Trade Targets: Draft Picks vs Young Players

[Vector]

Do you ever go outside

You know I don’t.

 

[God]

im only trading bo horvat for the 1st overall pick.

 

[TruGr1t]

Sorry, without quantifying "young player" this falls apart for me entirely. Trading for a 21/22-year-old is a lot different than trading for a 25-year-old.

I'd be more interested in the impact-player success rate of trading for players that are 24/5+ versus trading for draft picks.

 

[Vector]

Sorry, without quantifying "young player" this falls apart for me entirely. Trading for a 21/22-year-old is a lot different than trading for a 25-year-old.

I'd be more interested in the impact-player success rate of trading for players that are 24/5+ versus trading for draft picks.

Thank you for your apology. I accept.

 

[racerjoe]

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.

This is making the assumption you are getting a guy who is out of the box an impact player which again will generally only happen (not always) when they are a high pick. Where you may be able to sign an older guy on a longer deal that is undervalued, before they break out.

 

[Cancuks]

I'd take a young proven NHL player or a prospect who is excelling in the minors over a draft pick any day, especially with this management and scouting group. Late rounders often bust but if they do turn into a player, its rarely an all star caliber player. But if they do reach that level it can take 4 or 5 years of development. In fact, if I were a GM I'd deal any draft picks after the 3rd round. Like trade a 4th and 5th for a 3rd or package 5,6,7 for a prospect in Europe or the AHL.

 

[Vector]

@TruGr1t Just checked and 6 players fall in the 25/26 year old category. Another three were 24.

I have the spreadsheet linked with all the ages so the information is there for you to break it down how you see fit.

 

[StreetHawk]

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.

How many guys per draft end up giving you big time value on all 3 years of their elc? Where if that was an rfa it would have cost you like $3 or $4 mill to pay them?
You can get 1 year like that. Maybe 2 for a couple of guys. But those tend to be the higher end picks vs guys taken at the end of round 1.

2015 was a great draft but from picks 20-30 of the first round it’s like Boeser and Konecny who did anything of value on their elc. Colin White and Ek were fine but nothing amazing.

 

[TruGr1t]

@TruGr1t Just checked and 6 players fall in the 25/26 year old category. Another three were 24.

I have the spreadsheet linked with all the ages so the information is there for you to break it down how you see fit.

Thank you, kindly. I'll take a look.

 

[Jyrki]

The cruel reality is that the Canucks have no option except trade for futures, if they ever hope to be competitive.

The team is stuck in horrible cap hell for many years to come while being mediocre at best. We have no assets we can leverage to improve the team, aside from players who already contribute. The only ways to make the team better are to either trade picks yet again, or make shrewd trades - which every team has to and very few succeed at.

Miller, Boeser, Myers and OEL are all unmovable, and they're 30M in cap space. Young players like Podz or Hoglander aren't going to fetch a better, older player. Hughes and Petey are too young as core players to trade. You're basically looking at trading Horvat or Kuzmenko if the expectation is that they can't be re-signed for any chance of the team being "better" than it otherwise would be without dealing them, and odds are the team will still be substantially worse. So what we're getting this season is very unlikely to get any better, so what's the point in sticking with what everyone knows to be a failed product?

Make everyone available, except Petey. Blow it up for draft picks and prospects. Of course, highly unlikely to happen given this is the same administration that just gave Boeser and Miller retirement contracts. But it's the only way out of mediocrity. I wonder if Allvin/Rutherford, just like Jimbo, keep promising Blueberries that every year is the year, instead of doing what must be done.

 

[Vector]

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?

About your first point, completely correct. There's always going to be a lower pool to draw from for trades but I figure it's still large enough and over a long enough time that it's at least somewhat useful. As you and others pointed out, there's so many more factors going into trades than there are draft picks so the outcomes will have a wider range of reasons for failure and success.

To answer your question, I just don't know. If I had accurate prospect rankings from then, it'd be somewhat possible to cross-reference and make a judgement based on that. A lot of the trades involve a young player or prospect and 1st and/or 2nd rounder as well. Some trades it was obvious (Ryan O'Reilly to the Sabres for Zadorov, Grigorenko, Compher, and a 2nd is an easy example where the young players and prospects were clearly the centerpieces over the draft pick) while others it was far hazier. Instead of sifting through it, I chose not to. Was already talking a lot of time and I started running out of steam.

I have changed that access to anyone with a link can view. Was having trouble finding that option earlier.

