Draft Day Hypothetical

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,736
14,704
Sweden
Trade a late 1st, non-special D prospect for a much better prospect in a much better draft? I'd rather not trade any prospect, but I don't think that really qualifies as crazy.
A #10 pick shouldn't be overrated.
Nor should a prospect like Cholowski be underrated, especially after we've already put in 2 years worth of development into him. He's not a sure thing, maybe he's "non-special" on paper, but he's a prospect without major flaws and with a lot of upside in terms of his skating, puck-moving ability and hockey IQ. I'd love to pick up another top 10 pick, but not at the cost of one of our very best prospects. In our current position I'd certainly classify that kind of trade as crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winger98

njx9

Registered User
Feb 1, 2016
2,161
340
A #10 pick shouldn't be overrated.
Nor should a prospect like Cholowski be underrated, especially after we've already put in 2 years worth of development into him. He's not a sure thing, maybe he's "non-special" on paper, but he's a prospect without major flaws and with a lot of upside in terms of his skating, puck-moving ability and hockey IQ. I'd love to pick up another top 10 pick, but not at the cost of one of our very best prospects. In our current position I'd certainly classify that kind of trade as crazy.

The odds of the #20 pick being a great player are significantly lower than the odds of a top ten pick being a great player. Further, our defensive development path has been bad enough over the last 3 decades, that more time spent in it is probably *worse* for a player's development than otherwise.

But whatever, there's a better question: would you take Cholowski in the top ten of this draft, if he were magically eligible for it? If the answer is anything other than a resounding, 100% yes, then this the idea of trading him is absolutely not, in any demonstrable way, anything approaching "crazy" in any rational world. If the answer, on the other hand, *is* yes, then great, we disagree, but I can respect thinking that the move would be crazy.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,736
14,704
Sweden
The odds of the #20 pick being a great player are significantly lower than the odds of a top ten pick being a great player. Further, our defensive development path has been bad enough over the last 3 decades, that more time spent in it is probably *worse* for a player's development than otherwise.

But whatever, there's a better question: would you take Cholowski in the top ten of this draft, if he were magically eligible for it? If the answer is anything other than a resounding, 100% yes, then this the idea of trading him is absolutely not, in any demonstrable way, anything approaching "crazy" in any rational world. If the answer, on the other hand, *is* yes, then great, we disagree, but I can respect thinking that the move would be crazy.
I think it's wrong to focus on Cholowski vs. the #10 pick, when really what the Wings should be focusing on is adding more and more young talent. We shouldn't really be thinking about trading away our top prospects at this point. Move Nyquist+Vegas 1st or something if we want to move up. Leave our top prospects alone.
 

ShelbyZ

Registered User
Apr 8, 2015
3,799
2,561
I wouldn't want to trade Cholowski at this point. Especially considering that the hypothetical trade would be for the opportunity to draft a Dman that is younger and possibly not as close to making an NHL impact as Cholowski may or may not be at this point. On top of that, if the Dman taken at 10OA doesn't pan out as a top 4 but Cholowski pans out as such in Edmonton, the trade ends up looking real bad down the road.

If they were to make that kind of deal, I'd rather it go in the other direction and bring in a young Dman ready to step into a top 4 role.

As for Nyquist, there's a few things to consider. Would he waive his NTC to go to the Oilers? Unless Peter Chiarelli is offering up a nice NMC laden buyout proof 7/8 year deal, Edmonton isn't exactly a top destination for players. Then again, the incentive for Nyquist would be that he goes there and plays on a line/PP with McDavid, gets closer to or exceeds 30 goals/60 points and then hits the UFA market looking for $6M+ with term. For the Oilers, they'd have to be OK knowing that there's a strong possibility Nyquist would walk next summer. Then again, if the hypothetical stat padding happens but they are out of the playoff picture, they could likely get a decent return for Nyquist at the deadline.

I think a more attractive winger to offer the Oilers would be AA. He's still only 23 and may still have upside and/or might benefit from a change of scenery. He's also not eligible to hit the UFA market until the end of the 21/22 season, so he could potentially be a cost controlled option that could be with their team for at least the next 4 seasons.

That said, I doubt AA and Cholowski is enough to get 10OA from them, especially if what they are really after is an established top 4 D.
 

njx9

Registered User
Feb 1, 2016
2,161
340
I wouldn't want to trade Cholowski at this point. Especially considering that the hypothetical trade would be for the opportunity to draft a Dman that is younger and possibly not as close to making an NHL impact as Cholowski may or may not be at this point. On top of that, if the Dman taken at 10OA doesn't pan out as a top 4 but Cholowski pans out as such in Edmonton, the trade ends up looking real bad down the road.

I don't think the team is anywhere near close enough to competing to worry about NHL-readiness. And I think not making moves because "what if we lose" is exactly the kind of thing that Holland has gotten beaten over the head with for the last few years. If he thinks Cholo is a top pair, 24+ minute guy, then cool, go with it. But if you don't make a move because "what if we lose a middle pairing guy trying to get a top pairing guy", then your franchise is going nowhere.

I think it's wrong to focus on Cholowski vs. the #10 pick, when really what the Wings should be focusing on is adding more and more young talent. We shouldn't really be thinking about trading away our top prospects at this point. Move Nyquist+Vegas 1st or something if we want to move up. Leave our top prospects alone.

I think that's a fine focus - I just don't think it makes the idea of trading Cholo "crazy".

I'd strongly prefer that we only move players who won't be here when the team is good again, and I'd strongly prefer we not screw around with trading up, barring someone crazy dropping. But if we can swap a decent/average prospect for a great one, I'd do it 10 times out of 10.
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
I don't think the team is anywhere near close enough to competing to worry about NHL-readiness. And I think not making moves because "what if we lose" is exactly the kind of thing that Holland has gotten beaten over the head with for the last few years. If he thinks Cholo is a top pair, 24+ minute guy, then cool, go with it. But if you don't make a move because "what if we lose a middle pairing guy trying to get a top pairing guy", then your franchise is going nowhere.



I think that's a fine focus - I just don't think it makes the idea of trading Cholo "crazy".

I'd strongly prefer that we only move players who won't be here when the team is good again, and I'd strongly prefer we not screw around with trading up, barring someone crazy dropping. But if we can swap a decent/average prospect for a great one, I'd do it 10 times out of 10.

But the thing is... you're not trading Cholo for #10.

You're trading Nyquist/AA, Cholo, and probably the VGK 1st for #10.

Is the difference in caliber of prospect between Dobson and Cholo at minimum a late first and mid second (you could prob get a mid second for either of those guys)?
 

njx9

Registered User
Feb 1, 2016
2,161
340
But the thing is... you're not trading Cholo for #10.

You're trading Nyquist/AA, Cholo, and probably the VGK 1st for #10.

Is the difference in caliber of prospect between Dobson and Cholo at minimum a late first and mid second (you could prob get a mid second for either of those guys)?

That's a good point... I guess, if the Wings take a Tkachuk or Wahlstrom at 6, then I'd say yes, it is. I don't think we can leave this draft without a top end, 1D-level prospect. If the Wings take Bouchard or Hughes or Boqvist, then I think I'd rather get a bunch of 2nds and accumulate forward prospects.

I dunno. I guess I'm not trying to get rid of Cholo (and I don't think Edmonton would take that kind of offer anyway), I just don't think it would be crazy if he was part of the package. I'd rather keep all of our prospects, but the team needs to get elite. If trading out 'good' is part of that, I'm totally at peace with it.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->