Confirmed with Link: Flyers trade 32nd overall pick to Edmonton for first round pick in 2025 or 2026 (Top 12 Protected In 2025)

[GKJ]

Click to read more...

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Those three or so years the Flyers traded their 7th to Montreal for their 7th next year infuriated me so much. This trade is basically that but on steroids.

I think you can even construct an argument that the Flyers are willing to lose marginal value in an attempt to buy star equity. I don’t agree that it excuses poor value, but I get it. That would make it a willful decision with a clear goal in mind. We have evidence they tried to move up at the top both years. Fair enough.

But that’s not what’s being said at all. It’s lunacy.

 

[Strawberry Fields]

It baffles me how anyone could give this team's management the benefit of the doubt after witnessing the last decade-plus.

 

[Random Forest]

OK, it’s bugging me, so I’m going to show my work here.

Using Eric Tulsky’s own draft pick value chart, we can see what picks are worth within the same year: NHL draft: What does it cost to trade up?

Edmonton is +1000 to win the Cup next year (~9% chance). Let’s say they have an equal shot of losing in the SCF. That’s 18% chance of making the SCF (picks 31-32). Let’s say they have another 24% chance of losing in the WCF (picks 29-30). Let’s say they have 28% chance of losing in the second round (picks 25-28). Let’s say they have 24% chance of losing in the first round, and 6% chance of missing the playoffs. For simplicity, I’m going to assume they don’t finish below 12 and end up deferring the pick.

I think that’s fairly generous to Edmonton. You can quibble with those odds to get your own expectation, but that gives us an expected value of their 2025 1st round pick of ~17.4.

The 32nd pick has a value of ~12. The differential value is ~5.4, or roughly the 51st pick in the draft. That’s your premium.

Then you have to discount the 2025 pick for its net present value to determine if that premium is fair. What is a value of 17.4 discounted by one year? Is that time decay worth more or less than the 51st pick next year? If you think the decay is greater, then bad trade, fine. I think it’s probably pretty close, and certainly not worth my being outrage over. YMMV, but I just wanted to to show the work needed to actually have an opinion on this, and why I don’t see this as “shit value”.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

OK, it’s bugging me, so I’m going to show my work here.

Using Eric Tulsky’s own draft pick value chart, we can see what picks are worth within the same year: NHL draft: What does it cost to trade up?

Edmonton is +1000 to win the Cup next year (~9% chance). Let’s say they have an equal shot of losing in the SCF. That’s 18% chance of making the SCF (picks 31-32). Let’s say they have another 24% chance of losing in the WCF (picks 29-30). Let’s say they have 28% chance of losing in the second round (picks 25-28). Let’s say they have 24% chance of losing in the first round, and 6% chance of missing the playoffs. For simplicity, I’m going to assume they don’t finish below 12 and end up deferring the pick.

I think that’s fairly generous to Edmonton. You can quibble with those odds to get your own expectation, but that gives us an expected value of their 2025 1st round pick of ~17.4.

The 32nd pick has a value of ~12. The differential value is ~5.4, or roughly the 51st pick in the draft. That’s your premium.

Then you have to discount the 2025 pick for its net present value to determine if that premium is fair. What is a value of 17.4 discounted by one year? Is that time decay worth more or less than the 51st pick next year? If you think the decay is greater, then bad trade, fine. I think it’s probably pretty close, and certainly not worth my being outrage over. YMMV, but I just wanted to to show the work needed to actually have an opinion on this, and why I don’t see this as “shit value”.

I just want to be crystal clear here because I’m certainly not trying to call you an idiot or anything like that. It’s nice to be able to disagree politely. And I appreciate someone being willing to put in the work to do the math.

The time decay is the entire issue and we can’t quantify it well enough for this kind of purpose as you said. All we can do is napkin math out what history has borne out.

This really feels like it’s trending toward a larger discussion on how far outside of historical market value an optimally run team should be willing to go if they think they still have an edge. I love those types of conversations, but I don’t have a fully formed opinion on it. The answer also probably changes based on what each person thinks of the current state of the franchise as well as its forward posture.

 

[wankstifier]

What are the win scenarios for this trade? The funniest timeline would be if the Oilers finish 13th next season, get a lottery pick, and then go on to win the Cup in 2026.

