depending on how long vatanen is hurt, i bet you if this was offered to sakic he would take it for sure. a top 4 D, a good D prospect, a first, second, and another prospect.

I would say that this is way to much. Vats is worth at least 2 first rounders, then we add another first and a former first round pick who hasn't done anything to drop in value. So right now we're up to 4 first rounders. Then we add a second and Pettersson who was also a second and hasn't dropped in value and looked pretty good in the prospect camp. Its commonly considered that 2 seconds is close to a first in value. So we are looking at roughly 5 first rounders for Duchene for 2 years with 2 mill retained which might not be enough retained with raises to Manson, Montour, Ritchie and Cogs. I would love Duchene but that price is BAD. You take out Jones and the 1st and I consider it.

"roughly 5 firsts." Man, that is some shite awful math...

The undersized, often injured Vatanen is in no way worth two firsts, unless they were 30 and 31. He's a great player with a lot of offensive upside, but he isn't that damned valuable. Lindholm is better, and I am not even sure you'd get two firsts for him... Maybe though, and he'd certainly be more deserving of that amount than Vatanen...

To the original poster, this isn't bad, but you are overpaying a little bit. Not as much as others suggested, but still. You don't need to give up all of that package even for retention. Dutch's price is dropping. Sakic is a moron. Go fishing with less.

Not sure if this deal would get Duchene? Are you kidding. No way I'd give all of that up for 2 years of Duchene

I guess my next question is, do you take out the 2nd rounder and keep it the same? Maybe take out Jones for someone else who still has a very good upside but may not fit into our lineup?





That is my thought. Makes up cup contenders for the next 2 years for sure and we save roughly a million from vats and have Bieksa, Cogs, Vermette, Boll, Beauchemin, coming off the books plus the if the cap goes up and the free space we have now, we could have about $18 in cap space to resign players and be great before Steel makes the jump.

I don't think you understand what is going on here. Vats is worth a 2nd at best. He's injured and we have a log jam in D. Pettersson showed great in the rookie showcase, sell him while he is high. We have Larsson, Mahura, Welinksi, Megna, Thompson, and Pettersson. That is 6 young d-men who will end up playing in the NHL. Fowler, Lindholm, Manson, and Montour are all 26 years or younger we are stacked on the back end and we have pieces to trade and Colorado, needs a few d-man and they can build with the younger guys on D. Take Jones out and you can put in a few other guys and like Nattinen , Roy, Hults, or Kopacka. We have the depth of young players to pull a trade like this off and we should. Helps us out in the short term to win a cup. No cup means you could lose your job if you are BM.

No matter what, that 1st has to stay to get Duchene. Even if it is, Vats, Pettersson, Nattinen and a 1st. Its a good deal and we get our 3rd line center as well.

Well lets examine that claim shall we. Hamonic was just traded for 1st and 2x 2nd round picks. Based on the earlier assumption that 2 seconds is roughly first in value translates to Hamaonic getting roughly 2 firsts. Vatanen is better than Hamonic. He plays all situations including significant PK time one one of the best PKs in the league. Size really hasn't been an issue for him. Then there is the idea that Lindholm is only worth 2 firsts. That is a poor claim. If Lindholm is worth maybe 2 then Duchene isnt even worth 2. Which is clearly false. Even if your claim that Vatanen isn't worth that was true it would still be at least 4 firsts for 2 years of Duchene which is still crazy.

Us being able to replace Vatanen internally has absolutely no bearing on his value. Thats like telling millionare someone to trade a ferrari for a common mercades because he as another ferrari. This is terrible asset management. A 2nd for Vats is pretty laughable. He isnt a cap dump and hes signed 2 more years after this. I dont think I've ever seen a fan undervalue their own player so much.

If you prefer. Use the Jeff Carter trade to LA as a comparable. Vats and JJ are pretty similar. Carter was player better than Duchene and was under team control at a reasonable rate for 9.5 years or something like that. Even if you consider them completely equal youre talking about adding Pettersson, Jones and a second beyond that. I agree the Ducks have the assets to make that trade but they shouldn't because they're throwing away assets. Jones isnt interchangeable with those other forwards that were mentioned either.

That is a horrible analogy to use. I think you can come up with a better one than that.

Trading Vats helps open up a spot for Larsson. Vats can also help get us a 3rd line center. Yes, Rakell can play center but he is way more lethal on the wing for us. Vats is not worth a 1st, I promise you that, at most maybe a second. Lindholm, Manson, Montour, and Fowler could possible fetch us first round picks but it would be hard to. I love Vats but he is not a shut down d-man. Manson and Lindholm are and that is why it is easier to trade Vats away.

Calgary over paid for Hamonic and we all know that. The asking price for Duchene is different and he impacts the team differently as well. Duchene was top 10 in faceoff %, he is a quick center and could put up 60-70 points on a good team. We are one piece away from being in the finals again and that one piece is someone like Duchene.

If I am not mistaken, Carter requested a trade out of Columbus though. He also never wanted to play for them either and not playing to your potential does not exactly help your value here.

Duchene has not requested for a traded and he seems to want to show up and play hockey and that's all he cares about. Good portion of the teams are trying to get Duchene as well and with that you might have to over pay as well and some times it is worth the rise and others it is not. To me getting Duchene and overpaying a little bit is worth it, if you bring home the cup.

Your attempted examination of the claim immediately falls apart when you try to equate two 2nd rounders to one 1st rounder. You cannot examine a claim with factually incorrect information.

