HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

NYI #26, #31, Bruins #2 + for #11 - #17 overall

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-14-2009, 02:00 PM
  #26
drofnats
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
My question: if your team drafts 11-17, do you take such a package assuming Kulikov or Cowen or Moore is available?
If Kulikov, Cowen, Schroeder or Ellis is left on the board, I'm using the pick... otherwise I'd probably take you package of picks/prospects you're offering

drofnats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 02:25 PM
  #27
Darth Milbury
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Darth Milbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Searching for Kvasha
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 38,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satchmo View Post
2008 draft: LA traded Calgary's 1st rounder and Dallas' 1st rounder to the Ducks for the Oilers 1st rounder. The Kings traded two round first picks to move from 17th to 12th.
That isn't as bad as what he is proposing - 4 picks for one.

__________________
Man, do I ever miss Oleg Kvasha. If Oleg was here, everything would be OK.
Darth Milbury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 02:41 PM
  #28
IslesFTW
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,456
vCash: 500
I'd love to trade up to get Cowen(!!!), but more realistically, trading up to grab an Ellis would be great as well.

Come away with Tavares and Ellis, and I'll be the happiest I've been as an Isles fan in years.

IslesFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 02:42 PM
  #29
Darth Milbury
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Darth Milbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Searching for Kvasha
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 38,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IslesFTW View Post
I'd love to trade up to get Cowen(!!!), but more realistically, trading up to grab an Ellis would be great as well.

Come away with Tavares and Ellis, and I'll be the happiest I've been as an Isles fan in years.

I'm virtually certain the Isles won't go near Ellis - even if they have the chance.

Not that he isn't a great prospect, but we have similar guys in the system in Ness and Katic, and the current blueline is well-stocked with mobile midgets.

Darth Milbury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 02:46 PM
  #30
IslesFTW
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Milbury View Post
I'm virtually certain the Isles won't go near Ellis - even if they have the chance.

Not that he isn't a great prospect, but we have similar guys in the system in Ness and Katic, and the current blueline is well-stocked with mobile midgets.
Yes, but you can always get your "Brendan Witt" big defensemen via free agency. All of our big defensemen came via free agency. But you can never get a pure offensive defensemen in free agency, or at least not without grossly overpaying(Streit was a huge exception).

I for one want Ellis if Cowen isn't an option, and worry about adding the big physical defensemen either later in the draft, or later in the future.

IslesFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 02:47 PM
  #31
phlocky
Registered User
 
phlocky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,222
vCash: 500
I'll tell you what, rather than trade away 4 picks for just one, just trade the Flyers the Boston 2nd rnd pick in exchange for us telling you whom to pick with the 26th and 31st picks, We have a very good record of drafting late in the 1st rnd and I'm certain we can get you 2 top quality guys. Remember we found Mike Richards with the 24th pick in the 03 draft and Claude Giroux with the 22nd pick in a less than sellar 06 draft class.

phlocky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 03:04 PM
  #32
Acekicker123
Registered User
 
Acekicker123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Milbury View Post
3 2nd rounders is too much to pay to move up 10 spots or so in the first round.
2008 NHL Draft:

Anaheim trades 12th overall for 17th overall and 28th overall.

Anaheim trades 28th overall for 35th overall and 39th overall.

Basically, moving that 5 spot change was equivalent to two high 2nd rounders.

Granted, I think Anaheim made out well, but it will likely depend on where those GM's view the "talent drops" as being.

If there's a dropoff after the mid-teens, after all those quality defensemen the OP mentioned, then the price might end up being very high.

Acekicker123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 03:50 PM
  #33
Darth Milbury
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Darth Milbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Searching for Kvasha
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 38,762
vCash: 500
In all of those deals, you have one pick being traded for two.

The above poster was proposing a deal in which the Isles give up Four picks for one.

That is pretty much unprecedented.

Darth Milbury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 03:56 PM
  #34
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Milbury View Post
So, the Isles have done a crappy job of drafting on the second round. Does that make 2nd rounders worthless?
All I asked is how you counted to three. 26 + 31 + bruins 2nd = first to move up + 2 second rounders. Maybe I don't need the "+", which isn't worth a 2009 second rounder anyway (but we can agree to disagree on that). If that's what you mean, please say so.

