HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Notices

Trading Up

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-06-2007, 11:21 PM
  #1
Gman7191
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 164
vCash: 500
Trading Up

what assests would you guys give away in order to trade up. And where would you guys trade up to?

Gman7191 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2007, 12:31 AM
  #2
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,805
vCash: 91
To give everyone an idea of what it's cost to trade in the 1st round in past years:

2001
-- Calgary traded their picks at 14 and 41 with Phoenix to move up to 11.
-- Philadelphia traded picks at 27 and 225, plus a 2nd in '02 with Edmonton to move up to 23.

2002
-- Columbus traded the #3 overall pick and the right to swap 1st-round picks in 2003 with Florida for the #1 overall pick.
-- Philadelphia gave up #34 and #52 and Ruslan Fedotenko to Tampa Bay for the #4 overall pick.
-- Florida gave up #10 and #99 to Calgary move to #9
-- Washington gave up #26 and #42 and a 3rd in 2003 to Dallas to move to #13.
-- Montreal gave #15 and #245 to Edmonton to move to #14.
-- Buffalo gave #30 and Mike Pandolfo to Columbus to move to #20.
-- Atlanta then gave #41 and #96 to Columbus to move to #30.

2003
-- Pittsburgh gave #3 and #55 and Mikael Samuelsson to Florida for the #1 overall pick and Florida's pick at 73.
-- San Jose gave #21, #66, and #103 to Boston to move to 16th.
-- New Jersey gave picks at 22 and 68 to Edmonton to scoot up to 17.
-- Florida gave picks at 34, 41, and 192 to Tampa Bay to move to 25.
-- Anaheim gave picks at 36 and 54 to Dallas to go to 28.

2004
-- NY Rangers traded picks at 24 and 46 to Calgary for picks at 19 and 247.
-- New Jersey sent their picks at 22 and 88 to Dallas for the 20th pick.
-- San Jose then sent picks at 28, 52, and 91 for the 22nd pick Dallas had just received as well as the pick at 153.

2005
-- San Jose traded their picks at 12, 49, and 207 to Atlanta for the #8 pick.
-- NY Rangers then traded picks at 16 and 41 to Atlanta for the #12 pick.
-- Florida sent the 29th pick and a 2nd in 2006 to Philadelphia for the #20 pick.
-- Washington sent picks at 47 and 52 to Colorado for the #27 pick.

2006
-- Los Angeles traded Pavol Demita to Minnesota for the 17th pick and Patrick O'Sullivan.
-- San Jose traded the 20th and 53rd picks to Montreal for the #16 pick.
-- St. Louis traded the 30th and 77th picks to New Jersey for the #25 pick.

__________________
No promises this time.
Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2007, 01:00 AM
  #3
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Trading up, IMO, is a fluid thing... it will all depend on how the picks in front of them start developing. For example, let's say they decide they really really want JVR if they can get him and he's worth a trade, but they don' t think the price is right for a top 3 pick. Then suddenly it's pick 6 and he's still there because someone reached, now you might make the move.

A Canucks poster asked if anyone in the top 10 would trade down for their first rounder (which goes between Atl and NJ so we would have three picks in a row) and Cory Schneider, G Boston College.

It got me thinking - Schneider is really an outstanding goalie. And with the glut of goalie bodies we have it almost seems obscene to add another. However, I think Schneider is on a par with Schwarz as far as top-end talent. If in two years' time we had Schwarz and Schneider competing for the top job in the NHL and Bishop starting in Peoria, that would really give this organization a chance to "build from the net out."

Maybe it's gunshyness with netminding, but if Schwarz doesn't quite live up to potential (which could happen), then we're suddenly stocked full with good but not great talent. Legace, Bacashihua, Sanford and CBT are not the guys who will take this team to a Cup. Barulin might not come over and Berra and Hiller are unknowns. So that leaves Schwarz and Bishop where we have our brightest hopes. If Schwarz falters a bit, now we have a lot of serviceable but not elite talent.

Adding a guy like Schneider is an insurance policy against that. Schwarz, Schneider and Bishop is a hell of a way to build from the net out. The cost would be moving down from 9 to 24 or 25 in a draft that Jarmo has said he likes the 15-30 spots better than the 1-15 spots.

Just flirting with the idea... I might wake up in the morning and hate it. Schneider as far as I know has not officially declared he's leaving school before his senior year - could be wrong there. But if true, then whatever plan we were going to execute this offseason to clear out room we still can.

The big plus is that with a could-be-elite trio of young Gs plus a young, deep D, we are 2/3 of the way toward rebuilding and feeling very secure on those fronts. Turn Backman into Lupul, draft two forwards (+ a Dman) in the first round and sign a #1 center in UFA and we've got ourselves a hell of an offseason.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2007, 01:05 AM
  #4
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Based on that list, it looks like #9 and #39 for the #5 is reasonable.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2007, 11:47 AM
  #5
trublu16
Registered User
 
trublu16's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 762
vCash: 500
1st of all, is there a player higher than the 9th pick overall really worth moving up. I don't know, but I will leave that one up Jarmo and company. 2nd, even if we move up we are going to have lose draft picks or actual players off the current roster. Which would most like be a defenseman, most likely be Backman.

The most I actually think we could move up is maybe 4 spots if we are lucky. So is there anyone that I deperately have to have at the 5 overall spot. I don't think so. But I would not doubt that Jarmo would move 1 of the 2nd or 3rd 1st rounders up. I think that is the more likely senario than move the 9th overall.

trublu16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2007, 04:47 PM
  #6
blueshead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 156
vCash: 500
First, let's all agree that a trade for a pick is only going to happen when the pick comes up and the player the Blues have in mind is still there.

Given Washington's need for defense and St Louis' stable of solid roster D and potential 2007-08 roster D players, it only makes sense that the two parties would at least have mutual interest in talking trade and to me, is the most likely scenario for the Blues to trade up. I would be willing to give up Backman (or anybody else lower than him in the depth charts and I don't think EJ is lower) and depending on the player available, either of our two later 1st round picks. Given the current sentiment you could assume that the likely top 5 picks will be, in no particular order

..Turris
..JVR
..Voracek
..Cherepanov
..Kane

So one of these guys end up remaining when Washington's pick comes up and maybe two if someone snatches Alzner with the top 4, (the question mark in my mind is whether the Caps have already zereoed in on Alzner as their pick which would make all this moot). So the question becomes:

..Would you make this deal?
..Which of the 5 remaining would not do the deal if they were the one still on the board at pick 5?

blueshead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2007, 06:06 PM
  #7
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueshead View Post
First, let's all agree that a trade for a pick is only going to happen when the pick comes up and the player the Blues have in mind is still there.

I would be willing to give up Backman (or anybody else lower than him in the depth charts and I don't think EJ is lower) and depending on the player available, either of our two later 1st round picks. Given the current sentiment you could assume that the likely top 5 picks will be, in no particular order

..Turris
..JVR
..Voracek
..Cherepanov
..Kane

..Would you make this deal?
..Which of the 5 remaining would not do the deal if they were the one still on the board at pick 5?
If you look above, you'll see that NO team gave up as much as regular-shift NHL roster player AND a #1 draft choice, just to move up a measly 4 draft positions. Bäckman is a 2nd-shift (top 4 NHL defenceman). He, alone, could bring a proven NHL forward. The Blues choosing at #9 will get a good player. But will getting players at #5 and #9 be so much better than trading Bäckman and picking up a talented, young NHL roster forward, and picking at #9 and #24?

Past history (above) has shown that an extra 3rd rounder can move a team up 3-4 positions in the first round. Maybe it would be better to keep #24 and #26, and pay a 3rd and 5th or so to move up from 9th to 5th?

If the Blues are so determined to rise from #9, then, they feel that the difference between #5 and #9 is great, and, thus, #9 may be closer in talent to #24. If so, there won't be that much gain by trying to keep #9. On the other hand, perhaps at #9, Washington will feel they can still pick up a player they want,- and picking up an extra #3 will help them build up volume of prospects. So they may want to do that. On the other hand, Washington has a lot of young players, and may insist upon getting an NHL defenceman in such a deal.

Robb_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2007, 06:50 PM
  #8
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robb_K View Post
If you look above, you'll see that NO team gave up as much as regular-shift NHL roster player AND a #1 draft choice, just to move up a measly 4 draft positions. Bäckman is a 2nd-shift (top 4 NHL defenceman). He, alone, could bring a proven NHL forward. The Blues choosing at #9 will get a good player. But will getting players at #5 and #9 be so much better than trading Bäckman and picking up a talented, young NHL roster forward, and picking at #9 and #24?

Past history (above) has shown that an extra 3rd rounder can move a team up 3-4 positions in the first round. Maybe it would be better to keep #24 and #26, and pay a 3rd and 5th or so to move up from 9th to 5th?

If the Blues are so determined to rise from #9, then, they feel that the difference between #5 and #9 is great, and, thus, #9 may be closer in talent to #24. If so, there won't be that much gain by trying to keep #9. On the other hand, perhaps at #9, Washington will feel they can still pick up a player they want,- and picking up an extra #3 will help them build up volume of prospects. So they may want to do that. On the other hand, Washington has a lot of young players, and may insist upon getting an NHL defenceman in such a deal.
Reading over the helpful list IB put together it looks like moving up in the last part of the first round 3-4 spots costs a 3d rounder, but I suspect that if we want to go from 9 up to 5 it might cost a 2d rounder. as you asymptotically approach the top of the board, the price goes up.

Incidentally, there is an interesting read over on the prospects board from Hiishawk today predicting the top 60. No matter what, three picks in the first round is going to be nice.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2007, 07:04 PM
  #9
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Reading over the helpful list IB put together it looks like moving up in the last part of the first round 3-4 spots costs a 3d rounder, but I suspect that if we want to go from 9 up to 5 it might cost a 2d rounder. as you asymptotically approach the top of the board, the price goes up.

Incidentally, there is an interesting read over on the prospects board from Hiishawk today predicting the top 60. No matter what, three picks in the first round is going to be nice.
There are 30 choices in the 2nd round. The Blues' is a relatively high one. Their 3rd rounder (at #39) and a 4th, might be acceptable, rather than giving up their 2nd. it will depend upon what other teams were offering. The Caps might accept that from The Blues, rather than getting a very late 1st rounder and a 2nd, so they can still pick among the top 10.

Robb_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2007, 07:13 PM
  #10
Langway
Moderator
Floatvechkin
 
Langway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robb_K View Post
On the other hand, perhaps at #9, Washington will feel they can still pick up a player they want,- and picking up an extra #3 will help them build up volume of prospects. So they may want to do that. On the other hand, Washington has a lot of young players, and may insist upon getting an NHL defenceman in such a deal.
Washington also has four picks in the first 1 1/2 rounds and, as you said, plenty of prospect and young player depth. I'd be skeptical of them moving down and picking up an extra pick or two unless they're rather underwhelmed about their options at #5. As far as their interest in defensemen are concerned, they have one too many young ones at this point and would be more likely to deal away a young defenseman (probably Eminger) than add one. I'd expect them to be much more interested in adding veterans this summer to compliment their young core players than anything else.

One other tidbit to add to IB's reference list--although it never came to pass--last year Boston offered Washington the #5 and #37 to move up to #4 and take Backstrom. The Caps had Backstrom pegged as their top choice at #4 and so they passed on the offer.

Langway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2007, 07:14 PM
  #11
Checker*
 
Checker*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,077
vCash: 500
Am I the only one that thinks trading down is a much smarter option? This draft doesn't really have the top-flight, consensus, safe top players. Plus, Jarmo's knack seems to be finding diamonds in the rough which this draft may have plenty of. Hell, I'll go so far as to predict that the best player to be selected in this draft ten years down the road will probably not come from the top 10 picks. I just think that if we moved down to around 15 while picking up another top 40 pick, we could still get a guy with as much potential (Backlund, Eller) as most of the players in this year's upper tier and then get 4 more chances after that to find a few more winners. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think I'd be willing to trade Mikael Backlund and Patrick White for Pat Kane, Kyle Turris, or JVR.

Checker* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2007, 07:57 PM
  #12
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
The first issue is: Does Jarmo/Blues mgmt covet a player in the top 5 or so that they feel they must get if they have an opportunity?

