Jeremy Laura: Draft Format discussed, fantastic reve-news, and changes

1 to 3 players is just a simplistic view. It doesn't account for draft position or even define what a "player" is.

Was 2017 a success then? We got Rasmussen and Lindstrom. So two "players". But for a 9th overall pick we should have targeted skill and went for Suzuki, Necas, Robert Thomas. But we got a dependable bottom 6 forward. Hooray. We got a player. And since Lindstrom has now played almost 200 games I guess we get credit for finding two players, even though he is nothing more than a bottom pair d-man. To me that's a total failure of a draft, but not when the criteria is finding 1-3 players.

We've had a top 10 pick for 7 straight years. Anyone can find a "player" in the top 10. Success is picking Suzuki over Rasmussen, picking Hughes over Zadina, etc...

Successful teams have a much higher bar than finding 1 to 3 players. We've had so many extra picks outside of round 1 and have almost nothing to show for it.

1 to 3 players is just a simplistic view. It doesn't account for draft position or even define what a "player" is.

Was 2017 a success then? We got Rasmussen and Lindstrom. So two "players". But for a 9th overall pick we should have targeted skill and went for Suzuki, Necas, Robert Thomas. But we got a dependable bottom 6 forward. Hooray. We got a player. And since Lindstrom has now played almost 200 games I guess we get credit for finding two players, even though he is nothing more than a bottom pair d-man. To me that's a total failure of a draft, but not when the criteria is finding 1-3 players.

We've had a top 10 pick for 7 straight years. Anyone can find a "player" in the top 10. Success is picking Suzuki over Rasmussen, picking Hughes over Zadina, etc...

Successful teams have a much higher bar than finding 1 to 3 players. We've had so many extra picks outside of round 1 and have almost nothing to show for it.
- HockeyBuzzed

I know we argue about this. I would argue that many successful organizations bring in talent from the outside. I think Vegas and Florida can make that case. The Red Wings cup teams had a mix of draft and free agent. And yes, you need depth players. And those can come from drafting. Lindstrom was a bust but got some NHL time, Rasmussen is a 3rd line center. Neither of us are going to change each other’s mind, and now there’s a push to reduce the draft from a fairly well known name in the industry. It’s fine to disagree. Detroit bought a Russian player from the military and smuggled him out in the car of a trunk. That’s not exactly drafting. Shanny made a huge impact. The 2002 team is probably the reason the cap exists. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this. And I have no problem with that. I respect you and love that you drop in. If I ever meet you, I’d buy the first root beer. I love the voices of every one of you whether we agree or not.

I know we argue about this. I would argue that many successful organizations bring in talent from the outside. I think Vegas and Florida can make that case. The Red Wings cup teams had a mix of draft and free agent. And yes, you need depth players. And those can come from drafting. Lindstrom was a bust but got some NHL time, Rasmussen is a 3rd line center. Neither of us are going to change each other’s mind, and now there’s a push to reduce the draft from a fairly well known name in the industry. It’s fine to disagree. Detroit bought a Russian player from the military and smuggled him out in the car of a trunk. That’s not exactly drafting. Shanny made a huge impact. The 2002 team is probably the reason the cap exists. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this. And I have no problem with that. I respect you and love that you drop in. If I ever meet you, I’d buy the first root beer. I love the voices of every one of you whether we agree or not.
- Jeremy Laura

We're not talking about adding talent via trades. It's defining what makes a successful draft. When a team is picking top 10 and has a bunch of extra 2nd and 3rd round picks...I just feel that finding 1-3 players is a low bar. So in other words, a failed draft is finding 0 players? Your top 10 pick is almost automatically going to be a player. Quinn Hughes is a player. Zadina is a player. So by that alone it's a success. And if you find 1 or 2 others, even if they are marginal depth players like Lindstrom or Veleno or Givani Smith then you've really succeeded?

Sure. Agree to disagree. But 1 to 3 players is such a low bar.

