[Trade] 3 way: MTL gets Dach, NYI get Romanov + 98th OA, CHI get 13th OA + 66th OA

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Yup always a great strategy trading their 3rd overall pick from three years ago and their 24 year 40 goal scorer for a 7th and 13th pick in what’s seen as a soft draft.

A year after trading a former top pick in Boqvist (8th overall), 12th overall, 44th overall, and the pick that ended up being 6th overall this year for the honour of paying 27 year old Seth Jones $9.5M per year.

But yeah every team should replicate this asset management, it’s how you build a winner.

The are admitting the retooling attempt failed badly.

Better to abandon a failed plan than continuing on the same path.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But there is only one Bedard, and no team has better than an 18.5% chance of drafting him. Gutting your team to bet on those odds is not a smart move.

The top three picks all look great.

It’s not Bedard or bust.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by CASe333

You have tunnel vision thinking its more important to suck than to get fair value for your best young players. There are other scenarios for example where Chicago signs DeBrincat and sells next trade deadline for better magic beans in 2023+. You are constantly implying that Chicago has increased their odds to draft Bedard next year with these trades but they have not. None of the draft picks they received have potential to be 1rst next year and although they've gutted their team they are still very competitive with the real sucks like the coyotes so its still the same lottery.

If they were actually getting good returns for 2023-2025 high draft picks then I'd understand the argument but they flipped good prospects for a high school prospect for example from this year. Just extremely bad asset management in my opinion.

So go into a season with no real expectation of competing outside of some miracle but a roster too good to be at the bottom of the league competing with the likes of the Yotes, Ducks, Sabres or Kraken (depending what they do in UFA). Only to trade their assets to competing teams for late round picks at the trade deadline but without the ability to "catch" the bottom teams who have been losing all season.

That's how you draft Monahan instead of MacKinnon. They're going for Bedard or Michkov to build around like they did with Kane and Toews.

Also I'm not sure how you can seriously think they haven't increased their odds of drafting first. Last year they had DeBrincat score 41 goals, Strome score 22 goals, Hagel score 21 goals (in 55 games), Dach score 9 while young and injured and Fleury providing reasonable goaltending for most of the year. Those players have not been replaced, and they are likely looking at options for Kane and Toews. Had they kept those players they would have been a far better team (but not one good enough to even sneak into the playoffs).

[OptimalTates]

Hawks (with DeBrincat, Dach, Strome, Hagel (until deadline) and Fleury (until deadline)) won 28 games last year. Seattle won 27 and Arizona won 25.

Had they not had those players on their roster, it's pretty likely they win less than those teams.

Now they've added the 7th, 13th and 25th overall in 2022, a 1st in 2023, a 1st in 2024 which is all secondary compared to increasing their odds of drafting Bedard. If they are able to draft him or another top pick in the next two drafts, they will instantly be able to supplement them with the 7th/13th/25th/39th/57th/66th...from today along with Jones as the "Erik Johnson" veteran presence (though I'm sure they hope he's closer to Duncan Keith). 90% of their roster will be ELC going into UFA period in 2025 and they'll add support to their true core that way like they did with Hossa.

They're looking to win like they did their last three Stanley Cups, following the same plan. Draft game changers at the top of the draft and build around them. It could explode in their face like it did with Buffalo, but it's a better plan then just hoping to have the lottery balls go your way.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by devo22

Chicago is completely tearing it apart, holy ####. Makes you wonder what'll happen with Kane, I doubt he'll want to tank in the final year of his contract.

And Toews.

Maybe Kane ends up in cgy somehow if gaudreau doesn’t sign.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Looking to build a contender and not be a middle of the pack team for 20 years.

Can we do this too plz?

(If our two big guns leave)

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

They're looking to win like they did their last three Stanley Cups, following the same plan. Draft game changers at the top of the draft and build around them. It could explode in their face like it did with Buffalo, but it's a better plan then just hoping to have the lottery balls go your way.

You don't get to the top of the draft unless the lottery balls go your way, so that is actually the same plan.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But there is only one Bedard, and no team has better than an 18.5% chance of drafting him. Gutting your team to bet on those odds is not a smart move.

It depends what your end goal is.

If they're trying to build a Stanley Cup champion? These are steps they need to take. They need to build a new foundation. If they're trying to rush back into the 1st round of the playoffs and be fodder for teams like Colorado? Then yeah, this doesn't make any sense.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You don't get to the top of the draft unless the lottery balls go your way, so that is actually the same plan.

and you don't win a Stanley Cup without winning that lottery, so you may as well put yourself in the best position to do so.

[Vinny01]

I like this trade for Montreal but I am always a sucker for acquiring a former high pick who is still quite young to see if a change of scenery helps them meet their potential.

Kyle Turris, Elias Lindholm, Sam Bennett, Dylan Strome are examples I can think of off the top of my head who performed a lot better after they were traded to a new team. Lindholm is the outlier in that he was a really good player and became and is now a legit top player. The others were all disappointments who saw a big uptick in production as soon as they were dealt.

I like this for Montreal. Chicago is clearly truly blowing it right up but chasing a bunch of picks in what is considered a mediocre draft is questionable to me.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

and you don't win a Stanley Cup without winning that lottery, so you may as well put yourself in the best position to do so.

See, this is the fallacy. People keep saying that all the Stanley Cup winners of the last decade had previously drafted in the top 3. Well, 90 percent of the league has previously drafted in the top 3.

Put 29 white balls and three black balls in a bin. Then randomly draw a ball, note the colour, and put it back in the bin. The chances of drawing 10 white balls in a row are about 35%. That's not a strong enough correlation to establish a link, even for a sociologist. It's statistical noise.

