• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Dabura

2020 Draft Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 1/22/2020 at 10:05 AM, kipwinger said:

I don't put a lot of stock in what sports people do or don't do.  It took what, 100 years to use a 1-3-1 powerplay in hockey despite the fact that mathematically it makes more sense than a 2-3.  Similarly basketball and football constantly do stupid, counter-logical, s*** because nobody's ever really done it differently.  In football they still punt, despite it being dumb.  And it took basketball a zillion years to figure out that you should just rebound and shoot 3's all game.

These days moving the 1st is an even safer move because the 2nd overall guys are so good.  I will concede, however, that because fanboys get so moist over each 1st overall pick every year, the move would be HIGHLY unpopular. So you'd better be able to sell it to your fans.  Or at least fleece the other team so badly that it's obvious what a good idea it was. 

But play out the thought experiment. Say you trade the 2015 Connor McDavid 1st overall for Jack Eichel's 2nd, Buffalo's 2016 1st, and Rasmus Ristolainen (probably not even as good a package as you could get, but bear with me). Let's also assume for whatever reason Edmonton REALLY liked Puljujarvi with their own 2016 1st, regardless of the trade.

Outcomes of trading the pick: Eichel, Puljujarvi, Ristolainen, and Buffalo's 6th overall. Given that it was clear by the draft in 2016 that Edmonton wanted defensemen (Hence why they traded Hall for peanuts at the draft) I assume they take one of Sergachev, McAvoy, Bean, Chychrun, or Fabbro all of whom were still on the board at 6th.  Plus they probably don't trade Hall if they know they're getting a top ten defender and just landed Ristolainen.

Outcome of not trading the pick: McDavid, Puljujarvi, and Adam Larsson.

Which team is better?

I dunno that trading the 1st would be "HIGHLY unpopular."  Like, have you met actual hockey fans? Have you read the HF Boards? 50% of hockey fandom is masturbatory blue-skying. And, frankly, I'd file the argument you're making into that category. It's easy to say trading a 1st overall pick gets you an Eichel and a Ristolainen and a Fabbro, but there's no guarantee it would work out that way. Trading Hischier for Pettersson seems like a no-brainer *now*, but if hitting on under-the-radar gems were a science, every organization would be doing it. Trading MacKinnon for Barkov and another high pick and a young roster player might've made a ton of sense at the time, but I'd say the 2020 Avs are pretty happy with MacKinnon.

I think that's why 1st overall picks don't get traded in this, The Age of Parity™. The case you're making for moving that pick is also a case for not giving up what it ought to take to acquire that pick. I mean, yeah, I like the idea of taking the Habs to the cleaners, because OF COURSE they'd move heaven and earth to get Frenchy Wonder Kid. But, truthfully, I dunno that they actually *would* move heaven and earth to get Frenchy Wonder Kid. No GM wants to be The Guy Who Traded Nathan MacKinnon for Magic Beans, and no GM wants to be The Guy Who Traded Miro Heiskanen/Cale Makar/Elias Pettersson and Several Other Pieces for Nico Hischier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dabura said:

I dunno that trading the 1st would be "HIGHLY unpopular."  Like, have you met actual hockey fans? Have you read the HF Boards? 50% of hockey fandom is masturbatory blue-skying. And, frankly, I'd file the argument you're making into that category. It's easy to say trading a 1st overall pick gets you an Eichel and a Ristolainen and a Fabbro, but there's no guarantee it would work out that way. Trading Hischier for Pettersson seems like a no-brainer *now*, but if hitting on under-the-radar gems were a science, every organization would be doing it. Trading MacKinnon for Barkov and another high pick and a young roster player might've made a ton of sense at the time, but I'd say the 2020 Avs are pretty happy with MacKinnon.

I think that's why 1st overall picks don't get traded in this, The Age of Parity™. The case you're making for moving that pick is also a case for not giving up what it ought to take to acquire that pick. I mean, yeah, I like the idea of taking the Habs to the cleaners, because OF COURSE they'd move heaven and earth to get Frenchy Wonder Kid. But, truthfully, I dunno that they actually *would* move heaven and earth to get Frenchy Wonder Kid. No GM wants to be The Guy Who Traded Nathan MacKinnon for Magic Beans, and no GM wants to be The Guy Who Traded Miro Heiskanen/Cale Makar/Elias Pettersson and Several Other Pieces for Nico Hischier.

