Speculation: Trade out of the #2 spot

[SundherDome]

So suppose Vancouver offers their #1 this year and next for our pick in the first round this year and the St. Louis #1 in 2015?

No trading 2015 picks! Ever! Forever ever!

 

[Jame]

We could even draft him second over-

This explains a lot

 

[sjci]

The main argument I'm seeing is that Couturier would be offensively significant and produce more points if he was playing with Grioux. That's obvious. But, we don't have anyone on this team that would even be close to Grioux. So if we traded for him, he'd be in the exact situation as he's in Philly now.

Couturier is a good player, he's great in the defensive zone. But he's had 3 seasons now and he hasn't even shown a little bit of the offensive skill that he did in juniors. He was horrible on the PP for them this year, but there second PP unit was bad all around so it's not all on him. He just can't seem to finish.

He's a decent article reviewing the play of Sean Couturier:
http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2014/5/21/5729246/sean-couturier-analysis-review-flyers

Couturier still got the same difficult, defensively-oriented minutes that he'd frequently see under Laviolette, and those would inevitably come with some lumps and slumps -- his season began with a 19-game goalless drought, and he suffered through another 16-game scoreless skid that spanned most of the post-Olympic stretch of the schedule.

Those were surely frustrating times for Couturier, who would often appear snakebitten and would get himself in decent position to put a chance in the net only to see it go wide or get foiled by the other team's goalie. Additionally, as smart and skilled as he is defensively, he'd occasionally find himself on the wrong side of a goal against -- the same way that literally any forward in hockey who had to face his kind of minutes would.

But while those slumps and slip-ups would sometimes lead to benchings under Laviolette, Berube seemed to take them in stride and realize that those were part of the job description for Coots. Couturier ended the year averaging just over 19 minutes of total ice time and around 13 and a half minutes at 5-on-5 per game -- both more than any forward on the Flyers not named Claude Giroux.

The Flyers have one of the best penalty kills in the league, a necessity given how much freaking time they spend killing penalties. Couturier -- who played more shorthanded ice time this year than any other forward in the NHL -- is the single biggest driving force behind that

Couturier ended this season with 39 points, a step forward from his first two years but still a number befitting of a middle-six forward more than a guy with his obvious offensive talent. Much of this, as discussed, has to do with his usage and bad luck, but there are still areas in which we should reasonably expect more of him.

His defensive talent is evident. There's no denying he's a great defensive minded player, but his offensive numbers leave much to be desired. He would most certainly not have that much better players to work with here, and who's to even say he wouldn't be put in the exact same role as he is in Philly, here?

Bottom line: Couturier may very well start to develop an offensive game and be the next Anze Kopitar, or he could very well keep with the past 3 years progression and be just a good #2/great #3. I would not mind trading for Couturier, but I would mind giving up the #2 pick for him. I would much rather have a Bennett or Reinhart, than I would Couturier right now.

 

[krt88]

Couturier, #17
for
#2

?

I'd want more for the #2 pick.

I'd ask for Mark Alt and Taylor Leier plus Couturier and the #17 and I'd still be very reluctant. Probably unlikely.

 

[BananaSquad]

The point is that people are perceiving Couturiers offensive ability through his NHL point production without the context of his role

I agree. Dude gets no pp time at all. This is a moot discussion anyways cuz philly aint trading him.

 

[tsujimoto74]

I would move the pick for MacKinnon.

So yeah, it's functionally untouchable.

Pretty much this. Unless someone wants to give us a young forward with elite potential for the pick (and I doubt they will), I have no interest in moving it/moving back. We've got fantastic depth in our prospect pool and plenty of extra picks later in the 1st and in the 2nd round over the next few drafts. We don't need more good prospects. We need a couple great ones.

 

[enthusiast]

This explains a lot

not as much as this does

 

[Beerz]

No interest in trading the #2 for the likes of Coots or anyone of that ilk.

 

[Summit72]

I'd consider it for a top three forward, two years into their nhl career. That's a very small population of candidates.

I like Coots a lot, but he's already got a lot of klicks on the odometer.

 

[kenfury]

There are ways to trade down and come out ahead they are just few and far between. A team that thinks it is better than their draft position, a team that wants to make one last push or perhaps a team slightly off the Sabres downswing.

e.g.

#2 + #39 for #5 and Strome, #2 + #39 for #6 + Horvat, or #2 + (two 2nds) for #3 and Yak type deals.

