2016 NHL Draft

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by polak

Doubtful. Bennett hasn't done anything yet that Puljujärvi isn't capable of.

There's no benefit to them trading for Bennett. And yes you can sell tickets to American fanbases based on drafting hyped up players.

I doubt many Blue Jackets fans follow NHL prospects closely at all. I'd be surprised if 1 in 5 CBJ season ticket holders have heard of Puljujarvi or Bennett.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by polak

Doubtful. Bennett hasn't done anything yet that Puljujärvi isn't capable of.

There's no benefit to them trading for Bennett. And yes you can sell tickets to American fanbases based on drafting hyped up players.

Agree with your points completely. Your points also explain why Chevy would never trade Laine for 6OA, Backlund, Janko, and bunch of 2nds, or whatever offer that was a few pages back. Even if you get "good value" it's a move fans would hate.

And personally I think Puljujarvi has higher upside than Bennett, but time will tell. I think he would have challenged Ekblad for 1st overall that year and probably would have gone first (remembering that at that time no one expected Ekblad to have such an immediate impact and that there were a number of "questions" about whether he had franchise D potential).

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Agree with your points completely. Your points also explain why Chevy would never trade Laine for 6OA, Backlund, Janko, and bunch of 2nds, or whatever offer that was a few pages back. Even if you get "good value" it's a move fans would hate.

Hang on a second..

Is the hockey clubs job to focus more on the success of the team moving forward (Stanley Cup/Playoff appearances) and therefor draft/trade around that? Or is there job to ensure that the fans get a "shiny new toy" via the draft at 1st, 2nd or 3rd? I'm confused here.

Your statement above is a direct correlation to the Edmonton situation over the last 7 years and shows you what happens when you stick to the new toy rather than make the smart move for the club, sure the draft parties and new jersey sales have everyone singing and smiling in July-September but by December Edmonton fans hate the team again.

Not sure I agree, these moves happen and at the end of the day I think the clubs best interests outweigh that of the general public to a large extent for your average SMART GM

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Puljujarvi is ranked 3rd OA in what is a considered a strong draft where the top-3 are head and shoulders above the rest of the pack. Bennett was drafted 4th overall in an average draft. Is it really crazy to think Puljujarvi has higher value? That he would have been drafted higher than Bennett in Bennett's draft year?

Bennett was ranked #1 overall by central scouting in his draft year...and he is a for sure NHLer

Guy had a four goal game in the NHL in his rookie season FFS

[sureLoss]

Brian Costello @bcostellothn
THN's Draft Preview top 10:
1-Matthews
2-Laine
3-Puljujarvi
4-Tkachuk
5-Dubois
6-Juolevi
7-Nylander
8-Sergachev
9-Chychrun
10-McLeod

[polak]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I doubt many Blue Jackets fans follow NHL prospects closely at all. I'd be surprised if 1 in 5 CBJ season ticket holders have heard of Puljujarvi or Bennett.

They will if you plaster his face everywhere.

So the question becomes what's going to sell more tickets:

"An Elite Finnish Prospect. Top 3 Pick from this years draft. Best player from 2016 World Juniors"

"Guy who scored 36 points last season. That might not sound like much but it's actually really good if you consider his age!"

Yes it's the same calibre of player but the marketability for elite prospects drops once they start playing and don't tear up the league.

[Poe969]

you mean "19 year old 18 year old Sam Bennett" I know which one sounds more intriguing to me....

Again, I don't know if I'd trade Bennett for #3 but I think you try and work out a deal from there to see if something can happen. I like what Burke said about making an offer just to see if they'd make the trade then find their breaking point.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Hang on a second..

Is the hockey clubs job to focus more on the success of the team moving forward (Stanley Cup/Playoff appearances) and therefor draft/trade around that? Or is there job to ensure that the fans get a "shiny new toy" via the draft at 1st, 2nd or 3rd? I'm confused here.

Your statement above is a direct correlation to the Edmonton situation over the last 7 years and shows you what happens when you stick to the new toy rather than make the smart move for the club, sure the draft parties and new jersey sales have everyone singing and smiling in July-September but by December Edmonton fans hate the team again.

Not sure I agree, these moves happen and at the end of the day I think the clubs best interests outweigh that of the general public to a large extent for your average SMART GM

Edmonton is an exception to pretty much every rule and should rarely be used as an example to prove a point.

Your job as General Manager is to run a business. A large part of that is icing a good hockey team, but at the end of the day, you're judged on the success of the business. That is, revenue. Selling tickets. That's why Jarome Iginla wasn't traded until long past the point he should have been based on long-term success on the ice -- he was the face of the franchise and was selling tickets.

You don't make every move based on what makes the fans happy, but if you think GMs don't consider what makes fans happy you're out to lunch. One thing you can sell fans after a crappy losing season is a super-hyped elite-level prospect like those available in the top 3 this year.

