ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
One GM expressed their surprise at me not taking Lach and Blake back-to-back at one point.
Pretty sure that was me wasn't it?
One GM expressed their surprise at me not taking Lach and Blake back-to-back at one point.
One GM expressed their surprise at me not taking Lach and Blake back-to-back at one point.
This was probably before our trade, when you took Bathgate and traded the next pick to me, which I used to get Bernard Geoffrion, and which for my money was the actual key trade of the draft (as opposed to the Trottier trade).Without Geoffrion, I would have been left with guys like Jarome Iginla or Brett Hull, which just isn't the same to replicate the Trottier-Bossy combo.Hull would look good with Trottier, but taking him in this range is an ackward move that comes with "negative press" due to it being a reach.
In any case, if you had taken Lach and Blake back-to-back with those two picks, it would have been a pretty bad decision because it's quite early for both of them, and as opposed to the scenario I proposed, you wouldn't get a borderline #1 like Leetch.
I think the key is really just taking the value, and then putting the puzzle together. My team from last year started with three wingers out of my first four picks...because they were simply the best players available to me (Jagr, Denneny, and Firsov).
I took BlackJack Stewart at 86 and that was a mistake by me. I thought Kelly-Stewart was going to be this phenomenal pair, and it was - but as you said in our series - it wasn't even better than Harvey-Weber.
I should have taken St.Louis, Firsov, Fedorov etc. - someone like that, the BPA - and worried about surrounding Kelly on the defense later on down the road.