HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Notices

Buffalo Trading up in the Draft

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-11-2013, 10:12 PM
  #26
AirBriere48
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 757
vCash: 2225
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan213 View Post
Really? If you were running a team would you really move from 3 to 5 for Stafford and a 2nd? Come on dude...
If you really liked Barkov/Lindholm, then yeah actually I could see that trade happening. Value isn't that bad IMO.

AirBriere48 is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 10:24 PM
  #27
dan213
Registered User
 
dan213's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AirBriere48 View Post
If you really liked Barkov/Lindholm, then yeah actually I could see that trade happening. Value isn't that bad IMO.
With all the hype at the top of this year's draft I just can't see a team willing to move down for a package that bad. I imagine that it would take our other 1st to move up to 3 from 5.

dan213 is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 10:34 PM
  #28
1972
Registered User
 
1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenfury View Post
Counterpoint, the idea of trading two firsts and a roster player for the next Yashin, Daigle, or Stefan sets the team back 5 years. That scares the crap out of every GM in the league.
Too bad that haven't happened in over a decade, scouting is about 100 percent more advanced than it was in the 90s. The top pick is a lock to be an impact player.

Their will probably be 15-20 impact players in this draft and I feel quite certain the top 5 forward s and Jones will be that.

1972 is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 10:53 PM
  #29
kenfury
Registered User
 
kenfury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy Regier View Post
Too bad that haven't happened in over a decade, scouting is about 100 percent more advanced than it was in the 90s. The top pick is a lock to be an impact player.

Their will probably be 15-20 impact players in this draft and I feel quite certain the top 5 forward s and Jones will be that.

No offense, but I will call you on that in 5 years. My opinion, 5 to7 players and few mid range and a couple of unexpected busts.

kenfury is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 11:48 PM
  #30
1972
Registered User
 
1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenfury View Post
No offense, but I will call you on that in 5 years. My opinion, 5 to7 players and few mid range and a couple of unexpected busts.
Your going to call me on that LOL

History shows that 15 or so guys will be impact players. Hell a weaker draft like 2007 had Kane, Benn, Subban, Couture, Alzner, Gagne, JVR, Turris, ect off the top of my head

My definition of an impact player is an above average NHL player. Top 6 forward or top 4 defenceman.

1972 is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 11:51 PM
  #31
McTank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan213 View Post
With all the hype at the top of this year's draft I just can't see a team willing to move down for a package that bad. I imagine that it would take our other 1st to move up to 3 from 5.
Wow our other 1st has so much more value than stafford and a 2nd that you had to give attitude?

McTank is offline  
Old
04-11-2013, 11:53 PM
  #32
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 5,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy Regier View Post
Your going to call me on that LOL

History shows that 15 or so guys will be impact players. Hell a weaker draft like 2007 had Kane, Benn, Subban, Couture, Alzner, Gagne, JVR, Turris, ect off the top of my head

My definition of an impact player is an above average NHL player. Top 6 forward or top 4 defenceman.

Who was it that compiled data on the past 1st round picks. I think he scored the picks as if he felt they were top6/top 4 players.

Djp is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 12:06 AM
  #33
sjci
Registered User
 
sjci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 1,527
vCash: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
Who was it that compiled data on the past 1st round picks. I think he scored the picks as if he felt they were top6/top 4 players.
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1298875

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
So i decided to break down the first round of the draft a little more indepthly. I've read a number of studies on the average likelyhood of draft picks succeeding, but i found the studies to either be too broad (using "averaged" probability for entire rounds, or considering 3rd liners/bottom pairing D's "successful") or too narrow (looking only for "elite" talent).

So to get a decent middle grounds I looked at the rate at which each pick in the first round developed into a top 6 or top 4 d man.

criteria for study:

10 years study (99-08 draft) I have excluded previous years due to changing nature of game and change of draft. I would like to revisit this and add more years, but i believe criteria will need to be adjusted for different "era's"

Forwards: Scored at 45 pts/82gp rate in 2 or more season, with at least 35 games played in each season or 1 season if it was last year.

defensemen: ETOI/per game of 19 minutes + in at least 2 or more seasons, with at least 35 games played, or one season if it was last year.

draft table. A 1 designates success where a 0 designates failure (Failure does not mean total bust, just did not meet the criteria laid out).

