Speculation: Acq./Rost. Bldg./Cap Part XLV: Caps Trade Deadline 2015 Edition

[Ridley Simon]

One thing to keep in mind with not addressing the Forwards this last off season... Adam Oates. Oates was such a cluster**** as a coach it was truly hard to evaluate players. It may just be that they wanted to see MoJo under Trotz, see Brouwer under Trotz, see the young kids under Trotz, etc.

For $2M, for just this year, shipping off MoJo last offseason could have proven to be a mistake. Now, I'm all for getting him out of here. As I've said repeatedly, they should have dumped Laich last year. That's the $6.5M needed for your major new Forward. That's all that's wrong up front. It's not that far off.

Sounds level headed and realistic. So it must be completely wrong.

 

[Ridley Simon]

My definition is one where the guy has a steady history of 20 goals (he does not) or has or is on pace to score 20 (he is not). Can you score 20? Sure, but so could BL next year. Building a team on hopes that everyone plays at their peak is not a way to go. Having said that I have no ill will towards GlenX and hope he becomes the scorer we saw for two year. But saying we got a good deal because he is a 20 goal scorer is not accurate. Thats like saying Semin would be a steal because he is a 40 goal scorer.

His last 2 full seasons before this one, he scored 20 goals. The one after that was certainly a similar trajectory, save the strike.

This season is the only one where his pace has fallen off. Is he Brian Bellows, or Martin Erat? Time will tell.

 

[EroCaps]

It doesn't matter where he plays in my book but Kuz MUST play better. We need him to. Laich as well.

Chimera upped his game. MJ has started to show some life again.

We need everyone pulling on the same rope. Trotz put it best when he said that we absolutely cannot afford passengers.

I was expecting Laich to get scratched if he kept his poor play up but bravo to Trotz for sitting him last game. Kuz needs to be next but with the Latta injury not sure that's going to be possible.

Glencross is essentially a 20 goal scorer. He will help but we don't have Alexander Semin any longer. When you have a big gun and then a bunch of 10-20 goal guys that's when you cant have passengers at all. Before Semin and Ovechkin could carry the team.

Semin didn't carry them anywhere. He's a passenger if there ever was one. Ovechkin has led at times in the postseason but when teams can focus on shutting him down they do.

The Caps clearly don't have enough leaders despite Trotz and Bmac doing a decent job of building around them this year.

Kuznetsov is arguably the worst 2C they've had entering the postseason since they started getting in. They have a gaping hole at that position.

 

[BobRouse]

Semin didn't carry them anywhere. He's a passenger if there ever was one. Ovechkin has led at times in the postseason but when teams can focus on shutting him down they do.

The Caps clearly don't have enough leaders despite Trotz and Bmac doing a decent job of building around them this year.

Kuznetsov is arguably the worst 2C they've had entering the postseason since they started getting in. They have a gaping hole at that position.

Maybe Belanger>>Kuz

Definitely Fedorov>>>>Kuz

Maybe Ribs>>>>Kuz

But...

Orpik/Niskanen/Gleason>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>whatever trash we've fielded outside of Carlzner and Green

 

[Bananas]

Maybe Belanger>>Kuz

Definitely Fedorov>>>>Kuz

Maybe Ribs>>>>Kuz

But...

Orpik/Niskanen/Gleason>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>whatever trash we've fielded outside of Carlzner and Green

I think that's precisely why many here are wondering how we could leave a hole like that when the rest of the team seems so primed for success.

As Ridley Simon and others have indicated, it's hard to know what was out there. And none of the deals that ultimately did go down scream, "Why didn't we do something like that!!?!"

In the end what will probably happen is Mojo/Kuz/Brouwer will have a tremendous showing and something we were banking on like Ovie/Holtby/PP will cost us...

Why?

Because it's the Caps.

 

[BobRouse]

I think that's precisely why many here are wondering how we could leave a hole like that when the rest of the team seems so primed for success.

As Ridley Simon and others have indicated, it's hard to know what was out there. And none of the deals that ultimately did go down scream, "Why didn't we do something like that!!?!"

