2023 NHL Draft June 28 and 29, Nashville, TN (Selections - 13, 39, 45, 86, 109, 141, 173, 205)

[debaser66]

Yes, but your original post said grab Michkov or Carlsson at 3 if we win, then trade back up to grab Rienbacher.

If we win the lottery, we no longer have pick 13 (it is replaced with pick 3), so I assumed you meant to use our 2 2nds to move up.

You jinxed it, quebecing his name

 

[Ehran]

From what I understand, the draft lottery tonight is taking place BEFORE the EDM/VGK game starts. If someone doesn't have ESPN+, do we think they would be able to watch the lottery somewhere?

You jinxed it, quebecing his name

Well... my grandmother was from Quebec, so it's kind of expected.

 

[Jim Bob]

Forget Bedard, Benson's look...

 

[HOOats]

It takes two to tango and teams rarely trade back out of the top 10 merely for draft picks.

Thanks for doing the research on pick trades, it's good to understand the context of how infrequently it happens.

Re: "it takes two to tango" though - could it be that teams in the top 10 are willing to move down and the missing dance partner has been the team willing to spend to go up? Not sure how many teams have been in the position we are in - entering win-now mode but dealing from deep, quality surplus with a strong young core established, #1 prospect pool with 4-5 forwards looking like sure NHLers in at least some form, and plenty of future picks remaining.

Not saying it would necessarily be wise for us to move up. In fact there might even be a case to be made for shrewd teams looking to move down in specific spots if the price is indeed so significant. I understand that the odds of selecting a quality NHLer decrease rapidly, but there might still be an inefficiency propped up by the egos of scouts and GMs who are positive their top 10 target is "the guy" when in actuality, plenty of selections from 11-20 end up proving better.

Let's assume Oliver Moore is the 13th pick. If you packaged him with Rosen for example, who does that duo trump in terms of expected future value? I'd say everyone not named Bedard, Fantilli, Carlsson, Michkov, and Smith. I'd rather have the duo than Dvorsky, Benson, etc (except Reinbacher for us, considering need and surplus). After the first five this year, it's a crapshoot and a team in full rebuild should value two cracks more than one.

 

[TageGod]

NFL is so much more projectable in the draft. NHL draft is boring. Trading two magic beans for one is not really a good idea. It is too hard to find good talent to throw picks to move up. We need a few waves of prospects to be cheap ELC roster spots in the coming years I think stand pat and trade 2024 and beyond picks.

 

[Chainshot]

Guess it depends. Trade ups for QBS go for 4 + 1st round picks sometimes. Look at what Boston had back when they had their 3 1st rounders. A chance to setup their team for a decade. As were seeing more and more in the NHL, teams win cups not 1 player.

Please keep Bedard on the west coast.

If NHL teams could get a starter in the 2nd or 3rd round, they would likely be a lot more open to both moving a first in a particular draft or in moving multiple firsts to move up. Since they can't, they don't.

 

[Jim Bob]

Thanks for doing the research on pick trades, it's good to understand the context of how infrequently it happens.

Re: "it takes two to tango" though - could it be that teams in the top 10 are willing to move down and the missing dance partner has been the team willing to spend to go up? Not sure how many teams have been in the position we are in - entering win-now mode but dealing from deep, quality surplus with a strong young core established, #1 prospect pool with 4-5 forwards looking like sure NHLers in at least some form, and plenty of future picks remaining.

Not saying it would necessarily be wise for us to move up. In fact there might even be a case to be made for shrewd teams looking to move down in specific spots if the price is indeed so significant. I understand that the odds of selecting a quality NHLer decrease rapidly, but there might still be an inefficiency propped up by the egos of scouts and GMs who are positive their top 10 target is "the guy" when in actuality, plenty of selections from 11-20 end up proving better.

Let's assume Oliver Moore is the 13th pick. If you packaged him with Rosen for example, who does that duo trump in terms of expected future value? I'd say everyone not named Bedard, Fantilli, Carlsson, Michkov, and Smith. I'd rather have the duo than Dvorsky, Benson, etc (except Reinbacher for us, considering need and surplus). After the first five this year, it's a crapshoot and a team in full rebuild should value two cracks more than one.