To answer your question, I do think the history makes 2nd rounders less valuable. Maybe NYI's scouting has improved, and maybe it hasn't. We're only 3 drafts removed from Milbury, 2 from the Smith fiasco. There's not much reason to think it's changed.

I don't think the history makes mid-1sts less valuable. We can argue Nokelainen and O'Marra all day (both weak drafts), but I think that was more misfortune than anything else. But Nilsson was a screwup. I'm pretty sure Snow learned from that disaster.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 04:03 PM
  #35
Darth Milbury
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Darth Milbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Searching for Kvasha
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 38,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
All I asked is how you counted to three. 26 + 31 + bruins 2nd = first to move up + 2 second rounders. Maybe I don't need the "+", which isn't worth a 2009 second rounder anyway (but we can agree to disagree on that). If that's what you mean, please say so.
Sorry, I thought you were including the 37th aas well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
To answer your question, I do think the history makes 2nd rounders less valuable. Maybe NYI's scouting has improved, and maybe it hasn't. We're only 3 drafts removed from Milbury, 2 from the Smith fiasco. There's not much reason to think it's changed.

I don't think the history makes mid-1sts less valuable. We can argue Nokelainen and O'Marra all day (both weak drafts), but I think that was more misfortune than anything else. But Nilsson was a screwup. I'm pretty sure Snow learned from that disaster.

Cheers,

Dan-o
Here, I find you reasoning to be a little strained - to be frank. Because we've done bad on the second round in the past, second rounders are unimportant becasue they will inevitably get us crappy prospects.

BUT doing bad on the first round in the past doesn't matter. Apparently, those bad picks were all just "luck" and Snow has learned his lesson. That includes Nilsson, Nokie, O'Marra, and even Bergenheim. The fact is, the Isles have had one bad first round pick after another in recent years.

I should also mention that the draft in which we got Nilsson was one of the strongest of the last decade. So, it was neither luck nor a bad draft - just bad scouting.

Why is that Snow has learned to draft better on the first round, but all the lessons of the past with regard to the second rounder are lost?

Outside picks in the top 10, Isles have drafted in a pretty crappy fashion over the years. And, if that is going to be your barometer for the value of picks, then I'm not sure why you are so keen to trade up in the first round. With that logic, we should bother at all once we get out of the top 10.


Last edited by Darth Milbury: 05-14-2009 at 04:14 PM.
Darth Milbury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 04:38 PM
  #36
Seph
Registered User
 
Seph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oregon
Country: South Korea
Posts: 15,833
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Seph
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
In 2003 we drafted Chernykh, Tunik, and Colliton in the 2nd round of the deepest draft in recent memory. Chernykh & Tunik are busts. Colliton is a Bridgeport shuttle guy, a 4th liner at best.

Comeau was 2004 - an very uneven (weak) draft. I think we kinda lucked out. I still don't think he's anything more than an average winger. Some people see Joensuu as a 2nd liner, but I think they're wearing rose-colored glasses. He's a bottom 6 grinder.

Accumulating 2nd round prospects is overrated. We haven't had a 2nd rounder make a significant NHL impact since the early '90's. Comeau has a chance. But you don't win a cup collecting middling 2-3rd line tweeners.

But what I'm getting from this is - if y'all were GM's, I'd have plenty of trading partners.

Cheers,

Dan-o
When was the last time we had a 10-20 pick make a significant impact? Looking at just a few years and saying the 2nd rounders didn't amount to anything more than 2nd-3rd line tweeners isn't all that telling, considering that our first rounders over that timeframe were Nilsson, Nokelainen, O'Marra and a top 10 pick (which we would not get for this package). Offer me those three guys for the 6 guys we took with 2nd rounders, and I'd be hard pressed to pull the trigger, and that's a 2 for 1 swap, not to mention that most of those guys were taken with later picks than we are currently holding (the earliest pick you list was taken at #46, which is hardly comparable to #26 or #31).

Seph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 05:13 PM
  #37
mydnyte
Registered User
 
mydnyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Milbury View Post
and, I think that is too much to pay. Three 2nd rounders too move up about 10 spots.

