A second look at how the Columbus Blue Jackets evaluate draft eligible prospects.

A few days ago an article was posted by fellow Dobber columnist Glen Hoos about fantasy league trophies, it was titled "And the winner is". Before you think I am going to criticize it, I in fact like it. My league has several. By far the most enjoyable and entertaining are the ones that celebrate the very good or the very bad.

The ones that celebrate the very good are obvious but one of the bad ones is a bit quirky. The Spare Change award, a coffee container with a slot notched out of the lid to accept donations, goes to the owner who was the closest to winning a prize without actually winning one. Owners are encouraged to drop some spare change or Canadian Tire money in it as a token gift for the owner who tried so hard but ended up getting the same as the guy who came in last… nothing.

So where am I going with all this cause I could have just replied to his article? Please be patient with me for a little bit longer.

Also on the same day and article was published by Rob Mixer of BlueJackets.com called "Analytics, 'value chart' bring new dynamic to Jackets' draft strategy".

The article describes how the Blue Jackets created a draft pick chart trying to evaluate what each pick was actually worth. Their director of hockey administration, Josh Flynn, describes it.

"The system is designed to show what picks are intrinsically worth, and helps us weigh draft positions against each other in terms of value. The chart is based on what we think each pick will produce, and it's backed up by a dozen years of information."

He goes on to explain, "What I ended up doing was grading the players based on what they became at their peak, and tweaked it based on how long they sustained that level of play."

The article gives an example of a theoretical trade offer where the Jacket's would trade down from the 64^th spot to the 71^st and 105^th if the chart deemed it historically worthy.

I think it is good that tried to quantify the value of the pick and when they make pick(s) for pick(s) deals this makes some sense. Are they giving up too much or are they getting enough back?

Where I differ with them is the evaluation part.

Flynn says, "Basically, if pick 65 in 2006 produces a player who never played an NHL game, that pick is going to get a zero. On the flip side, you can figure out that the No. 1 overall pick is generally going to get higher rankings on the value chart because it has always produced an NHL player."

They are, however, relying on the evaluations of other team's and their development of those same picks. As always in cases like this people look to the Detroit Red Wings and see that they have done an excellent job in this regard. Late round picks like Henrik Zetterberg (210^th in 1999) and Pavel Datsyuk (171^st in 1998) come immediately to mind. You can add Valtteri Filppula (95^th in 2002) and now Gustav Nyquist (121^st in 2008).

My point being is, would Columbus have taken these guys in those same draft positions and even if they did would they have developed into the players that they are now? You could argue that Datsyuk and Zetterberg would probably be the same but could you argue that Filppula and Nyquist would also be? Would Columbus have nurtured their development or would those players have been rushed into the league and possibly be hampered because of it?

Now if the Jacket's decided to use their own pre-draft rankings they take one factor out.

So instead of saying that Datsyuk was the 171^st pick, maybe he was the 200^th player on their own list, they now can judge how their own projections turned out. They are still left with the fact that the players are not developed by and playing for Columbus. Big caveat here, Columbus didn't start playing until the 2000-01 season, so they obviously could not partake in earlier NHL drafts but the train of thought is still the same.

For example, in the 2008 draft Columbus took Steven Delisle at 107^th and Drew Olsen at 118^th. Nyquist was taken 121^st. Columbus followed up by taking Matt Calvert at the 127^th pick. It would be nice to know where Columbus ranked Nyquist because neither Delisle nor Olsen has played a game for them at the NHL level. That is the bigger factor. Is it not?

Should they not look into why their scouting staff did not see the value of players like Nyquist and try to improve on it?

Should they not look to see how they differ in ways they develop their picks as compared to organizations like the Red Wings and try to copy that system instead?

It is nice to try and establish a sense of what draft picks are worth but if your own drafting and development of players is not exceptional then does it matter?

I like what John Davidson has begun in Columbus and if this draft pick evaluation chart is just one step of many to help make them become an elite level team then I will take it with a grain of salt.

For now though, I drop my two cents into the Blue Jacket's "Spare Change" coffee container. They could use the money to purchase Dobber's 2014 Prospect Report.