HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Proposal: leafs picks for NYR picks (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=922632)

Burke needs me 06-07-2011 03:05 PM

leafs picks for NYR picks
 
leafs 29th overall,
leafs 39th overall
leafs 5th rounder 129

to NYR for #15 and the 4th rounder

keeping in mind that a player at 15 may end up no better than a player at 29 or 30.


hopefully BBurke doesn't offer 25 and 39 for 15, b/c i think that is just too much.

but you know that Slats and BB have been chatting.... that's a certainty!!

JeffMangum 06-07-2011 03:06 PM

Make it #25 and #39, and I'd do it. I've been advocating for the Rangers to move down and add depth since the Erixon trade.

NYR Sting 06-07-2011 03:08 PM

Not bad. Change our 4th to our 6th, or make the 29th the 25th, and it's a deal

MSG the place to be* 06-07-2011 03:11 PM

Definitely in favor.

Its funny when people say we need quality and not quantity. When your talking about the 15th, 25th, 29th picks etc., your talking about the same quality guys. Id rather have more than fewer.

JeffMangum 06-07-2011 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSG the place to be (Post 33482675)
Definitely in favor.

Its funny when people say we need quality and not quantity. When your talking about the 15th, 25th, 29th picks etc., your talking about the same quality guys. Id rather have more than fewer.

That applies more so in a **** draft such as this. The picks from around 10-40 are nearly interchangeable.

GAGLine 06-07-2011 03:12 PM

No thanks, whether it's 25 or 29.

Jumbo* 06-07-2011 03:17 PM

Pass. Maybe a player that was rated in the top ten will fall to us at 15.

GAGLine 06-07-2011 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Boyle (Post 33482703)
That applies more so in a **** draft such as this. The picks from around 10-40 are nearly interchangeable.

Except that in practice, it won't work out that way. There will be some players between 10-40 that end up being very good. Better to have the 15th pick and have our choice, as well as still having the option to move up if someone we really like slides.

New York RKY 06-07-2011 03:24 PM

No thanks.

We need to grab a good forward available at 15.

I would have to reconsider this after we see how the first 14 picks shake out though.

t3hg00se 06-07-2011 03:49 PM

This is the kind of trade you need to wait until draft day to decide on.

Ih8theislanders 06-07-2011 03:53 PM

Depends who's on the board. If Armia/Mcneil/Puempel are gone I'd probably do it.

JimmyStart* 06-07-2011 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSG the place to be (Post 33482675)
Definitely in favor.

Its funny when people say we need quality and not quantity. When your talking about the 15th, 25th, 29th picks etc., your talking about the same quality guys. Id rather have more than fewer.

You're really not though. There may not be quite as much of a downgrade this year but you scouting dept needs to get the right guy within the top 15 and if they cant do it in the top 15 they aren't going to do it except maybe by luck at the end of round 1 into rounds 2 an beyond. I personally am intrigued by quite a few guys who will fall to us at 15. Tons of top 10 and even top 5 picks don't work out so should teams start trading their 1st round picks for 2-4 2nd rounders in future drafts that way they have 3 or 4 2nd rounders and no 1st rounders?

For instance trade our 2012 1st for 3 2nd's right now then our 2013 first for 2 or 3 2nds then our 2014 1st, etc so every year we've got multiple 2nd's since there isn't much dropoff anyway. Based on this idea that mid-late firsts are the same as top 40 this would be wat every team is doing.

n8 06-07-2011 05:22 PM

I'll wait to see who is still on the board at 15 before I trade it.

Lion Hound 06-07-2011 05:35 PM

How about the 15th plus Wojtek Wolski.

In exchange for

25th, 39th, plus 2nd rounder in 2012?

ecemleafs 06-07-2011 05:37 PM

only if its the 25th instead of the 29th. then id probably take grimaldi if hes available at 25.

Vitto79 06-07-2011 05:45 PM

if its their earlier 1st, 2nd and late pick like a 6th for our 1st I dont mind it.

beastly115 06-07-2011 06:12 PM

Make the Leafs pick 25 and change the 2nd rounder to Bos 2nd in 2012 and I do it.

Bird Law 06-07-2011 06:20 PM

There is a big drop off at 8, but a massive drop off at about 20 (maybe as early as 16 or 17) or so. big time pass.

vipernsx 06-07-2011 06:21 PM

Nope, keep the 15th, it's a good spot to be we can work with a Del Zotto a Kreider or a Staal. In a poor draft we don't need any more Antoine Lafleurs.

That Stepan Guy 06-07-2011 06:24 PM

No thanks.

Miamipuck 06-07-2011 06:36 PM

No thank you, it is proven by GM's that draft well, you move up in weak drafts not move back and get more picks......

It is a lot smarter to target a few difference makers or players high on your board.

If this draft was deep, than moving back and acquiring more picks is the smarter move.

Taking into context what the Rangers have already done (picking up an arguable top 10 player), the right move is to stay at 15 or move up a few spots, not move back. I think moving back for more picks is monumentally stupid in a so called weak draft.

Beacon 06-07-2011 06:38 PM

Close, but not cigar. How about #25 and #29 for #15 and the fourth?

I might consider #25 and #39 so long as you are the ones giving us a fourth instead of the other way around.

So it would be #1 for #1, #2 and #4. Deal?

Beacon 06-07-2011 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miamipuck (Post 33487212)
No thank you, it is proven by GM's that draft well, you move up in weak drafts not move back and get more picks.

When and where was this proven?

Miamipuck 06-07-2011 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerEsq (Post 33487308)
When and where was this proven?

Huh? really my evidence is more football based but I can give multiple examples.

How can you use logic and not see that is the smart move.

Bird Law 06-07-2011 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerEsq (Post 33487308)
When and where was this proven?

It's not proven, but is a valid thought process.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:19 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.