HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Edmonton Oilers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   Prospect Info: Nail Yakupov General Discussion Thread Part 3: ... If Not Nail Then Who? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1207671)

s7ark 06-13-2012 08:38 PM

Nail Yakupov General Discussion Thread Part 3: ... If Not Nail Then Who?
 
Title suggestions?

And here are some posts from the last thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by SK13 (Post 50885221)
I'm surprised there aren't more comments on Bob McKenzie's comments from Inside Hockey today.

Basically said he would strongly consider Schenn+5th for the 1st if he were Edmonton, but not if he were Toronto.

Bob is not a nobody, he's an intelligent and informed guy, and maybe a reality check on the value of that pick is needed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koto (Post 50885339)
Will take.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koto (Post 50885371)
Take Yakupov.

Quote:

Originally Posted by worraps (Post 50885393)
Bob McKenzie is an intelligent and informed guy but that's insane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloned (Post 50885405)
No team is going to offer that much for Yakupov.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CupofOil (Post 50885555)
Yes, a big reality check is needed. For example, look at the ridiculous proposal in the post above yours.
I'm not saying that Schenn + 5th is a good deal for the Oilers but it's pretty much in the ballpark of what teams will offer for the pick IMO. I even think that Gardiner + 5th is completely unrealistic.

It seems that some Oiler fans and pretty much the rest of the hockey universe have different views in regards to the value of the pick. I just don't see a team offering up a kings ransom to move up to #1, Yakupov is very good but he's not a generational talent, he plays probably the least important position (depending on team needs of course) and whether some like to believe it or not, him being Russian plays a factor so i don't see any of these ridiculous overpayments being offered to Tambellini.

The bottom line is the Oilers just need to draft Yakupov since i don't see them getting great value for the pick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koto (Post 50885711)
This.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gritzky98 (Post 50885783)
Luke Schenn + 5th is not enough, i might do it if Grigorenko was there at 5 tho and they added Gardiner

Quote:

Originally Posted by oilfaninvan (Post 50886287)
That is classic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krut (Post 50886531)
As reliable and well respected as Bob is (and deservedly so), I have noticed a touch of Leaf homerism come from him once in a blue moon. A few years ago he picked Viktor Stalberg for rookie of the year when he was still a leaf (just an example off the top of my head). I think that this can be put into the homerism category.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wheatking (Post 50886643)
Gregor was saying Oilers fans would be crazy not to like Schenn and the 5th overall if Galchenyuk was available. First, I think Gregor LOVES Galchenyuk. He seems to have more faith in most that he could possibly go 1st overall if it wasn't for the injury. Second, I definitely think it would be worth considering but if Galchenyuk becomes nothing more than a 65 point player(still good) and Schenn becomes a 2nd pairing Dman(very likely)....while Yakupov is scoring 45+ goals in Toronto, that's a terrible deal.

Unless it's a guy like Weber coming the other way, Yakupov is not the guy you trade to help with the team's depth. He could potentially be our best player.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmi Jenkins (Post 50886789)
I think the biggest problem with the idea of "oh that's good value, and there's a good player there, go for it" in terms of trading the pick, it fails to show a TRUE picture of the difference in player quality when you go from #1 to 3, 4, 5, etc.

Just because, like every ****ing year, "this pick won't be as good as those other picks before" doesn't make it true and doesn't make the gap between #1 and NOT #1 any more obvious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frag2 (Post 50888069)
I see what you caught there:naughty:

I think what BobMac is saying what the average value would mean but as Tambo said, needs to be knock your socks off and that definitely isn't knock your socks off. Even Gardiner+5th isn't knock your socks off-might be ok value wise but that's not what Tambo is looking for.

Still also think Eastern media is trying to pressure the organization into overthinking and caving into trading the pick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oilphan (Post 50888599)
Lots of smoke out there. I would put a lot of $ on us trading down. :(


hockeyaddict101 06-13-2012 08:41 PM

Way too much smoke out there. Now even Jim Matheson is tweeting about trading down. Better be a really good trade is all I have to say.

s7ark 06-13-2012 08:43 PM

Bob MacKenzie is as respected as it gets, but I sure hope he's wrong on the 1st pick's value. I would hate it if we traded Yakupov away for that little. Add that to all the rumours of us trading down and things are starting to get bleak. :( Hopefully this is all a smokescreen and we just take Nail.

ExOilerFan 06-13-2012 08:45 PM

Don't worry guys. We will pick Nail #MacT

smokersarejokers 06-13-2012 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugie Boy (Post 50888889)
Don't worry guys. We will pick Nail #MacT

Ummm. Are you saying that you talked to MacT, and he say that they're taking Yakupov?

I don't know how the Twitter hashtag thing works.

ExOilerFan 06-13-2012 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smokersarejokers (Post 50888959)
Ummm. Are you saying that you talked to MacT, and he say that they're taking Yakupov?

