Proposal: 14th + 33rd for a top 10

HBK27

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 5, 2005
13,659
14,086
Northern NJ
I'd probably make that trade from NJ's perspective - guess it all depends on who's still available at #10. Devils could certainly use the extra pick as they do not have a 2nd rounder this year and only 11 picks over the next 2 drafts. I do worry about there being a bit of a drop from 10 to 14 though, particularly if RHD fall as that's the one position NJ would probably look to avoid.
 

Forge

Blissfully Mediocre
Jul 4, 2018
12,089
14,491
Vincent Clortho School for wizards
Any of those teams biting? How much closer, if at all, to the middle (of the top 10) if the 42nd is added?
I don't hate 10 for 14 and 42 from a devils perspective.

Not sure how much higher you can get though. Teams just don't trade those picks. I think you're mostly looking at that 8-10 range, and for those three teams, it could be based on where they see that tier drop at. I think a lot of teams could definitely see a drop in the prospect level from something like 10 to 14.
 

Patty Ice

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
13,949
3,577
Not California
I'd probably make that trade from NJ's perspective - guess it all depends on who's still available at #10. Devils could certainly use the extra pick as they do not have a 2nd rounder this year and only 11 picks over the next 2 drafts. I do worry about there being a bit of a drop from 10 to 14 though, particularly if RHD fall as that's the one position NJ would probably look to avoid.

At 10, I'd be more inclined to offer the Devils' 2nd pack first. If one of those RHDs do fall to that pick, then I'd be more amenable.
 

Xirik

Registered User
Sep 24, 2014
8,387
12,012
Alberta
If this trade helps get the Devils a goalie in a trade (Devils don't have a 2nd this year) Then I'd be for it.

I'd hope 1 of Helenius, Nygard, and Chernyshov are sitll there at 14th, If not Boisvert.
 

Patty Ice

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
13,949
3,577
Not California
I'm interested in what Ottawa fans would think if the Sharks offered 14th, 33rd, and 42nd given that they will have to surrender a 1st at some point in the near future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xirik

Xirik

Registered User
Sep 24, 2014
8,387
12,012
Alberta
I'm interested in what Ottawa fans would think if the Sharks offered 14th, 33rd, and 42nd given that they will have to surrender a 1st at some point in the near future.
I think for Ottawa it would depend on if they think Some D will drop to 14th and how high they are on Adam Jiricek.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patty Ice

blankall

Registered User
Jul 4, 2007
15,004
5,357
As a Flames fan, I wouldn't take that deal. The Flames need the best possible talent far more than they need potential depth.
 

Golden_Jet

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
23,149
11,317
I think for Ottawa it would depend on if they think Some D will drop to 14th and how high they are on Adam Jiricek.
Ya agree, I think the 5-6 D will be gone after 10. Also I think the next tier starts around 14/15.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xirik

Lindys Lazy Eye

Registered User
Oct 20, 2012
7,891
4,325
Dover, NJ
I'd pull the trigger myself as a Sharks fan. I'm not sure Calgary or NJ do it though.

New Jersey's case is that trading down would be excellent to re-stock their prospect cupboard.

The case against would obviously be that prospect cupboards *should* be put on the backburner as this is a team looking to compete

Now if NJ could trade down and somehow gain a quailty roster asset, that could work in theory but I don't see how it would in practice.
 

Erep

Registered User
Jul 17, 2019
1,407
1,522
I do worry about there being a bit of a drop from 10 to 14 though, particularly if RHD fall as that's the one position NJ would probably look to avoid.

If the Sharks are moving up, it is likely to take a D man (possibly RHD), so that would actually increase the odds a forward is the one from that top 14-15 left over at that spot. As trade partners, different needs makes it make more sense.

I'd hope 1 of Helenius, Nygard, and Chernyshov are sitll there at 14th, If not Boisvert.

We "know" Celebrini, Demidov, Lindstrom (assuming injuries aren't catastrophic), and Iginla will be gone by then. We can assume if the Sharks are trading up it is a pretty good indication the top 6 D men will be gone. That is 10 players.

That leaves 3 picks before the 14th for Helenius, Nygard, Chernyshov, Eiserman, Catton, and Sennecke. Extremely likely there is an option NJ is happy with is still there, unless they are super locked in on one guy.
 

CanadienShark

Registered User
Dec 18, 2012
37,991
11,375
New Jersey's case is that trading down would be excellent to re-stock their prospect cupboard.

The case against would obviously be that prospect cupboards *should* be put on the backburner as this is a team looking to compete

Now if NJ could trade down and somehow gain a quailty roster asset, that could work in theory but I don't see how it would in practice.
Don't talk to the Sharks then. :sarcasm:
 

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
15,734
17,493
Vegass
If the Sharks are moving up, it is likely to take a D man (possibly RHD), so that would actually increase the odds a forward is the one from that top 14-15 left over at that spot. As trade partners, different needs makes it make more sense.



We "know" Celebrini, Demidov, Lindstrom (assuming injuries aren't catastrophic), and Iginla will be gone by then. We can assume if the Sharks are trading up it is a pretty good indication the top 6 D men will be gone. That is 10 players.

That leaves 3 picks before the 14th for Helenius, Nygard, Chernyshov, Eiserman, Catton, and Sennecke. Extremely likely there is an option NJ is happy with is still there, unless they are super locked in on one guy.
Agreed. Devils don't "need" another D prospect, and the plethora of talents that will be available in that 13-18 range (the names mentioned) means the team will get a good talent and also get another high 2nd in the process. Seems like a win-win for all.
 

DJJones

Registered User
Nov 18, 2014
10,293
3,593
Calgary
As a Flames fan, I wouldn't take that deal. The Flames need the best possible talent far more than they need potential depth.

Yep, I've hardly thought about the Vancouver first rounder. We seem to be very strong at developing depth talent, we need high end.
 

Xirik

Registered User
Sep 24, 2014
8,387
12,012
Alberta
Agreed. Devils don't "need" another D prospect, and the plethora of talents that will be available in that 13-18 range (the names mentioned) means the team will get a good talent and also get another high 2nd in the process. Seems like a win-win for all.
I want my 2nd round pick back please.:innocent:
 

Lindys Lazy Eye

Registered User
Oct 20, 2012
7,891
4,325
Dover, NJ
Agreed. Devils don't "need" another D prospect, and the plethora of talents that will be available in that 13-18 range (the names mentioned) means the team will get a good talent and also get another high 2nd in the process. Seems like a win-win for all.

Siegenthaler is regressing, Hamilton also coming back from a major injury... the Devils aren't as set on defense as one would think.
 

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
15,734
17,493
Vegass
Siegenthaler is regressing, Hamilton also coming back from a major injury... the Devils aren't as set on defense as one would think.
Set? No, but with Hughes and Nemec (and Casey and possibly Foote for bottom pairing) grabbing one of the last top 6 D prospects probably isn't as high up the list as perhaps finding a 3C

I want my 2nd round pick back please.:innocent:
The trade partner scenario is almost too perfect.
 

Gecklund

Registered User
Jul 17, 2012
25,544
12,200
California
As a Flames fan, I wouldn't take that deal. The Flames need the best possible talent far more than they need potential depth.
That’s sadly the issue for most of these teams. Feel like with the drop from their pick to 14 is too big for them and most of these teams are wanting that elite talent.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad