SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

SlickWilly

Membre depuis
7 nov. 2017
Équipe favorite
Blackhawks de Chicago
Messages dans les forums
3225
Messages par jour
1.4
Forum: Armchair-GM14 avr. à 21 h 15
Forum: Armchair-GM14 avr. à 7 h 31
Forum: Armchair-GM8 avr. à 18 h 21
Sujet: We are taking one of Parekh Iginla Catton or Dickinson
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>SlickWilly</b></div><div>Yeah I mean I agree Parekh would be ideal but I feel it would be silly to take a lesser prospect just because you already have sanderson. Buium may not be as flashy offensively but he's excelled against older competition at both the college and world junior level. Correct me if im wrong but it seems like the consensus among Sens fans is that Chabot is on the chopping block as well, which also gave into the thinking there</div></div>

Yeah but it’s a lot easier to find a 2nd pair LD behind Sanderson outside of the organization than it is to find a good top pair RD or even 2nd pair RD.

Draft RD and figure it out after .

Only draft a LD if he’s very likely to be as good as Sanderson or insane if even better
Forum: Armchair-GM24 mars à 17 h 22
Sujet: Poll Is Kaapo worth a top 10 pick yes or no
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>SlickWilly</b></div><div>I'm not the biggest fan of the argument "the average 10th overall pick isnt actually that good" when calling draft slot value. If you wanna use it to say that the draft is a total crapshoot, then I'll agree with that.<strong> But you can constantly find guys of high value in the teens</strong>, just because whoever picks at 10 makes a mistake doesnt mean that the 10th overall pick isnt valuable.</div></div>

So i understand your premise and I dont disagree, but if we're talking strictly in terms of percentages this is a little mis leading imo. you are absolutely correct that there are good players every year in that range, even in bad draft years. My issue here is it's mostly in hindsight. if you aggregated the drafts from 2010-2020, Id hazard a guess that something like 2 or 3 guys on average are high value (i admit this term is subjective so we may disagree there).

That's not bad considering the range but the other issue here is development. Some of these players may be destined for it cause they simply dropped too far in the draft for dumb reasons. But there are guys who wound up turning into high value players because their development went well. And my argument would be that a good chunk of player development ends up being out of the control of the drafting team. Personality, work ethic, habits, off ice problems etc. These are not only hard to account for but theres nothing you can do about it.

The value in 10th overall is that in theory you should get the 10th most valuable player in that draft class. That seldom happens though. And the fact is even the best scouting teams are only like 5% more sure than the rest of the league on who that guy is going to be. Thats why it ends up being a crapshoot.
Forum: Armchair-GM19 mars à 19 h 23
Sujet: If only if
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Garak</b></div><div>Reasonable, but I am not worried about Bedard regressing in the least bit, he is going to be just fine. Again, they will find guys to play with Bedard, if they need to, and his success in the NHL does not hinge on having Kurashev on his wing. I have a feeling Kurashev was always expendable to Kyle Davidson and he was just hoping for him to have some success while they still had control over him, so that they could get a good package. Almost everyone on CHI's current roster should be expendable, and CHI has too much work to do for them to pass on a deal like this. I certainly don't think they should go crazy ripping the roster apart, but if you get an offer along these lines, at this point in a rebuild, you have to at least think long and hard about it.</div></div>

Thinking through a point on this post, Garak, I'll bet you're right about Davidson thinking Kurashev wasn't a long-term solution... Why else would he/they elect to give him two years on his arbitration win, instead of one (which they had the right to choose). It could be that you're exactly correct... That if Kurashev did well, he'd be that much more cost-controlled and valuable in trade with a two-year deal, than one.
Forum: Armchair-GM19 mars à 19 h 1
Sujet: If only if
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>SlickWilly</b></div><div>Its not necessarily about Kurashev's value, or his future in Chicago. But if we enter next season with the expected lineup (assuming we dont win the lottery) of Bedard, Taylor Hall, AA, Lukas Reichel who MAYBE starts producing again, and Dickinson, with Nazar and Moore not in the NHL yet, Bedard is inevitably going to regress without a consistent linemate that he has chemistry with. And that to me is worth more than a late first. If you plan on bringing Nazar into the NHL consistently next year and Reichel is going to be a consistent producer, or you plan on signing someone whos gonna enhance Bedard's play so he doesnt have to do it all himself, then go for it. But as it stands right now, I dont know that Im a fan of making the current team worse.</div></div>

Reasonable, but I am not worried about Bedard regressing in the least bit, he is going to be just fine. Again, they will find guys to play with Bedard, if they need to, and his success in the NHL does not hinge on having Kurashev on his wing. I have a feeling Kurashev was always expendable to Kyle Davidson and he was just hoping for him to have some success while they still had control over him, so that they could get a good package. Almost everyone on CHI's current roster should be expendable, and CHI has too much work to do for them to pass on a deal like this. I certainly don't think they should go crazy ripping the roster apart, but if you get an offer along these lines, at this point in a rebuild, you have to at least think long and hard about it.
Forum: Armchair-GM19 mars à 18 h 50
Sujet: If only if
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>SlickWilly</b></div><div>Its not necessarily about Kurashev's value, or his future in Chicago. But if we enter next season with the expected lineup (assuming we dont win the lottery) of Bedard, Taylor Hall, AA, Lukas Reichel who MAYBE starts producing again, and Dickinson, with Nazar and Moore not in the NHL yet, Bedard is inevitably going to regress without a consistent linemate that he has chemistry with. And that to me is worth more than a late first. If you plan on bringing Nazar into the NHL consistently next year and Reichel is going to be a consistent producer, or you plan on signing someone whos gonna enhance Bedard's play so he doesnt have to do it all himself, then go for it. But as it stands right now, I dont know that Im a fan of making the current team worse.</div></div>

I agree with you, Slick. Part of the reason I can see clear to moving Kurashev right now is that I'd also look to sign UFA Marchessault for two years at ~$8mm AAV (or more, if need be). Can you imagine him and Hall on either side of Bedard?