I'd say it's a reasonable possibility he would have considered it. We don't know but I'm saying it would have been nice to see Dubas be more aggressive and move up and get a bigger impact prospect especially one that fits a need like big, top pairing, RHD.



Like Babcock said, half the battle is development so maybe Edmonton ruins him but I doubt that very much. Both Bouchard and Dobson are going to be good players unless the teams they play for completely (frank) up and drop the ball hard.
- Unholy_Goalie

The opinion of an uneducated fan that doesn't actually professionally scout players, coach players, or develop players. Maybe they will be good...Or maybe they won't.

Besides, can't only one of Bouchard or Dobson be good. I thought only 1 or the other could be an NHLer for more than a certain number of games or something.

The opinion of an uneducated fan that doesn't actually professionally scout players, coach players, or develop players. Maybe they will be good...Or maybe they won't.

Besides, can't only one of Bouchard or Dobson be good. I thought only 1 or the other could be an NHLer for more than a certain number of games or something.
- Thecakeisalie

Yeah because the professional scouts who work for the Oilers and the Islanders along with all the other professionals who ranked them so high are complete idiots. Right...

Yeah because the professional scouts who work for the Oilers and the Islanders along with all the other professionals who ranked them so high are complete idiots. Right...
- Unholy_Goalie

Yeah, because no players taken in the first round, hell top ten, hell first overall, have ever not panned out.

...And listening to guys like Pierre Mcguire, every one of those 1st round picks are supposed to be a superstar when they talk about them on draft day.

Yeah, because no players taken in the first round, hell top ten, hell first overall, have ever not panned out.
- Thecakeisalie

They do a lot more often than at 29th overall.

They do a lot more often than at 29th overall.
- Unholy_Goalie

Never said otherwise.

Simply that your certainty those particular ones will pan out because somebody thought they were worth taking in the top ten is a crock of poop. Players picked there often fail. But you just know they will be stars...

Never said otherwise.

Simply that your certainty those particular ones will pan out because somebody thought they were worth taking in the top ten is a crock of poop. Players picked there often fail. But you just know they will be stars...
- Thecakeisalie

Travis Konecny, already a 20 goal scorer. Moving down doesn't always work either.

They are more likely to pan out because they're bigger impact prospects. This is why the draft exists and why time and time again the higher the pick, the better the odds you're getting a better prospect. If it was all truly random, there wouldn't be a draft order. But there is.

I never said they'd be guaranteed stars. I'm saying they're better, higher impact prospects that the Leafs had the chance to move up and get. They've tried to move down before and it didn't really work and drafting 29th overall gave them a decent prospect but not nearly as good as what they could have had if they moved up.

Travis Konecny, already a 20 goal scorer. Moving down doesn't always work either.

They are more likely to pan out because they're bigger impact prospects. This is why the draft exists and why time and time again the higher the pick, the better the odds you're getting a better prospect. If it was all truly random, there wouldn't be a draft order. But there is.

I never said they'd be stars. I'm saying they're better, higher impact prospects that the Leafs had the chance to move up and get. They've tried to move down before and it didn't really work and drafting 29th overall gave them a decent prospect but not nearly as good as what they could have had if they moved up.
- Unholy_Goalie

Sure, odds are that higher picks more frequently work out. But it's just that, better odds. Going on about how your better odds are going to magically become a sure thing makes you look like a compulsive gambler about to lose his life savings. There is still a high element of risk that they won't even be NHL'ers, or that they won't be high impact players.

You're certainty that if Dubas had traded our pick and an actual decent NHL player (even assuming this would be enough, which is once again, your assumption, not fact) for a higher pick would result in a better player for us in a few years is unfounded. They might've made that trade only for the guy they picked to fail spectacularly.

Then other armchair GM's like you would've pointed out this trade and laughed, calling Dubas an idiot for trading a decent nhl pp quarterback defender and another pick for a higher pick that turned out to be a total dud.

P.S. I'm not saying that for sure, Bouchard, Dobson or whoever we picked if we had gotten the 10th would be a failure, merely that it's a possibility. Some of these players taken today will fail, just like every draft.

Sure, odds are that higher picks more frequently work out. But it's just that, better odds. Going on about how your better odds are going to magically become a sure thing makes you look like a compulsive gambler about to lose his life savings. There is still a high element of risk that they won't even be NHL'ers, or that they won't be high impact players.
- Thecakeisalie

"Compulsive gambling" is trading down even after doing it before and losing. The risk isn't nearly as high as you're trying to make it seem especially when the different type of "risk" has backfired before.

You're certainty that if Dubas had traded our pick and an actual decent NHL player (even assuming this would be enough, which is once again, your assumption, not fact) for a higher pick would result in a better player for us in a few years is unfounded. They might've made that trade only for the guy they picked to fail spectacularly.

