Jump to content

Photo

My Draft Philosophy


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#41 Lateralous

Lateralous

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts

Posted 05 January 2011 - 10:34 PM

i admit i engaged in this process before, but we can't really play this game. all we can say is that in general, if one thinks that the talent is equally good, it's sensible to trade down. it's also sensible to trade down when one thinks that the player that one really wants will be available later.

i happen to disagree with that assessment re: urbom and cormier, especially since it's made with after-the-fact knowledge. this draft doesn't have a huge top end. if you can get an additional 1st round pick for moving down, in addition to a high 1st rounder and maybe a prospect, maybe you do it. it's not something to be opposed to.

these guys have NTCs, that's an issue with blowing up their trade value. they're also not very good, either of them. they'll get 2nds or an equivalent prospect.


I don't disagree with the general premise that picking up extra assets for trading down can be a good thing, especially as you get deeper in the draft when it's just a crapshoot anyway. My point is that I don't think it's a great idea to use the 1st overall as the chip to get those extra 2nd rounders and mid range prospects as was the idea presented by the OP. I appreciate the opinions about prospects presented here since I don't see any of these guys more than the few times in the World Juniors but the top end guys are so well scouted these days that I'm not buying the guy going 7th will be better. I want quality over quantity, so regardless or whether we agree that the difference is worth Urbom and Cormier, the 1st pick has been significantly better than the 7th pick 90% of the time over the last 10 years. This year it seems that the dropoff is after the top 2, so I would hope we can get one of them.

Also, you lost me on Arnott and Langs because I think we agree that they are both worth a 2nd rounder, which is exactly what something around the 37th overall is.

Edited by Lateralous, 05 January 2011 - 10:41 PM.

  • 0

#42 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,928 posts

Posted 05 January 2011 - 10:36 PM

i was making a nitpicky point but 37th overall goes to the team that finishes 7th worst. the 7th worst team isn't going to be picking up guys at the deadline, most likely - we'll likely be getting picks between 45th and 60th overall. one thing i do like is how close the standings are, and we're not that far away from the deadline - there won't be a lot of sellers. we could pick up a few extra 4ths and 5ths.
  • 0

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


#43 Lateralous

Lateralous

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts

Posted 05 January 2011 - 10:38 PM

When you look at our prospects, we don't have a shortage of guys who will probably make it as 2nd pairing defenseman or 2nd/3rd line forwards. What we're desperately missing is potential top end talent. I admit that the draft is a crapshoot, but the census top guy still pans out most often as the best player. That is exactly what we need.

I realize this draft doesn't have a standout guy like Crosby, Stamkos or Ovechkin, but if I'm correct, it's also not considered that deep either. Even less reason to mess around with our "hard" earned #1 just to aquire a few extras.

Edited by Lateralous, 05 January 2011 - 11:01 PM.

  • 0

#44 elias2600

elias2600

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,793 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 01:16 PM

What we do with our top pick will probably have a lot to do with what we get in return from trading away players at the deadline. If the standings stay close, we could see overpayment by deadline teams with less sellers out there. It is also possible that some of the buyers at the deadline don't make the playoffs, and any picks we would acquire from them end up being 14th or higher.

We need to fill some spots that are missing from our draft picks this year. We don't have a 2nd or a 3rd rounder this year, and I would think we would like to acquire picks at the deadline to replace those, especially since we only picked 5 players last year. If we can do that and a little more at the deadline, then I don't think it is worth messing around with our lottery pick.

If we fill the holes in our draft pick lineup, I think we should take the player we want the most with our top pick. The idea of trading down to 7th just to save salary alone is a dangerous game to play. It may sound savvy, but in reality is a massive risk. The monetary value of a lottery pick is very high when you factor in everything, and there are no do-overs here gentlemen. If we want a player like Strome more than everyone else, then take him 1st overall. If he is the cream of the crop then history will prove it to be a genius move. If we start with 1st, move to 7th, miss out on our player who was drafted a pick or two before, then there will be a trucks worth of egg on our face. This franchise doesn't need anymore shame after the year we've had. It's a risky damn move!