I understand your logic, but I don't see Snow paying this kind of price.
it all depends on who the target player is ...it can be the difference between a star, and a few scrubs.

Lets say Kadri or Kulikov are still on the board going into pick 16 ...would you trade those 3 or rather hope Ferraro/Elliott drops a few spots and they magically gain enough talent to be similar to Kadri/Kulikov?

mydnyte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 05:31 PM
  #38
Xoggz22
Registered User
 
Xoggz22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 4,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
Hey all - first proposal (don't kill me too much)

If I'm Garth Snow, I've identified players that may slip to around 11-17 in the draft. I'm thinking Kulikov, Cowen, Ekman-Larsson, or Moore. I really don't think any of these D-men last to 26, and I kinda doubt any of them last to 20.

If I'm Snow, I'm willing to part with a lot if the right player is available: #26, #31, Bruins' #2, + Dustin Kohn or Mark Katic or comparable prospect (not available: Hamonic, Trivino, Ness, #37 overall, which I hope we use on a goalie).

My question: if your team drafts 11-17, do you take such a package assuming Kulikov or Cowen or Moore is available?
Obviously you are dealing with a sliding scale based on the pick range. Personally I think it's too much for the Isles to give. As a CBJ fan I would have been happy if you suggested #26, #31 and Kohn for the 15th (could be 16th is Anaheim loses tonight). A lot will depend on who is available in that slot too. I would think Scott Howson would think hard about a move down if something like that were offered. I don't think Snow moves that much unless it's for 11 or 12

Xoggz22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 06:05 PM
  #39
Fozz
Registered User
 
Fozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,466
vCash: 500
#26 & 37 should be enough to get Montreal's #17 or 18.

Fozz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 06:31 PM
  #40
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Milbury View Post
Outside picks in the top 10, Isles have drafted in a pretty crappy fashion over the years. And, if that is going to be your barometer for the value of picks, then I'm not sure why you are so keen to trade up in the first round. With that logic, we should bother at all once we get out of the top 10.
Here's my thinking: we don't have the contacts, we don't have the history, etc. with scouts to pick the low round picks with the Red Wings, for example. On the other hand, Snow also doesn't show impulsiveness and inattentiveness to detail that your namesake made in drafting. It's just harder to draft well in the 2nd round.

and more importantly

I think all of the upper-tier D-men will be picked by 26.

Heck, if we walk out of there with one of Kulikov, Runblad, Despres, or Moore at 26 and draft the #2's, I'm happy as a pig in ****. But I don't think that's gonna happen. They should all be drafted by #20.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 06:34 PM
  #41
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydnyte View Post
it all depends on who the target player is ...it can be the difference between a star, and a few scrubs.

Lets say Kadri or Kulikov are still on the board going into pick 16 ...would you trade those 3 or rather hope Ferraro/Elliott drops a few spots and they magically gain enough talent to be similar to Kadri/Kulikov?
I think this is exactly the sort of thing that's likely to happen.

I mean, if we can move up enough trading a 3rd a la Lou L. in 2003, fine. But, c'mon.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 06:44 PM
  #42
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seph View Post
When was the last time we had a 10-20 pick make a significant impact? Looking at just a few years and saying the 2nd rounders didn't amount to anything more than 2nd-3rd line tweeners isn't all that telling, considering that our first rounders over that timeframe were Nilsson, Nokelainen, O'Marra and a top 10 pick (which we would not get for this package). Offer me those three guys for the 6 guys we took with 2nd rounders, and I'd be hard pressed to pull the trigger, and that's a 2 for 1 swap, not to mention that most of those guys were taken with later picks than we are currently holding (the earliest pick you list was taken at #46, which is hardly comparable to #26 or #31).
Give a sane man a do-over on that 2003 #1, and you'd pull that trigger really fast. It just seems to me that this draft is similar 1-20...

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 07:01 PM
  #43
Vasculio
Booya !
 
Vasculio's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: La Tuque
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozz View Post
#26 & 37 should be enough to get Montreal's #17 or 18.
+1

And I'd really like if that happened...

Vasculio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 07:34 PM
  #44
Anksun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,565
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Anksun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Milbury View Post
I'm virtually certain the Isles won't go near Ellis - even if they have the chance.

Not that he isn't a great prospect, but we have similar guys in the system in Ness and Katic, and the current blueline is well-stocked with mobile midgets.
But the 2 deals were done by the same team, it ends up been:

the 12th for the 17th, 35th and 39th picks, not bad.
Which is quite a return.

Anksun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 07:38 PM
  #45
Darth Milbury
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Darth Milbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Searching for Kvasha
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 38,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
Here's my thinking: we don't have the contacts, we don't have the history, etc. with scouts to pick the low round picks with the Red Wings, for example. On the other hand, Snow also doesn't show impulsiveness and inattentiveness to detail that your namesake made in drafting. It's just harder to draft well in the 2nd round.

and more importantly

I think all of the upper-tier D-men will be picked by 26.

Heck, if we walk out of there with one of Kulikov, Runblad, Despres, or Moore at 26 and draft the #2's, I'm happy as a pig in ****. But I don't think that's gonna happen. They should all be drafted by #20.

Cheers,

Dan-o
In any case, I agree that your orginal offer of the 26, 31 and the Bruins' pick is reasonable. I misunderstood your first post, through my own carelessness.

What I don't agree with is that 2nd rounders are not valuable chips. Yeah, we have a questionable draft record on the 2nd. But, the earlier Islander scouts did a lousy job everywhere in the draft - outside the top 10 (where they typically did pretty well).

Darth Milbury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 07:43 PM
  #46
Chapin Landvogt
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 12,306
vCash: 500
We've chatted over at the Islanders board.....

All the Dmen you named are tempting.

Still, for the general hockey community, do you go for a Kulikov/Moore at 11-17 (personally feel Cowen and OEL don't drop out of the top 10, but they could) or something like the following:

#26 (De Haan or Elliot)
#31 (Rajala, Panik, Palmieri, O'Reilly, Caron, Erixon, Klingberg, Tatar, Werek)
#37 (Rajala, Panik, Palmieri, O'Reilly, Caron, Erixon, Klingberg, Tatar, Werek)
#59 (McNabb, Lander, Bertilsson, Hackett, Roy, Pasquale)

There are plenty of Islander fans who have their eyes on Kulikov, Moore, Ellis, Kassian, heck Schroeder too and feel this team should and will make a move up for guys like this, perhaps even offer a bit too much in the process.

There are others (like myself) who feel this draft is too deep and the Islanders have too many needs to be giving up several good 2nd rounders just to move up for a guy who may not be all that much better than the one they could get at 26, much less any two of those they can get with the 26 and a 2nd rounder.

I would also suggest that if the Isles are looking to move up, they should certainly try and move some of their semi-attractive vets with contracts as part of that deal: Witt, Martinek, Hunter, Park, Sutton.

Another thought is that just because the Isles didn't have much luck taking 2nd rounders at the tail end of Milbury's tenure, it says little about what Snow and Jankowski's success rate will be there. At this point, they've taken Trivino, Ness and Hamonic in round 2. That's it for now... we won't know for a while how they're doing in that department.

As a last point, a lot of their picks from last summer took promising steps this past winter. I would hope they're not ready to jettison some of them (especially the aforementioned 2nd rounders) already this summer, much less WITH some of those nice early 09 2nd rounders. Those were some hardearned picks.

Just don't see anybody in the 11-17 range who is worth overpayment. Maybe a number of kids we picked up last summer are gonna end up being as good or better than those guys?

Chapin Landvogt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 08:17 PM
  #47
Seph
Registered User
 
Seph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oregon
Country: South Korea
Posts: 15,833
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Seph
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
Give a sane man a do-over on that 2003 #1, and you'd pull that trigger really fast. It just seems to me that this draft is similar 1-20...

Cheers,

Dan-o
Not really a compelling argument, since the same man did the rest of the picks in that draft, so that they weren't much better doesn't really mean a whole lot. With #26, #31 and #55-60 we could also have had Corey Perry, Shea Weber and David Backes, any two of which I'd take over any player we could have drafted with the #15.

Seph is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:38 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.