Jeez. Somebody tell me why Puljujarvi is so damn good that not only would we have to trade Bennett for him, but add Backlund as well?
Because it would take an extreme over-payment for Columbus to move that pick.
I don't think many have advocated that we should pay it... but it's refreshing to see some people with realistic suggestions instead of the prototypical "I'd love to get that #3 overall pick but only if we don't have to give up [just about anything of value]". It's excruciating to read that and there are so many fans who do it over and over on hockey forums.
It's just about equally difficult to see someone put out a realistic proposal for a change (something closer to what it would likely take) and the ensuing handful of "wow that's crazy, we'd never do that!" posts that follow.
It's almost at the point where the idea shouldn't even be brought up because people either low-ball or get the pitch-forks out for those who actually state what it would realistically take.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to GoJetsGo For This Useful Post:
Granted, its a highlight/goal scoring tape, so you don't see other things, like dominating a cycle along the boards or physically beating up an opponent over the course of a game.
Just in case you haven't watched it, there's a shift-by-shift of Brown, from his Draft-1 season though:
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
What do you guys think of the possibility of Montreal moving up to draft number 4?
-Montreal could draft Dubois who would really fit in their organization.
-Edmonton could get another 2nd (plus more) in the deal, and they could use it to compensate Boston. They would also be able to take one of the 3 defensemen with the 9th pick.
This wouldn't be good for the Flames in any way, but it's something that I could potentially see happening at the draft.
Holy cow.
Shiny new toy syndrome is running strong in this thread.
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?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
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?
This is not considered a strong draft. The hype has just continued to build and build to where average players have been granted elevated to exceptional status in our minds. This is what happens when your team is out of the playoff picture for so long and so many new "sources of information" crop up to repeat the same narrative. It develops a narrative that this is a great draft, when in reality it is pretty below average, as was projected for a couple of years now. The top three are great, but no more so than some of the drafts gone by. We've just had so much media focus on the players and retell the same story that we think these guys are exceptional. Five years from now we'll look back at this draft and laugh at all the hype over certain players and think back at how incredible it was that some guys slid under the radar.
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?
This is a pretty average draft the there's considerable falloff after the 3rd best prospect. The top two players are better than the top players in the 2014 draft but the guy that's drafted 4th overall (Dubois or Tkachuk) in this draft is not a better prospect than Bennett was in 2014 as he was number one on some boards. It's possible Puljujarvi is going to be a very good player but Bennett didn't exactly embarrass himself (arguably the team's most physical forward) in his first NHL season. I don't think I do that trade straight across given the center position carries more value.
That video footage is like a year old. Brown's made significant strides since then.
Meh, last years highlights weren't particularly good either...
IMHO of course.
It fine if we pick brown, but I hope they can at least trade down a few spots to do it....or pick Keller/Nylander and try moving up for max Jones (assuming we get Dallas #1) with our second first
Also for the love of god lets not trade Jankowski until we see what we've got. We've spent so many hours over so many years discussing/berating each other over him. He keeps looking better and better, I want to see what he can be dammit.
__________________
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to FBI For This Useful Post:
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 the top ranked skater by CSS in his draft. Hard to say where Puljujarvi would have gone in that draft, but I think it's very safe to say that he would not have been a clear 1st overall (i.e. ranked higher than Bennett).
Also, Bennett has an additional 2 years of development under his belt, where he has continued to show that he is on a path to be a top line player (whereas Puljujarvi is still very much a teenage risk).
Bennett is also a C and has leadership/grit intangibles.
I could see some people thinking Puljujarvi might have similar value to Bennett, but it's hard to argue that he has more. And I would argue that he has a fair bit less.
If I were trading Bennett for Puljujarvi, I would be expecting that the other side would be adding.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
I'd trade Bennett for Laine or Matthews but that's it. Pulgujghdsghaiwetwietsiefhs seems to be a bit less of sure thing, but from the sounds of it Laine and Matthews are franchise players. Bennett might be that but it's far from certain.
But there's no chance Columbus would trade 3 for Bennett anyways. Hype is to real and they get to market him like crazy.
It's a lot easier to market a "potential franchise player we just drafted" than a pretty good rookie who had 36 points last year even though they're technically the same calibre, once they're in the league and they don't tear it up right away, you lose that marketability until they actually become that player.
No one in Columbus is going to buy tickets cause they traded for Bennett. They'll buy tickets to see their hyped up, awesome new draft pick from foreign land.
Last edited by polak; 05-10-2016 at 10:27 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to polak For This Useful Post:
Personally I think Columbus would jump at the chance to trade #3 for Bennett.
What sells tickets is winning games, not hyping draft picks (except in Edmonton).
Doubtful. Bennett hasn't done anything yet that Puljujärvi isn't capable of. All Bennett has shown in the NHL so far is that he's capable of producing bottom 6 points. Sure he could be better but he's not yet. Chances are very high that Puljujarvi can match what Bennett has done so far so there's no benefit to them trading for Bennett.
And yes you can sell tickets to American fanbases based on drafting hyped up players.
Last edited by polak; 05-10-2016 at 10:51 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to polak For This Useful Post:
