HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New Jersey Devils
Notices

2011 NHL Entry Draft Talk - Part IX - Intangibles are overrated edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-14-2011, 10:16 PM
  #26
Darius Dangleaitis
Padowan Kovalchuk
 
Darius Dangleaitis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Morristown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 20,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DEVILS ALL THE WAY View Post
I just don't see Larsson falling at #4. When you are a bottom feader like the Panthers, Oilers and to a lesser extent the Avs, you have to take the best player for the future of your franchise.

Who's to say that EJ won't suffer from another golf cart incident or Gudbranson will pan out as a top pairing d-men? When you are selecting in the top #5, you take the BPA and if you need to address some needs cause you picked a prospect at a position you didn't really need or got improved via trades/UFA, you can flip that prospect ala Runblad for Tarashenko and get another solid player in return.
Not saying it will happen, just saying there's a realistic possibility that it could.

The only player in this draft that appears to be completely out of the question is RNH.

Darius Dangleaitis is offline  
Old
05-14-2011, 10:17 PM
  #27
DEVILS ALL THE WAY*
Yes, I'm a hypocrite
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius Dangleaitis View Post
Not saying it will happen, just saying there's a realistic possibility that it could.

The only player in this draft that appears to be completely out of the question is RNH.
Hey, don't get me wrong, Larsson is and should be everyone's #1 choice

DEVILS ALL THE WAY* is offline  
Old
05-14-2011, 10:20 PM
  #28
EliasR8
Brendan Shanahan!
 
EliasR8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 11,488
vCash: 1050
Why doesn't anyone discuss us trading up with Colorado? If they like both Huberdeau and Landeskog and wouldn't mind either of they are guaranteed to get one of them at our spot.

Our first+2012 2nd+2011 4th

EliasR8 is online now  
Old
05-14-2011, 10:49 PM
  #29
Blackjack
Registered User
 
Blackjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: keyjhboardd +bro]ke
Posts: 6,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PariseR8 View Post
Why doesn't anyone discuss us trading up with Colorado? If they like both Huberdeau and Landeskog and wouldn't mind either of they are guaranteed to get one of them at our spot.

Our first+2012 2nd+2011 4th
**** that.

Colorado wouldn't do it anyway. They're going to have someone they like at 2 better than anyone else and they're going to keep the pick unless someone goes all Mike Millbury on draft day.

Blackjack is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 12:02 AM
  #30
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackjack View Post
**** that.

Colorado wouldn't do it anyway. They're going to have someone they like at 2 better than anyone else and they're going to keep the pick unless someone goes all Mike Millbury on draft day.
Yes Thank god I'm not the only one who cringes at the thought of losing 2012 stuff. Good thing Conte has come out and said how much he loves the 2nd round.

Why would colorado trade down anyway? If they were getting Larsson, we would need a lot more than that to dissuade them, see the Backstrom and bruins fiasco. If they weren't picking Larsson then why are we giving away assets for fun? Maybe if Florida were to get Larsson but I just doubt that enough to not care about larsson going there.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 12:09 AM
  #31
Devilsfan92
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,720
vCash: 500
Yeah, trading up for arguably the best player in the draft, why would anyone want to do that?



We have a chance to trade up to #2, I sure hope Lou is all over it. If it's at the expense of a '12 2nd, do it.

Devilsfan92 is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 12:14 AM
  #32
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devilsfan92 View Post
Yeah, trading up for arguably the best player in the draft, why would anyone want to do that?



We have a chance to trade up to #2, I sure hope Lou is all over it. If it's at the expense of a '12 2nd, do it.
And why would Colorado trade away the best player in the draft?

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 12:24 AM
  #33
apice3*
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middletown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 18,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devilsfan92 View Post
Yeah, trading up for arguably the best player in the draft, why would anyone want to do that?



We have a chance to trade up to #2, I sure hope Lou is all over it. If it's at the expense of a '12 2nd, do it.
I think what he's trying to say is that there's two ways Colorado can look at it:

A. They want Larsson, so why the hell would Colorado trade down.
B. They don't want Larsson, and since we're assuming Florida is going forward, then why would we want to trade up if we can land Larsson at 4 anyway.

apice3* is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 12:26 AM
  #34
Devilsfan92
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,720
vCash: 500
Maybe they feel a Huberdeau or a Landeskog are equal in value and they might be more of a need, they think one will be available at 4 and are willing to trade down and acquire a couple extra picks for their re-build(If that's what they're doing).

Teams trade down often wouldn't surprise me if there are movements within the top 8 knowing how close the talent level is projected to be.

I just think Larsson being arguably the best player in the draft warrants to idea of a swap. We won't, or I don't think we will, be in this situation for a while(adding a top 5 pick). Try the best you can and get the most out of it, if it means losing a future draft pick or two, you do it.

I think of the Toronto trade up for Schenn in '08 as a comparison. They sent #7, #68 and a '09 2nd for #5. It is the most recent top 5 pick exchange in recent years, besides the Kessel trade.

Devilsfan92 is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 12:27 AM
  #35
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by apice3 View Post
I think what he's trying to say is that there's two ways Colorado can look at it:

A. They want Larsson, so why the hell would Colorado trade down.
B. They don't want Larsson, and since we're assuming Florida is going forward, then why would we want to trade up if we can land Larsson at 4 anyway.
Sometimes I feel like I need you to help me with my communicative flaws.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 08:13 AM
  #36
DEVILS ALL THE WAY*
Yes, I'm a hypocrite
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by apice3 View Post
I think what he's trying to say is that there's two ways Colorado can look at it:

A. They want Larsson, so why the hell would Colorado trade down.
B. They don't want Larsson, and since we're assuming Florida is going forward, then why would we want to trade up if we can land Larsson at 4 anyway.
I agree with option A).

On the other hand, option B) is not a solid reason IMO. We can't assume anything and doing so might bite us in the ass at the cost of what... a 2012 2nd rounder and a prospect?

We can land the player we've been talking about ever since we've started to slide in the standings and things were going from bad to worst. He would be the missing piece IMO that this team desperatly needs, meaning a right handed d-men that can log big minutes in any given situation and hits his target on breakout passes 95% of the time.

Moving up to #2 would be a solid move for this franchise. I don't understand why keeping a 2nd round pick would give us more of a advantage then selecting Larsson?

DEVILS ALL THE WAY* is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 10:04 AM
  #37
nomercydevs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: nj
Posts: 45
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwidevil View Post
Is that Russian?
i dnt give a f

nomercydevs is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 10:25 AM
  #38
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,530
vCash: 500
Well I don't see the trade up happening so I won't worry about it too much.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 10:40 AM
  #39
DEVILS ALL THE WAY*
Yes, I'm a hypocrite
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
Well I don't see the trade up happening so I won't worry about it too much.
Every option should be taken into consideration, it's not like we are moving up 10 spots. They would be skipping a pick, it's really not that bad when you look at it and they would add some more picks/prospects wich is also a plus.

It's the same scenario that has us moving down to 6th. The Sens would tell us who they want at #4 and if that player isn't the one Lou is targetting, the Islanders are the only team we'd have to worry about. I'm certain Lou would enquire about Snow's intentions or at best, he'll have 2 guys on his radar and will pick the prospect that wasn't taken by the Islanders.

Let's just say the Avs are high on Huberdeau/Landeskog. They swap picks with us and they get extra value cause of the deal, we pick Larsson at #2, the Panthers pick one of Couturier/Landeskog/Huberdeau... leaving the Avs with a shot at one of those 3 players. It's a win-win scenario if the Avs aren't all that interested in Larsson, wich is doubtfull, but weirder things have happend in the past.


Last edited by DEVILS ALL THE WAY*: 05-15-2011 at 10:46 AM.
DEVILS ALL THE WAY* is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 11:04 AM
  #40
Saugus
Ecrasez l'infame!
 
Saugus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 97,441
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saugus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
More like it's inherently difficult to project the intangibles and mental makeup of 17 and 18 year olds.
I agree. We don't know who will emerge as a leader on the next level. And we don't know how a young leadership type player would gel with the entrenched veteran leadership group we have. I think Landeskog might be better off on a team with no identity, to be the face of the franchise from day 1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apice3 View Post
This will be the second time I ever watch the NHL draft, and hopefully the last. The first and only time so far was when my boy vanRiemsdyk was getting drafted.
I watch it when we have a first round pick. I didn't bother last year, because we didn't have a pick and I was on my second date with my gf. I'll be watching this year for sure though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Bass View Post
If Edmonton passes on Larsson I can see Colorado passing on him too since they are well stocked in defensive prospects, it would be up to Florida to make the unbelievable believable.
Tallon has said he probably won't take a defenceman, for whatever that's worth. I'm still assuming that Colorado will take Larsson, but if they pass on him, I think it will be a lot more plausible that he slips to us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apice3 View Post
I think what he's trying to say is that there's two ways Colorado can look at it:

A. They want Larsson, so why the hell would Colorado trade down.
B. They don't want Larsson, and since we're assuming Florida is going forward, then why would we want to trade up if we can land Larsson at 4 anyway.
I'd rather just stay at 4 and see who drops. No need to expend extra assets when we will get an elite talent near the top of our list anyway. If Larsson drops, great. If not, take Huberdeau or Couturier and don't think about it twice.

Saugus is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 11:18 AM
  #41
DEVILS ALL THE WAY*
Yes, I'm a hypocrite
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus View Post
I'd rather just stay at 4 and see who drops. No need to expend extra assets when we will get an elite talent near the top of our list anyway. If Larsson drops, great. If not, take Huberdeau or Couturier and don't think about it twice.
Why?

You wouldn't sacrifice a 2nd round pick and a prospect for a shot at drafting Landeskog at #2?

If the Avs have Landeskog/Huberdeau as their main targets, I'd offer that package without thinking twice. We would get the best blueliner in the draft and at the same time, we'd address our biggest weakness. A second round pick is nice and all but it won't turn out to be as solid as Larsson, that's for certain.

I rather have less prospects with bigger upsides then stockpilling picks. It's not like we have one pick in the top #60... we currently have 3 with the possibility of a 4th pick with the Langenbrunner trade.

DEVILS ALL THE WAY* is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 11:44 AM
  #42
Saugus
Ecrasez l'infame!
 
Saugus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 97,441
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saugus
It depends on how far ahead Larsson is above the others on Conte's list. If they will be happy with any of the players available at #4, there's no reason to trade up. We'll see.

Saugus is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 12:01 PM
  #43
DEVILS ALL THE WAY*
Yes, I'm a hypocrite
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus View Post
It depends on how far ahead Larsson is above the others on Conte's list. If they will be happy with any of the players available at #4, there's no reason to trade up. We'll see.
Larsson is probably on top of the list and if he isn't, something is wrong. The kid is a franchise blueliner and has a ton of upside that's still untapped. He is worth whatever we'd be giving Colorado to move up two spots and that's something like a 2012 2nd round pick and a NHL ready prospect (Vasyunov or Corrente perhaps).

DEVILS ALL THE WAY* is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 12:08 PM
  #44
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,530
vCash: 500
But if he's the best on the board, why would colorado give him up? And not only that, why would they do it for just a late 2nd and corrente who can't even play a whole season? I think it would take more and that's why I'm not a fan.

Us taking it into consideration doesn't mean much during the real thing anyway. We have no clue what their team boards look like. We do, however, have Conte on record saying how much he loves the 2nd round picks.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 12:14 PM
  #45
Saugus
Ecrasez l'infame!
 
Saugus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 97,441
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saugus
Quote:
Originally Posted by DEVILS ALL THE WAY View Post
Larsson is probably on top of the list and if he isn't, something is wrong.
Of course he's on top of the list, I didn't say he wasn't. But what's the gap between him and the next guy on the list? Is it enough to justify trading up because we absolutely must have Larsson?

And what's Colorado's incentive for trading down? No matter who they want, trading down with us does not help them, because they risk losing the guy they want. If they wanted Larsson, they lose him because we'll take him. If they wanted Landeskog, they might lose him because Florida could take him. It doesn't make sense from their point of view. Better for them to stay put.

And since we won't be trading up with Florida or Edmonton, I can only conclude that we won't bother trading up.

Saugus is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 12:17 PM
  #46
EliasR8
Brendan Shanahan!
 
EliasR8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 11,488
vCash: 1050
You never know who is on the top of the list maybe Murphy is, maybe Couturier is. It probably is Larsson but I don't think you can be a 100% sure.

Hopefully it is Larsson though.

EliasR8 is online now  
Old
05-15-2011, 12:21 PM
  #47
DEVILS ALL THE WAY*
Yes, I'm a hypocrite
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
But if he's the best on the board, why would colorado give him up? And not only that, why would they do it for just a late 2nd and corrente who can't even play a whole season? I think it would take more and that's why I'm not a fan.

Us taking it into consideration doesn't mean much during the real thing anyway. We have no clue what their team boards look like. We do, however, have Conte on record saying how much he loves the 2nd round picks.
Who cares about 2nd rounders if you have a shot at the best blueliner in this years draft and has more upside then another blueliner that got selected 2nd overall by Tampa a couple of years ago?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus View Post
Of course he's on top of the list, I didn't say he wasn't. But what's the gap between him and the next guy on the list? Is it enough to justify trading up because we absolutely must have Larsson?

And what's Colorado's incentive for trading down? No matter who they want, trading down with us does not help them, because they risk losing the guy they want. If they wanted Larsson, they lose him because we'll take him. If they wanted Landeskog, they might lose him because Florida could take him. It doesn't make sense from their point of view. Better for them to stay put.

And since we won't be trading up with Florida or Edmonton, I can only conclude that we won't bother trading up.
The only reason why Colorado would trade down is if they have Landeskog and Huberdeau high on their list, wich is very possible. They would move down 2 spots, add some more assets for their rebuild and still have a shot at one of the two prospects on their list.

Once again, that scenario would be relevant if the Avs have Landeskog/Huberdeau over Larsson and with the depth they have on the blueline at the moment plus a shot at taking one of Murphy, Beaulieu or Siemens at #11 and a extra pick in a very deep draft regarding blueliners... that kind of package wouldn't be too far fetched IMO.

DEVILS ALL THE WAY* is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 01:41 PM
  #48
apice3*
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middletown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 18,520
vCash: 500
At least we all agree that we want Larsson in some way, shape, or form.

apice3* is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 01:42 PM
  #49
Jaysfanatic*
BJ Elitist/Hipster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Strathroy, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 62,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by apice3 View Post
At least we all agree that we want Larsson in some way, shape, or form.
Landeskog >>>>>>>>>>> Larsson.


Jaysfanatic* is offline  
Old
05-15-2011, 01:43 PM
  #50
Devilsfan92
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DEVILS ALL THE WAY View Post
Who cares about 2nd rounders if you have a shot at the best blueliner in this years draft and has more upside then another blueliner that got selected 2nd overall by Tampa a couple of years ago?



The only reason why Colorado would trade down is if they have Landeskog and Huberdeau high on their list, wich is very possible. They would move down 2 spots, add some more assets for their rebuild and still have a shot at one of the two prospects on their list.

Once again, that scenario would be relevant if the Avs have Landeskog/Huberdeau over Larsson and with the depth they have on the blueline at the moment plus a shot at taking one of Murphy, Beaulieu or Siemens at #11 and a extra pick in a very deep draft regarding blueliners... that kind of package wouldn't be too far fetched IMO.
Think this is the first thing I completely agree with you on.

A chance at drafting Larsson at the expense of a 2nd and an additional pick, hell yes.

Devilsfan92 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 06:57 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.