Speculation: 2013 Offseason roster build thread part Additional Nauseum

[Djp]

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.

Actually----no.

The only safe picks are basically the top 5-10 picks....after that its an utter crapshoot.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

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.
.

Actually I think it's lost on you that, I even mentioned this in my post, I don't agree with the tank theory. What I do agree with is that it's a validly constructed argument and therefore deserves to be discussed instead of dismissed because it never happened. It's a well formed argument but more than a little lacking in big picture insight.

 

[dotcommunism]

It doesn't really matter how ~logical~ the argument is if the assumptions it's based on have no basis in anything and are manufactured out of whole cloth.

 

[Djp]

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.

Lets say they opt to trade them in January....around the midpoint of the season.

There are more than enough games left to lose draft position. Usually around that point in the season the playoff bubble is maybe 10 pts out of last place.

Did you see what happened with Nashville this past season---right after the deadline they were I think tied or a pt out of 8th place...then they lost out and got to pick 4.

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.

MLB is comparable to the NHL in the uncertainty with players at 18. IMO---the player coulf finish their play in the OHL after drafting and not sign with the drafting team after two years.

In MLB it usually takes 5 yrs before a draft pick even sniffes playing at the pro level. The ones that make the step right away within a yr of the draft are the college players.

baseball like hockey is so hit and miss.

I though baseball did have a salary floor otherwise the teams lose out on the revenue sharing.

Teams do and dont draft players based on their signability. If player X has a notorious agent a team will likely avoid drafting him because signing him would be a PITA.

In football , baseball, and basketball all players could refuse to sign and sit out a year and re-enter the draft.


As for the MLB draft---IIRC---if a cuban player defects in the USA they arent a free agent. There are rules based on their age. If they defect to a place like costa rica then they do become a free agent and can sign anywhere they want.

 

[joshjull]

Actually I think it's lost on you that, I even mentioned this in my post, I don't agree with the tank theory. What I do agree with is that it's a validly constructed argument and therefore deserves to be discussed instead of dismissed because it never happened. It's a well formed argument but more than a little lacking in big picture insight.

Its not a validly constructed argument when it repeatedly ignores the reality of how incredibly hard it would be to ensure a high pick. There are several other reason to dismiss it as well. That no one has ever done it is not the basis of my counter argument. But you were so focused on being clever with you comments about the invention of the wheel maybe you missed that.

 

[joshjull]

With our lack of talent on the wings/lack of scoring threats in general, I'd say there's a chance he plays his way onto the roster to start the season.

I think Armia will have a tough time cracking the roster to start the year.

As of right now our depth on the wings

LW
Vanek
Ennis
Ott
Leino
Foligno
Larsson

RW
Stafford
Leino
Vanek
Flynn
Kaleta

Vanek/Hodgson are the likely starting point for the top line with Stafford the most likely candidate to replace Pommer. At least based on Rolston's comments about expecting him to be a big part of the team next season.

That would leave Ennis and Leino as the likely winger for Grigs.

I don't see Armia as a bottom 6 guy.

 

[haseoke39]

Its not a validly constructed argument when it repeatedly ignores the reality of how incredibly hard it would be to ensure a high pick. There are several other reason to dismiss it as well. That no one has ever done it is not the basis of my counter argument. But you were so focused on being clever with you comments about the invention of the wheel maybe you missed that.

Folks continually leap all over this argument saying it's outcome can't be ensured. Folks never leap all over any other team building strategy that I hear about to say that it's outcome can't be ensured. I hear no one criticizing the plan that we hang onto our guys until the deadline and move them for mid-1sts on the ground that you can't ensure those mid-1sts will even make the NHL, but I think it's just as ripe for criticism on those grounds.

You play the odds. Last year's 12th place team minus arguably it's four best players (Sekera, Pominville, Vanek and Miller) would have pretty good odds of finishing worse. I don't feel like it's "incredibly hard" to predict that.

 

[JLewyB]

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.

The point is that they're tanking.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9273233/hoarding-prospects-being-horrible-houston-astros

 

[dotcommunism]

The point is that they're tanking.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9273233/hoarding-prospects-being-horrible-houston-astros

Except that, again, how and why they're "tanking" and how that works is functionally different from the NHL. That's important context

 

[joshjull]

Folks continually leap all over this argument saying it's outcome can't be ensured. Folks never leap all over any other team building strategy that I hear about to say that it's outcome can't be ensured. I hear no one criticizing the plan that we hang onto our guys until the deadline and move them for mid-1sts on the ground that you can't ensure those mid-1sts will even make the NHL, but I think it's just as ripe for criticism on those grounds.

Vanek will land you more than a mid first rounder. Pommer netted us to good prospects and two picks. Not only that but the team may want them around to help with developing some of the youth on the roster. They may also want to use the time leading to the deadline to try and convince him to stay. All these things have value but you consider none of them. Why is everything so narrow and simplistic to you?

The argument should be whats more valuable? Trading Vanek now to maybe increase our chances at a top pick or keeping him until the deadline so he can help with the development of the younger offensive players and possibly be able to extend him after he sees what we have with the youth. If not move him for a package of prospects and picks.