 

[Random Forest]

I just want to be crystal clear here because I’m certainly not trying to call you an idiot or anything like that. It’s nice to be able to disagree politely. And I appreciate someone being willing to put in the work to do the math.

The time decay is the entire issue and we can’t quantify it well enough for this kind of purpose as you said. All we can do is napkin math out what history has borne out.

This really feels like it’s trending toward a larger discussion on how far outside of historical market value an optimally run team should be willing to go if they think they still have an edge. I love those types of conversations, but I don’t have a fully formed opinion on it. The answer also probably changes based on what each person thinks of the current state of the franchise as well as its forward posture.

Right. The reasonable debate here can be about whether the premium we received was worth the time decay of deferring the pick. My initial objection was to the suggestion that we did not receive a premium, and, for that reason, one is “irrevocably wrong” to think this was anything but poor value. If “time decay is the entire issue”, then I agree, and we can reasonably disagree whether the value is there or not since we don’t need to get into a scientific debate about the time decayed value of future draft picks. But if the issue is “they did not receive a premium and therefor the value is bad”, well, that’s the primary point I am contending.

If we were holding the 26th pick in the 2024 draft and traded it for Edmonton’s 2025 1st, only then would I agree that there was no premium and that the trade is prima facie poor value for that reason. But there is a ~51st overall difference between the 32nd pick and the 26th pick (which is Edmonton’s rough weighted outcome in 2025).

On your final point, I agree. Good teams do “win” these trades decisively, using the uncertainty to gain an edge on weaker managers. In my book, this is another mushy “didn’t win, didn’t lose” trade to add to the growing dataset of how this team is managed. I’m keeping score, and I’m not trying to be pollyannish about any of this!

 

[usahockey22flyers]

A good discussion - thank you both @JojoTheWhale @Random Forest

 

[LegionOfGloom]

Right. The reasonable debate here can be about whether the premium we received was worth the time decay of deferring the pick. My initial objection was to the suggestion that we did not receive a premium, and, for that reason, one is “irrevocably wrong” to think this was anything but poor value. If “time decay is the entire issue”, then I agree, and we can reasonably disagree whether the value is there or not since we don’t need to get into a scientific debate about the time decayed value of future draft picks. But if the issue is “they did not receive a premium and therefor the value is bad”, well, that’s the primary point I am contending.

If we were holding the 26th pick in the 2024 draft and traded it for Edmonton’s 2025 1st, only then would I agree that there was no premium and that the trade is prima facie poor value for that reason. But there is a ~51st overall difference between the 32nd pick and the 26th pick (which is Edmonton’s rough weighted outcome in 2025).

On your final point, I agree. Good teams do “win” these trades decisively, using the uncertainty to gain an edge on weaker managers. In my book, this is another mushy “didn’t win, didn’t lose” trade to add to the growing dataset of how this team is managed. I’m keeping score, and I’m not trying to be pollyannish about any of this!

Yeah I can't disagree with what you're saying even if I don't like the trade. Didn't we trade a 2nd last year to LA for one this year to select one of the goalies with no add? So I think we can agree that it's something dumb teams might do but not one that a good team should do.

 

[FLYguy3911]

Yeah I can't disagree with what you're saying even if I don't like the trade. Didn't we trade a 2nd last year to LA for one this year to select one of the goalies with no add? So I think we can agree that it's something dumb teams might do but not one that a good team should do.

Flyers gave up a 6th also.

Footnote - That future second turned into Jesse Pulkkinen this year who is a pretty interesting prospect. Much more interesting than the goalie they traded up for.

 

[Boocowski]

How does have 1 first this year and 3 next year instead of 2 + 2 help "stagger picks and contracts." Pretty much says everything that you need to lie to yourself to say anything positive about this franchise.

You trade one of those to the year after that LOL.

Come on you're nitpicking and trying to find fault with everything. This trade was a big nothing burger where they moved up for what some say is a deeper draft next year. If Edmonton gets knocked off early it's genius. If Edmonton wins the cup it's a teeny tiny upgrade so like really, who cares about this?

 

[LegionOfGloom]

You trade one of those to the year after that LOL.

