All-Time Draft #11, Part 1

[EagleBelfour]

In my continuing attempts to be the black sheep of the ATD, I'm going to do something that I believe is without precedent.

With the second overall pick, the Nanaimo Clippers are extremely pleased to select RW Gordie Howe.

There you go!

 

[pitseleh]

I've also been added to this forum as a mod so I can pitch in and help keep the list up to date.

 

[God Bless Canada]

In my continuing attempts to be the black sheep of the ATD, I'm going to do something that I believe is without precedent.

With the second overall pick, the Nanaimo Clippers are extremely pleased to select RW Gordie Howe.

I place a tremendous amount of value in being able to play at both ends of the rink, and Gordie is the best forward in history at doing so and makes up for his 'shortcomings' offensively compared to the alternative. His combination of dominance, longevity, consistency, durability, and goal scoring is too much to pass up.

Bravo, my friend. raleh and I always said that if we ever picked first, we would pick Orr. If we picked second, we would take Gordie Howe, for the same reasons you outlined above. I firmly believe Howe's the best forward to ever play the game.

Note: No. 10 is the highest we have ever picked without trading up.

Note 2: After consulting with raleh, the No. 10 pick is not on the market.

 

[EagleBelfour]

''Howe, normally one of the coolest men in the game, was so nervous before the Garden contest that he threw up.'' - Sport Illustrated, march 26, 1962.

It was a deciding game between the New York Rangers and the Detroit Red Wings to see who would make the playoffs. First time I hear Howe was nervous enough before a game to puke.

 

[pitseleh]

''Howe, normally one of the coolest men in the game, was so nervous before the Garden contest that he threw up.'' - Sport Illustrated, march 26, 1962.

It was a deciding game between the New York Rangers and the Detroit Red Wings to see who would make the playoffs. First time I hear Howe was nervous enough before a game to puke.

Maybe Mr. Hockey spent too much time hanging around Mr. Goalie?

 

[EagleBelfour]

Maybe Mr. Hockey spent too much time hanging around Mr. Goalie?

Forgot to say it was also the night he scored his 500th goal. Supposedly, it was an amazing individual effort.

 

[camperjr]

There may be a trade coming up betwen me a Mr. Buggs. I have to go, but if it happen's to come out, cosider this me confirming.

 

[hfboardsuser]

:

17th overall
40th overall

:

26th overall
31st overall

 

[EagleBelfour]

Two picks, a trade ... I hope it's not the pace we'll be going in the draft!

 

[EagleBelfour]

This trade should be vetoed. There is no good reason why someone should give up 9 spots early in the draft to just get the same 9 spots back later on.

If you disagree, then I'll give you my 100th and 500th, for your 50th and 550th.

My head hurt.

 

[seventieslord]

:

17th overall
40th overall

:

26th overall
31st overall

This trade should be vetoed. There is no good reason why someone should give up 9 spots early in the draft to just get the same 9 spots back later on.

If you disagree, then I'll give you my 100th and 500th, for your 50th and 550th.

 

[hfboardsuser]

There's a precedence for it.

ATD 10

Spitfire11 - Detroit Red Wings trades 15, 42 to pitseleh - Nanaimo Clippers for 27, 30.

It's basically the exact same trade, performed by two what I would call respectable and responsible GMs.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

This trade should be vetoed. There is no good reason why someone should give up 9 spots early in the draft to just get the same 9 spots back later on.

If you disagree, then I'll give you my 100th and 500th, for your 50th and 550th.

I have the 100th pick.

Especially early in the draft, tactical merit of the picks is very relevant.

 

[chaosrevolver]

This trade should be vetoed. There is no good reason why someone should give up 9 spots early in the draft to just get the same 9 spots back later on.

If you disagree, then I'll give you my 100th and 500th, for your 50th and 550th.

Granted, look at last draft and how far a couple players fell (into the late 20's, early 30's). Though..I can see how it can be positively and negatively looked at. And Mr.Bugg did point out that it's been done before by two good GM's.

 

[EagleBelfour]

There's a precedence for it.

ATD 10

Spitfire11 - Detroit Red Wings trades 15, 42 to pitseleh - Nanaimo Clippers for 27, 30.

