Draft day trades and moves predictions.

tim1_2 wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:I can see Carter being moved, absolutely. The emergence of JvR and Giroux makes Carter, and his huge term, expendable. Now, the question is, who's willing to gamble on that term?

As for Ottawa, I think we'd all like to see them move up, but the question remains, what would the asking price be? I'd say our 1st, 2nd, and maybe another prospect/lower pick. It's a lot, but for Landeskog, it's likely worth it.

Precisely why it will make him a hard piece to move.
You might get a gutsy GM go for it. Sathers comes to mind in those kinds of scenarios.
A team like minny could really use Carter but not at the expense of Backstrom.

I also bet we hear Burke linked to this in some way

Yeah, Carter is a Burke-style player. And we all know Toronto is the centre of the universe, so we'll likely hear a lot of chatter about Carter and the Leafs.

No he isn't, have you seen Carter play?

tim1_2 wrote:I can see Carter being moved, absolutely. The emergence of JvR and Giroux makes Carter, and his huge term, expendable. Now, the question is, who's willing to gamble on that term?

As for Ottawa, I think we'd all like to see them move up, but the question remains, what would the asking price be? I'd say our 1st, 2nd, and maybe another prospect/lower pick. It's a lot, but for Landeskog, it's likely worth it.

After hearing Edmonton's head scout's opinion on Landeskog, I'll pass on that.

Big Ev wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:I can see Carter being moved, absolutely. The emergence of JvR and Giroux makes Carter, and his huge term, expendable. Now, the question is, who's willing to gamble on that term?

As for Ottawa, I think we'd all like to see them move up, but the question remains, what would the asking price be? I'd say our 1st, 2nd, and maybe another prospect/lower pick. It's a lot, but for Landeskog, it's likely worth it.

After hearing Edmonton's head scout's opinion on Landeskog, I'll pass on that.

what did the scout say? share...

Oilers Stu MacGregor on Landeskog:

Scouting Report: "He's a powerful guy who is strong on the boards . . . he's a very straight-ahead kind of player . . . he's good off the cycle to the net and strong in front of the net . . . he can kill penalties as well and he's got good hockey sense."

Projection: "He's going to be a third-line player who could be a good second-line player."

Best Case Scenario: "A second-line player who plays in all key situations for you."

Concerns: "He's got to become a better skater."


I would love to have him, but don't know if it's worth it to trade up for that. Obviously Murray and scouts may have a different opinion though.

That scouting report certainly scares me away a bit. Is that the consensus view though?

Big Ev wrote:Oilers Stu MacGregor on Landeskog:

Scouting Report: "He's a powerful guy who is strong on the boards . . . he's a very straight-ahead kind of player . . . he's good off the cycle to the net and strong in front of the net . . . he can kill penalties as well and he's got good hockey sense."

Projection: "He's going to be a third-line player who could be a good second-line player."

Best Case Scenario: "A second-line player who plays in all key situations for you."

Concerns: "He's got to become a better skater."


I would love to have him, but don't know if it's worth it to trade up for that. Obviously Murray and scouts may have a different opinion though.

I've been (quietly) saying this for the last month. He's a heart and soul warrior, but his offense has peaked from what I've heard. He's a 3rd liner with 2nd line capabilities- or a top line player on a weak team.

This is not the first time I've heard it, it's about the 10th time - and not just from random posters, from guys I know and trust.

Still....I love his character and would love to have him, but...we need some silky skill in a bad way...

SpezDispenser wrote:...we need some silky skill in a bad way...

Why? So people can Wing Dang Doodle about back-checking and character?

SeawaySensFan wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:...we need some silky skill in a bad way...

Why? So people can Wing Dang Doodle about back-checking and character?

Nah, I've said before that I think we have back-checkers and character galore now in Greening, Condra, Z.Smith, Winchester, Neil, Alfie, Michalek, Foligno, Regin (who I've always found to be defensively responsible and a back-checker). I don't know who else I'm missing, but that's 9 of 10 forwards (Spezza being the 10th) that have character and grit and back-checking instincts IMO, now we need to fill a couple of positions with disgusting skill. Maybe Butler's that guy actually, but we should probably look for one of two more to draft/buy.

We will be drafting Huberdeau or Cooter. Book it.

Big Ev wrote:We will be drafting Huberdeau or Cooter. Book it.

My first choice is still Landeskog, but either of those two would be A-OK. And it fits with what we should be doing, which is developing these guys to be ready in 2 or 3 years.

If Landeskog is a career 3rd liner/2nd line upside, then I would draft a player with a higher upside for sure.

Dash wrote:If Landeskog is a career 3rd liner/2nd line upside, then I would draft a player with a higher upside for sure.

As much as I've heard that, I sometimes wonder if that's unfair. He is quite like Mike Richards.

Yes but reaching that potential is another thing. Lots of players are billed as so and so with such and such potential, but fail to for whatever reason, reach that.

Dash wrote:Yes but reaching that potential is another thing. Lots of players are billed as so and so with such and such potential, but fail to for whatever reason, reach that.

Agreed, but you know what I mean. I'll be the first to admit we need some skill - and I'd love to get character and skill, but if Landeskog can be the 2nd line guy that we turn to in PK/last minute of the game situations and he only scores 20 a year, I think that's still optimum - not the point totals, but having another incarnation of Alfie in there. Besides the 40 goal/100 point season Alfie had, Landeskog really sounds a lot like him, so that's some of the attraction for sure.

tim1_2 wrote:I can see Carter being moved, absolutely. The emergence of JvR and Giroux makes Carter, and his huge term, expendable. Now, the question is, who's willing to gamble on that term?

As for Ottawa, I think we'd all like to see them move up, but the question remains, what would the asking price be? I'd say our 1st, 2nd, and maybe another prospect/lower pick. It's a lot, but for Landeskog, it's likely worth it.

That's a lot to move up 3 or 4 spots.

Big Ev wrote:Oilers Stu MacGregor on Landeskog:

Scouting Report: "He's a powerful guy who is strong on the boards . . . he's a very straight-ahead kind of player . . . he's good off the cycle to the net and strong in front of the net . . . he can kill penalties as well and he's got good hockey sense."

Projection: "He's going to be a third-line player who could be a good second-line player."

Best Case Scenario: "A second-line player who plays in all key situations for you."

Concerns: "He's got to become a better skater."


I would love to have him, but don't know if it's worth it to trade up for that. Obviously Murray and scouts may have a different opinion though.

It's said in places that Mark Stone has to work on his skating as well... and look at the year he had.

Maybe the Sens stay put with their 6th overall.. but spend to move up the Nashville pick -- if it ends up being 21st overall.

Do not the Islanders like to move down in the draft IF they can pick up extra picks. Give them Nashville's 1st + 2 of the 2nd round picks (not Ottawa's) to see if they would bite. Not sure if you have to add anything else.
That way Sens would pick 5th & 6th.
Is that too much of a dream.

sandysensfan wrote:Maybe the Sens stay put with their 6th overall.. but spend to move up the Nashville pick -- if it ends up being 21st overall.

Do not the Islanders like to move down in the draft IF they can pick up extra picks. Give them Nashville's 1st + 2 of the 2nd round picks (not Ottawa's) to see if they would bite. Not sure if you have to add anything else.
That way Sens would pick 5th & 6th.
Is that too much of a dream.

I wouldn't if I were the Isles. I'd stand pat and take one of Murphy or Hamilton.