They would if he's as good as you and everybody else says he is.  And if he's not that good, and the difference between him and everyone else is much smaller, then maybe you should reconsider all the things that made you think he was worlds apart to begin with. 

Also, it's not like there isn't a precedent for this.  Remember when Eric Lindos was the next big thing, and he was traded for a package that was WAY more valuable than he was? And then the not-Lindros team went on to be MUCH better than the Lindos team despite him being the best player moved in that deal?  I do.  The only difference is that the Lindos trade was forced onto Quebec, while in this case you'd be making the deal proactively. 

Fun Fact: The Red Wings were reportedly willing to trade Steve Yzerman, Steve Chiasson, and draft picks for Lindos. The Rangers had reportedly agreed to trade (among other pieces) Tony Amonte, Alexie Kovalev, either John Vanbiesbrouck or Mike Richter, and multiple 1st round picks for Lindos. 

Conclusion: Teams are willing to do really stupid s*** because their idiot executives are just as susceptible to hype as you are.  Sure you've got to make good on your picks after you acquire them, but that's what you pay scouts for.  If you have no confidence that you can find a really good player with a 6th overall pick then you've got bigger problems than what we're talking about here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kipwinger said:

They would if he's as good as you and everybody else says he is.

Let me spell this out for you.

  • I believe that if you're looking for a gamechanging, gamebreaking 2020 draft-eligible, Lafreniere is far and away your safest bet. It's not a big stretch to say he appears to have the highest ceiling and the highest floor of all 2020 draft-eligible players.
  • I believe it's entirely possible that [insert some other 2020 draft-eligible] will ultimately be a better NHLer than Lafreniere.
  • I would consider trading the 1st overall pick in this draft for a package that I strongly believe is worth *more* than Lafreniere.
  • I wouldn't expect to get that kind of offer. Maybe I get it and maybe I pull the trigger. Unlikely.
  • I straight up don't care about the Lindros trade or about what Edmonton could've gotten instead of McDavid. No real bearing on the here and now.

We're not winning the draft lotto, so this is all moot. :paperbag3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dabura said:

Let me spell this out for you.

  • I believe that if you're looking for a gamechanging, gamebreaking 2020 draft-eligible, Lafreniere is far and away your safest bet. It's not a big stretch to say he appears to have the highest ceiling and the highest floor of all 2020 draft-eligible players.
  • I believe it's entirely possible that [insert some other 2020 draft-eligible] will ultimately be a better NHLer than Lafreniere.
  • I would consider trading the 1st overall pick in this draft for a package that I strongly believe is worth *more* than Lafreniere.
  • I wouldn't expect to get that kind of offer. Maybe I get it and maybe I pull the trigger. Unlikely.
  • I straight up don't care about the Lindros trade or about what Edmonton could've gotten instead of McDavid. No real bearing on the here and now.

If I were making a dumb argument it would ignore any information that seems to contradict what I was saying too.  Dynamite thinking.

And you still haven't gotten the point yet, likely because you're too blinded by internet discourse to think about this for a second.  It's not "likely" that someone will be as good or better than Lafreniere, it's probable based on the results of the last 20 years of drafts.  And it's not like you have to mine the 4th, 5th, and 6th rounds with a healthy dose of luck to find that person.  They're likely going to be taken within 4 or 5 picks of Lafreniere himself.  Nobody is talking about trading back for the 25th pick and hoping for a Pastrnak.  You're talking about trading a McKinnon and taking a Barkov or Seth Jones (plus a bunch of other assets), both of whom were both obviously going to be NHL stars at the time they were drafted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

If I were making a dumb argument it would ignore any information that seems to contradict what I was saying too.  Dynamite thinking.

