New Jersey Devils Drafts from 1999-2005: What Happened, Mr. David Conte?
by John Fischer on Jun 15, 2010 11:00 PM EDT
in Devils Issues & Views
51 comments
Derek Zona did a review of all 30 NHL teams at the NHL Entry Draft from 1999 through 2005 based on how many of their draft picks made it into the NHL. Regardless of who they played for, the metric was 200 NHL games played. And based on that metric, the New Jersey Devils were one of the worst teams at drafting in this time period.
That's right, one of the worst. How can this be?
Sure, you and I may feel positive about the current prospects, but those picks through those years are in their prime or about to enter their prime now. Yet, the Devils are among the Blues, Coyotes, Hurricanes, and Lightning in that realm. While four teams who definitely were not consistently successful as the Devils, how can this be? What happened?
Taking a page from the closer looks at their respective teams by Derek Zona (Edmonton) and the Falconer (Atlanta), I look at the Devils' first and second round picks from 1999 through 2005 to see who became players and who have not, based on HockeyDB's draft results.
First Round Picks
The Devils did OK in terms of their first round picks who made it 200 or more games. They had 6, and they hit on 3, with 2 being particularly great.
| Devils First Round Picks 1999-2005 | ||||
| Year | Rd. | Num. | Player | GP |
| 1999 | 1 | 27 | Ari Ahonen | 0 |
| 2000 | 1 | 22 | David Hale | 302 |
| 2001 | 1 | 28 | Adrian Foster | 0 |
| 2003 | 1 | 17 | Zach Parise | 407 |
| 2004 | 1 | 20 | Travis Zajac | 326 |
| 2005 | 1 | 23 | Niclas Bergfors | 90 |
At first glance, Parise and Zajac were great picks because, well, they're great players. For some, that may be enough.
However, it's still below league average (61.3%) because of the Ari Ahonen bust and the gigantic reach that was Adrian Foster. Nicklas Bergfors could turn out to have a good NHL career, so the percentage may increase to just average. However, Bergfors will be doing so largely for another team. While New Jersey won't get the benefit, that was a price I still think was worth paying to take a chance on Ilya Kovalchuk as a Devil.
If I can go off on a rant here, the Ahonen pick in 1999 and the selection of goaltender Jean-Francois Damphousse in 1997 as first rounders made no sense. Martin Brodeur was still quite young in his career and the Devils had zero need to develop a goaltender. It would be one thing if they were flipped for important players later on, but they essentially turned into nothing as assets for New Jersey.
Related to this, read this column by Cory Pronman at Puck Prospectus. That column in conjunction with the Ahonen and Damphousse picks lead me to strongly believe that a team really should only select goaltenders early in the draft if they think they will be special players. Not good - great players. I don't want the Devils to select a goalie at #38 this year or any other goaltender early unless there is reason to believe they will become great goaltenders in due time. Select a goalie late or just fill in any gaps through free agency.
So first rounders aren't bad. However, the second round pick history may make you cringe.
Second Round Picks
| Devils Second Round Picks 1999-2005 | ||||
| Year | Rd. | Num. | Player | GP |
| 1999 | 2 | 42 | Mike Commodore | 434 |
| 1999 | 2 | 50 | Brett Clouthier | 0 |
| 2000 | 2 | 39 | Teemu Laine | 0 |
| 2000 | 2 | 56 | Alexander Suglobov | 0 |
| 2000 | 2 | 57 | Matt DeMarchi | 0 |
| 2000 | 2 | 62 | Paul Martin | 400 |
| 2001 | 2 | 44 | Igor Pohanka | 0 |
| 2001 | 2 | 48 | Tuomas Pihlman | 15 |
| 2001 | 2 | 60 | Victor Uchevatov | 0 |
| 2002 | 2 | 51 | Anton Kadeykin | 0 |
| 2002 | 2 | 53 | Barry Tallackson | 20 |
| 2003 | 2 | 42 | Petr Vrana | 16 |
| 2005 | 2 | 38 | Jeff Frazee | 0 |
That's right, 2 for 13! Say it with me now: "Urrrrrrrrrgh."
Jeff Frazee is a long shot to reach the goaltender threshold of 100+ games played, but there's no reason to believe anyone else on this list is going to crack into the NHL anytime soon. Martin and Commodore are it, and only Martin was able to put those game in solely for the Devils' benefit. It's been a long, long, long time since a second round draft pick played some games in the NHL, much less for New Jersey.
The league average in this time period was 24.8%, the Devils were at 15.4%. I know this is all in hindsight, but it's pretty awful back there - too much to ignore.
Third Round and Later Picks
In these later rounds of the draft, there are more and more longshots and so the success rate is lower. The league averaged 8.7%. Believe it or not, the Devils have had as many players from these later picks make it into the NHL to play 200 or more games as they did in all of their second round picks.
| Devils Third+ Rd. Picks 1999-2005 | ||||
| Year | Rd. | Num. | Player | GP |
| 2000 | 3 | 76 | Michael Rupp | 416 |
| 2002 | 4 | 117 | Cam Janssen | 206 |
Both are not only fourth line caliber players, but they aren't Devils anymore. But at least they made it into the league, and they had their time in New Jersey. I'm particularly grateful for Rupp for doing this, as are most Devils fans, something I'm sure he didn't know he would do when he went into the draft again in 2000. He's still only one of two here. The Devils didn't strike gold late as often as most of the league, no matter how it's rationalized. Mark Fraser (2005 3rd round pick) is a long shot to be added to the list, though.
So What Does It All Mean?
In a way, it's a bit impressive that the New Jersey Devils have stayed such a strong team despite not really reloading through the draft from 1999 through 2005. Yes, Parise, Zajac, and Martin all turned out to be great players. However, the other picks didn't turn out as well and a vast majority didn't even turn out significantly long NHL careers. Yes, most draft picks don't - but the Devils were luckless at a worse rate than most of the league.
This leads me ask: What happened, Mr. David Conte? The Devils went through the 1990s, often selecting multiple players who would have the skills to break into the NHL for some length of time in some capacity. That was great. If not in New Jersey, then elsewhere. The scouts clearly did their job well in those days. Yet, we haven't seen anything like that since 1998. 2000 was the last draft year that turned out multiple NHL players who have played 200+ games (2005 may overtake that years from now). In years afterward, the Devils were fortunate just to get one player out of each year. Granted, Parise and Zajac were far and away successes; but that was it. There wasn't anyone else to fill in other spots.
I understand scouting is far from an exact science and this is solely based in hindsight, but the results haven't been good from 1999-2005, Martin, Parise, and Zajac notwithstanding.
What really makes my head scratch is that the Devils currently have one of the largest scouting staffs in the league. Conte is the director of a scouting staff of 19 different people per the Devils website. While it doesn't not say what each one does or how long they have done it, I would think it would have to be diverse group in terms of experience and expertise. At least, I certainly hope so, I don't want to consider the alternative.
Now, I have no idea as far as whether the staff has since been increased in size and resources as a result of a lack of results. Nor do I know whether staff has changed because of the lack of prospects making it to New Jersey in those years. I have even less than no idea in how the process goes altogether. I'm sure if I had more knowledge that a lot of the picks would have made sense given the information they had at the time. I repeat: I know this is all in hindsight.
Hindsight aside, though, this is a results-oriented business. Clearly, the Devils aren't getting enough results (read: players) out of the draft. From my outside opinion, I'd like to know what happened, Mr. David Conte? What went wrong? Have lessons been learned in retrospect of these picks? What have you or will you do about this situation? Clearly, there must be improvement?
If I may go higher up, what has Lou done or will do about this? It's my understanding that Lou largely leaves scouting and drafting decisions to Conte and his staff. Maybe he needs to take more charge himself? Offer his own input? As it is, Lou's been keeping the Devils strong in spite of the drafts in this time period. This makes Lou look good, but not so much the scouting staff he ultimately has some responsibility in.
Of course, if the prospects from recent drafts turn out well and the Devils do get more players out of them, then the effect of the 1999-2005 draft failings will be mitigated. All we can do is hope now. Based on this recent-ish history, But this is a trend that cannot continue for the Devils to remain a contending team for years to come.
Thanks for reading. Please let me know what you think about the Devils drafting in those years now knowing this. Are you surprised it was this thin? Are you at least more appreciative that their first round picks appear to have done well. Does this make you more concerned about the prospects currently in the system, or with the picks in the upcoming draft? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
1 recs |
51 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I am very surprised the results were as ‘thin’ as the numbers point out. Yikes. Happy that the Devils managed to not only stay competitive, but Win twice during that time frame.
I have one theory to help mitigate those horrid numbers, the Devils highest Draft Pick during that time was Parise’s, and we had to move up to get him, as we remember. So while I am wholly unimpressed with the quality of players we have selected during that time in the 1st Round, perhaps some of it can be attributed to having to select at earliest, 17th in the NHL Entry Draft.
The first round picks aren’t the big source of concern – that they were so poor in the second and later rounds is. Sure, draft position isn’t desirable, but in those rounds, it’s not as if you’re picking among the top prospects to begin with.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jun 15, 2010 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Im just trying to feel better here, this is hurtful!
I must say, our 98 Draft was better (Van Ryn – 26th, Gomez – 27th, Gionta – 82nd).
I know that I have had high hopes for many Devils draft picks in the past (Salomonsson, Laine, Berglund, Bicek, Sharifijanov, etc) and have been largely let down. Conte has always been lauded as an excellent Director, but these results seem to say otherwise. Ugh. Hopefully 2006-present will lend better results, but Im afraid to get too high on guys like Palmieri, Halischuk, Josefson and Tedenby.
They really struggled drafting overseas during this period. That seems to be something they have fixed now though. Players like Zharkov, Vasyunov, Tedenby, Josefson, Urbom, and Bergfors all seem like they could have promising careers. They also have been better at late round picks. Eckford, PL3, Fraser, Zharkov and Halischuk were all picked in the 3rd round or later all of them have already seen some NHL time. So I’m not to concerned about the scouting team as they appear to have gotten things together.
That seemed pretty obvious to me as well. Who were the Euro amateur scouts during this period?
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Wow....I can't believe it's been that bad...
What is interesting is that the Devils managed to do extremely well in that 6 year span. They had great young group of players and a solid veterans core. In 2000-2001, look at the list of drafted players 25 and under that played at least 50 games (age): White 82 (22); Elias 82 (24); Gomez 76 (20); Sykora 73 (23).
I find it interesting that 20 players in the 2000-2001 season played more than 50 games, then the next highest was Steve Kelly at 24 GP. Was their just too much talent or not enough injuries for these draft picks to gain NHL experience, thus maybe the extra time in the minors hurt their development? From 2001-2004, there isn’t such a big gap, but these teams were stacked with with the young players mentioned before (Gionta too), and the veterans that now have been long gone.
In Lou We Trust: SBN Blog of the New Jersey Devils
"Hockey is the only job I know where you get paid to have a nap on the day of the game." - Chico Resch
by Matthew Ventolo on Jun 16, 2010 12:12 AM EDT reply actions
Also,
All that info in the previous post was from hockeydb.
