2013 NHL Draft Thread II (6/30, 3PM EDT)
- Thread starter Samkow
- Start date
- Status
It really is a shame that Murray didnt get to play this season, although hopefully his shoulder he had surgery on is now better for it. People would be signing a different tune right now.
Fro
Cheatin on CBJ w TBL
the problem (to me) is that a few ppl here, such as yourself, have an absolute stance on it...I am merely saying I would make the deal...and that a deal makes sense...
i know i'm not gonna change your opinion...but I do have some friends in the team...i know that convos LIKE (read: maybe not this exact deal) this are taking place...Jarmo and JD are doing everything they can think of to improve this team...and an HF fave or two may not be here to start the season...
this offseason is going to be very interesting to see this team shaped up...
The first step in a good argument is to accurately describe the opposing viewpoint, and neither one of you are coming close to it.
It has absolutely nothing to do with one being newer than the other, or one being injured. Murray is as new as it gets and I have very high expectations for him. I've stated this many times.
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
I would be curious to know who these friends are ... I've never been a fan of unsubstantiated sources.
I'm not saying that discussions aren't taking place, because it's typical - especially with new management - for these sort of things to happen.
Here's my thinking: You have one of the top defense prospects in the entire world ... undoubtedly, in the top two or three. You also have three first round picks, in a somewhat deep draft. Why do you trade one of the top up and comers in the world, to move up in a draft in which you will already likely come away with a handful of quality, blue chip type prospects?
It doesn't make much sense, unless the cost is extremely low ... which it won't be. Do you really think trading Murray and one of our first round picks - plus potentially more - for a player who will end up on roughly the same level as Murray, just in a different output, is the right move?
My point is that Murray is being seriously underrated. He's being mentioned as John Moore and David Savard once were, which absolutely shouldn't be the case. If Murray gets dealt, it should only be because a team comes in and offers a package for him that we can't refuse. We should not be shopping this player around, without him even playing a single NHL game.
On HF it's almost always about NEW vs old, draft picks over prospects and prospects over players. And Ryan Murray is so last year. Perhaps that is a bit of an oversimplification but that view does hold sway in too many situations. Not saying in your case, but it does happen.
Now I will once more state my stance. The proposition is; the trading of Murray for MacKinnon. It is not, at first glance, unreasonable, a top level D prospect for a top level O prospect. The problem is this, that is not the way it would go down. A team in the top three, where MacKinnon will be drafted, is unlikely to make such a trade straight up. There is going to be a + involved, and this is where the new/old thing comes in. I have seen propositions here offering an additional fist round pick and more. So why is this years 2nd overall worth an additional first round pick + over last years 2nd overall. Offense over defense? Is MK really that much better than RM?
It just does not seem to me to be wise asset management for such a + payment. When you can, given the depth of this draft add 3 potential top six forwards and still have last years second overall who will eventually anchor your defense for many years to come.
Now is there a balance that would make such a deal amenable, yes absolutely. I just don't, because of the perceived value of the current draft's 2nd overall pick, expect such a balance to be struck.
CBJWerenski8
Rest in Peace Johnny
- Jun 13, 2009
- 43,676
- 26,718
I wasn't big on drafting Murray, especially over Galchenyuk. And I agree that JK and JD are going to look at every possible scenario to make the team better, but I know for a fact they dealt Moore because they see Ryan Murray as a better Moore, and will make an impact next year. I think JD and JK, although he wasn't their pick, will want to see why he was taken 2nd overall.
I agree with most of this, but don't feel like breaking down the parts I disagreed with right now.
Hello Johnny
Registered User
- Apr 13, 2007
- 13,208
- 1,142
Sorry for taking so long to reply, I've been away from HF for a few days (which I highly recommend to every single poster on this site
)1. I understand the desire of a trade for positional reasons. I just would rather hang onto Murray and try to get an impact player by other means. I certainly wouldn't be devastated if the trade happened, as I really like Mack and Drouin. But as I said earlier, I think the first two picks are almost locks to be Jones and Mack respectively to Colorado and Florida, so talk of Mack, in my opinion, is moot.
2. I never suggested the "shiny new toy" philosophy, I don't know where that came from. And I agree, Murray and Mack are both very safe bets to be great players at best and good players at worst.
3. I'm not telling anyone what to think. If I'm coming off that way, I apologize. Independent thought is one of the greatest things in life. I'm just saying that I believe in Jarmo and Co. to be able to get those elite players without compromising anything. Again I say "have your cake and eat it too". I love Murray, I love Mackinnon, but if we can keep Murray and get a great forward with our own assets, I would be happy as a clam. However, if Jarmo decides that trading Murray for whoever is the right thing to do, I would trust that he knows what he's doing. I simply don't think trading Murray is on anyone in the organization's agenda. That's just me.
Now, as for your question regarding Tampa, I honestly haven't a clue. If they wanted to low-ball I'd say they'd offer Koekkoek + and we would counter with the 3rd overall pick. I don't know what would happen after that.
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Well now it seems there really isn't any difference between our views. We both believe that Murray for Mackinnon is a reasonable idea, and that an amenable deal could be theoretically struck, but we don't expect the "+" or the "balance" to be in our favor, so don't expect a deal.
Never thought otherwise. Your posts seemed to be tilted in favor of the trade without consideration of the costs. But that could be my perception.
So yea theoretically anything is possible. But theoretical is not a big concept with HF. I'm right, you're wrong, comes closer most of the time.
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
To liken this to a fine recent example of a #2 overall pick...
Imagine, the Colorado Avalanche draft Gabriel Landeskog 2nd overall, and then he goes back to junior, gets injured, and misses the remainder of the year. They decide that, they need a defenseman instead of another forward, having a gluttony of forwards at their disposal already. Take, for example, they still have their #11 overall pick at last year's draft ... they then take that pick, Landeskog, and flip the two of them to the Jackets, in exchange for the #2 pick and the right to draft Ryan Murray.
Colorado: Ryan Murray
Columbus: Gabriel Landeskog + Filip Forsberg
Does that sort of a deal look so good now? I think that would be the cost to move up to #2 or 3 and select Nathan MacKinnon or Jonathan Drouin. Let's say that, there's a faller like Forsberg in this year's draft ... for argument's sake, I won't even use a guy who's slated in the top-4, as Forsberg was last year ... let's say Lindholm falls to our slot at #14, but we've dealt Murray and that pick to, say, Florida, for the right to draft Nathan MacKinnon.
Florida: Murray + Lindholm
Columbus: MacKinnon
Just for some perspective. It's also in my opinion that Florida and Tampa are going to be pretty high on the players that fall to them, and both organizations could use more offensive help. Say what you want about Tampa, but they have some aging stars, and could use some youth up front. What this means to me is that, we would probably have to include even another piece ... likely a young, fairly cheap roster forward.
It is for these reasons, above all else, that I'm against trading Ryan Murray. If the cost is straight up - Murray for MacKinnon - then you consider the deal. But not if we're including another piece ... at all.
Imagine, the Colorado Avalanche draft Gabriel Landeskog 2nd overall, and then he goes back to junior, gets injured, and misses the remainder of the year. They decide that, they need a defenseman instead of another forward, having a gluttony of forwards at their disposal already. Take, for example, they still have their #11 overall pick at last year's draft ... they then take that pick, Landeskog, and flip the two of them to the Jackets, in exchange for the #2 pick and the right to draft Ryan Murray.
Colorado: Ryan Murray
Columbus: Gabriel Landeskog + Filip Forsberg
Does that sort of a deal look so good now? I think that would be the cost to move up to #2 or 3 and select Nathan MacKinnon or Jonathan Drouin. Let's say that, there's a faller like Forsberg in this year's draft ... for argument's sake, I won't even use a guy who's slated in the top-4, as Forsberg was last year ... let's say Lindholm falls to our slot at #14, but we've dealt Murray and that pick to, say, Florida, for the right to draft Nathan MacKinnon.
Florida: Murray + Lindholm
Columbus: MacKinnon
Just for some perspective. It's also in my opinion that Florida and Tampa are going to be pretty high on the players that fall to them, and both organizations could use more offensive help. Say what you want about Tampa, but they have some aging stars, and could use some youth up front. What this means to me is that, we would probably have to include even another piece ... likely a young, fairly cheap roster forward.
It is for these reasons, above all else, that I'm against trading Ryan Murray. If the cost is straight up - Murray for MacKinnon - then you consider the deal. But not if we're including another piece ... at all.
Never thought otherwise. Your posts seemed to be tilted in favor of the trade without consideration of the costs. But that could be my perception.
So yea theoretically anything is possible. But theoretical is not a big concept with HF. I'm right, you're wrong, comes closer most of the time.
It would have been your perception. For the last month or so I've been presenting the case for a Murray-Mack swap, absent the +. Though I would consider adding a + if necessary, I was presenting the straight up swap case to get a basic consensus we could work around. And it seems the straight up swap is a popular idea, with most either firmly in favor or at least considering it.
It's funny to me that this negative outcome you're describing above, is still a deal I would consider doing. Though I don't think our views differ much over this.
My view:
Straight up swap? Yes.
Add a piece? Consider.
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
That's a hefty price for a guy who, at best will be an 80-90 point player ... almost Milbury-esque.
Consider me the guy who would rather have a 40-50 point potential defenseman, with shutdown qualities, and the 60-70 point potential forward.
And if I, or anyone else here, had suggested throwing 2 or 3 first rounders into the deal, then this would be a relevant part of the discussion.
But it is releveant because if we do nothing we keep ALL of our picks. And if we wanted Mackinnon it would likely be more than Murray and 1 1st. It'd likely be 2
Okay well yeah then I wouldn't do that either.
But I wouldn't assume or even guess a price that high. Could be, but if you put yourself in Tampa's shoes, they're better off making a deal. Asking for two firsts on top of Murray is akin to saying "no deal". Jarmo should just hang up the phone and not call back.
I checked in on the Lightning draft thread, and they're looking for a #1 defenceman. Someone wrote that Murray + the LA Kings pick was the single best offer they've had for the 3rd overall, among dozens of offers.
I really don't think MacKinnon is a generational talent like Lemieux, Crosby, Ovechkin or Malkin. Keeping Murray, if he pans out, allows us to trade an established NHL defenseman for an established NHL goal scorer. At the end of the day, these drafts are STILL crap shoots.
So you're saying IF Murray pans out (and thus removing his risk from consideration) he will be less risky than drafting Mackinnon? Where's that headscratch emoticon when I need it? Neither one has played in the NHL, so why are folks acting like Murray is a mature asset and Mackinnon is a risky draft choice?
Both are very safe picks, IMO, with a narrow band of expectations.
EspenK
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2011
- 15,842
- 4,445
I still don't understand why trading a #2 pick for a #2 pick would require a +.
No one here as far as I can recall has answered the question as to which one would you pick if they were both available by saying they would take Murray. A few have answered MacK.
Probably never going to happen with or without a + but its a good debate.
No one here as far as I can recall has answered the question as to which one would you pick if they were both available by saying they would take Murray. A few have answered MacK.
Probably never going to happen with or without a + but its a good debate.
Everyone knows, or at least thinks they know, that this draft is better than last year's, and that Mackinnon is better than Murray. Tampa knows this, and their fans want another asset to even out the deal. But they want a deal, and the folks I've talked to haven't demanded any more than the Kings first rounder to be the +. It seems to be a face saver, to account for the differences in talent between the two players.
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
...and, for debate's sake, who is making these "offers?" HF fans? How do these same fans know that the Lightning aren't all-in on Jonathan Drouin, and don't want anything else? Or, that another team hasn't come along and already worked out a deal with Steve Yzerman for that pick?
It's for reasons like this that message boards are for entertainment use only. Can't believe everything you read on here ... while it's true that there are some people who actually have some sort of inside knowledge, most people are merely speculating. While I am in somewhat tight with people all over the hockey world, I don't claim to have inside info on any upcoming trade/no trade stuff. And even if I did, I would probably remain tight lipped about it, so as to continue to get fed this knowledge before it happens.
- Status
