How will the NHL treat conditional trades in the 2020 draft

[Ray_Cathode]

How will the NHL treat the Canucks’ conditional draft pick sent to Tampa re the JT Miller trade?

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/reviewing-every-nhl-trade-involving-2020-conditional-picks/

[JM_]

If there is a playoffs of some sort, I don't see how NJ doesn't end up with our pick, at 18th. Which is pretty good for us all things considered. 

 

And if the season just ends, i suspect the league just decides this is how it is anyway, and gives Vancouver and NJ a week to try to figure out something else. 

 

This is why getting Miller with term was so important, if we were just losing the pick for nothing this  would suck but Miller at an exceptionally reasonable 5.25 mil for 3 more years is still great for us. 

[Fanuck]

If the season is in fact done - does that make us a lottery team?  If so, wouldn't it be better for us to keep our pick this year and defer the 1st to NJ to the following year when presumably we develop into a better team and pick at a lower position?  

[Pears]

1 hour ago, Fanuck said:

If the season is in fact done - does that make us a lottery team?  If so, wouldn't it be better for us to keep our pick this year and defer the 1st to NJ to the following year when presumably we develop into a better team and pick at a lower position?  

Yes. The basis of the trade was Tampa (New Jersey now) would get our pick this year if we made the playoffs. If there aren’t playoffs this year, that would technically mean we would get to keep this years first, and then send NJ our first round pick next year. 

 

Although I wouldn’t be surprised to see the NHL pull a fast one, use points percentage for seeding, which would make us a playoff team, and then not have playoffs at all because it isn’t safe enough to return. 

[Provost]

1 hour ago, Fanuck said:

If the season is in fact done - does that make us a lottery team?  If so, wouldn't it be better for us to keep our pick this year and defer the 1st to NJ to the following year when presumably we develop into a better team and pick at a lower position?  

That seems like a terrible idea to me.

 

There is every chance we are worse next season.  We had a LOT go right last year to be a bubble team and for cap reasons we may ice a worse roster next season.  If we just got average goaltending last year we would have been a lottery team.

 

The difference between the 17-18th pick, and best case if we do amazingly well next year and have the 25th pick, is very little.  Draft boards diverge at that point and there isn’t a lot of difference between a player taken in the late teens or twenties.

 

If things go normally or even poorly, next years pick will be higher and somewhere in the top 10 with a chance at winning the draft lottery.  The difference between a top ten pick and a #18 pick is a lot.

 

Deferring the pick is almost all downside with very little chance of benefiting.

[peaches5]

I think our position will just translate to a playoff position and therefore there is nothing to discuss and our pick just goes to NJ regardless of how we finish the season, if it resumes.

[mll]

1 hour ago, Fanuck said:

If the season is in fact done - does that make us a lottery team?  If so, wouldn't it be better for us to keep our pick this year and defer the 1st to NJ to the following year when presumably we develop into a better team and pick at a lower position?  

The Canucks would be considered a playoff team and NJD would get pick 18th.  The article in OP has this on the Vancouver trade:

 

Analysis: The Canucks held a Western Conference playoff spot when the season was paused and would receive the 18th pick under the NHL’s proposed plan to determine the order of selection using points percentage by conference. That pick should be transferred to New Jersey, via Tampa Bay, to satisfy the conditions on both the Miller and Coleman trades.

 

LeBrun on Insider Trading said he polled several GMs to get a feel for where they stand on a June draft.

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by mll

[flat land fish]

Given the changes since the trade was made wouldn’t it be fair to make the pick lottery protected?  

 

All these trades were made on business as usual basis and the league should be fair especially if the season is cancelled.

 

 

[linden17]

26 minutes ago, Provost said:

That seems like a terrible idea to me.

 

There is every chance we are worse next season.  We had a LOT go right last year to be a bubble team and for cap reasons we may ice a worse roster next season.  If we just got average goaltending last year we would have been a lottery team.

 

The difference between the 17-18th pick, and best case if we do amazingly well next year and have the 25th pick, is very little.  Draft boards diverge at that point and there isn’t a lot of difference between a player taken in the late teens or twenties.

 

If things go normally or even poorly, next years pick will be higher and somewhere in the top 10 with a chance at winning the draft lottery.  The difference between a top ten pick and a #18 pick is a lot.

 

Deferring the pick is almost all downside with very little chance of benefiting.

You do realize that the talent in this years draft is supposed to be the deepest and best in years, right? As it stand right now we may or may not have a first round pick and we don’t have a second round pick. For the good of the organization moving forward we want to keep our first this year.

[Provost]

1 hour ago, linden17 said:

You do realize that the talent in this years draft is supposed to be the deepest and best in years, right? As it stand right now we may or may not have a first round pick and we don’t have a second round pick. For the good of the organization moving forward we want to keep our first this year.

I do realize that there is no chance that a #18 pick in a bit of a "deeper" draft is the same value as a top 10 pick a year later.  About half the drafts we have are "the deepest draft in years" because of hype and the newest things being extra shiny.  In this year they are specifically talking about a tier of 6 or 7 guys who could end up being elite players rather than the normal 2-3 guys... not 17 or 18 guys where we would be picking.

Literally everyone would rather give up a non-lottery pick than a potential lottery pick a year later.  There is virtually no chance next year that we are so high up in the league standings that we could be giving up a 30th pick instead and ending up ahead by picking now.

Again, if you take just ONE of our good news stories from last season we are a bottom 5 team.  One important long term injury next season means a top 5 pick for us.  No player at 18 is going to be nearly as good as a top pick next draft.

[IBatch]

59 minutes ago, Provost said:

I do realize that there is no chance that a #18 pick in a bit of a "deeper" draft is the same value as a top 10 pick a year later.  About half the drafts we have are "the deepest draft in years" because of hype and the newest things being extra shiny.  In this year they are specifically talking about a tier of 6 or 7 guys who could end up being elite players rather than the normal 2-3 guys... not 17 or 18 guys where we would be picking.

Literally everyone would rather give up a non-lottery pick than a potential lottery pick a year later.  There is virtually no chance next year that we are so high up in the league standings that we could be giving up a 30th pick instead and ending up ahead by picking now.

Again, if you take just ONE of our good news stories from last season we are a bottom 5 team.  One important long term injury next season means a top 5 pick for us.  No player at 18 is going to be nearly as good as a top pick next draft.

Yep.  Last year it was unite the Hughes brothers or get Kakko at all costs..before that trade everyone for Dahlin, the year before that all-in for Patrick or Hirschier. It’s really a lot of hype.   Lafrenniere and a couple other guys look to be stars ... same like last year.  And again next year. 

[lmm]

5 hours ago, Pears said:

Yes. The basis of the trade was Tampa (New Jersey now) would get our pick this year if we made the playoffs. If there aren’t playoffs this year, that would technically mean we would get to keep this years first, and then send NJ our first round pick next year. 

 

Although I wouldn’t be surprised to see the NHL pull a fast one, use points percentage for seeding, which would make us a playoff team, and then not have playoffs at all because it isn’t safe enough to return. 

Yes

the interesting thing in this article is they seem to have  apretty good handle on Murky and cut and dried,

However, they seem to think the Canuck deal is cut and dried when it is not.

The deal doesn't say "If the Canuckes are top 16 in their conference" it says "makes the playoff"

if there are no playoffs, the Canucks do not make the playoff.

I would think this is a canditate for a re-work.

The Canucks could argue that they were counting on playoff revenue or experience for their young players as the benefit from the lost pick.

NO revenue and no playoff experience would seem to make this deal a slide to next year candidate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lmm]

3 hours ago, Provost said:

I do realize that there is no chance that a #18 pick in a bit of a "deeper" draft is the same value as a top 10 pick a year later.  About half the drafts we have are "the deepest draft in years" because of hype and the newest things being extra shiny.  In this year they are specifically talking about a tier of 6 or 7 guys who could end up being elite players rather than the normal 2-3 guys... not 17 or 18 guys where we would be picking.

Literally everyone would rather give up a non-lottery pick than a potential lottery pick a year later.  There is virtually no chance next year that we are so high up in the league standings that we could be giving up a 30th pick instead and ending up ahead by picking now.

Again, if you take just ONE of our good news stories from last season we are a bottom 5 team.  One important long term injury next season means a top 5 pick for us.  No player at 18 is going to be nearly as good as a top pick next draft.

Lets look at 2003, considered the deepest draft ever and 2013

 

 

after 18 in 2003 were 4x 1000+ gamers in the first, plus Bergeron, Weber, Ericksson Howard, and Backes in the second, play Byfugien, Pavelski and a few others later in the draft

best player in the top 10 in 2013 was Alex Galchenyuk after 10 in 2013 you might get Phil Forsburg, Hertyl, Teravainen Vaselevzki or Pearson in the first round and Severson in the 2nd and Payrenko in the 3rd if you are both lucky and astute.
Now to be fair, I don't know if 2020 is as good as 2003 or if 2021 wil be as bad as 2013, but if it was close I might want to stick with 18 in 2003, but as you said, every second draft is "The best yet".

[Provost]

4 hours ago, lmm said:

Lets look at 2003, considered the deepest draft ever and 2013

 

 

after 18 in 2003 were 4x 1000+ gamers in the first, plus Bergeron, Weber, Ericksson Howard, and Backes in the second, play Byfugien, Pavelski and a few others later in the draft

best player in the top 10 in 2013 was Alex Galchenyuk after 10 in 2013 you might get Phil Forsburg, Hertyl, Teravainen Vaselevzki or Pearson in the first round and Severson in the 2nd and Payrenko in the 3rd if you are both lucky and astute.
Now to be fair, I don't know if 2020 is as good as 2003 or if 2021 wil be as bad as 2013, but if it was close I might want to stick with 18 in 2003, but as you said, every second draft is "The best yet".