In the end what will probably happen is Mojo/Kuz/Brouwer will have a tremendous showing and something we were banking on like Ovie/Holtby/PP will cost us...

Why?

Because it's the Caps.

Lets examine a few things:

1) What Rids is saying is absolutely correct. There simply weren't any top guys available based on what actually transpired. Its reasonable to conclude that there simply weren't any available for a SANE price.

2) Speaking of price....decent 2nd/3rd liners were going for multiple draft picks in a deep draft. More reason to believe the the standard overpayment increased greatly to the point of laughability.

3) To your bolded part...alot of times people say (this is just a random example to illustrate my point) "Hey how come we can land on the moon but can't figure out a cure for cancer???" ..well..perhaps its BECAUSE we landed on the moon in the first place!

There are finite resources available (cap space, roster space, assets) and because we used those to correct LONG standing problems it stands to reason that it would be difficult to correct every imperfection even assuming top end talent WAS available.

To the people who say "We should have been ALL IN ON PAVELSKI!" well...they never stop to consider that San Jose fans could have been saying "We should have been ALL IN ON BACKSTROM!"

Would you trade Backstrom? Sure..anyone can be traded...but it would have to be some absurd overpayment thats beyond reasoning. Guys like ROR would command guys like Carlson and Alzner that we simply can't part with.

 

[Ridley Simon]

I think that's precisely why many here are wondering how we could leave a hole like that when the rest of the team seems so primed for success.

As Ridley Simon and others have indicated, it's hard to know what was out there. And none of the deals that ultimately did go down scream, "Why didn't we do something like that!!?!"

In the end what will probably happen is Mojo/Kuz/Brouwer will have a tremendous showing and something we were banking on like Ovie/Holtby/PP will cost us...

Why?

Because it's the Caps.

God help us all.

I am very hopeful that this off season is the time to really try and close the holes. There is work to do, but it should be doable.....I hope. There are enough building blocks in place, and hopefully salary cap room, to allow for some positive turnover.

Be aggressive in removing Laich and Johansson. Use the salary of Green to augment the forward lines as well. Resign Fehr, Beagle, and Gleason (maybe...Ward and or Glencross, depending on playoff performance and cost.). If so, then--

8-19-?
22-?-20
25-16-42
46-83-43
92-65

74-44
2-27
6-81
88


70
35

Perhaps Brouwer out in the right deal. Any and all prospects (including Kuz and Bura) should be available--- AGAIN-- in the Right Deal. The above line up, based on a 69m cap, and normal costs for the resigned player should have 5-8m left for adds. Roughly. More if Cap is north of 71m. I like the foundation.

I'm hopeful that the Caps don't draw the Rags in round 1 this coming playoffs. If they don't, I like their chances to win a round, and then see what transpires. Match ups are everything. Even the Habs and Bolts are beatable.

I think it's time to simply get behind what's been done, debate who plays where, and try and enjoy the rest of the ride....supporting the 80% good that's happened this season, not the 20% bad.

Starting tonite.

 

[g00n]

I'm curious as to how you know they chose not too, and had "plenty" of options?

Seems a little odd that you would take this stance after being critical of posters -- who defended the regime -- because certain trade suggestions were not realistic. You dismissed their suppositions, yet are making one of your own...right here.

Or are you going to state that your supposition is more realistic, so therefore it's more true? I'm curious how this will work--

I don't understand what you're saying. I already explained my position repeatedly. Trade speculation can always be shot down as paying too much or the other team "isn't interested". That doesn't mean in the real world every player doesn't have a price. It's just a matter of some viewing it as overpayment. It also doesn't mean that the only deals that could be made were the ones that were made. That's a logical fallacy. And just because we suppose a player isn't going to be moved (and maybe rightly so) doesn't mean he CAN'T be moved.

The concept is simple and clear. They chose to hold onto some assets and not overpay in pursuit of others. This is what every GM does every year. My issue is with the excuse that there was nothting they could have done, as if they had no choice in the matter. Unless the NHL is a dictatorship where GMs have no ability to control their own dealings, they did have choices. They just didn't pursue them, good or bad.

It's not a matter of mind-reading or assumptions. It's how professional sports has worked since free agency started 40 years ago.

 

[BobRouse]

I don't understand what you're saying. I already explained my position repeatedly. Trade speculation can always be shot down as paying too much or the other team "isn't interested". That doesn't mean in the real world every player doesn't have a price. It's just a matter of some viewing it as overpayment. It also doesn't mean that the only deals that could be made were the ones that were made. That's a logical fallacy. And just because we suppose a player isn't going to be moved (and maybe rightly so) doesn't mean he CAN'T be moved.

The concept is simple and clear. They chose to hold onto some assets and not overpay in pursuit of others. This is what every GM does every year. My issue is with the excuse that there was nothting they could have done, as if they had no choice in the matter. Unless the NHL is a dictatorship where GMs have no ability to control their own dealings, they did have choices. They just didn't pursue them, good or bad.

It's not a matter of mind-reading or assumptions. It's how professional sports has worked since free agency started 40 years ago.

Well again all players have a price. When they say there was "nothing that could have been done" or whatever they are really saying.."Yeah we wanted Pavelski but they wanted Carlson, Burakovsky, 2 1sts and Grubauer for him"

You do seem to come across as if by "Overpay" it was simply a matter of BMac not wanting to give up that addition 2nd rounder and Carrick for the right guy.

Reality is that teams want Carlzner level assets for top end guys.

If Pavelski was available for Burakovsky, Kuznetsov, Bowey, Vrana and a 1st would you do it? To me that is absurd overpayment and likely what teams with players like that would ask for since they really have no intention of moving said player unless some stupid offer comes along.

 

[AlexBrovechkin8]

Burt recalled. Not a good sign, imo, for Latta. And I'd much rather have Bura is Hershey as 2C than watching from the press box tonight.

 

[BobRouse]

Burt recalled. Not a good sign, imo, for Latta. And I'd much rather have Bura is Hershey as 2C than watching from the press box tonight.

Are you sure he will be watching from the pressbox? I have a sense that will be Kuznetsov tonight.

 

[g00n]

Well again all players have a price. When they say there was "nothing that could have been done" or whatever they are really saying.."Yeah we wanted Pavelski but they wanted Carlson, Burakovsky, 2 1sts and Grubauer for him"

You do seem to come across as if by "Overpay" it was simply a matter of BMac not wanting to give up that addition 2nd rounder and Carrick for the right guy.

Reality is that teams want Carlzner level assets for top end guys.

If Pavelski was available for Burakovsky, Kuznetsov, Bowey, Vrana and a 1st would you do it? To me that is absurd overpayment and likely what teams with players like that would ask for since they really have no intention of moving said player unless some stupid offer comes along.

I have said in previous posts explaining this, and twice in the one that was quoted, that not doing anything may ultimately be the RIGHT MOVE, but it is a choice. This is not the trade proposal board so my conceptualization is not limited to trade offers. Think more in principles and theory.

My issue is with this assertion that nothing could have been done as if that is a known fact simply because other moves we would have liked didn't get made, or we assume we know who talked to whom about what player, or what the final prices could have been. My point is not "let's pay a king's ransom for X player" and I'm not arguing those types of deals here because as I said ANY deal can be shot down on a message board for some reason. It's that people are stating outsider opinions about there being no options as fact when they aren't. What they did, they did by choice, by definition, because there were options available (however unappealing or presumably difficult or impractical to some). And again, it may eventually prove be the RIGHT choice if we can view chains of events in parallel universes to see how each option turns out, but it is a choice.

If any of you were asked about trading Horton or Clarkson two weeks ago you would have thought it was a joke. You never know what kind of moves there are to be made, or what all of the GMs are thinking.

Bottom line: when they say there was nothing out there it's their PR statement on their choices, and when we say it we just add our opinion to their PR statement. That's it.

 

[BobRouse]

I get what you are saying Goon.

But when they say "nothing could be done" they are really saying "nothing SANE could be done" . I'm sure they have tried and BMac even said there were a couple offers out there that didn't fly.

I mean short of coming out with exact names I'm not sure what else they can say.

Also are they going to say "well..we tried to get a 2C because we feel Kuz isn't good enough right now but that deal fell through"...I mean why on earth would they say that?

It would only hurt the confidence of Kuz or any of the other 2Cs we will have. Since no trade was done the best thing to say is "we like our team. you're always looking to upgrade and we have a few lines out there but we weren't really serious because we like our team"

Throwing people under the bus indirectly is what bad GMs do.

 

[Ridley Simon]

I don't understand what you're saying. I already explained my position repeatedly. Trade speculation can always be shot down as paying too much or the other team "isn't interested". That doesn't mean in the real world every player doesn't have a price. It's just a matter of some viewing it as overpayment. It also doesn't mean that the only deals that could be made were the ones that were made. That's a logical fallacy. And just because we suppose a player isn't going to be moved (and maybe rightly so) doesn't mean he CAN'T be moved.

The concept is simple and clear. They chose to hold onto some assets and not overpay in pursuit of others. This is what every GM does every year. My issue is with the excuse that there was nothting they could have done, as if they had no choice in the matter. Unless the NHL is a dictatorship where GMs have no ability to control their own dealings, they did have choices. They just didn't pursue them, good or bad.

It's not a matter of mind-reading or assumptions. It's how professional sports has worked since free agency started 40 years ago.

You are making a supposition that the "player wanted" could be acquired at even an above reasonable cost. It would seem that you are complaining that the regime made a choice not to spend really stupidly, I guess? Is that it?

So you see a house you want, and it's worth 500k. You offer 600k, and get shot down. Owner wants 900k. You are advocating that paying 900k is ok, and that its a choice not too? That's a reach. Any way you slice it. You need to add some reasonableness quotient to this thing (as any court of law would...what is a reasonable person going to do under the circumstances).

None of us are privy to the expectations of the GM job, so you simply can't play both sides here Goon, and you are. You seem to be saying one aspect of this (shooting down trades by posters as being too easy due to not realistic expectations) is unreasonable, yet you aren't using that same thought process towards the Regime's "choice" (your word, not mine) not to pay stupid costs to get player x.

I guess you just don't see the double sidedness of your arguments in this thread.

 

[Ridley Simon]

I have said in previous posts explaining this, and twice in the one that was quoted, that not doing anything may ultimately be the RIGHT MOVE, but it is a choice. This is not the trade proposal board so my conceptualization is not limited to trade offers. Think more in principles and theory.

My issue is with this assertion that nothing could have been done as if that is a known fact simply because other moves we would have liked didn't get made, or we assume we know who talked to whom about what player, or what the final prices could have been. My point is not "let's pay a king's ransom for X player" and I'm not arguing those types of deals here because as I said ANY deal can be shot down on a message board for some reason. It's that people are stating outsider opinions about there being no options as fact when they aren't. What they did, they did by choice, by definition, because there were options available (however unappealing or presumably difficult or impractical to some). And again, it may eventually prove be the RIGHT choice if we can view chains of events in parallel universes to see how each option turns out, but it is a choice.

If any of you were asked about trading Horton or Clarkson two weeks ago you would have thought it was a joke. You never know what kind of moves there are to be made, or what all of the GMs are thinking.

Bottom line: when they say there was nothing out there it's their PR statement on their choices, and when we say it we just add our opinion to their PR statement. That's it.

Ok. So everyone in this country has a choice to try to become a millionaire, if they play the lottery religiously. Those that don't play the lottery, are choosing not to try to become millionaires.

Am I doing this right? Yes it's extreme, but it's the same thought process. You are saying that the Caps chose to not be irrational. Is that it?

 

[stanleycaps18]

So, AO8 traded

Lines this morning, and please read the previous tweet before replying:

65-19-90
22-83-20
25-16-42
21-92-43
- Alex Prewitt (@alex_prewitt)

 

[g00n]

I get what you are saying Goon.

But when they say "nothing could be done" they are really saying "nothing SANE could be done" . I'm sure they have tried and BMac even said there were a couple offers out there that didn't fly.

I mean short of coming out with exact names I'm not sure what else they can say.

Also are they going to say "well..we tried to get a 2C because we feel Kuz isn't good enough right now but that deal fell through"...I mean why on earth would they say that?

It would only hurt the confidence of Kuz or any of the other 2Cs we will have. Since no trade was done the best thing to say is "we like our team. you're always looking to upgrade and we have a few lines out there but we weren't really serious because we like our team"

Throwing people under the bus indirectly is what bad GMs do.

I really don't understand why people are looking for something to criticize here. My complaint, as plainly stated several times, is with what some FANS are saying and the assumptions they are claiming to be fact, not with GMs choice to make political statements about their roster choices post-TDL.

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

The entire "they COULD have made" such and such a deal argument is constructed on a very flimsy straw man.

 

[Ajax1995]

being injured and not scoring 20 is part of not scoring 20. How many games a guy normally plays in a season is part of the comparison. Games aren't won by point that would have been scored if guys weren't hurt.

Fine then he hit 20 twice in a row, was on pace for it but didn't make it because of the shortened season, was on pace for it and then got hurt. It is what it is, it is a physical game, injuries happen. You don't have to literally do it every season to be considered a 20 goal scorer IMO and most's. It is what you usually do not always do as almost nobody always does anything. But whatever...

 

[g00n]

Ok. So everyone in this country has a choice to try to become a millionaire, if they play the lottery religiously. Those that don't play the lottery, are choosing not to try to become millionaires.

Am I doing this right? Yes it's extreme, but it's the same thought process. You are saying that the Caps chose to not be irrational. Is that it?

No. The analogy is extremely limited and not applicable to what I've been saying. Not playing the lottery is not the only way to become a millionaire. A lottery also has set mathematical odds that are far, far worse than any hockey deal. Playing the lottery carries a known risk and reward that is quantifiable and objective. Hockey trades or often mostly subjective.

You are making a supposition that the "player wanted" could be acquired at even an above reasonable cost. It would seem that you are complaining that the regime made a choice not to spend really stupidly, I guess? Is that it?

So you see a house you want, and it's worth 500k. You offer 600k, and get shot down. Owner wants 900k. You are advocating that paying 900k is ok, and that its a choice not too? That's a reach. Any way you slice it. You need to add some reasonableness quotient to this thing (as any court of law would...what is a reasonable person going to do under the circumstances).

None of us are privy to the expectations of the GM job, so you simply can't play both sides here Goon, and you are. You seem to be saying one aspect of this (shooting down trades by posters as being too easy due to not realistic expectations) is unreasonable, yet you aren't using that same thought process towards the Regime's "choice" (your word, not mine) not to pay stupid costs to get player x.

I guess you just don't see the double sidedness of your arguments in this thread.

I still don't understand what you're driving at. The ease with which any trade proposal can be dismissed without much thought is not the same as stating the fact that choice is involved in the job of every GM... even one up against the cap, as many are.

The degree to which any GM is perceived to overpay or underpay is fairly subjective, and part of most deals. The problem with hypothetical trade offers as the litmus test to prove there were no deals out there is that any trade offer can be shot down by choosing to either just say "overpayment and insane/irrational" or "not offering enough and player is not being traded". It's easy and requires very little thought. It also doesn't disprove the idea that possible deals existed and weren't made, however subjectively good or bad.

People saying "how do you know what was offered and what wasn't" as a defense of the front office don't know that information, either. There are massive assumptions being made about what was done and what could have been done. The degree to which those things are perceived as "irrational", "sane", or "unrealistic" is also part of this assumption process. Some are from the premise that we went right up to the line of irrationality and stopped there, when we simply don't know that, and the definition is not universal.

People misuse this phrase all the time, but it's an actual logical fallacy that means something specific:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Just because nothing was done doesn't mean that nothing could have been done. It's logically and factually inaccurate, but that's what's being said and assumed. There is no double standard here. The arguments I am countering are known logical fallacies. That is my point.

