SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/NHL

Top 10 picks in trades

Apr. 24, 2019 at 3:35 p.m.
#1
Go Habs Go
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 10,667
Likes: 4,091
I continuously see increased emphasis on 1st round picks, specifically those in the top 10.
It is to the point where the suggestion is often that a top 10 pick, on it's own, is sufficient to acquire a top 6 NHL player.
In an attempt to understand that perception, I decided to look back at the forward drafted from 2010-2016, to see exactly what one can reasonably expect a top 10 pick to produce in terms of an NHL forward.

This is not an in depth analysis. That would require a much larger investment of time. I broke this down in a way which would give a quick glance based on the following notes:
1. I chose the 2010's for a more recent sample. I stopped at 2016, since many more recently drafted players will as yet have categorized themselves.
2. I only looked at forwards. Defensemen require a much deeper analysis in more categories.
3. I think it is fair to say that the goal, or most basic requirement in successfully drafting a forward in the top 10 is to acquire a player who will at least produce at the level of a top 6 forward. Therefore I only looked at points.
4. I graded players based on career-to-date points/game average and where that would place them in this season's ranking among players with at least 30 games played.
A - 1st Line: Top 25% among forwards (0.68 P/G or more)
B - 2nd Line: Top 50% among forwards (0.45 P/G or more)
C - 3rd Line: Bottom 50% among forwards (0.33 P/G or more)
D - 4th Line: Bottom 25% among forwards (Less than 0.33 P/G)

------------

A total of 46 forwards were drafted in the top 10 over a course of 7 years from 2010-2016.

Of those players:
21 were grade A (Top Line) or 45.65%
12 were grade B (2nd Line) or 26.09%
9 were grade C (3rd Line) or 19.57%
4 were grade D (4th Line or worse) or 8.70%

We can consider drafting a C or D player in the top 10 as a failure. Nobody would ever trade a top 10 pick for a 3rd or 4th line player.
There's an 8.70% chance of a bust, and a 28.26% chance of at least disappointment.
Trading any A or B player, for a pick that has greater than a 50% chance of being equal or worse than what you are giving up, is poor asset management.

So what about top 3?
18 players: 12 A 4 B 2 C
That's about a 70% chance of an A and only a 10% chance of a bust.

In the case of a top 3 pick, the risk may be worth it. If you are giving up a high level B player or low level A player, you are likely to end up with at least a similar player and the 10% risk of something worse is negligible.

So eliminating the top 3 picks, the rest breaks down as:
28 players: 9 A 8 B 7 C 4 D
Which is a 32% chance of an A and a 39% chance of a bust.

This is what lead me down this path to begin with.
Trading an A or B player one-for-one in hopes that a pick outside the top 3 will be an upgrade isn't wise. At best, it's a coin toss between worse or better. There's a roughly equal chance that it changes nothing. You give up a sure thing and end up with the same player, but you have to wait a few years for him.

In short, outside of the top 3, It makes more sense for the team trading the pick to include additional pieces to acquire a player in the mid-high B range or better, than it does for the team trading the player to do a straight swap or include extra pieces. If you're weighting it in the other direction, you are either making a bad deal or assuming the other GM will.
Blazingbat11 liked this.
Apr. 24, 2019 at 4:08 p.m.
#2
Molson beer is meh
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2017
Posts: 3,736
Likes: 1,675
Great analysis!!

But you know it’s that time of year, when the draft is close, that picks become more valuable for fans for some reason lol
ricochetii liked this.
Apr. 24, 2019 at 4:51 p.m.
#3
Thread Starter
Go Habs Go
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 10,667
Likes: 4,091
Quoting: Blazingbat11
Great analysis!!

