Value of: Utah 2025 1st and two 2024 2nd round picks

[Pinkfloyd]

At the deadline. You are trying to trade Ferraro in the offseason when there are plenty of ordinary dmen available for free.

The statement you said was teams don't trade 1st round picks for ordinary players like Ferraro. It's pretty well established that that isn't accurate.

They didn't trade a 1st for Goodrow, they traded a 1st for his contract. Maybe if Ferraro had a couple years left at 900k/yr he could be worth a 1st to an all-in team.

Goodrow the player or the contract even then was still ordinary and not a difference maker. The reason why Tampa did it was they felt he was good enough to be a 3rd liner cheap but they still only dropped back two rounds to take that chance. Same could happen for Ferraro. The difference is more in the money. Yeah, he makes a lot more but there's also ways in the offseason to move Ferraro for a significant cap dump or two and a 1st. And even in those cases, you can still attach protections on the pick. I'm not saying it will happen either but it's not unprecedented.

 

[Mangosteen]

What do you think they’d move for him?

25 first and two 24 seconds for him plus Soda. 2025 would not have lottery protection.

Or 2025 first and Hayton

 

[Alluckks]

Ryan Lindgren for Washington 2nd 2024 and lowest of their 4 2nds 2025 (condition that the Rangers get the lowest of available 2nds)

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

25 first and two 24 seconds for him plus Soda. 2025 would not have lottery protection.

Or 2025 first and Hayton

I’d be very surprised if he was moved for packages like those.

 

[Mangosteen]

I’d be very surprised if he was moved for packages like those.

Sadly agree. The move will have to be with a team that's looking more for Cap relief and needs some picks Knights, Ranger, Leafs and Stars. Want some one like Powers. I would Also try Crouse and some picks too.

 

[Axel Sandy Pelikan]

The statement you said was teams don't trade 1st round picks for ordinary players like Ferraro. It's pretty well established that that isn't accurate.

Goodrow the player or the contract even then was still ordinary and not a difference maker. The reason why Tampa did it was they felt he was good enough to be a 3rd liner cheap but they still only dropped back two rounds to take that chance. Same could happen for Ferraro. The difference is more in the money. Yeah, he makes a lot more but there's also ways in the offseason to move Ferraro for a significant cap dump or two and a 1st. And even in those cases, you can still attach protections on the pick. I'm not saying it will happen either but it's not unprecedented.

Yes. If you ignore all the context of why Barclay Goodrow got a first, it’s not unprecedented. Mario Ferraro is an average defenseman without much in the way of offensive chops. He’s making 4.5m Aav.

Guys like that get dealt as rentals in the last year of their deal at the TDL for a second and a third. Not with a couple years left at 4.5m prior to free agency.

If a team wants a guy like Mario Ferraro, they ink him on Jul.1. They don’t blow a first for him

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Yes. If you ignore all the context of why Barclay Goodrow got a first, it’s not unprecedented. Mario Ferraro is an average defenseman without much in the way of offensive chops. He’s making 4.5m Aav.

Guys like that get dealt as rentals in the last year of their deal at the TDL for a second and a third. Not with a couple years left at 4.5m prior to free agency.

If a team wants a guy like Mario Ferraro, they ink him on Jul.1. They don’t blow a first for him

Except no context was ignored. It's the same sort of principles but a different pay level and possibly other add-ons to get a team to think they're getting enough value out of that 1st round pick. Most guys like Ferraro do end up dealt like that but lots get dealt in the offseason with some term too. It's always their first option to get that sort of defenseman in free agency. Some teams pursue better options but have it fall through and then other guys are already gone. And if they're getting a later pick back and/or dumping a contract as part of it, they're not blowing a 1st on solely him just like Tampa didn't blow a 1st on Goodrow because they got a 3rd round pick back.

 

[Axel Sandy Pelikan]

Except no context was ignored. It's the same sort of principles but a different pay level and possibly other add-ons to get a team to think they're getting enough value out of that 1st round pick. Most guys like Ferraro do end up dealt like that but lots get dealt in the offseason with some term too. It's always their first option to get that sort of defenseman in free agency. Some teams pursue better options but have it fall through and then other guys are already gone. And if they're getting a later pick back and/or dumping a contract as part of it, they're not blowing a 1st on solely him just like Tampa didn't blow a 1st on Goodrow because they got a 3rd round pick back.

Tampa didn't blow a first on Goodrow because they got a couple Cups back. What the hell are you on about?

And while many have gotten dealt. A guy like Ferraro gets dealt for a mid-round pick at best... not a first. Teams shell out firsts for deadline additions because if you think they can win you a Cup, you care a whole lot less about moving it.

You're not getting a first round pick back for Mario Ferraro with two years left at 4.5M. Were he a $2M player? Maybe. But honestly, he just doesn't profile as a D that anyone is going to overpay for. Guys with offensive flair get dealt for more than is justifiable.

It isn't the same principles as all. The whole reason that Tampa went balls deep on trading for Goodrow, Coleman, Hagel, and Jeannot was that they were capped out hard and needed cheap adds that could push them over the Cup line. They paid a high price precisely because Goodrow (925k for two years), Coleman (2 years at 1.8m), Hagel (1.5m for 3 years) and Jeannot (league minimum, extended for 2x2.667) were all cheap as f***in dirt and filled specific niches they needed and the team was all-in because they had their core locked up and it was still relatively young. Please, don't use what Tampa did as "Oh, guys like this have gotten dealt for this type of return before." Because, quite literally, they haven't. Tampa was doing the same types of trades that teams like the Wings did before the salary cap, when they were trying to trade a 1st for 4th liner Paul Gaustad. Those simply are not trades that occur anymore for guys who don't fill this cheap as dirt or six week rentals at the TDL.

You're looking at Jonny Boychuk, Nick Leddy, Jeff Petry returns for Ferraro. 2nd round if you're very lucky and more likely a 3rd or 4th. Because Ferraro is a worse player than the first two at the time they were dealt and Petry got dealt for like a sixth.

 

[wetcoast]

I think they can lose Ferraro if it means they get real value in future assets. You can lose with anybody and I think Ferraro will decline before they reach their next stage of competitiveness.

Sure but it's not like Utah really needs a guy like Ferraro either so a trade doesn't seem plausible.

There are also reasons why Ferraro will likely go for more than what Burns returned. Age and contracts matter in this league.

Sure but he isn't the type of Dman who is getting back a first either IMO, sometimes a team with SC aspirations might trade a first for a big physical Dman on a backend that might be lacking that but Ferraro is really average in a lot of ways.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Tampa didn't blow a first on Goodrow because they got a couple Cups back. What the hell are you on about?

And while many have gotten dealt. A guy like Ferraro gets dealt for a mid-round pick at best... not a first. Teams shell out firsts for deadline additions because if you think they can win you a Cup, you care a whole lot less about moving it.

You're not getting a first round pick back for Mario Ferraro with two years left at 4.5M. Were he a $2M player? Maybe. But honestly, he just doesn't profile as a D that anyone is going to overpay for. Guys with offensive flair get dealt for more than is justifiable.

It isn't the same principles as all. The whole reason that Tampa went balls deep on trading for Goodrow, Coleman, Hagel, and Jeannot was that they were capped out hard and needed cheap adds that could push them over the Cup line. They paid a high price precisely because Goodrow (925k for two years), Coleman (2 years at 1.8m), Hagel (1.5m for 3 years) and Jeannot (league minimum, extended for 2x2.667) were all cheap as f***in dirt and filled specific niches they needed and the team was all-in because they had their core locked up and it was still relatively young. Please, don't use what Tampa did as "Oh, guys like this have gotten dealt for this type of return before." Because, quite literally, they haven't. Tampa was doing the same types of trades that teams like the Wings did before the salary cap, when they were trying to trade a 1st for 4th liner Paul Gaustad. Those simply are not trades that occur anymore for guys who don't fill this cheap as dirt or six week rentals at the TDL.

You're looking at Jonny Boychuk, Nick Leddy, Jeff Petry returns for Ferraro. 2nd round if you're very lucky and more likely a 3rd or 4th. Because Ferraro is a worse player than the first two at the time they were dealt and Petry got dealt for like a sixth.

Again, the original point of what you responded to was someone saying that teams don't trade 1st round picks on ordinary players that aren't difference makers. Goodrow is and was an ordinary player that wasn't a difference maker. Tampa winning Cups didn't have anything to do with Goodrow being anything beyond his ordinary self on a cheap contract.

And again, you're incorrectly stating his contract is two years at 4.5 mil. That's not what his contract is. It's 3.25 mil.

I'm also not saying that it has to be exactly like how Tampa did those trades. Different trades can accomplish different things but players of this caliber have been involved in such deals. I'm not even saying that it's likely but pretending like it doesn't happen or can't happen with different things involved is being pretty silly. Comparing him to guys that were either much older or much more expensive or both at the time of their trades while getting Ferraro's cap numbers wrong is what ignoring context looks like. That being said, I agree that the most likely outcome is a similar trade to them but players that can pull a 2nd round and another asset are not that far off from being able to return a 1st. There just needs to be more of a need to do something that gets that 1st whether it's trade protections on draft picks, eating cap dumps in return, or retaining down a figure. The Sharks can't do the latter until next offseason but can eat plenty of cap dumps to make it worth someone's late 1st round pick if they're competing.

Sure but it's not like Utah really needs a guy like Ferraro either so a trade doesn't seem plausible.


Sure but he isn't the type of Dman who is getting back a first either IMO, sometimes a team with SC aspirations might trade a first for a big physical Dman on a backend that might be lacking that but Ferraro is really average in a lot of ways.

It depends on what's really available for a team like Utah though. It's hard to imagine anybody with trade protections not still having Arizona on their no-trade lists for this season and rejecting the ask of being sent there if put out there. But I agree Ferraro is likely way down the list but you never know in these sorts of offseasons where lots of teams have lots of options and a team like Utah may want to make a big splash but may not have any players that are agreeable to that move with trade protections.

 

[Heldig]

I think Utah will go hard after a few veteran D this summer - Skej, Pesce, Zadorov, Theodore, Dillon, DeMelo, Roy...

Rangers have some decisions this summer and maybe Trouba or Lindgren become available. Teams with little to no cap space may look to dump a veteran D for prospects / picks...

 

[Ford Prefect]

Vegas didn't go out and trade picks+prospects unprotected in the off season.

They waited until later in the season when it was evident that they had a chance to win a cup.

When was the last time a team that traded an unprotected 1st, let alone a team that finished near the bottom almost every year prior? It is very uncommon and usually only happens out of necessity because a contender already traded their 1st, like when San Jose moved the double unprotected 1st to Ottawa for Karlsson because they already moved their upcoming 1st (protected) for Evander Kane.

It's like making a thread saying Value Of: Bedard or any other type of asset that you can easily verify is incredibly unlikely to be traded. There is no universe Chicago trades Bedard, and there is no universe where bottom dwelling teams needlessly trade unprotected 1st rounders 1 year out when protection is common and they are loaded with other high value assets that they could use to get roster players. It makes no sense.

That wasn't the point of the statement. The point was what gets fans engaged. I don't disagree it may now be wise to trade an unprotected first (do you remember when there were no such thing as unprotected firsts?). What I am saying is that if your goal is to engage fans and have them come to see your product, playoff success is the best remedy. New fans in an nontraditional hockey market wouldn't give 2 flying fracks about a draft pick. Look what all the high picks did for Arizona. If they ever iced a real good hockey team, how different would the present be?

 

[frightenedinmatenum2]

That wasn't the point of the statement. The point was what gets fans engaged. I don't disagree it may now be wise to trade an unprotected first (do you remember when there were no such thing as unprotected firsts?). What I am saying is that if your goal is to engage fans and have them come to see your product, playoff success is the best remedy. New fans in an nontraditional hockey market wouldn't give 2 flying fracks about a draft pick. Look what all the high picks did for Arizona. If they ever iced a real good hockey team, how different would the present be?

None of what you're saying makes sense.

A basement team trading an unprotected draft pick would be unprecedented. If the goal is playoff success, it is not the path of least resistance to acquiring players.

Draft picks are a big deal and do lead to fan engagement. The NHL guarantees expansion teams a great shot at the first overall pick for this very same reason. Your argument about playoff success doesn't make sense, because trading an unprotected 1st does not guarantee playoff success. The two things aren't at all related because there are other more reasonable pieces that teams can and do trade to increase the chances of playoff success.

Ultimately, the burden of proof is on the person whose argument is completely outside the norm'. Nothing has been provided that justifies the idea that a basement team will trade an unprotected first, something that never happens in today's NHL. Contenders only trade them as a last resort (see San Jose example).

If people want to have a fantasy thread like "what would happen if Chicago auctioned Bedard", that's fine. It's fun to fantasize. Saying that a basement team could trade their unprotected first is similar to that, except you're trying to defend that it is a realistic suggestion and not just a fun fantasy idea that is not rooted in reality. That's where the disagreement is coming from.

 

[Junohockeyfan]

Except no context was ignored. It's the same sort of principles but a different pay level and possibly other add-ons to get a team to think they're getting enough value out of that 1st round pick. Most guys like Ferraro do end up dealt like that but lots get dealt in the offseason with some term too. It's always their first option to get that sort of defenseman in free agency. Some teams pursue better options but have it fall through and then other guys are already gone. And if they're getting a later pick back and/or dumping a contract as part of it, they're not blowing a 1st on solely him just like Tampa didn't blow a 1st on Goodrow because they got a 3rd round pick back.

Anyone trading a 1st for Ferrarro will get fired. No one takes a perfectly good 1st round pick and lights it on fire like that.

Why is it that no one agrees with you? lol

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Anyone trading a 1st for Ferrarro will get fired. No one takes a perfectly good 1st round pick and lights it on fire like that.

Why is it that no one agrees with you? lol

Nobody making a deal for Ferraro with a 1st is just getting Ferraro as part of the deal is the point you continue to miss in your mission to continue to harass me over a disagreement. Nobody agreeing with me when I've been talked to by maybe three people total is hardly some big point for you to make. Why is it that you feel the need to respond to me with such hostility every single time? Do you need help?

