Proposal: Trading down

[JClaus33]

Ok, I'll just start by saying I have no basis for this and it just kinda popped into my head. I'd rather post it here to get Canes fans opinions because as cynical as we are, I'd like to think we're pretty even-keeled and not terribly biased about our players, well unless we hate them.
Anyways, I don't know if this is good value or if either team wants to do this but,

To Carolina:
10th OA
23rd OA

To Anaheim:
7th OA

Is that good value? Would we accept this? I think it's generally accepted that it's the top 4, then dal colle, then 6-10. The difference would be we'd get the last of Ritchie, Virtanen, Ehlers, Nylander or Fleury, but it's still a good player regardless. Then we pick up a late first to grab another prospect. Personally I like it for the canes but I don't know if Anaheim does it, or even how you guys feel about it.

Click to read more...

 

[Joe McGrath]

Ok, I'll just start by saying I have no basis for this and it just kinda popped into my head. I'd rather post it here to get Canes fans opinions because as cynical as we are, I'd like to think we're pretty even-keeled and not terribly biased about our players, well unless we hate them.
Anyways, I don't know if this is good value or if either team wants to do this but,

To Carolina:
10th OA
23rd OA

To Anaheim:
7th OA

Is that good value? Would we accept this? I think it's generally accepted that it's the top 4, then dal colle, then 6-10. The difference would be we'd get the last of Ritchie, Virtanen, Ehlers, Nylander or Fleury, but it's still a good player regardless. Then we pick up a late first to grab another prospect. Personally I like it for the canes but I don't know if Anaheim does it, or even how you guys feel about it.

Anaheim doesn't do it . The Canes do in an instant unless they REALLY like one guy at 7.

 

[What the Faulk]

Anaheim doesn't do it . The Canes do in an instant unless they REALLY like one guy at 7.

Pretty much. The next month should give us a clearer picture of who is and isn't likely to be taken around where they pick. If someone like Dal Colle slips, they probably waste little time and take him in an instant. If no one does, and no one emerges, they could/should probably trade down a few picks for an early to mid second.

 

[Joe McGrath]

I could see Anaheim doing the deal if the Canes sent them a another pick, like their 2nd rounder. Down 3 spots and then up 14.

 

[nobuddy]

Done.

 

[Novacane]

I see the only way Anaheim does it if one of the top 5 drops to #7. And then, I'm not sure I would want to trade the pick. I don't know enough about the players to know the difference so I can't say for certain.

 

[Chan790]

I could see Anaheim doing the deal if the Canes sent them a another pick, like their 2nd rounder. Down 3 spots and then up 14.

I don't do it if it's #7 and #37 for #10 and #23.

Like I said in the other thread, I get the impression that this draft is deeper and flatter than initially thought. I don't see that much of a talent difference between #7 and #10 or #23 and #37. The major appeal to me is having three picks in the top-40; if we're not getting that...I'd sit at #7 and have our pick of the second tier.

I'd do it with #67 going the other way, but not #37.

 

[get tanked]

Ok, I'll just start by saying I have no basis for this and it just kinda popped into my head. I'd rather post it here to get Canes fans opinions because as cynical as we are, I'd like to think we're pretty even-keeled and not terribly biased about our players, well unless we hate them.
Anyways, I don't know if this is good value or if either team wants to do this but,

To Carolina:
10th OA
23rd OA

To Anaheim:
7th OA

Is that good value? Would we accept this? I think it's generally accepted that it's the top 4, then dal colle, then 6-10. The difference would be we'd get the last of Ritchie, Virtanen, Ehlers, Nylander or Fleury, but it's still a good player regardless. Then we pick up a late first to grab another prospect. Personally I like it for the canes but I don't know if Anaheim does it, or even how you guys feel about it.

I think you've hit on the reasons why Anaheim is probably very happy with their current position in the draft and unlikely to be willing to give up the #23 to move up.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

I see the only way Anaheim does it if one of the top 5 drops to #7. And then, I'm not sure I would want to trade the pick. I don't know enough about the players to know the difference so I can't say for certain.

Pretty much this

 

[FlyingSquirrels]

JR NEVER traded down. I honestly don't think he understood the concept. Time will tell if RF gets it.

This farm system is dearth of any talent whatsoever, I would make it a top priority to replenish it. If the situation presented itself, I think trading down is a great way to start the process.

 

[get tanked]

Last year we apparently tried to trade down from #5 to #8 while swapping McBain for Sekera. Buffalo wasn't willing to do this but was willing to make the swap for our #35 which suggests that it's not always easy to trade down, especially when your pick is at the top of a tier of players of similar value.

