yzerman on drafting , this draft in particular , and seider
- Thread starter deca guard
- Start date
rhef3
Registered User
Dotter
THE ATHLETIC IS GARBAGE
Interesting. This should put to rest all the doubters. Now all they can do is say he's a bold face liar.
Lazlo Hollyfeld
The jersey ad still sucks
- Mar 4, 2004
- 28,616
- 27,071
After what happened with Rasmussen, it's nice to know that they have so many options on where Seider can play. Though I don't see the advantage to having him go back to Mannheim.
TBF if Seider was Ranked 6th on their board, why would they explore trades to move down in hopes of drafting him later on? With Edmonton going D at 8 their only trade partner would have been Buffalo, assuming they would have gone with Seider instead of Broberg. So I’m not calling complete BS but I definitely don’t believe he was 6 on their board. Not upset with the pick but given all the conversation around it this sounds like a vote of confidence for a young kid who could potentially be hearing a lot of criticism.
Lil Sebastian Cossa
Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
- Jul 6, 2012
- 11,436
- 7,446
Because just because he is 6th on your board doesn't mean that he's 6th on everyone else's board. If you could safely trade back to 8 (which it ended up they couldn't) but if you could, you get the same guy and a piece. Like what they did when they took Mantha. Columbus and San Jose weren't taking Mantha, so they dealt back two picks and got Bertuzzi as a kicker.
Basically, he wasn't certain that Holland was taking Seider. He had worries but not certainty. And if you read the thing, he's got a plan B if he had traded back and Seider was gone. Yzerman just covered his bases on all sides.
I mean, you are sitting there and you HAVE the guy. If you're not 100% certain that the people on either side of your pick want him, why wouldn't you call around?
waltdetroit
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2010
- 2,649
- 526
I would venture a guess that SY & staff knew who was scouting Seider at the very least
You’re reiterating my point. Given the unique circumstance that your former GM is now with the organization two pucks below you, you know that trading past 8 is impossible if you’re going to draft Seider. So at that point you’re trading with Buffalo ( who probably says they’re happy with Cozens or Zegras) or Edmonton who you gauge to see how much they value Seider over Broberg. That’s it. So my point remains, you know you can’t go past 8 and 7 doesn’t care so your ability to trade is moot at that point.
Lil Sebastian Cossa
Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
- Jul 6, 2012
- 11,436
- 7,446
I'm not reiterating your point at all.
You still ask. If the offer to trade back was like 10 + Virtanen or 10+40+something between 70-90 for 6, then you take Cam York or Soderstrom instead of Seider if you want a D or you take Krebs/Caufield/etc.
Basically, if you can get #8 on your list instead of #6 PLUS multiple assets, you do that. And also, you don't know that Holland is going to take Seider if you do. You assume he probably will, but it isn't for certain. That's why he didn't trade back. He didn't get an offer that to him was worth the difference between Seider and whatever other guy.
Yzerman said that he wanted Seider. But if they had decided to trade back (if they felt there was value), they had a plan B that didn't involve taking Seider.
In simpler terms
6OA = 100% chance at Mo Seider
10OA or some other drop back behind Edmonton = probably 10% chance at drafting him. You can strongly think that he'll get taken but it wasn't a certainty that Holland takes him. Just an incredibly strong possibility.
Dealing in the realm of uncertainty, you assume that all other scouting departments rank players relatively similar (obviously not a certainty because busts occur frequently). SY’s hope was to acquire assets while simultaneously drafting Seider. Sure, plan C was to be overwhelmed but let’s be realistic, that wasn’t a possibility. So again, their exploration of trades to gain assets + draft Seider does not follow the narrative of Seider being 6th on their board unless they’re trading with Buffalo or Edmonton. At this point his comment about him not being around at 35 is obvious, no need to make mention of it.
Again, I’m not arguing the pick. I’m merely poking holes in the premise that his comment removes the capability of questioning the pick without questioning his character (ie lying about their board).
Lil Sebastian Cossa
Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
- Jul 6, 2012
- 11,436
- 7,446
But it doesn't. That's the point. He wanted Seider and had him at 6. He also wanted to see if there was any opportunity to drop back at all and still get him. The fact that he was 95% likely to be gone at ten doesn't make it stupid for him to ask about moving back to 10 or lying or whatever.
So it was either
A) just take Seider at 6 (which he did)
B) move back to 7-10 and still get Seider (which had a tiny chance of happening)
C) move back to 7-10 or later and not get Seider (which is what would have happened if he moved back)
You can question the pick because you don't think Seider was worth being 6th on their board... but just because a guy is 6th on your board doesn't mean you're honor-bound to pick him at 6. Yzerman wanted Seider. But if he could have gotten a guy like Jake Virtanen to take Podkolzin, Zegras, Krebs, Broberg, York, or Soderstrom instead of Seider, he probably would have gone with guys anywhere from 8-15 on his list.
Yzerman was hoping that he could move back and get something else AND Seider. He asked the dumb question. I mean, what if Holland was locked in on Broberg and wanted Broberg really bad and Stevie never asked because he figured Seider goes at 8? It's called doing due diligence.
Dotter
THE ATHLETIC IS GARBAGE
Thankfully Stevie Y grabbed him at #6 then. Too many teams wanted this kid. He clearly was hot commodity. Could be steal of the draft.
HisNoodliness
The Karate Kid and ASP Kai
Honestly I don't think Edmonton was the team in on Seider. A lot of Wings fans seem to think that because of the Holland connection and they also reached for D. There were numerous reports before the draft that Edmonton was going to take Broberg and I am pretty confident that's who they were taking regardless of Seider's availability.
And look at Yzerman's comments from the OP: "I actually looked at the options of trading back and trying to get an extra pick and keeping my fingers crossed that he would be there, or we had a plan B in the event that he wasn’t. Trading back didn't prove to be an option, so we were comfortable selecting him at that spot. I know he was surprised. But we felt he was going to go if not to us, potentially Buffalo who was picking right after us, and by probably the 12th or 13th pick he would be gone."
It seems to me that Buffalo was the team that would have taken Seider in the top 10. After that, Yzerman seems to think that it would have been Arizona, Minnesota or Florida to take him. So trading back to 10 with Vancouver would have risked Buffalo taking him, but he'd potentially still be there.
I suspect Yzerman didn't make the trade because Vancouver valued Zegras, Cozens and Podkolzin similarly and wasn't willing to give us much for getting their choice at 6. From some of his comments in the past I suspect Yzerman isn't willing to accept a trade that he doesn't see as fair even if it gives him some small benefit. He sets a minimum return and walks away if necessary. I think that's what happened here.
waltdetroit
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2010
- 2,649
- 526
Holland said in an interview that the 14th pick (AZ) plus a 2nd was the best offer he got, so I think AZ wanted Seider or the best d man they could get
Gniwder
Registered User
Sounds like they wanted Soderstrom. PHI took them up on it:
Coyotes 2019 NHL Draft tracker: Selections and trades on day two
I'd rather go for the reach than get #14 plus a 2nd. Though I suppose you'd still have the choice between Caulfield and York at that spot.
Run the Jewels
Make Detroit Great Again
It's nice to hear him say he talked to LA and Colorado about moving up. He also said they looked into moving back one or two picks. That sounds pretty solid to me and ultimately couldn't find a taker.
I'm cautiously optimistic, We drafted a d-man which had been an organizational need for going on a decade. It wasn't a sexy pick but Seider could help improve our defense in a few years.
I'm cautiously optimistic, We drafted a d-man which had been an organizational need for going on a decade. It wasn't a sexy pick but Seider could help improve our defense in a few years.
Last edited:
Shaman464
No u
The more I think about it, the more I am willing to Give Stevie the benefit of the doubt, where I wouldn't to Holland. But, we will see in 5 years.
