What is the most you would give up for 3rd OA?

[_Q_]

Insane to give up Backlund just to move up a few spots.

As much as we all like to pretend that Bennett is already our second line centre, fact is, right now, that job is Backlund's. And it will be so for the next few years until Bennett really gets going in the NHL. You simply do not trade your youngish second line centre for magic beans.

[Sylvanfan]

Gaudreau.....

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Are you trying to start a riot? ^

IF we traded JG for the 3rd overall. I would cry tears of blood and never watch a single Flames game ever again.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Don't think about it as moving up 3 spots. It's about the player you get at 3. This isn't like moving from 16 to 13

I think there's a big drop off from top 2 to the third pick. The other Finn is good but I wouldn't give up Backlund and the 6th OA for him. I think he's overrated to be honest.

[JiriHrdina]

Based on what?

[RoughRiderRowdy]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Insane to give up Backlund just to move up a few spots.

As much as we all like to pretend that Bennett is already our second line centre, fact is, right now, that job is Backlund's. And it will be so for the next few years until Bennett really gets going in the NHL. You simply do not trade your youngish second line centre for magic beans.

Magic beans gimme a break

[RoughRiderRowdy]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Complete freaking lunacy.



Those are standard move up trades. No GM is going to give up actual quality NHL players to move up 3 spots in a draft.

If it costs more than that a trade won't happen, nor should it. It's a completely stupid overpayment.

Every year leading up to the draft it's the same BS lol. People fall in love with certain prospects that look to be out of reach and start throwing out ridiculous overpayment proposals because they want to move up.

In 2013 it was rumored that Feaster offered #6, #22 and #28 for #1 from the Avs. They turned it down. That was a fair deal, but they'd rather hang onto #1 and pick Mackinnon. Completely understandable. I bet some goof ball here would have offered all that plus Brodie/Backlund or something idiotic like that. Imagine right now the Avs having Brodie or Backlund plus Klimchuk and Poirier (if that's who the Avs picked) and Monahan who is arguably just as good or better than Mackinnon is anyways.

Again, it doesn't/shouldn't cost that much to move up a few spots in the draft. If they ask for a package like the OP's you don't make the deal.

Basically your paying to acquire JP. And not have such a scrutinized pick at 6

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Based on what?

Watching him play with Laine and how it was obvious he wasn't even close to the same level and benefited hugely by playing with him.

Also, his stats in the last 3 years are pretty mediocre.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by RoughRiderRowdy

Basically your paying to acquire JP. And not have such a scrutinized pick at 6

I know who you're proposing to take with #3 after moving up.


You're still over paying and more than likely making a mistake, which is why you never see a GM trade proven NHL players to move up a few spots in the draft.

It's a terrible idea.

[ah123]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I just read a ESPN insider quote on HF there is no deal to be made. Jarmo was quoted referencing the Gretzky trade. He is not closing the door but this won't be a deal that makes any sense for the Flames

I can see Columbus picking Puljujarvi and then trying to trade for the 5th/6th/7th overall pick to draft Logan Brown. Not sure what they would offer Vancouver/Calgary/Phoenix to entice them to trade their pick. It would be quite a coup for them if they could draft both Puljujarvi and Brown

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

I think there's a big drop off from top 2 to the third pick. The other Finn is good but I wouldn't give up Backlund and the 6th OA for him. I think he's overrated to be honest.

That is a very different take. There are a lot of scouts who are suggesting he may go #2 being a more cerebral player than Laine.

I don't think there's a drop between the first two and 3 at all, and I get the impression scouts pretty much universally agree it's a drop after 3.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I know who you're proposing to take with #3 after moving up.


You're still over paying and more than likely making a mistake, which is why you never see a GM trade proven NHL players to move up a few spots in the draft.

It's a terrible idea.

How can one just say that with certainty?
Backlund is a third liner on a good team. He guy they get a 6 probably ends up being a second liner or 2-4 D. If one believes the other Finn is a true top line talent that is a exchange that merits consideration

[dissentowner]

I think this is a mute debate anyhow, the Jackets don't really need Backlund, they need a #1 C.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I think this is a mute debate anyhow, the Jackets don't really need Backlund, they need a #1 C.

moot |mo͞ot|
adjective
subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision: whether the temperature rise was mainly due to the greenhouse effect was a moot point.
• having no practical significance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision: it is moot whether this phrase should be treated as metaphor or not.

[JiriHrdina]

It's moo

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

How can one just say that with certainty?
Backlund is a third liner on a good team. He guy they get a 6 probably ends up being a second liner or 2-4 D. If one believes the other Finn is a true top line talent that is a exchange that merits consideration

Backlund is a sure thing. You know what he is, and he's a quality NHLer. The other two assets involved are magic beans. It's just that right now one of the magic beans is a much higher touted magic bean at the moment. That can easily change, especially when you are dealing with 17/18 year olds.

It's too risky to trade an actual quality NHL player just to move up a handful of spots in a draft, and that's probably why you don't see it happen.

[RoughRiderRowdy]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Backlund is a sure thing. You know what he is, and he's a quality NHLer. The other two assets involved are magic beans. It's just that right now one of the magic beans is a much higher touted magic bean at the moment. That can easily change, especially when you are dealing with 17/18 year olds.

It's too risky to trade an actual quality NHL player just to move up a handful of spots in a draft, and that's probably why you don't see it happen.

I disagree with that post 110%.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by RoughRiderRowdy

I disagree with that post 110%.

Well that's great and all but actual NHL GM's obviously agree with it, because every trade up scenario the past 10-15 years only involve extra picks being used to move up a few spots in the first round, and never actual quality NHL players.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Well that's great and all but actual NHL GM's obviously agree with it, because every trade up scenario the past 10-15 years only involve extra picks being used to move up a few spots in the first round, and never actual quality NHL players.

And how many of those are relevant to this actual discussion involving not just moving up but moving up to a position where many believe the player is a lot better.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Backlund is a sure thing. You know what he is, and he's a quality NHLer. The other two assets involved are magic beans. It's just that right now one of the magic beans is a much higher touted magic bean at the moment. That can easily change, especially when you are dealing with 17/18 year olds.

It's too risky to trade an actual quality NHL player just to move up a handful of spots in a draft, and that's probably why you don't see it happen.

I would not describe the third overall pick as magic beans.