And you still haven't gotten the point yet, likely because you're too blinded by internet discourse to think about this for a second.  It's not "likely" that someone will be as good or better than Lafreniere, it's probable based on the results of the last 20 years of drafts.  And it's not like you have to mine the 4th, 5th, and 6th rounds with a healthy dose of luck to find that person.  They're likely going to be taken within 4 or 5 picks of Lafreniere himself.  Nobody is talking about trading back for the 25th pick and hoping for a Pastrnak.  You're talking about trading a McKinnon and taking a Barkov or Seth Jones (plus a bunch of other assets), both of whom were both obviously going to be NHL stars at the time they were drafted.

I mean I think it was Garth Snow who wanted to trade every single one of his draft picks to move up 4 spots in the 1st round. Seemed like a no-brainer for CBJ and they still said no.

I chalk it all up to fog of war. We think and hope Lafren will be the best but no one really knows dick at the end of the day. Maybe u trade the 1st for a package and look like a genius, but maybe you also end up with a bunch of Evgeny Svechnikovs. You might look like a genius or you might look like the dumbest guy in 300 years and ruin your career. I think that's why these moves don't happen. Everyone is content to sit on their picks and see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I mean I think it was Garth Snow who wanted to trade every single one of his draft picks to move up 4 spots in the 1st round. Seemed like a no-brainer for CBJ and they still said no.

I chalk it all up to fog of war. We think and hope Lafren will be the best but no one really knows dick at the end of the day. Maybe u trade the 1st for a package and look like a genius, but maybe you also end up with a bunch of Evgeny Svechnikovs. You might look like a genius or you might look like the dumbest guy in 300 years and ruin your career. I think that's why these moves don't happen. Everyone is content to sit on their picks and see what happens.

Again, nobody is saying trade the 1st for the 15th or whatever Svech was.  I'm talking about trading Lafreniere for Byfield/Stutzle+++, or trading McDavid for Eichel+++, or Lindros for Forsberg+++, or Yzerman+++, or Amonte, Kovalev, and Richter+++. 

If I'm a GM and have the first pick, and the general consensus is that the presumed 1st overall guys is "generational" or close to it, then I'm fleecing someone in the top five for that pick. And if they don't give me the package I'm looking for, oh well, I just draft Lafreniere, or McDavid, or Lindros, or whomever.

 

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kipwinger said:

Again, nobody is saying trade the 1st for the 15th or whatever Svech was.  I'm talking about trading Lafreniere for Byfield/Stutzle+++, or trading McDavid for Eichel+++, or Lindros for Forsberg+++, or Yzerman+++, or Amonte, Kovalev, and Richter+++. 

If I'm a GM and have the first pick, and the general consensus is that the presumed 1st overall guys is "generational" or close to it, then I'm fleecing someone in the top five for that pick. 

 

Andddddd then Lafren does turn out to be the next Crosby and Byfield turns out to be the next Nino Neidereitter, and Tim Stutzle turns out to be the next Brett Connolly.

Did you win that trade? I don't think so. Not even for whatever extra Dman they threw in.

That's the risk with what you're talking about. If it wasn't everyone would be doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Andddddd then Lafren does turn out to be the next Crosby and Byfield turns out to be the next Nino Neidereitter, and Tim Stutzle turns out to be the next Brett Connolly.

Did you win that trade? I don't think so. Not even for whatever extra Dman they threw in.

That's the risk with what you're talking about. If it wasn't everyone would be doing it.

Depends on what else you got in the trade.  But here's the thing...

Remember when Buffalo "lost" the lottery and their GM, Tim Murray, apologized to his fans because (boo hoo) they had to draft Eichel as a consolation prize?  The same Tim Murray that openly gushed about McDavid all year?  The same Tim Murray that openly tanked, and admitted it, for "McJesus"?  You're telling me that guy couldn't have been fleeced for the top pick?  Of course he could.  And there was about as much chance of Jack Eichel turning into another Nino Neidereitter as there was of McDavid doing the same.  With the top of the draft guys there's very little risk anymore.  Not that it'll never happen, but but it's rare enough to make the risk negligible.  Same goes for Matthews and Laine.  EVERYONE knew Laine would be awesome, not any riskier of a pick than Matthews himself.  Same with Hughes and Kakko.  Or Dahlin and Svechnikov.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Depends on what else you got in the trade.  But here's the thing...

