[Trade] Andersson (50% retained) to Vegas for 27 1st, cond 28 2nd, Whitecloud, Wiebe

[GioforPM]

There's really only one round, teams just go in order over and over.

[Enoch Root]

the draft is a flat circle

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

the draft is a flat circle

Until you hit the ice wall.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

https://thehockeywriters.com/success...l-draft-picks/

This feels like a helpful link for this discussion

So, I guess in the 1st round, once you hit like 15th overall your odds are pretty similar

[D as in David]

1OA is essentially 2OA. And vice-versa.

[Tbull8]

Anderssons first game with Vegas (assuming he plays tomorrow) is against the team he snubbed (Boston)

[Itse]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

https://thehockeywriters.com/success...l-draft-picks/

This feels like a helpful link for this discussion

Somewhat, although stats from the sixties just aren't very relevant in the 2020's.

The furthest I'd go back is about 20 years. That covers the modern era of statistical analysis and internet revolutionizing information availability. If you push it to 25 you cover every player currently playing with some margin.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Itse

Somewhat, although stats from the sixties just aren't very relevant in the 2020's.

The furthest I'd go back is about 20 years. That covers the modern era of statistical analysis and internet revolutionizing information availability. If you push it to 25 you cover every player currently playing with some margin.

The problem with that is that the sample size is too small. Neither is perfect, but I would rather have a larger sample size, even if the eras were a little different.

The challenge though, as you say, is that each decade back gets a little dicier with respect to the quality, and applicability of the data, so I would probably only go as far back as the 70s or 80s - try to get 40-50 years of data, if possible.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The problem with that is that the sample size is too small. Neither is perfect, but I would rather have a larger sample size, even if the eras were a little different.

The challenge though, as you say, is that each decade back gets a little dicier with respect to the quality, and applicability of the data, so I would probably only go as far back as the 70s or 80s - try to get 40-50 years of data, if possible.

Well, optimally you would start by analyzing eras independently, which would give you more information on the development of scouting (is the presumed improvement even real or a false assumption?) and allow you to make a more grounded decision on what data to include.

You could also then weight data differently, putting more emphasis on new data etc, or whatever a proper statistical analysis would look like.

[united]

There was an NFL team - I think the Patriots under Belichick - who banned the use of round when discussing draft picks, instead mandating only the pick number itself be referenced. This is the way.

For example, according to various NHL draft value charts, the difference in expected value between the 5th-overall selection and 20th-overall selection - both first-round picks - is larger than the difference between the 20th-overall selection and the 65th-overall selection - a 1st and a 3rd.

Round number is arbitrary and should be used only in convenience rather than assigning value.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by united

There was an NFL team - I think the Patriots under Belichick - who banned the use of round when discussing draft picks, instead mandating only the pick number itself be referenced. This is the way.

For example, according to various NHL draft value charts, the difference in expected value between the 5th-overall selection and 20th-overall selection - both first-round picks - is larger than the difference between the 20th-overall selection and the 65th-overall selection - a 1st and a 3rd.

Round number is arbitrary and should be used only in convenience rather than assigning value.

All true, but particularly in the first round. Once you get to the middle of the second round, or maybe the third round, the pick-to-pick differences become inconsequential (specifically with respect to the NHL)

But yes, the 1st round, or at least the first 20-25 picks should go by their specific number. Beyond that, it would be sufficient to say: late 1st, early 2nd, and mid-late 2nd

[Party Elephant]

The sorites paradox (/soʊˈraɪtiːz/), sometimes known as the paradox of the heap, is a paradox that results from vague predicates. A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are removed individually. With the assumption that removing a single grain does not cause a heap not to be considered a heap anymore, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times that only one grain remains and if it is still a heap. If not, then the question asks when it changed from a heap to a non-heap.

