Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe
Your logic seems sound.. until you figure out that once you make that trade you lose full control over the pick next year.
In a complete vaccum, I would 100% trade this year's first overall selection to a team I was 'positive' would finish in the bottom three next year. Why? At worst, you are getting an equal prospect next year. At best, you are getting a significantly better prospect. Perhaps you rate Ekblad as equal to the top 3 picks. I don't. I haven't seen any scouts that do either. McDavid, Eichel and apparently Hanifin (whom I haven't seen play myself, but who is often talked about as the very best defensive prospect in the last 10 years - better than Jones and Ekblad) are vastly superior. You don't agree, and that is fine. Time will tell. If my scouts feel it, I make that trade every single time.
HOWEVER...
Only an idiot GM would take that risk, without demanding a premium for doing so. You are never going to be able to draft for the 1st overall pick in any draft for your 'potential' first overall pick in a subsequent draft. Why? Because the team trading away this year's first would of course expect that the other team make significant moves to improve.
So, why don't the Flames make those moves?
There is still risk involved. You are going to end up having to trade from your futures for a 'win now' mode. I think it ends up forcing you to do what the Leafs did after the Kessel trade - make moves to try and win now. You end up with a couple of really good players, but a non-contending team. Improved? Absolutely. Contenders? Nope. You also run the risk of failing and ending being the GM that traded away "Sidney Crosby" for "Erik Johnson". Not to say that either McDavid nor Ekblad are exactly those players - but you can see the point I am trying to make with the disparity gap between the first overall in one year, vs a first overall the following year.
I don't think the Flames are ready for that step yet. I think they are still two solid drafts away - this year, and next - before they can start making those types of moves.
There is no way that Florida would accept that trade - this year's first overall for a CHANCE at the top 3 picks next year - when they would assume the Flames would try and make improvements. I think if the Flames did manage to make that trade one for one, it would still set them back somewhat, as they would then almost be forced to ensure that they don't finish that low - would deviate from the patience required in building a contender. It is not out of the question that if the Flames make some pressure moves to accelerate the rebuild that they couldn't finish just outside (or even with a heck of a season, squeak into) the playoffs.
From your standpoint, you make that trade because you see Ekblad as an equitable prospect to that offered in the first few picks next year, correct? You also see the team as being a fairly competitive one next year, right? I don't see either one of those statements being true, so I would not make that trade. If Florida does make that trade, however, I would do my very best as the GM of this team to improve as much as possible - and I think that deviates away from building correctly with patience.
It is a drawn-out argument, and you can counter with a lot of points and arguments yourself. I just see it as too much risk involved, you would most likely have to pay a premium to exchange, and there would be way too much pressure to avoid 'infamy' as a GM which could deter from a solid rebuild plan.
|