Trade Targets: Draft Picks vs Young Players
- Thread starter Vector
- Start date
Nucker101
Foundational Poster
- Apr 2, 2013
- 21,939
- 18,021
Awesome work!
So one of the impact players in Filip Forsberg was still a non-NHL prospect playing in the SHL as a teenager. In terms of the NHL vs pick/prospect argument, I think it's fair to say that he fits more into the pick/prospect group more so than young NHL player since the main argument on this board lately has been whether or not makes it sense to target guys like Newhook/Laf vs magic beans(drafts picks and prospects).
Of course Forsberg tracking well after being drafted makes him less of a magic bean as well so he is in that grey area in between. But that's the exact type of prospect I'd rather have than a Newhook.
So one of the impact players in Filip Forsberg was still a non-NHL prospect playing in the SHL as a teenager. In terms of the NHL vs pick/prospect argument, I think it's fair to say that he fits more into the pick/prospect group more so than young NHL player since the main argument on this board lately has been whether or not makes it sense to target guys like Newhook/Laf vs magic beans(drafts picks and prospects).
Of course Forsberg tracking well after being drafted makes him less of a magic bean as well so he is in that grey area in between. But that's the exact type of prospect I'd rather have than a Newhook.
This but also Forsberg was on the Predators roster by the end of the season he was traded in.
I don't think prospects are magic beans at all since everyone has a massive amount more information in their D+1 season. That's why they are included in here. The ones who are the very grey area are the NCAA players. However, pretty much all of them are in the NHL very shortly after being acquired.
Nucker101
Foundational Poster
- Apr 2, 2013
- 21,939
- 18,021
Yeah, I agree. But I think back then teams and GM's didn't realize how important potential productive ELC's were, plus 2 of the players on your impact list are also wingers(I was predicting over 50% but 50% still makes a point).
I think your impact list shows that maybe for Horvat we may get an impact player(more likely a winger) but for guys like Kuz/Schenn..give me the magic beans all day over the sea of Bears/Dermotts and Mottes/Studnickas that will be offered. I can just sign a Joshua/Burroughs and keep my long shot magic beans too.
Prospects who are super close or already on an nhl roster are highly coveted by their current teams as the current GM if making a tdl deal wants all hands on deck as possible. So they are way more willing to part with future draft picks. Even the most recently drafted first rounders seem to be super coveted despite being another year or two away from the nhl.
How many deals in the past 7/8 seasons have involved a teams best prospect?
How many deals in the past 7/8 seasons have involved a teams best prospect?
Canucker
Go Hawks!
Thanks for taking the time to put that together...interesting stuff. I think a lot of the prospects/picks are very subjective, just as any player is...we all have our own ideas of which players are good and those who we aren't high on. I might rather have an early 2nd rounder over a guy like Newhook (just as an example), where others who are higher on Newhook may think I'm out to lunch. We're all back seat GM's around here and we're all subject to having dumb ideas on occasion, just like actual GM's...it's nice to see some actual data behind the discussions though...appreciate the effort.
By the numbers, you'd be crazy to want an early 2nd instead of Newhook. The most likely best case scenario from an early 2nd is...Newhook.
- Aug 28, 2011
- 18,063
- 22,819
I look at the Steve Bernier and Tyler Toffoli trades in Canuck history, and I am okay with them given the probability of drafting talent after the 1st round. We have yet to see a trade involving a massive cap dump, but I would be willing to part with multiple mid round picks along with a non-lottery 1st round pick to ship out some horrible contracts.
Where it becomes problematic is the cumulative effect of having a deficit of draft picks over a period of time.; and the many unnecessary picks that have been tossed away for low end long-shot talent.
Where it becomes problematic is the cumulative effect of having a deficit of draft picks over a period of time.; and the many unnecessary picks that have been tossed away for low end long-shot talent.
Canucker
Go Hawks!
lol...what can i say, I like to scratch lottery tickets. I have a fool proof "system".By the numbers, you'd be crazy to want an early 2nd instead of Newhook. The most likely best case scenario from an early 2nd is...Newhook.
Factor in that early second rounders would normally belong to non playoff teams, how would you get one if doing a tdl deal? Talking more about picks 50 onwards vs ones still in the 30’s or early 40’s.By the numbers, you'd be crazy to want an early 2nd instead of Newhook. The most likely best case scenario from an early 2nd is...Newhook.
Part of my reasoning for picks over players like a Newhook (he’s the main one on my mind) is that you often have to pay them right away as well.
If I recall we were discussing John Marino at the time. He’s signed to Garland money at a premium position. He was had for a 2nd and a failing prospect. I was thinking two 2nds could’ve had him.
Essentially I’m more into building an asset base because I don’t think this roster is going anywhere without getting two filip forsberg’s at C and RHD for Erat (Garland or Myers) at minimum.
Some are content with Iginla era Flames.
I do appreciate the work vector.
If I recall we were discussing John Marino at the time. He’s signed to Garland money at a premium position. He was had for a 2nd and a failing prospect. I was thinking two 2nds could’ve had him.
Essentially I’m more into building an asset base because I don’t think this roster is going anywhere without getting two filip forsberg’s at C and RHD for Erat (Garland or Myers) at minimum.
Some are content with Iginla era Flames.
I do appreciate the work vector.
That's why I broke it out the way I did. 2nd rounders are weird because, from this sample size, the only real difference between early, middle, and late 2nd round picks is there was a disproportionate amount of impact players in the early 2nd. It's still an incredibly low number, though.
Just A Bit Outside
Playoffs??!
- Mar 6, 2010
- 17,816
- 17,584
That’s pretty consistent with the broader data I have seen - there is usually a steep drop off between picks 1 and ~5, a less steep drop off between picks 5 and ~20, then a much flatter drop off after pick ~20. Most of the high end talent is usually plucked by about pick 40.
Really interesting breakdown @Vector . Appreciate your work and analysis.
I think this should be an Article for all of HF to enjoy.
Well done
Wasn't included in this study. You can see which trades I included in the linked google doc.
My key word was normally. Of the 16 PO how many would own a second rounder in the top 16 of round 2? Maybe a couple.
It can happen, if teams trade well in advance.
My take:
- first of all, thank you, must be a lot of time/effort.
- using 2010-18, that's 9 years of top 60 picks, over 500 picks vs 81 players in 44 trades.
The picks side has a much bigger sample. The quality of players outcomes with the picks is likely much more accurate than looking at the trades.
Meaning if you are using this information to gauge the value of picks, its a decent model. Like its always a good reminder to see the % of impact players drop like crazy as you move out of the top 15-20 picks.
- Don't have access to view the data, but how do you adjust the fact that trades can include trades that teams are simply looking for long shot and depth players. How many out of the 44 trades (which is already a small sample size), were teams actually targeting young players with the upside that you would expect from a top 60 pick?
- first of all, thank you, must be a lot of time/effort.
- using 2010-18, that's 9 years of top 60 picks, over 500 picks vs 81 players in 44 trades.
The picks side has a much bigger sample. The quality of players outcomes with the picks is likely much more accurate than looking at the trades.
Meaning if you are using this information to gauge the value of picks, its a decent model. Like its always a good reminder to see the % of impact players drop like crazy as you move out of the top 15-20 picks.
- Don't have access to view the data, but how do you adjust the fact that trades can include trades that teams are simply looking for long shot and depth players. How many out of the 44 trades (which is already a small sample size), were teams actually targeting young players with the upside that you would expect from a top 60 pick?
xtra
Registered User
Its kinda funny that 40% of the busts in the decade belong to Jim benning from the 6-10 spot
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
- Sep 18, 2008
- 6,845
- 3,716
There is one other factor in favour of trading for draft picks: if a draft pick turns into an impact player or an nhl player you get 3 years of their play on a rookie entry-level contract. "Young players" being traded are probably near the end of their rookie deal or on their next contract.