Remember when Buffalo "lost" the lottery and their GM, Tim Murray, apologized to his fans because (boo hoo) they had to draft Eichel as a consolation prize?  The same Tim Murray that openly gushed about McDavid all year?  The same Tim Murray that openly tanked, and admitted it, for "McJesus"?  You're telling me that guy couldn't have been fleeced for the top pick?  Of course he could.  And there was about as much chance of Jack Eichel turning into another Nino Neidereitter as there was of McDavid doing the same.  With the top of the draft guys there's very little risk anymore.  Not that it'll never happen, but but it's rare enough to make the risk negligible.  Same goes for Matthews and Laine.  EVERYONE knew Laine would be awesome, not any riskier of a pick than Matthews himself.  Same with Hughes and Kakko.  Or Dahlin and Svechnikov.

That's not how I remember it. Buffalo certainly preferred McJesus, but everyone said all year the 1 and 2 are gonna both be tremendous and Eichel is a fantastic consolation prize. Any other year Eichel would have been the undisputed #1.

I don't think you can say that this year. Lafren looks like the undisputed #1 all season, but after that it was Byfield and now people are calling him Bustfield.

You argued last year about Seider not being so hot cause of his league and everything. You could probably argue the same for Stutzle this year.

When you talk about another GM possibly being over the moon for Lafren I assume you mean Montreal. My ask would be like 3 firsts and Domi.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

That's not how I remember it. Buffalo certainly preferred McJesus, but everyone said all year the 1 and 2 are gonna both be tremendous and Eichel is a fantastic consolation prize. Any other year Eichel would have been the undisputed #1.

I don't think you can say that this year. Lafren looks like the undisputed #1 all season, but after that it was Byfield and now people are calling him Bustfield.

You argued last year about Seider not being so hot cause of his league and everything. You could probably argue the same for Stutzle this year.

When you talk about another GM possibly being over the moon for Lafren I assume you mean Montreal. My ask would be like 3 firsts and Domi.

 

Go back and look at how Murray acted w/respect to McDavid/Eichel.  I'm not suggesting EVERY GM could be fleeced, just some.  And he was clearly not so hot on Eichel compared to McDavid.

I've already addressed Byfield elsewhere.  The kids' like two weeks too old or he'd be getting drafted next year.  He's like 11 months younger than Lafreniere.  Clearly a mitigating factor.  Likewise I've also addressed the quality of the DEL, which I admitted I was wrong about.  I'm fine with that, just means that Stutzle eating that league alive at 17 years old likely means he's not a very risky pick at 2 or 3. 

Not necessarily Montreal, though they'd fit the bill this year.  I'm talking about it on a bigger scale.  I wouldn't just do it this year, I'd do it almost every year there was a perceived gap between the 1 and 2 picks that could be exploited.  But in the case of Montreal, if I had the 1st and assuming they had the 2nd or 3rd, my ask is Cayden Primeau, their 1st this year (and draft Byfield/Stutzle), and prospect Alexander Romanov. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

But in the case of Montreal, if I had the 1st and assuming they had the 2nd or 3rd, my ask is Cayden Primeau, their 1st this year (and draft Byfield/Stutzle), and prospect Alexander Romanov. 

See I don't think that's anywhere near enough.

Primeau, a 7th round goalie turns out to be a McCollum type goalie. Romanov never comes stateside or is just a middling top6 Dman. Now suddenly the trade looks awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

See I don't think that's anywhere near enough.

Primeau, a 7th round goalie turns out to be a McCollum type goalie. Romanov never comes stateside or is just a middling top6 Dman. Now suddenly the trade looks awful.

