Draft Option #7: Trade it!

[LGR4GM]

12 hours ago, Thorny said:

We could trade the pick for a better player than any of the last 10, save Scheifele and MAYBE Dumba. 

8/10 a trade yields a better player than picking 7. I'd take those odds. 

Skinner was a 7th overall. What did we trade for him, a 2nd? I'd say trading 7th overall gets a player as good or better, and one not potentially headed for UFA, either. 

The known quantity is much less appealing than the mystery box, though. 

Okay we need to stop doing this. It isn't logical. At #7 you have the chance of getting any of the remaining players in the draft. That's why you want it. Just because specifically pick 7 in the last 10 years gave us a specific set of players has 0 bearing on the value of that pick. You could have drafted Bo Horvat at 7 but didn't. You need to think in terms of + 3 or 4 players after that pick. It isn't, we would have gotten the exact same player. There is almost always variance. So who was taken 7, 8, 9, 10 in the draft is the important part because all of them were a legitimate option. It is not as simple as who was picked 7th because that ignores the human variables involved. 

I'm sorry but this is a big pet peeve of mine. "Well last year player #7 was X and he is bad so we can trade it". Is it that player #7 was bad or the team picking there was dumb? I watched Boston draft Zachary Sensyshyn over Matthew Barzal. So does that mean that pick 15 is bad? Because Boston made a mistake. No, because you still had the chance to take Barzal but f'd up. 

[dudacek]

32 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Okay we need to stop doing this. It isn't logical. At #7 you have the chance of getting any of the remaining players in the draft. That's why you want it. Just because specifically pick 7 in the last 10 years gave us a specific set of players has 0 bearing on the value of that pick. You could have drafted Bo Horvat at 7 but didn't. You need to think in terms of + 3 or 4 players after that pick. It isn't, we would have gotten the exact same player. There is almost always variance. So who was taken 7, 8, 9, 10 in the draft is the important part because all of them were a legitimate option. It is not as simple as who was picked 7th because that ignores the human variables involved. 

I'm sorry but this is a big pet peeve of mine. "Well last year player #7 was X and he is bad so we can trade it". Is it that player #7 was bad or the team picking there was dumb? I watched Boston draft Zachary Sensyshyn over Matthew Barzal. So does that mean that pick 15 is bad? Because Boston made a mistake. No, because you still had the chance to take Barzal but f'd up. 

But your argument on this is always based on the premise "don't f it up" as if there is a way to make sure you don't.

Boston is a great example. They totally dropped the ball on Senyshyn Zboril and Debrusk when they could have had Chabot, Barzal and Connor. They had their choice of six players and they picked the three worst. Yet here they are, a perennial contender.

There is a crapshoot element to the draft that you refuse to acknowledge.

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

But your argument on this is always based on the premise "don't f it up" as if there is a way to make sure you don't.

Boston is a great example. They totally dropped the ball on Senyshyn Zboril and Debrusk when they could have had Chabot, Barzal and Connor. They had their choice of six players and they picked the three worst. Yet here they are, a perennial contender.

There is a crapshoot element to the draft that you refuse to acknowledge.

Because I don't find it a crapshoot. Not in round 1 at least. If you are screwing up the 7th overall pick, why should you figure out the 57th? Why should you be good enough to trade player X for parts z and y? Either you are good enough or you aren't.  For almost a decade the Sabres sucked at it and that's why we ensured we got it right with Eichel. 

[Crusader1969]

15 hours ago, Thorny said:

We could trade the pick for a better player than any of the last 10, save Scheifele and MAYBE Dumba. 

8/10 a trade yields a better player than picking 7. I'd take those odds. 

Skinner was a 7th overall. What did we trade for him, a 2nd? I'd say trading 7th overall gets a player as good or better, and one not potentially headed for UFA, either. 

The known quantity is much less appealing than the mystery box, though. 

Here are the players drafted at 7 since 2010 

Jeff Skinner 31 Goals in rookie year
Mark Scheifele -  Takes 2 years to become NHL regular but is just put up 38 goals and is a Jet until 2024, 13 years after they drafted him
Matthew Dumba  - now a 50 point Dman   UFA in 2023  11 years in the Minnesota organization
Darnel Nurse  - just coming off a 40 point Season - 24 year old Dman coming into his own  he will be an RFA in 2021  
Hayden Fleury - 22 year old Dman just played 67 Games for the Hurricanes. Bottom pair at this point.
Ivan Provorov - bit of a down year but still put up 27 points and has played in 246 games in NHL barely 22 years of age.
Clayton Keller drafted in 2016, plays 1 year at Boston U and now has 2 NHL seasons  65 points and 47 points
Lias Anderson - will big part of the Rangers rebuild
Quinn Hughes - Will probably be battling Hiskanen and Dahlin for the Norris for the next decade.

You may get a better player for the 2019 20 season but highly unlikely you get a better player for their career not to mention one you can control for the next 10 - 12 years.

