Vegas pick...do the Sabres want them to win the lottery this year?

[dudacek]

I’m seeing similarities to 2017 this year, where the middle 3rd of the round is intriguing and both Sabres picks could be better than many ahead of them.

Vegas won’t be picking in the top 10 next year. Take the pick and grab this year’s Robert Thomas or Nick Suzuki.

[North Buffalo]

On 5/4/2022 at 4:26 PM, tom webster said:

A more interesting question would be if Las Vegas wins the lottery and moves to 6, would they decline the pick.

hmmm

[Curt]

1 minute ago, Derrico said:

To your point, I remember hearing last year that 2022 was suppose to be a pretty good draft.

It was kind of supposed to be.  The depth of talent is pretty good, but Wright and Lambert were supposed to be really good guys at the very top of this draft and both were a bit disappointing this season.  That took a bit of the luster off of it.  These things are fluid.

[North Buffalo]

3 minutes ago, Curt said:

It was kind of supposed to be.  The depth of talent is pretty good, but Wright and Lambert were supposed to be really good guys at the very top of this draft and both were a bit disappointing this season.  That took a bit of the luster off of it.  These things are fluid.

In addition a year of development was lost due to covid so evaluating progress of what these guys will be is much harder... scout gonna earn their money

[LGR4GM]

10 minutes ago, Derrico said:

To your point, I remember hearing last year that 2022 was suppose to be a pretty good draft.

By who?

2022 was noted for being a very average draft.

[LGR4GM]

2023 has multiple players putting up numbers in junior levels that are setting records. 

[Huckleberry]

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

2023 has multiple players putting up numbers in junior levels that are setting records. 

Ok now I want the vegas pick in 2023 😛

[LGR4GM]

22 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Ok now I want the vegas pick in 2023 😛

You'd have to win the lottery and one is a Russian signed until 2025

[Huckleberry]

10 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

You'd have to win the lottery and one is a Russian signed until 2025

Yeah , but I ***** take him over everyone in both drafts still 🙂

[IKnowPhysics]

You want the earlier pick, which means you don't want Vegas to win the lottery.  Several reasons:

1. You want the prospect in the system one year earlier.  Better development options, including stacking Rochester if that's what's best.
2. You don't want to dilute this year's draft capital.
   1. We have (pre-lottery) 9ish, 16ish, 28ish, and 41.  I get that 16 is actually 18, but I'm lazy.
   2. That's a lot of ammo if we decide to move up.  Loosely speaking, from Shuckers' 2011 draft value paper, picks 9 and 16 are worth 1st overall.  16 and 28 are worth 6th overall.  28 and 41 are worth 13th overall.  You can make all of those moves and still select two 1st round picks.  Not saying we'd get that or do that, but three 1sts is nothing to sneeze at trade-wise.
   3. Equally, it's also an enormous amount of potential return if we decide to move down.  BOS, CGY, CAR, COL, and FLA definitely do not have their own 1st round picks.  CHI, MIN, NYR, and VGK may not end up with their picks.  That's a lot of teams that may want to move back into the first round.
3. Vegas could be a better team next year compared to the delicious meltdown they just incurred; few expected them to do that this year.  This year's pick is likely better value, and even if I'm wrong, they won't be so much worse next year as to make it worth waiting.

Edited May 9, 2022 by IKnowPhysics

[Curt]

2 minutes ago, IKnowPhysics said:

You want the earlier pick, which means you don't want Vegas to win the lottery.  Several reasons:

1. You want the prospect in the system one year earlier.  Better development options, including stacking Rochester if that's what's best.
2. You don't want to dilute this year's draft capital.
   1. We have (pre-lottery) 9ish, 16ish, 28ish, and 41.  I get that 16 is actually 18, but I'm lazy.
   2. That's a lot of ammo if we decide to move up.  Loosely speaking, from Shuckers' 2011 draft value paper, picks 9 and 16 are worth 1st overall.  16 and 28 are worth 6th overall.  28 and 41 are worth 13th overall.  You can make all of those moves and still select two 1st round picks.  Not saying we'd get that or do that, but three 1sts is nothing to sneeze at trade-wise.
   3. Equally, it's also an enormous amount of potential return if we decide to move down.  BOS, CGY, CAR, COL, and FLA definitely do not have their own 1st round picks.  CHI, MIN, NYR, and VGK may not end up with their picks.  That's a lot of teams that may want to move back into the first round.
3. Vegas could be a better team next year compared to the delicious meltdown they just incurred; few expected them to do that this year.  This year's pick is likely better value, and even if I'm wrong, they won't be so much worse next year as to make it worth waiting.

Question:  how is 16 actually 18?

[JohnC]

On 5/6/2022 at 10:53 AM, LGR4GM said:

2023 has multiple players putting up numbers in junior levels that are setting records. 

Is the depth for prospects better or worse than next year's draft? I'm aware that is a difficult judgment to make right now but if the depth is equal to or better than next year's projection of prospects it would be a good situation for a team like the Sabres that has multiple first round picks. I prefer getting prospects into the system sooner than later. I'm happy with our draft situation

[IKnowPhysics]

2 minutes ago, Curt said:

Question:  how is 16 actually 18?

It's not.  I'm too lazy to out-lazy my lazy thinking.

[SDS]

20 minutes ago, IKnowPhysics said:

Loosely speaking, from Shuckers' 2011 draft value paper,

Is this actually followed?

[LGR4GM]

19 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Is the depth for prospects better or worse than next year's draft? I'm aware that is a difficult judgment to make right now but if the depth is equal to or better than next year's projection of prospects it would be a good situation for a team like the Sabres that has multiple first round picks. I prefer getting prospects into the system sooner than later. I'm happy with our draft situation

Next year will probably have more depth but it's hard to say. This draft is also marred by the covid year so some guys will pop who are currently underdeveloped. 

[IKnowPhysics]

Just now, SDS said:

Is this actually followed?

The analysis is well founded.

But GMs definitely don't use it ubiquitously and religiously.  1OA, even 2 and 3OA, are wayyy overvalued in the real draft economy, such that 9 and 16 probably wouldn't get much higher than 5OA (plus maybe a late 2nd at best).  Probably because marketing.  And that no GM wants to be known for unknowingly trading away the next unexpected phenom whomever.

But it also makes for fun conjecture.

[Curt]

40 minutes ago, SDS said:

Is this actually followed?

Probably not.  Here is a draft pick market value chart that assigns value based on what NHL GMs have actually paid in trades.  I think it’s more useful for use to look at a chart based on market value as opposed to one based on actual draft pick results.

https://www.broadstreethockey.com/2013/4/25/4262594/nhl-draft-pick-value-trading-up

@IKnowPhysics

Edited May 9, 2022 by Curt

[IKnowPhysics]

16 minutes ago, Curt said:

Here is a draft pick market value chart

[Curt]

8 minutes ago, IKnowPhysics said:

Misplace your eyeglasses?  It’s right there plain as day.

[GASabresIUFAN]

There are really good players in this draft down to the mid 20’s. Make the pick and get another good player for the pipeline.  

[IKnowPhysics]

34 minutes ago, Curt said:

https://www.broadstreethockey.com/2013/4/25/4262594/nhl-draft-pick-value-trading-up

By that analysis:

• 9+16 could get 2-3 (previous: 1)
• 16+28 could get 7-8 (previous: 6)
• 28+41 could get 18 (previous: 13)

Seems within the bounds of reason.  You still don't see many trades moving down from 2-3 in practice though, but the value seems right.

[SDS]

4 minutes ago, IKnowPhysics said:

By that analysis:

• 9+16 could get 2-3 (previous: 1)
• 16+28 could get 7-8 (previous: 6)
• 28+41 could get 18 (previous: 13)

Seems within the bounds of reason.  You still don't see many trades moving down from 2-3 in practice though, but the value seems right.

10 years old with no data at the top of the draft. 🤔

[IKnowPhysics]

Also, by that analysis:

• 16+28+41 could get 4-5
• 9+16+28+41 still wouldn't get 1

 

And, just a fun thought, it'd be bonkers to fully convert to get 2-3OA and 13-18OA -or- 4-5OA and 9OA if KA and the gang thought they could get studs.  The latter is pretty attractive: trade 16/28/41 for 4OA and take 9OA.  And this is without packaging anyone in.

[Curt]

8 minutes ago, SDS said:

10 years old with no data at the top of the draft. 🤔

It’s all I’ve got man.  I bookmarked it years ago. Haven’t seen a similar  analysis since.

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, IKnowPhysics said:

Also, by that analysis:

• 16+28+41 could get 4-5
• 9+16+28+41 still wouldn't get 1

 

And, just a fun thought, it'd be bonkers to fully convert to get 2-3OA and 13-18OA -or- 4-5OA and 9OA if KA and the gang thought they could get studs.  The latter is pretty attractive: trade 16/28/41 for 4OA and take 9OA.  And this is without packaging anyone in.

I'd rather have 4 picks in this draft than 1 or maybe 2 higher ones.