McDavid for Eichel trade hypothetical

[c00per67]

Let's say you have the #1 pick, and someone offers you a trade package with the #2 pick. What else, in addition Eichel, would make you consider trading away McDavid?
Or vice versa, if you had #2, what would you include in a trade offer for #1?

[The Comish]

In real life, I think Edmonton would have considered Eichel/Tyler Myers for McDavid, but since Buffalo traded that dude away already, I don't think Bogosian is enough. More than anything, Edmonton needs a top D.

If you're talking fantasy hockey, it would depend on a number of variables (# of keepers, scoring categories, etc).

[fungchen3]

Well, fantasy-speaking, I am thinking....

McDavid: 80-105 (120 top ceiling) | NHL Comparable: Crosby
Eichel: 70-95 (105 top ceiling) | NHL Comparable: Tavares / Benn hybrid

So, generally speaking, I'm thinking if I were to bail on McDavid for Eichel, the sweetener would have to be a player like Shattenkirk, Hedman, Forsberg, Ekblad, Gaudreau, etc. in a 2-for-1.

Of course, if it's a limited keeper (like a keep 4) you just can't trade McDavid for depth.

[chuckcouples]

This question depends greatly on the size of the league and the amount of keepers. The bigger the league and the more players that are kept, the less that I would require to move down from McDavid to Eichel. For instance, in my 30 team full keeper with 20 man active rosters and unlimited farm/prospect rosters, I would probably move McDavid for Eichel and a 50+ point forward or a 30+ point dman and a mid round draft pick. The reason for that is because the difference between the 2nd asset and a player off the waiver wire is 40 points for a forward and 20 points for a dman. In a keep 4, I would not trade McDavid for Eichel unless I was upgrading at least 2 other keepers by a significant margin.

[forsbergfan]

if, as most people see it, mcdavid is the next crosby, and eichel falls into the next tier of guys like stamkos, seguin, JT, giroux, etc., then u have to think to urself if you'd trade crosby for a package similar to seguin and stamkos. personally, that's the only way i would do it, and as others have said above, it all depends on your league setup.

[hawkdog]

Well, fantasy-speaking, I am thinking....

McDavid: 80-105 (120 top ceiling) | NHL Comparable: Crosby
Eichel: 70-95 (105 top ceiling) | NHL Comparable: Tavares / Benn hybrid

So, generally speaking, I'm thinking if I were to bail on McDavid for Eichel, the sweetener would have to be a player like Shattenkirk, Hedman, Forsberg, Ekblad, Gaudreau, etc. in a 2-for-1.

Of course, if it's a limited keeper (like a keep 4) you just can't trade McDavid for depth.

Didn't Tavares and Benn out score Crosby this year?

[Laendarian]

Didn't Tavares and Benn out score Crosby this year?

Hudler oustcored Giroux and Stamkos, but that doesn't mean I'm trading either of those guys for Hudler.

[Doug Glatt]

Well, fantasy-speaking, I am thinking....

McDavid: 80-105 (120 top ceiling) | NHL Comparable: Crosby
Eichel: 70-95 (105 top ceiling) | NHL Comparable: Tavares / Benn hybrid

Isn't it time to end the days of gratuitous 100-point projections for so many players? Not speaking specifically about your post, its something that a lot of people on this site have a tendency to do. OV isnt scoring 100 points anymore. Neither is Crosby, or Stamkos. We are in a Golden Age for NHL goaltending, there is ridiculous depth and many good players at the position who can be had cheaply. If what we have seen the past few years is the model for the near future, there might be a 100-point scorer sometimes, but its not a given. If this is the new normal McDavid might be good for 100 points in his best year.

[c00per67]

Isn't it time to end the days of gratuitous 100-point projections for so many players? Not speaking specifically about your post, its something that a lot of people on this site have a tendency to do. OV isnt scoring 100 points anymore. Neither is Crosby, or Stamkos. We are in a Golden Age for NHL goaltending, there is ridiculous depth and many good players at the position who can be had cheaply. If what we have seen the past few years is the model for the near future, there might be a 100-point scorer sometimes, but its not a given. If this is the new normal McDavid might be good for 100 points in his best year.

So if no one is going to score 100 points, do you think this means that everyone's points are shifted down, or that the top players are just getting closer to the pack?

[havanablast21]

Isn't it time to end the days of gratuitous 100-point projections for so many players? Not speaking specifically about your post, its something that a lot of people on this site have a tendency to do. OV isnt scoring 100 points anymore. Neither is Crosby, or Stamkos. We are in a Golden Age for NHL goaltending, there is ridiculous depth and many good players at the position who can be had cheaply. If what we have seen the past few years is the model for the near future, there might be a 100-point scorer sometimes, but its not a given. If this is the new normal McDavid might be good for 100 points in his best year.

Agreed. But what exactly would have to happen to return to the days of 110-120type years? And could that ever happen under the Weasel's watch?

[havanablast21]

So if no one is going to score 100 points, do you think this means that everyone's points are shifted down, or that the top players are just getting closer to the pack?

The New NHL doesn't negatively impact the Elite Exclusively. I'm not as good at tracking league wide stats as so many other contributors here (kudos to them), but I'd hazard the guess that from a scoring perspective, the entire league is on a slide ruler or even the Bell Curve analogy. The whole thing moves up/down proporitionately and every so often and unexpected factor happens (Jamie Benn leads the league in scoring / Stamkos has an off year and lands on the apex of the curve).

[fungchen3]

Isn't it time to end the days of gratuitous 100-point projections for so many players?

DG,

I disagree. I think next year's Art Ross winner will be closer to 100 than 87 - might even break 100 like 102. I think the Pens guys had off years and at least one of them will rebuild and flirt with 100. Tavares is on the verge of hitting 100 and I think Seguin has a chance to come close as well. I want to see what McDavid is all about but I think he might do it as well within 2-3 years.

One thing the NHL has proven over the years is that they have no problem "making changes" if they feel it will enhance the entertainment level. I wouldn't be surprised to see more penalties called moving forward - at least in the regular season.

And, if defensemen continue to wheel and get involved in the offense, there will be greater opportunities to score. But, to your point, I never bought into the "monster number" hype (135-150) for players like Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, etc. That is just not (and never was) realistic IMO.

Today's game features some great, great players but there are no immortals like Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr who could just rip the league apart at will.

[fantasy junkie]

Today's game features some great, great players but there are no immortals like Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr who could just rip the league apart at will.

....until McDavid enters the league and changes everything...

[fungchen3]

....until McDavid enters the league and changes everything...

If he does, it will be a treat to watch. But he would have to be a level or two greater than Crosby - not sure how likely that is.

[The Comish]

The league needs more Lindbacks, Backstroms and Smiths.

New rule proposal for the NHL. The NHL will feature 10 games per team where they get to designate the starting goaltenders. Theme nights, like Mike Vernon versus Grant Fuhr or Billy Smith versus Ron Hextall (maybe even a WWE cage match following this one). Or possibly picking two (un)lucky fans from the crowd to face NHL slap shots (NHL Legal Office is still reviewing the required waiver forms for this one). This will spur scoring to mid-1980's levels and bump the entertainment value up a notch for those boring games in Nov/Dec.