HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk 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.

Edm-Ott

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-19-2011, 04:55 AM
  #76
trentmccleary
Registered User
 
trentmccleary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alfie-Ville
Posts: 18,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homesick View Post
The top 3 I could see all having close to the same value. After that not so much.
After that the drop is miniscule for another 5 picks.

Who is going first this year? 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th? ... If it mattered, you'd have the answers to the first of those questions.

Also, the great part of all of this for me is that RNH is the only loss for me out of this. We don't need Larsson and I believe that Landeskog is too limited a talent to go top-3. I'll be cheering when he goes off the board and somebody else picks their 50 point, forechecking winger. Any of Couturier, Huberdeau or Strome are good for me and I'm still betting that Murphy or Hamilton crack the top-5... giving us a choice of 2 out of those 3 forwards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigEyedPhish View Post
Bad trade for ottawa I agree (The original poster)

RNH is compared to Spezza, while RNH is sometimes compared to Spezza, we don't really need Spezza 2.0 behind Spezza, a player compared to Mike Richards (Landeskog) however, would be literally the most perfect solution. (Even with Spezza's game becoming WAYYY better defensively) that physical scoring forward would make a huge difference.
Spezza was an elite prospect, stalked by scouts since he was 14.
RNH is a guy who wasn't considered 1st overall until the last 2 months of the season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thadd View Post
That doesn't seem overly attractive to me. I think the price to get first overall will be too high for Ottawa. Tambolini is going to get a player with significantly less potential if he falls down to 6th overall. Given Nashville's drafting position and the depth of this draft year, I don't think their 1st rounder is worth a whole lot in a deal of this magnitude.

Edmonton might have to add little bit to get 6th overall and both of those d-men. Really don't know what they'd be adding in such a huge deal, but such a deal would make sense for Edmonton. Ottawa fans can laugh and gock at me about how there's no way that Ottawa is going to pay that much, but why is Edmonton going to take a package of lesser players worth as much as the 1st overall pick instead of the best player available? They've got some damn good prospects but until they've proven that they're for real they can't count on having enough top end talent.

No, Ottawa most likely can't afford to give up both Runblad and Cowen. But that's the only way I see such an insane deal working out.

How about

To Edmonton:
6th overall
Cowen
Runblad

To Ottawa:
1st overall
Smid
Plante

Ottawa fans get the top end talent they're obviously foaming at the mouth for. They can draft Hopkins and have him playing behind Spezza in the 11/12 season. They get a tough 2nd pairing stay at home d-man in Smid and a big physical stay at home d-man who's developed into a fringe NHLer. He's got 2nd pairing potential but chances are he'll be a full time NHLer in the 11/12 season and he'll be a career 3rd pairing guy.

Edmonton gets 2 respected prospects who're expected to turn into very good 2nd pairing d-men and pray to the hockey gods that Couturier is still available at #6. If he isn't then they'll draft Strome. If Whitney resigns with Edmonton, Edmonton will be very deep on the blueline and on the wing within a season or two.



Yep. Since when has a team not had to overpay for the first overall pick? Sens fans are going to literally gock at the proposal I've just written, but the sad fact is that a realistic proposal would have Ottawa paying something near what I've suggested in value.

Imagine if Edmonton tried to trade their 6th overall pick for 1st overall at the 2007 draft? (Kane/Gagner) How much more would Edmonton have to add to get Chicago's attention? Jordan Eberle wouldn't be enough. Jordan Eberle and Jeff Petry wouldn't have been enough.

I think 6th overall + Hemsky + Eberle/Petry might have been a fair proposal at the time.

Here we are 4 years later in the same situation except Edmonton has the first overall pick. Why would the value be any different?
A significantly lesser prospect at 6th than 1st? ... The evidence and scouting reports don't bare that out this this season.

The depth of this draft is great. There are many PPG or higher CHL players available into the mid-late 2nd round. That isn't normal... did you see how 2 of those 4 forward I listed in Crosby's top-10 were under a PPG? It'd be stupid to even pair the Nashville pick for the 1st overall in a draft without a top-end... "without a Crosby or Ovechkin or a Kane". I've actually heard the scouts and analysts say that repeatedly over and over about this draft.