That still lets you get DalColle/Nylander if you think that is what you need AND get more skilled assets. Not that I am saying those deals would happen but there is more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[Jame]

The main argument I'm seeing is that Couturier would be offensively significant and produce more points if he was playing with Grioux. That's obvious.

no. the argument is that Couturier plays a particular role... and that role includes things like:
60% defensive zone starts
Matching up against the opponents #1 line
having primary linemates like Read and Downie

Where as, a role more befitting of his talent would be:
50/50 zone starts
scoring wingers
etc

Giroux is just the example that correlates to the team he is on....

In Buffalo, by acquiring him with the #2 pick, we'd immediately be plugging him into the #1 center slot, where he'd gain scoring wingers options like Ennis, Hodgson, Stewart, Stafford... his minutes as ES and PP would increase, as would the offensive talent around him, and the situations he'd be in.

He'd also bridge the roles perfectly as we tank our way to McDavid/Eichel

center core:
Couturier - 2 way selke 1st line
McDavid/Eichel - elite offensive 2nd line tearing apart matchups
Girgensons - shutdown line

But, we don't have anyone on this team that would even be close to Grioux. So if we traded for him, he'd be in the exact situation as he's in Philly now.

we have a lot better offensive talent compared to Read-Downie....

Couturier is a good player, he's great in the defensive zone. But he's had 3 seasons now and he hasn't even shown a little bit of the offensive skill that he did in juniors. He was horrible on the PP for them this year, but there second PP unit was bad all around so it's not all on him. He just can't seem to finish.

he's shown me...

Bottom line: Couturier may very well start to develop an offensive game and be the next Anze Kopitar, or he could very well keep with the past 3 years progression and be just a good #2/great #3. I would not mind trading for Couturier, but I would mind giving up the #2 pick for him. I would much rather have a Bennett or Reinhart, than I would Couturier right now.[/QUOTE]

you didn't do the "he could, or he could not" with the Sam's... why not?

 

[paulmm3]

What about the chance there's league expansion next year? You all know more than me so I like lurking and reading comments, but all this planning as if we're guaranteed top-2 in 2015 has me a little uneasy. I have no doubt we're one of the two worst teams in the league next year, but expansion means no amount of suck guarantees us Eichel/McDavid.

 

[tsujimoto74]

What about the chance there's league expansion next year? You all know more than me so I like lurking and reading comments, but all this planning as if we're guaranteed top-2 in 2015 has me a little uneasy. I have no doubt we're one of the two worst teams in the league next year, but expansion means no amount of suck guarantees us Eichel/McDavid.

If the league were expanding next year, we'd already know about it. The amount of preparation necessary to accommodate more teams would/will take more than 1 season. And also, the last time the league expanded, the expansion franchises were given the 3rd and 4th overall picks, not the top ones. And the 2 times before that, the expansion franchise was awarded the 2nd overall pick.

 

[yahhockey]

Getting back to the point...it's all relative to how TM and the scouts view the players in the draft compared to the players and draft position that are being offered for the #2. Maybe they like Reinhart or Bennett out of the available draftees however in the grand scheme of NHL players don't view them as more than average second line players producing 45-50 points a season. In that case they may be more likely to make a trade if the compensation is more than the perceived value of their target at #2. If Reinhart/Bennett are viewed as being great second liners or lower end first liners with solid point production then it's a lot harder to trade the pick unless the offer blows them away. At the end of the day there's nothing wrong with listening to offers but there's no definitive right answer without knowing what the team thinks of the draftees.

 

[Chad Thundercock]

The expansion paranoia was never well-founded. Previous expansion years, the league announces there will be expansion 3-4 years prior. Then a team is chosen, and that's usually 2 years prior. We're not getting screwed, that way at least.

 

[KennyFnPowers*]

Couturier? LOL WRONG! + Yawn.

No way you give up a chance at Reinhart... None.

Couturier will never be a Toews-type, Reinhart might be already.

 

[Djp]

What about the chance there's league expansion next year? You all know more than me so I like lurking and reading comments, but all this planning as if we're guaranteed top-2 in 2015 has me a little uneasy. I have no doubt we're one of the two worst teams in the league next year, but expansion means no amount of suck guarantees us Eichel/McDavid.

If the league were expanding next year, we'd already know about it. The amount of preparation necessary to accommodate more teams would/will take more than 1 season. And also, the last time the league expanded, the expansion franchises were given the 3rd and 4th overall picks, not the top ones. And the 2 times before that, the expansion franchise was awarded the 2nd overall pick.

there is a chance they could take a different approach to this.

Say they announce the 2 expansion teams in early 2015. they dont start playing to 2017-2018 season.

But they do allow the teams to draft in 2015 (not at top...but instead mid to late round with the plan to help build a prospect pool. they pick 31 and 32 in 2015 draft, and 15, 16 in 2016 draft (between playoff and non playoff teams), and then #3 and #4 in 2017. In each of these drafts they would get supplemental picks thus getting 12 picks in 2015 and 2016 drafts. Before the draft they have the expansion draft. The league would set expansion rules and protection lists. Each team would lose 1 player from their NHL 23 man roster. Along with this they would have an AHL draft which would be a split of ELCs and vet AHLers. Then the expansion teams would get 15 NHLers, 8 ELCs/4 yr players, 7 vet AHLers.

 

[enthusiast]

the NHLPA would have a conniption over that

 

[Djp]

So suppose Vancouver offers their #1 this year and next for our pick in the first round this year and the St. Louis #1 in 2015?

Not happen.....there is no certainty what Vancouver will be next year. Teams are too bunched up. Given the weaker West vs the stronger central its possible everyone in the centeral beats everyone in the division up and vancouver plays well and get to around the low 90s...sitting in #4 they get a wild card spot while ST Louis battles with a bunch of teams in that 88-94 range fighting for the #2-#5 place in the division..STL ends up with 90 pts and then misses the playoffs.

There are ways to trade down and come out ahead they are just few and far between. A team that thinks it is better than their draft position, a team that wants to make one last push or perhaps a team slightly off the Sabres downswing.

e.g.

#2 + #39 for #5 and Strome, #2 + #39 for #6 + Horvat, or #2 + (two 2nds) for #3 and Yak type deals.

That still lets you get DalColle/Nylander if you think that is what you need AND get more skilled assets. Not that I am saying those deals would happen but there is more than one way to skin a cat.

The Isles would never do that deal.

 

[Paxon]

the NHLPA would have a conniption over that

Not only would they have a conniption but they would quite easily successfully sue the NHL if it came to that. It's not something the NHL would even consider.

 

[DJN21]

So we need Coots, Girgs, and Larsson? seems overkill to me...I love Coots prolly a top 20 fav of mine but he is not needed in the way that a Reinhardt is....

 

[Jacob582]

Not only would they have a conniption but they would quite easily successfully sue the NHL if it came to that. It's not something the NHL would even consider.

ehhh, so you butcher the labor laws. To avoid lawsuit.........after McDavid is drafted by the Seatle Seawolves just loan him to KHL Medvescak Zagreb until the expansion team is able to employ him.

 

[Deevo]

Bennett/Reinhart and the decade of team control that comes with them >>>>>>>>> Couturier. Not to mention they both most likely will have higher career offensive impacts. This shouldn't even be a discussion.

 

[Der Jaeger]

I see things as models.

If the model is St. Louis, then Murray should trade for Couturier, and Nolan uses him like Backes. Then you plug McDavid or Eichel in, and you've got two solid lines, with Girgensons as the shutdown line center. Two of the top three lines have great defensive centers. Works for me.

I personally like the Chicago model. Speed and lots of depth, with the size to play with LA and Boston. If that's the model, you draft one of Reinhart or Bennett, add in McDavid or Eichel, and shape the roster/prospect depth around them. Reinhart/Bennett play the role of Toews (two way top line forward) while McDavid/Eichel add the explosiveness Chicago gets from Kane. Also works for me.

Is be happy either way. Buffalo is in a good spot in terms of prospects and picks, with the ability to shape the team in different ways.

 

[Jame]

I see things as models.

If the model is St. Louis, then Murray should trade for Couturier, and Nolan uses him like Backes. Then you plug McDavid or Eichel in, and you've got two solid lines, with Girgensons as the shutdown line center. Two of the top three lines have great defensive centers. Works for me.

I personally like the Chicago model. Speed and lots of depth, with the size to play with LA and Boston. If that's the model, you draft one of Reinhart or Bennett, add in McDavid or Eichel, and shape the roster/prospect depth around them. Reinhart/Bennett play the role of Toews (two way top line forward) while McDavid/Eichel add the explosiveness Chicago gets from Kane. Also works for me.

Is be happy either way. Buffalo is in a good spot in terms of prospects and picks, with the ability to shape the team in different ways.

i like the model approach as well...

But i see a combo...

Couturier in the 2 way/#1 line Kopitar role
McDavid/Eichel in the Explosive Offensive Kane Role
Girgensons in the "holy **** this model is actually perfect" depth shutdown role