(Proposal) Move up in the draft & Upgrade the D

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, eeeeergh said:

Best teams build through the draft. If you're in a cap crunch, and you want to get better now and for the long run, one of your best bets is draft picks, because in a couple years, you get a cost controlled asset on a 3 year 900k/year deal that can potentially far outplay that contract. 

I am willing to bet that adding draft picks is very high on the priority list, along with finding european free agents that can also come in and play on an ELC. 

Maybe we should be trading down (with our 15OA) to add another pick n rounds 2 or 3?

 

[eeeeergh]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Maybe we should be trading down (with our 15OA) to add another pick n rounds 2 or 3?

 

Also a good bet if they feel really confident in their scouting. The problem with trading down is the odds of getting an NHL player drops off really badly. 

Either way, we'll see more draft picks coming in.

Also Idk why so many people think Garland isn't worth that return. He produced literally the exact same even strength points as Miller. He was in the top-30 in the entire NHL for 5v5 scoring. On his contract, hes actually kinda a bargain. 

[eeeeergh]

9 hours ago, Warhippy said:

We don't have a 2nd round pick this year.

 

If we're moving up to 2nd we're drafting Slafkovsky.

 

Not sure how this actually improves the defense at all outside of hopeful signings that fit our cap issues; which, as we see every free agency.  Never happens.

We're just traumatized from terrible pro-scouting.

I mean.. calgary picked up Tanev, Markstrom,  and Gudbranson in UFA and those signings have been major W's. 

Hopefully this managements pro scouts will do better than Bennings.

Edited May 17, 2022 by eeeeergh

[eeeeergh]

34 minutes ago, JimothyTimothy said:

Yes I'm aware building through the draft is important, thanks. However, we are not in a rebuild, that's clear and management has said this. If we were Miller would be gone already.

 

So that's the first part of the analysis you missed. I don't think Petey, Quinn, Demko are eager to tear it all down and Bo has verbalized as such, and that is implicit in the argument you're defending.

Second, the point is, more picks doesn't mean a better team and that seems to be an assumption amongst many fans. If it were that easy, teams mired is losing would easily turn it around. Its about drafting, developing and luck, and all that takes time (re the point on a rebuild).

 

Teams that succeed are a mix of drafting, internal development (with some surprises, think Burrows, Kesler, Bieksa, how they became more than was expected), trades and efficient and effective UFA signings, not just picks picks and more picks!

 

The point I made is there seems to be an overvaluation of the value of picks vis a vis existing NHL players who've proven they can play at the NHL level. There are seldom guarantees with picks and they do take time (unless you find yourself lucky enough to draft a Crosby, McDavid, McKinnon etc and the Canucks are not in that position).

 

The odds of finding an NHL player who can consistently bring the things say Garland does, is actually quite low. Go back and look at past drafts on a team by team basis. Look at how many players fail to make the NHL, fail to play in the NHL consistently, and then how few are actually consistent top 6 or top 4 forwards. Its a very small percentage (again on a team by team basis).

 

 

Don't think my proposal constitutes a "tear down" at all. It literally moves out two players - Garland and Myers. Management said they want to get better every year WHILE taking care of the future. If we don't restock draft picks, we'll literally never have a chance to build properly through the draft. 

Am I ASSUMING Kuzmenko will be able to contribute next year? Well yes. And he's got a pretty decent chance of doing so too. Watch some of his tape. Every NHL team seems to think so too, which is why they're after him. As for Karlsson? He lit up the SHL, there's a pretty good chance he can at least be a 3rd liner next year and produce at half his SHL rate. He also plays a good two-way game so he shouldn't have issues defensively. 

If you look at my proposal it suggests we:
- Add a pick + move up in the draft
- add an "efficient" euro FA contract in Kuzmenko (and yes im aware hes not a lock, but we are the frontrunner, and these are hypothetical proposals after all)
- Use FA to bring in a RHD that plays a more defensive style than Myers, thereby being a better partner for OEL and/or Hughes
- Bring in Karlsson who has marinaded for a few years, and promote rathbone (internal development)

Its literally everything you named lol. 

Okay heres everyone drafted at the #2 spot from 2013-2019
Aleksander Barkov
Sam Reinhart
Jack Eichel
Patrick Laine
Nolan Patrick
Andrei Svechnikov

Here's everyone drafted at the #15 spot from the same years:
Ryan Pulock
Dylan Larkin
Zachary Senyshyn
Luke Kunin
Erik Brannstrom
Grigori Denisenko

Are there good players at #15? Sure. But not nearly as many as higher up. But if you draft at #2, you have an overwhelming chance of getting a regular NHLer, and a pretty decent chance of picking a star (I'd consider Barkov, Eichel, Laine to be stars). 

 

[eeeeergh]

5 minutes ago, JimothyTimothy said:

So why would a team that sucks want more picks later than a sure thing? BTW no one in this draft in anything near the guys you listed at 2nd overall. Its one of the weaker drafts in recent history. Alot of middling players.

Because they said they are open to moving the pick in order to get immediate help. 

Have you watched Shane Wright and Logan Cooley play?!
Literally no scout has said what you just said there - that it's a weak draft. 

Edited May 17, 2022 by eeeeergh
adding

[eeeeergh]

1 minute ago, JimothyTimothy said:

Yes and you said trade multiple picks to move up. please be consistent in your arguments

 

Shane Wright is not even guaranteed to go first overall. He likely will but the fact its even a conversation says a great deal. There are absolutely concerns over his game. 

 

When people say "weak draft" it typically means:

 

the high end is not as high as past years (check)

the depth of the draft is not that great (check)

 

we agree to disagree

Did you read my proposal? It involves multiple picks and a top-6 roster player (Garland). 

I also said to Alflives that it may make sense to trade DOWN for multiple picks if management is super confident in their scouting abilities, because the likelihood of finding quality players down the list decreases dramatically, especially after the first round. So if you want a reason why a team would want multiple picks in exchange for a higher one.. there it is. 

Sure we can have different opinions, but across all the drafts I pulled names from, there was a mix of "strong" and "weak" drafts presumably. Yet overwhelmingly the best players were found in the #2 spot, rather than spot #15. That's my point. You trade up, you have a much better chance of drafting a better player. I'm not sure why you're arguing this point, its obvious, regardless of how "generally strong" or weak you feel the draft is.