A price is something that's agreed upon between two parties. What you have posted there is a pipe dream. Tambellini doesn't have to trade the pick, but he isn't getting anywhere near that package for it.

Patrick Kane was an elite player, Sam Gagner was a leech on the London Knights. The 2nd such leech that you've drafted from them playing behind an actual star player. There was a huge difference between those two players. That just doesn't exist here.

How much difference would there have been to move around anywhere in 2006 or 2003? Because that's what this draft looks to be shaping up to be.

trentmccleary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 05:35 AM
  #77
thadd
Oil4Life
 
thadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to thadd
Quote:
Originally Posted by trentmccleary View Post

A significantly lesser prospect at 6th than 1st? ... The evidence and scouting reports don't bare that out this this season.

The depth of this draft is great. There are many PPG or higher CHL players available into the mid-late 2nd round. That isn't normal... did you see how 2 of those 4 forward I listed in Crosby's top-10 were under a PPG? It'd be stupid to even pair the Nashville pick for the 1st overall in a draft without a top-end... "without a Crosby or Ovechkin or a Kane". 1: I've actually heard the scouts and analysts say that repeatedly over and over about this draft.

A price is something that's agreed upon between two parties. What you have posted there is a pipe dream. Tambellini doesn't have to trade the pick, but he isn't getting anywhere near that package for it.

2: Patrick Kane was an elite player, Sam Gagner was a leech on the London Knights. The 2nd such leech that you've drafted from them playing behind an actual star player. There was a huge difference between those two players. That just doesn't exist here.

3: How much difference would there have been to move around anywhere in 2006 or 2003? Because that's what this draft looks to be shaping up to be.
1: And who are these scouts? Where do you read this? Are you scout? Friend/family connection? Exactly who suggested that 5th overall pick onwards is anywhere in the league of the top 4 players at this upcoming draft?

If Edmonton picks 1st overall it's without a doubt Larsson or Hopkins. They're not splitting hairs on this at all.... unless everything said on TSN are complete lies.

2: Say whatever you want about what kind of player you think Gagner was before he was drafted. He was still drafted 6th overall.

3: Let's assume your assessment of this upcoming draft is accurate.

In 2006 St. Louis picked EJ, who was projected to be a big mean bruising franchise defenseman. Drew comparisons to Christ Pronger. In his draft year he had 10 points in 6 games at the WJ18 tournament.

Columbus chose Brassard, who was projected to be an average sized top six forward. He had a good year in the QMJHL, but he failed to make team Canada for the WJ18. Was he injured? I noticed he didn't play a full season.

Fast forward to today. Even if Colorado had Rob Schremp and Andrew Cogliano playing 1st and second line center, there's no way in hell they'd trade EJ for Brassard at this point regardless of what they gave up to get EJ.

In 2003 the Penguins selected Fleury because they needed a goalie that bad. Nobody can say that the Penguins went for the best player available. At the WJ18 Fleury had an amazing 1.57 G.A.A in 5 games... but he didn't even face 100 shots in that time period.

The best player available was Eric Staal, who didn't play at the WJ18.

The Sharks went with Milan Michalek, he had 4 points in 6 games at the WJ.

Flash forward to today. 1st and 2nd overall picks are integral parts of their team's core. They've won a cup and you'd have to pay a King's ransom to pry them away from their respected teams. 6th overall is a 0.5 point per game player. Again their trade values are so far off it's not even funny.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you have any kind of case here...

thadd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 05:56 AM
  #78
Cujomi
Leeuw YNWA Ddraig
 
Cujomi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thadd View Post
Almost as much value?