 

[Junohockeyfan]

Nobody making a deal for Ferraro with a 1st is just getting Ferraro as part of the deal is the point you continue to miss in your mission to continue to harass me over a disagreement. Nobody agreeing with me when I've been talked to by maybe three people total is hardly some big point for you to make. Why is it that you feel the need to respond to me with such hostility every single time? Do you need help?

Because you need schooling!

Mario Ferraro…. LOL

You might get a 3rd or a 2nd if you are adding to MF.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Because you need schooling!

Mario Ferraro…. LOL

You might get a 3rd or a 2nd if you are adding to MF.

Nothing you have said in this thread would educate anyone because they've just been unsupported assertions.

 

[Ford Prefect]

None of what you're saying makes sense.

A basement team trading an unprotected draft pick would be unprecedented. If the goal is playoff success, it is not the path of least resistance to acquiring players.

Draft picks are a big deal and do lead to fan engagement. The NHL guarantees expansion teams a great shot at the first overall pick for this very same reason. Your argument about playoff success doesn't make sense, because trading an unprotected 1st does not guarantee playoff success. The two things aren't at all related because there are other more reasonable pieces that teams can and do trade to increase the chances of playoff success.

Ultimately, the burden of proof is on the person whose argument is completely outside the norm'. Nothing has been provided that justifies the idea that a basement team will trade an unprotected first, something that never happens in today's NHL. Contenders only trade them as a last resort (see San Jose example).

If people want to have a fantasy thread like "what would happen if Chicago auctioned Bedard", that's fine. It's fun to fantasize. Saying that a basement team could trade their unprotected first is similar to that, except you're trying to defend that it is a realistic suggestion and not just a fun fantasy idea that is not rooted in reality. That's where the disagreement is coming from.

What I'm saying doesn't make sense to you because you're not gripping what the purpose of my initial response was. I'll make it clearer.

Original: Draft picks get fans interested

Response: Winning gets fans interested more than draft picks.

Your Response: Teams don't trade unprotected firsts for all these reasons.

My Response: Yeah I know. They shouldn't and I'm not advocating that. I'm saying that winning beats drafting to attract more fans.

Your Response: I don't make any sense because draft picks lead to success, basement teams don't trade unprotected picks, and for some reason auctioning off Bedard.

My LAST Respone:

1. Yes, trading unprotected firsts bad.
2. Me no say they do.
3. Me say WINNING better get new fans.
4. Me say drafting no gooder get new fans,
4. Me say Vegas example proof winning good way make new fans.
5. You miss joke 4 responses ago.

And scene.

 

[Junohockeyfan]

Nothing you have said in this thread would educate anyone because they've just been unsupported assertions.

All i have to do is say the name Mario Ferraro.... and 1st round pick and there is mass laughter in this thread.

There is nothing in Mario Ferraro's game that would entice a GM to cough up a 1st. The Sharks are a better team with Ferraro on the bench than on the ice. They score more when he is is on the bench, and by a wide margin. He's a bottom pairing dman on a good team. Teams don't trade 1sts for a bottom pairing dman. How do you not realize this?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

All i have to do is say the name Mario Ferraro.... and 1st round pick and there is mass laughter in this thread.

There is nothing in Mario Ferraro's game that would entice a GM to cough up a 1st. The Sharks are a better team with Ferraro on the bench than on the ice. They score more when he is is on the bench, and by a wide margin. He's a bottom pairing dman on a good team. Teams don't trade 1sts for a bottom pairing dman. How do you not realize this?

Nothing about this delusion of yours is educational to anyone. The second part is you continuing to miss the point. You poorly analyzing his game and his value doesn't change just because you have a stupid vendetta. Ferraro is not a bottom pairing defenseman. Critiquing his game because a bad team that isn't good offensively has issues scoring goals is the sort of surface level analysis I would expect from someone who just started watching the NHL.

 

[dredeye]

Although he does have a M NTC Hampus Lindholm could possibly be available from the Bruins.

 

[13pacheco31]

Utah's better off just signing a player or two on July 1st and keeping the picks

 

[cslebn]

Utah's better off just signing a player or two on July 1st and keeping the picks

The reason utah fans have been looking to move picks for players is GMBA has literally stated signing 29 year Olds to long expensive contracts is a mistake

Trading the 6OA might be a stretch though. With all the 2nds and etc something else should be workable

 

[hangman005]

I mean he did really piss me off in the playoffs, but not enough to give him away for free. Besides, I doubt he waives his nmc for Utah.

Likely the case, and it's more the contract I want to be free of before it becomes a complete anchor.

 

[Jormungandr]

I’d like to sign Brett Pesce and trade for Ryan Lindgren. I know the Pesce one goes against what Bill Armstrong stated in interviews about signing UFA’s to long contracts but we shall see what actually happens. Right now, that’s my hope.