J.I.A.H.N Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I have always felt my weakness in prospects, has been in value of position of the pick. So in this stronger draft year.....maybe some of you could help me establish value. For this problem, I am saying we have the 15th spot in the draft............... #1 What is the cost to move up to 12th OA? Matthais/Higgins/Richardson/Hansen ? #2 What is the cost to move up to 10th OA? Bonino/Lack/Kassian ? Any of them #3 What is the cost to move up to 8th OA? + 2017 1st rounder? Please use current Canuck players or future picks when trading.......remember always from the #15 spot! Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desiboynux4lifee******* Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Depends on the teams needs; for example, it could be a Bonino + 1st or Higgins Lack 1st or Higgins 1st or Jensen Lack 1st lol you get the point. The thing is the price wont be cheap because you have to add lots to move up. Its safer to trade guys from the core eg, Higgins for a mid 2nd rounder. Also, Higgins can probaly get us a 2nd rounder easily because he has term on his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGCanuck Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Offer our first round draft pick and a goalie in exchange for a top ten pick this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Mulder Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 To move to 12: Our 1st + Higgins To move to 10: Our 1st + Lack+Higgins To move to 8: Our 1st + Lack+Higgins+Jensen Something like that. Feel free to swap out comparable players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outsiders Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 If we are picking for 17 to 20 teams will want Shinkaruk(12) and to move to 8th they would want Horvat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derp... Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 If we are picking for 17 to 20 teams will want Shinkaruk(12) and to move to 8th they would want Horvat Lol no. Why would we give up an nhl ready 19 year old to move up ten spots in the draft? Horvat plus our first should get us top 5. Shink plus our first would be top 10 same as Kass + our first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Lol no. Why would we give up an nhl ready 19 year old to move up ten spots in the draft? Horvat plus our first should get us top 5. Shink plus our first would be top 10 same as Kass + our first Horvat plus the 1st won't get you anywhere near the top 5 considering where the Canucks are right now. Moving up in the draft is never cheap and there are prospects with top line/1st pairing potential at the top of the draft. Why would a team that is between 1-14 spots want a 3rd liner like Higgins to move down, they will want picks as well as young prospects. Even Lack is not going to be a good enough incentive to move down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButcherG Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Would have to trade the whole team to get to second overall.. Likelyhood of anyone trading down this year is very low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slappipappi Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 You don't move up into the elite first round picks by trading guys like Higgins etc. Generally, if you want to move up, you have to give additional draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odd. Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I'd say we give Higgins away and bring back a solid 2nd round pick. Higgins is easily replaceable and he's still 31. He's not that old. In fact, with the right package, he could fetch us a 1st rounder. Most likely a low 1st rounder though. For those that are offering, Jensen, Shinkaruk, even Horvat (wtf), and some of our prospects, lemme just tell you that that is not going to happen. We aren't going to sacrifice our prospects just to gain 4 or 5 spots in the draft. I'd hold on to trading Lack until the draft, along with Higgins, and potentially Bonino. Although it would be stupid to trade Bonino seeing as that he is a decent 2nd liner with good offensive abilities, and the fact that we just acquired him about like 7 months ago. For those that are willing to trade Bonino. Who's going to fill in the 2nd line center position? If we re-signed Richardson(please benning), he's very good, but not 2nd line center calibre. Horvat is not ready and in fact won't be ready to take the 2nd line center position next year. Vey can't win face-offs, and really, I wouldn't mind trading Vey in a package as well as Kassian if it only helps us GET better. I do not want us to trade ANY of our prospects like Jensen, Shinkaruk, Gaunce that are or almost close to the NHL level. Virtanen and Horvat should be our untouchables. They are part of our future. I remember that stupid trade where we traded Kevin Connauton, who is doing extremely well up in Columbus, for friggen Derek Roy who played less than 17 