HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Columbus Blue Jackets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012 NHL Draft Thread III (June 22nd-23rd)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-10-2012, 10:02 AM
  #51
KeithBWhittington
Going North
 
KeithBWhittington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Brick by Brick
Country: Hungary
Posts: 10,250
vCash: 500
Trading the pick still makes the most sense to me. It would have been different had we got the #1. This now becomes our second best tradeable asset.

KeithBWhittington is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 10:12 AM
  #52
Sore Loser
HF Partner
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, WA.
Country: United States
Posts: 6,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithBWhittington View Post
Trading the pick still makes the most sense to me. It would have been different had we got the #1. This now becomes our second best tradeable asset.
Why?

What if we trade it, and then Edmonton drafts Ryan Murray first overall? Then, we would have the player we probably would have drafted first overall anyway.

Seems short-sighted if you ask me. Just because it isn't the #1 pick overall, doesn't mean we should give it away like a hot potato.

Sore Loser is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 10:47 AM
  #53
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sore Loser View Post
It should be us picking up the first pick on the second day. They use the "first round" as a marketing ploy, with everyone posing for photos and such. Since our pick is a "second round" pick, we'll be picking on the second day. It works that way with compensatory picks, such as the one the NYR received for the death of Alex Cherepanov (RIP) a couple of years back - it wasn't the last pick of the round, it was the first pick of the next round.
That's not quite accurate. The compensatory picks for losing UFAs (in the 1995-2004 CBA) was at the end of a particular round. The compensatory pick in the new CBA for failure to sign a first-round pick is in the second round, but it's actually slotted in the same spot as when the initial pick was made. Cherapanov was 17th overall in 2007, so the compensatory pick was the 17th of the 2nd round (47th overall). The Rangers took Ethan Werek.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 10:54 AM
  #54
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithBWhittington View Post
Trading the pick still makes the most sense to me. It would have been different had we got the #1. This now becomes our second best tradeable asset.
There's a very small number of players who I'd trade that pick for, and an even smaller number of packages. It would have to be someone likely to be an NHL star before the player in that spot would be...supposedly Claude Noel made some unflattering comments about Alexandre Burmistrov, who I think will be a star, and who may fall into a separate study I'm doing.

That study, for what it's worth, would analyze whether "rushing" a prospect actually cripples their entire career, or merely stunts their development in the short term. What brought the question up in my mind was looking at how many players in the NHL at 18 or 19 had extremely poor initial seasons and yet turned out fine; it was a defense of Ryan Johansen, but indirectly ballooned into something else. The Sporting News had done something analyzing NBA players who came out early, and they basically concluded that being in the NBA on potential rather than on actual skill at the time only stunted but didn't cripple. My own conclusion off of that would be that it might cause GMs around the league to determine that a player simply cannot play in the NBA, even as he's actually about to break through.

Case in point: Olli Jokinen. Drafted in 1997, got his 8-game tryout that year and went back to Finland for the rest of the year. 21 points in 66 games as a 20-year-old, 21 points in 82 games the next year (after being traded to the Islanders as part of the Palffy deal), 16 points in 78 games, 29 points in 80 games...he was going to be 24 partway through the next season and looked to simply not be an NHL player. That year, he scored more goals (36) than in his entire previous five seasons combined. Mike Keenan undoubtedly had something to do with that; Jokinen's 29-point season involved 1 goal and 0 assists under Duane Sutter before he was fired, but he began to blossom under Keenan, who took over as interim coach and then permanent the next season.


Last edited by Mayor Bee: 05-10-2012 at 11:16 AM.
Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 10:55 AM
  #55
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sore Loser View Post
Why?

What if we trade it, and then Edmonton drafts Ryan Murray first overall? Then, we would have the player we probably would have drafted first overall anyway.
It probably wouldn't be traded until draft day anyway, we'd probably be on the clock at the time it was traded. Probably a moot point. I'm sure they thought of that contingency.

Quote:
Seems short-sighted if you ask me. Just because it isn't the #1 pick overall, doesn't mean we should give it away like a hot potato.
Unless it was in another post, I didn't see KBW suggest it should be traded "like a hot potato".

I don't agree that trading it is our best option like he suggests. At the same time, he hasn't seem to go as far as what you are suggesting either.

blahblah is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 11:01 AM
  #56
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
There's a very small number of players who I'd trade that pick for, and an even smaller number of packages. It would have to be someone likely to be an NHL star before the player in that spot would be...supposedly Claude Noel made some unflattering comments about Alexandre Burmistrov, who I think will be a star, and who may fall into a separate study I'm doing.
All I know is that the weakest #2 picks in the last decade have been probably JVR and Lehtonen. It's a good test on how bad we suck as an organization to see if we can somehow screw this up. When I look at what has been drafted during that decade, we should be able to get one hell of a player that can make an immediate impact. That we are even debating if he can or should is distributing.

blahblah is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 11:20 AM
  #57
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
All I know is that the weakest #2 picks in the last decade have been probably JVR and Lehtonen. It's a good test on how bad we suck as an organization to see if we can somehow screw this up. When I look at what has been drafted during that decade, we should be able to get one hell of a player that can make an immediate impact. That we are even debating if he can or should is distributing.
Past drafts have nothing to do with this one. There have been plenty of 3rd overall picks who have done very well, but that has nothing to do with Chicago making a boneheaded pick with Cam Barker in 2004.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 11:24 AM
  #58
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Past drafts have nothing to do with this one. There have been plenty of 3rd overall picks who have done very well, but that has nothing to do with Chicago making a boneheaded pick with Cam Barker in 2004.
Since I left in a caveat, don't go to the silly place. Not trying to be rude, but I left the possibility of us not using the pick wisely. Since that seems to be the premise of your post, there was little point in saying much other than "agree".

blahblah is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 11:32 AM
  #59
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
Since I left in a caveat, don't go to the silly place. Not trying to be rude, but I left the possibility of us not using the pick wisely. Since that seems to be the premise of your post, there was little point in saying much other than "agree".
No, my premise is that talent can break between certain draft slots, which varies from year to year. It would take a special brand of stupid to screw up 2003, but 2004 is a much different story. There were Ovechkin and Malkin at the top, then Barker, Ladd, Olesz, Montoya, Picard, Smid, Valabik, Tukonen, Thelen...you get the idea. I'm not including Blake Wheeler only because there was a shocked nervous laughter when that pick was announced; that's how much of a reach that was. That's obviously a massive drop.

To me, saying "it's impossible to mess up 2nd overall because the last 10 years has involved 9 pretty good players at 2nd overall" is getting close to the same level as "Ryan Johansen will bust because Benoit Pouliot was a 4th overall pick recently", which is also like saying "Ryan Johansen will be an All-Star and HOFer because Steve Yzerman was a 4th overall pick". Or it'd be like saying that David Legwand is a huge disappointment because he's not as good as Evgeni Malkin, both of whom were 2nd overall picks.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 11:45 AM
  #60
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 21,116
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
No, my premise is that talent can break between certain draft slots, which varies from year to year. It would take a special brand of stupid to screw up 2003, but 2004 is a much different story. There were Ovechkin and Malkin at the top, then Barker, Ladd, Olesz, Montoya, Picard, Smid, Valabik, Tukonen, Thelen...you get the idea. I'm not including Blake Wheeler only because there was a shocked nervous laughter when that pick was announced; that's how much of a reach that was. That's obviously a massive drop.

To me, saying "it's impossible to mess up 2nd overall because the last 10 years has involved 9 pretty good players at 2nd overall" is getting close to the same level as "Ryan Johansen will bust because Benoit Pouliot was a 4th overall pick recently", which is also like saying "Ryan Johansen will be an All-Star and HOFer because Steve Yzerman was a 4th overall pick". Or it'd be like saying that David Legwand is a huge disappointment because he's not as good as Evgeni Malkin, both of whom were 2nd overall picks.
Legwand has a significant hatedom among a vocal minority of Preds fans for this very reason, actually.

Yeah, I think they're bat**** insane too.

__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards

Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
Viqsi is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 11:47 AM
  #61
JACKETfan
Real Blue Jacketfan
 
JACKETfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Venice
Country: United States
Posts: 9,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithBWhittington View Post
Trading the pick still makes the most sense to me. It would have been different had we got the #1. This now becomes our second best tradeable asset.
When I said this last week people around here handed me my head.

JACKETfan is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 11:57 AM
  #62
Double-Shift Lassť
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassť's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Superurban Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
No, my premise is that talent can break between certain draft slots, which varies from year to year. It would take a special brand of stupid to screw up 2003, but 2004 is a much different story. There were Ovechkin and Malkin at the top, then Barker, Ladd, Olesz, Montoya, Picard, Smid, Valabik, Tukonen, Thelen...you get the idea. I'm not including Blake Wheeler only because there was a shocked nervous laughter when that pick was announced; that's how much of a reach that was. That's obviously a massive drop.

To me, saying "it's impossible to mess up 2nd overall because the last 10 years has involved 9 pretty good players at 2nd overall" is getting close to the same level as "Ryan Johansen will bust because Benoit Pouliot was a 4th overall pick recently", which is also like saying "Ryan Johansen will be an All-Star and HOFer because Steve Yzerman was a 4th overall pick". Or it'd be like saying that David Legwand is a huge disappointment because he's not as good as Evgeni Malkin, both of whom were 2nd overall picks.
You're attempting to equate pre-draft and post-draft knowledge of players. Doesn't work that way.

When you're drafting, you gotta go on something(s), which would include both general reliability of a draft slot based on history and scouting reports which would attempt to identify "talent breaks" as you've indicated (among numerous other tools).

And no one said "we can't mess this up." And even if they had, it's still not analogous to comparing players drafted in the same slot after they were drafted. It's merely stating that "this is something I'd consider if discussing trading the pick away."

__________________
"Every game, every point is a necessity." -- Ty Conklin, January 2007
"I'll have a chance to compete for the post of first issue. This is the most important thing." -- Sergei Bobrovsky, June 2012
Double-Shift Lassť is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 11:58 AM
  #63
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
Legwand has a significant hatedom among a vocal minority of Preds fans for this very reason, actually.

Yeah, I think they're bat**** insane too.
It never fails to amaze me how so much of the Western world was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, and yet in sports, the most ridiculous ideas (which have been repeatedly tested and roundly debunked) are still widely spread and believed despite mounds of evidence to the contrary.

And when it comes to actual talent being utilized in a team sport...it's like looking at your kid and saying, "You know, there's a blind autistic savant in Britain who can't button a button or zip a zipper, but can play piano by ear and displays a virtually superhuman ability to treat music almost in a liquid form. You can't do that. Clearly, it's because you either don't practice enough or don't desire it enough."

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 12:07 PM
  #64
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double-Shift Lassť View Post
You're attempting to equate pre-draft and post-draft knowledge of players. Doesn't work that way.

When you're drafting, you gotta go on something(s), which would include both general reliability of a draft slot based on history and scouting reports which would attempt to identify "talent breaks" as you've indicated (among numerous other tools).

And no one said "we can't mess this up." And even if they had, it's still not analogous to comparing players drafted in the same slot after they were drafted. It's merely stating that "this is something I'd consider if discussing trading the pick away."
If I were interviewing a GM candidate and he actually talked about using the past history of a specific draft slot in determining the likelihood of a future player in that slot becoming a star, or how big of a star a player can possibly become, he wouldn't get a second interview. It's a classic case of drawing a pattern where there is none, and where a player is actually drafted has a lot more variables taken into account than most people would care to realize.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 12:19 PM
  #65
Double-Shift Lassť
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassť's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Superurban Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
If I were interviewing a GM candidate and he actually talked about using the past history of a specific draft slot in determining the likelihood of a future player in that slot becoming a star, or how big of a star a player can possibly become, he wouldn't get a second interview. It's a classic case of drawing a pattern where there is none, and where a player is actually drafted has a lot more variables taken into account than most people would care to realize.
Fair enough.

