J.I.A.H.N Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Please correct me if I am wrong.....But I think this basically is what it cost to get the 1999 first overall pick for Vancouver Bryan McCabe + chicago's 2000 1st ( 9th Overall ) + 2-3rd rounders From what I read the 1999 "was" projected to be an average draft year, but turned out be be rather poor, in HIND SIGHT. Although, DSedin, HSedin, RMiller and Zedderburg came out of it, the later two coming in the late rounds. So my take on this is: McCabe's value Bryan McCabe > Corrado, Stanton or Webber Bryan McCabe = Edler Bryan McCabe = Garrison Bryan McCabe = Bieksa Bryan McCabe< Tanev Bryan McCabe< Hanhuis PLUS 2014 6th Overall + 2-3rd rounders >>>than 2000 9th overall So with all this talk about trading up in this draft and it costing us this or that.....history says it is what it is! Please correct if wrong on the cost of aquiring the 1st over all in 1999 Thanks Diid I get this right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweathog Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Sedins went 2nd and 3rd overall, not 1st-2nd. Patrick Stephan went 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted June 5, 2014 Author Share Posted June 5, 2014 Sedins went 2nd and 3rd overall, not 1st-2nd. Patrick Stephen went 1st. Ah, Yes Grasshopper, but do a little history checking, I believe you will find your answer! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted June 5, 2014 Author Share Posted June 5, 2014 Sedins went 2nd and 3rd overall, not 1st-2nd. Patrick Stephan went 1st. But yes you are right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted June 5, 2014 Author Share Posted June 5, 2014 U on crack brutha? I no English cause you so styyooooooooooopid mufuka you. ..........jk! But move this to proposals or it's off to the dungeon with you Check it out BRO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justdean10 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 and also, I'm pretty sure 99 was suppose to be a deep draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absent Canuck Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Please correct me if I am wrong.....But I think this basically is what it cost to get the 1999 first overall pick for Vancouver Bryan McCabe + chicago's 2000 1st ( 9th Overall ) + 2-3rd rounders From what I read the 1999 "was" projected to be an average draft year, but turned out be be rather poor, in HIND SIGHT. Although, DSedin, HSedin, RMiller and Zedderburg came out of it, the later two coming in the late rounds. So my take on this is: McCabe's value Bryan McCabe > Corrado, Stanton or Webber Bryan McCabe = Edler Bryan McCabe = Garrison Bryan McCabe = Bieksa Bryan McCabe< Tanev Bryan McCabe< Hanhuis PLUS 2014 6th Overall + 2-3rd rounders >>>than 2000 9th overall So with all this talk about trading up in this draft and it costing us this or that.....history says it is what it is! Please correct if wrong on the cost of aquiring the 1st over all in 1999 Thanks Diid I get this right? I appreciate the effort but 99 was a very special case. The Sedin twins were the 1st and 2nd overall players. This thing where Stefan went first was a publicity gimmick Burke let Atlanta have There was the twins and then a cliff like drop off in talent. Brian Mc Cabe was 22 years old or so when we traded him. He wasnt 29 or 33 or even 28 like Edler. None of them are worth what Mc Cabe was. McCabe netted a 9th overall pick and in hindsight was probably worth the #3 spot after the Sedins. Its a different situation even though I appreciate the effort you put in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absent Canuck Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 and also, I'm pretty sure 99 was suppose to be a deep draft. No it wasnt. Nobody ever said that in the slightest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted June 5, 2014 Author Share Posted June 5, 2014 I appreciate the effort but 99 was a very special case. The Sedin twins were the 1st and 2nd overall players. This thing where Stefan went first was a publicity gimmick Burke let Atlanta have There was the twins and then a cliff like drop off in talent. Brian Mc Cabe was 22 years old or so when we traded him. He wasnt 29 or 33 or even 28 like Edler. None of them are worth what Mc Cabe was. McCabe netted a 9th overall pick and in hindsight was probably worth the #3 spot after the Sedins. Its a different situation even though I appreciate the effort you put in. Somewhat agree with you, but McCabe wasn't a top 2 defenseman on most teams IMO and the point is that the first isn't worth our 2014 6th overall, Horvat,Higgins and Hanhuis........talk about over valuing a pick......I wasn't saying you, but some of the posters, have no clue of value IMO I think our 6th, Gaunce and Hansen or Higgins would be close...oh and 2-3rders..........I would pay that for first overall this year, not much more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 From what I've seen GM's are valuing high draft picks more after the cap, before the cap being so low if you wanted to add players you just had to open the check book now adding good young players on rookie contracts are more valueble then McCabe + +. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted June 5, 2014 Author Share Posted June 5, 2014 From what I've seen GM's are valuing high draft picks more after the cap, before the cap being so low if you wanted to add players you just had to open the check book now adding good young players on rookie contracts are more valueble then McCabe + +. I think you are probably right, but I can't remember if there was a salary cap back in 1999? Sorry just can't remember! I guess the point for me is though, that just like Stephan back in 1999, there are no guarantees, and I honestly don't think a 1st in this years draft is worth what people are suggesting..... history could prove me wrong......or right I guess But here is another question...that goes along with this. A 5th this year is worth < than next year A 5th this year is worth < than a 10th next year? Is a 5th this year worth a young top 4 defenseman...what is the value? It is the same question.......value Maybe some could do a list of values of top 10 picks for this years draft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undrafted Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I think you are probably right, but I can't remember if there was a salary cap back in 1999? Sorry just can't remember! I guess the point for me is though, that just like Stephan back in 1999, there are no guarantees, and I honestly don't think a 1st in this years draft is worth what people are suggesting..... history could prove me wrong......or right I guess But here is another question...that goes along with this. A 5th this year is worth < than next year A 5th this year is worth < than a 10th next year? Is a 5th this year worth a young top 4 defenseman...what is the value? It is the same question.......value Maybe some could do a list of values of top 10 picks for this years draft? To answer some of your questions: the salary cap was introduced following the 2004-05 lockout. A 5th overall pick this year is considered to have less value than a 5th overall pick next year because next year's draft is deeper. However, whether it's worth less than a 10th overall pick next year is highly debatable. A 5th overall pick is never equal in value to a young top 4 NHL d-man. A young top-4 d-man has much higher value than that because they're already a regular NHL player with years left in their career. A 5th overall pick has a good chance of making it into the NHL, but they're far from guaranteed to become an NHLer. IIRC, the odds of a 5th overall pick becoming a top-6 forward or top-4 defenceman is a little less than 40%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookieCrumbs Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 ZEDDERBERG! TOTALLY! Go home, kook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Why bother going back 15 years? It was a completely different era of hockey. The trade that you are referencing happened mid season before the draft order was set. It happened before there was a salary cap in place. It happened before teams like Buffalo began investing heavily in scouting. Most of the variables you are comparing are completely different now. Since the 2008 NHL draft only 3 top 5 picks have been traded from their teams. One of them was the 2008 #5 where the Isles moved from #5 to #7 to #9 to select Josh Bailey. This draft was seen as having a consensus top 4 in Stamkos, Doughty, Bogosian and Pietrangelo. The Isles were high on Bailey over guys like Filatov, Schenn and Boedker. The second top 5 pick to be traded was Nino Niederreiter who went 5th overall in 2010 and that was because Nino demanded a trade out of the Isles. Finally the third one was Brayden Schenn who not long ago was considered the top prospect in the NHL, he got traded because LA got Richards who at the time of the trade was considered a #1 center signed long term. My point is 6 drafts, 30 top 5 picks and only 3 of them were traded and 2 of them by the Isles. I would just stay at the spot I am at and draft the best player there, it costs too much to move up and the team trading down is not guaranteed to get the player they want. I think its more likely one of the top 5 picks drops to #6 than a team trading down. I think one of Draisaitl/Dal Colle could potentially drop, my money would be on Draisaitl as I think the Isles won't pass on Dal Colle at #5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 No it wasnt. Nobody ever said that in the slightest Here's what Tampa Bay's head scout Don Murdoch had to say about the 1999 NHL Draft (from 25 June 1999): "It's a very strong draft and it's very strong at forward, which is good for us. We all know that's an area we have to get better on," Murdoch said. http://cgi.cnnsi.com/hockey/nhl/1999/draft/news/1999/06/25/nhlentrydraft_main/ And Murdoch wasn't alone in this opinion. While 1999 wasn't universally considered "a very strong draft," there were very few people at the time who had any idea how weak that year would turn out to be. Most people considered it an average year that was fairly strong on forwards (especially in the early rounds). Some people questioned the depth of the draft but most teams felt they were getting good value at the top of the 1999 class. There was a clear "consensus top-four"--Stefan, Brendl, and the two Sedin twins---and then a drop-off starting at #5 (although people were still quite optimistic about the players ranked after the top-four). There wasn't any real consensus on how the draft order would actually pan out and the various scouting organizations were predicting different outcomes. There were many people who felt that either Stefan or Brendl was the "best player" in the draft and deserved to go 1st overall. The Sedins were extremely highly touted but neither tended to be ranked 1st overall on the lists as there were legitimate concerns about splitting them up (which was what most people expected would happen). And plenty of scouts were predicting great things from the players ranked #5 and lower. The top-four players were seen as "sure things" (as is the case for the top group in most years) but the remainder of the first round was still expected to yield several "blue chip" prospects. In hindsight it was a terrible draft year (some argue the worst ever) but this was a result that surprised almost everyone. Nobody felt 1999 was going to be a banner year for NHL talent but there wasn't anyone saying this was an exceptionally poor crop of players (until years later). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharnhayre Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Moving up in the draft today would also require the GMs being on board, the team above us would need their needs met... they may be looking for forward help instead of a d-man. It would be at least a roster player + our pick. I think at 6 we will still get a pretty good player. If i was going to try to move up... it would be next year and I would go all in for McDavid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevo882 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I don't think you're too far off in a deal similar to that one in 1999. I would probably do Garrison + 6th + 3rd round pick for 1st overall + prospect or Garrison + Hansen + 3rd rounder for 1st overall + prospect. Florida needs a top 2 dman so they would probably do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2009cupchamps Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Please correct me if I am wrong.....But I think this basically is what it cost to get the 1999 first overall pick for Vancouver Bryan McCabe + chicago's 2000 1st ( 9th Overall ) + 2-3rd rounders From what I read the 1999 "was" projected to be an average draft year, but turned out be be rather poor, in HIND SIGHT. Although, DSedin, HSedin, RMiller and Zedderburg came out of it, the later two coming in the late rounds. So my take on this is: McCabe's value Bryan McCabe > Corrado, Stanton or Webber Bryan McCabe = Edler Bryan McCabe = Garrison Bryan McCabe = Bieksa Bryan McCabe< Tanev Bryan McCabe< Hanhuis PLUS 2014 6th Overall + 2-3rd rounders >>>than 2000 9th overall So with all this talk about trading up in this draft and it costing us this or that.....history says it is what it is! Please correct if wrong on the cost of aquiring the 1st over all in 1999 Thanks Diid I get this right? So in this you are basically saying Tanev is > than Bieksa or Edler. WOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted June 6, 2014 Author Share Posted June 6, 2014 So in this you are basically saying Tanev is > than Bieksa or Edler. WOW. ZEDDERBERG! TOTALLY! Go home, kook. So for you, all got to say is read the other posts in this post.......see how they don't jump all over a misspelled word.....they actually give well thought out dialogue,,,and good information too......you should try! You are either very young or just stupid. Either way......good night So in this you are basically saying Tanev is > than Bieksa or Edler. WOW. Sorry for digressing, but really this was my goal. I wanted dialogue about what a 5th overall is worth because i keep seeing how much it will cost , when there is history and opinion that says other wise........a 5th = a top 4 defenseman at best . Do I think Bieksa is better than Tanev.....taking everything into consideration, including age.......Tanev is probably better. Tanev doesn't make the defensive blunders and is younger by 7 or 8 years....Would I trade Bieksa.....not before Garrison or Edler, but all 3 are sort of equal in different ways. Just IMO.........In actual fact I would trade 1 of everyone but Hanhuis...but that is me. PS...I don't mind your question or statement. It was thought provoking...Cheers The point about the value of a 1st overall is important, but in the end it is what ever Tallons wants is what it is worth...I understand this! So I think it is safe to say that a unproven 1st in a weak draft isn't worth Kesler, Horvat and the 6th overall....like I have read in another post. Geesh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Whole new generation of players...the only first overall to bust in 10 years may be yakupov. Most others have become/are becomeing elite nhl talent. Reinhart will be comparable to stamkos/Tavares to what they were in their 3rd/4th years when he hits the same amount of experience. You gotta expect to pay a little to get that not typical CDC shit proposals. But it'll be worth it if we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.