Confirmed with Link: [VAN/TOR] Canucks acquire D Travis Dermott for 3rd in 2022 (WPG)

[Melvin]

It's not perfect reasoning or the best way to look at it, but in the bigger picture it isn't wrong either.

Trading a non-lottery pick for a solid NHL player with some team control on a reasonable contract is almost always a win for the team getting the player. If you can trade a pick for a player you like with a good contract situation, you do that every time.

It is absolutely terrible reasoning. It completely ignores the value gained in the event of a draft pick success.

The value of a draft pick is its range of potential outcomes multiplied by probability of each outcome and the value of each outcome.

Also true for the player acquired.

If a draft pick is

75% chance of 0 value (complete bust)
15% chance of small value (useful but not great player)
9% chance of really good value (top-six forward or equivalent)
1% chance of excellent value (where you get a star player on an ELC)

And the player is something like

10% chance of 0 value (falls apart immediately Brandon Prust style)
75% chance of small value
15% chance of great value

Probably you take the relatively small chance at hitting the draft pick out of the park. A 1% chance of a star player on an ELC is probably better than 75% chance of a 4th liner on a fair contract. But it's difficult and it's nuanced, and all these variables should be considered. Sweeping away the insane value you can potentially get on a draft pick by just focusing on the probability is equivalent of analyzing risk without analyzing reward. It makes no sense.

(For the record, I'm fine with 3rd for Dermott.)

 

[Shareefruck]

It's not perfect reasoning or the best way to look at it, but in the bigger picture it isn't wrong either.

Trading a non-lottery pick for a solid NHL player with some team control on a reasonable contract is almost always a win for the team getting the player. If you can trade a pick for a player you like with a good contract situation, you do that every time.

That sounds like completely different reasoning. The take on the specific trade isn't what I'm taking exception to (I'm not sure I oppose the trade either), the actual idea/reasoning that all you have to do is look at the most likely outcome is. Picks have value because of the heights of their somewhat unlikely outcome. What they'll most likely become is almost completely irrelevant.

What you're saying is only true due to you accounting for this consideration internally and thinking that the value in this case outweighs it. That's different from saying that it doesn't need to be considered, period. A conclusion happening to be correct doesn't remotely justify a person getting there on faulty premises, and doesn't make it any less foolish to express such premises.

 

[Melvin]

That sounds like completely different reasoning. The take on the specific trade isn't what I'm taking exception to, the actual idea/reasoning that all you have to do is look at the most likely outcome is. Picks have value because of the heights of their somewhat unlikely outcome. What they'll most likely become is almost completely irrelevant.

Right. It looks at the risk without looking at the reward.

If I gave you the choice of playing 1 of these 2 games:

Game A
1% chance of $1,000,000
99% chance of $0

Game B
75% chance of $1
25% chance of $5

You're playing Game A and it's not close, right? But the way people here talk, "Game A will most likely never amount to even the $1 that Game B will get me!"

Obviously that exaggerates the EV compared to hockey trades but the point is you can't just look at probability and not look at the rewards available.

 

[pitseleh]

Right. It looks at the risk without looking at the reward.

If I gave you the choice of playing 1 of these 2 games:

Game A
1% chance of $1,000,000
99% chance of $0

Game B
75% chance of $1
25% chance of $5

You're playing Game A and it's not close, right? But the way people here talk, "Game A will most likely never amount to even the $1 that Game B will get me!"

Obviously that exaggerates the EV compared to hockey trades but the point is you can't just look at probability and not look at the rewards available.

What’s more, even if you set up the scenario so that the EV is higher for Game B (e.g. Game A is a 1% chance to win $100), there’s still potentially logic behind playing Game A: if you need $200 and can only play 50 times, you need to pick Game A.

In sports where you need a handful of top end players to even be in the conversation of being a contender, it may be logical to make “bad” bets when you need a minimum payoff.

I have no idea how that plays out in this situation but it certainly is complicated.

 

[Lindgren]

Right. It looks at the risk without looking at the reward.

