2016 NHL Draft - Beyond Round 1.

[Trailer Fire]

Thompson is my absolute #1 target. It is really too bad we don't get the Dallas 1st rounder because I'd be tempted to take him there.

Is 54 and 56 enough to move into the late 1st? Probably not?

[JJ1532]

Originally Posted by Trailer Fire

Thompson is my absolute #1 target. It is really too bad we don't get the Dallas 1st rounder because I'd be tempted to take him there.

Is 54 and 56 enough to move into the late 1st? Probably not?

Maybe not, but then it is worth using 1 or both of them and #35 to get into that range to grab him?

[420since1974]

That might be a little bit much to pay to move up.


A 1st round pick has a 74.7% chance to play in 100+ NHL games.

2nd round picks each have a 33.8% chance.

http://www.tsn.ca/statistically-spea...picks-1.317819

[sureLoss]

Yzerman has traded down from the 1st round the past 2 drafts for an early 2nd + late 2nd/3rd.

McKenzie reported a while ago that the scouts feel there isn't a huge difference between 20s and 50s. Could be relatively cheap to move up for the Flames if there is a name they really like available.


2015:
Tampa traded 28th to NYI for 33rd + 72nd
Toronto traded 29th to CBJ for 34th + 68th

2014:
Tampa traded 28th to NYI for 35th + 57th

2011:
Detroit traded 24th to Ottawa for 35th + 48th

2010:
Chicago traded 30th to NYI for 35th + 58th

[Trailer Fire]

The Detroit - Ottawa trade makes me think. 35th and 54th could net us around 26/27. If Tage is available then, trade up and take him.

[iloveicedhockey]

I don't know anything about any of these guys but trust total strangers on here, so we better get Thompson or else!

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Yzerman has traded down from the 1st round the past 2 drafts for an early 2nd + late 2nd/3rd.

McKenzie reported a while ago that the scouts feel there isn't a huge difference between 20s and 50s. Could be relatively cheap to move up for the Flames if there is a name they really like available.


2015:
Tampa traded 28th to NYI for 33rd + 72nd
Toronto traded 29th to CBJ for 34th + 68th

2014:
Tampa traded 28th to NYI for 35th + 57th

2011:
Detroit traded 24th to Ottawa for 35th + 48th

2010:
Chicago traded 30th to NYI for 35th + 58th

Thought it would be interesting to see who was drafted with these picks.

2015
Tampa: 33 - Mitchell Stephens , 72 - Anthony Cirelli
NYI: 28 - Anthony Beuvillier

Toronto: 34 - Travis Dermott 68 - Martins Dzierkals
CBJ: 29 - Gabriel Carllson

2014
Tampa: 35: Dominik Mason, Jonathan McLeod
NYI: 28- Josh Ho-Sang

2011
Detroit: 35- Tomas Jurco, 48 - Xavier Oullet
Ottawa: 24 - Matt Puempel

2010
CHI: 35 - Ludwig Rensfeldt, 58 - Kent Simpson
NYI: 30 - Brock Nelson


The standout is the 2010 trade that saw NYI move up to get Brock Nelson - Big win. But its pretty obvious these trades can go either way. Too early to tell on the 2014/2015 trades.

Interesting to see Kent Simpson part of that trade as well.

[sureLoss]

^ IMO not a fair way to evaluate trade up/down deals.

It is extremely difficult to truly evaluate them without knowing teams lists.

For example, if the NYI didn't do the 2010 trade with Chicago and Nelson fell to 35, then it would have been poor asset management on NYI's part, because they could have got Nelson and another prospect. Even if Nelson didn't fall, maybe the Islanders take Justin Faulk and Tyler Toffoli instead with those 2 picks.

Another example, is Chicago might not have necessarily picked Nelson if they kept 30. They may still have picked Rensfeldt (or Knight, or Pitlick, or McFarland, etc) at 30 and were smart to move down and grab another prospect even if both ended up busting.

Too many variables to judge those trades simply on who ended up getting picked up.

[868904]

I think with way the talent drops off after the first round, it would definitely be smart to package 2nd and 3rd rounders for late firsts; however the drop off also means those late first rounders should be worth more.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by 868904

I think with way the talent drops off after the first round, it would definitely be smart to package 2nd and 3rd rounders for late firsts; however the drop off also means those late first rounders should be worth more.

This is the opposite of what I've heard. The general consensus seems to be that the picks from 20-50 are much the same.

I keep seeing CP posters saying "we should trade up to the late first round to pick ______". At least 5 different prospects have been suggested as a late round pick. Chances are, one of these coveted late first round picks will probably still be available for the early second round pick.