 

[BobRouse]

I think the real question here is this:

Whats better for us:

Glencross+Gleason for 2nd, 3rd and 4th + Hillen (about $3 mil cap space gain)

OR

Vermette+Timonen for 1st, 2 2nds + prospect (about $6 mil cap space gain)


Now this is under the assumption the Flyers would have traded Timonen to us in the first place. Would the teams have eaten about $3 mil in cap space total and what additional price would we have had to pay? What would the additional cost of Flyers trading Kimmo to a team they are fighting for a playoff spot with (small chance but still)?

It would be difficult to justify we'd have been better off with the Vermette/Timonen combo IMO

 

[g00n]

The entire "they COULD have made" such and such a deal argument is constructed on a very flimsy straw man.

Actually, a straw man argument involves setting up a false position just to knock it down. What false position is being erected and knocked down by pointing out the fact that fans are making assumptions about things they don't know?

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

Straw man argument: "You guy's don't want to make any moves/management is scared to make a big move"

Actual position: We're fine with making no additional moves, as there were no moves made/management couldn't complete any reasonable moves ('two to tango").

 

[g00n]

Straw man argument: "You guy's don't want to make any moves/management is scared to make a big move"

Actual position: We're fine with making no additional moves, as there were no moves made/management couldn't complete any reasonable moves ('two to tango").

That is not a false argument that was being "knocked down" and is not a straw man. That is a seemingly inaccurate paraphrasing of what I guess is supposed to be someone's opinion. Certainly not mine.

I already said the Caps WANTED to make another move, as evidenced by the fact they were still shopping and said as much.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...llan-recaps-capitals-moves-at-trade-deadline/

“I’d like to think there was things I wish I could’ve gotten, proposals I did make, players I did like,” MacLellan said. “I wish one of those would’ve happened, yes. I think it’s just part of the process. You’ve got to continually do it, keep swinging the bat and hopefully hit the ball once.

Some in the "nothing could be done" camp actually argued against this by saying these attempts were being made essentially for the hell of it. That's not what happened, per the man doing the job himself. Putting an "oh well" blossom on it is what all GM's do after things fall through.

Saying they were "scared to make a big move" is also not part of the position being taken, as we know they've made big FA moves in the past, and as I said they paid a pretty steep price already for at least one rental. CHOOSING to be conservative or stick to a perceived price/value standard after that is not the same as being scared to make a move.

Ultimately, I think you just tried to prove a straw man WITH a straw man.

 

[Ridley Simon]

No. The analogy is extremely limited and not applicable to what I've been saying. Not playing the lottery is not the only way to become a millionaire. A lottery also has set mathematical odds that are far, far worse than any hockey deal. Playing the lottery carries a known risk and reward that is quantifiable and objective. Hockey trades or often mostly subjective.





I still don't understand what you're driving at. The ease with which any trade proposal can be dismissed without much thought is not the same as stating the fact that choice is involved in the job of every GM... even one up against the cap, as many are.

The degree to which any GM is perceived to overpay or underpay is fairly subjective, and part of most deals. The problem with hypothetical trade offers as the litmus test to prove there were no deals out there is that any trade offer can be shot down by choosing to either just say "overpayment and insane/irrational" or "not offering enough and player is not being traded". It's easy and requires very little thought. It also doesn't disprove the idea that possible deals existed and weren't made, however subjectively good or bad.

People saying "how do you know what was offered and what wasn't" as a defense of the front office don't know that information, either. There are massive assumptions being made about what was done and what could have been done. The degree to which those things are perceived as "irrational", "sane", or "unrealistic" is also part of this assumption process. Some are from the premise that we went right up to the line of irrationality and stopped there, when we simply don't know that, and the definition is not universal.

People misuse this phrase all the time, but it's an actual logical fallacy that means something specific:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Just because nothing was done doesn't mean that nothing could have been done. It's logically and factually inaccurate, but that's what's being said and assumed. There is no double standard here. The arguments I am countering are known logical fallacies. That is my point.

And my point is that we also do not know that something could have been done. That's why I fail to see why your harping on one side, yet not the other. There is no real evidence either way. So some posters want to rant about what wasn't done. Others want to defend because maybe nothing could be done. Neither is wrong. But neither is right, either. We just don't know.