 

[tradervik]

There's a lot of research into the value of draft picks. The curve doesn't start dropping off at pick 5, it drops off from pick 1 in what looks exactly like a negative logarithmic curve. Below is a graph from an Athletic article. If you don't like the Athletic, just google 'nhl draft pick value curve' and you'll find a bunch of articles and graphs from other sources.

 

[ahmon]

About your first point, completely correct. There's always going to be a lower pool to draw from for trades but I figure it's still large enough and over a long enough time that it's at least somewhat useful. As you and others pointed out, there's so many more factors going into trades than there are draft picks so the outcomes will have a wider range of reasons for failure and success.

To answer your question, I just don't know. If I had accurate prospect rankings from then, it'd be somewhat possible to cross-reference and make a judgement based on that. A lot of the trades involve a young player or prospect and 1st and/or 2nd rounder as well. Some trades it was obvious (Ryan O'Reilly to the Sabres for Zadorov, Grigorenko, Compher, and a 2nd is an easy example where the young players and prospects were clearly the centerpieces over the draft pick) while others it was far hazier. Instead of sifting through it, I chose not to. Was already talking a lot of time and I started running out of steam.

I have changed that access to anyone with a link can view. Was having trouble finding that option earlier.

thanks!

I saw someone mention Tage Thompson - I guess his trade simply didn't make the cut off time of 2018?

Was Cernak too young/inexperienced to be included in trades? went to Tampa in the Bishop deal in 2017

How about the Mike Richards deal involving Brayden Schenn and Simmonds?

 

[Vector]

thanks!

I saw someone mention Tage Thompson - I guess his trade simply didn't make the cut off time of 2018?

Was Cernak too young/inexperienced to be included in trades? went to Tampa in the Bishop deal in 2017

How about the Mike Richards deal involving Brayden Schenn and Simmonds?

I went through 8 years worth of trade so I missed some and by the end kind of just ran out of energy and had to finish. I believe the O’Reilky trade was classified for the following season on the website I was using.

The Richards and Bishop definitely should have been included. I’ll update when I get a chance. From those trades there’s be three players added to the NHLer section and one as a bust.

I was doing this on my lunch breaks since I have no time at home.

 

[ahmon]

I went through 8 years worth of trade so I missed some and by the end kind of just ran out of energy and had to finish. The Richards and Bishop definitely should have been included. I’ll update when I get a chance. From those trades there’s be three players added to the NHLer section and one as a bust.

I was doing this on my lunch breaks since I have no time at home.

don't blame you, its ambitious work

 

[tradervik]

I went through 8 years worth of trade so I missed some and by the end kind of just ran out of energy and had to finish. I believe the O’Reilky trade was classified for the following season on the website I was using.

The Richards and Bishop definitely should have been included. I’ll update when I get a chance. From those trades there’s be three players added to the NHLer section and one as a bust.

I was doing this on my lunch breaks since I have no time at home.

Does the Vanek for Motte trade meet your criteria? I didn’t see it in your spreadsheet. I remember at the time everyone was upset the former guy didn’t get a pick but Motte turned out to be a very useful bottom 6 guy.

 

[Vector]

Does the Vanek for Motte trade meet your criteria? I didn’t see it in your spreadsheet. I remember at the time everyone was upset the former guy didn’t get a pick but Motte turned out to be a very useful bottom 6 guy.

I thought about adding it after the fact but ran out of time. I could go in later and add it. Wound be another in the NHLer pool.

 

[EP to Kuzmenko]

I think the best way we are going to get an impact RHD is at this years draft. The more picks we have n the 10-60 range(and beyond) the more chances that one of them becomes impactful. We can easily get a 2023 1st in the deal for Kuzmenko and Bo, and a 2nd for Schenn.

Teams aren't just going to trade us a young RHD ready to stop in next season with top 4 potential. We need to draft them. Trading a few top players will also increase our chances at Bedard, which should have been the focus earlier in the season IMO. Management (and people who regurgitate what they say) will talk about how low the % is to get him, even at last in the league, but sometimes a player is worth the risk. Also getting a pick in the top 5 (3 if we finish last) will help shape the future of our team more than a single pick in the 10-15 range. Sell and pick high with our pick and have multiple lower 1st and 2nds to draft RHD.

 

[supercanuck]

Earlier this week a question was posed in another thread; who is more likely to develop when acquired in a trade, a 1st & 2nd round draft pick or a young player? I, stupidly, volunteered to take on this task.

I went through 9 drafts, 2010-2018, and sorted each player in the first two rounds under the following categories: Impact, NHLer, Fringe, and Bust. There wasn't a hard criteria for who fits where and just used my best judgement. I also separated the draft picks. In the first round I looked at picks 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 20-25, and 26-30/31. For the second round it was 31-40, 41-50, and 51-60/61. The idea behind this is that top-5 picks should yield a higher rate of Impact NHL players. To determine the percentages I just divided the category by the amount of players in that part of the draft.

Results

Picks 1-5					Picks 6-10					Picks 11-15
Impact	NHLer	Fringe	Bust		Impact	NHLer	Fringe	Bust		Impact	NHLer	Fringe	Bust
22	15	4	4		12	18	10	5		7	24	5	9
49%	33%	9%	9%		27%	40%	22%	11%		16%	53%	11%	20%

Picks 16-20					Picks 20-25					Picks 26-30/31
Impact	NHLer	Fringe	Bust		Impact	NHLer	Fringe	Bust		Impact	NHLer	Fringe	Bust
9	18	10	8		1	17	11	15		3	18	9	17
20%	40%	22%	18%		2%	39%	25%	34%		7%	38%	19%	36%

Picks 31-40					Picks 41-50					Picks 51-60/61
Impact	NHLer	Fringe	Bust		Impact	NHLer	Fringe	Bust		Impact	NHLer	Fringe	Bust
7	19	21	43		2	22	21	45		1	29	23	44
8%	21%	23%	48%		2%	25%	23%	50%		1%	30%	24%	45%

A top-5 pick's most likely outcome is to become an impact player with a low fringe and bust percentage. However, impact players decrease significantly immediately afterwards. By the mid-to-late 1st round the chances of drafting an NHLer are almost even with drafting a bust. In the second round, the most likely outcome is your draft pick busting.

---

Next I looked at trades from the same time period. It was difficult as I had to use my own judgement to figure out what classified as a young player. I ended up with 44 trades containing 81 young players from 2010-2018. I then used the same Impact, NHLer, Fringe, and Bust criteria for each player. I mostly stuck with trades that involved someone classified as a veteran going on way with young players coming back but there are a few young player swaps or draft pick for young player trades.

Results

Impact	NHLer	Fringe	Bust
4	35	11	27
5%	43%	16%	36%

The 4 impact players were Tyler Seguin, Filip Forsberg, Jakub Voracek, and Ryan McDonagh.

---

Conclusion

When acquiring 1st and 2nd round picks for stars, they are almost always at the end of the their rounds. Trading for 1st round pick in the 20-32 range has, roughly, the same outcomes as trading for a young player. There is a less chance of the player becoming a fringe asset, however. This does change when trading 2nd round picks, however. The young player is far more likely to develop into an NHLer than a 2nd round pick is.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

---

Anyone interested into looking at my methodology can look at this google spreadsheet I worked off of.

The following expressed an interest into looking at the results in the other thread:
@4Twenty , @Nucker101 , @MS , @pitseleh , @credulous , @racerjoe , @Canucker , @rypper

I'm being a bit silly here, but my first thought was "How much did Benning's work as an NHL GM skew these numbers to the right?"

 

[Vector]

I'm being a bit silly here, but my first thought was "How much did Benning's work as an NHL GM skew these numbers to the right?"

There are a lot of players Benning and Weisbrod liked, across a couple of organizations, that pop up under the Fringe and Bust categories. Look at what Calgary received for Bouwmeester and Iginla.

 

[bossram]

Its kinda funny that 40% of the busts in the decade belong to Jim benning from the 6-10 spot

Jim "eye for talent" Benning.

On a serious note, in lieu of late firsts at the TDL, there are a couple of young "age gap" type players I think the Canucks could target:

Phil Tomasino was inexplicably sent to the AHL after a very good rookie season in Nashville. I think he can be an"impact" player if there were a trade to make there. Connor McMichael is in a similar situation. His underlying numbers were pretty strong in his rookie season and he's probably somewhat realistically available if Washington looks for upgrades at the TDL.

 

[y2kcanucks]

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?

This.

The types of young players available in a trade are the types that teams have given up on. Sure, if Alexis Lafreniere or Bowen Byram are available via trade you do that deal. But if we're talking guys like Ryan Merkley or Vitali Kravtsov, give me the draft pick.

 

[MS]

@Vector thanks for making this thread - I mean to respond to it at the time but was super busy. Anyhow, I actually had some time today to make a post I wanted to make and figured the best place to put it was to add it to this thread.

We've had a lot of discussion here about pick values and surpluses and a lot of disagreement about my takes on this. I just wanted to take the time to go through mid-late round picks in particular and why I don't really value them highly.

