Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dun Caesar

Why are most of you against trading draft picks?

105 posts in this topic

"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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This WILL be a deep draft, just look at the names on central scouting's list. The third round will have some very interesting projects to look forward to (and we have a high 3rd pick :) ). Dealing picks is what a team would do to plug some holes and add depth for a long playoff run. Our team has run into injuries and there just isn't the right personnel available for trade to help us. Go with what he have or make player and prospect trades, but keep the picks.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol what..

just take a random example, let's say the draft 5 years ago, how many first rounders are already playing top line minutes. I am not an expert at this, but a bunch.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8474581

You don't trade the farm(drafts) and go allin for the stanley cup for 1 year. Even if you stack your team, there's no guarantee you will win the stanley cup. No GM is gonna do this, because they understand risk. Apparently, you don't understand risk.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to correct someone you should really know what you are talking about (it means to remove 10% in the roman sense or a large part of in the modern sense):

dec·i·mate (ds-mt)

tr.v. dec·i·mat·ed, dec·i·mat·ing, dec·i·mates

1. To destroy or kill a large part of (a group).

2. Usage Problem

a. To inflict great destruction or damage on: The fawns decimated my rose bushes.

b. To reduce markedly in amount: a profligate heir who decimated his trust fund.

3. To select by lot and kill one in every ten of.

[Latin decimre, decimt-, to punish every tenth person, from decimus, tenth, from decem, ten; see dek in Indo-European roots.]

deci·mation n.

Usage Note: Decimate originally referred to the killing of every tenth person, a punishment used in the Roman army for mutinous legions. Today this meaning is commonly extended to include the killing of any large proportion of a group. Sixty-six percent of the Usage Panel accepts this extension in the sentence The Jewish population of Germany was decimated by the war, even though it is common knowledge that the number of Jews killed was much greater than a tenth of the original population. However, when the meaning is further extended to include large-scale destruction other than killing, as in The supply of fresh produce was decimated by the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, only 26 percent of the Panel accepts the usage.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dec·i·mate

[des-uh-meyt] Show IPA

verb (used with object), dec·i·mat·ed, dec·i·mat·ing.

1.

to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population wasdecimated by a plague.

2.

to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.

3.

Obsolete . to take a tenth of or from.

or to take a tenth of.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanos: to reduce something BY one tenth (decimate) is very different from reducing something TO one tenth. As has been pointed out it is also an outdated definition of the term in either case. It was used correctly in the original context.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not this year due to the deep draft, and also the Canucks position. We're not going to climb much higher than 3rd in the conference or 6th in the league, so could end up with a pick as high as 20-25th overall.

We definately should of thrown away our 1st rounders the last two years. Gaunce and Jensen look great, but those were the two years we had with a legitimate chance of winning a Cup. Especially last season, MG should have traded our 1st away for a star.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.