Toggle sidebar

Value of: Blackhawks moving up into top10

majormajor

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
24,635
29,339
I'm not sure they'll be a taker for that trade, given how this draft seems to have a dropoff around pick 12-14.

But based on past trades, including the ones listed above, I actually do think it's potentially possible. I'm also remembering the Coyotes recently moving up from #27, #34, and #45 for pick #11 to take Conor Geekie. So generically a similar trade would be #20, #34, and #58 for pick #9 or #10.
 
Rorschach

Rorschach

Who the f*** is Trevor Moore?
Oct 9, 2006
11,269
1,837
Los Angeles
Personally looking at the current Chicago roster for young players and prospects, I think they'd be much better off with 4 high-ish picks than 1 top 10 pick that isn't top 4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crow and featherhawk
Dr Jan Itor

Dr Jan Itor

Registered User
Dec 10, 2009
45,279
20,219
MinneSNOWta
Brodeur said:
Probably not as high as you'd think. Trading down for multiple picks makes more sense in the NFL than it does for the NHL. NHL teams will generally only trade down (in the first round) if they think they can safely move down and still land their intended target. So usually you don't see teams move down more than a handful of slots.

One possible horror story was Anaheim in 2008. They had emptied out their farm system in winning the Cup in 2007, so they thought they had an opportunity to restock their prospect cupboard. They had pick #12 and apparently really liked Erik Karlsson. They thought they could trade down and still land Karlsson.

They traded #12 for #17 and #28. Then later traded #28 for #35 and #39. According to most draft pick value charts, Anaheim knocked it out of the park. But Ottawa traded up from #18 to snipe Karlsson at #15.

Anaheim's opportunity cost of Karlsson netted them Jake Gardiner, Nicolas Deschamps, and Eric O'Dell. Something like that might be why most teams would rather stay put rather than risk it for garden variety 2nd rounders.

Post-lockout examples:

2006: Montreal traded #16 to San Jose for #20 and #53.

2007: Anaheim traded #16 to Minnesota for #19 and #42.

2008: Nashville traded #15 to Ottawa for #18 and #70

2009: Minnesota traded #12 to NY Islanders for #16, #77, and #181

2010: Florida traded #15 to Los Angeles for #19 and #59

2012: Calgary traded #14 to Buffalo for #21 and #42 -- rough draft and Calgary was targeting Mark Jankowski

2013: Detroit traded #18 to San Jose for #20 and #58

2021: Dallas traded #15 to Detroit for #23, #48, and #138. Edmonton traded #20 to Minnesota for #22 and #90. -- In both cases Dallas/Edmonton got their intended targets.
Click to expand...
My God... we traded up to draft Colton Gillies?!?
 
Brodeur

Brodeur

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
26,092
15,722
San Diego
Dr Jan Itor said:
My God... we traded up to draft Colton Gillies?!?
Click to expand...

i_hug_that_feel.png


-----------

Had some draft floor compilation stuff pop up in my YouTube feed. Had my memory jogged that in 2019 Vegas offered #17 and a third (unspecified if #79 or #87) for #15 and Montreal declined so they could take Cole Caufield. Montreal didn't try to counteroffer, they were content to stay put. I think Vegas was targeting Peyton Krebs who they got at #17 anyways.

Just another example that the fish can refuse the proverbial bait.
 
Last edited:

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
26,091
9,682
majormajor said:
I'm not sure they'll be a taker for that trade, given how this draft seems to have a dropoff around pick 12-14.

But based on past trades, including the ones listed above, I actually do think it's potentially possible. I'm also remembering the Coyotes recently moving up from #27, #34, and #45 for pick #11 to take Conor Geekie. So generically a similar trade would be #20, #34, and #58 for pick #9 or #10.
Click to expand...
2 things needed to line up. Coyotes having the extra picks, which CHI does have and SJ sorely lacking picks having acquiring EK and making a lot of win now moves.

I mean, just looking at the top 10,
SJ, Chi, Ana, Cbs, AZ, Mon, Ott are your bottom 7.
I don't see any of the other 6 looking to add more prospects to their pool by moving out from the top 7. Those clubs have been at the bottom for a couple of years now, so quantity isn't what they are seeking.

