May 29, 2015
Posts per Day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OldNYIfan</b></div><div>All reasonable points.
Look, if you want to challenge the methodology, fine; as I said previously, I get more suspicious of these valuations the lower on the chart you go. And I've espoused some opinions that, upon mature reflection and/or justified criticism, I've come to realize are simply cuckoo. But don't go around saying I'm making stuff up. That makes you look very bad when I can produce incontrovertible evidence that my contentions have a source for their authority, however questionable that authority may be. It's fine for you to opine that I shouldn't rely on this paper; it's fine for you to opine that the paper is full of beans; it's fine for you to say that no GM in his right mind would make those trades and if I think that there is, I'm nuts; but don't go around saying I'm just making stuff up.</div></div>
Holy macaroni! I felt like Neo talking to the Architect in the Matrix, reading that. :p
Jokes aside, I think the paper in question is completely missing the most important aspect of trading though. Demand and negotiation. Just because someone comes to me and offers two 4ths and a 7th, that I have to accept it as fair value..... This papers chart is a very rough framework for "expected value". Its not an exact science. Teams have been known to pay more than what the expected value would cost to get a player through trading picks. It came down to how much the GM valued the player they wanted to draft with that pick. Ultimately, this paper values shown are their their opinion, but it is just that. An opinion. If you have 31 GM's who don't have that same opinion, then that paper is as good as garbage. Vice versa if they do agree with it. Frankly there is plenty of trade history that debunks some of this papers theory as well as some that prove it. That's precisely why its just a theory.
Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of bouncing these idea off real GM's to see what they think so we have to try on each other. While a bunch of us certainly have no professional experience, the collective community knowledge of trading on this site is actually not half bad (Excluding the ones I think we can all agree are either 12 year old kids or trolls).
IMHO, I would never trade virtually any of my 2nd rounders except for <em>maybe</em> very late ones, for a two 4ths and a 7th. I still feel the % of hitting a good player is higher in one 2nd than it is in multiple later rounds. I don't feel the data can disprove my rationale, at least not yet.
Just a last tidbit, we build teams based on what we as individuals feel is "good". That definition of good is very subjective so its not necessarily wrong or right until proven otherwise. I kind of feel this paper's premise is un-provable. You either agree with it or you don't. Neither is right nor wrong. Just different perspectives on how to go about rating draft pick values. A starting point, where the middle and end is determined by other factors.
Edit: Just realized i quoted the wrong comment accidentally. Either way this was more in regards to the discussion than it was this comment quoted. Ok bedtime for me, I think.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>bsilk18</b></div><div>Bruh i was wwrong about Gourde, I admiteed that lol damn,
But no, I actually like Subban, since leaving the canadians system he has been able to clean up his game more which is awesome (and indicative of the canadians system). Listen, if they need him to get to the floor, and he is still decent then fine. But then why have James Neal (20+ goals) on this list, or Justin Abdelkader (who is just helping the wings hit the floor). Or why not have Frans Nielson or Darren Helm here. There are a few flaws with the requirements to be here then so that is the issue</div></div>
James Neal: despite 20 goals is a player the Oilers could live without and with other players contracts coming in like Bear, Nurse, Yamamoto, etc they'll need that extra cap. Ask any EDM fan, even if Neal is doing better than Lucic was, they'd buy him out if they could. (Assuming its a CBO so no cap penalty)
Abdelkader: Detroit doesn't need help reaching the floor if its at the cost of a player they are paying full salary to that also gives them nothing in return. They can use dead cap players like Hossa, Zetterberg, etc to help with that. Abdelkader is costing the wings a lot of money for basically just playing a 10 min 4th line position. That's not helping them. Detroit still has to pay him 10M......that's a lot of money even for these owners.
Nielsen and Helm are actually providing Detroit with better production that Abdelkader is so they make more sense to keep and plus teams will only get 1 CBO so they have to choose wisely.
There are no flaws here, you are simply not taking all factors into consideration. You clearly didn't realize about Gourde and TB so maybe Im just not wrong.....