Islanders (Flames') First Round Pick

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Corral

We are talking the same point. The ability to walk away, is very good leverage in negotiations.

But what I was saying was it wasn't really leverage to lower the price like you were suggesting, it was leverage to not make a deal, as Toronto was desperate and willing to pay.

Our leverage of being able to walk away was only leverage if we actually walked away, which we didn't, so we paid full price.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I suspect there were people in this division, including Edmonton, making offers. IMO Treliving guessed (incorrectly) that the Flames wouldn't be in the lottery anyway. And as a backup he guessed (correctly) that it wouldn't be a top ten pick anyway.

Originally Posted by jayswin

Haha, he would have guess (incorrectly) that it wouldn't be a lottery pick from missing the playoffs, he was banking on making it in.

Not a chance he correctly guessed that it wasn't top ten, but wasn't worried about it being number 12.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If the Flames missed the POs, they were going to not miss it by much, meaning they'd be among the lowest chances of winning the lottery. It was a gamble, but one which played the odds.

I don't agree that he guessed correctly that we wouldn't miss by much as a back up plan. I assume he thought he had a playoff team and gambled on playoffs with that pick.

It's the 12th OA pick which is a HUGE asset, to go along with two other picks, and Brad is very careful about what he does. I think he miscalculated this team's season and is probably more pissed off about this pick belonging to the Islanders than everyone on this site defending him.

[Resolute 14]

One year removed from a 4th overall pick, you think Treliving was guessing that it wouldn't be a top 10 pick? That would be ballsy. And stupid. And it bit him in the ass.

As for the question of why many think Treliving could have lottery protected the pick, I would argue because it has basically become standard operating procedure when bubble teams cough up first rounders.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

One year removed from a 4th overall pick, you think Treliving was guessing that it wouldn't be a top 10 pick? That would be ballsy. And stupid. And it bit him in the ass.

As for the question of why many think Treliving could have lottery protected the pick, I would argue because it has basically become standard operating procedure when bubble teams cough up first rounders.

The year after a playoff appearance where he was improving the team. Yes, I think he guessed that if they missed it would be only just. And the Flames, as anticipated, were just in or out all year.

You are saying Treliving just didn't bother protecting the pick. That's a ridiculous assumption. The Isles asked, and the obvious conclusion is that it was needed to win the deal.

[dino7c]

I bet the Oilers would have done the deal unprotected...remember last summer the Oilers were cup contenders

Islanders probably thought a Flames pick would be better. They could have said "look Oilers aren't protecting their picks, so either agree or we are going with them"

By all accounts the Leafs were also heavily involved

End of the day its the 12th pick and 2 2nds, fair value IMO

[iloveicedhockey]

We definitely weren't one year removed from 4th pick when he made the deal.

I'd go along with the suggestion that the deal didn't get done without the lack of protection.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You are saying Treliving just didn't bother protecting the pick. That's a ridiculous assumption. The Isles asked, and the obvious conclusion is that it was needed to win the deal.

I am saying Treliving failed by failing to lottery protect the pick, yes. There is no excuse you can come up with to defend him that makes this any less of an error.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iloveicedhockey

We definitely weren't one year removed from 4th pick when he made the deal.

Crap, yeah. Sixth pick. That's what I get for not double checking before hitting post.

[iloveicedhockey]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Crap, yeah. Sixth pick. That's what I get for not double checking before hitting post.

I had my abacus out and everything to check I wasn't being a fool. Still, it was ballsy, as I think it takes a little bit of that to be a good GM, whether that's trades or drafting or free agents, otherwise you don't do anything and don't improve.

I would say he probably was confident it wouldn't be a top 10 pick but it's not as high as he expected.

[EldrickOnIce]

Boston could have picked Barzal with the first round pick in the Hamilton deal, instead they picked a guy I kind of doubt will ever play.
Who they picked, or didn't, doesn't make it a better or worse trade.
Except if you are like the oil and trade that pick for a guy who can't play

[Corral]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Our leverage of being able to walk away was only leverage if we actually walked away, which we didn't, so we paid full price.

If this is your view of bargaining leverage, you either don't negotiate very much or don't negotiate very well.

It is the other side's perception of what you are interested in or might do which creates bargaining leverage. What you actually wanted or end up doing, is no longer leverage once you reveal it.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by dino7c

End of the day its the 12th pick and 2 2nds, fair value IMO

Everyone has different ideas of fair value. You couldn’t trade Hamonic for the 12th overall right now IMO, much less have two good 2nd’s thrown in.

