I didn't communicate my point well. We (not specifically you but multiple posters) started off with the assertion that "no one trades top 4 defensemen, period." That is what I took issue with. That is also from the same general pool of people that told me there is no way to trade for a significant player of any type in the fall.... one week before the Vanek trade happened. My point in bringing up the other trades that have happened in the past 3 years... for defensemen... of significance... is that while they don't fall from the trees, it isn't as rare as being portrayed by some either. Piggy backing off of that, my main point stands, when you have such a colossal hole in your rebuild as we have on defense Garth needs to go the overpayment route to bring in someone. The hole was identifiable 3 years ago (or longer) and enough time has gone by to have addressed the need but it wasn't. That is completely on Garth.
I never disagreed that it does happen.... not often, but it does happen. My argument was that when it has happened, we didn't have sufficient pieces to send the other way without hurting the team in another area. Or, it was a player that had a NMC/NTC that wasn't going to waive to come here.
I know how awful the team was back then, so no need to get grumpy Jester. It is the holiday season man, you need to get some wine in you and lighten up.
Not trying to be grumpy.... I could use some boozing though. Duly noted
The one avenue Garth did have open, despite only having a couple of suspect projects like Okposo and Bailey to trade, was picks, and one other important trade chip - cap space.
At what point in time are we talking here? In 08-10, those guys were pretty much our only young roster players, they were the rebuild. Of recent, we weren't going to get much of anything, especially considering neither was signed long term a couple years ago. As far as trading draft picks, what recent high picks would you do without? And for what defenseman that got traded?
We could have walked away with a guy like Campbell for almost nothing. We could still pick him up now for next to nothing from Florida and he would be somewhat of a replacement for Vis considering what each brings.
Campbell would help. He also has a NTC, so there's that obstical.
Or are you telling me there weren't some evil contracts for decent players that clubs over the past 3-4 years haven't been publicly willing to move for little?
On defense? I can only think of Campbell and Jay-bo.... who both have NTC's
Witt was Neil, not Garth, and he was pretty lame while he was here. Sutton may also have been Neil... I don't remember 100% on that one.
He was better than a few names you shot out in another post.
The big moves that I recall during the rebuild were Vis, the Wiz, and Streit. All three were long shots.
No..... just no. Maybe you could make the point for Streit, but Vis was a Norris contender the year prior, and Wis was a second pairing guy on a pretty strong Anaheim team.
I used to like James but after every Islander game he played I had to admit he was highly limited. Streit was a two edged sword... PP specialist, had good periods, but also had awful periods and was poor defensively. Vis has been the one acquisition that really paid off well, but he came to us with a worrying concussion history, and the threat of playing overseas which almost materialized.
All 3 came here as top 4 defenseman (Streit is arguable). All 3 played here despite rumors. All 3 were brought in to bolster the defense. This is the crux of your argument, isn't it?
Mark Parrish? last 5 years? I don't know where you were going with that one.
You're right, that was under Milbury
As stated before, if it is obviously impossible to sign defensemen during FA, and no one wants to trade you a defenseman, which is not true based on the cap hampered clubs looking to deal over the past 5 years - then yes, move a forward prospect to fill in the hole on defense because defense is more important.
If so many teams are willing to trade defensemen.... then why are so many teams looking for them? And why is it so rare for a top 4 defenseman to get traded? I feel like we're going in circles now. You can use hindsight and say we should have traded Okposo or Bailey.... but at the time, they were our only glimmer of hope and our only tradeable assets. We should have traded them, for a top 4 defenseman when we were early in a rebuild..... a player that more than likely wouldn't be here right now anyway?
then why didn't we draft more and better defensemen earlier on? You want to have your cake and eat it too on this question. You can't.
Nonsense. I clearly showed you how many defenseman we drafted over the years. You either have a notion that this wasn't the case.... OR, you're upset that we didn't draft more defensemen in the first round. Since the rebuild we drafted Bailey in 08, we needed EVERYTHING back then, and he was second only to Stamkos in scoring.
Using 20-20 hindsight, you can claim that we should have drafted Karlsson, but you know damn well it would have been heavily complained about anyway. But it's not going to change the fact that they viewed Bailey as the best player available, they had a need for a scoring forward... so they took him.
In 09 they took Tavares. Would you like to complain about that? lol
They then took Cdh.... then they used the next two picks on a position that was even more of an organizational need than defense ever was over the past 10 years (goal)
In 2010 they took Nino. This is the only year you can honestly complain that they didn't go D, and other than Brock Nelson, was the worst draft they had during the rebuild. Janks was fired shortly after this draft.
At this point, we are no longer "early in the rebuild", but I'll play along...
