Huckleberry Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Well i might get some grief over this but meh http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1031507-2012-nhl-mock-draft-predicting-all-30-first-round-selections/page/6 I agree
Sabres Fan in NS Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 My wish concerning the draft is that DR (presumably he will be conducting the draft) will stand up at the podium and be the first GM in recent memory to put aside all the BS about picking the "best available player" and pick according to the Sabres greatest need ... the best North American stud centerman available.
CallawaySabres Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 I'll take one of these please....and even if Edmonton finishes below us, it looks like they could be going D anyway. I have heard people comparing Griggy to Malkin but better. Uhhhyeah, no problem for me wanting losses if it gets this guy on our team. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1031507-2012-nhl-mock-draft-predicting-all-30-first-round-selections/page/4
bunomatic Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 My wish concerning the draft is that DR (presumably he will be conducting the draft) will stand up at the podium and be the first GM in recent memory to put aside all the BS about picking the "best available player" and pick according to the Sabres greatest need ... the best North American stud centerman available. Its only opinion but I'd take the best player available. Always. I realize its a crapshoot as to who actually becomes the best player but thats just how I'd do it.
TrueBlueGED Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 My general draft approach: if there is clearly a guy who is the best available, you take him, regardless of position. If you already have 15 RWs in the system, you STILL take the best guy available because you can always trade the excess assets. However, if things are close and there's division as to who is the best, then you have to factor team needs into it.
shrader Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Its only opinion but I'd take the best player available. Always. I realize its a crapshoot as to who actually becomes the best player but thats just how I'd do it. The only position you draft based on need is goalie. Outside of the top 3-5 each year (hey, right where we should be), there are no sure bets. That said, if they do wind up in that range, they should do everything in their power to land Grigorenko. If they have to work with Edmonton a bit to flip picks, then so be it.
Robviously Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 My general draft approach: if there is clearly a guy who is the best available, you take him, regardless of position. If you already have 15 RWs in the system, you STILL take the best guy available because you can always trade the excess assets. Unless you're Darcy Regier, who has never traded an asset when it was at its peak value.
TrueBlueGED Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Unless you're Darcy Regier, who has never traded an asset when it was at its peak value. :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:
LTS Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 I think it's safe to say that picking in the top 5 nets you a good player this year, unless Edmonton, for some reason, goes with a F with their pick. They are loaded up front and need defense now (and goaltending). Either they trade out or they pick D... Either way.. being near the bottom is good and so if nothing else we can thank the existing players for achieving that goal.
LGR4GM Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 If they don't draft a Center in the first round this year... Darcy is a bigger idiot than I thought. This whole concept of "drafting the best available" is subjective. For instance if you have NO centers than you are technically drafting the best available by drafting a center... see the logic? ;)
Weave Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 If they don't draft a Center in the first round this year... Darcy is a bigger idiot than I thought. This whole concept of "drafting the best available" is subjective. For instance if you have NO centers than you are technically drafting the best available by drafting a center... see the logic? ;) No, I don't.
TrueBlueGED Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 If they don't draft a Center in the first round this year... Darcy is a bigger idiot than I thought. This whole concept of "drafting the best available" is subjective. For instance if you have NO centers than you are technically drafting the best available by drafting a center... see the logic? ;) If there's two players available, one grades out as a 10 and one grades out as a 9, you should draft the 10. Even absolute studs don't hit their prime for a couple of years, and you have those couple of years to fill out your other holes. I don't think anybody is looking at this draft saying "whoever we draft will help us compete for a Cup next season!" it's more along the lines of "whoever we draft will help us to a Cup in a couple of seasons." Ideally we get an immediate impact player, regardless of position. If there's a winger rated 9.5 and a center rated 9.4, then yes, I take the center as well. But if the winger is a clear notch above the center talent-wise, then I take the better talent because it's best for the team long term, even if not this season.
LGR4GM Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 No, I don't. You are talking best available in terms of the draft. I am talking best available in terms of your own team. The latter IMO is more important. If you can draft the best center left in the draft and that center would be the best center is your system, you are drafting the best available.
Weave Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 You are talking best available in terms of the draft. I am talking best available in terms of your own team. The latter IMO is more important. If you can draft the best center left in the draft and that center would be the best center is your system, you are drafting the best available. I know what you meant. I don't think your logic works as well as you think it does.
LGR4GM Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 If there's two players available, one grades out as a 10 and one grades out as a 9, you should draft the 10. Even absolute studs don't hit their prime for a couple of years, and you have those couple of years to fill out your other holes. I don't think anybody is looking at this draft saying "whoever we draft will help us compete for a Cup next season!" it's more along the lines of "whoever we draft will help us to a Cup in a couple of seasons." Ideally we get an immediate impact player, regardless of position. If there's a winger rated 9.5 and a center rated 9.4, then yes, I take the center as well. But if the winger is a clear notch above the center talent-wise, then I take the better talent because it's best for the team long term, even if not this season. So if there is a graded defender at 10 and a big centerman only grade at 9 you should, if you were the sabres, draft yet another defensemen even though we have NO centers in our system? That makes no sense IMHO. Its that sort of safe thinking that has lead this team to the brink of a total rebuild. I know what you meant. I don't think your logic works as well as you think it does. sure it does, because I see the end game. The end game being a cup and the complete inability to trade for a #1 center in this league.
TrueBlueGED Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 You are talking best available in terms of the draft. I am talking best available in terms of your own team. The latter IMO is more important. If you can draft the best center left in the draft and that center would be the best center is your system, you are drafting the best available. I simply think that is a very short-sighted approach. Looking at next season in a vacuum, then yes, a stud center will help more than a stud winger. But 5 years from now? Your logic is working in the presumption that if you pass on the center now, you cannot find it elsewhere, and hockey executives cannot function on that logic. Any professional sports team should be primarily concerned with acquiring the best talent from the draft.
Weave Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 sure it does, because I see the end game. The end game being a cup and the complete inability to trade for a #1 center in this league. LOL So I am not seeing the endgame huh? You know, I tread pretty lightly around you because you've had alot of stuff going on. Maybe I shouldn't.
TrueBlueGED Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 So if there is a graded defender at 10 and a big centerman only grade at 9 you should, if you were the sabres, draft yet another defensemen even though we have NO centers in our system? That makes no sense IMHO. Its that sort of safe thinking that has lead this team to the brink of a total rebuild. There's always the trade option. If there's a defenseman rated at 10, and the best forward is a 9, then there's probably a team behind you willing to trade up for that 10 defenseman. At that point you not only get the 9 forward, but whatever added value from the team trading up for the defenseman.
Robviously Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 So if there is a graded defender at 10 and a big centerman only grade at 9 you should, if you were the sabres, draft yet another defensemen even though we have NO centers in our system? That makes no sense IMHO. Its that sort of safe thinking that has lead this team to the brink of a total rebuild. sure it does, because I see the end game. The end game being a cup and the complete inability to trade for a #1 center in this league. I still go with the 10, even if he's not a center. That said, this is why I want the Sabres to stockpile draft picks at the deadline. After the very top of the draft, it's a total crapshoot. So if we could have, say, four 2nd round picks (note: we already have two this year), we could use all four on centers and hope we hit the jackpot on one or two. Lots of good/great players are drafted in the 2nd round.
TrueBlueGED Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 I'm going to be awesome and completely cherry-pick an example to support my point: The Green Bay Packers drafted Aaron Rodgers, even though they had Brett Favre (who ended up playing for another 7 years in the NFL, mostly successful). The team had plenty of other needs to address, but Rodgers was simply too talented to pass up at that point. Do you think they regret that decision?
LGR4GM Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 I simply think that is a very short-sighted approach. Looking at next season in a vacuum, then yes, a stud center will help more than a stud winger. But 5 years from now? Your logic is working in the presumption that if you pass on the center now, you cannot find it elsewhere, and hockey executives cannot function on that logic. Any professional sports team should be primarily concerned with acquiring the best talent from the draft. Name the last stud center the sabres have acquired in the last 5 years? through trade? We have reached critical mass when it comes to the complete and total lack of center depth within the organization. You have to draft a center this year or we will again be having this conversation. LOL So I am not seeing the endgame huh? You know, I tread pretty lightly around you because you've had alot of stuff going on. Maybe I shouldn't. I didnt say you dont see the endgame. I am simply saying that drafting some more defense is not the way to achieve it. There's always the trade option. If there's a defenseman rated at 10, and the best forward is a 9, then there's probably a team behind you willing to trade up for that 10 defenseman. At that point you not only get the 9 forward, but whatever added value from the team trading up for the defenseman. DARCY CANT TRADE. I'm going to be awesome and completely cherry-pick an example to support my point: The Green Bay Packers drafted Aaron Rodgers, even though they had Brett Favre (who ended up playing for another 7 years in the NFL, mostly successful). The team had plenty of other needs to address, but Rodgers was simply too talented to pass up at that point. Do you think they regret that decision? Thats a different sport with a position that literally dictates the entire games outcome... the closest thing in hockey would be the top center... Here is a great example from hockey... Pittsburg: Malkin, Crosby, Staal. All of them are centers and they won a cup. All drafted high in the first round. Boston: Stockpiled centers and won the cup... Detroit: Has great centers and won the cup Chicago: Great centers and won the cup centers are key to winning the cup and we have Catanacci who could maybe make it as center. We have to draft a center.
shrader Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 I know what you meant. I don't think your logic works as well as you think it does. Inconceivable!
TrueBlueGED Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Name the last stud center the sabres have acquired in the last 5 years? through trade? We have reached critical mass when it comes to the complete and total lack of center depth within the organization. You have to draft a center this year or we will again be having this conversation. Of the top 30 scoring centers currently playing, 12 were drafted in the top 5 of the draft. That means over half of the most productive pivots in the league were drafted outside of the top 5. Just because the Sabres have been completely unable to find them, doesn't mean it's practically impossible. Edit: I should add that of those 12 which were drafted inside the top 5, I'd put good money you can go back and read pre-draft rankings and they were ranked where they got drafted based on talent, not the position they played. Talent trumps position. Do you think Stamkos was drafted #1 overall because he was a center, or because he was Steven Stamkos?
Weave Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Name the last stud center the sabres have acquired in the last 5 years? through trade? We have reached critical mass when it comes to the complete and total lack of center depth within the organization. You have to draft a center this year or we will again be having this conversation. I didnt say you dont see the endgame. I am simply saying that drafting some more defense is not the way to achieve it. DARCY CANT TRADE. Well, you implied that *someone* isn't seeing the end game. Since it was you and me having the discussion you can see how it looks directed my way. Liger, even the highest rated prospects are crapshoots. You can't turn away from the "best available" because they are the ones with the highest probability of actually making it. The further down from best available you get, the higher the likelihood of your pick not making it. You have to collect the best talent you can and use them as assets to get what you need. Now, if you have a center and a winger that are projected to be nearly the same you go for need, but if the winger is projected to elite and the center is projected to be above average you take the projected elite talent every time. #1 he is a higher valued asset and #2 he has a higher probability of actually becoming a good NHL'er.
Robviously Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Thats a different sport with a position that literally dictates the entire games outcome... the closest thing in hockey would be the top center... Here is a great example from hockey... Pittsburg: Malkin, Crosby, Staal. All of them are centers and they won a cup. All drafted high in the first round. Also all drafted when they were the best player available....
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.