Trading down with such an important pick makes the most sense when we value two players that are available equally. In this case, we should be willing to trade down one spot (not seven!) to maintain the opportunity to get one of them (That's zero risk). If they are both still available again, you can trade down again.

I think we'll have a better idea of whether we need to make a risky move at the draft once we know what we've gotten in return for players traded away, and also based on the evaluation of the prospects second half of the season/playoffs. It could become obvious that a truly elite talent is available. Also, the draft rankings will shift a lot from now until the draft. Remember that this time last year, players like Skinner and Johansson were not even considered first round picks.

Edited by elias2600, 06 January 2011 - 01:19 PM.

  • 0

#45 elias2600

elias2600

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,793 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 01:29 PM

I just wanted to say that I've read enough of Jason's posts on HFboards to know that he is not an ignorant fellow when it comes to the needs of the Devils. What I don't know about him is whether he is the type of guy that thinks it's no big thing to walk into a casino with this week's paycheck and put it all on black. We'll see how badly we need to consider doing that in the months to come.

Edited by elias2600, 06 January 2011 - 01:30 PM.

  • 0

#46 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Assistant Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,897 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 01:47 PM

Drafting larsson or couturier would fill one of our gaping holes. I don't like the idea of trading down, unless we could get a good prospect and maybe that teams' first in 2012. We all know that we're gonna get some 2nds and 3rds from arnott greene and langs, so I don't think the 37th pick would be too important
  • 0

#47 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,928 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 02:55 PM

Drafting larsson or couturier would fill one of our gaping holes. I don't like the idea of trading down, unless we could get a good prospect and maybe that teams' first in 2012. We all know that we're gonna get some 2nds and 3rds from arnott greene and langs, so I don't think the 37th pick would be too important


says you, re: larsson and couturier. couturier's skating is not at an nhl level right now, and he's not putting up the kind of dominant numbers we would want. larsson hasn't had the kind of season we would want him to have - he's got the 6th lowest time on ice among defensemen on his team. there's questions with these players.

the devils are missing a 1st rounder in the next 4 years, this seems like the perfect year to try to make it up.

Edited by Triumph, 06 January 2011 - 02:58 PM.

  • 0

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


#48 NewarkDevil5

NewarkDevil5

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,207 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 03:00 PM

larsson hasn't had the kind of season we would want him to have - he's got the 6th lowest time on ice among defensemen on his team.


6th lowest among defensemen on the team? How many defensemen does the team have? Most teams only carry maximum of 8 defensemen on a roster, so 6th from the bottom would be 3rd from the top. This doesn't make any sense.
  • 0

Newark: The City of New Jersey

gallery_45_180_172422.png


#49 CarpathianForest

CarpathianForest

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,385 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 03:01 PM

says you, re: larsson and couturier. couturier's skating is not at an nhl level right now, and he's not putting up the kind of dominant numbers we would want. larsson hasn't had the kind of season we would want him to have - he's got the 6th lowest time on ice among defensemen on his team. there's questions with these players.

the devils are missing a 1st rounder in the next 4 years, this seems like the perfect year to try to make it up.


Really? Forfeit our first round pick after the worst season in our team's history? Sounds like a plan. :rolleyes:
  • 0

mk6ihcS.gif?1


#50 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Assistant Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,897 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 03:05 PM

Carp: I think he meant trading for future assets
  • 0

#51 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,928 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 03:11 PM

6th lowest among defensemen on the team? How many defensemen does the team have? Most teams only carry maximum of 8 defensemen on a roster, so 6th from the bottom would be 3rd from the top. This doesn't make any sense.


6th lowest means the 6th highest, and i think it should be pretty obvious from the context what i meant. i guess i should have said #6.
  • 0

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


#52 NewarkDevil5

NewarkDevil5

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,207 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 03:16 PM

If you figure that most teams in the states only carry 8 active defensemen then no, 6th lowest doesn't automatically mean 6th highest. How are we to assume that Swedish teams carry 11 defensemen? Its only obvious if you're a Skeleftea fan which I for one am not. I don't even know how to pronounce their name.
  • 0

Newark: The City of New Jersey

gallery_45_180_172422.png


#53 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Assistant Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,897 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 03:18 PM

You have to remember that the SEL isn't a development league.
  • 0

#54 CarpathianForest

CarpathianForest

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,385 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 03:20 PM

If you figure that most teams in the states only carry 8 active defensemen then no, 6th lowest doesn't automatically mean 6th highest. How are we to assume that Swedish teams carry 11 defensemen? Its only obvious if you're a Skeleftea fan which I for one am not. I don't even know how to pronounce their name.



Ski-Lefty?

Edited by CarpathianForest, 06 January 2011 - 03:21 PM.

  • 0

mk6ihcS.gif?1


#55 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,928 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 03:24 PM

If you figure that most teams in the states only carry 8 active defensemen then no, 6th lowest doesn't automatically mean 6th highest. How are we to assume that Swedish teams carry 11 defensemen? Its only obvious if you're a Skeleftea fan which I for one am not. I don't even know how to pronounce their name.


we're not to assume that. you aren't getting it. i suppose 6th highest is correct, but 6th highest implies something good, which this is not - larsson is the #6 d man in terms of ice time on his team. that means he is not playing a large role.

mantzas: i'm aware it's not a development league, but if he can't even beat out ivan majesky for ice time this season, how's he supposed to do it in the nhl next year?
  • 0

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


#56 CarpathianForest

CarpathianForest

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,385 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 03:28 PM

Isn't Larsson injured? Either way I'd prefer a promising playmaking centerman.
  • 0

mk6ihcS.gif?1


#57 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,518 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 03:38 PM

mantzas: i'm aware it's not a development league, but if he can't even beat out ivan majesky for ice time this season, how's he supposed to do it in the nhl next year?


To go a different way, aren't the Devils better off with almost anyone they draft not being in the NHL next season? If so, then let's not worry about if they're NHL ready next year or not, but where they will be 2 or 3 years from now. Hedman was better than Larsson offensively, but wasn't destroying the SEL either and he was able to step in and be a decent NHL defender right away, so I don't see why Larsson, given an extra year in the SEL after drafting, couldn't do something similar, based on what I've seen.
  • 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

#58 forfelix

forfelix

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 59 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 03:39 PM

isnt the max rookie salary for next year $925,000? and arent they required to sign a 3 year entry level deal?
  • 0

#59 NewarkDevil5

NewarkDevil5

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,207 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 04:42 PM

At the end of the day if we are looking for a player to make an impact as soon as he gets drafted then it should probably be a forward. Defensemen rarely make an immediate impact coming straight off a draft year. Highly drafted forwards can very often make an impact their first year after being drafted. If we're looking for an impact player out of the draft then it should be a forward and specifically either a right wing or a center.
  • 0

Newark: The City of New Jersey

gallery_45_180_172422.png


#60 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,928 posts

Posted 06 January 2011 - 05:05 PM

To go a different way, aren't the Devils better off with almost anyone they draft not being in the NHL next season? If so, then let's not worry about if they're NHL ready next year or not, but where they will be 2 or 3 years from now. Hedman was better than Larsson offensively, but wasn't destroying the SEL either and he was able to step in and be a decent NHL defender right away, so I don't see why Larsson, given an extra year in the SEL after drafting, couldn't do something similar, based on what I've seen.


the issue with the SEL is playing time, although i suppose he could play in the AHL. but yes - i'm just concerned that a very high draft pick would be rushed.

isnt the max rookie salary for next year $925,000? and arent they required to sign a 3 year entry level deal?


the max rookie salary is probably that, but high 1st round picks typically receive very large bonus clauses. typically teams are allowed to go over the cap by $7 million in bonuses, but the bonus cushion will not apply next season, so that player's full cap hit would count.
  • 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