If you were really looking at a second top five pick..

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    If you were really looking at a second top five pick..

    I don't know why you'd be going after a pick with roster players predominantly. Boston's prospects are pretty strong at the moment, especially with the addition of Taylor/Tyler. Boston is a few pieces short of the puzzle and do not need a full revamp. Yes they'll have to shed some salary soon, but there are a few options there for roster player trades.
    The other high picking teams, well they're all needing to rebuild in the draft. They don't have depth in their systems. Boston has depth but is short on blue-chippers.
    So why not trade quanity for quality? Depth for that blue chip - how about three second rounders (2 in 2010, 1 in 2011) and two first rounders (15th this year and the leafs next year, in what will likely be a weaker draft).  Add later picks if you need to sweeten the pot - if the Bruins get two top five picks this year, they can survive without having additional depth from the 2010 and 2011 drafts coming in.
    Edmonton and Florida have repeatedely said they want to rebuild through the draft. Heck I'd even be fine with going three first rounders, (one this year, two next year) and three second rounders, if they could get Edmonton to bite. That would give the Oilers 5 picks in the top 45 this year, and three first rounders and two second rounders next year. That seems fair for them, and it gets us that second bluechipper. I know I may be dreaming, but Taylor and Tyler would be amazing.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: If you were really looking at second top five pick..

    That's quite a lot of picks and players and commas and numbers.


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: If you were really looking at a second top five pick..


    Just one thing to say, never predict how strong/weak the draft will be a year in advance.  They said that this would be one of the weakest drafts in a long time and now the general consensus appears to me that everyone agrees this will be a strong draft.  If that's not the general feel, IMO it is strong, you've got lots of guys who've set lots of records in juniors in this draft.  Not all, but a chunk of it does translate into the NHL.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from joeschmo25. Show joeschmo25's posts

    Re: If you were really looking at a second top five pick..

    I wouldn't trade any of Toronto's picks unless you could take 32 as part of a package with 15 and something else to move up. I may be in the minority of this belief, but I think it's entirely possible the Leafs end up in a similar finish again next year. They've still got too many question marks and not enough cap space or assets to make a huge difference immediately, but they will be good soon. Not too many people, myself included, thought we'd be getting the #2 overall pick the day we traded Kessel, so I'm going to be optimistic. Should the cards fall in our favor again and we're given another top 5 pick we could do some real damage as far as becoming a dynasty. If we could get our hands on Sean Courtier or Adam Larsson then we could solidify having possibly 3 (depends on what we can do to move back up with the 15th) franchise players, in addition to what is a solid young core of players. The only thing keeping us from facing Chicago in the finals is scoring (and a lack of heart/ questionable in game coaching, but the scoring is where it started). If we get Hall or Seguin, a stud defenseman in Fowler, Gudbranson or Gormley, and a top 5 next year then we would be in excellent hands. Given the cap space opening up after next season, we could look to following in the trend of locking up key players long term (after July 1st of 2011 we can start negotiating with Krejci and Rask again). We've got Lucic (who will hopefully get back on his fast tracked development plan) in for the next 3 seasons, Seidenberg for the next 4 years, hopefully Stuart for 3-4 more years, Savard for 7 more years, and whoever else Chiarelli can lock up to have for a while. If the B's can get a core set of players for years to come, and role players who can be interchangable, then they can gain enough chemistry and hopefully enough competitiveness to win a Cup within the next 5 years. 

    Given the collapses in the past two seasons I can understand the skepticism among some of you, but also remember that both years the B's were within one goal of making the Conference finals, and this year what really separated them was injuries. The Bruins keep surprising people as a team, and if they keep getting better then the surprises can only get bigger. They're not locked into any big contract long term (save for Savard's), so they're not tied down by anything that will hurt them. They'll continue to have more cap space open up each year, giving them the ability to sign the key players when they need to. 



    As for getting another top 5 pick, it's going to take more than the 15, 45 and Hunwick. Think of moving Wideman and Wheeler, whether with the 15th pick to move up, or as separate deal(s) to gain the right pieces needed to move up. Columbus is in need of a center and a solid defense, so maybe if they can get the center, or enough assets so they can secure their own player, then they may be interested in making a deal. Florida is also within the realm of possibility, as they are in rebuilding mode, and their prospect system isn't exactly top notch (save for Jakob Markstrom, but we wouldn't be offering them a goaltender in an attempt to get the 3rd overall). Don't rule out the Islanders either, as Garth Snow needs all the picks/ NHLers he can get to start turning that team around.


    Moving up may be possible, but it depends on the team we move up with, and what we have to give up as a result.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from RMiller87. Show RMiller87's posts

    Re: If you were really looking at a second top five pick..

    I wouldn't move the Leafs #1 draftpick for 2011 either.

    Acquiring a Sean Courturier in 2011 along with a Tyler Seguin and Brett Connolly in this year's draft would give the Bruins a young, dynamic offensive trio not likely seen in the NHL since Vinnie, Marty and Brad won the Cup for the Bolts.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from RMiller87. Show RMiller87's posts

    Re: If you were really looking at a second top five pick..

    I really don't think that 2011 is a "weaker" draft as one poster here said.

    Adam Larrson (D) would very likely be first overall in 2010 if he were eligible.

    Personally, I wouldn't want to see any Black and Gold first round picks traded away unless it is a part of a package to acquire better Black and Gold first round picks. 

    The Bruins should be able to build a Cup contender through the draft like the Pens and Hawks have previously done.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: If you were really looking at a second top five pick..

    See, I just don't see the Leafs finishing that low again... but you're right it's a gamble. And pbergeron is right as well in that six picks is likely too steep and wouldn't be needed. I was just trying to make the point that due to Boston's depth in prospects, they can afford to let loose a number of picks to trade quantity for quality, since the other teams in the top five right now are in desperate need of quantity of nhl calibre players, where as boston lacks that blue chipper, though they will get one this year, I'm being greedy and hoping for two or even, in a perfect world, three. Boston is in a position of strength when it comes to their picks and their farm system. Just trying to say that if that's where your strength lies, that's where you deal from, and not from your current roster which is only missing a few parts to make it a true contendor.

    And by weaker I meant depth - the top couple are great, but every scouting report I've read says that the overall class is the weakest since 1999 - only two players of the first round have had serious star impact - the Sedins. If that's the case then I wouldn't be too worried about 2011.

    And my whole point was that you package those first round BnG picks to get better BnG first round picks. On that we agree completely.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: If you were really looking at a second top five pick..

    In Response to Re: If you were really looking at a second top five pick..:
    I wouldn't move the Leafs #1 draftpick for 2011 either. Acquiring a Sean Courturier in 2011 along with a Tyler Seguin and Brett Connolly in this year's draft would give the Bruins a young, dynamic offensive trio not likely seen in the NHL since Vinnie, Marty and Brad won the Cup for the Bolts.
    Posted by RMiller87


    Yeah, maybe.  It might also give them one star and two average players, or two stars and one average player, or three bums, or two bums and one star, or one star, one average player and one bum.

    It's insane to suggest that these picks turn into those players.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: If you were really looking at a second top five pick..

    In Response to Re: If you were really looking at a second top five pick..:
    I really don't think that 2011 is a "weaker" draft as one poster here said. Adam Larrson (D) would very likely be first overall in 2010 if he were eligible. Personally, I wouldn't want to see any Black and Gold first round picks traded away unless it is a part of a package to acquire better Black and Gold first round picks.  The Bruins should be able to build a Cup contender through the draft like the Pens and Hawks have previously done.
    Posted by RMiller87


    It's going to be a while, probably nine months, before the quality of the next draft class can be properly evaluated.  As for Larrson, he is the go to kid on some lists, with Courtier atop others.  Another year of play can change a lot, however.  Some players continue to progress, some plateau, some slip.  The B's can't hang onto their draft picks, hoping these players progress, and hoping that Toronto ends up at the bottom of the pile.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: If you were really looking at a second top five pick..

    In Response to Re: If you were really looking at a second top five pick..:
    thats giving up way too much, but I agree with you in principle. Columbus I'm sure would trade their pick, and I think 15, 45, and huunwick would do it.
    Posted by pbergeron37


    No.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: If you were really looking at a second top five pick..

    In Response to Re: If you were really looking at a second top five pick..:
    I wouldn't move the Leafs #1 draftpick for 2011 either. Acquiring a Sean Courturier in 2011 along with a Tyler Seguin and Brett Connolly in this year's draft would give the Bruins a young, dynamic offensive trio not likely seen in the NHL since Vinnie, Marty and Brad won the Cup for the Bolts.
    Posted by RMiller87


    Unlike other posters not seeing that you are just using these three as an example of what could happen I think that you are right with the possibility that the B's if acquiring these players could end up with an offensive dynamic trio. Some like to put a negative spin on suggestions of what the possibilities might be rather then looking at it from a optimistic point of view.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from guyo77. Show guyo77's posts

    Re: If you were really looking at a second top five pick..

    Keep the leafs #1 next year.  They will be better, but it should be top 15 and maybe top 10. 

    If there is a player they want, then I would definitely trade our 15 and the 32 to move up.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: If you were really looking at a second top five pick..

    //Think of moving Wideman and Wheeler, whether with the 15th pick to move up, or as separate deal(s) to gain the right pieces needed to move up./

    My thoughts as well Joe (2) separate deals with the 15th, 32nd, 45th and players Hunwick, Wideman and Wheeler could just get PC up to grab an immediate impact Dman.

    BadHab, I do remember supposed experts saying that the 2010 draft was not going to be that deep hang onto the TO 2011 #1 Chiarelli!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: If you were really looking at a second top five pick..

    Seems like every year there's a kid in the next draft who would be number 1 if he were eligible.  They said Tavares would go third if he were drafted this year.  They said he'd have gone ahead of Kane, and both Kane and Tavares were supposed to be better than Eric Johnson.  No one tops the hype on Crosby, so the list stops, but they were saying Crosby would have been #1 instead of Ovechkin, and even two years out they said Crosby (and Ovechkin and Malkin) would have been #1 instead of M-A Fleury.  So if you follow the speculative logic, Adam Larsson will be the best player available since Crosby at least.  It's the draft version of "wait 'til next year!"

    I'm trying not to repeat myself on this, so I'll try to put it another way: if you draft one kid at #5 and he turns out to be Jonathan Aitken, you lose.  If you draft a kid at #15 and he turns out to be Matt Lashoff, but you draft two kids in the second round and one turns into Lucic, Krejci, or Bergeron, your draft is a success. 

    Most who propose moving up want to get a D prospect - I understand the temptation: Shore, Orr, Bourque, ???  Here's the problem.  This is the list of "next great Bruin defensemen" drafted in the first round after Bourque and McCrimmon in 1979: Kluzak (1), Wesley (3), Quintal (14), McLaren (9), Brown(21), Aitken (8), Boynton (21), Jonsson (7), Morrisonn(19), Stuart (21), Lashoff(22). 

    Kluzak's a prime example of why you don't put all your eggs in one basket.  One injury and your blue-chipper is a depreciating asset.  Wesley never became a #1, and some would say he was never better than a 3-4.  Quintal was a high-end journeyman.  McLaren was a rock solid hitter but again, at best a complimentary #2 with little offensive up-side.  Brown was basically a goon.  Aitken was a total flop.  Boynton is a fringe NHLer now, was a headcase then, and always thought he was better than he was, Jonsson was a total flop, Morrisonn is a serviceable bottom-half D, Stuart has been basically a bottom-half D, Lashoff can't even make the Lightning. Even just looking at Kluzak, Wesley, Aitken, and Jonsson - the guys in the top ten - makes me queasy at the thought of giving up quality NHL regulars or multiple picks.  And if you compare the top 10 guys to the guys chosen at 19-22 (strange how many times the Bruins drafted D with those 21 and 22 - Brian Curran was 22 as well back when 22 was still a second round pick), I think you have to say the lower picks hold up pretty well.

    I know the objection here - Fowler/Gudbranson/Gormely are "special".  All I can say is careful what you wish for.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share