YEAR123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930TOTALAvg % success
20081111000001010010100101000110001240
20071110111010010100000001000100001136.67
20061111111001110000010001101001001550.00
20051110100100110000001010010000101136.67
20041101100010001110000110100110101446.67
20031111111111101100101100110001001963.33
20021111111100111100100000011000001550.00
20011101011010011000001110100000001240.00
20001111110000001000010110010001101343.33
1999011010000000000110001000010000723.33

Totals (success count in players and probability)

pick123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930Average
Total successful players out of 1091087865343465421423553442423304.3
Avg percent chance of success90100807080605030403040605040201040203050503040402040203030043

Probability by 5 pick "blocks"

BlockAvg % 
1 to 584 
6 to 1042 
11 to 1542 
16 to 2030 
21 to 2536 
26 to 3024 



The Low down

Average success in the first round: 42.3%
Average success outside of the top 5: 34.8%
Average success in the bottom 15: 30%
Average amount of players per year: 12


highest rate of success: pick # 2: 100% success rate
Highest rate of success outside of top 5: 6,7,12,13,20,21

top 5: 84% 1st over all 90% #2: 100%, #3: 80%, #4: 70%, #5: 80%. - Obviously the most successful block of 5. Nothing outlandish here. Your top 3 picks are pretty much the only spots your gauraunteed a top 6 player.

6-10: 42% 6: 60%, 7: 50%, 8: 30%, 9: 40%, 10: 30% -As found initially, a very sharp drop off from this and the last category. A pick in the 8, 9, 10 range really is not worth the value it seems to hold.

11-15: 42%11: 40%, 12: 60%, 13: 50%, 14: 40%, 15: 20%-Interesting to noe that outside the top 7, picks 12 and 13 are the best bang for your buck both with suprisingly higher success rates then a number of picks in front of them. If not for the poor success rate of pick # 15, this block would be better then the block before it.

16-20: 30%16: 10%, 17:40%, 18: 20%, 19: 30%, 20: 50% - An interesting block in that it is worse then both the block before it and after it, with it's strongest pick being it's last at number 20. The anomaly of how poorly pick # 16 performs is interesting to note.

21-25: 36% 21: 50%, 22: 30%, 23: 40%, 24: 40%, 25: 20% - Surpising...4 of the 5 picks in this block have the same statistical returns as those in the 6-10 block. Pick 21 is interesting to say the least. That top 10 sure isn't looking that swell anymore...

26-30: 24% 26: 40%, 27: 20%, 28:30%, 29: 30%, 30: 0% - Value sure can still be found for the cup contenders in the tail end of the draft, unfortunately just not for the cup winner. Over the 10 drafts examined not a single 30th overall pick became an impact player.

to sum it up, Whats it All Mean?

We can draw a number of conclusions based off this though its hardly concrete (a much bigger sample size would be ideal).

Conclusion number 1: 1st round picks are overrated

It's true, especially here on HFBoards where the 1st round pick is worth it's weight in gold. In the offseason, when nothings been determined for the following year, that pick has only a 43% chance of being anything more then 3rd pairing or 3rd line grinder. A good third liner that's not on the wrong side of 30 should be considered a decent return for 1st round pick from a top 15(standings) team. As shown above, outside of the top 5 thats a less then 35% chance of being more then a third liner, and a 305 chance in the bottom 15.

Conclusion Number 2: Trading up is a bad idea

Given the cost often associated with trading up, GM's are certainly almost always better off sitting tight. In fact, it can be argued that if your sitting just inside the top 10 (8th-10th) you should be burning up the phone lines trying to find that gm with the 2 first rounders in the bottom 13 for you. Even in the final 5, if your not sitting 30th, it hardly seems worth moving any additional assets for 10% increase in probability of landing something meaningful. On the flipside, the Stanley cup champ should always move his first rounder.

Of course, GM's will always trust their scouts and trade to get "their guy" but in a non-specific situation, it doesn't seem worth it.


Conclusion Number 3: Go Easy on Your Prospects

It definitely seems that the idea is every first round pick is almost guaranteed to be a top 6 player, and has a good shot at being a "first liner"- that is simply not the case. The average success rate of becoming a top 6, through the whole draft EDIT: First Round, is only 42%.

Outside of the top 5, it drops to 34.8%.

so outside of the top 5, you less then a 35% chance of drafting a top 6 or top 4 player, meaning the vast majority of your coveted first round prospects or those even given the title of "blue chipper" are quite far from a sure bet.

Final thoughts:

Hopefully this helps highlight a more accurate and realistic sense of worth for First round picks. Correcting for the high success rate in the top 5 is integral to not only properly understanding the likelihood of your prospect developing, but understanding what really is "a good deal". This is be no means a completed study as a much larger sample size would be ideal, but I think it does do a good job of adding a little perspective to the much ballyhoo'd First Day of the Draft.

