Hmm... maybe take out one significantly? I don't disagree with the above, but not for your reasons. There is often a premium paid to acquire players at the deadline and draft picks are often the currency. Last year, Hayes was traded for what turned out to be the 20th pick.
At the draft, draft picks are only worth a premium if they are picks from that year's drafts. Future years' drafts don't hold additional value at the time of the draft and have less value the further years away it is.
Disagree, draft picks years are out are still seen in a more positive light at the draft. It's human nature. Seeing kids like Hughes and Kakko get drafted would naturally make bubble team GMs wistful about the idea of landing players like them as lottery picks. That wistfulness doesn't exist in the thick of a playoff race.
Huh? If the risk isn't all that high, why would the proportionate risk be too high? The risk of the Canucks missing the playoffs for 2 straight years with Miller should objectively be lower than without Miller. It doesn't seem like you consider the odds of the Canucks drafting 16-18 either in 2020 or 2021.
The proportionate risk is high because of where the Canucks are. I generally think you have a good take on this, even if I don't fully agree, but think you're missing that piece.
Let's say there's a 4% chance that the Canucks give up a lottery pick and/or a elite player better than JT Miller for the next 15 years between either the 2020 or 2021 draft pick.
That's factually not a very big number. But the Canucks are imo, as an organization, at a point where they need to be shooting for the stars, lest they become the 2010s Minnesota Wild ie. mediocre. I'm very much considering the thought they finish 16-18, and that it is more likely to happen with Miller than without. I don't think that's a good thing at all.
Jeff Bezos is of the opinion that one day Amazon would fail and go bankrupt. Does that mean that if someone offered to sell his/her Amazon shares to you at half the market value with the condition that you can't sell it in the next two years that you wouldn't buy it because of your perceived proportionate risk (of Amazon going bankrupt) is too high? When analyzing risk, you have to analyze the risk of ruin or in other words the risk and odds of the "catastrophic loss" scenario happening. Your next comment suggests that you understand this but somehow your points above doesn't reflect this.
Of course not. But the contribution window for that 1st round pick is not two years, nor did we acquire JT Miller at half of his market value.
I think this is a closer analogy: if you were offered a call option on some upcoming new stock (call it Beyond Meat or whatever) that inherently doesn't hold the same value as Amazon today, but may have a higher upside ultimately, not even taking into account Amazon's catastrophic loss scenario. This new stock, the pick in terms of this trade, may inherently be worth more, not because of a catastrophic loss on Amazon (which would be like JT Miller's career taking a nosedive or ending due to injury), but an unprecedented gain in value on the call options for this new stock. This would be like that pick winning the lottery or being used to draft a Giroux/Pastrnak/E. Karlsson/etc. level player in the middle of the first.
Now this is priced out by the market, so theoretically, your dollars are going towards either Amazon stock today, at market prices, or a call option, expiring two years from now, with a vesting period of three years on a new upcoming stock. Could the latter bust? Yes, it most likely will NOT be as valuable as Amazon.
But that's where we need to look at this organization's "investor" profile. Are we looking for something that will hold value, have some appreciation and pay a decent dividend? Or are we a venture capital looking for that next boom, regardless of how many busts we need to sift through?
My argument is simply that we are closer to a venture capital/private equity investor profile than a defined benefit pension fund.
Apologies if that's getting too into the finance weeds lmao.
Agreed and what is the value of having a player who is locked into a good contract with no trade protections? I brought this up when the Blues were near the bottom of the standings and we were discussing the possibilities of poaching some of their players. During those discussions, I mentioned the value of acquiring Tarasenko who is locked in at $7.5M AAV. You're not getting that player as a UFA at $7.5M AAV without trade protection, yet you would have needed to trade significant assets in order to acquire him.
Personally, if the Canucks miss the playoffs the next two years and that 2021 pick ends up being 1st overall that's just the type of luck the Canucks have had in their franchise history.
The Blues are the best example in favor of your argument - the O'Reilly trade in particular. That looked like it would be a catastrophic loss scenario in December.
I agree though, of course there is a value to the surety that a good, established player on a long term contract provides. Miller is a steady, still growing, consistent dividend providing stock.
I'm not evaluating him outside the cost. I'm specifically saying that the cost of a conditional first round pick is not as big a deal as people think and that the value of his contract makes him a Better asset than people thing.
I said the cost isn't as high because people here overvalue first round picks by about 75%
Ha, I think it's interesting you hold this opinion because I think you're assessing risk purely from an actuarial perspective, which probably makes sense given your professional background
I'm curious what you think about my above venture capital vs pension fund contextualizing though. I agree with your assessment of the cost of a conditional first round pick for the average team; I don't know if I agree for a team that has been as dogshit as this one has been, and one in the lifecycle stage that this organization currently is.
