SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

sharcuda22

sharcuda22
Member Since
Apr. 18, 2022
Favourite Team
San Jose Sharks
2nd Favourite Team
Seattle Kraken
Forum Posts
1741
Posts per Day
2.4
Forum: Armchair-GM6 hours ago
Thread: NHL GMs should offer sheet
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div>Lundell has to be willing to accept the OS also. This offer is like pretty much what he'll get from the Panthers when you factor taxes into it. So its an easy no for him. (Logically speaking)

Going to SJ to be a bottom dweller for the foreseeable future making slightly more money but more taxes OR stay on a perennial cup contender and make a little less money now maybe but more in the long term.... Can't even say the weather is better as a main factor either.

That's why if you do OS someone, the money has to be sooooo much more than the player deserves for them to realistically accept. Just like UFA's, you have to overpay.

Want Lundell? Offer minimum 6.5-7M. Panthers couldn't match and Its a significant overpay that would make any player think twice about. Problem is you better be confident Lundell is a top end player because everyone thought KK was going to be amazing in Carolina and we all know how that is turning out.</div></div>

I dont see how they can afford Lundell unless the plan is to let Reinhardt walk
Forum: Armchair-GM11 hours ago
Thread: Clinched
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>jamnjon</b></div><div>I thought it might be interesting to look through a bunch of draft day pick trades involving 1st round picks (18 total) and have the data based on the Athletic's pick value chart...most of the time the team trading up overpays by roughly 10-20%, though there was 1 example of a team (unfortunately the Sharks going for Goldobin) losing a tiny bit of value while trading back and some of them are closer to even, some are over 20%.

Looking through capfriendly entry draft trades involving at least 3 picks - 1 on one side, 2 on another, and at least 1 1st rounder), skipping any that include players since those are tougher to quantify (bold involves the Sharks):
40+51 for 27 = 2.1 + 1.5 for 3.2 = 0.4 sweetener to trade up or 12.5% of the pick value for the side with the better pick
<strong>27+34+45 for 11 = 3.2 + 2.5 + 1.8 for 5.7 = 1.8 sweetener or 31.58% (Bystedt)</strong>
90+22 for 20 = 0.6 + 3.7 for 4.0 = 0.3 sweetener or 7.5%
23+48+138 for 15 = 3.6+1.7+0.3 for 4.9 = 0.7 sweetener or 14.28%
24+80 for 22 = 3.5+0.7 for 3.7 = 0.5 sweetener or 13.51%
22+72 for 19 = 3.7+0.9 for 4.2 = 0.4 sweetener or 9.52%
14+45 for 11 = 5.1 +1.8 for 5.7 = 1.2 sweetener or 21.05%

Continuing to scroll back just looking at trades involving the Sharks or trades into the top 15
<strong>20+179 for 27 + 62 = 4.0 + 0.2 for 3.2+1.1, the Sharks actually lost 0.1 in value trading back (Goldobin)
20+58 for 18 = 4.0+1.2 for 4.3 = 0.9 sweetener or 20.93% (trade up for Mirco Mueller)</strong>
21+42 for 14 = 3.9 + 2.0 for 5.1 = 0.8 sweetener or 15.69%
19 + 59 for 15 = 4.2 + 1.2 for 4.9 = 0.5/10.2%
16+77+182 for 12 = 4.7 0.8 + 0.2 for 5.5 = 0.2/3.64%
9+40 for 7 = 6.3+2.1 for 7.1 = 1.3/18.31%
7+68 + 2nd rounder 1 year out (ended up 37, was expected to be fairly early) for 5 = 7.1 + 1.0 + future 2nd (37 is 2.3 but it could've been anywhere from 1.2 to 2.8 if you value the pick a year out as equal, expected at the higher value end) for 8.2, the 2nd was pretty much the sweetener.
future 3rd (1 year out, ended at 70) + 18 for 15 (EK65) = 4.3+future 3rd (0.6-1.1, ended at 0.9) for 4.9, about 0.3 of a sweetener.
17+28 for 12 which was then flipped for 13+future 3rd = 4.5+3.1 for 5.5 -&gt; 5.3 + 0.8 next year
<strong>13+44 + future 3rd (+1yr 87) for 9 (Couture) = 5.3+1.9 + 0.6 for 6.3 = 23.81% give or take for future pick value</strong>

Edit: If you count and only see 17, note that the second to last one involves pick 12 being traded twice.</div></div>

Oh this is cool work! So the model does work pretty well and the trade I’ve proposed I think falls within this range. Thank you for sharing its interesting to see all these trades.
Forum: Armchair-GM12 hours ago
Thread: Canadiens 2024-2025
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Headhack</b></div><div>I get it I'm exaggerating of course but even assuming that he's worth a 1st is far fetched but I could see it happening in the future. However this type of player on a contender is a 3rd line winger that's probably in the 30-40 range similar to Duclair who just fetched 2 x 3rd rounders at the TDL.

Duclair similar type of player however not the same contract situation with control, however available on the market just to name him... Hence trading Barron for Zetterlund (25 this summer) value wise isn't far fetched as you're portraying it to be.</div></div>

I would disagree quite a bit. Duclair and Zetterlund put up similar points totals but they play very differently. Zett is more in line with typical be big and hit hockey guys. I also never said he was worth a first that was you again. Barron and Zetterlund have quite a gap in value. Zetterlund is already a proven NHLer, and Barron is not demonstrably better than the RD we already have in Ruuta Burroughs Benning Emberson or Thompson. We just dont need a player like him and certainly not as the main piece coming back in a trade for Zetterlund. The value isnt close.
Forum: Armchair-GMYesterday at 5:07 p.m.
Thread: Canadiens 2024-2025
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Matt1567</b></div><div>are you suggesting this is good for San Jose or am I misunderstanding what you mean? I see the benefit for Montreal 100%, but I don't get the incentive for San Jose to make this move</div></div>

There is no, its sarcasm because its value is way off and the main piece coming back is one the sharks already have x100. I also want to clarify that I never said the return for Zett would be a 1++. If he’s plays at the same pace and someone wants to trade for him. That’s a RFA 20 goal scorer x2 making under 2million and team control. He’s also a profile the sharks really really like. that means if he is gonna move it’s gonna be an over pay. You chose to take overpay as meaning 1st++ I didn’t say that <a href="/users/headhack" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@headhack</a>
Forum: Armchair-GMYesterday at 4:51 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMYesterday at 4:46 p.m.
Thread: Canadiens 2024-2025
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Matt1567</b></div><div>43 points on the 2nd lowest scoring team isn't bad at all, especially for someone playing his 2nd full NHL season. He's a bit of a late bloomer, being 24 already but he's a cheap young forward that can score 20 goals on a bad team, sure he may not produce as well in a lesser role, but he's more important to the sharks than that trade package would be.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Headhack</b></div><div>Zetterlund had a 40pts season on a depleted Sharks team with 1st line minutes and PP. I like him as a 3rd liner RW which is what we need but let's not pretend he's worth 2 x 1st and a A prospect.

IMO Barron is already an overpay. Might not move him as you need NHL caliber players but yeah he ain't untouchable.</div></div>

When you can trade a youngish 20 goal scorer for a 22y/o who hasn’t quite stuck in NHL yet and wont be more than a 5/6 guy and you have a clogged blue line you gotta do it.
Forum: Armchair-GMMon. at 8:33 a.m.
Thread: Clinched
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>RazorSeider53</b></div><div>I can keep going...

2021 Detroit trades 23, 48, and 138 for 15. According to the chart they overpaid. That should've gotten them to 11/12.
2021 Minnesota trades 22 and 90 for 20. According to the chart they overpaid. That should've gotten them 18.
2021 Nashville trades 40 and 51 for 27. According to the chart they overpaid. That should've gotten them 23.
2020 NYR trades 22 and 72 for 19. According to the chart they overpaid. That should've gotten them 16/17.
2020 Washington trades 24 and 80 for 22. According to the chart they overpaid. That should've gotten them 19.
2019 Arizona trades 14 and 45 for 11. According to the chart they overpaid. That should've gotten them 7/8.
2018 NYR trades 26 and 48 for 22. According to the chart they overpaid. That should've gotten them 14/15.
2018 STL trades 29 and 76 for 25. According to the chart they overpaid. That should've gotten them 21/22.

That's every 1st round pick swap since 2018. Every. Single. One. The chart says they overpaid. By a difference of multiple draft picks. It's almost like there's a trend there... <em>It's almost like the trend shows that it costs more than you and your precious chart think it does to move up.</em> :tearsofjoy</div></div>

My trade is already an over pay -_- by 1.0 pts, but ill for sure add a third to the next one I am glad that suddenly first round pucks do get swapped and these examples are valid comparables though. I wonder where these were yesterday
Forum: Armchair-GMMon. at 8:28 a.m.
Thread: Clinched
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>RazorSeider53</b></div><div>You are, once again, trying to compare 11 for 27 to 8 for 14. It's not the same thing, no matter how hard you try to make it the same thing.

By the way, since you keep wanting to make this comparison, according to your Athletic chart, the package Arizona gave to move up to 11 should've actually got them to 6th. In fact, 27th (3.2) and 35th (2.4) should've been enough to get them to 11th (5.7) without even adding 45th. (1.8)

<em>... Which kinda verifies my statement that it's more expensive than your precious chart has you deluded into believing. </em></div></div>

It is an extremely valid comparison. The model of the trade is the exact same. I will without hesitation add the extra second the sharks have as a sweetener. As someone and i have also talked about, the power dynamics of the trade can add the need for a sweetener. In this case youre getting a much better first and a better second (marginally) for a marginally better first, while the sharks adding 42ish would make it over kill thats okey.

I have also never said that using the model on its own is good practice, just that I used it to define the parameters of a trade that is as the picks currently stand. your vendetta of 8 for 14 instead of pens first + sharks second to get into range of 8-11 because we dont know where the picks will end up is your own. Thank you for finally articulating the logic of your point beyond 11 for 27 is different 8 to 14 for some ambiguous reason, but 7 to 9 is comparable for some other also undefined ambiguous reason.

EDIT: Not that this will sway you but 8(6.7) is actually smaller value 14(5.1)+33(2.6) so my value was already an overpay.
Forum: Armchair-GMSun. at 4:22 p.m.
Thread: Clinched
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>jamnjon</b></div><div>I do think if the Sharks try to move up from 14 to 8 they likely have to throw in another pick as well (maybe Tampa's 3rd, maybe swapping NJ's 2nd for Calgary's 3rd). Most of the trades I've compared from the Athletic's pick value chart the team moving up overpays, usually because they're trading up to get someone they're targeting. The trade you're discussing is something I pretty frequently use as an example...based on the pick valuations 27 + 33 was equal to 11, but the Desert Dogs threw in the additional 1.8 GSVA of pick 45 to get the deal done so they could get their target (Geekie).</div></div>

Very true and good suggestion! Even if we needed to toss in an extra pick to be sure i would definitely be okey with that. The extra prolly come from the position of power the sellers are in like you are saying.
Forum: Armchair-GMSun. at 4:15 p.m.
Thread: Clinched
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>RazorSeider53</b></div><div>No. Trying to trade 14 for 8 is not trying to trade 27 for 11. I know numbers are hard for you, but these are not remotely close lol.</div></div>

If you could read, you might understand, referencing one of multiple times I’ve made this point. The point is not that it is 8 for 14. It is that we should use the pens pick plus our second to move up somewhere in the range of where Zeev will fall. That has been projected to be 8-11 ish. I referenced a model that has recently been pretty accurate, and has one of the more prominent hock stats guys in Dom behind it (2021 Sharks Coyotes trade).

And im not sure that is making the point you want it too anyways. There is a bigger bridge to be gapped between 11-27 and a larger fall off in quality (generally) than from 8-14 (generally).
Are you trying to tell me that 8 and 11 are not remotely close? Or that the gap between 14 and 8 (6) is bigger than 11 and 27 (16). Or that the gap in quality of player between 14 and 8 is larger than 27 and 11?

11 for 27,34,45 is comparable to 8 for 14 and 33. You’re moving ten less spaces up so you take off one mid second essentially, you could even add the devils second for it but that would be an overpay.
Forum: Armchair-GMSun. at 3:27 p.m.
Thread: Clinched
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>RazorSeider53</b></div><div>“If it were to happen the value is about right.”

Yes, based on your pick value charts that have been proven inaccurate time and again.

Not based on actual trades, of which you can’t cite any evidence to suggest it’s even close to proper value.

Not sure how that continues to escape you.</div></div>

Sharks 2021 trade that I have already mentioned. Both uses the model of trading up or down in the first round using 2nd round pick(s) and is extremely closely aligned with the athletic’s draft pick value chart. 11 - &gt; 27 and got two early seconds to move back 16 spots, and was with in .5-1 pts of the value chart. So, not a reach to say trading back 6 instead of 16 spots = 33rd pick. Not that i am even suggesting that would be the exact trade. Not surprised you missed that given how selective your reading is.

Not sure how that continues to escape you
Forum: Armchair-GMSun. at 2:42 p.m.
Thread: Clinched
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>RazorSeider53</b></div><div>You’re right, it is different. 16 years ago we got multiple pick swaps in the top 10. Today, we don’t get them at all. 😂

Do continue shoving your own foot down your throat.</div></div>

This is an ACGM, and this is theoretical proposal. This is not the NHL it is a made up website with a feature dedicated specifically to exploring things that may not and likely wont happen in the real world because, as armchair dm’s we have a very limited amount of information compared to the people making these decisions. I have never claimed this will happen or what the likelihood of such a trade is, only that if it were to happen the value is about right. I have also stated from the beginning this isn’t necessarily about moving 8-14 specifically, only that in this current time with these currently being the value of where the picks are currently at. We cant know how each teams value any given player in the draft which is ultimately what the movement of draft picks at the draft is about.

Additionally, just because something hasn’t happened in 16 years doesnt mean it wont happen again. I do not know why critical thinking makes you so salty, you are perhaps the silliest of geese