Jump to content

Photo

2013 NHL Draft


  • Please log in to reply
1242 replies to this topic

#961 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,607 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 09:12 PM


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.



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.


Dreger mentioned the Carolina rumor a few times. He's fairly reliable journalist when it comes to these sorts of things. Ultimately, we'll see how it plays out, but it comes from a reliable enough source that it's worth bringing up as opposed to if it were the usual hockeybuzz nonsense.

Re Greene, it would be one thing if we had the Rangers prospect pool at defense, where they are extremely thin. McIlrath is the only one who projects right now to be in the NHL for something more than a cup of coffee. Skej evidently had an awful freshman year at Minnesota. However, the Devils have 3 prospects who could challenge for a roster spot this year (Urbom, Gelinas and Merrill), another one who will in two years (Severson), and another that you might get real lucky with (Scarlett). Out of that lot, it's a safe bet that one of them is as good as Andy Greene eventually. Merrill especially.

As I noted already, I wasn't endorsing the idea of drafting Fucale at 9, just that I'd be slightly less nauseated about it than had you asked me a few days ago.


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?

#962 njdevsftw

njdevsftw

    Senior Devil

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 02:19 AM

Seems like moving one of our Dmen to aquire even a 13-17 range 1st rounder would be a good idea considering the utterly impotent offense we had last year. We could probably get Horvat, Mantha, Lazar or Shinkaruk in there..


  • 0
Posted Image

#963 thefiestygoat

thefiestygoat

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,670 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 02:44 AM

Buzzing the Net: Scouts Preview the Top 10 Prospects

 

Interesting read but all the quotes they give are pretty positive so it's not a complete critique of those prospects.


  • 0

RIP Pat Burns -- RIP Alexander Vasyunov and Lokomotiv Yaroslavl
Winner of the 2008 Sergei Brylin Award for Most Underrated Poster
Co-Winner of the 2011 Scott Bertoli Award for Best Minor League Poster, Winner of the 2012 Scott Bertoli Award


#964 Devilsfan118

Devilsfan118

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,868 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 08:12 AM

More I see the mock drafts, the more I tend to believe that one of the elite forwards won't fall to 9, unfortunately.


  • 0

hxMQPDl.jpg

Rutgers:  The Birthplace of College Football

First B1G Season: 8-5


#965 DH26

DH26

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,734 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 08:38 AM

More I see the mock drafts, the more I tend to believe that one of the elite forwards won't fall to 9, unfortunately.

 

Nobody really knows what's gonna happen w/ Edmonton's pick with MacT shopping it all over the world and Carolina's pick if they decide ot trade it. Someone could trade up bc they love Nurse or something and then one falls.  You never know. Parise wasn't supposed to be there in 03 but there he was


  • 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

#966 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,997 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 09:04 AM

More I see the mock drafts, the more I tend to believe that one of the elite forwards won't fall to 9, unfortunately.

 

Mock drafts, unless they're by someone like McKenzie who talks to lots of scouts, have absolutely no clue what's going on.


  • 0

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


#967 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,607 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 09:10 AM

On NHL radio, I believe Custance mentioned that the Flames offered its three first round picks to Colorado for number 1 overall.  I I'm Colorado, I say no thanks.  Always go with the sure, or at least the most sure thing.


  • 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?

#968 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Head Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,311 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 09:12 AM

Wow Jones could conceivably drop to 4 or 5.
  • 0

#969 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,607 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:05 AM

Wow Jones could conceivably drop to 4 or 5.

 

Would be bad if he dropped to 5 for anyone that wanted to trade into Carolina's pick.


  • 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?

#970 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,146 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:14 AM

Trading your best defenseman to move up four spots in the draft is a bit irresponsible. If the Devils don't like what's at 9, they can trade down and recoup later round picks.
  • 0
"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:
-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00
-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

#971 Devilsfan118

Devilsfan118

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,868 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:15 AM

Wow Jones could conceivably drop to 4 or 5.

 

Inconceivable!

 

(but yeah, pretty crazy)


  • 0

hxMQPDl.jpg

Rutgers:  The Birthplace of College Football

First B1G Season: 8-5


#972 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Head Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,311 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:20 AM

Trading your best defenseman to move up four spots in the draft is a bit irresponsible. If the Devils don't like what's at 9, they can trade down and recoup later round picks.