If I gave you the choice of playing 1 of these 2 games:

Game A
1% chance of $1,000,000
99% chance of $0

Game B
75% chance of $1
25% chance of $5

You're playing Game A and it's not close, right? But the way people here talk, "Game A will most likely never amount to even the $1 that Game B will get me!"

Obviously that exaggerates the EV compared to hockey trades but the point is you can't just look at probability and not look at the rewards available.

The logic here is obvious and indisputable to to me.

But there's another layer: the position of the person making the bet.

Which game would you play if the mob is going to break your legs the next day if you don't come up with the million? Which game would you play if all you need to do is come up with a fiver somehow?

None of the teams in the NHL are in such an obvious position, but there is a difference between the way the logic works for a team that's in the bottom of the league with no elite players and a team packed with stars that wants to improve depth for a long playoff run.

 

[MS]

There's this notion that a 3rd round pick has enormous upside that you could get a superstar from and the player you acquire is just the player forever so if you trade all your non-1st picks you lose your chance at upside ... and I think that's totally wrong.

Like, you can look at JT Miller or Gus Forsling or Jared McCann or 2017 Vegas and there is tons of room for players to break out mid-career if it's the right player and the right situation. And the odds that Travis Dermott takes a step into a top-4 NHL defender from the position he's at are *way* higher than the odds of getting a top-6/top-4 asset from a #3 pick.

 

[pitseleh]

There's this notion that a 3rd round pick has enormous upside that you could get a superstar from and the player you acquire is just the player forever so if you trade all your non-1st picks you lose your chance at upside ... and I think that's totally wrong.

Like, you can look at JT Miller or Gus Forsling or Jared McCann or 2017 Vegas and there is tons of room for players to break out mid-career if it's the right player and the right situation. And the odds that Travis Dermott takes a step into a top-4 NHL defender from the position he's at are *way* higher than the odds of getting a top-6/top-4 asset from a #3 pick.

I’m not sure that’s the right question though. The question should include whether probability of getting a top-6/top-4 asset from the pool of players you are trading mid-round picks for sufficiently exceeds the probability of getting a top-6/top-4 asset from the pool of freely available players to justify trading an inherently limited asset in a mid-round pick.

Travis Dermott types are available as cheap FAs and on waivers fairly regularly. Same with Sven Baertschi types up front. I think a team could arguably do better mining those freely available players and keeping their picks than they could trading all of their mid-to-late round picks for those type of players.

Maybe that inefficiency goes away some day but I think it’s still there now.

 

[Pip]

by this logic you trade away multiple draft picks every year though. It seems like a very linear and basic way of thinking. I refuse to believe that going into drafts every year with less than 7 picks is a a recipe for long term success in a hard cap league.


the actual equation/comparison is the high variance and more volatile asset(draft pick) vs a “proven” NHL player with some upside as a long term effective role player


one asset has a higher chance of contributing nothing, but also offers a small chance at becoming a core long term asset

the other asset has a high chance of providing some value to your NHL team, but is basically at that stage where suddenly breaking out would be shocking.

We could have, for instance, traded a 5th round pick for Richardson and the same logic would hold true with the pick being unlikely to play in the NHL.

I have time for an argument that the Canucks management sees something in Dermott that gives him more value than a replacement level player, I just hate the argument with the probability of a pick being cited.

 

[SelltheTeamFrancesco]

Honestly would be fine with a Rathbone - Dermott third pair next year.

 

[Melvin]

There's this notion that a 3rd round pick has enormous upside that you could get a superstar from and the player you acquire is just the player forever so if you trade all your non-1st picks you lose your chance at upside ...

No, there isn't. That is not remotely compatible with what I posted. This is a strawman.

There is, however, literally a zero percent chance that the player aquired will be on an ELC though, so the odds of getting a star player for the league minimum is always going to be higher from the draft pick. As the guy who is constantly talking about how good players on bad contracts have no value, you seem to consistently ignore the contractual facet of this argument. If the player you're trading for breaks out, it's going to cost you (as is the case with every one of the players you named.)

 

[Melvin]

We could have, for instance, traded a 5th round pick for Richardson and the same logic would hold true with the pick being unlikely to play in the NHL.

I have time for an argument that the Canucks management sees something in Dermott that gives him more value than a replacement level player, I just hate the argument with the probability of a pick being cited.

Exactly.

If the team is high on Dermott and he was specifically targeted then I have no issue with using a 3rd round pick to try it out. It is an excellent (and the first) opportunity to test out the new regime's pro scouting as compared to the prior regime. I didn't have a huge issue with 3rd for Dorsett either. Same situation.

But "pick for player is always a good trade because the pick is unlikely to develop into as good as player" is a nonsense argument.

 

[Melvin]

Like, if Dermott develops into a top-4 D that's terrific, that's a great outcome. But it means that after next year we probably have to pay him $4M or something. That is always going to somewhat inhibit the actual value you can get compared to the potential value you can get from a player you drafted.

 

[MS]

No, there isn't. That is not remotely compatible with what I posted. This is a strawman.

There is, however, literally a zero percent chance that the player aquired will be on an ELC though, so the odds of getting a star player for the league minimum is always going to be higher from the draft pick. As the guy who is constantly talking about how good players on bad contracts have no value, you seem to consistently ignore the contractual facet of this argument. If the player you're trading for breaks out, it's going to cost you (as is the case with every one of the players you named.)

Non-1st picks are *very seldom* providing excess value on years 1-2 of their ELC even if they hit. These guys tend to have a couple years split AHL/NHL and then maybe hit in the last year of that ELC.

Like, from the entire 2017 and 2018 drafts there is 1 guy (Jason Robertson) who provided real excess value in year 2 of his ELC. Nobody did it in year 1. A couple more (Batherson, Sharangovich, Durzi) have broken out in year 3 ... and were then up for big renewals. 2016 you do have Debrincat and Fox ... although Fox was an odd case who didn't actually help the team that drafted him. 2019 isn't looking promising either - Hoglander is probably the best value.

It's talked up as a thing, but it very seldom happens. The guys powering big value on ELCs are your top picks. A 3rd round pick providing star value for multiple years on an ELC is a unicorn.

Plus there are always bonuses so when a Pettersson or Hughes hits on their ELC it isn't actually 'league minimum'. Those ended up being around $2 million in the end IIRC?

Like, yeah it *can* be a thing. But it's such a rare thing and the opportunity cost is so small that it wouldn't really overly factor into my decision making.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Don’t care. Calling him McDermott for atleast the rest of the season.

 

[MS]

I’m not sure that’s the right question though. The question should include whether probability of getting a top-6/top-4 asset from the pool of players you are trading mid-round picks for sufficiently exceeds the probability of getting a top-6/top-4 asset from the pool of freely available players to justify trading an inherently limited asset in a mid-round pick.

Travis Dermott types are available as cheap FAs and on waivers fairly regularly. Same with Sven Baertschi types up front. I think a team could arguably do better mining those freely available players and keeping their picks than they could trading all of their mid-to-late round picks for those type of players.

Maybe that inefficiency goes away some day but I think it’s still there now.

I mean, it depends on the player and the situation.

Dermott is a better calibre of player than the Kale Clague-level guys you usually see on waivers.

I would have thought he was worth a 4th or 5th so I thought it was a slight overpayment (cancelled out by receiving a slight overpayment for Hamonic) but if your scouts believe in the guy I'm totally fine with that.

____________

I hate the focus on pick surpluses like they're a 'goal' and they're an important thing that needs to be a focus.

To me they're a result that happens organically simply by having good management that correctly takes advantage of the situations in front of them.

And if it does, great. But also if you spend some picks on NHL players you like and you have room to put them in positions to succeed - to me that's also great. There isn't one roadmap to success.

 

[Tomatoes11]

Lol I think Baerschit was going to get waived by Calgary very shortly but then dim and weisbrod(who might have had a hand in drafting him) swooped in and offered him a super high 2nd for him. Then Treliving laughed all the way to the bank and drafted anderssen.

 

[Tomatoes11]

I mean, it depends on the player and the situation.

Dermott is a better calibre of player than the Kale Clague-level guys you usually see on waivers.

