It doesn't really tell you much about how the organization thinks of Zibby.
If anything, that trade tells you the organization was high on Turris. Really don't think it shows you anything about how the team valued Rundblad relative to Zibby.
But, with Phoenix's depth at D, I'm sure they would have preffered a blue-chip forward prospect.
Also, I thought that Murray said they had asked for our 1st Round pick before Rundblad, and he declined.
Keep in mind when we traded for Turris we werent doing that well. There was a chance we could still have landed near the bottom. Then murray would have been roasted for giving up our first rounder. Just like burke still gets roasted.
But, with Phoenix's depth at D, I'm sure they would have preffered a blue-chip forward prospect.
Also, I thought that Murray said they had asked for our 1st Round pick before Rundblad, and he declined.
Zibanejad>1st Round Pick>Rundblad
I think if Murray knew we would finish in the playoffs this year he would have rather given the first instead of Rundblad. Before the trade for Turris we were still a long, long shot at the playoffs, and a top 10 pick, which Murray probably thought we would get at worst, would get us someone like Reinhart or Trouba, who our scouts liked more then Rundblad.
I would rather have Rundblad then Mattaa or Finn, as bad as some posters have made Rundblad out to be since he was traded.
I think if Murray knew we would finish in the playoffs this year he would have rather given the first instead of Rundblad. Before the trade for Turris we were still a long, long shot at the playoffs, and a top 10 pick, which Murray probably thought we would get at worst, would get us someone like Reinhart or Trouba, who our scouts liked more then Rundblad.
I would rather have Rundblad then Mattaa or Finn, as bad as some posters have made Rundblad out to be since he was traded.
I'm not so sure I wouldn't be pro Maata. Though you are right, I think i'd probably part with the 15th overall then Rundblad, but i don't think there is anything saying we couldn't get another prospect of similar potential, this is a pretty deep first round IMO and I am a big Maata fan.
You owe it to your organization to get the best asset available. I know it's boring and people hate it, but sometimes when you get too focused on a certain position, you're going to get yourself in trouble.""
-- Pierre Dorion
Rest of article is great too, Sens staff discuss last year's draft too...
Here Dorion says "Best asset" - this is exactly what Rundbald was, they knew he was going to put up huge numbers in Sweden and that young PMD are always in demand in a trade, they got him and flipped him for Turris - they said they were open to trading him right after they traded for him, I think that says something about that trade.
The problem with the BPA hypothesis is that it assumes that there aren't costs associated with trading to fill holes. If someone knows that you really need a position, they can often take advantage of you to some extent. On the whole, that isn't a huge cost, but as mentioned earlier, there often isn't that much between the best Dman on the board and the best Forward.
