Value of: #1 Overall Pick from Rangers - Open to trade? What kind of trade would it take?

[Polar Bear]

Teams say things publicly as a strategy to better help their future position. In other words, they are not being completely truthful. I do believe Ottawa would trade 3 and 5 to get a French Canadian potential star player - even though he’s a winger.
I also believe the Rangers would happily accept such a deal too. Deals like this happen on the draft floor, so anything the teams say until then is of little to no actual value.

Again, multiple team reports confirmed we’d not accept 3 and 5, so regardless of what you might feel, it’s just not true. Second, your owners just said they aren’t moving your picks so, yes, this is now an irrelevant possibility. Haha

And trading the first overall pick hasn’t happened in the salary cap era, nor will it likely ever happen, and certainly not on the damn draft floor.

 

[Levitate]

Admittedly, it is kind of funny seeing Rangers fans up in arms about what they see as an unreasonable proposal when the narrative from them this entire thread has been, well, unreasonable proposals.

I mean from all indications it would take an unreasonable proposal in the Rangers favor to get them to trade the pick.

So is this thread about "what would it legitimately take for the Rangers to consider this" or is it about "what would fans on this board like to see"

The Rangers aren't trading the pick unless they get an insane offer. They aren't trading the pick for depth, they aren't trading it for a 2C and a late round pick, or a top 4 LD. They aren't trading the pick just for some spare parts and draft picks that you (a general you) think your team could part with and not take a hit.

Yeah the #3, 5, and Tkachuk is ridiculous. Ottawa would never do it. But that's most likely the kind of package it would take. Since that is very unlikely, it's also very unlikely the pick is going to be traded despite what people on here might think of as "fair"

e: I think the Rangers might carefully consider the #3 and 5 for the #1 but it basically would depend on how they view the players available in those ranges. They might not like Byfield all that much, do they like Stutzle enough to take him at 3? And after that, is the #5 enough to make up for the drop in quality from #1 to #3?
Sometimes quantity isn't what you need even if it's pretty high value quantity

 

[Fatass]

Again, multiple team reports confirmed we’d not accept 3 and 5, so regardless of what you might feel, it’s just not true. Second, your owners just said they aren’t moving your picks so, yes, this is now an irrelevant possibility. Haha

And trading the first overall pick hasn’t happened in the salary cap era, nor will it likely ever happen, and certainly not on the damn draft floor.

First I’m not a fan of either team. You have opinion, as do others. The likelihood of such a trade happening is low for sure, so (as a Ranger fan) I don’t think you need to worry it will. However teams absolutely will not be truthful with their draft plans. The last time a trade fir 1OA was (if I’m remembering right) in 1999 - The Sedin draft. And that happened on the draft floor.

 

[Perennial]

First I’m not a fan of either team. You have opinion, as do others. The likelihood of such a trade happening is low for sure, so (as a Ranger fan) I don’t think you need to worry it will. However teams absolutely will not be truthful with their draft plans. The last time a trade fir 1OA was (if I’m remembering right) in 1999 - The Sedin draft. And that happened on the draft floor.

Fleury's draft year...

To Pittsburgh: #1, #73

To Florida: #3, #55, Mikael Samuelsson

 

[blinkman360]

Couple things to unpack here.
Generational is a word that gets thrown around a lot. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn’t. Generational or not. Lafreniere is the best 1OA pick since Matthews. Still pretty good.

Also on your 1 vs 3&5 points. I think you missed something.

On the majority of deals you are referencing; where you would choose 3&5, The deal was won because of who was picked at 3 OR 5.

Huberdeau > RNH, without Strome
Rielly > Yakupov, without Galchenyuk
Draisaitl > Ekblad without Dal Colle

Only 2017 looks REALLY badly but that’s because the Devils choose the wrong guy. Which brings me to my last point that another thing that all of those for 3&5 deals have in common is that there was not a consensus #1 player that year, except maybe Ekblad. Lafreniere is a consensus #1. Maybe you can argue Yakupov was a consensus top pick (although I never was a fan personally) but no one else was. 2012 and 2014 were rough draft years.

So if the logic is you can’t do 3&5 because you are going to get two incredible players instead of one; I’d say the evidence doesn’t really show that. The draft is still an educated crapshoot.

I think the point you’re accidentally making though is that, with picks 3 and 5, your chances of hitting a stud are increased. One could bust but as long as you hit on one, the trade will probably be worth it. Unfortunately though if you are dealing away Laf, you’re going to need to hit on both for it to look good in the end.