 

[bleedgreen]

Never liked the idea of trading down. I would rather have one A instead of two B's. I think it works when you've got multiple first rounders, trade down from the 20's for two decent picks, that's fine.

For the record jr did trade down, isn't that how we got Defauw? If not him it was around that time.

 

[What the Faulk]

Never liked the idea of trading down. I would rather have one A instead of two B's. I think it works when you've got multiple first rounders, trade down from the 20's for two decent picks, that's fine.

For the record jr did trade down, isn't that how we got Defauw? If not him it was around that time.

Yep. 23rd overall (Scott Hannan) for a second, 28th overall (Brad DeFauw) and '98 third (Erik Cole).

They didn't have their own 1st that year because of the last part of the Glen Wesley deal (Sergei Samsonov), but got Detroit's 1st, Primeau and Coffey for Shanahan. They then flipped Coffey to Philadelphia for their 1st (and a few other bit parts that became nothing), which got dealt to San Jose in the above deal. They kept Detroit's and took Nikos Tselios.

So I guess Joni Pitkanen is pretty much the last part of that sequence.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I don't think you see teams trading down because they like all the guys about the same. I think you see teams moving down because either (a) they guy they like is gone by the time the pick or (b) they aren't really enamored by anyone in and around their pick so why not move back and pick up extra. Maybe sometimes it's because they are very confident they guy they like the best will be available later, but I suspect that doesn't happen much..because if you like a guy, chances are someone else does also.

I'd be very surprised if by draft time, the Canes don't have a guy ID'd that they really like above the others and stick with it. They had Skinner picked out and stuck with it even when Fowler dropped. Lindholm was their guy that they were going to take unless they could move up.

 

[NotOpie]

I think this is the perfect draft to trade down in. There is a lot of "talent with questions" in the 2nd half of the 1st round. But I don't think Anaheim trades two 1sts to move up 3 spots. But perhaps, somebody like Arizona trades their 1st and 2nd to move up 5 spots. I would absolutely do this in a heartbeat. Even at 12 you've got a whole raft of guys who could help us in a few years....we'd likely get one of Tuch, Perlini, McCann, Larkin, Fluery, or Fabbri. Then you've got 2 2nds and likely can get one of Pollock, Lemieux, Quenneville, Cornel, or Magyar. Then you could either go goalie (Demko or Nedeljkovic or Husso) or you get one of those big D-men that will be available then (Glover, Jacobs, or Lernout).

Something like this gets you BPA, size, and a healthy dose of need 2-4 years down the road. Plus there's some seriously overlooked Euro talent in this draft beyond the Nylanders, et al.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

I think this is the perfect draft to trade down in. There is a lot of "talent with questions" in the 2nd half of the 1st round. But I don't think Anaheim trades two 1sts to move up 3 spots. But perhaps, somebody like Arizona trades their 1st and 2nd to move up 5 spots. I would absolutely do this in a heartbeat. Even at 12 you've got a whole raft of guys who could help us in a few years....we'd likely get one of Tuch, Perlini, McCann, Larkin, Fluery, or Fabbri. Then you've got 2 2nds and likely can get one of Pollock, Lemieux, Quenneville, Cornel, or Magyar. Then you could either go goalie (Demko or Nedeljkovic or Husso) or you get one of those big D-men that will be available then (Glover, Jacobs, or Lernout).

Something like this gets you BPA, size, and a healthy dose of need 2-4 years down the road. Plus there's some seriously overlooked Euro talent in this draft beyond the Nylanders, et al.

Gosh that's weird to read...

 

[Vagrant]

The problem with trading down in a draft like this is that there exists no consensus after the first five picks in my opinion and it has been that way for a long time. When you have a situation like that and you know you're picking in the 6th-10th range you have a lot of time to fall in love with guys who are slated to be available in that range. If you're at 8th and you have a list of 3 guys you've selected as being players you'd be happy with, there's not a lot of incentive to shop. Then a team at 10th has their own list of guys they'd be happy with and 2 of them are still on the board, what's the incentive to get aggressive and move?

You might see a case where a team moves up 2 or 3 picks to secure a player on their list if they get nervous, but the price of moving isn't going to be another 2nd round pick. I personally like the second tier, but we're sitting right at the start of it. 6th is a strong pick to hold in the event that we see a dropping player out of the Top 5. In that event, things might start to get really interesting for the Canucks. But the drama pretty much ends at that pick. I'm sure that Vancouver has some contingencies in place for players that fall ranked on priority of who they would want and priority based on who teams behind them want. Casual conversations like "if Bennett is somehow still there, don't pick without talking to us", and things of that nature. But unless two teams *really* screw up in the Top 5, the 7th pick isn't incredibly attractive as a swing spot. We're basically in line to get the 2nd best of the rest. It's not a bad place to pick, but it's not a pick that a lot of teams are going to covet.