You are overly defensive of Lindholm and Vatanen. I am in no way saying they aren't great players, but just because you feel their value is 2 first round picks doesn't make it so. The other NHL GMs would tell you to get bent in a hurry. And Hamonic was roundly considered an overpayment by everyone outside of Calgary. See what i'm getting at?

You do Realize there have been multiple studies where they examine and valuate draft pick value right? I'm not pulling this out of no where. The cumulative value of 2 second rounders puts you into the value range of mid to late firsts. Sure, I wouldn't trade a top 10 pick for 2 2nds but why do you think teams trade down in the drafts? The theory is the more draft picks you have the better the chances are that you find solid NHL contributing players. Then values are assigned to draft positions based on the history of those spots and what they typically yield. Obviously the first is better than 2 seconds in that the chance of that 1 pick is greater than either of the 2nds. That is common sense. That being said I don't think you will find many teams willing to give up multiple firsts so they try to make up the value in quantity.

Lets not also forget that the trades where FANS think teams overpaid really has no bearing on the market. These trades actually happened which means that is the market value. Does it mean everyone will pay it? Of course not but you bet your shorts GMs are using them as negotiating points. You 2 are trying to tell me a top 3 D on one of the best defensive teams in the league who plays in every situation and averaged nearly 22 minutes a night last year is either barely or not even worth a 1st rounder. I can also tell you that unless Lindholm is being traded for a top 5 pick+ I wouldn't trade him, because that is the only part of the draft that you can safely assume you'll get a similar level player and then you have to wait for them to develop. I am not sure where the disconnect where trades happen every year where rentals will return Picks plus, and yet we think young cost controlled great players somehow have just slightly more value. Hell Eaves was traded for a conditional 1st after 1 good season at 32 years old. Are we really suggesting that Vatanen or Lindholm with term and cost certainty aren't worth significantly more than a 32 year old injury prone player who has had 1 good year? Or Martin Hanzal who has never broken 50 points? Admittedly the rental market is inflated a bit because of sense teams should go all in to put themselves over the top. But it rarely works. If you consider Eaves contract extension, which wasn't even guaranteed, the Ducks got 3 years of a 32 year old injured player with 1 good year and it cost them a 1st rounder. Also I'm not really sure who said the Hamonic deal was Bad. I Honestly didn't pay that much attention as I am not a fan of either team but I took a glance at the CGY HF Board about it and it looked like mixed reviews which is generally a sign that it was probably fair.


It is a simple analogy meant to just demonstrate that you don't sell low just because you have excess. The only reason we can move Vatanen is because we have drafted well and have replacements. He is still the 3rd best D on our Team. You don't trade him away to make room for a 20 year old who hasn't proven anything and doesn't have a roster spot. That doesn't make the team better. You only move him if he yields a return that makes the team better. I think Duchene and Montour and Larsson makes us better then Vatanen Montour and Vermette. I also don't want Rakell at center. I would love Duchene on the Ducks and actually think he would be a great fit as he crosses off a lot of boxes that we would want as you have mentioned. My issue is the valuation of our players. I don't know what you're basing their value on honestly. All we have are past trades, and opinions of those trades. History just doesn't support that Vatanen is only worth a second. And for all the Vatanen injury Talk he has never missed more than like 15 games in a single season up until this year which is likely. Sure they're a concern but not any more than they should have been for Hamonic, who againt I admittedly didn't follow that trade but from the little research I did I didn't get the sense that it was viewed overwhelmingly as an over payment, so much as Snow got what he wanted in roughly 2 firsts. Not to mention that Jones is not really interchangeable with the other prospects in our system. He hold significantly more value than a Nattinen or a Roy. I have not issues giving up guys like that. I just don't see why Col would want them. Pettersson is a legit asset IMO and I am totally okay to move him as well. I'm not really against moving any one of the assets you mentioned. I just don't think we need to move them all.



As for the Carter comparison, Duchene just came off a season where the whole team admitted that there were attitude issues and Duchene is on record saying he burnt out in January. He is quite obviously disgruntled and wants out. That is clear as day. It actually strikes me as being very similar in Carters situation. Does that mean he doesn't like the guys he plays with? NO. He reported to camp because he is under contract and he's a professional and he will support his teammates.

At this point I don't know what else to say other than I don't grasp where your guy's valuations are coming from. Comparable deals or players, media or otherwise.

If you're just going to drone on about these supposed studies that exist that evaluate picks, and not post the names of those who have authored them, or tell us where we can see them, you're just blowing hot bullshit up everyone's asses. I would be happy to give your side consideration if you could actually supply me with information that confirms your statements. So far I have seen none.

I don't dislike your team, or your team's players (hell, I rather enjoy watching Anaheim's young D men create havoc), so I have no real dog in this fight outside of a logically constructed argument based on the actual valuation of picks. Show me that, and we'll discuss.

It really wasn't a complicated Google Search:
Sportsnet
Schuckers
Original Six Analytics
NHL Numbers This one references both Schuckers and Burtch
So what is the basis for your evaluation?

The Shuckers actually seems viable and looks like a quality study. However, unless I am reading it wrong (and I am trying to go over it at work) it would only seem to support your claim mathematically for two high seconds for one mid to low first. Now, that may still technically make your original statement work, but I would question it's value if it only applies to a certain numbered first rounder and two certain numbered second rounders.

I'm going to look it over in more detail later, but if it does mathematically support your claim in a broad application, and not "exact 1st for these two exact 2nds) I will rescind my challenge.