Value of: 4OA to Utah, 6OA (Buium) to CBJ

[Cowumbus]

Assuming Utah would not take Buium at 4OA, and Montreal takes a forward, what would Utah need to add to 6OA to move up? And would they be interested in doing so?

Does 6OA + 63OA get it done? Or a 3rd rounder maybe?

Edit: also assuming Demidov is not available at 4****

Click to read more...

 

[T_Cage]

If buium is the one cbj wants and utah doesn't, why would they move up? Just let the jackets take him at 4 and then they get the Defensemen they want at 6 without losing an asset

Unless UTA wants a forward, more specifically one montreal is targeting, there isn't a reason to move. And honestly, other than Demidov I don't see a forward moving up for (if they take Lindstrom, Iginla is a heck of a 'consolation prize', etc)

 

[Crede777]

Utah is drafting 6th OA not 4th OA. Unless you meant what would Utah have to add to 6th OA to get the 4th OA to Columbus.

 

[Cowumbus]

If buium is the one cbj wants and utah doesn't, why would they move up? Just let the jackets take him at 4 and then they get the Defensemen they want at 6 without losing an asset

Unless UTA wants a forward, more specifically one montreal is targeting, there isn't a reason to move. And honestly, other than Demidov I don't see a forward moving up for (if they take Lindstrom, Iginla is a heck of a 'consolation prize', etc)

This is why I was asking, Utah would have to want a F at 4 that they think Montreal might select. Basically they would have to be high on Lidstrom or Silayev.

 

[Brodeur]

I feel like most teams would rather stay put and take their guy rather than risk it just to add a 3rd round pick. I think the NFL Draft and their pick movement causes our expectations to go a bit wild for the NHL Draft. Utah would really have to be worried about Montreal taking their guy at #5 to trade up to #4.

In 2015, New Jersey offered #6 to Columbus for #8, #34, and #129. Columbus declined since they didn't think the Devils or Flyers were taking Zach Werenski.
Closest trade that was completed was 2008 when the Islanders swapped #5 for #7, #68, and a 2009 2nd. If I were Columbus shopping this year's pick, I'd want at least something close to that.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

To move up a spot, or two that high is going to cost a 1st unless a team is really nonchalant about who they want.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Looking at the teams/needs infront of Utah they don't really have a reason to move up. If they want a LD they're guarenteed one of Buium/Dickinson/Silayev at 6, or they settle for a "faller". There's 0 incentive to trade up to 4.

 

[T_Cage]

This is why I was asking, Utah would have to want a F at 4 that they think Montreal might select. Basically they would have to be high on Lidstrom or Silayev.

That makes sense. If they REALLY wanted Lindstrom, than 6th+63rd would be fair value (maybe a small add)to jump mtl, but I don't see the need imo

 

[Brodeur]

Looking at the teams/needs infront of Utah they don't really have a reason to move up. If they want a LD they're guarenteed one of Buium/Dickinson/Silayev at 6, or they settle for a "faller". There's 0 incentive to trade up to 4.

It's possible that they have a preference among that group. In 2015, Columbus would have paid a small premium to trade up from #8 to get Noah Hanifin while knowing that Zach Werenski was their fallback option. Columbus thought Toronto's asking price for #4 was a bit too much for their liking and Carolina wasn't willing to move out of #5, so they were fine with staying put for Werenski. But they did kick the tires about moving up.

Similarly Garth Snow channeled his inner Mike Ditka to try to move up a couple spots for Ryan Murray in 2012 but ended up taking Griffin Reinhart.

 

[Schemp]

The only way it would make sense for Utah is if Levshunov hasn't been picked yet!

 

[Djp]

Assuming Utah would not take Buium at 4OA, and Montreal takes a forward, what would Utah need to add to 6OA to move up? And would they be interested in doing so?

Does 6OA + 63OA get it done? Or a 3rd rounder maybe?

Edit: also assuming Demidov is not available at 4****

going from 6 to 4 is significant. If it only costs a pick 60-70 then we would have seen such moves more often.

Its costing you alot more

 

[Brodeur]

going from 6 to 4 is significant. If it only costs a pick 60-70 then we would have seen such moves more often.

Its costing you alot more

It depends on the draft year. This year is interesting, the cluster of D reminds me a bit of 2012. Columbus traded #4 to Carolina for #8 and #59 in 2004 when there was a perceived drop after #3. Unless a team is 100% certain they'd still be landing their guy at the later spot, they'd simply want a bigger price tag to risk it. This crop is interesting, namely this grouping of D which reminds me a bit of 2012.

Sounded like something was close in 2016 between Columbus-Edmonton-Calgary swapping picks 3-4-6 but Edmonton (?) got cold feet. Columbus would have moved from #3 to #4 to take Pierre-Luc Dubois; They'd take him at #3 but in the proposed trade they would have added some additional asset. Not 100% sure who Calgary was targeting at #3, but I believe Edmonton was aiming for Mikhail Sergachev at #6.

In other years, it comes down to the players. Boston offered #5 and #37 to Washington for #4 in 2006, but that didn't go through since the Bruins intended to take Nicklas Backstrom. Once they told that to the Caps, then talks fizzled out pretty quickly.

And then there were some of the goofy trades from the late 90's / early 00's. Brian Burke moved two 3rds to move up from #4 to #1 in 1999, then traded back a spot to get a 3rd. In 2002, Florida gave Atlanta a 3rd rounder to promise not to select Jay Bouwmeester at #2. At the same draft, Anaheim gave Nashville a late 3rd rounder to not pick Joffrey Lupul at #6.

 

[Cowumbus]

going from 6 to 4 is significant. If it only costs a pick 60-70 then we would have seen such moves more often.

Its costing you alot more

I’m a CBJ fan.

 

[Lockin17]

I’m a CBJ fan.

we got that point trust me ....

 

[Cowumbus]

we got that point trust me ....

the poster I quoted insinuated I wasn’t.

As has been posted in this thread, moving up often takes more than my proposal. I’d be fine with just a late second. Again, this would only happen if Utah valued someone highly at 4.

 

[Xoggz22]

going from 6 to 4 is significant. If it only costs a pick 60-70 then we would have seen such moves more often.

Its costing you alot more

I'm not sure that's true this year. There is a large tier from 2-10 (maybe more). Any team from 2-7(?) could get their board #2 without moving. I don't see a lot of moves in the top 10 this year unless it's the pick for an established player.

 

[bleuetbio]

I'm not sure that's true this year. There is a large tier from 2-10 (maybe more). Any team from 2-7(?) could get their board #2 without moving. I don't see a lot of moves in the top 10 this year unless it's the pick for an established player.

Value between 2 and 10 is similar. Demidov as an edge, but not that much. I cant figure someone moving up and losing a 1st in the process. Every team in the top 10 will be ok with their pick and should be.

The valuable move up is to enter the top 16.

 

[JohnnyJacket13]

I doubt we consider moving down. Would rather trade the pick for a good, established player.

 

[majormajor]

If buium is the one cbj wants and utah doesn't, why would they move up? Just let the jackets take him at 4 and then they get the Defensemen they want at 6 without losing an asset

Unless UTA wants a forward, more specifically one montreal is targeting, there isn't a reason to move. And honestly, other than Demidov I don't see a forward moving up for (if they take Lindstrom, Iginla is a heck of a 'consolation prize', etc)

Looking at the teams/needs infront of Utah they don't really have a reason to move up. If they want a LD they're guarenteed one of Buium/Dickinson/Silayev at 6, or they settle for a "faller". There's 0 incentive to trade up to 4.

It's really not far fetched at all that Bill Armstrong has his target on Cayden Lindstrom, who Montreal is definitely taking if he's there at #5.

I think this is a very plausible scenario and it would make sense for Utah to leapfrog the Habs.

From Columbus' perspective though, if your guy is Buium, then you better be sure Utah isn't taking him.

I'm not sure that's true this year. There is a large tier from 2-10 (maybe more). Any team from 2-7(?) could get their board #2 without moving.

I think that really overstates it. Cayden Lindstrom isn't slipping past #5. Demidov, Levshunov, and Silayev are also unlikely to make it to #6.

 

[Djp]

I'm not sure that's true this year. There is a large tier from 2-10 (maybe more). Any team from 2-7(?) could get their board #2 without moving. I don't see a lot of moves in the top 10 this year unless it's the pick for an established player.

How often has that occurred? A pattern is GMs under pressure.

 

[Dead Coyote]

I don't see why Utah would trade up, they could use both forwards and D, but they still lack a true #1D. Couple of guys who could hit but pretty unlikely chances. There will be a player with a good shot at hitting that at #6. If I were Utah I would want a forward too, and Lindstrom or Iginla seem like guys GMBA could be interested in, but I would also be quite happy with any of the top D in this draft.

Also completely possible they go off the board again and select someone no one had on their radar at all, and if that's the case there's no point in trading up.

 

[SEALBound]

Buium will be there at 6ov 1000%. He's not worth the asset to move up to 4OV.

 

[T_Cage]

I think that really overstates it. Cayden Lindstrom isn't slipping past #5. Demidov, Levshunov, and Silayev are also unlikely to make it to #6.

in this scenario (Buium being comumbus's guy), then one of those guys will be there at #6. If Columbus calls me with this trade offer and says it's contingent on not taking Buium, I say thanks for the free information and keep my pick

but even if they are all gone, then if I'm Utah I take Iginla and call it a day (who I'd prefer over Lindstrom anyways, tho i wouldnt fault anyone for having Linds higher).

 

[majormajor]

Buium will be there at 6ov 1000%. He's not worth the asset to move up to 4OV.

That's not the proposal. It's Utah moving up to #4 to get Cayden Lindstrom and Columbus taking Buium at #6.

in this scenario (Buium being comumbus's guy), then one of those guys will be there at #6. If Columbus calls me with this trade offer and says it's contingent on not taking Buium, I say thanks for the free information and keep my pick

but even if they are all gone, then if I'm Utah I take Iginla and call it a day (who I'd prefer over Lindstrom anyways, tho i wouldnt fault anyone for having Linds higher).

Montreal is going to take Cayden Lindstrom at #5 if he's there. I think it's pretty obvious. This trade is Utah leapfrogging Montreal to get their guy.

And Montreal connected media is saying that they have Iginla or Sennecke as the next guy after the top 3 forwards. I believe they won't take Buium and Columbus can get him at #6.



Some might not be that high on Cayden Lindstrom but I find it very easy to believe that Bill Armstrong has his sights set on him. The bit about Columbus wanting Buium though is less realistic I think, however much I love the player. I think in reality they'd just take Lindstrom at #4 if he's there.

 

[SEALBound]

That's not the proposal. It's Utah moving up to #4 to get Cayden Lindstrom and Columbus taking Buium at #6.

Yup, you're right. I misread the OP.