I'm riding shotgun on the Bo Horvat train, so id be ok with this
  • 0

#973 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,607 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:20 AM

Trading your best defenseman to move up four spots in the draft is a bit irresponsible. If the Devils don't like what's at 9, they can trade down and recoup later round picks.

 

You're not just "trading up four spots".  You're trading into a spot where you hope to land a guy who can be a first line forward in the near future, and in light of the fact that the drop off in talent is said to be significant after around pick 6 or 7. 

 

To take an extreme example to illustrate the principle, if you held even the number 2 pick in 2005, you would trade your best defenseman, and probably a lot more, to move up one spot to get Sydney Crosby. 

 

Ultimately, Greene is replaceable with what's in the system, if not this year, perhaps the following year.  It should also be noted that you'd be saving yourself at least $4 million in salary for the next two years.


Edited by Daniel, 27 June 2013 - 10:21 AM.

  • 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?

#974 DJ Eco

DJ Eco

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,210 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:28 AM

"@ToddCordellWhy the #NJDevils should consider trading down:

 

http://www.hockeybuz...824&forum_id=1""


  • 0

#975 DH26

DH26

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,734 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:31 AM

You're not just "trading up four spots".  You're trading into a spot where you hope to land a guy who can be a first line forward in the near future, and in light of the fact that the drop off in talent is said to be significant after around pick 6 or 7. 

 

To take an extreme example to illustrate the principle, if you held even the number 2 pick in 2005, you would trade your best defenseman, and probably a lot more, to move up one spot to get Sydney Crosby. 

 

Ultimately, Greene is replaceable with what's in the system, if not this year, perhaps the following year.  It should also be noted that you'd be saving yourself at least $4 million in salary for the next two years.

 

ok, ther'es a difference between the 5th pick and the first pick. You don't get Crosby caliber guys at 5 usually, and there's probably not that much of a difference between the 5th and 9th pick. There might be the perception now, but I doubt long term there's a huge difference looking back.

 

2003: Phaneuf at 9, Vanek at 5, wash I'd prefer Phaneuf for health.

 

2004: Wheeler at 5, Smid at 9. Smid probably wins

 

2005: Price at 5 Lee at 9 5 wins

 

2006: Kessel at 5 Jshepphard at 9: 5 wins

 

2007: 5 is Alzner 9 is Couture. 9 probably wins

 

2008: 5 is L Schenn 9 is Bailey. Probably a wash

 

2009: 5 is B. Schenn, 9 is Jared Cowen 5 wins slightly I guess maybe

 

2010: 5 is Nino from NYI and 9 is Granlund. 9 wins

 

2011: 5 is Strome 9 is Hamilton. As of now 9 wins.

 

So really not much difference bt 5 and 9 and I wouldn't give up assets to trade up unless you could get Barkov


  • 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

#976 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,997 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:36 AM

ok, ther'es a difference between the 5th pick and the first pick. You don't get Crosby caliber guys at 5 usually, and there's probably not that much of a difference between the 5th and 9th pick. There might be the perception now, but I doubt long term there's a huge difference looking back.

 

2003: Phaneuf at 9, Vanek at 5, wash I'd prefer Phaneuf for health.

 

2004: Wheeler at 5, Smid at 9. Smid probably wins

 

2005: Price at 5 Lee at 9 5 wins

 

2006: Kessel at 5 Jshepphard at 9: 5 wins

 

2007: 5 is Alzner 9 is Couture. 9 probably wins

 

2008: 5 is L Schenn 9 is Bailey. Probably a wash

 

2009: 5 is B. Schenn, 9 is Jared Cowen 5 wins slightly I guess maybe

 

2010: 5 is Nino from NYI and 9 is Granlund. 9 wins

 

2011: 5 is Strome 9 is Hamilton. As of now 9 wins.

 

So really not much difference bt 5 and 9 and I wouldn't give up assets to trade up unless you could get Barkov

 

I don't like this analysis, because that's not really what we're looking at.  Past results don't guarantee future outcomes.  I know I did a similar analysis, but I looked at players drafted from 7-11.  What I'd do in this case is look at players drafted at 5 versus 7-11.  

 

But the premise that Greene is replaceable is just not a sure thing at all.  It won't happen, so I'm not really going to fight about it.


  • 0

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


#977 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,607 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:36 AM

ok, ther'es a difference between the 5th pick and the first pick. You don't get Crosby caliber guys at 5 usually, and there's probably not that much of a difference between the 5th and 9th pick. There might be the perception now, but I doubt long term there's a huge difference looking back.

 

2003: Phaneuf at 9, Vanek at 5, wash I'd prefer Phaneuf for health.

 

2004: Wheeler at 5, Smid at 9. Smid probably wins

 

2005: Price at 5 Lee at 9 5 wins

 

2006: Kessel at 5 Jshepphard at 9: 5 wins

 

2007: 5 is Alzner 9 is Couture. 9 probably wins

 

2008: 5 is L Schenn 9 is Bailey. Probably a wash

 

2009: 5 is B. Schenn, 9 is Jared Cowen 5 wins slightly I guess maybe

 

2010: 5 is Nino from NYI and 9 is Granlund. 9 wins

 

2011: 5 is Strome 9 is Hamilton. As of now 9 wins.

 

So really not much difference bt 5 and 9 and I wouldn't give up assets to trade up unless you could get Barkov

 

Again, all drafts are different.  We are told anyway that each of the first five picks could be the number 1 or 2 pick in a lot of draft years.  It depends on what you project the player you're targeting to be.  So yeah, Colorado, the Devils or Florida would not give up all that much to move up to number 1 in 2011.  RNH might still turn out to be a very good player, but Landeskog, Huberdeau and Larsson are not that far behind.  And at the time, a lot of people felt that Larsson was the best of the bunch.

 

Ultimately, you're targetting a player, not a pick.  And to reiterate, number 5 could turn out to be a bust.  From what you hear though, the risk of that is relatively low.


  • 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?

#978 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,607 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:40 AM

 

 

But the premise that Greene is replaceable is just not a sure thing at all.  It won't happen, so I'm not really going to fight about it.

 

For fear of belaboring the point, what do you guage the chances of Greene being sufficiently replaceable, one way or the other, within, say, the next two years?  (You are the person that believes in probability uber alles).  I would say the chances are pretty good, or good enough that I'd be willing to take the risk.  And it could turn out to be a great reward if it turns out right.


  • 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?

#979 Devilsfan118

Devilsfan118

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,868 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:46 AM

 

2003: Phaneuf at 9, Vanek at 5, wash I'd prefer Phaneuf for health.

 

 

:blink:

 

But again, as Daniel said, this is draft-specific stuff.  While a trend may show this-and-that, here there is clearly likely to be a distinction in this draft between the #5 spot and the #9 spot.  


Edited by Devilsfan118, 27 June 2013 - 10:46 AM.

  • 0

hxMQPDl.jpg

Rutgers:  The Birthplace of College Football

First B1G Season: 8-5


#980 DH26

DH26

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,734 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:53 AM

:blink:

 

But again, as Daniel said, this is draft-specific stuff.  While a trend may show this-and-that, here there is clearly likely to be a distinction in this draft between the #5 spot and the #9 spot.  

 

If I was toronto there's no chance in hell I'd trade Phaneuf straight up for Vanek. Just because the Leafs brass is dumb enough to run him out of town isn't convincing me.

 

But I think that's a fallacy. Every draft is either deep or shallow or whatever on the surface but you don't really know for years. Like Tri said earlier, 2008 was supposed to be like 03 but it wasn't anything close. There are problems after the top 4 guys. THe Russian's far from a sure thing and wouldn't have been a #1 pick or anything another year. Every draft is different yeah but as a general trend even though the guy at #5 is presumed to be better going in, it's far from turning out that way consistently

 

Is Lindholm really that much more awesome than Shinkaruk? Maybe but I don't think it's really worth giving up a ton of assets to find out. I don't think the chances are that much better that he is and when you only have 4 picks, those chances aren't worth trading up for


Edited by DH26, 27 June 2013 - 10:55 AM.

  • 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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users