Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Why are most of you against trading draft picks?


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#1 Dun Caesar

Dun Caesar

    Comets Prospect

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 09

Posted 26 March 2013 - 11:38 AM

Time and time again I read "I wouldn't trade a first round pick for *insert veteran player who is a proven playoff performer*". Really? How often do 1st round draft picks REALLY pan out? Seriously, unless it's a top 5 picks, who cares? There is just a s good of a chance that a 3rd round pick will be as successful; as a first round pick. We realistically have a 2 year window here where we could contend for a cup, now is not the time to be worried about draft picks. Please explain yourselves :sadno:
  • 0
Lex Luger

#2 Patrick Jane

Patrick Jane

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 12

Posted 26 March 2013 - 11:39 AM

*
POPULAR

I dont care.........but this year we shouldnt trade our 1st round cause the draft is deep........but any other year is fine.
  • 5
Posted Image
Drouin#27 Halifax Mooseheads Star

Credit to Canucks Top Scorer

#3 BananaMash

BananaMash

    xX_qUiCkScOpEz_Xx

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,202 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 10

Posted 26 March 2013 - 11:46 AM

This draft is incredibly deep, that's why. It's one of the best drafts in a long time.
  • 0

FWYIerW.png


#4 Twilight Sparkle

Twilight Sparkle

    Lizardshifting Shape

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,563 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 11

Posted 26 March 2013 - 11:50 AM

i'm not against a anything as long as it makes sense, but in most cases, if you're picking up a "veteran with proven playoff performance" they're usually a rental and gone after it's all done. that's a pretty big gamble trading away young talent who can always make something of themselves and add depth to the team so we're competing every year
  • 3

Posted Image

 

who was fitted with collar and chain

who was given a pat on the back

who was breaking away from the pack


#5 OurTimeToShine

OurTimeToShine

    Otis

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 08

Posted 26 March 2013 - 11:54 AM

*
POPULAR

Because our prospect pool is already weak enough as is, after Corrado, Schroeder, Jensen and Gaunce there isn't too much to get excited about, when the Twins leave it will be sad days.
  • 15

Posted Image

Thanks -Vintage Canuck-!!!


#6 Opmac

Opmac

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,526 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 07

Posted 26 March 2013 - 11:59 AM

This draft is incredibly deep, that's why. It's one of the best drafts in a long time.

2013 NHL draft lacks depth of talent

“The 2013 draft is not as strong or as deep as we first thought,” said one scout, echoing the thoughts of many others. “It’s a deep top 10 and an OK first round, but I don’t see a lot of depth. Is it deeper than 2012? I’m not so sure.”

Your move.
  • 2

Posted Image


#7 Outsiders

Outsiders

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,748 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 13

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:00 PM

I dont care.........but this year we shouldnt trade our 1st round cause the draft is deep........but any other year is fine.


I totally agree with you...
  • 0

bhzi9k.jpg

       Hunter Shinkaruk - Eddie Lack - Jake Virtanen 

               Your next Generation of Canucks 

 

 

                   Credit To -Vintage Canuck-


#8 Canucks1527

Canucks1527

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 13

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:02 PM

Our too players are almost past their prime. This means we need top new players to come in and take over as the top six or too three forwards in two to four years. The only way to do this is draft well and bring players up through our farm system. We already are in the bottom three in the league for prospects and if we start trading away our picks that won't improve our situation. Do we need a top six/top nine player, yes. But at what cost? If we trade away picks and that player ends up being a waste, then not only do we lose our chance at the cup in the next couple years, we are looking at a long rebuild period.
  • 2

#9 BananaMash

BananaMash

    xX_qUiCkScOpEz_Xx

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,202 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 10

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:03 PM

2013 NHL draft lacks depth of talent

“The 2013 draft is not as strong or as deep as we first thought,” said one scout, echoing the thoughts of many others. “It’s a deep top 10 and an OK first round, but I don’t see a lot of depth. Is it deeper than 2012? I’m not so sure.”

Your move.


I surrender. I stopped paying attention to the prospects as soon as the season started :bigblush:
  • 1

FWYIerW.png


#10 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,452 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:05 PM

*
POPULAR

2013 NHL draft lacks depth of talent

“The 2013 draft is not as strong or as deep as we first thought,” said one scout, echoing the thoughts of many others. “It’s a deep top 10 and an OK first round, but I don’t see a lot of depth. Is it deeper than 2012? I’m not so sure.”

Your move.


So a scout makes a public, anonymous statement that the draft is not as good as predicted? What possible reason could they have for putting that information out there? A red herring perhaps?

The question someone should also ask themselves is which scouting department is this person from? We'd like to think they are all good at their job in assessing talent but they are not.

I have spoken to scouts who all like the quality of this draft through 50 picks. Who to believe? It may not be as good as 2003 but that was a rare occasion. If it only comes close it will be an exceptional year.
  • 5

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#11 Guest_Pinchin_*

Guest_Pinchin_*
  • Guests
  • Joined: --

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:07 PM

*
POPULAR

First, It's not black and white. Like has already been said, this draft is deep and we want as many picks as possible.

Second, we are not contending this year with a decimated roster, if we are to have a run it's going to be circumstantial and shouldn't be expected.

Third, our prospect tank is fairly empty and unless we want to end up like the Flames, MG better have a pretty serious plan to fill up the prospect tank. It's not like we are deep in early 20's talent on our roster.
  • 5

#12 37yrsncounting

37yrsncounting

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Joined: 08-May 10

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:14 PM

*
POPULAR

Kesler, Schneider, Sedin, Sedin, Schroeder, were first round picks. Edler, Hansen, Raymond, and Bieksa all draft picks too. Hmm they are all core part of the team with the exception of the the rookie Schroeder. All draft picks are important cause they essentially form the core of your team. Pittsburgh, Chicago, Anaheim, Boston and all top teams are led by core players from the draft, thats how you build a winner!
  • 7

#13 Nino

Nino

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,550 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:17 PM

Time and time again I read "I wouldn't trade a first round pick for *insert veteran player who is a proven playoff performer*". Really? How often do 1st round draft picks REALLY pan out? Seriously, unless it's a top 5 picks, who cares? There is just a s good of a chance that a 3rd round pick will be as successful; as a first round pick. We realistically have a 2 year window here where we could contend for a cup, now is not the time to be worried about draft picks. Please explain yourselves :sadno:


How often have we made good trades with our prospects? It never has worked out with MG I can't see how it would be any better if we tried again, it's like beating your head on the wall and saying every time I do this it hurts but next time it won't.
  • 0

#14 uber_pwnzor

uber_pwnzor

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,451 posts
  • Joined: 07-December 11

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:18 PM

*
POPULAR

We've drafted: Kesler, Schneider, Bourdon (RIP), Grabner, Patrick White (hehehe), Hodgson, Schroeder and Jensen with our eight last draft picks. All of them except Patrick White play in the NHL.
  • 9

#15 ChenWei91

ChenWei91

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,400 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 08

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:18 PM

Because our prospect pool is complete trash.
  • 3

(>'-')>Posted Image<('-'<)


#16 CanucksFanMike

CanucksFanMike

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,632 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 11

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:20 PM

*
POPULAR

It is simple, really....

We are a veteran team who is always aging. The reason why we are a good team right now is because we drafted well 5-10 years ago when we were rebuilding. We are good now because our veteran players are in their prime. But, as our veteran players get older (Sedins, Kesler, Burrows, Bieksa, Hamhuis, ect.) they will not be as effective. So, there are two options when this happens:

A. We go all in now and hope we win by trading all our prospects and picks

B. We are competitive now and make smart, hockey deals to improve our chances of winning, but keep most of our early picks and quality prospects

In option A, we do what the Penguins are doing. Regardless of whether they win or not, they are going all in now, but later on they will suck for a large period of time. It will be a long rebuilding process.

In option B, we do what the Red Wings are doing. They compete for the cup every year, because they keep their picks and prospects, so when their older players retire, they have new, young prospects ready to step in and they continue to compete.

I would much rather be competitive for many years to come rather than go all in one year (not guaranteed to win) and then suck for 5 or so years in the future while you stockpile draft picks and wait while your prospects develop.

Essentially, the time period where you are not a contender is much shorter by keeping your picks and prospects.

Ok I'm done.

Edited by CanucksFanMike, 26 March 2013 - 12:22 PM.

  • 5
Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck-

#17 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,164 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:56 PM

I'll answer your question with another question (two actually): how often do rentals work out? If it's not at least a partial guarantee, then why give up your future for someone that may leave after only a month or two of playing - especially in a shortened season where they don't have the time to acclimate to the teams and it's systems?
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#18 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,464 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:56 PM

I don't know how people can easily trust what "experts" are saying about the draft, whether it's deep or not. I do remember the 99 draft and how some were touting it to be one of the strongest one, where guys like Pavel Brendl and Patrik Stefan were gonna make huge impact in the NHL.
Then there were "weak" reports like from 2008, how outside of Stamkos, there were really no other outstanding prospects.

Better to trade for a known commodity that something that's very unproven (unless it's a top-5 pick).

  • 1

#19 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,415 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 26 March 2013 - 01:20 PM

*
POPULAR

I know it's a common mantra around here that we should go "all in" in an attempt to win the crapshoot that is the Stanley Cup playoffs, but personally, I prefer to be in the hunt perennially, rather than to take one big shot which might miss anyway and leave the team in the Calgary zone for next two decades...
  • 7
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#20 nowhereman

nowhereman

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,035 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 06

Posted 26 March 2013 - 01:59 PM

2013 NHL draft lacks depth of talent

“The 2013 draft is not as strong or as deep as we first thought,” said one scout, echoing the thoughts of many others. “It’s a deep top 10 and an OK first round, but I don’t see a lot of depth. Is it deeper than 2012? I’m not so sure.”

Your move.

"Phil Kessel will be better than Sidney Crosby" said one scout, regarding the 2005 draft.

You can really only put so much stock into the opinion of one or two scouts. I mean, you can't tell me that Hunter Shinkaruk, Max Domi, Curtis Lazar, and Adam Erne project to be 3rd and 4th liners, even though that article claims that most of the 2013 draftees will max out as such.
  • 1
Posted Image

#21 Opmac

Opmac

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,526 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 07

Posted 26 March 2013 - 02:05 PM

"Phil Kessel will be better than Sidney Crosby" said one scout, regarding the 2005 draft.

You can really only put so much stock into the opinion of one or two scouts. I mean, you can't tell me that Hunter Shinkaruk, Max Domi, Curtis Lazar, and Adam Erne project to be 3rd and 4th liners, even though that article claims that most of the 2013 draftees will max out as such.

If I remember correctly Phil Kessel was ranked 1st overall among North American skaters at one point by NHL Central Scouting, which is an aggregate of a number of scouts.
  • 0

Posted Image


#22 Papayas

Papayas

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,601 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 09

Posted 26 March 2013 - 02:16 PM

because a successful franchise would have to build through drafts and prospects especially when your cores are aging.

The sedins will be pass their prime in 2 or 3 seasons, and most of our cores will be in their 30s by then. We WILL need our prospects to take over the team when that happens, and the only way to do so is to have the prospects we draft during these time to step up.

you just have to look at the mess the toronto leafs are at right now with giving away all their draft picks like candies. Look at those good players the teams have this season, most of them aren't from the top 10 picks in their drafted years....

When you really look into it, you can actually get players like Karlsson as the 15th pick, getzlaf at 19th, or parenteau from the 9th. round. So yes, draft picks are important if you can draft and develop your prospects correctly.
  • 1

#23 ilduce39

ilduce39

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,268 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 08

Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:02 PM

I'm usually one to want to hang on to picks and develop from within the organization.

This makes sense in the salary-cap world where having a few players on entry-level contracts producing in your lineup can be a difference maker, allowing you to retain an extra veteran or two.

Still, going "all-in" and giving up some picks/prospects now, there's nothing to stop us from being "sellers" a year or two down the line to re-stock the shelves. The problem, of course, would involve at least one season where we probably miss the playoffs.
  • 0
T-Bone said:
remind them all of Tbone, remeber me for how I lived, not how I was banned
*sig too big

#24 etsen3

etsen3

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 10

Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:19 PM

It is simple, really....

We are a veteran team who is always aging. The reason why we are a good team right now is because we drafted well 5-10 years ago when we were rebuilding. We are good now because our veteran players are in their prime. But, as our veteran players get older (Sedins, Kesler, Burrows, Bieksa, Hamhuis, ect.) they will not be as effective. So, there are two options when this happens:

A. We go all in now and hope we win by trading all our prospects and picks

B. We are competitive now and make smart, hockey deals to improve our chances of winning, but keep most of our early picks and quality prospects

In option A, we do what the Penguins are doing. Regardless of whether they win or not, they are going all in now, but later on they will suck for a large period of time. It will be a long rebuilding process.

In option B, we do what the Red Wings are doing. They compete for the cup every year, because they keep their picks and prospects, so when their older players retire, they have new, young prospects ready to step in and they continue to compete.

I would much rather be competitive for many years to come rather than go all in one year (not guaranteed to win) and then suck for 5 or so years in the future while you stockpile draft picks and wait while your prospects develop.

Essentially, the time period where you are not a contender is much shorter by keeping your picks and prospects.

Ok I'm done.


I agree with many of your points but the Pens are still young enough that they should be able to contend for years.
  • 1

#25 Mr. White

Mr. White

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,554 posts
  • Joined: 22-May 12

Posted 26 March 2013 - 05:03 PM

Time and time again I read "I wouldn't trade a first round pick for *insert veteran player who is a proven playoff performer*". Really? How often do 1st round draft picks REALLY pan out? Seriously, unless it's a top 5 picks, who cares? There is just a s good of a chance that a 3rd round pick will be as successful; as a first round pick. We realistically have a 2 year window here where we could contend for a cup, now is not the time to be worried about draft picks. Please explain yourselves :sadno:


How long have you been watching hockey? :picard:

Edited by Mr. White, 26 March 2013 - 05:03 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image
^VanCauck93^

#26 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 26 March 2013 - 05:13 PM

If you have a solid prospect pool then have atter

If you have our prospect pool then you better stop giving picks away,

cause one day you wake up

And you are the Calgary flames.

Trying to trade the twins for prospects and picks.

That would be a sad sad day.
  • 2
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#27 Gross-Misconduct

Gross-Misconduct

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,119 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 07

Posted 26 March 2013 - 05:18 PM

Your confusing trading away 1st round picks for getting proven stars. Rarely happens unless the draft is incredibly deep.
  • 0
Posted Image

#28 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,291 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 26 March 2013 - 05:29 PM

1) You are able to select the type of player at the position that you want or need.
2) You can develop those players as you see fit.
3) If you do a good job of 1 and 2, you build a successful franchise through the draft - generally a far more tried and true method than that employed by the current Flames or recent Rangers...
4) Those yound players make it much easier to manage cap space as your franchise benefits during the term of their ELC...
  • 1

#29 jigsaw99

jigsaw99

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,261 posts
  • Joined: 06-April 10

Posted 26 March 2013 - 06:30 PM

I don't know how people can easily trust what "experts" are saying about the draft, whether it's deep or not. I do remember the 99 draft and how some were touting it to be one of the strongest one, where guys like Pavel Brendl and Patrik Stefan were gonna make huge impact in the NHL.
Then there were "weak" reports like from 2008, how outside of Stamkos, there were really no other outstanding prospects.

Better to trade for a known commodity that something that's very unproven (unless it's a top-5 pick).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CuK18CZOG4


its not a mystery box with today's scouting Ron "crapshoot" Delrome.... A team with good scout will know when to trade picks and when to keep them. If there is a really good player in the 2nd round they like and feel they can get them at the draft than they should keep it.

Look at teh crappy players in the past we got at the trade deadline for 2nd round picks at teh draft

Brent Sopel
Smolinski
Drake Berehowsky
Keith Carney
Mika Noronen
  • 0

#30 Onions

Onions

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 449 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 11

Posted 26 March 2013 - 06:31 PM

First, It's not black and white. Like has already been said, this draft is deep and we want as many picks as possible.

Second, we are not contending this year with a decimated roster, if we are to have a run it's going to be circumstantial and shouldn't be expected.

Third, our prospect tank is fairly empty and unless we want to end up like the Flames, MG better have a pretty serious plan to fill up the prospect tank. It's not like we are deep in early 20's talent on our roster.


you mean devastated roster.
Decimated means 1/10th of a roster.
Last time I checked, we don't have 2.3-2.5 people on our roster.

cheers.

Edited by Thanos, 26 March 2013 - 06:31 PM.

  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.