Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Why are most of you against trading draft picks?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
104 replies to this topic

#91 combover

combover

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 991 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 03

Posted 30 March 2013 - 06:49 AM

we need prospects.
the best example of a team that threw away prospects/picks is calgary that team has a horrible future the canucks are dangerously close to following that model. i agree with the time to win is now. BUT really this season we need to be honest about this team. who knows what kesler will be like when he returns booth is gone malholtra finished coaches are wishy washy about the goaltender the pp has been horrible the d looks lost some nights and goal scoring has been a issue,not to mention the face off % trading for a rental this season does seem to make sense since we need about three high caliber players to make this team a true contender. now if CS or lou get traded and some pieces fall into place then by all means but as it stands now i think keeping and getting draft picks is more important for years to come. not just for the prospects but to have the assets to trade for those top player that do come available.
my warn status is for calling it like i saw it with Dave the donut Nonis. apparently the owners agreed

#92 adniel_g

adniel_g

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,264 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 07

Posted 30 March 2013 - 06:56 AM

Id rather gamble on a young man than an old one .. when it turns out right , its a way bigger win with a young prospect ..

Your not really gambling with the old one usually they are proven therefore the trade. If the risk of a veteran player being unsuccessful is too high, your stupid to target them as a GM.

Edited by adniel_g, 30 March 2013 - 07:04 AM.


#93 adniel_g

adniel_g

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,264 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 07

Posted 30 March 2013 - 07:06 AM

we need prospects.
the best example of a team that threw away prospects/picks is calgary that team has a horrible future the canucks are dangerously close to following that model. i agree with the time to win is now. BUT really this season we need to be honest about this team. who knows what kesler will be like when he returns booth is gone malholtra finished coaches are wishy washy about the goaltender the pp has been horrible the d looks lost some nights and goal scoring has been a issue,not to mention the face off % trading for a rental this season does seem to make sense since we need about three high caliber players to make this team a true contender. now if CS or lou get traded and some pieces fall into place then by all means but as it stands now i think keeping and getting draft picks is more important for years to come. not just for the prospects but to have the assets to trade for those top player that do come available.

Calgary never had a really dominant first line/just straight up enough talent to make it past the first round of the playoffs. We have been past that point for 3-4 years now...There is a HUGE HUGE difference. Calgary might be one of the worst managed teams in the LEAGUE. They traded away players and then traded back for them paying a greater price on several occasions which is pretty much the only thing you try to avoid doing as a GM. To even bring them up for comparison is ridiculous.

One example: Acquired Olli Jokinen and a 3rd for Matthew Lombardi, Brandon Prust and a first round pick.
Traded away Olli and Jim Vandermeer in exchange for Aleš Kotalík and Christopher Higgins

Net trade: Acquired Olli Jokinen's services for a year+ 3rd pick for Matthew Lombardi, Brandon Prust , Jim Vandermeer and a first round pick :picard:

Edited by adniel_g, 30 March 2013 - 07:25 AM.


#94 Hunter.S-Kerouac

Hunter.S-Kerouac

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,111 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 11

Posted 30 March 2013 - 10:13 AM

Because Jensen Corrado are about the only prospects we have with any real potential to make the NHL and stay. It's time the nucks start stockpiling picks even late picks in hopes of turning up some hidden jems. Because by the time our fist pick roles around it's already becoming a crap shoot. Although I feel we did well With Gaunce Shred CoHo Jensen.

#95 Canada Hockey Place

Canada Hockey Place

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,775 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 30 March 2013 - 12:02 PM

One thing Gillis has done really well or has been really lucky with is signing undrafted players.

For example 3 players that you could add for he 2007 draft,

Chris Tanev: 88 NHL games played. That's more than 1st rounders in 2007 like Thomas Hickey, Alex Plante, Ian Cole, Jon Blum and Brendan Smith. You could replace his name with White or Ellington. I'm sure most Canuck fans would be happy with that.

Bill Sweatt: 2007 38th overall. Again, you could replace his name with White or Ellington.

Eddie Lack: Corey Schneider was drafted in 2004 and secured the back-up spot in 2010. If you do the math....

So in theory, even though trading draft picks is risky, it's doesn't mean it's assured the Canucks will suffer decades of failure. Especially considering the picks have been near the bottom of the drafting order.
Quando omni flunkus moritati

#96 freaky.styley

freaky.styley

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 670 posts
  • Joined: 03-April 06

Posted 30 March 2013 - 12:08 PM

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.

thats pretty redundant. you cant have a great prospect pool and finish first every year.

#97 - PikaBOO -

- PikaBOO -

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Joined: 21-March 09

Posted 30 March 2013 - 12:55 PM

If its for a young player who's proven that they can play in the NHL (ex. Jamie Benn), than sure :D
By the time the Sedins retire, they can replace them immediately instead of waiting for a couple of years

#98 Opmac

Opmac

    Canucks Franchise Player

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

Posted 30 March 2013 - 01:10 PM

Lol, you're taking a random scouts opinion?? Please explain to me why central scouting has said there are potentially 38 FIRST ROUND PICKS.

And to answer your question OP, take a look at our prospect pool past Jensen, Gaunce, Corrado, Connauton and Lack

And if you effectively comprehended what he said, he says there is a tremendous drop off afterwards. It appears a couple people early on said the 2013 draft was deep and it got constantly repeated to the point where it became fact.

Posted Image


#99 combover

combover

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 991 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 03

Posted 30 March 2013 - 02:26 PM

Calgary never had a really dominant first line/just straight up enough talent to make it past the first round of the playoffs. We have been past that point for 3-4 years now...There is a HUGE HUGE difference. Calgary might be one of the worst managed teams in the LEAGUE. They traded away players and then traded back for them paying a greater price on several occasions which is pretty much the only thing you try to avoid doing as a GM. To even bring them up for comparison is ridiculous.