That said, who the hell really knows with Laf. Sure, some of those 1sts who flopped never had crazy hype, but I do remember Yakupov getting Bure comps before that draft. Hindsight skews but I’m pretty sure he was considered to be on a similar tier to Laf now.

 

[bernmeister]

But I don't care what the Rangers are looking for...

This isn't a negotiation...

It may not be a negotiation if you do not want to entertain freedom of speech and competition of ideas, but I guarantee you it will NOT be an exercise in capitulation, either.

You should be free to make any prop you want, reasonable or unreasonable.
Doesn't mean the other side has to agree w/you, esp if your premise is unreasonable.

You are adamant about a fair value trade.
NY has zero reason/incentive to go there.
Only crazy profit is something that will be considered.

Now you can let it go, or NY fans who have time [I don't] can refute you constantly going forward.

They're incapable of being impartial?

We are capable of being impartial.

That has nothing to do with NYR fans exercising our right to any return that we think is insufficient vs what LaF brings, even if on paper, it is a substantial offer.

LaF is exp dr exempt
beginning elc
and projects to be a real scorer/sniper/finisher.
we need him.

He's not going for less than a crazy haul too good to pass up.

 

[Polar Bear]

First I’m not a fan of either team. You have opinion, as do others. The likelihood of such a trade happening is low for sure, so (as a Ranger fan) I don’t think you need to worry it will. However teams absolutely will not be truthful with their draft plans. The last time a trade fir 1OA was (if I’m remembering right) in 1999 - The Sedin draft. And that happened on the draft floor.

You can not compare a first overall trade to the salary cap era. It’s totally different worlds. And again, you’re right that I can’t say for sure. However, I will still stick with our team reporters who have good information when they say they wouldn’t accept 3 and 5. And once more, this debate is fruitless ever since what Melnyk said a few hours ago.

 

[Fatass]

Fleury's draft year...

To Pittsburgh: #1, #73

To Florida: #3, #55, Mikael Samuelsson

Thanks for the information. That sure doesn’t seem like much to get 1OA.

 

[Levitate]

You can not compare a first overall trade to the salary cap era. It’s totally different worlds. And again, you’re right that I can’t say for sure. However, I will still stick with our team reporters who have good information when they say they wouldn’t accept 3 and 5. And once more, this debate is fruitless ever since what Melnyk said a few hours ago.

Yeah honestly when Burke was going on about how "no one wants to trade high picks anymore because of how awesome a job I did of it!" I had to roll my eyes because the way the league values draft picks and how it works under a cap system is just way different than it was 2 decades ago

 

[Levitate]

Thanks for the information. That sure doesn’t seem like much to get 1OA.

Also almost 2 decades ago at this point. Kind of fascinating trade though, I remember Horton and Staal were kind of neck and neck for top forward but fascinating that Fleury was picked first and Pittsburgh traded up for it. Florida or Carolina must have been throwing out huge vibes that they wanted Fleury as well, jsut weird to see a trade up to #1 to pick a goalie. I don't really remember what rumors were flying around at the time

 

[Polar Bear]

Thanks for the information. That sure doesn’t seem like much to get 1OA.

Totally different era though. It’s not comparable to the world we live in now.

 

[Hockeyplayer99]

3-way deal...

New York out: #1, #23, Smith, Lundqvist
New York in: Kotkaniemi, Domi, Fowler

Montreal out: #16, Kotkaniemi, Domi
Montreal in: Lafreniere, Smith

Anaheim out: Fowler
Anaheim in: #16, #23, Lundqvist (bought-out so he can re-sign with New York for the league minimum)


New York comes away with Domi, Kotkaniemi and Fowler, all for the low, low price of a couple of picks and cap dumps...

Montreal get the hometown winger with all-star potential...

Anaheim get a couple of 1st round picks for their rebuild...


Or Anaheim could be removed completely...

To New York: #16, Kotkaniemi, Domi

To Montreal: #1, Smith or Lundqvist or both

How about Rangers give Montral the Carolina pick, , Lundavist, Staal and Smith and you give us
Kotkaniemi, Domi, pick 16

Rangers would get; Kotkaniemi, Domi and #16
Rangers lose: Carolina 1st and Staal, Lundgvist, Smith
Montreal Gets: Carolina first and Lundgvist,Smith and Staal
Montreal lose: Kotkaniemi, Domi, pick 16

Montreal would have a good goalie tandem

 

[Perennial]

It may not be a negotiation if you do not want to entertain freedom of speech and competition of ideas, but I guarantee you it will NOT be an exercise in capitulation, either.

