Jump to content

Lateralous

Member Since 28 Oct 2002
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 08:26 AM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Merits of trading the first round pick

03 April 2015 - 04:53 PM

We already have 2 picks in the second round and an early 3rd, so if a guy they really like starts to drop, they already have the necessary tools to grab him. It's almost like any extra pick we get from moving down with the 6th would be to draft the guys Conte thinks is the 3rd most likely to be their diamond in the rough. 

 

I know the top of this draft is supposed to be special, but I don't think it has anywhere close to the depth of 2003.  I get your point, if you could land guys that our scouts project to be Richards and Carter or Perry and Getzlaf with two lower picks instead of just Ryan Suter in the top 10, trading down makes sense.  In this case, we have the scouting staff that pulled Jakob Vrana out of that epic 2003 second round so I just want them to pick BPA at 6.       

In Topic: Merits of trading the first round pick

03 April 2015 - 04:11 PM

Your post assumes that somehow our scouting staff can know what they cannot possibly know - all they can do is rate the players and maybe take a glance at consensus.  But consensus ratings have no gradation - they have no idea whether the theroretical gap between a player and another player is enormous or tiny.  And that gap may be tiny at the time but players evolve in different ways and often there's no way to tell.

 

If you rate 3 players the same and you can move 2 picks back and get an extra pick, you do it, even though there's an implication there that you are valuing something incorrectly - you can't know which player you're valuing incorrectly. And the other side may be valuing one of those players incorrectly as well.

 

No, it assumes that our scouting staff hasn't been nearly good enough for the last decade to be dicking around with our top pick just to land that extra pick in a later round when the thing we need most out of this draft is an impact player.  No matter whose list it is, if you make a draft list, you clearly feel the guy you rank as the 6th best player in the draft has a better shot at being an impact player than the guy you would rank 10th, 15th or 20th.   Obviously, it may not end up that way but again, I don't think our current scouting staff should be getting cute with this pick. Just grab the guy that you think will be the best possible NHL player and move on.      

 

Regarding your second paragraph, I already said I have no problem dropping back a pick or two if they still think they can get the guy they rank as the 6th BPA at 8.  

In Topic: 2015 Draft Thread

03 April 2015 - 03:59 PM

Who the fvck cares about Edmonton getting it? Everyone keeps bitching about Edmonton- Let me give you a scenario here: would you rather have McDavid 5 million miles away in Edmonton, or in Philly or Columbus skullfvcking us 6 times a year for the next two decades? Hmmm... Tough one. [emoji57]

 

My comment was meant more as a fan of hockey in general that its impact on the Devils.  Edmonton is a f'ing black hole for player development right now.  I would rather see him go somewhere where he'll develop into the generational player that he's supposed to be.   

 

When the Devils built their team properly, it didn't matter that the Flyers landed Lindros.  Actually, it paved the way for a great rivalry and some of the most memorable playoff series in our teams history.       

In Topic: Merits of trading the first round pick

03 April 2015 - 02:32 PM

Almost no one has 2 1st round picks so that sort of deal is virtually impossible.  I can't think of an instance in the last 10 drafts where someone took 2 1sts and moved up to get a 1st - can anyone else?  I wouldn't be averse to it in this draft - it looks quite deep - but I think there's only a couple teams with 2 1st round picks and it doesn't make sense for any of those teams to make a deal like this.

 

If there isn't a consensus 5 or 6, I wouldn't mind NJ moving down and picking up more 2nd round picks - this draft seems suitably deep to expect a good 2nd round.  They could flip one of those 2nds for help up front while keeping 2 others.  The Islanders moved down twice from 5 to 9 in 2008 and got 2 2nds and a 3rd out of it.

 

The point is, I'm not big on the idea of our scouting staff trading the pick that gets you Patrik Berglund down for Matt Corrente and an extra pick that nets you Zharkov.  If we're trading out of 6 down to 8 because our scouts really like Barzal and expect him to still be available, then that's fine but when you start talking about any significant move back, that extra asset had better more than make up for the difference in the quality of player you get at the lower position.  

 

In trades, everyone hates giving up quality for quantity but for some reason, I guess the crap shoot nature of a draft, people love their extra picks.  I still think the the team that gets the best player wins the trade which you are the most likely to get with the higher pick.  

In Topic: 2015 Draft Thread

03 April 2015 - 02:04 PM

i feel they should have done it like that all the time. Then there's no "behind closed doors" conspiracy that the league picked who was getting it.

 

Whatever they need to do behind closed door to keep Edmonton or Toronto from getting the top pick would be fine with me.