SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

jamnjon

Member Since
Jan. 15, 2017
Favourite Team
San Jose Sharks
Forum Posts
317
Posts per Day
0.1
Forum: Armchair-GMThu. at 3:59 a.m.
Thread: 24-25 Sharks
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Rob32sjsharks</b></div><div>And I don’t think this is a smart move for the sharks either!</div></div>

Purely looking at value, pick 14 would be 5.1 GSVA, pick 13 (if the Wild grab at least a point in their game) would be 5.3 GSVA, pick 10 is 6.0 GSVA, and pick 42 is 2.0 GSVA. The third rounder will be 0.5 or 0.6 GSVA. The Sharks would be giving up 7.1 to 7.3 GSVA for 6.5 or 6.6 GSVA. I looked through 18 trades where teams traded up in the 1st round and the team moving up typically paid around 10-20% extra as a sweetener. If they weren't sending back the 3rd and we were trading pick 14 it'd be a 18.33% sweetener, with the 3rd and 0.5 it's 9.23%, 3rd and 0.6 it's 7.58%. Pick 13 without the 3rd is 20%, with the 3rd at 0.5 it's 12.31%, with the 3rd at 0.6 it's 10.61%.

I suspect if the trade were to happen we wouldn't be getting the 3rd back but it really depends on how willing to move NJD is and how much we want the pick. (For reference when the Sharks traded back a few years back it was a 31.58% sweetener).
Forum: Armchair-GMThu. at 3:29 a.m.
Thread: Clinched
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>sharcuda22</b></div><div>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</div></div>

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
<strong>27+34+45 for 11 = 3.2 + 2.5 + 1.8 for 5.7 = 1.8 sweetener or 31.58% (Bystedt)</strong>
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
<strong>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)</strong>
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 -&gt; 5.3 + 0.8 next year
<strong>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</strong>

Edit: If you count and only see 17, note that the second to last one involves pick 12 being traded twice.
Forum: Armchair-GMThu. at 3:12 a.m.
Thread: Offer Sheeting Viability
Just to clarify on the off chance you were suggesting this, you wouldn't be able to do the offer sheets at the same time if the compensation overlaps and if you want to attempt it on 3 players the each team likely makes you wait the full week before confirming they're matching which increases the likelihood the other teams will come to terms with their player.

Of course you could go with Doug Wilson's move from back in 2010. He offer sheeted Hjalmarsson for an amount more than Chicago would've been able to give him, then once Chicago spent the money on him they offered Niemi a contract Chicago could no longer afford since they'd spent the money on Hjalmarsson's deal.

In this case something comparable would be offer sheeting Byfield to a pricy deal but not enough that they don't match, then signing Arvidsson or Matt Roy, or offer sheeting Lundell and using the space to sign Reinhart or Montour.

Teams have gotten better at freeing up cap space though and I could see them dealing with going up to 10% over the cap in the summer and then giving up assets to another team (my Sharks are interested!) to free up that space rather than let you get away with it.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 14 at 4:19 p.m.
Thread: Clinched
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>sharcuda22</b></div><div>Sharks 2021 trade that I have already mentioned. Both uses the model of trading up or down in the first round using 2nd round pick(s) and is extremely closely aligned with the athletic’s draft pick value chart. 11 - &gt; 27 and got two early seconds to move back 16 spots, and was with in .5-1 pts of the value chart. So, not a reach to say trading back 6 instead of 16 spots = 33rd pick. Not that i am even suggesting that would be the exact trade. Not surprised you missed that given how selective your reading is.

Not sure how that continues to escape you</div></div>

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).
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 9 at 8:26 p.m.
Thread: Moving on up
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>bwhsocal</b></div><div>little early for the 2025 draft slots and AZ (or anyone) is not giving 2x 2nd for 1 x 2nd. I dont see a 34OA having that much better chances than a 42OA to pan out. maybe a 2nd and 5th to move up a bit in the 2nd.</div></div>

Based on The Athletic's pick valuations, pick 34 is worth 2.5 GSVA, pick 42 is worth 2.0, and 58 is worth 1.2. Generally if a team is trading up they overpay a bit according to those values, so it could be close and potentially could happen. For instance, a couple of years back the Sharks traded pick 11 (5.7 GSVA) to Arizona for 27 (3.2), 34 (2.5), and 45 (1.8). The 45th pick was essentially thrown in for free based on those values, and the gap between 34 and 42+58 is closer at 0.7.

Of course it depends on who the team trading up is targeting more than generic valuations...I suspect if the Sharks are pushing for the trade it would swing in the favor of Arizona instead this time. If the Sharks throw in their 2025 4th which has about 0.5 GSVA in value depending on exact placement (assuming 98 based on these other numbers but if a team gets a compensatory 2nd it might be pushed back slightly) it might be enough.