Value of: Draft Pick Value Trading Up and Down
- Thread starter Kaibur
- Start date
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 31,213
- 16,542
Wings absolutely want to move up.
#17 + #42 for as high as it'll go.
#43 + #44 for as high as it'll go.
#17 + #42 for as high as it'll go.
#43 + #44 for as high as it'll go.
Marshall
A Mahoney guy
Petes2424
Registered User
- Aug 4, 2005
- 8,494
- 3,300
Because of the skill depth in this draft, a team may take 42 and 43 for let’s say 23. On the flipside, with the talent that deep, 42 isn’t a crazy difference from 23.
So unless it’s a player you’re just in love with, there really isn’t much reason to make that deal to trade up. Those 3 picks Detroit has in the early 40s, really are like having 25, 26 and 27 in a normal skill level draft.
So unless it’s a player you’re just in love with, there really isn’t much reason to make that deal to trade up. Those 3 picks Detroit has in the early 40s, really are like having 25, 26 and 27 in a normal skill level draft.
malcb33
Registered User
This is great info.
What is interesting to me, is there are no top 10 picks changing hands. I would guess to move up within the top 10, would cost exceptionally more than some of the examples shown.
What is interesting to me, is there are no top 10 picks changing hands. I would guess to move up within the top 10, would cost exceptionally more than some of the examples shown.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 31,213
- 16,542
There is. I'm comfortable with our pick at 9, unless there is an absolutely perfect storm and my top 8 all go. However I then also want Wood (low teens) and Willander low 20s, if he isn't already gone by then.
The Athletic put together a "value" chart for all the picks about 10 years ago. Might be due a revision, but it does show a significant curve up in value the higher you get.
Sports2
WDI
- Jul 1, 2018
- 2,335
- 1,793
I found a website where someone applied a value to draft picks. I imported that into excel and did a VLOOKUP based on what you provided. This import was shitty so I don't doubt some of the numbers are incorrect but you still may find this amusing.
Their average value apart based on these values for the above trades was 10.88. The "fairest" with a margin of 0.05 was pick 84 for 89 and 168. The least advantageous was what NYR gave up in 2018 for pick 22. If some of these are indeed involving picks a year or more in the future in some cases, a multiplier would have to be assigned to those to diminish their value.
Their average value apart based on these values for the above trades was 10.88. The "fairest" with a margin of 0.05 was pick 84 for 89 and 168. The least advantageous was what NYR gave up in 2018 for pick 22. If some of these are indeed involving picks a year or more in the future in some cases, a multiplier would have to be assigned to those to diminish their value.
Attachments
Kaibur
Registered User
No, these are all trades for picks in the same draft year. I was trying to get as clean an idea as possible about recent values for trading up and down.
Kaibur
Registered User
In 2019, AZ acquired pick 11 for picks 14 and 45.
Would Nashville be interested in trading up to pick 12 for pick 15 and 46?
Nashville is hosting the Draft. They have extra draft picks in this draft, but their first pick isn't until 15.
Would Nashville be interested in trading up to pick 12 for pick 15 and 46?
Nashville is hosting the Draft. They have extra draft picks in this draft, but their first pick isn't until 15.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 31,213
- 16,542
Nico Cauzuki
Registered User
would love for the Habs to trade #5 for #3 to secure Carlsson
would this be enough
#5 + #29 + #37 ?
would this be enough
#5 + #29 + #37 ?
It'd only work if Columbus was targeting somebody else and knew San Jose wasn't taking them at #4. Teams usually only trade down if they can secure the guy they would have taken anyways. I think there's a misconception that a team would trade down if they got enough draft capital.
In 2006, Boston offered up #5 and #37 to Washington for #4 but the Caps declined once they learned Boston was targeting Nicklas Backstrom. Washington didn't bother to try to make a counteroffer since they weren't interested in missing out on Backstrom and ending up with Kessel/Brassard/Mueller.
In 2007, St. Louis wanted Jakub Voracek and offered up #9 and #24 to Edmonton for #6. The Oilers declined since there was a perceived tier drop after #7.
In 2012, Garth Snow infamously channeled his inner Mike Ditka and offered up the entire Islanders draft to move up a couple spots to #2 for Ryan Murray. Columbus declined.
In 2015, Toronto offered Columbus a deal contingent on their guy (Marner) not being available. Toronto offered #4 for #8, #34, #38, #58. Columbus had interest in moving up for Noah Hanifin but thought the price was a bit too much since they didn't think the gap between Hanifin and Zach Werenski was that big. I think the rumor was Matt Barzal being the Leafs backup plan at #8.
In 2017, Vegas wanted to make a big splash in its first draft and trade up to #1 for Nolan Patrick. Their plan was to first trade up to #3, then they would trade up from #3 to #1. Reportedly the Devils were open to listening (since they would have been guaranteed at least one of Hischier/Makar still being there at #3). But the monkey wrench was Dallas being unwilling to move out of #3.
Kaibur
Registered User
I think this means 17 and 37, right? That's a pretty close comparable. From my list of draftees, it's probably dropping 1 or 2 too far. But then, sometimes teams reach for a guy and sliding back that far would be okay.
I look at Reinbacher and wonder if he gets snapped up or if he slides back because the forwards on the board are just too good to pass up. Or if a couple D go earlier than expected, maybe there's a couple of guys that are still on the board that makes sense to slide back to 17 and pick up the extra early 2nd.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 31,213
- 16,542
Petes2424
Registered User
- Aug 4, 2005
- 8,494
- 3,300
I don’t see Yzerman feeling the same as you but maybe.
As for Wood, he will likely be there at 17, and Willander could be there at 42. He will be one of those players who can go anywhere from 25-50.
I will say on Wood, he’s probably tied to Barlow and Musty. Once one of the 3 goes, the other 2 will go pretty quick.
If Wood goes 14 let’s say, there’s a really good chance Musty or Barlow will be there at 17.
That’s kind of what I’m saying. You are targeting two players who’s “Skill/NHL Talent”, is going to be very similar if they’re drafted at 25 (highest I could see Willinder go) and 42. So you would be throwing a “like talented” prospect away for free, if you traded 42 and 43 for 25.
If he goes 25 let’s say, there’s a good chance you can get a Bonk and Akey at 42 and 43. Id rather the two prospects over the one, as the talent is very similar at 18 years old.
This draft has an extra round of NHL skill in it. Where generally we’re looking at 35-40 kids who have 1st Round talent, this year we have over 60.
In that regard, it’s going to be a really fun draft to watch. Mock Draft folks are going to have 7-10 heart attacks, when they usually have 2-3. Teams that draft really well, like Detroit, see those 3 second rounders as first round picks, under normal conditions. They’re also worth more than they have been historically. That’s why I believe you can trade 2 of those and get up to 20-23ish. Just look for a team who has a really weak prospect pool. Hell, I bet you Pittsburgh would give up 14th overall for 2 of those picks and a kid like Viro, who could be an odd man out in Detroit. McIssac is another player they could use to move up. He’s an absolute 200+ game NHL player, but because of how deep their prospects pool is on the backend, they can move him, and a team like Pittsburgh would love to have a prospect like him. A kid who’s not far away from the NHL at all.
Like I said, it’s gonna be a fun draft because there’s so much uncertainty. I would bet, whatever mock drafts you’re looking at, 5 of those players in the 1st round are drafted between 40-50 in the actual draft.
Anyway, I wouldn’t do it because it’s like throwing away a 1st round pick really. Maybe a manager would. I really don’t see that being Detroit though.
CaliforniaBlues310
Registered User
Depends entirely on who goes when and the draft lists teams have assembled. Realistically I’d say 2-3 are completely out of the question. 4 is extremely unlikely. 5 is very unlikely. 6-9 possible
- Jul 25, 2012
- 42,548
- 39,389
I feel like it’s prob never worth it for blues…. Unless it got them into pick michkov carlsson or fantilli
But curious who you would be targeting ?
I'd imagine that the teams picking 1-4 would have little appetite to drop to #10. Most of those teams also have extra picks from selling at the deadline. Montreal at #5 seemingly would just take whoever is left from the perceived top tier of five. Arizona at #6 seems unlikely to want to add more picks since they already have a bunch.
After that you probably wouldn't need to trade as much, but it'd be contingent on the team trading down targeting somebody they think they could still get at #10.
For hockey, it goes beyond applying a draft pick value chart like it's football. St. Louis wanted to move up in 2007 for Jakub Voracek and offered #9 and #24 but got turned down by Edmonton (#6).
CaliforniaBlues310
Registered User
Carlsson or Michkov, even though I know it’s way more likely Michkov would be around past pick 4.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 42,548
- 39,389
Ya I think the package would be fine to move up to 2/3 but i don’t think any team in those spots would trade down.
Sharks might be an interesting one, if they don’t want michkov
Djp
Registered User
the nest you can do is move up to 7 or 8 In terms of any trade up.
if it was that easy you would see these moves every year. It doesn’t do that…why???
