European skater by Central Scouting, Tarasenko was just about universally described as having top-10 talent – but the entire “he’s a Russian” stigma hung over him and affected his draft status. Fortunately for Blues fans, Kekalainen ignored it and focused on talent – and Tarasenko has that in spades."

The last sentence is categorically incorrect. If Jarmo had ignored such fears he would have taken Tarasenko over Schwartz. What allowed the Blues to draft Tarasenko was first of all having young depth on the right side of their defense--namely Polak, Erik Johnson and Petro at the time. The depth at their right side Dmen along with having drafted Schwartz allowed them to take a swing for the fences. No doubt during an interview Taraseko mentioned he wanted to play in North America. At the time the fear was a bit stronger against drafting Russian players too high in the draft because of some problems that had been happening at that time of getting them over here and then not going back.

Jarmo had by this time felt he could take bigger swings earlier on. Tarasenko was ranked second overall among European skaters by Central Scouting(not the greatest ranking system). The only question was would he eventually come over versus who could afford to take the chance and be patient. Many of the team before when Tarasenko was drafted felt the risk wasn't worth the reward. The Blues must have also thought so for with their first pick they chose a Canadian.

They traded from strength for patience they could afford. WHile a Russian who played over in NA in juniors went far higher than Tarasenko.

Now it might be beneficial for some to see what players were drafted after the players the Blues selected and how they have done. You won't be able to make too many conclusions about how to grade the players until say probably ten plus years from now. In some cases sooner but that's the exception rather than the rule. For instance, right now the Blues have won their first round pick extravaganza trade with Colorado. But that doesn't mean that will be the case in two years. It looks likely the Blues will have won the trade but the final word has not been written.


In none of the examples do you give us any criteria that we can use to judge the success of a draft pick. You don't say players taken as this spot are such a percent likely to make the NHL and here's an example of a big success and here's the average games played, goals scored from this slot. I think you should add something from that instead of snarky remarks about how someone sounded crying some player is bad. You claim Jake Allen is bad. You will say I didn't say that and then after a weak apology launch into the whole he has holes in his game thing. Suggest others are saying Allen is a multi-Vienza winning goaltender who will unquestionably lead the Blues to the promise land. I have not heard anyone say that. But people are excited and rightfully so. No one has done what Allen has since Cujo. When Cujo played in St. Louis those were exciting times on the ice.
- BluemanGuruu

Dude, seriously? Most (if not all) of these critiques are absolutely ridiculous.