Glad you brought up Ari Ahonen: I was around 10 at the Devils Draft Party that year, and still to this day never understood that pick. I was so amazed about learning about the draft, and the only conclusion I came to was that the Devils didn’t need a goalie. I also remember sitting next to an old man in the front row asking me who my favorite player was, why I liked the Devils, etc.. When the pick was made, I went, “A Goalie!?!? Why!?!” That old man then went up to the podium to talk. It was Dr. John McMullen.
In Lou We Trust: SBN Blog of the New Jersey Devils
"Hockey is the only job I know where you get paid to have a nap on the day of the game." - Chico Resch
by Matthew Ventolo on Jun 16, 2010 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions
I think it should be pointed out that...
While these draft results may not be all that, The Devils have been great at signing undrafted players who make it and have an impact in the NHL. Greene? Madden? Clarkson?
Exactly right
You are exactly right. This article fails to point out that the job of a ’Scouting Director" is about much more than the draft.
Conte is directly responsible for- Rafalski- Madden-Clarkson-Oduya-Greene. In addition Conte is responsible for evaluating NHL talent for trades. Although he doesnt pull the trigger on deals his input is sought and listened to.
The Devils have done a nice job in finding some gems among the rookie UFAs and plugging them into the lineup. Take it with a grain of salt, however. How many rookie UFAs do they sign that never amount to anything? I suspect that number is a lot larger than the notable successes we’ve mentioned above. Also, how many rookie UFAs are signed by other teams and have significant success? It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the other successful teams have very similar numbers in both areas to the Devils.
Even if the Devils are runaway winners in the “success from rookie UFAs” category, it doesn’t change the focus of this article — the Devils drafting in the seven years covered by this article has been seriously lacking. As I pointed out in my FanPost from a week ago, the majority of “elite” teams have a lot of draft success, especially with their first-round picks, and that has allowed them to build a significant core for the long term. We don’t see that with the Devils from this analysis…. and while there’s a lot of promise and potential in players like Tedenby and Josefson, none of them have produced anything thus far…. and some of them likely never will.
A team that requires significant success from rookie UFAs is usually the team that isn’t drafting very well. I hate to see the Devils in that boat, but it seems that’s where we’ve landed. It also isn’t fair to blame it on low draft positions, because the Devils aren’t the only team that has repeatedly drafted in the high teens and 20s. Detroit has been in that particular position for a long time, and they’ve enjoyed much more success than the Devils in the same span. Not in the first round, mind you — only 4 1st-round picks since 2000, and the only one who you wouldn’t find on the side of a milk carton is Nicholas Kronwall — but if you go down some of their lower-round picks, you’ll recognize many more names as players who have made it to the NHL and stuck around for a while with somebody.
All of this is true, however, I think it’s unfair to dismiss their lower draft positioning as not a major factor.
The data shows that drafting high and drafting often in the first round is about as surefire a way to get NHL caliber players as there is. The lone example of a team in a similar situation as NJ is Detroit, as you say, who has found their success in later rounds. The difference is the success in the 2nd and later rounds, so Detroit’s similarity of having consistently late (and few for that matter) first round picks helps demonstrate that having later picks is less likely to get you a successful player (by this measurement).
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)
right, so we’re behind one team, let’s panic. and let’s make a false dichotomy about entry-level UFAs the devils sign failing – sure, lots of them fail, so do lots and lots of draft picks – should the devils be trading draft picks away, so their percentage of successful draft picks goes up? the great thing about undrafted free agents is that there is zero risk to signing them. also, i’m sure you’d see that it’s nowhere close wrt unsigned free agents – the devils have traditionally been the best at this. even last year, new jersey had 4 undrafted FAs on their team that they originally signed (pelley, clarkson, salmela, greene). this is much more than any other playoff team.
among playoff teams:
detroit – lebda
chicago – niemi, hendry
washington – sloan
ottawa – winchester
philadelphia – powe
san jose – staubitz
los angeles – drewiske, ersberg
vancouver – burrows, rypien
colorado – wilson, mcleod
pittsburgh, montreal, buffalo, boston, nashville, phoenix – none
the truth is that the non-detroit teams that were good when new jersey was winning cups – st. louis, dallas, and colorado – have gone through prolonged playoff droughts. new jersey has not. only the flyers and wings can really boast similar success. and detroit’s reign of dominance is beginning to come to an end – they should be a playoff team going forward, but they will not be auto-winning the division every year, and that’s not just because of chicago’s rise.
Trying to Fit into the Organizational Philosophy a bit too much
One thing that I think I will look up, if it’s available, is the ratings of our 1st/2nd round picks vs the rest of the draft class for a particular year. I don’t want to play Monday Morning GM but I think at times the organizational has reached for picks more than it should have.
That said, I think that they have excelled at signing FA’s. If they could only combine that with good drafting….
John, you beat me to this. I caught the Edm and Atl posts two days ago and started the same analysis (for a fan post).
It has been harder to break into the devil’s lineup compared to say the islander’s, which may be part of why some promising players didn’t make it. Also, using 1999 as the start is fairly arbitrary and misses our outstanding ’98 draft. All that said, I agree that we had a dry spell which is hopefully over. Thank goodness for the undrafted signings.
Tom – looking at the players drafted in the first round after one of our flops, the list doesn’t have any names I really recognized, I think drafting late first round is just more of a crap shoot than we’d like to believe.
Wow, I remember Foster being a reach but....
I was looking up the ranking of Adrian Foster from 2001 CSS and when I couldn’t find him I finally realized he wasn’t even ranked. I then saw this link from hockey futures: http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/8818/devils2001_draft_evaluation/
Writeup on Foster below. Not your typical Devils gamble.