Year 1st overall/6th overall

2000 DiPietro/Hartnell - Nobody can deny that you're wrong on this one if Dipietro didn't turn into such an injury case.

2001 Kovalchuk/Mikko Koivu - Kovalchuk easily wins this one.

2002 Nash/Upshall - Nash is worth more than 4 or 5 Scottie Upshalls, isn't he?

2003 Fleury/Michalek - A starting goalie who's won a cup surely beats the hell out of a winger who's accomplished nothing significant in the NHL.

2004 Ovechkin/Montoya - This comparison isn't even fair. The best winger in the NHL. One of the best players in the NHL being mentioned in the same conversation with someone who finally made it as a starting goalie this year... with one of the worst teams in the league.

2005 Crosby/Brule - LOL This one is even more lopsided, since it's looking more and more likely that Brule won't hack it as an NHL player and will probably be out of here in a season or two.

2006 Johnson/Brassard 1st pairing defenseman VS struggling top 6 forward. Another easy decision on this one.

2007 Kane/Gagner Superstar winger VS struggling top 6 forward. No contest

2008 Stamkos/Filatov - Third best forward in the NHL VS scoring winger who's struggling to find a role in the NHL.

2009 Tavares/Ekman-Larsson - Too soon to tell... but it's looking like franchise center VS potential #2 defenseman.

2010 Hall/Connolly - Too soon to tell, but I'm an Oilers fan, so you can guess how this one is going to End.

That's every draft from 2000 forward. I don't see how Sens fans on these boards can suggest that the difference between the 1st and 6th overall pick is not a big difference in value. Yes, this year is a weak draft year, but not the weakest.

People aren't hailing it to be the worst draft year in the history of the NHL, so no, Nashville's first + 6th overall + a decent prospect isn't going to allow Ottawa to magically jump up 5 spots in the draft.

Sorry if I've stunk up this thread with the harshness of reality.
It's not a weak draft. It's a deep draft. The point is that there is no significant difference between the top end talents of this draft. Nobody believes anything until it happens apparently, because it's not something that is common. This isn't a common occurance in a draft. I also believe the point trent was making is that in 2003/2006 the drafts were deep enough that you could have gotten a great player anywhere.

Listing off previous drafts doesn't mean anything because each draft is different, but Peter Forsberg was taken 6th, Ryan Smyth was taken 6th, Paul Coffey was taken 6th, Phil Housley was taken 6th, Vincent Damphousse was taken 6th, etc.

It's not going to be a common occurrence that 6th is better than 1st, obviously, but there are certain situations where it's possible that it happens. This is one of those years where there is no clear distinction between the top end of the draft and the 6th pick and I would prefer Ottawa didn't trade up.

Cujomi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 06:06 AM
  #79
thadd
Oil4Life
 
thadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to thadd
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPhoenixM View Post

It's not going to be a common occurrence that 6th is better than 1st, obviously, but there are certain situations where it's possible that it happens. This is one of those years where there is no clear distinction between the top end of the draft and the 6th pick and I would prefer Ottawa didn't trade up.
Who's saying this? And if it's true, then why aren't Strome or Murphy considered a case to be in the mix for 1st overall?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure 6th overall can be better than 1st overall on some years. It's bound to happen. 15-20% of the time the first overall pick doesn't turn out to be the best player drafted, but it doesn't happen very often and the dogfight for first overall isn't that deep.

thadd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 06:14 AM
  #80
Cujomi
Leeuw YNWA Ddraig
 
Cujomi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thadd View Post
Who's saying this? And if it's true, then why aren't Strome or Murphy considered a case to be in the mix for 1st overall?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure 6th overall can be better than 1st overall on some years. It's bound to happen. 15-20% of the time the first overall pick doesn't turn out to be the best player drafted, but it doesn't happen very often and the dogfight for first overall isn't that deep.
Because scouts aren't always perfect? Why is it that nearly every year that there is a pick outside of the top 5 that ends up being better than those respective players? Why is it that there is almost always a flop inside the top 5? Why is it that some years the #1 overall just doesn't become the best player? It's because drafting isn't perfect -- if it was then Ottawa would definitely be getting the 6th best player.

What have Larsson, RNH or Landeskog shown that clearly separates them from Huberdeau, Couturier and Strome? Or even Hamilton and Murphy?