You should be free to make any prop you want, reasonable or unreasonable.
Doesn't mean the other side has to agree w/you, esp if your premise is unreasonable.

You are adamant about a fair value trade.
NY has zero reason/incentive to go there.
Only crazy profit is something that will be considered.

Now you can let it go, or NY fans who have time [I don't] can refute you constantly going forward.




We are capable of being impartial.

That has nothing to do with NYR fans exercising our right to any return that we think is insufficient vs what LaF brings, even if on paper, it is a substantial offer.

LaF is exp dr exempt
beginning elc
and projects to be a real scorer/sniper/finisher.
we need him.

He's not going for less than a crazy haul too good to pass up.

That's just it though... we seem to differ on what a "crazy haul too good to pass up" actually is...

And for some reason, some Rangers fans are insistent that I bow to their valuation at the expense of my own...

With that said, I wasn't taking the expansion draft into account when concocting these proposals, so it's possible some of them wouldn't be advisable with that consideration..

 

[Perennial]

How about Rangers give Montral the Carolina pick, , Lundavist, Staal and Smith and you give us
Kotkaniemi, Domi, pick 16

Rangers would get; Kotkaniemi, Domi and #16
Rangers lose: Carolina 1st and Staal, Lundgvist, Smith
Montreal Gets: Carolina first and Lundgvist,Smith and Staal
Montreal lose: Kotkaniemi, Domi, pick 16

Montreal would have a good goalie tandem

You should definitely create a new thread for that proposal...

 

[Fatass]

Totally different era though. It’s not comparable to the world we live in now.

Agreed. The flat cap era increases the value of draft picks, especially the high ones.

 

[The don godfather]

I bet if bruins offer rangers McAvoy straight up for 1st overall they listen. McAvoy is about to become the next Scott Stevens for 15 yrs.

 

[Savant]

I think the point you’re accidentally making though is that, with picks 3 and 5, your chances of hitting a stud are increased. One could bust but as long as you hit on one, the trade will probably be worth it. Unfortunately though if you are dealing away Laf, you’re going to need to hit on both for it to look good in the end.

That said, who the hell really knows with Laf. Sure, some of those 1sts who flopped never had crazy hype, but I do remember Yakupov getting Bure comps before that draft. Hindsight skews but I’m pretty sure he was considered to be on a similar tier to Laf now.

I mean, I guess you can look at it that way but I don’t think a GM is trading 1 for 3 and 5 because of needed a contingency plan.

you’d rather have one $50 bill that two $20 bills right?

 

[topshelf15]

Congrats on winning NY,and dont trade that pick....

 

[SRHRangers]

As a Rangers fan, I do not want to deal the pick. To make me change my mind, would need a Godfather offer.

I do see this opening up the idea of dealing Kratsov, Buch, maybe even Chytil

 

[TGWL]

As a NYR fan who doesn't want to trade the #1 pick, an offer of #3, #5, and Brady would get an insane overpayment I couldn't turn down

 

[Bacon Artemi Bravo]

The Rangers deep prospect pool does not make the #1 overall more available, getting the #1 overall makes the rest of the pool outside of the #1 more available.

The Rangers have a relatively large quantity of high potential young players, they're going to keep the highest quality. It's simple logic.

It would make zero sense for the Sen's to trade 3&5 for 1. They need quantity. It would make zero sense for the rangers to trade 1 for 3&5, they need quality. No match there.

 

[TGWL]

I bet if bruins offer rangers McAvoy straight up for 1st overall they listen. McAvoy is about to become the next Scott Stevens for 15 yrs.

I bet we "listen" and then say no. We aren't trading the #1 for our strongest position already. McAvoy being better than them isn't a reason to do that.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Admittedly, it is kind of funny seeing Rangers fans up in arms about what they see as an unreasonable proposal when the narrative from them this entire thread has been, well, unreasonable proposals.

When you hold the asset, you can be “unreasonable”.

 

[Pinto Bean]

When you hold the asset, you can be “unreasonable”.

The other teams are holding assets as well

 

[blinkman360]

I mean, I guess you can look at it that way but I don’t think a GM is trading 1 for 3 and 5 because of needed a contingency plan.

you’d rather have one $50 bill that two $20 bills right?

Sure, if these prospects were as sure of a thing as that - which they rarely are. 2017 would have been the equivalent of trading a 50 for two 100s. That’s kind of the point though - risk vs reward.