2016 NHL Draft - Part 2 - June 24th

[Jakey53]

I don't know why so many are ready to deal these early picks. I don't think we are in any position to trade any 1st round pick for a veteran. This year I would go the UFA or trade route, and maybe next year with another year of development from the kids at all levels, consider trading a last 1st. if we have one. I want to see how these kids develop in the next year so we know what we have. Next year could be our last year we draft high, and I don't want to piss that away.

 

[cobra427]

As the draft approaches and if it becomes clear the first 6 picks are Matthews, Laine, Puljujarvi, Tkachuk, Dubois and Brown, do the Coyotes:

A. Sit tight and pick the best Dman at 7?

B. Look to move up to 4 for Tkachuk? Assuming the cost is 7+20 for 4+32 (note: Edm doesn't have a 4th)

C. Trade 7OA to Minnesota for Brodin/Dumba or other young NHL Dman.

D. Trade down to 9 or 10 and add another high-mid 2nd.

It will take way more then the #7 pick to land Barrie/Brodin/Dumba/Trouba/Fowler/Vatanan or similar. Top 4D are in very high demand as 25 teams are looking for them. Jones was traded for RYJO as an example. It will be very expensive and we will hate what we have to give up.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

It will take way more then the #7 pick to land Barrie/Brodin/Dumba/Trouba/Fowler/Vatanan or similar. Top 4D are in very high demand as 25 teams are looking for them. Jones was traded for RYJO as an example. It will be very expensive and we will hate what we have to give up.

We don't want to turn into another Edmonton with all forwards and no defensemen. We can absorb losing any one primo forward prospect alongside #7. We just better make sure we get a #1D and not a #2/3 D. I don't fear giving up a forward, I fear that our evaluation of the defenseman might be off.

 

[rt]

Two seasons to UFA for Fowler, though.

 

[Llewzaher]

I know at some point we should draft a goalie. What does everyone think of Parsons from London? Is there a pick we could use on him?

 

[The Feckless Puck]

The Coyotes will unveil their 20th anniversary logo and jersey patch at a viewing party for the first round of the draft June 24 from 3-7 p.m. at Gila River Arena.

Carnival rides will be available, and dressing-room tours will be offered.

Fans should enter the arena at Gate 4, and the event is free and open to the public.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/spor...yotes-take-new-approach-nhl-combine/84873384/

 

[BUX7PHX]

I don't know why so many are ready to deal these early picks. I don't think we are in any position to trade any 1st round pick for a veteran. This year I would go the UFA or trade route, and maybe next year with another year of development from the kids at all levels, consider trading a last 1st. if we have one. I want to see how these kids develop in the next year so we know what we have. Next year could be our last year we draft high, and I don't want to piss that away.

My take is that I would appreciate a trade where we still got a prospect or NHL player, but also moved back in the first round. Probably unlikely to get both a serviceable NHL talent now and a 1st round pick, though.

We still need to build our organizational depth overall. Center is the only position where I feel we have reasonable organizational depth, but even then, it is built on the expectations of some unknown players.

My feeling is that #7 seems like it will be a reach on a player (the value of the pick number will be higher than the player value there, in a manner of speaking). Whereas at #20, there will be some excellent value available there. In a way, I would rather trade the #7 pick than the #20 pick - both will take 2-4 years before we see a return, but as rt has stated before, the #7 pick is where we really start to magnify the warts on players. I mentioned this for Sergachev in earlier posts, but the same applies to any one of Brown, Chychrun, Nylander, McLeod, and Juolevi - I don't necessarily hate any of them at #7, but I don't love any of them at #7 either. If we were at pick #10 or #11, while quite a few of those players would be gone, I would feel much happier with Chychrun at #10 than at #7 (insert any one of those names in that case)

 

[Mosby]

I know at some point we should draft a goalie. What does everyone think of Parsons from London? Is there a pick we could use on him?

Not a fan of drafting goalies. They take forever to develop and even then, they may not be starter caliber. Most starters take until age 25 to be NHL ready, and at that age they can just walk to UFA.

I'd much rather sign college/Euro free agents, UFAs, or trade for someone else's goalie. Let another team develop him and then we can swoop in and offer a 2nd rounder or something.

 

[Jakey53]

My take is that I would appreciate a trade where we still got a prospect or NHL player, but also moved back in the first round. Probably unlikely to get both a serviceable NHL talent now and a 1st round pick, though.

We still need to build our organizational depth overall. Center is the only position where I feel we have reasonable organizational depth, but even then, it is built on the expectations of some unknown players.

My feeling is that #7 seems like it will be a reach on a player (the value of the pick number will be higher than the player value there, in a manner of speaking). Whereas at #20, there will be some excellent value available there. In a way, I would rather trade the #7 pick than the #20 pick - both will take 2-4 years before we see a return, but as rt has stated before, the #7 pick is where we really start to magnify the warts on players. I mentioned this for Sergachev in earlier posts, but the same applies to any one of Brown, Chychrun, Nylander, McLeod, and Juolevi - I don't necessarily hate any of them at #7, but I don't love any of them at #7 either. If we were at pick #10 or #11, while quite a few of those players would be gone, I would feel much happier with Chychrun at #10 than at #7 (insert any one of those names in that case)

I guess it depends if the Coyotes love a player at #7. If we drop down to say 10 - 13 range, what do we pick up? Is it worth it? This year, I keep both first round picks. It is going to be a fun draft.

 

[Ebb]

I guess it depends if the Coyotes love a player at #7. If we drop down to say 10 - 13 range, what do we pick up? Is it worth it? This year, I keep both first round picks. It is going to be a fun draft.

I'm kind of mixed. While we should be able to get a decent prospect at #7 (depending on who is left), we could probably fill one of our D slots with a solid player. If we moved the # 7, I'd expect a starting D-man (1st pairing or young and promising 2nd pairing) and a decently drafted prospect (to make up for the lost pick). I'd be fine with moving down a bit as well if the additional prospect is too much.

 

[BUX7PHX]

I guess it depends if the Coyotes love a player at #7. If we drop down to say 10 - 13 range, what do we pick up? Is it worth it? This year, I keep both first round picks. It is going to be a fun draft.

True - if someone is so highly rated ahead of everyone else at #7, then that is the pick. Not that I know anything about anything, but my gut tells me that the only way a player is that far ahead of everyone else will occur only if one of Tkachuk or Dubois happens to fall. While possible, unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

I had thrown some ideas out there as to which teams may be in the running to move around. I think that Montreal, Carolina, and Minnesota would all be interested in moving up to #7 for the first crack at Logan Brown, if only b/c you can't teach size relative to the other Cs available.

I think that we could get an additional pick or two, anywhere between 3rd and 4th round, or even pick up an additional 2nd or 1st if we add to the #7 pick. Defensive prospects that we may be able to add without adding too much to the 7th pick (I'd surmise that most of these players would be fair value or even a late round pick added to them for these teams to move up):

RHD Juulsen (MTL)
RHD Dietz (MTL)
RHD Thrower (MTL)
RHD Lernout (MTL)
LHD Geertsen (COL)
LHD White (NJ)
LHD Claesson (OTT)
LHD Wolanin (OTT)
LHD Englund (OTT)
RHD Mckeown (CAR)
LHD Lowe (CAR)

 

[Kaibur]

Not a fan of drafting goalies. They take forever to develop and even then, they may not be starter caliber. Most starters take until age 25 to be NHL ready, and at that age they can just walk to UFA.

I'd much rather sign college/Euro free agents, UFAs, or trade for someone else's goalie. Let another team develop him and then we can swoop in and offer a 2nd rounder or something.

Me too, but I'd take Veini "the villain" Vehvilainen with a later pick on name value alone.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Me too, but I'd take Veini "the villain" Vehvilainen with a later pick on name value alone.

It'd be so awesome if that guy had a brother named "Arteri."

 

[rt]

With VAN moving McCann+33 for Gudbranson, we may have an ideal trade partner if EDM takes PLD. VAN may now have interest in 7(Brown) and 37(basically the pick they just lost) for 5(Tkachuk).

McCann and Tkachuk for Gudbranson and Brown actually makes a little sense.

 

[ck26]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/spor...yotes-take-new-approach-nhl-combine/84873384/

Year 1: standard TGO-era jersey
Year 2: name change, PHX shoulder patch becomes AZ
Year 3: total overhaul to Canada WJC-inspired sweater
Year 4: another New shoulder patch

#keepTheMerchandiseFresh

 

[lanky]

The trade makes it less likely that a D will be picked ahead of 7. Bad news in my books.

TOR Matthews
WPG Laine
CBJ Pulju
EDM PLD
VAN Brown
CGY Tkachuk
AZ dang

 

[rt]

^agreed. But VAN can probably get Brown at 7th. I don't see CGY taking him sixth. If our front office or their front office can sniff out any Intel on CGY's preferences at sixth, and signs don't point to Brown, I think Vancouver might take the risk to get that 2nd rounder back. Thy really, really need that pick. Banning has been hemorrhaging picks since he came into power. That pool is SHALLOW. They're probably praying EDM skips PLD for Tkachuk. But if EDM takes PLD, I think we've got a shot at Tkachuk if we're willing to sacrifice 37 to get him.

Something else to consider is that if we don't do it, there is a good shot 6 forwards go before our pick. If our BPA list doesn't hit a D until 7, than it really might be worth moving up. Especially if Tkachuk is 4thBPA on our list.

 

[Jakey53]

With VAN moving McCann+33 for Gudbranson, we may have an ideal trade partner if EDM takes PLD. VAN may now have interest in 7(Brown) and 37(basically the pick they just lost) for 5(Tkachuk).

McCann and Tkachuk for Gudbranson and Brown actually makes a little sense.

I think that trade signals that they see Tkachuk or PLD as a replacement for McCann.

 

[Jakey53]

The trade makes it less likely that a D will be picked ahead of 7. Bad news in my books.

TOR Matthews
WPG Laine
CBJ Pulju
EDM PLD
VAN Brown
CGY Tkachuk
AZ dang

I agree, but I think Calgary may take Nylander. I think Brown will still be there.

 

[Grimes]

I agree, but I think Calgary may take Nylander. I think Brown will still be there.

Gotta agree with this as long as Tkachuck or PLD aren't available.

 

[Kaibur]

^agreed. But VAN can probably get Brown at 7th. I don't see CGY taking him sixth. If our front office or their front office can sniff out any Intel on CGY's preferences at sixth, and signs don't point to Brown, I think Vancouver might take the risk to get that 2nd rounder back. Thy really, really need that pick. Banning has been hemorrhaging picks since he came into power. That pool is SHALLOW. They're probably praying EDM skips PLD for Tkachuk. But if EDM takes PLD, I think we've got a shot at Tkachuk if we're willing to sacrifice 37 to get him.

Something else to consider is that if we don't do it, there is a good shot 6 forwards go before our pick. If our BPA list doesn't hit a D until 7, than it really might be worth moving up. Especially if Tkachuk is 4thBPA on our list.

I don't want to sacrifice 37 to move up those few spots. Tkachuk isn't worth it to me. I'd rather come away with, say, Brown and Niemelainen, than just Tkachuk.

 

[Grimes]

I don't want to sacrifice 37 to move up those few spots. Tkachuk isn't worth it to me. I'd rather come away with, say, Brown and Niemelainen, than just Tkachuk.

I would move the Bleackly pick over the 37. I feel Tkachuck and PLD are in a tier of for sure top 6 players that will make an impact in the NHL. After this tier it begins to look fuzzy.

 

[Kaibur]

I would move the Bleackly pick over the 37. I feel Tkachuck and PLD are in a tier of for sure top 6 players that will make an impact in the NHL. After this tier it begins to look fuzzy.

I'd like to either sign Bleackley or take the pick with the intention of trading it. But if we're trading 53rd, I'd rather find some immediate help or move up from 20th. Maybe 16 for 20 and 53. I'd love to get one of Fabbro/McAvoy, but I just don't think one of them shakes loose at 20th.

 

[lanky]

I agree, but I think Calgary may take Nylander. I think Brown will still be there.

In the scenario I posted Brown was taken by Vancouver because he would be the best center available. Vancouver needs to address their center position. Calgary wouldn't likely pick Nylander over Tkachuk. While I think Nylander is BPA at 7, I just don't really like his style that much. He's Vrbata. Very useful, but not what I want at 7.

 

[BUX7PHX]

The trade makes it less likely that a D will be picked ahead of 7. Bad news in my books.

TOR Matthews
WPG Laine
CBJ Pulju
EDM PLD
VAN Brown
CGY Tkachuk
AZ dang

Depends on what our draft board looks like, but I don't think this is a bad scenario at all. Let's say that our next tier includes 4-6 out of the next 6 D (Chychrun, Juolevi, Sergachev, Fabbro, Bean, McAvoy). We also have Nylander, McLeod, and Jost interspersed somewhere within there.

Perfect opportunity to move back here, especially if we get the read that a team moving to #7 is taking a D that is not one of the highest on our board. Let's say that our order on those 9 players is as follows, but these players are so tight in their scoring and there is not one clear cut player ahead of the group:

Juolevi
Nylander
Sergachev
McAvoy
Chychrun
Fabbro
McLeod
Jost
Bean

If a team like Colorado, New Jersey, or Ottawa mentions a want to move up for Chychrun, then you could not get me to sign off on that fast enough. Still a good chance that we wind up with a player that we have at or near the top of our board, and we pick up additional assets of some variety. If we lose a player like Juolevi in that span of picks that we traded back from, we still get a player that we are otherwise hoping will fall to #20 in Fabbro/McAvoy. And if the picks fall in the exact same fashion as our draft board, then taking a player like Chychrun at #10, 11, or 12 is getting far better value. If forced to make a "less than optimal" deal to trade back, then move the pick to the team that is taking a forward and not a defenseman, since it appeared that the organization was leaning towards defense even if not BPA.