Cujomi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 06:23 AM
  #81
thadd
Oil4Life
 
thadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to thadd
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPhoenixM View Post
Because scouts aren't always perfect? Why is it that nearly every year that there is a pick outside of the top 5 that ends up being better than those respective players? Why is it that there is almost always a flop inside the top 5? Why is it that some years the #1 overall just doesn't become the best player? It's because drafting isn't perfect -- if it was then Ottawa would definitely be getting the 6th best player.

What have Larsson, RNH or Landeskog shown that clearly separates them from Huberdeau, Couturier and Strome? Or even Hamilton and Murphy?
IMO in most drafts teams with lottery picks choose the best players available and teams outside of the lottery pick the player they feel would work best in their system. Fleury being an example of when a team with the first overall pick went against this philosophy. It doesn't happen very often.

Take Cam Fowler and MPS for examples. They were ranked incredibly high, but they went unpicked in the top 10 because other teams saw players who were arguably less talented but had the skills to fit perfectly with their players or system.

thadd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 07:58 AM
  #82
Cujomi
Leeuw YNWA Ddraig
 
Cujomi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thadd View Post
IMO in most drafts teams with lottery picks choose the best players available and teams outside of the lottery pick the player they feel would work best in their system. Fleury being an example of when a team with the first overall pick went against this philosophy. It doesn't happen very often.

Take Cam Fowler and MPS for examples. They were ranked incredibly high, but they went unpicked in the top 10 because other teams saw players who were arguably less talented but had the skills to fit perfectly with their players or system.
That has nothing to do with what I said, anyway. It also doesn't answer my question: aside from posted internet rankings, what have RNH, Larsson and Landeskog done to clearly separate themselves from guys like Couturier, Huberdeau, Hamilton, Murphy or Strome?

Cujomi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 08:12 AM
  #83
thadd
Oil4Life
 
thadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to thadd
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPhoenixM View Post
That has nothing to do with what I said, anyway. It also doesn't answer my question: aside from posted internet rankings, what have RNH, Larsson and Landeskog done to clearly separate themselves from guys like Couturier, Huberdeau, Hamilton, Murphy or Strome?
Despite his smaller stature, Hopkins has put up a ton of points in a more physical and typically less offensively potent league.

Larsson has looked good playing with adults for a few years now and has shown that at the age of 18 he's got the ability to make significant contributions to an NHL team now, which is difficult for most defensemen. Very few defensemen are mature enough to be NHL ready at such a young age.

Landeskog has tons of offensive upside, plays a hard physical game and he's already as big enough to play the game in the NHL like a power forward. Within a few years he'll be a giant nasty tank.

Couturier and Huberdeau have put up a wealth of points, but offensive achievements don't really count for as much in the QMJHL, because they can get more offense in high traffic zones because there are less gritty physical players willing to make them pay the price.

Strome and Hamilton play on a stacked team.

Murphy is short and light for his position and is on the ice for a lot of goals against.

thadd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 08:25 AM
  #84
Cujomi
Leeuw YNWA Ddraig
 
Cujomi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thadd View Post
Despite his smaller stature, Hopkins has put up a ton of points in a more physical and typically less offensively potent league.

Larsson has looked good playing with adults for a few years now and has shown that at the age of 18 he's got the ability to make significant contributions to an NHL team now, which is difficult for most defensemen. Very few defensemen are mature enough to be NHL ready at such a young age.

Landeskog has tons of offensive upside, plays a hard physical game and he's already as big enough to play the game in the NHL like a power forward. Within a few years he'll be a giant nasty tank.

Couturier and Huberdeau have put up a wealth of points, but offensive achievements don't really count for as much in the QMJHL, because they can get more offense in high traffic zones because there are less gritty physical players willing to make them pay the price.

Strome and Hamilton play on a stacked team.

Murphy is short and light for his position and is on the ice for a lot of goals against.
For the sake of playing devil's advocate:

RNH is the smallest of those mentioned not named Murphy, plays very protected minutes, and has a vast majority of his points on the powerplay and was completely shutdown by MH.

Landeskog plays in a completely offensive system, on a team that is more stacked than Niagara, is one of the more physically mature players in the league, and still put up the worst PPG of the top forwards.

Larsson isn't even the best defenceman on his team right now, and has had a lackluster season (whatever the circumstance) in comparison to his season last year. Although he got less minutes due to the emergence of other defencemen, he still didn't show top caliber progression.

Couturier battled with mono, still made team Canada, and pretty much single-handedly led his team to the playoffs. He had the highest PPG of any prospect this year.

Huberdeau is leading the best team in the CHL to the memorial cup while putting up over 2 ppg in the playoffs.

Strome and Hamilton are the two youngest of the top prospects, haven't had the same development opportunities and play in arguably the best of the three CHL leagues. They are the best two players on the 'stacked' team, and are both clutch performers. Hamilton was logging upwards of 30 minutes a game throughout the season. Both are above PPG in the playoffs, Hamilton only behind Ellis in defencemen I believe and he has a higher PPG.

Murphy has incredible skating and offensive instincts, is underrated in his own end, and Kitchener was noticeably weaker without him. He put up great points for his age, and was doing the same in the playoffs. He's also performing very well for Canada right now.

Cujomi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 08:40 AM
  #85
thadd
Oil4Life
 
thadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to thadd
Well, here's hoping you're right. I refuse to believe that this year's draft will feature 8 top line/pairing players.

Funny thing is, I've mentioned on the Oilers boards that I wouldn't mind Edmonton moving down to 3rd and grabbing Couturier. I don't feel easy about Hopkin's size. When he fills out he should be pretty good, but he's got a lot of filling out to do.

thadd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 09:30 AM
  #86
Cujomi
Leeuw YNWA Ddraig
 
Cujomi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thadd View Post
Well, here's hoping you're right. I refuse to believe that this year's draft will feature 8 top line/pairing players.

Funny thing is, I've mentioned on the Oilers boards that I wouldn't mind Edmonton moving down to 3rd and grabbing Couturier. I don't feel easy about Hopkin's size. When he fills out he should be pretty good, but he's got a lot of filling out to do.
Not everyone reaches their potential or translates their game over to the NHL. I'm not saying that there's 8 top caliber players in the top 8 (although it's not impossible) -- I'm just saying that, at this stage, there is not a significant difference between those prospects, any one of them could turn out to be the best pick (realistically) and we won't know for at least a few years.

Cujomi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 09:35 AM
  #87
notloilersfan
I'm here, I'm bored
 
notloilersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Niagara
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,450
vCash: 500
Sens fans this year are reminding me of some Oilers fans in 07. "We're going to get a player who could be as good or better than Kane in Gagner or Voracek"

I'm sorry but there is a big difference in potential between 'The Big 3' and 'The 3 After'. Is it impossible for the guys in the 2nd group to become better than the first? no. But it is unlikely.

Point being, the 6th overall pick just does not have anywhere close to the same amount of value as the 1st overall pick, no matter how you want to swing it. I tried to make a reasonable post that would favour the opinions of both Oilers and Sens fans, but the Sens fans on this board were still ridiculous about it.

So no, you have absolutely nothing that you wouldn't be willing to give up to get our pick. We don't care if it offends you or not, you would have to make a massive overpayment, or there is no point in us moving the pick. End of story!

notloilersfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 09:39 AM
  #88
Pucklington
Registered User
 
Pucklington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: canada
Posts: 635
vCash: 500
Man. Bummer. To bad Edmonton has to pick first overall. Apparently the player is not worth much. Well, I guess Edm will have to settle with the 1st overall and Ottawa can keep their glorious prospects.