As for getting rid of rounds 5 to 7...I think it's awful. Of course not many players are found in these rounds, but some are. And this gives less desirable destinations a chance to at least build out an AHL system. Take that away and you'll have a larger pool of undrafted free agents that slipped through the draft but are developing nicely. How many will sign in Winnipeg or Calgary or Columbus? Look at college free agents always wanting to sign in NY, Florida. Look what Adam Fox did. Many will want to sign based on taxes, weather, etc...So that changes the competitive landscape. Terrible idea.

We're not talking about adding talent via trades. It's defining what makes a successful draft. When a team is picking top 10 and has a bunch of extra 2nd and 3rd round picks...I just feel that finding 1-3 players is a low bar. So in other words, a failed draft is finding 0 players? Your top 10 pick is almost automatically going to be a player. Quinn Hughes is a player. Zadina is a player. So by that alone it's a success. And if you find 1 or 2 others, even if they are marginal depth players like Lindstrom or Veleno or Givani Smith then you've really succeeded?

Sure. Agree to disagree. But 1 to 3 players is such a low bar.

As for getting rid of rounds 5 to 7...I think it's awful. Of course not many players are found in these rounds, but some are. And this gives less desirable destinations a chance to at least build out an AHL system. Take that away and you'll have a larger pool of undrafted free agents that slipped through the draft but are developing nicely. How many will sign in Winnipeg or Calgary or Columbus? Look at college free agents always wanting to sign in NY, Florida. Look what Adam Fox did. Many will want to sign based on taxes, weather, etc...So that changes the competitive landscape. Terrible idea.
- HockeyBuzzed

I agree that it’s not a great idea, and the AHL and ECHL would have to do a whole lot more invites. Players will pick markets based on whatever factor motivates them. Money, success, hometown etc. what cutting those rounds ultimately does, not to the positive, is reduces the resources used in development. Players who don’t make it benefit from camps and mentorships and the teams put resources into all of that. Even with higher revenues cutbacks are being discussed. The draft format this year saves teams a chunk. Players and people in general go through a final massive development from 18 to 23. The frontal cortex finishes growing and a lot of high processing is encapsulated in that change. Talent can come from a late bloomer. We’re also at a point where the NCAA is dealing with player compensation. That will have some impact. The entire landscape is changing and the suggested reduction is likely a conversation that’s been had before that release. I don’t know where it’s going to land. The 1-3 is something that is looked at by more than just me. I heard it and was initially shocked. Then you watch the herd thin out. The money spent scouting is significant. Of course you’d want more than that. The leap from draft to any position in the NHL is a big one.

1 to 3 players is just a simplistic view. It doesn't account for draft position or even define what a "player" is.

Was 2017 a success then? We got Rasmussen and Lindstrom. So two "players". But for a 9th overall pick we should have targeted skill and went for Suzuki, Necas, Robert Thomas. But we got a dependable bottom 6 forward. Hooray. We got a player. And since Lindstrom has now played almost 200 games I guess we get credit for finding two players, even though he is nothing more than a bottom pair d-man. To me that's a total failure of a draft, but not when the criteria is finding 1-3 players.

We've had a top 10 pick for 7 straight years. Anyone can find a "player" in the top 10. Success is picking Suzuki over Rasmussen, picking Hughes over Zadina, etc...

Successful teams have a much higher bar than finding 1 to 3 players. We've had so many extra picks outside of round 1 and have almost nothing to show for it.
- HockeyBuzzed

Never liked the Rasmussen pick or Rasmussen as a player but holy (frank) get over yourself. It’s 2024 stop crying about the 2017 draft.

Never liked the Rasmussen pick or Rasmussen as a player but holy (frank) get over yourself. It’s 2024 stop crying about the 2017 draft.
- Feds91Stammer

Simply using that as an example that is considered a great success using the 1 to 3 players criteria, but is in reality a failed draft. Every draft needs to be evaluated based on your draft position and total number of picks.

Simply using that as an example that is considered a great success using the 1 to 3 players criteria, but is in reality a failed draft. Every draft needs to be evaluated based on your draft position and total number of picks.
- HockeyBuzzed

Just think if they picked Suzuki and J. Robertson!!!!!!!!!!

