I do think if the Sharks try to move up from 14 to 8 they likely have to throw in another pick as well (maybe Tampa's 3rd, maybe swapping NJ's 2nd for Calgary's 3rd). Most of the trades I've compared from the Athletic's pick value chart the team moving up overpays, usually because they're trading up to get someone they're targeting. The trade you're discussing is something I pretty frequently use as an example...based on the pick valuations 27 + 33 was equal to 11, but the Desert Dogs threw in the additional 1.8 GSVA of pick 45 to get the deal done so they could get their target (Geekie).

Very true and good suggestion! Even if we needed to toss in an extra pick to be sure i would definitely be okey with that. The extra prolly come from the position of power the sellers are in like you are saying.

Brother, I haven’t been reading most of your long-winded bull **** since you tried explaining how pick value charts say your trade is great and actual historical trades don’t matter.

So like… Since page one. 😂

Are you eternally on social media? that is a paragraph. I never said it was great i said the value was approximate. You pulled one 16 year old example, and ignored the most current example for an arbitrary reason you’ve yet to articulate.

Correct... I pulled one 16 year old example.

Because 16 years ago is the most recent example of what you're asking for. Keep taking Ls.

You are once again ignoring the 3 year old example in favor of the 16 year old one and convinced yourself youre right. That’s crazyyyyyyyyyy

You are, once again, trying to compare 11 for 27 to 8 for 14. It's not the same thing, no matter how hard you try to make it the same thing.

By the way, since you keep wanting to make this comparison, according to your Athletic chart, the package Arizona gave to move up to 11 should've actually got them to 6th. In fact, 27th (3.2) and 35th (2.4) should've been enough to get them to 11th (5.7) without even adding 45th. (1.8)

... Which kinda verifies my statement that it's more expensive than your precious chart has you deluded into believing.

It is an extremely valid comparison. The model of the trade is the exact same. I will without hesitation add the extra second the sharks have as a sweetener. As someone and i have also talked about, the power dynamics of the trade can add the need for a sweetener. In this case youre getting a much better first and a better second (marginally) for a marginally better first, while the sharks adding 42ish would make it over kill thats okey.

I have also never said that using the model on its own is good practice, just that I used it to define the parameters of a trade that is as the picks currently stand. your vendetta of 8 for 14 instead of pens first + sharks second to get into range of 8-11 because we dont know where the picks will end up is your own. Thank you for finally articulating the logic of your point beyond 11 for 27 is different 8 to 14 for some ambiguous reason, but 7 to 9 is comparable for some other also undefined ambiguous reason.

EDIT: Not that this will sway you but 8(6.7) is actually smaller value 14(5.1)+33(2.6) so my value was already an overpay.

I can keep going...

2021 Detroit trades 23, 48, and 138 for 15. According to the chart they overpaid. That should've gotten them to 11/12.
2021 Minnesota trades 22 and 90 for 20. According to the chart they overpaid. That should've gotten them 18.
2021 Nashville trades 40 and 51 for 27. According to the chart they overpaid. That should've gotten them 23.
2020 NYR trades 22 and 72 for 19. According to the chart they overpaid. That should've gotten them 16/17.
2020 Washington trades 24 and 80 for 22. According to the chart they overpaid. That should've gotten them 19.
2019 Arizona trades 14 and 45 for 11. According to the chart they overpaid. That should've gotten them 7/8.
2018 NYR trades 26 and 48 for 22. According to the chart they overpaid. That should've gotten them 14/15.
2018 STL trades 29 and 76 for 25. According to the chart they overpaid. That should've gotten them 21/22.

That's every 1st round pick swap since 2018. The chart says they overpaid on every one. Every. Single. One. By a difference of multiple draft picks. It's almost like there's a trend there... It's almost like the trend shows that it costs more than you and your precious chart think it does to move up.

My trade is already an over pay -_- by 1.0 pts, but ill for sure add a third to the next one I am glad that suddenly first round pucks do get swapped and these examples are valid comparables though. I wonder where these were yesterday

I never said 1st round picks don't get swapped I said top 10 picks don't get swapped. Evidence? Hasn't happened in 16 years. Try reading.

You keep chewing on those Ls though, bud.

I thought it might be interesting to look through a bunch of draft day pick trades involving 1st round picks (18 total) and have the data based on the Athletic's pick value chart...most of the time the team trading up overpays by roughly 10-20%, though there was 1 example of a team (unfortunately the Sharks going for Goldobin) losing a tiny bit of value while trading back and some of them are closer to even, some are over 20%.

Looking through capfriendly entry draft trades involving at least 3 picks - 1 on one side, 2 on another, and at least 1 1st rounder), skipping any that include players since those are tougher to quantify (bold involves the Sharks):
40+51 for 27 = 2.1 + 1.5 for 3.2 = 0.4 sweetener to trade up or 12.5% of the pick value for the side with the better pick
27+34+45 for 11 = 3.2 + 2.5 + 1.8 for 5.7 = 1.8 sweetener or 31.58% (Bystedt)
90+22 for 20 = 0.6 + 3.7 for 4.0 = 0.3 sweetener or 7.5%
23+48+138 for 15 = 3.6+1.7+0.3 for 4.9 = 0.7 sweetener or 14.28%
24+80 for 22 = 3.5+0.7 for 3.7 = 0.5 sweetener or 13.51%
22+72 for 19 = 3.7+0.9 for 4.2 = 0.4 sweetener or 9.52%
14+45 for 11 = 5.1 +1.8 for 5.7 = 1.2 sweetener or 21.05%

Continuing to scroll back just looking at trades involving the Sharks or trades into the top 15
20+179 for 27 + 62 = 4.0 + 0.2 for 3.2+1.1, the Sharks actually lost 0.1 in value trading back (Goldobin)
20+58 for 18 = 4.0+1.2 for 4.3 = 0.9 sweetener or 20.93% (trade up for Mirco Mueller)
21+42 for 14 = 3.9 + 2.0 for 5.1 = 0.8 sweetener or 15.69%
19 + 59 for 15 = 4.2 + 1.2 for 4.9 = 0.5/10.2%
16+77+182 for 12 = 4.7 0.8 + 0.2 for 5.5 = 0.2/3.64%
9+40 for 7 = 6.3+2.1 for 7.1 = 1.3/18.31%
7+68 + 2nd rounder 1 year out (ended up 37, was expected to be fairly early) for 5 = 7.1 + 1.0 + future 2nd (37 is 2.3 but it could've been anywhere from 1.2 to 2.8 if you value the pick a year out as equal, expected at the higher value end) for 8.2, the 2nd was pretty much the sweetener.
future 3rd (1 year out, ended at 70) + 18 for 15 (EK65) = 4.3+future 3rd (0.6-1.1, ended at 0.9) for 4.9, about 0.3 of a sweetener.
17+28 for 12 which was then flipped for 13+future 3rd = 4.5+3.1 for 5.5 -> 5.3 + 0.8 next year
13+44 + future 3rd (+1yr 87) for 9 (Couture) = 5.3+1.9 + 0.6 for 6.3 = 23.81% give or take for future pick value

Edit: If you count and only see 17, note that the second to last one involves pick 12 being traded twice.

Oh this is cool work! So the model does work pretty well and the trade I’ve proposed I think falls within this range. Thank you for sharing its interesting to see all these trades.