HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Official 2012 Draft Thread: Part IV | "Operation Dumba Drop"

View Poll Results: Which defenseman do you like most?
Ryan Murray 119 56.40%
Jacob Trouba 8 3.79%
Matt Dumba 45 21.33%
Griffin Reinhart 28 13.27%
Cody Ceci 1 0.47%
Morgan Rielly 10 4.74%
Voters: 211. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-15-2012, 05:04 AM
  #51
Panda Bear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 705
vCash: 500
Hedman's being playing pretty damn well since he came back to the fold at the end of January.

That's all by the by, though. The concern for our team is that defenceman take a longer time to develop than forwards--would a 24 year old Taylor Hall be willing to wait that long for the cavalry to finally arrive? I appreciate people making the call to shorten the rebuild window so that we can maximize our salary cap situation while using surplus assets (e.g. Anaheim's 2nd we hold) to bring in help on the backline.

Panda Bear is offline  
Old
02-15-2012, 07:02 AM
  #52
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 14,708
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0psh3lfclu7ch View Post
drafting a dman with a top 3 pick is borderline ********
the past few drafts have proven with fowler and larsson dropping so low way lower than expected that you the other teams are gunning for explosive offensive forwards. if we want one of the dmen, then we trade down from #3 to #6 and have them include a top d prospect as well that way its a 2 for 1
I don't really understand this. So taking a d-man top 3 is stupid, but taking one at 4 (Larsson) is ok? What's the difference?

In the same vein, a GM isn't likely to trade down three spots near the top of the draft just because the guy he wants is a d-man. They'll just take the guy they like.

When it comes to Hedman, I would kill to have him leading the Oilers' defense for the next 15 years, personally. He looks to me like he's on his way to being an awesome d-man.

Seachd is offline  
Old
02-15-2012, 09:13 AM
  #53
bucks_oil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd View Post
I don't really understand this. So taking a d-man top 3 is stupid, but taking one at 4 (Larsson) is ok? What's the difference?

In the same vein, a GM isn't likely to trade down three spots near the top of the draft just because the guy he wants is a d-man. They'll just take the guy they like.

When it comes to Hedman, I would kill to have him leading the Oilers' defense for the next 15 years, personally. He looks to me like he's on his way to being an awesome d-man.
Put a little less aggressively, I do buy the argument. If you can get a solid 20 -21 year old A- D prospect, plus a mid-first to get another solid D, why wouldn't you?

Check out the bolded below. In most cases, getting another prospect, 3 years into development + the 18 year old would be worth whatever difference (if any) vs the top 1-2 drafted D in a given year. Two #2dmen is probably just as good (or will help us improve faster) than a #1.

2002 Bouwmeister, Pitkanen, Whitney
2003 Suter, Coburn, Phaneuf, Seabrook
2004 Barker, Smid, bust, bust, Mezaros
2005 J. Johnson, Lee, Bourdon, Staal
2006 E. Johnson, bust, bust, bust, bust, bust <-- first year that does not illustrate my point
2007 Hickey, Alzner, Ellerby, McDonaugh, Shattenkirk <-- too early? Illustrates the point
2008 Doughty, Bogosian, Pieterangelo, Schenn, Myers <-- Sure vs Doughty you like #1, but other guys are no slouch, so it depends... How confident are we that Murray is a Doughty? If he was, why isn't he in the conversation for #1 overall as Doughty was?
2009 Too early Hedman, Ekman-Laarson, Cowen, Ellis... Hedman to your point... he is trending fine and early
2010 Too early Gudbranson, McIlrath, Fowler, Gormley Counter point... Fowler the early leader here!
2011 Too early

Looking through that list, there are a few situations where at the end of the day, the best Dman only became apparent several years after the draft (and in fact, early on, other guys appeared to be ahead of the pack).

The point is, in most cases, eg any time where there is no generational, franchise talent (ie Doughty), there isn't that much to choose between the 1st or 4th Dman selected.

If one can get another good asset, why wouldn't you?

bucks_oil is online now  
Old
02-15-2012, 09:22 AM
  #54
Beerfish
Registered User
 
Beerfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,982
vCash: 500
The thing about this years crop of top Dmen is it seems they bring different things to the plate. It's not as if they are a similar batch of good two way players. A gm is going to have to decided if they want the smooth all around guy, the guy with great offense, the guy with size. The guy with decent offense and a huge physical game.

If we end up 3rd or lower I think it's pretty well guaranteed we are taking a Dman, just a matter of which one and there will be lots of discussion.

Top two overall will be very interesting indeed. No one knows at this point it MacGregor values one Dman way above the others.

Beerfish is online now  
Old
02-15-2012, 09:55 AM
  #55
Ganz
Dibs
 
Ganz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Upton
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,728
vCash: 67
Grigs puts up 2G. This kid has skill.


Ganz is online now  
Old
02-15-2012, 09:59 AM
  #56
Mr Forever
The Oilers :(
 
Mr Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: COLLEGE
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koto View Post
is murray everyone first choice among Dmen except for IATL?
Mine's Dumba followed by Reinhart.

Mr Forever is offline  
Old
02-15-2012, 10:12 AM
  #57
Neilio
Navi-X, Google it
 
Neilio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucks_oil View Post
Put a little less aggressively, I do buy the argument. If you can get a solid 20 -21 year old A- D prospect, plus a mid-first to get another solid D, why wouldn't you?

Check out the bolded below. In most cases, getting another prospect, 3 years into development + the 18 year old would be worth whatever difference (if any) vs the top 1-2 drafted D in a given year. Two #2dmen is probably just as good (or will help us improve faster) than a #1.

2002 Bouwmeister, Pitkanen, Whitney
2003 Suter, Coburn, Phaneuf, Seabrook
2004 Barker, Smid, bust, bust, Mezaros
2005 J. Johnson, Lee, Bourdon, Staal
2006 E. Johnson, bust, bust, bust, bust, bust <-- first year that does not illustrate my point
2007 Hickey, Alzner, Ellerby, McDonaugh, Shattenkirk <-- too early? Illustrates the point
2008 Doughty, Bogosian, Pieterangelo, Schenn, Myers <-- Sure vs Doughty you like #1, but other guys are no slouch, so it depends... How confident are we that Murray is a Doughty? If he was, why isn't he in the conversation for #1 overall as Doughty was?
2009 Too early Hedman, Ekman-Laarson, Cowen, Ellis... Hedman to your point... he is trending fine and early
2010 Too early Gudbranson, McIlrath, Fowler, Gormley Counter point... Fowler the early leader here!
2011 Too early

Looking through that list, there are a few situations where at the end of the day, the best Dman only became apparent several years after the draft (and in fact, early on, other guys appeared to be ahead of the pack).

The point is, in most cases, eg any time where there is no generational, franchise talent (ie Doughty), there isn't that much to choose between the 1st or 4th Dman selected.

If one can get another good asset, why wouldn't you?
I think there are times that it may work. This year might be one of those times.
If your top 5 is stocked full of can't miss forwards, then you don't trade down.

This year is pretty heavy on defense. If we're not picking in the top two, I have no problem with trading down a bit. To me the issue isn't whether or not you can get a good D-man with a high pick, its scouting. They are just harder to project. And some will look better than others at certain ages. As you pointed out, it isn't always the guy who is highly touted that is going to be the best in the long run. So you rely on your scouts to choose who they think will be the best. If we come in 3rd or 4th, and Stu likes the guy at 8, I'd trade down. Why not? Especially if the choice is between D-men.

Neilio is offline  
Old
02-15-2012, 10:20 AM
  #58
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 14,708
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucks_oil View Post
If one can get another good asset, why wouldn't you?
We can always look back and see who should have picked who, but on the draft floor, teams usually have their sights set on guys.

I'm sure trade ideas like that are brought up all the time among GMs down there, but the trades themselves aren't exactly common. GMs don't want to risk missing out on the guy they have ranked at the top of their list for a measly 2nd/3rd round pick.