If the Flames do acquire another first round pick, I would rather it be from 10 to 20, since the players there are in another tier high. Anyone from 20-30 isn't much better than whoever the Flames pick at 36. However, rather than getting another first, I think trading up from 6 to 4/5 would be an even better option. The Flames are in a position to use a second/third/fourth to move up in trades with Edmonton and Vancouver.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by 868904

I think with way the talent drops off after the first round, it would definitely be smart to package 2nd and 3rd rounders for late firsts; however the drop off also means those late first rounders should be worth more.

Call me a skeptic, but the Flames drafting with this head scout between picks 20 to 30 has historically been bad at best. If not for Backlund it would be disaster. So I'd rather keep the multiple 2nd rounders if they can't be used to get a goaltending or RW upgrade.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

^ IMO not a fair way to evaluate trade up/down deals.

It is extremely difficult to truly evaluate them without knowing teams lists.

For example, if the NYI didn't do the 2010 trade with Chicago and Nelson fell to 35, then it would have been poor asset management on NYI's part, because they could have got Nelson and another prospect. Even if Nelson didn't fall, maybe the Islanders take Justin Faulk and Tyler Toffoli instead with those 2 picks.

Another example, is Chicago might not have necessarily picked Nelson if they kept 30. They may still have picked Rensfeldt (or Knight, or Pitlick, or McFarland, etc) at 30 and were smart to move down and grab another prospect even if both ended up busting.

Too many variables to judge those trades simply on who ended up getting picked up.

Sure. And at the same time, many other potential similar trades didn't happen, for similar reasons. Most potential trades don't happen.

Nonetheless, these trades did happen, and there are a few of them, all with very similar returns/prices.

So they are a very good indication of the likely potential cost for when the next similar situation presents itself.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Sure. And at the same time, many other potential similar trades didn't happen, for similar reasons. Most potential trades don't happen.

Nonetheless, these trades did happen, and there are a few of them, all with very similar returns/prices.

So they are a very good indication of the likely potential cost for when the next similar situation presents itself.

Yeah you misread my point. Returns and prices in terms of the pick numbers are fair to evaluate, that is why I originally posted them.


But determining whether they were wins or loses for the respective team based on who was picked is not that fair, given the wide variance in teams lists.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Yeah you misread my point. Returns and prices in terms of the pick numbers are fair to evaluate, that is why I originally posted them.


But determining whether they were wins or loses for the respective team based on who was picked is not that fair, given the wide variance in teams lists.

Ahh, thanks.

Yeah I agree that who actually got picked is not a good way to evaluate the trades.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Call me a skeptic, but the Flames drafting with this head scout between picks 20 to 30 has historically been bad at best. If not for Backlund it would be disaster. So I'd rather keep the multiple 2nd rounders if they can't be used to get a goaltending or RW upgrade.

Picking between 20 - 30 has been utterly terrible for the most part. Not sure why but they seem to whiff picking in this area and you should expect to at least hit on the odd pick.

[VladtheImpaler]

I don't think there is any point trading up into the 25 range. The group ar 20-50 is pretty much all the same and all pretty meh. Might as well keep all our 2nd rounders in that case. If you are going to trade up, I think you have to get to 20 or higher.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

^ IMO not a fair way to evaluate trade up/down deals.

It is extremely difficult to truly evaluate them without knowing teams lists.

For example, if the NYI didn't do the 2010 trade with Chicago and Nelson fell to 35, then it would have been poor asset management on NYI's part, because they could have got Nelson and another prospect. Even if Nelson didn't fall, maybe the Islanders take Justin Faulk and Tyler Toffoli instead with those 2 picks.

Another example, is Chicago might not have necessarily picked Nelson if they kept 30. They may still have picked Rensfeldt (or Knight, or Pitlick, or McFarland, etc) at 30 and were smart to move down and grab another prospect even if both ended up busting.

Too many variables to judge those trades simply on who ended up getting picked up.

Ya fair enough just thought it would be interesting more so to see who the teams were trying to go after when they were trading up. And vice versa who the other teams went after when they traded down.

I guess it would be as much evaluating their drafting as woukd be evaluating the trade.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Call me a skeptic, but the Flames drafting with this head scout between picks 20 to 30 has historically been bad at best. If not for Backlund it would be disaster. So I'd rather keep the multiple 2nd rounders if they can't be used to get a goaltending or RW upgrade.

If I understand correctly it's usually the GM who makes the final call on 1st round picks so I give Button a pass on those (Weisbrod made the Jankowski call though). I think our scouts are also getting better at evaluating players.