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

[StephenPeat]

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

Griffin Reinhart is the answer to a lot of questions honestly.

Why is Garth Snow smarter than Peter Chiarelli?
Who's the least talented of the Reinhart brothers?
What defenseman on earth could the Edmonton Oilers use the least right now?
What terrible player has surprisingly shown his value to be that of a 1st Rd Pick not once but twice?
What player was drafted by a team known for blowing draft picks only to be developed by a team known for blowing player development.
Matthew Barzal?

This list is fun.

 

[lomiller1]

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.

There are lots of ways to acquire good complimentary players, but to be a consistent cup contender you need to find 2-4 truly elite players. How can you get these:
1) Drafting them yourself with a high draft pick. – far from assured but can be done
2) Drafting them yourself with a low first or lower pick. – when it happens it’s almost always luck.
3) Free agency – usually older players that are ultimately overpriced and underperform
4) Trade – There are only so many trades Chiarelli can make…

 

[Gaunce4gm]

Jim Benning...? Is that you? What have we told you about using HFboards to try and make trades.

Go scout the U18 worlds or something. Stop trying to acquire Linden Vey 2.0

 

[seabass45]

This is kinda confusing but ultimately it depends on needs. Like this year, if there's a team that's stacked on defense but needs a potential gamebreaking offensive talent (Carolina?), maybe they trade a defenseman for a top 5 pick. Buffalo could do something weird like offer Sam Reinhart around to see if anyone bites and pick two defensemen with their top 5 picks.

But this is about Vancouver, right? I have a hard time seeing trade matches here. Just make the pick and roll with the rebuild.

 

[StephenPeat]

This is kinda confusing but ultimately it depends on needs. Like this year, if there's a team that's stacked on defense but needs a potential gamebreaking offensive talent (Carolina?), maybe they trade a defenseman for a top 5 pick. Buffalo could do something weird like offer Sam Reinhart around to see if anyone bites and pick two defensemen with their top 5 picks.

But this is about Vancouver, right? I have a hard time seeing trade matches here. Just make the pick and roll with the rebuild.

Who's offering Buffalo a Top 5 pick for Reinhart?

 

[seabass45]

Who's offering Buffalo a Top 5 pick for Reinhart?

A team with an incompetent GM who is extremely desperate for anything that resembles a 1C. Montreal comes to mind.

 

[ole ole]

A team with an incompetent GM who is extremely desperate for anything that resembles a 1C. Montreal comes to mind.

As incompetent as M.B. is.He's not incompetent enough to offer a top 5 pick in this draft for a lousy Reinhart. You can only wish.

 

[Dan Kelly]

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

You better believe it !! Anyone that thinks otherwise is delusional !

 

[StephenPeat]

A team with an incompetent GM who is extremely desperate for anything that resembles a 1C. Montreal comes to mind.

Wow, shots fired. You're an Islander fan, yes? Your address wouldn't perhaps be in a glass house now would it?

Lest we forget Snow drafted the worse Reinhart in the first place. Maybe Snow's new strategy should be to trade all his draft choices immediately after the draft for picks in future drafts.

 

[The Alien]

1. Unless there's some sort of problem with the young player, then it would take a massive overpayment to get him. You'd be bleeding assets while putting all your eggs in one basket.

2. The teams looking for draft picks generally aren't the ones trading away young budding stars.

3. It's possible you might get lucky and find a team looking to move a young star every once in while, but both your examples in Seguin and Hall were hockey trades, not pick primary returns.

I do understand the idea of turning all your picks into one sure thing. Look at the Canucks, we traded a bunch of seconds for hits and misses recently. Didn't help much. Vey sucks, Baertchi is good...

 

[justafan22]

1. Unless there's some sort of problem with the young player, then it would take a massive overpayment to get him. You'd be bleeding assets while putting all your eggs in one basket.

2. The teams looking for draft picks generally aren't the ones trading away young budding stars.

3. It's possible you might get lucky and find a team looking to move a young star every once in while, but both your examples in Seguin and Hall were hockey trades, not pick primary returns.

I do understand the idea of turning all your picks into one sure thing. Look at the Canucks, we traded a bunch of seconds for hits and misses recently. Didn't help much. Vey sucks, Baertchi is good...

Hall was a hockey trade. Seguin was the bruins wanting to deal him due to character

 

[The Alien]

Hall was a hockey trade. Seguin was the bruins wanting to deal him due to character

Yeah, fair enough about Seguin, kind of a hybrid trade. Still wasn't a pick- primary trade, more of an older player ++ trade, so nor what the OP would be going for. I doubt Hall or Seguin would have been moved for just picks.

Actually, Kessel would be a better example. Two 1sts and a 2nd. That's a lot.

 

[firstemperor]

Rare to see a deal happen like this. Happened with Ryan Hartman this year, for a late 1st.

 

[bernmeister]

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?

this is too much a shot in the dark without knowing who your trade partner is; it is difficult enough to do pre-lottery slottting, and now we are so close it does not make sense to overpay for risk that a pick goes premium position.

to comment further along the OP lines
We drafted Andersson + Chytil, the later a keeper, with Andy available IMO but not for fair value. Rangers pivot depth is not like Canes D depth, overflowing both sides. However, if there was an adequate chance of picking up a needs prospect RD of likely high enough stature, that could be conceivable.
To realize this, I see it more likely NY trades Andersson + a pick for a top 5 slot instead of lesser 1st + 2nd or even more.

 

[Horse McHindu]

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

Good point,

I had forgotten about him:

To Edmonton: Griffin Reinhart
To NYI: 1st and 2nd

To Nashville: Ryan Hartman
To Chicago: 1st, 4th, prospect.

So based on that, I'm guessing that

A) A 1st and 2nd nets one a prospect that is still 'unknown' at that point (i.e. a prospect that could flourish or a prospect that could bust).

B) A 1st, 4th, and a prospect nets you a young half-decent roster player.

I guess my ultimate question, would be if picks alone could secure one a GOOD prospect (i.e. a Pierre Luc Dubois kind of guy).


To Team A: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.
To Team B: Pierre Luc Dubois calibre prospect?

 

[seabass45]

Wow, shots fired. You're an Islander fan, yes? Your address wouldn't perhaps be in a glass house now would it?

Lest we forget Snow drafted the worse Reinhart in the first place. Maybe Snow's new strategy should be to trade all his draft choices immediately after the draft for picks in future drafts.

I don't know why you're under this impression that I can't make fun of other GM's dumb mistakes. I make fun of my GM's dumb mistakes all the time, I want him gone, the Reinhart draft decision was dumb and was only saved by the fact that another GM was dumber. There are a lot of dumb GMs out there, this is a place where we can joke about all of them.

 

[StephenPeat]

I don't know why you're under this impression that I can't make fun of other GM's dumb mistakes. I make fun of my GM's dumb mistakes all the time, I want him gone, the Reinhart draft decision was dumb and was only saved by the fact that another GM was dumber. There are a lot of dumb GMs out there, this is a place where we can joke about all of them.

No I wasn't suggesting you can't make fun of other GMs. I'm personally terrified of the possibilities in the hands of some of these fools now that Vegas has joined and league revenues seem to be going back up. Contracts are going to get worse, lockout fears will reemerge and the league will constrict, its cyclic. I have little faith in the GMs to moderate their own stupidity. And indeed some of the GMs are actually quite humorous to parody Snow, Bergevin, and Chiarelli are definitely up there.

 

[Not Sure]

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

Tim Murray is no longer a GM

 

[DatDude44]

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.

Not many 22 and 23 year olds that are still prospects are sure things. And who would move a 20 y/o “sure thing” for a 2nd?

 

[Horse McHindu]

Not many 22 and 23 year olds that are still prospects are sure things. And who would move a 20 y/o “sure thing” for a 2nd?

To your last question, no one. I don't think I said otherwise. ???

20 y/o "sure thing" for 1st + 2nd + 3rd = fair value?

 

[seabass45]

To your last question, no one. I don't think I said otherwise. ???

20 y/o "sure thing" for 1st + 2nd + 3rd = fair value?

Do you have any names of 20 year old sure things that would work here? You have to have someone in mind.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Do you have any names of 20 year old sure things that would work here? You have to have someone in mind.

Not someone specifically, but I was thinking about someone that has shown promise, and will likely be a “very good” player in the NHL.

Someone like Mike Matheson for instance. A good young player signed at an excellent long term deal, and has a reasonable shot of vastly improving his game to the point where his value greatly exceeds his cap hit for many years to come.

On the surface - a move like this looks laughable since you’d be giving up picks, by when you factor in his age, cap hit, advanced stats, and probability of breaking out, a move like that could be gold.

I’m just thinking that if a team made moves like that year in year out and consistently filled the pipeline with young guys signed at tremendous cap hits, then a rebuilding team could easily be well on its way in just a few years.


I realize Matheson isn’t 20, but I’m just talking about a “youngish” guy on a great contract that has a very reasonable shot of greatly exceeding cap hit value.

 

[Beezeral]

Not someone specifically, but I was thinking about someone that has shown promise, and will likely be a “very good” player in the NHL.

Someone like Mike Matheson for instance. A good young player signed at an excellent long term deal, and has a reasonable shot of vastly improving his game to the point where his value greatly exceeds his cap hit for many years to come.

On the surface - a move like this looks laughable since you’d be giving up picks, by when you factor in his age, cap hit, advanced stats, and probability of breaking out, a move like that could be gold.

I’m just thinking that if a team made moves like that year in year out and consistently filled the pipeline with young guys signed at tremendous cap hits, then a rebuilding team could easily be well on its way in just a few years.


I realize Matheson isn’t 20, but I’m just talking about a “youngish” guy on a great contract that has a very reasonable shot of greatly exceeding cap hit value.

why would the panthers do this though?

 

[greasysnapper]

I think terminology is what's keeping this thread from being interesting. You should have wrote 20-23 year old player instead of prospect.

 

[StephenPeat]

I think terminology is what's keeping this thread from being interesting. You should have wrote 20-23 year old player instead of prospect.

No what keeps this thread from being interesting is that the terms being used are far too generic.

Would the Panthers trade Mike Matheson for a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd?

Is very different from would the Panthers trade Matheson for a Top 10 pick, 2nd, and 3rd?

Is very different from would the Panthers trade Matheson for 30th Overall, 2nd, and 3rd?