At Number 10 Who do we take?

[filthycanuck]

13 hours ago, theo5789 said:

Not many thought Quinn would fall to our pick either.

Could be a possibilty, albeit a slight one. I find it hard to believe that theres only 1 Dman slated to go in the top 10, so Soderstrom or Broberg might slide in the top 10 and some of the higher tier guys fall back. Id see a greater chance though that Podkolzin or Krebs falls before Turcotte does though IMO

[Where'd Luongo?]

Dach or Cozens if they are there!

[filthycanuck]

7 minutes ago, KKnight said:

Luc would have been a Major factor on this franchise. He had all the tools of a dominant top pairing dman. Such a tragic way to go. 

 

He would have been 31 right now, I think? 

Hard to say if he would've been a top pairing Dman, from what I remembered, Bourdon was decent, but quite raw still on the backend. As a PP quarterback, different story. The kid can shoot the puck and probably would've been PP1 with Salo had he been alive longer

[brian42]

If I’m gm I’m picking 1 of these 9 at #10 if they are available: 

 

hughes, kakko,pudkolzin, cozens, byram, turcotte, zegras, dach, boldy

 

if all 9 are gone I’m looking to add a draft pick and trade down to about 15 or 16 and then draft one of

 

krebs, kaiiyev, harley, soderstrom, caulfield, broberg, Newhook or Lavoie. 

 

With Kaliyev being my favorite 

[Sorry, did I Sutter?]

I think the most Benning thing to do would be to take Matthew Brassard with the 10th overall this year!

[ReggieBush]

3 hours ago, Sorry, did I Sutter? said:

I think the most Benning thing to do would be to take Matthew Brassard with the 10th overall this year!

Crawl back into your cave. 

 

Have some appreciation

[Boudrias]

1 hour ago, ReggieBush said:

Crawl back into your cave. 

 

Have some appreciation

Personally, I don't want any crabs! Sorry Krebs?

[JM_]

On 4/9/2019 at 7:00 PM, Alflives said:

Cole Caufield IMO has the most potential to be an elite driver of player, after Jack Hughes.  He’s a big risk to take at ten, but I think we need to swing for the fences and select guys who have star potential.  We already have enough third and fourth liners.  We need more guys like Petey, Brock, and Quinn who can drive play.  Caufield has that potential.  

that could be, maybe he is this years Pasternak. But at 10 how far does any GM really drop? 

 

Craig Button has revised his top 15: https://www.tsn.ca/craig-button-s-tsn-hockey-mock-draft-post-lottery-edition-1.1287914

 

If he's right we'd be able to get Soderstrom at 10 or maybe Krebs at 11. For me, I think we have enough C talent - is Krebs going to displace Petey or Bo, not likely so given our desperate need for puck moving d, and right side d, Soderstrom is the right choice. 

 

Maybe Jim can move Tanev for another pick lower down, and if he wanted to use that to swing for the fences on another USNDP prospect sure why not?

 

here's the latest on Soderstrom:https://lastwordonhockey.com/2019/04/11/victor-soderstrom-scouting-report/

 

he's already playing in a mens league, so to me that puts him above other kids that haven't be tested that way before. Its not a guarantee but its a little extra insurance of his actual skill set. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Jimmy McGill

[PuckFather]

5 hours ago, Sorry, did I Sutter? said:

I think the most Benning thing to do would be to take Matthew Brassard with the 10th overall this year!

I think you wanted to post this on HFboards to please your clueless tank nation buddies but you logged in the wrong place. 

[peaches5]

9 hours ago, iceman64 said:

why would we trade demko or dip?  markstrom is here for another 2 years Im sure and demko can back up both of those years and dip can play on the farm..  then trade markstrom when demko and dip have continued their development with ian clark and get to top nhl calibre goalie status.  

You can only protect one goalie in the expansion draft so you are either trading Markstrom, losing Demko in the expansion draft or trading Demko.

Edited April 11, 2019 by peaches5

[stawns]

8 hours ago, KKnight said:

1. Zegras

2. Boldy 

3. Soderstrom

4. Krebs 

 

Although there are always off the board picks. So I expect some fallers. 

 

If on the board for players who should be in our range, in order who I would pick. Although i like Boldy and Zegras both the same. I take Zegras, cause he has such a good read on the offensive zone. Reminds me of marchand. 

I don't see any of the dman in the first round, outside of BB, worth spending a first on, tbh.  I think they could find a comparable in later rounds.

[KKnight]

8 minutes ago, stawns said:

I don't see any of the dman in the first round, outside of BB, worth spending a first on, tbh.  I think they could find a comparable in later rounds.