Pucklington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 09:44 AM
  #89
thadd
Oil4Life
 
thadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to thadd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pucklington View Post
Man. Bummer. To bad Edmonton has to pick first overall. Apparently the player is not worth much. Well, I guess Edm will have to settle with the 1st overall and Ottawa can keep their glorious prospects.
Shh! Don't let that stuff out, man. If the public gets word of this the fans in Edmonton are going to turn the city upside down.

thadd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 09:57 AM
  #90
CupofOil
Registered User
 
CupofOil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rock Bottom
Country: United States
Posts: 13,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4thliner View Post
The bolded part on it's own is significant overpayment.

Jared Cowen or David Rundblad too??

Both of these guys have just as much value if not MORE value to Ottawa than Ottawa's 6th pick overall in June. And the 6th overall almost has as much value as 1st.
No, it doesn't. Not even close!!!!

Just look at the joy and anticipation of a possible #1 pick on the Ottawa board after the Islanders name was called and then the subsequent meltdown after the Devils name was called because they fell to #6. There is a big difference between the #1 and #6 picks valuewise.


Last edited by CupofOil: 04-19-2011 at 10:03 AM.
CupofOil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 10:03 AM
  #91
hfboardsuser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pucklington View Post
Man. Bummer. To bad Edmonton has to pick first overall. Apparently the player is not worth much. Well, I guess Edm will have to settle with the 1st overall and Ottawa can keep their glorious prospects.
I don't think it's any coincidence that a) the two years Edmonton is picking first b) the two years the Leafs don't own picks in lottery range are the two purportedly weakest draft years evar. It's really quite amusing, and Sens fans have been only too happy to drink the Kool-Aid this year because they're staring down yet another "almost but not quite" draft choice.

hfboardsuser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 10:03 AM
  #92
Cujomi
Leeuw YNWA Ddraig
 
Cujomi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by notloilersfan View Post
Sens fans this year are reminding me of some Oilers fans in 07. "We're going to get a player who could be as good or better than Kane in Gagner or Voracek"

I'm sorry but there is a big difference in potential between 'The Big 3' and 'The 3 After'. Is it impossible for the guys in the 2nd group to become better than the first? no. But it is unlikely.

Point being, the 6th overall pick just does not have anywhere close to the same amount of value as the 1st overall pick, no matter how you want to swing it. I tried to make a reasonable post that would favour the opinions of both Oilers and Sens fans, but the Sens fans on this board were still ridiculous about it.

So no, you have absolutely nothing that you wouldn't be willing to give up to get our pick. We don't care if it offends you or not, you would have to make a massive overpayment, or there is no point in us moving the pick. End of story!
Yeah, because you know, Gagner and Voracek were pretty close to Kane. I forgot how similar their stats and abilities were.

What are you basing the 'big difference' in potential between the 'top 3' and the 'after 3' on? How do you know this, and what indication is there of this?

Cujomi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 10:07 AM
  #93
thadd
Oil4Life
 
thadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to thadd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bugg View Post
I don't think it's any coincidence that a) the two years Edmonton is picking first b) the two years the Leafs don't own picks in lottery range are the two purportedly weakest draft years evar. It's really quite amusing, and Sens fans have been only too happy to drink the Kool-Aid this year because they're staring down yet another "almost but not quite" draft choice.
How on earth was last year's draft considered a weak one? I took it as the opposite. Lots of players with a lot of upside in the mid rounds.

thadd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 10:14 AM
  #94
thadd
Oil4Life
 
thadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to thadd
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPhoenixM View Post
Yeah, because you know, Gagner and Voracek were pretty close to Kane. I forgot how similar their stats and abilities were.

What are you basing the 'big difference' in potential between the 'top 3' and the 'after 3' on? How do you know this, and what indication is there of this?
Were they really? Would Edmonton have really split hairs over who to draft if they had the first overall pick instead of 6th? Come on. We all know they would've picked Turris.

Unless you've got a knack for not allowing the TV and radio to influence you, there's a big 3, and they're getting a hell of a lot more hype than the second best center available and he's getting a hell of a lot more hype than the next 4 most hyped players.

thadd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 10:17 AM
  #95
hfboardsuser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thadd View Post
How on earth was last year's draft considered a weak one? I took it as the opposite. Lots of players with a lot of upside in the mid rounds.
Hence why I said purportedly- i.e. that's what the media was reporting as being fact. It was everywhere; Hall wasn't a Stamkos/Kane type either, Seguin was built up to be his equal or perhaps more, picks 4-10 were considered interchangeable. This year, the spin has been even worse.

hfboardsuser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 10:18 AM
  #96
s7ark
LeonTheProfessional
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thadd View Post
How on earth was last year's draft considered a weak one? I took it as the opposite. Lots of players with a lot of upside in the mid rounds.
Leaf fans last year were all to quick to tell us how Hall wasn't that good and it was a weak draft. It's amazing how the weak drafts are always the ones where TO traded away a high pick.

And thx to CPhoenixM for letting us idiot Oiler fans know exactly how crappy RNH is. It's a wonder he's deluded all those scouts to consistently rank him 1st in the draft. I guess we'll just have to give you guys our pick for nothing, hey?

s7ark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 10:21 AM
  #97
SpezDispenser
Registered User
 
SpezDispenser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 14,227
vCash: 500
How many times do rational Sens fans have to tell Oiler fans - enjoy the pick, we're after 3. And if Colorado takes Landeskog at 2, then we're out of the running for moving up - end of story. Always a pissing match with Oilers and Sens fans....always, bloody annoying.

SpezDispenser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 10:30 AM
  #98
thadd
Oil4Life
 
thadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to thadd
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpezDispenser View Post
How many times do rational Sens fans have to tell Oiler fans - enjoy the pick, we're after 3. And if Colorado takes Landeskog at 2, then we're out of the running for moving up - end of story. Always a pissing match with Oilers and Sens fans....always, bloody annoying.

Why do you think the Senators have no interest in moving up to grab one of the 2 top centers? I agree the top winger would be magic with Spezza, but they'd still be a 1 line team. I think with Vermette and Fisher gone over the past few seasons they've created a huge void at center behind Spezza.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bugg View Post
Hence why I said purportedly- i.e. that's what the media was reporting as being fact. It was everywhere; Hall wasn't a Stamkos/Kane type either, Seguin was built up to be his equal or perhaps more, picks 4-10 were considered interchangeable. This year, the spin has been even worse.
Sequin was said to be expected to develop into a better overall player, but Hall was said to be expected to be more NHL ready and more dynamic.

thadd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 10:33 AM
  #99
Cujomi
Leeuw YNWA Ddraig
 
Cujomi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7ark View Post
Leaf fans last year were all to quick to tell us how Hall wasn't that good and it was a weak draft. It's amazing how the weak drafts are always the ones where TO traded away a high pick.

And thx to CPhoenixM for letting us idiot Oiler fans know exactly how crappy RNH is. It's a wonder he's deluded all those scouts to consistently rank him 1st in the draft. I guess we'll just have to give you guys our pick for nothing, hey?
How long was Couturier ranked #1? How long was Skinner ranked in the 2nd round? Just out of curiosity.

I should re-iterate that I am not interested in your pick. I don't want to give up assets when my team can get a player that has just as much potential as the players in front of him at #6.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thadd View Post
Were they really? Would Edmonton have really split hairs over who to draft if they had the first overall pick instead of 6th? Come on. We all know they would've picked Turris.

Unless you've got a knack for not allowing the TV and radio to influence you, there's a big 3, and they're getting a hell of a lot more hype than the second best center available and he's getting a hell of a lot more hype than the next 4 most hyped players.
Hype doesn't mean everything. Again, the draft is not perfect and scouts are not perfect -- or even accurate half the time.

Cujomi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2011, 10:36 AM
  #100
zeus3007*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Red Deer, Alberta
Posts: 13,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPhoenixM View Post
How long was Couturier ranked #1? How long was Skinner ranked in the 2nd round? Just out of curiosity.
What's your point? Things change in the draft. If anything, Skinner moving up so quickly shows how RNH's development could parallel his, hence him being number one now instead of number 4.

zeus3007* 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 12:28 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.