[PeteMoss]

Good news for everyone - Ottawa has to give up their pick this year - so it can't be worse than 31

As of this instant - Vegas' pick this year would be 24th overall. I don't particularly see any reason why they are going to be better next year than this considering basically everyone good on their team is either nearing 30 or over 30. So not sure why everyone is so concerned with with the pick being 30th overall.

We basically want them to be as possible but still make the playoffs this year - so if they crash out in round 1 or 2, the 2026 pick is in its best slot or win the cup so we get the 2028 pick.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

All true, but particularly in the first round. Once you get to the middle of the second round, or maybe the third round, the pick-to-pick differences become inconsequential (specifically with respect to the NHL)

But yes, the 1st round, or at least the first 20-25 picks should go by their specific number. Beyond that, it would be sufficient to say: late 1st, early 2nd, and mid-late 2nd

In the NHL it takes 20 minutes with an interview from a C-list celebrity to make a 1st round pick and they make 2nd round picks in a few seconds. I dunno how this affects things LOL

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Did it ever occur to you that maybe Treliving screwed up, and simply paid too much for Carlo?

One outlier trade does not define a market.

I forget which Toronto media member it was (potentially Kypreos), but they confirmed that Carlo was one of those players that Treliving has always been a fan of which history has shown, leads GMs to misread the market and often "over pay" for that favorite player if/when the opportunity pops up.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by united

There was an NFL team - I think the Patriots under Belichick - who banned the use of round when discussing draft picks, instead mandating only the pick number itself be referenced. This is the way.

For example, according to various NHL draft value charts, the difference in expected value between the 5th-overall selection and 20th-overall selection - both first-round picks - is larger than the difference between the 20th-overall selection and the 65th-overall selection - a 1st and a 3rd.

Round number is arbitrary and should be used only in convenience rather than assigning value.

Round number is not arbitrary if you trade for picks during or before the season. You don't know the pick number yet at that point, but you do know the absolute limits of the range it could be in. Of course you can make a pretty good guess where in the round it's liable to fall, based on the quality of the team, but there's always uncertainty even at the trade deadline.

The 32nd pick based on the current standings will never get any later than 32nd but may turn out to be earlier. The 33rd will never get any earlier but may turn out to be later. The line between one round and the next is hard and uncrossable.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Round number is not arbitrary if you trade for picks during or before the season. You don't know the pick number yet at that point, but you do know the absolute limits of the range it could be in. Of course you can make a pretty good guess where in the round it's liable to fall, based on the quality of the team, but there's always uncertainty even at the trade deadline.

The 32nd pick based on the current standings will never get any later than 32nd but may turn out to be earlier. The 33rd will never get any earlier but may turn out to be later. The line between one round and the next is hard and uncrossable.

This is the key determination though.

When you're talking about the effectiveness of a specific pick - the rounds are arbitrary because of the vast different between a top 5 pick in round 1 vs pick 32.

It's where pick number is so much more important.

But when assessing the trade of a future pick - the rounds are important because to your point it puts a ring fence on the value of the pick.

For the trade for Hanifin the pick was unprotected - so the Flames had a chance of any pick between 1-32.

For the Andersson pick it might be any pick between 11-32.

Of course since your dealing with a good team the likelihood is it's higher but the reality is it can be any pick in that range.

[musth]

Hahaha I can't believe you guys are STILL arguing about what constitutes a whatever-round draft pick.


You know, western civilization may very well be burning and the best you guys can do is argue in this group over absolutely nothing of consequence.


Might I suggest that rather than antagonizing each other, you let GMCC and his staff deal with it and be nicer to our little group here?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by musth

You know, western civilization may very well be burning and the best you guys can do is argue in this group over absolutely nothing of consequence.

Then why are you wasting time being a hockey fan? Clearly you have to spend ALL your time putting out the fire before western civilization burns down!

Or maybe people have some kind of need for recreation, I dunno.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by musth

You know, western civilization may very well be burning and the best you guys can do is argue in this group over absolutely nothing of consequence.

Is Western civilization essentially burning or just close to but not yet burning?