If BT could get anything like that for Bodie, I’d take it in a heartbeat.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Corral

If this is your view of bargaining leverage, you either don't negotiate very much or don't negotiate very well.

It is the other side's perception of what you are interested in or might do which creates bargaining leverage. What you actually wanted or end up doing, is no longer leverage once you reveal it.

Since you seem to like snark I guess I can play that way too, but not happily.

If this is your view than you either don't negotiate with multiple interested parties for one product or don't negotiate very well.

If three parties want something and are willing to pay a certain price in a bidding process, you as the fourth party need to beat their price or walk away. That's your leverage - walking away, which we didn't.

The leverage you're talking about is if it's a one on one or if there's other similar product. "We'll take it for this, but we may walk away because we don't need it".

We outbid Toronto and reported other teams. If we threatened to walk away for leverage and lowered our offer below Toronto's with that threat they would have traded him to Toronto, aka the better offer.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I am saying Treliving failed by failing to lottery protect the pick, yes. There is no excuse you can come up with to defend him that makes this any less of an error.

You are deliberately misreading my post. Are you actually saying Treliving could have protected the pick and still have gotten the deal, but just didn't bother?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Everyone has different ideas of fair value. You couldn’t trade Hamonic for the 12th overall right now IMO, much less have two good 2nd’s thrown in.

If BT could get anything like that for Bodie, I’d take it in a heartbeat.

You couldn't get it for Brodie. You might get it for Hamonic. Look how man a team's are looking for a good defensive defenceman. I wouldn't do it now.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

That being said, I hope Brad learned a valuable lesson about lottery protection

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

You think he didn't try for it, understand it, or want it?

Exactly this. Lottery protection isn't free. The Flames would have had to add in order to protect the pick.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Boston could have picked Barzal with the first round pick in the Hamilton deal, instead they picked a guy I kind of doubt will ever play.
Who they picked, or didn't, doesn't make it a better or worse trade.
Except if you are like the oil and trade that pick for a guy who can't play

Sometimes the value of a pick isn't in who you take with that pick, but what that extra chance does to capitalize on a different pick.

Jake Debrusk maybe doesn't get picked if they don't have that assurance of all three first rounders that year. Jake Debrusk is a point per game in his first taste of the playoffs and had 2 goals including the clincher in game 7.

I mean, it's no Barzal, but I'm sure the Bruins are ok with it.

[EldrickOnIce]

^ exactly.
The value is the value, not necessarily the player

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Corral

Because they figure he must have had some leverage in the negotiations. its not like Calgary desperately needed a 2nd pairing Dman.

Sure, but that’s a one sided view of things. Call him what you want, Hamonic was sought after due to his contract, age and belief that he is or has Top Pair potential.

Fair to for anyone to say that they don’t like the trade because the pick should have been protected, but people are acting like BT forgot to do it. Much more likely that BT needed to leave the pick unprotected cause that’s what it took to get it done. People also need to stop acting like a lottery pick (such as the Flames thus year) is the same as giving up a lottery pick before the format hit changed.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I am saying Treliving failed by failing to lottery protect the pick, yes. There is no excuse you can come up with to defend him that makes this any less of an error.

It's insurance. Insurance has costs. Using insurance has costs too. It's not enough to make a blanket statement that he should have bought insurance without knowing what the cost of that insurance would have been.

The question is, how much should Treliving have paid to get lottery protection?


The cost without lottery protection was a 2018 first, 2018 second, and 2019/2020 second. The cost of using the lottery protection (the deductible in the insurance analogy) would have been a lottery unprotected 2019 first round pick at minimum and probably another pick on top.

For example, in the trade that sent Schenn to St Louis, the Blues would have sent their 3rd round pick in 2020 to Philly if they had kept their 2018 first rounder and given the Flyers their first round pick in 2019 (without protection).


If something like that is all it would have cost to protect the pick, it probably would have been worth it for Treliving to do it, but that's just the cost of using the protection. What would the Islanders have wanted in exchange for the protection in the first place?

What if Snow had said, "We'll give you lottery protection on the first rounder and drop the 2019 second rounder but we want the rights to Adam Fox (Long Island product) instead"? Do you make that deal? I don't.

What additional cost for the protection would have been acceptable?


Another factor to keep in mind is the perceived value of the picks in question. Numerous first rounders were moved at the deadline this year. That's rare, and to me indicates that the perception among the GMs is that it's a weaker draft class. Second round picks are usually the commodity used for deadline deals.

If the 2018 is perceived to be weaker, Treliving may not have been willing to risk the loss of the 2019 pick in order to protect the 2018, even with there being a chance of the 2018 pick being top 5.