GDT: 2018 Trade Deadline Thread

[OldnotDeadWings]

To play devil's advocate, suppose you're a team that's routinely in the bottom half of the league. Even if the league makes it more punitive, what draw is there to fight to stay in the middle, versus shooting for as high a pick as possible? If you're already a below average product, why keep trying to succeed with that quality of incoming talent (statistically speaking), instead of going after a (statistically speaking) much more impactful player?

I think what happened last year, with NJ and Philadelphia going 1-2, demonstrates the value of staying in the middle and how a random lottery can enhance league entertainment. Hischier and Patrick were not sentenced to being young core leaders of bad teams, they've helped make two average teams much more fun to watch. Now, does this one-year shot of talent infusion compromise their long-term ability to win? Maybe, but I don't think Philly or NJ fans are worried about that right now.

 

[Flowah]

Honestly I think the system is fine as is. I can definitely see an argument that there should be a history component (if you got 1 OA last year your lottery odds are halved this year etc).

But what if we had a crazy system like this: the teams that miss the playoffs have their season evaluated in two parts, the first 61 games and the latter 21 games (about the TDL). You receive "draft points" through losses in the first part (worst teams get most points) and wins in the second part (best get most points) to decide draft placement. So if you want 1st OA the ideal record would be to go 0-61 in the first part and 21-0 in the second for 82 draft points. Ties are broken with your regular season record, same way as they would be for playoffs.

That way it would discourage teams from tanking their seasons when they realized they were out of it halfway through, while also rewarding those that are truly just bad. Plus the last 21 games would be super exciting as playoff teams try to fight their way in and non-playoff teams try to move up in the draft. Biggest issue I see is that it might kill the TDL.

Teams that are truly bad are just going to suck the entire season...

The only thing I can see this doing potentially is encouraging bottom feeders to package non-core players for someone they think could help them win in the last 20 games of the season.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

I think what happened last year, with NJ and Philadelphia going 1-2, demonstrates the value of staying in the middle

Let's not pretend those are reliable outcomes, though. Both were very, very unlikely. It's still vastly more likely that bad teams will get the good picks.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

To play devil's advocate, suppose you're a team that's routinely in the bottom half of the league. Even if the league makes it more punitive, what draw is there to fight to stay in the middle, versus shooting for as high a pick as possible? If you're already a below average product, why keep trying to succeed with that quality of incoming talent (statistically speaking), instead of going after a (statistically speaking) much more impactful player?

Well, it's on the league to make more of a draw exist. In a competitive environment, it should never be preferable to lose. It should never be preferable to put a worse product out into the marketplace. And also... if the teams at the bottom are going to stay awful if they don't get these magic ping pong balls... why are we keeping them around? Why is it so sacrosanct that there is a hockey team in Arizona where they can't sell out and the league has to literally take over management of the team because it got so bad? I mean, if the teams are so awful that they can't exist or can't improve without financial and asset support from the league, maybe they oughtn't to exist.

This is obviously a vacuum discussion, as there is expanding into new markets to take into account, but if a team provides no value to the league and is a drain on resources, why are you keeping it alive?

 

[jkutswings]

I know this is semi OT, but this story hit this morning, showing that even the highest profile athletes aren't exactly opposed to (at least the effects of successfully) tanking:

NBA free agency rumors: Why LeBron James signing with Sixers is gaining momentum

 

[HisNoodliness]

Teams that are truly bad are just going to suck the entire season...

The only thing I can see this doing potentially is encouraging bottom feeders to package non-core players for someone they think could help them win in the last 20 games of the season.

Well if they're really bad all year then the first 61 games will outweigh the last 21 enough that they still get a very high pick. But yeah it would really muddy the buyers vs. sellers at the TDL. I just think those last 21 games would be super exciting as everyone has something big to play for.

 

[OldnotDeadWings]

Let's not pretend those are reliable outcomes, though. Both were very, very unlikely. It's still vastly more likely that bad teams will get the good picks.

Yes, they were totally random outcomes, but nonetheless a random outcome that had tangible benefits to two teams and league entertainment value. I don't see that as an argument against a random lottery in which only bad teams participate.

 

[Flowah]

The fact is that exceptional defensemen of a particular draft year, whether Norris Trophy winners or the leading scoring defenseman of that peer group (first 18 defensemen selected overall), are almost equally distributed amongst equal-sized sample groups through the middle of the second round and sometimes beyond that depending on the number of defensemen drafted.

First, it's bizarre that you would restrict it to just Norris trophy winners, as if there aren't any elite d-men outside that group.

Second, elaborate for me what you mean about "equal-sized sample groups." What are the samples? What are the groups?

There's no way on god's green earth any sample competes with the top5 or top15 first round picks for elite defensemen produced. I'm looking at Ekblad, Doughty, Hedman, Pietrangelo, Seth Jones, OEL, Lindholm, Fowler, McDonagh, Shattenkirk, Karlsson. Morgan Reilly.

What 15 pick segment competes with that?

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

But what if we had a crazy system like this: the teams that miss the playoffs have their season evaluated in two parts, the first 61 games and the latter 21 games (about the TDL). You receive "draft points" through losses in the first part (worst teams get most points) and wins in the second part (best get most points) to decide draft placement. So if you want 1st OA the ideal record would be to go 0-61 in the first part and 21-0 in the second for 82 draft points. Ties are broken with your regular season record, same way as they would be for playoffs.

That way it would discourage teams from tanking their seasons when they realized they were out of it halfway through, while also rewarding those that are truly just bad. Plus the last 21 games would be super exciting as playoff teams try to fight their way in and non-playoff teams try to move up in the draft. Biggest issue I see is that it might kill the TDL.

I'd be worried that this system would end up putting bad teams in an bad position and they'd be exploited by better teams. Let me explain.

So there's a lot of value in having good players in the 2nd half of the season, but negative value in having them in the 1st half. This means that if you acquire a player, you want them to be a UFA: half a season of performance, and nothing at the beginning of next year. Every bad team would want UFAs for this reason, and by that same logic bad teams wouldn't want to trade UFAs to each other. So I think what would end up happening would be big teams becoming UFA-feeders for rebuilding teams, siphoning off some of their picks/assets in exchange for improving their roster in that second half. And in particular, I suspect those big teams would be more than happy to scoop up bad teams' multi-year players in exchange. I worry this would make rebuilding harder, not easier.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Yes, they were totally random outcomes, but nonetheless a random outcome that had tangible benefits to two teams and league entertainment value. I don't see that as argument against a random lottery in which only bad teams participate.

Not just random outcomes, unlikely outcomes. It's nifty that it had tangible benefits, but on average it will not. Don't let the fact that it really happened obscure the fact that it had an absolutely tiny chance of happening, and has an absolutely tiny chance of happening again. Statistically speaking, we are likely to have some very boring draft lotteries where this sort of drama doesn't happen.

 

[OldnotDeadWings]

First, it's bizarre that you would restrict it to just Norris trophy winners, as if there aren't any elite d-men outside that group.

Second, elaborate for me what you mean about "equal-sized sample groups." What are the samples? What are the groups?

There's no way on god's green earth any sample competes with the top5 or top15 first round picks for elite defensemen produced. I'm looking at Ekblad, Doughty, Hedman, Pietrangelo, Seth Jones, OEL, Lindholm, Fowler, McDonagh, Shattenkirk, Karlsson. Morgan Reilly.

What 15 pick segment competes with that?

I started with a fundamental equation of percentage of defensemen drafted (40 per cent on average) every year. With 15 lottery picks, the relevant equation was six defensemen, thus sample groups of six through (generally) the first two rounds of the draft in order to compare defensemen picked in the lottery vs. defensemen picked later in the first round and into the second round, to a third group of six, which depending on draft year can be anywhere from halfway through the second round to even the fourth round. You can divide sample groups anyway you want, but the further you move away from the 40 per cent equation, the less informative the samples become.

I picked Norris winners and scoring leaders because they are finite groups, and the further away you move from finite groups the more subjective the criteria becomes.

The point is that the statement of elite players being found almost exclusively in the top five of a Draft simply is not true for defensemen.

 

[OldnotDeadWings]

Not just random outcomes, unlikely outcomes. It's nifty that it had tangible benefits, but on average it will not. Don't let the fact that it really happened obscure the fact that it had an absolutely tiny chance of happening, and has an absolutely tiny chance of happening again. Statistically speaking, we are likely to have some very boring draft lotteries where this sort of drama doesn't happen.

That's just it. If we had a random lottery, it would never be boring and the bad teams that randomly got 1-3 overall picks would always receive the same tangible benefit that the top three teams always receive.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

If we had a random lottery, it would never be boring and the bad teams that randomly got 1-3 overall picks would always receive the same tangible benefit that the top three teams always receive.

I'm going to have to read your posts again, because I thought you were talking about how you liked the lottery as it exists. It sounds like you mean if there were some kind of uncapped lottery, which is a different story indeed.

 

[Red Stanley]

Gross. Any system that rewards teams for being average is a lousy way to entertain people. If the NHL adopted something this extreme, I'd completely walk away for good.

Rewarding them for being awful (for whatever reason) is better? And having teams giving up with their fans cheering for tanks is better? Do you really think draft position is the only thing determining organizational success?

That proposal may not be the best solution and, likely, will never be implemented, but it sounds a lot more conducive to raising the overall level of competition, aka entertainment value. I don't care how sad Arizona's eyes look when they step up to the podium to collect their umpteenth high draft pick. Not everyone who wins the draft goes on to win the Cup. There's no such thing as equality of outcome, but some are perfectly fine with denying equality of opportunity to bubble teams just because they tried to be a little better and reach the bare minimum of reaching the playoffs. Oh no, such horrible folly that someone actually tried and didn't race to the bottom

 

[Flowah]

I started with a fundamental equation of percentage of defensemen drafted (40 per cent on average) every year. With 15 lottery picks, the relevant equation was six defensemen, thus sample groups of six through (generally) the first two rounds of the draft in order to compare defensemen picked in the lottery vs. defensemen picked later in the first round and into the second round, to a third group of six, which depending on draft year can be anywhere from halfway through the second round to even the fourth round. You can divide sample groups anyway you want, but the further you move away from the 40 per cent equation, the less informative the samples become.

I picked Vezina winners and scoring leaders because they are finite groups, and the further away you move from finite groups the more subjective the criteria becomes.

The point is that the statement of elite players being found almost exclusively in the top five of a Draft simply is not true for defensemen.

No one claimed the top of the draft is where they're "almost exclusively" found. Just that you actually have a reasonable chance of finding them there versus outside the top of the draft where it's a crapshoot. Which is true. The success rate of hitting on top defensemen at the top of the draft is significantly higher than at any other part of the draft. Do you dispute that?

Your methodology is strange. Why make assumptions when you don't have to? You can just count the total number of elite players found at certain segments of the draft, compared to the total number of picks taken in that segment, and find the ratio. I have that. I've got a spreadsheet of all picks from 2005-2013, separated by draft position, round, year, and position. I've calculated the average P/GP, Games played, and whatnot of each round and separated the first round into segments as well. It's really not that equal.

You can't actually be disputing that you have a much better chance of landing top d-men at the top of the draft than elsewhere, can you?

There's no such thing as equality of outcome, but some are perfectly fine with denying equality of opportunity to bubble teams just because they tried to be a little better and reach the bare minimum of reaching the playoffs. Oh no, such horrible folly that someone actually tried and didn't race to the bottom

It's the difference between equity and equality. There's no end to the number of examples in society where we value equity over equality, and for good reason. I'll refrain from giving examples because it'll just get political. But I'm sure if you think about it for a hot second you'll realize that equity is often the best way. I don't think it's any different in sports. To the extent that people have problems with the draft lottery, it's because people think tanking is a problem and not just a problem but a very prevalent one. If tanking is a problem it should be solved in a way that isn't just making the bubble team equal to the bottom feeder.

And I fiercely dispute that tanking is a widespread enough problem to warrant this thinking. Most of the teams that are bad this year are not bad by choice or intent. That is true most years.

 

[OldnotDeadWings]

I'm going to have to read your posts again, because I thought you were talking about how you liked the lottery as it exists. It sounds like you mean if there were some kind of uncapped lottery, which is a different story indeed.

No worries. Yeah, I've proposed a 12-team completely random lottery based on what I think is an inevitable move (someday) to a 20-team playoff format. Just an exercise in extreme alternatives but I think it has merit.

 

[OldnotDeadWings]

No one claimed the top of the draft is where they're "almost exclusively" found. Just that you actually have a reasonable chance of finding them there versus outside the top of the draft where it's a crapshoot. Which is true. The success rate of hitting on top defensemen at the top of the draft is significantly higher than at any other part of the draft. Do you dispute that?

Your methodology is strange. Why make assumptions when you don't have to? You can just count the total number of elite players found at certain segments of the draft, compared to the total number of picks taken in that segment, and find the ratio. I have that. I've got a spreadsheet of all picks from 2005-2013, separated by draft position, round, year, and position. I've calculated the average P/GP, Games played, and whatnot of each round and separated the first round into segments as well. It's really not that equal.

You can't actually be disputing that you have a much better chance of landing top d-men at the top of the draft than elsewhere, can you?

You're right, you didn't say "almost exclusively" but what you did say is that it was rare. So, it's semantics. What assumptions? In terms of Norris winners it's pretty straightforward. There is no agreement on what constitutes an "elite" defenseman but all the Norris winners over at least the last 20 years are. In terms of defensemen scoring leaders I took a 10-year set of data (2000-09) and broke them into equal sample groups that represented defensemen selected in the first two rounds and sometimes beyond depending on draft year. You will find that the top scoring defensemen over those 10 Drafts comes just as often from the second group of six defensemen picked as from the first group of six.

I'm not disputing that, on average, you will find better defensemen at the top of the draft, or that quality declines the further away from the top you draft, or that you will more often find "top four" defensemen in the top half of the first round. I'm not saying "don't pick a defenseman in the lottery." But the rate of declining average performance relative to Draft order for defensemen is not even close to what it is for forwards, and there is ample evidence to show that "outliers" -- those who are Norris winners or leading scorers for that Draft group -- are commonly found at almost the same rate in later equal sample groups as they are found among lottery picks.

 

[Red Stanley]

It's the difference between equity and equality. There's no end to the number of examples in society where we value equity over equality, and for good reason. I'll refrain from giving examples because it'll just get political. But I'm sure if you think about it for a hot second you'll realize that equity is often the best way. I don't think it's any different in sports. To the extent that people have problems with the draft lottery, it's because people think tanking is a problem and not just a problem but a very prevalent one. If tanking is a problem it should be solved in a way that isn't just making the bubble team equal to the bottom feeder.

And I fiercely dispute that tanking is a widespread enough problem to warrant this thinking. Most of the teams that are bad this year are not bad by choice or intent. That is true most years.

The league has gone out of its way to level the playing field with the cap floor/ceiling. As such, league-wide parity is now the norm. In this current reality bubble teams comprise the majority, with a couple of bottom-dwellers and a handful of top teams. The two minorities usually end up with the majority of the benefits, either revenue from deep playoff runs or higher draft position. That leaves the majority middle, especially the ones just outside the playoff bubble, worse off. Now imagine the lottery were removed. There would be no incentive or reward for being a low-tier bubble team. At all. You find that more equitable than giving them at least a small shot at a top 3 pick? The bottom feeders that are truly bad will get their picks by virtue of being bad (whatever the reason) for longer periods of time. You have to remember that the draft is way more important in a capped, parity league where rich franchises can't just poach top talent from smaller markets at will.

Second, consider that the NHL is a business first and foremost. How is it being served when the best young player in the world is golfing in April? Why would you want to keep feeding failing franchises franchise players only to have them not being showcased during the playoffs? Is it not the responsibility of those franchises to manage their resources better? Exactly how many top picks do they deserve before we start expecting some accountability? On that note, if those teams are more deserving of high picks than the Wings, would you not trade the entire Wings roster for McDavid or Eichel?

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Tanking has become the Reagan-era "welfare queen" of the NHL; it barely exists, but is used to bludgeon the less fortunate with the accusation that they're immoral do-nothings who need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

 

[Red Stanley]

Tanking has become the Reagan-era "welfare queen" of the NHL; it barely exists, but is used to bludgeon the less fortunate with the accusation that they're immoral do-nothings who need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

The HFboards' ideal is 10 bonafide contenders each year, with 6 playoff fodder teams with Arizona records too incompetent to tank properly, and 15 teams with expansion era records. The absolute hilarity of it all is that even though all of them foresaw their own doom before the season even started and went on to tank in earnest from the beginning of October, they'd still be ranked 1 through 15 on the tank scale. Better luck next year, #15. Try tanking harder. It's the reverse of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. Oh, forgot to mention, those bootstraps would be worth more than a normal fan's car, since we are talking about millionaires paid a ton of money to manage/play sports, not some poor schmo stuck in government housing.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

The HFboards' ideal is 10 bonafide contenders each year, with 6 playoff fodder teams with Arizona records too incompetent to tank properly, and 15 teams with barely 25 wins among them. The absolute hilarity of it all is that even though all of them foresaw their own doom before the season even started and went on to tank in earnest from the beginning of October

This isn't anyone's idea but your own. It's a ridiculous straw man. You're making it hard to have an honest discussion with you.

 

[Red Stanley]

This isn't anyone's idea but your own. It's a ridiculous straw man. You're making it hard to have an honest discussion with you.

Do tell which teams should currently be tanking for their own good? Tie your answer with the Reagan era welfare state as seen through the lens of the modern NHL draft structure.

 

[jkutswings]

The HFboards' ideal is 10 bonafide contenders each year, with 6 playoff fodder teams with Arizona records too incompetent to tank properly, and 15 teams with expansion era records. The absolute hilarity of it all is that even though all of them foresaw their own doom before the season even started and went on to tank in earnest from the beginning of October, they'd still be ranked 1 through 15 on the tank scale. Better luck next year, #15. Try tanking harder. It's the reverse of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. Oh, forgot to mention, those bootstraps would be worth more than a normal fan's car, since we are talking about millionaires paid a ton of money to manage/play sports, not some poor schmo stuck in government housing.

Might I ask, to what achievable goal are those lower teams pulling themselves up towards, instead of going after the statistically best talent available? When it comes to token playoff teams facing real contenders, I think we've seen that movie (a few times).

 

[Flowah]

You're right, you didn't say "almost exclusively" but what you did say is that it was rare. So, it's semantics. What assumptions? In terms of Norris winners it's pretty straightforward. There is no agreement on what constitutes an "elite" defenseman but all the Norris winners over at least the last 20 years are. In terms of defensemen scoring leaders I took a 10-year set of data (2000-09) and broke them into equal sample groups that represented defensemen selected in the first two rounds and sometimes beyond depending on draft year. You will find that the top scoring defensemen over those 10 Drafts comes just as often from the second group of six defensemen picked as from the first group of six.

I'm not disputing that, on average, you will find better defensemen at the top of the draft, or that quality declines the further away from the top you draft, or that you will more often find "top four" defensemen in the top half of the first round. I'm not saying "don't pick a defenseman in the lottery." But the rate of declining average performance relative to Draft order for defensemen is not even close to what it is for forwards, and there is ample evidence to show that "outliers" -- those who are Norris winners or leading scorers for that Draft group -- are commonly found at almost the same rate in later equal sample groups as they are found among lottery picks.

It. Is. Rare.

Because you have hundreds of picks in the later rounds versus just 5-15 or whatever your cutoff is for the first round. There's literally 210 picks every draft. If you find 3 elite d-men in picks 16-210, that's more elite d-men than finding 2 in the top 15 picks. It's also 13.3% of finding an elite d-man versus 1.5%. The gap in probability is huge and cannot be ignored.

I think there's pretty much a consensus on who the elite d-men are. Hedman's never won a Norris. Is he not elite now? There might be slight disagreements around the edges, but let's be honest here, most people will agree on most defensemen as to their elite status.

 

[BinCookin]

Well, it's on the league to make more of a draw exist. In a competitive environment, it should never be preferable to lose. It should never be preferable to put a worse product out into the marketplace. And also... if the teams at the bottom are going to stay awful if they don't get these magic ping pong balls... why are we keeping them around? Why is it so sacrosanct that there is a hockey team in Arizona where they can't sell out and the league has to literally take over management of the team because it got so bad? I mean, if the teams are so awful that they can't exist or can't improve without financial and asset support from the league, maybe they oughtn't to exist.

This is obviously a vacuum discussion, as there is expanding into new markets to take into account, but if a team provides no value to the league and is a drain on resources, why are you keeping it alive?

this arizona franchise inspired Austin Matthews to get involved in Hockey. Expansion to new areas has resulting in a new star.

I mean Arizona has not been run well. But the general idea of expansion i understand.