Confirmed with Link: [VAN/VGK] Canucks acquire D Nate Schmidt for a 3rd in 2022

[m9]

Yes, for one of the possibilities (Canucks missing the playoffs).
Go google articles that reported the trade - the majority will call it a conditional 1st because of the conditions attached to it. Calling it anything else is stupid since it doesn't accurately represent the contingencies of the pick. Just another classic bandy argument based on misleading semantics of a fringe point.

Yes, it can be described as a conditional pick as well. What is the condition? That it is PROTECTED in 2020.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Of course they are . Let's go with that, instead of journalists having a firm grasp on the English language and knowing what conditional means.

Again, I'm not actually disputing their description. i'm saying the pick wasn't unprotected.

 

[Blue and Green]

This discussion is nothing more than semantics. Call it conditional, call it protected, it doesn't matter, what matters is the projected future pick value based on calculations of the pick-trading team's likelihood of ending up in a particular place in the draft order for any conditional years plus the unconditional year. The 1st-round pick in the Miller trade included a playoff protection/condition for one year that somewhat reduced its projected value.

 

[bandwagonesque]

If the 1st round pick for Miller had ended up being the first overall pick in the '21 draft, would you still insist it was a "protected" pick?

If it had ended up being 30th, would you call it protected? Where the pick ended up after the protection elapsed has no bearing on whether it was a protected pick. If you don't understand this, you don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[bandwagonesque]

This discussion is nothing more than semantics. Call it conditional, call it protected, it doesn't matter, what matters is the projected future pick value based on calculations of the pick-trading team's likelihood of ending up in a particular place in the draft order for any conditional years plus the unconditional year. The 1st-round pick in the Miller trade included a playoff protection/condition for one year that somewhat reduced its projected value.

I agree completely.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Yes, it can be described as a conditional pick as well. What is the condition? That it is PROTECTED in 2020.

And unprotected in 2021. Don't get me wrong, I understand your position and it makes sense to me. I'm not purposefully being difficult here. I just think it's a poor description since it doesn't account for the scenario where they could have given up an unprotected first (because they protected their 2020 1st...but that protection expires for the 2021 pick, so they're not giving up a protected 1st in 2021). Like if the Canucks ended up missing the playoffs and got a lottery pick, you probably wouldn't have said they gave up a protected 1st, right? Personally, I like definitions that can be easily explained and account for all possible scenarios, which is why a conditional 1st is the only fair way of describing the pick without attaching all these qualifiers to it.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

If it had ended up being 30th, would you call it protected? Where the pick ended up after the protection elapsed has no bearing on whether it was a protected pick. If you don't understand this, you don't understand what you're talking about.

Here's an easy scenario that I think gets to the root of it.
The Canucks miss the playoffs > 2020 1st round pick is protected (but they're not giving it up) > 2021 1st round pick has no protection and is forfeited. They give up an unprotected 1st in 2021 as a result. That is the condition attached to it. Hence "conditional pick."

 

[m9]

And unprotected in 2021. Don't get me wrong, I understand your position and it makes sense to me. I'm not purposefully being difficult here. I just think it's a poor description since it doesn't account for the scenario where they could have given up an unprotected first (because they protected their 2020 1st...but that protection expires for the 2021 pick). Like if the Canucks ended up missing the playoffs and got a lottery pick, you probably wouldn't have said they gave up a protected 1st, right? Personally, I like definitions that can be easily explained and account for all possible scenarios, which is why a conditional 1st is the only fair way of describing the pick without attaching all these qualifiers to it.

Whenever these type of trades are described in the media they talk about trading "a lottery-protected pick in 2020 that becomes unprotected in 2021".

So yes, if they missed the playoffs in 2020 they would have traded an unprotected 1st. But they didn't, which is why terming it that way (which is what started this conversation) is incorrect.

 

[Javaman]

If it had ended up being 30th, would you call it protected? Where the pick ended up after the protection elapsed has no bearing on whether it was a protected pick. If you don't understand this, you don't understand what you're talking about.

So snippy!

I see you avoided answering my question. If the protection elapsed, then it seems pretty clear that it's no longer a protected pick. Miller for a 1OA and a 3rd is a very different trade than Miller for a 20OA and a third.

Benning gambled and won. Reminds of the time I was playing poker with some buddies and the short stack went all in. I was the small blind and had pocket kings, so obviously I called. Buddy beat me with a 7-2 offsuit. That's how I view the Miller trade -- Benning won with a 7-2 offsuit.

Can't we all just agree it was "conditionally protected"?

 

[bandwagonesque]

So snippy!

I see you avoided answering my question. If the protection elapsed, then it seems pretty clear that it's no longer a protected pick.

Again -- it doesn't make any sense to refer to whichever of the two picks was eventually award as protected or unprotected. The pick itself, when traded, was lottery-protected for one year.

 

[m9]

Again -- it doesn't make any sense to refer to whichever of the two picks was eventually award as protected or unprotected. The pick itself, when traded, was lottery-protected for one year.

This isn't correct terminology if you are going by media/journalists as you previously suggested. The pick would be termed as "lottery protected in 2020 that becomes unprotected in 2021".

 

[bandwagonesque]

This isn't correct terminology if you are going by media/journalists as you previously suggested. The pick would be termed as "lottery protected in 2020 that becomes unprotected in 2021".

You may have a point, but if any pick that eventually conveys to the other team no matter what is unprotected when that finally happens, then the general term "protected pick" doesn't mean anything. The post I originally took issue with simply said it was traded as an unprotected pick, which isn't true. It was often described this way at the time of the trade too, and it seemed to me it was by people who knew better and were trying to sensationalize the trade, and I think it's still happening to some extent, and it's an exemplar of a wider variety of minor but purposeful untruths that have become habitual around here and simply get dismissed as "sematics" when anyone points them out.

 

[Javaman]

You may have a point, but if any pick that eventually conveys to the other team no matter what is unprotected when that finally happens, then the general term "protected pick" doesn't mean anything. The post I originally took issue with simply said it was traded as an unprotected pick, which isn't true. It was often described this way at the time of the trade too, and it seemed to me it was by people who knew better and were trying to sensationalize the trade, and I think it's still happening to some extent, and it's an exemplar of a wider variety of minor but purposeful untruths that have become habitual around here and simply get dismissed as "sematics" when anyone points them out.

Have you considered the possibility that your perception is either biased or simply wrong and unfair?

 

[bandwagonesque]

Have you considered the possibility that your perception is either biased or simply wrong and unfair?

My perception of why someone is saying something that isn't true isn't very important.

 

[F A N]

Whenever these type of trades are described in the media they talk about trading "a lottery-protected pick in 2020 that becomes unprotected in 2021".

So yes, if they missed the playoffs in 2020 they would have traded an unprotected 1st. But they didn't, which is why terming it that way (which is what started this conversation) is incorrect.

I fully agree with you. The Canucks' 1st round pick in the Miller trade is considered "protected" because the Canucks get to keep the pick if it's a lottery pick. That's the normal and common usage. If the trade involved the Canucks giving a 1st round pick when it is not a lottery pick (which could be say 100 years) then that's still not a "protected" pick? That simply doesn't reflect common usage.

 

[Javaman]

My perception of why someone is saying something that isn't true isn't very important.

That's a "no" to my question then. Okay, got it. Thank you for your answer.

 

[tradervik]

Can't replace "Dad" Tanev but I think Schmidt can be the zany uncle.