Jump to content

Photo

2013 NHL Draft


  • Please log in to reply
1242 replies to this topic

#941 DH26

DH26

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,734 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:23 PM

I wouldn't put it past those jerk-offs to trade into the first round by pawning off some sh!tty roster player on someone. Sather always seems to find patsies who- for reasons beknownst only to God- are willing to make a horrible trade to help him out.

 

Remember when the dumbass pre-Yzerman Lightning had a handshake deal to trade him Stamkos like 3 months after they drafted him? Yeah. 


  • 0
Follow Me on Twitter @mtorino75 I Need Followers!

Visit My Devils Blog! www.theTrapezoidConspiracy.com
Rutgers-New Brunswick '11, Rutgers School of Law-Newark '14

#942 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,949 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:30 PM

I wouldn't put it past those jerk-offs to trade into the first round by pawning off some sh!tty roster player on someone. Sather always seems to find patsies who- for reasons beknownst only to God- are willing to make a horrible trade to help him out.

 

The Rangers are out of assets they can deal.

 

Would it be plausible to move Greene or Fayne to get another 1st rounder?

 

Certainly not Fayne, and probably not Greene.  Only way NJ is getting another first rounder is by dealing with a team like Calgary or Columbus.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#943 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Head Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,266 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:33 PM

Tri- you never know. There may be a GM dumb enough to take on Girardi or Del Zotto

Edited by SMantzas, 26 June 2013 - 05:35 PM.

  • 0

#944 TheRedStorm

TheRedStorm

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 774 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:42 PM

Devils aren't rebuilding so no

 

Who really knows what this team is doing? I'm a firm believer that they will operate under an internal cap and they will not spend over this cap until the debt is paid down to a level that allows them to spend more. Debt happens in business, it's refinanced and the debt is paid down at the expense of employees and possibly in day to day operations and growth, development, etc, etc. You continue to maintain the best way possible to continue a business until the time comes to operate "normally" again. That's the way it works in everyday life so why do people think this isn't the way the Devils will operate?  


  • 0

#945 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,588 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:43 PM

Josefson 'made' (by make, he was an injury callup) a cap-strapped team with 0 depth.  He's going to be a good player, but please don't use that as an example.

 

A disappointment for a #9 pick is a guy who's not capable of playing in the NHL, which there are lots of scattered among top picks, and that it's entirely possible that someone like Shinkaruk or even Nichushkin is.

 

Now you are talking nonsense.  A team that drafts consistently in the 10 to 6 range that only has a bunch of players that are "capable of playing in the NHL" to show for it will always be drafting there because that team won't be any good.  Steve Bernier and Ryan Carter are capable of playing in the NHL.  Even if you don't take into account plausible alternatives, any GM that told you he wasn't disappointed because he got one of those players at number 9 would be considered a clown.  

 

Or how about this, imagine if Lou traded the number 9 pick for, I don't know, Cal Clutterbuck, a perfectly capable NHL player.  You can tell me how much he "drives play" all you want, but, if you were being honest at all, you would be screaming that Lou has lost his mind. 


  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#946 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,590 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:48 PM

Or how about this, imagine if Lou traded the number 9 pick for, I don't know, Cal Clutterbuck, a perfectly capable NHL player.  You can tell me how much he "drives play" all you want, but, if you were being honest at all, you would be screaming that Lou has lost his mind.

 

 

When did Cal Clutterbuck start driving play?  The problem with trading for Clutterbuck, ignoring the fact that he doesn't fit what you were going for, is that you lose out on all the mysterious upside that drafted players have and you lose out on RFA seasons.

 

I think disappointment was the wrong word, but there are lots of middle-ish round picks who only become 2nd/3rd line type guys.  If there wasn't then the NHL would have way more stars than slots they could play in.  So a guy who just ends up having a nice solid NHL career isn't ideal but it certainly wouldn't be unusual. 


Edited by Devils731, 26 June 2013 - 05:49 PM.

  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#947 MadDog2020

MadDog2020

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,944 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:49 PM

Tri- you never know. There may be a GM dumb enough to take on Girardi or Del Zotto

That's what I was thinking- some moron GM who's team needs help on the blue line will see Del Zotto or Girardi (more likely Del Zotto) as an immediate upgrade and do something stupid. I could see it happening, there are some really stupid GM's out there.
  • 0
iq0p.pngUploaded with ImageShack.com

#948 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,164 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 05:51 PM

Josefson 'made' (by make, he was an injury callup) a cap-strapped team with 0 depth.  He's going to be a good player, but please don't use that as an example.

 

A disappointment for a #9 pick is a guy who's not capable of playing in the NHL, which there are lots of scattered among top picks, and that it's entirely possible that someone like Shinkaruk or even Nichushkin is.

 

to me "in this deep draft" a disappointment would be a player not eventually being a solid top 6 forward (and i wouldnt feel like im pushing thaaaaat much saying top 3) or a top 4dman playing in ALL situations in the long run.


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#949 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,588 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 06:02 PM

That's what I was thinking- some moron GM who's team needs help on the blue line will see Del Zotto or Girardi (more likely Del Zotto) as an immediate upgrade and do something stupid. I could see it happening, there are some really stupid GM's out there.


I don't think Del Zotto is fooling the dumbest GM out there. Trading something like the number 27 pick for Girardi wouldn't be wise, but not totally unreasonable. However stupid a GM might be, anyone that values his job or his team's welfare probably is aware of the stupidity of Mike Milbury and doesn't want to be known as the next one.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#950 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,949 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 06:35 PM

The Rangers don't have any legitimate defense prospects, so them trading Del Zotto or Girardi would be a nightmare for them.  They are already down Sauer and quite possibly Staal

 

Now you are talking nonsense.  A team that drafts consistently in the 10 to 6 range that only has a bunch of players that are "capable of playing in the NHL" to show for it will always be drafting there because that team won't be any good.  Steve Bernier and Ryan Carter are capable of playing in the NHL.  Even if you don't take into account plausible alternatives, any GM that told you he wasn't disappointed because he got one of those players at number 9 would be considered a clown.  

 

Or how about this, imagine if Lou traded the number 9 pick for, I don't know, Cal Clutterbuck, a perfectly capable NHL player.  You can tell me how much he "drives play" all you want, but, if you were being honest at all, you would be screaming that Lou has lost his mind. 

 

Because GMs also don't know how to think probabalistically.  Josh Bailey probably represents the 50th percentile or so of 9th overall picks.  Here, I'll extend a band between 7 and 11, and go over the drafts since 1998 to 2009:

 

1998:  Malhotra, M. Bell, Rupp, Antropov, Heerema (1 out of 5 became a 'top 6 forward' - Bell was very briefly, maybe)

1999:  Beech, Pyatt, Lundmark, Mezei, Saprykin (0 of 5 became a top 6 F/top 4 D)

2000:  Jonsson, Alexeev, Krahn, Yakubov, Vorobiev (0 of 5)

2001:  Komisarek, Leclaire, Ruutu, Blackburn, Sjostrom (I'll be generous and call this 3 of 5)

2002:  Lupul, Bouchard, Taticek, Nystrom, Ballard (Again, generous, 3 of 5)

2003:  Suter, Coburn, Phaneuf, Kostitsyn, Carter (5 of 5, again, being generous)

2004:  Olesz, Picard, Smid, Valabik, Tukonen (1 of 5, generous)

2005:  Skille, Setoguchi, Lee, Bourdon, Kopitar (2 of 5, generous)

2006:  Okposo, Mueller, Sheppard, Frolik, Bernier (jury's out on Bernier, I'm calling this 1.5 out of 5)

2007:  Voracek, Hamill, Couture, Ellerby, Sutter (2 of 5)

2008:  Wilson, Boedker, Bailey, Hodgson, Beach (Generously giving 3.5)

2009:  Kadri, Glennie, Cowen, Paajarvi, Ellis (2.5 out of 5)

 

So that's 24.5 out of 60 players who became top 4 D or top 6 Fs, and I pretty much gave everyone who was marginal a pass.  This draft is supposed to be stronger, but again, you really can't go overrating a pick this high, it is by no means a sure thing, and if the Devils come out of it with a 2nd/3rd line player, it's not a disappointment, nor is it a triumph.


  • 1

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#951 CMONPETEYD

CMONPETEYD

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,576 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:11 PM

The Rangers don't have any legitimate defense prospects, so them trading Del Zotto or Girardi would be a nightmare for them.  They are already down Sauer and quite possibly Staal

 

 

Because GMs also don't know how to think probabalistically.  Josh Bailey probably represents the 50th percentile or so of 9th overall picks.  Here, I'll extend a band between 7 and 11, and go over the drafts since 1998 to 2009:

 

1998:  Malhotra, M. Bell, Rupp, Antropov, Heerema (1 out of 5 became a 'top 6 forward' - Bell was very briefly, maybe)

1999:  Beech, Pyatt, Lundmark, Mezei, Saprykin (0 of 5 became a top 6 F/top 4 D)

2000:  Jonsson, Alexeev, Krahn, Yakubov, Vorobiev (0 of 5)

2001:  Komisarek, Leclaire, Ruutu, Blackburn, Sjostrom (I'll be generous and call this 3 of 5)

2002:  Lupul, Bouchard, Taticek, Nystrom, Ballard (Again, generous, 3 of 5)

2003:  Suter, Coburn, Phaneuf, Kostitsyn, Carter (5 of 5, again, being generous)

2004:  Olesz, Picard, Smid, Valabik, Tukonen (1 of 5, generous)

2005:  Skille, Setoguchi, Lee, Bourdon, Kopitar (2 of 5, generous)

2006:  Okposo, Mueller, Sheppard, Frolik, Bernier (jury's out on Bernier, I'm calling this 1.5 out of 5)

2007:  Voracek, Hamill, Couture, Ellerby, Sutter (2 of 5)

2008:  Wilson, Boedker, Bailey, Hodgson, Beach (Generously giving 3.5)

2009:  Kadri, Glennie, Cowen, Paajarvi, Ellis (2.5 out of 5)

 

So that's 24.5 out of 60 players who became top 4 D or top 6 Fs, and I pretty much gave everyone who was marginal a pass.  This draft is supposed to be stronger, but again, you really can't go overrating a pick this high, it is by no means a sure thing, and if the Devils come out of it with a 2nd/3rd line player, it's not a disappointment, nor is it a triumph.

 

 

The problem with your logic is that from year to year there are varying strengths to each draft class.  As you see with 2003, 5 of 5.  This draft is talked about in similar fashion to 2003, maybe not as many stars, but certainly deeper into the top 40. 


  • 0
My name changes every summer
Posted Image

#952 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,590 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:15 PM

So if this is a less top heavy, but deeper 2003 draft then the Devils should move down, not up.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#953 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,949 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:20 PM

The problem with your logic is that from year to year there are varying strengths to each draft class.  As you see with 2003, 5 of 5.  This draft is talked about in similar fashion to 2003, maybe not as many stars, but certainly deeper into the top 40. 

 

2008 was supposed to be like 2003.  Look at those 5 players - none of them is a top line player, it doesn't look like any will become one, and one of them is already a straight up bust.  The other 4 are decent players and guys you'd like to have on your team, but none of them are going to turn the franchise around.  That's why the hyperbole around here has to be checked, even with the presumed strength of the draft class.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#954 DH26

DH26

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,734 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:35 PM

2008 was supposed to be like 2003.  Look at those 5 players - none of them is a top line player, it doesn't look like any will become one, and one of them is already a straight up bust.  The other 4 are decent players and guys you'd like to have on your team, but none of them are going to turn the franchise around.  That's why the hyperbole around here has to be checked, even with the presumed strength of the draft class.

 

This is why I'd have no problem with taking Ristolainen or Nurse if Conte thought they were the best player available and and the Monahan/Lindholm guys were gone and it wasn't worth trading down even if I'd rather have a forward. Just get the guy you think's gonna be better (even if forwards admittedly project more easily) and don't worry about need unless there's a tie 


  • 0
Follow Me on Twitter @mtorino75 I Need Followers!

Visit My Devils Blog! www.theTrapezoidConspiracy.com
Rutgers-New Brunswick '11, Rutgers School of Law-Newark '14

#955 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,588 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:58 PM

The Rangers don't have any legitimate defense prospects, so them trading Del Zotto or Girardi would be a nightmare for them. They are already down Sauer and quite possibly Staal



Now you are talking nonsense. A team that drafts consistently in the 10 to 6 range that only has a bunch of players that are "capable of playing in the NHL" to show for it will always be drafting there because that team won't be any good. Steve Bernier and Ryan Carter are capable of playing in the NHL. Even if you don't take into account plausible alternatives, any GM that told you he wasn't disappointed because he got one of those players at number 9 would be considered a clown.

Or how about this, imagine if Lou traded the number 9 pick for, I don't know, Cal Clutterbuck, a perfectly capable NHL player. You can tell me how much he "drives play" all you want, but, if you were being honest at all, you would be screaming that Lou has lost his mind.



Because GMs also don't know how to think probabalistically. Josh Bailey probably represents the 50th percentile or so of 9th overall picks. Here, I'll extend a band between 7 and 11, and go over the drafts since 1998 to 2009:

1998: Malhotra, M. Bell, Rupp, Antropov, Heerema (1 out of 5 became a 'top 6 forward' - Bell was very briefly, maybe)
1999: Beech, Pyatt, Lundmark, Mezei, Saprykin (0 of 5 became a top 6 F/top 4 D)
2000: Jonsson, Alexeev, Krahn, Yakubov, Vorobiev (0 of 5)
2001: Komisarek, Leclaire, Ruutu, Blackburn, Sjostrom (I'll be generous and call this 3 of 5)
2002: Lupul, Bouchard, Taticek, Nystrom, Ballard (Again, generous, 3 of 5)
2003: Suter, Coburn, Phaneuf, Kostitsyn, Carter (5 of 5, again, being generous)
2004: Olesz, Picard, Smid, Valabik, Tukonen (1 of 5, generous)
2005: Skille, Setoguchi, Lee, Bourdon, Kopitar (2 of 5, generous)
2006: Okposo, Mueller, Sheppard, Frolik, Bernier (jury's out on Bernier, I'm calling this 1.5 out of 5)
2007: Voracek, Hamill, Couture, Ellerby, Sutter (2 of 5)
2008: Wilson, Boedker, Bailey, Hodgson, Beach (Generously giving 3.5)
2009: Kadri, Glennie, Cowen, Paajarvi, Ellis (2.5 out of 5)

So that's 24.5 out of 60 players who became top 4 D or top 6 Fs, and I pretty much gave everyone who was marginal a pass. This draft is supposed to be stronger, but again, you really can't go overrating a pick this high, it is by no means a sure thing, and if the Devils come out of it with a 2nd/3rd line player, it's not a disappointment, nor is it a triumph.


Re the Rangers, you could probably pencil in McIlrath as a guy that can be a legitimate NHL defenseman in the next couple of years.

Otherwise, I get it, you can always do worse than a solid NHL player at number 9. You could always do worse at number 1. And if we were talking about last year's draft, which was fairly pedestrian, you could take your lumps if that's all it turns out to be. But as you noted, not all draft classes are created equal, and this one is supposed to be very good. Considering the position the Devils are in, coming away with a third line forward or a second pairing defensemen would be disappointing. We have plenty of those types of players. In fact, virtually every team has those kinds of players. Getting another one doesn't advance the ball very far.

(Btw, there also appears to be a trend of picks in that range getting better, especially when compared to the late 90s, where you probably had less in the way of scouting resources and international play to rate European players, but that's just an off the cuff observation).

But this also brings me back to the original discussion of whether it makes sense to trade to number 5 and at what cost. Lou mentioned, when asked about the Avs noting that they would listen to offers, that they would "probably want our house". Now, you have Carolina evidently saying that they would trade their pick, who will land you someone that is not that much further off from MacKinnon, for a top four defenseman and a pick somewhere in the vicinity of what the Devils have. Playing it safe, will mean the Devils are probably going to be an on again off again playoff team. I could live with that, I suppose. If you trade Greene, the 9 and other things you can live without, the Devils are probably not much worse than that even if whoever you get at 5 fizzles. I mean, it might get worse next year, but as I said, with all of the defensemen that are in the system, you should expect at least one of them to be a decent replacement for Greene. In the meantime, if you end up getting 80 percent of the potential out of the number 5 pick, the Devils are a top seed caliber team on a year in, year out basis.

Frankly, I'm actually starting to not throw up at the idea of taking Fucale at 9. It assumes a lot of things of course, that the forwards available aren't going to be second line caliber, that Fucale is actually better than your typical first round goalie prospect, which some are suggesting he is, and that he won't be around at a later pick the Devils already have or might trade into. We all know that the problem or perceived problem with drafting a goalie is the difficulty of predicting their success. But if you get it right, it does you a whole a lot more good than a second line forward or top four defenseman.

That's what makes this fun I guess


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#956 hystyk28

hystyk28

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,212 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:07 PM

One interesting caveat to the Canes trade scenario is that Johnny Mac has, for better or worse, some familiarity with our lesser known "assets."


  • 0

#957 sundstrom

sundstrom

    Hall of Famer

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,506 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:31 PM

fucale would be a jets type reaction from the home crowd - this would be me
 
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=NlM3CKXJs5k


Edited by sundstrom, 26 June 2013 - 08:35 PM.

  • 0

"This team was never the same once we lost Patrik Sundstrom"- Lou Lamoriello

 

sundstrom jersey signature
 

_________________________________________________________________
“They’re the ones that makes it happen,” Lemaire said. “It’s not us. It’s not me. It’s not the other guy. It’s not the guy before. It’s not the guy after. It’s them. And they have to take care of business.”
-
"I guess I just miss my friend" (#28)


#958 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Head Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,266 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:46 PM

fucale would be a jets type reaction from the home crowd - this would be me

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=NlM3CKXJs5k


Seriously.

1) goalies are wildly unpredictable
2) he played on a stacked team
3) At the EARLIEST he'd be ready in 4 years
  • 0

#959 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,588 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:50 PM

Chill. It wasn't a ringing endorsement of the idea.

Edited by Daniel, 26 June 2013 - 08:51 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#960 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,949 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:55 PM

Re the Rangers, you could probably pencil in McIlrath as a guy that can be a legitimate NHL defenseman in the next couple of years.

 

I don't see why.  Impossible to judge defensive D by stats, but I certainly wouldn't judge him by draft position either.  He's 21. Time is getting short - if he hasn't made his NHL debut by next year, or isn't doing well in that debut, his future is dim.

 

 

Otherwise, I get it, you can always do worse than a solid NHL player at number 9. You could always do worse at number 1. And if we were talking about last year's draft, which was fairly pedestrian, you could take your lumps if that's all it turns out to be. But as you noted, not all draft classes are created equal, and this one is supposed to be very good. Considering the position the Devils are in, coming away with a third line forward or a second pairing defensemen would be disappointing. We have plenty of those types of players. In fact, virtually every team has those kinds of players.

 

They really don't.  That's why there are good and bad teams in the NHL - it isn't star players that separates them.  Star players are great, but they cost a lot of money right away typically.  Star players separate the best teams from the good teams.  But it's guys in the middle that separate the teams who can make the playoffs from the teams that don't.

 

 

Getting another one doesn't advance the ball very far. (Btw, there also appears to be a trend of picks in that range getting better, especially when compared to the late 90s, where you probably had less in the way of scouting resources and international play to rate European players, but that's just an off the cuff observation).

 

The drafts from 1996-2002 are almost universally bad, it's not like talent was found in the later rounds either.  There just wasn't that much talent.

 

 

But this also brings me back to the original discussion of whether it makes sense to trade to number 5 and at what cost. Lou mentioned, when asked about the Avs noting that they would listen to offers, that they would "probably want our house". Now, you have Carolina evidently saying that they would trade their pick, who will land you someone that is not that much further off from MacKinnon, for a top four defenseman and a pick somewhere in the vicinity of what the Devils have.

 

The Hurricanes have not said anything like this.  The journalists have.  And I think it's quite silly to list the 5th overall with MacKinnon, MacKinnon is crushing junior hockey, barring injury he will be an excellent player in the NHL.  There's a reason why he is going 1st overall, and that no one thinks he will slip to 5th.  The 5th has a lot more risk.

 

 

Playing it safe, will mean the Devils are probably going to be an on again off again playoff team. I could live with that, I suppose. If you trade Greene, the 9 and other things you can live without, the Devils are probably not much worse than that even if whoever you get at 5 fizzles. I mean, it might get worse next year, but as I said, with all of the defensemen that are in the system, you should expect at least one of them to be a decent replacement for Greene. In the meantime, if you end up getting 80 percent of the potential out of the number 5 pick, the Devils are a top seed caliber team on a year in, year out basis. Frankly, I'm actually starting to not throw up at the idea of taking Fucale at 9. It assumes a lot of things of course, that the forwards available aren't going to be second line caliber, that Fucale is actually better than your typical first round goalie prospect, which some are suggesting he is, and that he won't be around at a later pick the Devils already have or might trade into. We all know that the problem or perceived problem with drafting a goalie is the difficulty of predicting their success. But if you get it right, it does you a whole a lot more good than a second line forward or top four defenseman. That's what makes this fun I guess

 

You wrote this out on an ipad?  Anyway, Fucale would be a horrendous pick (doesn't mean he can't be successful, it's just a bad pick), but that aside, it's much harder to replace Greene-level players than you think, and that's what seperates the good and bad teams in this league - it's not that the bad teams don't have enough star players (though this contributes), it's that they don't have enough Andy Greenes.


Edited by Triumph, 26 June 2013 - 09:00 PM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users