Proposal: Trading down

[NotOpie]

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.

So Vagrant here's where I have slight disagreement. If you want one of the premier big guys in this draft, there are 2 - Ritchie and Virtanen. Just about all the experts then have Perlini and Tuch as the next two big guys....but still a step lower and each with a question mark attached. So if I'm either looking for a big guy who might help now (doubtful, but possible) then my only real choices after the Big 5 are Ritchie and Jake. Again, look at a team like Arizona, that needs size, needs grit as much as we do (at least in their forward corps). They just might say, okay at 6 and 7 we have our chance. If they're happy with either then they'll want to get the #7 cause they will only have to give up slightly less.

Is it worth a 2nd, who knows and then it's just a matter of what it's worth to us.

That's my logic.

 

[cptjeff]

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.

If there's anything we can depend on in this world, it's moronic decisions by Oilers management.

 

[Chan790]

If there's anything we can depend on in this world, it's moronic decisions by Oilers management.

Death, Taxes, Edmonton Oilers.

(Though if we take Nylander or Ehlers, we really can't say anything anymore.)

 

[Joe McGrath]

As long as the Canes don't trade the pick for a player I'll be fine. This guy, whoever it is, is at least a full season, probably two away from being in the league and who knows what the roster will look like in 2 years.

 

[Chan790]

As long as the Canes don't trade the pick for a player I'll be fine. This guy, whoever it is, is at least a full season, probably two away from being in the league and who knows what the roster will look like in 2 years.

It think taking those guys belies that there is still no blueprint...it'd be like Nashville taking a defenseman. It's kind of a head-shaker.

 

[Joe McGrath]

It think taking those guys belies that there is still no blueprint...it'd be like Nashville taking a defenseman. It's kind of a head-shaker.

There could be a blueprint, just not a blueprint that you like. The blueprint of taking the best hockey player.

 

[Chan790]

There could be a blueprint, just not a blueprint that you like. The blueprint of taking the best hockey player.

That's not a blueprint. Taking the best guy completely blind of organizational needs and deficiencies is what I made fun of Edmonton for and why they're perma-terrible.

I'd really be okay with any sort of a blueprint or organizational plan for how to build this team. It was obvious that JR never had one and ping-ponged from one immediate need to the next with no foresight or strategy. I'd just be frustrated to see Francis do the same thing because it'd mean we're going to stay the 5th-8th worst team in the NHL unless we get lucky.

 

[RodTheBawd]

As long as the Canes don't trade the pick for a player I'll be fine. This guy, whoever it is, is at least a full season, probably two away from being in the league and who knows what the roster will look like in 2 years.

Based on everything that's come out, it doesn't sound like they're ready to give up on this group yet, which to me indicates they're looking short term, so I wouldn't be shocked if they traded it. I still fear a Ward + 1st bundle.

 

[Joe McGrath]

That's not a blueprint. Taking the best guy completely blind of organizational needs and deficiencies is what I made fun of Edmonton for and why they're perma-terrible.

I'd really be okay with any sort of a blueprint or organizational plan for how to build this team. It was obvious that JR never had one and ping-ponged from one immediate need to the next with no foresight or strategy. I'd just be frustrated to see Francis do the same thing because it'd mean we're going to stay the 5th-8th worst team in the NHL unless we get lucky.

Other than Murray over Yak what should the Oilers have done in the draft?

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I'm the opposite when it comes to a high first round pick. You pick the guy you think is going to be the best player, period. If you truly think that two guys are neck and neck and 1 is a large physical player and the other is a waterbug, then fine, but other than that, you go for the guy you think is the best player long term. There are a multitude of other ways (2nd, 3rd, etc.. round picks, trades, UFAs, etc...) to fill organizational needs.

And I can't think of what I would have done significantly differently in the draft if I was Edmonton (other than probably Murray over Yak as Joe said, but they would have been ridiculed by some for doing that back then). Hall, RNH, Kefblom, and Nurse with their other 1st round picks seemed like the right picks to me. Edmonton's problem was trying to surround the young talent with some vets and not having a viable NHL goalie.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

RE: scouting. Rather than getting rid of the scouting staff, I think the Canes probably need to add to it. They've made some pretty good picks in the past few years: Skinner, Faulk, Alt, Lindholm, Andersen, Dumoulin, Biega, McGinn, Altshuller, etc...

I think they just don't have enough scouts to find talent in rounds 3-7 effectively.

 

[A Star is Burns]

It's like Francis said about size, all things being equal, go for size. Same thing with draft picks. Multiple players given the same grade in evaluation, sure, go for need. But in both cases, things aren't likely that often truly considered equal among a couple of players. If the Canes think they can get another high end skill player at their position akin to the Skinner pick, then go for it. As mentioned, there are a multitude of other ways to acquire your needs later. We just have to hope that if our first rounder doesn't fit what we need as the BPA that Francis actually does a better job of addressing them later than JR typically did. But I don't think anyone should act like we have some overabundance of skill guys and that going high skill is a bad thing.

 

[What the Faulk]

That's not a blueprint. Taking the best guy completely blind of organizational needs and deficiencies is what I made fun of Edmonton for and why they're perma-terrible.

And drafting for need when needs constantly change from year to year is how you get average in every area like the Hurricanes and why they're perma-mediocre.

IF they were to entertain trading the pick, it'd have to be for a younger player on an affordable deal. Anything else doesn't make any sense.

 

[Unsustainable]

Wonder if we could trade and move back to like 10th and pick up a 2nd.

Maybe grab Tuch and then have a couple 2nd rounders.

 

[NotOpie]

Wonder if we could trade and move back to like 10th and pick up a 2nd.

Maybe grab Tuch and then have a couple 2nd rounders.

Quoted for "truthiness".

But I digress....you always, always go for best player available IN CONTEXT. Many would have said that Jeff Skinner was not the best player available when we drafted him. But he was the best player available in the context of what the team needed both short term and long term. We needed true sniper, a real live scoring threat not named Eric Staal.

Right now we know we need 3 things....more size, we can always use more skill, and we need high end defense. Those, IMO (cause I ain't really that humble), are our true needs over the next 3 years. We don't have any real power forward prospects in Charlotte, our defenders are 3 years away, and the guys we drafted for skill remain undeveloped (through no fault of their own, I might add).

So this draft is going to come down to weighing the "best skilled guy with size" vs. an incredibly skilled guy. Let's face it, I think the way this draft shapes up for us is that we get to #7 and we're looking at 3 of these 4 guys still being on the board: Ritchie, Virtanen, Ehlers, and Nylander. So what do the Canes do? If you look at the most skilled player and what they can do to help the organization long term, then it's one of the latter two. If you think that we can bandaid size for a few years, but want to have some serious big guys in the years to come, then its the former two. Personally, I feel it comes down to Virtanen or Nylander. I just don't think Ehler's game is going to translate for a while. I also think that Ritchie's skating issues are either going to take a long time to work out or never get up to snuff in which case he's a 3rd liner at his high end.

Nylander has skill to burn, right now. Virtanen is a good skater, has a great shot, and is a contact first type of player. The Canes can't go wrong with either of those two guys but for different reasons.

Personally, getting back to the quote that I referenced above, I'd rather trade the pick and end up with 3 picks in the 1st two rounds if possible.

 

[nobuddy]

I'm really down with the trade down, especially if we could nab 2 2nds out of it. We desperately could use some prospect depth while still retaining some quality with a top 15 pick.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Unless you absolutely don't have any preference in the guys in the range you are picking, I'm not one for trading down. These are the guys the Canes are likely choosing from:

5. WILLIE NYLANDER C 5'11 169 R 5/1/95 Rogle SweAI
6. LEON DRAISAITL C 6'1 199 L 10/27/95 Prince Albert WHL
7. JAKE VIRTANEN LW 6'1 213 R 8/17/96 Calgary WHL
8. ROBBY FABBRI F 5'10 166 L 1/22/96 Guelph OHL
9. BRENDAN PERLINI LW 6'2 205 L 4/27/96 Niagara OHL
10. NICK RITCHIE F 6'2 218 L 12/5/95 Peterborough OHL
11. NIKOLAJ EHLERS F 5'11 162 L 2/13/96 Halifax QMJHL
12. HAYDN FLEURY D 6'3 207 L 7/8/96 Red Deer WHL
13. KASPERI KAPANEN RW 5'11 172 R 7/23/96 Kuopio FinE
14. ALEX TUCH RW 6'3 213 R 5/10/96 USA Under-18 NTDP

I don't know enough about them to comment on who they should take, but I'd be surprised if the Canes brass didn't have 1 or 2 players within this group that they absolutely prefer more than the others. We saw that in 2010 with Skinner..and last year with Lindholm. If that's the case, then it wouldn't make sense to move down just for an extra 2nd round pick....you stay where you are pick the guy you like best.

 

[Unsustainable]

If Nylander is there at 7, we take him, if not, it's either Fleury, Ritchie or Ehlers

Not sold on Ehlers, if Ritchie has a big enough ? on skating, then I think you look at trading down for Tuch.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

If Nylander is there at 7, we take him, if not, it's either Fleury, Ritchie or Ehlers

Not sold on Ehlers, if Ritchie has a big enough ? on skating, then I think you look at trading down for Tuch.

That's assuming the Canes value Tuch as you do. They may really like a guy like Fabbri or Kapanen for all we know (which would send this board into meltdown mode on draft day).

Again, I don't know enough about these guys....but it would seem to me that unless you absolutely get the guy you want on offense (whoever that is), I'd lean toward Fleury. Canes can't keep ignoring defense in the first round (and trading away any somewhat promising 2nd rounders like Dumolin/Alt) and be able to ice a credible defense.

Draft Fleury then sign someone like Stralman in the off season. The next year sign Marc Staal.

Down the road: Staal, Stralman, Faulk, Sekera, Murphy, Fleury (with one of Harrison, Biega, Lowe, Bellemore etc.. as the #7). If any of those guys (or Slavin, Pesce, Carrick, etc..) work out to be more than that, they can slide in as some of the top 6 get lost to UFA (or age).

I don't see the Canes being a credible contender until they address the defense. This past year was a step in the right direction, but there is still a long ways to go IMO.

 

[What the Faulk]

Taking Fleury only makes sense in a trade down scenario, or unless you KNOW someone will take him. Taking him at 7 seems a reach, a mistake, and not the best player available.

And here we go with the size talk again. To paraphrase estallo, if Ehlers (or whoever) is outplaying Ritchie (or whoever) while their sizes are what they are, what will the gap be when Ehlers does put on some weight? He's not going to be 167 forever. You take Ritchie because you think he's the better player, not just the bigger player.

My current big board:

Nikolaj Ehlers
William Nylander
Nick Ritchie
Jake Virtanen
Brandon Perlini
Robby Fabbri
Haydn Fleury
Kaspari Kapanen

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Taking Fleury only makes sense in a trade down scenario, or unless you KNOW someone will take him. Taking him at 7 seems a reach, a mistake, and not the best player available.

Yeah, it's a bit of a reach. My comment was more along the lines that if the guys they really like are gone, then it might not be a bad pick (as you said, if they trade down). As I stated earlier, I know very little about these guys but #7 doesn't seem like it's too much of a reach based on notable rankings

McKenzie: #10
Button: #7
ISS: #12

I HIGHLY doubt the Canes take him anyhow, but if they do trade down, then I'd be ok with it.