games with us. The players I wouldn't mind using to trade up are Vey, Kassian, Lack, Higgins, and Hansen as well as our 1st round pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyhee Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I have always felt my weakness in prospects, has been in value of position of the pick. So in this stronger draft year.....maybe some of you could help me establish value. There have been a few people that did some research on the value of draft picks. One of those in 2011 focussed on time on ice for players drafted 1997-2006. His research indicated only a small difference between players drafted 4-6 compared with 7-10 in the 1st round, then a dropoff but found no dropoff between 11-15 and 21-25-that is, for players drafted 15th through 25th there was essentially no difference. He found a small dropoff after the 25th pick and then no substantial difference between picks in the 2nd round or the start of the 3rd round. That article is at http://www.jibblescribbits.com/2011-articles/march/the-value-of-a-draft-pick.html Scott Cullen did an article for TSN in 2009, looking at the years 1995-2004. I don't think his articles are still available online but they were summarized by Jonathan Willis in 2011 as follows: There’s a huge gap between a top-three selection and a four through six selection, which is followed by another gap between the sixth spot and the rest of the draft. Again, there’s a big drop between the first round and the second/third rounds, and another big drop from about the 100th pick on, at which point things flatten out – there’s very little difference between drafting 105th and 195th. A player taken after the first round but in the first hundred picks has roughly a one-in-three to one-in-four shot at hitting the 100-game plateau in the NHL. source: http://theleafsnation.com/2011/3/10/the-value-of-an-nhl-draft-pick Ian Fyffe did an article for Hockey Prospectus in 2011 intending to analyze the Kessel trade to the Leafs. He wrote as follows, in part: Draft Pick Peak GVT 1 18.4 2 14.4 3 11.5 4 9.4 5 7.8 6 6.7 7 5.9 8 5.3 9 4.8 10 4.5 This is a dramatic illustration of the drop-off in value from the first few picks in the draft to all of the other picks. Starting around pick number 10, the reduction in value is very gradual, finally reaching an estimated peak GVT of zero around pick 200. The following graph shows the function fitted against the data: source: http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/puck/article.php?articleid=807 Willis in his article linked above also wrote of a couple ofher Hockey Prospectus articles that I think are no longer avaiable, his conclusions being: Key points: The first few picks in the draft – especially those in the top five – are vastly superior to other picks, including picks later in the first round. Once again, picks outside the first round but in the top-100 are roughly equivalent in value – there is some value in having a higher pick, but that value is not especially strong. After the first 100 or so picks, there is almost no difference in the value of a draft pick. ___________ The thing is, others in this thread have posted what they thought it would take to move up. The constant impression I get from reading what they write is that the COST of moving up is greater than the VALUE of moving up. That can change for some particular player that a team's scouting staff and management is especially high on, but for just trading for a higher pick without knowing who will be available, the cost of moving up seems really high. An article about the cost of moving up in picks can be found at http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2012/6/10/3075683/nhl-draft-trade-value. On reading it I'm inclined to think that generally the cost of moving up in the 1st round is often more than what it's worth to do so, but many of the examples given are draft day trades where the team moving up was doing so to get a particular player the team was high on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outsiders Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Lol no. Why would we give up an nhl ready 19 year old to move up ten spots in the draft? Horvat plus our first should get us top 5. Shink plus our first would be top 10 same as Kass + our first We don't lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted January 24, 2015 Author Share Posted January 24, 2015 I want to thank those that have given their opinions on moving up in the draft. Very informative. I especially like to thank Tyhee for taking the time to put his response together. I found the last hyperlink in the last paragraph especially valuable, and it will most definitely temper my thoughts and post going forward. I am very happy for this guys...thanks again! For those not wanting to take the time......and this is not cast in stone........moving up 3 to 4 spots in the first round will cost you a 2nd round draft pick, in general. That cost would be much larger for a top 5 OA, and then again I am sure multiplied again for a top 2, etc. Again....moving up 3 to 4 spots in the first round costs a mid 2nd round pick....interesting! I take no credit for this understanding!...None! But I am glad I asked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobSacamano Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 There have been a few people that did some research on the value of draft picks. One of those in 2011 focussed on time on ice for players drafted 1997-2006. His research indicated only a small difference between players drafted 4-6 compared with 7-10 in the 1st round, then a dropoff but found no dropoff between 11-15 and 21-25-that is, for players drafted 15th through 25th there was essentially no difference. He found a small dropoff after the 25th pick and then no substantial difference between picks in the 2nd round or the start of the 3rd round. That article is at http://www.jibblescribbits.com/2011-articles/march/the-value-of-a-draft-pick.html Scott Cullen did an article for TSN in 2009, looking at the years 1995-2004. I don't think his articles are still available online but they were summarized by Jonathan Willis in 2011 as follows: Theres a huge gap between a top-three selection and a four through six selection, which is followed by another gap between the sixth spot and the rest of the draft.Again, theres a big drop between the first round and the second/third rounds, and another big drop from about the 100th pick on, at which point things flatten out theres very little difference between drafting 105th and 195th.A player taken after the first round but in the first hundred picks has roughly a one-in-three to one-in-four shot at hitting the 100-game plateau in the NHL. source: http://theleafsnation.com/2011/3/10/the-value-of-an-nhl-draft-pick Ian Fyffe did an article for Hockey Prospectus in 2011 intending to analyze the Kessel trade to the Leafs. He wrote as follows, in part: Draft Pick Peak GVT 1 18.4 2 14.4 3 11.5 4 9.4 5 7.8 6 6.7 7 5.9 8 5.3 9 4.8 10 4.5 This is a dramatic illustration of the drop-off in value from the first few picks in the draft to all of the other picks. Starting around pick number 10, the reduction in value is very gradual, finally reaching an estimated peak GVT of zero around pick 200. The following graph shows the function fitted against the data: source: http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/puck/article.php?articleid=807 Willis in his article linked above also wrote of a couple ofher Hockey Prospectus articles that I think are no longer avaiable, his conclusions being: Key points:The first few picks in the draft especially those in the top five are vastly superior to other picks, including picks later in the first round.Once again, picks outside the first round but in the top-100 are roughly equivalent in value there is some value in having a higher pick, but that value is not especially strong.After the first 100 or so picks, there is almost no difference in the value of a draft pick. ___________ The thing is, others in this thread have posted what they thought it would take to move up. The constant impression I get from reading what they write is that the COST of moving up is greater than the VALUE of moving up. That can change for some particular player that a team's scouting staff and management is especially high on, but for just trading for a higher pick without knowing who will be available, the cost of moving up seems really high. An article about the cost of moving up in picks can be found at http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2012/6/10/3075683/nhl-draft-trade-value. On reading it I'm inclined to think that generally the cost of moving up in the 1st round is often more than what it's worth to do so, but many of the examples given are draft day trades where the team moving up was doing so to get a particular player the team was high on. Fantastic research and summary - thank you!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 The cost to move up in a deep draft just for the sake of a shinier lotto ticket will not be worth it, unless there is some player you believe you just have to have and are willing to pay whatever to get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 At the 15th overall. We have the option as per central scouting of either: 15. Thomas Chabot, Defence St Johns Sea Dogs (QMJHL) 6'2" 179 lbs., shoots left, 44 games, 8 goals, 19 assists, for 27 points +15. 16. Brandon Carlo, Defence, Tri-City Americans (WHL), 6'5" 185 lbs., shoots RIGHT, 41 games, 3 goals, 17 assists, 20 points, -2. 23. Jeremy Roy, Defence, Sherbrooke Phoenix (QMJHL), 6'0" 182 lbs. shoots RIGHT, 40 games, 5 goals, 34 assists, 39 pts. +3 That's just the first round and just the North Americans. There's also Gabriel Carlsson, Jacob Larsson, and Jesper Lindgren. In short there's no need to move up. There's lots of choices. If anything trade down a couple of steps and add another 2nd rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.