Speculation: 2013 Offseason roster build thread part Additional Nauseum

[Djp]

The problem with moving Vanek now is that the huge decrease in the salary cap pushed the usual culprits to the brink so they don't have the space to add Vanek. That alone has limited the number of teams that could realistically be interested in him. Simply putting up his usual stats will mean he'll be the best player available at the deadline and agreeing to retain cash will increase the number of his suitors.

As for the draft position; if Darcy wanted to ensure a higher pick he would be better off moving Miller for scraps as he has a more immediate affect on wins and losses, and his return isn't going to be in the same ballpark as Vanek's.

I agree on both points.

By waiting until the mid point of the season Vanek's cap hit would be $3.6M with 50% retained means he is owed $1.8M. This amount becomes much more affordible for many more teams. In the deal if they take back a young 23 man roster player with salary may be around $1.4M----this loweres the net cap hit to $1.1M---taking back another lowers it to $0.7M. To balance out the salary they could take back a cap dump as part of the deal who makes around $3.6M and it becomes about a net zero deal for the club if the other pieces aquired are picks ad below NHL prosepcts.

Trading him around the 41 game mark--or even the deadline---wont matter than much when it comes to standings. Teams can plummet easily from the trade deadline. Trading Miller earlier will put the young goalies in the lineup---could they perform just as well as Miller??? sure.

As for draft location----Sure a team having two top 3 players will matter in team results (chicago and Pittsburgh) but one just is not enough to make them a cup contender.


As for acquiring an elite player---you will have far better luck at the draft than through trades.

My long terms of plans I see Buffalo doing is develp the talent they have, possibly move Vanek, iller, and Stafford for prospects and more picks in rounds 1-3.

As of now they have 9 picks in rounds 1-3 in 2014 and 2015. Add to this their other prospects and current young roster players (25 and under) they have a good number of players.

I see either in summer of 2014 or 2015, they use these young players to then make deals to target specific players they may feel they need.

They would have the pieces to go out and get aplayer or two they are missing or target then as UFAs.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

sure, what's wrong with suggesting a "Strategy" that's never actually been deployed as a strategy

Hey guys this rock is kind of circular and when I put that dead lion on it, the lion was easier to bring back to the cave. It was all an accident you think we should try it again? Look Oog no ones ever done that before lets not risk trying something new.

Hey guys when I raise my stick up off the ice then bring it down real fast and take a shot the puck moves faster. Should we try to score goals like that? Nah Bernie, no ones ever done it that way so it'll never work.

So guys we only seam to play well in the 2 minute drill. You think we should try it from the beginning of the game? No way Jim an offense would never work without huddling.

Hey guys it seams like the majority of teams that win championships do so with players drafted in the first couple picks. Should we try to get a top 3 pick to anchor our rebuild? No one has ever tried that before, there's no chance it would work.

The premise of the tank theory is that:
Elite players are mostly found at the top of the draft
Elite players carry teams to championships
We want a championship
Therefore we should aquire a player at the top of the draft

Either the theory is correct, one of those premises are wrong, or it's a more complicated issue then people are giving it credit for (hint: it's this one), but you can't invalidate an argument by saying it's never been tried before.

 

[Jame]

No one has ever started 82 games with 6 skaters and no goalie for 60 minutes each night... Maybe we should try that. Because intentionally losing for a top pick is the "team strategy" than it's the obvious game plan

Maybe we should try that

 

[26CornerBlitz]

Nauseam > Nauseum

 

[dotcommunism]

The premise of the tank theory is that:
Elite players are mostly found at the top of the draft
Elite players carry teams to championships
We want a championship
Therefore we should aquire a player at the top of the draft

Either the theory is correct, one of those premises are wrong, or it's a more complicated issue then people are giving it credit for (hint: it's this one), but you can't invalidate an argument by saying it's never been tried before.

The problem is that you're ignoring the context. The context is that what's being proposed is the idea of "tank at all costs". Doing things like giving up assets for poor value because that helps the "tank". Please find me one team that has gotten rid of valuable players for pennies on the dollar for the purpose of "tanking"

 

[Jim Bob]

The problem is that you're ignoring the context. The context is that what's being proposed is the idea of "tank at all costs". Doing things like giving up assets for poor value because that helps the "tank". Please find me one team that has gotten rid of valuable players for pennies on the dollar for the purpose of "tanking"

And his whole point is the thought that you shouldn't do something just because nobody has ever done it is a poor one.

The biggest question for me is this:

Would the rebuild be in a better place today if the Sabres had moved Vanek and Miller at last year's deadline for the best they could get at the time?

And longer term, would the rebuild have been helped by doing that versus the approach that the Sabres have taken thus far and will take moving forward with regards to Vanek and Miller?

There are no concrete answers. They are just fun items to BS about during the dead part of the offseason.

 

[haseoke39]

The problem is that you're ignoring the context. The context is that what's being proposed is the idea of "tank at all costs". Doing things like giving up assets for poor value because that helps the "tank". Please find me one team that has gotten rid of valuable players for pennies on the dollar for the purpose of "tanking"

I would never say "tank at all costs."

What I would say is have an expectation of where you'll finish with Player X on your team this year, where you'll finish without Player X on your team this year, and factor in the difference between those two expected draft picks as an asset that you gain if you accept a lower price in return for the player now, as opposed to at the trade deadline.

For me, I think our expected finish in the standings (in the economic sense of "expected," a weighted average) is probably #8 with Vanek and Miller, and #3 without them. The difference between those two picks is a huge asset. Value that. It's yours to lose, so make sure you're getting back something equally as huge if you intend to lose it.

 

[Jame]

I would never say "tank at all costs."

What I would say is have an expectation of where you'll finish with Player X on your team this year, where you'll finish without Player X on your team this year, and factor in the difference between those two expected draft picks as an asset that you gain if you accept a lower price in return for the player now, as opposed to at the trade deadline.

For me, I think our expected finish in the standings (in the economic sense of "expected," a weighted average) is probably #8 with Vanek and Miller, and #3 without them. The difference between those two picks is a huge asset. Value that. It's yours to lose, so make sure you're getting back something equally as huge if you intend to lose it.

We had a better winning % AFTER we traded Pominville last year
We had a much better record AFTER Roy went down for the year in 2011

You massively overestimate the impact the removal of a single player or 2 could have...

Setting an expectation of where you will finish with or without a single player is ridiculous... Where was your expectation after they traded for Regehr and signed Leino/Ehrhoff?

 

[joshjull]

Hey guys it seams like the majority of teams that win championships do so with players drafted in the first couple picks.

Actually they win because the are able to put together a strong core of players and the depth needed for a Cup run. But in the tankers world view its the one guy drafted in the top 3 thats the only reason they won, facts be damned.

There is really only one team that won a Cup with a core primarily made up of top 3 picks. That would be the Pens. The next closest would be the Hawks but even they had a lot of key players that weren't top 3 picks.

This is hold over Hawks/Pens envy it seems to me. Nevermind that neither team's path to success can be replicated, lets try to anyway. Both of those teams were a perfect storm of things falling into place that led to their Cups.

Should we try to get a top 3 pick to anchor our rebuild?

Ah, the mythical nameless, faceless top 3 pick that is the key to rebuilding our team. Who exactly is that player in next years draft. I mean if we are tanking shouldn't there be a name we are targeting. I know its crazy to ask for an actual name but lets drop the hypotheticals and put some meat on the bone.

No one has ever tried that before, there's no chance it would work.

Actually your sentence is backwards. There's no chance it will work (or more accurately there is no chance a GM can make it work), so no one has ever tried it. I think its lost on you and haseoke that there is no way at all to guarantee a top 3 pick, none. There is also no way to guarantee the draft lottery goes your way to keep you in possession of a top 3 pick. Nor is there any way to guarantee the type of player you need will actually be available with one of those picks. Its easy to argue that hypothetically a top 3 player could be whats needed. But is there actually a player available in the specific draft in question? Assuming of course you get by the first two obstacles. Juts ask Philly how crapping out doesn't guarantee much of anything. Worst team in the league in 06-07 but lost the draft lottery to the Hawks. So they drafted JVR instead of Kane. Hardly the reward talked about for such a terrible season now is it. Generally speaking landing a top level elite player anywhere in the draft has a large helping of luck involved. Thats why the tank strategy is not something thats tried, particularly in the draft lottery + cap era.

