HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Montreal Canadiens (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   What would it take? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=257500)

Hab at it 06-05-2006 09:49 AM

What would it take?
 
What do you guys think it would take to move up to the 6-9 draft spot? In those spots the expected picks according to ISS rankings are :

6. Mueller, Peter C 6.02 200 L
7. Sheppard, James LW 6.02 201 L
8. Frolik, Michael RW 6.01 187 R
9. Brassard, Derick C 6.00 174 R

I would much prefer to move up a few spots and get a good player than gamble on someone ISS picks as 27 overall in Giroux, if we take all 5'11 169lbs of him at #16 I'll be very disappointed.

Blind Gardien 06-05-2006 10:04 AM

Whatever it would take, I think it would be far far too much. Given that there is at least some chance that Frolik or Sheppard could even fall to #16. It just wouldn't be worth it. I don't like the idea of moving up. Especially if it ends up costing you your 2nd round pick, which frequently is part of the price. I'd rather keep #16 and #50. This year, the guy you get at #16 could be as good as the guy at #9, if a few surprises happen in the draft order (which usually do). The guy you get at #50 could even be as good as the guy you get at #16 (look at Latendresse last year, look at all those US d-men available this year). Trading up isn't something I'd pursue very seriously, and I doubt very much the Habs would either. :dunno:

Hab at it 06-05-2006 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blind Gardien
Whatever it would take, I think it would be far far too much. Given that there is at least some chance that Frolik or Sheppard could even fall to #16. It just wouldn't be worth it. I don't like the idea of moving up. Especially if it ends up costing you your 2nd round pick, which frequently is part of the price. I'd rather keep #16 and #50. This year, the guy you get at #16 could be as good as the guy at #9, if a few surprises happen in the draft order (which usually do). The guy you get at #50 could even be as good as the guy you get at #16 (look at Latendresse last year, look at all those US d-men available this year). Trading up isn't something I'd pursue very seriously, and I doubt very much the Habs would either. :dunno:

Did we swap/trade 2nd rounders with someone? Shouldn't we be picking 16, 46...?

Whitesnake 06-05-2006 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hab at it
What do you guys think it would take to move up to the 6-9 draft spot? In those spots the expected picks according to ISS rankings are :

6. Mueller, Peter C 6.02 200 L
7. Sheppard, James LW 6.02 201 L
8. Frolik, Michael RW 6.01 187 R
9. Brassard, Derick C 6.00 174 R

I would much prefer to move up a few spots and get a good player than gamble on someone ISS picks as 27 overall in Giroux, if we take all 5'11 169lbs of him at #16 I'll be very disappointed.

If there's one player I'm not sold on, but I could definately be wrong about him is Mueller. I've seen him a couple of times and I'm sure I got his most average games 'cause I wasn't impressed. As far as Brassard, pretty sure he'll be going before 9 and Sheppard and Frolik are potentially candidates for falling to our pick, don't think so with Sheppard though but could happen....The only thing we would need is Little still being available for the Leafs, Helenius or Bernier being picked before us probably by Tampa and Wishart being picked before as well. That's the best scenario for us to either have the choice between Sheppard, Stewart and Frolik. And my choice will definately be Sheppard.

Whitesnake 06-05-2006 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hab at it
Did we swap/trade 2nd rounders with someone? Shouldn't we be picking 16, 46...?

There's 4 conditional picks from teams that didn't signed their 1st rounders in the previous years. Totally stupid rule, but we then fall down to 50.....

Hab at it 06-05-2006 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitesnake
There's 4 conditional picks from teams that didn't signed their 1st rounders in the previous years. Totally stupid rule, but we then fall down to 50.....

Thanks, I thought that compensatory picks were a thing of the past in the new CBA. Is this one of the grandfathering effects?

Habber 06-05-2006 11:09 AM

Agree with BG that it wouldn't be worth it move up to 6-9.

If we were to move up, I'd rather pay a little more and get into 1-4 to try and nab Johnson/Staal/Toews. But I would imagine you'd have to overpay to do that.

Probably a good year to just stay put and let the scouting staff earn their money.

Taylorzzz 06-05-2006 11:16 AM

Expect the unexpected! :teach:

Talent Analyst 06-05-2006 03:09 PM

Sheppard or Brassard , depend of what type of player Gainey want ;)

loadie 06-05-2006 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Habber
Agree with BG that it wouldn't be worth it move up to 6-9.

If we were to move up, I'd rather pay a little more and get into 1-4 to try and nab Johnson/Staal/Toews. But I would imagine you'd have to overpay to do that.

Probably a good year to just stay put and let the scouting staff earn their money.

I agree with that. No need to pay alot to move up, if there's a possibility of some good talent falling into our laps.

Medicine Twin 06-05-2006 04:18 PM

I am all for moving up in the draft to get Mueller or Little.

Is it worth Perezhogin... +?

loadie 06-05-2006 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Medicine Twin
I am all for moving up in the draft to get Mueller or Little.

Is it worth Perezhogin... +?

I don't think it is. We have a player that we've spent a few years watching develop into an NHL player, and I wouldn't be willing to trade it away for someone that may not make the big show. Having to add something in addition to Perez is a non starter for me. Cheers.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.