Did Leafs prefer 1st pick 2nd round vs last pick 1st round?

[Mad Brills*]

the ducks wanted pick 30 in case whoever they picked didn't sign.

They get a pick in the 60s in that case.

 

[ITM]

I had a debate with a buddy. Would you prefer the last pick day one or 1st pick day 2?
Obvious choice is last pick first round.
However first pick day 2 gives the team a chance to regroup and debate over players that maybe they did not think would still be there.
It also allows the team to shop the pick to move down similar to what they did last year if that is of interest.
Also other teams may covet a player that is still on the board and aggressively pursue the Leafs pick.

I think I prefer 1st pick day 2. I wonder if the Leafs did too?

Well...From the outside the strategy seems to be:

1) Maximize each pick to it's greatest asset equivalency either by draft selection or in trade.

2) When drafting, select the best player available according to internal evaluation.

3) Have at each pick, a list of several options of relative, equivocal value in deference to the first principal.

4) When the distance between a pick to be traded to a pick to be acquired conforms to that list, increase the number of latter round picks by trading that pick.

5) Repeat the same process with respect to future drafts by moving picks of relatively modest or redundant value in one draft for future picks in subsequent drafts.

I think roughly applying these principals is determined according to a variety of needs as well.

Take Detroit moving pick #16 yesterday, or said differently, Arizona acquiring pick #20. Detroit obviously saw an inherent superior value in moving Datsyuk's $7.5M salary to Arizona for pick #20 and pick #53. Most will note, that Holland and a number of Red Wings management couldn't stop laughing at the Detroit draft table directly after the deal. For an organization like Detroit, picking late seems to have informed them precisely of the third principal's worth, that like value can be had several picks later, and when opportunity presents itself to do so, with added peripheral value i.e. having $7.5M of debt absorbed, outside of the additional pick acquired, four spots accounted for in equivocal value.

And Dennis Cholowski represents precisely that - an asset Detroit most assuredly felt would equivocate Dante Fabbro (His BCHL correlative) or Jakob Chychryn. The Yotes obviously felt the opposite and were willing to absorb Datysuk's contract plus pay a mid-round 2nd to do it, and seemed equally impressed with themselves after the fact.

And then there's Ottawa trading pick # 80 for the right to switch places with New Jersey at pick#11. From all reports, New Jersey and Ottawa didn't divulge who the other wanted, but there certainly must have been an analysis done by the Devils that concluded Michael McLeod was of equivocal value to that of Logan Brown. Because at pick#11, Logan Brown is an obvious choice from a number of considerations when projecting Ottawa's needs and Brown's Ottawa ties. And if an organization is firmly committed to acquiring an asset, they're not going to gamble that assured asset on the value of a pick 69 places later.

All this to illustrate, Toronto's evaluation process in targeting it's number two positional need behind Auston Matthews, likely determined variables such as Bernier's inability to define the Toronto net as his own, the movement of a game that favours larger bodied goaltenders, and the likely redundancy seen in picks #30 and #31 in a draft in which two goaltending prospects are interchangeable for the most part i.e. Carter Hart and Filip Gustavsson (let alone any number of likely available prospects on defence - Toronto's other pipeline need) as reasons enough to justify acquiring Fredrik Andersen.

The God's eye view here sees - much like I suspect the Red Wings' apprehension in their deal - a move that was deemed high reward, low cost in the final synthesis of available information given Toronto's assets and more importantly, needs (vs strong preferences that a list of equivocal players provides) at hand.

So would an organization assessing needs ask the question of one pick ahead of one day and the next pick the next day as a determining factor? Or, does it focus on the imperative of greater organizational need that sees as a standard operating procedure, braintrusts dovetailing equivocal value at each pick in order to extract as much value as possible?

I think it's the latter and I think given some of the moves we saw at the draft, including the price paid by Calgary for Brian Elliot, is there still any doubt that the Toronto Maple Leafs are a vastly more shrewd organization that years before and that the move of pick #30, rather than #31 (plus the '17 2nd) to shore up the number one goalie need, was the absolute best scenario at that pick, and truth be told will have made no difference to our overall draft strategy, except...that along with another year of Hunter cached selections, Lou Lamoriello got a goalie for pick #30 that he likely would have paid a pick #9 for had the scenario presented itself?

Not to worry...The Toronto Maple Leafs don't prefer a thing different than what this morning brings:Birds are chirping, the sky is blue, the sun is out, we got a number one goalie using an asset from the Kessel trade , we pick first today, and Auston Matthews is a Toronto Maple Leaf.

 

[middletoe]

At the draft table you should be organized enough to be able to take the bpa at 30 OA. Your answer should never change after regrouping and discussing it over night.

If this were true wouldn't the draft be much quicker with teams just taking the highest name left on their list? Preparing for all 'what-ifs' before a draft seems too difficult a task to me.

 

[TorontoTrades]

Pick 1 on day 2. Gives you and your camp time to study who is still available from day 1 and make a better, more calculated pick.

They don't come in with no clue.. they know at 30 who they are liking and who if available they'll target.

Millions gets spent on scouting all year.. not so they can randomly guess cause the clock is ticking.

 

[seanlinden]

They don't come in with no clue.. they know at 30 who they are liking and who if available they'll target.

Millions gets spent on scouting all year.. not so they can randomly guess cause the clock is ticking.

This.

The only argument to be made for picking 31, is that it gives teams looking to trade up more time to make a move.

That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if that's what the Leafs intended to do here.

If we assume that they intended to go with this guy / off the board (seems realistic, given the number of players who fell), then they would've likely known that from the time they traded for Andersen.

As an older prospect, Korshkov is highly unlikely to go unsigned for the next 2 years, so the compensatory pick was irrelevant. The Ducks of course, went "on the board" with Sam Steel.

 

[kihei]

If they knew before the Andersen deal how high Korshkov was on their wish list, then giving up #30 was totally no big deal. If there was somebody who they really liked in the 20-30 range who they thought might still be available by the time they made their second pick, they probably would have offered #31 instead. So basically Anaheim gets seemingly a little bonus by being given the "better" pick because the Leafs don't give a rat's ass about it. Kind of neat, actually.