I still think its hilarious that the major complaint about Murray is he traded all the draft picks (though never one as high as 7th overall) and now here we are again and there are still those who think trading draft picks is a good idea!

 

 

 

 

 

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, Crusader1969 said:

Here are the players drafted at 7 since 2010 

Jeff Skinner 31 Goals in rookie year
Mark Scheifele -  Takes 2 years to become NHL regular but is just put up 38 goals and is a Jet until 2024, 13 years after they drafted him
Matthew Dumba  - now a 50 point Dman   UFA in 2023  11 years in the Minnesota organization
Darnel Nurse  - just coming off a 40 point Season - 24 year old Dman coming into his own  he will be an RFA in 2021  
Hayden Fleury - 22 year old Dman just played 67 Games for the Hurricanes. Bottom pair at this point.
Ivan Provorov - bit of a down year but still put up 27 points and has played in 246 games in NHL barely 22 years of age.
Clayton Keller drafted in 2016, plays 1 year at Boston U and now has 2 NHL seasons  65 points and 47 points
Lias Anderson - will big part of the Rangers rebuild
Quinn Hughes - Will probably be battling Hiskanen and Dahlin for the Norris for the next decade.

You may get a better player for the 2019 20 season but highly unlikely you get a better player for their career not to mention one you can control for the next 10 - 12 years.

I still think its hilarious that the major complaint about Murray is he traded all the draft picks (though never one as high as 7th overall) and now here we are again and there are still those who think trading draft picks is a good idea!

 

 

 

 

 

Boring straw man. That was never my major complaint about Murray.

[Thorner]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

But your argument on this is always based on the premise "don't f it up" as if there is a way to make sure you don't.

Boston is a great example. They totally dropped the ball on Senyshyn Zboril and Debrusk when they could have had Chabot, Barzal and Connor. They had their choice of six players and they picked the three worst. Yet here they are, a perennial contender.

There is a crapshoot element to the draft that you refuse to acknowledge.

Ya, I think this is being missed time and time again. All these good players than exist after 7 are irrelevant if you aren't making the right pick, and the odds of selecting the best player available at 7 are ridiculously low. Always have been, always will be. And I fancy the ability to trade the pick for a better player than the average we've seen selected at 7. 

[Thorner]

6 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Okay we need to stop doing this. It isn't logical. At #7 you have the chance of getting any of the remaining players in the draft. That's why you want it. Just because specifically pick 7 in the last 10 years gave us a specific set of players has 0 bearing on the value of that pick. You could have drafted Bo Horvat at 7 but didn't. You need to think in terms of + 3 or 4 players after that pick. It isn't, we would have gotten the exact same player. There is almost always variance. So who was taken 7, 8, 9, 10 in the draft is the important part because all of them were a legitimate option. It is not as simple as who was picked 7th because that ignores the human variables involved. 

I'm sorry but this is a big pet peeve of mine. "Well last year player #7 was X and he is bad so we can trade it". Is it that player #7 was bad or the team picking there was dumb? I watched Boston draft Zachary Sensyshyn over Matthew Barzal. So does that mean that pick 15 is bad? Because Boston made a mistake. No, because you still had the chance to take Barzal but f'd up. 

The bolded makes zero sense. Like dudacek said, if we somehow had the ability to guarantee the right selection would be made, sure. But that just doesn't exist. 

You can look at the average player yielded from every single pick from 7 on down, and the quality of said player is going to be less than that of a Skinner. The type of player I believe a trade could fetch using that pick, at least. 

I get your point of view if you have supreme confidence in Botterill's drafting ability, so much so that you think he has a high likelihood of beating the odds, but I don't. Why would I at this point. 

Eichel and Reinhart are in their prime right now. The idea of adding a ready player to our ranks to help maximize not only the primes of our best players but to help maximize as much as we can of Dahlin while he is young is incredibly appealing to me, and combined with the draft odds leans me heavily in the trade direction.

Botterill isn't going to trade it though, so don't worry about it. Your argument can't lose: it's guaranteed there is going to be a Boeser level player selected SOMEWHERE at 7 or later so going forward it can continue to be stated that great players ARE available there. 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Thorny

[Crusader1969]

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Boring straw man. That was never my major complaint about Murray.

may not be yours but definitely the majority of people would have that complaint.

What young player would  you be able to trade for that is better than the list of 7th overall draft picks? those are some pretty good hockey players on that list.  You want to get a guy like Skinner? to get a good player who is coming close to UFA status, it doesn't take the 7th overall pick to get such a player.

Why wouldn't you want to draft the likes of Turcotte, Zegras or Cozens and have them in your control for the next 10 years or so?  I'll bet all of them are NHL players in 2020. 

 

[Thorner]

9 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said:

may not be yours but definitely the majority of people would have that complaint.

What young player would  you be able to trade for that is better than the list of 7th overall draft picks? those are some pretty good hockey players on that list.  You want to get a guy like Skinner? to get a good player who is coming close to UFA status, it doesn't take the 7th overall pick to get such a player.

Why wouldn't you want to draft the likes of Turcotte, Zegras or Cozens and have them in your control for the next 10 years or so?  I'll bet all of them are NHL players in 2020. 

 

Because it's just as likely that the pick is Hayden Fleury. Trade the pick and it's 100% likely you get a very good player, keep the pick and it's probably 25% likely you get a better player than the one you could trade for, but also likely you end up with a player worse. It's the mystery box. 

There are definitely pros to having a young player under control, but it comes with sacrifices. The timeline of our current players is not something that can be ignored any longer, in my view. That One Man screwed up his attempt to speed up the timeline doesn't mean this team should avoid attempting to maximize it's current roster simply out of fear of repeating past mistakes. Would be potentially disastrous, I'm over Murray screwing things up once, but to allow him to screw things up for us twice is folly. 

Two wrongs do not make a right. You'll argue that trading in this situation is the wrong that might be duplicated, but to me the poor decisions are rooted in the decision maker and not the strategy itself. 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

I'm out. I've explained why it's bad. I don't think we're trading the pick. 

[Crusader1969]

21 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Because it's just as likely that the pick is Hayden Fleury. Trade the pick and it's 100% likely you get a very good player, keep the pick and it's probably 25% likely you get a better player than the one you could trade for, but also likely you end up with a player worse. It's the mystery box. 

There are definitely pros to having a young player under control, but it comes with sacrifices. The timeline of our current players is not something that can be ignored any longer, in my view. That One Man screwed up his attempt to speed up the timeline doesn't mean this team should avoid attempting to maximize it's current roster simply out of fear of repeating past mistakes. Would be potentially disastrous, I'm over Murray screwing things up once, but to allow him to screw things up for us twice is folly. 

Two wrongs do not make a right. You'll argue that trading in this situation is the wrong that might be duplicated, but to me the poor decisions are rooted in the decision maker and not the strategy itself. 

so 9 out of the last 10 guys have been home runs and its just as likely they draft a guy who may be only a double? Plus Fleury is only 22, kinda young to write him off.

You are worried about the time line of the current players when Jack is 22 and Rasmus just turned 19?  

 

 

[Crusader1969]

16 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I'm out. I've explained why it's bad. I don't think we're trading the pick. 

absolutely, the list of players that would be worth trading for is short and more than likely wouldnt be let go by their current teams.

[Thorner]

29 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said:

so 9 out of the last 10 guys have been home runs and its just as likely they draft a guy who may be only a double? Plus Fleury is only 22, kinda young to write him off.

You are worried about the time line of the current players when Jack is 22 and Rasmus just turned 19?  

 

 

Jack will be 23 soon after the regular season starts this fall. Our best forward asset is in his prime right now. 

To my mind it's more likely we win a cup while Jack is on this deal, rather than the one he gets after where we are potentially overpaying for an aging Jack. He's still going to be a good player at 30 when the contract ends but I highly doubt his contract is going to look as valuable as this one. 

7 more seasons. Scratching out 2 of those waiting for a pick is less appealing to me if I can trade it for a young-ish, talented player for right now. 

24 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said:

absolutely, the list of players that would be worth trading for is MASSIVE and more than likely many/most wouldnt be let go by their current teams.

FTFY

Edited April 16, 2019 by Thorny

[Crusader1969]

Hey I have a great idea.  Let’s trade the pick that gives us a ton of value!! 

[bob_sauve28]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I'm out. I've explained why it's bad. I don't think we're trading the pick. 

It would also turn the pick into an instant cap issue as we would be bringing on salary with a trade that a pick wouldn't. Sorry if that's been mentioned, just throwing it out there 

[LGR4GM]

How do we feel about Sean Monahan? Asking in case Calgary panics. 

[Derrico]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

How do we feel about Sean Monahan? Asking in case Calgary panics. 

24 year old centre who can score 25-35 goals consistently and we can 'shelter' him on our second line?  Ummmmm yes.  Would cost an absolute fortune tho.  Don't think 7OA and Risto would come close.  What would you be willing to give up for him?

Edited April 18, 2019 by Derrico

[Brawndo]

36 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

How do we feel about Sean Monahan? Asking in case Calgary panics. 

Everything I ever said about not trading 7th Overall well just delete that. 

[WildCard]

54 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

How do we feel about Sean Monahan? Asking in case Calgary panics. 

 

49 minutes ago, Derrico said:

24 year old centre who can score 25-35 goals consistently and we can 'shelter' him on our second line?  Ummmmm yes.  Would cost an absolute fortune tho.  Don't think 7OA and Risto would come close.  What would you be willing to give up for him?

I would love it but yeah there's no way they get rid of their 2nd most important player in his prime