Seachd is offline  
Old
02-15-2012, 10:20 AM
  #59
I am the Liquor
Fire Mact
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,519
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neilio View Post
I think there are times that it may work. This year might be one of those times.
If your top 5 is stocked full of can't miss forwards, then you don't trade down.

This year is pretty heavy on defense. If we're not picking in the top two, I have no problem with trading down a bit. To me the issue isn't whether or not you can get a good D-man with a high pick, its scouting. They are just harder to project. And some will look better than others at certain ages. As you pointed out, it isn't always the guy who is highly touted that is going to be the best in the long run. So you rely on your scouts to choose who they think will be the best. If we come in 3rd or 4th, and Stu likes the guy at 8, I'd trade down. Why not? Especially if the choice is between D-men.
I dont know. I think you take the guy you like regardless. You are only guessing at who the other teams are interested in and where they have the players ranked. Trade down and your guy gets taken before you get the chance to get to the podium.

Im not sure if there are many examples where trading down has worked in the past, and if there are, how many times has it back fired?

I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
02-15-2012, 10:24 AM
  #60
Beerfish
Registered User
 
Beerfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,982
vCash: 500
Trading down is a fine thought if you move down only a short way and are pretty well sure your guy is still going to be there. It's way too risky if your fav player may not be there and most likely the oilers have a fav out of the defenseman.

Beerfish is online now  
Old
02-15-2012, 10:32 AM
  #61
Neilio
Navi-X, Google it
 
Neilio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
I dont know. I think you take the guy you like regardless. You are only guessing at who the other teams are interested in and where they have the players ranked. Trade down and your guy gets taken before you get the chance to get to the podium.

Im not sure if there are many examples where trading down has worked in the past, and if there are, how many times has it back fired?
I know, but it seems like it backfires more with trading down where you can take a forward. If the guy you like doesn't have as much hype as the others, I think it can be done. At this point of the rebuild, I think that option is on the table. Its not AS crucial that we get a savior at this point. If we're outside the top two, we're going to wait a year or two or three for them to contribute, IMO.

I'm not saying that we should DEFINITELY trade down at all costs, but if the situation presents itself and it makes sense, I'd look at it.

Neilio is offline  
Old
02-15-2012, 10:51 AM
  #62
LaGu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Taino
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
Trading down is a fine thought if you move down only a short way and are pretty well sure your guy is still going to be there. It's way too risky if your fav player may not be there and most likely the oilers have a fav out of the defenseman.
I think that if you trade down you are basically saying that you don't have a fav amongst the top projected picks. I would expect any trade down would be for an "outsider" (if the player you're interested in is projected to go at 25 maybe you trade down to pick at about 20).

That said, don't you think that the teams have a good idea about which players will be chosen by the other teams? I may be naive on this but I kind of always thought that they did even though I guess it's never a sure thing.

LaGu is offline  
Old
02-15-2012, 11:03 AM
  #63
bucks_oil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neilio View Post
I think there are times that it may work. This year might be one of those times.
If your top 5 is stocked full of can't miss forwards, then you don't trade down.

This year is pretty heavy on defense. If we're not picking in the top two, I have no problem with trading down a bit. To me the issue isn't whether or not you can get a good D-man with a high pick, its scouting. They are just harder to project. And some will look better than others at certain ages. As you pointed out, it isn't always the guy who is highly touted that is going to be the best in the long run. So you rely on your scouts to choose who they think will be the best. If we come in 3rd or 4th, and Stu likes the guy at 8, I'd trade down. Why not? Especially if the choice is between D-men.
Exactly... and to overlay Beerfish' point. This year appears to have a number of higher end D with different phenotypes (PMD vs stay at home vs somewhere in the middle). So in a way, it is like 2010... and here we are 3 years out and we still don't know which of those guys will contribute the most at the NHL level.

I tell you, if these Dmen turn the same way (ie... they take a standard development period of 3-5 years) we could really use a #3 dman in the meantime.