Comments/Criticisms Encouraged. If any more advanced statheads would like to work on doing something similar with "better" criteria, i'd be all for that.

EDIT: Below is a reposting of the more indepth look by DaveG on Page two. See his post for the attached data.

so breaking it down farther:

Quote:
top 5:
8 of 44 forwards didn't pan out (.181)
5 of 21 dmen didn't pan out (.238)
all 5 goalies panned out... shockingly. People can argue semantics with DP, but he was a starter for the Isles for a while and a pretty solid one at that.
overall 13 of 70 picks in that span were busts (.186)

6 through 10:
here it starts to get dicey
20 of 46 forwards didn't pan out (.465)
9 of 18 dmen didn't pan out (.500)
all 6 goalies did not pan out
overall, selecting in this zone over the 1994-07 time frame meant batting .500

11 through 15:
24 of 46 forwards selected didn't pan out (.522)
7 of 18 dmen selected didn't pan out (.389)
3 of 6 goalies selected didn't pan out (.500)
34 of 70 picks in this range over that time didn't pan out (.486)
#15 overall pick was particularly a death sentence spot, as only 2 weren't complete misses and one of those two was Radulov.

16 through 20:
34 of 46 forwards didn't pan out (.739)
8 of 21 dmen didn't pan out (.381)
2 of 3 goalies didn't pan out (.667)
44 of 70 players selected in this range did not pan out (.629) basically leaving teams slightly better then 1 in 3 chance of selecting a solid contributor to their team here.

21 through 25:
17 of 37 forwards didn't pan out (.459)
14 of 23 dmen didn't pan out (.609)
5 of 10 goalies didn't pan out (.500)
36 of 70 picks in this draft range didn't pan out (.514), though the question is why it's so much better then the 16-20 zone. Great place to pick a goalie if you're taking one in the first round.

26 through 30:
20 of 30 forwards didn't pan out (.667)
22 of 32 dmen didn't pan out (.688)
5 of 8 goalies didn't pan out (.625)
overall 47 of 70 (.671) selected in this range did not pan out.
#30 is the only draft position worse then #15, with all but 1 being a total bust, and that one (Daron Quint) wasn't a star by any stretch.

sjci is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 06:29 AM
  #34
Trobes
Registered User
 
Trobes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 90
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myllz View Post
They shouldn't be looking to move up with their own pick, anyway. They should be looking to get a second pick in the top 10 by moving up with Minnesota's pick.
I disagree on this...I think you need to be in the top 2-3 this year especially for what we need. If you have any hope of keeping Vanek you need to put him with a stud. Getting to the #2 pick and landing Mackinnon will IMO keep him happy as you can say that you got him the premier setup man available. Plus that makes our scoring lines very scary:

Vanek - MacKinnon - Leino
Ennis - Hodgson - Stafford/Foligno
Ott - Grigorenko - Armia

Imagine if they signed Horton...and bought out Leino...

Trobes is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 07:55 AM
  #35
AirBriere48
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 757
vCash: 2225
Re: the 1st round breakdown above, it's interesting that 6-10 and 11-15 have the same probability of panning out, while 1-5 has TWICE the probability of panning out compared to 6-10. Really speaks to the drop-off after 1-5 that characterizes most drafts.


Probability by 5 pick "blocks"

Block
Avg %

1 to 5 84
6 to 10 42
11 to 15 42
16 to 20 30
21 to 25 36
26 to 30 24

AirBriere48 is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 08:27 AM
  #36
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,030
vCash: 50
This is a pretty good article about the value of draft picks based on GVT. If you don't like hockey analytics, don't click on it.

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/arti...?articleid=807

Quote:
Draft Pick Peak GVT
1 18.4
2 14.4
3 11.5
4 9.4
5 7.8
6 6.7
7 5.9
8 5.3
9 4.8
10 4.5
Pretty significant decline even from the top-3 picks to picks 7 and 8.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 10:47 AM
  #37
Myllz
Pavelski Lite
 
Myllz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 12,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trobes View Post
I disagree on this...I think you need to be in the top 2-3 this year especially for what we need. If you have any hope of keeping Vanek you need to put him with a stud. Getting to the #2 pick and landing Mackinnon will IMO keep him happy as you can say that you got him the premier setup man available. Plus that makes our scoring lines very scary:

Vanek - MacKinnon - Leino
Ennis - Hodgson - Stafford/Foligno
Ott - Grigorenko - Armia

Imagine if they signed Horton...and bought out Leino...
You're basing all of that on the prospect that we should focus on keeping Vanek, which isn't an approach everyone agrees with.

I'd also disagree that those lines are scary.

Myllz is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 10:56 AM
  #38
TakeThatTootoo
Gare's "Partner"
 
TakeThatTootoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myllz View Post
They shouldn't be looking to move up with their own pick, anyway. They should be looking to get a second pick in the top 10 by moving up with Minnesota's pick.
Thank you.

TakeThatTootoo is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 10:59 AM
  #39
TakeThatTootoo
Gare's "Partner"
 
TakeThatTootoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myllz View Post
You're basing all of that on the prospect that we should focus on keeping Vanek, which isn't an approach everyone agrees with.

I'd also disagree that those lines are scary.
He's also basing it on that Vanek wants to stay, which he may or may not agree with either.

TakeThatTootoo is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 11:00 AM
  #40
Myllz
Pavelski Lite
 
Myllz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 12,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeThatTootoo View Post
He's also basing it on that Vanek wants to stay, which he may or may not agree with either.
Yup, and if he really doesn't want to stay, trying to get him to change his mind or forcing him to stay by not dealing him is just going to make things worse.

Myllz is offline  
Old
04-12-2013, 01:00 PM
  #41
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 6,568
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
My dream scenario is that we win the draft lottery and somehow manage to acquire picks 2 and 3. We have so many valuable assets with 8 1st and 2nd round picks in the next two years, Vanek and Miller available, and really anybody else. If we had to move Ennis, Hodgson, Myers or Grigorenko to get back in, I'd do it. It would be like the NHLs version of the Fab 5, an all-time great recruiting class. Yup, I have too much time to day-dream. Still...

stokes84 is offline  
Old
05-20-2013, 12:01 PM
  #42
Gabrielor
14-15 Goal: McDavid
 
Gabrielor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 698
vCash: 500
Buffalo Trading up in the Draft

I was off the idea of trading up for MacKinnon for a couple days, and now I'm back.

1-8,Vanek,2-53 for 1-2.


Reading further about B. Burke's Sedin trade, I feel like that its in the ball-park to move up 6 spots. Yeah, yeah, Florida won't do it, etc. For the right price, I believe it could be done.

Gabrielor is offline  
Old
05-20-2013, 12:42 PM
  #43
OkimLom
Registered User
 
OkimLom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DYaeger89 View Post
I was off the idea of trading up for MacKinnon for a couple days, and now I'm back.

1-8,Vanek,2-53 for 1-2.


Reading further about B. Burke's Sedin trade, I feel like that its in the ball-park to move up 6 spots. Yeah, yeah, Florida won't do it, etc. For the right price, I believe it could be done.
I think 8th overall + Vanek + 2nd Round(38th) is something that would entice Florida more than the 2nd Round(53rd) pick.

Seeing how strong this draft is, I think it means Quality of pick weighs more than the quantity. Florida would then have 8th, 32nd(?), and 38th for a very deep draft.

OkimLom is offline  
Old
05-20-2013, 01:37 PM
  #44
boots electric
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 1,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
I've been pondering using 8 + 16 + roster players (Vanek, Ennis) to move up into the top 4, but something in the back of my head is worried about missing out on Getzlaf/Perry-ing (or Richards/Carter) the first round.

What do the draft gurus think? How worth-it is maintaining the breadth of picks we have?
I'm with you 100%. If there was a way to package #8 with roster players to grab #4, I'm all for it. Packaging #8 + #16 + an additional roster player gives me a lot more pause, especially in a draft this deep.

boots electric is offline  
Old
05-20-2013, 01:48 PM
  #45
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,245
vCash: 500
Awards:
Staying the course with rebuilding would involve keeping (or even increasing) their current spectrum of draft picks. Moving way up seems highly unlikely and while the picks they have aren't necessarily sexy at the moment, keeping them and growing a younger team over time seems much more appealing than again trying to band-aid the talent gap in the lineup.

__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Chainshot is offline  
Old
05-20-2013, 01:57 PM
  #46
Gabrielor
14-15 Goal: McDavid
 
Gabrielor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
Staying the course with rebuilding would involve keeping (or even increasing) their current spectrum of draft picks. Moving way up seems highly unlikely and while the picks they have aren't necessarily sexy at the moment, keeping them and growing a younger team over time seems much more appealing than again trying to band-aid the talent gap in the lineup.
Wouldn't augmenting our picks by trading likely departing superstars still accomplish this, and also allow us to draft higher?

Yeah, 1-8,1-16 to move up I don't think I'd do. Maybe I'm ansy to see who are stars are when Vanek/Miller depart.

I see your reasoning, but I have this gut feeling that when we look at this draft 7 years from now, MacKinnon will be remembered as the best pick-up in the draft. I'd love to find a way to move for him while keeping our other 1st. Given our resources, I feel we can.

Gabrielor is offline  
Old
05-20-2013, 02:01 PM
  #47
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,245
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DYaeger89 View Post
Wouldn't augmenting our picks by trading likely departing superstars still accomplish this, and also allow us to draft higher?

Yeah, 1-8,1-16 to move up I don't think I'd do. Maybe I'm ansy to see who are stars are when Vanek/Miller depart.

I see your reasoning, but I have this gut feeling that when we look at this draft 7 years from now, MacKinnon will be remembered as the best pick-up in the draft. I'd love to find a way to move for him while keeping our other 1st. Given our resources, I feel we can.
I don't see 1 year of Miller or Vanek having the value in futures to move up for the teams selecting ahead of them. If someone breaks with preceived value and makes the deal with Regier, fine. But it doesn't seem all that likely.

Chainshot is offline  
Old
05-20-2013, 02:13 PM
  #48
Gabrielor
14-15 Goal: McDavid
 
Gabrielor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
I don't see 1 year of Miller or Vanek having the value in futures to move up for the teams selecting ahead of them. If someone breaks with preceived value and makes the deal with Regier, fine. But it doesn't seem all that likely.
Not necessarily just Miller and Vanek.

Also, a team like Florida is absolutely loaded with young talent. There's no way all of those young-potential guys make the same roster. They'll need some veteran depth somewhere. Which is why I think 1-8,vanek for 1-2 as a base makes sense.

Florida's been picking high the last few years, were in the playoffs in 2012, and will soon be in ufa-to-augment-the-homegrown-talent phase. In Florida's shoes, acquiring an underrated scoring winger all-star at the cost of moving down 6 choices in a deep draft (at base, we'd be adding most likely to that) makes sense. Another season like 2013 for JHub, with Vanek added, I think they compete for a 3-spot upon the division.

Buffalo, on the other hand, should be looking for the young talent to build their core/identity, as that's currently in progress. We're probably 1-2 years atleast from the add-the-over-the-top-ufas phase, so in the meantime, we're in a position to swing for the fences in this specific draft, why not do it?

(Sorry, life-long Bills/Sabres fan, the idea of being patient comes hard)

Gabrielor is offline  
Old
05-20-2013, 02:27 PM
  #49
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 6,568
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
The way Darcy worded his comments this morning sure made it sound like he thinks they can move up.

stokes84 is offline  
Old
05-20-2013, 02:28 PM
  #50
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,245
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DYaeger89 View Post
Not necessarily just Miller and Vanek.

Also, a team like Florida is absolutely loaded with young talent. There's no way all of those young-potential guys make the same roster. They'll need some veteran depth somewhere. Which is why I think 1-8,vanek for 1-2 as a base makes sense.

Florida's been picking high the last few years, were in the playoffs in 2012, and will soon be in ufa-to-augment-the-homegrown-talent phase. In Florida's shoes, acquiring an underrated scoring winger all-star at the cost of moving down 6 choices in a deep draft (at base, we'd be adding most likely to that) makes sense. Another season like 2013 for JHub, with Vanek added, I think they compete for a 3-spot upon the division.

Buffalo, on the other hand, should be looking for the young talent to build their core/identity, as that's currently in progress. We're probably a 1-2 atleast from the add-the-over-the-top-ufas phase, so in the meantime, we're in a position to swing for the fences, why not do it?

(Sorry, life-long Bills/Sabres fan, the idea of being patient comes hard)
Pretend you are Dale Tallon. You have one of the best stables of prospects among any NHL teams. You're near the start of the building curve, having just had a disasterous season of injury to key personnel. You have a very good prospect big center in Nick Bjugstad turning pro, but your long-time Mr. Everything Stephen Weiss looks like the best of a bad lot of UFA's this summer and seems destined for other employment. You have a fine scoring LW in rookie Huberdeau. What you need is ANOTHER stud center, and having one with a complete 200' game who is also an excellent skater would be ideal to either center Huberdeau or to build another line around. You already have more Cup rings in your room than most o f the teams struggling at this end of the draft -- Campbell, Versteeg, Kopecky -- and no issue finding vets in free agency to fill out roster positions.

What do you need more? 7 years at minimum of the stud center or 1 year of a scoring line winger? It isn't vet presence you need. It's health and someone else to play down the middle with Weiss leaving.

Chainshot 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 04:39 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.