like I said, the time difference is dependent on what you think of the value of the draft and where it actually picks.
I admittedly don't know how strong the 26 draft is. I do know the current draft is pretty weak.
We also don't know where CBJ picks. You might look at this after that pick is decided and say hold on, the Pens pick might actually be worth more.
You just don't know that. Don't forget how bad the penguins actually are. They were at 7-8OA this year a points in the season after TDL.
This is an aging team falling apart. Its not going to improve.

I personally think Pittsburgh will be a bottom-5 team in the league in 2026, but the CBJ is a guaranteed top-6 pick by nature of finishing 4th-last in the league this year. Even if I think Pittsburgh is last in the league in 2026, the only guarantee is that it's top-3. And I'm certainly not willing to bet a top-6 pick that Pittsburgh is a bottom feeder in two years when Crosby could still be there.

We're just looking at the value of the pick, but I really don't think they're as close as you presume. There's just too many variables that need to go against Pittsburgh to have them fall to where Columbus is right now. Could it be top-3? Sure. But odds are low that it ends up being as high in the draft as Columbus' right now, and the fact that you'd need to wait two years to get it means that it's not close in value.

This again depends where they pick. CBJ could end up picking 6th. This isn't really a strong draft and frankly I don't think the 6OA will be seeing the ice for at least 2 years. Or at least he shouldn't.
There are only like 2-3 guys in this draft I think can step in right away. So the "time" thing doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Like I said, it really depends on the draft in 26. If it's deep and you got a whole list of guys who can step in year one... then the time is nothing.
I is clearly a bet that the pick for CBJ is less this year than that of the pick for PIT in 26. There is no doubt on that. I'm only pointing out, that the 26 pick is worth way more than what was claimed.
If you think a 38 year old Crosby is going to drag an aging EK, Letang and Malkin kicking and screaming into not being a bottom 5 team, that's one opinion. As you stated you think they will be a bottom 5 team. I also believe they will be a bottom 5 team.
So if that's the case, what are we really comparing in value? Development time? If CBJ selects #1 this year, obviously that's true. If they select #6 this year, that's not as clear.
The same can be said for the PIT pick.
The real point of the argument here that I'm making is, given how weak this draft is. The 26 draft, could... I don't know that it is... but it could be stronger and give a better pick.
I would rather pick in 26 if I know a player of McDavid level is there, than pick this year with a player of Celebrini's level.
Not to knock Celebrini too hard but everyone has assessed he's leaning more on the talent level of a Lafreniere than a McDavid. He's ranked lower than Bedard who was lower than Hughes and so forth down the line....
This isn't a strong draft. I don't know the draft for 26 yet.... but if it's a much stronger draft, and you have the same belief that they are a bottom 5 team. Then you are looking at the value.
Now of course it's a gamble. It is. I'm not arguing that. But if we are starting from the premise that they are a bottom 5 team and I clearly am as that's my belief. Than that is really taken out of the equation.
There are a lot of factors here. CBJ picking 6th this year, is definitely less than a 26 picking 1st and vice versa.
The point is it's a bad assumption to think PIT doesn't have the assets and that the 26 isn't as valuable. No one knows this at this point yet. With a team set to crater it's a lot harder to assess than say a team like like TOR who isn't going to finish that low.

"Blah blah blah uncertainty therefore they're the same".

No, you are wrong. Uncontestably, objectively wrong. Look up a concept known as "time value of money" someday and educate yourself. It doesn't matter how bad Pittsburgh is or is not in two years, it's not worth it. Pittsburgh does not have the assets, and the 2026 1st does not affect that assessment in any way, and you are perfectly aware of that - especially since you have come out and admitted you have done no research whatsoever as to what players are actually there and are going based off "well maybe there might someday be a McDavid something something IT COULD BE MAYBE OKAY". No. Stop. You're wrong. Own it, take the L, and move on.