That's ignoring the point that there is, in fact, a lottery, and no team has better than an 18.5% chance of winning in any given year. Since several teams are going through rebuilds (or just plain sucking) in any given year, your chances realistically are less than that, no matter how hard you try to suck.

Scorched-earth tactics very seldom win battles. But they do get you a lot of scorched earth that you can't use for years afterwards.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

See, this is the fallacy. People keep saying that all the Stanley Cup winners of the last decade had previously drafted in the top 3. Well, 90 percent of the league has previously drafted in the top 3.

Put 29 white balls and three black balls in a bin. Then randomly draw a ball, note the colour, and put it back in the bin. The chances of drawing 10 white balls in a row are about 35%. That's not a strong enough correlation to establish a link, even for a sociologist. It's statistical noise.

That's ignoring the point that there is, in fact, a lottery, and no team has better than an 18.5% chance of winning in any given year. Since several teams are going through rebuilds (or just plain sucking) in any given year, your chances realistically are less than that, no matter how hard you try to suck.

Scorched-earth tactics very seldom win battles. But they do get you a lot of scorched earth that you can't use for years afterwards.

The goal is to win the Stanley Cup.

Since the modern era began in 2005/2006:

- Only two teams have won the Stanley Cup without a #1 or #2 draft pick on their team that was home grown. That's 88% of the Stanley Cup Champions in that window

- 10 of the 17 teams that won the Stanley Cup had more than one home grown top 4 picks on their team

- 9 of the 17 teams that won the Stanley Cup had more than one home grown top 3 picks on their team

- 0 teams have won the Stanley Cup without at least a #3 draft pick on their team

- Only 2 teams have won the Stanley Cup without a home grown player selected in the top 4.

I don't care about how you get there but the reality is you pretty much need to draft in the top-3 to win a Stanley Cup.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

The goal is to win the Stanley Cup.

Since the modern era began in 2005/2006:

- Only two teams have won the Stanley Cup without a #1 or #2 draft pick on their team that was home grown. That's 88% of the Stanley Cup Champions in that window

- 10 of the 17 teams that won the Stanley Cup had more than one home grown top 4 picks on their team

- 9 of the 17 teams that won the Stanley Cup had more than one home grown top 3 picks on their team

- 0 teams have won the Stanley Cup without at least a #3 draft pick on their team

- Only 2 teams have won the Stanley Cup without a home grown player selected in the top 4.

I don't care about how you get there but the reality is you pretty much need to draft in the top-3 to win a Stanley Cup.

Only 11 teams have won the cup since 2005.

And it’s all a bit silly anyway as you’re missing what a top 3 pick usually means, which is a high quality homegrown player (usually, but not always with the above) on a team-friendly contract.

Calgary has (off the top of my head) two #5 picks and two #6 picks, all four of which are better than one of the players who went top 3 in their draft year. They also have a #104 pick that is better than the guy who went 1st overall in his draft year. They also have a #3 pick… in Gudbranson. Is Gudbranson the driver of whether they win the cup or not?

Correlation is having a top 3 pick. Causation is having league-leading players in their prime. You get the latter from the former, but that doesn’t mean the former gets you a cup. 14 different teams (almost all of them multiple times) have picked in the top 4 since 2002 without having anything to show for it. Because the pick position itself doesn’t matter, it’s the player you get. And while it increases your chances of getting a good player, it isn’t as necessary as you’re pretending it to be.

[Toonage]

On the Montreal side of things, with the rumors of them moving Petry, and now Romanov gone, who is playing D there? Edmundson & Savard? Yikes.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

The goal is to win the Stanley Cup.

Since the modern era began in 2005/2006:

- Only two teams have won the Stanley Cup without a #1 or #2 draft pick on their team that was home grown. That's 88% of the Stanley Cup Champions in that window

- 10 of the 17 teams that won the Stanley Cup had more than one home grown top 4 picks on their team

- 9 of the 17 teams that won the Stanley Cup had more than one home grown top 3 picks on their team

- 0 teams have won the Stanley Cup without at least a #3 draft pick on their team

- Only 2 teams have won the Stanley Cup without a home grown player selected in the top 4.

I don't care about how you get there but the reality is you pretty much need to draft in the top-3 to win a Stanley Cup.

Now compare the percentage of teams that won the Stanley Cup with a homegrown top-3 pick to the percentage of teams that have a homegrown top-3 pick.

Basically, you're saying that the fraction is really close to 1 because the numerator is big, and not even looking at the denominator. You just flunked elementary school math.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Since the modern era began in 2005/2006:

The modern era began in 2005?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The top three picks all look great.

It’s not Bedard or bust.

I can't help but think of the 2022 draft predictions from a year or two ago when it was supposed to be a trifecta of potential generational talents in Wright, Savoie, and Lambert. They ended up going 4th, 9th, and 30th respectively.

Granted, Bedard still looks like a generational player, but I am a little jaded with the hype draft classes get so far in advance.

[Jiri Hrdina]

No one ever said Savoie or Lambert were generational. Wright got attention because of his ohl exceptional status but the other two were just considered potential high pick a
Bedard is a different level.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

No one ever said Savoie or Lambert were generational. Wright got attention because of his ohl exceptional status but the other two were just considered potential high pick a
Bedard is a different level.

Absolutely. Bedard and Michkov both project to be better than anyone in this draft, Bedard comfortably ahead of Michkov. And there are three other players that might be as good as the top three in this draft. It's not even that this draft was weak, it's just that next draft looks to be 'exceptional', at least at the top.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Dan02

The modern era began in 2005?

Cap era

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

No one ever said Savoie or Lambert were generational. Wright got attention because of his ohl exceptional status but the other two were just considered potential high pick a
Bedard is a different level.

For all we know this could be another 2012 draft. Next year's draft is the one you want to accumulate high picks for. There's a reason the Hawks are taking hard.