F**ing NYI. Why cant they just lose.

Once they advance here to round 2, the pick will then be AT BEST 22nd

But, they both can't draft him.
- spatso

Really?? What 🤔🤔🤔 I'm saying either or kings or wings go after Drysdale

Harder to gauge the players due to recent drafts, but Hughes, Dahlin, and Hischier are good players in the #1 slots of those drafts. Petterson is very close to being better than Hischier though, if not already. Can't argue Draisaitl in 2014.

Personally, I wouldn't trade 3 and 5 for 1 but I also don't think it's set in stone we are better off with those picks than having #1 as many make it out to be. I also don't think the price for #1 should be that high if the talent in this draft is actually that great as people say. If that is the price, that is how much better Laf is than the rest and therefore a generational talent (which no one has said) if the rest of the draft is deep or the draft isn't as deep as people make it out to be. Both scenarios make you think.
- Gord_Wilson_2.0

This is a good read for those looking to figure out where Lafreniere fits in compared to previous first overall picks: https://dobberprospects.c...evious-1st-overall-picks/

This is a good read for those looking to figure out where Lafreniere fits in compared to previous first overall picks: https://dobberprospects.c...evious-1st-overall-picks/
- Michael_Stuart

Good read, elite company.

This is a good read for those looking to figure out where Lafreniere fits in compared to previous first overall picks: https://dobberprospects.c...evious-1st-overall-picks/
- Michael_Stuart

See, this is why I hate lists. I completely disagree that Matthews was more highly regarded than any of Tavares, Kane, Stamkos, or Hall at the time they were drafted. This is in large part because he went off to play in Switzerland in his draft year, which legitimately made it hard to know where his actual development was at. Conversely, this happened in the CHL...

Kane - 62G/145pts in 58GP
Stamkos - 58G/105pts in 61PG
Tavares - 58G/104pts in 56GP
Hall - 40G/106Pts in 57GP

Put another way, suggesting that Crosby/McDavid are the only prospects in the past 15 years with a higher pre-draft impression of value than Matthews is a crock of horse$hit.

This is a good read for those looking to figure out where Lafreniere fits in compared to previous first overall picks: https://dobberprospects.c...evious-1st-overall-picks/
- Michael_Stuart

It's also an interesting side note that Dobber Prospects has Byfield ranked ahead of Lafreniere, Rossi at #3, Stutzle at #6, and Drysdale/Sanders at #7/8... for those who thought there wasn't any real discussion around the concept of "BPA" right up and down the first 8-10 picks.

See, this is why I hate lists. I completely disagree that Matthews was more highly regarded than any of Tavares, Kane, Stamkos, or Hall at the time they were drafted. This is in large part because he went off to play in Switzerland in his draft year, which legitimately made it hard to know where his actual development was at. Conversely, this happened in the CHL...

Kane - 62G/145pts in 58GP
Stamkos - 58G/105pts in 61PG
Tavares - 58G/104pts in 56GP
Hall - 40G/106Pts in 57GP

Put another way, suggesting that Crosby/McDavid are the only prospects in the past 15 years with a higher pre-draft impression of value than Matthews is a crock of horse$hit.
- khawk

Matthews does not seem to be able to carry his team over the hump His skill and scoring history draws some comparison with Tavares who has also struggled in leading his team to playoff success.

On the Leaf thread they are talking about the need for some sandpaper in their line-up. Guys like Matthews and Tavares can put up numbers...but can they win when it matters?

It's also an interesting side note that Dobber Prospects has Byfield ranked ahead of Lafreniere, Rossi at #3, Stutzle at #6, and Drysdale/Sanders at #7/8... for those who thought there wasn't any real discussion around the concept of "BPA" right up and down the first 8-10 picks.
- khawk

Putting Byfield at 1 is stupid if the only reason you have is that he “could become” the best player. Take those risks in later rounds.

The only thing Byfield has over Laf is that he’s a center and he’s a giant. What else can you really say Byfield is better at? Again, I base my information on what I’ve seen until now...not what could happen in 5yrs.

Matter of fact, I think if anyone becomes the best of this class it would be Stutzle: He’s the best skater, he’s played in a league of men, he’s played the wing and dominated in the DEL, he dominated at Center in the worlds against his age group.

I could make the argument for even Perfetti being amazing. Thing is, we need to simplify the information, and go by a players resume and what we’ve seen. If we’re doing that, Laf is in a league of his own.

It's also an interesting side note that Dobber Prospects has Byfield ranked ahead of Lafreniere, Rossi at #3, Stutzle at #6, and Drysdale/Sanders at #7/8... for those who thought there wasn't any real discussion around the concept of "BPA" right up and down the first 8-10 picks.
- khawk

Byfield is nearly a full year younger than the other top picks.

In a normal draft year the younger kids tend to move up the draft board as you get more through the second half of the season and the playoffs. Sanderson is another player with a late birthday.

It might not be the most feasible idea, but if they're trading with the Canucks I'd strongly consider Virtanen as a potential target instead of picks. He's a natural RW, skates really well, can be physical, and is just starting to realize his offensive potential (eg. 18G this year in only 13min/GP of ice time, and less than 1min/GP of PP time).
- khawk

I'm too lazy to check his contract status, but good call. our rw depth is weak.

I think van is trying to move the pie crust more then their young guys. but maybe a package of louie/virtanen

can you imagine a line of

brady Byfield virtanen? big boy hockey

Too early to start making trades especially where prospects are involved. Just too many unknowns. Dorion will need a full NHL season from some of these prospects to see where they fit and also decide if Smith is the right coach for his(Dorion) team.

Putting Byfield at 1 is stupid if the only reason you have is that he “could become” the best player. Take those risks in later rounds.
The only thing Byfield has over Laf is that he’s a center and he’s a giant. What else can you really say Byfield is better at? Again, I base my information on what I’ve seen until now...not what could happen in 5yrs.
- Trilla

It's not "stupid", it just depends on what information you're considering in determining who you believe the prospect to be. Also, you can't just "take those risks in later rounds", because there's only a handful of players who could realistically exceed Lafreniere in terms of potential. You either take that risk when you have the chance in the early 1st round, or you don't get players with that kind of potential upside.

Now, to your point there's little question that if you just look at current performance, then Lafreniere tops the list. However, Byfield quite literally just turned 18 today... Lafreniere will turn 19 a few days after the draft. So it's actually quite a bit more fair to compare Byfield to where Lafreniere was last year. And if you do, Byfield is actually ahead of where Lafreniere was a year ago in terms of scoring, and is already a more prolific goal scorer. People who were down on how Byfield played at the WJC would also be wise to recall that Lafreniere also only had 1pt when he played in the WJC as a 17yo. Factor in his size, positional value at C, and unrealized potential, and it's really not that surprising that some people believe that Byfield has a higher ceiling than Lafreniere.

This is a good read for those looking to figure out where Lafreniere fits in compared to previous first overall picks: https://dobberprospects.c...evious-1st-overall-picks/
- Michael_Stuart

Interesting article. The ranking is a bit skewed based on history and NHL performance despite their disclaimer to the contrary.

There was a good tweet retweeted by Travis Yost about the last 15 years or so comparing the 1st overall picks to the 3rd and 5th overall picks. It's really something to consider when discussing trading up. Granted, I'd rather keep 3 and 5 and take our chances but the image below does demonstrate how hard it it is to get a player of the significant value in relation to the 1st overall pick, let alone 2.

It's not "stupid", it just depends on what information you're considering in determining who you believe the prospect to be. Also, you can't just "take those risks in later rounds", because there's only a handful of players who could realistically exceed Lafreniere in terms of potential. You either take that risk when you have the chance in the early 1st round, or you don't get players with that kind of potential upside.

Now, to your point there's little question that if you just look at current performance, then Lafreniere tops the list. However, Byfield quite literally just turned 18 today... Lafreniere will turn 19 a few days after the draft. So it's actually quite a bit more fair to compare Byfield to where Lafreniere was last year. And if you do, Byfield is actually ahead of where Lafreniere was a year ago in terms of scoring, and is already a more prolific goal scorer. People who were down on how Byfield played at the WJC would also be wise to recall that Lafreniere also only had 1pt when he played in the WJC as a 17yo. Factor in his size, positional value at C, and unrealized potential, and it's really not that surprising that some people believe that Byfield has a higher ceiling than Lafreniere.
- khawk

My only concern with Byfield is the size translating to the NHL. There are so many examples of big kids with lots of hype just not translating well to the NHL game because they are no longer playing against teenagers who are still physically developing.

I do think Byfield may turn into a dominate centre if his skating can continue to improve. I'm still torn between him and Struztle if we remain at 3. We are likely getting one or the other so I guess it doesn't make a huge difference.

Interesting article. The ranking is a bit skewed based on history and NHL performance despite their disclaimer to the contrary.

There was a good tweet retweeted by Travis Yost about the last 15 years or so comparing the 1st overall picks to the 3rd and 5th overall picks. It's really something to consider when discussing trading up. Granted, I'd rather keep 3 and 5 and take our chances but the image below does demonstrate how hard it it is to get a player of the significant value in relation to the 1st overall pick, let alone 2.


- Gord_Wilson_2.0

Looking at that, assuming 3&5 were traded for 1 every time, i'd say the team trading FOR the 1 pick win that deal 9 times, lose it 5 times, and 2 times it's still too early to tell (but i'd lean towards losing the way things have progressed so far)........so you have a slightly better tha 50% chance of winning, but almost none of those previous drafts (if any) had the same depth as this one. I would still rather have 3 & 5 than 1 in this draft. it's close, but gun to my head, I would keep our picks

My only concern with Byfield is the size translating to the NHL. There are so many examples of big kids with lots of hype just not translating well to the NHL game because they are no longer playing against teenagers who are still physically developing.

I do think Byfield may turn into a dominate centre if his skating can continue to improve. I'm still torn between him and Struztle if we remain at 3. We are likely getting one or the other so I guess it doesn't make a huge difference.
- Gord_Wilson_2.0

This has also been a big concern of mine.

As spatso points out though, him being so much younger is also a big consideration, as hel have more time to develop.

Looking at that, assuming 3&5 were traded for 1 every time, i'd say the team trading FOR the 1 pick win that deal 9 times, lose it 5 times, and 2 times it's still too early to tell (but i'd lean towards losing the way things have progressed so far)........so you have a slightly better tha 50% chance of winning, but almost none of those previous drafts (if any) had the same depth as this one. I would still rather have 3 & 5 than 1 in this draft. it's close, but gun to my head, I would keep our picks
- sensarmy_11

It's merely just interesting to look at in my opinion. There was so much outcry about how ridiculous trading 3+5 for #1 would be but when in actuality, it is not that outlandish. I know people love to throw out Draisel and Petterson as prime examples to not make a deal like that, but the odds of that occurring are actually probably worse then the Sens had to win the lottery and we know how that worked out.

Further to that, as per my pervious post, in the last "super deep" draft in 2003 (I know it's a lifetime ago), the cost to acquire #1 was not that astronomical. Probably because there was not a huge leap between the talent of the top prospects and good depth of the draft. The biggest selling point of this years draft is depth, so you'd think the same may hold true. If not, have to wonder about how good the depth actually may be and if it will just be another year were there are only a handful of impactful players.

My vote is to stay put unless a sweet deal comes along but the observations are interesting to consider.

Interesting article. The ranking is a bit skewed based on history and NHL performance despite their disclaimer to the contrary.

There was a good tweet retweeted by Travis Yost about the last 15 years or so comparing the 1st overall picks to the 3rd and 5th overall picks. It's really something to consider when discussing trading up. Granted, I'd rather keep 3 and 5 and take our chances but the image below does demonstrate how hard it it is to get a player of the significant value in relation to the 1st overall pick, let alone 2.


- Gord_Wilson_2.0

I thought Yost's comments on the cap considerations of having two players needing big contracts (on a team that doesn't like to spend) vs. one was also interesting.

The numbers show that trading 3+5 for 1 is probably a bad idea, but I think it's also probably fair to say that it's not as cut and dried as some (including myself) originally felt.

I thought Yost's comments on the cap considerations of having two players needing big contracts (on a team that doesn't like to spend) vs. one was also interesting.

The numbers show that trading 3+5 for 1 is probably a bad idea, but I think it's also probably fair to say that it's not as cut and dried as some (including myself) originally felt.
- Michael_Stuart

That was an interesting interpretation as well.

I thought Yost's comments on the cap considerations of having two players needing big contracts (on a team that doesn't like to spend) vs. one was also interesting.

The numbers show that trading 3+5 for 1 is probably a bad idea, but I think it's also probably fair to say that it's not as cut and dried as some (including myself) originally felt.
- Michael_Stuart

That was an interesting interpretation as well.

I thought Yost's comments on the cap considerations of having two players needing big contracts (on a team that doesn't like to spend) vs. one was also interesting.
The numbers show that trading 3+5 for 1 is probably a bad idea, but I think it's also probably fair to say that it's not as cut and dried as some (including myself) originally felt.
- Michael_Stuart

The other problem is that people can get hung up on specifically who was picked at 3 and 5... which is really just how the subsequent picks happened to play out, as opposed to who was available immediately in the ~3-7 range in a given draft. For instance, Stamkos vs. Bogosian/Schenn looks pretty clear cut, but Stamkos vs. Pietrangelo (#4) straight-up may be a different conversation. Similarly, Tavares vs. Duchene (#3)/Ekman-Larsson (#6) is a harder choice, as is Nugent-Hopkins vs. Huberdeau (#3)/Zibanejad (#6), or even Matthews vs. Dubois (#3)/Tkachuk (#6). Now that doesn't mean that you're necessarily going to make the best possible selection further down the draft, but Zibanejad/Chabot/Tkachuk are evidence that the Senators tend to make it count when given a premium draft opportunity. Given the quality of the draft, I'd suggest they're more likely to make keeping #3/5 a more valuable proposition than going chasing after the #1 pick.

My only concern with Byfield is the size translating to the NHL. There are so many examples of big kids with lots of hype just not translating well to the NHL game because they are no longer playing against teenagers who are still physically developing.

I do think Byfield may turn into a dominate centre if his skating can continue to improve. I'm still torn between him and Struztle if we remain at 3. We are likely getting one or the other so I guess it doesn't make a huge difference.
- Gord_Wilson_2.0

I'd be happy with Byfield or Stutzle. Although I prefer Byfield.

But at the end of the day, it's all going to come down to who LA picks. So it's kind of out of our hands.

I can't see us trading up to get #1. Personally I think we have a better chance at putting a package together for #4 and getting Byfield/Stutzle at #3, Rossi at #4 and Drysdale at #5.

The other problem is that people can get hung up on specifically who was picked at 3 and 5... which is really just how the subsequent picks happened to play out, as opposed to who was available immediately in the ~3-7 range in a given draft. For instance, Stamkos vs. Bogosian/Schenn looks pretty clear cut, but Stamkos vs. Pietrangelo (#4) straight-up may be a different conversation. Similarly, Tavares vs. Duchene (#3)/Ekman-Larsson (#6) is a harder choice, as is Nugent-Hopkins vs. Huberdeau (#3)/Zibanejad (#6), or even Matthews vs. Dubois (#3)/Tkachuk (#6). Now that doesn't mean that you're necessarily going to make the best possible selection further down the draft, but Zibanejad/Chabot/Tkachuk are evidence that the Senators tend to make it count when given a premium draft opportunity. Given the quality of the draft, I'd suggest they're more likely to make keeping #3/5 a more valuable proposition than going chasing after the #1 pick.
- khawk

Not sure about the bolded. Cowen (9th) and Lazar (17) tend to even things out. The 2011 draft was supposed to change the course of this franchise for the better with Zibby (6th), Noesen (21) and Puemple (24) but arguably didn't do that much in the long term.

I am confident with the Sens with their picks but I definitely will not given them the benefit of not having some doubt.

It's easy to look at past drafts and see what could possible have been and what could be in a positive light but the same can be done in the negative light. I think there is slightly too much assumption that the Sens will get 2 superstar players at 3 and 5. Could happen, could also not happen. If the picks end up being a depth player and an absolute bust, trading those picks for the 1st overall may not have been such a bad idea in hindsight.

I do think sitting back and observing the past can help create more realistic expectations for the present.

I am more being the devils advocate because I agree that sticking with 3 and 5 is probably the best idea. It's definitely not clear cut as some would lead you to believe.

Not sure about the bolded. Cowen (9th) and Lazar (17) tend to even things out. The 2011 draft was supposed to change the course of this franchise for the better with Zibby (6th), Noesen (21) and Puemple (24) but arguably didn't do that much in the long term.
I am confident with the Sens with their picks but I definitely will not given them the benefit of not having some doubt.
- Gord_Wilson_2.0

Well, I would generally regard picks at or near the top-5 to be in a different category, as was the entire 2015 draft. Picking at #17, 21, and 24 in an average/weak draft is really not what I would consider a premium draft opportunity... though I suggest that Bernard-Docker (#26) and Thomson (#19) show an ability in recent years to pull quality players in that range as well. But it's the combination of the pair of top-5 picks and the relative strength of the draft that makes this such a unique opportunity. I also noted the Tkachuk/Zibanejad picks, because they're examples of where they've proven to be far better picks than were initially realized by many fans. That's what I mean about having some faith in Dorion to make a better pick than whatever arbitrary consensus there might be among casual fans.

It's not "stupid", it just depends on what information you're considering in determining who you believe the prospect to be. Also, you can't just "take those risks in later rounds", because there's only a handful of players who could realistically exceed Lafreniere in terms of potential. You either take that risk when you have the chance in the early 1st round, or you don't get players with that kind of potential upside.

Now, to your point there's little question that if you just look at current performance, then Lafreniere tops the list. However, Byfield quite literally just turned 18 today... Lafreniere will turn 19 a few days after the draft. So it's actually quite a bit more fair to compare Byfield to where Lafreniere was last year. And if you do, Byfield is actually ahead of where Lafreniere was a year ago in terms of scoring, and is already a more prolific goal scorer. People who were down on how Byfield played at the WJC would also be wise to recall that Lafreniere also only had 1pt when he played in the WJC as a 17yo. Factor in his size, positional value at C, and unrealized potential, and it's really not that surprising that some people believe that Byfield has a higher ceiling than Lafreniere.
- khawk

Well I just said it’s stupid to base your pick on “what that player can become” because it’s not a legitimate reason. It’s hard enough drafting good players, so why further complicate it with “ifs” and “maybes”. You need to nail your 1st round pick because the other 6 rounds become more of a challenge to find gems.

Also, I’m not sure who would consider Byfield a more “prolific scorer” over Laf, but that type of thinking really makes me question the info you’re reading.

https://www.google.ca/amp...s-select-1st-overall/amp/

^^pretty accurate comparison between the two and what the Rangers should do.