The general soundbite you get from GMs after the draft was that it was cost prohibitive to move up. So, it is hard to tell if it is the teams with the early picks overvaluing them or if teams further down just don't want to give up later picks to move up.

 

[Chainshot]

Thanks for doing the research on pick trades, it's good to understand the context of how infrequently it happens.

Re: "it takes two to tango" though - could it be that teams in the top 10 are willing to move down and the missing dance partner has been the team willing to spend to go up? Not sure how many teams have been in the position we are in - entering win-now mode but dealing from deep, quality surplus with a strong young core established, #1 prospect pool with 4-5 forwards looking like sure NHLers in at least some form, and plenty of future picks remaining.

Not saying it would necessarily be wise for us to move up. In fact there might even be a case to be made for shrewd teams looking to move down in specific spots if the price is indeed so significant. I understand that the odds of selecting a quality NHLer decrease rapidly, but there might still be an inefficiency propped up by the egos of scouts and GMs who are positive their top 10 target is "the guy" when in actuality, plenty of selections from 11-20 end up proving better.

Let's assume Oliver Moore is the 13th pick. If you packaged him with Rosen for example, who does that duo trump in terms of expected future value? I'd say everyone not named Bedard, Fantilli, Carlsson, Michkov, and Smith. I'd rather have the duo than Dvorsky, Benson, etc (except Reinbacher for us, considering need and surplus). After the first five this year, it's a crapshoot and a team in full rebuild should value two cracks more than one.

Based on the annual volume of comments from GMs, they claim they want to move up but don't find anyone to do so. If teams have weighted their pick location in any way similar to how say The Athletic did this particular story:

By the numbers: Revisiting the true value of a draft pick

The NHL Draft isn’t nearly as random as the NFL’s, but there are inefficiencies that can be exposed and an opportunity to glean value.

theathletic.com

... then it's also a matter of thinking that the higher pick is likely going to be the more valuable player individually. If there were more roster positions, maybe it makes it work to have more selections, but the success rate falls off so fast and later picks are so often not linear in terms of impact that it's easy to see why a team would stay in a spot to be more sure of what they are getting.

 

[HOOats]

Based on the annual volume of comments from GMs, they claim they want to move up but don't find anyone to do so. If teams have weighted their pick location in any way similar to how say The Athletic did this particular story:

By the numbers: Revisiting the true value of a draft pick

The NHL Draft isn’t nearly as random as the NFL’s, but there are inefficiencies that can be exposed and an opportunity to glean value.

theathletic.com

... then it's also a matter of thinking that the higher pick is likely going to be the more valuable player individually. If there were more roster positions, maybe it makes it work to have more selections, but the success rate falls off so fast and later picks are so often not linear in terms of impact that it's easy to see why a team would stay in a spot to be more sure of what they are getting.

I hear you. Just always curious where the next pillar of NHL executive orthodoxy will fall.

Just for hypothetical sake, as a neutral party, who in this draft would you prefer to have over the duo of Moore and Rosen?

 

[Chainshot]

I hear you. Just always curious where the next pillar of NHL executive orthodoxy will fall.

Just for hypothetical sake, as a neutral party, who in this draft would you prefer to have over the duo of Moore and Rosen?

Maybe I'm a dinosaur thinking that I can have a potentially dominant first line player than a couple of mid-liners and would rather have the dominant first liner than the mid-line guys.

 

[HOOats]

Maybe I'm a dinosaur thinking that I can have a potentially dominant first line player than a couple of mid-liners and would rather have the dominant first liner than the mid-line guys.

I tend to agree in the abstract, which is why I hope Adams trades a number of our good futures for 75 cents on the dollar for another great/elite piece/fit.

Or let's just win the lottery. ABMOD (Anyone But Montreal or Detroit).

 

[Ehran]

Maybe I'm a dinosaur thinking that I can have a potentially dominant first line player than a couple of mid-liners and would rather have the dominant first liner than the mid-line guys.

The Toronto Maple Leaf's approach.

Or, the Conner McDavid Theorem.

Neither has really worked out well in the NHL, to date. (McDavid now has Drai + others finally, so we'll see).