Around here we always see CBJ players assigned lesser value because they're CBJ players. We've now reached the point where CBJ picks are being assigned lesser value because they're CBJ picks and it's hilarious.

you want to sit here and talk about educate... you end up picking 6th and in this draft your prospect needs 2 years to develop because it's a weak draft.
If the 26 draft is deep, you could end up picking 4th and have a year 1 player....your time money blah blah as you like to put it is pointless.
You over here talking about educate. A. realize how weak this draft is. B. how arrogant you are.
This whole convo takes place on a premise that most people can realize is probably true that the pens are a bottom 5 team in 26. Not hard to get there considering they almost finished 708OA this year and they will do nothing but age in 2 years with no real prospect pool to change that and a bunch of aging contracts taking up large chunks of the cap. You just can't get over simple things.

And come off you high horse, no hockey fan is looking into the 26 draft prospects. your expectation is just showing how far the stick is shoved up there. It's pretty clear you being a casual hockey fan as well don't know piss all of the 26 draft either or you would have said so. Which makes your comments even funnier.
What we all do know is this is a weak draft. It's also not hard to over come the hurdle of being better than a weak draft. Especially when I know there is at least 1 player in that draft who currently has exceptional player status. So when you sit around going ... someday be a McDavid... blah blah... realize that this draft does not have that level of a prospect in it.
I can't say I know the whole draft for 26 which is why I said from the start, it depends what you think of the draft class and where one picks given a bottom 5 finish.

Maybe use your head for once instead of playing know it all and you won't end up telling us all how picking high in a weak draft is right away is somehow always better than the same level of a high pick later. It's not.
Picking 1OA in 2014 wasn't worth getting the 1OA in 2015. People knew that at draft. Time blah blah blah..... is all horse $#!t of an argument. It only matters if all things are equal. But they are not.
The best argument you have is PIT doesn't end up picking 5OA... that's fine if that's your belief..... that's not mine and we can disagree on that.
But your arrogance on the rest is just absurd. A draft with an exceptional level player at the top is a better draft than the current weak one. I just don't know how far that goes down the list. As there is no promise in either draft that either team gets a 1OA. Which is why I stated.....It depends how you view the drafts. But you just can't seem to accept that.

All this is noise because you're still assuming that a pick two years from now is better than or the same as a pick now and that is fundamentally not the case nor can it ever be. It is more valuable for me to have $20 now than to have $20 in a month. So long as you keep ignoring this fundamental basic concept of economics, you are wrong.

again never said better.
B. we aren't talking about $20. You keep ignoring this.
Notice how you don't have anything to add about the quality of the two drafts. This year is a weak one. the 2026 draft has at least 1 player of exceptional status....
Kind of tired just going round and round with you to have nothing to offer. At top 6 pick in a weak draft, isn't as good as a top 6 pick in a strong draft....even if you have to wait 2 years for it. As stated earlier, development time on a guy who needs two years to develop vs getting a guy who can play right away makes that negligible.
It's not the NBA. Drafted players typically don't play right away. Unless they are high end talent. Which this draft lacks.
So unless you got something relative to say other than what you brought I think we can call this concluded on.... depends where you think the penguins finish. Well I think they are a bottom 5 team in 2 years. Maybe you do not. That's laughable to me considering how bad they are and how old they are... but hey you never know.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Hon, you're trying to argue a point that is literally fundamentally impossible based on a combination of inaccurate prognostication, hindsight, and magical thinking. For your hypothetical value scenario to have even a ghost of a chance 2026 would have to be far and away the best draft in NHL history - enough to make 2003 seem like an afterthought - and you have literally zero evidence to support such a claim. It's a basic and transparent version of the old "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" con. You'd be able to make a stronger case arguing that we need to get started right away on building a perpetual motion machine.

we aren't talking hamburgers we are talking prospects. Your arguments of time all fall apart when it takes your guy 2 years to develop at a minimum because of a weak draft as opposed to stronger drafts where multiple guys play draft or draft +1.
You just aren't capable of understanding that.
There might be 3 guys in the draft this year capable of starting draft year, if you aren't picking top 2 you probably aren't picking them. As the 3rd probably goes later than when CBJ picks.
Again, the 26 draft has an exceptional level player, which already makes it a better draft year, the question of how deep it goes remains open. But given how weak this one is, it's not some huge hurdle.
But hey it's ok. Keep thinking a draft that looks more and more like 2019 without hughes has value on some imaginary concept based on "time/development".

The paying tuesday for a hamburger today "con" is a pretty bad example. As long as you admit you are getting paid. It's not like the value of the hamburger changed in such time. A hamburger at McD will cost the same today as it does tuesday.... makes no difference as long as the payment is made. As the time difference is no big deal on the cost of something so trivial.

The same isn't true about our argument here. Where the value of the picks, can massively change and you aren't getting take. You perpetuate the idea that picks in a weak draft are just as valuable..... we'll there not. While we aren't going to get into the depth of that draft, as I said before, we know at the very top of the draft 26 is a better year to have a chance at 1OA.

Anyway no new arguments from you here so I take it as dead.

"For your hypothetical value scenario to have even a ghost of a chance 2026 would have to be far and away the best draft in NHL history - enough to make 2003 seem like an afterthought - and you have literally zero evidence to support such a claim."

By the insane troll logic you're using here, Cole Sillinger is an equivalent or possibly better asset than the likes of Quinton Byfield or Quinn Hughes or Elias Petterson.


EDIT: Heck, here's another example that does involve 2003. By your logic of "immediate debut later is better than late debut now", Nikolai Zherdev - being a guy who debuted immediately in a strong draft - was as good as or better of a player than years-later-debut-in-weak-draft Jason Spezza.

actually it doesn't have to be "far and away the best draft..blah blah."
It only needs to be deep enough at the top where guys can make the jump to nullify your time argument. Which is what 5-6 for a 100% coverage.
Like I said, that draft has an exceptional level player in it. So there is 1. I don't claim to be an expert on how the rest pans out.
But what I do know, is even if you land the 1OA this year you're not getting that level of a player. A draft with an exceptional level player is a better draft to have a legit chance at the lottery at than one that doesn't.
If CBJ were to land 1OA and draft MC they would get an OK player, but never that franchise level of guy they have never had.
on the other hand if PIT were to draft 1OA in 26 you would complain how it's rigged and the penguins always get handed a star franchise player.

You just don't care to recognize these differences. For you it's more important to have now because some hamburger argument.
But if you believe, and for good reason, the picks land in the same range in 24 and 26.... then what you are debating is the value of those players. Not some crap about time and hamburgers.
This is a weak draft. Period. You can't change that.
The 26 draft as far as I know, has at least 1 exceptional level player. It's not hard to say that's a better draft year on the surface of things. I'd rather have a shot at 1OA in 26 than in 24.
Needless to say, if you think the 26 draft is deeper at the top, which is the premise I ran long ago.... then it's better to draft all the way down in 26.
There are some drafts it just doesn't matter if you get to pick high in. like '12. Where the best picks in the top 6 ended up being Lindholm and Reilly.
Finishing to bottom 6 that year didn't really help anyone and it didn't really set any foundation for a team. But that's what you get in a weak draft. CBJ should know they picked 2OA. Murry didn't do anything to actually help CBJ at all now did he.
So of all people I'm sure CBJ fans can get the point that drafting high now, isn't always the best option. That it's better to draft high in a better year. But you seem to not have learned that lesson.
I would have gladly given that '12 OA up to draft 2 years later in '14..... because F your hamburger it was a better draft those teams picking in the top 6 had a much better chance of landing a really good player to help them win. If you can't understand that, well bury your head in the sand.

So you genuinely believe that Spezza was a worse pick than Zherdev, then?

I genuinely believe Murry at 2OA was a worse pick than what they would have got in '14.

You're ducking the question. And the equivalent pick in 2014 would be in the 5-7 range - Michael Dal Colle, Jake Virtanen, Haydn Fleury. Say what you will about Murray but at least he was an NHLer.