Adrian Foster, C – 1st round, 22nd overall (Saskatoon, WHL)
Status: NHL Prospect
NHL Games Played: 0
The Devils took a huge risk and went way off the board after trading picks with Florida and moving back four spots in the first round. With their top pick, New Jersey selected oft-injured, but supremely talented centerman Adrian Foster out of Saskatoon from the WHL. Foster, who was unranked by the Central Scouting Bureau, had an incredibly tough time trying to overcome an abdominal injury suffered all the way back in 1998 and as a result had only played 12 WHL games at the time of his selection.
It was hoped that with proper rest and rehabilitation, Foster would recover and turn into a legitimate NHL prospect. That however, has been far from the case as Foster has continually suffered from a wide range of injuries in his time in the Devils system. Those injuries ranged from abdominal pulls to shoulder problems, and to a concussion that wiped out the majority of his most recent season that saw him only suit up for eight games with Albany of the AHL. The Devils still have a glimmer of hope for Foster, but with each passing season and each injury setback in, it is becoming quite likely that Foster will never turn into the player the Devils had hoped.
there are a number of potential confounding factors when looking at these results:
(1) Poor coaching at the AHL level – maybe it would be best to try and keep Johnny Mac coaching the baby devils as long as possible?
(2) Lack of opportunities for prospects to crack the NHL lineup – in particular, for the goalie prospects
(3) Poor match with prospects’ style of play – the devils have a strong north american bias in their system and philosophy. note that none of the homegrown successes (either via draft or signing undrafted FAs) are european. their last – and currently, only – homegrown european star is patrik elias who was drafted in what, 1994?
(4) Picks later in each round – not a great excuse, but a factor nonetheless
i don’t know if i blame the devils for drafting ahonen and damphousse. at that point, brodeur was not the legend he is now, hadn’t proven himself as durable as he has turned out to be, and there was no guarantee that he wouldn’t leave via free agency at some point. in 1997, brodeur was just 4 yrs into his career. frazee is basically the only goalie they’ve drafted since the devils won their second cup.
on the point of the lack of developing quality european players, you could view it as a failure to draft well or a failure to develop well. i think it’s a little bit of both. conte and his crew have done a poor job in europe, especially in russia. we’ll see whether they’ve turned their act around (at least in sweden) when tedenby, josefson, and urbom get their chances to crack the lineup.
I think the devils havent been contenders for many years now. A tough team yeah but cup worthy no. We did win some during this stretch but we also had some good imports at the time. Lou has made some bad moves lately and i dont know if its trying to cover for bad drafts or he’s just getting old. We brought people back to this team i never thought would come back (Holik & Rolston) Signing Pandolfo over Brilyn was a bust, is Lou getting nostalgic?? I would have flipped my wig if i had one when he signed Kovy. All my Devil life i prayed for the day and when it came i wished it didnt. With the poor drafting and poor moves lately we could be in for a long decade of cup drought. The way we played in the playoffs in the last few years are a tell tale sign of the long awaited Devils decline. When we let Neidemayer then Rafalski walk i knew it was bad then we signed no one! When we let Gomez walk which he wanted we signed Zubrus. I touched on this before and another writer made in fun of me saying you must just read the score sheet. Well hello Gomez left after a 60 point season and in comes Zubrus with a 38 point season and is not the center Gomez was. I am a results guy. If you get 3.4 to come in place of Gomez i want results thats right. We didnt need to spend 3.4 on a third or fourth line player. The fact that we allow talent to slip away and never replace them is goint to be our end. Lets not forget Gionta yeah another mistake!!! See how many ex-Devils are playing great hockey even Madden which i agreed with just lifted another cup & we cant get out of the first round.
Gionta followed one good season with three mediocre ones at best (well, the points went up but the goals went down). It turns out a change of scenery did wonders for him in Montreal, his goal total was higher than his last few years in Jersey, and all that while missing 20 games. Plus he showed more hustle in this year’s playoffs than he’s shown since 05-06.
But more importantly, your examples of Niedermayer and Rafalski are the two cases that Lou tried the hardest to keep the player around, but each of them had their own reasons why it wasn’t what the Devils were doing to keep them, they wanted to leave anyway. Niedermayer wanted to play with his less talented brother who we now enjoy the company of, and Rafalski wanted to play for his hometown team, and it doesn’t hurt that it was the Red Wings of all teams, the only more consistent franchise over the last decade than us.
In hindsight Gomez leaving wasn’t good for us, but like you said he clearly was looking for more money than he was worth, and if Lou were the type of GM to overpay for players just to keep them around, we’d be in worse cap trouble than the Hawks are right now. Zubrus was a panic signing because of the glaring depth at center at the time, and so we overpaid. But Rolston was a very coveted free agent, and though he’s not even worth a fraction of what he makes, in the summer of ’08 lots of people wanted Rolston.
Also as this article itself points out, the time in which these players were leaving was a time of not very good drafting for us, and so we really didn’t have the ability to plug these holes without dipping into the free agent market and hoping for the best. At this point in time we arguably have as good a collection of prospects as we ever have, at least in terms of their potential, which hopefully means that if the players are ready, Lou will likely plug departures with players from Albany wherever possible.
It’s definitely a turning point for the Devils, and I’m not making any predictions, but the team did have to go through a semi-makeover before winning in 2000 and 2003. Hopefully, as these ridiculous contracts come off the books we can start to do something similar.
Players Currently in My Doghouse: Brian Rolston, Andrew Peters
by thejerseydevil on Jun 16, 2010 8:37 AM EDT up reply actions
I know we couldnt keep Neidemayer but looking we could have picked up his brother and kept him. Fantasy yes but i think it could have worked and thought so back then. Its no so much the losing of these players that gets to me it what we replace them with. Last year when we didnt re-sign Madden and Gio Lou went the cheap rout with pikka whatever his name was. God i seen this one coming just like all other longshots. When you lose talent try replacing it with some kind of talent not longshots. As for Gio he had his best season in the new rule era and had Gomer feeding him pucks. Guess who his linemate is on the Canadiens? GOMER!! Its just frustrating that we lose talent and pick up garbage. There’s a list of 50 free agents here’s Lou’s chance to dig us out. There are some good dmen we can get and a center i hear the Flyers might move carter….
I recall seeing interviews with Lou around the time Scott Niedermeyer left where Lamorello mentioned he made several attempts to acquire Rob Niedermeyer in trade…. and backed off because the cost was too high to justify such a deal. I imagine he would have been ripped — and rightfully so — if he sold the farm to keep one player around.
Last year when we didnt re-sign Madden and Gio Lou went the cheap rout with pikka whatever his name was. God i seen this one coming just like all other longshots. When you lose talent try replacing it with some kind of talent not longshots.
Lou Lamorello’s track record on the free agent market at the deep (read: expensive) end is dubious at best when it comes to bringing in talent from other teams — take a look at what you’re getting for the dollars invested in Zubrus and Rolston, or go further back to disasters like Malakhov II and Mogilny II. This team cannot afford another such blunder in this department right now. If you bring in another high-priced free agent from the outside now, and that player turns out to be a bust, the team is in real trouble — the window of opportunity to win a title during the Elias/Brodeur era is rapidly closing, and there isn’t a lot of cap room to escape such a mistake.
Gomez was never going to re-sign here — Scotty made it clear he wanted out. In addition to that, the Rangers badly overpaid him to make the move, money the Devils could not justify matching for an overrated set-up man who only had one big year putting the puck in the net. Nor, for that matter, were the Devils going to give Gionta the deal Montreal did. Can you really justify $5 million/year for a guy who had one big season before then, and whose “big season” this year was a whopping 28 goals?
There’s a list of 50 free agents here’s Lou’s chance to dig us out. There are some good dmen we can get and a center i hear the Flyers might move carter
There are a lot more than 50 free agents out there…. sites like Yahoo! will put together lists to simplify it for their readers and give them a place to keep track of everything. Many of them are overrated or will be overpriced. Others will be the focus of multiple teams and won’t come to NJ just because you ask them to — this isn’t a videogame. Some of them will have no interest in playing for Jersey, either. In this league, you build through the draft and supplement through free agency, not the other way around. The idea that the Devils can bring in a handful of free agents to solve all the problems this team has is ridiculous.
As for Jeff Carter, there is no way the Flyers trade him within the division. For that matter, I suspect the only way they trade him in the conference is if they fill other holes in that matter (e.g., a #1 goalie).
Looking at your link to the scouting staff page on devils.nhl.com, it definitely is larger than I remember it being at times in the past. I’d have to dig out my yearbooks, but the scouting staff is mentioned in them and I don’t think it’s ever been this big.
Conte was the assistant scouting director for the longest time, and I think the second part of the first sentence in his profile might help to explain some of the [lack of] results (emphasis mine).
Entering 26th season with Devils, 17th as team’s director of scouting…Promoted to executive vice president September 2006; was appointed to head scouting post August 5, 1993
With that in mind, I took a look at the ’94-98 years that he would have led:
94.1 Vadim Sharifijanov No
94.2 Patrik Elias Yes
94.3+ 2/10 Souray(3), Sullivan(9)
95.1 Petr Sykora Yes
95.2 Nathan Perrott No
95.3+ 1/9 Chris Mason(5)
96.1 Lance Ward No
96.2 Wesley Mason No
96.2 Joshua Dewolf No
96.2 Pierre Dagenais No (4th round again in ’98, still No)
96.2 Colin White Yes (and yes, they had 4 draft picks that year)
96.3+ 1/9 Mitchell(8)
Missing the playoffs after the Cup win put the scouting staff in a funk?
97.1 Jean-Francois Damphousse No
97.2 Stanislav Gron No
97.3+ 0/6 [Although Clemmensen(8) will probably make it at 91 games, so we’ll give him this one]
98.1 Mike Van Ryn Yes
98.1 Scott Gomez Yes
98.2 Christian Berglund No
98.3+ 1/9 Gionta(3)
Total: 1: 3/6 Slightly under average
Total 2: 2/8 A hair above average
Total 3+: 6/43 (13.95%) Well above average
My thinking is that the Devils scouting staff is pretty good at finding those “diamonds in the rough” but not necessarily the best at judging the more talented players. Although 2/45in 3+ from 99-05 is nothing to be proud of either. Although admittedly, 2 to 4 more have a shot having already spent some time in the NHL (Fraser, Eckford, and to a lesser degree Leblond and Davis). Tis could put them at 4/45 (8.9%, just over average) to 6/45 (13.3%, above average and close to their average from Conte’s first 5 years)
Is Conte the genius we’ve thought him to be all these years after all?
Go Jets
Go Devils
reinforces my point that the devils are awful with europeans
These are depressing results. The Devils haven’t properly drafted and developed their European prospects. No European player drafted by the Devils have truly made it to the NHL since Elias and Sykora in ‘94 and ’95. From ’96 to ’05, 11 out of the Devils’ 29 first or second round picks were European. ZERO out of those 11 have made it to the NHL, during a time in which the quantity and quality of European players in the NHL exploded. Even if Bergfors makes it, he took a while to make it to the big club (though you could blame that on the shoulder injuries).
You could argue that the picks of Elias and Sykora were at least partially based on prior years’ scouting directed by the Devils’ prior scouting director. Take those guys away and Conte’s drafting record looks terrible. Maybe he should stick to making decisions on North American players. This Hockey’s Future article touts the Devils’ great scouting record from ‘79 to ’97, but Conte wasn’t the head of scouting during most of this period and the team was also getting high draft picks as a non-playoff team duringthe majority of this period as well.
I hope Tedenby and Josefson really are good enough to step right onto the big club this season. Otherwise, we might never hear from them again!
it is worth noting that besides 1999-2002 are some of the worst drafts in the NHL, period. so doing across the board comparisons isn’t that fruitful – almost no one hit on 1999 first round picks. i also think that 200 NHL games as a success metric is quick, but dubious – it favors teams who lack depth so they play their top picks in the NHL hoping they turn into something. the devils were really not this kind of team until 2005-06.
why ahonen? john mcmullen owned the team. there was no guarantee that martin brodeur was going to stay a devil. he would’ve been UFA in 2003, and who knows? yankeenets bought the team and things changed a bit. and while goaltenders as 1st round picks is bad now, i’m not so sure it was that bad then – with UFA ages higher, it was harder to get goaltending talent if you didn’t have it already. just ask the canucks, who had a real good team in the early part of this century that was sunk in part due to sub-standard goaltending that they could do nothing about. with the goaltending glut we have now, taking a goalie in the top 2 rounds is probably silly. i am also convinced that had martin havlat fallen another pick that the devils would have taken him – he was that draft’s ‘wild card’.
adrian foster is a perfect example of the devils’ draft philosophy at the time. taken in a mostly barren draft, he was a high-upside gamble that the devils felt they could make based on what they had in the organization already. he never got over his injuries and failed to make the NHL; it’s a risk worth taking in a terrible draft.
there’s a huge degree of uncertainty with taking 18 year old players who’ve yet to fully develop. the devils absolutely had bad drafts during those years and it’s part of why the team has been just good over these last few years. drafting is not a science. it’s seeing a guy in 4 games and saying, ‘this guy’s got a shot at the NHL’. it’s also hoping that other teams overvalue certain players – the devils basically had parise and zajac gifted to them by scouts and GMs who didn’t trust parise’s size and the league zajac played in.
by Triumph44 on Jun 16, 2010 9:22 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
i also think that 200 NHL games as a success metric is quick, but dubious – it favors teams who lack depth so they play their top picks in the NHL hoping they turn into something. the devils were really not this kind of team until 2005-06.
That’s a really good point.
This system doesn’t take any of that, or the number/quality of draft choices, into account… and 200 games for forwards/defensemen and 100 for goaltenders is a pretty arbitrary number to consider a “success”.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)
If a player managed to stick around long enough to play a combined 2.43 seasons, it shows that while the player itself may not be as expected – he was skilled enough in some way to have more than just a cup of coffee in NHL. To the end, it is a quick but not entirely arbitrary method.
Also, do note the initial post that inspired all of this. The teams surrounding NJ for drafting futility in this time period were inconsistent at best and had plenty of “lost” seasons where they could have thrown the youth into the fire. They mostly didn’t for their original team or elsewhere.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jun 16, 2010 9:42 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
True, but as Triumph44 notes, some players might be getting plugged into lineups earlier than they should (and by extension, stay around a little longer) due to the team that drafted them’s make-up as much as that player’s abilities.
200/100 is as good a cutoff as any, but it is pretty arbitrary.
I’m not defending the Devils draft record… arbitrary cut off or not, they’ve not done especially well. Merely pointing out the grains of salt that should be taken with this data.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)
Even if you want to raise the bar for what to consider a “success”, the Devils have only drafted three impact players in the seven drafts from 1999-2005: Parise, Zajac, Martin. The best of the rest are Hale, Commodore, Rupp, and Janssen, who are marginal NHLers at best. In contrast, they did much better from 1994-1998, if you look at FrankG’s comment above. Elias, Souray, Sullivan, Sykora, White, Mitchell, Gomez, and Gionta are all impact players (8 of them in those 5 drafts). And five of them were in 94 and 95, years in which the Devils had playoff success and therefore picked very late in each round.
From 1996-2005, the Devils only drafted and developed six impact players in ten years. That is a very, very shoddy record and speaks poorly to Conte’s drafting ability and the Devils’ development system. You could argue that this team has been built on the great work by Conte’s predecessor, which crumbled just a few years after Conte took his position as head of scouting.
the devils picked 17th overall in 1995 because of their 5th place finish. it wasn’t until 2003 that the rules were changed so the cup champion would pick last in the 1st round regardless of their regular season finish.
a very shoddy record? very few teams were drafting impact players during that time. The 1996, 1999, 2001, and 2002 drafts are some of the worst in NHL history. how many HOF-level players do you think will have been drafted between the years 1996 and 2002? how about in the first round? there will probably more drafted in 2003 and 2004 than in those 7 years.
thin draft classes
maybe this is worth exploring – since we’re taking 1st round percentage with a grain of salt (since success is so closely correlated to pick placement), 2nd round success % might also be affected by the depth – or lack thereof – in the draft class that year.
I’m not sure what the best way is to do this – do we look at the Devils’ percentages by round against other team’s year by year? Or do we look at average games played for each player taken in rounds 2, 3, etc. and see how the Devils’ picks stack up?
Look at the linked article, specifically the chart. The Devils struggled in each grouping.
One thing about drafting Europeans – during this era, Russian picks were the single worst-performing major talent area in terms of career players. They went 16 for 201, or 5.1% overall. They only beat out (by overall percentage) Junior A, Junior B, Slovakia and USHS players who combined saw 250 players drafted.
