From 98-17 the 11OA pick has produced 7 guys who've played <100 NHL games another 4<200or a total of 55% is ostlund going to be as good as Cirelli? I doubt it , however I know he won't this year so easy he'll mo

I like that additions, but the lines are questionable. Cirelli should be 3C which drops Drury to 4C and Krebs to the press box while Skinner, a 24-goal scorer during an off season, gets back on the ice where he belongs.

By far the most irrelevant stat ive ever seen

Actually it shows how underwhelming the value actually is, but critical analysis seems sometimes you're completely incapable of.

Critical analysis of that stat line shows that it provides literally nothing of value, there are no comparables to the 55% number, not only that the insane amount of variables make it completely useless even with context. Its a nothing stat for people with nothing to say to use to complain.

Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it .So, the fact that even if you look at the players who played more than 200 games most aren't as good as Cirelli and the player won't help the team for at least 3 years isn't a factor CLUELESS!!!;!!!

Tell me you don't understand how stats work without telling me you don't understand how stats work.

I understand completely you're the clueless one

Names picked at 11 that are equal or better than Cirelli: Jarome Iginla, Jeff Carter, Anze Kopitar, Mike Sillinger, Brian Rolston, Filip Forsberg, Kevin Fiala, Brendan Witt, Jeff Friesen, Ryan Ellis, Lawson Crouse, Yaroslav Askarov. Completely irrelevant stat still, but you like those
Others over 100 games: Trevor Kidd, Keith Ballard both impactful but not easily comparable to Cirelli, Oliver Wahlstrom, Gabriel Vilardi, Conor Geekie all way to young to compare, Oleg Saprykin, Jonathan Bernier, Jack Campbell, Brandon Sutter, Jason Ward, Fredrik Sjostrom, Logan Brown
So now were at 27 of 35 with added context, which is 77%, then we can look at why the other 8 failed like Dan Focht who the GM admitted was over valued due to his size, or Kyle Beach who we now know his career was derailed by abuse, not his fault. We can then add in 1 full lock out and 2 half season lock outs that completely altered the way the game has been played along with advancements in scouting and athletic development.
Now adding more context that makes the stat even more irrelevant. You cant judge what a player will become by the players that were picked in the position before them, thats insane. Theyre individuals who are influenced and developed by multiple other individuals, there are way to many varibles to rely on something as silly as "55% of players over this specific time period i cherry picked played over 100 games"
And if Tampa loses Stamkos to cap it doesnt matter if Ostland impacts the team this year or not, but hes also certainly not 3 years away. Hes been playing in a pro league. Also adding CLUELESS in all caps makes you look like an ignorant boomer with nothing to say

See above

You're crazy really didn't know Iginla was drafted between 1998-2017 READING IS FUNDAMENTAL CLEARLY AN ISSUE FOR YOU. I stated from 1997-2017 so using Sillinger 1989,Rolston 1991, Witt1993, Friessen1994, Iginla1996 all fall outside and don't change the percentages so,pull your head out of your rectum and learn to properly comprehend what you read. Sillinger wasn't as good as Cirelli either. Crouse isn't better. So in the 20 year period your down to Kopitar and Ellis as I said originally DUH

As stated, if you read: there are way to many varibles to rely on something as silly as "55% of players over this specific time period i cherry picked played over 100 games"

Also "READING IS FUNDAMENTAL CLEARLY AN ISSUE FOR YOU." grammar seems to be your issue

No I picked the 20 year period where everyone drafted should be in the NHL and being productive . And Sillinger an Friesen don't come close to Cirelli .

Cherry picked. Who from the 1997 draft is currently in the NHL? You also have no idea who Sillinger and Friesen are

I know what you are but what am I?

It's cherry picked data, a small sample size, and the 11th pick in the draft is comparable to at least the 10th and 12th picks (maybe further). Additionally, at the bare minimum it's correlation and not causation because there are dozens of other factors such as team, GM, Development process, Injury, ECT... This is why the draft pick success models evaluate a range of picks 1-5, 6-15, and 16-32 because the variants are to broad to narrow to a single pick location over an arbitrary 20 year period.

7 years before you were born?

Agreed, but will Tampa trade him? Seems unlikely

And he’ll be tough for us to fit moving forward as the Sabres need to pay Byram, Quinn & Peterka after next season
Even if they all get bridge deals (unlikely imo), it’s still tough to fit everyone

All points taken.

That's why I was enamored with a trade for Ross Colton. A solid, bona fide 3C with three years left on his deal at $4M per. It may have been a possibility a month ago but with the Nichushkin situation, not so sure they'd trade Colton now.

As for those three youngins, right now I see Peterka as the one with a real shot at a long-term deal.

Yeah, Colton would make a lot of sense at 3C

As for the contracts, Adams seems to want to lock young “core” guys up long term
So if these guys have good seasons next year, it’ll be really interesting to see if they can bridge anyone