Right now, Bennett's marketability is essentially at its lowest point. The lustre of "high draft pick" has worn off (and to a casual BJs fan, a 4th overall that went to the Flames 3 years ago is essentially a complete unknown), and he's not yet making much of an impact on the ice. He will not turn around the fortunes of the Blue Jackets next year, just as he didn't turn around the fortunes of the Flames last year.

Bennett for #3OA makes zero sense for the BJs. It doesn't help them much on the ice (if at all) and it hurts them as a business decision.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

This is not considered a strong draft.

It's not a deep draft because it starts to really fall off after 20 or so but the top end is extremely strong.

Scouts call a draft a strong draft when it has great depth into the 2nd and 3rd rounds. In that sense it's not a strong draft. But the top 20 this year are very strong, much stronger than 2014 or 2012. The top 20 this year is more similar to the top 20 in 2013.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Edmonton is an exception to pretty much every rule and should rarely be used as an example to prove a point.

Your job as General Manager is to run a business. A large part of that is icing a good hockey team, but at the end of the day, you're judged on the success of the business. That is, revenue. Selling tickets. That's why Jarome Iginla wasn't traded until long past the point he should have been based on long-term success on the ice -- he was the face of the franchise and was selling tickets.

You don't make every move based on what makes the fans happy, but if you think GMs don't consider what makes fans happy you're out to lunch. One thing you can sell fans after a crappy losing season is a super-hyped elite-level prospect like those available in the top 3 this year.

Right now, Bennett's marketability is essentially at its lowest point. The lustre of "high draft pick" has worn off (and to a casual BJs fan, a 4th overall that went to the Flames 3 years ago is essentially a complete unknown), and he's not yet making much of an impact on the ice. He will not turn around the fortunes of the Blue Jackets next year, just as he didn't turn around the fortunes of the Flames last year.

Bennett for #3OA makes zero sense for the BJs. It doesn't help them much on the ice (if at all) and it hurts them as a business decision.

I wouldn't even consider trading Bennett for the 3rd pick this year regardless of the above, I'm not advocating that at all don't get me wrong.


My concern as solely based on your notion that CBJ would be stupid to consider trading the 3rd pick away for a package consisting of:

6th
26th or w/e the Dallas pick is
1st next year
Young Prospect (I think you said Jankowski)
Backlund
2nd rounder(s)

I don't consider the above a FAR reach in terms of overpayment (its definitely an overpayment), considering Puljaarvi hasn't even shown us anything @ an NHL level yet where as you know what you're getting in Backlund, you're getting 3 1st round picks and a Prospect with significant development at the center ice position none the less, coupled with multiple 2nd round picks... Yikes.

If the above trade proposition doesn't at least get CBJ to pickup the phone and consider then the CBJ are out to lunch and may as well be slumped into the EDM category you seem to agree upon as part of the "not a f_n clue" how to manage a hockey team.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Hang on a second..

Is the hockey clubs job to focus more on the success of the team moving forward (Stanley Cup/Playoff appearances) and therefor draft/trade around that? Or is there job to ensure that the fans get a "shiny new toy" via the draft at 1st, 2nd or 3rd? I'm confused here.

Your statement above is a direct correlation to the Edmonton situation over the last 7 years and shows you what happens when you stick to the new toy rather than make the smart move for the club, sure the draft parties and new jersey sales have everyone singing and smiling in July-September but by December Edmonton fans hate the team again.

Not sure I agree, these moves happen and at the end of the day I think the clubs best interests outweigh that of the general public to a large extent for your average SMART GM

yeah, except Winnipeg's prospect base is considered the deepest in the NHL. Why would they take on 4-5 more contracts of guys that are considered good or even very good?

they have that in spades now.

these package deals don't work because often, teams have limited spots available anyways. And some GMs actually believe in the philosophy that the team that gets the best player wins that trade.

If Laine is good enough to command a king's ransom, why would Winnipeg make that trade when their prospect base is better than ours? your "shiny new" toy analogy can be applied to Calgary's management as much as Winnipeg's based on the trade offer being suggested.

[kkaleR]

Trading the king's ransom to get Puljujärvi would be plain stupid.

The kid is going to be good, but not phenomenal.

And this is from Finn, who has seen him play and progress quite a lot.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

yeah, except Winnipeg's prospect base is considered the deepest in the NHL. Why would they take on 4-5 more contracts of guys that are considered good or even very good?

they have that in spades now.

these package deals don't work because often, teams have limited spots available anyways. And some GMs actually believe in the philosophy that the team that gets the best player wins that trade.

If Laine is good enough to command a king's ransom, why would Winnipeg make that trade when their prospect base is better than ours? your "shiny new" toy can be applied to Calgary's management as much as Winnipeg's based on the offer being suggested.

