It always becomes tricky as well when deciding between drafting for need vs BPA. For example, Shane Wright or Cooley may end up being the best player from this draft year, but should Jersey get criticized if Nemeth only turns into a very good D-man?
I'm all about high risk/high reward in the third round on. First and second the floor should be fairly high IMO. Someone like Maillioux last year for Montreal was never going to be seen as a good decision no matter how he turns out.
I forgot who it was but there was a guy on this boards that really wanted us to draft Adam Fox that year.
That’s why I want him in the NHL. Let Warsofsky have him and see what happens.
this is HF Boards
For whatever it's worth, Fox was one of the few real "misses" the Sharks have had in the past couple of years (of course, it is too early to tell for many of those drafts). However, let's also acknowledge that he wouldn't have signed in San Jose, so the Sharks mostly likely would have gotten a pair of 2nds or so for his rights.
Why would you trade the asset for a small player though? If Bordeleau has value (you even equated it to at least a 2nd round pick in this hypothetical) why would you use that value to go get another undersized player rather than as a piece for a bigger D-Man that may actually make it in the NHL? Talking out of both sides of your mouth for sake of being contrarian on this one.
Merkley also got the most favorable zone starts of all the Sharks D-Men (with Karlsson getting the second most advantageous starts). So it's hardly an apples to apples comparison and more of an indicator of guys that start more shifts in the DZ on a team that isn't great at winning DZ faceoffs are likely to yield more shot attempts than guys who start more shifts in the OZ.
Not sure if you realize this but both teams have to agree to a trade for it to happen. By all means if you have a plan to drug Kevyn Adams so he trades Owen Power for Bordeleau let’s hear it. In reality you are not going to get a defense prospect who’s as good as Lundkvist while also being 6’3” for Thomas Bordeleau or a 2nd round pick.
Please feel free to list defense prospects who are bigger and better than Lundkvist and can be realistically acquired straight up for Bordeleau or a 2nd rounder.
Ah yes, typical hyperbolic garbage from you making the absolute LEAP from a 22 year old undersized D-Man that has fallen out of favor with his current team to the top prospect in the NHL and 1st overall pick from the 2021 NHL Draft. Of course there is absolutely nothing in between those two data points that could be plausible. Truly one of your more remarkable crap takes. Bravo.
Go ahead and suggest defense prospects who are comparable in skill to Lundkvist and 6’2”+ that their teams are willing to trade for Bordeleau. You can’t because those players don’t exist.
In what world are prospects the only asset that Bordeleau can be traded for? I don't have the list of every NHL prospect and their position on their NHL clubs depth chart, but there is oodles of data that shows that you can acquire solid NHL D-Men for 2nd rounders. You're the one that keeps trying to narrow the parameters because that is the only option you have to try and not look like an absolute fool.
You can acquire defense prospects bigger and better than Lundkvist for a 2nd round pick? Who are these prospects and why aren’t the Sharks trading all of their future 2nd rounders for them?
How are we supposed to answer your question when the vast majority of prospects literally never getting traded for just picks. Prospects are either held with their team to develop, or packaged in a bigger deal.
So you're admitting you actually can't acquire a better prospect than Lundkvist for a 2nd round pick even though @STL Shark claims there's "oodles of data" showing you can. Got it.
Because Lundkvist has requested a trade and informed the Rangers he won't report to camp? This is how the entire conversation started. It's an opportunity to pick up a young distressed asset at a position of need for less than full value.