If no, no trade up. If yes, then it probably takes that #39 IMO (Robb K, I'll stick to this b/c if I had the #5 pick I probably wouldn't drop to #9 for the #69 and the #99, but the #39 is what it would take especially if multiple teams make offers). I trust Jarmo so if they really covet that #5ish pick then I'd accept the loss of the #39.

I further agree that this is a fluid enough draft that trading the 9 for say the 15 and the 36 (giving us the 15, 24, 26, 36 and 39 and giving Edmonton two top-10 picks) would also be fine. It all boils down to Jarmo's board and the fluidity in value in moving up/down if teams start either reaching or poaching our targets.

There are a lot of players after that top 5 between 6 and 40 that have a lot of value. Right now we have 4 of those picks. I wish draft day were here already.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2007, 08:03 PM
  #13
Stealth JD
Drexel's dead!!!
 
Stealth JD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Safari Motor Motel
Country: United States
Posts: 6,164
vCash: 500
I'd just assume the Blues stay put....keep all 3 1st rounders and see if the drafting department can strike gold. either that or trade down...into next year's draft, where the Blues could again have multiple 1st rounders.

Stealth JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2007, 08:31 PM
  #14
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,805
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robb_K View Post
There are 30 choices in the 2nd round. The Blues' is a relatively high one. Their 3rd rounder (at #39) and a 4th, might be acceptable, rather than giving up their 2nd. it will depend upon what other teams were offering. The Caps might accept that from The Blues, rather than getting a very late 1st rounder and a 2nd, so they can still pick among the top 10.
Being technical, it'll actually be 31 - Minnesota will get a compensatory pick b/c A.J. Thelen (#12, 2004) is going back into the draft.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
The first issue is: Does Jarmo/Blues mgmt covet a player in the top 5 or so that they feel they must get if they have an opportunity?

If no, no trade up. If yes, then it probably takes that #39 IMO (Robb K, I'll stick to this b/c if I had the #5 pick I probably wouldn't drop to #9 for the #69 and the #99, but the #39 is what it would take especially if multiple teams make offers). I trust Jarmo so if they really covet that #5ish pick then I'd accept the loss of the #39.
I can't say for sure, but my gut feeling is that they'll be exploring moving up but nothing will happen until about a week or so before the draft. Don't expect much to happen until after the combine and after teams have had individuals come in for personal workouts ... but after that, I expect them to be talking to everyone above them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
I wish draft day were here already.
I think that sums up the feeling of many Blues fans. This ought to be a *very* interesting draft.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmans Domain View Post
I'd just assume the Blues stay put....keep all 3 1st rounders and see if the drafting department can strike gold. either that or trade down...into next year's draft, where the Blues could again have multiple 1st rounders.
I'd rather deal for 1st round picks in '09 and try to improve our chances of landing Tavares.


Last edited by Irish Blues: 05-07-2007 at 09:06 PM.
Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2007, 09:00 PM
  #15
Langway
Moderator
Floatvechkin
 
Langway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
Being technical, it'll actually be 31 - Minnesota will get a compensatory pick b/c A.J. Thelen (#12, 2004) is going back into the draft.
Fixed. Though if Buffalo doesn't come to terms with Artem Kryukov (#15, 2000), it's been reported that they too will receive a compensatory pick in the second round. I think it'd be #42 in Minnesota's case, #45 in Buffalo's.

Langway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2007, 09:18 PM
  #16
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,805
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by ididitlangway View Post
Fixed. Though if Buffalo doesn't come to terms with Artem Kryukov (#15, 2000), it's been reported that they too will receive a compensatory pick in the second round. I think it'd be #42 in Minnesota's case, #45 in Buffalo's.
Thanks ... I was working on something and had Buffalo on my mind when I was typing that. If Russia doesn't sign the IIHF transfer agreement, it'll be interesting to see how the NHL handles the rights to unsigned Russian players - if there's an extension or not.

