HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Free Agent Frenzy
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Free Agent Frenzy Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Getting another top 10 pick

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-26-2008, 02:32 PM
  #1
JT8888
Registered User
 
JT8888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,123
vCash: 500
Getting another top 10 pick

As an LA fan i would totally be up for trading DAL 1st and LA 2nd and another 2nd and maybe one of our 3rds to get another 6th through 10th pick in the 1st. Would any of those teams in those spots be willing to trade down and pick up a lower 1st and 3 extra picks?

JT8888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2008, 02:51 PM
  #2
Brodeur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,448
vCash: 500
It depends on the dropoff in talent. Brian Burke publicly said that his staff has the top tier as 7 deep while others have noted there being 8. At the moment, I wouldn't expect anybody picking in the top 8 to trade out into the 20s for more picks.

Generally speaking, teams don't like to drop too far in the draft. Ie, dropping from say #9 to ~#23. Fourteen picks would seem like an eternity to wait as most teams usually have a target in mind.

But you never know. A team might be interested in the additional picks to immediately trade them for an NHL player. Like when Tampa traded the #4 pick for Ruslan Fedotenko and a pair of 2nds, they spun one of the picks for Brad Lukowich as well.

Stranger things have happened, but if I had to guess right now I doubt that's a sort of trade I would take if I were GM of one of those teams. Take last year for instance, there's draft footage of St. Louis trying to trade #9 and #23 for a chance to draft Voracek. Washington (5th), Edmonton (6th), and Columbus (7th) took about a nanosecond to listen to the offer before telling Blues' GM Larry Pleau that they would pass on trading down.

And there's another draft day video from 2006 where Washington had the #4 pick and Boston had #5. Boston offered its 2nd rounder to move up a spot but they wanted Backstrom. So the Capitals declined the offer as they wouldn't get the guy they wanted. Basically teams don't trade down without having a target in mind.

And generally speaking, teams don't like to trade down more than 3-5 spots in the first round just to make sure they can still get the guy they like.

Brodeur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2008, 03:19 PM
  #3
JustinCider
Registered User
 
JustinCider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Earth
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,292
vCash: 500
trading down can backfire big time, just look at what the Oilers did when they traded their pick to NJ for their 1rst and 2nd in 2003. The Oilers ended up with Pouliot and Jacques while the Devils ended up with Parise.

JustinCider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2008, 04:24 PM
  #4
JT8888
Registered User
 
JT8888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,123
vCash: 500
I agree people dont like to trade down but looking but you talking about getting the 20-25th 1st and the 31overall with our sencond, another second and a 3rd, thats alot of picks in a deep draft. We will see what happens

JT8888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2008, 04:29 PM
  #5
Brodeur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinCider View Post
trading down can backfire big time, just look at what the Oilers did when they traded their pick to NJ for their 1rst and 2nd in 2003. The Oilers ended up with Pouliot and Jacques while the Devils ended up with Parise.
Or it can work the other way. The Devils had the #11 pick and preferred Martin Brodeur over the consensus #1 goalie Trevor Kidd. They took a calculated gamble that Brodeur would be available later. Calgary wanted Kidd and traded up from #20.

Since we aren't privy to each team's draft list, it's impossible to say that a team selecting #8 has interest in trading down to #22-24 (wherever Dallas is selecting). The team picking 8th might have a guy they have rated in the top 5 fall to them and they'll have zero interest in moving the pick.

What happened last year to the Blues' is far more likely of a trade down scenario. The next guy on St. Louis' list was Lars Eller, but they figured they could trade down from #9 and still get him. They eventually worked out a trade with the Sharks and moved down to #13. (Off the top of my head) They again worked the phones to see what trade offers were out there. Minnesota called about moving up from #18, but the Blues' head scout wasn't confident that Eller would last that long.

Brodeur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2008, 05:02 PM
  #6
Brodeur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT8888 View Post
I agree people dont like to trade down but looking but you talking about getting the 20-25th 1st and the 31overall with our sencond, another second and a 3rd, thats alot of picks in a deep draft. We will see what happens
There is something to be said about having more "darts" for the "dartboard" that is an amateur draft. But even the deepest draft isn't likely to produce a NHLer late in the 2nd rounder or in the 3rd round.

Basically comes down to would rather have a top 10 pick or ~22/~31. There's always talent to be had late in the first round, but has it been more likely to end up with a Simon Gagne or somebody like David Hale? And most teams picking in the top 10 already have a high 2nd rounder, so I'm not sure how attractive #31 really would be to a team that already has #38.

Like I said, the most plausible scenario for your scenario to work is that a team picking #8/9 has all its first tier players taken. And perhaps they don't have feel like there is much of a dropoff to ~22 (pretty unlikely) and perhaps could spin those extra picks to get an NHL player.

Ie, something like:

LA: 9th overall
CHI: 22nd overall, 31st overall, 53rd overall

CHI: D Matt Carle
SJ: 31st overall, 53rd overall

(Just outlining a scenario, don't kill me as I think it's incredibly unlikely.)

In this scenario, assume Chicago feels like there is a drop in talent from the first eight guys who went. And somehow they don't think the drop from #9 to #22 is that big. And they feel like their team is on the cusp and could use a young defender.

Just seems unlikely as there have to be a lot of pieces that fall into place. Plus if there's a consensus drop in talent, why do you want to trade back up anyways? Just to say you have another top 10 pick?

Brodeur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2008, 07:13 PM
  #7
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodeur View Post
What happened last year to the Blues' is far more likely of a trade down scenario. The next guy on St. Louis' list was Lars Eller, but they figured they could trade down from #9 and still get him. They eventually worked out a trade with the Sharks and moved down to #13. (Off the top of my head) They again worked the phones to see what trade offers were out there. Minnesota called about moving up from #18, but the Blues' head scout wasn't confident that Eller would last that long.
To be more clear on this: after the Kings took Hickey at #4, the Blues tried moving up to get Voracek, but couldn't get anyone to bite. San Jose knew they wanted Couture and talked about moving up, but the Blues hesitated as they tried to swing a trade with the Blue Jackets at 7 and the Sharks wanted to make sure Couture would still be there at 9; when the Blues couldn't work out a deal and Columbus took Voracek, the Blues looked at who they had next and decided to make the trade with San Jose [who found out Boston was taking Hamill] knowing that Kekalainen was largely indifferent about the next couple of guys on his list and expected at least one of them to be available at 13 [where the Sharks pick was].

How does this translate to the current scenario? For the Kings to get a 2nd pick in the top 10, someone currently in the top 10 has to feel that their guy is off the board to the point that he'll still be there after trading down - or at least be indifferent enough about a couple of guys to feel confident that one of them will still be there.

Now ... the cost? Dallas will pick no lower than about 25 or 26 [assuming 2 non-division winners make the conference finals]. Even going from about 25 to 19 would be a 2nd round pick; maybe the Kings get lucky and it only costs a 2nd and a 6th [or what it cost Washington to go from 26 to 13 in 2002] ... but more than likely, it's going to cost at least LA's 2nd, and the right to swap 1st's in '09 ... probably their next highest 2nd as well.

If Kings fans think there's any chance the Kings might finish in the bottom 5 in '09, then it's probably too high a cost and they might be better off trying to go from 25/26 to 19, which would probably cost their 2nd-round pick at 31.

__________________
No promises this time.
Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2008, 07:43 PM
  #8
Ovechkin
Registered User
 
Ovechkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
I'm curious as to what McPhee does for Washington at the draft. Right now they'd be picking around 13 or 14 and have 3 second rounders as well. (Caps, Flyers, Sharks)

Ovechkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2008, 08:07 PM
  #9
JT8888
Registered User
 
JT8888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovechkin View Post
I'm curious as to what McPhee does for Washington at the draft. Right now they'd be picking around 13 or 14 and have 3 second rounders as well. (Caps, Flyers, Sharks)
Hopefully your pick will be higher cause i want to see the caps make the playoffs and let Ovechkin run wild.

JT8888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2008, 09:11 PM
  #10
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodeur View Post
LA: 9th overall
CHI: 22nd overall, 31st overall, 53rd overall
If I'm Chicago, I'm all over that.

massivegoonery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2008, 09:25 PM
  #11
JT8888
Registered User
 
JT8888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
If I'm Chicago, I'm all over that.
If Bog or Schenn are in that 9th spot i would pull the trigger without a thought, but thats IF we get Stamkos

JT8888 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 01:12 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.