Next years crop of dmen are way better anyways. Drysdale, Barron, Sanderson, Kleven just off the top of my head. 

[stawns]

3 minutes ago, KKnight said:

Next years crop of dmen are way better anyways. Drysdale, Barron, Sanderson, Kleven just off the top of my head. 

For me, a dman on the first nerds to be dynamic and I don't see that this year.

[Fanuck]

17 minutes ago, stawns said:

For me, a dman on the first nerds to be dynamic and I don't see that this year.

Everyone knows nerds make the best dmen!  

[theo5789]

50 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

You can only protect one goalie in the expansion draft so you are either trading Markstrom, losing Demko in the expansion draft or trading Demko.

It depends on what other goalies are on the market as well when the ED comes around. Seattle might pick a different player on our team altogether if their goalie situation is set and we keep both. Either way whoever is exposed will be our "backup" and if that's all we are losing in the ED, then I would say we would come out relatively unscathed. Markstrom and Demko have 2 years to fight to be protected. Personally I think it's too big of a gamble to trade either unless we get a significant piece in return, but that only pushes out another decent potential player to be exposed in a different position. Right now, Demko is unproven, but has potential to be a #1, so he is certainly moveable but not at the highest potential trade value. If we move Markstrom before Demko is ready, then we could be resetting back the rebuild and maybe even taking a step backwards if Demko doesn't find the next level in a hurry.

 

We shouldn't be building around the ED and just let it play out as we will lose one decent player no matter what, so just take the loss and move on.

[theo5789]

24 minutes ago, stawns said:

For me, a dman on the first nerds to be dynamic and I don't see that this year.

Aside from Byram, I can pretty much agree with this. I wouldn't mind Soderstrom as he would fill a positional need, but he doesn't strike me as a #10 pick and would be a bit of a reach to simply fill a position. I think we can find another player of his caliber in the 2nd or 3rd round anyway.

 

Edit: Just realized you said pretty much the same thing earlier!

Edited April 11, 2019 by theo5789

[stawns]

11 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

It depends on what other goalies are on the market as well when the ED comes around. Seattle might pick a different player on our team altogether if their goalie situation is set and we keep both. Either way whoever is exposed will be our "backup" and if that's all we are losing in the ED, then I would say we would come out relatively unscathed. Markstrom and Demko have 2 years to fight to be protected. Personally I think it's too big of a gamble to trade either unless we get a significant piece in return, but that only pushes out another decent potential player to be exposed in a different position. Right now, Demko is unproven, but has potential to be a #1, so he is certainly moveable but not at the highest potential trade value. If we move Markstrom before Demko is ready, then we could be resetting back the rebuild and maybe even taking a step backwards if Demko doesn't find the next level in a hurry.

 

We shouldn't be building around the ED and just let it play out as we will lose one decent player no matter what, so just take the loss and move on.

Agreed, they shouldn't even be contemplating moving a goalie at this point.

[JM_]

9 minutes ago, stawns said:

Agreed, they shouldn't even be contemplating moving a goalie at this point.

all depends on the return, like any deal. Rarely do 'sell high' situations come around but if one is out there I think Jim has to look at it if it gets us e..g, another 1st rounder or a top pairing potential RHD. 

[stawns]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

all depends on the return, like any deal. Rarely do 'sell high' situations come around but if one is out there I think Jim has to look at it if it gets us e..g, another 1st rounder or a top pairing potential RHD. 

no argument here........if a can't pass deal comes along, they have to listen, for sure.

[theo5789]

12 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

all depends on the return, like any deal. Rarely do 'sell high' situations come around but if one is out there I think Jim has to look at it if it gets us e..g, another 1st rounder or a top pairing potential RHD. 

Perhaps if Spencer Knight is available around the Carolina pick, then we offer Demko for the pick to nab him. At least that way Carolina gets a goalie that is further along in development to help with their window that they are looking at now and we get a goalie that should hopefully be ready to take over when Markstrom is done (after his extension). Hopefully we can get more out of the deal as well, but I'm not sure if Demko is at a 1st round pick value quite yet as he's still quite unproven at the NHL level. For comparison sake, Schnieder had basically a full season of games under his belt with incredible numbers before landing a 10th overall pick. Demko has played 10 NHL games so far with very average numbers.

 

Demko will need a pretty good season next year (playing at least 30 games) to up his value to nab what you're looking for and if that happens, we are in a position where we need to decide if we're actually better off keeping him and moving Marky instead (who would have lesser value as a pending UFA).