|
View Poll Results: Assuming a fair trade, how far are you willing to drop back in the 2016 draft?
|
|
Not willing to drop at all. Make the pick or trade up only
|
   
|
85 |
41.26% |
|
1 or 2 spots to 7OA or 8th OA
|
  
|
32 |
15.53% |
|
3 or 4 spots to 9th or 10th OA
|
  
|
58 |
28.16% |
|
5 or 6 spots to 11th or 12th OA
|
  
|
14 |
6.80% |
|
would be willing to drop as long as it is in top 15
|
  
|
4 |
1.94% |
|
would be willing to drop out of the top 15
|
  
|
13 |
6.31% |
06-11-2016, 05:28 PM
|
#21
|
|
Ass Handler
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Okotoks, AB
|
I'm having a tough time convincing myself that every team in the top 5 takes a forward.
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to StrykerSteve For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 05:30 PM
|
#22
|
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
For those who like Nylander a trade down could have him still there.
4. Tkachuk/Dubois
5. Dubois/Tkachuk
6. Trade down to #9. MTL takes Brown
7. ARI takes dman
8. BUF takes dman
9. CGY still has choice of Nylander, Keller, Jost, a dman
Based on the players that a lot of you want (Keller, Nylander) a trade down would make sense. I still think there's a chance Tkachuk/Dubois falls to us at #6 and I don't see us trading down if that happens.
|
This makes a lot of sense
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 05:34 PM
|
#23
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Anywhere in the top 15 is probably fine, obviously depending on what you get back. I'd take somewhere in the 10-15 range for a low 1st, for sure.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 05:35 PM
|
#24
|
|
Franchise Player
|
I don't think you can really "intend" to trade down. Almost all of the impetus comes from a team that has a reason for moving up. For that reason, it doesn't seem like there is a must have player at 6 unless something weird happens. Unless you really trade down quite a ways.
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 05:45 PM
|
#25
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
For those who like Nylander a trade down could have him still there.
4. Tkachuk/Dubois
5. Dubois/Tkachuk
6. Trade down to #9. MTL takes Brown
7. ARI takes dman
8. BUF takes dman
9. CGY still has choice of Nylander, Keller, Jost, a dman
Based on the players that a lot of you want (Keller, Nylander) a trade down would make sense. I still think there's a chance Tkachuk/Dubois falls to us at #6 and I don't see us trading down if that happens.
|
Maybe we can get Paul Byron back? Seriously though we already have 10 draft picks and I say we don't need more. Too many good prospects graduating at the same time makes it hard to find room to sign them. In that case we should be trading some picks to move up into another first rounder or get a player we can use now.
Last edited by Vulcan; 06-11-2016 at 05:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 05:50 PM
|
#26
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
For those who like Nylander a trade down could have him still there.
4. Tkachuk/Dubois
5. Dubois/Tkachuk
6. Trade down to #9. MTL takes Brown
7. ARI takes dman
8. BUF takes dman
9. CGY still has choice of Nylander, Keller, Jost, a dman
Based on the players that a lot of you want (Keller, Nylander) a trade down would make sense. I still think there's a chance Tkachuk/Dubois falls to us at #6 and I don't see us trading down if that happens.
|
Yeah I'd be fine with something like this, and I'd be hoping for Keller or Jost personally.
#6 for #9 and #39 sounds good to me.
#9
#35
#39
#54
#56
Lots of ammo and still a super skilled prospect @ 9th
Maybe even package up #34 & #39 to move up into the 20's if someone they like is available still there.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Roof-Daddy For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 06:10 PM
|
#27
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Every year there's rumors around this time about a team trading their top pick as high as ours...
Rarely does it ever happen however. Makes for good banter though.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Dr. Doom For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 06:40 PM
|
#28
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy
Yeah I'd be fine with something like this, and I'd be hoping for Keller or Jost personally.
#6 for #9 and #39 sounds good to me.
#9
#35
#39
#54
#56
.
|
Hopefully the Flames can flip two 2nds and get into the late 1st.
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 06:44 PM
|
#29
|
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Rocky Mt House
|
I voted 3 or 4 spots, but really I'm just going to trust our scouting staff whatever they do. They've been real good last couple drafts IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Yrebmi For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 06:49 PM
|
#30
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Doom
Every year there's rumors around this time about a team trading their top pick as high as ours...
Rarely does it ever happen however. Makes for good banter though.
|
That's usually because there are clear tiers of players that are separate due to their respective talent. Everyone from 6-12 is practically identical in the potential department and 13/14 (Bean/McAvoy) are not far off, they have the almost the same skill as the other D but are slightly shorter.
__________________
Fireside Chat - The #1 Flames Fan Podcast - FiresideChat.ca
|
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 06:51 PM
|
#31
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
For those who like Nylander a trade down could have him still there.
4. Tkachuk/Dubois
5. Dubois/Tkachuk
6. Trade down to #9. MTL takes Brown
7. ARI takes dman
8. BUF takes dman
9. CGY still has choice of Nylander, Keller, Jost, a dman
Based on the players that a lot of you want (Keller, Nylander) a trade down would make sense. I still think there's a chance Tkachuk/Dubois falls to us at #6 and I don't see us trading down if that happens.
|
In that scenario what exactly is Montreal gaining by moving up? Appears Brown will be there at #9 anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 06:55 PM
|
#32
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
In that scenario what exactly is Montreal gaining by moving up? Appears Brown will be there at #9 anyway.
|
Because the Flames may take Brown. Can't have any guarantees of anything.
__________________
Fireside Chat - The #1 Flames Fan Podcast - FiresideChat.ca
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 07:26 PM
|
#33
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caged Great
Because the Flames may take Brown. Can't have any guarantees of anything.
|
If the Flames wanted Brown why would they trade with Montreal so the Habs could take him?
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 07:33 PM
|
#34
|
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
If the Flames wanted Brown why would they trade with Montreal so the Habs could take him?
|
They may not have wanted him. Habs just need to think there is a high chance they may take him.
Last edited by sureLoss; 06-11-2016 at 07:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 07:38 PM
|
#35
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Maybe in that scenario MTL isn't 100% confident Brown gets past ARI or BUF.
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 08:14 PM
|
#36
|
|
Franchise Player
|
I don't think Brown gets passed vancouver
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 08:26 PM
|
#37
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Paradise
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caged Great
That's usually because there are clear tiers of players that are separate due to their respective talent. Everyone from 6-12 is practically identical in the potential department and 13/14 (Bean/McAvoy) are not far off, they have the almost the same skill as the other D but are slightly shorter.
|
Not always. 2014 reminds me of this year where there was a consensus top 4 and after that 6 or 7 prospects that could have went in any order. (That being said his year's crop of 6 or 7 is better IMO)
No trade ups/downs that year.
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 08:50 PM
|
#38
|
|
Franchise Player
|
IF we're talking moving down a few spots, get a 2nd round pick in 2017 - not 2016. It doesn't sound like this year is all that intriguing depth-wise.
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 09:06 PM
|
#39
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy
Maybe in that scenario MTL isn't 100% confident Brown gets past ARI or BUF.
|
... or, hypothetically, CLB trades Werenski to ARI for the 7th and something else, and takes Brown...
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2016, 09:12 PM
|
#40
|
|
First Line Centre
|
how about a straight picks for picks swap with pheonix?
To ARZ
6th and 53rd
To CGY
7th and 37th
you would need to convince ARZ that you are about to go to the podium and select the player they prefer, ala burke with kadri.
good chance that calgary still gets their man at 7th. and then pick at 35th, 37th, and 55th.
ARZ moves up one spot in the top ten and down 16 spots in the top 60.
fair? or am i overvaluing one side or another?
EDIT:
the perfect follow up would be packaging all 3 second rounders for 15th OAL to MIN
(MIN does not have any second or 3rd rd picks)
far fetched to have that much movement but hey a man can dream
__________________
is your cat doing singing?
Last edited by handgroen; 06-11-2016 at 09:20 PM.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:41 PM.
|
|
