GoldiFox
Registered User
- Apr 21, 2014
- 13,287
- 32,030
With the way the 24 team Playoff is setup there is now a pretty low chance the Canes end up with #19. There will be a lot of shuffling from #8-31.
As if the Draft Prospects sim wasn't already a nice distraction when you want to kill a few minutes...
Now that they've updated for Phase 1 of the lottery & the Canes can pick 1st, it adds another level of picks/trade scenarios.
Hmmm solid.I traded 1OA to the Devils for 7+11+16+130.
Askarov @ 7, Quinn @ 11, Mysak @ 16, and Ekmark @130.Hmmm solid.
Who you picking with those 3? It would be tough to give Laf to NJ though.
I targeted Ottawa to trade with so Laf didn’t end up in the metro. I traded 1 and 69 for 3, 22, and 33.Askarov @ 7, Quinn @ 11, Mysak @ 16, and Ekmark @130.
I am 100% certain you are correct in that we wouldn't trade the pick, especially in the Metro. That said, I don't think we are big boy Cup contenders without a true #1 in net, and I'm not taking Askarov with the 1st OA, so I like the idea of trading back for more picks.I get the fun of doing these trades in the mock draft, but I think in the real world, we would take the easy, smart decision and pick #1. With so much of our team in or coming into their primes, having another top notch prospect that could play right away on their ELC makes us big boy Cup contenders.
I targeted Ottawa to trade with so Laf didn’t end up in the metro. I traded 1 and 69 for 3, 22, and 33.
one time LA took Stutzle so I couldn’t pass up Byfield with 3.
Another time I traded 3 for 7 and 11.
Quinn and Askarov then Jarvis at 22.
One time I got froggy and traded 7 for 9, 39, & 40. Same 2 1st rounders with 2 more 1st rounders.
I get the fun of doing these trades in the mock draft, but I think in the real world, we would take the easy, smart decision and pick #1. With so much of our team in or coming into their primes, having another top notch prospect that could play right away on their ELC makes us big boy Cup contenders.
I was hoping Perfetti drop to 7 but never passed 5 for me.I've done the exact same a few times.
Agreed.
While it rarely happens - if ever - it's still intriguing to think about what a Holtz/Raymond/Perfetti, Askarov, & Jarvis (for example) type 1st Round could do.
EDIT - If anyone were to do it, it's the Borg.
Easily you take Laf and trade away depth to have the money to get a netminder. But we cannot do that. We can scoot over to capfriendly and make one like the 100 Toronto and Montreal fans. It is fun to think about trading up and down to get the players you want.I get the fun of doing these trades in the mock draft, but I think in the real world, we would take the easy, smart decision and pick #1. With so much of our team in or coming into their primes, having another top notch prospect that could play right away on their ELC makes us big boy Cup contenders.
Would it really be worth trading down to grab Askarov (and additional picks/prospects) though? Goalies are voodoo and by the time he's ready to be a starter we could be at the tail end of that big window (Slavin/Aho contracts ending). Admittedly I don't know much about him, but if he's on a similar level to Samsonov, remember he's 23, that's 5 years since he was drafted. Carter Hart came into a similar situation to us with Philly (years of filler goalies), and he was sort of forced into a starter role last year and did pretty well with it (though with lots of inconsistency and growing pains)...but at 21 he's definitely an exception to the rule. I wouldn't trade down from #1 overall for a G prospect unless he's damn near 100% surefire and going to be NHL ready within 3 years. We absolutely need a goalie, we need more darts, but I'd be hesitant about trading away that gift horse.I am 100% certain you are correct in that we wouldn't trade the pick, especially in the Metro. That said, I don't think we are big boy Cup contenders without a true #1 in net, and I'm not taking Askarov with the 1st OA, so I like the idea of trading back for more picks.
Would it really be worth trading down to grab Askarov (and additional picks/prospects) though? Goalies are voodoo and by the time he's ready to be a starter we could be at the tail end of that big window (Slavin/Aho contracts ending). Admittedly I don't know much about him, but if he's on a similar level to Samsonov, remember he's 23, that's 5 years since he was drafted. Carter Hart came into a similar situation to us with Philly (years of filler goalies), and he was sort of forced into a starter role last year and did pretty well with it (though with lots of inconsistency and growing pains)...but at 21 he's definitely an exception to the rule. I wouldn't trade down from #1 overall for a G prospect unless he's damn near 100% surefire and going to be NHL ready within 3 years. We absolutely need a goalie, we need more darts, but I'd be hesitant about trading away that gift horse.
If the Canes get 1OA, take Lafreniere. Teams that win have 2-3 elite scorers (Canes check that box with Aho, Svech, Lafreniere), solid to great D (Canes check that box with Pesce and Slavin), and some tough veterans (Canes check that box with Staal).
The one thing that isn't common to Cup winners is a goalie who was elite as a prospect (Quick, Murray, Binnington, Holtby, arguably Crawford). That is zombie hockey knowledge.
To win a Cup a goalie needs to be stellar in the playoffs. Many who have won the Cup were not considered elite prospects. Others who were the same level prospect as Askarov (Price, Vasilevsky, Bernier) haven't won the Cup.
The window is 4 years since Aho, Teravainen, and Pesce will all be UFAs. If the organization can re-sign them, then the window could be 8-9 years. But I think counting on more than 4 is wishful.
I do.Well, there is the stat that most Cup winners have a goalie that they developed in the system. Very few buy a goalie and win the cup.
Who thinks we have that goalie? I don't. I'll eat my hat if it is Ned.
I think Ned is more a passenger on good teams rather then being instrumental in making them good. And with him being on the small side, he’s going to have to be nearly perfect to make up for it. Nobody can expect that of him.I do.
I still think Ned will do fine when given the chance. The first goal in both of his first two starts this season were after he made strong saves on uncontested shots. The D was as bad on those two goals as it was all season. If reasonable plays are made, Ned has respectable numbers.
So yeah, I think Ned's career has been predominantly winning championships: Gold at WJC 18 where he was solid, Bronze at the WJC 20 where his numbers were outstanding, and the Calder Cup. To this point it is every bit as convincing as was Binnington's going into last season.
I look forward to his Liiga championship and Spengler CupI do.
I still think Ned will do fine when given the chance. The first goal in both of his first two starts this season were after he made strong saves on uncontested shots. The D was as bad on those two goals as it was all season. If reasonable plays are made, Ned has respectable numbers.
So yeah, I think Ned's career has been predominantly winning championships: Gold at WJC 18 where he was solid, Bronze at the WJC 20 where his numbers were outstanding, and the Calder Cup. To this point it is every bit as convincing as was Binnington's going into last season.
So you're saying Nedeljkovic is Tim Thomas 2.0I look forward to his Liiga championship and Spengler Cup
I had him in mind as the upside for my snark, sure. If so, we'll see him in 7 years or so.So you're saying Nedeljkovic is Tim Thomas 2.0
Yea, this is kinda where I'm at. For the most part with the Checker, when the team was good, he was good and clicking...when the team was bad, he was often bad or not all that great. There were a few times when he fought hard to keep us IN a game (think when Mrazek saves 20 of 21 shots but the team scores 0 on 40), but I can think of very few times where he truly "stole" a game.I think Ned is more a passenger on good teams rather then being instrumental in making them good. And with him being on the small side, he’s going to have to be nearly perfect to make up for it. Nobody can expect that of him.