2013 NHL Entry Draft: Buffalo Sabres Select...

[TrueBlueGED]

Let's posit it another couple of ways:

If it was a goal of the team to trade into the top three to five or so (the merits of which are surely debatable, but it is romantic), what would it take? Do you have to burn the 16 pick to do it, or are there alternatives that don't burn the 16 and don't necessarily include Vanek or Miller (only because their status is currently unknown)?

 

If we did, for some reason, decide to use both the 8 and the 16 to move up, what would be reasonably achievable? 1? 2? 3?4? Return with one of those or more required? It's, at least recently, unprecedented.

 

Well trading up into the top-5 is unprecedented in recent history, so it would make sense to me that it would take an unprecedented offer. I think we're looking at a minimum of both 1sts to get to 5 (or #8 and a current good player) and the price goes up from there.

 

If the top tier is 1-3, half step drop to 4-6, then a full step drop after that I just don't see any realistic deal which gets us top-3. Even looking at getting to 5 you're looking at jumping a full tier. I think a full tier is worth significantly more than a couple of seconds.

 

It all depends on where you think the drop off is.

If Monahan or Lindholm is available at 8, you stay there and take them.

But after those two there I see a good dozen players with very similar potential.

Why decide between Shinkaruk or Ristolainen (for example) at eight if you could have Shinkaruk and Zadorov at 12 and 16 and throw in Domi at 18 for good measure?

 

Fair. I thought you were advocating a trade down irrespective of who was there at 8.

[North Buffalo]

Let's posit it another couple of ways:

If it was a goal of the team to trade into the top three to five or so (the merits of which are surely debatable, but it is romantic), what would it take? Do you have to burn the 16 pick to do it, or are there alternatives that don't burn the 16 and don't necessarily include Vanek or Miller (only because their status is currently unknown)?

 

If we did, for some reason, decide to use both the 8 and the 16 to move up, what would be reasonably achievable? 1? 2? 3?4? Return with one of those or more required? It's, at least recently, unprecedented.

 

The whole Vanek and Miller part of any formula is really interesting. I think any of those two could require the Sabres obtain 2 first rounders high up or 1 top 3 and a player in return, with a possible swap of 1st round picks, but I am not sure. It is unprecendents and I have doubt that Darcy would actually be able to pull it off but stranger things have happened and he is definetly under pressure to perform.

[Derrico]

We may draft 6th at the most but I think we will find a really high quality center at 8. Lindholm and Monahan are players you DO NOT pass on or trade down from.

 

Do you think we can get one of them at 8? I completely agree that those two are/should be a huge target for the Sabres but I've read the odd mock draft where both are gone by 8. Do we trade up to say 6 and ensure we get one?

 

 

John Vogl ‏@BuffNewsVogl2m

Crosby, Ovechkin, Tavares finalists for MVP; NHL close on committing to Olympics http://bit.ly/12luOe5

 

Hmmmm, all three of these guys have something in common with respect to the draft. It's almost like drafting really high helps your team. Probably don't want to draw any conclusions though. <_<

 

Thank you captain obvious. Of course it would be way better to get the #1 pick and I, like you, were cheering against the Sabres the second half of the year to try and make that happen. To be fair, I think the Sabres somewhat tried late in the year to suck it up but guys like Vanek and Ott were having none of it. They traded literally all of their vetran D men they could at the deadline and then traded away their captain. On top of that they ran Enroth out there a decent number of games down the stretch (which actually probably helped them). There wasn't much more management could do to suck other than pull Vanek from the lineup as a healthy scratch.

[Robviously]

Do you think we can get one of them at 8? I completely agree that those two are/should be a huge target for the Sabres but I've read the odd mock draft where both are gone by 8. Do we trade up to say 6 and ensure we get one?

 

 

 

Thank you captain obvious. Of course it would be way better to get the #1 pick and I, like you, were cheering against the Sabres the second half of the year to try and make that happen. To be fair, I think the Sabres somewhat tried late in the year to suck it up but guys like Vanek and Ott were having none of it. They traded literally all of their vetran D men they could at the deadline and then traded away their captain. On top of that they ran Enroth out there a decent number of games down the stretch (which actually probably helped them). There wasn't much more management could do to suck other than pull Vanek from the lineup as a healthy scratch.

Whoa whoa whoa, when did it become "obvious"? A chunk of this board spent this entire season trying to tell me that getting a high draft pick didn't help teams win (and literally used the Islanders as proof of that, BTW).

 

I'm glad it's obvious now.

[carpandean]

The whole Vanek and Miller part of any formula is really interesting. I think any of those two could require the Sabres obtain 2 first rounders high up or 1 top 3 and a player in return,

 

Wait, am I reading that correctly? You are saying that either Vanek or Miller could be used to get a top-3 pick and a player?

 

If so, I don't think that either of those gives you a top-3 pick without anything on top. In fact, I would suspect that a top-3 offer would look like Vanek minus some salary/cap retained for next year, plus the #8 pick. And I'm saying that's what Darcy would offer, not what they would accept.

[LastPommerFan]

Whoa whoa whoa, when did it become "obvious"? A chunk of this board spent this entire season trying to tell me that getting a high draft pick didn't help teams win (and literally used the Islanders as proof of that, BTW).

 

I'm glad it's obvious now.

 

Whoa whoa whoa. You find me the post where anyone wrote that high draft picks are not better than late or mid-round draft picks. Or a post that says a top 3 pick isn't helping their team. They don't guarantee winning.

[Derrico]

Whoa whoa whoa, when did it become "obvious"? A chunk of this board spent this entire season trying to tell me that getting a high draft pick didn't help teams win (and literally used the Islanders as proof of that, BTW).

 

I'm glad it's obvious now.

 

Sorry, after reading my post my language sounded stronger than intended. Anyways, I really can't believe anyone saying it doesn't matter where you pick in the draft. Anyone who is even a casual fan of the sport I think knows that the top two or three guys in every draft are usually impact players. It just seems very obvious that picking 1 is superior to picking 8.

[dudacek]

I still think Lecavalier's contract is such an albatross, we could pry number three out of Tampa if we were willing to take that on.

It just depends on the money situation in Tampa.

It might take a sweetener, but Miller and eight for Lecavalier and three might get it done.

Essentially, it would be MacKinnon/Drouin and a year of Vinnie before buying him out, in exchange for Nichushkin/Lindholm/Nurse/Monahan, first crack at resigning Miller and $50 million.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I still think Lecavalier's contract is such an albatross, we could pry number three out of Tampa if we were willing to take that on.

It just depends on the money situation in Tampa.

It might take a sweetener, but Miller and eight for Lecavalier and three might get it done.

Essentially, it would be MacKinnon/Drouin and a year of Vinnie before buying him out, in exchange for Nichushkin/Lindholm/Nurse/Monahan, first crack at resigning Miller and $50 million.

 

If I were the Sabres GM I would be all over that trade.

 

Then I'd do whatever it took to ensure I was able to draft Fucale.

[Robviously]

Whoa whoa whoa. You find me the post where anyone wrote that high draft picks are not better than late or mid-round draft picks. Or a post that says a top 3 pick isn't helping their team. They don't guarantee winning.

Wow, awesome. Now find the posts where anyone talking about the benefits of getting a high draft pick included "guaranteed winning."

[SabresBillsFan]

I don't know if I'm gonna waste alot of picks in the top 50 to try to get in the top 5. If Miller, the 16th pick and the late second could get me a top 3 pick then I make that deal. I just don't see any team in the top 3 making a deal.

Maybe expect for Nashville, Carolina or even Edmonton but I don't know if u unload alot of high picks to move up just a few spots. High picks are tough to acquire why just throw them away when this team should have been in that top 3 spot all season. These late season runs are killing those picks.

[LastPommerFan]

Wow, awesome. Now find the posts where anyone talking about the benefits of getting a high draft pick included "guaranteed winning."

 

I never claimed that.

[spndnchz]

I never claimed that.

 

Now go find the post where you never claimed that!

[TrueBlueGED]

I still think Lecavalier's contract is such an albatross, we could pry number three out of Tampa if we were willing to take that on.

It just depends on the money situation in Tampa.

It might take a sweetener, but Miller and eight for Lecavalier and three might get it done.

Essentially, it would be MacKinnon/Drouin and a year of Vinnie before buying him out, in exchange for Nichushkin/Lindholm/Nurse/Monahan, first crack at resigning Miller and $50 million.

 

Even if Tampa were willing to do that (which I respectfully disagree with you on), does Vinny waive his NMC to come to Buffalo? I waffle back and forth on this. On the one hand, we don't look like much of a contender and I assume if he's leaving Tampa he wants to go to a winning team. On the other hand, if the plan in advance is to just buy him out, he may be willing to deal with a year in purgatory with freedom to go elsewhere afterwards, especially since Tampa isn't setting the world on fire either.

 

 

I don't know if I'm gonna waste alot of picks in the top 50 to try to get in the top 5. If Miller, the 16th pick and the late second could get me a top 3 pick then I make that deal. I just don't see any team in the top 3 making a deal.

Maybe expect for Nashville, Carolina or even Edmonton but I don't know if u unload alot of high picks to move up just a few spots. High picks are tough to acquire why just throw them away when this team should have been in that top 3 spot all season. These late season runs are killing those picks.

 

It doesn't matter where you, I, or anyone else believes the Sabres should be picking. They went on the late season run and it hurts the draft, but I'm basically done belly-aching over it. As to whether moving up is worth it or not, it really depends on the package it will take and what player we're moving up to get. I will say that I have zero qualms about trading a combination of draft picks to get up there--mid-1sts and early 2nds are not hard to acquire. The question you have to ask yourself is this: is a potential 1st line player worth a potential top-4 defnseman and a 3rd line player (which depending how the earlier picks play out, is what the 8th and 16th could easily be worth this year)? I say yes, all day every day.

[dudacek]

Even if Tampa were willing to do that (which I respectfully disagree with you on), does Vinny waive his NMC to come to Buffalo? I waffle back and forth on this. On the one hand, we don't look like much of a contender and I assume if he's leaving Tampa he wants to go to a winning team. On the other hand, if the plan in advance is to just buy him out, he may be willing to deal with a year in purgatory with freedom to go elsewhere afterwards, especially since Tampa isn't setting the world on fire either.

 

I'm not going as far as saying Tampa would be willing, but Darcy better be making some phone calls.

Obviously it is predicated on the lightning feeling ridiculously squeezed by seven more years of Vinnie at $7 million per.

No one knows if that's the case except Jeff Vinik and Stevie Y.

But salary dumps do happen and the new CBA has changed the playing field.

 

As for reasons why he would accept, I believe Vinnie would get UFA status and a $30 million payout.

That's pretty enticing.

[TrueBlueGED]

Corey Pronman's top-100 prospect list: http://hockeyprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1522

 

He'll be releasing complete scouting reports on more of the top prospects over the course of the next few weeks. Really just posted this because of the tiers he describes in his intro:

 

You normally can get above-average prospects up until the top or middle of the second round in a standard draft class. This year, I would say that applies up until the beginning or middle of the third round. There are normally about eight to 10 top-end prospects in a draft class, where this year, I count 16 of them. There are six or seven elite prospects available, depending on how you view Sean Monahan.

 

The tiers, in terms of where I see a drop off in prospect value, is after the top three of Drouin, MacKinnon, and Jones, and after Nichushkin and Barkov at five—though Nichushkin can arguably be slotted into either of those tiers. Lindholm is also on a tier by himself, tightly grouped between the other two. There is also a dropoff after Zadorov at 16, and after that a steady marginal decline in prospect value begins until the end of the draft rankings.

 

I don't think this is anything earth-shattering, but it's nice to have it all spelled out. What I come away with after reading this is simply: find a way to get Lindolm. I honestly don't think there's any possibility of getting up to #4 for Barkov given Nashville's need at forward. I also don't think Calgary is going to move down, and it's likely they take the best forward available (not named Nichushkin) to be the new face of the franchise. Worst case scenario is flipping spots with Edmonton to secure Monahan, because I think Lindolm is certainly gone by then. So basically, as plenty here have said, Regier better be talking Rutherford's ear off for that #5 selection.

[LGR4GM]

 

 

If I were the Sabres GM I would be all over that trade.

 

Then I'd do whatever it took to ensure I was able to draft Fucale.

We are not nor should we waste a first on Fucale.

 

Lindholm or Monahan then the best available which isn't Fucale, not for this team

[LastPommerFan]

We are not nor should we waste a first on Fucale.

 

Lindholm or Monahan then the best available which isn't Fucale, not for this team

 

I am reasonably certain that SFiNS has quit as an accountant and signed on as Fucale's agent.

[Derrico]

Corey Pronman's top-100 prospect list: http://hockeyprospec...?articleid=1522

 

He'll be releasing complete scouting reports on more of the top prospects over the course of the next few weeks. Really just posted this because of the tiers he describes in his intro:

 

 

At first I think oh great there are 7 eliete prospects and we pick 8th but he also really likes the top 16 which therefore includes our second selection (assuming we don't trade it away).

[Two or less]

Corey Pronman's top-100 prospect list: http://hockeyprospec...?articleid=1522

 

He'll be releasing complete scouting reports on more of the top prospects over the course of the next few weeks. Really just posted this because of the tiers he describes in his intro:

 

 

 

I don't think this is anything earth-shattering, but it's nice to have it all spelled out. What I come away with after reading this is simply: find a way to get Lindolm. I honestly don't think there's any possibility of getting up to #4 for Barkov given Nashville's need at forward. I also don't think Calgary is going to move down, and it's likely they take the best forward available (not named Nichushkin) to be the new face of the franchise. Worst case scenario is flipping spots with Edmonton to secure Monahan, because I think Lindolm is certainly gone by then. So basically, as plenty here have said, Regier better be talking Rutherford's ear off for that #5 selection.

 

Interesting, the guy several people on here wanted with a first round pick and some experts predicted to be Sabres first round pick, Zach Fucale, barely makes it in the top-100.

[Claude_Verret]

Regarding the Canes and trading up with them, according to their in game scoreboard antics the Sabres are the ONLY NHL team with which the Canes have never completed a trade. Not sure if that's true or not, so take it FWIW.

[TrueBlueGED]

Interesting, the guy several people on here wanted with a first round pick and some experts predicted to be Sabres first round pick, Zach Fucale, barely makes it in the top-100.

 

Pronman doesn't like goaltenders. No really, unless he views somebody as totally elite you'll never see him rank one as a first round prospect.

 

Regarding the Canes and trading up with them, according to their in game scoreboard antics the Sabres are the ONLY NHL team with which the Canes have never completed a trade. Not sure if that's true or not, so take it FWIW.

 

Has to change at some point, right?.........right?

[Claude_Verret]

Has to change at some point, right?.........right?

 

One would hope. I know the Sabres and Canes have never traded, but I'm skeptical about the part about the Sabres being the only team.

 

I do have an indirect contact to Darcy and I asked him once about the lack of Sabres/Canes trades, he asked Darcy about it and was told there is nothing to it and that they have talked trade often, just nothing ever has come to fruition. We do have the higher end D prospects that they covet for sure.

[Two or less]

Pronman doesn't like goaltenders. No really, unless he views somebody as totally elite you'll never see him rank one as a first round prospect.

 

I believe in the theory of you always need to draft atleast one goalie per draft-class, and i strongly agree, you only draft a goalie in the first round is if he is truly elite quality. Furcale isn't according to your link.

 

Would you by any chance have his 2012 list?

[TrueBlueGED]

I believe in the theory of you always need to draft atleast one goalie per draft-class, and i strongly agree, you only draft a goalie in the first round is if he is truly elite quality. Furcale isn't according to your link.

 

Would you by any chance have his 2012 list?

 

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1305

 

Once again goaltenders way down the list. In the intro to it he even goes into detail as to why. It's a good read.