Value of: 1st and 2nd round pick for 20-23 year old “good” prospect

[Horse McHindu]

1st and 2nd round pick for 20-23 year old “good” prospect(s).

First of all, this isn’t a specific trade proposal, and so my fellow Canuck fans can relax. :p.

Here is what I’m asking:

Pretend that you are the GM of a team, and your team is about to rebuild. So in other words, the chances of you drafting Top 5 for the next 3 years are very good.

1) Instead of using your first two picks to make selections, would it ever be advisable to trade for a “sure thing” prospect instead? (Using your 1st and 2nd round picks for said ‘sure thing’ prospect).

2) realistically, what kind of youngish player in the 20-23 age range would a lottery team realistically be able to land? (For the readers reading this, please cite some examples of players in the league).


Pros of this strategy

A) The team trading for ‘sure thing’ prospect is always guaranteed to get an immediate impact (and likely core) player for years to come.

B) You eliminate “chance.” While many top 5 picks obviously become franchise players that you can build your team around, we can’t ignore the fact that many Top 5 players also become busts.

Cons of this strategy

Not only do you miss out on getting a potential franchise superstar, but you also miss out on getting said superstar on his ELC years.

But seriously - if a lottery team drafting in the Top 5 traded its first and second round pick for a “sure thing” 20-23 year old prospect, who are some examples of said 20-23 year old prospect who’s value would be he equivalent of a 1st and 2nd round pick?

Click to read more...

 

[Horse McHindu]

I’ll throw at you another example for this year:

Winning the lottery and getting the first overall. What type of prospectS would someone get if they traded the first overall? (Dahlin). And before people answer that, think about Lindros/Forsberg from many years ago, and how that trade impacted both organizations.

 

[pmwlker]

The team that wins the first pick will run to the podium on draft day wildly yelling Dahlin Dahlin give us Dahlin.

 

[elitepete]

1st and 2nd round pick for 20-23 year old “good” prospect(s).

First of all, this isn’t a specific trade proposal, and so my fellow Canuck fans can relax. :p.

Here is what I’m asking:

Pretend that you are the GM of a team, and your team is about to rebuild. So in other words, the chances of you drafting Top 5 for the next 3 years are very good.

1) Instead of using your first two picks to make selections, would it ever be advisable to trade for a “sure thing” prospect instead? (Using your 1st and 2nd round picks for said ‘sure thing’ prospect).

2) realistically, what kind of youngish player in the 20-23 age range would a lottery team realistically be able to land? (For the readers reading this, please cite some examples of players in the league).


Pros of this strategy

A) The team trading for ‘sure thing’ prospect is always guaranteed to get an immediate impact (and likely core) player for years to come.

B) You eliminate “chance.” While many top 5 picks obviously become franchise players that you can build your team around, we can’t ignore the fact that many Top 5 players also become busts.

Cons of this strategy

Not only do you miss out on getting a potential franchise superstar, but you also miss out on getting said superstar on his ELC years.

But seriously - if a lottery team drafting in the Top 5 traded its first and second round pick for a “sure thing” 20-23 year old prospect, who are some examples of said 20-23 year old prospect who’s value would be he equivalent of a 1st and 2nd round pick?

Nope.

 

[Horse McHindu]

I realize that people’s first inclination is to say ‘no’ to this (understandably), but two things:

1) the whole point of the draft is to consistently fill the pipeline.

2) more times than not, teams are lucky to get one long term ‘core’ piece into their line-up out of the 7 picks that they draft.

So - why not just acquire good ‘sure thing’ core pieces every year, even if the opportunity cost of doing so is potentially giving up a franchise player (the other side of the coin being, that you draft a bust).

If people are searching for gold, the guy selling shovels to these guys will make more than 90% of these guys.”

Same thing - if everyone covets draft picks....esepcially around draft time when the value of draft picks are at a premium, why not sell them shovels?

Couldn’t this be a good strategy?

1) instead of attempting to fill the pipeline consistently through the draft, fill the pipeline by acquiring “good” prospects that are aged between 20-23, and then sign them to friendly long term cap hits when they become RFA’s (by the way, that’s the other thing with franchise players. Even if you draft a franchise player, these guys will have to be paid MASSIVE coin most of the time when it’s time to re-up).

2) for cheap affordable contracts, sign PTO guys instead of depending on prospects to manage the cap. PTO guys bring the experience that prospects will not.

3) when the situation calls for it, go after a franchise player via UFA.

Perhaps I’m missing some important facts/concepts here, but that’s how I see it. Fill the pipeline year in year out, but do it with ‘sure thing’ 20-23 year old prospects (using a 1st and 2nd each year), as opposed to trading 2nd and 3rds for 22-24 year old reclamation projects.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Depends on where the picks are and who is the good prospect

I will use the oiler trade from late march. Cooper Marody is view as being a good prospect and it cost the oilers a 3rd.

Would you trade a top ten pick for a good prospect for a top ten pick?

also you need to factor in whether or not the team is in a win now mode or and other stuff like that.

 

[rent free]

Kapanen

 

[Horse McHindu]

The players I have in mind for this kind of proposal are likely players that other teams wouldn’t want to give up so readily (i.e. Clayton Keller, Pierre Luc Dubois, Brandon Carlo, etc.).

I’m just wondering if a team offered something insane every year for one “sure thing” prospect that was showing signs of becoming a solid NHL player, would it be both feasible and realistic?

Again, I know I’m going into EA world here, but was just curious:

To Team #1: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th
To Team #2: Pierre Luc Dubois/Clayton Keller/Brandon Carlo caliber guy.

So every year, Team #1 would automatically offer this kind of package to another team and receive a “sure thing” prospect every year. A ‘good’ prospect that can be signed to a long term friendly cap hit when becoming an RFA. Something along those lines.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

The expectation for young players are so high now, there are few 20-23 yr old prospects. The good ones are typically already nhl players. Take for example Dylan Strome, if he was still a top 3 pick value prospect he would be in the nhl. He is about as good as u can get for ahl young playee, but GMs would question why he isnt in the nhl already.

 

[justafan22]

I mean it's a high end example, but guys like Seguin, Hall are examples of this strategy, though hall was 24 when he was dealt.

 

[Kaen]

The players I have in mind for this kind of proposal are likely players that other teams wouldn’t want to give up so readily (i.e. Clayton Keller, Pierre Luc Dubois, Brandon Carlo, etc.).

I’m just wondering if a team offered something insane every year for one “sure thing” prospect that was showing signs of becoming a solid NHL player, would it be both feasible and realistic?

Again, I know I’m going into EA world here, but was just curious:

To Team #1: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th
To Team #2: Pierre Luc Dubois/Clayton Keller/Brandon Carlo caliber guy.

So every year, Team #1 would automatically offer this kind of package to another team and receive a “sure thing” prospect every year. A ‘good’ prospect that can be signed to a long term friendly cap hit when becoming an RFA. Something along those lines.

Ignoring the fact that none of these guys are prospects anymore, the team trading the 'prospect' will never deal those players for a pick that won't happen for a year. Colorado and Vegas are proof that even teams that everyone expects to fail can turn it around and make the playoffs.

If you go a level down and used a guy like Dylan Strome as an example, no team will trade that pick for him without it being protected. No GM wants to be the guy that trades Rasmus Dahlin for Dylan Strome.

 

[Grabner]

Kapanen

Lol I am sure a player with 10 points in 55 NHL games is totally worth a top 5 pick in a very stacked draft+ a very low 2nd round pick

 

[rent free]

Lol I am sure a player with 10 points in 55 NHL games is totally worth a top 5 pick in a very stacked draft+ a very low 2nd round pick

He's played on a team that stacked on the wings and gets very minimal ice time. Of course his production is gonna be small. In Vancouver he can play higher up in the lineup and be more productive.

 

[StephenPeat]

Kapanen

Kapanen himself was a 1st Rd pick (22nd). I think you could possibly get a 15-20th Overall for him in this draft but not Top 10. The 10-15 range would really depend on the drafting teams (needs, draft list, and pipeline).

 

[rent free]

Kapanen himself was a 1st Rd pick (22nd). I think you could possibly get a 15-20th Overall for him in this draft but not Top 10. The 10-15 range would really depend on the drafting teams (needs, draft list, and pipeline).

He's probably worth that but I'd given him up for a top 10 pick.

 

[StephenPeat]

He's probably worth that but I'd given him up for a top 10 pick.

I don't think any team touches that.

 

[rent free]

I don't think any team touches that.

Maybe if we offered up a 1st and kapanen and something else.

 

[StephenPeat]

Maybe if we offered up a 1st and kapanen and something else.

I don't think that's how it works. The Leafs late 1st doesn't carry much comparative value to a Top 10 pick in the hands of competent talent evaluators. It might get you to 10-15 but I doubt any team in the Top 10 bites.

 

[rent free]

I don't think that's how it works. The Leafs late 1st doesn't carry much comparative value to a Top 10 pick in the hands of competent talent evaluators. It might get you to 10-15 but I doubt any team in the Top 10 bites.

That's true.

 

[lomiller1]

It’s a poor strategy. Teams can both it obviously, but the only reasonably reliable way to get elite talent is with a top 10 or better yet a top 5 draft pick. When you do get an elite talent it’s relatively rare not to know what you have by the time a player is 20-23.

In effect this strategy is a recipe for trading elite talent for players that are merely pretty good, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do when building a team.

 

[lomiller1]

i.e. Clayton Keller, Pierre Luc Dubois, Brandon Carlo

Not going to move for a run of the mill a top 10 pick as the feature piece. It would take a coveted 1OA 2OA.

Brandon Carlo

Could be available but it’s the type of move that causes bad teams to stay bad.

 

[JohnnyJacket13]

Sonny Milano

 

[LTIR]

You would get a player\prospect who becomes 'available' due to factors post draft. Would a rebuilding team really want such prospects?
Drouin is one example.
Maybe Dylan Strome... would VAN give up a top 5 pick for him? Ho-Sang? Dal Colle?
If you want 20-23 yo prospects you are looking at guys drafted around 2015.

 

[Beerfish]

The obvious answer is.................Griffin Reinhart

 

[StephenPeat]

I think this becomes a more interesting discussion if you move the goalposts a little further. Suggest a team drafting 8-16 traded that pick for a player like Jakob Silfverberg 2-3 seasons ago. That type of trade mitigates the risk from both parties; you're not likely giving up a gamebreaker at that point but still a good player (Silfverberg) and the other team is not likely to give up a franchise talent but may be giving up a slightly better player 2-3 years down the line (8th-16th pick). That's more reasonable and it's also why we see infinitely more trades of that nature.