The Devils took nine Russians during this period, fifth-most in the league and went 0-9. Three of those nine were in the second round.
The team that took the most Russians? Tampa Bay, with 15. Only Artyukhin panned out and as a fourth-liner. The only team that didn’t draft a Russian was San Jose.
The league as a whole had no idea what they were doing in Russia at this time, whether that’s because of the players staying in Russia or just never developing, but New Jersey was really terrible in this stretch. Who was the Russian amateur scout?
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
While the 2nd round % definitely needs to be addressed, I think it’s worth noting that over this period of time (99-05), there were 13 teams whose 1st round “success rate” percentage was above the league average of 16.2%
They are, in order of their Total % ranking from highest to lowest (first round % in parentheses): Islanders (80%), Penguins (85.7%), Canadiens (75.0%), Senators (75.0%), Ducks (71.4%), Wild (66.7%), Blue Jackets (83.3%), Capitals (72.7%), Predators (71.4%), Thrashers (87.5%), Maple Leafs (80.0%), Flyers (71.4%) and Hurricanes (83.3%).
Of those 13 teams, only 5 were also above league average in the 2nd round (Montreal, Anaheim, Wild, CBJ and NSH – the Predators being the only team not above league average in Total %) and 4 were above league average in the 3rd round or later (NYI, PIT, MTL and OTT).
With a 61.1% league average for first round draftees meeting the requirements for being a “success” in this study (i.e. playing 200 games), it might come as no surprise that the large bulk of the teams rated well overall are boosted by having had many and/or high first round draft picks over this period of time.
To wit:
- the highest Total % ranked team, the NY Islanders, benefited over this seven year period from having 9 first round picks, 4 in the top ten; 6 in the top 15
- the team with the most first round success, the Atlanta Thrashers, benefited from 8 first round picks in this period; 6 in the top 10; 4 being 1st or 2nd picks overall; however, they were terrible in subsequent rounds and their Total % ranking of 21 reflects that
- the Capitals managed a pretty amazing 11 first round picks over this period; 5 in the top half of the round, which goes a long way toward explaining why they’re ranked 13th overall
In the end, many of the highest ranked teams are riding high by succeeding where they’re expected to succeed: with high first round picks. Take a team like NJ who rarely gets a high first round pick (average of 22nd pick in their 6 picks over this period) due to their sustained success or more than 1 per year due to conservative trading, and it shows that where and how often a team picks is pretty darn important when it comes to rating their success at drafting.
After the first round, however, is where the good drafting teams show their colors. Looking at the chart, the Canadiens are the leagues best drafting team as they are the only team to be above league average in all rounds. The Wild and Blue Jackets deserve a shout out, though they benefit from consistent high first round picks (which shouldn’t diminish their success in the later rounds); as do the Sabres and Sharks, though they managed to underperform in the first round.
Anyone can pick Crosby, Malkin and Jordan Staal in three consecutive years and boost their rankings to look like great drafters, but it takes some scouting and successful gambles to garner a 66.7% (Detroit), 50.0% (Wild), 42.9% (Stars) or 40.0% (Sharks) [side note: they’re all in the Western Conference] when the league average is 24.3% (19.8% without those four teams raising the bar) success rate in the second round.
I guess the gist of this is that the Devils would be better to look toward teams like Montreal and Detroit to figure out what they’re doing wrong than more highly ranked teams like the Islanders or Penguins.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)
re: montreal
and yet, for all of that, montreal has only had one excellent regular season in the last ten, and don’t look to me like they’re about to break out into being a great team any time soon. detroit is obviously a very good drafting team but i cannot help but think they’ve gotten a little lucky as well. had they any idea that pavel datsyuk would become a superstar, they would not have waited until late to pick him. i think the devils gambled on high-upside, boom or bust type players (suglobov, tallackson, foster, even eckford) – they just missed on all of them.
the devils have also found lots of unsigned free agents over this time – johnny oduya, david clarkson, rod pelley, and andy greene will all fit this definition of ‘success’. greene would’ve been a 2001 pick, oduya actually was, and clarkson and pelley were draft eligible in 2002.
draft order
I think it is worth keeping in mind that the difference between the league average from 1st round to 2nd round is 61% – 24%, but the scale of player quality doesn’t magically “drop off” at the 30th player selected. Essentially, draft order has the biggest effect in the 1st round, and given the Devils perperually poor selection in the first round I think they should be commended for maintaining a success rate close to the league average in the 1st round.
Essentially, since the Devils’ pick in the 1st round is closer to number 31 than it is to number 1, it would more reasonable to expect their success rate to be closer to 24% than 61%.
That being said, the Devil’s NEED to choose better in the later rounds since they cannot count on a 1st round pick. This is where they look bad, and hopefully this is something they have fixed. Looking at the potential from their selections in the last 5 years, it would seem to me that they have.
by DrWhizBang on Jun 16, 2010 9:34 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Despite our atrocious drafting in years past, we have one thing to be thankful for. And that’s the Rangers drafting Hugh Jessiman instead of our boy, Zach Parise.
I went through the 1996-2005 drafts, to get 10 years worth and figured out the average number of games played per pick and per year for the first round:
1996. 356 games average career (so far)
1997. 362
1998. 422
1999. 250
2000. 275
2001. 277
2002. 245
2003. 301
2004. 160
2005. 114
I think it may be premature to consider 200 games as the cut-off for 2004 and 2005, there are still a lot of players in those draft classes that spent most of a year in the NHL within the past couple seasons.
