Lottery Protecting 1st Round Pick vs. additional 4th Round Pick

[delayedreflex]

A lot has been made of Treliving not lottery protecting the first round pick that we traded for Hamonic - with the current standings, that pick has ~10% chance to win a top-3 pick (based on this source), though Calgary might drop a couple more spots in the standings so it's possible that the pick might have up to 15% chance. According to this page, a top 3 pick is basically guaranteed to be a regular NHLer with an 80% chance of being a top 6 forward/top 4 D/starting goalie (lets call that an impact player). The #10-12 pick seems to have a ~33% chance to land you an impact player. So taking a simplistic approach, a non lottery-protected pick would have 38-40% chance to land you an impact player, meaning lottery protection of a first round draft pick in that range should be worth a 5-7% chance to get an impact player.

From that same TSN table, that seems to put the value of lottery protecting this particular 1st rounder as likely a #90-100 pick - so say a late 3rd rounder or 4th round pick. As a GM, would you offer an extra 3rd or 4th round pick in return for being allowed to lottery protect your 1st round pick that you're trading, in order to get a deal done? Would you offer a 5th, 6th, 7th? As a GM, what additional pick would you ask for in exchange for allowing a 1st rounder to be lottery protected?

Of course this is assumes that the 1st round pick ends up being a lottery pick with a decent chance of winning - the lowest odds lottery pick has just a 3% chance of winning a top-3 pick, though conversely it is possible that you end up with a disaster season that leaves you with a 50% chance.

This simplistic analysis also doesn't take into account "generational" players, deep drafts vs. shallow drafts, etc. - nevertheless, for a typical draft it is likely that even a 4th round pick is an overpayment in order to lottery protect a 1st rounder in most cases, especially considering that if you are trading a 1st rounder you likely aren't expecting it to be a lotto pick. Still, might it be worth it to save your fanbase the anguish of "losing" a top 3 pick? It's possible for that 4th rounder to turn into a Brodie or Gaudreau - but the fans would never know what we missed out on if we trade that pick, and its far more likely that it would turn out to be nothing anyway.

[Fire]

nm

[GullFoss]

Seriously: This is a good topic of conversation. Do not bash this guy for being new to the board or the wall of text. It's very well thought out!

[Samonadreau]

Interesting thought and all being in hindsight now but I would say:

1st (unprotected), +2nd + 2nd is too much

1st (protected) + 2nd + 2nd + 4th is too much.

[N-E-B]

Am I the only one who thinks that not having a 1st this year isn’t the end of the world? Sure the draft might be boring but it’s not going to set us back years. We didn’t trade for a rental and miss the playoffs, we traded it for three guaranteed years of a top-4 defenseman. Year one didn’t work out but who’s to say Hamonic can’t be a big part in helping us make the playoffs next year or the year after? It’s way too early and reactionary to be judging that trade, and quite frankly I’m getting sick of reading about it in every thread.

[topfiverecords]

We have Travis Hamonic. A young top 4 D man under a decent contract. Treliving didn’t just accidentally drop the first round pick out of his wallet on the sidewalk.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Am I the only one who thinks that not having a 1st this year isn’t the end of the world? Sure the draft might be boring but it’s not going to set us back years. We didn’t trade for a rental and miss the playoffs, we traded it for three guaranteed years of a top-4 defenseman. Year one didn’t work out but who’s to say Hamonic can’t be a big part in helping us make the playoffs next year or the year after? It’s way too early and reactionary to be judging that trade, and quite frankly I’m getting sick of reading about it in every thread.

Well. get ready for more of it. Because the casual fans are about to lift up their pitch forks and torches.

Even the Radio guys now are getting into the criticism.

Fact is, Treliving put too much pressure on the team with this trade. and it backfired. End of the day the trade is done, Hamonic is a Flame and thats that. Fine.

But it is more than fair to be critical on not protecting the first round pick in case this backfired. It wasn't and now there's a chance we will miss out on a Svechnikov, or McLeod, or a Zadina. Which is what the Flames were sorely needing....more offense!

Now the only ammo the Flames have is main roster players. If Treliving goes out and dumps a bunch of prospects while having limited picks in the next two years, it should be considered a monumental blunder. For years Sutter spend all his picks and prospects on trying to round out the roster, it didn't work then and its not gonna work now.

Think of the Bouwmeester cycle, its repeating itself.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Am I the only one who thinks that not having a 1st this year isn’t the end of the world? Sure the draft might be boring but it’s not going to set us back years. We didn’t trade for a rental and miss the playoffs, we traded it for three guaranteed years of a top-4 defenseman. Year one didn’t work out but who’s to say Hamonic can’t be a big part in helping us make the playoffs next year or the year after? It’s way too early and reactionary to be judging that trade, and quite frankly I’m getting sick of reading about it in every thread.

I think people really overvalue draft picks as a whole anyway. Obviously don't trade the first rounder every year, or constantly dump picks and prospects Sutter style, but once in a while if you get a legit NHLer back I'm fine with it.

If someone wants to criticize the value if it turns into a lottery pick, that's a legitimate argument. But in the more realistic scenario that that pick is in the 10-15 range, I really don't care if we don't have it

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

We have Travis Hamonic. A young top 4 D man under a decent contract. Treliving didn’t just accidentally drop the first round pick out of his wallet on the sidewalk.