A more common approach is the one the Sabres have been using. Acquiring as many assets as possible. That means more picks and prospects. The additional picks can be used to cast as wide a net as possible in the draft. They allow you to take gambles with picks since you not relying on one high round pick top pan out. The picks and prospects can also be used to trade for things you need as well. This is all a process a GM can control.

The premise of the tank theory is that:
Elite players are mostly found at the top of the draft
Elite players carry teams to championships
We want a championship
Therefore we should aquire a player at the top of the draft

Either the theory is correct, one of those premises are wrong, or it's a more complicated issue then people are giving it credit for (hint: it's this one), but you can't invalidate an argument by saying it's never been tried before.

You left out the part that assumes we can actually control picking at the top of the draft and the assumption the player we need will be there when we draft. Both flawed assumptions that make the rest of your statements meaningless.

 

[JLewyB]

Alright I feel there is disconnect between the two sides. First, the "tank" strategy does exist in sports-every crappy basketball team does it and the Houston Astros are open about their willingness to suck to gain advantage in the draft. There has to be some suspicion of it as an option in hockey as well otherwise there wouldn't be a draft lottery in the first place. 2nd, I think the "tankist" are assuming that we won't be competive this year even with Vanek and Miller so why keep him around to inflate our record especially if we get a similar return now as we would at the deadline. I think Vanek and Miller would create at least +7 point swing in shootout points versus their replacements in a full season and I don't think they would hurt in all the other games. So we are losing draft spots with them on the team. The argument seems to me pretty sound. You are also eliminating the risk of injuries by trading them now.

The counterarguments should be:
1. Vanek and/or Miller may choose to resign if we prove to be more competitive then expected and fits in our rebuild.
2. The return at the deadline will be much greater that it outweighs the loss in draft position. I think this only works for Vanek.
3. Their presence will help with developing/protecting our young players

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

In basketball, like football, the draftees are a much more certain comodity. Not the case in hockey. Houston, and other teams that stink almost every season, do so because ownership values profit over success.

 

[Jame]

In basketball, like football, the draftees are a much more certain comodity. Not the case in hockey. Houston, and other teams that stink almost every season, do so because ownership values profit over success.

Football yes, basketball no

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

College basketball players get drafted and go straight to their pro team the vast majority of the time. So yes, basketball draftees are a much more certain commodity than hockey draftees, but I suppose you'll find a reason to argue more.

 

[Jame]

College basketball players get drafted and go straight to their pro team the vast majority of the time. So yes, basketball draftees are a much more certain commodity than hockey draftees, but I suppose you'll find a reason to argue more.

going right to the NBA does not make one a more certain commodity...

the failure rate of top NBA picks is greater than the NHL failure rate... IMO.... making the statement about value moot

 

[brian_griffin]

Alright I feel there is disconnect between the two sides. First, the "tank" strategy does exist in sports-every crappy basketball team does it and the Houston Astros are open about their willingness to suck to gain advantage in the draft. There has to be some suspicion of it as an option in hockey as well otherwise there wouldn't be a draft lottery in the first place. 2nd, I think the "tankist" are assuming that we won't be competive this year even with Vanek and Miller so why keep him around to inflate our record especially if we get a similar return now as we would at the deadline. I think Vanek and Miller would create at least +7 point swing in shootout points versus their replacements in a full season and I don't think they would hurt in all the other games. So we are losing draft spots with them on the team. The argument seems to me pretty sound. You are also eliminating the risk of injuries by trading them now.

The counterarguments should be:
1. Vanek and/or Miller may choose to resign if we prove to be more competitive then expected and fits in our rebuild.
2. The return at the deadline will be much greater that it outweighs the loss in draft position. I think this only works for Vanek.
3. Their presence will help with developing/protecting our young players

For the purpose of this reply, I'm ignoring the rest of your post, except the bolded.
The bolded is not true.

The value of Vanek as a function of time can be viewed as a curve. Take your pick of what you believe that shape to be. Some believe it is sinusoidal, with a peak at last years trade deadline, and this year's trade deadline, and a trough in between.

Others ignore last year, and say from this date forward, it's a hockey stick with the blade end at this years deadline. Others may assert it rises more exponentially as the deadline grows closer.

In any case, for Vanek, or any other player of similar ilk, it is definitely not a constant-value curve as a function of time. The reason is the salary cap, the amount owed a player decreases as f(time), and the option BUF has to retain salary.

The concept is analogous to a high-end boutique store going out of business in 30 days and "all things must go". 1st day of the month, everything is 5% off, and the clientele who can afford it is the same as those who historically patronized it. At the end of the month, what remains is 90% off. During the month, as the discount increases, the clientele which can afford the products increases in number. Similarly, the "value" of the products increases as the out-of-business date nears, because it costs less for someone to acquire them. Vanek (or Miller) is the same way, as are other high-current-$-contract and high-cap-$ pending FAs.

 

[haseoke39]

Actually they win because the are able to put together a strong core of players and the depth needed for a Cup run. But in the tankers world view its the one guy drafted in the top 3 thats the only reason they won, facts be damned.

I mean, this is just a lie. If you have to start lying to beat up on other people's arguments, you're doing poorly.

 

[haseoke39]

A more common approach is the one the Sabres have been using. Acquiring as many assets as possible. That means more picks and prospects. The additional picks can be used to cast as wide a net as possible in the draft. They allow you to take gambles with picks since you not relying on one high round pick top pan out. The picks and prospects can also be used to trade for things you need as well. This is all a process a GM can control.

This isn't really a process a GM can "control" either. His picks can turn out to be busts anywhere in the draft. It's just a lot more likely later on. There may be worthy arguments for this approach, but arguing that it increases the certainty of the outcome really isn't one when you compare the success rate of later picks vs. earlier picks.

 

[JLewyB]

For the purpose of this reply, I'm ignoring the rest of your post, except the bolded.
The bolded is not true.

The value of Vanek as a function of time can be viewed as a curve. Take your pick of what you believe that shape to be. Some believe it is sinusoidal, with a peak at last years trade deadline, and this year's trade deadline, and a trough in between.

Others ignore last year, and say from this date forward, it's a hockey stick with the blade end at this years deadline. Others may assert it rises more exponentially as the deadline grows closer.

In any case, for Vanek, or any other player of similar ilk, it is definitely not a constant-value curve as a function of time. The reason is the salary cap, the amount owed a player decreases as f(time), and the option BUF has to retain salary.

The concept is analogous to a high-end boutique store going out of business in 30 days and "all things must go". 1st day of the month, everything is 5% off, and the clientele who can afford it is the same as those who historically patronized it. At the end of the month, what remains is 90% off. During the month, as the discount increases, the clientele which can afford the products increases in number. Similarly, the "value" of the products increases as the out-of-business date nears, because it costs less for someone to acquire them. Vanek (or Miller) is the same way, as are other high-current-$-contract and high-cap-$ pending FAs.

Alright so you are making point 2 in the counterargument. Fully agree that Vanek will probably get more at the trade deadline then if we were to trade more because more suitors will come in to play. The question is: does the extra value we gain at the deadline exceed the value we lose from winning and subsequently losing draft position? Again, I think you can make a case for Vanek but as a goalie will Miller's value really increase? The issue with those extra suitors at the deadline is that they are in the Cup hunt and typically have a pretty stable goalie situation, if anything
his value curve will dip.

 

[joshjull]

I mean, this is just a lie. If you have to start lying to beat up on other people's arguments, you're doing poorly.

Feel free to enlighten me as to what the lie is.

 

[Jim Bob]

Football yes, basketball no

http://thebiglead.com/2013/08/28/2009-nfl-draft-the-1st-round-was-bust-city/

 

[haseoke39]

Feel free to enlighten me as to what the lie is.

Isn't it obvious? Nobody is arguing that a top 3 pick wins you cups by itself, or even gets you most of the way there. Nobody's ignoring other forms of team-building that are necessary. You need a lot else to go right, but historically speaking, that doesn't change the number of guys taken high in the draft who end up being top 20 players in the NHL, or the number of cup winners who can rightfully claim that they legitimately needed those guys on their team to win it all.

 

[Jim Bob]

Alright so you are making point 2 in the counterargument. Fully agree that Vanek will probably get more at the trade deadline then if we were to trade more because more suitors will come in to play. The question is: does the extra value we gain at the deadline exceed the value we lose from winning and subsequently losing draft position? Again, I think you can make a case for Vanek but as a goalie will Miller's value really increase? The issue with those extra suitors at the deadline is that they are in the Cup hunt and typically have a pretty stable goalie situation, if anything
his value curve will dip.

The problem is what do you see as his trade value today versus at the deadline?

I don't know if there is any real market for Vanek today given that the usual suspects are capped out.

 

[joshjull]

This isn't really a process a GM can "control" either. His picks can turn out to be busts anywhere in the draft. It's just a lot more likely later on. There may be worthy arguments for this approach, but arguing that it increases the certainty of the outcome really isn't one when you compare the success rate of later picks vs. earlier picks.

You missed the point. The GM can control using proven assets to acquire more picks and prospects. Like Pommer becoming 4 assets- Larsson, Hackett and 2 picks. As opposed to trying to finish with a top 3 pick. Where there are a lot of things that influence that happening that a GM has zero control over.

As per usual you're mixing the success rate of top 3 picks with the chances of getting one. They are not the same thing. The chances of getting one are far smaller.

 

[dotcommunism]

the Houston Astros are open about their willingness to suck to gain advantage in the draft.

Okay, I'm going to address this point, because, believe it or not, how talent acquisition and financial structuring work in Major League Baseball is not remotely similar to how those things work in the NHL.

What the Houston Astros are doing under current management (their current GM has only been the GM since December of 2011, shortly after the team's new owner bought them) is they are trading higher salaried players, none of whom are exactly superstars, to acquire younger, cost-controlled players.

Talking about the MLB draft like its in any way relevant to the NHL draft is absoluely asinine, though. In the MLB draft, players have a lot more leverage since a lot of them can opt not to sign, and then they go on to college and re-enter the draft. Also, under the current MLB CBA, a team's draft budget is closely tied to a team's draft position. So, in the Astros' case, the appeal of having the top pick is less having the top pick itself and more about having more money to spend on the draft. That's why in 2012, the Astros used the first overall pick on Carlos Correa, because he left them more money to use *elsewhere* in the draft to sign other players to deals at higher than their recommended slot value. Better prospects like Byron Buxton and Mark Appel (who the Astros ended up drafting first overall in 2013) were skipped over for that reason.

Furthermore, baseball does not have a worldwide draft (only players from the US, including Puerto Rico, and Canada are eligible). In fact, in baseball, there is another unrelated budget put into place under the current CBA related to international free agents, which is also tied to a team's record.

It must also be remembered that in Major League Baseball there is no salary cap, or salary floor, so there is more reason to be cheap if you know your team is going to be awful so that you can save money to make a big financial splash when your team is building up to be good again (obviously, similar strategies are available to NHL teams, but not to the same extreme due to the salary cap and salary floor. And also, those strategies still aren't about "tanking" for the top pick)

In short, Major League Baseball has a fundamentally different economic landscape than the NHL does, along with avenues of talent acquisition which fundamentally speaking do not work the same, or even that similar to, how they work in the NHL.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

The problem is that you're ignoring the context. The context is that what's being proposed is the idea of "tank at all costs". Doing things like giving up assets for poor value because that helps the "tank". Please find me one team that has gotten rid of valuable players for pennies on the dollar for the purpose of "tanking"

Then you argue the truth of the premises, not rule it out because you've never tried it before. Philosophy 101 here, a valid argument possesses premises that if true makes the conclusion impossible to be false. The tank theory is a valid argument, if you wish to debate the truth of it's premises then debate the truth of it's premises. However dismissing it out of hand because it's never been tried before is... Well stupid.

If that seams to difficult I'd suggest taking a look at what it would take to gaurentee a resonably high probability of the roster being bad enough to finish top 3. the roster would have to take into account injuries weakening other bad rosters, would have to be significantly worse than 27 other teams and would be incapable of out performing expectations. That would start with moving Vanek and miller and then Hoff and then Hodgson as well as Myers and leaving Grigs in the Q and Larsson and Girgs in Roc, Risto in Europe. It's not possible to significantly cripple the roster enough to make the amount of suffering worth while. You've got to roll some amount of luck to suck that badly.