Around The League Thread | Let the Games Begin

[MS]

Hertl was extended before Grier was hired.

Grier makes more trades involved mid and late-round picks than any GM I've seen since the 90s. Hell, Canucks got a 6th from them for Studnicka.

Maybe he read my synopsis that the best thing to do in terms of asset management would be to trade all of your 5th-7th round picks every year for basically whatever you can get.

 

[Vector]

Maybe he read my synopsis that the best thing to do in terms of asset management would be to trade all of your 5th-7th round picks every year for basically whatever you can get.

3rd (2024) & 6th (2025) for 3rd (2024) (Carson Wetsch)
4th (2025) for Ty Dellandrea
7th (2025) for Devin Cooley
Nick Cicek & 6th (2024) for Jack Studnicka
Adam Raska & 5th (2026) for Calen Addison
Steven Lorentz & 5th (2025) for Anthony Duclair
3rd (2023) & 4th (2023) for 3rd (2023) (Brandon Svoboda)
6th (2023) for MacKenzie Blackwood
Tony Sund & 5th (2024) for Arvid Henrikson & Canadiens retain 50% of Bonino's contract
3rd (2024) for Henry Thrun

Ultimately they got Dellandrea, Blackwood, and Thrun and a couple of prospects in Wetsch and Svoboda. Turned Duclair into Jack Thompson and Kasper Pikkarainen. So maybe it's working?

I'm a little bit more in favour of this for a team coming out of a rebuild or already deep in it and not one that's really only a year one. Although the Sharks are in a weird rebuild where they grabbed their star draft pick immediately.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

They did bleed assets for Zadorov and Lindholm. Can't keep doing that for much longer if at all. So, they have to go into the PO with a couple of holes. Like you said, every team is missing something or lacks depth.

But, this board is constantly talking about adding a Dman or another C, or W. Can't add all of that without paying for it at some point.

I don't think they'll do rentals every season, sometime your team is firing on all cylinders and you look to have a legit shot (like last season), but other times you will run into injuries/underachievement/other issues and you are several pieces away (potentially this season). I think if the team is doing really well by the TDL, management will go for rentals, otherwise, they won't (or maybe even sell).

 

[timw33]

3rd (2024) & 6th (2025) for 3rd (2024) (Carson Wetsch)
4th (2025) for Ty Dellandrea
7th (2025) for Devin Cooley
Nick Cicek & 6th (2024) for Jack Studnicka
Adam Raska & 5th (2026) for Calen Addison
Steven Lorentz & 5th (2025) for Anthony Duclair
3rd (2023) & 4th (2023) for 3rd (2023) (Brandon Svoboda)
6th (2023) for MacKenzie Blackwood
Tony Sund & 5th (2024) for Arvid Henrikson & Canadiens retain 50% of Bonino's contract
3rd (2024) for Henry Thrun

Ultimately they got Dellandrea, Blackwood, and Thrun and a couple of prospects in Wetsch and Svoboda. Turned Duclair into Jack Thompson and Kasper Pikkarainen. So maybe it's working?

I'm a little bit more in favour of this for a team coming out of a rebuild or already deep in it and not one that's really only a year one. Although Sharks are in a weird rebuild where they grabbed their star draft pick immediately.

I think you have to start making baby steps towards getting out of the bottoming out years ASAP because it still will take a few years to get out of the gulch of pain in the best of circumstances , and it becomes pretty important once you secure the potential franchise player that you have a clear path to moving forward as a team (even if it's smaller moves).

It's why Chicago went out and targeted actual NHL players that can eat up some minutes instead of rolling out another pathetic, bare bones squad around Bedard again this year.

I feel like a team like Anaheim has failed in this regard by rolling with too young of a group for too long. A goalie playing out of his mind is hiding a lot of problems they still had from previous years.

 

[MS]

3rd (2024) & 6th (2025) for 3rd (2024) (Carson Wetsch)
4th (2025) for Ty Dellandrea
7th (2025) for Devin Cooley
Nick Cicek & 6th (2024) for Jack Studnicka
Adam Raska & 5th (2026) for Calen Addison
Steven Lorentz & 5th (2025) for Anthony Duclair
3rd (2023) & 4th (2023) for 3rd (2023) (Brandon Svoboda)
6th (2023) for MacKenzie Blackwood
Tony Sund & 5th (2024) for Arvid Henrikson & Canadiens retain 50% of Bonino's contract
3rd (2024) for Henry Thrun

Ultimately they got Dellandrea, Blackwood, and Thrun and a couple of prospects in Wetsch and Svoboda. Turned Duclair into Jack Thompson and Kasper Pikkarainen. So maybe it's working?

I'm a little bit more in favour of this for a team coming out of a rebuild or already deep in it and not one that's really only a year one. Although the Sharks are in a weird rebuild where they grabbed their star draft pick immediately.

Yeah, to me it looks like they came out significantly ahead there.

There's a fundamental flaw in terms of how fans (and I think most teams) value draft picks, like if you trade 5th/6th rounders -> you're weakening your system, trading futures, bleeding assets, etc. And that running pick deficits is a Very Bad Thing.

And it's just completely wrong.

It's a closed system, not an open system where you can accumulate untold assets and prospects and contracts. And if you trade your 5th-7th round picks in 2024, it essentially means is that in the summer of 2026 or 2027 you won't be giving contracts to those picks. And this is where people stop with it. But if you aren't giving contracts to those players, all it means is that instead you have contract slots to hand out to a different pool of prospects in age 21-23 CHL/NCAA/Euro UFAs. And the thing is that this pool of top age 21-23 unsigned draftees is actually BETTER than the dregs of the 18-19 year old draftable class. And has higher hit rates.

So if you trade your 6th rounder in 2024, all it means is that instead of potentially signing that 6th rounder in 2026 you're instead signing an equal/better Bains or McWard or Aman and your prospect pool isn't affected at all. PLUS you get the value that comes back in exchange for the pick.

 

[Vector]

I think you have to start making baby steps towards getting out of the bottoming out years ASAP because it still will take a few years to get out of the gulch of pain in the best of circumstances , and it becomes pretty important once you secure the potential franchise player that you have a clear path to moving forward as a team (even if it's smaller moves).

It's why Chicago went out and targeted actual NHL players that can eat up some minutes instead of rolling out another pathetic, bare bones squad around Bedard again this year.

I feel like a team like Anaheim has failed in this regard by rolling with too young of a group for too long. A goalie playing out of his mind is hiding a lot of problems they still had from previous years.

San Jose and Anaheim each did try and surround their young players with veterans. Two off-season ago Anaheim grabbed Killorn and Gudas while the Sharks added Toffoli, Wennberg, Walman, and Ceci. While I think it's a good idea, it hasn't actually helped these teams in any way. Blackhawks are a slow, old, team that doesn't try on defence. Ducks didn't add anyone this off-season after seeing a poor return with Killorn. Sharks aren't as terrible but finally got their first two wins of the season.

But, yeah, I don't know what you do in those situations. Grab some vets and wait for the kids to develop in a better environment so they don't get their asses kicked every night. Seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[Vector]

Yeah, to me it looks like they came out significantly ahead there.

There's a fundamental flaw in terms of how fans (and I think most teams) value draft picks, like if you trade 5th/6th rounders -> you're weakening your system, trading futures, bleeding assets, etc. And that running pick deficits is a Very Bad Thing.

And it's just completely wrong.

It's a closed system, not an open system where you can accumulate untold assets and prospects and contracts. And if you trade your 5th-7th round picks in 2024, it essentially means is that in the summer of 2026 or 2027 you won't be giving contracts to those picks. And this is where people stop with it. But if you aren't giving contracts to those players, all it means is that instead you have contract slots to hand out to a different pool of prospects in age 21-23 CHL/NCAA/Euro UFAs. And the thing is that this pool of top age 21-23 unsigned draftees is actually BETTER than the dregs of the 18-19 year old draftable class. And has higher hit rates.

So if you trade your 6th rounder in 2024, all it means is that instead of potentially signing that 6th rounder in 2026 you're instead signing an equal/better Bains or McWard or Aman and your prospect pool isn't affected at all. PLUS you get the value that comes back in exchange for the pick.