In 2011 we took Ryan Strome. Would you have rather taken Hamilton, Brodin, Murphy or Siemens? It was clear that for whatever reason, they did not like Hamilton.... but they also took Mayfield early in the 2nd, as well as Pedan, Russo and Kichton. All solid prospects in their own right.
In 2012 they took Reinhart
So, basically your draft argument has become "I didn't like the 2010 draft".
If one defensive prospect is worth three equivalent forward prospects then why not just take a defensive prospect vacuum to the entire draft every year just like we did two drafts ago? After 5 years of drafting like that we should be able to field the best blueline in the NHL, and then trade for two first lines, and a checking unit that Zeus would have trouble cracking. And before you go getting grumpy after reading that take a second to chew on it. Maybe that really isn't such a bad idea if you start off willing to throw 5 to 10 years of competitive hockey out the window like Wang did.
This would hold water if we were talking about the Islanders of old that would take prospects from the draft and throw them right into the NHL. We just started playing guys we drafted in 2010. Hamonic, de Haan and Donovan are the only legit NHL caliber defenseman that the Islanders have so far deemed ready for the NHL.
Next year we will see the real fruits of that labor...
Reinhart
Pulock
Pelech
Pokka
Should all be challenging for a spot at some point
You forgot to add "AINEC!!1!" lol. I must have missed where you did because I am not seeing it.
See above
All I see is you trying to defend Garth putting us in a situation where we have a wave of forwards coming into their own while our defense is 4 to 5 years behind them in doing the same. We did have options as I pointed out. maybe you missed one of my posts to you about that.
Wait another year and the defense will have not only caught up to, but will have surpassed the young offense. We were drafting top 5 every year, and you do not draft defense top 5, historically. It's a recipe for disaster. We still managed to add strong defense prospects through the draft.... just not high enough for your liking. While the young forwards were coming into their own, Snow was adding veteran defenseman.... but you continue to overlook that. Now he's adding veteran forwards, and the young defensemen will be taking over.
I didn't miss any of your posts.... just noting how based on emotion your views on the subject are, and trying to keep a straight head while answering the same questions over and over. Try some patience, this was never going to be a typical 3 year rebuild. This team was gutted in 08, we didn't have the assets to do what you wanted to do.
Argue about Karlson, but not about Myers. We needed high end defensemen. My guess is that Garth was playing the odds that he could bring Bailey into the NHL earlier than a defenseman picked from the middle tier of the draft. So no, it isn't a tired argument. And if you bother talking with some of the other prospect watchers (I had more time for it back then, which is why I knew about Martin & Hickey before many) you may be surprised to find out some of them wanted someone else besides Bailey.
For the past 10 years, scoring top line centers have been safer to draft high than any defenseman. Back then we had Okposo.... that's it. That's why they traded down to begin with, to add all those picks. As for Myers, he was a reach where he was taken too. I also didn't want Bailey, I wanted Hodgson.
If he had value? Yes. It is arguable Kyle, outside of this very year, had his most value his rookie season and next. I am a blueline first, center second, forwards third builder in philosophy. There are a few teams that did well focusing on forwards first, but I think history is on my side in suggesting building from the net or blueline out is the best way, most proven way, to build a winner.
You would have traded one of our only two assets for who? It's a bad idea on so many levels.
Typically, you do want to build from the net out. Here's the thing you're missing though.... those teams usually start out with something. Other than Okposo, we didn't have squat... nothing... nada. Everything we had, left with Ryan Smyth that summer.
There was no vets to trade for picks, no young prospects to start with.... nothing. We didn't even have our 1st or 2nd round pick that year!
This was a 7+ year rebuild from the onset. We drafted high, so the smart thing to do, historically was take forwards early in the draft. Forwards taken high, have a higher probability of reaching potential than defensemen. Then, use the 2nd round and later to fill other holes. We used a lot of high second round picks on goaltenders and defensemen.
If you draft defensemen high, even if they do pan out.... by the time they are NHL ready, you will no longer be drafting high.... and the forwards you will be getting at the draft will mostly be boom/bust or middle 6 types. So, basically you're advocating for drafting defensemen at their most volatile draft position.... and hoping they do well enough so you can eventually draft forwards at their most volatile draft position.
Somehow we wound up with a forward pool ready to come into their own now, and a defensive pool out another 3 to 4 years. That is a planning mistake, and that is squarely the GMs responsibility. I do defend Garth on some other issues, so please don't lump me in with the "Everything is his fault" crowd. But where we are in roster structure is all him at this point.
No.... we got a forward pool that is starting to come into it's own this year, and a defense pool that will be here as early as next October. Reinhart, Pulock, Pelech, Pokka, Mayfield, Pedan. Two of those guys will be regulars in the lineup by December next season....
