For all the talk about trading draft picks
View Single Post
05-24-2004, 10:12 PM
Join Date: May 2004
Originally Posted by
First, I'm glad to hear any news. Second, I'm glad to hear what I consider to be good news.
Some people on this board seem hell-bent to move up in the draft, even if it means trading all 5 second round picks to move up a dozen places in the first round. That may be exaggerating it just a little, but I'm glad to see that Ranger brass disagrees about the value of 2nd round prospects. I'm glad to see they think there will be real NHL prospects available after the top 20, which so many people seem to not understand.
We SHOULD inquire about moving up. If, let's say, we end up drafting Olesz at #6, and we have, say, Picard rated just below him, and Picard slips all the way into the late teens, we should be all over trying to trade up to get him. But trading up should be based on getting the particular prospect we want, and we should not overpay for the opportunity. If teams want too much, politely decline and keep what you have.
Unlike other types of trades you can make, draft-day trades of picks can almost always be broken down into winners and losers. I can't imagine a situation where you'd look at a trade of picks and say, "both teams won". The prospects you draft won't be NHL regulars for a couple years, most likely, so you can't draft based on immediate roster needs. You draft based on value. Value can be had either by paying a bargain price to move up or by getting a premium to move down. You don't get value by paying a king's ransom to move up. You lose value.
Anyway, I have one question. How does our cache of second round picks insulate us from the effects of a lockout? I don't see the connection.
I agree, but on the other hand we do need a top line talent, because we have plenty of depth. So if there is a chance to move up and grab a player that our scouts feel can be a top line player, then we should probably take a chance.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Prucha73