I would have thought he was worth a 4th or 5th so I thought it was a slight overpayment (cancelled out by receiving a slight overpayment for Hamonic) but if your scouts believe in the guy I'm totally fine with that.

____________

I hate the focus on pick surpluses like they're a 'goal' and they're an important thing that needs to be a focus.

To me they're a result that happens organically simply by having good management that correctly takes advantage of the situations in front of them.

And if it does, great. But also if you spend some picks on NHL players you like and you have room to put them in positions to succeed - to me that's also great. There isn't one roadmap to success.

Naw, I am pretty sure Dermott is waiver caliber. Kyllington was on waivers. I was shocked no one picked him up but yeah.

 

[VanillaCoke]

I like the player, dont like the price given the circumstances and I think it would have been alot closer to salvaging a passable TDL if our mgmt had gotten more of a perceived steal than a very similar age gap Benning deal.

I also think picks in the top 120 or so are much more valuable than some ppl are seemingly pushing in here.

 

[F A N]

Non-1st picks are *very seldom* providing excess value on years 1-2 of their ELC even if they hit. These guys tend to have a couple years split AHL/NHL and then maybe hit in the last year of that ELC.

Like, from the entire 2017 and 2018 drafts there is 1 guy (Jason Robertson) who provided real excess value in year 2 of his ELC. Nobody did it in year 1. A couple more (Batherson, Sharangovich, Durzi) have broken out in year 3 ... and were then up for big renewals. 2016 you do have Debrincat and Fox ... although Fox was an odd case who didn't actually help the team that drafted him. 2019 isn't looking promising either - Hoglander is probably the best value.

It's talked up as a thing, but it very seldom happens. The guys powering big value on ELCs are your top picks. A 3rd round pick providing star value for multiple years on an ELC is a unicorn.

Plus there are always bonuses so when a Pettersson or Hughes hits on their ELC it isn't actually 'league minimum'. Those ended up being around $2 million in the end IIRC?

Like, yeah it *can* be a thing. But it's such a rare thing and the opportunity cost is so small that it wouldn't really overly factor into my decision making.

I'm seeing so many posters disagreeing with MS, but I actually side with MS in the argument.

Draft picks have inherent value up to the point you use the pick to select a player. That inherent value comes from its value as a trade chip and value of what the drafted player can be etc. Consequently, depending on the model you are looking at, late round picks have far greater value than what they are worth in a trade (although the probability of getting value out of later round picks is quite low).

Back in 2004, Dallas traded their 91st overall for the Canucks 3rd round pick in 2005. That pick turned out to be 71st overall due to the lockout. Win for Dallas? Canucks drafted Edler with that pick. This illustrates one problem with trying to mathematically analyze everything. It doesn't take into account the strength of the draft and who is left on the board.

I talked about this in the context of the Garland trade and Podkolzin selection. If you are to rely on your scouting staff, moving up or down one spot could mean a world of difference in value to your team.

Generally the odds are stacked against you in terms of trying to draft a top 4 Dman or top 6 winger with a mid to late 3rd round selection. Our 3rd round selections are: Jurmo, Madden, DiPietro, Lockwood, Brisebois, Tryamkin, Cassels, Grenier, Connauton, Rahimi, Edler, Skinner, Mensator, Federov, Bell and Branham, Vydareny, Ruutu, Freadrich, Komarniski, Schaefer...

In practical terms, the Canucks are arguably better off if every 3rd round pick turned into a Dermot level player. Heck, if we never get another Edler from our 3rd round pick it would be nice to be able to consistently draft Ruutus and Schaefers with our 3rd round picks.

 

[pitseleh]

I mean, it depends on the player and the situation.

Dermott is a better calibre of player than the Kale Clague-level guys you usually see on waivers.

I would have thought he was worth a 4th or 5th so I thought it was a slight overpayment (cancelled out by receiving a slight overpayment for Hamonic) but if your scouts believe in the guy I'm totally fine with that.

____________

I hate the focus on pick surpluses like they're a 'goal' and they're an important thing that needs to be a focus.

To me they're a result that happens organically simply by having good management that correctly takes advantage of the situations in front of them.

And if it does, great. But also if you spend some picks on NHL players you like and you have room to put them in positions to succeed - to me that's also great. There isn't one roadmap to success.

On the flipside, off the top of my head guys like Kylington, Forsling and Carrier were on waivers in the last 18 months and have put up pretty good seasons with pretty good teams. I do agree that if the team's scouting sees something in Dermott then this is a good test of their capabilities.

I do agree with the latter half of your - my point was just that these things are contextual and not as simple as what are the odds of x versus y. I agree that treating any of these things (pick hoarding, trading picks for young players, etc.) as an end rather than as a means to an end is a silly way to go about things.

That's what frustrated me about Benning's approach - leaving aside the poor execution, he seemed to treat filling the age gap as an end as opposed to a means to an end, and in doing so gave a million opportunities to those players while not giving some of the players already in the system a chance or going out and trying to find value UFAs. The players he was acquiring were never going to help the team win in the remnants of the Sedin window, nor were they helping build the next core of the team. And the approach led him to not do the things that would have helped support one or both of those targets.

 

[God]

Pick hoarding is funny because you really need to hope your amateur scouting department helps you out in addition to your development system. Ottawa could have hoarded all the picks last year and I bet their 2021 draft would still be garbage.

I wonder if there's ever been a situation where a GM didn't trust his amateur scouting staff and hoarded picks so he could trade them to other teams for players because he trusted his pro scouts more.

 

[MS]

On the flipside, off the top of my head guys like Kylington, Forsling and Carrier were on waivers in the last 18 months and have put up pretty good seasons with pretty good teams. I do agree that if the team's scouting sees something in Dermott then this is a good test of their capabilities.

I do agree with the latter half of your - my point was just that these things are contextual and not as simple as what are the odds of x versus y. I agree that treating any of these things (pick hoarding, trading picks for young players, etc.) as an end rather than as a means to an end is a silly way to go about things.

That's what frustrated me about Benning's approach - leaving aside the poor execution, he seemed to treat filling the age gap as an end as opposed to a means to an end, and in doing so gave a million opportunities to those players while not giving some of the players already in the system a chance or going out and trying to find value UFAs. The players he was acquiring were never going to help the team win in the remnants of the Sedin window, nor were they helping build the next core of the team. And the approach led him to not do the things that would have helped support one or both of those targets.

1) Absolutely we should take more advantage of waivers as well. I'll post until I'm blue in the face about how frustrating it's been to watch this team carry Chiasson/Dowling/Hunt basically all year and not take any shots on younger players who could be future contributors. Aube-Kubel was the one I wanted most and it's been very frustrating to see him fit like a glove into the bottom-6 of an elite team.

2) To me, if it's a guy you really believe in, a mid-round pick is a pretty small blind to see the flop. I have no problem with this sort of trade if the target makes sense. The problem with Benning was that it was even higher picks for bad slow busting AHL players.

3) Benning's eternal fascination with other teams' junk instead of putting our own cheap/young guys in positions to succeed was endlessly frustrating. I get angry just thinking about it.

They did actually figure it out a bit in the end with Motte/Highmore who were 'less skilled' guys who actually had a skillset that played into a role in the NHL.

 

[F A N]

They did actually figure it out a bit in the end with Motte/Highmore who were 'less skilled' guys who actually had a skillset that played into a role in the NHL.

Granted they were "other teams' junk"

 

[MS]

Granted they were "other teams' junk"

Fair but they were cheap young fast guys. And they were actually on NHL rosters.

I'm thinking more of spending 5 years developing Brendan Gaunce and then parachuting in Tim Schaller in over him at double the price for worse results, or forcing guys like Pouliot and Vey and Granlund onto NHL rosters for years when they simply weren't NHL-calibre players.

 

[Hoglander]

Honestly would be fine with a Rathbone - Dermott third pair next year.

I'd like to see if Dermott can mesh well with Hughes, and then play Rathbone with Schenn. Imo Rathbone was targeted physically in the games he played this year, and I'd like to see him find his footing in the NHL while knowing that someone has his back.