Draft - 1OA for 2OA + 3OA / 2OA + 3OA for 1OA?

[insomniac]

The potential for the Ottawa Senators to land picks #2 and #3 presents an interesting case, where they could possibly offer both for #1 and guarantee Lafreniere. But would you do it? What about the reverse?

If you had pick #1, would you trade it for #2 and #3?

If you had picks #2 and #3, would you trade them for #1?

Click to read more...

 

[Dominance]

If I had pick 1, I would not trade Lafreniere. He’ll be an instantly elite forward, a guaranteed cornerstone for a team.

If I had pick 2 and 3, I would not trade Byfield and Stuetzle/Drysdale. Byfield has the greatest potential in the draft, and you have the opportunity to choose two elite prospects of the same age that could be the foundation of a strong core for a decade.

That made sense in my head.

 

[Mickey Marner]

I think they could both do better.

 

[Kaiden Ghoul]

Well...

Lafreniere will probably be a 90-100 points player with the higher impact potential

And you have a beast down the middle in the 80 points range and the second most wow offensive prospect with a 80 -/+ point potentiel

As a french Habs fan... I mean Lafreniere would be something, but to pass on two player that will maybe put 20 less points...

I'll take very hardly the 2nd and 3rd

 

[Dr Salt]

Would not do it either way.

 

[Rhaegar Targaryen]

If the Sens got picks #1 and #4, I would trade #1 for 2 and 3

 

[Merrrlin]

If the Sens got picks #1 and #4, I would trade #1 for 2 and 3

Are you a Sens fan? It's all coming together in that case...

As for the poll - as awesome as Laf is, I don't think twice about trading that pick for #2 and #3.

 

[Stealth JD]

If the Sens got picks #1 and #4, I would trade #1 for 2 and 3

That would be amazing to see...a team selecting 2-3-4 in the draft. I don't think Ottawa would do it though if they were fortunate enough to land #1.

...though with 2, 3 & 4 Ottawa could trade #3 to NJD for #s 6 & 9 and haul away Byfield (2), Stutzle (4), Drysdale (6) & Askarov (9).

 

[hamzarocks]

Looking back at recent years would you rather

Hughes vs Kakko and Dach
Dahlin vs Svech and Kotka
Hischier vs Patrick and Hesikanen
Matthews vs Laine and Dubois
McDavid vs Eichel and Strome

In the 2015 draft b/c strome has disapointed you go McDavid. In 2016 it's still matthews for now though if laine and Dubois can improve further id take then. The other drafts all look like 2 and 3 will be better

 

[SympathyForTheDevils]

Looking back at recent years would you rather

Hughes vs Kakko and Dach
Dahlin vs Svech and Kotka
Hischier vs Patrick and Hesikanen
Matthews vs Laine and Dubois
McDavid vs Eichel and Strome

In the 2015 draft b/c strome has disapointed you go McDavid. In 2016 it's still matthews for now though if laine and Dubois can improve further id take then. The other drafts all look like 2 and 3 will be better

Going back further:

Ekblad vs Reinhart+Draisaitl: Easily 2 and 3
Mackinnon vs Barkov+Drouin: I'll say roughly equal
Yakupov vs Murray+Galchenyuk: Easily 2 and 3
RNH vs Landeskog+Huberdeau: Very easily 2 and 3
Hall vs Seguin+Gudbranson: Close, but 2 and 3
Tavares vs Hedman+Duchene: Easily 2 and 3
Stamkos vs Doughty+Bogosian: Close, but 2 and 3
Kane vs van Riemsdyk+Turris: Easily 1
E. Johnson vs J.Staal+Toews: Very easily 2 and 3
Crosby vs Ryan+Johnson: Very easily 1
Ovechkin vs Malkin+Barker: Roughly equal
Fleury vs Staal+Horton: Easily 2 and 3
Nash vs Lethonen+Bouwmeester: Easily 2 and 3
Kovalchuk vs Spezza+Svitov: Close, but 1
Dipietro vs Heatley+Gaborik: Very easily 2 and 3

I like Lafrenière a lot, and I think he'll be a better player than Byfield/Stutzle/Drysdale. But usually 2 and 3 is a better value proposition, in many cases by a wide margin. The team that has 2 and 3 just shouldn't do that trade.

 

[slimbob8]

If you get the chance to draft a franchise level talent like Lafrienniere, you take it and don't look back. Give up whatever it takes. Chances are if you're in that position your team is rebuilding so what you need is building blocks, not depth. Obviously no guarantees how things shake out, but Lafrienniere looks to be on a level of his own in this draft. Look at the #1 picks since 2000 and then look at the #2 and #3 picks in that same range. The odds of getting that franchise changing superstar at #1 are very high. Not so much at spots 2 and 3. And *most* years we have a good idea before the draft if one of those guys is available. This is one of those years.

There's piles of all star caliber players taken at spots 2 and 3 as well, but it's a much bigger deal to get an mvp caliber player for a struggling team to market and build around so if you have that opportunity you take it. It's all a moot point anyway because whatever team had the pick isn't trading it.

 

[BCNate]

If you have #1, you keep it, especially with such a high end player at the top.
If you have 2&3, you keep them because you have the chance to land 2 potential high end players.

Looking at the historicals in the post above, you are better with the 2&3 vs 1 in most years.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I want the two picks. I don't know of very many drafts where you'd take 1OA over 2OA and 3OA.

 

[SelltheTeamFrancesco]

I want the two picks. I don't know of very many drafts where you'd take 1OA over 2OA and 3OA.

I think the only drafts since 2010 where you would trade 1 for 2 and 3 would be 2015 ( McDavid for Eichel and Strome) and maybe 2013 (MacKinnon for Barkov and Drouin), 2018 remain to be seen. So, the question is will Lafreniere be able to get to the level of a Makinnon and McDavid. I don't see that level of potential.

 

[WingsMJN2965]

If Detroit got 1st overall and Ottawa offered #2 and #3, I'd be pissed if we turned it down. (It'll never happen, but I'd be pissed)

In 2019, pick Kakko and one of Dach/Byram/Turcotte/Zegras over Hughes? Yes.
2018 - Svechnikov and one of Tkachuk/Zadina/Zegras over Dahlin? Yes.
2017 - Patrick and one of Miro/Makar/Petterson over Hischier? Yes. Patrick is lackluster but the next three are all better than Hischier.

2015 and 2016 is where the trend falls apart. Matthews is far and away better than Laine, and PLD and Pulju aren't even close. 2015 is really interesting. You really can't not take McDavid, but Eichel and Marner is hard not to choose, too.

I'd have a really hard time not taking both Byfield and Stutzle over Lafreniere. Detroit would be deep as hell at Center with Larkin/Byfield/Stutzle to the point that they'd probably shift Stutzle to the wing, giving them potential top 9 down the road of:

Mantha - Larkin - Bertuzzi
Zadina - Byfield - Stutzle
Rasmussen - Veleno - Fabbri

That's very hard to pass up.

 

[DomBarr]

The potential for the Ottawa Senators to land picks #2 and #3 presents an interesting case, where they could possibly offer both for #1 and guarantee Lafreniere. But would you do it? What about the reverse?

If you had pick #1, would you trade it for #2 and #3?

If you had picks #2 and #3, would you trade them for #1?

If I had the 1 OA i would trade it for 2 and 3....if I had 2 and 3 I wouldn't trade for 1OA.

2 and 3 are worth way more than the 1 OA pick.

 

[Canovin]

If Detroit got 1st overall and Ottawa offered #2 and #3, I'd be pissed if we turned it down. (It'll never happen, but I'd be pissed)

In 2019, pick Kakko and one of Dach/Byram/Turcotte/Zegras over Hughes? Yes.
2018 - Svechnikov and one of Tkachuk/Zadina/Zegras over Dahlin? Yes.
2017 - Patrick and one of Miro/Makar/Petterson over Hischier? Yes. Patrick is lackluster but the next three are all better than Hischier.

2015 and 2016 is where the trend falls apart. Matthews is far and away better than Laine, and PLD and Pulju aren't even close. 2015 is really interesting. You really can't not take McDavid, but Eichel and Marner is hard not to choose, too.

I'd have a really hard time not taking both Byfield and Stutzle over Lafreniere. Detroit would be deep as hell at Center with Larkin/Byfield/Stutzle to the point that they'd probably shift Stutzle to the wing, giving them potential top 9 down the road of:

Mantha - Larkin - Bertuzzi
Zadina - Byfield - Stutzle
Rasmussen - Veleno - Fabbri

That's very hard to pass up.

Matthews is not better than Laine+Dubois. Matthews only outscored Laine by 17 points with 2 games more.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I think the only drafts since 2010 where you would trade 1 for 2 and 3 would be 2015 ( McDavid for Eichel and Strome) and maybe 2013 (MacKinnon for Barkov and Drouin), 2018 remain to be seen. So, the question is will Lafreniere be able to get to the level of a Makinnon and McDavid. I don't see that level of potential.

I very much agree, and especially pre-draft. Strome and Drouin are not bad players, but pre-draft you are expecting them to be better than they were, so pre-draft I don't know if there's any draft you are taking 1OA over 2OA and 3OA.

 

[Voight]

I'd trade #1 for 2 & 3... Byfield will be an elite player (I honestly think he will be as good as Lafreniere) plus you can get a potential elite d-man in Drysdale.

Nothing better to build around than a #1C & #1 D.

 

[SA16]

2/3 are way better on average and you would stupid not to take the 2/3 for a draft where you don't know who the prospects are in advance. Obviously if you know there is a Crosby or McDavid it is an exception and you would not. That said I mean even in McDavid's year with 2/3 you could have went Eichel/Marner and that is certainly better.

 

[bobholly39]

Looking back at recent years would you rather

Hughes vs Kakko and Dach
Dahlin vs Svech and Kotka
Hischier vs Patrick and Hesikanen
Matthews vs Laine and Dubois
McDavid vs Eichel and Strome

In the 2015 draft b/c strome has disapointed you go McDavid. In 2016 it's still matthews for now though if laine and Dubois can improve further id take then. The other drafts all look like 2 and 3 will be better

Going back further:

Ekblad vs Reinhart+Draisaitl: Easily 2 and 3
Mackinnon vs Barkov+Drouin: I'll say roughly equal
Yakupov vs Murray+Galchenyuk: Easily 2 and 3
RNH vs Landeskog+Huberdeau: Very easily 2 and 3
Hall vs Seguin+Gudbranson: Close, but 2 and 3
Tavares vs Hedman+Duchene: Easily 2 and 3
Stamkos vs Doughty+Bogosian: Close, but 2 and 3
Kane vs van Riemsdyk+Turris: Easily 1
E. Johnson vs J.Staal+Toews: Very easily 2 and 3
Crosby vs Ryan+Johnson: Very easily 1
Ovechkin vs Malkin+Barker: Roughly equal
Fleury vs Staal+Horton: Easily 2 and 3
Nash vs Lethonen+Bouwmeester: Easily 2 and 3
Kovalchuk vs Spezza+Svitov: Close, but 1
Dipietro vs Heatley+Gaborik: Very easily 2 and 3

I like Lafrenière a lot, and I think he'll be a better player than Byfield/Stutzle/Drysdale. But usually 2 and 3 is a better value proposition, in many cases by a wide margin. The team that has 2 and 3 just shouldn't do that trade.

Just to nitpick. 20 seasons total posted - and you guys are saying that in 13.5/20 (67.5%) of cases you prefer 2 & 3 to #1 pick. But that's a very subjective tabulation.

2017 - Dahlin. Svech looks great and Kotka should be really good too - but if Dahlin pans out as he's been expecting to (and so far he's doing great), I still say #1 is better.
Hall vs Seguin. It really comes down to Hall vs Seguin. It was close back then - maybe still is. #1 wins for me as you get to pick the player that better suits your team needs.
Stamkos vs Doughty. Exact same idea as above. It comes down to those 2, it was close back then - still today, and if you have #1 pick it means you pick either Stamkos or Doughty based on team needs/who you like better.
Ovechkin vs Malkin. Ovechkin is easily having the better career. I think this goes to #1.

So - that's 4 more where you might say #1 is preferred, or over 50%.

Also - looking back - the only times where #1 isn't prefered is usually when the #1 overall pick wasn't as surefire/strong a pick as other years. ex: Yakupov, RNH, Johnson, Fleury, etc.

Lafreniere is one of the strongest #1 overall picks we've seen in a very long time. I'd say since Crosby - McDavid is #1 - and Lafrenire is in the very next tier with Matthews/Dahlin/Tavares. I think there's more risk in #2 and #3 not panning out this year, than there is in #1 not panning out.

 

[SympathyForTheDevils]

Just to nitpick. 20 seasons total posted - and you guys are saying that in 13.5/20 (67.5%) of cases you prefer 2 & 3 to #1 pick. But that's a very subjective tabulation.

2017 - Dahlin. Svech looks great and Kotka should be really good too - but if Dahlin pans out as he's been expecting to (and so far he's doing great), I still say #1 is better.
Hall vs Seguin. It really comes down to Hall vs Seguin. It was close back then - maybe still is. #1 wins for me as you get to pick the player that better suits your team needs.
Stamkos vs Doughty. Exact same idea as above. It comes down to those 2, it was close back then - still today, and if you have #1 pick it means you pick either Stamkos or Doughty based on team needs/who you like better.
Ovechkin vs Malkin. Ovechkin is easily having the better career. I think this goes to #1.

So - that's 4 more where you might say #1 is preferred, or over 50%.

Also - looking back - the only times where #1 isn't prefered is usually when the #1 overall pick wasn't as surefire/strong a pick as other years. ex: Yakupov, RNH, Johnson, Fleury, etc.

Lafreniere is one of the strongest #1 overall picks we've seen in a very long time. I'd say since Crosby - McDavid is #1 - and Lafrenire is in the very next tier with Matthews/Dahlin/Tavares. I think there's more risk in #2 and #3 not panning out this year, than there is in #1 not panning out.

You could certainly prefer Ovechkin over Malkin, Hall over Seguin, Stamkos over Doughty. That said, those are pretty close in value. It's not only how often 2+3 was better value, it's by how much. Trading Ekblad for Reinhart and Draisaitl, RNH for Landeskog and Huberdeau, Johnson for Staal and Toews, Dipietro for Heatley and Gaborik, ... Those would be absolute fleecings, a huge value add for your organisation. Years that favor the 1st OA are much closer in value, aside from 2005.

 

[bobholly39]

You could certainly prefer Ovechkin over Malkin, Hall over Seguin, Stamkos over Doughty. That said, those are pretty close in value. It's not only how often 2+3 was better value, it's by how much. Trading Ekblad for Reinhart and Draisaitl, RNH for Landeskog and Huberdeau, Johnson for Staal and Toews, Dipietro for Heatley and Gaborik, ... Those would be absolute fleecings, a huge value add for your organisation. Years that favor the 1st OA are much closer in value, aside from 2005.

Yes that's true - so if your point is "even if you pick #2 and 3 and it turns out to be a bad choice, at worst it probably won't be a huge gap" - I agree with those odds.

But my counter is what i said in my earlier post. None of those years where #2/3 ended up being much better than #1 was there as surefire a #1 as Lafrenire is. Off the top of my head, the best #1 prospects were:

Ovechkin, Crosby, Tavares, McDavid, Matthews, Dahlin and now Lafreniere.

And in all of those years #1 either wins by a bit, or by a landslide, and the one constant is that all these #1 picks ended up being surefire superstars (suppose it's still a bit early for Dahlin but looks great so far).

 

[SympathyForTheDevils]

Yes that's true - so if your point is "even if you pick #2 and 3 and it turns out to be a bad choice, at worst it probably won't be a huge gap" - I agree with those odds.

But my counter is what i said in my earlier post. None of those years where #2/3 ended up being much better than #1 was there as surefire a #1 as Lafrenire is. Off the top of my head, the best #1 prospects were:

Ovechkin, Crosby, Tavares, McDavid, Matthews, Dahlin and now Lafreniere.

And in all of those years #1 either wins by a bit, or by a landslide, and the one constant is that all these #1 picks ended up being surefire superstars (suppose it's still a bit early for Dahlin but looks great so far).

To your list, I'd also add Hall and Mackinnon as comparable prospects to Lafrenière (and maybe Kovalchuk, but I didn't follow prospects in the early 2000s so I wouldn't know). And frankly, looking only at those drafts (which is already a little generous - he is not a Crosby/McDavid level prospect), it doesn't make me a whole lot more confident. The only one that's a clear win for the 1st OA is 2005, and maybe 2015 (for off-ice reasons; in terms of on-ice value, it's surprisingly close). Hedman+Duchene is vastly more valuable than Tavares alone. For all the other drafts, I could see an argument either way; they're pretty close in value. I'd pick the 1st OA in 2004, I'd pick 2+3 in 2010, 2013 and 2018 and I'd flip a coin in 2016.

Note that I'm mostly considering on-ice value. You could argue that the 1st OA is generally the best player, and that the best players put butts in seats, and that by itself that justifies keeping the 1st OA for whichever GM makes that decision.

 

[Mac Attack]

Matthews is not better than Laine+Dubois. Matthews only outscored Laine by 17 points with 2 games more.

I agree with that statement. But I think we should be using the actual picks for this exercise and not who was available. Using hindsight screws woth the exercise. Matthews is better than Laine and Puljujarvi. I take two and three in this draft though.