Look, if you can get more then get more.  But I don't think the gap between Lafreniere and the other two (and I'd include Rossi here too) will be big enough (if at all) to make the trade lopsided.  Again, when you're talking about top five picks there's almost no risk anymore.  So you're getting a star player in the making at 2 or 3, a stud goalie with a pedigree (top goalie in NCAA) who's already torn up the AHL, and a top defense prospect who (if Yzerman is to be believed) will definitely come over because all the top Russians do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Look, if you can get more then get more.  But I don't think the gap between Lafreniere and the other two (and I'd include Rossi here too) will be big enough (if at all) to make the trade lopsided.  Again, when you're talking about top five picks there's almost no risk anymore.  So you're getting a star player in the making at 2 or 3, a stud goalie with a pedigree (top goalie in NCAA) who's already torn up the AHL, and a top defense prospect who (if Yzerman is to be believed) will definitely come over because all the top Russians do. 

I think you have to assume Primeau and Romanov are complete gambles and then go from there.

When you go from there, Top5's are usually good players, but it could mean the difference between an Eichel and a Dylan Strome. Eichel is the much better player. You might be trading a Draisaitl for a Sam Bennet. A Mackinnon for a Drouin. Was that really worth it for a Dman and a goalie who might end up as completely replaceable players?

That's the risk involved and why I think these trades don't happen. It basically has to be a massive over-payment to get it done, and most aren't willing to do that. It will also be the pinnacle move of a GM's career. People will talk about a trade like that to the end of time, and if it looks bad your gonna be a laughing stock. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I think you have to assume Primeau and Romanov are complete gambles and then go from there.

When you go from there, Top5's are usually good players, but it could mean the difference between an Eichel and a Dylan Strome. Eic hel is the much better player. You might be trading a Draisaitl for a Sam Bennet. A Mackinnon for a Drouin. Was that really worth it for a Dman and a goalie who might end up as completely replaceable players?

That's the risk involved and why I think these trades don't happen. It basically has to be a massive over-payment to get it done, and most aren't willing to do that. It will also be the pinnacle move of a GM's career. People will talk about a trade like that to the end of time, and if it looks bad your gonna be a laughing stock. 

 

Again, you have to really trust in your scouting.  Like, taking a 20th ranked defenseman at 6th overall type of trust.  Again, nobody's saying that there's no risk.  I'm saying the risk is minimal.  So much so that the worst case scenario (a Strome or Drouin) is still a highly productive NHL player. Strome has 30 points in 40 games and is 22 years old.  Drouin had 15 in 19 before getting hurt and he's 24.  If that's the worst possible outcome, and if you look back at past drafts it basically is, then sign me up every single day.  Again, nobody is doubting who the better players are in these scenarios.  It's about how to build the better team. 

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Again, you have to really trust in your scouting.  Like, taking a 20th ranked defenseman at 6th overall type of trust.  Again, nobody's saying that there's no risk.  I'm saying the risk is minimal.  So much so that the worst case scenario (a Strome or Drouin) is still a highly productive NHL player. Strome has 30 points in 40 games and is 22 years old.  Drouin had 15 in 19 before getting hurt and he's 24.  If that's the worst possible outcome, and if you look back at past drafts it basically is, then sign me up every single day. 

I flatly disagree. The difference between a Mackinnon/McDavid/Eichel and a Strome/Bennet/Drouin is tremendous IMO. You'd really be doing your team a disservice unless your gamble on Primeau and Romanov really pays off. And that's no sure thing at all.

But I agree that you have to trust your scouting. If Yzerman had the #1 last year and traded down to get Seider and acquire more pieces because he truly believed Seider was the best player in the draft and Jack Hughes wasn't, then cool I guess, do it. But in that scenario it's not because you think you can play someone's hype for Hughes... it's because you and your scouts all truly believe there was a serious flaw in every single other teams scouting and the guy ranked at #10 should have been #1. It's still quite a ballsy gamble and would probably outrage your fanbase.

 

Edited by ChristopherReevesLegs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I flatly disagree. The difference between a Mackinnon/McDavid/Eichel and a Strome/Bennet/Drouin is tremendous IMO. You'd really be doing your team a disservice unless your gamble on Primeau and Romanov really pays off. And that's no sure thing at all.