 

[DaveG]

Is there even a top 5 consensus? I mean the way I've heard speculation around the league and with the way drafts have played out the past few years. I mean did ANYONE see Couturier falling to #8 or Murphy to #12 in 2011? Fowler to #12? Forsberg to #11? Last year was one of the few years with a good bit of normalcy to it, and even there the guy who was regarded as the #2 prospect, and regarded by many as the #1, fell all the way to #4.

Would not surprise me in the least to see MDC or someone like that still out there when we pick.

 

[TheOllieC]

I think Nylander should be included in that tier with the first 5. I love Dal Colle and would be ecstatic if he's there when we pick but hey maybe we're just gonna end up trading it for Marc Staal.

 

[DaveG]

it would be a tier of 6 then in that case (Ekblad, the two Sams, Draisaspellchek, and Dal Colle), and that's exactly what I'm talking about. How shocking would it be to see say the Flames or Isles coveting Nylander while the Canucks are all-in over Ehlers for instance? I'm not going to get my hopes up, but just saying we could end up with a guy we might have ranked #4 on our board simply by virtue of everyone else having someone else ranked higher. The draft's one of those funny things in that regard.

 

[What the Faulk]

Are Draisaitl and Dan Colle close enough to Ekblad and the Sams where you'd group them in the same tier? I always thought it was those 3, medium gap, first two, smaller gap, à bunch of players.

 

[Vagrant]

I believe, and have since around midterm, that there is a distinct Top 5 group here. Sam Reinhart, Aaron Ekblad, Sam Bennett, Leon Draisaitl, and Michael Dal Colle. What a lot of scouts think about Nylander depends upon what time in the season they saw him. He was dynamite in the U18's but this year was largely nondescript for him. For a player who was projected as a potential top pick prior to the season he certainly had an underwhelming season. We have a weak European crop this year in terms of players that actually played in Europe last season. There were a few guys that arrived late on the radar in Ehlers, Virtanen, and Fabbri but I don't think any of those guys have pushed into that group. Kapanen, Ritchie, Perlini, Fleury, and McCann have been hanging around all season in the 6th-12th area interchangeable depending upon preference.

I would be incredibly surprised if the Top 5 didn't shake out with the first five names I listed and if one of them manages to slip out then Vancouver is there to happily take the remainder. I could see Ehlers or Fabbri with his late season exposure or even Ritchie for the considerable upside but personally I wouldn't venture away from the consensus in the Top 5.

 

[Vagrant]

Are Draisaitl and Dan Colle close enough to Ekblad and the Sams where you'd group them in the same tier? I always thought it was those 3, medium gap, first two, smaller gap, à bunch of players.

The thing about the Sam's is that they're not incredibly high upside players from what we've been hearing for a while. Jonathan Toews at absolute peak upside and more likely league average 1C in both cases. Low ceilings and low floors on those two. Perhaps the same can be said of Ekblad even who never saw his incredible talent translate into any overly impressive dominant production. A lot of scouts are curious about Ekblad's long term upside with his skating being just decent and his physical frame already developed. The kid had an enviable amount of facial hair at 16. There's some concern that he may have peaked early and the upside could be limited.

The thing about Draisaitl and in my opinion to a lesser extent Dal Colle is that they represent the first two home run type picks. Draisaitl is getting a lot of comparisons to Kopitar and could be a game breaker and that's not really what you're hearing about the others. In fact, I think Draisaitl's upside might see him give teams a tough decision when it comes to deciding between he and Sam Bennett whose stock has somewhat cooled. Dal Colle is another guy with elite puck skills and a power game but not really in the power forward tier. Reminds me a lot of what we heard about Eric Staal coming out.

No question that the three best hockey players today are the Sam's and Ekblad but the other two get consideration for upside. Especially Draisaitl.

 

[DaveG]

Right. Such as the rumors out there about Edmonton being in love with Draisaitl based on that upside. You'd think they'd go with the safe, steady Bennett especially as his kind of game is what that team needs the most, but if both players reach their peak Draisaitl is going to be the far more explosive talent.

 

[bleedgreen]

Draisaitl seems to be the only one with real first line/higher end potential. Wouldn't shock me for him to go top 2. Not the biggest fan of nylander or Ehlers for us. Dal colle, Ritchie, fleury are my hopes. For being a power player, dal colle isn't really a physical guy so it wouldn't surprise me if he dropped a bit.