But you know it’s that time of year, when the draft is close, that picks become more valuable for fans for some reason lol


I understand excitement, but it gets ridiculous at times. I can't recall specific examples because I usually just shake my head and stop looking at them.
Apr. 24, 2019 at 4:53 p.m.
#4
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2016
Posts: 4,090
Likes: 2,848
Not sure if you're gamer but I think EA skews things a little. A top 10 pick pretty much guarantees you a "medium elite" player. While this is not the case in the real world, I have seen users act like it is.
ricochetii liked this.
Apr. 24, 2019 at 8:42 p.m.
#5
Thread Starter
Go Habs Go
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 10,667
Likes: 4,091
Quoting: Rangsey
Not sure if you're gamer but I think EA skews things a little. A top 10 pick pretty much guarantees you a "medium elite" player. While this is not the case in the real world, I have seen users act like it is.


I've played it before, mostly GM mode, but I am aware that EA's NHL games have horrifically scarred some young minds and irrevocably skewed their perspectives.
I had actually forgotten about that for a while, but it could be a significant contributing factor.
Apr. 24, 2019 at 10:08 p.m.
#6
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2017
Posts: 5,012
Likes: 3,523
Quoting: ricochetii
I continuously see increased emphasis on 1st round picks, specifically those in the top 10.
It is to the point where the suggestion is often that a top 10 pick, on it's own, is sufficient to acquire a top 6 NHL player.
In an attempt to understand that perception, I decided to look back at the forward drafted from 2010-2016, to see exactly what one can reasonably expect a top 10 pick to produce in terms of an NHL forward.

This is not an in depth analysis. That would require a much larger investment of time. I broke this down in a way which would give a quick glance based on the following notes:
1. I chose the 2010's for a more recent sample. I stopped at 2016, since many more recently drafted players will as yet have categorized themselves.
2. I only looked at forwards. Defensemen require a much deeper analysis in more categories.
3. I think it is fair to say that the goal, or most basic requirement in successfully drafting a forward in the top 10 is to acquire a player who will at least produce at the level of a top 6 forward. Therefore I only looked at points.
4. I graded players based on career-to-date points/game average and where that would place them in this season's ranking among players with at least 30 games played.
A - 1st Line: Top 25% among forwards (0.68 P/G or more)
B - 2nd Line: Top 50% among forwards (0.45 P/G or more)
C - 3rd Line: Bottom 50% among forwards (0.33 P/G or more)
D - 4th Line: Bottom 25% among forwards (Less than 0.33 P/G)

------------

A total of 46 forwards were drafted in the top 10 over a course of 7 years from 2010-2016.

Of those players:
21 were grade A (Top Line) or 45.65%
12 were grade B (2nd Line) or 26.09%
9 were grade C (3rd Line) or 19.57%
4 were grade D (4th Line or worse) or 8.70%

We can consider drafting a C or D player in the top 10 as a failure. Nobody would ever trade a top 10 pick for a 3rd or 4th line player.
There's an 8.70% chance of a bust, and a 28.26% chance of at least disappointment.
Trading any A or B player, for a pick that has greater than a 50% chance of being equal or worse than what you are giving up, is poor asset management.

So what about top 3?
18 players: 12 A 4 B 2 C
That's about a 70% chance of an A and only a 10% chance of a bust.

In the case of a top 3 pick, the risk may be worth it. If you are giving up a high level B player or low level A player, you are likely to end up with at least a similar player and the 10% risk of something worse is negligible.

So eliminating the top 3 picks, the rest breaks down as:
28 players: 9 A 8 B 7 C 4 D
Which is a 32% chance of an A and a 39% chance of a bust.

This is what lead me down this path to begin with.
Trading an A or B player one-for-one in hopes that a pick outside the top 3 will be an upgrade isn't wise. At best, it's a coin toss between worse or better. There's a roughly equal chance that it changes nothing. You give up a sure thing and end up with the same player, but you have to wait a few years for him.

In short, outside of the top 3, It makes more sense for the team trading the pick to include additional pieces to acquire a player in the mid-high B range or better, than it does for the team trading the player to do a straight swap or include extra pieces. If you're weighting it in the other direction, you are either making a bad deal or assuming the other GM will.


There are many variables. One advantage to drafting a top 10 player instead of trading is that the drafted player will be playing 3 years on an entry level contract. Also, the top 10 pick is a restricted free agent after the ELC expires. Look at how many top six forwards that've been acquired through free agency or trades have backfired terribly. My guess is that the top 10 pick has far less downside. Just look at what NSH and OTT gave up in the Matt Duchene/Kyle Turris trade. COL won that trade big time by acquiring the picks and prospects.
Apr. 24, 2019 at 10:38 p.m.
#7
Thread Starter
Go Habs Go
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 10,667
Likes: 4,091
Quoting: Brian2016
There are many variables. One advantage to drafting a top 10 player instead of trading is that the drafted player will be playing 3 years on an entry level contract. Also, the top 10 pick is a restricted free agent after the ELC expires. Look at how many top six forwards that've been acquired through free agency or trades have backfired terribly. My guess is that the top 10 pick has far less downside. Just look at what NSH and OTT gave up in the Matt Duchene/Kyle Turris trade. COL won that trade big time by acquiring the picks and prospects.


As I said, it's not a complete analysis. However ...
Contracts and player control are very situational. They aren't factors until they become factors. You base your trade with it in mind. It doesn't impact the value once a trade is negotiated, but the initial decision of whether to make the trade or not.
You obviously don't trade for or sign a player you aren't confident of. They at least have a proven NHL track record. If you manage to overestimate their value or performance despite that, that's poor evaluation.

That Colorado trade kind of made everyone's jaws drop at the time because it seems a little overboard, but doesn't it kind of reinforce the idea that it takes more than just a 1st round pick to acquire a player of that caliber?
Keep in mind Ottawa was supposed to be a contender. That wasn't supposed to be even close to a top 10 pick. Even so, I believe Girard is the only piece that has shown value to date? Can't review right now. Time will tell for the rest.
Ottawa also recovered some value. They got to use him for almost 2 seasons and still got 2 prospects and up to 2 1st round picks when they moved him as a rental.
Brian2016 liked this.
Apr. 25, 2019 at 12:49 a.m.
#8
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2017
Posts: 5,012
Likes: 3,523
Quoting: ricochetii
As I said, it's not a complete analysis. However ...
Contracts and player control are very situational. They aren't factors until they become factors. You base your trade with it in mind. It doesn't impact the value once a trade is negotiated, but the initial decision of whether to make the trade or not.
You obviously don't trade for or sign a player you aren't confident of. They at least have a proven NHL track record. If you manage to overestimate their value or performance despite that, that's poor evaluation.

That Colorado trade kind of made everyone's jaws drop at the time because it seems a little overboard, but doesn't it kind of reinforce the idea that it takes more than just a 1st round pick to acquire a player of that caliber?
Keep in mind Ottawa was supposed to be a contender. That wasn't supposed to be even close to a top 10 pick. Even so, I believe Girard is the only piece that has shown value to date? Can't review right now. Time will tell for the rest.
Ottawa also recovered some value. They got to use him for almost 2 seasons and still got 2 prospects and up to 2 1st round picks when they moved him as a rental.


It's true that the teams that make these trades are almost always Cup contenders b/c they realize they're mortgaging part of their future in the hope that they can win now or in the near future. Personally, I've always felt very strongly that these types of trades rarely pay big dividends for all but the top Cup contending teams are usually better off keeping their 1st rounders. Obviously, this is just a theory of mine and I have no data to corroborate it. The OTT trade for Duchene was an anomaly but their management team acted impulsively nonetheless. Teams who build through the draft are usually those positioned for long term success. However, the real team killers are bad UFA signings like Marleau, Neal, or Lucic. These are very tough to recover from.

I do agree w/ your theory about trading a top six player for a top 10 pick (outside top 3). However, if a team is in a rebuild mode then it probably is worth the risk to acquire the draft pick. Hence the Erik Karlsson, Mark Stone, or Max Pacioretty trades. The contenders benefit in the short term and the rebuilding teams build for the future. Everyone wins...at least on paper. Of course it helps if the contending team(s), in this case VGK were able to extend both acquisitions long term. And SJS are still alive in the playoffs.

I do applaud your creativity and intuition. Great theory.
ricochetii liked this.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll