K-9 Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Didn't Murray say he wants "a quarterback" for a defenseman during his season-ending presser? I think he prefers a Karlsson. Who doesn't? GO SABRES!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Didn't Murray say he wants "a quarterback" for a defenseman during his season-ending presser? I think he prefers a Karlsson. Who doesn't? GO SABRES!!! So Yandle or Shattenkirk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 That QB comment was made in the context that if one fell from heaven. I got the impression the type of player he wants is unavailable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Ok, so Murray won't likely lean Chychrun, because he's potentially not a "Murray type" player, and he won't pick Sergachev, because he doesn't normally select Russians? Is that the rough consensus? So it's Juolevi or bust. He's not going to be there at 8. We seem too be in a world of hurt when it comes to our defensive outlook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Ok, so Murray won't likely lean Chychrun, because he's potentially not a "Murray type" player, and he won't pick Sergachev, because he doesn't normally select Russians? Is that the rough consensus? So it's Juolevi or bust. He's not going to be there at 8. We seem too be in a world of hurt when it comes to our defensive outlook. Trade up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 (edited) Trades within the Top 10 are so difficult and rare, though. We would gave to get to at least, what, 5th to get Juolevi, with Vancouver likely to be targeting him there? (Assuming Edmonton doesn't take him) I bet a trade up to 5th to take Vancouvers spot would be nearly impossible, given we'd likely be targeting the same player. If I had to guess, looks like we'll most likely take a forward. Potentially the BPA in that spot. It's ok though, we've got Gorges and McCabe to lock down our top 4 LHD spots going forward :P For what it's worth, the two mock drafts on NHL.com have us taking Nylander, and Dubois. In both mocks, Chychrun is taken by Edmonton and Juolevi by Arizona. In the draft where we take Nylander, Sergachev is still on the board, and he's off the board in the mock resulting in Dubois. https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-mock-draft-mike-g-morreale-projections/c-280532028 https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-mock-draft-adam-kimelman-projections/c-280532018 Edited May 2, 2016 by Thorny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Edmonton will take a D for sure I think, Canucks might to. But Dubois fills a need for the Canucks as well. One of Sergachev or Juolevi will be on the board at #8 though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Would #8 + Baptiste and a 3rd & 5th be enough to move up to #6? To be honest Calgary is the only team I could see being willing to deal with us since they will likely take a forward. Edmonton and Vancouver are wildcards in that Edmonton might trade it for a guy and Vancouver can use either a forward or Dman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Ok, so Murray won't likely lean Chychrun, because he's potentially not a "Murray type" player, and he won't pick Sergachev, because he doesn't normally select Russians? Is that the rough consensus? So it's Juolevi or bust. He's not going to be there at 8. We seem too be in a world of hurt when it comes to our defensive outlook. I disagree about both Sergachev and Chychrun. Juolevi is the safe option Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Trades within the Top 10 are so difficult and rare, though. We would gave to get to at least, what, 5th to get Juolevi, with Vancouver likely to be targeting him there? (Assuming Edmonton doesn't take him) I bet a trade up to 5th to take Vancouvers spot would be nearly impossible, given we'd likely be targeting the same player. If I had to guess, looks like we'll most likely take a forward. Potentially the BPA in that spot. It's ok though, we've got Gorges and McCabe to lock down our top 4 LHD spots going forward :P For what it's worth, the two mock drafts on NHL.com have us taking Nylander, and Dubois. In both mocks, Chychrun is taken by Edmonton and Juolevi by Arizona. In the draft where we take Nylander, Sergachev is still on the board, and he's off the board in the mock resulting in Dubois. https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-mock-draft-mike-g-morreale-projections/c-280532028https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-mock-draft-adam-kimelman-projections/c-280532018 This is what I was referring to, with way too many words to be clear, in my prior post. I see this as much more likely with Edmonton at four than at 1,2,3. We may learn how GMTM feels about Sergachev. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Obviously the big 3 are gone before us. I'd be shocked if Tkachuk or Dubois is there either. To me this is the big 5 that will all be unavailable. That leaves: the 3 D and Nylander as the next best available with 2 being taken by the teams ahead of us. Everyone has their opinion and I don't think there's a chance Murray is taking the Russian D. Therefore the next BPA group of 3 (after the Big 5) is Nylander, Chychurn and Juolevi. We would get whoever is left available of the 3. If Murray decides he doesn't like either of those D or Nylander then a couple of names of guys "off the board" he may look at include: Logan Brown, Julien Gauthier, Jake Bean and Tyson Jost My favorite would be taking Nylander. The rivalry between Leafs/Sabres is already shaping up to be enormous. Imagine each side has a brother in their top 6?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Murray is on record as saying that he feels hockey sense is the single most important trait for a player, and that is certainly reflected in his forward moves (prime example being taking Reinhart when he had the pick of the forward litter) How does E. Kane factor into that? That QB comment was made in the context that if one fell from heaven. I got the impression the type of player he wants is unavailable. I wasn't so sure. I felt like maybe he was identifying a need, and then lowering expectations on his ability to fill that need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Would Pysyk and #8 get us #4 from Edmonton? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#freejame Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Nobody has answer yet as to what Russian players Murray has failed to draft that he could have. All I see is trading the pick that was used for Tarasenko, no other good Russians have been passed up by him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Would Pysyk and #8 get us #4 from Edmonton? That seems unlikely, but who knows. I'd think Edmonton would want the best D prospect in the draft and could pick up someone Pysyk-like somewhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Would Pysyk and #8 get us #4 from Edmonton? I brought this scenario up a few pages back. Crusader mentioned that Hamonic from the Isles might be a target for them instead. I guess the question becomes how do the top 3 D project out in comparison to Hamonic? Would they want a top pair defenseman or a potential top pairing D Man and a good second pairing D in Pysyk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Sounds like Chiarelli is open to move down. http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/edmonton-oilers-gm-peter-chiarelli-says-out-his-plans-in-clearest-terms-yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Would Pysyk and #8 get us #4 from Edmonton? I doubt it. I could see them trading with a team like Calgary or even Arizona but I think they know we are also looking for a Dman and I'm sure they would want to be the ones to have their pick. They've been lucky in past lotteries sure. But to drop from 2 to 4 is a kick in the pants. I'd be pissed as an Oiler fan trading back to 8th and only picking up a third pairing Dman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Sounds like Chiarelli is open to move down. http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/edmonton-oilers-gm-peter-chiarelli-says-out-his-plans-in-clearest-terms-yet Not surprised. They want a d-man, and there is no consensus #1 guy like an Ekblad. They'll move some core pieces, and move down, and have one hell of an offseason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 I think you hit it on the head with the bolded. It's not like those kind of D men are made available very often. You need to find a Colorado looking to move one that they can't afford. We may see one or two shake loose in the coming months. I assume we'll see how much GMTM really values them. Completely fair. I think that next to hockey sense Murray values difference-makers, guys who want to make plays. McCabe and Bogo have that. Pysyk does not, even though he has the hockey sense. I think he valued Bogo over Myers because they both have lukewarm hockey sense, but Bogo is more of a warrior. He got Gorges for the intangibles, so we didn't go all Edmonton through the rebuild. He hasn't acquired any other defencemen of note. Good stuff. Seems to me that Murray likes Dmen who have some "pop" to their game. Makes me think that somebody like Brodin wouldn't be a high priority trade target for him. He picked Guhle when Kylington and Rasmus Andersson were still on the board, perhaps people who know these players better than I do could pull some information out of that. What I remember about Kylington is that he has all the offensive skill in the world, but some truly atrocious hockey IQ. Guhle I remember being touted as an athletic specimen, but requiring development in the finer aspects of the game. Andersson I have no memory of. IMO, he seems to like bigger forwards with good shots. His defense seems to be agile, fast, and offensive. Yet, Reinhart doesn't really fit the profile all too well, and ROR is more of a tweener on that stuff as well. Maybe he looks for different things from his wingers vs. centers? Big, fast, bulldogs on the wing...cerebral, high-IQ centers? Edmonton will take a D for sure I think, Canucks might to. But Dubois fills a need for the Canucks as well. One of Sergachev or Juolevi will be on the board at #8 though. This is the conventional wisdom, but I don't think it's out of the question for Edmonton flips Eberle/RNH/whoever for an immediate D upgrade or two, then uses #4 to replenish the forwards. I think it's important to keep in mind forwards tend to contribute sooner than defensemen and have less uncertainty in their development, and Edmonton is very much in a spot where they have to get better sooner than later. Let's just say they can nab Shattenkirk and Brodin for RNH/Eberle/X, then draft Dubois. That pays more dividends than more of a minor forward move and drafting Chychrun. Obviously the big 3 are gone before us. I'd be shocked if Tkachuk or Dubois is there either. To me this is the big 5 that will all be unavailable. That leaves: the 3 D and Nylander as the next best available with 2 being taken by the teams ahead of us. Everyone has their opinion and I don't think there's a chance Murray is taking the Russian D. Therefore the next BPA group of 3 (after the Big 5) is Nylander, Chychurn and Juolevi. We would get whoever is left available of the 3. If Murray decides he doesn't like either of those D or Nylander then a couple of names of guys "off the board" he may look at include: Logan Brown, Julien Gauthier, Jake Bean and Tyson Jost My favorite would be taking Nylander. The rivalry between Leafs/Sabres is already shaping up to be enormous. Imagine each side has a brother in their top 6?! I wonder if teams are going to overthink the whole Tkachuk-assists-points thing that was discussed awhile back. We've seen consensus top forwards drop before if teams have questions about their offensive ceiling at the next level (see: Filip Forsberg lasting to #12). Wouldn't bet on it, but something I'll be watching. Unfortunately, I too subscribe to the "Murray hates Russians" meme. I hope it's just been circumstances, because I'd hate to have a GM who crosses off a prospect like Sergachev based solely on nationality. Sign me up for Nylander. If the draft goes something like Matthews-Laine-Puljujarvi-Chychrun-Tkachuk-Dubois-Juolevi, then I'd be pretty upset if it's not Nylander or Sergachev. Though I do like Keller a ton. How does E. Kane factor into that? I wasn't so sure. I felt like maybe he was identifying a need, and then lowering expectations on his ability to fill that need. 1) I've been toying with the idea of different criteria for center v wing. Could simply be that Murray values athletic attributes more for his wingers, and hockey sense more for his centers. Or, he simply thinks Kane is a smarter player than I do. 2) I agree with this. I think he desperately wants a certain type of defender, but isn't overly confident he can get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 I think you guys discussing trading up or down are wasting your time. I get that this is a message board and you like to discuss scenarios and yada yada yada, but, really, it is a waste of time. There has been nothing to indicate GMTM is interested in somebody in the top four enough to start making deals that would tear apart the developing new core. Obviously, if the package is ridiculous, he would take it, as he always says. There has been nothing to indicate GMTM believes this draft class lacks the quality enough where moving up (or down, I can never remember, I mean a higher numbered slot than 8 [like 9, 10, etc.]). I have seen where GMTM thinks the quality of the draft class is GOOD ENOUGH where he would move up if the circumstances were in our favour, but that would be a last minute deal on the floor. Obviously, if the package is ridiculous, he would take it, as he always says. I think the action will happen with our picks beyond the first round, again, barring a ridiculous deal, and that the roster in October will be fleshed out with FA moves and player trades (with picks to sweeten the deal). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 Nobody has answer yet as to what Russian players Murray has failed to draft that he could have. All I see is trading the pick that was used for Tarasenko, no other good Russians have been passed up by him. I don't think a hindsight-based approach on who turned out to be good is the way to go about it--have to try to get "in the moment" and assess the picks based upon their standing as prospects. Hard to do. It has to at least raise an eyebrow that as director of amateur scouting, AGM, and GM, he's never drafted a Russian. You'd think it'd happen by accident at least once :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 I don't think a hindsight-based approach on who turned out to be good is the way to go about it--have to try to get "in the moment" and assess the picks based upon their standing as prospects. Hard to do. It has to at least raise an eyebrow that as director of amateur scouting, AGM, and GM, he's never drafted a Russian. You'd think it'd happen by accident at least once :lol: You could make the case that he should have drafted Barbashev over Lemiuex but outside of that not really sure if there is much there. I think we need to remember that especially in the first round GM's have a lot of say over who gets drafted. Outside of that round they tend to leave things up to their head of ameteur scouting who is sometimes an assistant GM. Really hard to tell then if Murray was A) acting directly in Buffalo or B) if when he was the assistant GM other places if he was the one responsible for the final say on picks. One last thing to consider is some teams have policies against drafting Russians for various reasons so that too could have been a constraint that he no longer has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 FWIW, I've asked my brother in law with the Ottawa connection if he was aware of any aversion GMTM might have towards russkis. Answer: No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 FWIW, I've asked my brother in law with the Ottawa connection if he was aware of any aversion GMTM might have towards russkis. Answer: No. I'm assuming your BIL is Russian then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.