If that means trading from #3 to #8-9, I'm all for it UNLESS Stu is 100% convinced on Murray. If it is Dumba or Reinhart, or if we are split, we can afford to trade down a bit.

bucks_oil is online now  
Old
02-15-2012, 11:08 AM
  #64
bucks_oil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd View Post
We can always look back and see who should have picked who, but on the draft floor, teams usually have their sights set on guys.

I'm sure trade ideas like that are brought up all the time among GMs down there, but the trades themselves aren't exactly common. GMs don't want to risk missing out on the guy they have ranked at the top of their list for a measly 2nd/3rd round pick.
I hear your point... but do they really get THAT set on one guy, especially when picking in the 2nd half of the top ten?

I mean, LA really messed up on Hickey... the guy was not expected to go that high. I guess, to your point, they must have been that set on him. But I like to think our guys can get a better read on who other teams are hot on... and that the rationality that there isn't that much to choose between from one guy to the next.

And the example I was arguing was trading down in exchange for a Marincin (B+ prospect) type that is 2-3 years along + the 8th/9th pick. To get ourselves a little further along.

bucks_oil is online now  
Old
02-15-2012, 11:24 AM
  #65
ponokanocker
Registered User
 
ponokanocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
I really don't like the idea of trading down. Are you really going to get a good asset to make up for the drop in spot other than another draft pick that may or may not work out?

Also, looking at past drafts, how often would have trading down in the top 10 been worth while? I know each draft is unique, but it is still a huge risk with little return. And as was already pointed out, how do you know your guy will still be there? Teams make strange picks all the time.

ponokanocker is offline  
Old
02-15-2012, 12:06 PM
  #66
bucks_oil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponokanocker View Post
I really don't like the idea of trading down. Are you really going to get a good asset to make up for the drop in spot other than another draft pick that may or may not work out?

Also, looking at past drafts, how often would have trading down in the top 10 been worth while? I know each draft is unique, but it is still a huge risk with little return. And as was already pointed out, how do you know your guy will still be there? Teams make strange picks all the time.
Good question.... I'll take a stab. Assumptions:
* We have the 3rd pick
* We need to trade down 5 spots to get an additional "valuable" asset
* The analysis starts at 2008 (too early to look more recent)
* I'll look at 3rd and 4th overall (just to be fair in case 3rd was a bust) and pick the best player
* I'll look at guys only in the 10-20 range, because although my analysis is trading down from 3rd to 8th, I wouldn't have known the guy selected at 8th or 9th would have been there.... so choosing players 10th - 30th would be more reasonable 'targets' to trade down to.
* of course we give ourselves the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but we are assuming our scouts have identified a trade down target

2008 Pieterangelo/Schenn vs Eberle or Myers... an easy trade down year
2007 Turris/Hickey vs Blum/Perron... plenty of trade down targets
2006 Toews/Backstrom vs Little/Giroux... until this year not even close, but Giroux closing the gap
2005 Johnson/Pouliot vs Kopitar/MStaal/Rask another easy one
2004 Barker/Ladd vs Stafford/Green... pretty easy
2003 Horton/Zherdev vs DBrown/Getzlaf/Perry/Burns/Seabrook/JCarter/Kesler/MRichards... wow, couldn't miss by trading down here... oh wait!


Ok... gotta stop, just realized the fundamental flaw in my argument. I gave myself 10 spots to choose from compared to just 2.

Though isn't that the crux of this? Getting another shot on goal with the 20 year-old B+ prospect?

bucks_oil is online now  
Old
02-15-2012, 12:11 PM
  #67
LaGu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Taino
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponokanocker View Post
I really don't like the idea of trading down. Are you really going to get a good asset to make up for the drop in spot other than another draft pick that may or may not work out?

Also, looking at past drafts, how often would have trading down in the top 10 been worth while? I know each draft is unique, but it is still a huge risk with little return. And as was already pointed out, how do you know your guy will still be there? Teams make strange picks all the time.
Down-side:
2003 - The Edmonton Oilers trade the 17th pick (Zach Parise) to the New Jersey Devils for the 22nd pick (Marc-Antoine Pouliot) and the 68th pick (Jean-Francois Jacques).

(to be fair I don't know the whole story about this trade, if there is one, but it sure looks crap...)

LaGu is offline  
Old
02-15-2012, 12:15 PM
  #68
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponokanocker View Post
I really don't like the idea of trading down. Are you really going to get a good asset to make up for the drop in spot other than another draft pick that may or may not work out?

Also, looking at past drafts, how often would have trading down in the top 10 been worth while? I know each draft is unique, but it is still a huge risk with little return. And as was already pointed out, how do you know your guy will still be there? Teams make strange picks all the time.
Outside the top few picks I think pretty much every year is a crap shoot.

Looking back at the past few drafts here's a few names it's pretty clear to see that it's really hard to pick who's going to be the best d-man.

Take 2007, that's 5 years ago now and the first round d-men taken.

2007 - Hickey, Alzner, Ellerby, Mcdonagh, Shattenkirk, Cole, Plante, Blum, Petrecki, Smith, Ross

There are some good names there but can you really pick who's the best one of the bunch?

2008 may be an even better example past Drew Doughty who was taken 2nd overall. You have Bogosian, Pietrangelo, Schenn, Karlsson, Del Zotto, Sbisa, and Gardiner. Can you say for sure who among that group is going to have the better career?

I think it's worth exploring trading down. There are several possibilities who could all be one of the pieces we're desperately in need of. Getting a 2nd round pick might not be worth it but as part of another deal maybe something could be worked out. It's probably not likely but it's worth considering.

Here's a hypothetical, say we end up at 3 and Washington ends up with the 11 and 12 picks for Colorado and thier own. It might make sense to do our pick at 3 and our first pick in the 2nd round for their two picks.

Halibut is online now  
Old
02-15-2012, 12:21 PM
  #69
Oilfan2
Oil the way..
 
Oilfan2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,009
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaGu View Post
Down-side:
2003 - The Edmonton Oilers trade the 17th pick (Zach Parise) to the New Jersey Devils for the 22nd pick (Marc-Antoine Pouliot) and the 68th pick (Jean-Francois Jacques).

(to be fair I don't know the whole story about this trade, if there is one, but it sure looks crap...)
No story..Oilers wanted some bigger players, Parise was small so the bright scouting/management decided it was a good idea, despite a large amount of folks saying it was a mistake...Most seemed to think at the time they would/should take Parise....

Oilfan2 is offline  
Old
02-15-2012, 12:47 PM
  #70
Neilio
Navi-X, Google it
 
Neilio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaGu View Post
Down-side:
2003 - The Edmonton Oilers trade the 17th pick (Zach Parise) to the New Jersey Devils for the 22nd pick (Marc-Antoine Pouliot) and the 68th pick (Jean-Francois Jacques).

(to be fair I don't know the whole story about this trade, if there is one, but it sure looks crap...)
This always comes up. But a point has to be made about scouting. Yes we should have taken Parise, but we also could have had Kesler, Richards or Perry in that first round AFTER Pouliot. Not to mention Bergeron, Weber and Backes in the second.

We had a terrible head scout at the time in Prendegrast (sp?). They were enamoured with his no-quit attitude on a crappy Rimouski team (pre-Crosby). But he was the best player on a team of nobodies getting all the primo ice time. They could have done a bit more research into it.

If we had traded down and taken Richards or Perry, nobody would have been complaining.

As for JFJ, he was a decent power forward in the AHL. He has played 166 games in the NHL, which is more than most drafted at that position. A failed experiment, but its sadly one of KPs better picks.

Neilio is offline  
Old
02-15-2012, 12:52 PM
  #71
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 29,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganz View Post
Grigs puts up 2G. This kid has skill.

Oh ... my .... goodness. That was Malkin-like.

Becoming more and more sold on this kid.

Y'know what honestly I'm just getting into this **** trading down, **** "yeah, but you need this position".

BPA. BPA. BPA. Period. Historically whenever we try to get too fancy pants with a 1st round pick, it ends up blowing up in our face.

