Could actually make sense if they dont wanna risk losing Parekh to Utah

Possibly?

Drafts do funny things to GM's. Sometimes they're hellbent on picking a center at #3 when there are far better players on the board because they REALLY want a center! Sometimes they end up with picks 13, 14 and 15 because they thought that would be enough to get them pick #5, then don't know who to select when that trade doesn't pan out.

Definitely not worth it. They get way more value out of their 1st by using it to address the roster, or by just drafting a player.

erase

a 1st seems like a lot to move 2 spots but deals like that don't happen so there's no real way to judge how fair that is

That would be a steep price to pay to move up two spots. The Habs dont want to spend another 1st on D after Guhle, Mailloux and Reinbacher the last 4 drafts.

I dont think the difference between Parekh and Yakemchuk would be big enough to spend another 1st to take the one you want. Buium, Silayev and Dickinson all there as well for Cbj if they want.

After I posted I also considered editing the trade and having Montreal add their 2nd round pick from Colorado (which would be a late second) to offset some of what Ottawa is getting. Not sure if that would be enough or not.

As one person said above, sometimes teams get really focused on getting "their guy", so maybe Ottawa would do such a trade. The late first round pick that Ottawa has from Boston is nice to have (for Montreal or Ottawa), but given the draft is not tremendously deep, maybe Ottawa would do it to get who they want and not lose that player to Arizona/Utah.

Pretty sure Ottawa will be happy with whoever they select at #7. The last time a trade like this happened was in 2008, this is more than that price.

Yeah I understand what youre trying to get at but I think youre off in terms of value.

Picks generally dont change hands that much in the top 10-15 because the value of the players tend to be so similar but I found a couple from recent drafts. In 2022 Arizona gave picks up picks 34 and 45 to move up 16 places from 27 to 11. In 2019 Arzona gave up pick 45 to move 4 places from 15 to 11. In 2016 Ottawa gave up pick 80 to go from 12 to 11.

But as mentioned above the last time a trade happened that would be similar to this was in 2008. Nashville got picks 37 and 68 to go back two spots from 5 to 7 then got pick 40 to go back again from 7 to 9.

So it is possible that 5 and 7 could be swapped but if anything it would be for a 2nd or maybe along with a 3rd as well.

If the Boston pick is like 29-32 than the value is probably right but is it worth it to draft "your guy" that much? Not really. It all comes down to how management value getting their guy vs the next BPA. I think most GMs now understand its a flawed idea to trade up at such a cost on prospects. It was more prevalent in the older days when scouting wasn't as good as it is now.

3 out of the bottom 5 teams need a D more than anything. Lindstrom will still be available at 5 and Parhek will go top 4

We just take 1 of Catton, Lindstrom, Dickinson, Buium, Parekh, Iginla at our pick and move on lol. Maybe if Lev made it to 5 we'd think about it but besides that probably not.

They’d obviously have to weigh the risk especially if Demidov or Lindstrom are there….but we’d finally be in a good position to pull this off. The only reason we couldn’t trade down last year was because Arizona would’ve taken Reinbacher. But this might actually work. Still though probably only worth it if we have a plan to use the extra pick to trade up. Or they are absolutely sure we can still get our guy. But I wouldn’t really want to risk trading down just to draft 25ish when we already have a pick around that spot.

I would definitely like the idea of then packaging the Winnipeg and Ottawa pick for a pick in the teens