I don't know how the Twitter hashtag thing works.

Mactavish says that you pick BPA at the draft.

smokersarejokers 06-13-2012 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugie Boy (Post 50889025)
Mactavish says that you pick BPA at the draft.

Oh, I got ya.

I think that a lot of us are worried that Lowe, Tambellini, and Stu think that Murray is the BPA.

Vdhawan89 06-13-2012 08:53 PM

Im starting to get scared that we wont take Nail...

syz 06-13-2012 08:53 PM

Craig Button has a thing on TSN.ca where he actually sounds smart.

s7ark 06-13-2012 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugie Boy (Post 50889025)
Mactavish says that you pick BPA at the draft.

He clarified that as the best guy for the next 15 years. They very well could think that is Murray, or someone else other than Yak.

ExOilerFan 06-13-2012 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smokersarejokers (Post 50889121)
Oh, I got ya.

I think that a lot of us are worried that Lowe, Tambellini, and Stu think that Murray is the BPA.

Didn't they say that 29 out of 30 scouts thought that Yakupov was the BPA? I'm positive that Stu has Yakupov at #1. Lowe and Tambellini are the ones that I worry about

oiLowe 06-13-2012 08:56 PM

For what it's worth, I golfed with one of the former EIG members who also still has a box with the oilers and is very much part of the "connected" community in Edmonton and he claimed Yakupov IS the consensus pick among the higher ups.

He did also say however, that he had no info about what trades may or may not have been talked about with regards to moving the pick.

smokersarejokers 06-13-2012 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syz (Post 50889163)
Craig Button has a thing on TSN.ca where he actually sounds smart.

hahaha. I saw that too, and I was thinking the same thing!

oilersfan11 06-13-2012 08:58 PM

If only the NHL draft was on June 14, and not June 22.I have had enough of all this talk about Murray over Yakupov and I think my heart has too!.:laugh:

Moonlapse Vertigo 06-13-2012 08:59 PM

The eastern hockey media and "experts" want the Oilers to stay at the bottom of the standings for years to come. I've never seen such bitter vitriol in my life. If the Leafs or Canadiens were picking first overall for the third straight year do you think we'd be reading about how they have to trade the number one selection? Of course not. It's complete nonsense.

Dear hockey world: **** you.

Signed,

An increasingly jaded hockey fan

Johnny McBravo 06-13-2012 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oiLowe (Post 50889267)
For what it's worth, I golfed with one of the former EIG members who also still has a box with the oilers and is very much part of the "connected" community in Edmonton and he claimed Yakupov IS the consensus pick among the higher ups.

He did also say however, that he had no info about what trades may or may not have been talked about with regards to moving the pick.

that's good to hear.

Moonlapse Vertigo 06-13-2012 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syz (Post 50889163)
Craig Button has a thing on TSN.ca where he actually sounds smart.

While it looks smart on the surface if you asked him about the Oilers' situation he'd tell you that they're going to be selecting in the top five in the draft for a further four or five years.

Bryanbryoil 06-13-2012 09:03 PM

Like I said in another thread, if we trade down are we sure that we get the player that we want? Especially if we trade all the way down to #5 or something. If we trade down and we don't even get the guy that we covet that would be a screw up of epic proportions.

oilers24 06-13-2012 09:04 PM

Im not following the logic of the fact we have so much offence we don't need any more. If you look at 2 of our main offensive threats in Ales Hemsky and Taylor Hall both players have had reconstructive shoulder surgery. I have been a former player myself at the CIS level and had the same surgery as Hemsky and Hall and to be honest that surgery pretty much ended my hockey career. What if Hall and Hemsky's shoulders' go our offence looks extremely bleak, when you minus those guys out of our offense.

As far as Matheson goes all one has to do is read his tweets if he is a Hall of Fame writer he sure has terrible grammer "Just my soap box" But i cannot fathom his logic that we trade a potential 35-45 goal guy for depth? why would we not move Paarjavii, Gagner, etc for depth?

I don't understand the logic of adding pieces, and extra draft picks via trading Yakupov. I remember when the Oilers traded Andrew Coglanio to Anaheim Tambo stated that they had the options of 2nd rd picks and they chose to take the 2013 2nd due to the fact they have had a lot of prospects coming through the draft in recent year. If that is in fact the case why would we add further draft picks in this years draft.

The only trade i would consider with the leafs is #1 for Gardiner Brad Ross and #5. Lowetide keeps bringing up on his site lets trade Yakupov for #5 and Kulemin, seriously man lets be real.

The Oilers are 4 players from becoming a powerhouse in the western conference
1. Elite offensive talent - Nail Yakupov
2. puck moving d man lets hope Schultz signs here, however in reality we have some nice prospects in the system - however, Ganger, Paarjavii, Oark, Ana 2nd, Peckham etc i feel is a nice package to get a quality d man.
3. another D man who can add a bit of bite
4. Size in the top 6 with hope at centre.

All i know is that if we pass up on Nail Yakupov for anything less they a massive package we deserve to be an un successful franchise.

Seachd 06-13-2012 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syz (Post 50889163)
Craig Button has a thing on TSN.ca where he actually sounds smart.

He was absolutely right.

"We need defense" is not a reason to lean a certain direction in this draft.

oilersfan11 06-13-2012 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryanbryoil (Post 50889571)
Like I said in another thread, if we trade down are we sure that we get the player that we want? Especially if we trade all the way down to #5 or something. If we trade down and we don't even get the guy that we covet that would be a screw up of epic proportions.

If we pick someone who isn't Yakupov they might even get booed out of town .

oilers24 06-13-2012 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seachd (Post 50889729)
He was absolutely right.

"We need defense" is not a reason to lean a certain direction in this draft.

Can someone post the link to his article?

McDeepika 06-13-2012 09:14 PM

Why does it have to be a trade down?

I am not hearing any potential deals that actually involve good young roster players. If Tambelleni is stupid enough to trade the pick, at least trade it for players that can contribute now. There is no way I am putting up with another bottom 5 finish.

Bryanbryoil 06-13-2012 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oilers24 (Post 50889595)
Im not following the logic of the fact we have so much offence we don't need any more. If you look at 2 of our main offensive threats in Ales Hemsky and Taylor Hall both players have had reconstructive shoulder surgery. I have been a former player myself at the CIS level and had the same surgery as Hemsky and Hall and to be honest that surgery pretty much ended my hockey career. What if Hall and Hemsky's shoulders' go our offence looks extremely bleak, when you minus those guys out of our offense.

As far as Matheson goes all one has to do is read his tweets if he is a Hall of Fame writer he sure has terrible grammer "Just my soap box" But i cannot fathom his logic that we trade a potential 35-45 goal guy for depth? why would we not move Paarjavii, Gagner, etc for depth?

I don't understand the logic of adding pieces, and extra draft picks via trading Yakupov. I remember when the Oilers traded Andrew Coglanio to Anaheim Tambo stated that they had the options of 2nd rd picks and they chose to take the 2013 2nd due to the fact they have had a lot of prospects coming through the draft in recent year. If that is in fact the case why would we add further draft picks in this years draft.

The only trade i would consider with the leafs is #1 for Gardiner Brad Ross and #5. Lowetide keeps bringing up on his site lets trade Yakupov for #5 and Kulemin, seriously man lets be real.

The Oilers are 4 players from becoming a powerhouse in the western conference
1. Elite offensive talent - Nail Yakupov
2. puck moving d man lets hope Schultz signs here, however in reality we have some nice prospects in the system - however, Ganger, Paarjavii, Oark, Ana 2nd, Peckham etc i feel is a nice package to get a quality d man.
3. another D man who can add a bit of bite
4. Size in the top 6 with hope at centre.

All i know is that if we pass up on Nail Yakupov for anything less they a massive package we deserve to be an un successful franchise.

Not to mention if our drafting outside of the high lottery hasn't provided us with depth to move in trade then why would we trust our scouting staff to trade down and draft a non consensus 1st overall pick? Stu and co should've given us a ton of trade bait, we're talking 4 2nd rounder in the last 2 years, Klefbom, 3rd rounders, etc. You NEVER trade elite talent for depth, if we trade down and take a D that D had damn well better be a Doughty level talent, no exceptions to the rule. My worry is that management is overrating guys like Gagner and Paajarvi and thinking that with an improved defense that these guys will suddenly break out. You don't bank on these guys, you bank of guys like Nail to carry the mail. Ideally we walk out of the draft with Nail and a solid D prospect that we acquire with another 1st round pick then sign Schultz. Look to add a veteran D via UFA and we are looking good going forward IMO.

jebs 06-13-2012 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7ark (Post 50889187)
He clarified that as the best guy for the next 15 years. They very well could think that is Murray, or someone else other than Yak.

Yup.

http://oilersnation.com/2012/6/13/mixed-bag

Quote:

"I think you want the best player, but that doesn't necessarily mean the best player in the next couple years, but the best players 10-15 years down the road. And by franchise players, I mean players that make your organization competitive for 15 years. Players like Sakic and Forsberg in Colorado. They did everything well. They were great leaders, they played well on both sides of the puck, they were very good offensively, physically solid and very good offensively. Detroit had four franchise players; Yzerman, Lidstrom, Datsyuk and Zetterberg who were their best examples of what players need to do to be successful. New Jersey had Brodeur, Scott Stevens and Patrick Elias. Ray Bourque made Boston competitive for 17 years, and those are the types of players you don't want to overlook in this draft by just immediately taking the guy who is great now. It is a deeper decision that just who is the best player at that (now) time."


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.