Which 1st Rounder to Forfeit?

[frightenedinmatenum2]

I don't like this move, unless they have some sort of assurance that our first round pick next year is safe.

At the very least, give up the pick this year and try to trade back into the 2025 draft with the 2026 pick. That way, they can have it protected. There are lots of teams with multiple picks in the 21 range. I'd imagine with the 2026 draft being stronger, someone would bite.

 

[Micklebot]

I can live with keeping the 21st pick and using it on a high upside skill player, even if giving up an unprotected 1st in a better draft next year is a massive risk, but the problem is that we won't select a skilled player because WE DON'T HAVE GOOD SCOUTS.

I understand Staios is a nice guy and doesn't like to fire people, but my god man I don't know how much more you need to see.

Incredibly disappointing to hear him say that. The scouting staff is the biggest problem in this organization and they'll destroy all his good work if kept in place.

What do you think the odds are of getting an impact player at 21 really is though? I mean, sure you could hit gold and draft the next Robertson, but I don't think that's a reasonable expectation even if your scouts are fantastic,

The most likely scenario is you miss at that stage of the draft, you're literally under 50% odds of that a pick at ~21 will play over 200 games. But if you do manage to be in that 45% of picks that pan out and play 200+, it's far more likely it will be an olli maataa or a Kapanen, Laughton or god forbid a a Yamamoto than a Robertson. We could certainly use a Maatta Kapanen or Laughton, but we can't afford to draft a Yamamoto, or miss out completely, so imo, if you can use the pick to get a guy that will stick around for ~5 years at the level of a Maata or Kapanen, you'd have to consider it. Trading off the potential of a Robertson, to mitigate the far greater risk of a Yamamoto.

When you're a contender without a lot of holes in the lineup, you can take more risks imo. And when you're a bottom feeder expecting to suck for the foreseeable future, you can also take some risks. But we're in a delicate position where a miss is a big deal. We spent all our rounds, this one needs to count.

 

[bicboi64]

The only positive I see for selecting a prospect with this years pick is we add something to our pathetic pipeline. We have a bottom 5 pipeline with only Yakemchuk being anyone of high potential. Whomever we pick (unless we go full Tyler Boucher), might be in a position to make some noise in camp when Giroux and Perron are out of the picture.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

I know you're joking but yes: Elite Prospects - NHL Draft Center

Don Boyd never drafted a player in the top 2 rounds with less PIMs than GP in his tenure as head scout in Columbus, and he just happened to take the guys with the most PIMs with our top picks last year in Yakemchuk and Eliasson, so it's legitimately something we should be looking at when examining potential Sens picks.

It’s actually kind of funny

 

[Senator Stanley]

They could trade our pick to Vegas for a B prospect and our pick next year ?
or formulate a trade to get a prospect and retain our pick next year. Not sure what it would look like

There is no connection to Vegas. We either have our pick in 2025 or 2026. If we choose to have the pick in 2025, it's forfeited in 2026.

 

[frightenedinmatenum2]

They should let us keep the pick but as an alternate punishment we should have to re-hire Pierre Dorion.

 

[bicboi64]

They should let us keep the pick but as an alternate punishment we should have to re-hire Pierre Dorion.

Might as well have us forfeit another couple first round picks. Would be less disasterous than rehiring Dorion who'd made the team awful in other ways with crap signings or trades

 

[Hale The Villain]

What do you think the odds are of getting an impact player at 21 really is though? I mean, sure you could hit gold and draft the next Robertson, but I don't think that's a reasonable expectation even if your scouts are fantastic,

The most likely scenario is you miss at that stage of the draft, you're literally under 50% odds of that a pick at ~21 will play over 200 games. But if you do manage to be in that 45% of picks that pan out and play 200+, it's far more likely it will be an olli maataa or a Kapanen, Laughton or god forbid a a Yamamoto than a Robertson. We could certainly use a Maatta Kapanen or Laughton, but we can't afford to draft a Yamamoto, or miss out completely, so imo, if you can use the pick to get a guy that will stick around for ~5 years at the level of a Maata or Kapanen, you'd have to consider it. Trading off the potential of a Robertson, to mitigate the far greater risk of a Yamamoto.

When you're a contender without a lot of holes in the lineup, you can take more risks imo. And when you're a bottom feeder expecting to suck for the foreseeable future, you can also take some risks. But we're in a delicate position where a miss is a big deal. We spent all our rounds, this one needs to count.

Not high, which is why we really should be giving up the 1st this year to protect against the downside risk of missing the playoffs in 2026 and giving up a top 15 pick in a better draft, where you can reasonably expect to select a future impact player. That's the main reason why I think we should be surrending the pick this year.

I don't see any Robertsons (big high skill high IQ players with skating issues) available this year. I was super high on him in 2017 and wanted him with our pick, but the Sens scouts prioritized safety and projectability and took Bowers.

Having said this, if Staios decides to keep the pick, my hope would be that either Kindel or Reshny fall to 21 and we actually decide to select a player that has the potential to be a difference maker, even if they aren't easy to project as bottom 6 guys.

I'm particularly high on Kindel, reminds me a lot of Giroux. Elite level IQ. Could be a massive steal.