SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

sharcuda22

sharcuda22
Member Since
Apr. 18, 2022
Favourite Team
San Jose Sharks
2nd Favourite Team
Seattle Kraken
Forum Posts
1757
Posts per Day
2.4
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 15 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-GMApr. 15 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-GMApr. 14 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-GMApr. 14 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-GMApr. 14 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-GMApr. 14 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
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 14 at 1:23 p.m.
Thread: Clinched
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Lancebmx</b></div><div>I think that would depend on how the draft went and which team likes which players. Speculating on that is so hard cause no one knows which players each team is targeting. If a team likes all the players between 8-14 fairly evenly then it could be an easy trade. If they feel like #8 is substantially better than what they get at around #14 then in my eyes that makes it much more difficult. I think it 100% depends on the first 7 picks, if someone they expected to go top 5 slips to 8, then how do you trade that pick? You just need 1 team to take what might be considered a reach, Arizona last year with Simashev and But is a perfect example. They liked those players so they took them even though most draft boards had them going slightly later in the draft.</div></div>

Yes exactly this is what im trying to communicate! There is so much context that influences all of this. All i did for this was look at where the value between the pens first and our second currently landed and did that. I didn’t expect to have to explain the value of statistical analysis + how to fill in its shortfalls. But this type of theoretical move is exactly what the ACGM should be used for IMO
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 14 at 1:21 p.m.
Thread: Clinched
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>RazorSeider53</b></div><div>It literally. Doesn't. Happen. :tearsofjoy

Last pick swap in the Top 10 was 16 years ago. NYI did it twice. The second was 7 for 9 and they picked up a 2nd out of it. To drop 2 spots.</div></div>

This is a theoretical ACGM, soooooo I dont really care about the past NHL trades. We all know how boring 31 NHL GM’s are, and the NHL would be a better product if more and bigger trades happened and smaller contracts were handed out. If we only posted things we were reasonably certain would happen then this particular feature wouldnt have much value.

Also this is missing a lot of context, but you seem to love to leave that out. 7 for 9+40, and 5 for 7+37+68. I also dont have context about how the draft was perceived at the time. Did the teams trading just realllllly like the players they wanted? Was there a clear top 5,8,10? Analytics have also improved considerably since 2008 and there is a bigger emphasis on development paths and patterns in today’s NHL front offices, but no clear indication how this has affected the perceived value of draft picks overtime.

So a second can move you up in the first round, and the sharks currently hold the most valuable second rounder in the draft. There is a top 1 and then IMO a clear 2-11 although the order is murky. So it will depend on who likes what guys and where ‘the murmurs’ say they’ll go. Depending on where the penguins pick lands and where Zeev might still be on the board they may not need to get to 8 or may have a more valuable pick than 14. This was just where about the current value of placement of picks ended up landing at this moment in time.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 14 at 12:53 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 14 at 12:50 p.m.
Thread: Clinched
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>RazorSeider53</b></div><div>It doesn't check out value wise. You can keep telling yourself that 8 for 14 is the same as 11 for 27 though. :tearsofjoy

Little tip on your pick value charts. Several of the people who made those charts used to grade the high end picks in the 10s or even hundreds of value. They moved to decimal grading because when people figured out that the charts are terribly inaccurate, being off by 4.2 points sounds a hell of a lot better than being off by 42 points.</div></div>

I hate to tell about how statistics work, but models get better over time (generally). So, the readjusting of value doesnt mean the whole model is worthless, it just means if you have found a better way to account the variability of a given variable you should adjust, if you didn’t it would be unscientific.

Of course you cant use statistical modeling on its own to determine the value of these picks as it changes depending on organizational needs, and player preferences vs who is available which are difficult to account for. However as a basis for determining how often picks produce NHLers and standardizing that across years you can get an indication of a draft picks likelihood to produce an NHLer which is what the points system is telling you. I think the sharks yotes trade was with .5 of the values assigned with these tables. Finally how you apply these charts will also influence their ‘accuracy’. For example in last years draft there was a clear divide between the top 4 picks and the rest in terms of value, whereas this one is Celebrini then a group of 8ish players around the same tier followed be a group of 10-12 in the same ish tier. So this draft appears to be a draft where if you dont get your guy in a given tier, there isn’t necessarily a sharp decline in quality with every pick.

You also left off the value added with other pieces of the deals to suit your own argument which is fine. But 8 for 14+33 is very close to 11 for 27+34+41 or whatever the picks were.