Weave

It will be interesting to see how that list changes as we get closer to the deadline.

We know who was drafted around those picks, so we kinda do.

If you use Cullen's 100 game standard you are still looking at draft picks between 15 and 30 having a 61% chance at 100 games with an average expected role of a bottom 6 forward / 3rd pairing defenceman. You can make a very valid argument for trading those at the deadline.

Yeah, I caught that. I think we're both hitting the same point pretty thoroughly.

There is a ton of data that backs the point up. 2nd round plus picks are bargains to use for trade bait.

according to the site I linked over the last 13 seasons the hit rate barely over 25%.

This is frustrating. The reply was 2nds AND 3rds. 15-20% of seconds and 3rds make it. Narrow it to just 2nds and it is pretty much 25%. We were dead on average. (not that it changed my point any) And again, in context of the convo, do we want to give up a 25% shot at a player to get additional help for a playoff run? I do. Assuming the situation warrants it.

1/3 in the 2nd make it. 1 in 4 in the 3rd make it. 1 in 6-10 make it drafted after that. Add college FA's. It adds up.

I didn't say they were without value. I said that they aren't likely to have any more than a cup of coffee in the NHL. And the context of that statement was that I am willing to forego that value in return for a player that can help us in the playoffs. Assuming that playoffs are in the picture for this year.

I didn't pull that number out of my ass. The statistics of NHL success for picks has been well researched, and well discussed here. The reality is, by the middle of the 1st round, the liklihood of spending 2 seasons in the NHL is down to a coin toss, and by the second and third rounds its half of that. Read me;  article discussing liklihood of success rates in different rounds of the NHL draft

No, they aren't. Only 15-20% of them ever make an NHL team. Each team only gets a couple of them every decade that have NHL careers. Bringing in junk was the problem. Expending 2nd and 3rd round picks to bolster the team wasn't.

I think we are seeing the other side of when Foligno was a Sabre and there were moments where we'd say, "welcome to the NHL, rook".

I just went back and looked at Darcy's deadline trade history. There is a handful of 2nd and 3rd round picks that he's moved to upgrade the team for the playoffs. Of those picks, only Clayton Stoner ever became anything. Darcy's history was not doing enough at the deadline, not giving away the farm.

A mid level player is exactly the potential most likely to come from a mid-to-late first round pick, so the trade off is, a mid level player for someone who might become a mid level player 3+ years down the line. Yeah, there are alot of situations where that makes sense. Setting expectations for a young team that is just learning what it might become is very much possibly one of those situations. And as mentioned, the market for a mid level player has been lower than 1st round picks anyway, making the choice even more obvious. I suppose I'll refrain from inspiring another liger meltdown over prospects.

Nothing wrong with optimisim. Or excitement for what the team is currently showing.

I'm always surprised by the folks who embrace analytics so closely to make on ice decisions and then overvalue the mid to late 1st round picks when it is time to consider giving them up for known quantities. It seems to be the only place where the bird in the bush is worth more than the bird in hand.

You're still talking about 2nd half of the round picks. Those kids are middle-to-bottom 6/bottom pair players. Role players. Those are the most readily available players in the league. I'm willing to forego a 50% chance at one of those for a better opportunity in the playoffs.

We've been on the other end of those trades since 2010. Those trades never gave us much to work with, and our talent drained considerably in the process. I could see being reluctant to give up a 1st round pick from a bad team, but if we're making the playoffs, I have no problem at all moving our 1st rd pick for the right player for the remainder of the season and 1st crack at him in the off season. Those late 1st round picks are overrated in terms of what those players typically become.

Tend to agree with Dark. If Evander wasn't the sort of personality Botts wanted, I can't see Patrick being wanted either. Weird quirk of mine but I had more willingness to give Evander the benefit of the doubt than I did Patrick. I think the kid is repulsive. Don't want to see him here at all.

Hell, yeah we are in win now mode. The standings tell us all we need to know. If we are still a playoff team at the deadline we should be trying to get another center and maybe depth D on the team. And even if we are not a playoff team, adding a guy with another year on his contract still makes sense. Next year 100% needs to be a win now year.

Colorado wasn't eager to get rid of him. His salary demands were higher than Colorado was willing to pay.

Interesting counterpoint from Sportsnet. apparently super lines at the expense of line depth is the NHL strategy du jour. https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/oilers-consider-loading-nhl-leans-theory-super-lines/ One line of studs and 3 lines of role players. the new NHL wave.

I wonder how Maine got it through their legislature. It's not in the best interests of either major party to allow this change. I'd hesitate to call it viable for that reason alone.

#can'thavetoomanycenters