Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
Q for the masses.
Are you better off asking for 1 quality asset (1st) vs multiple lower quality assets (2nd + prospect)?
Do GMs think this way? I’ve never understood asking for 3-4 assets if it means watering down the quality to get a bunch of long shots that will never make the NHL. Just get the 1 higher quality asset, no?
Presumably GMs aren’t willing to even do that, but I have seen rumours in the past on various trades where a GM (not necessarily Conroy) will say I want X plus Y plus Z and I just don’t understand the thinking there. Maybe more magic beans is better than less but probability wise maybe Calgary was better off getting 1 higher quality asset for Iginla then beans and Hanowski, for example. A guy who never really was going to make it outside of a long shot chance.
|
Iginla trade was awful.
IMO Ras for quality assets would have been more likely to happen this draft.
Now, nobody is trading an unprotected 1st in 2026 right now for Ras. Teams that want Ras are more likely to be picking 20-32 OV.
So a 20 year old prospect who is around top 100 in the league and a 2nd is more valuable, unless you think you can get a 1st that ends up in the 11-19 range.
Unprotected 1st in 2027 is a maybe, but only top end teams will consider that.