MS said:
In principle I agree with you. If there's a guy in the first couple rounds you really want, it's usually worth sacrificing later picks to get it done.
But situations where teams are only dropping one draft slot are different cases. The team trading down is essentially bluffing and playing on the other team's anxiety over getting the player they want. Savard should have had the patience and common sense to realize that if Edmonton was willing to drop a spot for as little as he was, that Lowe was going off the board with his pick, that Higgins would still be available
A logical explanation, but done after the fact. The rest is speculation. It is because Savard secured the pick that things turned the way they did. But who is to say Edmonton wouldn't have traded down further had Savard not moved?
It is a speculation I find as valid as the one you you suggest. It's really all up in the air.
We can even speculate further. If The Oilers *really* wanted to go off the board, why did they drop only one spot? Truly, I find their behavior in that deal (if we want to enter the speculative realm) WAY more erratic and fruitless.
They're going to drop one position, secure a garbage pick so they can draft some loser who should go in round 3? That doesn't sound like something logical to me.
Really, I think you are looking at this deal taking hindsight heavily into account. Because what dropping one spot lower suggests is that you want to be VERY close to where you are.
I've done countless drafts and if I feel pressured to move up, it's usually because I am dead set on a player and see no more options I like enough. Now, granted, I can't understand why the Habs felt that way (there were damn nice players still available, more than one) but hey, they felt that way.
As for the Oilers (still on the speculative track, here) I can't understand why they moved down only one spot. They sure fooled the Habs but accomplished little, got a garbage pick and made a selection that seems underwhelming so far.
Truthfully, no, I can't say I would have known for sure Higgins would be available. Speculations aside, the fact he was willing to move down for as little as an 8th rounder is more indicative to me that they were only trading down one spot. That Lowe was comfortable getting any of TWO players (at least) while Savard was only comfortable getting one player.
MS said:
What Niinimaki and Higgins accomplish in their careers is irrelevant, really. Both would have ended up with the same teams had the deal not been made, and whether they succeed or fail has nothing to do with the base elements of the deal. Edmonton got a free 8th round pick, Montreal gave up an 8th round pick for no real reason.
I don't understand this. They move up and get the pick so that nobody else can pick there. Seems very logical to me. Again, the rest is pure speculation, which I think you are looking at in hindsight.
I can understand if you like gambling. I don't. I've been in dozens of drafts (I'm sure you have to) and have been surprised so often that I consider it extremely futile to try and predict how things will go.
If I have two players left on my list and I am next picking, and the guy just behind me is anxious, I'm going to offer him a similar swap. It's no trick or anything. There's no wizardry.
Yeah, in that case, it appears Lowe had his sight on a different player, a much less "popular" player. He sure fooled Savard but that's only because he took the wrong approach. If he really wanted to go off the board, he needed to hunt a trade partner with an off-the-board ranked pick.
As it is, once the smokescreen is off, it looks like Savard secured his player for a garbage pick.
I don't see this as a panic move. I see this as pocket change for piece of mind. But that's me