Dec 3, 2017
Posts per Day
Forum: NHLThu at 12:49 am <div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ricochetii</b></div><div>As I said, it's not a complete analysis. However ...
Contracts and player control are very situational. They aren't factors until they become factors. You base your trade with it in mind. It doesn't impact the value once a trade is negotiated, but the initial decision of whether to make the trade or not.
You obviously don't trade for or sign a player you aren't confident of. They at least have a proven NHL track record. If you manage to overestimate their value or performance despite that, that's poor evaluation.
That Colorado trade kind of made everyone's jaws drop at the time because it seems a little overboard, but doesn't it kind of reinforce the idea that it takes more than just a 1st round pick to acquire a player of that caliber?
Keep in mind Ottawa was supposed to be a contender. That wasn't supposed to be even close to a top 10 pick. Even so, I believe Girard is the only piece that has shown value to date? Can't review right now. Time will tell for the rest.
Ottawa also recovered some value. They got to use him for almost 2 seasons and still got 2 prospects and up to 2 1st round picks when they moved him as a rental.</div></div>
It's true that the teams that make these trades are almost always Cup contenders b/c they realize they're mortgaging part of their future in the hope that they can win now or in the near future. Personally, I've always felt very strongly that these types of trades rarely pay big dividends for all but the top Cup contending teams are usually better off keeping their 1st rounders. Obviously, this is just a theory of mine and I have no data to corroborate it. The OTT trade for Duchene was an anomaly but their management team acted impulsively nonetheless. Teams who build through the draft are usually those positioned for long term success. However, the real team killers are bad UFA signings like Marleau, Neal, or Lucic. These are very tough to recover from.
I do agree w/ your theory about trading a top six player for a top 10 pick (outside top 3). However, if a team is in a rebuild mode then it probably is worth the risk to acquire the draft pick. Hence the Erik Karlsson, Mark Stone, or Max Pacioretty trades. The contenders benefit in the short term and the rebuilding teams build for the future. Everyone wins...at least on paper. Of course it helps if the contending team(s), in this case VGK were able to extend both acquisitions long term. And SJS are still alive in the playoffs.
I do applaud your creativity and intuition. Great theory.
Forum: NHLWed at 10:08 pm <div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ricochetii</b></div><div>I continuously see increased emphasis on 1st round picks, specifically those in the top 10.
It is to the point where the suggestion is often that a top 10 pick, on it's own, is sufficient to acquire a top 6 NHL player.
In an attempt to understand that perception, I decided to look back at the forward drafted from 2010-2016, to see exactly what one can reasonably expect a top 10 pick to produce in terms of an NHL forward.
This is not an in depth analysis. That would require a much larger investment of time. I broke this down in a way which would give a quick glance based on the following notes:
1. I chose the 2010's for a more recent sample. I stopped at 2016, since many more recently drafted players will as yet have categorized themselves.
2. I only looked at forwards. Defensemen require a much deeper analysis in more categories.
3. I think it is fair to say that the goal, or most basic requirement in successfully drafting a forward in the top 10 is to acquire a player who will at least produce at the level of a top 6 forward. Therefore I only looked at points.
4. I graded players based on career-to-date points/game average and where that would place them in this season's ranking among players with at least 30 games played.
<strong>A</strong> - 1st Line: Top 25% among forwards (0.68 P/G or more)
<strong>B</strong> - 2nd Line: Top 50% among forwards (0.45 P/G or more)
<strong>C</strong> - 3rd Line: Bottom 50% among forwards (0.33 P/G or more)
<strong>D</strong> - 4th Line: Bottom 25% among forwards (Less than 0.33 P/G)
A total of 46 forwards were drafted in the top 10 over a course of 7 years from 2010-2016.
Of those players:
21 were grade A (Top Line) or 45.65%
12 were grade B (2nd Line) or 26.09%
9 were grade C (3rd Line) or 19.57%
4 were grade D (4th Line or worse) or 8.70%
We can consider drafting a C or D player in the top 10 as a failure. Nobody would ever trade a top 10 pick for a 3rd or 4th line player.
There's an 8.70% chance of a bust, and a 28.26% chance of at least disappointment.
Trading any A or B player, for a pick that has greater than a 50% chance of being equal or worse than what you are giving up, is poor asset management.
So what about top 3?
18 players: 12 A 4 B 2 C
That's about a 70% chance of an A and only a 10% chance of a bust.
In the case of a top 3 pick, the risk may be worth it. If you are giving up a high level B player or low level A player, you are likely to end up with at least a similar player and the 10% risk of something worse is negligible.
So eliminating the top 3 picks, the rest breaks down as:
28 players: 9 A 8 B 7 C 4 D
Which is a 32% chance of an A and a 39% chance of a bust.
This is what lead me down this path to begin with.
Trading an A or B player one-for-one in hopes that a pick outside the top 3 will be an upgrade isn't wise. At best, it's a coin toss between worse or better. There's a roughly equal chance that it changes nothing. You give up a sure thing and end up with the same player, but you have to wait a few years for him.
