[Proposal] Drop in the draft

[5nothincanucksohno]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

It only takes one of the teams picking between 11 and 18 to have Seider ranked as their top choice for us not to get him though.  If JB loves the player, why not just take him at 10?  

I am with you, would certainly pick Seider over any of the other D (not counting Byram).

[5nothincanucksohno]

9 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

Can't verify all of the dates on these mock rankings, and I admit some of them may have changed since the WHC, but at least half of them have Seider below your #19 position:

 

http://www.mynhldraft.com/2019-nhl-draft/2019-nhl-draft-rankings/

Thanks, definitely shows you what a crap shoot it is - sure fire (or you would think) top 6 picks such as Cozens and Podkolzin are all over the place. If Cozens dropped to #10 I would make a point of immediately deleting this thread haha

 

[underrated]

I like where the thought is coming from with the original post.  This is the New England Patriots draft strategy.  The Seahawks often do this too.  They're two of the perennial great franchises.  Clearly the NHL and NFL aren't exact parallels in forming a roster, and there are other factors that make New England and Seattle great (ie coaching), but I think this draft strategy makes so much sense in every sport except basketball.   Basketball is it all about high end talent, and getting that top player, even if you sacrifice the rest of your roster.  Football and hockey are not that way.  High end talent is great, but if you don't have depth, you still don't win (hello, Oilers).  Also the odds of a player from the second round becoming a top player isn't actually a massive amount less than a mid-first rounder.  It's a bit more of a crapshoot. 

 

Clearly executing a deal like this depends on your draft board, the tiers of talent you see, and what offers you get.  You wait until the last minute before pulling a deal like this on draft day.  If you've got a whole pile of guys at #10 that you think are relatively similar, and someone comes and offers you an extra good draft pick to move up, then moving down absolutely makes sense.  I don't know the statistics, but I'd be curious to see what the difference is historically between 10th overall and 19th overall picks.  Mid first rounders are 50/50 to be good NHLer's anyways, so unless you absolutely love a certain player and think he's fallen to you at #10, then trading down for an extra high pick makes a lot of sense.  In my opinion, it especially makes sense if you get a first rounder for next year in return for moving down this year.  You keep doing this year after year like the Pats and Seahawks, and all of a sudden you've got a lot of competition in lots of positions. 

['NucK™]

Value of 10OA = 565 'points' 

Value of 19OA+32OA = 610 'points'

 

http://statsportsconsulting.com/main/wp-content/uploads/Schuckers_NHL_Draftchart.pdf

 

So, contrary to initial reactions, the return is more than enough. Ottawa is unlikely to even make the deal unless they see someone they really want at 10 (after 1-9 have gone). 

[18W-40C-6W]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Seider = a big, aggressive, highly skilled, tough, D man with huge upside.  If he's there at 10 I'm hoping JB runs to the stage to draft him.  

And as importantly a RD

[18W-40C-6W]

32 minutes ago, 'NucK™ said:

Value of 10OA = 565 'points' 

Value of 19OA+32OA = 610 'points'

 

http://statsportsconsulting.com/main/wp-content/uploads/Schuckers_NHL_Draftchart.pdf

 

So, contrary to initial reactions, the return is more than enough. Ottawa is unlikely to even make the deal unless they see someone they really want at 10 (after 1-9 have gone). 

Sure but you can't take the verbatim - based on that if we give up #10 and #40 we can move up to pretty much 4th overall. I don't think Colorado does that. If they do and Byram is there, I'd do it

['NucK™]

22 minutes ago, 18W-40C-6W said:

Sure but you can't take the verbatim - based on that if we give up #10 and #40 we can move up to pretty much 4th overall. I don't think Colorado does that. If they do and Byram is there, I'd do it

Definitely not black and white but just wanted to point out that it's not so bad a deal for us as people seem to think.

 

And yes, while the chart definitely has its flaws (ex. 3OA + 4th rounder worth more than 1OA), overall it's pretty hard to find pick combinations of similar 'point' values that don't seem fair (IMO). 

[6string]

We're drafting at home, no way we ever dip further behind.

[Alflives]

 

9 minutes ago, 6string said:

We're drafting at home, no way we ever dip further behind.

We are actually going to do the opposite.

JB is going to be "Trader Jim" at the draft. 

1. JB trades Hutton to the Islanders for a third

2. JB trades Sutter + that third round pick to the Oilers for Lucic + 8 OA

Jersey selects Crappo Kakko first OA

3. JB trades 8 OA + 10 OA + Jake the snake Virtanen to the Rags for 2 OA.

We actually move up in this draft and get Jack Hughes

[Nuxfanabroad]

I'm guessing Ott takes Looch(1 mill retained) & the #8 slot!

[underrated]

47 minutes ago, Alflives said:

 

We are actually going to do the opposite.

JB is going to be "Trader Jim" at the draft. 

1. JB trades Hutton to the Islanders for a third

2. JB trades Sutter + that third round pick to the Oilers for Lucic + 8 OA

Jersey selects Crappo Kakko first OA

3. JB trades 8 OA + 10 OA + Jake the snake Virtanen to the Rags for 2 OA.

We actually move up in this draft and get Jack Hughes

I'm probably in the minority here, but I think I'd slightly rather 8th and 10th overall than Jack Hughes. 

On a team level, we already have our #1 and #2 centermen in Petey and Bo.  How does Jack fit in?  Maybe we slot Pettersson on the wing long term?  Do we move Bo down to third line center for our attempt at Crosby, Malkin, Staal (which they eventually traded because it was too expensive).  Having too many centerman is a great problem, but if we're making a massive move, and it's not even an area of need, then it might not make sense.   

Also, Hughes would have to be truly elite (like near McDavid) to warrant two top ten picks plus a young player in return.  8th overall and 10th overall combined has a ton of value.  Using the Sports Analytics chart shown earlier in this thread, 8th and 10th overall is 1200 points, compared to 2nd worth 871.  

 

It's an interesting look at previous recent draft picks of #2 vs #8 and #10. 

My opinions:
2018 - #2 Andrei Svechnikov > #8 Adam Boqvist & #10 Evan Bouchard (might be too early to fairly compare as defenseman often take longer to make the NHL)
2017 - #2 Nolan Patrick < #8 Casey Middlestadt & #10 Owen Tippett (I'd likely take Middlestadt alone over Patrick)
2016 - #2 Patrick Laine > #8 Alex Nylander & #10 Tyson Jost (Although Laine is trending the wrong direction recently)
2015 - #2 Jack Eichel < #8 Zach Werenski & #10 Mikko Rantanen (All three are great players, and Eichel is fantastic however personally I'd prefer Rantanen and Werenski over Eichel on my roster since it's two very good players instead of one. Rantanen has become elite in his own right)
2014 - #2 Sam Reinhardt < #8 William Nylander & #10 Nick Ritchie (Nylander along is the best player of the three)

Some years I'd rather the #2 pick, some years, I'd rather the #8 & #10 overall.  But overall I think #8 and #10 is more successful.  Even the years I gave to the #2, there are question marks.  Laine seems to having issues in Winnipeg, and can be streaky.  And for 2018 Boqvist and Bouchard could both still be great but it's just too early to tell.

I just think having two potential elite guys has such a higher floor (less risk) than having one player.  If that top guy doesn't pan out, then it's trouble.  Maybe this year Hughes and Kakko are so far above the rest that it's a year that it's worth making that move.  Time will tell.  In your scenario, it would mean taking on Lucic's salary, giving up the #8 and #10, and Virtanen.  That's a huge price to pay for Hughes unless he ends up a top 5 NHLer.  I wouldn't be upset at all if Benning did it, but personally I'd do the Oilers trade but not the Rangers one.

[underrated]

26 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

I'm guessing Ott takes Looch(1 mill retained) & the #8 slot!

I don't see him waiving his NTC to go to Ottawa, but I could see him doing it for Vancouver based on recent comments

[Nuxfanabroad]

2 minutes ago, underrated said:

I don't see him waiving his NTC to go to Ottawa, but I could see him doing it for Vancouver based on recent comments

It's a lengthy 3-way..we send Loui after coughing up his bonus!