But I agree that you have to trust your scouting. If Yzerman had the #1 last year and traded down to get Seider and acquire more pieces because he truly believed Seider was the best player in the draft and Jack Hughes wasn't, then cool I guess, do it. But in that scenario it's not because you think you can play someone's hype for Hughes... it's because you and your scouts all truly believe there was a serious flaw in every single other teams scouting and the guy ranked at #10 should have been #1. It's still quite a ballsy gamble and would probably outrage your fanbase.

 

As I've said before, fans (and teams) constantly overestimate the value of the best player.  I'd pretty much always rather have 3 guys who are 75% as good as one guy.  Especially if you're talking about really high end guys to begin with.  Even more so when you consider how often teams with the best individual players DON'T win. 

Also, you're picking the best and worst cases and ignoring the middle.  The difference between McKinnon and Drouin is pretty significant, the difference between McKinnon and Barkov or Jones is minimal. Same with all the other examples I mentioned. So while you'd have to be prepared for that risk, you're just as likely (or perhaps even more likely in some years) to give up an Ekblad and land a Draisaitl. 

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

As I've said before, fans (and teams) constantly overestimate the value of the best player.  I'd pretty much always rather have 3 guys who are 75% as good as one guy.  Especially if you're talking about really high end guys to begin with.  Even more so when you consider how often teams with the best individual players DON'T win. 

Also, you're picking the best and worst cases and ignoring the middle.  The difference between McKinnon and Drouin is pretty significant, the difference between McKinnon and Barkov or Jones is minimal. Same with all the other examples I mentioned. So while you'd have to be prepared for that risk, you're just as likely (or perhaps even more likely in some years) to give up an Ekblad and land a Draisaitl. 

Sure but I still think it's an unacceptable risk to take for Romanov and Primeau

And I'd emphasize that you might see the value in trading back, but I'd say upwards of 90% of the fanbase wouldn't. We suffer this season, actually win the lottery, then Yzerman trades the 1st overall away. A lot of people would lose their heads. For that reason I'd love to see it happen just for the meltdown, but I think that's a good reason not to do it from an ownership pov. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Sure but I still think it's an unacceptable risk to take for Romanov and Primeau

And I'd emphasize that you might see the value in trading back, but I'd say upwards of 90% of the fanbase wouldn't. We suffer this season, actually win the lottery, then Yzerman trades the 1st overall away. A lot of people would lose their heads. For that reason I'd love to see it happen just for the meltdown, but I think that's a good reason not to do it from an ownership pov. 

Oh I've already acknowledged at the beginning of the discussion that it would be a HIGHLY unpopular move.  You'd have to have Yzerman level goodwill and really be able to sell it.  Though in the case of the Eichel vs. McDavid scenario I played out earlier I think it would pay off in short order.  Also I tend to think that NHL fanbases will bend over backward to see the silver lining in things after it's been done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Depends on what else you got in the trade.  But here's the thing...

Remember when Buffalo "lost" the lottery and their GM, Tim Murray, apologized to his fans because (boo hoo) they had to draft Eichel as a consolation prize?  The same Tim Murray that openly gushed about McDavid all year?  The same Tim Murray that openly tanked, and admitted it, for "McJesus"?  You're telling me that guy couldn't have been fleeced for the top pick?  Of course he could.  And there was about as much chance of Jack Eichel turning into another Nino Neidereitter as there was of McDavid doing the same.  With the top of the draft guys there's very little risk anymore.  Not that it'll never happen, but but it's rare enough to make the risk negligible.  Same goes for Matthews and Laine.  EVERYONE knew Laine would be awesome, not any riskier of a pick than Matthews himself.  Same with Hughes and Kakko.  Or Dahlin and Svechnikov.

Guys like McDavid are never a risk of becoming a Nino Neidereitter. They are just that good that it is a foregone conclusion they'll be top players in the league. Lafreniere, while not at that McDavid level, is in the same conversation. This is not the Nolan Patrick draft, after all. 

Most years everything you're saying is true. But this coming draft is one of those rare exceptions. Considering how much more important the draft is now compared to the Lindros days, it's also a lot less likely goes overboard to pry the first overall pick, as you'd cripple the farm to do so. Back then? Just use UFA and trade draft picks to make up the difference. 

Mathews and Laine was also another exception. Both guys spent their draft years playing against men so it was easier to see what they were. 

Svech was a nice consolation prize in his draft year, but the Sabres got a generational talent on the blueline. There was no doubt about that before the draft or since.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, kipwinger said:

If I were making a dumb argument it would ignore any information that seems to contradict what I was saying too.  Dynamite thinking.

And you still haven't gotten the point yet, likely because you're too blinded by internet discourse to think about this for a second.  It's not "likely" that someone will be as good or better than Lafreniere, it's probable based on the results of the last 20 years of drafts.  And it's not like you have to mine the 4th, 5th, and 6th rounds with a healthy dose of luck to find that person.  They're likely going to be taken within 4 or 5 picks of Lafreniere himself.  Nobody is talking about trading back for the 25th pick and hoping for a Pastrnak.  You're talking about trading a McKinnon and taking a Barkov or Seth Jones (plus a bunch of other assets), both of whom were both obviously going to be NHL stars at the time they were drafted.

The case you're making is dumb and boring.

"Hurr durr well I'll just trade McDavid for a package that's even BETTER than McDavid! Ha! No GM has thought to do this, because they are dumb sports people and I'm not. I'm way ahead of the curve here."

Cool story.

"In this hypothetical scenario, I'm assuming my scouts and I are just so good that every piece we'd be getting in return for the 1st overall pick is a home run."

Cool story.

"Getting Forsberg+ for Lindros worked out for the Avs because they won Cups. Getting McDavid hasn't worked out for the Oilers because they still suck. Bad GMing has nothing to do with this. The difference between those Avs teams and these Oilers teams is the (un)willingness to move a 1st overall pick."

Cool story.

blah blah blah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Yzerman is stone cold confident that the package > Lafreniere, I'd back the move. But there's big risk there, on both sides. That's my point. It *can* be done. Two GMs *can* risk big. "Fortune favors the bold" and all that. But if it backfires spectacularly, for either GM or both GMs, that's possibly career-ending -- and organization-wrecking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Dabura said:

The case you're making is dumb and boring.

"Hurr durr well I'll just trade McDavid for a package that's even BETTER than McDavid! Ha! No GM has thought to do this, because they are dumb sports people and I'm not. I'm way ahead of the curve here."

Cool story.

"In this hypothetical scenario, I'm assuming my scouts and I are just so good that every piece we'd be getting in return for the 1st overall pick is a home run."

Cool story.

"Getting Forsberg+ for Lindros worked out for the Avs because they won Cups. Getting McDavid hasn't worked out for the Oilers because they still suck. Bad GMing has nothing to do with this. The difference between those Avs teams and these Oilers teams is the (un)willingness to move a 1st overall pick."

Cool story.

blah blah blah

One small correction... I wouldn't say the Oilers still suck. They're currently 2nd in the Pacific, one point behind the Canucks. I think they'll comfortably make the playoffs, and with a few tweaks over the next couple years, likely a legit contender. I'd be shocked if the Oilers don't win a Cup in the next 10 years, on the back of McDavid, winning the Conn Smythe. I don't think I'd be saying the same thing if the Oilers had Eichel+ instead...

Crosby was a generation talent, and helped the Pens win three Cups, at the age of 21, 28, 29. McDavid is only 23. He could definitely win a couple before he turns 30. Like @marcaractac said, Lafreniere may not be on the same level of Crosby and McDavid, but he's definitely in the conversation. For that reason, this is not your typical draft, where you might consider shopping that pick. Lafreniere may be the best player to come along since McDavid. He's that good. Trading that pick would likely be a monumental mistake. No GM is trading it, unless it's a MASSIVE overpayment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

One small correction... I wouldn't say the Oilers still suck. They're currently 2nd in the Pacific, one point behind the Canucks. I think they'll comfortably make the playoffs, and with a few tweaks over the next couple years, likely a legit contender. I'd be shocked if the Oilers don't win a Cup in the next 10 years, on the back of McDavid, winning the Conn Smythe. I don't think I'd be saying the same thing if the Oilers had Eichel+ instead...

Crosby was a generation talent, and helped the Pens win three Cups, at the age of 21, 28, 29. McDavid is only 23. He could definitely win a couple before he turns 30. Like @marcaractac said, Lafreniere may not be on the same level of Crosby and McDavid, but he's definitely in the conversation. For that reason, this is not your typical draft, where you might consider shopping that pick. Lafreniere may be the best player to come along since McDavid. He's that good. Trading that pick would likely be a monumental mistake. No GM is trading it, unless it's a MASSIVE overpayment...

And with the nature of the game with salary caps and what not, massive overpayments in trades never happen like they used to. When big names DO get moved these days, it's always for less than anyone anticipates. The Sens are damn lucky for the Sharks misfortunes this year. At the time of the Karlsson trade, that first round pick was never expected to be a potential lottery pick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, krsmith17 said:

One small correction... I wouldn't say the Oilers still suck. They're currently 2nd in the Pacific, one point behind the Canucks.

Fair point. Good call. I haven't been watching the standings much this season. Last I checked, the Oilers were out of the playoffs.

4 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Crosby was a generation talent, and helped the Pens win three Cups, at the age of 21, 28, 29. McDavid is only 23. He could definitely win a couple before he turns 30. Like @marcaractac said, Lafreniere may not be on the same level of Crosby and McDavid, but he's definitely in the conversation. For that reason, this is not your typical draft, where you might consider shopping that pick. Lafreniere may be the best player to come along since McDavid. He's that good. Trading that pick would likely be a monumental mistake. No GM is trading it, unless it's a MASSIVE overpayment...

I'd absolutely consider shopping the pick. At the very least, I'd put the feelers out. Yzerman wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't at least consider potential returns.

So, in that sense, I agree with kip. The opportunity to draft a Lafreniere is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity...and so is the opportunity to trade him. A GM could, in theory, turn that one pick into something incredible. And it's certainly fun to think about what that return might look like. But even if I'm 100% down with trading the pick for the 2nd overall pick and a mid-round 1st and a 2nd and a good young roster player/prospect...I doubt I can actually get that deal done.

"You could absolutely rob a GM with the 1st overall pick" is a thought that occurs to every GM every season and it's probably the main reason why the 1st never gets moved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dabura said:

The case you're making is dumb and boring.

"Hurr durr well I'll just trade McDavid for a package that's even BETTER than McDavid! Ha! No GM has thought to do this, because they are dumb sports people and I'm not. I'm way ahead of the curve here."

Cool story.

"In this hypothetical scenario, I'm assuming my scouts and I are just so good that every piece we'd be getting in return for the 1st overall pick is a home run."

Cool story.

"Getting Forsberg+ for Lindros worked out for the Avs because they won Cups. Getting McDavid hasn't worked out for the Oilers because they still suck. Bad GMing has nothing to do with this. The difference between those Avs teams and these Oilers teams is the (un)willingness to move a 1st overall pick."

Cool story.

blah blah blah

This case I'm making is dumb and boring?

24 minutes ago, Dabura said:

Fair point. Good call. I haven't been watching the standings much this season. Last I checked, the Oilers were out of the playoffs.

I'd absolutely consider shopping the pick. At the very least, I'd put the feelers out. Yzerman wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't at least consider potential returns.

So, in that sense, I agree with kip. The opportunity to draft a Lafreniere is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity...and so is the opportunity to trade him. A GM could, in theory, turn that one pick into something incredible. And it's certainly fun to think about what that return might look like. But even if I'm 100% down with trading the pick for the 2nd overall pick and a mid-round 1st and a 2nd and a good young roster player/prospect...I doubt I can actually get that deal done.

"You could absolutely rob a GM with the 1st overall pick" is a thought that occurs to every GM every season and it's probably the main reason why the 1st never gets moved.

But you agree with it in principle and it's fun to think about?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now