Not talking about Winnipeg this time, That's a different beast.
They were talking about the CBJ and the 3rd pick.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Not talking about Winnipeg this time, that's a different beast.

ok. sorry, got confused with the posts.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I think Columbus would be the most likely out of the top 3 to trade the pick - and I mean to say that they are still very unlikely to trade that pick.

Toronto - they sell out. They just went through a failed rebuild. Shanahan, Lamoriello and Babcock or selling the 'slow, but do this thing the right way this time' to the fanbase. They will not trade elite talent for lesser pieces.

Winnipeg - they already have a very, very deep prospect pool, but are lacking (imo) true high-end elite talent. I think Ehlers is a fine prospect, but I don't think he is in that class of a prospect. Laine will be (or Mathews if Toronto does something unexpected).

Columbus - they have the 'lesser' out of the 3 picks of course, but I don't think they are selling out. Sure, a hyped-up prospect will draw some fans for a short while so they can see him, but winning draws more fans. They are the most likely to be a bit impatient and trade the pick for a package of more NHL-ready prospects or current young players to help them get back into winning sooner rather than later.

I still think they won't though, or if they would, their demands would still make it prohibitive.

What I can see happening is a team like Winnipeg getting both Finns if Columbus is willing to trade their pick outright for a solid package to accelerate their rebuild. Still doubtful.

Teams just don't trade out of the top 10 much because it is really scary to do so. They run the risk of it ending up being an embarrassing trade that will follow them for the rest of their careers. People don't want to be thought of as a Mike Milbury (not that he traded away a lottery pick, but that he traded high-end talent for depth to accelerate whatever he was trying to do on the Isles). No team is going to hire a Mike Milbury any longer.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Royle9

I wouldn't even consider trading Bennett for the 3rd pick this year regardless of the above, I'm not advocating that at all don't get me wrong.


My concern as solely based on your notion that CBJ would be stupid to consider trading the 3rd pick away for a package consisting of:

6th
26th or w/e the Dallas pick is
1st next year
Young Prospect (I think you said Jankowski)
Backlund
2nd rounder(s)

I don't consider the above a FAR reach in terms of overpayment (its definitely an overpayment), considering Puljaarvi hasn't even shown us anything @ an NHL level yet where as you know what you're getting in Backlund, you're getting 3 1st round picks and a Prospect with significant development at the center ice position none the less, coupled with multiple 2nd round picks... Yikes.

If the above trade proposition doesn't at least get CBJ to pickup the phone and consider then the CBJ are out to lunch and may as well be slumped into the EDM category you seem to agree upon as part of the "not a f_n clue" how to manage a hockey team.

The #6OA, next year's 1st, and 2 2nds is MASSIVE overpayment. Massive.

And you guys are talking about adding Jankowski and Backlund as well?

FFS, just stop.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by kkaleR

Trading the king's ransom to get Puljujärvi would be plain stupid.

The kid is going to be good, but not phenomenal.

And this is from Finn, who has seen him play and progress quite a lot.

I think he has pretty phenomenal potential. But I wouldn't trade kings ransom for potential.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Not talking about Winnipeg this time, That's a different beast.
They were talking about the CBJ and the 3rd pick.

No, that package that included Janko and Backlund was for Laine. That package is probably "fair value" but as pointed out above, doesn't get it done because Winnipeg already has great depth. It makes no sense for them even if the asset value is fairly close.

That's the issue with most of these proposed trades. You can't trade 10 $5 bills for a $50 dollar bill in hockey most times. Usually the team trading for "depth" loses the trade. See:

Phaneuf to Tor (though that trade was terrible for a number of reasons)
Thornton to SJ
Seguin to Dal

A lot more than pure aggregate asset value is at play, and even those trade proposals that get close in value (which is very few) ignore the reality the teams are in. Optics, salary structure, competitive timeline (pre-rebuild, start of rebuild, end of rebuild (us), bubble team, contender), depth, etc.

[druetetective]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Brian Costello @bcostellothn
THN's Draft Preview top 10:
1-Matthews
2-Laine
3-Puljujarvi
4-Tkachuk
5-Dubois
6-Juolevi
7-Nylander
8-Sergachev
9-Chychrun
10-McLeod

Interesting. Like Mckenzie's ranking THN polls multiple scouts, although their editors opinion is also used to rank the prospects.

So for me after Mckenzie and perhaps CSS/ISS their rankings holds the most weight for me since professional scouts opinions are factored in.

Anyone know how Damien Cox compiles his rankings? Seems like he has some scouts as sources as well these days.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Bennett was ranked #1 overall by central scouting in his draft year...and he is a for sure NHLer

Guy had a four goal game in the NHL in his rookie season FFS

<sigh> I forget that TrueFans can't admit that other young players and prospects can possibly be as good their own, and it's absolutely frickin' ridiculous to suggest that a player drafted 4th overall is comparable to a player projected to be drafted 3rd overall two years later.