- Sep 27, 2017
- 5,998
- 3,262
Speculation: Now that we know LA has #2 pick - how likely are they to make a play at #1?
- Thread starter bobholly39
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
kilowatt
the vibes are not immaculate
- Jan 1, 2009
- 18,746
- 21,877
No chance. Byfield is coming to LA. Kings won’t shun the hockey gods.
If Montreal were to get the pick I don't think there is anything that they could be offered, that would also be accepted as a trade by the NHL, that they would really consider. French Canadian start forward? Ya they have been wanting one of those for some time now.
Didalee Hed
I’m trying to understand
- Sep 14, 2019
- 1,963
- 2,005
Those aren’t my choices. I’m just resigned to the fact that Edmonton always has the top pick and of not them it’s time to do a little age correcting on the hawks or pens superstars. Montréal would just be kinda nice to see the French Canadian guy on the French Canadian team.
Edmonton can’t take on Doughty contract . Edmonton makes the pick and becomes a contender with arguably the best 2 lines in hockey
Lafreniere McDavid Kassian
RNH Draisaitl Yamamoto
The Nuge
Some say…
I just don’t see why anyone in the 8 would move the pick. Maybe if it was a weaker 1st overall pick where you’re not sure of the immediate impact. But a good team that gets the pick is going to be keeping him because he gives you a cheap player for the next 3 years. Meanwhile the weaker teams will want to keep him because he’s cost controlled for longer than the guy they’d be getting in exchange.
For example, if Edmonton loses and ends up with the pick. If I’m moving him, I’d maybe look at something like #1, Larsson, and something smaller for #2 and Doughty (50% retained). It’s a massive ask to get that retention, but in this case, so would be asking to give up a dirt cheap guy to ride shotgun with McDavid (which allows us to keep the Nuge/Drai/Yamo line together). I’d want the cost controlled asset, and as valuable as Doughty is, 11 million is hard to fit into the cap right now. 5.5 is enticing though
For example, if Edmonton loses and ends up with the pick. If I’m moving him, I’d maybe look at something like #1, Larsson, and something smaller for #2 and Doughty (50% retained). It’s a massive ask to get that retention, but in this case, so would be asking to give up a dirt cheap guy to ride shotgun with McDavid (which allows us to keep the Nuge/Drai/Yamo line together). I’d want the cost controlled asset, and as valuable as Doughty is, 11 million is hard to fit into the cap right now. 5.5 is enticing though
Prairie Habs
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 12,352
- 13,639
Are you saying the NHL would rig the draft for one of their smallest market trams because they have an outdoor game that will likely be cancelled and a decent young winger?
I'm pretty sure the guy you were quoting wasn't even suggesting the league would rig it for one of those teams, but if they did something tells me it wouldn't be for the wild.
Guitpik
Registered User
- Jul 8, 2006
- 954
- 669
Kings aren't going to pay the price to move out of #2 when they can pick a 6'4" #1 center with elite skill, scoring and skating. They're much better off just adding Byfield along with the rest of their draft picks to their prospect pool.
That line up does look good but so does this Top 4 with Doughty and Klefbom playing half the game:
Klefbom Doughty
Nurse Bear
We would ahve to dump Russel and Buyout Neal to make it work.
Dan Kelly
Registered User
- Sep 27, 2017
- 2,633
- 981
if Byfield can turn into a younger Ryan Getzlaf, then the Kings will have hit the jackpot anyways !
Not a chance any team gives up the opportunity to draft Laf for Doughty at this stage in his career. It would be Doughty++ just for the pick.
Seems doubtful that a team would trade out of #1 unless they didn't have Lafreniere at the top of their list. The other years where the team traded out of the top spot, they did so knowing they were going to land the player they would have taken anyways.
1999: Tampa went from #1 to #4, but they were planning on trading the pick to the Rangers who wanted Pavel Brendl. So they were able to move down, pick up an extra pick, and still make the trade.
2002: Florida went from #1 to #3. They would have taken Jay Bouwmeester #1, but they made a couple of interesting side deals. Columbus was at #3 and were paranoid about Philadelphia leapfrogging them for Rick Nash. Columbus gave up #3 and the right to swap 1sts in 2003 to Florida. Florida gave Atlanta a 3rd round pick to promise not to take Bouwmeester at #2. So essentially Florida bought some extra lottery odds for the price of a 3rd rounder. Although years later, Rick Dudley said that Bouwmeester was still a little miffed about not going #1.
