Value of: What do you think the 16th and 17th pick of the 1st round worth if traded together?
- Thread starter samsagat
- Start date
-
We sincerely apologize for the extended downtime. Our hosting provider, XenForo Cloud, encountered a major issue with their backup system, which unfortunately resulted in the loss of some critical data from the past year.
What This Means for You:
- If you created an account after March 2024, it no longer exists. You will need to sign up again to access the forum.
- If you registered before March 2024 but changed your email, username, or password in the past year, those changes were lost. You’ll need to update your account details manually once you're logged in.
- Threads and posts created within the last year have been restored.
Our team is working with Xenforo Cloud to recover data using backups, sitemaps, and other available resources. We know this is frustrating, and we deeply regret the impact on our community. We are taking steps with Xenforo Cloud to ensure this never happens again. This is work in progress. Thank you for your patience and support as we work through this.
In the meantime, feel free to join our Discord Server
I think it can get things started for a 6th pick
But Habs need to add
I also think the 6th pick should be the target
After that, I see a drop off
You target 6 and take whatever is left and add if it's needed
But Habs need to add
I also think the 6th pick should be the target
After that, I see a drop off
You target 6 and take whatever is left and add if it's needed
Plenty of instances where a mid first + 2nd round got you near the top 10. I doubt 16 & 17 only get you to move up 3-5 spots. That's insane.
Gaylord Q Tinkledink
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2018
- 28,527
- 29,705
If youre trading those, you want top 5 and no one is trading a top 5 for those.
Aftee that the quality of prospects at this point are very similar, so hang tight and draft the 2 you like the most if not dealt.
Aftee that the quality of prospects at this point are very similar, so hang tight and draft the 2 you like the most if not dealt.
DesertPenguin
Registered User
- Apr 22, 2015
- 3,076
- 1,605
I don't blame ya. There is a chance of getting a Michkov, Rantanen, Werenski etc type player with that pick.
Jared Grayden
Registered User
- Mar 23, 2025
- 34
- 41
I don't expect this draft to yield that caliber of player but I do think that every player in the top 10 has the potential to play at least in middle six role in the NHL. I can't say that for very many of the players who will be taken after 15OA.
I was surprised when I did that list.
In 9 drafts you had:
Tom Wilson
Tom Hertl
Matt Barzal
Kyle Connor
Jakob Chychrun
Kaiden Guhle
While the 10th pick had Nuke, Rantanen, Bouchard as the only top line players with some tweeners like Owen Tippett, Podz and Perfetti.
6/9 chance of getting a first liner/first pairing D. Pretty good. Yes some years were more stacked than others but that also goes for picks at 10, or 9.
Last edited:
Even last year there were some excellent players being selected well into the late 20s and early 2nd round. This year the crop is just admittedly weaker than normal and there are going to be a lot more busts IMO than in most other years.
Lockin17
Registered User
- Jul 31, 2018
- 3,072
- 2,225
Scintillating10
Registered User
Jared Dunn
Registered User
The only team I wonder about is Buffalo because I could see them dangling one of the two picks for a more proven player and the value just might match up better than wherever in the top 5 they land. That said, certainly not enough value to jump into the top 5
- Jun 20, 2013
- 984
- 673
Yeah but no.
We drafted Reinbacher with a 5th overall and even if HockeyDB's watchers that thinks it makes them connoisseurs think he's not worth much, it's not the case.
Habs won't certainly add him to one of their middle round pick to get a top 10 pick this year..
General Fanager
Registered User
There can also be an argument that higher picks get rushed to the NHL vs guys picked lower get time to develop properly.
Might not be the case with the guys in the example but its possible....
that being said id trade the picks and add a prospect or 2 for immediate help. Someone who can help now and fits into the age of the core. The last thing The Habs need is another pick that is 3-5 years away from helping.
Last edited:
It's a weird spot where to get to say pick 10 it probably takes significantly less than 16&17 but to get to pick 7 it probably takes significantly more ...
Value (probability of panning out as a career impact) player of those picks combined equates to value of a player picked at 3.
That is obviously not market value, but that is player outcome probability value.
That is obviously not market value, but that is player outcome probability value.
Draft pick value charts are used by teams for a quick approximation, but realistically teams don't trade down in the top 10 for "value." A team trading down usually has a guy in mind that they think they can land later.
In 2007, St. Louis badly wanted Jakub Voracek and they offered #9 and #24 to Edmonton for #6. Decent "value" but Edmonton declined as there was a perceived tier drop after #7. The next target for St. Louis was Lars Eller who they thought they could move down and still get. So they pivoted and traded #9 to San Jose for #13, #44, and #87.
(San Jose had intel that Florida was going to take Logan Couture at #10, so they knew that they'd have to leapfrog the Panthers to get him.)
As others alluded to, teams typically aren't going to want to trade out of a perceived tier. They'd rather keep it simple than try to hit twice.
And then there's the other factor that a lot of teams picking in the top 5 also picked up other first rounders plus have their own high 2nd rounders.
San Jose - Dallas (Granlund)
Chicago - Toronto (McCabe)
Nashville - Tampa (Jeannot) + Vegas (via SJS/Askarov)
Philadelphia - Edmonton (#32 last year) + Colorado (Walker)
It wouldn't make sense for those teams to trade down to get extra picks in the mid-1st. Would make more sense for them to trade up from their other 1st if they really liked somebody.
In 2007, St. Louis badly wanted Jakub Voracek and they offered #9 and #24 to Edmonton for #6. Decent "value" but Edmonton declined as there was a perceived tier drop after #7. The next target for St. Louis was Lars Eller who they thought they could move down and still get. So they pivoted and traded #9 to San Jose for #13, #44, and #87.
(San Jose had intel that Florida was going to take Logan Couture at #10, so they knew that they'd have to leapfrog the Panthers to get him.)
As others alluded to, teams typically aren't going to want to trade out of a perceived tier. They'd rather keep it simple than try to hit twice.
And then there's the other factor that a lot of teams picking in the top 5 also picked up other first rounders plus have their own high 2nd rounders.
San Jose - Dallas (Granlund)
Chicago - Toronto (McCabe)
Nashville - Tampa (Jeannot) + Vegas (via SJS/Askarov)
Philadelphia - Edmonton (#32 last year) + Colorado (Walker)
It wouldn't make sense for those teams to trade down to get extra picks in the mid-1st. Would make more sense for them to trade up from their other 1st if they really liked somebody.
Also depends on the team & where they are. Any team with a high pick had a lousy year. However was that year because their run as being a strong team ended & they're entering a rebuild, or are they a team exiting their rebuild?
A team entering the rebuild might be more interested in the two picks as they have time for them to develop a bit & chances of one or both becoming regular players might be better.
A team getting ready to run again probably have very little use for a couple of picks that won't be ready for a few years (if ever). Who knows, they may even be willing to trade that relatively high pick to some already competitive team (with a depleted draft pool) for a star/star- player that fits their 'let's go now' program. Even a relatively high pick is probably a couple of years away from being a regular player.
A team entering the rebuild might be more interested in the two picks as they have time for them to develop a bit & chances of one or both becoming regular players might be better.
A team getting ready to run again probably have very little use for a couple of picks that won't be ready for a few years (if ever). Who knows, they may even be willing to trade that relatively high pick to some already competitive team (with a depleted draft pool) for a star/star- player that fits their 'let's go now' program. Even a relatively high pick is probably a couple of years away from being a regular player.
