Buck Naked
Can't-Stand-Ya
- Aug 18, 2016
- 3,763
- 5,672
Yet if someone traded a 1st you'd know it was a losing trade? How bout if it was 2 1sts? 3? I don't get why you're pretending to be confused here when you definitely do get that picks have immediate value based on potential. So to put numbers on it, if you squander a value of 50 on a player who's value is 20, you can lose the trade bc you should've gotten say Reaves and a 4th.
If that pick turns out to be worth 0 in the end though, did NYR win the trade because they actually got an NHL player?
Also, the value will always be what a team is prepared to pay if you mix numbers into this. Reaves' value is 50, not more, not less, because that was the cost of acquiring him.
The Rangers squandered so much immediate value here that it can be considered a loss. If you value Reaves that highly then that's your evaluation of him as being worth the immediate value(based on potential)a 3rd possesses
So what better options did they have if they were looking to spend a 3rd round pick on this perticular need they felt they had?
I don't value Reaves at all. I wouldn't give a 7th round pick to get him.