If pick #14 works out, how do you grade the EK deal?

[Eggdoh]

Burns wasn't much worse than EK65 besides his Norris year imo and bringing him in was a redundancy that sank the Sharks. DW desperately felt he had to bring a cup in for out of loyalty to the vets and hit the panic button after failing to get Tavares. It should've been Tavares, or look somewhere else for a top center or complimentary players. Ultimately pajama boy went to the Leafs who literally did the same thing at the center position and probably should've ACTUALLY went for EK65 to push them to be true contenders with a 1D. I'm ecstatic about trading EK65, I got the same big arrogance vibes and think he brought a rift in the changeroom since he got here. He did that while being dainty and overpaid... good riddance

I have to agree. I don't think there's a Sharks star player that I have liked less than Karlsson. I still remember him yelling in Brenden Dillon's face after a goal that was Karlsson's fault.

 

[DG93]

I have to agree. I don't think there's a Sharks star player that I have liked less than Karlsson. I still remember him yelling in Brenden Dillon's face after a goal that was Karlsson's fault.

That was debunked...Karlsson was a big personality, but a lot of bullshit was made about him as well

 

[jMoneyBrah]

That was debunked...Karlsson was a big personality, but a lot of bullshit was made about him as well

Personally, I had no issues with how Karlsson conducted himself while he was with the Sharks. I found him to be pretty frank, understated, and charming.

I also like to see players have a healthy dose of swag, want the puck on their stick when it matters, and feel like they can and should put the team on their back if the situation requires it. I also believe that some amount of tension is fine and good in competitive professional environments.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I have to agree. I don't think there's a Sharks star player that I have liked less than Karlsson. I still remember him yelling in Brenden Dillon's face after a goal that was Karlsson's fault.

This is not fair. Karlsson conducted himself well, a great professional. Yes, he is competitive and holds people to a high standard. But importantly, he holds himself to that high standard.

 

[ijuka]

Whether or not pick #14 works out shouldn't affect the grade of the EK deal.

It's sorta like arguing that if I give you 1000 dollars for 1 dollar, then buy a lottery ticket with that 1 dollar and win, that I won the trade.

But when it comes to EK, truth is that at least with the way that he's playing, he's not even worth his cap hit. So if any assets were given for EK then it would be a loss for Pens.

But who knows, if Pens change coaches Karlsson could also surge.

 

[stator]

His performance relative to his contract and assets given up for him were bad.
He probably would have needed to be healthy, in the line up, and averaging about 80 points a season to be worth his contract.
Getting rid of Karlsson allowed the Sharks to move into true rebuild mode, probably also enabling Hertl to want to be moved.

I agree with what you are saying, but I was grading the final trade of Karlsson only. If looking at holistically of trading for Karlsson, then trading to get rid of him, it's bad, real bad. As you state, Sharks gave up way too much for EK's tenure here.

Imagine having 1OA last year and this year.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Whether or not pick #14 works out shouldn't affect the grade of the EK deal.

It's sorta like arguing that if I give you 1000 dollars for 1 dollar, then buy a lottery ticket with that 1 dollar and win, that I won the trade.

But when it comes to EK, truth is that at least with the way that he's playing, he's not even worth his cap hit. So if any assets were given for EK then it would be a loss for Pens.

But who knows, if Pens change coaches Karlsson could also surge.

By what metric then do you grade a trade if you shouldn't allow a draft pick to impact it? You can make that same sort of argument for the cap dumps we acquire, the cap space created two years down the line from the trade for two years, and any indirect benefits that come with the deal like being bad enough to secure the worst record in the league. I don't understand how all of it shouldn't affect it. It should. It has to because that's the whole purpose of making a trade in the first place.

 

[one2gamble]

By what metric then do you grade a trade if you shouldn't allow a draft pick to impact it?

The player picked has more to do with the team picking it than the pick itself. The pick has a certain amount of set value independent of the player selected.

If they pick a superstar and he blows out his knee 2 months into the season, is the trade a failure?
If they pick someone who completely busts?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The player picked has more to do with the team picking it than the pick itself. The pick has a certain amount of set value independent of the player selected.

If they pick a superstar and he blows out his knee 2 months into the season, is the trade a failure?
If they pick someone who completely busts?

This doesn't answer my question though but I'll answer yours. The trade's grade depends on all the particulars involved including draft picks and including cap space gained over the life of the contract you moved out. The entire purpose of moving Karlsson was to dump long term cap and get futures. The only futures involved in the Karlsson trade was this 1st round pick. How that works out should impact the grade of the trade as should the cap space gained after next season for two seasons and how that's used. Does it make the entire trade a failure if the draft pick busts? No because there's more to the trade from the Sharks' end than that but it does matter. If moving Karlsson didn't make us materially worse and we finished 4th overall again, got the same #14 and it ended up being a bust, and the cap space used in 2025-26 and 2026-27 were used on mediocre depth players that don't move the needle for the team's rebuild, it's fair to grade the trade poorly, imo. Teams can make the right trade and still have it end poorly.

I just don't see any logic behind excluding anything from influencing the trade's overall grade in a results-oriented business. You can still be accepting of a bad trade and still want the team to have completed it for reasons beyond the return like what happened with Burns. We aren't going to get anything out of dumping Burns. We dumped about 5 mil for three years, probably won't use any of the space for anything of worth, and won't get any future pieces to work out for us. That trade is arguably an F trade but it would still be a move I'm okay with given the circumstances.

 

[gaucholoco3]

By what metric then do you grade a trade if you shouldn't allow a draft pick to impact it? You can make that same sort of argument for the cap dumps we acquire, the cap space created two years down the line from the trade for two years, and any indirect benefits that come with the deal like being bad enough to secure the worst record in the league. I don't understand how all of it shouldn't affect it. It should. It has to because that's the whole purpose of making a trade in the first place.

It is using the information available at the time of the trade to evaluate it and not future information that was not known at the time.

Let’s say the Sharks trade a 7th round pick for McDavid. The day after the trade McDavid gets in a car accident and can never play hockey again. Is it now a bad trade for the Sharks because McDavid never played for them. Or is it a good trade because given all the information at the time of the trade the Sharks got the better value.

 

[Juxtaposer]

The player picked has more to do with the team picking it than the pick itself. The pick has a certain amount of set value independent of the player selected.

If they pick a superstar and he blows out his knee 2 months into the season, is the trade a failure?
If they pick someone who completely busts?

Yes, because the value of the pick does have something to do with how good the scouting staff of the team acquiring it is. A draft pick in the teens is more valuable to teams that can consistently hit on the pick than teams who can’t.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

It is using the information available at the time of the trade to evaluate it and not future information that was not known at the time.

Let’s say the Sharks trade a 7th round pick for McDavid. The day after the trade McDavid gets in a car accident and can never play hockey again. Is it now a bad trade for the Sharks because McDavid never played for them. Or is it a good trade because given all the information at the time of the trade the Sharks got the better value.

I don't think it's just using information available at the time to evaluate it. Trading for futures is a common practice in sports and what you believe an asset's future looks like is what you're placing value on when making a trade like this. Your extreme example can still fairly be argued as an F trade because they don't get anything out of the asset they moved. It's a good trade of course because most potential outcomes still include the guy you traded for playing for your team. In a situation where that player doesn't and you spend assets to get him, you've then wasted those assets and it can fairly be judged as a bad trade.

The results matter. But again, if they don't then by what metric are you actually using to judge a trade? That question still hasn't been answered if we're dismissing future results from assets involved in the trade.

 

[one2gamble]

Yes, because the value of the pick does have something to do with how good the scouting staff of the team acquiring it is. A draft pick in the teens is more valuable to teams that can consistently hit on the pick than teams who can’t.

That argument amounts to be a dollar being more valuable to the homeless guy than the executive. Thats not real value, its perceived. The utility of that dollar is fixed.

I think you segment the overall value of the trade and the impact that trade had on both teams and I view them and separate grades. A team fumbling the return on a trade does not change how well the GM executed the original trade.

 

[Juxtaposer]

That argument amounts to be a dollar being more valuable to the homeless guy than the executive. Thats not real value, its perceived. The utility of that dollar is fixed.

I think you segment the overall value of the trade and the impact that trade had on both teams and I view them and separate grades.

No, that’s not the same thing. Your analogy would fit if I said that draft picks have more value to a team who has no other draft picks than a team that has every other draft pick.

Trading for draft picks inherently includes your ability to actually get value from those draft picks. A pick in a vacuum is meaningless.

 

[coooldude]

Trades can be evaluated two ways, and they are different.
1. The transaction itself - was it a good decision? Was the rationale and balance of immediate benefit/pain vs. future potential benefit/pain at least clear and arguable?
2. The outcome - what ended up happening? In retrospect, did the trade work out well for one side or the other?

Those two things can be and should be separated.

Even in separating them, which makes the discussion somewhat clearer, we are dealing with the future, which is of course unknowable, and we are dealing with counter-factuals (alternate timelines) which are all speculative at best. Only in rare occasions are trades 100% clearly "won or lost" using the outcome to evaluate them. However, in the immediate transaction it's a bit clearer whether the rationale is sound.

RE: the draft pick discussion, based on a reasonable market value of draft picks (the outcome of the players drafted at that position, a team's development ability, etc), you can evaluate the transaction.

You can evaluate the outcome (how that specific prospect turns out) much later on, but it doesn't change the evaluation of the transaction itself. You could have a great transaction and then the draft pick fails and it was still a great transaction. Or, you can have a poor transaction but you get lucky and the draft pick hits, and the outcome turned out great. Doesn't make it any better of a transaction, just got lucky.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Trades can be evaluated two ways, and they are different.
1. The transaction itself - was it a good decision? Was the rationale and balance of immediate benefit/pain vs. future potential benefit/pain at least clear and arguable?
2. The outcome - what ended up happening? In retrospect, did the trade work out well for one side or the other?

Those two things can be and should be separated.

Even in separating them, which makes the discussion somewhat clearer, we are dealing with the future, which is of course unknowable, and we are dealing with counter-factuals (alternate timelines) which are all speculative at best. Only in rare occasions are trades 100% clearly "won or lost" using the outcome to evaluate them. However, in the immediate transaction it's a bit clearer whether the rationale is sound.

RE: the draft pick discussion, based on a reasonable market value of draft picks (the outcome of the players drafted at that position, a team's development ability, etc), you can evaluate the transaction.

You can evaluate the outcome (how that specific prospect turns out) much later on, but it doesn't change the evaluation of the transaction itself. You could have a great transaction and then the draft pick fails and it was still a great transaction. Or, you can have a poor transaction but you get lucky and the draft pick hits, and the outcome turned out great. Doesn't make it any better of a transaction, just got lucky.

I don't think you can legitimately evaluate a trade w/o the outcome. You can analyze the transaction itself but since a good chunk of that analysis is based on probabilities in the future, how is it in any way legitimate? If the outcome of the trade doesn't change the evaluation of the transaction itself, that tells me a management group isn't learning anything. I have no idea how you can justify a poor transaction being poor if you hit the draft pick. It absolutely does make any transaction better if a draft pick acquired hits. That's a huge chunk of the point of making those sorts of trades. The entire point of a trade is to achieve good results. You cannot dismiss the results when determining a trade is good or not. All this is to say that determining a trade on a grade scale or just good or bad is not something you can actually do at the time of the transaction. You can only somewhat determine if you're taking a good risk or not.

 

[coooldude]

I don't think you can legitimately evaluate a trade w/o the outcome. You can analyze the transaction itself but since a good chunk of that analysis is based on probabilities in the future, how is it in any way legitimate? If the outcome of the trade doesn't change the evaluation of the transaction itself, that tells me a management group isn't learning anything. I have no idea how you can justify a poor transaction being poor if you hit the draft pick. It absolutely does make any transaction better if a draft pick acquired hits. That's a huge chunk of the point of making those sorts of trades. The entire point of a trade is to achieve good results. You cannot dismiss the results when determining a trade is good or not. All this is to say that determining a trade on a grade scale or just good or bad is not something you can actually do at the time of the transaction. You can only somewhat determine if you're taking a good risk or not.

My framework is from modern investing/finance, or corporate finance (investing in projects, etc).

You can certainly make a lot of money making poor decisions, and you can lose money making good decisions. The process of making good decisions is more important than specific outcomes because over the long run, uncertainty will even out (you believe this if you believe in modern finance).

Using venture capital/startups as a related analogy, you could bet 10 years of your life on a really good idea that doesn't pan out, or you can bet 10 years of your life on something stupid and then you get really lucky with an outcome you could not have possibly foreseen. Many people conflate the outcome with the decision, and also the outcome with how smart or even deserving someone is. I don't personally think so.

Sports are different because the outcomes are a bit more binary and the sample sizes are smaller... you only get 7 draft picks in a regular year, there's only one winner per year, etc etc. So I still hold you can evaluate the transaction "based on what you knew at the time" and also evaluate the outcome separately. If Grier makes 70 draft picks in 10 years, and he's good, then a large % but not all of them would be evaluated to be "good picks at the time", and there is a 100% chance that not all of them will have a good outcome. Trades can be looked at similarly.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

My framework is from modern investing/finance, or corporate finance (investing in projects, etc).

You can certainly make a lot of money making poor decisions, and you can lose money making good decisions. The process of making good decisions is more important than specific outcomes because over the long run, uncertainty will even out (you believe this if you believe in modern finance).

Using venture capital/startups as a related analogy, you could bet 10 years of your life on a really good idea that doesn't pan out, or you can bet 10 years of your life on something stupid and then you get really lucky with an outcome you could not have possibly foreseen. Many people conflate the outcome with the decision, and also the outcome with how smart or even deserving someone is. I don't personally think so.

Sports are different because the outcomes are a bit more binary and the sample sizes are smaller... you only get 7 draft picks in a regular year, there's only one winner per year, etc etc. So I still hold you can evaluate the transaction "based on what you knew at the time" and also evaluate the outcome separately. If Grier makes 70 draft picks in 10 years, and he's good, then a large % but not all of them would be evaluated to be "good picks at the time", and there is a 100% chance that not all of them will have a good outcome. Trades can be looked at similarly.

I can't speak to the investing/finance framework as that is not something I'm terribly familiar with but I still don't understand how you can evaluate the transaction based on what you know at the time if what you know at the time isn't based on past outcomes. That's what all the probabilities of player progression/decline, draft pick valuations, and other such things are based on. No trade is legitimately graded or judged upon at the time of transaction. The only thing really graded at the time of a trade is risk. Lots of people here still hate the Kiprusoff to Calgary trade for a 2nd round pick for obvious reasons. They don't like that Kipper beat the team in 2004 but it was pretty obviously a great trade with a great outcome and still people hate it anyway. lol

 

[coooldude]

I can't speak to the investing/finance framework as that is not something I'm terribly familiar with but I still don't understand how you can evaluate the transaction based on what you know at the time if what you know at the time isn't based on past outcomes. That's what all the probabilities of player progression/decline, draft pick valuations, and other such things are based on. No trade is legitimately graded or judged upon at the time of transaction. The only thing really graded at the time of a trade is risk. Lots of people here still hate the Kiprusoff to Calgary trade for a 2nd round pick for obvious reasons. They don't like that Kipper beat the team in 2004 but it was pretty obviously a great trade with a great outcome and still people hate it anyway. lol

I think that's what I'm trying to say - you can indeed evaluate the transaction based on what you know at the time, which IS based on past outcomes (player probabilities, draft pick valuations, etc). In that context, there are trades that are "good value" based on past outcomes (but not the future value of that exact trade). There are trades that are "bad trades" because there's either a mismatch in value or some obvious other flaw.

The Kipper trade is a great example. From an outcomes perspective, it's a bad trade because what if we just kept Kipper and had the best goalie of all of them? But from the decision at the time, it was a good trade. We got good value for a player that was (at least in their view) not going to beat out Toskala or Nabby and therefore was worth a lot less to us than to someone else. It would only be a bad trade if it was reasonable to know that Kipper was going to be as good as he became. Which I personally think is not reasonable.

In bringing it back to the Karlsson trade, I would say:

• The final trade was a good transaction because we moved a contract that was previously deemed unmovable, we sold at what was pretty solidly going to be a high for the player, and we got a draft pick back that has some serious value. We also got rid of our best player and that gave us a greater chance at a successful tank (I'm guessing this was indeed part of GMMG's thinking). The Granlund and Rutta dumps at the time were fairly neutral - neither looked like more than a plug. Overall, I personally think it was a good transaction.
• The outcome has been even better IMHO, because not only did we finish last and win 1OA, but Granlund had a resurgence. If the 14OA pick busts, then that tarnishes the outcome a bit but it would still be a good transaction and to me a good outcome. If instead the 14OA becomes a good piece of the rebuild, then we had an incredible outcome.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I think that's what I'm trying to say - you can indeed evaluate the transaction based on what you know at the time, which IS based on past outcomes (player probabilities, draft pick valuations, etc). In that context, there are trades that are "good value" based on past outcomes (but not the future value of that exact trade). There are trades that are "bad trades" because there's either a mismatch in value or some obvious other flaw.

The Kipper trade is a great example. From an outcomes perspective, it's a bad trade because what if we just kept Kipper and had the best goalie of all of them? But from the decision at the time, it was a good trade. We got good value for a player that was (at least in their view) not going to beat out Toskala or Nabby and therefore was worth a lot less to us than to someone else. It would only be a bad trade if it was reasonable to know that Kipper was going to be as good as he became. Which I personally think is not reasonable.

In bringing it back to the Karlsson trade, I would say:

• The final trade was a good transaction because we moved a contract that was previously deemed unmovable, we sold at what was pretty solidly going to be a high for the player, and we got a draft pick back that has some serious value. We also got rid of our best player and that gave us a greater chance at a successful tank (I'm guessing this was indeed part of GMMG's thinking). The Granlund and Rutta dumps at the time were fairly neutral - neither looked like more than a plug. Overall, I personally think it was a good transaction.
• The outcome has been even better IMHO, because not only did we finish last and win 1OA, but Granlund had a resurgence. If the 14OA pick busts, then that tarnishes the outcome a bit but it would still be a good transaction and to me a good outcome. If instead the 14OA becomes a good piece of the rebuild, then we had an incredible outcome.

Ok fair enough. Just so you know, I do enjoy this sort of discussion where we're able to go at a little more length into the thought processes behind what people think about our team. I agree that the Karlsson trade was a great trade. I just think that if they manage to make anything out of this draft pick, it makes it proportionally better based on how well the pick is utilized. This pick should turn into an NHL'er and the effectiveness of our team drafting with this pick should be graded based on that sort of expectation. Player doesn't need to be Brian Propp or Sergei Gonchar or even DeBrusk or McAvoy as recent examples but it'll make the trade not as good of a deal if it doesn't work out and the two years that they're gaining significant cap space from doing this deal aren't utilized effectively. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose of the deal.

 

[Hangemhigh]

I agree with what you are saying, but I was grading the final trade of Karlsson only. If looking at holistically of trading for Karlsson, then trading to get rid of him, it's bad, real bad. As you state, Sharks gave up way too much for EK's tenure here.

Imagine having 1OA last year and this year.

So the final Karlsson trade was the Sharks trading a player who did not want to be here, who was underperforming his contract, who arguably ruined the culture in San Jose, for 2 players who seem like professionals, Rutta and Granlund, as well as the legendary Hoffman. In addition, the Sharks got out of most of the albatross contract and acquired the decent #14 pick.

So a great trade. It was a big minus for some positive assets.

Celebrini will be way better than Bedard. He is also taller so GMMG preferred him.


I will note the Kiprusoff trade was necessary as he did not want to be part of the Sharks. Calgary was the only team willing to give a 2nd as Sutter knew Kiprusoff was a good goalie and stated his poor performance in San Jose was due to the environment there at the time. If I recall correctly Strelow thought Kipper would be the best goalie.

Again, a player who did not want to be here was traded for a useful asset.

 

[mogambomoroo]

Very good conversation about value of a hockey trade. I'm pretty bread&butter type of a guy talking about this topic, but here is my 2 cents on the topic.

I have three different times to judge a trade ultimately:

1.Value of the players/picks when the trade happens (First look)

2.Value of the players/picks when they play or don't play (players busting) for their teams after the trade (Second look, in this part the trade value bounces the most.)

3.Value of the players/picks after every piece of the trade is either moved from the team or players have retired. What did every player of the trade do for their respective teams during their time on that team. (Ultimate look, was history made?)

The team that has more success in terms on championships, playoff appearances and points with the players that were involved in the trade can celebare it as a win trade. It can be put under a math calculation to solve it at the end of the trade.
Championship having the most value,
Playoff appearances second most and points all together the third most.

There is a 4th option, but I think that goes to the trade tree category which is a neverending road and would take forever to have an ultimate answer.

 

[landshark]

My framework is from modern investing/finance, or corporate finance (investing in projects, etc).

You can certainly make a lot of money making poor decisions, and you can lose money making good decisions. The process of making good decisions is more important than specific outcomes because over the long run, uncertainty will even out (you believe this if you believe in modern finance).

Using venture capital/startups as a related analogy, you could bet 10 years of your life on a really good idea that doesn't pan out, or you can bet 10 years of your life on something stupid and then you get really lucky with an outcome you could not have possibly foreseen. Many people conflate the outcome with the decision, and also the outcome with how smart or even deserving someone is. I don't personally think so.

Sports are different because the outcomes are a bit more binary and the sample sizes are smaller... you only get 7 draft picks in a regular year, there's only one winner per year, etc etc. So I still hold you can evaluate the transaction "based on what you knew at the time" and also evaluate the outcome separately. If Grier makes 70 draft picks in 10 years, and he's good, then a large % but not all of them would be evaluated to be "good picks at the time", and there is a 100% chance that not all of them will have a good outcome. Trades can be looked at similarly.

Shit man, my ten year workiversary at the startup I've been slaving for is next month...

And that second part in bold? GOD DAMMIT!!!!! I thought smart and hard working would do the trick...


I do agree with the bit about the draft picks. Hindsight is always 20-20 and the longer you wait to evaluate the better.

 

[coooldude]

Shit man, my ten year workiversary at the startup I've been slaving for is next month...

And that second part in bold? GOD DAMMIT!!!!! I thought smart and hard working would do the trick...


I do agree with the bit about the draft picks. Hindsight is always 20-20 and the longer you wait to evaluate the better.

I hear ya man. I'm at a startup as well. Much of my energy in the past 8 years has gone to trying to separate the company's success and failures from my feelings about my own success or failure. All I can do is put in good work, the outcome is out of my control. Similar to my post about trades. You do the best you can with your decision in the moment and separate that evaluation from the outcome.

 

[landshark]

I hear ya man. I'm at a startup as well. Much of my energy in the past 8 years has gone to trying to separate the company's success and failures from my feelings about my own success or failure. All I can do is put in good work, the outcome is out of my control. Similar to my post about trades. You do the best you can with your decision in the moment and separate that evaluation from the outcome.

It's hard to keep those feelings of personal and business success/failure separated for sure.

Same for feelings about trades, EK65 was a great example... When it occurred, "Super stoked, this is gonna be great... Holy shit! WOW!" turned into, "OMG WHY!?!?" During the first year on the new contract.