What team is going to give up a top 5 pick in one of the deepest drafts of the past decade? Unless you're prepared to give up Fowler, or Ryan, that is.
Maybe as we get closer to the draft there might be enough reason for Columbus to accept the #2 pick, but right now? I doubt it. Yakupov would be a dream pick for them.
Drafting is just too important in the salary cap NHL. The Ducks would need to overpay, probably significantly, and I just don't think we are in a position where we can afford to.
I disagree Soj CBJ has alot of holes to fill including goalie issues D issues and scoring issues. If they can get a great young dman to fill a hole as well as stying in the top 3 it gives them every initiative to do this. They still get Galchenyuk or Grigs as well as having Vatanen on there blueline who will most likely crack their roster next season due to the holes pteviously stated
I disagree Soj CBJ has alot of holes to fill including goalie issues D issues and scoring issues. If they can get a great young dman to fill a hole as well as stying in the top 3 it gives them every initiative to do this. They still get Galchenyuk or Grigs as well as having Vatanen on there blueline who will most likely crack their roster next season due to the holes pteviously stated
When was the last time a team gave up the #1 overall pick?
I disagree Soj CBJ has alot of holes to fill including goalie issues D issues and scoring issues. If they can get a great young dman to fill a hole as well as stying in the top 3 it gives them every initiative to do this. They still get Galchenyuk or Grigs as well as having Vatanen on there blueline
Trading up from 3rd to 1st for Vatanen? The drop in talent level between Yakupov/Grigorenko/Murray doesn't seem to be quite big enough for that to be that good deal for the Ducks, from all I have read at this point. Vatanen, while certainly not blue-chip enough to fetch an early first on his own, is a very good prospect, and I can't remember any move up that included a prospect as good. Seems like a very steep price to pay. Columbus might be more inclined to look at Murray, anyway, so I'm not sure it would take that much for them to move down two spots.
I really don't know, though. If the scouting staff was really sold on Yakupov and far less on the others and with Schultz in the organisation, maybe. There's not really enough benchmarks for this type of deal...
You draft the best player available. It's a forward, you draft a forward. If it's a defenseman, you draft a defenseman. Drafting based on need is a good way to blow a good pick. Needs change. Talent doesn't.
I think that drafting "the best one" is short-sighted strategy and shouldn't be done unless if the drop of talent is big (like if Murray is the best one left when we draft and the best forward is significantly worse choice, draft the best player).
I think that drafting "the best one" is short-sighted strategy and shouldn't be done unless if the drop of talent is big (like if Murray is the best one left when we draft and the best forward is significantly worse choice, draft the best player).
Drafting based on need is actually the short-sighted strategy. You're drafting based on immediate need vs. who is likely to end up the best player. Drafting BPA is looking ahead, while drafting based on need is looking at the present.
I think that drafting "the best one" is short-sighted strategy and shouldn't be done unless if the drop of talent is big (like if Murray is the best one left when we draft and the best forward is significantly worse choice, draft the best player).
I believe the entire "BPA" concept is a little overrated, as well. Not because you should not draft the best player available every time, but because it's not that easy to identify that best player most of the time. There are different skillsets that different scouts value differently. When you have a clear-cut picture on who the best player is, you pick without hesitation, in my opinion, but I don't think there are too many moments in a draft where there is a consensus among GMs who the current BPA actually is. So it often ends up looking like GMs addressing organisational needs when their staff just has a different view on the BPA.
I disagree Soj CBJ has alot of holes to fill including goalie issues D issues and scoring issues. If they can get a great young dman to fill a hole as well as stying in the top 3 it gives them every initiative to do this. They still get Galchenyuk or Grigs as well as having Vatanen on there blueline who will most likely crack their roster next season due to the holes pteviously stated
I think that we have, looking aheard to 2012/13 and the almost certain loss of Selanne and Koivu, as many holes as Columbus and Carolina (let's not forget them, they are right there in the rush for the bottom three with Columbus and us). That said, there is still a lot of season and evaluation work to be done for all of the top prospects. Patience will bring us many answers.
I believe the entire "BPA" concept is a little overrated, as well. Not because you should not draft the best player available every time, but because it's not that easy to identify that best player most of the time. There are different skillsets that different scouts value differently. When you have a clear-cut picture on who the best player is, you pick without hesitation, in my opinion, but I don't think there are too many moments in a draft where there is a consensus among GMs who the current BPA actually is. So it often ends up looking like GMs addressing organisational needs when their staff just has a different view on the BPA.
That's why teams have a number of scouts. When you look at the behind the scenes draft previews(or reviews) you can usually see lists that rank the players. Analysts go on and on about this, when talking about a player dropping. It's not that they aren't good players, but the team ranks someone else above them, and that's all it takes for them to drop.
Teams might have slightly differing opinions on who ranks where, but the lists are usually fairly consistent for the most part. More often than not, those rankings turn out to be more right than wrong too, when it's all said and done.
The thing about drafting based on need is that you can address needs outside of the draft. But if you pass up a slightly superior player, because you think you need a center instead of a winger, or a forward instead of a defenseman, it can cost you later when your needs change. Think of how much a team can change in 5 years. Sure, sometimes the best player at the time of the draft doesn't end up the best player later, but that's something scouts look at too. Scouts don't just look at who the best player is at the draft. They also project who will be the best player 5 years down the road, and beyond even that.
That's what drafting the BPA is. It's looking at who you think will be the best player when it's all said and done. It's a long-term strategy.
What team is going to give up a top 5 pick in one of the deepest drafts of the past decade? Unless you're prepared to give up Fowler, or Ryan, that is.
If we look back at 03 - teams with higher overalls weren`t so much of a winners.
That is the thing in deep drafts - you don`t necessary need high picks. In not-so-much deep drafts (05) higher picks have higher value imo.
On the other hand with superstars like Yakupov, the 1st overall could hold a very high value.
I still believe we`ll pick it up and end it around 10th in west, and will pick around 8-15th pick.
Trading up from 3rd to 1st for Vatanen? The drop in talent level between Yakupov/Grigorenko/Murray doesn't seem to be quite big enough for that to be that good deal for the Ducks, from all I have read at this point. Vatanen, while certainly not blue-chip enough to fetch an early first on his own, is a very good prospect, and I can't remember any move up that included a prospect as good. Seems like a very steep price to pay. Columbus might be more inclined to look at Murray, anyway, so I'm not sure it would take that much for them to move down two spots.
I really don't know, though. If the scouting staff was really sold on Yakupov and far less on the others and with Schultz in the organisation, maybe. There's not really enough benchmarks for this type of deal...
Yakupov is a can't miss player...I'd do it in a heartbeat. He's on par to become a Crosby, Ovechkin, Stamkos type player. You don't pass on a guy like that. And when you have Fowler and Schultz, moving up to get Yakupov at the cost of Vatanen...well...then Sami is just collateral damage needed to get a fantastic player.
We'd forget about him REAL quick. Instead we pick third, and assume they're gonna go with BPA. (and you guys have made a good point, drafting on team need screwed 9 teams out of getting Cam Fowler) they take Murray. Then you're looking at 4 offensive minded defensemen on the same blueline PLUS Visnovsky. That's kind of ridiculous.
If we DON'T go 1st or second overall, or trade up to get there, it would make more sense for this team to look at team need because the difference between the top 7 players isn't very high in terms of BPA. You can go with either Dumba or Murray. Dumba would make more sense for this team as it needs more physicality on the blueline. Really, Dumba should be ranked as the highest defenseman. He has great offensive talent, as well as great shutdown and physical ability. If we need a forward, you can't go wrong with Galchenyuk or Forsberg.
BPA makes sense outside the top 7 in this draft. The question is, who can help this team more and the way I see it is like this
Yakupov (better top line compliment than Grigorenko, can't miss talent)
Grigorenko (Yakupov not there? BPA by a long shot. Second line center or winger)
Dumba (basically a smaller Pronger in terms of skill-set)
Trouba (Fowler, but with a physical edge according to his scouting reports)
Murray (If the above 4 are not available, you don't pass him up, but something must be done about having FOUR offensive minded prospects)
Galchenyuk (great speed, playmaking ability, NHL ready winger, great for Etem)
Forsberg (awesome name for starters, but very dynamic player, NHL ready)
Reinhart (defensive defenseman. Lot's of talent. Not the same tier as the above players)
Girgensons (not NHL ready, but should be a good NHL talent)
Frk (same)
Ceci (doubt we get this low, but might as well finish off my list)
Maata
Gaunce
Since i`m a Latvian, it would be interesting if we would draft Girgensons.
DuckJet you mentioned he`s not NHL ready - actually from what i`ve heard he`ll be one of the most-ready players for NHL right away. He`s hard working guy that plays well in both sides of the ice, i guess.
But it is reported that he`ll go to the university after draft, so i guess we wont take him after all.
Since i`m a Latvian, it would be interesting if we would draft Girgensons.
DuckJet you mentioned he`s not NHL ready - actually from what i`ve heard he`ll be one of the most-ready players for NHL right away. He`s hard working guy that plays well in both sides of the ice, i guess.
But it is reported that he`ll go to the university after draft, so i guess we wont take him after all.
I read elsewhere that he is not NHL-ready AT ALL. Conflicting reports I guess. At any rate I'd rather take Frk, and with his injury he looks like he could fall.
Yakupov is a can't miss player...I'd do it in a heartbeat. He's on par to become a Crosby, Ovechkin, Stamkos type player. You don't pass on a guy like that. And when you have Fowler and Schultz, moving up to get Yakupov at the cost of Vatanen...well...then Sami is just collateral damage needed to get a fantastic player.
I agree that we might be able to afford to in that scenario. But from the reports I read at this point I did not get the impression that the difference between Yakupov and Grigorenko, for example, was that big. There seemed to be some room for debate on whether he even will be 1st overall - even there, he still seemed to be the safest bet, for sure, but with the development in those things we have seen within the final year before the draft and all of my knowledge on these guys coming 2nd hand, I'm a little more cautious.
If we look back at 03 - teams with higher overalls weren`t so much of a winners.
That is the thing in deep drafts - you don`t necessary need high picks. In not-so-much deep drafts (05) higher picks have higher value imo.
On the other hand with superstars like Yakupov, the 1st overall could hold a very high value.
I still believe we`ll pick it up and end it around 10th in west, and will pick around 8-15th pick.
If we played the rest of the season at the pace of the current top team we'd end up with 95 points, if we played playoff-team quality hockey at 1.2ppg we'd end up with 84 pts. This team is doomed for the season, baring some miracle. Theyre picking top 5 almost for sure, especially if they get rid of players at the deadline.
Im not a believer in the second half comeback this year, since there's no light at the end this time.
I agree that we might be able to afford to in that scenario. But from the reports I read at this point I did not get the impression that the difference between Yakupov and Grigorenko, for example, was that big. There seemed to be some room for debate on whether he even will be 1st overall - even there, he still seemed to be the safest bet, for sure, but with the development in those things we have seen within the final year before the draft and all of my knowledge on these guys coming 2nd hand, I'm a little more cautious.
I depends on the team need.
Grigorenko compares to Malkin, Getzlaf, Thornton. Playmaking players. He doesn't have fantastic skating, but he's got great hands, and he's an amazing puck mover.
Yakupov compares to Bure, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk. Guys that break through the offensive zone and have a natural talent of slamming the puck in the back of the net.
Either one would be useful, but Yakupov would fit into this team's system much better. Grigorenko would just get us another Getzlaf type player that I wouldn't even put on the top line. I mean maybe. Two playmakers feeding the puck to Perry for 75 goals. Not bad. But I'd rather see:
If we played the rest of the season at the pace of the current top team we'd end up with 95 points, if we played playoff-team quality hockey at 1.2ppg we'd end up with 84 pts. This team is doomed for the season, baring some miracle. Theyre picking top 5 almost for sure, especially if they get rid of players at the deadline.
Im not a believer in the second half comeback this year, since there's no light at the end this time.
