If I triangulate your work here along with the study on trade-ups and value of forwards vs. defensemen early, is it safe to say the Sharks are better off taking the forward that drops at 14 and take two shots at D in the second round? I feel like I've been alone in the wilderness on this while most Sharks fans want to sell the second round to move into the top 10.
Yep. That's the gist of my hypothesis. While I don't know if people agree with the idea of forwards vs defensemen, there is lots of work to show that trading back in the draft is generally a better idea than trading up. Maaaybe that's different if you can get into the top 5-7 picks. But even then, it takes a degree of hubris to think your one selection at 7 will definitely yield a better player than the three you'll get at 14, 33 and 42, for example.
I've always felt Grier's first draft was a product of his having a brother who is a GM in the NFL, where there is plenty of data to show that trading up has undeniably proven to be a less than 50% proposition.
meant to reply to this sooner. I think it was more a product of Grier knowing he had nothing to lose with his first draft and the scouting team not caring for any of the players left on the board at that point. Sure, maybe he’s been influenced by his brother, but I think it was a heat of the moment thing.
If I triangulate your work here along with the study on trade-ups and value of forwards vs. defensemen early, is it safe to say the Sharks are better off taking the forward that drops at 14 and take two shots at D in the second round? I feel like I've been alone in the wilderness on this while most Sharks fans want to sell the second round to move into the top 10.
Yep. That's the gist of my hypothesis. While I don't know if people agree with the idea of forwards vs defensemen, there is lots of work to show that trading back in the draft is generally a better idea than trading up. Maaaybe that's different if you can get into the top 5-7 picks. But even then, it takes a degree of hubris to think your one selection at 7 will definitely yield a better player than the three you'll get at 14, 33 and 42, for example.
I've always felt Grier's first draft was a product of his having a brother who is a GM in the NFL, where there is plenty of data to show that trading up has undeniably proven to be a less than 50% proposition.
meant to reply to this sooner. I think it was more a product of Grier knowing he had nothing to lose with his first draft and the scouting team not caring for any of the players left on the board at that point. Sure, maybe he’s been influenced by his brother, but I think it was a heat of the moment thing.