Speculation: Who do we pick?

[rt]

If that forward is a RW I would be fine with that. I agree I don't want to trade a A+ asset and the way it looks so far either does Chayka.

Vanek @ 6.5m for 1y w/FNMC
Or
Nash @ 7.5m for 1y w/FNMC

Tell whichever is into it that we’ll trade them at the TDL (if they wish) to whichever team they want (assuming the other team is interested) with maximum salary retention, for whatever the team will offer.

Gives Wahlstrom a year to develop.

 

[_Del_]

I think we'd have to offer Nash a mulityear contract to have a chance. You have to offer him something noone else will. Everyone will offer one year contracts. A few two year offers, probably. We should do a diving three year and just overpay him. I'd much rather overpay him and plug the hole and continue adding to our asset collection than trade away assets to fill the hole.

 

[rt]

I think we'd have to offer Nash a mulityear contract to have a chance. You have to offer him something noone else will. Everyone will offer one year contracts. A few two year offers, probably. We should do a diving three year and just overpay him. I'd much rather overpay him and plug the hole and continue adding to our asset collection than trade away assets to fill the hole.

Nobody is going to be offfering 1 year deals with that much cash.

 

[Jakey53]

I think we'd have to offer Nash a mulityear contract to have a chance. You have to offer him something noone else will. Everyone will offer one year contracts. A few two year offers, probably. We should do a diving three year and just overpay him. I'd much rather overpay him and plug the hole and continue adding to our asset collection than trade away assets to fill the hole.

We better not over pay for any 33 yo winger. I like Nash and would do a two year deal, but at this point of his career he is a 40 pt. winger.

Nobody is going to be offfering 1 year deals with that much cash.

Why pay him that much cash? He's a 40 pt. winger at this point of his career.

 

[Neighborhood Coyote]

Well, considering we would go from #5, and three late round picks (most of whom never sniff the league) to a player in the NHL who is capable of 40 points, plus two picks in the top 50 (picks who are far more likely to make it to the NHL than picks in the 4th, 5th, or 6th rounds), yes, it makes sense. Each draft is different.

If we knew that the next Keller was available at the pick, maybe we don't do that deal. But if that upside isn't clear, we may get one potentially very good player at #5 or three good players in Coyle and the additional picks. We have some development time to work with, so subtracting the 5 pick isn't great, but adding pieces that can make up for it can. Maybe this is the 2011 draft (Ryan Strome taken 5th OA), and the players that we could potentially grab in the 2nd are the likes of Kucherov, William Karlsson, Mayfield, Jenner, Gibson, Victor Rask, Saad, or Salomaki. Just because you are taken high doesn't guarantee success in the NHL and given our track record, maybe it is better off to throw a few good pieces on to the roster, as opposed to just one very good piece.

Edit: The last 8 forwards taken in the NHL draft at #5 OA from 2004 - 14 have averaged 56 points over an 82 game season combined. This includes a list of players like Wheeler, Vanek, and Kessel. So, yes, there may be a great player out there, but Coyle averaging 40-45 points per season, plus a late 1st round pick and a mid 2nd round pick would actually be pretty close in the end and it may end up being that both of those picks make the NHL, at which point I would tend to favor the more picks scenario. But again, very close and it is somewhat dependent on the upside available. Is Wahlstrom or Tkachuk likely to produce at a Blake Wheeler or Phil Kessel level, or are they closer to Ryan Strome or Nino Neiderreiter?

In theory, I totally think what you're suggesting could work. BUT, if you look historically at how the Coyotes have fared in drafting past the first round and what they get out of those players... it's pretty brutal. Another but though, the team seems to have done a better job scouting and drafting recently so maybe the past is moot. The plan could work if the Yotes either draft a lot better than they historically have or just plain get lucky. I do like Coyle though and it makes me consider the idea at least.

But I think I want the potential elite talent, or more likely chance of it, personally speaking.

 

[Summer Rose]

Vanek interests me a lot more than Nash. He managed 41 points in 61 games on an absolutely terrible Vancouver team and then got 15 in 19 after being shipped to Columbus. Small sample size, but he did end up with 56 points in 80 games. That's equal to Stepan's scoring total for us, and Vanek is much more of a goal scorer than a playmaker (his 56 points were 24 goals and 32 assists).

Back on topic since this is about who we draft, I originally voted for Boqvist but I'm really warming up to Wahlstrom. I've warmed up a bit more to Tkachuk as well but I still think 5th is too high to draft him. I used to say he was worth being drafted in the 25-35 range but now I think it's more like 10-15.

 

[cobra427]

If that forward is a RW I would be fine with that. I agree I don't want to trade a A+ asset and the way it looks so far either does Chayka.

Agreed, not trading "A" assets for a winger.

 

[IPreferPi]

How about overpaying for James Neal for a year?

 

[The Feckless Puck]

How about overpaying for James Neal for a year?

As much as I hate Neal when he's playing against us, I'd be on board for this if Vegas doesn't resign him. I'd probably prefer this to Vanek or Nash, to be honest.

 

[Mosby]

Vanek @ 6.5m for 1y w/FNMC
Or
Nash @ 7.5m for 1y w/FNMC

Tell whichever is into it that we’ll trade them at the TDL (if they wish) to whichever team they want (assuming the other team is interested) with maximum salary retention, for whatever the team will offer.

Gives Wahlstrom a year to develop.

Rick Nash may be the laziest player in the league. No thank you.

 

[_Del_]

Neal is going to get money and term. If we have it, then great.

You are willing to over pay Nash because the alternative is not getting him or trading nice assets to fill the same hole.

Calling Nash the laziest player in the league while we're simultaneously discussing Vanek of all people as an alternative is sort of hilarious.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

So very much depends upon who is available at #5 that I wouldn't make any move prior to our turn on the clock, unless the opportunity arose to move up to get whoever is at the top of our board. I'm not even sure that there is a lot of daylight between players in the top 5 or 6 given what I've read (Dahlin excluded).

 

[SniperHF]

How about overpaying for James Neal for a year?

I consider Neal the ideal solution to our top line issues. But I don't think he'll come here. He's almost always been on winning teams and one of those will offer him something substantial.

 

[Summer Rose]

I consider Neal the ideal solution to our top line issues. But I don't think he'll come here. He's almost always been on winning teams and one of those will offer him something substantial.

He's also a fan favorite in Las Vegas. The Knights would be stupid to not re-sign him.

 

[IPreferPi]

He's also a fan favorite in Las Vegas. The Knights would be stupid to not re-sign him.

Would the Knights be able to resign all of Neal, Perron, Karlsson, Theodore, and Colin Miller?

 

[Summer Rose]

Would the Knights be able to resign all of Neal, Perron, Karlsson, Theodore, and Colin Miller?

Fair point and they'll probably have to part ways with at least one of those names. Karlsson is already extended, but of all the other ones, Neal is the least likely one that they'll let go.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Would the Knights be able to resign all of Neal, Perron, Karlsson, Theodore, and Colin Miller?

I think they'd resign Neal before Perron and Miller. The complicating factor is Karlsson, who is going to be due a BIG raise.

 

[Summer Rose]

I misremembered who Vegas extended. I thought it was Karlsson. Whoops.

 

[rt]

How about overpaying for James Neal for a year?

He’s going to get 5yrs, 30mil.

 

[rt]

We better not over pay for any 33 yo winger. I like Nash and would do a two year deal, but at this point of his career he is a 40 pt. winger.


Why pay him that much cash? He's a 40 pt. winger at this point of his career.

Why pay? So he chooses to come to maybe the least attractive situation in the nhl and does so without also getting additional term.

 

[rt]

Neal is going to get money and term. If we have it, then great.

You are willing to over pay Nash because the alternative is not getting him or trading nice assets to fill the same hole.

Calling Nash the laziest player in the league while we're simultaneously discussing Vanek of all people as an alternative is sort of hilarious.

My point is that I don’t care if they’re lazy or overpaid. I only care if they’re willing to take a 1yr deal, that they’ll score 20 goals, and that they don’t cost any assets to acquire.

 

[BUX7PHX]

How many more vets do you think we need? I simply don't trade #5 OA in a deep draft for Coyle, especially after trading our 1st. last year.

I think we need one, possibly two more.

The problem that I see is the example that you gave - we want a player who can be ready to go for us, but one of your posts discourages signing anyone to a 1 year, money heavy deal. Unfortunately, that may also be the only way to add a veteran presence like that without giving up major assets. A lot of RFA RWs out there, but again, involves moving some other assets around and teams may be less likely to deal RFAs from the cost control perspective.

Now, we get into the question of who is available: Nash and Vanek were mentioned but also made known that many people consider them to be lazy at times, which after last season, is a complete 180 from the direction Tocchet is stating to go. So, while that looks like the best option, it may not be quite as easy as we are making it sound (not suggesting that trading away a potential top asset makes it any easier).

Remember the entire premise involved making two deals to move back and nab Coyle, which would ultimately get us:

Coyle
#22 (from MIN, my bad thought Minnesota was at #23)
#44 (from DAL, part of 1st trade to move back to #13)

So based on some mocks that I have been seeing and who might be available, we could either go:

Wahlstrom/choice of the next best defenseman after Dahlin

or a combination of

Coyle (whom we would extend immediately)
#22 - Jared McIsaac
#44 - Nando Eggenberger

Maybe that is the best possible return in the draft, and maybe someone slips that we covet highly (Merkley? Noel? Dellandrea in the mid-2nd?). But that return doesn't look terrible relative to a single player at #5 who could be the next Kessel and could be the next Dal Colle. Or for defensemen, could be the next Alzner or could be the next Luke Schenn. All depends on what our scouting sees in these players in that group.

 

[_Del_]

My point is that I don’t care if they’re lazy or overpaid. I only care if they’re willing to take a 1yr deal, that they’ll score 20 goals, and that they don’t cost any assets to acquire.

Yet adding Nelson who would be significantly cheaper and who can lineup at center if needed was anathema to you...

 

[BUX7PHX]

In theory, I totally think what you're suggesting could work. BUT, if you look historically at how the Coyotes have fared in drafting past the first round and what they get out of those players... it's pretty brutal. Another but though, the team seems to have done a better job scouting and drafting recently so maybe the past is moot. The plan could work if the Yotes either draft a lot better than they historically have or just plain get lucky. I do like Coyle though and it makes me consider the idea at least.

But I think I want the potential elite talent, or more likely chance of it, personally speaking.

Now that Chayka is in the fold, I think our purpose in drafting is far more solid. Chayka even said it himself upon getting hired as the AGM to Maloney - we want to use the draft to make up that difference for what we haven't been able to get UFA-wise. Getting things done internally and developing said talent that way is a key. Yes, we would take the hit on pure elite talent level, but there is nothing that says that a late 1st and a mid 2nd rounder can't be very good players whose combined value is greater than that of a single player.

I am a big "sum is greater than the parts" type of person...

 

[rt]

Yet adding Nelson who would be significantly cheaper and who can lineup at center if needed was anathema to you...

I didn’t know he was a UFA willing to sign a one year deal? I thought he’d cost good assets to acquire?