That first thing is a fixable problem. The other one is not. So I don't think you can compare the two.That would be nice...would also be cool if we were a top FA destination...
That first thing is a fixable problem. The other one is not. So I don't think you can compare the two.That would be nice...would also be cool if we were a top FA destination...
Ah yeah, well that's true, I'll take that back, that's a dumb argument by me... But I don't think it's worth it at all. Not where we're picking (and how we've done with later picks).Well those are usually the ones we see? If we are on the clock and a team 2-3-4 slots down really wants a player and fear that someone right above is gonna take him. And obviously, if we feel that we can still get the guy we want or one of the two guys we want or something like that. That is always something to explore I think. Friedman says he thinks a lot of teams are interested in "moving around" at the draft so we will see.
That first thing is a fixable problem. The other one is not. So I don't think you can compare the two.
I can't say if it's worth it or not. It all depends on who is at the board and who is not when it's our turn and what the potential offer is. (Point being, in theory you would take pick #180 for moving from #16 to #17 if the team behind us wants a player we are not taking anyway)Ah yeah, well that's true, I'll take that back, that's a dumb argument by me... But I don't think it's worth it at all. Not where we're picking.
Ok, fair point. I'm not sure I would do 10 for 20+47+49 but, I get what you mean.
But this whole issue is more about our development process and fixing that then trying to work around it in the draft.
You don't think it's a fixable problem for an NHL organization to improve their development process? Why on earth wouldn't that be fixable? If other teams can do it, of course so can we. And no I don't have a blue print for who needs to be replaced or what needs to change, but just admit defeat at it?Is it? Is it really reasonable to continue expecting the same people to fix a problem that they haven't been able to fix for a decade now? At what point do you acknowledge these people for who they are and where their limitations lie?
I think most teams (except Tampa) feels this way. In hindsight every team can basically look back at every draft and find a better player who was picked after the one your team picked. It's an incredibly hard process. I do however feel more confident in it now than when Roy had influence.Probably worded it bad... trading 16 + 47 to get 10 vs trading 16 for 20 + 49 equates to those picks.
It is chicken vs egg, but to me, the Avs have much larger problems idenifying talent than developing it. In 2014... Bleakley taken right before a solid #3C and a superstar with the next two picks. Wood and Magyar before Arvidsson. Pepin before Heinen. An bunch of players before Kase. Lindholm was their singular best pick that draft. It is easy to point out misses with 20/20, but every pick basically had somebody good shortly after along with this huge miss in the first. 2015... hit with a top 10. Then trade back at 31 to end up missing Aho, Dermott, Carlo, and Fischer. Any one of those improves the team more than having Greer and Meloche in the minors. Then Beaudin over Cirelli. Mironov in front of Malgin. This story is able to be repeated over and over. They cannot effectively identify talent. We all love projecting our 2-4th rounders highly and there are a number I have liked and still like, but when results are clearly out there that are poor and many include just misses... they need to look at why they are missing that talent.
I suppose, but then you gotta know your preference isn't going to go, and the Avs staff will 100% miss on a 100+ pick. Personally, I like sitting still with stuff like this. But then you look at the Vegas expansion and know that GMs aren't like that, because what was everyone doing.I can't say if it's worth it or not. It all depends on who is at the board and who is not when it's our turn and what the potential offer is. (Point being, in theory you would take pick #180 for moving from #16 to #17 if the team behind us wants a player we are not taking anyway)
Sure, but when did we end up with an NHLer past ~#35? Barrie ten years ago?I think most teams (except Tampa) feels this way. In hindsight every team can basically look back at every draft and find a better player who was picked after the one your team picked. It's an incredibly hard process. I do however feel more confident in it now than when Roy had influence.
But also, historically, what is considered a good draft? If you get one career NHLer out of every draft (seven picks) that must be considered quite good yeah? The norm isn't exactly to end up with 2-3 players for you every year.
I agree, it's about time. I think a good move is maximizing your odds but giving yourself more picks and trading down is a good idea, in my opinion. I'm not here to convince anyone who disagrees.Sure, but when did we end up with an NHLer past ~#35? Barrie ten years ago?
Of course you can look back and see misses, but missing every single year for a decade? That to me clearly points teh finger at scouting. The Avs simply are not good enough in that area.I think most teams (except Tampa) feels this way. In hindsight every team can basically look back at every draft and find a better player who was picked after the one your team picked. It's an incredibly hard process. I do however feel more confident in it now than when Roy had influence.
But also, historically, what is considered a good draft? If you get one career NHLer out of every draft (seven picks) that must be considered quite good yeah? The norm isn't exactly to end up with 2-3 players for you every year.
You don't think it's a fixable problem for an NHL organization to improve their development process? Why on earth wouldn't that be fixable? If other teams can do it, of course so can we. And no I don't have a blue print for who needs to be replaced or what needs to change, but just admit defeat at it?
Who is expecting that? I just said I think it was a problem that needs to be fixed.No one said just accepting defeat, just not delusionally expecting this to finally be the year where it magically fixes itself when this FO has shown no ability to do so
I agree with this.I think it is a mistake to confuse creativity with IQ. Many, many smart players out there who are not creative.
Who is expecting that? I just said I think it was a problem that needs to be fixed.
Ahh, your opinion. Google "Cozens' IQ". You will find your opinion of Cozens' IQ is polar opposite of several hockey writers/pundits. In fact, I couldn't find anything regarding Cozens having less than a stellar IQ.
I think it is a mistake to confuse creativity with IQ. Many, many smart players out there who are not creative.
It's pretty shocking honestly. No career NHLers outside the top-10 since 2009. I have faith in Kaut to make it top-16.
Turcotte and Caufield.
Someone will butcher you for writing this.