Draft day trade scenario --do it ?

[Djp]

Buffalo is at 1 or 2, the Islanders are in top 5 thus giving Buffalo the 2015 pick.

They acquire another 1st around 20 in trading Vanek.

NYI offer there pick. + the Vanek pick to move up and buffalo sends back their 2nd...would you do it ???

Would you see them d sch a trade if at #1 they didn't view Reinhart as a #1 center.

How far done would you be willing to trade down...stay in op3, top5 ?????

Click to read more...

 

[Husko]

Our prospect pool has good depth, 2nd line, top-4 dmen, etc.

It lacks elite talent.

Such a formula says trading down bad.

I pass

 

[AirBriere48]

Buffalo is at 1 or 2, the Islanders are in top 5 thus giving Buffalo the 2015 pick.

They acquire another 1st around 20 in trading Vanek.

NYI offer there pick. + the Vanek pick to move up and buffalo sends back their 2nd...would you do it ???

Would you see them d sch a trade if at #1 they didn't view Reinhart as a #1 center.

How far done would you be willing to trade down...stay in op3, top5 ?????

So we'd send #1 overall + #30 overall for #5 overall and #20 overall? Am I reading that right?

Why on earth would we do that?

 

[start winnin]

Nope, draft Reinhart and draft Eichel with their pick next year. (McDavid with ours)

 

[Zip15]

Nope. Drop off after #2. Not giving up a chance at Reinhart/Ekblad in a draft that isn't very deep, especially when we already have the 30th/31st pick.

 

[Jim Bob]

Buffalo is at 1 or 2, the Islanders are in top 5 thus giving Buffalo the 2015 pick.

They acquire another 1st around 20 in trading Vanek.

NYI offer there pick. + the Vanek pick to move up and buffalo sends back their 2nd...would you do it ???

Would you see them d sch a trade if at #1 they didn't view Reinhart as a #1 center.

How far done would you be willing to trade down...stay in op3, top5 ?????

The only way you contemplate a deal like that is if you don't see a big drop off after the first two picks.

I doubt too many people believe that right now.

 

[msm29]

Agree with everyone else. Only way I'm trading down is if we end up at #2, Reinhart goes #1 and somebody offers us a potentially-high 2015 first+ to get Ekblad. Buffalo needs top-end forward talent real bad.

 

[CaptPantalones]

The talent level drops considerably behind Ekblad and Reinhart. You stay where you are. Period

 

[tsujimoto74]

No, absolutely not.
1) Reinhart and Ekblad are a clear tier above anybody else in the draft at this point.
2) Add to the above our desperate need for elite talent, and you have an easy no.

Both Reinhart and Ekblad would be huge building blocks for us. Given what we've already got, I'd prefer Reinhart, but I'm not giving up either to move back and select a series of lesser talents.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

without even considering the level of prospects #1 or #2 is worth far more than 5 and 20

 

[wunderpanda]

I would do that trade, Reinhart and Ekblad were not impressive at all for Canada. Not saying they are not going to be good players, just didn't notice the *elite potential* oozing out in an elimination scenario.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

I would do that trade, Reinhart and Ekblad were not impressive at all for Canada. Not saying they are not going to be good players, just didn't notice the *elite potential* oozing out in an elimination scenario.

glad you aren't evaluating talent

 

[mgeise]

The only way I'd move out of #1 or #2 this year is if a team really blew us away with an offer. A prospect on the same level as Reinhart or Ekblad would need to be coming back in return. I wouldn't trade it for a package of lesser picks; quality is the issue in our prospect pool, not quantity. We lack elite talent, but have a lot of guys who look like they'll max out as 2nd or 3rd liners.

 

[Jame]

Hell no

/end

Lock it up

 

[dotcommunism]

I would do that trade, Reinhart and Ekblad were not impressive at all for Canada. Not saying they are not going to be good players, just didn't notice the *elite potential* oozing out in an elimination scenario.

Judging draft eligibles based on their pre-draft WJC is usually a bad idea

 

[Zman5778]

The point is to acquire elite talent.

Reinhart and Ekblad are elite talent.

If we sit at 1 or 2, we do not trade out of the pick unless someone offers us a Lindros-esque bounty.

 

[Woodhouse]

I wouldn't do it because I don't see why we would sacrifice the early pick when we already possess the assets to acquire another first rounder at the trade deadline or at the draft via our players, picks and/or prospects. That return in the OP certainly isn't incentive enough for me.

 

[Eram]

Better Q... We pick second and CAR/CGY offers their first and Lindhold/Monahan for Ekblad. Do you do it?

 

[1972]

Better Q... We pick second and CAR/CGY offers their first and Lindhold/Monahan for Ekblad. Do you do it?

Never going to happen, hypothetically of course you do that but the value isn't even close.

 

[krt88]

Buffalo is at 1 or 2, the Islanders are in top 5 thus giving Buffalo the 2015 pick.

They acquire another 1st around 20 in trading Vanek.

NYI offer there pick. + the Vanek pick to move up and buffalo sends back their 2nd...would you do it ???

Would you see them d sch a trade if at #1 they didn't view Reinhart as a #1 center.

How far done would you be willing to trade down...stay in op3, top5 ?????

We already trade Vanek, how can we trade him again?

I just don't get what you are proposing.

Flip picks with the Islanders?

I'd much rather pick Sam Reinhart than any other player in the draft, so no.