If we lose 17 or more games we can throw in the towel.
Drafting based on need is actually the short-sighted strategy. You're drafting based on immediate need vs. who is likely to end up the best player. Drafting BPA is looking ahead, while drafting based on need is looking at the present.
That depends, if the team knows that it's going to need some type of player in the future, they draft a player who should be able to fill in when the time comes. Obviously if you need a certain type of player now and you draft a kid who isn't even ready for the job, it's not going to work.
If we played the rest of the season at the pace of the current top team we'd end up with 95 points, if we played playoff-team quality hockey at 1.2ppg we'd end up with 84 pts. This team is doomed for the season, baring some miracle. Theyre picking top 5 almost for sure, especially if they get rid of players at the deadline.
Im not a believer in the second half comeback this year, since there's no light at the end this time.
We basically need to play at Cardiac Kid pace from here on out. Possible yes, but probable no.
Also, I dont think we will have much to sell in terms of assets, unless they decide to move Beauchemin or Koivu and Selanne decide they want to move, or they want to move Lydman or Vish with a year left on their deal. I really dont see any of that happening so who knows, but I think we see this team together.
That depends, if the team knows that it's going to need some type of player in the future, they draft a player who should be able to fill in when the time comes. Obviously if you need a certain type of player now and you draft a kid who isn't even ready for the job, it's not going to work.
Drafting based on future need is partly speculation. You can look ahead and see that you might have a hole in a certain area, but you can't necessarily know whether that hole will actually be there in the future. Not only that, but how much of it is based on the assumption that certain prospects turn out a certain way? You can only look so far ahead, before you're just making assumptions.
Consider that Beauchemin was let go, because Murray assumed the blue line was adequate without him. That wasn't even a long-term assumption, and look how it turned out. Then there's the RPG line, or more specifically the players themselves. Getzlaf, Perry, and Ryan. Will we still have all three of them next season? That would certainly make the future look different. The further ahead you look, the more you're just guessing. Guessing that the prospects you have will have impact the team in a certain way. Guessing that certain rostered players will still be around, or others won't be. And on and on...
I'm not saying that you don't consider at all what future needs might be, but when it's all said and done, I think teams typically draft based on who their scouts determine will be the best players. It seems pretty uncommon for teams to draft based on need. It happens, but I think most teams look at who the best available players are.
It wouldn't surprise me to see Anaheim go on a second half tear, miss the playoffs, but hurt their draft rankings. Hell, I expect it. It happens every season. They start slow, and finish strong. It's just that this time, their start has already made playoffs a very slim possibility. Finishing strong isn't going to accomplish anything.
Not that I'd ever condone tanking, but the best thing for this team would be to get a high draft pick.
It wouldn't surprise me to see Anaheim go on a second half tear, miss the playoffs, but hurt their draft rankings. Hell, I expect it. It happens every season. They start slow, and finish strong. It's just that this time, their start has already made playoffs a very slim possibility. Finishing strong isn't going to accomplish anything.
Not that I'd ever condone tanking, but the best thing for this team would be to get a high draft pick.
I dont think anyone can argue this but there is a large difference in playing well and not getting a break and tanking.
Some people on here want to trade everyone away and tank.
Yakupov is a can't miss player...I'd do it in a heartbeat. He's on par to become a Crosby, Ovechkin, Stamkos type player. You don't pass on a guy like that. And when you have Fowler and Schultz, moving up to get Yakupov at the cost of Vatanen...well...then Sami is just collateral damage needed to get a fantastic player.
We'd forget about him REAL quick. Instead we pick third, and assume they're gonna go with BPA. (and you guys have made a good point, drafting on team need screwed 9 teams out of getting Cam Fowler) they take Murray. Then you're looking at 4 offensive minded defensemen on the same blueline PLUS Visnovsky. That's kind of ridiculous.
If we DON'T go 1st or second overall, or trade up to get there, it would make more sense for this team to look at team need because the difference between the top 7 players isn't very high in terms of BPA. You can go with either Dumba or Murray. Dumba would make more sense for this team as it needs more physicality on the blueline. Really, Dumba should be ranked as the highest defenseman. He has great offensive talent, as well as great shutdown and physical ability. If we need a forward, you can't go wrong with Galchenyuk or Forsberg.
