[Rumour] Tallon Actively Shopping 1st Overall Pick in 2014 Draft

[nik-]

Originally Posted by $ven27

Baertschi and Backlund yes, but you wouldn't part with GRANLUD for the 1st overall? That's nuts.

Granlund + 4? ... no, because why would we? The difference between those picks isn't Granlund.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Let's put it another way...

Ekblad vs Bennett + Dougherty/Glover

I would rather have the latter.

And yes, if I were not totally sold on Ekblad, I would make that trade. I hope the Flames do not.

Well actually it is Bennett/Draisaitl/Reinhart+34th pick (who knows if the guys you listed are even there).

It makes sense to make the trade if you are completely indifferent on who out of the top 4 you would want to take. If the Panthers are only interested in 2 of the 4 they don't make that trade.

The fact Tallon has said he would trade down within the top 10 as long as he gets a good young player back that young player is not going to be a scrub by any means.

[theoforever]

In 2012 some of the media were suggesting that Montreal should give PK Subban to move up from 3rd to 1st pick.

Edmonton picked Yak as #1 Montreal got Galchenyuk.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

[cKy]

Originally Posted by theoforever

In 2012 some of the media were suggesting that Montreal should give PK Subban to move up from 3rd to 1st pick.

Edmonton picked Yak as #1 Montreal got Galchenyuk.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

Well, you convinced me. It happened once where moving up wasnt worth. Case closed.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by cKy

Well, you convinced me. It happened once where moving up wasnt worth. Case closed.

I don't care if you are convinced or not that wasn't the point.

Similar draft to this one in a way.
The only conclusion is that nobody has a crystal ball.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by theoforever

In 2012 some of the media were suggesting that Montreal should give PK Subban to move up from 3rd to 1st pick.

Edmonton picked Yak as #1 Montreal got Galchenyuk.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

Talk about the best deal you made was the one you didn't.

[bucksmasher]

Does Sven + Russel + a late pick = #1?

Lose a forward, get another at #4 with a potentially higher ceiling. Lose a medium sized D that is playing well and take a chance the bigger newer D pans out better long term.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by $ven27

Baertschi and Backlund yes, but you wouldn't part with GRANLUD for the 1st overall? That's nuts.

No, what's "nuts" is being unable to acknowledge that this is *at least* debatable and that other opinions are just as valid. If not more valid.

[Bandwagon Surfer]

The trouble I have with moving from #4 to #1 is the top 4 are all so close in my mind that I do not have a strong preference as to which one of them I would like. So to me all the top 4 have the same value so I would not pay more to have a different one of them.

If there was a clearer top pick then I could see wanting to pay to move up, but it really does not seem like there is much to gain here. Now if the people who are paid to evaluate players do see somebody as being much better then sure pay to move up.

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

The trouble I have with moving from #4 to #1 is the top 4 are all so close in my mind that I do not have a strong preference as to which one of them I would like. So to me all the top 4 have the same value so I would not pay more to have a different one of them.

If there was a clearer top pick then I could see wanting to pay to move up, but it really does not seem like there is much to gain here. Now if the people who are paid to evaluate players do see somebody as being much better then sure pay to move up.

I see more potential interest coming from those who hold picks 6 to 10.

[bubbsy]

agreed.

Last year, getting in on this made total sense. Getting a shot at Mackinnon or even Jones, may be worth throwing assets at. But picking at #4, where the prospects expected to go from 1-4 seem to be relatively equal, makes no sense to spend much.

I think florida is hoping for someone in the top 5 or so to make an offer, as maybe they have their eyes on someone like bennet/draisatl/ehler, and hope to cash in on a player and still get the guy they are hoping for. Or their simply testing waters, but intend to draft ekblad. Only reason they are willing to trade down would be is if they don't intend to draft ekblad i think.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

The trouble I have with moving from #4 to #1 is the top 4 are all so close in my mind that I do not have a strong preference as to which one of them I would like. So to me all the top 4 have the same value so I would not pay more to have a different one of them.

If there was a clearer top pick then I could see wanting to pay to move up, but it really does not seem like there is much to gain here. Now if the people who are paid to evaluate players do see somebody as being much better then sure pay to move up.

Unless one of the teams wants a D (Ekblad) as there seems to be a big drop off in d after him, may not see another one picked in the top 15.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Would Tallon even consider any offers with a team outside the top 10? Maybe a three way trade?

Lightning, Red Wings, Flyers, and even Dallas could use a RH defenseman like Ekblad. The only teams I see with pieces to move are the Lightning and Red Wings though.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Again, history shows the price to move up a few spots is not as high as posters in this thread are indicating, and from all indications the drop off in prospect quality from #1 to #4 is not big enough (may not be a drop off at all actually) to justify trading a quality prospect or established NHL player in order to move up.

What about the history in the cap era? I don't recall a 1st overall pick being moved in the past 10 years. With a cap system young players and top picks are more important than ever. Typically 1st overalls have made the NHL and made an impact 1-2 years after being drafted which is very important for teams trying to win quickly. If Florida wants to speed up the rebuild and compete if one player fills a need and is more NHL ready than a guy that is picked 3-4 spots later (perhaps very similar upside) then you keep the pick instead of drafting another guy who may or may not pan out in 3-5 years (the 2nd round pick)

I wonder if the flames had the 4th pick instead of the 1st last year would Colorado take their offer of 3 first round picks for #1? Last years draft was a top tier of 4 players.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

What about the history in the cap era? I don't recall a 1st overall pick being moved in the past 10 years. With a cap system young players and top picks are more important than ever. Typically 1st overalls have made the NHL and made an impact 1-2 years after being drafted which is very important for teams trying to win quickly. If Florida wants to speed up the rebuild and compete if one player fills a need and is more NHL ready than a guy that is picked 3-4 spots later (perhaps very similar upside) then you keep the pick instead of drafting another guy who may or may not pan out in 3-5 years (the 2nd round pick)

But they could still get a guy at #4 who pans out as quickly as Ekblad may. Dal Colle could be ready soon for example. Bennett or Reinhart could fall to them at #4 if they traded down. Draisaitl could be ready pretty quick too.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

What about the history in the cap era? I don't recall a 1st overall pick being moved in the past 10 years. With a cap system young players and top picks are more important than ever. Typically 1st overalls have made the NHL and made an impact 1-2 years after being drafted which is very important for teams trying to win quickly. If Florida wants to speed up the rebuild and compete if one player fills a need and is more NHL ready than a guy that is picked 3-4 spots later (perhaps very similar upside) then you keep the pick instead of drafting another guy who may or may not pan out in 3-5 years (the 2nd round pick)

I wonder if the flames had the 4th pick instead of the 1st last year would Colorado take their offer of 3 first round picks for #1? Last years draft was a top tier of 4 players.

Last year wasn't a tier of 4, it was a tier of Mackinnon, then a tier of 3, then a tier of 2 then 3 or 4 more guys. This year is a top tier of 4 or maybe 5 guys that are all about the same. Which is why trading up doesn't make a lot of sense for the Flames, but probably does for teams at 6 to 10.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

What about the history in the cap era? I don't recall a 1st overall pick being moved in the past 10 years. With a cap system young players and top picks are more important than ever. Typically 1st overalls have made the NHL and made an impact 1-2 years after being drafted which is very important for teams trying to win quickly. If Florida wants to speed up the rebuild and compete if one player fills a need and is more NHL ready than a guy that is picked 3-4 spots later (perhaps very similar upside) then you keep the pick instead of drafting another guy who may or may not pan out in 3-5 years (the 2nd round pick)

I wonder if the flames had the 4th pick instead of the 1st last year would Colorado take their offer of 3 first round picks for #1? Last years draft was a top tier of 4 players.

Would the Flames still make the offer?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Last year wasn't a tier of 4, it was a tier of Mackinnon, then a tier of 3, then a tier of 2 then 3 or 4 more guys. This year is a top tier of 4 or maybe 5 guys that are all about the same. Which is why trading up doesn't make a lot of sense for the Flames, but probably does for teams at 6 to 10.

Seth Jones was considered a top pick up until Roy said they were drafting MacKinnon. Barkov, Nickuskin, and Drouin were in that mix as well. I remember people saying the drop off was Lindholm and Monahan then another drop off

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Seth Jones was considered a top pick up until Roy said they were drafting MacKinnon. Barkov, Nickuskin, and Drouin were in that mix as well. I remember people saying the drop off was Lindholm and Monahan then another drop off

Yes.

It was basically:

Tier one: MacKinnon/Jones/Drouin
Tier Two: Barkov
Tier Three: Lindholm/Monahan

With Nichushkin a wild card due to being Russian.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

What about the history in the cap era? I don't recall a 1st overall pick being moved in the past 10 years.

Just guessing but I assume that most teams picking in the top 5 don't have any cap issues.

Well ... except Edmonton but they are no good.