Proposal: Seattle/Buffalo: 2022 pick #4 for #9, #16, and #31

[RainyCityHockey]

Well that suggestion (to trade down a couple of spots) is both a reasonable one that they should consider (depending on which players they like), as well as self-contradictory.

THIS YEAR, unlike other years, the gap between 4 and 9 is not nearly as signficant. And in general, I am always a fan of quality over quantity, but in this case there is some SERIOUS quality available at 16 -- and the gap between 9 and 16 is MUCH less than it is from 16 to 30-ish (or wherever the FLA pick ends up being).

If Seattle had 9 and 16, they could either get 2 elite D prospects (any 2 of Mintyukov, Korchinski, Mateychuck and Pickering, maybe even Sam Rinzel if they rank him similarly), and there's just as good a chance of Mintyukov and Korchinski or some others to emerge one day as the best Dman from the draft. If you're comparing one of Nemec/Jiricek versus the field, I would have to bet on the field, even if I have Nemec and Jircek ranked ahead -- just because they aren't rated as highly as some previous uber-high end prospects were like Doughty or Heiskanen or Makar (to use examples of non-1st overall picks like Dahlin or Power).

So to reiterate, if I'm BUF I do not trade #9 + #16 + FLA 1st (28-32), and I do accept that if I'm SEA and it was offered.

Conversely, if I'm BUF I WOULD trade #9 + FLA 1st (#28-32) + 2nd rounder (#41), but I would not accept the latter if I'm SEA.

If there supposedly isn't a significant gap between #4 and #9 why would Buffalo ever try and trade up?

My guess is because the chance at a top prospect at #4 is, indeed, significantly higher than at #9 and that'w why Seattle won't trade down even if the value might make sense on some metrics.

Because of that there's no trade happening between Seattle and Buffalo because it's better to select from the crop of players left at #4, than at #9 and I'm pretty sure Francis would rather take a shot at his guy at #4 than at #9.

Also, that Florida first round pick isn't all that exciting with us also having the #35 pick and, if needed, being able to trade up using that pick + some of the other ones we've got.

Overall I think it's an interesting/fun discussion but I don't see us trading down to #9 as that rarely ever happens and, again, gaining a late first rounder for it is just not all that exciting.

 

[jmelm]

If there supposedly isn't a significant gap between #4 and #9 why would Buffalo ever try and trade up?

My guess is because the chance at a top prospect at #4 is, indeed, significantly higher than at #9 and that'w why Seattle won't trade down even if the value might make sense on some metrics.

Because of that there's no trade happening between Seattle and Buffalo because it's better to select from the crop of players left at #4, than at #9 and I'm pretty sure Francis would rather take a shot at his guy at #4 than at #9.

Also, that Florida first round pick isn't all that exciting with us also having the #35 pick and, if needed, being able to trade up using that pick + some of the other ones we've got.

Overall I think it's an interesting/fun discussion but I don't see us trading down to #9 as that rarely ever happens and, again, gaining a late first rounder for it is just not all that exciting.

The only reason a team would ever trade up and pay such a high price to do so is if they are targeting ONE specific player. So if BUF desperately wanted, for example, Nemec, and rated him in a different tier than SEA did on their list; and simultaneously SEA loved for example 3 players whom they knew one or more would be there at #9 and could also pick up #16 and another first (#28-32), then that is why they would make such a trade.

In short, such a trade would only occur based on the two teams evaluating the players differently, which is what generally happens in drafts, and in particular is the case in this draft. It's actually why you could see more trade activity in this year than other years (I'm not banking on it, but wouldn't be surprised either).

If SEA and BUF valued the players the same way, they simply wouldn't be good trade partners and wouldn't be interested or able to make such a trade work. It's only when there's a difference in evaluation that such a trade option would be enticing.

 

[WingsMJN2965]

You’re missing the point, deliberately so?

Is the point that the chart is deliberately supposed to be inaccurate?