What is the success rate of prospects developing into legitimate stars?

Ten percent?  20 percent? 

It certainly can't be very high, can it?  How many National Hockey League fans have watched their team "develop" a player for a few years only to realize you could bump your head on the kid's talent ceiling?

Not-quite-good-enough players end up in higher leagues for a multitude of reasons.  If a scout gives word that a young kid is going to be a star, the scout's job performance is now directly related to the kid's on-ice progress. Suddenly, that player has a foam-finger waving fan behind the organization's closed doors.

Maybe the kid got some bounces the day the scout came. Maybe the scout just liked the kid's tape-job. Whatever the reason, most prospects never quite turn out like a Travis Zajac.  They just don't.

Every team has prospects. Some are good, legitimate hopefuls. On the other hand, some of them are hopefully good at something else.

So my question to general managers is this: given the rarity of drafting "carbon" and ending up with a diamond, wouldn't it make sense to trade your young, potential talent every time for legitimate, today talent?

You might regret a deal or two, but over time wouldn't you end up with more actual talent than you would if you tried to develop the players in your system?

I'm not suggesting trading guys like Pavel Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg when you draft them. Those guys didn't come into the league as "prospects"; they came in as "good." Your team didn't have to spend a year suffering, just waiting for them to get "there."

Over-thinking GMs around the league love to bring in young dimes that they think can become quarters. But what are the odds of that? 

If you set the definition of "making it" in the NHL at 200 games (less than three seasons), and look at the 90s (so they players have had time to develop), only 19 percent of those drafted "made it." That's 464 players of the 2,600 names called - this is what scouts refer to as the "19 percent rule."  From the third round and beyond? 
Of the 2,000 draftees, 261 made it - closer to 13 percent. It's not an exact science, but a ballpark for the success rate of development.

So given the chance to trade two or three dimes for a quarter, isn't it the safer choice? Plus, it eliminates the "waiting to develop" time.

This is the "Justin Bourne Microwave Theory of Management." I want my team ready now.

Plenty of draft picks from rounds five, six and beyond make the NHL, but aren't GMs a little too caught up in those success stories? How rare is it that those guys become difference makers?

NHL teams need difference makers to win. There are thousands of players around the world who could play in the NHL, keep up to the speed, play their position and be fine.  But to win in the NHL, you need those Datsyuks and Zetterbergs. Crosbys and Malkins. Ovechkins. 

And this game is about winning.

Would a single fan out there be mad to hear their squad traded away next year's fifth, sixth and seventh round picks for a guy who could play on the power play tomorrow?

Right now, the Phoenix Coyotes have hope in their lineup. They've got Kyle Turris, Peter Mueller, MIkkel Boedker, Viktor Tikhonov, Scottie Upshall and more.

The problem is that they don't have time to play the "future" game. They need to win now if they hope to equal the attendance of a high-school football game.

And who in professional sports has that time? This is a business. You gotta win today.  Make this year's team better!

There's no point in hanging on to long-term potential when the only short-term potential is loss, loss, loss.

This notion that it's okay to spend time "developing" while your team has no shot of making playoffs is defeatist. It's not even trying.

And if you're a GM in this situation, how safe do you think your job is?

"Well Jim, your winning percentage with us over four years is just above .300. Three of the five kids you brought in to develop would be shot and fed to the dogs if this were horse-racing. The other two are fine. Okay, we have two good players now. Tell us why you deserve your job back."

And you wouldn't.

Teams act like drafting and developing a player is a free way to make themselves better, but it's not free. It costs you a roster spot on a team that underachieved because you refused to trade potential for actual value.

Young players are like homes that have big potential to gain equity over a few years. But the uncertain housing market has not-so-subtly reminded us that potential occasionally goes unfulfilled.

So trade a few picks you haven't made yet. Use those picks and kids with "a long way to go" at your rookie camp as bargaining chips to buy something that's NHL-caliber today. You don't have time to lose. 

This is professional sports, cowboy. The only time to win is now.

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email this

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/hide comments

...

Another excellent writeup Justin.

Definitely easier said then done I'd had to say though!

I'm not sure there's a GM out there that wants to save the winning for the future rather then begin today!

Cole Roberts , September 21, 2009

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...

my thoughts to a tea. "Rebuilding" is the most heartbreaking word a die-hard fan can hear. Just ask fans of 90% of the teams in the NHL waiting for their sooty, charcoal, dirtpile teams to turn into sparkly stanley cup diamond rings.

SDC , September 21, 2009

• 
• +2
• 
• 

...

But if all the GMs went for today talent...where would tomorrow's talent come from? If all the NHL teams are just trading around the current crop of 1000 (or so) players who's gonna take that 7th round draft pick from you?

Folks (I don't know if you're included in that) say that you can't really know if you'll be good in the NHL until you're in the NHL; the minor leagues just not being as fast. If that's true than your system would only last as long as the players playing today last. That means (barring Detroit and their age-bubble) 5-7 years from now you got nothing but minor league players on the ice.

deirdrebeth , September 22, 2009

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...

Yup, you're totally right. Everyone can't do it. I'm just saying that's what I'd do, and what I'd want to see the GM for my team doing (if I, y'know, owned one).

Justin Bourne , September 22, 2009

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Write comment

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment