2025 Draft Day Poll: Trading Up into top 5

[FLPensFan]

As I was reading Josh Yohe's article about the coach search, I saw his few paragraphs about still not knowing what the Rangers will do with the pick. He mentioned the Penguins have plans in place for both scenarios. He also said it is very unlikely, but not impossible, that he would trade 11 & 12 to move up in the draft. Dubas would rather get 2 blue chip prospects.

But consider this....Nashville owns picks 5, 25 and 28 in the first round. Would Nashville consider moving back a few spots from #5 with the advantage of moving one of their late firsts into a better draft range in this draft. Nashville would get a good player at #5, but the picks at 25 and 28 aren't going to be as solid. Is it more advantageous for them to pick 11th, 12th, and 28th, depending on their needs.

From the Penguins perspective....they'd ensure they get a much better (in theory) player at #5 in exchange for taking (in theory) a little bit weaker player at #25 with the 2nd pick. Would you rather have an 80% chance top 6 guy and a 30% chance at a middle 6 guy, or a 50% chance for 2 middle 6 players?

Perri Pick value charts show that 11, 12, and one of our 2025 3rds would be fair value for Nashville's picks 5 and 25.

So, what would you do? Assume Schaefer, Misa, Hagens, and Martone are gone....are you willing to move up to take Desnoyers, Frondell, or O'Brien while moving back with that 2nd pick?

[Skatingpen]

Yes please……..

[BigMcK]

Yes please……..

× 2

[Ohio_Pens_fan]

Yes please……..

× 2

I see your x2 and raise you to x3.

[FLPensFan]

Unfortunately, I made an error when using the Pick Value calculator, so this trade is actually not accurate.

It would likely take us 11, 12, a 2nd and a 3rd to reach proper value. When I input the calculations somehow the 12th pick overall got put in as the 6th overall pick, badly skewing the results.

For 11, 12, 2nd and a 3rd just to move up to 5th....I would not do that.

The better play at that point would be to use 12th overall to acquire someone like Byram or McTavish's rights.

[Puck-Lurker]

In short, no.

Giving up 3 picks for maybe a better 1st.. nah. We need numbers too

[Victor]

In short, no.

Giving up 3 picks for maybe a better 1st.. nah. We need numbers too

Exactly my thoughts.

Unless the trade is for a pick that becomes Schaefer or Misa, I'd rather keep picks 11 and 12. Maybe Martone as well depending on the cost. I still believe it's a bit more likely for the Rangers to keep this year's pick though.

[Puck-Lurker]

In short, no.

Giving up 3 picks for maybe a better 1st.. nah. We need numbers too

Exactly my thoughts.

Unless the trade is for a pick that becomes Schaefer or Misa, I'd rather keep picks 11 and 12. Maybe Martone as well depending on the cost. I still believe it's a bit more likely for the Rangers to keep this year's pick though.

If you get #1 for #11, 12, a 2nd and 3rd.. yes I'd probably pull the trigger. But it'll cost more most likely, so no thanks

[pekkasteele]

I would trade #11 and #12 for 1-5, and whatever els of 2-3-4th round picks they want, It is so more difficult to trade for a player of the caliber one can expect to get at pick 1-5 than it is to get a 11-12 pick player, IE top line center vs. a 3rd line center with top 2 possibility. We need someone to step in after Sid retires. And we already have a gizillion 2nd round and later picks so I don't really care if we trade a few of them.

[Victor]

I would trade #11 and #12 for 1-5, and whatever els of 2-3-4th round picks they want, It is so more difficult to trade for a player of the caliber one can expect to get at pick 1-5 than it is to get a 11-12 pick player, IE top line center vs. a 3rd line center with top 2 possibility. We need someone to step in after Sid retires. And we already have a gizillion 2nd round and later picks so I don't really care if we trade a few of them.

Draft is still a crapshoot. I'd rather draft twice in the top 12 than once in the top 5. It's not unusual to find top 6 forwards even later in the 1st round.

[Daniel]

I would trade #11 and #12 for 1-5, and whatever els of 2-3-4th round picks they want, It is so more difficult to trade for a player of the caliber one can expect to get at pick 1-5 than it is to get a 11-12 pick player, IE top line center vs. a 3rd line center with top 2 possibility. We need someone to step in after Sid retires. And we already have a gizillion 2nd round and later picks so I don't really care if we trade a few of them.

As much as I would like a 2C, this isn't a great class in terms of superstar players. Doesn't mean someone won't emerge (look at Rust and Jake) but on the surface, not great. Not sure what I'd do but I guess the question would be this. How good with Desnoyer or O'Brien be compared to Brady Martin for the 1st pick. If they can get Aitcheson with #11 or #12, how much better are they compared to what they'd get at #24?

[Pitts]

No. I'd rather keep the 2 picks if we have them and add to the talent pool.

[Daniel]

No. I'd rather keep the 2 picks if we have them and add to the talent pool.

The idea is 11 & 12 for 5 & 25 (though 24 is the actual pick).

My question is how much better is the 5th player than the 11th and how much worse is the 24th to the 12th. This isn't a great draft in terms of top end talent and as much as I'd like Desnoyers, I think 11 & 12 would be the better option than 5 & 25. I think the dropoff from 12 to 25 would be too great.

[FLPensFan]

No. I'd rather keep the 2 picks if we have them and add to the talent pool.

The idea is 11 & 12 for 5 & 25 (though 24 is the actual pick).

My question is how much better is the 5th player than the 11th and how much worse is the 24th to the 12th. This isn't a great draft in terms of top end talent and as much as I'd like Desnoyers, I think 11 & 12 would be the better option than 5 & 25. I think the dropoff from 12 to 25 would be too great.

It's moot because I screwed up the value calculator, and we would need to give up 11, 12, a 2nd, and a 3rd for JUST 5th overall (which I would never do), but, I would counter your original objection with....how much better is 5th overall upside than what we currently have in the system?

At some point, this team needs to start grabbing players that are as near to "can't miss" top 6/top pairing guys instead of guys that are a stretch to be low end top 6/top pairing guys.

To me, it's kind of like loading the roster with Heinen, Tomasino, Novak, Acciari, Hayes, Puljujarvi, etc. A big collection of average players doesn't move the needle much. Neither does a big collection of average or slightly above average prospects. No offense to the players we could potentially take at 11 & 12, but I don't think this draft is as weak as sometimes portrayed. Yes, there is a drop off at a certain point. No, other than Schaefer and maybe Misa, there aren't really players you would potentially build a team around...but there are still some really good players available. And I would argue the last "really good" player this team drafted was Guentzel 13 years ago. There isn't another top 6, top pairing, A+ #1 goalie in our draft group since then.

[Antonio]

You sure that calculator isn't on drugs? 11 12 a 2nd and a 3rd JUST to change into 5 and nothing more? That seems insane. 11 and 12 seems like plenty honestly.

[Daniel]

No. I'd rather keep the 2 picks if we have them and add to the talent pool.

The idea is 11 & 12 for 5 & 25 (though 24 is the actual pick).

My question is how much better is the 5th player than the 11th and how much worse is the 24th to the 12th. This isn't a great draft in terms of top end talent and as much as I'd like Desnoyers, I think 11 & 12 would be the better option than 5 & 25. I think the dropoff from 12 to 25 would be too great.

It's moot because I screwed up the value calculator, and we would need to give up 11, 12, a 2nd, and a 3rd for JUST 5th overall (which I would never do), but, I would counter your original objection with....how much better is 5th overall upside than what we currently have in the system?

At some point, this team needs to start grabbing players that are as near to "can't miss" top 6/top pairing guys instead of guys that are a stretch to be low end top 6/top pairing guys.

To me, it's kind of like loading the roster with Heinen, Tomasino, Novak, Acciari, Hayes, Puljujarvi, etc. A big collection of average players doesn't move the needle much. Neither does a big collection of average or slightly above average prospects. No offense to the players we could potentially take at 11 & 12, but I don't think this draft is as weak as sometimes portrayed. Yes, there is a drop off at a certain point. No, other than Schaefer and maybe Misa, there aren't really players you would potentially build a team around...but there are still some really good players available. And I would argue the last "really good" player this team drafted was Guentzel 13 years ago. There isn't another top 6, top pairing, A+ #1 goalie in our draft group since then.

I don't think it's weak in terms of good players as much as I think it's weak in terms of exceptional players. Let's say these are the 2 sets of 2 players 11/12 and 5/24. To me, that's the bottom line.

As for the cost, because Dubas as gotten so many, I think it's doable in terms of conversation.

Just to keep it simple, center and defensemen.

Brady Martin - Kashawn Aitcheson - 2nd - 3rd

or

Caleb Desnoyers - Sascha Boumedienne

[EndO FanEra]

Ok, do we even know where Nashville is picking for sure? PuckPedia shows 5/26/30, Tankathon (updated 3 days ago) shows 5/24/27, and Pro Hockey Rumors (updated today) shows 5/23/26. The lack of NHL draft/prospect coverage is very disappointing.

Regardless, I voted yes. We have 3 3rds this year, so I don't mind losing one to move up. At #5, we'd be getting a player a tier above what will likely be left at 11/12. At that point, I'd consider trying to use the 25th in a package to pick up a prospect closer to NHL action (ex: Clarke from LAK). If that doesn't work out, take BPA or trade back for additional picks.

That said, if the organization isn't enamored with any of the top 5 players in this year's draft, might as well just stand pat & take BPAs at 11/12. It would be nice to know how the top 10 picks would fall before making the decision though. Then you could weigh the 2 players left at 11/12 against who would still be there at 5.

Either way, as long as we don't completely whiff on a prospect, we should be getting some decent players for the future.

[FLPensFan]

You sure that calculator isn't on drugs? 11 12 a 2nd and a 3rd JUST to change into 5 and nothing more? That seems insane. 11 and 12 seems like plenty honestly.

No, but it seems like I might. I keep screwing the calculations up.

Pick 5 has a 50.13 value
Pick 11 has a 31.99 value
Pick 12 has a 29.98 value

We would not have to throw in BOTH picks to move up to 5. But it would be hard for us to only give up 1 of the firsts and make the value work out. 11, plus WSH 2nd rounder, plus our 2nd rounder next year still leaves us short, like, throwing in another 2nd or two 3rds.

"Fair value" would be 11 & 12 for 5th overall, plus NSH 2nd and 3rd rounder this year.

I would not give up both firsts to move up. With that cost, it would be better to simply make one of your picks, and use the other on an already young NHL player, a Byram or McTavish, via trade.

[longtimefan]

We keep hearing how much deeper and stronger the 2026 class is. Some have suggested that a pick in the 20's is akin to the 11th or 12th slot this season. Where would Schafer and Misa go if they were part of next year's class? That's what I'd like to know. If Misa goes 2nd this season, would he be a top 5 next? Or lower. If that's the case, I prefer taking two bonafide NHL prospects rather than one who may be a 2C in 3-5 years. The system needs stars. Even though it has improved (there was nowhere to go but up), the Pens need numbers too. At every position. This isn't likely the draft to find a superstar.

From a few Ranger blogs I've read, it's very unlikely we get the chance to trade both picks. Prevailing wisdom is they'll keep the pick. They mention the same points we do, with the deeper draft and the ability to use the pick as trade bait at the deadline. Still, they believe that the message would have too many negative connotations about the confidence of the front office. Cold water thrown on their feel good story of making Sullivan easily the highest paid coach in the game. And they did win the President's trophy last season. Their belief, at least in terms of public confidence, is they won't be picking anywhere near #12 in the foreseeable future. Maybe optics shouldn't play into it. But they do.

[Victor]

Ok, do we even know where Nashville is picking for sure? PuckPedia shows 5/26/30, Tankathon (updated 3 days ago) shows 5/24/27, and Pro Hockey Rumors (updated today) shows 5/23/26. The lack of NHL draft/prospect coverage is very disappointing.

Regardless, I voted yes. We have 3 3rds this year, so I don't mind losing one to move up. At #5, we'd be getting a player a tier above what will likely be left at 11/12. At that point, I'd consider trying to use the 25th in a package to pick up a prospect closer to NHL action (ex: Clarke from LAK). If that doesn't work out, take BPA or trade back for additional picks.

That said, if the organization isn't enamored with any of the top 5 players in this year's draft, might as well just stand pat & take BPAs at 11/12. It would be nice to know how the top 10 picks would fall before making the decision though. Then you could weigh the 2 players left at 11/12 against who would still be there at 5.

Either way, as long as we don't completely whiff on a prospect, we should be getting some decent players for the future.

The order of the picks can still change depending on who moves to the Conference Finals as those teams will have picks #29-32. Nashville has Vegas' and Tampa's 1st rounders. Considering regular season record, Vegas' pick was #30 and Tampa's was #26.

Tampa's pick is #24 if Toronto wins that series or #23 if Florida wins. Vegas' pick will be #27 if Winnipeg wins or #26 if Dallas wins.

So for example, if Dallas and Florida move to the Conference Finals, Winnipeg's pick will be #28, Washington #27 and Vegas will transfer the #26 pick to Nashville. Then Chicago would get the #25 from Toronto, LA would be #24 and Nashville gets the #23 from Tampa. In this scenario, Nashville would have picks 5-23-26.

[FLPensFan]

We keep hearing how much deeper and stronger the 2026 class is. Some have suggested that a pick in the 20's is akin to the 11th or 12th slot this season. Where would Schafer and Misa go if they were part of next year's class? That's what I'd like to know. If Misa goes 2nd this season, would he be a top 5 next? Or lower. If that's the case, I prefer taking two bonafide NHL prospects rather than one who may be a 2C in 3-5 years. The system needs stars. Even though it has improved (there was nowhere to go but up), the Pens need numbers too. At every position. This isn't likely the draft to find a superstar.

From a few Ranger blogs I've read, it's very unlikely we get the chance to trade both picks. Prevailing wisdom is they'll keep the pick. They mention the same points we do, with the deeper draft and the ability to use the pick as trade bait at the deadline. Still, they believe that the message would have too many negative connotations about the confidence of the front office. Cold water thrown on their feel good story of making Sullivan easily the highest paid coach in the game. And they did win the President's trophy last season. Their belief, at least in terms of public confidence, is they won't be picking anywhere near #12 in the foreseeable future. Maybe optics shouldn't play into it. But they do.

So, I'll use the Athletic's ranking system as a basis. The Athletic, when they run their articles on draft picks, separate them into Tiers. The tiers are:
--Tier 1 - NHL All Star
--Tier 2 - Bubble All Star and top of lineup player
--Tier 3 - Top of lineup player
--Tier 4 - Bubble top of lineup and middle of lineup player
--Tier 5 - Middle of lineup player

That's what they have for this draft, those 5 tiers. They have 36 total players spread across those tiers. Schaefer is the only Tier 1 player, Misa, Martone, and Desnoyers are listed as Tier 2, and Hagens, Frondell, O'Brien, Eklund, and McQueen are listed as Tier 3 players. So 9 players that should be top 6 or 2nd pairing type of guys.

For next year's draft, their April 1 2025 report lists 4 tiers plus a bunch of honorable mention players...but they don't specify the tier meanings. Gavin McKenna is only player they list in Tier 1. Is that still NHL All Star, or do those tiers shift up and McKenna is in a "potential generational talent" class, which seems to be the talk that I hear.

There are 5 players in his Tier 2, and 6 players in his Tier 3. His Tier 4 goes out to 26 players whereas 2025 Tier 4 only goes out to 18 players. He has 23 players listed on honorable mention status for 2026.

I've heard a lot of talk about 2025 vs 2026 draft strength being overblown. Everyone is making it about the top end, but I think the difference is more likely to be the back half....I think 2025 is going to be weaker beyond the 1st round, whereas 2026 may have better "steals" in 2nd and 3rd rounds. There might be a group of 5-10 players in 2026 that could have earned 1st round grades in 2025.

I think that is where the real difference will be.

[Victor]

Maybe this is worth another pool, but how about considering the opposite approach and trade down for more draft capital? Montreal has picks #16, #17, #41 and #49. Calgary has picks #18, #22 and #55. Penguins also has pick #60 and 3 third rounders (picks #73, #84 and #85).

Using Perri Pick value calculator, the same FLPensFan used:

Pick #11: 31.99 value
Pick #60: 3.58

Pick #16: 23.51
Pick #17: 22.18
Pick #41: 7.34
Pick #49: 5.19

Pick #18: 20.94
Pick #22: 16.86
Pick #55: 4.22

Using this metric, "fair value" trades could be #11 and #60 for one of Montreal's 1st rounders and both their 2nds - #16/17, #41 and #49.

With Calgary, it could be #11, #60 and #73 for both #18 and #22.

[FLPensFan]

Maybe this is worth another pool, but how about considering the opposite approach and trade down for more draft capital? Montreal has picks #16, #17, #41 and #49. Calgary has picks #18, #22 and #55. Penguins also has pick #60 and 3 third rounders (picks #73, #84 and #85).

Using Perri Pick value calculator, the same FLPensFan used:

Pick #11: 31.99 value
Pick #60: 3.58

Pick #16: 23.51
Pick #17: 22.18
Pick #41: 7.34
Pick #49: 5.19

Pick #18: 20.94
Pick #22: 16.86
Pick #55: 4.22

Using this metric, "fair value" trades could be #11 and #60 for one of Montreal's 1st rounders and both their 2nds - #16/17, #41 and #49.

With Calgary, it could be #11, #60 and #73 for both #18 and #22.

I wouldn't be against it, but this would definitely be a "last minute" type of trade, where I thought several players on my draft board have fallen and I might be able to pickup at least 2 of them.

If I had a chance to draft at 12, 16, and 17, and pickup Aitcheson, Carbonneau and Reschny.....yeah I might be tempted. Just depends on how things fall.

[Pens4Life]

No, not worth it in this draft.. might not be that much of a difference with #5 vs #11 pick.. waste of 1 pick basically

[mikey287]

If there was ever a draft to do it, it's this one. I only have 6 "A" rated prospects right now...