Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
Some good points, but think you over-state it a bit.
First, by only looking back to 1998, you miss the era where it was more common (early expansion). You also miss the biggest one - the Lindros trade, where I think everyone would agree that Quebec/Colorado won the trade.
As for needing a dance partner, that is an obvious requirement of any trade, but I think it is misleading to suggest that finding a trading partner would be more difficult in this type of trade (this is directed to other comments, not necessarily the quoted post). I think it is more the case that the team with the pick is leery of moving it - there are usually teams each year that express an interest in trading for it. What they would pay is obviously a factor, but nonetheless...
The team picking first is usually in more or less of a rebuilding position, so it makes sense that they would be reticent to trade the pick. However, the Oilers were in a different position last year (or at least should have been as they already had two 1st overalls and should have been looking more at organization needs).
One example of a possible trading partner would have been Pitt, who had the #8 pick. I would think they would be very interested in acquiring a pure goal scorer and, with multiple quality defensive prospects in their system, could afford to offer decent assets. A good D prospect, plus the #8 pick where they could have acquired one of Reilly, Reinhart or Trouba, depending on how the draft played out, would have made the basis for an excellent return for Edm IMO.
The point being that finding a trading partner for a trade involving the #1 pick is no different, and no more difficult, than finding a trading partner for any other major asset.
Which reminds me, not sure why you kept referring to trading for a current player since no one suggested that.
Anyway, whatever. I believe that the Oilers missed an opportunity that will lengthen their rebuild. But that is just my opinion of course.
|
The first sentence from the post I quoted:
"Trading down to acquire a high pick AND another NHL ready body for Yakupov was always the right move, and showed an incredible lack of hockey IQ when they didnt do it."
Earlier in the thread Tinordi commented:
"The value Yakupov would bring back on draft day was yes, say Trouba and extra assets hell even a roster player."
That comment was almost certainly directed at you because of this comment of yours:
"Getting Trouba and another asset would have been a far better way to build the team than adding Yakupov, IMO."
-----
Also: while we're being pedantic, the Lindros trade wasn't a trade of a first overall draft pick, it was a trade of a player drafted first overall. The difference there is minor, but it's the reason why, for example, Joe Thornton and Erik Johnson didn't show up in my previous post. As I was trying to highlight the value of the 1st overall selection in a draft.
Also on the Lindros comment, that trade happened 22 years ago. I feel like it's difficult to talk about trades that happened 3 work stoppages ago and try to use them as examples of what we can reasonably expect to happen within in NHL as it is now. The primary reason for that is the existence of the Salary Cap.