Come on you're nitpicking and trying to find fault with everything. This trade was a big nothing burger where they moved up for what some say is a deeper draft next year. If Edmonton gets knocked off early it's genius. If Edmonton wins the cup it's a teeny tiny upgrade so like really, who cares about this?

Dude, you're the one just making up arguments to justify it. It evens out the picks! Oh wait, it does the opposite, I meant they did it so they can trade one to push it to 2026 - which still doesn't even out the picks. It just moves having two firsts from 2024 to 2026.... which is not great.

I'm sure next I'll hear about how everyone knows the players available in the 20-40 range in 2026 will be much better.

 

[Boocowski]

Dude, you're the one just making up arguments to justify it. It evens out the picks! Oh wait, it does the opposite, I meant they did it so they can trade one to push it to 2026 - which still doesn't even out the picks. It just moves having two firsts from 2024 to 2026.... which is not great.

I'm sure next I'll hear about how everyone knows the players available in the 20-40 range in 2026 will be much better.

The draft is supposed to be deeper next year. I have heard and read that but why is a slight move up such a big deal to you and some others? Rebuilds take time. I see no issue here at all.

 

[LegionOfGloom]

The draft is supposed to be deeper next year. I have heard and read that but why is a slight move up such a big deal to you and some others? Rebuilds take time. I see no issue here at all.

No one here is saying its the worst move they made of the weekend. It's just not a good one. I was responding to your attempt to praise the move using a justification that didn't pass even the most basic test of logic.

 

[FLYguy3911]

There's also an opportunity cost of not selecting a player this year, getting him into your development system a year sooner and one year closer to the NHL (in theory). It's important to note for a team with a self imposed 3 year rebuilding window who is entering year 2.

 

[Random Forest]

I think that’s all encompassed by the “time decay” concept. And it’s true. Your returns start compounding sooner.

That said, there’s also a liquidity value in unused draft picks too, particularly for a team in a transitional period. And it is also correct that an unused 2025 draft pick has more tradable value than the equivalent prospect taken in 2024 because teams don’t uniformly value individual prospects. We saw this with Gauthier for the 5th overall in 2023 being rejected.

These are all amorphous concepts that go back to the particularities of each team’s situation and your philosophy when it comes to maximizing value. Not necessarily things that weigh on the question of whether the trade is good or bad value (though obviously it does matter when evaluating the performance of Briere and whether a move was right for the Flyers).

 

[BringBackHakstol]

I think if the team had proven to have a solid logical approach and made other rebuilding-like value accumulating deals recently there would be way more of a benefit of the doubt given in this trade.

As it stands the punted it almost certainly because they think next years draft is so great, but yet they moved up in this very draft a bunch of times. They haven't traded obvious pieces to pick up assets either.

Then they come out and say they can't pick certain players because they have some other small-ish players that aren't even anything special.

This is just a confusing organization in every way. So why choose the glass half full explanation on a questionable move

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Agree mostly, but Luchanko’s floor is Laughton. He is a younger and arguably smarter and a better skater than Laughts.

I was going to say his floor is roughly Richard Park. He's not even close to better than a coinflip to be as good as Laughton. That's 600+ NHL games and 250+ Points.

I have no problem with him as a prospect. This is just the general overrating of what it means to be a mid first rounder. Less than half of first rounders get to 200+ NHL games. About a quarter don't even get to 100.

 

[usahockey22flyers]

I think if the team had proven to have a solid logical approach and made other rebuilding-like value accumulating deals recently there would be way more of a benefit of the doubt given in this trade.

As it stands the punted it almost certainly because they think next years draft is so great, but yet they moved up in this very draft a bunch of times. They haven't traded obvious pieces to pick up assets either.

Then they come out and say they can't pick certain players because they have some other small-ish players that aren't even anything special.

This is just a confusing organization in every way. So why choose the glass half full explanation on a questionable move

This is pretty accurate. I like the trade because this time next year it could be a nice move up as a limited gamble.

However, who unseats Edmonton? The Avs? Well damn, we have their pick.

Gotta do a lot of rooting for Dallas and Vancouver this year. Vegas? Winnipeg?

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

Jeff Skinner has signed with the Oilers. The 1st round pick has now been deferred to 2026.