HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Minnesota Wild (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   6/2 Discussion - Value of two 2nd round picks (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=782454)

GopherState 06-02-2010 01:49 PM

6/2 Discussion - Value of two 2nd round picks
 
With this being considered a deep draft, would Minnesota be better off trading the two picks for a low first (20-30)? Explain.

this providence 06-02-2010 01:53 PM

I'd say keep them under most any circumstance. Any selection in the late first round is likely be just as big of a crap shoot as these selections to be perfectly honest. Who knows, maybe you hit on one of them. Or dare I say, both? *gasp!

mnwildgophers 06-02-2010 01:54 PM

I personally think we should stand pat with our two 2nd round selections (unless packaged for NHL-ready talent), and selected the BPA most likely a forward, however, if value is there in a defenseman or goalie, we should take the BPA. We need help all over our prospect pool that we should just pick whoever we can and have 2 shots for a guy to pan out rather than having 1 shot since I don't think there are any "can't miss" prospects in the 20's-30's.

I'm hoping we can pick up Pulkkinen somewhere in the 2nd round (maybe even slipping to #56?) The draft for the most part is a crapshoot that we need all the chances we can get for some high-end talent to come out of the draft.

Jarick 06-02-2010 03:21 PM

If there's a quality player in the 20's and someone wants to trade, by all means move up. I don't see that happening though, I think the value of a late 1st is higher than those two, unless it's 28/29/30, in which case it'd be a stretch to jump up that high, maybe 39th and a 3rd/4th or something

GopherState 06-02-2010 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarick (Post 26101462)
If there's a quality player in the 20's and someone wants to trade, by all means move up. I don't see that happening though, I think the value of a late 1st is higher than those two, unless it's 28/29/30, in which case it'd be a stretch to jump up that high, maybe 39th and a 3rd/4th or something

This is pretty much what I see happening. I feel the big competition would be Carolina as they have three second rounders (37, 46 and 53) and could put a good combo. Other than that, it's possible someone like Phoenix at 22 or Washington at 26 would be willing to trade down. But as a whole, the picks are more likely to be worth more than the one player.

saywut 06-02-2010 04:09 PM

I don't think the difference between 29 or so and 39 will be all that different. You only trade up if 1) your board is crushed or 2) you have one guy WELL ahead of everyone else. I only see option 2 being a possibility, if someone slips that our scouting staff loves.

State of Hockey 06-02-2010 07:08 PM

Clearly less value for the two 2nds. History has shown that in two areas:

1. Draft day trades. In order to jump into the 1st round, you usually need a very high second and another second or third to jump about 3-7 spots. The most recent example is last year when Tampa traded the #32 and #75 for the #29 overall. We're not that close with the #39, and the #56 isn't fantastic.

2. Success rate (regular NHL player) of those picks. The success rate is pretty linear in a downward direction until about the #50-60 overall. After that the lowering rate of success essentially ends. By the 3rd round, the success rate is basically the same as the last round. The #56 overall is on the edge of being a valuable pick when you look at the numbers. Two chances aren't worth it when it's that far back.

If we could trade both of our 2nds for a low 1st, I'd do it right away. But I think it would take a dumb GM on the other side to agree with it.

rynryn 06-02-2010 07:39 PM

I'd keep the two 2nd rounders, but could easily be swayed if the trade involves other assets. I'm frankly more comfortable going for quantity of "chances" (that a player will develop nicely) than I am for the quality of said players--within reason. Even if the two picks don't end up immediately useful, we still have two prospects in the pool we can use as pot-sweeteners in larger trades later that year.

naturally it depends on who's left. if someone we really wanted or were willing to take a gamble on fell for some reason (like being russian) to the lower part of the first I'd take it.

Dr Jan Itor 06-02-2010 09:28 PM

It's situation dependent. Guys fall, teams have different needs, deep vs. shallow drafts, etc...

firstroundbust 06-02-2010 10:40 PM

the more I look into the draft, the more I think we can get a REALLY nice player at #39. Unless there is someone who's still there in the late 20's that you have rated really high, you keep this one. This Draft is so wide open that we're gonna get someone good here.

The #56 though...that might be worth dangling to get a roster player, someone who can contribute to the big squad.

TaLoN 06-02-2010 11:04 PM

I don't think it's a question that can even be asked without knowing who's available in the area of the draft in question. If a player rated extremely high has fallen extremely low in the round? It's very possible... but it's a situational thing that can only truly be looked at when the time comes.

On the face of it as it is? I'd have to say the value isn't even close. Keep the 2 picks.

Wildlife 06-03-2010 03:19 PM

Keep the 2 second rounders unless someone who we have highly ranked drops down into a reasonable spot to trade up.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:45 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.