Trade up or keep the 3 second rounders?

[Tetsuo]

I would keep them barring a player falling massively. Moving the 32nd pick + one of the other picks should get a pretty good return. But to be honest I would rather have as many bullets in the chamber as possible. I also don't think this draft is particularly deep, as that can really only be determined later on, but the top end is pretty good and its a good of a year as any to have a 4th overall pick.

 

[Ishad]

Ottawa has 4 2nds
Montreal has 3 2nds
La has 3 2nds

There’s going to be lots of opportunity to move up or down.

 

[WingsMJN2965]

UPDATED using the chart posted in this thread.

2019 - Philadelphia trades pick #11 (397) to Arizona for pick #14 (352) and pick #45. (135) 90 point difference.

Per the chart, Arizona should've gotten pick #8.

2018 - Toronto trades pick #25 (179) to STL for pick #29 (156) and pick #76. (78) 55 point difference.

Per the chart, STL should've gotten pick #22.

2018 - Ottawa trades pick #22 (227) to NYR for pick #26 (169) and pick #48. (134) 76 point difference.

Per the chart, NYR should've gotten pick #17 or pick #18.

2017 - Chicago trades pick #26 (169) to Dallas for pick #29 (156) and pick #70. (89) 76 point difference.

Per the chart Dallas should've gotten pick #21.

2016 - NJD trades pick 11 (397) to Ottawa for pick 12 (377) and pick 80. (76) 56 point difference

Per the chart Ottawa should've gotten pick #9.

2016 - Philly trades pick 18 (296) and pick 79 (77) to Winnipeg for pick 22 (227) and pick 36. (152) 6 point difference

This is the only accurate one.

2016 - Washington trades pick 26 (169) to STL for pick 28 (157) and pick 87. (71) 59 point difference

Per the chart STL should've gotten pick #22.

2015 - Toronto trades pick 24 (191) to Philly for pick 29 (156) and pick 61. (104) 69 point difference

Per the chart Philly should've gotten pick #20.

2015 - Tampa trades pick 28 (157) to NYI for pick 33 (154) and pick 72. (84) 81 point difference

Per the chart NYI should've gotten pick #21.

2015 - Toronto trades pick 29 (156) to Columbus for pick 34 (153) and pick 68. (93) 90 point difference

Per the chart Columbus should've gotten pick #21.

It's closer than the chart from years ago, but it's still miles away. They vastly overvalue later picks still. There's a 65 point difference between picks #22 and #27 and a 65 point difference between picks #27 and #65. That just doesn't make sense.

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

Do you have any idea what it looks like with GAR?

Sure, I thought I had seen one previously, but this is one that Prashanth Iyer posted on Twitter a few days ago. Below I've linked to the tweet, he also had another one that looked at the median of the GAR available at each pick. And this is an article I found that uses cumulative GAR to establish their own version of a draft pick's value.

""

UPDATED using the chart posted in this thread.

It's closer than the chart from years ago, but it's still miles away. They vastly overvalue later picks still. There's a 65 point difference between picks #22 and #27 and a 65 point difference between picks #27 and #65. That just doesn't make sense.

I don't think that because teams are not valuing their assets in line with the chart means that the value chart is incorrect or valueless. While the chart was created to serve as a basis for draft pick valuation, it can also be used to show the value of each pick relative to the 1st overall pick. If we say that the 1st overall pick is a 100% chance to be a success, than using the chart we can infer that the 20th pick has a 26.5% chance, the 45th has a 13.5%, the 101st has a 6.4% chance, and so on. I also think that in terms of trade value it doesn't account for something I'd like to call "The Motivation" factor of teams. If a team reaaaally wants to dump a contract or move up to select a player they may be willing to get less value than is expected to facilitate the trade. As well, a team isn't likely to trade down for just "even" value I haven't looked into it

I actually think the plot may not be steep enough in the late teens and early 20s as teams are always motivated to try and get some sort of value from 1st rounders, even disappointments, so they get extra opportunities that later picks wouldn't get. If the graphs weren't so consistent regardless of the measurement of success I'd be more willing to acknowledge the trade discrepancies. As it stands, it seems like some NHL teams are willing to bet that they know more than the other teams when trading up and are willing to sacrifice value in those trades.

 

[Voodoo Glow Skulls]

I am a big, big fan of Zary. What would your thoughts be on moving up for Lapierre? I was a big fan of his prior to him getting hurt.

No thanks on Lapierre. Too many concussions.

 

[Gniwder]

Looking at consensus prospect rankings and mock drafts, 53 players are graded consistently in the first round. So I just stay put or trade back to make sure I have as many picks as possible in the first 53.

Hronek > SMith > Choloski (Opposite order of where they were drafted)
You never know, so it's probably better to have 3 picks than 2.

Coincidentally, Hronek was pick #53

Plus you never know who's going to fall either, so better to have more picks.

 

[Hockeyfannnn91]

Well if a player they really like starts falling I would trade Edm and WSHs 2nds to move into the first round.

I keep Detroit 2nd rounder as it will be 32nd overall.

You’d have to include the wings 32nd , its highly unlikely anyones gonna trade pick 25 for 52 and 59

 

[Hockeyfannnn91]

I kinda like the idea of keeping the picks. I absolutely do not want to trade down. Trading down is insane for a rebuilding team. We don't want to pass the opportunity to pick where we are. I do like the idea of keeping more picks though so we can maybe draft more positions like goalies.

If we can trade up enough spots its good but I doubt anyone puts us in the first round just for two seconds.

If we do trade back it would be the 32nd to drop back 3-5 spots and get another late second/third and still maintain the 3 2nds we have now , dont think hed drop out of the 2nd round with any of those picks

 

[DetroitRed]

I'd be happy to keep those seconds. But I'd be open to exchanging picks and players. Could we trade a better pick and a worse player for a worse pick and a better player (or the other way around)? That is what I would be looking into.

 

[DetroitRed]

Yzerman's history in late round 1 (19th and lower)'
2016- Brett Howden, 27th
2014 - Tony DeAngelo - 19th
2012 - Andrew Vasilvesky, 19th
2011 - Vladislav Namestnikov, 27th

Yzerman's history in round 2.
2017 - Alex Volkov, 48
2016 - Libor Hajek 37, Boris Katchouk, 44, Taylor Raddysh, 58.
2015 - Mitchell Stephes, 32, Matthew Spencer, 44.
2014. Dominik Masin, 35, Jonathan Macleod, 57.
2013 - Adam Erne, 33.
2012 - Dylan Blujus, 40, Brian Hart, 53
2011 - Nikita Kucherov, 58


Kucherov - the lone 2nd round pick of 12 who's proven anything.
Vasi

All for firsts have played in the NHL with Vasilevsky and DeAngelo enjoying the most success thus far.

That's all fact. Of course, his scouts and advisors have changed a bit. So... Who knows?

 

[Hen Kolland]

UPDATED using the chart posted in this thread.

2019 - Philadelphia trades pick #11 (397) to Arizona for pick #14 (352) and pick #45. (135) 90 point difference.

Per the chart, Arizona should've gotten pick #8.

2018 - Toronto trades pick #25 (179) to STL for pick #29 (156) and pick #76. (78) 55 point difference.

Per the chart, STL should've gotten pick #22.

2018 - Ottawa trades pick #22 (227) to NYR for pick #26 (169) and pick #48. (134) 76 point difference.

Per the chart, NYR should've gotten pick #17 or pick #18.

2017 - Chicago trades pick #26 (169) to Dallas for pick #29 (156) and pick #70. (89) 76 point difference.

Per the chart Dallas should've gotten pick #21.

2016 - NJD trades pick 11 (397) to Ottawa for pick 12 (377) and pick 80. (76) 56 point difference

Per the chart Ottawa should've gotten pick #9.

2016 - Philly trades pick 18 (296) and pick 79 (77) to Winnipeg for pick 22 (227) and pick 36. (152) 6 point difference

This is the only accurate one.

2016 - Washington trades pick 26 (169) to STL for pick 28 (157) and pick 87. (71) 59 point difference

Per the chart STL should've gotten pick #22.

2015 - Toronto trades pick 24 (191) to Philly for pick 29 (156) and pick 61. (104) 69 point difference

Per the chart Philly should've gotten pick #20.

2015 - Tampa trades pick 28 (157) to NYI for pick 33 (154) and pick 72. (84) 81 point difference

Per the chart NYI should've gotten pick #21.

2015 - Toronto trades pick 29 (156) to Columbus for pick 34 (153) and pick 68. (93) 90 point difference

Per the chart Columbus should've gotten pick #21.

It's closer than the chart from years ago, but it's still miles away. They vastly overvalue later picks still. There's a 65 point difference between picks #22 and #27 and a 65 point difference between picks #27 and #65. That just doesn't make sense.

I guess you can call it inflation. Teams realize how much the league has shifted to being driven by young stars primarily, and they want to maximize their chance at picking from the biggest pool. It’s why 2 seconds seems about the same as 1 first for Athanasiou, but Holland would give up the first option and not the second.

But more importantly, it’s generally with who the impetus is placed. If I own pick 20 and I have options on my list, I’m not going to trade so far back that I’m exiting a tier where my options lie. If I have 5 players in mind, I’m going to only really be interested in dropping to 25 at the lowest. From that point on, I’m actually doing the other team a favor, so you have to pay for the slot. I’m giving the other team the draft slot with “more” certainty (as much as a draft pick can have). I’m in the position of leverage.

I think everything above indicates that the charts DO work right when logically applied. All of your trade analysis breaks down how I would expect it to. The team moving up is only jumping 2-5 drafts slots, despite the price paid being “worth” 2-5 draft slots more.

Draft day deal for the Wings would probably look something like 32+Edmonton Second for a 22 range. Or 26 plus a third.

I can’t imagine we are making a huge leap to the teens with what he wave at our disposal, unless we are going to expand that concept. Take on a cap dump, sell a prospect, etc.

 

[ArmChairGM89]

UPDATED using the chart posted in this thread.

2019 - Philadelphia trades pick #11 (397) to Arizona for pick #14 (352) and pick #45. (135) 90 point difference.

Per the chart, Arizona should've gotten pick #8.

2018 - Toronto trades pick #25 (179) to STL for pick #29 (156) and pick #76. (78) 55 point difference.

Per the chart, STL should've gotten pick #22.

2018 - Ottawa trades pick #22 (227) to NYR for pick #26 (169) and pick #48. (134) 76 point difference.

Per the chart, NYR should've gotten pick #17 or pick #18.

2017 - Chicago trades pick #26 (169) to Dallas for pick #29 (156) and pick #70. (89) 76 point difference.

Per the chart Dallas should've gotten pick #21.

2016 - NJD trades pick 11 (397) to Ottawa for pick 12 (377) and pick 80. (76) 56 point difference

Per the chart Ottawa should've gotten pick #9.

2016 - Philly trades pick 18 (296) and pick 79 (77) to Winnipeg for pick 22 (227) and pick 36. (152) 6 point difference

This is the only accurate one.

2016 - Washington trades pick 26 (169) to STL for pick 28 (157) and pick 87. (71) 59 point difference

Per the chart STL should've gotten pick #22.

2015 - Toronto trades pick 24 (191) to Philly for pick 29 (156) and pick 61. (104) 69 point difference

Per the chart Philly should've gotten pick #20.

2015 - Tampa trades pick 28 (157) to NYI for pick 33 (154) and pick 72. (84) 81 point difference

Per the chart NYI should've gotten pick #21.

2015 - Toronto trades pick 29 (156) to Columbus for pick 34 (153) and pick 68. (93) 90 point difference

Per the chart Columbus should've gotten pick #21.

It's closer than the chart from years ago, but it's still miles away. They vastly overvalue later picks still. There's a 65 point difference between picks #22 and #27 and a 65 point difference between picks #27 and #65. That just doesn't make sense.

The chart doesn’t take into consideration various draft depths. So every draft should have mild variance from the mean, which would be the chart.