To be clear, I'm not saying the Sharks shouldn't have done it. I just expected them to have a few more draft picks considering the amount of players they've sent out and their status as a seller.

 

[MS]

To be clear, I'm not saying the Sharks shouldn't have done it. I just expected them to have a few more draft picks considering the amount of players they've sent out and their status as a seller.

Oh, fair enough.

But as you pointed out, looking through that list of transactions they actually made pretty good use of those picks by either a) dumping salary, b) trading them for good prospects (Thrun), trading them for assets that were then flipped (Duclair), or d) trading them for players who actually help the team (Blackwood, Dellandrea).

And they still have all their 1sts and 2nds which are the picks that actually matter.

I expect they'll have a fairly tidy fire sale this March and get a bunch more picks for 2025. Their team last year was so bad that there really wasn't much that anyone would want.

One transaction that you didn't mention was that they got a 1st for Hertl and then flipped it for Askarov, or else they would have had multiple 2025 1sts. They also got Edstrom (2023 Vegas 1st rounder) back in the Hertl deal as well.

I'm very curious how it goes for them in the bigger/longer picture because they're treating draft picks very similarly to how I would, and nobody does that!

 

[Vector]

Oh, fair enough.

But as you pointed out, looking through that list of transactions they actually made pretty good use of those picks by either a) dumping salary, b) trading them for good prospects (Thrun), trading them for assets that were then flipped (Duclair), or d) trading them for players who actually help the team (Blackwood, Dellandrea).

And they still have all their 1sts and 2nds which are the picks that actually matter.

I expect they'll have a fairly tidy fire sale this March and get a bunch more picks for 2025. Their team last year was so bad that there really wasn't much that anyone would want.

One transaction that you didn't mention was that they got a 1st for Hertl and then flipped it for Askarov, or else they would have had multiple 2025 1sts. They also got Edstrom (2023 Vegas 1st rounder) back in the Hertl deal as well.

I'm very curious how it goes for them in the bigger/longer picture because they're treating draft picks very similarly to how I would, and nobody does that!

I was focused on mid-to-late round picks rather than the early picks they have also been involved in. Mike Grier has been active. They also traded Edstrom in the Askarov deal. Really just turned Hertl into Askarov.

 

[MS]

I was focused on mid-to-late round picks rather than the early picks they have also been involved in. Mike Grier has been active. They also traded Edstrom in the Askarov deal. Really just turned Hertl into Askarov.

Whoops, forgot that part.

I just checked Askarov's AHL numbers right now and ... holy shit. It might be worth it.

Grier has been bold and I don't know if he's nailed everything but I think he's taken a lot of flack he doesn't deserve. And I actually like how SJ is setting up better than Chicago.

 

[Hodgy]

Yeah, to me it looks like they came out significantly ahead there.

There's a fundamental flaw in terms of how fans (and I think most teams) value draft picks, like if you trade 5th/6th rounders -> you're weakening your system, trading futures, bleeding assets, etc. And that running pick deficits is a Very Bad Thing.

And it's just completely wrong.

It's a closed system, not an open system where you can accumulate untold assets and prospects and contracts. And if you trade your 5th-7th round picks in 2024, it essentially means is that in the summer of 2026 or 2027 you won't be giving contracts to those picks. And this is where people stop with it. But if you aren't giving contracts to those players, all it means is that instead you have contract slots to hand out to a different pool of prospects in age 21-23 CHL/NCAA/Euro UFAs. And the thing is that this pool of top age 21-23 unsigned draftees is actually BETTER than the dregs of the 18-19 year old draftable class. And has higher hit rates.

So if you trade your 6th rounder in 2024, all it means is that instead of potentially signing that 6th rounder in 2026 you're instead signing an equal/better Bains or McWard or Aman and your prospect pool isn't affected at all. PLUS you get the value that comes back in exchange for the pick.

I generally agree, but you are missing two advantages of picking players with picks 5-7:

1. You don't have to sign them right away, and you can effectively watch them develop and compare the me to the 21-23 year old UFA crops and sign the best players of the entire bunch; and

2. The best of the 21-23 year old UFA crops (think the big signings like Schultz, Fox, etc.) are very difficult to sign and often sign in high profile places, or for teams they can step right into. Often times a team like the Canucks won't be able to sign these players. Whereas, theoretically, if you hit on a player like that in rounds 5-7 you will have a better chance of signing that player.

 

[timw33]

San Jose and Anaheim each did try and surround their young players with veterans. Two off-season ago Anaheim grabbed Killorn and Gudas while the Sharks added Toffoli, Wennberg, Walman, and Ceci. While I think it's a good idea, it hasn't actually helped these teams in any way. Blackhawks are a slow, old, team that doesn't try on defence. Ducks didn't add anyone this off-season after seeing a poor return with Killorn. Sharks aren't as terrible but finally got their first two wins of the season.

But, yeah, I don't know what you do in those situations. Grab some vets and wait for the kids to develop in a better environment so they don't get their asses kicked every night. Seems perfectly reasonable.

I think you definitely need some "Sin Eater" vets who get well compensated to get their asses kicked for a few years as you integrate younger guys into the lineup. How much you pay those Sin Eaters and how long you pay them is the big differentiator of course.

With Anaheim they simply spent too much money and term on Killorn 6.25MM x 4 (the thank you for the Tampa Cups, paid for by another team), and Strome 5x5 who are just generally not very useful. Gudas IMO was a great add at 4MM x 3 years, but there is a cast of 5 1st or 2nd year D men on the roster behind him and Fowler.

 

[MS]

I generally agree, but you are missing two advantages of picking players with picks 5-7:

1. You don't have to sign them right away, and you can effectively watch them develop and compare the me to the 21-23 year old UFA crops and sign the best players of the entire bunch; and

2. The best of the 21-23 year old UFA crops (think the big signings like Schultz, Fox, etc.) are very difficult to sign and often sign in high profile places, or for teams they can step right into. Often times a team like the Canucks won't be able to sign these players. Whereas, theoretically, if you hit on a player like that in rounds 5-7 you will have a better chance of signing that player.

I crunched the numbers on this a few years ago and even with 'more difficult to sign elite NCAA guys' it really doesn't matter. I don't think teams were lining up for Arshdeep Bains.

The central crux is that I don't think people really grasp how bad hit rates are from rounds 5-7. Like, from the 2017-2020 drafts there were nearly 400 guys selected in those rounds over that time. Out of that group, there is 1 guy (Sharangovich) who is a top-6/top-4/#1 NHLer right now, and these players are draft+5 - draft+8 years now. It looks like Kesselring might make it 2 but there isn't the sample size yet. That's <1% in terms of actually delivering value. And yeah, there are other guys who have played games as depth players but in terms of fundamental value there is nothing different there from signing fungible $800k UFAs to fill out your roster instead.

5th-7th round picks should be essentially worthless and if you get value for one, it's a win. And you don't have to be really very good at all in terms of signing NCAA/CHL/Euro UFAs in order to replace any prospect/futures value lost.

 

[Vector]

I crunched the numbers on this a few years ago and even with 'more difficult to sign elite NCAA guys' it really doesn't matter. I don't think teams were lining up for Arshdeep Bains.

The central crux is that I don't think people really grasp how bad hit rates are from rounds 5-7. Like, from the 2017-2020 drafts there were nearly 400 guys selected in those rounds over that time. Out of that group, there is 1 guy (Sharangovich) who is a top-6/top-4/#1 NHLer right now, and these players are draft+5 - draft+8 years now. It looks like Kesselring might make it 2 but there isn't the sample size yet. That's <1% in terms of actually delivering value. And yeah, there are other guys who have played games as depth players but in terms of fundamental value there is nothing different there from signing fungible $800k UFAs to fill out your roster instead.

5th-7th round picks should be essentially worthless and if you get value for one, it's a win. And you don't have to be really very good at all in terms of signing NCAA/CHL/Euro UFAs in order to replace any prospect/futures value lost.

It will be exceedingly funny if Kudryavtsev becomes a solid NHLer. Not because it proves this wrong but because this market would point at it as evidence on how valuable all draft picks are and lose there minds any time one is traded away.

 

[pitseleh]

I crunched the numbers on this a few years ago and even with 'more difficult to sign elite NCAA guys' it really doesn't matter. I don't think teams were lining up for Arshdeep Bains.

The central crux is that I don't think people really grasp how bad hit rates are from rounds 5-7. Like, from the 2017-2020 drafts there were nearly 400 guys selected in those rounds over that time. Out of that group, there is 1 guy (Sharangovich) who is a top-6/top-4/#1 NHLer right now, and these players are draft+5 - draft+8 years now. It looks like Kesselring might make it 2 but there isn't the sample size yet. That's <1% in terms of actually delivering value. And yeah, there are other guys who have played games as depth players but in terms of fundamental value there is nothing different there from signing fungible $800k UFAs to fill out your roster instead.

5th-7th round picks should be essentially worthless and if you get value for one, it's a win. And you don't have to be really very good at all in terms of signing NCAA/CHL/Euro UFAs in order to replace any prospect/futures value lost.

I also think it was more useful to hang onto those picks 20 years ago, but teams have gotten better at identifying talent so those late round gems are starting to dry up absent unusual growth trajectories.

If you look back to the 2003 draft there is almost no chance guys with the profiles of Byfuglien, Moulson, Enstrom, Pavelski, etc. fall as far as they did today.

 

[credulous]

Whoops, forgot that part.

I just checked Askarov's AHL numbers right now and ... holy shit. It might be worth it.

Grier has been bold and I don't know if he's nailed everything but I think he's taken a lot of flack he doesn't deserve. And I actually like how SJ is setting up better than Chicago.

grier inherited maybe the worst situation in the league. he's done an incredible job so far imo

 

[VanillaCoke]

Grier has been top ten since he was hired, sharks are look8ng to have a bright future for sure.

 

[StreetHawk]

I'm a little bit more in favour of this for a team coming out of a rebuild or already deep in it and not one that's really only a year one. Although the Sharks are in a weird rebuild where they grabbed their star draft pick immediately.

Can't pick when you get your draft lottery luck. Not going to pass up Cellibrini. But, it does also mean that SJ needs to be mindful of keeping a good environment as both Smith and Cellibrini are on the roster. SJ still has this year and next likely landing in the bottom 5 and more likely to be bottom 3, so a tonne of losing coming up still.
It's also hard on the first picks of the rebuild process as they endure the most losing. Though, SJ up to last season was already 5 years of no playoffs, but were not in rebuild mode as they were still signing their 30 year old UFAs to max term deals even up to the 2022 TDL.

Part of a rebuild is getting players to supplement the kids. Seen it in Van and other places, good vets don't want to join a rebuild unless you massively overpay. So, sometimes moving a mid round pick for a rental of 2 years is better than overpaying via ufa.

 

[Ernie]

Yeah, to me it looks like they came out significantly ahead there.

There's a fundamental flaw in terms of how fans (and I think most teams) value draft picks, like if you trade 5th/6th rounders -> you're weakening your system, trading futures, bleeding assets, etc. And that running pick deficits is a Very Bad Thing.

And it's just completely wrong.

It's a closed system, not an open system where you can accumulate untold assets and prospects and contracts. And if you trade your 5th-7th round picks in 2024, it essentially means is that in the summer of 2026 or 2027 you won't be giving contracts to those picks. And this is where people stop with it. But if you aren't giving contracts to those players, all it means is that instead you have contract slots to hand out to a different pool of prospects in age 21-23 CHL/NCAA/Euro UFAs. And the thing is that this pool of top age 21-23 unsigned draftees is actually BETTER than the dregs of the 18-19 year old draftable class. And has higher hit rates.

So if you trade your 6th rounder in 2024, all it means is that instead of potentially signing that 6th rounder in 2026 you're instead signing an equal/better Bains or McWard or Aman and your prospect pool isn't affected at all. PLUS you get the value that comes back in exchange for the pick.

Yep, it's for similar reasons I've thought that the draft age should be older. Perhaps allow teams to draft 18+ players in the 1st round, 19+ players in the 2nd round, then 20+ players in the 3rd and subsequent rounds. It's just too much of a crapshoot to try to project skills for 18 year olds except at the top end. It's very rare for a 2nd round pick to play NHL games at 18 so nobody is really losing out.

 

[MS]

Yep, it's for similar reasons I've thought that the draft age should be older. Perhaps allow teams to draft 18+ players in the 1st round, 19+ players in the 2nd round, then 20+ players in the 3rd and subsequent rounds. It's just too much of a crapshoot to try to project skills for 18 year olds except at the top end. It's very rare for a 2nd round pick to play NHL games at 18 so nobody is really losing out.

I've made this distinction before :

I'm a draft guy. I love the draft. I wish the draft was 10 rounds long. I love the process of the draft and following drafted players up through levels and the WJC etc. even if they don't make it.

But ....

Nothing would fundamentally change in any meaningful way if the NHL draft was cut to 3 rounds. Rounds 5-7 are basically a meaningless indulgence in the bigger picture.

_________

Personally I love that the 18 y/o draft makes it harder to draft. I think it's more interesting than just having all the best players stacked in the first 10-15 picks every year.

 

[Ernie]

I've made this distinction before :

I'm a draft guy. I love the draft. I wish the draft was 10 rounds long. I love the process of the draft and following drafted players up through levels and the WJC etc. even if they don't make it.

But ....

Nothing would fundamentally change in any meaningful way if the NHL draft was cut to 3 rounds. Rounds 5-7 are basically a meaningless indulgence in the bigger picture.

_________

Personally I love that the 18 y/o draft makes it harder to draft. I think it's more interesting than just having all the best players stacked in the first 10-15 picks every year.

I get the fun factor but it's very inefficient. But yes a lot of problems would be solved if they just got rid of everything past the 3rd round. Or even the 2nd round.

 

[MS]

I get the fun factor but it's very inefficient. But yes a lot of problems would be solved if they just got rid of everything past the 3rd round. Or even the 2nd round.

What problems?

Basically all it's doing is wasting a few hours of time for NHL executives/scouts.

Going to a 20 y/o draft with 2 rounds like the NBA or whatever would be more efficient but also totally strip the fun of having large prospect pools and tracking those prospects and following them through the WJCs which is to me one of the most fun 'side quests' of being a hockey fan. And totally kill all fun discussions about scouting and drafting and the like. It would suck.

 

[StreetHawk]

San Jose and Anaheim each did try and surround their young players with veterans. Two off-season ago Anaheim grabbed Killorn and Gudas while the Sharks added Toffoli, Wennberg, Walman, and Ceci. While I think it's a good idea, it hasn't actually helped these teams in any way. Blackhawks are a slow, old, team that doesn't try on defence. Ducks didn't add anyone this off-season after seeing a poor return with Killorn. Sharks aren't as terrible but finally got their first two wins of the season.

But, yeah, I don't know what you do in those situations. Grab some vets and wait for the kids to develop in a better environment so they don't get their asses kicked every night. Seems perfectly reasonable.

That's the part of the rebuild people glance over. But, that's a big part of player development is the environment they come up through. How do you convince a veteran to sign with you when it's clear the team is going to lose more than they win over the next 2 seasons? Term and/or money is the best you can offer and that might not be enough to convince them.

Even via trade, guys with some trade protection would put the bad teams on their list.

 

[MS]

That's the part of the rebuild people glance over. But, that's a big part of player development is the environment they come up through. How do you convince a veteran to sign with you when it's clear the team is going to lose more than they win over the next 2 seasons? Term and/or money is the best you can offer and that might not be enough to convince them.

Even via trade, guys with some trade protection would put the bad teams on their list.

Yeah, the veterans you sign are probably 50% for their on-ice contribution and to provide quality linemates for your core young guys and 50% to teach them professional habits and get them pointed in the right direction off-ice to make sure your young core doesn't get sucked down a drain of cocaine and partying the way a few seemingly promising teams have in the last 20 years.

 

[Bgav]

…. So when do the bruins start their rebuild