HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Carolina Hurricanes (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Proposal: The #7 overall (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=782778)

untouchable21 06-03-2010 10:38 AM

The #7 overall
 
Hey. Coyotes fan here. Just dropping by to see if any of you Caniacs would have any interest in trading down to #13 at the draft. Here is my proposal from the Coyotes ....

To Carolina - #13 and #22

To Phoenix - #7, #37 and #46

My reasoning for a move like this on the Phoenix part is to ensure they get the opportunity to draft Jeff Skinner. I fear that someone selecting between #8 - #12 will take him. Perhaps I'm rating him too highly and he will still be there at #13, but I really want that guarantee. He is exactly what Phoenix needs.

I guess the GM's will be doing their due diligence on the draft floor and they will explore all options if they feel their player will not be there at their pick.

Is this a fair proposal? Anyone feel Skinner will still be available at #13?

All your input is appreciated. Thanks.

dogbazinho 06-03-2010 10:52 AM

I don't see why we'd need to throw in the 46th pick. Moving up 6 spots that early in the draft would be worth at least as much as 15 in the late first early second IMO. I assume that any team that wants to move into the top ten will have to overpay some to do so.

NobodysFaulkButMine 06-03-2010 10:59 AM

Well, I don't imagine JR trading down. He's already made it clear that he feels the #7 pick will get him an impact player, so unless one is coming back, I'm doubtful he moves down. The only reason I can see him moving down would be if he has Granlund high in our books, but even then, the 7th spot is a reasonable spot to draft him, but he may not be there at the 13th.

We need high end prospects, not prospect depth, so if anything, we'll be looking to move up. Although our 2nd and 3rd round drafting has been good, I don't think it's good enough to justify giving up on what JR might feel to be an impact player in the top 10 spot.

Edit: And a top ten pick plus two 2nd rounders for 2 mid 1st round picks is an overpayment on our part.

faulkingdynamic 06-03-2010 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAShoesm (Post 26116200)

Edit: And a top ten pick plus two 2nd rounders for 2 mid 1st round picks is an overpayment on our part.

agreed.

Boom Boom Anton 06-03-2010 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by untouchable21 (Post 26115922)
Hey. Coyotes fan here. Just dropping by to see if any of you Caniacs would have any interest in trading down to #13 at the draft. Here is my proposal from the Coyotes ....

To Carolina - #13 and #22

To Phoenix - #7, #37 and #46

Given the plethora of 2nd round picks the Canes have, I personally would not trade down. I'd go with the best available player at #7. If JR was inclined to move down for some reason, I would think he would not want to lose picks in the process. If he did move down, I would hope it would be something more like:

To Carolina: 13 and 22
To Phoenix: 7 and 46 (or 37 if Phoenix didn't accept the 46).

I realize you might not want that trade..but to me the value of moving up to #7 in the first round is a lot more than moving up to #22 (from the 2nd round). Also, if Phoenix wants to move up, it is because you really have your heart set on a guy and in those cases you may have to overpay some to get him.

totalkev 06-03-2010 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncpuckhog (Post 26116525)
Given the plethora of 2nd round picks the Canes have, I personally would not trade down. I'd go with the best available player at #7. If JR was inclined to move down for some reason, I would think he would not want to lose picks in the process. If he did move down, I would hope it would be something more like:

To Carolina: 13 and 22
To Phoenix: 7 and 46 (or 37 if Phoenix didn't accept the 46).

What's becoming apparent, is that there is quite a bit of debate about BPA at that point, with opinions ranging from one of the big three d-men (if he slips), Tarasenko, Niederreiter, Forbert, Granlund and now, Skinner. Even if you consider those guys gone, that still leaves us around the Merrill, Watson, Connolly range PLUS we may have a shot at another guy like Etem or Pysyk.

I think it's a no-brainer. Two No. 1s for one in a deep draft with no clearcut cutoff. I'd do this deal for one second-rounder, but not two.

There's no way Gudbrandson (hardly a sure thing) is worth Watson plus Pysyk. Or even worst case, Etem plus Tinordi.

vwg* 06-03-2010 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by totalkev (Post 26117321)
What's becoming apparent, is that there is quite a bit of debate about BPA at that point, with opinions ranging from one of the big three d-men (if he slips), Tarasenko, Niederreiter, Forbert, Granlund and now, Skinner. Even if you consider those guys gone, that still leaves us around the Merrill, Watson, Connolly range PLUS we may have a shot at another guy like Etem or Pysyk.

I think it's a no-brainer. Two No. 1s for one in a deep draft with no clearcut cutoff. I'd do this deal for one second-rounder, but not two.

There's no way Gudbrandson (hardly a sure thing) is worth Watson plus Pysyk. Or even worst case, Etem plus Tinordi.

Watson and Etem could very well be gone by 13 and Pysyk and Tinordi have a chance to go top 20. I know you were just using them as examples of what could happen but I think we're fine staying at 7 rather than doing this deal though. The difference between the players picked at 22 and 37 isn't really that big, IMO. I think there are about 15-20 surefire 1st rounders, after that it's really a crapshoot.

totalkev 06-03-2010 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Stall (Post 26120069)
Watson and Etem could very well be gone by 13 and Pysyk and Tinordi have a chance to go top 20. I know you were just using them as examples of what could happen but I think we're fine staying at 7 rather than doing this deal though. The difference between the players picked at 22 and 37 isn't really that big, IMO. I think there are about 15-20 surefire 1st rounders, after that it's really a crapshoot.

Wouldn't we be better off with two of those "15-20 surefire 1st rounders" than one?

vwg* 06-03-2010 04:04 PM

There's no guarantee we get 2 of them, that's the point. I will concede there's a better chance we get 2 of them with #13 and #22 than with #7 and #37. These draft pick only trades really only happen on draft day as the draft goes along. I doubt either team would want to do this deal without seeing how things play out early in the 1st round.

ONO94 06-03-2010 04:37 PM

I can't see doing the 1st and the two highest seconds--but maybe the 1st, a mid second and the 3rd or a prospect. And if PHX flat out said they would take Skinner, I would make the trade. By taking Skinner--they are taking someone I don't see the Canes choosing anyway, meaning one of the players they do want has a chance to drop to them at 13. The only flaw in this logic would be if Gormley fell to #7--I don't think the Canes can afford to let his talent get away.

Boom Boom Anton 06-03-2010 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by totalkev (Post 26120707)
Wouldn't we be better off with two of those "15-20 surefire 1st rounders" than one?

It's a little bit of a guess either way. Is the chance of getting an impact player better by having 1 pick at #7 vs. 2 picks at 13 and 22?

For fun..let's take an historical look. I put in Bold what I think was definitely the better deal.

1997: #7 Paul Mara; #13 Dan Cleary; Nikos Telios. I guess a slight edge to Cleary..but not really any impact players.
1998: #7 Manny Malhotra, #13 Michael Henrich; #22 Simon Gagne
1999: #7 Kris Beech; #13 Jani Rita; #22 Maxime Oulette
2000: #7 Lars Jonsson; #13 Ron Hainsey; # 22 David Hale.
2001: #7 Mike Komisarek; #13 Alex Hemsky; #22 Jiri Novotny
2002: #7 Joffrey Lupul; #13 Alexander Semin; #22 Sean Bergenheim.
2003: #7 Ryan Suter; #13 Dustin Brown; #22 Marc-Antoine Pouliet
2004: #7 R. Olesz; #13 Drew Stafford; #22 Lukas Kasper. Slight edge to Stafford..but neither Stafford or Olesz are really shining.
2005: #7 Jack Skille; #13 Marek Zagrapan; #22 Matt Lashoff: Toss-up, but too early to tell. I think in the long run Skille will be the better choice.
2006: #7 Kyle Okposo; #13 Jiri Tlusty, #22 Claude Giroux: Toss-up again. I'd probably give the edge to Okposo personally..but I could be swayed. Tlusty to date is a non-entity.
2007: #7 Jakub Voracek; #13 Lars Eller; #22 Max Pacioretty.
2008/09..too early to tell

I see 4 cases where the #13 and 22 picks had clearly better results than the #7. I see 2 cases where it was the other way around...and 5 cases where it was close or a toss-up. What is interesting is that of these 33 picks, I would categorize 6 of them as real impact (or future impact) players: Gagne, Hemsky, Semin, Suter, Okposo, Giroux (and maybe Komisarek or Brown)

I realize that it all depends on the depth of the draft and how good a team is at evaluating and developing talent, but it is fun to look at. I think my conclusion is that there is no right or wrong in this. You might have a better chance with 2 picks in the first round of a deep draft, but maybe not. It is still a risk either way.

untouchable21 06-03-2010 10:21 PM

Thanks for the input guys.

Yeah it really all depends how it plays out on the floor that day. Skinner may very well fall to the coyotes at #13.

If it came down to it, I probably would trade the 2 first rounders for the #7 and just one 2nd from the Canes.

Maloney will do the right thing I'm sure. He's a Kitchener Ranger alumni so I know he will have been watching him closely.

bleedgreen 06-04-2010 03:15 AM

we'll keep our 7, and trade you a couple of picks for your 22...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:08 AM.

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.