sundstrom Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 the irony here is that it's way more shortsighted to have an 18 year old player wasting ELC and free agency years when he probably isn't ready to play in the NHL. it's ironic that you mention stamkos - the seensteven.com website was lambasted by everyone here, and the NHL wags said that the hype was why stamkos struggled in his rookie year. funny how that narrative is gone now. if he's not ready, then let him have his extra year off in the minors or his junior team (or SEL) - you're not burning cap. my point was that the cap argument should be thrown out in this instance. get the best possible guy. oh and the overhype - that's no good for anyone. but was the hype too much for tavares? i don't think so. Couturier is going to go before we have our first pick. He is in the top 5 of prospects and his name is now more out there with the WJ's. I cant see us getting to him in time. the devils are doing their best job at cementing themselves at the bottom of the league. the only way they could not have their pick of the litter at this point is if they lose the lottery and drop down 1 spot to 2, and someone else takes him. That's the biggest part of my thoughts that people are totally against. They think no matter what we should keep the high pick, it would be poor management to ignore all possible scenarios. I think trading down may warrant you greater value, people will pay for the number 1 buzz factor. i'm not against trading down for more assets as long as they're really good assets. here's my point. when you're a team like NJ who doesn't have plans at being down at this level ever again, you simply cannot miss with this pick. that doesn't mean he's gotta be great. the absolute worst case scenario has to be a david legwand situation. in my mind that means SOMETHING you get with this pick (whether it's the pick himself, whoever you trade down for, or acquire) has to be, at worst a guy who can average 18-20 goals and 50 point for 10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Larsson was injured tho... he was not even supposed to play the semi-final... it would explain why he wasnt that wow in the first couple games Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinn01 Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 the devils are doing their best job at cementing themselves at the bottom of the league. the only way they could not have their pick of the litter at this point is if they lose the lottery and drop down 1 spot to 2, and someone else takes him. Ohh alright. I understand now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 if he's not ready, then let him have his extra year off in the minors or his junior team (or SEL) - you're not burning cap. my point was that the cap argument should be thrown out in this instance. get the best possible guy. oh and the overhype - that's no good for anyone. but was the hype too much for tavares? i don't think so. how has john tavares done so far? he's been an above average nhl player. my point is that hype is a bad idea. i know they need to sell seats, but this year doesn't have that kind of a player in it. i wish they could hype that there's no rolston or langenbrunner or clarkson on next year's team, that would be exciting. the devils are doing their best job at cementing themselves at the bottom of the league. the only way they could not have their pick of the litter at this point is if they lose the lottery and drop down 1 spot to 2, and someone else takes him. i forget how the draft lottery is weighted but i think it's definitely less than even money that the devils pick #1 overall. i'm not against trading down for more assets as long as they're really good assets. here's my point. when you're a team like NJ who doesn't have plans at being down at this level ever again, you simply cannot miss with this pick. that doesn't mean he's gotta be great. the absolute worst case scenario has to be a david legwand situation. in my mind that means SOMETHING you get with this pick (whether it's the pick himself, whoever you trade down for, or acquire) has to be, at worst a guy who can average 18-20 goals and 50 point for 10 years. well i agree, but i also think stockpiling is good. if the devils could use this pick to get one next year as well as a lower pick this year, they should consider it. it's not the kind of draft with a good top end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellOnICE Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 how has john tavares done so far? he's been an above average nhl player. my point is that hype is a bad idea. i know they need to sell seats, but this year doesn't have that kind of a player in it. i wish they could hype that there's no rolston or langenbrunner or clarkson on next year's team, that would be exciting. i forget how the draft lottery is weighted but i think it's definitely less than even money that the devils pick #1 overall. well i agree, but i also think stockpiling is good. if the devils could use this pick to get one next year as well as a lower pick this year, they should consider it. it's not the kind of draft with a good top end. At the conclusion of the regular season, the 14 NHL teams not qualifying for the playoffs are entered in a weighted lottery to determine the initial draft picks in each round, seeded according to regular season standing. The 30th-place team has a 25% chance of winning the lottery, with odds diminishing to a 0.5% chance for the 14th-place team. A single selection from the lottery pool is made, with the winning team eligible to improve its draft order by up to four places, and no team eligible to drop more than one place. Therefore, only the 26th through 30th place teams are eligible to receive the first draft pick.[7][8] Consequently, the 30th place team's chance of retaining the first overall pick improves to 48.2%.[2] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 At the conclusion of the regular season, the 14 NHL teams not qualifying for the playoffs are entered in a weighted lottery to determine the initial draft picks in each round, seeded according to regular season standing. The 30th-place team has a 25% chance of winning the lottery, with odds diminishing to a 0.5% chance for the 14th-place team. A single selection from the lottery pool is made, with the winning team eligible to improve its draft order by up to four places, and no team eligible to drop more than one place. Therefore, only the 26th through 30th place teams are eligible to receive the first draft pick.[7][8] Consequently, the 30th place team's chance of retaining the first overall pick improves to 48.2%.[2] right, okay. i think the devils are about even money to finish last overall. the oilers are clearly worse, as are the islanders, it's just a question of whether the devils manage to pull their heads out and get a few Ws here and there. so given that i'd say it's like 2 to 1 against the devils having the 1st overall pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lateralous Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 If the Devils management is absolutely sold that one of the lower rated players will be the best player in the draft, then fine trade down a few spots but I absolutely HATE the idea of trading down just to acquire a few extra assets. Moving guys like Arnott and Langenbrunner at the deadline is how we should be going for extra picks like the proposed 37th overall, not messing with our 1st rounder. Hell, at this point I don't even know if I trust the judgement of our scouting staff, just go with the census best player available and don't get fancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 If the Devils management is absolutely sold that one of the lower rated players will be the best player in the draft, then fine trade down a few spots but I absolutely HATE the idea of trading down just to acquire a few extra assets. Moving guys like Arnott and Langenbrunner at the deadline is how we should be going for extra picks like the proposed 37th overall, not messing with our 1st rounder. Hell, at this point I don't even know if I trust the judgement of our scouting staff, just go with the census best player available and don't get fancy. the devils traded down in 2008. they moved down 2 separate times and they only moved down 4 spots. for that, they acquired 2 picks, a 2nd in 2008 and a 3rd in 2009, which became patrice cormier and alexander urbom. one was the 'centerpiece' of the kovalchuk deal, the other is probably our top d prospect. who knows what happens if we don't get those picks. imagine what we could get by moving down from the first overall pick to 6th or 7th. the devils are not likely to get a 37th overall pick in a deadline deal for reasons that should be obvious. they're also missing their 2nd and 3rd round picks already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxchaznjxx Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 i like the idea of trading down, but not too far down, to get additional picks and a good prospect in this draft unless larsson is available. i like the idea of adding larsson to what is already a pretty solid pool of defensive prospects in our system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lateralous Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) the devils traded down in 2008. they moved down 2 separate times and they only moved down 4 spots. for that, they acquired 2 picks, a 2nd in 2008 and a 3rd in 2009, which became patrice cormier and alexander urbom. one was the 'centerpiece' of the kovalchuk deal, the other is probably our top d prospect. who knows what happens if we don't get those picks. imagine what we could get by moving down from the first overall pick to 6th or 7th. Yeah and in 2006 we traded down from 25 to 30 and picked up Zharkov (who I like) with the extra 3rd rounder we picked up. Unfortunately, we passed on Patrik Berglund and Zharkov isn't worth the difference between Berglund and Corrente IMO. The difference is that we were screwing around with a pick in the 20's, not the 1st overall. Sure, there's the chance that our pick becomes another Patrik Stefan but going back through every draft from 2001 on, I don't think Urbom and Cormier combined justify the difference between the guy picked 1st and the guy picked 7th in any draft except 2003 which was an anomoly anyway. You could also make the same arguement for 2000 if you consider that Heatley was the top rated guy and only Milbury would have picked Dipietro. Obviously it's too early to tell on some of the most recent drafts but these guys are being scouted so heavily these days that the top guys are rated that way for a reason. Edited January 6, 2011 by Lateralous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lateralous Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 the devils are not likely to get a 37th overall pick in a deadline deal for reasons that should be obvious. they're also missing their 2nd and 3rd round picks already. Also, I think your underestimating what we'll be able to get back at the deadline for Arnott and Langs. There are several teams, especially some of the lower budget teams that have plenty plenty of prospects already stocked up but need to win this year for various reasons. Look at the Flyers in '07, they did a great job of exploiting the situations in Atlanta and Nashville to their advantage in trades. Arnott and Langs bring a lot of playoff experience and have expiring contracts. That will be very attractive to a lot of teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefiestygoat Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I'm definitely on board if Lou and Conte think they can get much better value (player wise, I'm not even worried about financial stuff) by moving down a few spots from the top pick and adding additional picks/prospects. Hopefully Lou can add some more picks for guys like Langenbrunner and Arnott and this can be a great draft haul that will set the Devils up for the long run (along with the past few decent drafts). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Yeah and in 2006 we traded down from 25 to 30 and picked up Zharkov (who I like) with the extra 3rd rounder we picked up. Unfortunately, we passed on Patrik Berglund and Zharkov isn't worth the difference between Berglund and Corrente IMO. 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. The difference is that we were screwing around with a pick in the 20's, not the 1st overall. Sure, there's the chance that our pick becomes another Patrik Stefan but going back through every draft from 2001 on, I don't think Urbom and Cormier combined justify the difference between the guy picked 1st and the guy picked 7th in any draft except 2003 which was an anomoly anyway. You could also make the same arguement for 2000 if you consider that Heatley was the top rated guy and only Milbury would have picked Dipietro. Obviously it's too early to tell on some of the most recent drafts but these guys are being scouted so heavily these days that the top guys are rated that way for a reason. 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. Also, I think your underestimating what we'll be able to get back at the deadline for Arnott and Langs. There are several teams, especially some of the lower budget teams that have plenty plenty of prospects already stocked up but need to win this year for various reasons. Look at the Flyers in '07, they did a great job of exploiting the situations in Atlanta and Nashville to their advantage in trades. Arnott and Langs bring a lot of playoff experience and have expiring contracts. That will be very attractive to a lot of teams. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) the islanders in 2008 had the 5th overall pick. they traded down twice and ended up in the 9th spot. they got for that deal - the 40th pick overall in 2008, the 68th overall pick in 2008, and the 37th pick in the 2009 draft. i mean, that's a *lot*. and it looks right now like they didn't make a bad choice. there's a half season left, so one of these guys might take off - in that case, it's a no brainer. but if the devils end up 3rd or 4th? who knows. they could re-stock the system. the system looks okay now, but there's not a lot coming in behind the guys ready to graduate. Edited January 6, 2011 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lateralous Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) 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 January 6, 2011 by Lateralous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lateralous Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) 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 January 6, 2011 by Lateralous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elias2600 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) 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 January 6, 2011 by elias2600 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elias2600 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) 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 January 6, 2011 by elias2600 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derlique Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) 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 January 6, 2011 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewarkDevil5 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarpathianForest Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derlique Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Carp: I think he meant trading for future assets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.