Simply using that as an example that is considered a great success using the 1 to 3 players criteria, but is in reality a failed draft. Every draft needs to be evaluated based on your draft position and total number of picks.
- HockeyBuzzed

Except you’re the king of revisionist history. 2017 would be a failure to you unless the got Necas, Robertson, Skinner, Swayman, Cates, Perbix, Barron, and Primeau.

I agree that it’s not a great idea, and the AHL and ECHL would have to do a whole lot more invites. Players will pick markets based on whatever factor motivates them. Money, success, hometown etc. what cutting those rounds ultimately does, not to the positive, is reduces the resources used in development. Players who don’t make it benefit from camps and mentorships and the teams put resources into all of that. Even with higher revenues cutbacks are being discussed. The draft format this year saves teams a chunk. Players and people in general go through a final massive development from 18 to 23. The frontal cortex finishes growing and a lot of high processing is encapsulated in that change. Talent can come from a late bloomer. We’re also at a point where the NCAA is dealing with player compensation. That will have some impact. The entire landscape is changing and the suggested reduction is likely a conversation that’s been had before that release. I don’t know where it’s going to land. The 1-3 is something that is looked at by more than just me. I heard it and was initially shocked. Then you watch the herd thin out. The money spent scouting is significant. Of course you’d want more than that. The leap from draft to any position in the NHL is a big one.
- Jeremy Laura

Well said by both of you. Also, considering trades involve draft picks. Without the 4th to 7th rounders, a team would only have 1st through 3rd rounders to trade, and that would hamper player movement negatively. Just a bad idea all around! Keep it the way it is for the reasons you, the person you responded to, and the point I made.


Thanks Jeremy.

Flyers fan first, but always enjoy the ‘wings. The 3 best writers on here are, Bill Meltzer, Jan Levine, and Jeremy. You guys always bring something to the table worth reading and exploring.

Except you’re the king of revisionist history. 2017 would be a failure to you unless the got Necas, Robertson, Skinner, Swayman, Cates, Perbix, Barron, and Primeau.
- Feds91Stammer

Yeah that's exactly what I said. Next.

Florida has 3 playoff starters whom they drafted. They spent years acquiring prospects and picks, and then they traded the overwhelming majority of them away and built a team that, in my opinion, is the model team for the modern era. Yes, they had better draft luck than Detroit, but they essentially built their team through the draft to acquire other team's assets, and it worked very well. Detroit has a ton of prospects and young players they can use to acquire the right players for their team.

It's really easy to think we know the future of 17 & 18 year old prospects through hindsight. It's easy to assume we know more about 17 & 18 year old prospects than the team that employs nearly 30 full-time scouts, who watch countless hours of video, spend countless hours watching prospects in person, who interview coaches, teachers, parents, doctors, etc.

Through that lens, as GM I certainly would have drafted Guentzel in 2013, Pasta in 2014, Boeser in 2015, DeBrincat in 2016, Thomas in 2017, Hughes in 2018 and I'd have us in the hunt for the cup every year by now, but like a lot of other NHL teams who passed on those players, I wouldn't have had the benefit of hindsight, and also I'm not the GM, so none of it matters.

I will say that Detroit is much further ahead than several teams who had a heck of a lot more draft luck than they had. In most years, Calgary, Buffalo, Ottawa, Anaheim and Columbus had higher picks than Detroit did, and they are freaking messes.

Florida has 3 playoff starters whom they drafted. They spent years acquiring prospects and picks, and then they traded the overwhelming majority of them away and built a team that, in my opinion, is the model team for the modern era. Yes, they had better draft luck than Detroit, but they essentially built their team through the draft to acquire other team's assets, and it worked very well. Detroit has a ton of prospects and young players they can use to acquire the right players for their team.

It's really easy to think we know the future of 17 & 18 year old prospects through hindsight. It's easy to assume we know more about 17 & 18 year old prospects than the team that employs nearly 30 full-time scouts, who watch countless hours of video, spend countless hours watching prospects in person, who interview coaches, teachers, parents, doctors, etc.

Through that lens, as GM I certainly would have drafted Guentzel in 2013, Pasta in 2014, Boeser in 2015, DeBrincat in 2016, Thomas in 2017, Hughes in 2018 and I'd have us in the hunt for the cup every year by now, but like a lot of other NHL teams who passed on those players, I wouldn't have had the benefit of hindsight, and also I'm not the GM, so none of it matters.

