Casey Mittelstadt, deep breath, he's fine

[WildCard]

Casey, to me, is one of the biggest pieces to our success going forward. I have full confidence he hits 50 points next year

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Casey, to me, is one of the biggest pieces to our success going forward. I have full confidence he hits 50 points next year

No we should have traded the pick we use don him for an established player. That's the only way. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by LGR4GM

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

No we should have traded the pick we use don him for an established player. That's the only way. 

Very different scenarios there.That was two years earlier, with no Dahlin, and two years younger Eichel and Reinhart, and we already had a 2C in RoR

[dudacek]

Ideally, we see a centre brought in to anchor the second line, but I am not opposed to bringing in a good third-line centre to play the role Sobotka did this year and adding a real good winger for Jack while Casey plays line2 with Sam and Jeff.

[LGR4GM]

24 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Very different scenarios there.That was two years earlier, with no Dahlin, and two years younger Eichel and Reinhart, and we already had a 2C in RoR

So we should have traded the pick and gotten better immediately because we didn't need Mitts. Could have gotten a Montour then. 

See this is my issue with the trading pick stuff. It suggests that we will never need what we could have had and repeatedly that proves the opposite. 

[dudacek]

7 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

So we should have traded the pick and gotten better immediately because we didn't need Mitts. Could have gotten a Montour then. 

See this is my issue with the trading pick stuff. It suggests that we will never need what we could have had and repeatedly that proves the opposite. 

The Nashville Predators have made just 10 first round picks in the past 15 years. Four of them were busts.Of the six that became NHL regulars (Fiala, Jones, Watson, Ellis, Wilson and Radulov) three were gone from Nashville before they became established. They have traded six of their last eight first rounders, either the picks or the player they took before he became established.

Over the same period, the Vancouver Canucks have made 16 1st-round picks and only traded away their first pick once.

You don’t need to hang on to your first rounders to win in the NHL. And hanging on to your first-rounders is no guarantee of success.

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by dudacek

[LGR4GM]

13 minutes ago, dudacek said:

The Nashville Predators have made just 10 first round picks in the past 15 years. Six of them became NHL regulars. (Fiala, Jones, Watson, Ellis, Wilson and Radulov. Three of those were gone from Nashville before they became established. They have traded six of their last eight first rounders, either the picks or the player they took before he became established.

Over the same period, the Vancouver Canucks have made 16 1st-round picks and only traded away their first pick once.

You don’t need to hang on to your first rounders to win in the NHL. And hanging on to your first-rounders is no guarantee of success.

 

It is if you draft well. Also Nashville has drafted well. Imagine if they were allowed to use those picks. Maybe instead of being cupless they would have won. Vancouver never traded away a 7th overall. In 2010 they traded the 25th overall pick. Pick 26 was Evgeny Kuznetsov. 

At least in 2010 vancouver was on the cusp. In 2011 they went to the finals and lost in 7 games. Nashville is missing those picks but has made up for it with good drafting. We can be Nashville, in another 5-7 years of good drafting if we continue to discount how valuable those high picks are. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by LGR4GM

[GASabresIUFAN]

Just now, dudacek said:

The Nashville Predators have made just 10 first round picks in the past 15 years. Six of them became NHL regulars. (Fiala, Jones, Watson, Ellis, Wilson and Radulov. Just three of those played for the Preds. They have traded six of their last eight first rounders, either the picks or the player they took before he became established.

Over the same period, the Vancouver Canucks have made 16 1st-round picks and only traded away their first pick once.

You don’t need to hang on to your first rounders to win in the NHL. And hanging on to your first-rounders is no guarantee of success.

 

Except you still have to draft well.  I count 7 players on the Preds that they draft in the 2nd rd or later, including 4 4th rd picks (including Ekholm and Avridsson) and a 8th rd pick (Rinne),  They also made hockey trades using their top picks to fill needs so Weber for Subban and Jones for Johansen.  They also used 2 2nd rd prospects to get Turris.

Sorry, but that looks like a team properly built through the draft.

[Derrico]

2 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Except you still have to draft well.  I count 7 players on the Preds that they draft in the 2nd rd or later, including 4 4th rd picks (including Ekholm and Avridsson) and a 8th rd pick (Rinne),  They also made hockey trades using their top picks to fill needs so Weber for Subban and Jones for Johansen.  They also used 2 2nd rd prospects to get Turris.

Sorry, but that looks like a team properly built through the draft.

I don't think Dudacek is saying you don't have to draft well.  I think he's saying there's an alternative approach than purely building your team through the draft.

Having said that, this seems to be a pretty good draft for picking 7th so any deal would have to blow me away to move the pick.  Their other first rounder I have no problem moving if the right deal is out there.  Again, whether they keep the two firsts or not, the team still has to draft well whenever they're on the clock.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Derrico said:

I don't think Dudacek is saying you don't have to draft well.  I think he's saying there's an alternative approach than purely building your team through the draft.

Having said that, this seems to be a pretty good draft for picking 7th so any deal would have to blow me away to move the pick.  Their other first rounder I have no problem moving if the right deal is out there.  Again, whether they keep the two firsts or not, the team still has to draft well whenever they're on the clock.

There isn't. Everything comes back to the draft. 

[LGR4GM]

You want to trade that 7th pick for something, you can because you can afford to accelrate the rebuild because you have drafted good enough that your ahead. You want to trade Risto for something, you can because you have drafted well and have another player in the system to fill that hole. You want to trade Nylander, you can because you have that 2nd round pick from 2014 that actually panned out so you can package Nylander.

You don't draft well from 2009-2014.... you have holes that are not covered in the system because for roughly 6 drafts you failed to adequately beef up your depth to account for the need to trade or re-shuffle things. That is where we are now.

We are talking about how we need a top RW for Eichel. Brock Boeser 2015. We talk about how we need a #2 center, we could have had Point but we again whiffed in the draft. Now if you believe we will continue this pattern, then yes, trade the pick because we won't use it well. If you think like I do that the drafting department has improved a lot since 2015, then you hold the pick and use it because otherwise we are having the conversation in 2 years about how we traded this pick for JT Miller or whatever, missed the playoffs in 2020, made them in 2021, then in 2022 Miller was on the decline and we didn't have anything to plug the gap because the player who should be there wasn't. It's the butterfly effect. 

This is why I put the 23 or under limit on trading that pick. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by LGR4GM

[Derrico]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

You want to trade that 7th pick for something, you can because you can afford to accelrate the rebuild because you have drafted good enough that your ahead. You want to trade Risto for something, you can because you have drafted well and have another player in the system to fill that hole. You want to trade Nylander, you can because you have that 2nd round pick from 2014 that actually panned out so you can package Nylander.

You don't draft well from 2009-2014.... you have holes that are not covered in the system because for roughly 6 drafts you failed to adequately beef up your depth to account for the need to trade or re-shuffle things. That is where we are now.

We are talking about how we need a top RW for Eichel. Brock Boeser 2015. We talk about how we need a #2 center, we could have had Point but we again whiffed in the draft. Now if you believe we will continue this pattern, then yes, trade the pick because we won't use it well. If you think like I do that the drafting department has improved a lot since 2015, then you hold the pick and use it because otherwise we are having the conversation in 2 years about how we traded this pick for JT Miller or whatever, missed the playoffs in 2020, made them in 2021, then in 2022 Miller was on the decline and we didn't have anything to plug the gap because the player who should be there wasn't. It's the butterfly effect. 

This is all very true.  But it's so much easier said 'draft well' than actually doing.  I'm sure XGMTM thought Nylander was going to be a better player than he is.  I'm sure he was hoping one of our million 2nd rounders during that time would work out.  The issue is drafting is not an exact science.  Several players will not live up to their draft spot (including the guys being mentioned for 7th overall).  So the alternative is not having the big upside but you've traded that pick for an established player who you know much more about.

I see you cherry picked Kutcherov with the 26th pick.  Sure.  But who went 25th?  Who went 27th?  It's easy to say draft well but it's so much more difficult to know how a 17/18 year old kid will develop. 

[Doohicksie]

2 minutes ago, Derrico said:

So the alternative is not having the big upside but you've traded that pick for an established player who you know much more about.

Those players typically are near the end of their contract and typically want a big bump up which in the Sabres case often ends up as overpayment over the long haul.  You need to keep the draft picks and hope at least some of them work out, to give the team high performing players on value-priced contracts.

[LGR4GM]

26 minutes ago, Derrico said:

This is all very true.  But it's so much easier said 'draft well' than actually doing.  I'm sure XGMTM thought Nylander was going to be a better player than he is.  I'm sure he was hoping one of our million 2nd rounders during that time would work out.  The issue is drafting is not an exact science.  Several players will not live up to their draft spot (including the guys being mentioned for 7th overall).  So the alternative is not having the big upside but you've traded that pick for an established player who you know much more about.

I see you cherry picked Kutcherov with the 26th pick.  Sure.  But who went 25th?  Who went 27th?  It's easy to say draft well but it's so much more difficult to know how a 17/18 year old kid will develop. 

Drafting well, you either do that or you fail. 

[Curt]

The issue here is that Buffalo does not have enough organizational depth right now.  Mostly because they drafted pretty terribly from like 2005 to 2015.  For Buffalo to be a quality team, that organizational depth needs to be improved. 

There are multiple ways to build this up.  The most common and sustainable way, is to draft well.  It can also be done through shrewd trades/fleecing other teams in trades.  It can also be supplemented by finding overseas (Pilut) or college (Rodrigues) FA gems.  The best teams do a combination that involves all of these. 

So, Buffalo can trade #7 or draft at #7, but they better fleece someone in the trade or hit on the draft pick, otherwise things aren't going to get any better.

Based on Buffalo's current status of, definitely not a contender, I would try to draft a good player.

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Also Nashville has drafted well.

Exactly. It’s not about hanging on to your picks, it’s about maximizing their value.

Dallas would have been better off trading number 8 in 2009 instead of picking Scott Glennie, no doubt about it. So would the teams who wasted opportunities to improve by hanging on to their first-rounder to pick mediocrities like Paajarvi, Kassian, Kulikov, Holland, Rundblad, Leblanc, Josefson, Moore, Schroeder, Erixon, Caron, Paridis, Olsen, Ashton and Despres that year.

Had you traded pick 8 for a Schneider or a Jordan Staal, the best first-rounders you would have missed out on would have been Leddy, Kreider and Ellis.

Locking into a specific mindset means you waste opportunities.

Edited April 12, 2019 by dudacek

[Curt]

33 minutes ago, Derrico said:

This is all very true.  But it's so much easier said 'draft well' than actually doing.  I'm sure XGMTM thought Nylander was going to be a better player than he is.  I'm sure he was hoping one of our million 2nd rounders during that time would work out.  The issue is drafting is not an exact science.  Several players will not live up to their draft spot (including the guys being mentioned for 7th overall).  So the alternative is not having the big upside but you've traded that pick for an established player who you know much more about.

I see you cherry picked Kutcherov with the 26th pick.  Sure.  But who went 25th?  Who went 27th?  It's easy to say draft well but it's so much more difficult to know how a 17/18 year old kid will develop. 

You can say the same thing about making trades.  Its easier to say "make a good trade" than to actually do that.  You can screw up a trade just as easily as you can screw up a draft pick.

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Exactly. It’s not about hanging on to your picks, it’s about maximizing their value.

Dallas would have been better off trading number 8 in 2009 instead of picking Scott Glennie, no doubt about it. So would the teams who wasted opportunities to improve by hanging on to their first-rounder to pick mediocrities like Paajarvi, Kassian, Kulikov, Holland, Rundblad, Leblanc, Josefson, Moore, Schroeder, Erixon, Caron, Paridis, Olsen, Ashton and Despres.

Had you traded pick 8 for a Schneider or a Jordan Staal, the best first-rounders you would have missed out on would have been Leddy, Kreider and Ellis.

Locking into a specific mindset means you waste opportunities.

Or you can trade the potential of Boeser for Lehner. If you are trading 7th overall, in this draft, you better be damned sure you are getting a long term, highly valuable asset back. 

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

Or you can trade the potential of Boeser for Lehner. If you are trading 7th overall, in this draft, you better be damned sure you are getting a long term, highly valuable asset back. 

 

Exactly.

[Curt]

Also, we are definitely all doing this in the wrong thread.  Discussions of trading vs keeping #7 should probably move over to the more relevant thread.

Casey Mittlestadt doesn't want to hear all of this.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Curtisp5286

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

 

Exactly.

No one has mentioned a single trade with the remote possibility of that return. 

[dudacek]

9 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No one has mentioned a single trade with the remote possibility of that return. 

What return are you talking about? I thought we were talking about your flat refusal to move first-rounders.

Edited April 12, 2019 by dudacek

[dudacek]

Carolina used a high pick as the centrepiece to get a young Jordan Staal, Columbus and LA to get a young Jeff Carter, Blues to get Brayden Schenn, Kings to get Mike Richards (Schenn was an unproven, highly touted prospect with similar value), Calgary to get Dougie Hamilton...those are the types of trades I would entertain.

Edited April 12, 2019 by dudacek

[Derrico]

44 minutes ago, Curtisp5286 said:

You can say the same thing about making trades.  Its easier to say "make a good trade" than to actually do that.  You can screw up a trade just as easily as you can screw up a draft pick.

Absolutely.

[GASabresIUFAN]

25 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Carolina used a high pick as the centrepiece to get a young Jordan Staal, Columbus and LA to get a young Jeff Carter, Blues to get Brayden Schenn, Kings to get Mike Richards (Schenn was an unproven, highly touted prospect with similar value), Calgary to get Dougie Hamilton...those are the types of trades I would entertain.

Depends.  The cap era has changed things.  Teams used to be able to throw unlimited resources at FA and build very quickly, except Toronto.  Now in the cap era, since core players are paid so much, you need a constant flow of cheap young talent.  When the flow dies so does your team even with stars.  Take Chicago this year and LA in recent years.  This means draft and develop.

You can trade picks for players once you’ve established the team (which we haven’t) but only if your prospect pool is deep (which ours isn’t).  However this also leads to cap issues.  Trade the 7th pick for a $4,000,000+ player and it may help you for a few years, but it costs cap and pipeline which can create the TM mess.  That mess is a roster of highly compensated players who underperform while destroying the pipeline needed to replace these guys.  Two years ago it lead to an $80 mill plus real $ roster who earned 78 points and let us without D or centers.