Goodrow for a 1st is the most controversial trade of the day, for good reason. I have some thoughts on the deal, which are somewhat contradictory but stay with me. #GoBolts
Goodrow has a decently strong analytical profile that places him roughly in the 60th percentile of NHL skaters in terms of wins above replacement. He's also done well enough in bigger minutes this season, and will be cheap next year for cap-strapped TB.
The 1st round draft pick (actually a pick swap between an early 3rd and a late 1st, so about 40-50 picks) does not have a particularly high chance of become an impact player - as past studies have shown, the gap in on-ice value between a late first and an early 3rd is very small.
In a vacuum, Tampa probably comes out ahead here in terms of the value they'll get from Goodrow (assuming that his mostly defence-driven success is repeatable) compared to the value the Sharks will gain moving from a 3rd to a late 1st.
Nonetheless, in my opinion what matters most when trading draft picks (especially 1sts) is not the actual expected on-ice value of the pick, but the market value of the pick. Which is where I think Tampa Bay comes out far weaker here.
A late 1st round pick is likely the most consistently over-valued asset in the NHL. In my opinion you shouldn't trade one for well below its market value. And I think that's what Tampa Bay did here.
I highly doubt there was a massive bidding war over Goodrow, who up until a string of injuries this season was a career 4th liner, and has never scored over 8 goals in a season.
Tampa has limited assets with which to make the kinds of smart move they made to get Blake Coleman, so the trade capital of a 1st round pick shouldn't be spent so frivolously.
TL;DR: Goodrow is a decent player, TB didn't trade a 1st for a scrub, and the on-ice value they get out of him will likely exceed the value they lost from dropping 40-50 draft slots. But IMO the most important value of a late 1st is market value, and they lost on that count.
