We all play the odd lottery scratch ticket, right? The appeal of spending a couple of bucks to take our shot and possibly hit the jackpot is too good to pass up. More often than not, the “Better luck next time” message appears under the scratched surface, but we can’t win the big one if we never play, so we keep scratching.



Draft picks are a lot like lottery scratch tickets. I am not talking about the top 10-15 picks per year, guys that are likely to not only make the NHL but become stars. I’m talking about the other 210 or so picks. There are only so many jackpots in there. Don’t get me wrong, it’s an outstanding achievement just to be among those drafted, but having a significant NHL career is a whole other story. There are an awful lot of ”Sorry, try again” picks that never pan out, or that make it to the NHL but aren’t able to muster an impactful career there.<div class="injected-ad injected-video" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="0" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="167"></div>



There is always value in having more draft capital than less draft capital, but how you use that capital is an interesting question. As I watched the 2022 trade deadline unfold and saw a total of 54 draft picks moved, including six first-round picks and 13 second-round picks, I couldn’t help but wonder: is there more value in making your picks or more value in the certainty of trading them for known commodities?&nbsp;



The Tampa Bay Lightning’s trade with the Chicago Blackhawks for Brandon Hagel is a really interesting one, because I don’t think it was only about finding the missing roster piece in the chase for a third straight Stanley Cup. I suspect that even if Tampa wasn’t in the Cup mix this year, it might have made the trade. Its willingness to give up two first-round picks, plus a couple of developing roster players, for the 23-year-old Hagel speaks to the organization valuing the certainty of the short term over the long-term “what ifs” of the draft.<div class="injected-ad" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="1" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="169"></div>



I say that because the Lightning could have given up less draft capital to acquire a player like Andrew Copp to satisfy their short-term goal, but, in Hagel, they are also making a bet for their future. The Bolts acquired a young player with star potential that has two more years on a contract with a very low salary-cap hit. Looking ahead, I think the Lightning viewed having Hagel as a better long-term value proposition than having two high picks that are unlikely to ever become what Hagel is right now.



Tampa has the luxury of being in a position to play those odds. Winning gives you a bit of latitude and also means your picks won’t be at the top of each round. Arguably, the Blackhawks were the team more in need of having a young star with certainty of output, but their time horizon is different, and they are trying to sell hope. Only time will tell if the players and draft picks they acquired have more impact in their organization than Hagel could have had.&nbsp;<div class="injected-ad" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="2" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="178"></div>



The deadline wasn’t the first time that thoughts about the value of making picks versus trading them crossed my mind. I once had a very interesting conversation with a senior league official who had lots of draft-related experience, and he rhetorically posed the following question:



“Unless a team has a top 10-15 pick, wouldn’t they be better off trading all seven of their picks, each of which is a gamble, for proven NHL players where the outcome is known?”



It’s a novel thought. In his opinion, not trading your draft picks was the more risky route to success but the safer choice from an optics point of view. You don’t want to be the GM that trades the pick someone uses to select the next Connor McDavid. It’s the football equivalent of always punting on fourth down to avoid the scenario where your running back is stuffed for a loss and the game ends on the next play when the opponent kicks a short field goal. Yet the odds of draft picks “hitting” and having significant careers is actually rather small, so by my league contact’s logic, why wouldn’t you trade them for players with a known ability to play on your team? Statistically speaking, the most likely scenario is that the player acquired for the pick(s) plays more games for the organization than the draft pick ever does.<div class="injected-ad" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="3" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="229"></div>



According to an <a href="https://dobberprospects.com/2020/05/16/nhl-draft-pick-probabilities/">analysis completed in 2020</a> which considered all the players drafted between 2000 and 2009, the following is the percentage of players drafted, by round, that logged 100 or more games in the NHL (using 100 games as a benchmark for having a career of significance):



&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1st&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 37.3%



&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2nd&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 17.2%



&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3rd&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 13.7%



&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 4th&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 10.9%



&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 5th&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 7.5%



&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 6th&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 7.9%



&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 7th&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 5.5%



These are surprisingly low numbers, especially considering that the first-round percentage is skewed upward by the large probability of success associated with players drafted in the top third of the round. With that much uncertainty inherent in the rest of the draft, you can see why the idea of trading all picks for known players should have some appeal.



I think there are two reasons teams don’t routinely adopt this strategy. One is the fear of missing the big high side on a draft pick. There are gems in every round, and if you are confident your scouts can uncover a few more than average, you might lean toward keeping the picks and trusting that you can mine gold. The second reason teams have traditionally held onto their picks is financial. Draft picks become entry-level players, and entry-level players are subject to maximum compensation levels, which GMs love on a team’s salary cap and owners love on a team’s payroll.<div class="injected-ad" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="4" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="229"></div>



In the past, teams could also count on some cost control existing with respect to players emerging from the entry-level system. Historically, these players would sign moderate second contracts as restricted free agents before finally signing more lucrative deals as unrestricted free agents. In recent years, the system has been turned on its head, with more and more young stars signing mega-deals upon completion of their entry-level contracts, bearing little connection to whether they are RFAs or UFAs.



The big RFA deals have led to a narrowing of hockey’s middle class. With a team’s biggest stars getting paid more, and earlier, the rest of the roster players scratch and claw to get the leftover cap dollars and often have to settle for salaries that fall much closer to that of an entry level player – and sometimes below. With that reality, the need to use draft picks to find cheap entry-level players is much less compelling. You can trade the picks for known entities that still fit into the budget nicely, like Tampa did with Hagel.<div class="injected-ad" data-nn-ad-tech-injection-count="5" data-nn-ad-tech-max-gap="130" data-nn-ad-tech-current-gap="176"></div>



I’m not advocating for one strategy or the other, just making an observation that there is more than one way to look at your draft capital. Make the picks or trade the picks. Either way, get as many scratch tickets as you can and it will lead to the uncovering of more winners.&nbsp;