I will say that Detroit is much further ahead than several teams who had a heck of a lot more draft luck than they had. In most years, Calgary, Buffalo, Ottawa, Anaheim and Columbus had higher picks than Detroit did, and they are freaking messes.
- bluelineenforcer

Florida has drafted quite well, but often used that currency to acquire players via trade.

Weegar was a 7th round pick that was used with Huberdeau to add Tkachuk.

They found Trochek in round 3 and used him to acquire 4 assets, including Luostarinen.

They drafted Devon Levi in round 7. He progressed very well. But they used him with picks to add Sam Reinhart.

They drafted Heineman in round 2, then quickly flipped him a year later, with another 2nd for Sam Bennett.

So they didn't just draft 3 guys and miss on everyone else. They've done quite well at the draft including finding guys in middle and late rounds. But have then been willing to trade these younger players to acquire better pieces. The difference is Detroit has been terrible at finding anything outside of round 1. So our trade currency evaporates.

Florida has drafted quite well, but often used that currency to acquire players via trade.

Weegar was a 7th round pick that was used with Huberdeau to add Tkachuk.

They found Trochek in round 3 and used him to acquire 4 assets, including Luostarinen.

They drafted Devon Levi in round 7. He progressed very well. But they used him with picks to add Sam Reinhart.

They drafted Heineman in round 2, then quickly flipped him a year later, with another 2nd for Sam Bennett.

So they didn't just draft 3 guys and miss on everyone else. They've done quite well at the draft including finding guys in middle and late rounds. But have then been willing to trade these younger players to acquire better pieces. The difference is Detroit has been terrible at finding anything outside of round 1. So our trade currency evaporates.
- Cooleus

Imagine if they had Caufield instead of Knight. Or Tage Thompson instead of Borgstrom. And Kandre Miller instead of Denisenko.

Imagine if they had Caufield instead of Knight. Or Tage Thompson instead of Borgstrom. And Kandre Miller instead of Denisenko.
- Feds91Stammer

I guess you can play that game with any team's drafting!

Good perspective… there are a handful of teams that drafted higher, and they are further behind the wings. Hindsight is 20/20. Yes, I try not to think of Quinn Hughes. At the end of the day, Seider makes up for so many missed picks. We haven’t had a stud like him since Vladdy or Kronwall. I think Seider has the most potential of that group too… and I worshipped both those D legends. I don’t say that lightly.

Good perspective… there are a handful of teams that drafted higher, and they are further behind the wings. Hindsight is 20/20. Yes, I try not to think of Quinn Hughes. At the end of the day, Seider makes up for so many missed picks. We haven’t had a stud like him since Vladdy or Kronwall. I think Seider has the most potential of that group too… and I worshipped both those D legends. I don’t say that lightly.
- NC_Scott

And Seider was a reach at the time. There’s lots of luck that goes into it really.

And Seider was a reach at the time. There’s lots of luck that goes into it really.
- Feds91Stammer

Luck. Maturity. Injury. Apathy. All things that can impact draft choices. Not a perfect science. Yeah, we *could've* selected better players, agreed.

Was listening to an old Spitten Chiclets pod, Wayne Gretzky said "Aside from #1, MAYBE the top 4, it's luck..."

That being said, analytics are so much more advanced, there's ample video, etc... I think we can weed out some of the wasted selections and get better.

Folks were flipping their lids when Mo was called. Some DRW fans and prognosticators questioned whether The Captain should be fired. Yeah, I'd LOVE to pull another Kronwall or Pav or Z in a later round....maybe we will. And as far as eliminating the later rounds: NO!

And Seider was a reach at the time. There’s lots of luck that goes into it really.
- Feds91Stammer

You call it luck, and the analytics people call it random, but the reality is that if you understand humans and the human psyche you don’t draft BPA, or whoever put up whatever numbers in whatever league - rather, you draft people.

What separates nerds like yourself from professionals are those who understand and discern humans. You draft the right people and you build a culture of like minded hardworking, competitive, ruthless savages with elite intangibles and character traits.
All the winners in the past 30-40 years have the same recipe it’s just that nerds and losers need attention and validation from other people to tickle their low self esteem - hence why analytics and “new age” hockey heads have muddied or at the least influenced how a team can win the Stanley cup, which is not true at all.



Red Wings will be fine with the Captain running the show. He’s got his number 1 and number 2 defensemen (Eddy and Mo), he’s got his 1 centre (Larkin) and high quality depth coming through the system. Don’t forget, an over ripe fruit often is the tastiest - wink wink Berggren wink wink.
Red Wings/The Captain love over ripe fruit.

You call it luck, and the analytics people call it random, but the reality is that if you understand humans and the human psyche you don’t draft BPA, or whoever put up whatever numbers in whatever league - rather, you draft people.

What separates nerds like yourself from professionals are those who understand and discern humans. You draft the right people and you build a culture of like minded hardworking, competitive, ruthless savages with elite intangibles and character traits.
All the winners in the past 30-40 years have the same recipe it’s just that nerds and losers need attention and validation from other people to tickle their low self esteem - hence why analytics and “new age” hockey heads have muddied or at the least influenced how a team can win the Stanley cup, which is not true at all.



Red Wings will be fine with the Captain running the show. He’s got his number 1 and number 2 defensemen (Eddy and Mo), he’s got his 1 centre (Larkin) and high quality depth coming through the system. Don’t forget, an over ripe fruit often is the tastiest - wink wink Berggren wink wink.
Red Wings/The Captain love over ripe fruit.
- optimus-reim

lol you tried. Luck is random variance. And of course they are people but you can draft all the great character good people guys all you want and it can fail miserably.

lol you tried. Luck is random variance. And of course they are people but you can draft all the great character good people guys all you want and it can fail miserably.
- Feds91Stammer

Dude just googled the definition of “luck” 😆😆😆😆😆😆

Yes, shocker, things can fail even when you do it right. Doesn’t mean you don’t do it right. Lmaoo what was the point in even responding. So lazy.

But thanks for shedding light on what luck means 😆😆😆😆

Dude just googled the definition of “luck” 😆😆😆😆😆😆

Yes, shocker, things can fail even when you do it right. Doesn’t mean you don’t do it right. Lmaoo what was the point in even responding. So lazy.

But thanks for shedding light on what luck means 😆😆😆😆
- optimus-reim

Lmao yep. Had to google that. You got me good. How do you keep track of all your accounts here?

Dude just googled the definition of “luck” 😆😆😆😆😆😆

Yes, shocker, things can fail even when you do it right. Doesn’t mean you don’t do it right. Lmaoo what was the point in even responding. So lazy.

But thanks for shedding light on what luck means 😆😆😆😆
- optimus-reim

You posted a long rebuttal to the idea that "there's lots of luck that goes into it really." Then in your very next post, say "shocker, things can fail even when you do it right." I feel like those are pretty contradictory statements.

Anyway, I agree that always choosing the "best player available" by statistical analysis without any consideration of their character traits is stupid. I also think that exclusively focusing on players with "elite intangibles" (whatever that means) without sufficient consideration of skill and performance is also stupid. Like any other job in any other industry you have to consider the whole package -- skillset/performance impact and culture fit.

Being an allegedly fierce competitor doesn't mean jack if you don't have the skills to move the needle. Not to keep picking on Rasmussen, but it was pretty obvious to the "stat guys" that his NHL ceiling was going to be really low. His junior profile was "really tall powerplay merchant who was average at best among his age group at even strength." (And remember, "his age group" meant all first-year-draft-eligible WHLers, most of whom would not be drafted or have sustained NHL careers.) You can mold a guy like that into a serviceable bottom-six NHL player (and the Red Wings more or less have with Ras) but wasting a ninth overall pick on one is nuts.

Anyway, I've been hearing crap about how "nerds are wrong" for like 20 years at this point and it's always the same tired strawman arguments. Literally no one is saying that intangibles or character or culture don't matter. They're just saying the analytics tools we have are making us better at figuring out the "skill/performance" side of the equation more accurately and efficiently.