Why I think we should not move up in the draft

[ZeroPT*]

This is probably a really odd opinion but I don't think we should move any of our 2nd round picks in this year's draft. Here's why:

1)talent
Many scouts believe that a player drafted in the 20's is similar to a player drafted in the 30's this year. For example, Jakub Vrana is ranked between 19-25 in most outlets yet I don't truly see why he's better than Eric Cornel or John Quenneville who are almost always rated as 2nd rounders.

2)baptiste and Hurley
Baptiste and Hurley are both turning 18 years old after this years draft. We used picks 38 and 68 on these guys last year. Had these guys been born a couple days or hours later they would've been eligible for this draft, and both would likely have been mid 1st rounders this year. So we essentially have the 2nd overall pick, a pick in the 12-17 range (baptiste) and a pick in the 19-25 range (Hurley).

3)importance of 2nd rounders
We are all aware if the glut of guys drafted after pick 30 who have carved out good careers and even become stars (datsyuk,Weber,Keith et all) and I'd like to see what Murray could do with the 2nds this year. We also all know how important it is to hit on your 2nds/later picks when building a team. And if we package all 3 2nds like some have suggested we wouldn't even get the chance to get this guys and I doubt we'd get much higher than 14-15.

4)fallers
In bob's final rankings James duthie showed a graph on BM's accuracy over the years. And most of them were 24 or 25 players out of 30. Meaning there could be 4 or 5 guys who are projected 1st rounders and will be there at 31.

Now I'm not against moving up for a guy who's high on the sabres list or a guy who's falling (fowler in 2010,forsberg in 2012 and Shinkaruk last year) but packaging two 2nds to go from 31 to 22 or something like that is something I'd be against.

Discuss.

Click to read more...

 

[TossinSauce]

I see a few guys that I would spend 2nds on to grab. Depending on how the draft works, if any of the following guys are left in the high teens or twenties I want to move up. I see at least one of these guys being available at 22, at least in my mocks.

Fiala
Scherbak
Tuch
Barbashev

Also the title reminds me of this video

 

[Bps21*]

My reasoning for not moving up would be that it's pretty much a muddled mess from the middle of round 1 on anyway and you can do just as well sitting back if you know what you're doing IMO.

My reason for moving up is that...we can't keep making all these picks. They have to be packaged together or we'll see a day where we have 700 people turning pro and we have 6 contracts to give out.

That's only a slight exaggeration.

 

[Paxon]

I won't say this is a ridiculous opinion, because it's not, but I do disagree and here are some reasons why:

Organizational depth: We have a quantity of prospects as well as a quantity of picks in the first 2 rounds this year and next. While more quantity is good, at some point there are diminishing returns with that route. If we can trade up and get a guy I view as a potential stud for a particular role, like Barbashev or Kempe among many others, then it's just the way to go for me.

Second-round talent: We might get a good talent -- whether seen as a "faller" or not -- at #31 like you say, but by #49 we're likely dealing with guys our scouts have third-round grades on. Now, that might mean we would like to keep #31 and trade up using our other two 2nd's, but other teams are going to feel the same way about those picks, making it a bit unlikely to be sufficient. In that case, I'd happily sacrifice the pretty decent #31 to get a better shot at someone I really like. Ideally we'd use the second two 2nd's + something else to move up, though.

If someone who has seen some of these guys projected to go in the mid-2nd more than me -- I often am doing other things while watching these games and pay more attention when top guys have shifts -- says that they think we can get two really good selections out of those three picks, then I'm listening. I don't hear a whole lot of that though, and those second-round guys I do feel fairly confident about don't entice me very much outside of the ones likely to be gone by #49.

 

[ZZamboni]

I would like to see all the 2nds packaged to get at or near the mid 1st. Sabres need quality more than quantity this draft.

 

[ZeroPT*]

I would like to see all the 2nds packaged to get at or near the mid 1st. Sabres need quality more than quantity this draft.

The quality found in the mid 1st isn't better than quality in the early 2nd round.

 

[ZZamboni]

The quality found in the mid 1st isn't better than quality in the early 2nd round.

If that's true, then why are they ranked mid 1st? Luck? No one knows how to rank? There must be a logical unbiased reason why mid 1st prospects are ranked there. And early 2nds are ranked there.

 

[Bps21*]

If that's true, then why are they ranked mid 1st? Luck? No one knows how to rank? There must be a logical unbiased reason why mid 1st prospects are ranked there. And early 2nds are ranked there.

I think you'll find if you look at a bunch of them you'll see prospects are scattered all over past about the 15 spot.

 

[ZeroPT*]

I would like to see all the 2nds packaged to get at or near the mid 1st. Sabres need quality more than quantity this draft.

I won't say this is a ridiculous opinion, because it's not, but I do disagree and here are some reasons why:

Organizational depth: We have a quantity of prospects as well as a quantity of picks in the first 2 rounds this year and next. While more quantity is good, at some point there are diminishing returns with that route. If we can trade up and get a guy I view as a potential stud for a particular role, like Barbashev or Kempe among many others, then it's just the way to go for me.

Second-round talent: We might get a good talent -- whether seen as a "faller" or not -- at #31 like you say, but by #49 we're likely dealing with guys our scouts have third-round grades on. Now, that might mean we would like to keep #31 and trade up using our other two 2nd's, but other teams are going to feel the same way about those picks, making it a bit unlikely to be sufficient. In that case, I'd happily sacrifice the pretty decent #31 to get a better shot at someone I really like. Ideally we'd use the second two 2nd's + something else to move up, though.

If someone who has seen some of these guys projected to go in the mid-2nd more than me -- I often am doing other things while watching these games and pay more attention when top guys have shifts -- says that they think we can get two really good selections out of those three picks, then I'm listening. I don't hear a whole lot of that though, and those second-round guys I do feel fairly confident about don't entice me very much outside of the ones likely to be gone by #49.

Next year is the year id want to move up. We can package some prospects drafted on the 2nd round along with other pieces for a top 6 forward which we wouldn't have gotten by moving up this year. Example:

Say we stay at 2,31,39 and 49 this year and our draft goes: Reinhart,Karlsson,Cornell and McDonald as our 4 first picks, we could do something like this next year:
Ennis/CoHo
A prospect we have no more room for
NYI 1st (if it's outside the top 10)

For

Evander Kane

This is just an example, but I'd rather do this than move up a couple spots and pick a guy who might be a bit better than a guy we took at 31. Quantity of prospects is rarely a problem, they can be dealt.

 

[ZeroPT*]

If that's true, then why are they ranked mid 1st? Luck? No one knows how to rank? There must be a logical unbiased reason why mid 1st prospects are ranked there. And early 2nds are ranked there.

Perhaps "isn't better" was the wrong phrase.

The prospects ranked in the mid 1st aren't south better that they warrant trading assets.

I'd rather have Someone falling out of round 1 at 31 and a guy like Wallmark/Cornel/Karlsson at 39 than a guy like McCann at 15

 

[mgeise]

I wholeheartedly agree. Though this is all just armchair GMing, there isn't a huge difference between who is going to be there at 20-23 and who is going to be there at 31 and 39. I think there's more merit in trying to move up from #49 by potentially packaging #49 and #61 together.

 

[Dubi Doo]

I'd rather package a second rounder or two to get a prospect who's NHL ready.

 

[Chad Thundercock]

I don't believe in "quality vs quantity" and all that organizational thinking when drafting. If there's a guy you really like and are willing to trade up for him with the pieces you have, do it. Simple as that. If the Sabres share your belief that a bunch of guys rated 20-40 are the same, then he won't.

 

[Jame]

I disagree entirely

So does Tim Murray

 

[Jacob582]

My reasoning for not moving up would be that it's pretty much a muddled mess from the middle of round 1 on anyway and you can do just as well sitting back if you know what you're doing IMO.

Seems like we would have similar luck with drafting an impact player by using #31, 39, 49 and 61 than if we used them all to trade up and select at #13 (just an example).

Theoretically we should have more luck finding gems in the 2nd round over other teams with our souped up scouting department (no team combine )

My reason for moving up is that...we can't keep making all these picks. They have to be packaged together or we'll see a day where we have 700 people turning pro and we have 6 contracts to give out.

If we use all our 2nd rounders are we going to have enough time to identify the "gem" before we have to decide which ones to sign and which ones to not because we don't have enough contract space?

And it seems like the "expert" opinion (Tim Murray) would side with trading up. TM has mentioned that we have a lot (too many?) of 2nd rounders and would like to use more of them (after using 2 in the Des, Fashing trade) to trade up or acquire prospects in trade.

 

[Djp]

I disagree.....

trading up to get a pick around 17-21 means they can get a player who should be solid 2nd line with a potential upside of 1st line.

sticking with their 2nd round picks just fill the area where they have depth in. Those later picks (49 and 61) are rd round grade player who may not amount to anything.

Buffalo has the depth---they need the high end talent.

They can find some trading partners who lack depth in their systems but may have high end talent...thus they want to fill their depth by trading down and acquiring more picks.

With them trading up they will be targeting a player they want.

Look back over the last 10-15 yrs in drafting and see how much talent you will get in the 2nd round and what kind of players they generally are. Odds are highly against you finding a 1st line winger or top pairing Dman. Usually int he 2nd you get mostly rd line talent/ #4-5 Dmen with a few they may develop into 2nd line/ #2 Dmen.

 

[Reddawg]

2)baptiste and Hurley
Baptiste and Hurley are both turning 18 years old after this years draft.

Discuss.

Wat...no. Both players were born in '95, they both turn 19 this year. A player isn't eligible to be drafted unless you'll be 18 by Sept 15th of your draft year. Hurley just made it by the skin of his teeth, turning 18 on September 15th, 2013.

 

[NotABadPeriod]

If TM has identified a player he really wants, then trade up and get that guy. Be proactive and make sure you get the guy you want instead of hoping and praying.

If there isn't a guy on the board you really want, then you don't trade up. Clearly Murray though is laying the groundwork for possible deals in case the board plays out favorably.

 

[tsujimoto74]

At some point, the 50 contract limit, and having enough ice time to go around for all the prospects to develop, has to become a concern. And we're defiitely not hurting for depth. I'm all for trading up and getting more quality, less quantity. I trust our scouting staff and TM to know which guys to target in those types of moves. Murray was brought in because of his pedigree in talent evaluation...Let the man do what he does best.

 

[krt88]

This is probably a really odd opinion but I don't think we should move any of our 2nd round picks in this year's draft. Here's why:

1)talent
Many scouts believe that a player drafted in the 20's is similar to a player drafted in the 30's this year. For example, Jakub Vrana is ranked between 19-25 in most outlets yet I don't truly see why he's better than Eric Cornel or John Quenneville who are almost always rated as 2nd rounders.

2)baptiste and Hurley
Baptiste and Hurley are both turning 18 years old after this years draft. We used picks 38 and 68 on these guys last year. Had these guys been born a couple days or hours later they would've been eligible for this draft, and both would likely have been mid 1st rounders this year. So we essentially have the 2nd overall pick, a pick in the 12-17 range (baptiste) and a pick in the 19-25 range (Hurley).

3)importance of 2nd rounders
We are all aware if the glut of guys drafted after pick 30 who have carved out good careers and even become stars (datsyuk,Weber,Keith et all) and I'd like to see what Murray could do with the 2nds this year. We also all know how important it is to hit on your 2nds/later picks when building a team. And if we package all 3 2nds like some have suggested we wouldn't even get the chance to get this guys and I doubt we'd get much higher than 14-15.

4)fallers
In bob's final rankings James duthie showed a graph on BM's accuracy over the years. And most of them were 24 or 25 players out of 30. Meaning there could be 4 or 5 guys who are projected 1st rounders and will be there at 31.

Now I'm not against moving up for a guy who's high on the sabres list or a guy who's falling (fowler in 2010,forsberg in 2012 and Shinkaruk last year) but packaging two 2nds to go from 31 to 22 or something like that is something I'd be against.

Discuss.

I've said this before, there are only two guys worth moving back into the 1st round for (unless you can get into to the top 12)

Tuch and Barbashev

beyond that sit back and the let draft come to you. There is plenty of talent but you have to help them clear up their warts.

 

[Jacob582]

I really think we could get in the top 10 without giving up a current player by using #31, #39, #49 and #61. We would have to make several trades to do it and take multiple salary dump players.

(And the most important part: you need sellers)

 

[ZeroPT*]

I disagree entirely

So does Tim Murray

this is probably thr most egotistical response I've read in any thread.

You don't know that, neither do I.

 

[ZeroPT*]

Wat...no. Both players were born in '95, they both turn 19 this year. A player isn't eligible to be drafted unless you'll be 18 by Sept 15th of your draft year. Hurley just made it by the skin of his teeth, turning 18 on September 15th, 2013.

yeah that's me getting over enthusiastic.

Still, both were very close to being drafted this year and would likely have been 1st rounders

 

[ZeroPT*]

At some point, the 50 contract limit, and having enough ice time to go around for all the prospects to develop, has to become a concern. And we're defiitely not hurting for depth. I'm all for trading up and getting more quality, less quantity. I trust our scouting staff and TM to know which guys to target in those types of moves. Murray was brought in because of his pedigree in talent evaluation...Let the man do what he does best.

Murray would be able to work his magic better with 3 second rounders vs a late first

 

[Jame]

I disagree entirely

So does Tim Murray

this is probably thr most egotistical response I've read in any thread.

You don't know that, neither do I.

"I’d like to get a couple of more first round picks and I have those three second-rounders to use." - Tim Murray