Gardiner has 1 year left on his deal. Could easily be lost for nothing or overpaid to stay. Either way, you're better off with the top 10 RHD prospect.

Then other armchair GM's like you would've pointed out this trade and laughed, calling Dubas an idiot for trading a decent nhl pp quarterback defender and another pick for a higher pick that turned out to be a total dud.

Again, 1 year left on his deal and at least half of the fans want Gardiner gone and identify the need for a legit top pairing RHD. It's a fair risk to take.

P.S. I'm not saying that for sure, Bouchard, Dobson or whoever we picked if we had gotten the 10th would be a failure, merely that it's a possibility. Some of these players taken today will fail, just like every draft.

You've been implying heavily that they could be busts. Any player can be a bust. That's obvious. But the odds of these guys being total busts isn't really that high and if the cost of that "risk" is 1 year of Gardiner, it's worth taking when you consider the potential rewards. Even if Bouchard was exactly the same as Gardiner, he'd be a RHD, bigger, younger and cheaper. You still come out ahead, even if he doesn't reach his ceiling.

"Compulsive gambling" is trading down even after doing it before and losing. The risk isn't nearly as high as you're trying to make it seem especially when the different type of "risk" has backfired before.
- Unholy_Goalie

I think compulsive gambling is brought about by people repeatedly mistaking a gamble for a sure thing.

You've been implying heavily that they could be busts. Any player can be a bust. That's obvious. But the odds of these guys being total busts isn't really that high and if the cost of that "risk" is 1 year of Gardiner, it's worth taking when you consider the potential rewards. Even if Bouchard was exactly the same as Gardiner, he'd be a RHD, bigger, younger and cheaper. You still come out ahead, even if he doesn't reach his ceiling.
- Unholy_Goalie

And yet you have been heavily implying they will be high impact NHL players. Which is exactly why I've been suggesting the opposite. I'm trying to counteract your crazy.

Neither of us knows what they'll be. Neither do the experts. The higher picks might have "better odds", but they are all a gamble at this point.

I think compulsive gambling is brought about by people repeatedly mistaking a gamble for a sure thing.
- Thecakeisalie

And insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Trading down didn't exactly work last time.

And yet you have been heavily implying they will be high impact NHL players. Which is exactly why I've been suggesting the opposite. I'm trying to counteract your crazy.

Neither of us knows what they'll be. Neither do the experts. The higher picks might have "better odds", but they are all a gamble at this point.

Because the reality is that the odds are in favor of that. The only "crazy" thing here is your belief that moving Gardiner for a top 10 pick is somehow a bad move or a big risk.

And insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Trading down didn't exactly work last time.



Because the reality is that the odds are in favor of that. The only "crazy" thing here is your belief that moving Gardiner for a top 10 pick is somehow a bad move or a big risk.
- Unholy_Goalie

Dude, if everyone was afraid to do something that didn't work out once before... People would be afraid to do everything. Just because trading down didn't work that one other time, doesn't mean doing so again is crazy. It was one time.

And that instance you're talking about wasn't some huge failure anyways. Maybe they missed out on a better player, but it's not like Dermott is crap, and Bracco could still work out.

I was never suggesting your little proposal couldn't work. I objected to your certainty that it would, or that the proposal would even be accepted in the first place, and that you therefore were correct to rail against Dubas for not doing this imaginary trade you thought up.

Dude, if everyone was afraid to do something that didn't work out once before... People would be afraid to do everything. Just because trading down didn't work that one other time, doesn't mean doing so again is crazy. It was one time.

And that instance you're talking about wasn't some huge failure anyways. Maybe they missed out on a better player, but it's not like Dermott is crap, and Bracco could still work out.

I was never suggesting your little proposal couldn't work. I objected to your certainty that it would, or that the proposal would even be accepted in the first place, and that you therefore were correct to rail against Dubas for not doing this imaginary trade you thought up.
- Thecakeisalie

First of all, Hall for Larsson. Secondly, we're talking about a GM who's team finished 31st on the PP, is under tremendous pressure to improve immediately and openly said 10th overall was open for trade in exchange for an offensive defenseman. Gardiner had 52 points (15th among defenders) last year with 15 on the PP. This isn't a giant, massive stretch. Hamonic got a 1st and two 2nd round picks by himself just last year and he's never scored more than 33.

And I'm not railing on Dubas. I'm saying it would have been a lot nicer to see him get a bigger impact top prospect given what seemed like a pretty good window of opportunity.

Fans often hope and cheer for big wins when they play the games but the draft is where championship teams are built. That's why I want to see them make big moves and win big at the drafts. Sandin is a decent prospect but it just didn't really feel like a big win. Hopefully it becomes one in time.

