But heck even if we make the playoffs and then lose the first round like 4-0, wouldn't have it been better to get a high pick?
- Popsghostly

Uhhhh....

Yes

Hit rate much higher with 1-5 picks when one sees this list:

2014 Class - Ekblad (1), Reinhardt (2), Drasiaitl (3)
2015 Class - McDavid (1), Eichel (2), Strome (3), Hanafin (5)
2016 Class - Matthews (1), Laine (2)

We have had eight years of drafting near the bottom and the evidence of effective selection from this staff is not promising, and not likely to change. Only hope to improve via draft is to draft high enough to select NHL-ready impact players. The odds overwhelmingly support a lottery pick as the highest chance of finding a diamond.
- Return of the Roar

Odds of drafting an NHL ready impact player isn't that great unless you get lucky in the draft lottery. Even out of the guys you listed, a few of those didn't hit the ground running and needed 1-3 years anyway.

We had 8 years of drafting later in the 1st round, but we also shipped picks and prospects away while shedding young players due to salary reasons. Not getting a top pick isn't the major issue. Shedding talent year after year for so long was.

Hit rate much higher with 1-5 picks when one sees this list:

2014 Class - Ekblad (1), Reinhardt (2), Drasiaitl (3)
2015 Class - McDavid (1), Eichel (2), Strome (3), Hanafin (5)
2016 Class - Matthews (1), Laine (2)

We have had eight years of drafting near the bottom and the evidence of effective selection from this staff is not promising, and not likely to change. Only hope to improve via draft is to draft high enough to select NHL-ready impact players. The odds overwhelmingly support a lottery pick as the highest chance of finding a diamond.
- Return of the Roar

I’d take every guy on my list over Ekblad, Reinhardt, Habafin, and Strome. Laine has been atrocious for the last 2+ months. My point being that drafting Top 5 is not a guaranteed All Star. 1 or 2 overall usually is an impact player but look at Yakupov, Sam Reinhardt (& Griffin Reinhardt) or even Dylan Strome as not being what those fanbases hoped for. I love Strome bc he was a Buy low with room to improve, but I don’t think he’d have as many fans around here if we drafted him 3rd overall ourselves

Hit rate much higher with 1-5 picks when one sees this list:

2014 Class - Ekblad (1), Reinhardt (2), Drasiaitl (3)
2015 Class - McDavid (1), Eichel (2), Strome (3), Hanafin (5)
2016 Class - Matthews (1), Laine (2)

We have had eight years of drafting near the bottom and the evidence of effective selection from this staff is not promising, and not likely to change. Only hope to improve via draft is to draft high enough to select NHL-ready impact players. The odds overwhelmingly support a lottery pick as the highest chance of finding a diamond.
- Return of the Roar

All for trading anyone who isn't part of the future and playing the kids. Doesn't mean they'll tank but at least you're kinda seeing what you have for the immediate future prior to free agency

Odds of drafting an NHL ready impact player isn't that great unless you get lucky in the draft lottery. Even out of the guys you listed, a few of those didn't hit the ground running and needed 1-3 years anyway.

We had 8 years of drafting later in the 1st round, but we also shipped picks and prospects away while shedding young players due to salary reasons. Not getting a top pick isn't the major issue. Shedding talent year after year for so long was.
- breadbag

We lost no one of regrettable missed value, either in picks or salary dumps.

Panarin a potential exception, but for the salary demands he had, and will have in his next deal, in hindsight, dodging a bullet. Who else did they lose - Johns, Kempny, Danault, Leddy, TT. Either bottom six/bottom four guys, or more of the same weak on the puck forwards of which they already have too many.

Poor cap management, poor drafting and poor player development all at the same time is why they are where they are today.

Higher you draft, better your chances. The numbers prove it out.

All for trading anyone who isn't part of the future and playing the kids. Doesn't mean they'll tank but at least you're kinda seeing what you have for the immediate future prior to free agency
- Assman22

They have few if any tradeable chips to return any value back, and let's be honest - I think after two-thirds of the season we can all see what the kids bring, and it isn't enough.

Additionally, far too much hope is being pinned on the youngest and least developed players in the pipeline that everyone already has penciled in as starters.

Give 19/88 and 17/12 lines bangers to play with, slot 20 and 91 down to the third line and find them a new winger, rebuild the fourth line, and find at least one true top four D guy. A good start.

They have few if any tradeable chips to return any value back, and let's be honest - I think after two-thirds of the season we can all see what the kids bring, and it isn't enough.

Additionally, far too much hope is being pinned on the youngest and least developed players in the pipeline that everyone already has penciled in as starters.

Give 19/88 and 17/12 lines bangers to play with, slot 20 and 91 down to the third line and find them a new winger, rebuild the fourth line, and find at least one true top four D guy. A good start.
- Return of the Roar

I like this approach.

It is a team game my man - hard to argue that the whole Blackhawk goalie squad has been subject to the highest number of shots on goal against as well as the highest number of high danger chances in the league?

The Hawks are a team with little to no effective defense, whose possession numbers are actually worse than when Q was running the bench.
- Return of the Roar

I’m not arguing quality or quantity of shots against, both have been high. The analysis adjusts for shot quality.

Delia has been better than average. CC was around average. Ward has been among the worst in the league.

Hit rate much higher with 1-5 picks when one sees this list:

2014 Class - Ekblad (1), Reinhardt (2), Drasiaitl (3)
2015 Class - McDavid (1), Eichel (2), Strome (3), Hanafin (5)
2016 Class - Matthews (1), Laine (2)

We have had eight years of drafting near the bottom and the evidence of effective selection from this staff is not promising, and not likely to change. Only hope to improve via draft is to draft high enough to select NHL-ready impact players. The odds overwhelmingly support a lottery pick as the highest chance of finding a diamond.
- Return of the Roar

Ultimately picking in the top 5 is where you want to be.

You can find guys later in the draft, typically smaller, highly skilled ones that have dropped because of doubts about size, etc. but more often than not top 5 is where you'll find the guys that you KNOW are going to bring it.

The most dangerous area for drafting busts is in the 8-15 range, I think, because they tend to be guys who are highly touted by consensus despite having similar flaws in their games to those drafted later in the draft. I do think more of those guys make it than guys in the 25-40ish range just because they're given better opportunity due to draft position.

We lost no one of regrettable missed value, either in picks or salary dumps.

Panarin a potential exception, but for the salary demands he had, and will have in his next deal, in hindsight, dodging a bullet. Who else did they lose - Johns, Kempny, Danault, Leddy, TT. Either bottom six/bottom four guys, or more of the same weak on the puck forwards of which they already have too many.

Poor cap management, poor drafting and poor player development all at the same time is why they are where they are today.

Higher you draft, better your chances. The numbers prove it out.
- Return of the Roar

Dustin Byfuglien?

Dustin Byfuglien?
- scottak

Andrew Ladd...the first version.

Andrew Ladd...the first version.
- Ogilthorpe2

Dustin Byfuglien?
- scottak

Shaw?

Dustin Byfuglien?
- scottak

Cap room isue, plus guy didn't want to play forward. Not a fit any longer.

Shaw?
- Ogilthorpe2

Cap room issue, plus concussion history. Sell high.

Shaw?
- Ogilthorpe2

Andrew Ladd...the first version.
- Ogilthorpe2

Cap room again. Too much paid to the wunderkinds. Still paying for that today whether people admit it or not.

Cap room isue, plus guy didn't want to play forward. Not a fit any longer.
- Return of the Roar

OMG, please. He’d be the best defenseman on this team. By far.

We lost no one of regrettable missed value, either in picks or salary dumps.

Panarin a potential exception, but for the salary demands he had, and will have in his next deal, in hindsight, dodging a bullet. Who else did they lose - Johns, Kempny, Danault, Leddy, TT. Either bottom six/bottom four guys, or more of the same weak on the puck forwards of which they already have too many.

Poor cap management, poor drafting and poor player development all at the same time is why they are where they are today.

Higher you draft, better your chances. The numbers prove it out.
- Return of the Roar

Over the long term drafting higher is better, but you are still not guaranteed to get some NHL ready player out of it and you are lucky when you do. The Hawks have maybe a 25-30% chance of getting that impact player, and even then does that solve their problems? Not so much.

You proved my point listing "some" of the assets, but there are more going back even further. The Hawks gave away players that are better than what they have now. That isn't even debatable. I'm not saying they didn't draft poorly sometimes, but the issue is depth and they have been shipping out depth since 2010.

We lost no one of regrettable missed value, either in picks or salary dumps.
- Return of the Roar

This statement is completely false. The CAP forced the Hawks to trade assets they would have preferred to keep.

We just listed 3, Buff, Shaw, Ladd v1.

OMG, please. He’d be the best defenseman on this team. By far.
- scottak

Today, perhaps.

Back then however, it was determined he was a forward if he wanted to stay, and Q not impressed with his D skills. Plus the salary he got was not a possibility then either.

We lost no one of regrettable missed value, either in picks or salary dumps.

Panarin a potential exception, but for the salary demands he had, and will have in his next deal, in hindsight, dodging a bullet. Who else did they lose - Johns, Kempny, Danault, Leddy, TT. Either bottom six/bottom four guys, or more of the same weak on the puck forwards of which they already have too many.

Poor cap management, poor drafting and poor player development all at the same time is why they are where they are today.

Higher you draft, better your chances. The numbers prove it out.
- Return of the Roar

Teravainen has more points over the last 3 years than any Blackhawk not named Kane or Toews and he just signed a 5 year deal at $5.4 Mill per.

But okay, yeah, he's nothing I guess.

This statement is completely false. The CAP forced the Hawks to trade assets they would have preferred to keep.

We just listed 3, Buff, Shaw, Ladd v1.
- scottak

Cap MANAGEMENT forced them to trade some players. They could never have kept them all.

The 2010 team was the 85 Bears of hockey - never to be seen again.

Teravainen has more points over the last 3 years than any Blackhawk not named Kane or Toews and he just signed a 5 year deal at $5.4 Mill per.

But okay, yeah, he's nothing I guess.
- BINGO!

Another too weak on the puck guy, of which this team already has too many.

Cap MANAGEMENT forced them to trade some players. They could never have kept them all.

The 2010 team was the 85 Bears of hockey - never to be seen again.
- Return of the Roar

Understood. Reread your statement. They DID lose players of value, in salary dumps.