Proposal: 2017 1st Rounder vs Marchessault

[MintyFresh88]

Simple: Would you have given up our first round pick in order for Vegas to not take Marchessault?

Click to read more...

 

[BeezKnees]

Simple: Would you have given up our first round pick in order for Vegas to not take Marchessault?

Straight up, not a chance. But I don't mind the idea of trading down into the later 1st round to keep Marchessault and draft a guy like Tolvanen.

 

[Ryuji Yamazaki]

Simple: Would you have given up our first round pick in order for Vegas to not take Marchessault?

Nope

 

[SoupyFIN]

Considering our lack of prospect depth, no way.

 

[MintyFresh88]

The reason I ask is because based on the kind of rumoured deals that are in place, Vegas likely would have only accepted this type of return.

 

[ShootIt]

Nope. One thing if he was an RFA/under contract and had multiple years of similar or close enough success.

 

[CHGoalie27]

Without knowing much about the prospects and their potential to be a more than 40 scorer and whether or not we already know about it...hard to say.

As of now I protect the proven 30 guy. I'm still baffled how many don't.

Thankfully Demers actually a good chance Marchessault won't be taken anyway! Or ****, after picking a bunch of exposed talent at high price, are they about to max the cap?

So much pissing in the wind going on here. I feel like sticking with the guy who obviously proved himself, but again I don't know if there are prospects guaranteed to do what March just finishing doing and to fall to the 10th. Nor do I think anyone else does either. Making my pick against the grain, and though I'm admitting ignorance on the prospects doesn't mean my instinct is necessarily wrong.

 

[jvr32]

I'm shocked if they make any deals with Vegas, since the selections were not made based on trade value.

 

[PanthersHockey1]

We are in the middle of a 10 year rebuild.

We need at least 3 1st round wingers to make our team to be stanley cup caliber.

 

[I am not exposed]

Without knowing much about the prospects and their potential to be a more than 40 scorer and whether or not we already know about it...hard to say.

As of now I protect the proven 30 guy. I'm still baffled how many don't.

Thankfully Demers actually a good chance Marchessault won't be taken anyway! Or ****, after picking a bunch of exposed talent at high price, are they about to max the cap?

So much pissing in the wind going on here. I feel like sticking with the guy who obviously proved himself, but again I don't know if there are prospects guaranteed to do what March just finishing doing and to fall to the 10th. Nor do I think anyone else does either. Making my pick against the grain, and though I'm admitting ignorance on the prospects doesn't mean my instinct is necessarily wrong.

I think 95% of board wanted him protected.

Unless you're talking about giving up a 1st, then it is an easy no.

 

[CHGoalie27]

I think 95% of board wanted him protected.

Unless you're talking about giving up a 1st, then it is an easy no.

Absolutely.

Might as well ask, does anyone know if there are prospects tailor made for our 10th to be a solid guaranteed at least 20, hell with 30, goal guy? Cuz if not...then absolutely not.

 

[I am not exposed]

Absolutely.

Might as well ask, does anyone know if there are prospects tailor made for our 10th to be a solid guaranteed at least 20, hell with 30, goal guy? Cuz if not...then absolutely not.

No guarantee Marchessault hits 30 again. Probably doesn't. But should be good for about 20, which is worth protecting imo! Will be a UFA after this year, so a potential big raise. Draft pick will be cost controlled for many years. Unless we go all Ekblad with the pick!

Or considering management decided to expose Marchessault, they will probably draft Crouse part 2. So yeah, maybe we should give up our first to protect Marchessault!

 

[CHGoalie27]

No guarantee Marchessault hits 30 again. Probably doesn't. But should be good for about 20, which is worth protecting imo! Will be a UFA after this year, so a potential big raise. Draft pick will be cost controlled for many years. Unless we go all Ekblad with the pick!

Or considering management decided to expose Marchessault, they will probably draft Crouse part 2. So yeah, maybe we should give up our first to protect Marchessault!

That's what I'm saying...now that I got ya for that...back to the refs! Or were you with me on that and I still have to continue the years long battle of trying to teach you who the best goalie on earth has been for the last 12 years?

 

[CHGoalie27]

Mavs, waiting on yer explanation for the vote, for I'll never hide how I always heavily consider your reasoning.

 

[CaptainScrewy]

Hell no and I wouldn't give up our 2nd rounder either.

 

[Desert Panther]

Absolutely would give up a crapshoot at #10 in what is widely regarded as a weak draft for a known quantity in Marchessault.

 

[Gentle Man]

Mavs, waiting on yer explanation for the vote, for I'll never hide how I always heavily consider your reasoning.

I dont view Marchessault as a top-line player.

He has a great shot, but his hockey sense is lacking which is the main reason he shouldnt be viewed as a top-liner.

If you watch him, he was a step behind of play instead of being ahead, or at best, he was an "in-the-moment" player.

For a top liner, one that you would give up a relatively high 1st-rounder for, you'd like someone that can be ahead of player, especially for someone who is not that fast.

Defensively, he isnt that great. And as echoed, he did have a high shooting percentage. He potted a couple of lucky/soft goals (the first NYI game for example, where he tied it, was very soft). He is a good middle 6 player. But are we willing to invest close to 20 million on a second line of Smith, Trocheck, Marchessault? And what of Jokinen who is still there.

Did he have a nice contract? Sure. But let's say he pots another 20. What kind of raise do you feel he gets next year? Maybe 5? We'd have Smith, Tro, Huberdeau, Barkov + Marchessault potentially at 5 a piece, that is 25 million, + Bjugstad that makes over 30 million in 6 forwards. That is a lot.

Is he worth it? Time will tell. Should he have been protected? Not over Smith no. Over Bjugstad yes. But, I have an inkling that this was a cap-move in my opinion.

Bjugstad was making the least between Smith, Demers, and himself. And if Marchy gets a raise, needless to say he would get more than Bjugstad for sure, who probably would not have gotten claimed.

Everyone is right to challenge why Bjugstad should have been exposed. We dont know why. But we can guess, and my guess is that.

It's a cap move.

 

[CaptainScrewy]

Absolutely would give up a crapshoot at #10 in what is widely regarded as a weak draft for a known quantity in Marchessault.

It's considered a weak draft because of the lack of elite players at the top, however, the prospects available to us at 10 are as good or better than previous drafts. We can't afford to not add great prospects to our system, we have one of the weakest prospects systems in the NHL and badly need more talent in the organization.

 

[Brokin]

I dont view Marchessault as a top-line player.

He has a great shot, but his hockey sense is lacking which is the main reason he shouldnt be viewed as a top-liner.

If you watch him, he was a step behind of play instead of being ahead, or at best, he was an "in-the-moment" player.

For a top liner, one that you would give up a relatively high 1st-rounder for, you'd like someone that can be ahead of player, especially for someone who is not that fast.

It's a cap move.

Agree with 1,2

He has little bit better than average NHL speed but his quickness is without question his best skating asset.

He really doesn't have the outside speed on the wing to stay ahead of the play. Unless you can take your man to the outside and beat him speed in of no advantage.

He understands that coming in a bit late allows him to see the scoring areas better. You'll notice he goes to open ice where he can unleash that accurate lethal snap shot or one timer that goalies just can't react to quick enough.

Cap Move??? Yet most say let's sign Radalov or Kovalchuk. When you dangle an asset on a cheap contract it allows Vegas to not only pick him but use the cap savings for another valuable asset. If he doesn't work out by the TDL, then they don't extend him and let him become a UFA.

Pushing Vegas to make a choice between Smith or Demers is a cap move where you can use that money to extend Marchy or sign someone else if he doesn't work out.

 

[BoxingRobes]

A 1st? No.

If you said a 2nd? Yeah, I'd make that swing.

 

[MPGA]

No I would not. But then again, we could have just not exposed him in the first place.

 

[Two4Fighting]

What I don't understand if they were prepared to loose him, why didnt they trade him immediately?, after all the management has hired people that would have seen this coming a mile away, unless trading him ahead after the season end would have mean exposing one of our better players.

 

[batting1k]

Absolutely would give up a crapshoot at #10 in what is widely regarded as a weak draft for a known quantity in Marchessault.

There’s a lot of quality options at #10...not like it’s a bunch of 4th line grinders. People are confusing “lack of a franchise player†for “weak draftâ€