By Pick: (my won’ts are probably won’ts in some cases, most mights are from 04 and 05)
1. 559 (915 max/281 min)
2. 508 953/168
3. 524 881/179
4. 329 612/3 – 2 under 200 that won’t make it, 1 more that might/probably will
5. 369 682/163
6. 281 679/4 – 3 that won’t make it
7. 365 705/8 – 2 that won’t
8. 321 810/67 – 1 won’t, 2 might
9. 226 842/0 – 2 of the 0’s were taken again 2 years later, one in the 1st, one in the 3rd, both made it to 200, 2 more that won’t, 1 might
10. 177 603/0 – 3 didn’t, 2 might
11. 236 423/5 – 3 didn’t, 1 probably won’t
12. 283 832/0 – 5 didn’t
13. 347 869/0 – 2 didn’t, 1 total ? (a 0 from 05)
14. 206 624/0 – 4 didn’t, 1 total ? (a 0 from 05)
15. 130 904/0 – 7 didn’t. Being picked 15th has been the kiss of death
16. 176 449/0 – 4 didn’t, 1 total ? (a 0 from 05)
17. 258 776/2 – 4 didn’t
18. 197 539/0 – 4 didn’t, 3 might
19. 185 747/0 – 5 didn’t, 2 might
20. 274 536/10 – 2 didn’t, 1 might
21. 331 855/50 – 2 didn’t, 1 probably will (if you’re not top 10, 21st is the place to be)
22. 167 664/0 – 3 didn’t, 4 might
23. 281 752/0 – 2 didn’t, 1 might
24. 260 666/0 – 2 didn’t, 2 might
25. 222 667/3 – 3 didn’t, 2 might
26. 151 543/0 – 6 didn’t, 1 total ? (5 games from 05)
27 (8 picks). 177 784/0 – 5 didn’t, 1 total ? (a 0 from 05)
28 (7). 188 552/0 – 3 didn’t, 1 might
29 (6). 192 317/17 – 2 didn’t, 1 might
30 (6). 128 335/0 – 2 didn’t, 2 might
Take it as you wish, but obviously there is a big difference being early and late first round.
Go Jets
Go Devils
Quite a drop off from the third pick to the fourth and beyond.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)
Following up, between 1996 and 2005, there were 287 players taken in the first round. Rather than using an arbitrary 200 games, I tried something else, also arbitrary, but… I considered a player to have "made it in the e a successful NHL player if they reached 1/2 of that drafted spot’s average number of games. For example, pick 3s have averaged 524 games. If a 3rd round pick player has played 262 games, I count him as making it. Using that criteria, 180 players were successful NHL players, or 62.7%
Pick #Made it
1 10
2 8
3 7
4 7
5 8
6 7
7 8
8 8 (2 players have actually played 1 fewer than half the average, close enough so I counted them)
9 5
10 5
11 6
12 5
13 7
14 5
15 3
16 5
17 6
18 8
19 3
20 7
21 8
22 5
23 7
24 7
25 6
26 4
27 4 (8 total picks)
28 4 (7 total picks)
29 4 (6 total picks)
30 3 (6 total picks)
Go Jets
Go Devils
Last year at this time I remember seeing a bunch of multi-year draft recaps and remember the most surprising thing was that the red wings were not that great at drafting. They hit it big with two very late picks (datsyuk and zetterberg), but otherwise they were average.
http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2009/6/21/920352/detroit-isnt-that-great-at
Looks like the year breakdown is 1996-2006 for the main chart (includes a link to an excel sheet for drafts from 94-09.
See also:
http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=213
-Devils rank 2nd based on GVT for the last 15 years.
http://www.birdwatchersanonymous.com/2009/6/22/921049/where-star-level-players-are-found
Interesting.
I was wondering at a better way of ranking draft success, as games played is too inconsistent and inaccurate a measurement, and GVT is definitely a better one.
Glad he did all the work, though!
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (?)
I don’t quite agree. It basically means if the Devils draft a star, it makes up for doing so poorly throughout the rest of the draft.
GVT measures how much a player has contributed to their team in a season. The real point of this whole exercise was to highlight how many picks actually “make it” into the NHL for a notable period of time. That is the pre-requisite for any successful pick: did the prospect make it in the NHL for more than just a “cup of coffee.” Looking at how well they have been playing is an entirely different matter. It’s why Lance Ward – who wasn’t a good defenseman – can be seen as a success whereas Adrian Foster was not because he didn’t make it into the NHL. Ward may have sucked in the NHL (he did), but at least he got to that level. Foster never did.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s fantastic that the Devils were able to pick Parise, Zajac, and Martin. It makes filling in the big minute, top parts of the roster much easier. However, the dearth of success at other rounds undercuts the depth of the roster, which in turn undercuts trade opportunities, free agency moves, etc.
Still, I suppose it’s a matter of agree-to-disagree.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jun 16, 2010 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Thinking about this league wide, at a 16.2% success rate and 7 rounds, a given team can expect to get 1 player a year (technically 1.134, so 8 players across the 7 draft years). 1) that’s pretty lousy, 2) perhaps the quality over quantity idea has merit (would you rather have one Zach Parise or two of David Hale). I’m not saying this forgives the poor drafting, and we did have more than our fair share of 2nd rounders, but perhaps we need to lower our expectations a bit.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on In Lou We Trust
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Hilary Duff to attend Pittsburgh games; also, Comrie signs with Pens
- Kittens: The key ingredient to any intimidating KHL goalie mask
- Puck Daddy chats with Paul Bissonnette about his triumphant return to Twitter, plans for a bum tattoo
- In which former NHL coach Ken Hitchcock foils a shoplifter
- Montreal's Price talks new 2-year contract, expectations post-Halak
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