BPA makes sense outside the top 7 in this draft. The question is, who can help this team more and the way I see it is like this
Yakupov (better top line compliment than Grigorenko, can't miss talent)
Grigorenko (Yakupov not there? BPA by a long shot. Second line center or winger)
Dumba (basically a smaller Pronger in terms of skill-set)
Trouba (Fowler, but with a physical edge according to his scouting reports)
Murray (If the above 4 are not available, you don't pass him up, but something must be done about having FOUR offensive minded prospects)
Galchenyuk (great speed, playmaking ability, NHL ready winger, great for Etem)
Forsberg (awesome name for starters, but very dynamic player, NHL ready)
Reinhart (defensive defenseman. Lot's of talent. Not the same tier as the above players)
Girgensons (not NHL ready, but should be a good NHL talent)
Frk (same)
Ceci (doubt we get this low, but might as well finish off my list)
Maata
Gaunce
i don't see that happening.. right now you're assuming that schultz and vatanen and murray will all pan out.. i don't believe so.. not to mention that you have visnovsky in there.. he might not even be here by the time schultz/vatanen/murray crack our roster...
would you not take 6 scott niedermayers on your team if it was possible? i don't think we need to sell vatanen away just because we MAY have too many offensive minded d-men.. as long as they are solid in our own zone who if they are offensive minded or not... not to mention our breakouts would be absolutely ridiculous.. besides schultz is more classified as a 2-way dman.. we have sbisa as a 2-way dman.. hopefully beach will still be here and he is more of 2-way/defensive d-man.. we still have clark who is a stay at home d-man.. the only thing we are really lacking is nasty shut down d to get people the **** out of our crease... we can just sign a UFA player that is like that.. if our future d-core is
fowler-sbisa
murray-schultz
vatanen-clark
i would not complain 1 bit if they played to most of their potential.. but realistically i don't see all our d-prospects panning out the way we hope for them.. and besides IF they do, and we're lacking something then we'll have lots of good defenseman to trade away.. good defenseman are a rare commodity these days..
It wouldn't surprise me to see Anaheim go on a second half tear, miss the playoffs, but hurt their draft rankings. Hell, I expect it. It happens every season. They start slow, and finish strong. It's just that this time, their start has already made playoffs a very slim possibility. Finishing strong isn't going to accomplish anything.
Not that I'd ever condone tanking, but the best thing for this team would be to get a high draft pick.
Yeah exactly this. Similar to two years ago, but we're in an even worse situation now than we were then.
i don't see that happening.. right now you're assuming that schultz and vatanen and murray will all pan out.. i don't believe so.. not to mention that you have visnovsky in there.. he might not even be here by the time schultz/vatanen/murray crack our roster...
would you not take 6 scott niedermayers on your team if it was possible? i don't think we need to sell vatanen away just because we MAY have too many offensive minded d-men.. as long as they are solid in our own zone who if they are offensive minded or not... not to mention our breakouts would be absolutely ridiculous.. besides schultz is more classified as a 2-way dman.. we have sbisa as a 2-way dman.. hopefully beach will still be here and he is more of 2-way/defensive d-man.. we still have clark who is a stay at home d-man.. the only thing we are really lacking is nasty shut down d to get people the **** out of our crease... we can just sign a UFA player that is like that.. if our future d-core is
fowler-sbisa
murray-schultz
vatanen-clark
i would not complain 1 bit if they played to most of their potential.. but realistically i don't see all our d-prospects panning out the way we hope for them.. and besides IF they do, and we're lacking something then we'll have lots of good defenseman to trade away.. good defenseman are a rare commodity these days..
All of this really doesn't matter as I said earlier, that I would ONLY package one of Vatanen or Schultz for a first round pick if it brought talented defensive defensemen back like Dumba or Trouba. Basically on the same level in terms of talent (as Vatanen and Schultz) if not more so, but they bring what we need to the table. And that's shutdown physical defensive hockey.