This is true - its very unlike Florida who gave up Marchessault for nothing (arguably performing like a top 5 overall pick), Columbus who gave up Karlsson for nothing (arguably performing like a top 5 pick), Edmonton that gave up Hall for Larson, etc.

But it might turn out this way if the flames draft pick ends up being the first overall...in which case, you can say "no way brad knew this would happen". This is true. But equally true is the statement that "brad knew this was a possibility." And if he knew it was a possibility, why not try to mitigate it by adding the ability to protect the pick if it ended up being a top 5 overall? If the probability it would turn out to be the first overall pick was low, then logic dictates that the cost to insure against this event would also be low.

You know who did protect a draft pick? Burke. And those picks ended up being Seguin and Hamilton - but at least burke got a legit franchise player out of it. Hamonic is many things; a franchise player is not one of them.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Am I the only one who thinks that not having a 1st this year isn’t the end of the world? Sure the draft might be boring but it’s not going to set us back years. We didn’t trade for a rental and miss the playoffs, we traded it for three guaranteed years of a top-4 defenseman. Year one didn’t work out but who’s to say Hamonic can’t be a big part in helping us make the playoffs next year or the year after? It’s way too early and reactionary to be judging that trade, and quite frankly I’m getting sick of reading about it in every thread.

It's not the end of the world. It's not just the 1st though it's the 2nd and 3rd as well. That's pretty rough when you consider last season we didn't have a 2nd or 3rd and next season no 2nd. Far from the end of the world but man that's 6 of 9 top 3 round picks gone over 3 years. Talk about mortgaging the future.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

We have Travis Hamonic. A young top 4 D man under a decent contract. Treliving didn’t just accidentally drop the first round pick out of his wallet on the sidewalk.

We have a 28 year old stay at home Dman with 2 years left on his deal. Considering how bad the Flames have been this year (pissed away 1 of the 3 years left on his deal) it was a massive overpay relative to where the team ended up. Seemed like a reasonable risk but it backfired. There seem to be a group of apologists that still justify the deal as a good one. It was not and Tree is on the hot seat for it (not fired but the hot seat)

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I think people really overvalue draft picks as a whole anyway. Obviously don't trade the first rounder every year, or constantly dump picks and prospects Sutter style, but once in a while if you get a legit NHLer back I'm fine with it.

If someone wants to criticize the value if it turns into a lottery pick, that's a legitimate argument. But in the more realistic scenario that that pick is in the 10-15 range, I really don't care if we don't have it

Don’t constantly dump picks... is that not exactly what they’re doing?

[lazypucker]

Let’s say the Flames / Islanders do not win the lottery and pick 10th overall, is that (and 2 2nd) still an overpayment for Hamonic?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

Let’s say the Flames / Islanders do not win the lottery and pick 10th overall, is that (and 2 2nd) still an overpayment for Hamonic?

Based on his play this year, yes. Hopefully he rebounds next season.

[Barca]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

Let’s say the Flames / Islanders do not win the lottery and pick 10th overall, is that (and 2 2nd) still an overpayment for Hamonic?

it was still an overpayment, he had a bad season and asked for a trade. You don't mortgage the future for a player like Hamonic.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

We have a 28 year old stay at home Dman with 2 years left on his deal. Considering how bad the Flames have been this year (pissed away 1 of the 3 years left on his deal) it was a massive overpay relative to where the team ended up. Seemed like a reasonable risk but it backfired. There seem to be a group of apologists that still justify the deal as a good one. It was not and Tree is on the hot seat for it (not fired but the hot seat)

and there are a bunch of hindsightists who act like its the worst deal in NHL history. Teams give up 1st rounders for 2 months of a rental only to lose in the first round...happens every single year.

Was a decent risk at the time...so far not good. Who knows moving forward...Flames have him under contract for 2 more seasons. Who knows maybe they trade him for a first/prospect at some point.

[delayedreflex]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the discussion has focused more on whether the Hamonic trade was worth it or not rather then the lottery protection aspect, and though I think Treliving overpaid I don't think it's as clear cut as some people make it seem. Hamonic's modest cap hit is one of the best aspects and to an extent offsets the horrible contact for Brouwer.

It may be possible to trade him later to recover a first rounder, but chances are that won't be a lottery pick and the player picked wouldn't be ready to join the team until they much later. Still, Treliving probably saw Hamonic fitting in a better timing wise (ie next 3 years while Gaudreau, Monahan, etc are in their prime) than a 2018 draft pick who might not peak for another 3+ years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Don’t constantly dump picks... is that not exactly what they’re doing?

Lol yeah good point. I guess I just meant in the sense of Hamonic specifically. Stuff like the Lazar deal doesn't look great right now that's for sure

[Robbob]

Draft picks are a lot like cars, more vauablue when it is sitting on the lot when no one's owns it. As soon as you own and leave the lot it loses value. It is the whole mystery box, it can be anything until it is opened.

Sure the islanders can hit a home run and get a Barzal or they can get a Dal Colle. 1st rounders are far from a sure thing, hell we have a 4th overall that isn't quite living up to expectations.

Bottom line the Flames picked up a player with 3 years of term with a lowish 3.8 cap hit. For comparison, Tatar was traded for 3 picks. He has 3 years left at 5.3 with a no trade clause. 32 points at that cap hit isnt something to write home about.

That being said, you can't keep trading picks as they typically are the best value in terms of cap hits.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Based on his play this year, yes. Hopefully he rebounds next season.

rebounds? he had a better season this year than last. this is travis hamonic.