Part of the equation also has to include the facts on the ground. Very few teams can afford Vanek right now even with eating salary. Many more will be in play at the deadline. So moving him right now is not really a likely option.

You play the odds. Last year's 12th place team minus arguably it's four best players (Sekera, Pominville, Vanek and Miller) would have pretty good odds of finishing worse. I don't feel like it's "incredibly hard" to predict that

Actually it is hard. But as per usual you go with a narrow and simplistic view of things. You made the absurd assertion in a previous post that as currently constructed we will likely be picking 8th but trading Vanek/Miller will get us a 3rd overall pick. This is based on absolutely nothing.

Part of the reason we finished where we did last season was several players had down or very bad seasons. Your prediction assumes that will still be the case next year or that all of those players are still here (they're not). We also had a different coach for half the season. Its also assumes none of the youngsters will emerge either. But thats to be expected with how dismissive you are of our young NHL talent and prospect pool.

How we do next year has so many variables in play right now (new schedule, new coaching staff, new players, etc). Until we see them play out we have no idea how the season will play out. With so much change its pretty silly to argue we will finish in exactly the same spot as last year until we see the team on the ice.

 

[haseoke39]

Vanek will land you more than a mid first rounder. Pommer netted us to good prospects and two picks. Not only that but the team may want them around to help with developing some of the youth on the roster. They may also want to use the time leading to the deadline to try and convince him to stay. All these things have value but you consider none of them. Why is everything so narrow and simplistic to you?

The argument should be whats more valuable? Trading Vanek now to maybe increase our chances at a top pick or keeping him until the deadline so he can help with the development of the younger offensive players and possibly be able to extend him after he sees what we have with the youth. If not move him for a package of prospects and picks.

Part of the equation also has to include the facts on the ground. Very few teams can afford Vanek right now even with eating salary. Many more will be in play at the deadline. So moving him right now is not really a likely option.



Actually it is hard. But as per usual you go with a narrow and simplistic view of things. You made the absurd assertion in a previous post that as currently constructed we will likely be picking 8th but trading Vanek/Miller will get us a 3rd overall pick. This is based on absolutely nothing.

Part of the reason we finished where we did last season was several players had down or very bad seasons. Your prediction assumes that will still be the case next year. Its also assumes none of the youngsters will emerge either. But thats to be expected with how dismissive you are of our young NHL talent and prospect pool.

How we do next year has so many variables in play right now (new schedule, new coaching staff, new players, etc). Until we see them play out we have no idea how the season will play out. With so much change its pretty silly to argue we will finish in exactly the same spot as last year until we see the team on the ice.

This is getting tiresome, and your need to be belittling doesn't help. Have it your way.

 

[joshjull]

This is getting tiresome, and your need to be belittling doesn't help. Have it your way.

I see you taking complex things and trying to make them simple to make your argument. Not trying to be belittling and I probably got carried away a few times, apologies.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

Its not a validly constructed argument when it repeatedly ignores the reality of how incredibly hard it would be to ensure a high pick. There are several other reason to dismiss it as well. That no one has ever done it is not the basis of my counter argument. But you were so focused on being clever with you comments about the invention of the wheel maybe you missed that.

First, the premises aren't required to be true for a valid argument google it.

Second, I'm not surprised you are having a hard time with this when you can't even remember you're response to Jame's original post. Check pg24 9th post up from the bottom.

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

That point seems to be continually missed

Looks like you agreed with it to me. But, since my response was only based on the fact that I didn't want to be lumped in with the "tank theory" folk (which is why I responded to you in the first place), I won't hold it against you.

Third, you're criticizing me for getting your point wrong (which I didn't) while you miss my point? The post you were quoting did include a section about a wheel. But I guess my cleverness was blowing your mind so hard that you were unable to continue reading to find the part where I specifically mention that the discussion is more detailed than the 'tank theory' gives it credit for.

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)

 

[joshjull]

First, the premises aren't required to be true for a valid argument google it.

Second, I'm not surprised you are having a hard time with this when you can't even remember you're response to Jame's original post. Check pg24 9th post up from the bottom.



Looks like you agreed with it to me. But, since my response was only based on the fact that I didn't want to be lumped in with the "tank theory" folk (which is why I responded to you in the first place), I won't hold it against you.

Third, you're criticizing me for getting your point wrong (which I didn't) while you miss my point? The post you were quoting did include a section about a wheel. But I guess my cleverness was blowing your mind so hard that you were unable to continue reading to find the part where I specifically mention that the discussion is more detailed than the 'tank theory' gives it credit for.

Well played sir

I see my mistake now.

 

[fr9dd9]

I think Armia will have a tough time cracking the roster to start the year.

As of right now our depth on the wings

LW
Vanek
Ennis
Ott
Leino
Foligno
Larsson

RW
Stafford
Leinou
Vanek
Flynn
Kaleta

Vanek/Hodgson are the likely starting point for the top line with Stafford the most likely candidate to replace Pommer. At least based on Rolston's comments about expecting him to be a big part of the team next season.

That would leave Ennis and Leino as the likely winger for Grigs.

I don't see Armia as a bottom 6 guy.

Armia can play a same role as pamieri did in anaheim, in aa third line with some speed.. he is a big sniper, grinder/powerforward he would fit there for a start atleast