OT: If you were in the GM seat today....

Djp

Registered User
Jul 28, 2012
23,951
5,680
Alexandria, VA
First off I would have made the deal to move from 8 to 5 and picked Lindolm

If the deal wasnt made to move up to 5...I would have done the Sekera deal earlier and have those 3 2nds.

Fine you wait until after pick 16 since you have the 2 Dmen you then can trade sekera for the 2nd and then use the 2 2nds to move up.

I either would have used 2 2nds and a 5th to move up to 21-24. OR I use the 5th to move up a few spots in the 2nd to get targeted picks.

i would have offered Stafford for Niederreiter.
 

S319R11S16

Expect Suffering
Apr 18, 2006
2,994
0
I would have either traded to 5 and took Lindholm or took Fucale with the canes pick in the 2nd round if I didn't trade to 5.

Also, I wouldn't have drafted 4 high school kids. They don't look to be NHL ready until 2018-19. This spells LOOOOOOOOONG rebuild.
 

Karate Johnson*

Guest
Taking high schoolers doesn't matter. Any pick after the first round this year is more likely to be a second waive of prospects... We are already ridiculously young and will likely pick up another older prospect or 2 in any Vanek and/or Miller deals.
 

haseoke39

Registered User
Mar 29, 2011
13,938
2,491
I would have either traded to 5 and took Lindholm or took Fucale with the canes pick in the 2nd round if I didn't trade to 5.

Also, I wouldn't have drafted 4 high school kids. They don't look to be NHL ready until 2018-19. This spells LOOOOOOOOONG rebuild.

A long rebuild can be a very effective thorough rebuild if you do it right. If we're thinking of plugging along in the bottom 5 for a few years, you can get your franchise forwards later. Having those guys be able to jump into a team with a big, bruising defense already built? That's what Pittsburgh doesn't have.
 

Jim Bob

RIP RJ
Feb 27, 2002
56,207
35,372
Rochester, NY
I would have either traded to 5 and took Lindholm or took Fucale with the canes pick in the 2nd round if I didn't trade to 5.

Also, I wouldn't have drafted 4 high school kids. They don't look to be NHL ready until 2018-19. This spells LOOOOOOOOONG rebuild.

They took the college kids in part to spread out the contracts so they don't have a bunch of guys coming due at the same time.
 

Jim Bob

RIP RJ
Feb 27, 2002
56,207
35,372
Rochester, NY
I would love to know what the hang up was on the deal to get from 8 to 5.

I'm going to guess that the Canes wanted more than Sekera and 8 for 5. I'd love to know what it was. Without that knowledge, I won't comment on whether I would have pulled the trigger or not.

The only real second guessing I have is whether it would have been better to go this way:

8 - Horvat
16 - Zadorov
35 - Compher
38 - Santini
52 - Bailey

Basically, will Horvat & Santini end up being better than Ristolainen and Hurley?

Other than that, I like what they did.
 

Chainshot

Give 'em Enough Rope
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2002
150,912
100,830
Tarnation
I would love to know what the hang up was on the deal to get from 8 to 5.

I'm going to guess that the Canes wanted more than Sekera and 8 for 5. I'd love to know what it was. Without that knowledge, I won't comment on whether I would have pulled the trigger or not.

The only real second guessing I have is whether it would have been better to go this way:

8 - Horvat
16 - Zadorov
35 - Compher
38 - Santini
52 - Bailey

Basically, will Horvat & Santini end up being better than Ristolainen and Hurley?

Other than that, I like what they did.

Devine said it would've cost them 38 to make the move up to 5 in his one interview.
 

Paxon

202* Stanley Cup Champions
Jul 13, 2003
29,005
5,177
Rochester, NY
I would have either traded to 5 and took Lindholm or took Fucale with the canes pick in the 2nd round if I didn't trade to 5.

Also, I wouldn't have drafted 4 high school kids. They don't look to be NHL ready until 2018-19. This spells LOOOOOOOOONG rebuild.

Where do people get this stuff from? Do you honestly think taking CHLers in the 5th round would make this a shorter rebuild?

Here's what makes a long rebuild: limiting your options when choosing talent. Even 1st rounders have a fairly high failure rate, the failure rate of 2nd and 3rd rounders is huge. The important thing is to get the prospect you think most likely to actually play -- moreso have an impact -- in the NHL. Worrying about how long it'll take for them to make that impact is ...

Nevermind that you never know if those players are actually going to attend college. Many decommit and play in the CHL instead. Zemgus decommitted and went straight to the AHL. Some players only attend for 2 years before going pro. Bjugstad was drafted in 2010 straight out of HS (rather than the USHL). He played 2010-11, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013 at the University of Minnesota. After his season ended there he went pro and played in the Panthers' last 11 games. So in the 3rd hockey season from being drafted he'd completed 3 seasons of development in the NCAA and was available to his NHL team if they made the playoffs and felt he could help.

Doesn't the reality that most kids drafted out of the CHL spend 1-2 years there and then 1-3 years in the AHL intuitively illustrate what bull**** this whole criticism is?
 

Chainshot

Give 'em Enough Rope
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2002
150,912
100,830
Tarnation
They took the college kids in part to spread out the contracts so they don't have a bunch of guys coming due at the same time.

Yeah, that's something for them to consider as they have all of these picks this year and next -- the contract limit. Nothing wrong with going back to their old model and taking guys who are 3-4-5 years out from turning pro when they have a contract backlog and a finite number of development minutes at the AHL level.
 

SabresFan26

Registered User
May 28, 2003
10,362
2,075
Visit site
They should've acquired that 5 pick and than they would have had Lindholm and still got a nice defenseman in Zadarov. Even if they did have to throw in an extra pick
 

brian_griffin

"Eric Cartman?"
May 10, 2007
16,696
7,927
In the Panderverse
They should've acquired that 5 pick and than they would have had Lindholm and still got a nice defenseman in Zadarov. Even if they did have to throw in an extra pick

I respectfully point out, if they had picked 5th, they would have had no prescience Zadarov would be available at #16.

One or more of the following must have been true:
1. BUF rated Ristolainen equivalent to or better than Linholm / Monahan.
2. BUF rated Lindholm/Monahan above Ristolainen, but rated their need for a big-body D-man as greater than the talent gap between the two center(s) and Ristolainen (or possibly Nurse, if you believe BUF would have taken Nurse if EDM took Ristolainen).
3. BUF did not want to pay the extra pick (#38) Devine alleges* CAR wanted to swap 5/8 & McBain/Sekera (*discussed in other threads).
 

SabresFan26

Registered User
May 28, 2003
10,362
2,075
Visit site
I respectfully point out, if they had picked 5th, they would have had no prescience Zadarov would be available at #16.

One or more of the following must have been true:
1. BUF rated Ristolainen equivalent to or better than Linholm / Monahan.
2. BUF rated Lindholm/Monahan above Ristolainen, but rated their need for a big-body D-man as greater than the talent gap between the two center(s) and Ristolainen (or possibly Nurse, if you believe BUF would have taken Nurse if EDM took Ristolainen).
3. BUF did not want to pay the extra pick (#38) Devine alleges* CAR wanted to swap 5/8 & McBain/Sekera (*discussed in other threads).

Understandable. I still would have traded that package and grabbed Lindholm. I think he is that good. Even if it changes other picks, Lindholm is elite. Hopefully the Sabres were right though
 

Paxon

202* Stanley Cup Champions
Jul 13, 2003
29,005
5,177
Rochester, NY
They should've acquired that 5 pick and than they would have had Lindholm and still got a nice defenseman in Zadarov. Even if they did have to throw in an extra pick

Not only is this operating from hindsight re: Zadorov, it's not even reasonable to assume he would have been there. Who knows who Carolina picks #8 and how that affects how the rest of the round goes?
 

FearTheBeard

Registered User
Mar 27, 2011
3,944
0
First off I would have made the deal to move from 8 to 5 and picked Lindolm

If the deal wasnt made to move up to 5...I would have done the Sekera deal earlier and have those 3 2nds.

Fine you wait until after pick 16 since you have the 2 Dmen you then can trade sekera for the 2nd and then use the 2 2nds to move up.

I either would have used 2 2nds and a 5th to move up to 21-24. OR I use the 5th to move up a few spots in the 2nd to get targeted picks.

i would have offered Stafford for Niederreiter.

way too many assumptions in this post. Devine said there was really any opportunity to move up higher than 35. They made a number of calls and proposals but no one was willing to move from their position until finally Carolina called again. And since when did we get Niederreiter? :help:
 

Paxon

202* Stanley Cup Champions
Jul 13, 2003
29,005
5,177
Rochester, NY
way too many assumptions in this post. Devine said there was really any opportunity to move up higher than 35. They made a number of calls and proposals but no one was willing to move from their position until finally Carolina called again. And since when did we get Niederreiter? :help:

Niederreiter was traded for Clutterbuck and a 3rd
 

flashsabre

Registered User
Apr 5, 2003
3,962
3,462
Visit site
I would love to see this board if they made the trade to move up to 5 and then selected Risto anyways!!

All this talk of Lindholm being elite but Risto is an elite dman. 6'4, 225 lbs that is mean and can do everything at both ends of the ice.
 

PlamsUnlimited

Big Church Bells
May 14, 2010
27,459
1,888
New York
Thanks. Was just making sure. Haven't left the country since 2010.


Anyway I just saw on WIVB that some young men got electricuted/shocked at my old high school recently. Happened because they were moving a football goal post and it contacted electrical wires.

They're all alive
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad