Speculation: Prediction thread

[DFF]

Are you predicting that he'll make a career altering move? Because trading some junk picks for Hamonic when our system is this stocked is really anything but that. It's not like hamonic is a 30 year old player either, dude has lots left in the tank. It's a trade we have to make 10/10 times.

faked news

 

[DFF]

I think he's saying either Hamonic or Smith tanks.

No, that's not what I meant.

I meant since the management has went all in (by trading a risky unprotected 2018 pick), the team has to go hard for it and if they are not BT will be looking for a new job.

I also highlighted the people that cant fail for the team to have success

I expect the team will start strong

 

[Flameshomer]

No, that's not what I meant.

I meant since the management has went all in (by trading a risky unprotected 2018 pick), the team has to go hard for it and if they are not BT will be looking for a new job.

I also highlighted the people that cant fail for the team to have success

I expect the team will start strong

Typical overvaluation of picks from shortsighted hf poster. Even if we start slow, there's no way this team finishes lower than last year. The 16th overall has a very small chance of being even close to hamonic caliber. Even when added to the chance of those seconds. Plus, he's young enough and has a good enough contract that we could just flip him and recoup if things aren't working out.
This was great asset management by Treliving, and I sincerely hope ownership understands the value of trading maybes for money in the bank. It's that family guy scene with the free boat or the mystery box that might even be a free boat.

Also screw you for not believing in this team.

 

[Flameshomer]

We have three of the top 50 d-prospects in the league in valimaki fox and andersson with Kylington not far behind. We have Jankowski, Poirier, shinkaruk, dube, mangiapane, Hathaway etc that can fill up Roster spots behind under 25 year olds Monahan Gaudreau Bennett and Tkachuk.
If we flop this year we have MUCH bigger problems than a missing 1st Round pick. We're talking avalanche size problems. I just don't see it happening.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Typical overvaluation of picks from shortsighted hf poster. Even if we start slow, there's no way this team finishes lower than last year. The 16th overall has a very small chance of being even close to hamonic caliber. Even when added to the chance of those seconds. Plus, he's young enough and has a good enough contract that we could just flip him and recoup if things aren't working out.
This was great asset management by Treliving, and I sincerely hope ownership understands the value of trading maybes for money in the bank. It's that family guy scene with the free boat or the mystery box that might even be a free boat.

Also screw you for not believing in this team.

We traded a first and two seconds for Hamonic. The d-men we selected last with a first and two seconds: Valimaki, Kylington, Andersson. I am pretty sure at least one of those guys ends up being better than Travis Hamonic.

Regardless of the fact that we only gave up picks, this was not good asset management; we overpaid solely because Treliving wants to open the window now. Even if you personally consider them to have no value because they're not yet NHL players, other teams value picks - and we could've traded those picks to those teams for far greater returns than what we got. It wasn't "great" asset management, it wasn't even "good" asset management.

The Smith acquisition on the other hand was great, considering Arizona didn't re-sign Ocho.

 

[DFF]

Typical overvaluation of picks from shortsighted hf poster. Even if we start slow, there's no way this team finishes lower than last year. The 16th overall has a very small chance of being even close to hamonic caliber. Even when added to the chance of those seconds. Plus, he's young enough and has a good enough contract that we could just flip him and recoup if things aren't working out.
This was great asset management by Treliving, and I sincerely hope ownership understands the value of trading maybes for money in the bank. It's that family guy scene with the free boat or the mystery box that might even be a free boat.

Also screw you for not believing in this team.

Where did I say I dont believe in the team?

Typical blind koolaid drinker

I didnt even say the deal is bad. I even like the way BT is going for it.

But the picks (especially the 1st) have a lot of value. Playoff position in the west is up for grab and very competitive. I am smart enough to know that it's a big gamble. That has nothing to do with believing.

 

[Anglesmith]

We traded a first and two seconds for Hamonic. The d-men we selected last with a first and two seconds: Valimaki, Kylington, Andersson. I am pretty sure at least one of those guys ends up being better than Travis Hamonic.

That's actually really unlikely, in my opinion. Better than Hamonic was last year while playing injured? Sure. But better than Hamonic at 100% is unlikely, though would of course be a pleasant surprise. The man is a beast of a hockey player, and I'm not sure enough Flames fans are aware of how good he can be.

The other side to that argument is that given you are confident that we already have more Hamonic-level prospects in our system means the trade makes even more sense. It's not as if we're dealing picks when we are in dire need of prospects.

 

[Flameshomer]

We traded a first and two seconds for Hamonic. The d-men we selected last with a first and two seconds: Valimaki, Kylington, Andersson. I am pretty sure at least one of those guys ends up being better than Travis Hamonic.

Regardless of the fact that we only gave up picks, this was not good asset management; we overpaid solely because Treliving wants to open the window now. Even if you personally consider them to have no value because they're not yet NHL players, other teams value picks - and we could've traded those picks to those teams for far greater returns than what we got. It wasn't "great" asset management, it wasn't even "good" asset management.

The Smith acquisition on the other hand was great, considering Arizona didn't re-sign Ocho.

As Angel said- It's not statistically likely that any of those three become better than Hamonic. We can hope, but we won't know for sure for a bit of time at least.

A 1st has some value, it has no where near the value we constantly attribute to it around here, especially when it's in the bottom half of the round.

 

[Fig]

Here's the thing. Picks become less valuable the stronger a team is. This is why a true contender can flip picks easier than a rebuilding team. Their picks are generally around 20+. Furthermore, the picks when panned out, usually turn into players who can contribute after the window closes. A timing trade off is made as well. Win or suck. Don't be mediocre.

BT expects the picks to be less valuable and has determined that many teams are disrupted from the expansion draft (we, far less so). We have a chance to storm out of the gate and make noise the playoffs for the next 3 years.

It's a reasonable gamble.

But then again, so was Byron. You just never know if you get killed on the river holding a strong pocket pairs. However, I would say the odds are looking good for us. I'm thinking we're holding pocket Jacks pre flop.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Here's the thing. Picks become less valuable the stronger a team is. This is why a true contender can flip picks easier than a rebuilding team. Their picks are generally around 20+. Furthermore, the picks when panned out, usually turn into players who can contribute after the window closes. A timing trade off is made as well. Win or suck. Don't be mediocre.

BT expects the picks to be less valuable and has determined that many teams are disrupted from the expansion draft (we, far less so). We have a chance to storm out of the gate and make noise the playoffs for the next 3 years.

It's a reasonable gamble.

But then again, so was Byron. You just never know if you get killed on the river holding a strong pocket pairs. However, I would say the odds are looking good for us. I'm thinking we're holding pocket Jacks pre flop.

Pretty much boils down to this. BT traded a 2018 1st round pick that if ends up being a 20-31th overall pick would have taken 2-3+ years to make an impact on the roster. Instead we got a player who can ideally if all goes well make as big an impact/better NOW while he believes we can compete.

I'm still not sold we are a cup contender until I see this variation of the team play on ice. I am however convinced that Brouwer can't be worse than he was this year, that Bennett will take a step forward even to 40 ish points and that our defense is significantly improved over the start of last year. With all those combined, short of both Smith and Lack sinking us or serious long term injuries to several key players, I am fairly convinced we are a better team .

 

[InfinityIggy]

We traded a first and two seconds for Hamonic. The d-men we selected last with a first and two seconds: Valimaki, Kylington, Andersson. I am pretty sure at least one of those guys ends up being better than Travis Hamonic.

Regardless of the fact that we only gave up picks, this was not good asset management; we overpaid solely because Treliving wants to open the window now. Even if you personally consider them to have no value because they're not yet NHL players, other teams value picks - and we could've traded those picks to those teams for far greater returns than what we got. It wasn't "great" asset management, it wasn't even "good" asset management.

The Smith acquisition on the other hand was great, considering Arizona didn't re-sign Ocho.

I'd be willing to take the bet that none of the picks we gave up will result in a better player than Hamonic.

 

[Mr Snrub]

As Angel said- It's not statistically likely that any of those three become better than Hamonic. We can hope, but we won't know for sure for a bit of time at least.

A 1st has some value, it has no where near the value we constantly attribute to it around here, especially when it's in the bottom half of the round.

I think the odds of Andersson alone becoming better than Hamonic are better than not. I realise that may just be me, and also that Andersson is not your average second-round pick, but statistically when you give up three high picks like that, one of those guys is likely gonna end up an impact NHLer.

And a first round pick has a tonne of value, that's why organizations don't trade them unless it's for a key piece. Even if Hamonic played like a #3 every year, I'm certain we could've gotten a defenseman of his calibre for less than what we gave up. Probably could've gotten a few other guys too.

Here's the thing. Picks become less valuable the stronger a team is. This is why a true contender can flip picks easier than a rebuilding team. Their picks are generally around 20+. Furthermore, the picks when panned out, usually turn into players who can contribute after the window closes. A timing trade off is made as well. Win or suck. Don't be mediocre.

BT expects the picks to be less valuable and has determined that many teams are disrupted from the expansion draft (we, far less so). We have a chance to storm out of the gate and make noise the playoffs for the next 3 years.

It's a reasonable gamble.

But then again, so was Byron. You just never know if you get killed on the river holding a strong pocket pairs. However, I would say the odds are looking good for us. I'm thinking we're holding pocket Jacks pre flop.

Your argument about the timing trade-off is good, but the crux of the issue for me isn't that we didn't get to draft with the picks we gave up, it's that we overpaid - if a pick has a (somewhat) set value, we didn't squeeze every drop we could've out of them. I took issue with Flameshomer calling it great value just because we didn't give up a roster player - that doesn't at all make it a good trade.

 

[Anglesmith]

Your argument about the timing trade-off is good, but the crux of the issue for me isn't that we didn't get to draft with the picks we gave up, it's that we overpaid

But we didn't, though.

Just go statistically. Here's a great breakdown by Scott Cullen: http://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-expected-value-of-nhl-draft-picks-1.317819

In case you don't want to open it or can't, he starts off by assigning values to types of players on the 10-point scale. 7 is a top 4 D, and 8 is a top pairing D. Let's start off by pointing out that according to Cullen's model, Travis Hamonic is at least a 7... that's not arguable. I would argue that if he's healthy he's a 7.5 or an 8. He's a great defenceman. But I think we still win this if he's a 7, so let's see.

Cullen goes on to break down the statistical likelihood of players drafted at certain positions becoming NHL players, and becoming good NHL players at that.

No matter how you slice it, players taken in the late first round generally have less than a 30% chance of becoming a 7 or better, based on his analysis. For picks 31-35, the odds of a player becoming a 7 or better is 12.4%. The odds of a second rounder in general playing 100 NHL games, let alone being an impact player, is about one in three.

So, statistically speaking, Travis Hamonic has a 100% chance of becoming a 7, so we can consider him to have a value of 7. The first rounder has (if I'm being really generous) a 30% chance of becoming a 7 or better, so let's call that a value of 2.5 (~30% of 8). The two second rounders have about a 12.5% chance of being a 7 or better, so each can have a value of 1.

So the asset we got for three years at a very good contract has a value of 7, and the picks have a cumulative value of 4.5. And that's being as biased against my own argument as I can be.

I'm interested to hear your logic as to why this is an overpayment.

Of course we could have traded Erik Karlsson and two Jamie Benns for Travis Hamonic. But we also could have traded Tim Erixon, Patrick Sieloff and Markus Granlund. The most objective way to look at value is certainly not to look at the extreme outcomes and ignore the odds of them coming true.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

But then again, so was Byron.

On that note, here's a bit of a prediction:

Curtis Lazar is placed on waivers at the end of training camp as BT tries to sneak him through. He passes as he's not currently half the player Paul Byron was, and proceeds to spend the year in the AHL, which while centering Mangiapane/Klimchuk and Pribyl/Poirier ends up being the best thing ever for his development.

 

[Fig]

On that note, here's a bit of a prediction:

Curtis Lazar is placed on waivers at the end of training camp as BT tries to sneak him through. He passes as he's not currently half the player Paul Byron was, and proceeds to spend the year in the AHL, which while centering Mangiapane/Klimchuk and Pribyl/Poirier ends up being the best thing ever for his development.

Bold. But a move I think would pay massive dividends within 3-6 months.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Bold. But a move I think would pay massive dividends within 3-6 months.

Take away recency bias and we have:

2nd round pick traded for Curtis Lazar. 180 NHL GP.
1st round pick spent on Emile Poirier. AHL All-Star at 19/20.
2nd round pick (Granlund) traded for Hunter Shinkaruk. AHL All-Star at 20/21.


All three of these guys are 2013 1st-rounders, still legitimate prospects, each are waiver-eligible, yet each could use one more year in the AHL.

 

[Flameshomer]

I think the odds of Andersson alone becoming better than Hamonic are better than not. I realise that may just be me, and also that Andersson is not your average second-round pick, but statistically when you give up three high picks like that, one of those guys is likely gonna end up an impact NHLer.

And a first round pick has a tonne of value, that's why organizations don't trade them unless it's for a key piece. Even if Hamonic played like a #3 every year, I'm certain we could've gotten a defenseman of his calibre for less than what we gave up. Probably could've gotten a few other guys too.



Your argument about the timing trade-off is good, but the crux of the issue for me isn't that we didn't get to draft with the picks we gave up, it's that we overpaid - if a pick has a (somewhat) set value, we didn't squeeze every drop we could've out of them. I took issue with Flameshomer calling it great value just because we didn't give up a roster player - that doesn't at all make it a good trade.

He's played better than a #3 in several seasons. But please humor me and tell me who we could have gotten for less? I think you're off your rocker.

Also I didn't say it was great because we didn't lose a roster player. In a perfect world it would have included a dead weight roster player like brouwer or bouma. It was good value because Hamonic has shown he can play at a #2 level, is only 25, a RHD, and locked up for four years at 3.75 million. That's worth a 1st, and 2 2nds. Defensemen are at a premium- look what the chumps up in my neck of the woods paid for larsson. I would be happy to argue Hamonic > Larsson, and we gave up much less than Hall.

 

[Flameshomer]

On that note, here's a bit of a prediction:

Curtis Lazar is placed on waivers at the end of training camp as BT tries to sneak him through. He passes as he's not currently half the player Paul Byron was, and proceeds to spend the year in the AHL, which while centering Mangiapane/Klimchuk and Pribyl/Poirier ends up being the best thing ever for his development.

Disagree. You're sleeping on Lazar.

I would love for him to be able to grow some confidence and game speed back in the AHL but I don't think there's any chance he makes it through waivers.

 

[Mr Snrub]

He's played better than a #3 in several seasons. But please humor me and tell me who we could have gotten for less? I think you're off your rocker.

A guy like Jason Demers comes to mind, his name had been kicked around during the expansion draft as a possible target for a #4 and he's just as good a player as Hamonic. I bet we could've had him for something as low as the 2018 second + Poirier.

Hamonic has never been more than a middle-pairing defenseman on a deep team. His rookie season skewed expectations of the player he would become - this is more or less the consensus among Islanders fans as well.

Also I didn't say it was great because we didn't lose a roster player. In a perfect world it would have included a dead weight roster player like brouwer or bouma. It was good value because Hamonic has shown he can play at a #2 level, is only 25, a RHD, and locked up for four years at 3.75 million. That's worth a 1st, and 2 2nds. Defensemen are at a premium- look what the chumps up in my neck of the woods paid for larsson. I would be happy to argue Hamonic > Larsson, and we gave up much less than Hall.

Hamonic is definitely better than Larsson, but that doesn't mean that the grease won their trade. I wouldn't trade a first and two seconds for a feather-soft offensive specialist either.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Hamonic has never been more than a middle-pairing defenseman on a deep team. His rookie season skewed expectations of the player he would become - this is more or less the consensus among Islanders fans as well.

Trust me, I'm not on any Hamonic wagon as I'm really skeptical of him, but that part isn't true.

Here was his quality of competition chart in 2015:

In many ways that is the kind of role you want your #1 defenseman to be playing. And Boychuk/Leddy/CDH was definitely a great overall blue line at that time. That Islanders were a playoff team.

Disagree. You're sleeping on Lazar.

Not really. Byron was/is a better player. "AINEC". Lazar is all upside, but has shown nothing in the NHL close to what Byron had here.

 

[Flameshomer]

Trust me, I'm not on any Hamonic wagon as I'm really skeptical of him, but that part isn't true.

Here was his quality of competition chart in 2015:

In many ways that is the kind of role you want your #1 defenseman to be playing. And Boychuk/Leddy/CDH was definitely a great overall blue line at that time. That Islanders were a playoff team.



Not really. Byron was/is a better player. "AINEC". Lazar is all upside, but has shown nothing in the NHL close to what Byron had here.

2013-14 Calgary Flames NHL 47 7 14 21 27 6 -- -- -- -- --
2014-15 Calgary Flames NHL 57 6 13 19 8 -2 -- -- -- -- --
2015-16 Montreal Canadiens NHL 62 11 7 18 11 -9 -- -- -- -- --

vs

Ottawa Senators NHL 67 6 9 15 14 1 6 0 0 0 2
2015-16 Ottawa Senators NHL 76 6 14 20 18 -1 -- -- -- -- --


Given the age, size, and pedigree of Lazar, with those stat lines I would easily pick him over Byron.

 

[Fig]

Disagree. You're sleeping on Lazar.

I would love for him to be able to grow some confidence and game speed back in the AHL but I don't think there's any chance he makes it through waivers.

Hence why OKG's suggestion of sneaking him down when other teams are trying to shave their roster limit is such a sly suggestion.

Byron should have gone down no prob. But Montreal was lucky to be able to negate Kassian's contract due to the truck crash situation/substance abuse program situation to suddenly have a slot to acquire Byron. Furthermore, the guys in charge in Montreal wanted Byron because they had recently watched his breakaway fail vid and loved his speed and tenacity. I've always believed if Byron was snuck down a day earlier, he's still a Calgary Flame roster player. The calculation made sense. The Kassian thing was a outside of the box "loophole" that allowed Montreal to claim him.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

2013-14 Calgary Flames NHL 47 7 14 21 27 6 -- -- -- -- --
2014-15 Calgary Flames NHL 57 6 13 19 8 -2 -- -- -- -- --
2015-16 Montreal Canadiens NHL 62 11 7 18 11 -9 -- -- -- -- --

vs

Ottawa Senators NHL 67 6 9 15 14 1 6 0 0 0 2
2015-16 Ottawa Senators NHL 76 6 14 20 18 -1 -- -- -- -- --


Given the age, size, and pedigree of Lazar, with those stat lines I would easily pick him over Byron.

Because counting stats are what made Paul Byron an effective NHL forward?

If Paul Byron had Lazar's underlying metrics he would have cleared waivers and never been called up again.

 

[Volica]

Because counting stats are what made Paul Byron an effective NHL forward?

If Paul Byron had Lazar's underlying metrics he would have cleared waivers and never been called up again.

To be fair, Byron's underlying metrics were really nothing to write home about until the end of the 2013-2014 season, which would have been his 24-25 year old season. Lazar will be entering his 22-23 year old season; still 2 years away from that Byron AHL seasoning.

I like his potential. His first season, in regards to underlying numbers, he was a positive impact player. The guy shouldn't have even been in the NHL (he should have been a Klimchuk or Poirier type pick) over the past few years, but he did show fairly well with a very limited role.

I like Paul Byron, and I still wish he was on this team; but I'm hoping Lazar can be a similar player with a bit more finish earlier in his career.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Hence why OKG's suggestion of sneaking him down when other teams are trying to shave their roster limit is such a sly suggestion.

Byron should have gone down no prob. But Montreal was lucky to be able to negate Kassian's contract due to the truck crash situation/substance abuse program situation to suddenly have a slot to acquire Byron. Furthermore, the guys in charge in Montreal wanted Byron because they had recently watched his breakaway fail vid and loved his speed and tenacity. I've always believed if Byron was snuck down a day earlier, he's still a Calgary Flame roster player. The calculation made sense. The Kassian thing was a outside of the box "loophole" that allowed Montreal to claim him.

Is this actually ****ing true