 

[Matt Ress]

NFL is so much more projectable in the draft. NHL draft is boring. Trading two magic beans for one is not really a good idea. It is too hard to find good talent to throw picks to move up. We need a few waves of prospects to be cheap ELC roster spots in the coming years I think stand pat and trade 2024 and beyond picks.

We should have no problem bringing up ELCs in the next few years. Cheap labor is what makes these high picks so valuable. I don't think the draft is boring but I'd be surprised if Johnson isn't moved and perhaps packaged for a higher pick.

 

[Sabre the Win]

I have a feeling we move up to 3 tonight.

 

[Chainshot]

The Toronto Maple Leaf's approach.

Or, the Conner McDavid Theorem.

Neither has really worked out well in the NHL, to date. (McDavid now has Drai + others finally, so we'll see).

Perhaps too simple to think that quality first liners always fail.

 

[Ehran]

Perhaps too simple to think that quality first liners always fail.

My thinking is that being too "top heavy" makes it too easy in hockey to shut down your top players.

IMO, the Sabres have 3 lines (eventually) that will be quality offensive producers, and even if you shut down the top line, the others will cover.

To follow that up: I think the entire roster needs to be filled with quality players to make a serious Cup run. So if I had the #3 (or even in most seasons, the #1 pick), I would consider moving down.

One really good player + one good player >> (to me for roster building) than just One Superstar

 

[TheBarnIsElectric]

I have a feeling we move up to 3 tonight.

For some reason I'm always more optimistic in the years we have bad odds. Every time we picked 7 or 8 I felt like we were going to win it.

 

[The Blunder Years]

#3 would be amazing given the talent available there, Michkov could be an unbelievable player. I like to imagine It would be the equivalent of us adding a better shooting Kaprizov to a hopefully already stacked 2026 Buffalo Sabres squad. That would just be crazy.

 

[Fjordy]

#3 would be amazing given the talent available there, Michkov could be an unbelievable player. I like to imagine It would be the equivalent of us adding a better shooting Kaprizov to a hopefully already stacked 2026 Buffalo Sabres squad. That would just be crazy.

#MichkovWeTrust

 

[Chainshot]

My thinking is that being too "top heavy" makes it too easy in hockey to shut down your top players.

IMO, the Sabres have 3 lines (eventually) that will be quality offensive producers, and even if you shut down the top line, the others will cover.

To follow that up: I think the entire roster needs to be filled with quality players to make a serious Cup run. So if I had the #3 (or even in most seasons, the #1 pick), I would consider moving down.

One really good player + one good player >> (to me for roster building) than just One Superstar

In relationship to the value of an individual pick to an individual team (the point of the comment), some teams don't even have a guy who they can express as being capable of top heaviness.

 

[Burgmania]

Fingers crossed that young Mr. Bedard has been listening to Toby Keith lately:

"Go west, young man - haven't you been told? California's full of whiskey, women and gold..."

Anywhere in our division (CBJ, DET, MTL) would be a disaster.

 

[MarkusKetterer]

Fingers crossed that young Mr. Bedard has been listening to Toby Keith lately:

"Go west, young man - haven't you been told? California's full of whiskey, women and gold..."

Anywhere in our division (CBJ, DET, MTL) would be a disaster.

Jackets are in the Metro

 

[Weltschmerz]

Wonder how far Michkov could drop? Seems unlikely that he pulls a Grigorenko but who knows how scared teams are of that contract. My guess would be that Vancouver takes him if noone else before that.

 

[Chainshot]

Ran 10 simulations of the lottery. Buffalo moved down twice.

Philly won 3x, Montreal 2x, Vancouver 2x... no one else won more than twice. One of the Vancouver moves was also to 2 instead of 1 (Montreal moved up to 1).

 

[NotABadPeriod]

The Toronto Maple Leaf's approach.

Or, the Conner McDavid Theorem.

Neither has really worked out well in the NHL, to date. (McDavid now has Drai + others finally, so we'll see).

I mean, those teams really lack because they are forward heavy more than they are top heavy. They need better than Rielly/Nurse as the #1 D, and their goaltending situations have been discussed ad nauseum over the years.