Jump to content

2013 NHL Entry Draft: Buffalo Sabres Select...

LGR4GM

By LGR4GM
in The Aud Club

Jones or MacKinnon  

127 members have voted

  1. 1. Which would you draft given the 1st overall pick?

    • Seth Jones
      18
    • Nathan MacKinnon
      68
    • Jonathan Drouin
      22

  2. 2. Who do you think the Sabres should draft at #8 overall?

    • Sean Monahan
      10
    • Elias Lindholm
      7
    • Valeri Nichushkin
      10
    • Ristolainen/Nurse/Zadarov/Other defender
      0
    • Zach Fucale
      2
    • Other, please post name
      5

Recommended Posts

thesportsbuff Second Liner

thesportsbuff

Posted
Posted

I noticed Columbus has several picks in the later half of the first round. Not so sure that Vanek would agree to a trade to CBJ, but they seemed to have a good thing going last season and narrowly missed the playoffs. I could see them trading some, or all, of these picks for a player like Vanek. This is a team that made Rick Nash their franchise player for a decade, and yet you look at their roster today + add Vanek, and you could make the argument that it's the most talented top-to-bottom that the organization has ever been.

 

You might say a team like Columbus would rather have the picks and try to develop some depth, but there's the risk that by the time some of these players are playing impact minutes in the NHL, players like Gaborik will be gone or on the way out. Speaking of which, Gaborik is a UFA next summer -- so trading for & extending Vanek could play a big role in convincing him to re-sign.

 

Vanek + Stafford for #14 & #19? Not sure I'd be comfortable doing that because imo Vanek is close to equal value of #14/#19 alone, but it depends on whether or not we can then parlay these mid-first rounders to higher picks.

ubkev All Star

ubkev

Posted
Posted

I noticed Columbus has several picks in the later half of the first round. Not so sure that Vanek would agree to a trade to CBJ, but they seemed to have a good thing going last season and narrowly missed the playoffs. I could see them trading some, or all, of these picks for a player like Vanek. This is a team that made Rick Nash their franchise player for a decade, and yet you look at their roster today + add Vanek, and you could make the argument that it's the most talented top-to-bottom that the organization has ever been.

 

You might say a team like Columbus would rather have the picks and try to develop some depth, but there's the risk that by the time some of these players are playing impact minutes in the NHL, players like Gaborik will be gone or on the way out. Speaking of which, Gaborik is a UFA next summer -- so trading for & extending Vanek could play a big role in convincing him to re-sign.

 

Vanek + Stafford for #14 & #19? Not sure I'd be comfortable doing that because imo Vanek is close to equal value of #14/#19 alone, but it depends on whether or not we can then parlay these mid-first rounders to higher picks.

 

Vanek doesn't have a no movement clause in his contract, so he has no choice and can be dealt anywhere.

 

Edit: According to capgeek, anyways.

LGR4GM Hall of Famer

LGR4GM

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for the Link. BTW, it's Kris Baker.

whoops my bad, still his draft is exactly like mine until pick 10 so no new ground (I'm sorry he has Nurse over Risotlainen)

thesportsbuff Second Liner

thesportsbuff

Posted
Posted

Vanek doesn't have a no movement clause in his contract, so he has no choice and can be dealt anywhere.

 

Edit: According to capgeek, anyways.

 

Interesting. I thought I remembered seeing that he did haha. But ok, so there's roadblock #1 out of the way! I'd still rather trade Vanek to "move up" but maybe there is a team out there who would rather have the picks. Myers + 14, 16 and 19 would be a pretty good offer to get into the Top 3.

That Aud Smell Hall of Famer

That Aud Smell

Posted
Posted

Myers + 14, 16 and 19 would be a pretty good offer to get into the Top 3.

 

jumpin' jehosephat -- that's not the going rate for getting into the NHL's top-3, is it?

 

i know that this draft value stuff is super calibrated in the NFL -- since the days of the herschel walker fleecing, there almost seems to be a fairly set matrix that yields equations like "my #4 overall = your #11 overall + your #43 overall + your #92 overall" and such.

LGR4GM Hall of Famer

LGR4GM

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Kris has Santini at 16.

 

That's new to the discussion.

I think there will be better options with higher upside available. Santini with the 38th pick is 10x more likely than at 16th IMPO

X. Benedict All Star

X. Benedict

Posted
Posted

I think there will be better options with higher upside available. Santini with the 38th pick is 10x more likely than at 16th IMPO

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Sabres reach into the US development.

That Aud Smell Hall of Famer

That Aud Smell

Posted
Posted

jumpin' jehosephat -- that's not the going rate for getting into the NHL's top-3, is it?

 

i know that this draft value stuff is super calibrated in the NFL -- since the days of the herschel walker fleecing, there almost seems to be a fairly set matrix that yields equations like "my #4 overall = your #11 overall + your #43 overall + your #92 overall" and such.

I went back and found the article, here's what he wrote:In the 25 drafts since 1988, a top-seven pick has been dealt in 10 of them.

 

There have been a total of 15 transactions as the 1999 draft turned into a swap meet and a pair of deals went down in both 2002 and 2008. The teams holding the eighth pick have moved up only twice in 25 years. In both trades, the club had to give up a second-round pick to jump just a few spots.It was definitely worth it:

 

• In 1992, the New York Islanders dealt the No. 8 pick and a second-round selection to Toronto for the No. 5 pick. The Isles selected Darius Kasparaitis after moving up. The Maple Leafs took Brandon Convery at No. 8 and wound up trading the second-round pick as part of a deal for the 23rd overall selection, Grant Marshall.

 

• In 2004, Carolina sent the No. 8 pick and a second-round selection to Columbus for the No. 4 pick. The Hurricanes picked Andrew Ladd after moving up. Columbus took Alexandre Picard at No. 8 and used the second-round pick on Kyle Wharton.

 

+++

 

So, it appears that a 2nd-rounder (depending on where it falls in that round, I am sure) may be enough to move from 8-to-5 or even 8-to-4. We have the 38th and 52nd overall pick in Round 2 this year -- that 38th pick together with the 8th probably won't be enough to move us up into the top 3. But we have 3 (?) 2nd rounders in 2014 (from Regehr and Pominville).

 

Seems to me that Darcy might be able to get into the top-3 this year if he were to move our 8 and 38 this year together with 1 of our 3 (I think it's 3) 2nd rounders in 2014.

Weave Hall of Famer

Weave

Posted
Posted

Seems to me that Darcy might be able to get into the top-3 this year if he were to move our 8 and 38 this year together with 1 of our 3 (I think it's 3) 2nd rounders in 2014.

 

I have a suspicion that draft picks are more valuable today with this CBA then they were back then.

TrueBlueGED Hall of Famer

TrueBlueGED

Posted
Posted

I have a suspicion that draft picks are more valuable today with this CBA then they were back then.

 

:thumbsup:

 

I think any trades made for high draft picks before the lockout are completely irrelevant.

That Aud Smell Hall of Famer

That Aud Smell

Posted
Posted

I have a suspicion that draft picks are more valuable today with this CBA then they were back then.

:thumbsup:

 

I think any trades made for high draft picks before the lockout are completely irrelevant.

 

:w00t:

 

:blink:

 

:huh:

 

This. Because. Why?

 

I have a vague sense of why this would be the case, but, frankly, can't do any more than hum the tune.

 

Yes. Drafted players are cheap labor.

 

Well, there is that. Still, is that enough to have changed the landscape significantly?

That Aud Smell Hall of Famer

That Aud Smell

Posted
Posted

I don't think anything before the lockout is applicable to current trade value for top picks. The advent of the salary cap has made team control of top assets at low prices crucial to team building (how many Cup champs since 2005 haven't had cheap labor making important contributions?). If (and this is one hefty "if") the Sabres moved up to #4, I'd happily place a charity wager that it costs much more than a second round pick. The fact of the matter is top picks haven't been traded since the salary cap was implemented, and with the cap going down and presumably growing at a slower rate due to a 50/50 split, I can't imagine that this trend reverses itself anytime soon.

 

I pulled this in from another thread.

 

I think I'm hearing two different things (maybe it's just 1 thing): I thought it was being suggested (perhaps by X) that our draft pick assets are now more valuable, so we had a better shot of moving up by bundling a couple of them. But then I see others (like TrueBlue) saying that those top slots are now so valuable, that it will cost more to get one.

 

One thing is clear: Teams don't move up in the draft very often and haven't done so at all in recent memory. That alone tells you something.

TrueBlueGED Hall of Famer

TrueBlueGED

Posted
Posted

I pulled this in from another thread.

 

I think I'm hearing two different things (maybe it's just 1 thing): I thought it was being suggested (perhaps by X) that our draft pick assets are now more valuable, so we had a better shot of moving up by bundling a couple of them. But then I see others (like TrueBlue) saying that those top slots are now so valuable, that it will cost more to get one.

 

One thing is clear: Teams don't move up in the draft very often and haven't done so at all in recent memory. That alone tells you something.

 

Both of those things are true, and aren't inherently contradictory. Draft picks have become more valuable, which means the Sabres have a lot of ammunition. However not all draft picks are created equal. High first round picks which odds are give you an all star have become exponentially more valuable, which is why pooling lower picks is highly unlikely to get you a top-5 selection. It simply isn't a linear increase in value across all draft picks regardless of position.

 

For a more concrete example, having Sekera or Ennis under team control for seven years and on cheap contracts is nice. It would net a discount of several million dollars. But that pales in comparison to having John Tavares under team control and on the cheap. That nets a large dollar discount, while also getting you a much better player. A $3MM discount and Ennis and Sekera is significantly less valuable than a $4MM discount and Tavares.

That Aud Smell Hall of Famer

That Aud Smell

Posted
Posted
Both of those things are true, and aren't inherently contradictory. ... High first round picks which odds are give you an all star have become exponentially more valuable, which is why pooling lower picks is highly unlikely to get you a top-5 selection. It simply isn't a linear increase in value across all draft picks regardless of position.

 

Roger that.

 

So, no way in hell we're moving up, then, eh?

 

I mean, not unless, as someone had suggested in another thread, we were to trade both of our 1st rounders, and possibly something else?

26CornerBlitz First Liner

26CornerBlitz

Posted
Posted

He won't go that high. I don't think button is suggesting that will be draft order, only that that is how he ranks the talent.

 

Understood....I get how he ranks....I just don't agree with Fucale being that high.

 

Meanwhile, Ristolainen @ 25 seems low to me. Goes without saying that rankings are highly subjective.

LGR4GM Hall of Famer

LGR4GM

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Craig Button's (TSN) Top 75 List: http://www.tsn.ca/dr...ature/?id=49649

 

Fucale at 7 is too high.

He won't go that high. I don't think button is suggesting that will be draft order, only that that is how he ranks the talent.

I disagree with some of those rankings but I could see Fucale going at 6 to Calgary if they really like him. It is an interesting talent rank for sure. I noticed that Santini made the list and is a guy who has been getting a little bit more press of late. I need to mull these over for a bit.

 

Understood....I get how he ranks....I just don't agree with Fucale being that high.

 

Meanwhile, Ristolainen @ 25 seems low to me. Goes without saying that rankings are highly subjective.

Yes I think the Ristolainen ranking is a little :huh:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...