I'd say it's a reasonable possibility he would have considered it. We don't know but I'm saying it would have been nice to see Dubas be more aggressive and move up and get a bigger impact prospect especially one that fits a need like big, top pairing, RHD.



Like Babcock said, half the battle is development so maybe Edmonton ruins him but I doubt that he never makes the NHL. Both Bouchard and Dobson are going to be good players unless the teams they play for completely (frank) up and drop the ball hard.
- Unholy_Goalie

Dubas was very very aggressive with trying to move up. Just no takers is all.

See we can both just make up whatever we want

Dubas was very very aggressive with trying to move up. Just no takers is all.

See we can both just make up whatever we want
- walshyleafsfan

- Fruitcakenipple

Supersized?

Supersized?
- Canada Cup

If you want it supersized, you’ll have to whisper sweet nothings in his ear.

- Fruitcakenipple

This made me happy. Meal.






(frank) you all.

"Compulsive gambling" is trading down even after doing it before and losing. The risk isn't nearly as high as you're trying to make it seem especially when the different type of "risk" has backfired before.



Gardiner has 1 year left on his deal. Could easily be lost for nothing or overpaid to stay. Either way, you're better off with the top 10 RHD prospect.



Again, 1 year left on his deal and at least half of the fans want Gardiner gone and identify the need for a legit top pairing RHD. It's a fair risk to take.



You've been implying heavily that they could be busts. Any player can be a bust. That's obvious. But the odds of these guys being total busts isn't really that high and if the cost of that "risk" is 1 year of Gardiner, it's worth taking when you consider the potential rewards. Even if Bouchard was exactly the same as Gardiner, he'd be a RHD, bigger, younger and cheaper. You still come out ahead, even if he doesn't reach his ceiling.
- Unholy_Goalie

What?

What?
- burn

Sandin was around 22 on the mock draft I was looking at, Dubas got his guy...while picking up an asset.

Would people prefer he just pick him at 25?

What?
- burn

Sadly, that comment was one of his finer moments last night.

He also seemed to think the definition of insanity was trading down, you know, cause Dubas did it that one other time that resulted in the Leafs missing a pretty good player, but then drafting another pretty good player instead, while also getting to draft another player that still might make an impact, but might not.

What a terrible mistake that was... And you know that if something doesn't work once, it never will.

Sandin was around 22 on the mock draft I was looking at, Dubas got his guy...while picking up an asset.

Would people prefer he just pick him at 25?
- Santo_44

He complained when they traded a 2nd, but also complains when they add a 3rd? (frank)ing argumentative Richard.


He also said that trading down hasn’t worked well for the Leafs. Hmm, Dermott? What about when the Leafs traded up in 2008 (Schenn) and in 2011 (Biggs)? Seems like trading up doesn’t work well.

First of all, Hall for Larsson. Secondly, we're talking about a GM who's team finished 31st on the PP, is under tremendous pressure to improve immediately and openly said 10th overall was open for trade in exchange for an offensive defenseman. Gardiner had 52 points (15th among defenders) last year with 15 on the PP. This isn't a giant, massive stretch. Hamonic got a 1st and two 2nd round picks by himself just last year and he's never scored more than 33.

And I'm not railing on Dubas. I'm saying it would have been a lot nicer to see him get a bigger impact top prospect given what seemed like a pretty good window of opportunity.

Fans often hope and cheer for big wins when they play the games but the draft is where championship teams are built. That's why I want to see them make big moves and win big at the drafts. Sandin is a decent prospect but it just didn't really feel like a big win. Hopefully it becomes one in time.
- Unholy_Goalie

One minute you're talking about how better players come from higher up in the draft next minute you're complaining they didn't get an impactful enough player. Wtf, how many different voice are in your head?

They got the guy that was rated where they picked.

Sandin was around 22 on the mock draft I was looking at, Dubas got his guy...while picking up an asset.

Would people prefer he just pick him at 25?
- Santo_44

People just got to complain about something. It's hilarious.

I'm more interested in the other times dubas has lost while trading down

He complained when they traded a 2nd, but also complains when they add a 3rd? (frank)ing argumentative Richard.


He also said that trading down hasn’t worked well for the Leafs. Hmm, Dermott? What about when the Leafs traded up in 2008 (Schenn) and in 2011 (Biggs)? Seems like trading up doesn’t work well.
- Steven_Seagull

Trading down results in a fail of dermott, don't ever do it again

Trading up results in massive success of Schenn and Biggs, do more of this.

Through my tireless efforts I have helped provide a couple pages chock full of delightful UG hot takes.

Your welcome morning hockeybuzz crew.