1) It's not like we're talking about the 18th overall or something. If you can't use some sort of general reliability for the 2nd overall, I don't know how you can with the 1st overall, either. And by general reliability, I don't mean "will become as good as player X" but in context, "has a good chance to be a good player for us."

2) I still don't see it as analogous to comparing specific players drafted in the same slot after they're drafted. I agree with you that that practice is silly, but you're seeing them as the same, and I'm not.

3) If you're interviewing a GM candidate and the topic of trading the second overall pick comes up and you ask you he/she would approach it, would he/she be allowed to determine its value using, among other tools, the historical probability of a player selected at number 2 becoming a contributing NHL player?

Double-Shift Lassť is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 12:36 PM
  #66
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double-Shift Lassť View Post
Fair enough.

1) It's not like we're talking about the 18th overall or something. If you can't use some sort of general reliability for the 2nd overall, I don't know how you can with the 1st overall, either. And by general reliability, I don't mean "will become as good as player X" but in context, "has a good chance to be a good player for us."
I don't go for it for the 1st overall either. I don't know if I'm unique in this line of thinking or not.

Quote:
2) I still don't see it as analogous to comparing specific players drafted in the same slot after they're drafted. I agree with you that that practice is silly, but you're seeing them as the same, and I'm not.
I see them as fundamentally similar. For me, it doesn't matter if Simon Gagne was the 18th-rated BPA and drafted 22nd overall because someone else's BPA unexpectedly fell; what matters is whether he can play the game in the NHL and do it quickly, as well as how good he can reasonably be expected to become.

I've heard that in the 2006 draft, a couple of the CBJ scouts had Claude Giroux in their own top-5, and that he actually ended up 10th or 11th on the team's list. I think that's interesting, but I don't know that it's possible to actually analyze further.

Quote:
3) If you're interviewing a GM candidate and the topic of trading the second overall pick comes up and you ask you he/she would approach it, would he/she be allowed to determine its value using, among other tools, the historical probability of a player selected at number 2 becoming a contributing NHL player?
Sure, people are allowed to torpedo their own interviews no matter what I may want them to do.

The best GMs in any sport aren't simply those who make good draft picks, it's those who are able to exploit the paranoia, the overanalysis, or the irrational exuberance of others. We just saw the Minnesota Vikings fleece the Browns by hitting on two of those three, and they still got the guy they wanted. It's about basically trying to get in the head of other GMs and hoping that their likely draft path is able to be divined. Casey Stengel used to be very aggressive about that as a baseball manager; he'd do very bizarre things, just to keep everyone on their toes...it also meant that it was impossible for the opposition to figure out what he was ever thinking. He didn't even have a set pitching rotation, because he was as likely as not to have someone start on three days rest as he was to push someone back to five or six days rest.

Analyzing patterns of who does what in what draft position might have some merit when trying to get into the head of someone else...as far as using it for anything internal, I would reject that pretty strongly.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 12:50 PM
  #67
KeithBWhittington
Going North
 
KeithBWhittington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Brick by Brick
Country: Hungary
Posts: 10,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sore Loser View Post
Why?

What if we trade it, and then Edmonton drafts Ryan Murray first overall? Then, we would have the player we probably would have drafted first overall anyway.

Seems short-sighted if you ask me. Just because it isn't the #1 pick overall, doesn't mean we should give it away like a hot potato.
Ideally, I'd try to hold off talks until Edmonton makes their pick....

Or at least dip the toe in the water and field offers until Edmonton makes the pick.

KeithBWhittington is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 12:54 PM
  #68
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithBWhittington View Post
Ideally, I'd try to hold off talks until Edmonton makes their pick....

Or at least dip the toe in the water and field offers until Edmonton makes the pick.
"With the second pick in the 2012 NHL Draft, the Columbus Blue Jackets are proud to select...redraft...Mikael Granlund."