So, down to 8-10 picks.

SEA, PItt, Cal, Buff, NJ hold slots 8-12 currently.

Sea, I think they bet on the higher pick turning out than 20 and the extra.
Pitt, No top end talent and have to decide whether to give his pick up or risk the unprotected 2025 pick to SJ.
Cal, they already have Van's 1st, so no need for them to drop to 20.
Buff, they are more of a we need guys who can help us now than adding picks.
NJ, they are better off using this pick on player or trading it for now help since Hughes is on his great 2nd contract. No real need to drop down.

So, if we talk more reality, I don't see much reason for teams to go down to 20 for additional picks.

Again, NFL vs NHL view 2nd rounders much differently when it comes to draft day trades. You're getting guys now in the NFL vs waiting 2-4 years for 2nd rounders to play. GM who trades down might not be around for those extra picks to arrive.
 

OTC

Registered User
Jul 11, 2018
417
112
Rorschach said:
Personally looking at the current Chicago roster for young players and prospects, I think they'd be much better off with 4 high-ish picks than 1 top 10 pick that isn't top 4.
Click to expand...
If Hawks player drops out of top 10: Hawks # 20 & #34 for one of #11-15
 
Satanphonehome

Satanphonehome

Registered User
Jan 4, 2015
989
1,380
I’d certainly trade a Buffalo 10-12 for that package if we could then flip the 2nds for 2 more Jordan Greenways and package the first for a good 3C
 

Warh1ppy

Registered User
Feb 14, 2018
849
913
If I'm Chicago I'm not moving those 2nds for anything especially with Bedard and an outside shot at Celebrini. That's like your Toews/Kane

For reference the Hawks in the years leading to their near decade of dominance drafted the following in the 2nd round

Keith
Crawford
Bolland
Bickell
Pirri
Saad
HM to DeBrincat in 2016

While these guys didn't all play essential or huge rolls they absolutely had value to the Hawks in those playoff runs and contributed to 3 cups in 6 years.

That depth on cheap contracts is gonna be huge for them
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
26,091
9,682
Satanphonehome said:
I’d certainly trade a Buffalo 10-12 for that package if we could then flip the 2nds for 2 more Jordan Greenways and package the first for a good 3C
Click to expand...
That's a more logical/sound strategy for Buffalo to go with given where they are. They are not in a position to add more draft picks and wait 3-4 years for them. They need to be packaging some youth to get better Now players.

Again, looking at the top 12, I don't see any team in a position that would want to just trade back and draft with those extra picks. They'd have to be in a position to use them via trade to get something for now.
 
General Fanager

General Fanager

Registered User
Feb 2, 2010
11,691
3,357
Chambly, Qc
Mrfenn92 said:
It’s a sensible thought no doubt. They need as many lotto picks as a rebuilding team needs.
Click to expand...
Well no team will say no to lottery picks but The Hawks already have a top 4 pick and their young star to build around so use the other picks and draft smart.

Within 2-3 years Chicago will be a hot UFA destination I am guessing. The Hawks rebuild wont take as long as other teams....
 
Dr Quincy

Dr Quincy

Registered User
Jun 19, 2005
28,700
10,557
dj Mahoney said:
Curious what the LA , VAN (2nd rders) and Isaak Phillips fetches ? Phillips is a real good prospect but the Blackhawks will eventually have to deal a young LD .

Isaak Phillips Hockey Stats and Profile at hockeydb.com

Statistics of Isaak Phillips, a hockey player from Barrie, ONT born Sep 28 2001 who was active from 2017 to 2024.
www.hockeydb.com
Click to expand...

Players like that don't have a ton of value: Will need waivers in Sept, late rd pick- sure he's gotten into some games in CHI but likely wouldn't have on other teams, decent progression for sure, but I'd say his value is about a 4th but I can see there being some team offering a 3rd.

No offense, but if you aren't one of the top 4 LD's on a bad team it's doubtful you are going to make a roster on better teams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom