Speculation: Rumour, Trade, and Free Agent Speculation 2018-19 - Part X

[Mortimer Snerd]

I think Chevy and the Jets thought long and hard before giving up picks for rentals this year and last. They are using a wider set of facts than we are, chiefly the likely plans with Trouba. If they need to move Trouba for futures then you could see the added emphasis on maximizing the roster these last couple of seasons while they have Trouba, while also realizing that they will soon be adding additional prospects and picks from a Trouba trade. If Trouba is on his way out they might even be looking at a longer horizon to hit the same level on D when their young players like Samberg and Niku are ready for top roles, while retaining a strong young forward core and goalie that bridges to a rebuilt defense.

One factor that has been clear is their recognition of the flattening of the value curve for draft picks when you are looking at around 27-60. There is a much more gradual drop off in pick value in that range than between the top 10 and late 1st round. You will always find players you missed with a later pick, but there are always later picks that you might pick up at 55-60 that can transform the franchise. It's just that the probability is somewhat lower.

Possibly Whileee. Possibly take a quick 2 year shot at the Cup while we have Trouba, Buff, Wheeler, Little before dropping back and taking another shot 4-5 years from now. I hope not, but possible.

We are already feeling the effects of Little not being able to fulfill the role he is needed for. None of our D prospects project as a Trouba replacement, much less Buff and there is no Wheeler replacement in sight either. We will need to come up with replacements for those players while we draft in the 17-25 range.

Meanwhile the best years of Scheifele, Ehlers, Connor, Laine and Morrissey are slipping away. Or will those guys be enough to actually contend with the supporting cast we will be able to come up with from the pool we have left?

I'm still left with these rentals being extremely poor value for the price - because of term.

 

[Duke749]

Possibly Whileee. Possibly take a quick 2 year shot at the Cup while we have Trouba, Buff, Wheeler, Little before dropping back and taking another shot 4-5 years from now. I hope not, but possible.

We are already feeling the effects of Little not being able to fulfill the role he is needed for. None of our D prospects project as a Trouba replacement, much less Buff and there is no Wheeler replacement in sight either. We will need to come up with replacements for those players while we draft in the 17-25 range.

Meanwhile the best years of Scheifele, Ehlers, Connor, Laine and Morrissey are slipping away. Or will those guys be enough to actually contend with the supporting cast we will be able to come up with from the pool we have left?

I'm still left with these rentals being extremely poor value for the price - because of term.

There’s a lot of exaggeration in this post.

And worrying about a Wheeler replacement when you have Connor, Ehlers, and Laine in the top 6 wing spots seems like a huge overreaction. Wheeler is still producing. He’s not going anywhere anytime soon. You don’t just replace his numbers with a couple late firsts.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Starting to read like a comedy of errors, except it's not that funny if you're a Jets fan.

I would like to jump on the criticism of signing Little and Wheeler a year before it was necessary - but I just can't do it. I was in favour at the time in both cases. That is based on an assumption that Chevy wanted to make sure he could sign them while they were still under contract. If they had been unwilling, or too difficult to sign, he could still have traded them at that point. The flaw in that assumption is that both signed in Sept. For the trade option to have been really viable it would have had to be decided in early July. But maybe negotiations had progressed far enough by then that Chevy knew he would get it done, so no rush to dot the eyes and cross the tees.

But, in both cases I thought the term was too long. I thought both should have been 4 years. Little's 6 is really going to bite us in the ***.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

A couple things. You and some others are obviously against rentals and have valid arguments. But it seems like you are defending it here with a bunch of “what ifs?” My only concern is what the Winnipeg Jets and Chevy do in terms of rentals and in my opinion and some others, it was successful with Stastny. And even if it was Brassard, we can’t be sure he wouldn’t have been great on the Jets as opposed to the Penguins because he likely would have been used differently.

As for the pick given up. You speak almost in certainties that it’s Velano that was traded. We have no idea if that would be, irregardless of who ranked him where. The 2016 Logan Stanley pick should give pause to that notion because that certainly didn’t match with a lot of lists out there.

That being said, I agree it’s not sustainable and I also hope for a less short sighted solution.

The 'what if' counters the position that rentals are good because Stastny was a success. It is just 1 part of looking at the overall success rate of rentals - since it gets compared to the overall success rate of late 1st rd picks.

Yes, Brassard might have done better with the Jets than with the Penguins. I don't think that is likely though. I think Brassard's flaws have been revealed. It turns out that he just isn't that good.

True that it might not have been Veleno - but it certainly should have been. IMO almost certainly would have been - because because he was an obvious fit for need and the BPA. But yes, it is possible that Chevy could have ****ed up at the draft. It isn't like GM's don't. But it would not have been a horrible failure if Chevy had taken Sundin, the player that actually went to that pick.

I fall back on the argument about what kind of long term solution could have been found for some approximation of the same package we have given up by renting a 2C twice - so far. It turns out that ROR was available. My position is not that those assets need to be hoarded. It is just that assets in general need to be used to get real solutions to problems, not band aids. You only get to use them once.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

You and I are never going to agree on this Mort. Last year I liked the Stastny trade and this season I liked the Hayes deal as well as picking up some depth on defense. And both Stastny and Hayes have made us better teams. The late 1sts we gave up aren't going to make a difference until 4-6 years down the line and the odds are good they will be bottom of the roster players. These are easy to acquire in many different ways. As well pick value projections flattens out pretty good from the late 1st and throughout the 2nd round.

IMO we are at a time to go all in. The last of our older core Buff and Wheeler are still top players and we still have the youngest of our young core on ELC's. With each passing season we will be shedding talent to stay cap compliant. I also expect to recoup picks and prospects as we shed salary. The first by choice will be Trouba, who I expect will return significantly more than we spent on either Stastny or Hayes.

You're right KB. We are never going to agree. You don't know what the assets given up might turn out to be or how long it would take (4-6 is a bit extreme, 2-5 is more realistic). We do know that the rentals will be gone after this season, even if they turn out very well. And that is the weakness in the value equation.

There is never a time to make bad bets. This is actually a similar argument to the Logan Stanley one. It isn't that Stanley is horrible and has zero chance of making the NHL. He isn't horrible and he does have a chance. But there were better bets available at the time. There are better bets to be made with our assets than anything short term now.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

People like to be ignorant of the fact that the future of this team is mostly on the roster right now and for the foreseeable future. A couple firsts moved after having two the previous year is not a bad thing. It’s nothing but lazy hindsight thinking.

You make 2 statements here, both simply straight up wrong. The lazy thinking is in just blindly doing the standard thing without questioning its wisdom and thinking it through. It isn't hindsight if you took the same position in advance of the event.

 

[Whileee]

One of my pet peeves about assessing draft strategy and results is cherry-picking players drafted later that teams "missed". In the context of this thread it tends to result in an overvaluing of draft picks, with the logic of "if we hadn't traded away that pick we could have had Kucherov (or Veleno, etc.)". The reality is that there is a lot of uncertainty built into the draft process, so while you might have ended up with a Kucherov for a late 2nd round pick, you might have ended up with a Wotherspoon instead. Even teams with very strong drafting records have plenty of "misses". The Lightning drafted Hajek over DeBrincat and Girard, as an example.

Because of the uncertainty in the draft process it is more logical to take a statistical approach to assessing draft pick value. There are various ways to do this. One way is based on the market value of picks by analyzing previous pick-for-pick trades. However, that assumes that the marketplace is rational and stable, which is a dubious assumption. For example, draft pick values tend to vary depending on the time of the season (very high on draft day, and lowest at the trade deadline).

A better way to objectively assess draft pick value is to analyze the future NHL contribution of drafted players based on their draft pick slot. This has been done in various ways based on different ways of looking at NHL success. Each of the analytical approaches use smoothing techniques to deal with the vagaries related to strong outliers (i.e. rare circumstances where top players are picked very late). This doesn't eliminate the probability of getting a top player later in the draft, but it looks at the probability of doing so across that range of the draft.

Below is an illustration of two approaches to calibrating draft pick value. The first, and more traditional approach simply looks at drafted players' NHL contribution based on point shares in the NHL. This is represented in the blue curve and lines. A second approach focuses more on the concept of NHL hockey as a "strong link" sport, which means that success is determined more by the quality of your top player(s) than by the quality of your lowest level player(s). In this analysis, the approach is to value draft picks based on the probability of drafting a top player (in this case, top-30 in the NHL). So these two approaches provide some insights into the value of draft picks through either an "average" contribution or through the probability of drafting a top-rung player. Not surprisingly, the value of picks through the lens of drafting a top player is skewed towards picks in the top part of round 1, whereas there is a more smooth decline in pick value if you are looking at overall NHL contribution.

Below is a chart that summarizes draft pick values. Here are some key messages:

• Pick value based on overall NHL contribution (blue curve) is skewed heavily to the top end of the 1st round, and the difference between a #10-12 pick and a #25-30 is much more than between a late 1st and a late 2nd round pick. According to that model, the value difference between a late 1st and a late 2nd is the same as a mid-4th round pick.
• If you look at value based on the likelihood of drafting a top player, then the difference between a late 1st and late 2nd is even less, and the only picks that are highly valuable in that regard are in the top-10.

So, while I think the Jets need to be cautious not to give up too many picks and let the cupboards go dry, I think that the value of a late-1st is not that much better than a late 2nd, you can understand why they and other top teams are open to moving those picks to take a shot at a Cup run when their roster merits it.

Links to draft pick articles: Using the NHL Draft To Acquire Strong Links and Draft Pick Value Charts - Last Word on Hockey Don't Tell Me About Heart: NHL Draft Pick Value Chart

 

[Whileee]

Wouldn't shock me, which is why we desperately need RHD, and not LHD

Niku and Samberg have both played RD, though I think Samberg slots best as a LD.

Still, the Jets have some interesting depth on both sides in their pipeline...

RD - Niku, Poolman, Kovacevic, Gawanke
LD - Samberg, Stanley, Chisholm, Valatti

I would rate Niku and Samberg as solid top-4. I think we'll find that Poolman and Kovacevic are better than we might have anticipated due to their unusual development path, and could be in the #4-5 range. Stanley projects as a decent #6-7, and Gawanke, Chisholm and Valatti have potential but uncertain ceilings.

 

[Whileee]

The 'what if' counters the position that rentals are good because Stastny was a success. It is just 1 part of looking at the overall success rate of rentals - since it gets compared to the overall success rate of late 1st rd picks.

Yes, Brassard might have done better with the Jets than with the Penguins. I don't think that is likely though. I think Brassard's flaws have been revealed. It turns out that he just isn't that good.

True that it might not have been Veleno - but it certainly should have been. IMO almost certainly would have been - because because he was an obvious fit for need and the BPA. But yes, it is possible that Chevy could have ****ed up at the draft. It isn't like GM's don't. But it would not have been a horrible failure if Chevy had taken Sundin, the player that actually went to that pick.

I fall back on the argument about what kind of long term solution could have been found for some approximation of the same package we have given up by renting a 2C twice - so far. It turns out that ROR was available. My position is not that those assets need to be hoarded. It is just that assets in general need to be used to get real solutions to problems, not band aids. You only get to use them once.

See my post above - I think it is more rational to assess trades of picks based on a more objective analysis of draft pick value, rather than on hindsight. When the pick was traded, Chevy couldn't have known that other GMs were going to let a player like Veleno slide, or that Sundin would have such a sharp development pathway. He needs to make value decisions based on the usual pick value assessment. I recall him or perhaps Maurice mentioning specifically that they understand that there isn't such a big drop-off in pick value between late-1st and late-2nd, which is factual if you look at the situation statistically. Of course, you increase your odds of getting a top player with more picks, but as an example, the likelihood of getting a bona fide #2C that will contribute anytime soon with a late 1st is very low. Consider Roslovic - he was a very good value #25 pick who looked like he might grow into that #2C slot, but so far he hasn't been able to make that leap. I wouldn't bet a ton on Veleno being a very good #2C until he's developed further and proven he can be effective at the NHL level.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

To the bolded, you don't own the business or have $100's of millions invested in developing a full city block in downtown Winnipeg. Retail space that needs to be leased, residential space that needs to be sold and a partner with hotel rooms that need to be rented. I'm guessing the conversation in the boardroom about operations doesn't start with in 4-6 years when that pick is ready to take on the 3rd line checking role let's then go all in.

And Trouba's value is impacted by him angling his way to UFA status at the earliest possible opportunity. The return will be along the lines of Karlsson but a lesser amount. Basically a 1 year rental.

The business side needs to look at the long term picture too.

From your comments on this subject you seem to believe that going all in at some point is the only way to win a Cup - ever. I don't agree it is the only way. I don't agree it is the best way. In fact, I think it is the worst way. Yes it has worked sometimes and even most of the winners have done it to some extent. That is because everybody is doing it so there is no body of data not doing it. I believe the best way to win a Cup is to contend as often as possible. To do that you need to very carefully try to get the most value out of every asset. Trading for players who will leave at the end of the season is not doing that.

 

[Duke749]

The business side needs to look at the long term picture too.

From your comments on this subject you seem to believe that going all in at some point is the only way to win a Cup - ever. I don't agree it is the only way. I don't agree it is the best way. In fact, I think it is the worst way. Yes it has worked sometimes and even most of the winners have done it to some extent. That is because everybody is doing it so there is no body of data not doing it. I believe the best way to win a Cup is to contend as often as possible. To do that you need to very carefully try to get the most value out of every asset. Trading for players who will leave at the end of the season is not doing that.

I think after this year the likeliness we go all in over the next 2-3 years is very low. I think we will have to rely on what we started with far more likely because of cap reasons. This season and last are very unique situations where he have two guys in Laine and Connor be big contributors while on their ELCs. That is something that doesn’t happen often.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I'm sure they'd prefer to trade Trouba, but the possible Trouba trade is only based on his desire to not want to re-sign long-term in Winnipeg (allegedly). I don't think the trades for Stastny and Hayes are because they think they can get it back with a Trouba trade, I think they make those deals anyway. In fact, I think the possibility of having to possibly trade him spurs on the desire to make a big push for the Cup before he goes.

I agree.

The going rate right now for a d-man in Trouba's position is the Karlsson deal. One more year to UFA, unsigned. I figure you have to maybe add a little bit to the expected return to account for the Dorion getting fleeced factor, but deduct the same amount because Trouba isn't Karlsson. A team with the desire to trade for Trouba with the hope of "courting" him for a season is going to be a good one, and not willing to give up too much in the way of roster players.

Karlsson doesn't quite work for a couple of reasons. But your point that the Trouba return will be that of a 1 year rental stands. I agree, unless some team is able to work out a deal in advance.

If all we get is the value of a 1 year rental he is worth that to us to keep. There isn't likely to be another team needing that 1 year rental any more than we do.

The Blues and the Jets situations are different so you can't say "The Jets could've done something like X", because trades are never made in a vacuum. You say that the Jets may not have wanted to make that trade for a variety of reasons - if you accept that the reasons are valid and reasonable, then it doesn't matter what another team with another set of circumstances did with their deals.

The Blues and Jets situations don't matter. The point is that that deal was available. It was an option.

The Oilers traded a 1st for Griffin Reinhart. He had term, so you'd probably say that was a better deal than trading a later 1st for a rental? If we're only going by those criteria.

Please! If it is only getting someone, anyone with term that matters, we could probably get Clarkson for a 1st + prospect.

That's a valid point to take as a fan, but a business has more to consider than that. I think TNSE will see a three round playoff run as more beneficial for the Jets overall as a business, and a franchise in Winnipeg, than whether Joe Veleno could've stepped into the number 2 C role in 4-6 years.

Do you really think it is that simple? Do you think the business perspective only considers 3 rds of PO vs Veleno in 4-6 years? It would be more accurate, just for a start to to consider that it is 2 PO rds on one hand vs 3 rds on the other. The Jets were on pace for 110 pts before the trade, not for missing the PO altogether. A more realistic timeline for Veleno is 2-4 years. If he takes 5-6 to arrive he isn't likely playing in the top 6.

I think it would be more accurate (my opinion) to consider a 2-3 yr run of contending on one hand vs a 7-10 year run of contending on the other. From a business perspective they would evaluate one strategy vs the other, not simply one piece of one strategy. The longer window of contention is a better business bet.

If they are only going to do a very simplistic and short term evaluation, there is no way they would have agreed to pay Wheeler 8.25 million. Get somebody else for 3 million and pocket the 5 mil difference.

Getting those PO games brings in extra revenue but also requires additional expense. Cut costs. Ice a cap floor team and forget about PO revenue. The assets you get in return for trading away every player who gets expensive will even allow you to be semi-competitive.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

_______________________________________________________

I agree with Bogo that everything TNSE does is interrelated to the long term success of the Jets. The more financially stable the ownership group is, the more stable the Jet's will be over the long run.

I hope the new development TNSE is doing comes off very successful, and if it's like other things they do, I'm sure it will be. Hope so.

I agree. But turning that into an argument in favour of making bad, short term trades is an error. I believe it is bad strategy to win a Cup and it is similarly bad business strategy.

 

[tbcwpg]

The Blues and Jets situations don't matter. The point is that that deal was available. It was an option.

The situations do matter. A deal is available for Panarin this summer. The Jets situation makes that unlikely, while it is more likely for the Panthers.

Do you really think it is that simple? Do you think the business perspective only considers 3 rds of PO vs Veleno in 4-6 years? It would be more accurate, just for a start to to consider that it is 2 PO rds on one hand vs 3 rds on the other. The Jets were on pace for 110 pts before the trade, not for missing the PO altogether. A more realistic timeline for Veleno is 2-4 years. If he takes 5-6 to arrive he isn't likely playing in the top 6.

I think it would be more accurate (my opinion) to consider a 2-3 yr run of contending on one hand vs a 7-10 year run of contending on the other. From a business perspective they would evaluate one strategy vs the other, not simply one piece of one strategy. The longer window of contention is a better business bet.

If they are only going to do a very simplistic and short term evaluation, there is no way they would have agreed to pay Wheeler 8.25 million. Get somebody else for 3 million and pocket the 5 mil difference.

Getting those PO games brings in extra revenue but also requires additional expense. Cut costs. Ice a cap floor team and forget about PO revenue. The assets you get in return for trading away every player who gets expensive will even allow you to be semi-competitive.

The decision to trade the 1st rounder does take that into consideration. It takes into consideration the fact that they feel the team will be a perennial playoff team as is, and doesn't need that potential guy down the road to maintain that. That the impact this season of having Hayes is greater than the impact down the road of that 1st and Lemieux.

I guess it's how you value that 1st that's going away. I don't see it as the difference between 2-3 years of deep runs and 7-10 years of maybe getting bounced in the first or second if you're lucky.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Click to expand to see my post. Embedding it into the original didn't quite work out as planned.

I didn’t sense he was being frivolous with his statement though. It felt to me at least like he wasn’t planning on waisting them but just values rentals at the deadline on certain years more than the majority of posters on this thread. One thing we may be undervaluing is the wage leveraging aspect of getting a really good asset under the cap. Hayes or Stastny were both really nice top 6 players that we get to pay a fraction of the price for and use for the most important part of the season at a highly reduced AAV hit. It’s a shrewd tactic to talent stack and yes it comes at a price.{/QUOTE]

I didn't mean to imply that his statement was made frivolously. I meant to characterize the TD rentals as frivolous. And yes, that is a poor way to put it. I think they both overvalue the rentals they pick up and undervalue the assets they pay to get them. That has a frivolous appearance but I'm sure they take it very seriously. I just think they have got the values wrong. Of course he isn't intentionally wasting them. He believes in the value of what he is getting.

I like your point about the wage leveraging. It enables a cap team to have a player for the PO who they otherwise couldn't afford. But it still wrecks on the high cost of rentals relative to their term. But that point needs to be kept in mind.

There is a reason smart GM’s that don’t have a gun to their head to win now still chose to improve their team heading into a playoff run.

They get those values wrong because they are following an industry accepted practice. Being in charge and making the decisions isn't easy. Sometimes even smart people tend to fall back on accepted practices.

In the case of the Jets I doubt we are going to have the cap space to play this game over the next couple of seasons anyways. My guess is we start using our late 1sts again and find our way back to a slightly more balanced approach. For all we know Hayes gets extended or Trouba gets dealt for picks this year.

I've projected scenarios 4 years ahead and still doing fine against the cap. I'm not sure how to keep it going from there. There are some big renewals starting to show up. It begins to get too speculative to be worth going any further. But I'm confident that I could keep updating it each year for another 4 years and another. My scenarios aren't necessarily the best way to go. They may or may not win Cups. They are only intended to show that it can be done - in a reasonable way.

Hayes getting extended would put this year's TD rental into a completely different picture. If I could go back and do it over, I would like to try beating VGK's offer to Stastny. It would not only have gotten us Stastny, but it would have saved this year's trade cost. Of course, I don't know how much we actually bid and how much more it might have taken.

Trouba being traded for futures does nothing to mitigate the costs of our rentals. There is no way to recover the value of a poor deal. You just have to move on.

To be clear I don’t like spending first round picks but I do have more faith in Chevy than some here. He is not perfect but he wins allot more battles than he loses. This comes down to the fact Chevy views it more dynamically than many people on the board and he is going to horde extra picks at times and spend picks at times depending on the situation. It seems like he feels that will give the Jets the best shot at winning a championship at some point over his tenure. If we do this again next season then I reserve the right to change my opinion but for now I will let it play out.

I have no problem with hoarding extra picks when we can and spending them when they will help most. Quite the opposite. I'm all in favour of that. Use those extra picks to solve problems. Not on band aids.

I'm sure he does feel that this strategy gives us the best chance of winning a cup. I don't think that is correct. The Cup does not go to the best team in the league. It goes to one of the (5-6) contending teams. It goes to the one of those who has things come together in the right place at the right time. Its affected by the draw, the path they get to the Cup. Which other teams are beaten by an underdog, which other teams beat each other up in a tough series, which team has a crucial injury or two. I think the best way to actually win one or more Cups is to contend the absolute most times possible. The 2-3 or even 5% increase in the chances in any one year are not worth sacrificing one more year of contention 5 years from now. That may be the one where you would otherwise have finally won it.

Were you one of those saying that just because he did it last year didn't mean he would do it again this year? I think the only thing that prevents him doing it again next year is if he doesn't think we have a decent chance even with the addition of the rental. He has shown that he is inclined that way.

That's also why I think he might keep Trouba. If he looks at the offers and decides that he would pay that much to get him at the TD, then he will keep him, IMO. And also rent another 2C if Hayes doesn't stay, because Little will be worse not better.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

There’s a lot of exaggeration in this post.

And worrying about a Wheeler replacement when you have Connor, Ehlers, and Laine in the top 6 wing spots seems like a huge overreaction. Wheeler is still producing. He’s not going anywhere anytime soon. You don’t just replace his numbers with a couple late firsts.

Where is the exaggeration?

We have Connor, Ehlers, Laine and Wheeler now so we will be a lesser team if you subtract Wheeler from that list. If we are to be equal to what we have now Wheeler has to be replaced. The same goes for Trouba and Buff. Little already arrived at the point where he needs replacing.

What? You don't think Wheeler isn't aging at the same rate as the rest of us? Where he is going is to that same place Little went. When? IDK, but probably soon.

It isn't about a couple of firsts. It isn't about last year's TD deal, or this year's, or next year's either. It is about the strategy that results in poor value for the assets that we have. Those same assets could have been used to get a 2C who would be here for a few years. Or they could be used in a year or two to get a replacement top 6 RW for Wheeler. Good luck trying to replace Wheeler's production 2-3 years from now without the assets that have been traded away on rentals. The only option will be to trade someone else creating another hole. Ehlers for a Wheeler replacement? OK, who replaces Ehlers? Trade Connor for that. Who replaces Connor? Where does it stop?

 

[Duke749]

On what planet is it realistic to bank on a late first round pick to replace one of the top RWingers in the game?

 

[ps241]

Not sure I can quote your post since on my iPad it’s embedded inside the body of my post.

It’s an interesting debate and I get the industry standard lemming’s over a cliff syndrome. It may or may not apply to Chevy who knows.

One of the problems I am having is getting my head around “the assumption” we may be extending the window by keeping the 2 late 1st’s and Foley and Lemieux? The odds are that is also not true. In the 2.0 era our late 1st or early second round picks have been Roslovic, Stanley, Comrie, Petan, Sutter, Samberg, Harkins and none of them feel like difference makers as far as extending our window. There are some decent assets in the mix and some duds but I am not feeling it is the margin between contention or non contention. I suppose we could have gotten lucky last year or this year but the results on the ground in the 2.0 era don’t support it.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

One of my pet peeves about assessing draft strategy and results is cherry-picking players drafted later that teams "missed". In the context of this thread it tends to result in an overvaluing of draft picks, with the logic of "if we hadn't traded away that pick we could have had Kucherov (or Veleno, etc.)". The reality is that there is a lot of uncertainty built into the draft process, so while you might have ended up with a Kucherov for a late 2nd round pick, you might have ended up with a Wotherspoon instead. Even teams with very strong drafting records have plenty of "misses". The Lightning drafted Hajek over DeBrincat and Girard, as an example.

Because of the uncertainty in the draft process it is more logical to take a statistical approach to assessing draft pick value. There are various ways to do this. One way is based on the market value of picks by analyzing previous pick-for-pick trades. However, that assumes that the marketplace is rational and stable, which is a dubious assumption. For example, draft pick values tend to vary depending on the time of the season (very high on draft day, and lowest at the trade deadline).

A better way to objectively assess draft pick value is to analyze the future NHL contribution of drafted players based on their draft pick slot. This has been done in various ways based on different ways of looking at NHL success. Each of the analytical approaches use smoothing techniques to deal with the vagaries related to strong outliers (i.e. rare circumstances where top players are picked very late). This doesn't eliminate the probability of getting a top player later in the draft, but it looks at the probability of doing so across that range of the draft.

Below is an illustration of two approaches to calibrating draft pick value. The first, and more traditional approach simply looks at drafted players' NHL contribution based on point shares in the NHL. This is represented in the blue curve and lines. A second approach focuses more on the concept of NHL hockey as a "strong link" sport, which means that success is determined more by the quality of your top player(s) than by the quality of your lowest level player(s). In this analysis, the approach is to value draft picks based on the probability of drafting a top player (in this case, top-30 in the NHL). So these two approaches provide some insights into the value of draft picks through either an "average" contribution or through the probability of drafting a top-rung player. Not surprisingly, the value of picks through the lens of drafting a top player is skewed towards picks in the top part of round 1, whereas there is a more smooth decline in pick value if you are looking at overall NHL contribution.

Below is a chart that summarizes draft pick values. Here are some key messages:

• Pick value based on overall NHL contribution (blue curve) is skewed heavily to the top end of the 1st round, and the difference between a #10-12 pick and a #25-30 is much more than between a late 1st and a late 2nd round pick. According to that model, the value difference between a late 1st and a late 2nd is the same as a mid-4th round pick.
• If you look at value based on the likelihood of drafting a top player, then the difference between a late 1st and late 2nd is even less, and the only picks that are highly valuable in that regard are in the top-10.

So, while I think the Jets need to be cautious not to give up too many picks and let the cupboards go dry, I think that the value of a late-1st is not that much better than a late 2nd, you can understand why they and other top teams are open to moving those picks to take a shot at a Cup run when their roster merits it.

Links to draft pick articles: Using the NHL Draft To Acquire Strong Links and Draft Pick Value Charts - Last Word on Hockey Don't Tell Me About Heart: NHL Draft Pick Value Chart

View attachment 205379

Very interesting Whileee.

In general, I agree that these kinds of statistical models are a much better way of evaluating picks than cherry picking. I think we are all prone to cherry picking from time to time. We need to discipline ourselves to keep that in perspective. When we see a better player taken later we need to ask ourselves if the picks looked reasonable at the time? Did someone miss a pick they reasonably should have made? Usually I find I can't justify criticizing the miss or, commonly a good player was passed over by everyone until finally someone decides to jump in because the player is small. If you are simply trying to determine the value of 25 OA vs 20 OA, this is the way to go.

In the case of our '18 1st, I have identified Veleno as the most likely trade off. It is not a generic 29th pick. It is a specific one. Of course the Jets might have taken someone else but considering his attributes and team need and the fact that C is the most highly rated position, I think it is a safe bet. It is not hindsight. He is the one I wanted at the time. I would have been happy to trade up to get him.

In evaluating generic 25-31 picks vs a rental you need to apply the same kind of evaluation to the rentals as you do to the picks. This is a major piece of the puzzle that I see being completely ignored. I'm not talking about the depth rental that you get for a late rd pick or a C prospect. I'm talking about the expensive ones that cost 1st + prospect or a really good prospect. I don't have the numbers but out of all the teams that rent players a max of 1 per year wins the Cup. Many of the rented players disappoint with their new teams. Sometimes they have been overrated. Sometimes they take time to fit in with their new teams. Either way, the rental odds are a lot less than 100%. So it is not a case of 45% likely success late pick vs sure thing rental even if we lower the bar for what constitutes a successful rental.

Just for discussion lets say that rental success = late pick success, both 45%. It is still 45% for 1 PO vs 45% for 7 years minimum.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

See my post above - I think it is more rational to assess trades of picks based on a more objective analysis of draft pick value, rather than on hindsight. When the pick was traded, Chevy couldn't have known that other GMs were going to let a player like Veleno slide, or that Sundin would have such a sharp development pathway. He needs to make value decisions based on the usual pick value assessment. I recall him or perhaps Maurice mentioning specifically that they understand that there isn't such a big drop-off in pick value between late-1st and late-2nd, which is factual if you look at the situation statistically. Of course, you increase your odds of getting a top player with more picks, but as an example, the likelihood of getting a bona fide #2C that will contribute anytime soon with a late 1st is very low. Consider Roslovic - he was a very good value #25 pick who looked like he might grow into that #2C slot, but so far he hasn't been able to make that leap. I wouldn't bet a ton on Veleno being a very good #2C until he's developed further and proven he can be effective at the NHL level.

True. At the time the trade was made, I would have expected Veleno to go between 10-15. Long before our pick, which projected between 24-31, assuming winning at least 1 rd.

A thing that gets ignored often is that reduced probability of success requires more darts to throw at the board so trading away those lower probability picks can be seen as doubly bad in that respect.

I agree about Veleno too. He is not a sure thing by any means. He looked very good before the draft and even better since but we need to see how he transitions to a higher level of competition before anointing him. There have been plenty of highly regarded CHL players who have scored like him and who have struggled in the NHL.

 

[Maukkis]

On what planet is it realistic to bank on a late first round pick to replace one of the top RWingers in the game?

That scenario right there is much more likely than replacing him with thin air, which is what our rentals will likely leave us with.

Because one thing is unlikely to happen, it does not justify making low-percentage plays like buying expensive rentals 'because the other, better scenario isn't that trustworthy either'.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I think after this year the likeliness we go all in over the next 2-3 years is very low. I think we will have to rely on what we started with far more likely because of cap reasons. This season and last are very unique situations where he have two guys in Laine and Connor be big contributors while on their ELCs. That is something that doesn’t happen often.

We will almost certainly have enough cap space at the TD next year to accommodate another rental. That doesn't change that much. TD cap space is prorated. The likelihood of retaining that rental becomes extremely low, but that is another story. We haven't retained any yet.

I think we continue to go all in as long as Chevy thinks we are legit contenders. All in may mean less as we become more committed.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

The situations do matter. A deal is available for Panarin this summer. The Jets situation makes that unlikely, while it is more likely for the Panthers.



The decision to trade the 1st rounder does take that into consideration. It takes into consideration the fact that they feel the team will be a perennial playoff team as is, and doesn't need that potential guy down the road to maintain that. That the impact this season of having Hayes is greater than the impact down the road of that 1st and Lemieux.

I guess it's how you value that 1st that's going away. I don't see it as the difference between 2-3 years of deep runs and 7-10 years of maybe getting bounced in the first or second if you're lucky.

I do not follow your Panarin point at all. We need and needed a 2C. One was available. We had the resources to match or beat the price he went for. Where is there a similarity? We don't need a Panarin. We don't have the resources. But mostly, he just isn't something we need.

Yes, I get that they think that way. They would not trade assets for rentals if they did not.

It isn't 2-3 years of deep runs. Each TD deal is for 1 year of a deep run - you hope, if the rental fits and works out well. They often do not. And it isn't vs 7-10 years of maybe getting bounced in the first or second round. It is 7-10 years of doing better than you would otherwise without those assets. That better may mean winning the Cup instead of losing the SCF in 7 games. Or it may mean getting the opportunity to get bounced in the 1st round instead of missing the PO altogether. Exactly what it is is unknown. Just like there is no guarantee the rented player actually brings you a deep run.

The problem I see - IMO, is that pro-rental people expect a really substantial improvement in the odds of winning with the rental. I don't believe that is the case. If they work out well, they give a small boost to the chances of winning. Various betting site odds have been posted several times illustrating that. The thought experiment supports that.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

On what planet is it realistic to bank on a late first round pick to replace one of the top RWingers in the game?

Where did I say that? Where did I say anything remotely like that? If you insist on trying to twist my words we are never getting anywhere.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Not sure I can quote your post since on my iPad it’s embedded inside the body of my post.

It’s an interesting debate and I get the industry standard lemming’s over a cliff syndrome. It may or may not apply to Chevy who knows.

One of the problems I am having is getting my head around “the assumption” we may be extending the window by keeping the 2 late 1st’s and Foley and Lemieux? The odds are that is also not true. In the 2.0 era our late 1st or early second round picks have been Roslovic, Stanley, Comrie, Petan, Sutter, Samberg, Harkins and none of them feel like difference makers as far as extending our window. There are some decent assets in the mix and some duds but I am not feeling it is the margin between contention or non contention. I suppose we could have gotten lucky last year or this year but the results on the ground in the 2.0 era don’t support it.

Sorry about the way that embedded reply worked. Seemed like a good idea at the time. I expected better.

OK, fair point.
The window can be extended by the supporting cast as well as by top players. If we didn't already have any, or enough top players then supporting players wouldn't open the window, much less extend it.

That is if we only think of them as players of the ilk of those you listed. That's why I talk about assets. A package of assets of that level bought ROR for StL, with 5 years of term. They can be used in different ways. They can be bundled together or with some other assets. How about bundling a couple of those now gone assets with Trouba in order to get a replacement 1RHD in return, for example. The problem is not trading them. The problem is trading them for players with no term.