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 12:59 PM
  #69
Double-Shift Lassť
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassť's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Superurban Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
I don't go for it for the 1st overall either. I don't know if I'm unique in this line of thinking or not.
I'm fine with this. Pretty much share this line of thinking - in order to keep from viewing things in a vacuum. That said, no one would ever care about "winning" the draft lottery if there wasn't evidence that having the first overall pick was a good thing.


Quote:
I see them as fundamentally similar. For me, it doesn't matter if Simon Gagne was the 18th-rated BPA and drafted 22nd overall because someone else's BPA unexpectedly fell; what matters is whether he can play the game in the NHL and do it quickly, as well as how good he can reasonably be expected to become.
Again, I agree with your stuff on a specific player - once drafted, I want that player to play, regardless of draft position.

But this doesn't address, IMO, the issue of your suggesting that comparing draft slot value and comparing two/multiple players taken at the same slot post-draft as analogous. I do not believe they are. You apparently do, but I don't see your explanation addressing this.

Quote:
I've heard that in the 2006 draft, a couple of the CBJ scouts had Claude Giroux in their own top-5, and that he actually ended up 10th or 11th on the team's list. I think that's interesting, but I don't know that it's possible to actually analyze further.
OK.


Quote:
The best GMs in any sport aren't simply those who make good draft picks, it's those who are able to exploit the paranoia, the overanalysis, or the irrational exuberance of others. We just saw the Minnesota Vikings fleece the Browns by hitting on two of those three, and they still got the guy they wanted. It's about basically trying to get in the head of other GMs and hoping that their likely draft path is able to be divined. Casey Stengel used to be very aggressive about that as a baseball manager; he'd do very bizarre things, just to keep everyone on their toes...it also meant that it was impossible for the opposition to figure out what he was ever thinking. He didn't even have a set pitching rotation, because he was as likely as not to have someone start on three days rest as he was to push someone back to five or six days rest.
As the internet kids are saying, "Cool story, bro." Not helping me understand how you feel the above-referenced things are similar.

Let me add: I'm not asking you to continue to try and explain how they're similar to me (or your Stengel story, for that matter). I'm just saying I don't see it.

Double-Shift Lassť is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 02:10 PM
  #70
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
No, my premise is that talent can break between certain draft slots, which varies from year to year. It would take a special brand of stupid to screw up 2003, but 2004 is a much different story.
What part of this are we missing?

Quote:
All I know is that the weakest #2 picks in the last decade have been probably JVR and Lehtonen.
I no longer have any idea what you are debating, if you are, or why you are honestly.

If we draft #2 and end up with a dud, it's for one a couple of different reasons.

1. We suck at drafting and/or player development. More likely the former over the latter. Generally the player at #2 is good enough to overcome incompetence in development.
2. The player gets a career threatening injury.

He may or may not meet expectations, but he should be a pretty damn good player.

Not because the pool of available players aren't good enough to produce, at least, two elite star players slotted in the top 5.

These conversations are getting harder and harder to read the closer we get to the draft. We are doing a great job of minimizing the pick based on the draft class (not necessarily you MB, but CBJ fans in general). I'm not sure how much longer I am going to be able to read anything in this thread.

blahblah is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 02:15 PM
  #71
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
Legwand has a significant hatedom among a vocal minority of Preds fans for this very reason, actually.

Yeah, I think they're bat**** insane too.
Since they are both pretty damn good players, I fail to see any relevance in the comment initially made by MB. Jordan Staal was a #2 and he's a hell of player. But he's no Malkin. I'd take the next Jordan Stall with the #2 pick and if we ended up with the next Legwand I would be slightly disappointed but not upset.


Last edited by blahblah: 05-10-2012 at 02:33 PM.
blahblah is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 03:59 PM
  #72
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
I no longer have any idea what you are debating, if you are, or why you are honestly.

If we draft #2 and end up with a dud, it's for one a couple of different reasons.

1. We suck at drafting and/or player development. More likely the former over the latter. Generally the player at #2 is good enough to overcome incompetence in development.
2. The player gets a career threatening injury.

He may or may not meet expectations, but he should be a pretty damn good player.

Not because the pool of available players aren't good enough to produce, at least, two elite star players slotted in the top 5.

These conversations are getting harder and harder to read the closer we get to the draft. We are doing a great job of minimizing the pick based on the draft class (not necessarily you MB, but CBJ fans in general). I'm not sure how much longer I am going to be able to read anything in this thread.
I guess where we're breaking is more a matter of semantics. If a player in the top-5 would be a 10/10 as far as ceiling, then absolutely you draft him. If he's 8/10, then you still draft him. If it's more like a 7, and there's no one who's better than a 7, and someone really wants it because they think much more highly of the guy, then trade it. And not just trade it for the sake of doing it, but only for someone who's going to be individually better than whoever can be taken with that pick.

Point is, I don't know. None of us knows what's going on behind the scenes, and as a rule, I don't get wedded to a draft pick or a player who might be available there. Unless it's Trent Richardson, who I would have taken at #4 but not moved up to #3 to get.

This would be easier if Mikael Granlund just re-entered the draft.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 04:13 PM
  #73
Xoggz22
Registered User
 
Xoggz22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 4,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
If we draft #2 and end up with a dud, it's for one a couple of different reasons.

1. We suck at drafting and/or player development. More likely the former over the latter. Generally the player at #2 is good enough to overcome incompetence in development.
2. The player gets a career threatening injury.

He may or may not meet expectations, but he should be a pretty damn good player.

Not because the pool of available players aren't good enough to produce, at least, two elite star players slotted in the top 5.

These conversations are getting harder and harder to read the closer we get to the draft. We are doing a great job of minimizing the pick based on the draft class (not necessarily you MB, but CBJ fans in general). I'm not sure how much longer I am going to be able to read anything in this thread.
I agree with you. I also think you could say the same thing for anything through pick 5 or 6 based on what I continue to read from the "experts". It sounds like Yakupov is pretty much a consensus #1 and then you have 3-4 players that appear to be interchangable but all expected to be high end players.

Granted, Yakupov and Murray seem to have the most talk but I would throw Galchenyuk in there too (from my viewpoint). Many include Grigorenko and Forsberg which I'm simply starting to repeat what we all know. What intrigues me is where do players like Trouba, Dumba and Reilley go because they seem to be discussed in the same breath as Murray in some circles....

I still think the top end of this draft is loaded with top tier prospects that should be able to overcome the poor development aspect should it rear it's ugly head. Then again, if they overcome it, how would we know it was poor to begin with.

Xoggz22 is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 04:20 PM
  #74
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
I guess where we're breaking is more a matter of semantics. If a player in the top-5 would be a 10/10 as far as ceiling, then absolutely you draft him. If he's 8/10, then you still draft him. If it's more like a 7, and there's no one who's better than a 7, and someone really wants it because they think much more highly of the guy, then trade it. And not just trade it for the sake of doing it, but only for someone who's going to be individually better than whoever can be taken with that pick.

Point is, I don't know. None of us knows what's going on behind the scenes, and as a rule, I don't get wedded to a draft pick or a player who might be available there. Unless it's Trent Richardson, who I would have taken at #4 but not moved up to #3 to get.
There is no shortage of elite players in the top 5 to 10 as far as ceiling goes. What is, in question, are things like injury history and intangibles. That remains the same in all draft years, the best and the worst, to varying degrees.

There should be no issue drafting a guy at #2 that can help this team almost immediately and have a great career. Whether that help will translate into wins is another story.

blahblah is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 04:22 PM
  #75
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoggz22 View Post
Granted, Yakupov and Murray seem to have the most talk but I would throw Galchenyuk in there too (from my viewpoint). Many include Grigorenko and Forsberg which I'm simply starting to repeat what we all know.
I think we would be well served drafting any of those 4 players. I'll let you figure out which player isn't in the 4.

blahblah 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 08:40 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.