In short, outside of the top 3, It makes more sense for the team trading the pick to include additional pieces to acquire a player in the mid-high B range or better, than it does for the team trading the player to do a straight swap or include extra pieces. If you're weighting it in the other direction, you are either making a bad deal or assuming the other GM will.</div></div>
There are many variables. One advantage to drafting a top 10 player instead of trading is that the drafted player will be playing 3 years on an entry level contract. Also, the top 10 pick is a restricted free agent after the ELC expires. Look at how many top six forwards that've been acquired through free agency or trades have backfired terribly. My guess is that the top 10 pick has far less downside. Just look at what NSH and OTT gave up in the Matt Duchene/Kyle Turris trade. COL won that trade big time by acquiring the picks and prospects.
Forum: NHLTue at 10:38 pm Forum: NHLTue at 10:35 pm Forum: NHLTue at 12:58 pm <div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>rangersandislesfan</b></div><div>Who watched the STL-WPG game? I watched it and for the first few periods, the Jets were not even close to good enough. It was NOT a good game for the Jets. They got two goals later in the 3rd but it was too late. They wasted their timeout early in the game on a dumb challenge (which was obviously a goal, not even close), and then when they needed it they didn't have their timeout to challenge the later STL goal which shouldn't have counted because of goaltender interference.
For the Blues, what a story. Last place in the NHL in JANUARY, and they somehow make the playoffs and win a round. Unbelievable. Definitely a great story. Jordan Binnington is a huge part of that. Craig Berube has been a very good coach, too. A lot of their struggling players got going, and now they'll play either Nashville or Dallas in the 2nd round. If it's Dallas, that's a rematch of the 2016 2nd round, and if it's Nashville, that's a rematch of the 2017 2nd round. But either way, home ice advantage will go to the team who didn't have home ice advantage last time.</div></div>
That 2nd period was probably the most dominant period any team played so far this playoff season. It def. could've been a 5-0 lead after two periods if not for the great goaltending of Hellebuyck. It was a terrific series and the better team won, but had WPG managed their game a little bit better it may have been a different story. I think STL and VGK are the Cup favorites at this point.
Forum: NHLSat at 10:08 pm <div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>rangersandislesfan</b></div><div>It depends what "upset" means. There has been some disagreement about that. Some people think an upset is if the lower seeded team wins the series, and some think it's the team who was picked to win by less people wins. However, some people think not every series is a potential upset series. For example, whether it's Winnipeg or St. Louis who wins that series, maybe neither is an upset, because even though the Jets were probably the favourite going into the series, it was very close. IMO an upset is when the clear favourite who was getting way more picks to win the series than the other ends up losing the series. I wouldn't call the Islanders-Penguins series an upset, just because as much as Pittsburgh was the favourite, it was somewhat close. Columbus and Colorado were upsets in my opinion, because WAY more people were picking Tampa Bay and Calgary to win those series. I also usually don't think about number of games when talking about how big an upset it was. Sure, maybe it's more surprising, but if I'm looking for the biggest upset, I'm not thinking as much about the number of games. I'm trying to think of the biggest surprise series winner. So, for example, Montreal beating Washington in 2010 was a bigger upset in my opinion than Nashville sweeping Chicago in 2017, even though it took Montreal 7 games. Because even though Nashville and Chicago was an upset (because way more people were picking Chicago to win the series) and not a very high percentage of people were picking Nashville to win the series, there were more people picking them to beat Chicago than there were picking Montreal to beat Washington.</div></div>
I would def. not consider STL an upset winner over WPG. However, NYI sweeping PIT is an upset b/c of PIT's playoff experience and star power. A crazy upset, actually.
Forum: NHLApr 17 at 11:15 Forum: NHLApr 17 at 11:11 <div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>rangersandislesfan</b></div><div>I'm saying maybe the Lightning aren't as good as we think. Great regular season team? Yes. Great playoff team? Maybe not as great a playoff team as people thought they were going to be. Teams like Pittsburgh and Washington have been able to do that, but the Lightning haven't yet. I really don't know what to expect in game 4. I think Columbus is going to win the series, but I can't decide what I think will happen in game 4. Part of me is telling me Tampa Bay is going to win game 4 because it just seems like they're too good to get swept by Columbus in the 1st round, but part of me is saying that Columbus will sweep the series because they keep winning games when it seems like Tampa Bay should win. Not that Tampa Bay was better in those games, but i'm saying going into the games it seemed like Tampa Bay had to win. It didn't seem right for Columbus to win game 3, and while I knew it could happen, and there was a pretty decent chance of that happening, I thought Tampa Bay was going to win that game. Also, the same thing happened with game 2. Game 1 not so much because whichever team won it would only be 1-0. But going into game 2 it seemed like Tampa Bay was the more likely team to win that game because how could a team that good go down 2-0? They haven't been as good as we thought they'd be. So, I have no prediction for game 4. That would be too hard to pick. We'll just see what ends up happening.</div></div>
I remember how dominant WASH was in the first 2 games last season only to see TBL roar back and win 3 straight. So it's def. NOT over yet. Personally, I see Tampa getting steamrolled again in game 4, but that's just me. I wouldn't be shocked to see Cooper adjust and extend the series back to Tampa. This could just be a terrible matchup for TBL. Torts has been able to exploit all of TBL's weaknesses so far. I'll also say that it's probably more likely that TBL mounts a comeback than PIT against the Islanders.