One example: Acquired Olli Jokinen and a 3rd for Matthew Lombardi, Brandon Prust and a first round pick.
Traded away Olli and Jim Vandermeer in exchange for Aleš Kotalík and Christopher Higgins

Net trade: Acquired Olli Jokinen's services for a year+ 3rd pick for Matthew Lombardi, Brandon Prust , Jim Vandermeer and a first round pick :picard:




i disagree the flames have continued trade away the future to try make the team better now, mismanaged yes but Mg has traded prospects for the likes of ballard and booth (don't get me wrong i like MG) but its a slippery slope once you start grasping at straws when the team clearly needs more than one key piece and vancouver needs more than one piece at this time.. i'm not saying van in anywhere as bad a calgary its just a model of a team that continually traded there drafts away and i wouldn't want to se the nucks go down that path especially when the stars we do have are getting older. nows the time to build the prospect pool so the rebuild in 3 years time is less painful. but hey thats just my two cents
my warn status is for calling it like i saw it with Dave the donut Nonis. apparently the owners agreed

#100 awalk

awalk

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,544 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 30 March 2013 - 04:47 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:



Canucks have simply just not had the luxury of being able to throw around draft picks for more than a few seasons now...this is an organization that needs to restock the cupboard. The loss of a 1st rounder and Grabner for Ballard hurt a lot, probably set us back a bit in that regard. That's why you have to be really careful. Canucks didn't tank the NHL for many seasons like, say, Pittsburgh, so they don't have that luxury.

#101 SealTheDeal

SealTheDeal

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 06

Posted 30 March 2013 - 05:15 PM

i disagree the flames have continued trade away the future to try make the team better now, mismanaged yes but Mg has traded prospects for the likes of ballard and booth (don't get me wrong i like MG) but its a slippery slope once you start grasping at straws when the team clearly needs more than one key piece and vancouver needs more than one piece at this time.. i'm not saying van in anywhere as bad a calgary its just a model of a team that continually traded there drafts away and i wouldn't want to se the nucks go down that path especially when the stars we do have are getting older. nows the time to build the prospect pool so the rebuild in 3 years time is less painful. but hey thats just my two cents


Whenever you trade for a player, there is a risk that player won't pan out. When we got Luongo in the first place, we gave up an elite power forward and a promising, large young defenseman. It's not Florida's fault that Bertuzzi injured his back after the first few games of his first season with them (he was a PPG player for them until his injury).

Neither Ballard or Booth has panned out. This does not make MGs decision to make those trades bad decisions. He made the right decision to try to add another top-4 D man to an already promising defensive unit. He made the right decision to target a large, fast, young winger with demonstrated scoring potential.

Vancouver is not even close to being in the position Calgary is in. I can't believe this is even being discussed. The Flames have barely made the playoffs since their run in 04 and have continued to tinker around their two central peices of that team since then.

I repeat ------> 2004

If we were talking 5 years from now and the Canucks were holding onto Luongo, the Sedins, Kesler and had missed the playoffs 2 years in a row, then you can make comparisons to the current Flames.

Right now the Canucks are still last years Presidents Trophy winner, and Stanley Cup finalists one year before that. Despite playing without their 2nd line centre for almost the entire season they still have an excellent chance at winning their division (competing against a team full of budding prospects and the two most prized free agents available last offseason).

MG has built a team that can contend no question this year and next year. After that will depend on if he can re-sign the Sedins to reasonable contracts, and groom a new generation of top line forwards. But look at our D and goaltending? Worst case scenario we have Bieksa, Hamhuis, Garrison, Edler, Tanev, Schneider and Luongo on the back half of the ice for the next 3+ years? This is a team with a deep, deep core.

Also worth noting - top six forwards can be acquired other ways than through the draft. Look at Lupul - arguably the Leafs best forward. Anaheim traded him, Gardiner, and a pick for Beauchemin. Look at Burrows. Look at any number of big name players - many of them were traded to their current teams or signed as free agents. MG has been able to acquire excellent players by this route before - Erhoff, Hamhuis, Higgins, Garrison, LaPierre. But no GM hits a home run every time - Booth and Ballard being dissapointments so far. If the Sedins slip down to being a secondary scoring threat in their later years, it still may not be hard to get other top-end talent to come and play for a well-built team like Vancouver.

#102 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,574 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 31 March 2013 - 04:23 AM

I'm not sure that we are all that close at the moment?

If it would make the difference...

#103 dee4338

dee4338

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Joined: 06-April 03

Posted 31 March 2013 - 08:27 AM

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.


You might want to actually check the definition of a word before trying to sound smart.



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 was decimated by a plague.

2.
to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.

3.
Obsolete . to take a tenth of or from


So the original comment was correct in context of definition #1. You're still wrong as it would be a loss of 2.3- 2.5 players not that there would only be 2.3-2.5 players left if you use the obsolete definition #3.


#104 dee4338

dee4338

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Joined: 06-April 03

Posted 31 March 2013 - 08:30 AM

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.


The difference with the Pens is that while they're going all in, as a result of smart moves they've made before they have the picks/prospects to trade. Even with these trades they haven't given up their top prospects. Their core is still young (as a result to some degree of sucking for multiple years) so they can afford to do this without necessarily ending up with an empty cupboard later on.

#105 Edlerberry

Edlerberry

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,245 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 12

Posted 31 March 2013 - 08:41 AM

Because 0-4 against Oilers.
July 7-2013

Toronto will take a step back next year.
Feel free to quote me.


July 8-2013

Wow I can't believe peoples replies...
Im done here. You people are disgusting..





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.