It's basically the exact same trade, performed by two what I would call respectable and responsible GMs.

I'm pretty sure he's joking. These kind of trades have happen in every drafts.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm pretty sure he's joking. These kind of trades have happen in every drafts.

No they don't, and I'm not joking. If I give someone 9 spots, I want 15-20 spots later (of course this depends on how much later) and that's what people want from me when I want to move up. 9 for 9 makes absolutely no sense. The team getting the 17th pick took their trade partner to the cleaners.

And IIRC, I made mention of this when Spitfire did it last draft, too.

(and I know I don't have the 100th pick, it was to show how trading equal place values always is to the benefit of the team getting the highest pick)

 

[chaosrevolver]

TRADE - Soviet Union+Detroit Falcons

To Soviet Union: 2nd Round Pick (#49), 4th Round Pick (#105)
To Detroit: 1st Round Pick (#14), 9th Round Pick (#238)

 

[EagleBelfour]

In my opinion, I think the difference in the poll of talent between 17th and 26th is less than between the 31st and 40th. There's one players I love very much in the 16th-20th range, but if he was taken. I would gladly prefer the 26th-31st over the 17th-40th.

 

[EagleBelfour]

To Soviet Union: 2nd Round Pick (#49), 4th Round Pick (#105)
To Detroit: 1st Round Pick (#14), 9th Round Pick (#238)

I agree

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

No they don't, and I'm not joking. If I give someone 9 spots, I want 15-20 spots later (of course this depends on how much later) and that's what people want from me when I want to move up. 9 for 9 makes absolutely no sense. The team getting the 17th pick took their trade partner to the cleaners.

And IIRC, I made mention of this when Spitfire did it last draft, too.

(and I know I don't have the 100th pick, it was to show how trading equal place values always is to the benefit of the team getting the highest pick)

And I say no value is lost, tactical advantages are all that changes hands.

It depends where we are in the draft. There are some points where trading down deserves major boosts elsewhere, and other times were a straight swap is a loss for the person trading up.

 

[seventieslord]

In my opinion, I think the difference in the poll of talent between 17th and 26th is less than between the 31st and 40th. There's one players I love very much in the 16th-20th range, but if he was taken. I would gladly prefer the 26th-31st over the 17th-40th.

I don't see that myself, but ok.

Even if that is the case, there is no accounting for how others before you will select. The only way to be sure of anything is to pick before them. Giving up 9 spots to get 9 later is just bad practise. It just means you put more people ahead of you before you pick your first player, while getting ahead of some others to get your second player who is not as good or valuable as the first.

 

[seventieslord]

And I say no value is lost, tactical advantages are all that changes hands.

It depends where we are in the draft. There are some points where trading down deserves major boosts elsewhere, and other times were a straight swap is a loss for the person trading up.

Not possible.

 

[EagleBelfour]

I don't see that myself, but ok.

Even if that is the case, there is no accounting for how others before you will select. The only way to be sure of anything is to pick before them. Giving up 9 spots to get 9 later is just bad practise. It just means you put more people ahead of you before you pick your first player, while getting ahead of some others to get your second player who is not as good or valuable as the first.

I do not agree. It would be saying that every players on the list are equally apart. To take example, it would like saying that Bobby orr at #1 is 2% better than Howe at #2, who's 2% better than the 3rd players selected etc ...

We can agree to disagree, but I've seen WAY worst trade in the past 4 drafts I've been in. Far from veto worthy.

EDIT: concentrate to select instead of blabbering! sarcasm: )

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I don't see that myself, but ok.

Even if that is the case, there is no accounting for how others before you will select. The only way to be sure of anything is to pick before them. Giving up 9 spots to get 9 later is just bad practise. It just means you put more people ahead of you before you pick your first player, while getting ahead of some others to get your second player who is not as good or valuable as the first.

If the risk potential of the first drop is less than the risk potential of the second drop, then, it is a logical move.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Not possible.

Why? If say there are 20 picks in a row that are roughly equal, and latter in the draft there are spots like that. And team a trades up to get the 1st of the 20, but gives up 2 of the 20 to get it, and then gets a player 10 spots latter that is clearly out of the tier. Then the team receiving the 2 players in the group of 20 clearly wins out.