Counting guys who went in the 200's in their draft year doesn't really make a great point.  We could get crazy lucky without our 1st round pick this year too and pick one of those guys later where we do have picks.

We know this year the pick would be in the 17-18th spot (well from what we know now).
We can be pretty darn sure that our pick next year won't be later than the 22-25th spot.
Historical drafting value doesn't differentiate much between those two spot.  Even with a better than average draft, the chance of getting a better player at 18 this year than at 22-25 next year isn't much at all... and will be pretty random whether a team hits or not.  
We also know that we have the potential to pick as high as #1 next year, and I would says at least even money that we pick in the top 10.  The difference in value between a #18 and even a #10 is actually pretty significant... much more of a delta than any benefit you would get by getting a player in your system a year earlier.  Anyone picked in that late teens and 20's range is going to probably be 3-4 years away from being an NHL regular (if ever).  A top ten pick a year later probably hits the NHL at the same time or earlier.

I also wouldn't want to see any universe where we would have had a chance to pick or trade up and get Luke Hughes to play with his brother... but not be able to because we gave that 1st round pick away.  2021 is D heavy even aside from Hughes and that will desperately be our need going forward.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/analyzing-value-nhl-draft-picks/

Edited May 12, 2020 by Provost

[mll]

Friedman in his 31 thoughts - sounds like the league might not push for a June draft after all:

 

14. Two weeks ago, when Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly sent out his memo advocating for a June draft, most of the reaction was, “We may not like it, but whatever the league wants, it gets.” 

The note promised 30 days notice, so we’ve slipped by the June 5–6 date. The league could go back to its original date of June 26–27, but online. However, there is a growing sense that the league office is backing away from this fight. On the Board of Governors call three days after that memo, it’s believed that approximately half the teams indicated they were completely against doing it before the end of the playoffs. Even more of an issue was there weren’t many teams willing to fight for doing it early. 

One of the concerns with having it in the fall is suddenly the sports calendar is jammed with NFL, tennis majors, golf majors, big horse races, MLB, etc. But that argument is not swaying anyone.

 

15. I think some teams who would’ve gotten hammered by the lottery didn’t like the idea of Detroit being guaranteed a top-two selection. That didn’t help, either.

[JM_]

1 hour ago, mll said:

Friedman in his 31 thoughts - sounds like the league might not push for a June draft after all:

 

14. Two weeks ago, when Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly sent out his memo advocating for a June draft, most of the reaction was, “We may not like it, but whatever the league wants, it gets.” 

The note promised 30 days notice, so we’ve slipped by the June 5–6 date. The league could go back to its original date of June 26–27, but online. However, there is a growing sense that the league office is backing away from this fight. On the Board of Governors call three days after that memo, it’s believed that approximately half the teams indicated they were completely against doing it before the end of the playoffs. Even more of an issue was there weren’t many teams willing to fight for doing it early. 

One of the concerns with having it in the fall is suddenly the sports calendar is jammed with NFL, tennis majors, golf majors, big horse races, MLB, etc. But that argument is not swaying anyone.

 

15. I think some teams who would’ve gotten hammered by the lottery didn’t like the idea of Detroit being guaranteed a top-two selection. That didn’t help, either.

it really messes up any trades as well. The speculation that the Canucks wanted an early draft are wrong imo, Benning needs to try to make some moves at the draft to clear cap space. 

[mll]

55 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

it really messes up any trades as well. The speculation that the Canucks wanted an early draft are wrong imo, Benning needs to try to make some moves at the draft to clear cap space. 

LeBrun talked to Benning for his poll of GMs on an early draft.  The Canucks were warming up to the idea of an early draft as they wouldn't be giving up a possible lottery pick next season.      

[ruilin96]

I personally think the condition should be delayed a year. Instead of a conditional 2020 pick, it should be a conditional 2021 pick. If we make the playoffs next year, NJD has the 2021 pick, if we don't then we keep the 2021 but NJD has the 2022 pick no matter what. The point about making the playoffs is to play meaningful playoff games for our young players. It is not "making the playoffs" if there are potentially no playoff games played.

[JM_]

53 minutes ago, mll said:

LeBrun talked to Benning for his poll of GMs on an early draft.  The Canucks were warming up to the idea of an early draft as they wouldn't be giving up a possible lottery pick next season.      

I don't have the quote at hand but I saw another story where Benning wasn't thrilled with the idea of not being able to try to make draft day trades, to me thats likely more important than this years or next years 1st rounder. 

 

But it looks more and more likely that it will be a fall draft so hopefully Jim can make some moves. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[mll]

16 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I don't have the quote at hand but I saw another story where Benning wasn't thrilled with the idea of not being able to try to make draft day trades, to me thats likely more important than this years or next years 1st rounder. 

 

But it looks more and more likely that it will be a fall draft so hopefully Jim can make some moves. 

Not surprised. There's been a lot of pushback because of that.  "Warming up to the idea" is not exactly a full endorsement for a June draft.