I'm going to go back to 2005 and the start of the cap era and current ELCs etc. and go through every pick in round 4-7 since that time vs. every free agent signing we've given a first NHL contract to. Guys who played a few NHL games are yellow, guys who became NHL regulars are green, guys who became impact players are green and bolded. I might have missed a guy or two who were undrafted FA signings, but I think I'm pretty close.

Draft picks:
Alex Vincent
Matt Bucher
Kris Fredheim
Mario Bliznak
Sergei Shirokov
Juraj Simek
Evan Fuller
CA M***ier
Ilya Kablukov
Taylor Matson
Dan Gendur
Prabh Rai
Mats Froshaug
Morgan Clark
Jeremy Price
Peter Andersson
Joe Cannata
Steven Anthony
Pat McNally
Adam Polasek
Alex Friesen
Jonathan Ialahti
Sawyer Hannay
Joe Labate
Ludwig Blomstrand
Frank Corrado
Pathrik Westerholm
Henrik Tommernes
Ben Hutton
Wes Myron
Matthew Beattie
Jordan Subban
Anton Cedarholm
Mike Williamson
Miles Liberati
Gustav Forsling
Kyle Pettit
Mackenze Stewart
Carl Neill
Adam Gaudette
Lukas Jasek
Tate Olson
Cole Candela
Jakob Stukel
Rodrigo Abols
Brett McKenzie
Jack Rathbone
Kristoffer Gunnarsson
Petrus Palmu
Matt Brassard
Toni Utunen
Artem Manukyan
Matt Thiessen
Ethan Keppen
Carson Focht
Arturs Silovs
Karel Plasek
Jack Malone
Aiden McDonough
Arvid Costmar

60 picks
10/60 played NHL games (17%)
3/60 NHL regulars (5%)
1/60 impact player (1.6%)

UFA ELCs
Rick Rypien
Alex Burrows
Patrick Coulombe
Shaun Heshka
PC Labrie
Eric Walsky
Evan Oberg
Aaron Volpatti
Chris Tanev
Bill Sweatt
Lee Sweatt
Eddie Lack
Stefan Schneider
Sebastian Erixon
Darren Archibald
Kellan Lain
Jeremie Blain
Dane Fox
Evan McEneny
Mike Zalewski
Ronalds Kenins
Joacim Eriksson
Ashton Sautner
Troy Stecher
Michael Carcone
Tom Nilsson
Yan-Pavel Laplante
Michael Garteig
Zack MacEwen
Phillip Holm
Griffin Molino
Jalen Chatfield
Brogan Rafferty
Josh Teves
Mitch Eliot
Jake Kielly
Andrei Kuzmenko
Nils Aman
Arshdeep Bains
Filip Johansson

40 signings
27 played NHL games (67.5%)
9 became NHL regulars (22.5%)
3 became impact players (7.5%)

___________

First off, the hit rates on draft picks are obviously really bad. We're worse than most, but this kind of serves to show how little value pick surpluses actually contribute.

Second, the difference between mid-late round draft picks and undrafted FA signings is absolutely incredible. Like 400% better for the FA signings. And these are the exact same scouts making the recommendations.

So when people act like getting extra mid-late round draft picks is somehow driving success, it's like ... huh? No they aren't. They generate little value, and if you don't have them, you're probably just going to sign extra FA prospects to fill your system, which often have better hit rates. Like, these picks don't matter. They don't do anything for you. The alternative might actually be better.

I think it's worth it to have a mix of pipelines, but I sure as shit don't put really any value on stockpiling these sort of draft picks. They don't do anything. They're easily replaced. If we're down a pick or two, it just doesn't matter. You'll have an extra contract slot to sign a Bains or an Aman.

And I know the response will be 'other teams have different results'. And yeah, for other teams it might not be this extreme. But the general idea holds. You aren't gaining some big competitive advantage by having a whole bunch of extra draft picks, unless these are really high draft picks. For the record, in the 15 years I cited, Calgary had 3 impact players rounds 4-7, Winnipeg had 2, and Edmonton had 0.

 

[iceburg]

The draft is basically a crap shoot. When you get down to a 15% or less success rate beyond the middle of the first round it really just becomes a numbers game. If you have 10 picks you’re way more likely to have 1 or 2 hit than if you have 3. Nobody is smart enough to pick the ones that will hit even 50% if the time.

Of course, talent at the top end will always be talent. But development strategy is way more impactful on the numbers of prospects that make it.

So, get as many young players as you can, through whatever means, and build the best development program you can build.

 

[valkynax]

I want to choose draft picks, but I fear that Fredolini might go into anaphylactic shock if I choose so. As someone who's very caring of others, I shall keep my choice to myself.