Other possible compensatory picks (comments are solely my personal take)
17, 2005 - Martin Hanzal, Phoenix (not signed, but I expect he will be)
20, 2005 - Kenndal McArdle, Florida (not signed, could go either way here)
26, 2005 - Matt Pelech, Calgary (not signed, chances may be better of him not signing)

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2007, 09:35 AM
  #17
blueshead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 156
vCash: 500
Let me clear up a couple of points on my post:

..Its not to move up a measly 4 picks, its not moving from #9 to #5, the scenario was Jackman and one of the mid 20's for the 5th pick, so it was moving up 15+ spots.
..Its not reducing the number of picks, we would still have the same number of picks.
..And once again it was dependent on the player we wanted still being available at #5

To me, the chance to get a JVR (unlikely at #5) or a Chepenarov (probably also unlikely with LA at #4) or maybe even Voracek (but it seems his stock is dropping) this would be worth trading Backman considering our current roster and the guys we have waiting in the wings.

The hole with the Blues in my mind is still that high impact offensive player you build a team around, the Crosby, the Ovechkin, the Thornton or even someone similar to that level (and the whole scenario is based on the assumption that Jarmo thinks that one is still on the board)...how many chances do you have presented to get that type of player...not many...and if we could have a shot at the cost of surplus D I would say go for it.

And in the spirit of keeping me out on the fringe of draft day logic, I would say, if the draft workouts support it, I would use the #9 to pick Esposito if he is still on the board. I think all of the bad press is overblown and this is exactly the high reward player we need. I would feel very comfortable, if Jarmo liked the idea, of depending on AM being able to shape this kid and get the most out of him. I think we have exactly the type of coach necessary to get the most out of kids.

blueshead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2007, 09:46 AM
  #18
Stealth JD
Drexel's dead!!!
 
Stealth JD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Safari Motor Motel
Country: United States
Posts: 6,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
I'd rather deal for 1st round picks in '09 and try to improve our chances of landing Tavares.
mmmmmm......2009......

though, I'd have to think that most GM's are going to be leery of trading away picks in such a dynamic-looking draft...

Stealth JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2007, 09:50 AM
  #19
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,805
vCash: 91
It didn't stop 3 teams from dealing their 1st-round picks in '98 to Colorado when the Avs were going fast and furious after Lecavalier. We have 3 1st-round picks and we've got a couple defensemen - and teams are (A) going to want to move up, and (B) going to come asking about a defenseman.

We've got plenty of leverage here. I say we try to use it.

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2007, 10:37 AM
  #20
CaliCash
Registered User
 
CaliCash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Lancaster, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 387
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CaliCash Send a message via Yahoo to CaliCash
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
To give everyone an idea of what it's cost to trade in the 1st round in past years:

2001
-- Calgary traded their picks at 14 and 41 with Phoenix to move up to 11.
-- Philadelphia traded picks at 27 and 225, plus a 2nd in '02 with Edmonton to move up to 23.

2002
-- Columbus traded the #3 overall pick and the right to swap 1st-round picks in 2003 with Florida for the #1 overall pick.
-- Philadelphia gave up #34 and #52 and Ruslan Fedotenko to Tampa Bay for the #4 overall pick.
-- Florida gave up #10 and #99 to Calgary move to #9
-- Washington gave up #26 and #42 and a 3rd in 2003 to Dallas to move to #13.
-- Montreal gave #15 and #245 to Edmonton to move to #14.
-- Buffalo gave #30 and Mike Pandolfo to Columbus to move to #20.
-- Atlanta then gave #41 and #96 to Columbus to move to #30.

2003
-- Pittsburgh gave #3 and #55 and Mikael Samuelsson to Florida for the #1 overall pick and Florida's pick at 73.
-- San Jose gave #21, #66, and #103 to Boston to move to 16th.
-- New Jersey gave picks at 22 and 68 to Edmonton to scoot up to 17.
-- Florida gave picks at 34, 41, and 192 to Tampa Bay to move to 25.
-- Anaheim gave picks at 36 and 54 to Dallas to go to 28.

2004
-- NY Rangers traded picks at 24 and 46 to Calgary for picks at 19 and 247.
-- New Jersey sent their picks at 22 and 88 to Dallas for the 20th pick.
-- San Jose then sent picks at 28, 52, and 91 for the 22nd pick Dallas had just received as well as the pick at 153.

2005
-- San Jose traded their picks at 12, 49, and 207 to Atlanta for the #8 pick.
-- NY Rangers then traded picks at 16 and 41 to Atlanta for the #12 pick.
-- Florida sent the 29th pick and a 2nd in 2006 to Philadelphia for the #20 pick.
-- Washington sent picks at 47 and 52 to Colorado for the #27 pick.

2006
-- Los Angeles traded Pavol Demita to Minnesota for the 17th pick and Patrick O'Sullivan.
-- San Jose traded the 20th and 53rd picks to Montreal for the #16 pick.
-- St. Louis traded the 30th and 77th picks to New Jersey for the #25 pick.
AWESOME RESEARCH!!!!!

CaliCash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2007, 12:06 PM
  #21
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueshead View Post
Let me clear up a couple of points on my post:

..Its not to move up a measly 4 picks, its not moving from #9 to #5, the scenario was Jackman and one of the mid 20's for the 5th pick, so it was moving up 15+ spots.
..Its not reducing the number of picks, we would still have the same number of picks.
..And once again it was dependent on the player we wanted still being available at #5

To me, the chance to get a JVR (unlikely at #5) or a Chepenarov (probably also unlikely with LA at #4) or maybe even Voracek (but it seems his stock is dropping) this would be worth trading Backman considering our current roster and the guys we have waiting in the wings.

The hole with the Blues in my mind is still that high impact offensive player you build a team around, the Crosby, the Ovechkin, the Thornton or even someone similar to that level (and the whole scenario is based on the assumption that Jarmo thinks that one is still on the board)...how many chances do you have presented to get that type of player...not many...and if we could have a shot at the cost of surplus D I would say go for it.

And in the spirit of keeping me out on the fringe of draft day logic, I would say, if the draft workouts support it, I would use the #9 to pick Esposito if he is still on the board. I think all of the bad press is overblown and this is exactly the high reward player we need. I would feel very comfortable, if Jarmo liked the idea, of depending on AM being able to shape this kid and get the most out of him. I think we have exactly the type of coach necessary to get the most out of kids.
I agree! IF Jarmo and JD think a specific forward (left on the board) is a difference maker of the calibre that won't be available at #9, they should use draft choices and/or one of the defencemen to get that player. I just hope they don't give up too much value (i.e. the potential to get 2 impact forwards) for overall line depth (the type that Buffalo enjoys).

I agree about Esposito. A lot of his "mental" and/or "attitude" problems may just be conjecture and hearsay, as it was with Kessel. Kessel seems to be more or less what the scouts had described. Esposito has too big a talent/skill level to be scared away by a "perceived" bust potential. The New atmosphere of hard work and responsibility/accountability that JD and Murray have installed with The Blues should be able to keep Esposito in line, and foster his development. I think I'd pick him, if he were still on the board at #9, rather than jump up to #5 to pick Turris or Voracek, and give up #9 and a 2nd rounder, or Bäckman and a late 1st or early 2nd. But, there are several picks between #5 and #9 in which Esposito, Couture, Voracek and several other good players could be taken. it could be a gamble to sit and wait with #9. If Blues' management wants to have a certain forward much more than the others, they'll make that move to go after him.

Robb_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2007, 04:11 PM
  #22
PerryTurnbullfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Penalty Box
Country:
Posts: 2,013
vCash: 500
I may be in the minority here, but I would dangle a couple #1 picks/or a pick and a defenseman for a young top six forward with 30+ goal scoring potential. If Oshie, Soderburg, and Berglund will be ready in a year or so, then we may be ready for a good run (along with Backes, Stempniak, and Boyes).

PerryTurnbullfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2007, 11:11 PM
  #23
Noteman
Registered User
 
Noteman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wentzville, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 1,842
vCash: 350
Send a message via AIM to Noteman Send a message via Yahoo to Noteman
NO WAY do we start trading our first rounders away unless it's a massive overpayment or part of a package to move up to a higher pick.

Noteman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2007, 05:32 AM
  #24
Frenzy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,729
vCash: 500
What I would like to see us do is trade the two late 1st rounders for a top 12-15 pick.

Go after Sutter and Espo.

Frenzy1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2007, 05:51 AM
  #25
Bluester
Registered User
 
Bluester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kansas City, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenzy1 View Post
What I would like to see us do is trade the two late 1st rounders for a top 12-15 pick.

Go after Sutter and Espo.
With the depth of the draft it's probably best to keep both of those first rounders. Now maybe one of them and Backman to make a real good jump.

Bluester 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 03:14 PM.

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.