Speculation: What to do when the Balls fall our way?

[2Pair]

A 70 point center playing between Anders Lee and Jordan Eberle, not Lafreniere and Fiala.

That's still not close to an $11M player. And certainly isn't worth losing 4 first rounders for the chance to overpay him that badly.

 

[2Pair]

Would be fun. ELCs going forward would be ultra important

Wouldn't have any of those

 

[16thOverallSaveUs]

Wouldn't have any of those

Correct. We lost 4 1sts

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Correct. We lost 4 1sts

We have Pittsburgh's and we'd get at least 1 back in a Dumba trade. Plus some extra 2nds for trading Greenway and probably eventually Eriksson Ek.

And we have Boldy, Beckman and Khovanov as it stands now. Can always delay their arrival a bit.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

That's still not close to an $11M player. And certainly isn't worth losing 4 first rounders for the chance to overpay him that badly.

It's 100% an overpayment, I agree.

 

[Nsjohnson]

That trade is a no-brainer. Being afraid of being able to re-sign players is ridiculous. Minnesota with Barkov is a top 3 team in the West. Re-signing him would not be an issue.

I don't disagree with your other points, but we have no idea if it would or wouldn't be an issue. We can play the what if game all day right? Like, what if Laf goes on to become a 90+ point player every year. Likewise, what if he is nothing more than a 50 points guy? Not too bad but Barkov would be better. But, what if Barkov says screw this, I want to play in NYC or LA? I want to test free agency. It's a crap shoot. And if Laf ends up the player they think he will be and we trade him for Barkov and Barkov goes elsewhere, we don't have Laf and we don't have our #1 center. We look like idiots.

 

[2Pair]

It's 100% an overpayment, I agree.

It's about 250%. If you're willing to give up your next 4 first rounders, you should be able to find much better deals than Matt Barzal at $11M per

 

[Nsjohnson]

It's about 250%. If you're willing to give up your next 4 first rounders, you should be able to find much better deals than Matt Barzal at $11M per

Exactly. We all might be desperate for a center, but not a 4- firsts for a Matt Barzal deal.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

It's about 250%. If you're willing to give up your next 4 first rounders, you should be able to find much better deals than Matt Barzal at $11M per

I'm not sure what that converts to. Barzal is only worth 2 1st round picks and $7M a year?

 

[2Pair]

I don't disagree with your other points, but we have no idea if it would or wouldn't be an issue. We can play the what if game all day right? Like, what if Laf goes on to become a 90+ point player every year. Likewise, what if he is nothing more than a 50 points guy? Not too bad but Barkov would be better. But, what if Barkov says screw this, I want to play in NYC or LA? I want to test free agency. It's a crap shoot. And if Laf ends up the player they think he will be and we trade him for Barkov and Barkov goes elsewhere, we don't have Laf and we don't have our #1 center. We look like idiots.

I agree with pretty much all of this other than you would never look like an idiot by trading for one of the best players in the world. Especially when you're doing it at a discount. There's a risk/reward in anything. Barkov for 1st overall would slant the risk/reward in Minnesota's favor. By a lot IMO.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

The 8th year would be an asset in any hypothetical contract extension talks with Barkov, but it would be the most Minnesota thing ever to trade the #1 overall pick for a guy and then have to trade that guy for something like 2 lottery protected 1st round picks a year later.

 

[TaLoN]

The 8th year would be an asset in any hypothetical contract extension talks with Barkov, but it would be the most Minnesota thing ever to trade the #1 overall pick for a guy and then have to trade that guy for something like 2 lottery protected 1st round picks a year later.

There's a reason 1st overall rarely gets traded. The risk involved in trading is rarely worth the reward in keeping it.

The cost would be franchise crippling if the risk fails. The rewards of keeping is likely franchise altering in a positive sense.

A bird in hand so to speak... unless someone wows you ala Lindros/ Forsberg, you're more likely better off keeping the player in this case.

Not every year is that way, but in down years for 1st overall, you generally wouldn't get an offer good enough in the first place either.

Laf is definitely a sure thing prospect even if short of generational. I'll gladly take the MacKinnon level player and move on and enjoy watching him play for the next decade.

 

[grN1g]

Watching us fail with all that wing talent for a decade cause we got no dang centers to throw between them lol.

 

[nickschultzfan]

Exactly. We all might be desperate for a center, but not a 4- firsts for a Matt Barzal deal.

People keep saying this like 4 1st is a lot for a NHL first line center. It is not.

 

[57special]

Which 1st's? There is a big difference between a #1 oa and #31 oa. I've always thought the offer sheet compensation package favors the better teams, who have the lower, and therefore less valuable, picks.

I'd gladly give up a 20 oa, 25 oa, 29 oa and 18 oa for Barzal. 4 picks in the lottery, not so much.

 

[2Pair]

I'm not sure what that converts to. Barzal is only worth 2 1st round picks and $7M a year?

Matt Barzal has 122 points over the past 2 seasons
Max Domi has 116
RNH has 130
Dylan Strome has 95

I will let you figure out the math on the ridiculousness factor

 

[2Pair]

There's a reason 1st overall rarely gets traded. The risk involved in trading is rarely worth the reward in keeping it.

The cost would be franchise crippling if the risk fails. The rewards of keeping is likely franchise altering in a positive sense.

A bird in hand so to speak... unless someone wows you ala Lindros/ Forsberg, you're more likely better off keeping the player in this case.

Not every year is that way, but in down years for 1st overall, you generally wouldn't get an offer good enough in the first place either.

Laf is definitely a sure thing prospect even if short of generational. I'll gladly take the MacKinnon level player and move on and enjoy watching him play for the next decade.

Thinking that you're guaranteed to get a Mackinnon level player out of Lafreniere isn't smart.

Edmonton had 3 straight #1 overall picks that they would've been much better off trading instead of taking.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Matt Barzal has 122 points over the past 2 seasons
Max Domi has 116
RNH has 130
Dylan Strome has 95

I will let you figure out the math on the ridiculousness factor

Nice dodge. And nice cutoff on the 2 years.

 

[TaLoN]

Thinking that you're guaranteed to get a Mackinnon level player out of Lafreniere isn't smart.

Edmonton had 3 straight #1 overall picks that they would've been much better off trading instead of taking.

And Laf is considered better than all 3 of them were at the time of their draft.

 

[2Pair]

Nice dodge. And nice cutoff on the 2 years.

What did I dodge? Do you really need actual evidence to know that $11M and 4 firsts for Barzal is beyond ridiculous?

 

[2Pair]

And Laf is considered better than all 3 of them were at the time of their draft.

That doesn't mean shit, when you're guaranteeing that Lafreniere will be a top 5 player in the world

 

[TaLoN]

That doesn't mean shit, when you're guaranteeing that Lafreniere will be a top 5 player in the world

I'm guaranteeing he'll end up in the ballpark.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

What did I dodge? Do you really need actual evidence to know that $11M and 4 firsts for Barzal is beyond ridiculous?

It's probably sitting right at ridiculous. Not quite beyond.

 

[2Pair]

I'm guaranteeing he'll end up in the ballpark.

That doesn't mean shit either. More than a few people guaranteed that Hall, Nugent-Hopkins, and Yakupov would be the best players from their drafts as well.

My point isn't that I think Lafreniere will bust. My point is that anyone that thinks it's too risky to trade a #1 overall for a guy like Barkov, certainly needs to also consider the risk that Lafreniere doesn't end up being as good as advertised. Thinking that the #1 overall pick is a guaranteed sure thing is a really bad idea.

 

[2Pair]

It's probably sitting right at ridiculous. Not quite beyond.

You do realize that Matt Barzal is a low end 1st line center correct? You're treating him like he's a top 10-20 player in the league.

 

[TaLoN]

That doesn't mean shit either. More than a few people guaranteed that Hall, Nugent-Hopkins, and Yakupov would be the best players from their drafts as well.

My point isn't that I think Lafreniere will bust. My point is that anyone that thinks it's too risky to trade a #1 overall for a guy like Barkov, certainly needs to also consider the risk that Lafreniere doesn't end up being as good as advertised. Thinking that the #1 overall pick is a guaranteed sure thing is a really bad idea.

The risk is much lower with Laf not being as good as advertised than Barkov moving on in free agency.

Barkov has no ties to Minnesota at all, and may very likely want to shop his services being so close to free agency. Players love the idea of choosing where they want to play.

Laf isn't generational, but he's in that tier just below, that rarely misses. The odds are very low that he doesn't live up to the billing.

You're more than welcome to your opinion that you'd rather trade, but I just think the risk/ reward factor lies heavily in favor of keeping the pick and drafting Laf if it came down to it.