Edmonton + Philadelphia/Dallas
View Single Post
11-14-2012, 07:09 PM
Join Date: Jul 2010
Dallas isn't trading Benn. We don't care if Yakupov is "better" or not, he's not being traded.
Originally Posted by
This, I don't know why but hairylikebear seems to only be capable to deal in absolutes.
Seems more like you two that have this problem.
I'm not saying all earlier draft picks are better than all later draft picks, nor am I saying Yakupov is automatically the better player because of where he was drafted. What I am saying is that, every first overall forward picked in recent memory has been a better player than Benn is now at his age, and are typically on another level than Benn offensively, so the odds are that Yakupov will likely better.
If you can't compare Benn to the likes of Kane, Stamkos, Tavares, etc., then Yakupov's no different (being a 1st overall pick
nothing at all). And Benn has yet to really break out as well, and it's looking like he'll end up being right around a PPG big, hard-hitting two-way center. Yakupov would have to put himself into an elite tier to be more valuable than Benn.
I'm sure Edmonton would at least give him a chance in the NHL before trading him for a player who is not on the level of your typical first overall pick forward.
From 2001-2009 (2010 and 2011 are too recent to judge), 5 of the 7 forwards picked 1st overall are
better than Benn IMO (Kovalchuk, Ovechkin, Crosby, Stamkos, Tavares), I don't think that's an unfair assessment. I'm giving Benn the benefit of the doubt here, saying that he could possibly end up better than Nash and Kane. I just think it would be crazy to give up a player who was drafted 1st overall, for a player who is typically not on the level of the forwards drafted that high in recent memory, without ever giving him the chance to prove himself in the NHL.
That's a fair assessment, but if you think Yakupov is likely to join those first 5 you listed off, you really need to sit down and see just how elite that group is (I'm not saying Yakupov can't get there, but it's highly unlikely). Edmonton fans always complain about how he was projected to be a 50-50-100 guy before Edmonton got the pick, and then it tempered down. Have you ever thought that no matter what happened, his hype would've gone down? 50-50-100 is a huge expectation for any player outside of a Crosby or a McDavid-esque prospect.
And I said it would be immature to provide a counter-example where a player picked later is worth more because I'm not saying drafted higher = automatically has more value, I'm saying that draft position is a factor in trade value. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. hairylikebear, why do only deal in absolutes? Why can you not just read what I post and take it at face value instead of trying to twist my words into something that I didn't say? It's really frustrating arguing with people like this, because they try to tell you what you're saying, and argue with that, rather than argue with what you actually say.
In 3 years, draft position will mean absolutely nothing to either player. 2009 for example. Scott Glennie was picked 8th overall, Tomas Vincour in the 5th round. If we didn't have both, I'd trade Glennie for Vincour in a heartbeat. Draft position really doesn't mean much once they hit the ice.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by LatvianTwist