Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
This is fundamental to all trades: that they (theoretically) give up equal value to what they receive and therefore, (you seem to be proposing) there is no net benefit. So I guess teams should never trade?
|
It's different when you're comparing real players/prospects because teams can value them differently. When it's a trade of picks for picks you have to assume the value of the picks on each side are equal (especially considering they were dealing with a competent front office like Buffalo's). You can't just look at the prospects that ended up getting drafted either because neither side knows who the other intends to draft and neither side know who will be available with the later picks.
Quote:
SImple question (and it isn't stacked - just curious as to your thoughts):
Would you rather have Jankowski and Sieloff or have Girgensons? (we don't know who the Flames might have drafted, so all we can do is assume who actually was)
For me, based on where the organization was at the time, I am much happier with Jankowski and Sieloff than with Girgensons (or Teravainen, for example)
|
Given our situation, it's probably a good move to build depth.
But I was never questioning why the Flames did trade down. I was questioning that you can say leaving the draft with 7 picks after entering with 6 picks means we're valuing the draft (since the total value of those picks is essentially the same). If we didn't get rid of one of our original picks, we still could have traded down and gained an additional pick just the same.