2003: Florida went from #1 to #3. They had Nathan Horton on top of their list, so they felt safe in trading down.
Swapping picks isn't quite like a video game where if you offer up enough "value" that the other side will say yes.
1999: Tampa went from #1 to #4, but they were planning on trading the pick to the Rangers who wanted Pavel Brendl. So they were able to move down, pick up an extra pick, and still make the trade.
2002: Florida went from #1 to #3. They would have taken Jay Bouwmeester #1, but they made a couple of interesting side deals. Columbus was at #3 and were paranoid about Philadelphia leapfrogging them for Rick Nash. Columbus gave up #3 and the right to swap 1sts in 2003 to Florida. Florida gave Atlanta a 3rd round pick to promise not to take Bouwmeester at #2. So essentially Florida bought some extra lottery odds for the price of a 3rd rounder. Although years later, Rick Dudley said that Bouwmeester was still a little miffed about not going #1.
2003: Florida went from #1 to #3. They had Nathan Horton on top of their list, so they felt safe in trading down.
Swapping picks isn't quite like a video game where if you offer up enough "value" that the other side will say yes.
I hate buy outs as it doubles the length you are stuck with it . Maybe it just me but Doughty has been declining for a few years . Don't watch many Kings games so maybe I am wrong . I also think you draft first and move the players you mention throw a boat load of money at Petro
Guitpik
Registered User
- Jul 8, 2006
- 954
- 669
Blake already said that Doughty is not going anywhere. There is no deal to be had there.
Didalee Hed
I’m trying to understand
- Sep 14, 2019
- 1,963
- 2,005
A flat cap means that Lafreniere's $900k salary is more valuable than ever.
Rorschach
Who the f*** is Trevor Moore?
When the 1 placard was revealed, I really wanted LA to get 1OA somehow. But now I think about it, I feel Laf will be the next Rick Nash.
LA is not a team that works well when our best player is a winger. We like strength down the middle, from centers, defense and goaltending.
LA is not a team that works well when our best player is a winger. We like strength down the middle, from centers, defense and goaltending.
Roof Daddy
Registered User
- Apr 1, 2008
- 13,241
- 2,471
If Rick Nash would have had an ounce of help up front throughout his career, his production would have looked much different. When paired with Jumbo Joe in international play, the 2 looked dominant.
For the first 10 years of his career, this is who Nash had as a center:
RJ Umberger
Antoine Vermette
Derrick Brassard
Manny Malhotra
(Waaaaay past his prime) Sergei Federov
Andrew Cassels
For talent on the wing, it was David Vyborny, Kristian Huselius, Nikolai Zherdev and a slow developing Jakob Voracek.
The 4 highest scoring Dmen in his first 10 years in Columbus were Fedor Tyutin, Rostislav Klesla, Ron Hainsey and Kris Russell.
Rick Nash was a helluva player, he had zero supporting cast. If that’s who Lafreniere ends up being (I personally see a higher ceiling), I think a team should be ecstatic.
But getting back on track to the OP’s question, LA should just stand pat at 2. They need help everywhere. No sense in adding considerable assets just to upgrade one prospect.
danielpalfredsson
youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
- Aug 14, 2013
- 16,575
- 9,269
I think if LAK want Drysdale, they take him at 2.
We see this all the time with teams who want a player who goes slightly off consensus in the top 5ish of the draft. Teams rarely trade down, because if they have a player at the top of their list, getting an extra pick isn't worth the risk that someone else takes that player, and they have to settle with someone worse. Dubois, Kotkaniemi, Hayton, Seider, etc.
If Drysdale is their guy, they can't guarantee that Ottawa doesn't take him, or doesn't trade back with someone who will.
Rorschach
Who the f*** is Trevor Moore?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Nash is ineffective. I’m saying LA doesn’t build its teams that way.
bland
Registered User
- Jul 1, 2004
- 8,300
- 12,712
Of course he did. Every gm says that about their best/most valuable players. And that holds true until something better comes along.
Pretty sure Lafreniere is something better.
Not saying a deal happens - but i dont think a promise not to trade Doughty should be such a big factor here.
With Lafreniere, the top 2 line will play 50 mins of the games outscoring their problems.
Roof Daddy
Registered User
- Apr 1, 2008
- 13,241
- 2,471
Hmmm. I never would have made the connection based on Nash being a winger, but now that you mention it, that’s a good comparable. Very similar skill set and body type.
