2011 NHL Entry Draft Watch

Oglethorpe wrote:Take a step back Milbury, that is way, way too much to give up. 6th + 20th?? + 36th to move up 5 spots. If Landeskog turns into Patrick Stephan or Alex Daigle, the franchise is set back along ways. If you miss with the 6th pick you still have a chance to get players at 20 and 36.

Yeah, that's the price though, so the question still stands. That's one vote for no.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:Take a step back Milbury, that is way, way too much to give up. 6th + 20th?? + 36th to move up 5 spots. If Landeskog turns into Patrick Stephan or Alex Daigle, the franchise is set back along ways. If you miss with the 6th pick you still have a chance to get players at 20 and 36.

Yeah, that's the price though, so the question still stands. That's one vote for no.

I think the part where I said "That's wayyyyy too much" would probably count as a second vote for "no".

Typical "moving up" trades involve two picks for one pick. The two picks include one later in the same round, and one in the next round.

tim1_2 wrote:Nope, that's wayyyy too much. I think it would be any 2 of those 3 assets you mention. But there's no precedent.

The 6th overall for sure + the Nashville pick maybe? I'd love to not give up the 2nd rounder as well.

tim1_2 wrote:I think the part where I said "That's wayyyyy too much" would probably count as a second vote for "no".

Typical "moving up" trades involve two picks for one pick. The two picks include one later in the same round, and one in the next round.

The reason I hypothetically offered the 3 picks is because we're moving from 6 to 3 not from 20 to 18 or anything like that. Those 3 space are rather large - especially when Florida will undoubtedly also want a kick at Landeskog.

SpezDispenser wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:Nope, that's wayyyy too much. I think it would be any 2 of those 3 assets you mention. But there's no precedent.

The 6th overall for sure + the Nashville pick maybe? I'd love to not give up the 2nd rounder as well.

I asked this same question long ago, and I thought the asking price would likely be the 6th overall + the Nashville pick. It seems like a lot to give up, but if Ottawa is really sold on Landeskog, and NOT on whoever they can get at #6...then they might do this. That's also assuming that the trade partner is willing to trade down.

There is no way that all three picks (two firsts and a 2nd!!!) would be swapped to move up three or four spots.

tim1_2 wrote:
There is no way that all three picks (two firsts and a 2nd!!!) would be swapped to move up three or four spots.

Depends on who Ottawa wants #1 and whether the players they think they can get with the other picks are any comparison.

They really seem to be on the Landeskog = Alfie 2.0 train (unless it's a red herring).

Murray really wants someone who will be gone by #6

tim1_2 wrote:
I asked this same question long ago, and I thought the asking price would likely be the 6th overall + the Nashville pick. It seems like a lot to give up, but if Ottawa is really sold on Landeskog, and NOT on whoever they can get at #6...then they might do this. That's also assuming that the trade partner is willing to trade down.

There is no way that all three picks (two firsts and a 2nd!!!) would be swapped to move up three or four spots.

If it's "just" Nashville's 1st rounder to move up and grab Landeskog, then we'll be acquiring him. Unfortunately, I think the price would be more.

People saying "that's too much" can't possibly know or think how Murray and the organization might. Is it too much to go after the guy that is number 1 on their list? The guy they would draft 1st overall given the chance? Doubtful.

If Murray believes that one player is a cut above the rest and will help this organization for the next 20 years and have a huge impact, there is no such thing as over paying with picks at one draft.

Teams go 10-15 years without drafting a franchise player, that time they probably have over 100 draft picks, none of which turned out to be considered a franchise player. Every single one of those draft picks would be worth that franchise player.

Basically what I am saying is if Murray and his staff believe the player they want (Landeskog) is a franchise player that will carry the team forward for the next decade plus I wouldn't care what they gave up short of players that The Sens currently have that will help him reach his potential.

Giving up every pick in this draft would be fine if that's the view they have on Landeskog. If it's a "well, he's ok and I like him but I wouldn't give up the farm" type thing, then no, you don't over pay to move up.

If it's Landeskog or bust you go for it because as we have seen Ottawa may not be drafting in the top 5 again for another decade.

I think we'll be drafting close to Top 5 next year.

It's challenged that we are even in this discussion of trading up. We we're looking to get the second pick a month ago.

Big Ev wrote:
It's challenged that we are even in this discussion of trading up. We we're looking to get the second pick a month ago.

Yep, but it's also reality.

Big Ev wrote:I think we'll be drafting close to Top 5 next year.

It's challenged that we are even in this discussion of trading up. We we're looking to get the second pick a month ago.

Might want to deal with certainties because "what if's" don't get you far.

Next year The Sens MIGHT be drafting in the top 5, hardly a gaurantee because as bad as they were this year, they are still not currently in the top 5.

The Sens are not as bad as they played this season, they are a middle of the pack team.

Certainties? Nothing is a certainty. I never said it's guaranteed either. I just don't see much improvement in 1 year.

Look at Atlanta this season and I think that's the kind of year we have. They were actually pretty good for a while but they couldn't keep up.

Finishing 5-10 doesn't mean you're a bad team anymore. The parity in the NHL is great nowadays. Middle of the pack, like Atlanta and Columbus etc. will get you a good pick.

Big Ev wrote:I think we'll be drafting close to Top 5 next year.

It's challenged that we are even in this discussion of trading up. We we're looking to get the second pick a month ago.

Who knows that for sure? We could have first overall or we could be a playoff 8th seed, how could anyone know.

I'll tell you what I know right now: Brian Elliott shat the bed in ways that were previously unimaginable. I feel badly for him, but now we have a real NHL goalie. Top 5 pick? Again, maybe, but I sure as Diddle hope not.

Big Ev wrote:Certainties? Nothing is a certainty. I never said it's guaranteed either. I just don't see much improvement in 1 year.

Look at Atlanta this season and I think that's the kind of year we have. They were actually pretty good for a while but they couldn't keep up.

Finishing 5-10 doesn't mean you're a bad team anymore. The parity in the NHL is great nowadays. Middle of the pack, like Atlanta and Columbus etc. will get you a good pick.

Drafting 7-14 every year also ensures that you won't be getting a franchise player unless a little luck comes your way. This year, if Murray can get what he believes to be a franchise player because he is so close to the top 3, you do it. Again, next year it seems that there are 1 or 2 guys that stand out, if Murray thinks LAndeskog is the guy that stands out, then you go after him.

Nothing is gauarenteed but sometimes you only get one chance to make an impact and this year might be it for Ottawa. You do what it takes.

NEELY wrote:

Big Ev wrote:Certainties? Nothing is a certainty. I never said it's guaranteed either. I just don't see much improvement in 1 year.

Look at Atlanta this season and I think that's the kind of year we have. They were actually pretty good for a while but they couldn't keep up.

Finishing 5-10 doesn't mean you're a bad team anymore. The parity in the NHL is great nowadays. Middle of the pack, like Atlanta and Columbus etc. will get you a good pick.

Drafting 7-14 every year also ensures that you won't be getting a franchise player unless a little luck comes your way. This year, if Murray can get what he believes to be a franchise player because he is so close to the top 3, you do it. Again, next year it seems that there are 1 or 2 guys that stand out, if Murray thinks LAndeskog is the guy that stands out, then you go after him.

Nothing is gauarenteed but sometimes you only get one chance to make an impact and this year might be it for Ottawa. You do what it takes.

I never said not to trade up to get Landeskog. Just stating where I think they'll finish next year.

Next year's draft is looking insane so we could definitely get a franchise player there if we finish in the Top 10 at least.

PS. Who knows if Landeskog is even their #1. It's still just all speculation. He said he likes 1 guy over the others but nobody has ever confirmed who that is. We're just inferring.

Big Ev wrote:Certainties? Nothing is a certainty. I never said it's guaranteed either. I just don't see much improvement in 1 year.
.

We'll definitely see an improvement given that we finally have a real goalie and we won't have players tuning out the coach. A good coach could definitely take this team to the playoffs.

A bunch of players would have to have breakout years, unlikely but possible.

And I agree they should do whatever it takes to get their #1 player (within reason).

NEELY wrote:
Nothing is gauarenteed but sometimes you only get one chance to make an impact and this year might be it for Ottawa. You do what it takes.

But if “that guy” is out there, chances are other teams know that too, and chances are that teams won’t trade away the draft pick that could land “that guy.”

So what I’m saying, is that if there’s somebody out there worth giving up two first rounders and a second rounder for, the team that has (or will have) that guy likely aren’t going to trade him for other draft picks.