I rather like last year's draft philosophy of getting a 2nd 1st rounder at the deadline (Hemsky this year) and then using that pick more on a need.

If you can, take Grigorenko. That skill level gives the Oilers almost unfathomable depth upfront. Then throw all your remaining picks at d-men if need be. Who the hell knows, a Pouliot or Ceci taken late in the 1st round could very well end up being better than a Murray or Reinhart.

Draft pedigree + pre-draft hype doesn't often mean much when selecting d-men.

Soundwave is offline  
Old
02-15-2012, 12:52 PM
  #72
RaabHart
Where's the Hart?
 
RaabHart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,826
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neilio View Post
This always comes up. But a point has to be made about scouting. Yes we should have taken Parise, but we also could have had Kesler, Richards or Perry in that first round AFTER Pouliot. Not to mention Bergeron, Weber and Backes in the second.

We had a terrible head scout at the time in Prendegrast (sp?). They were enamoured with his no-quit attitude on a crappy Rimouski team (pre-Crosby). But he was the best player on a team of nobodies getting all the primo ice time. They could have done a bit more research into it.

If we had traded down and taken Richards or Perry, nobody would have been complaining.

As for JFJ, he was a decent power forward in the AHL. He has played 166 games in the NHL, which is more than most drafted at that position. A failed experiment, but its sadly one of KPs better picks.
Or we could have kept the pick and took Getzlaf

RaabHart is offline  
Old
02-15-2012, 01:14 PM
  #73
Neilio
Navi-X, Google it
 
Neilio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Oh ... my .... goodness. That was Malkin-like.

Becoming more and more sold on this kid.

Y'know what honestly I'm just getting into this **** trading down, **** "yeah, but you need this position".

BPA. BPA. BPA. Period. Historically whenever we try to get too fancy pants with a 1st round pick, it ends up blowing up in our face.

I rather like last year's draft philosophy of getting a 2nd 1st rounder at the deadline (Hemsky this year) and then using that pick more on a need.

If you can, take Grigorenko. That skill level gives the Oilers almost unfathomable depth upfront. Then throw all your remaining picks at d-men if need be. Who the hell knows, a Pouliot or Ceci taken late in the 1st round could very well end up being better than a Murray or Reinhart.

Draft pedigree + pre-draft hype doesn't often mean much when selecting d-men.
Of course if we're in position to take Grigorenko, then we do it. Thats not what anyone here is arguing. But after that, it gets cloudy. BPA for sure....but who is the BPA? probably 8 of the next 10 BPAs are D-Men. Ask 10 people and get 10 different answers. If your scouts think that the guy at #6 is the BPA, do you pick him third? Or do you get another asset out of it and the guy you want? I'd at least have the conversation.

Neilio is offline  
Old
02-15-2012, 01:18 PM
  #74
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 29,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neilio View Post
Of course if we're in position to take Grigorenko, then we do it. Thats not what anyone here is arguing. But after that, it gets cloudy. BPA for sure....but who is the BPA? probably 8 of the next 10 BPAs are D-Men. Ask 10 people and get 10 different answers. If your scouts think that the guy at #6 is the BPA, do you pick him third? Or do you get another asset out of it and the guy you want? I'd at least have the conversation.
I think people honestly overestimate how much teams are willing to pay to move up a few spots, especially if the players available in question are all fairly close.

If you were picking 6th (Reinhart lets says) and wanted to move up to 3 (Murray?) ... would you give up a Gagner or even a MPS to do so? Hellllllllll no.

I wouldn't even give up our 2nd. At best you're going to get a Omark level prospect for that type of move.

I always think of trading down a bit like when a team has a 3-on-1 break and they screw it up because they tried to get too damn cute with the puck rather than just making the obvious play.


Last edited by Soundwave: 02-15-2012 at 01:31 PM.
Soundwave is offline  
Old
02-15-2012, 01:25 PM
  #75
Redwood Original
El Presidente
 
Redwood Original's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,491
vCash: 500
I the title. Well done Master Soli!

Redwood Original is offline  
Closed Thread

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 10:33 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.