 

People are underestimating OTT's drafting proficiency..they'll be dynamite again in a few yrs.

[underrated]

When I was looking through mynhldraft.net to compared #2 picks with #8 and #10 picks, it really hit me just how much of a crapshoot the draft is.  I understand that building through the draft is important because they come on Entry Level Contract's, but I'm wondering if a way better strategy to rebuilding is trading those high draft picks for players around 22-25 years old, when you know who pans out and who doesn't.  

 

What made me really think most about this, is look at the 2012 draft.  It was particularly bad, but this is about the length of time that we really know if people pan out or not.  Of the 30 picks, I'd say there are only 2 top players (Morgan Reilly, 5th overall, Vasilevski, 19th overall).  There are a handful of good, but not elite players, like Galchenyuk (#3), Lindholm (#6), Dumba (#7), Trouba (#9), Filip Forsberg (#11 - best of this category), Hertl (#17), Teravainen (#18).  There were a few other average NHLer's.  The top two picks of Yakupov and Murray were busts (Murray is okay, but not #2 material).

Even looking at the Canucks, we clearly won the lottery with Pettersson at #5, but also picked Juolevi at #5.  Think of what type of NHLer we could have got for that 5th overall pick in a trade?

[Putgolzin]

40 minutes ago, underrated said:

When I was looking through mynhldraft.net to compared #2 picks with #8 and #10 picks, it really hit me just how much of a crapshoot the draft is.  I understand that building through the draft is important because they come on Entry Level Contract's, but I'm wondering if a way better strategy to rebuilding is trading those high draft picks for players around 22-25 years old, when you know who pans out and who doesn't.  

 

What made me really think most about this, is look at the 2012 draft.  It was particularly bad, but this is about the length of time that we really know if people pan out or not.  Of the 30 picks, I'd say there are only 2 top players (Morgan Reilly, 5th overall, Vasilevski, 19th overall).  There are a handful of good, but not elite players, like Galchenyuk (#3), Lindholm (#6), Dumba (#7), Trouba (#9), Filip Forsberg (#11 - best of this category), Hertl (#17), Teravainen (#18).  There were a few other average NHLer's.  The top two picks of Yakupov and Murray were busts (Murray is okay, but not #2 material).

Even looking at the Canucks, we clearly won the lottery with Pettersson at #5, but also picked Juolevi at #5.  Think of what type of NHLer we could have got for that 5th overall pick in a trade?

Or think about what we gave up for the 9th overall to get Horvat.

We have the 10th overall this year, so pretty much the same. If we could get a stud who is still early-ish in their career and trending towards better like Schneider was at that point - I'd probably do it. 

Who would that be? 

[CaptainLinden16]

3 hours ago, underrated said:

I like where the thought is coming from with the original post.  This is the New England Patriots draft strategy.  The Seahawks often do this too.  They're two of the perennial great franchises.  Clearly the NHL and NFL aren't exact parallels in forming a roster, and there are other factors that make New England and Seattle great (ie coaching), but I think this draft strategy makes so much sense in every sport except basketball.   Basketball is it all about high end talent, and getting that top player, even if you sacrifice the rest of your roster.  Football and hockey are not that way.  High end talent is great, but if you don't have depth, you still don't win (hello, Oilers).  Also the odds of a player from the second round becoming a top player isn't actually a massive amount less than a mid-first rounder.  It's a bit more of a crapshoot. 

 

Clearly executing a deal like this depends on your draft board, the tiers of talent you see, and what offers you get.  You wait until the last minute before pulling a deal like this on draft day.  If you've got a whole pile of guys at #10 that you think are relatively similar, and someone comes and offers you an extra good draft pick to move up, then moving down absolutely makes sense.  I don't know the statistics, but I'd be curious to see what the difference is historically between 10th overall and 19th overall picks.  Mid first rounders are 50/50 to be good NHLer's anyways, so unless you absolutely love a certain player and think he's fallen to you at #10, then trading down for an extra high pick makes a lot of sense.  In my opinion, it especially makes sense if you get a first rounder for next year in return for moving down this year.  You keep doing this year after year like the Pats and Seahawks, and all of a sudden you've got a lot of competition in lots of positions. 

The NFL and NHL Are completely different.  18 year old versus 21 year old.  A sport that is predominantly physical versus a sport that is predominantly technical.  Add in the continuous non-scripted nature and you get a much more cerebral requirement from all NHL participants versus pre-designed execution of most NFL outside of QB and maybe MLB/FS.  

 

in the NFL 5th round picks regularly play in their rookie year.  In the NHL look it up.  This happens once every 3 years.  

 

You trade down in the NFL to upgrade position with players who can play now who are as developed as they are going to get.  In the NHL you don't because at 17 years old you know almost nothing about these players.  They all significantly change between year 1 and 5.

[CaptainLinden16]

47 minutes ago, underrated said:

When I was looking through mynhldraft.net to compared #2 picks with #8 and #10 picks, it really hit me just how much of a crapshoot the draft is.  I understand that building through the draft is important because they come on Entry Level Contract's, but I'm wondering if a way better strategy to rebuilding is trading those high draft picks for players around 22-25 years old, when you know who pans out and who doesn't.  

 

What made me really think most about this, is look at the 2012 draft.  It was particularly bad, but this is about the length of time that we really know if people pan out or not.  Of the 30 picks, I'd say there are only 2 top players (Morgan Reilly, 5th overall, Vasilevski, 19th overall).  There are a handful of good, but not elite players, like Galchenyuk (#3), Lindholm (#6), Dumba (#7), Trouba (#9), Filip Forsberg (#11 - best of this category), Hertl (#17), Teravainen (#18).  There were a few other average NHLer's.  The top two picks of Yakupov and Murray were busts (Murray is okay, but not #2 material).

Even looking at the Canucks, we clearly won the lottery with Pettersson at #5, but also picked Juolevi at #5.  Think of what type of NHLer we could have got for that 5th overall pick in a trade?

I have been harping on this for years on this board!  The NHL draft is a complete crap shoot.  I would trade my draft picks almost every year unless I really wanted someone or had a top 3 pick.

 

Roope Hintz, Ryan Poehling, Adrian Kempe, Vladislav Gavrikov, Jakub Vrana

 

None of them are untouchables.  You dont have to give up Elias, Boeser or Horvat for them; but you take a shot on one of these guys being a star.  You know 100% that they are NHL quality.  Not a crap shoot like the draft.  100% each would be available for a 10th or even something less.  

 

I would go for trades like that all day.  Benning to a certain extent has.  Thats what Baertschi was in his eyes.  

[IBatch]

5 hours ago, 5nothincanucksohno said:

I haven't seen Seider ranked anywhere below #19 but I might have missed something. Obviously depends on who is available at #10 but I would rather have Seider (who I think has huge upside) and Honka/Thomson over Soderstrom or Caufield.

 

If BoldyPodkolzin/etc. slip to #10 then taking the pick might be better.

THN has him at 22, ISS at 21 right around where Broberg has slipped to.  He’s big and a shoots right which is a plus, it’s hard to know where this years top defenseman will end up, personally after last draft I find them a little underwhelming.   Byram has big upside...I’d be curious to know where he’d line up with last years crop though..before Hughes?  After?   

 

Id be ok with another defenseman as our first pick, but hopefully only if it’s Bennings BPA given the high end crop of forwards that will still be on the board.  

[CaptainLinden16]

1 hour ago, underrated said:

I'm probably in the minority here, but I think I'd slightly rather 8th and 10th overall than Jack Hughes. 

On a team level, we already have our #1 and #2 centermen in Petey and Bo.  How does Jack fit in?  Maybe we slot Pettersson on the wing long term?  Do we move Bo down to third line center for our attempt at Crosby, Malkin, Staal (which they eventually traded because it was too expensive).  Having too many centerman is a great problem, but if we're making a massive move, and it's not even an area of need, then it might not make sense.   

Also, Hughes would have to be truly elite (like near McDavid) to warrant two top ten picks plus a young player in return.  8th overall and 10th overall combined has a ton of value.  Using the Sports Analytics chart shown earlier in this thread, 8th and 10th overall is 1200 points, compared to 2nd worth 871.  

 

It's an interesting look at previous recent draft picks of #2 vs #8 and #10. 

My opinions:
2018 - #2 Andrei Svechnikov > #8 Adam Boqvist & #10 Evan Bouchard (might be too early to fairly compare as defenseman often take longer to make the NHL)
2017 - #2 Nolan Patrick < #8 Casey Middlestadt & #10 Owen Tippett (I'd likely take Middlestadt alone over Patrick)
2016 - #2 Patrick Laine > #8 Alex Nylander & #10 Tyson Jost (Although Laine is trending the wrong direction recently)
2015 - #2 Jack Eichel < #8 Zach Werenski & #10 Mikko Rantanen (All three are great players, and Eichel is fantastic however personally I'd prefer Rantanen and Werenski over Eichel on my roster since it's two very good players instead of one. Rantanen has become elite in his own right)
2014 - #2 Sam Reinhardt < #8 William Nylander & #10 Nick Ritchie (Nylander along is the best player of the three)

Some years I'd rather the #2 pick, some years, I'd rather the #8 & #10 overall.  But overall I think #8 and #10 is more successful.  Even the years I gave to the #2, there are question marks.  Laine seems to having issues in Winnipeg, and can be streaky.  And for 2018 Boqvist and Bouchard could both still be great but it's just too early to tell.

I just think having two potential elite guys has such a higher floor (less risk) than having one player.  If that top guy doesn't pan out, then it's trouble.  Maybe this year Hughes and Kakko are so far above the rest that it's a year that it's worth making that move.  Time will tell.  In your scenario, it would mean taking on Lucic's salary, giving up the #8 and #10, and Virtanen.  That's a huge price to pay for Hughes unless he ends up a top 5 NHLer.  I wouldn't be upset at all if Benning did it, but personally I'd do the Oilers trade but not the Rangers one.

2017 is kind of a funny one.  I think all 3 are bustish right now.  Definitely and easily Laine.  He can do things that almost no one else in the NHL can with his shot except Ovechkin.  Thats super easy especially consdier Alex Nylander has done nothing and Jost was a ghost in the playoffs.  The Eichel one is the toughest but I think I still take Eichel.  I take Reinhardt over Nylander and Ritchie.  Ritchie has been poor and Nylader is invisible in the playoffs on a bad contract.  I really like Boqvist, so I am tempted to say Bouchard and Boqvist; but this one needs a couple more years to say who won out definitively.

 

I do think I would take the 2 over 8 and 10.  Game 7 2 minutes left down by one I want the best player on the ice to be on my team.  There is only one puck.  I want Laine/Eichel shooting that puck.

[CaptainLinden16]

20 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

I have been harping on this for years on this board!  The NHL draft is a complete crap shoot.  I would trade my draft picks almost every year unless I really wanted someone or had a top 3 pick.

 

Roope Hintz, Ryan Poehling, Adrian Kempe, Vladislav Gavrikov, Jakub Vrana

 

None of them are untouchables.  You dont have to give up Elias, Boeser or Horvat for them; but you take a shot on one of these guys being a star.  You know 100% that they are NHL quality.  Not a crap shoot like the draft.  100% each would be available for a 10th or even something less.  

 

I would go for trades like that all day.  Benning to a certain extent has.  Thats what Baertschi was in his eyes.  

I would easily do Goldobin + 10 for Vrana +25 (Vrana reminds me a lot of Naslund)

10 + Baertschi for 18 + Hintz (this guy has an unbelievable shot and does a lot well otherwise unlike Laine)

10 + 2nd or Gaudette for Poehling + 15 (a force of a hockey player)

Hutton + 3rd for Kempe (this one is hard to value as he is more of a middle six guy who will be a playoff beast)

2nd + 3rd for Gavrikov (skates very well, has size, great handling the puck)

 

All plausible trades.