ATD 2021 Trade Thread

[BenchBrawl]

I agree with this but only to a certain extent. I know for me personally, I vote for the teams I think were built the strongest and not the best debater. While I always read and take in points GM’s make in debates, to me I never consider this a debating competition.

I would vote for a clearly superior team even if the GM went MIA, but if it's close, I give the edge to who shows more heart. I transfer the heart of the GM to the heart of his players. This has its limits, but it still matters.

 

[Professor What]

I would vote for a clearly superior team even if the GM went MIA, but if it's close, I give the edge to who shows more heart. I transfer the heart of the GM to the heart of his players. This has its limits, but it still matters.

Kept within reason, I think there's some real-life parallel there.

 

[Professor What]

I agree with this but only to a certain extent. I know for me personally, I vote for the teams I think were built the strongest and not the best debater. While I always read and take in points GM’s make in debates, to me I never consider this a debating competition.

I don't think I'd bank too much into a GM's debating skill, but I do think I could be boosted on someone a bit if they at least show the willingness. I mean, there's a sense in which, if you don't believe in your team, there's no reason I should. I could see that coming into play in a case like @BenchBrawl mentioned when there's a very close comparison.

 

[RustyRazor]

This statement is far worse than the actual trade.

By the way, I did think your team was quite underrated last year.

You and I were evidently the only ones who thought so. I guess if I learn whatever the f*** vsX is and the other comparison tools this forum has invented to compare players I guess maybe I might stand a chance.

I like history. I like hockey, I like drafting, so I like this exercise. But, from my perspective a lot of time is spent looking for new people to draft every year so that the draft can happen and the same GMs can compete for the title.

 

[tabness]

I view this thing as three separate things:

• The draft itself: This is what I'm here for. It is mostly playing with yourself (that sounds wrong but dunno how to word it better lol) in that you have to be strategic about team building with constraints.
  
• The "history" part of it: I'm also here for this. It's enjoyable going back and watching old games and reading up on players familiar and not so familiar and the draft facilitates this nicely. I have so much hockey crap (books, cards, magazines, old games, stats programs) that this draft helps makes sense of it all. This is also where it is interesting to read others research, especially on pre Original Six players, since I feel the "historiography" for lack of a better term is far more interesting on those, than the general VsX benchmarking and awards voting view that is dominant here. Reading up on a guy like Ed Carpenter and pre 1920s hockey was a highlight of the (minors) draft for me.
• The team rankings/playoffs part of it: I'm clearly uninterested in this. This is what I think causes the most consternation here (the only other things seem to be waiting for picks on the clock and the views on unwritten draft rules which are minor in comparison). I just don't want any part of it. I try to be a good participant and make comments on interesting stuff on other teams, but I keep it positive and lighthearted, as there is already so much negativity and seriousness, why should I add to it? Sure, I will participate in the post draft part, even in the playoff discussion threads to explain my own team, but I'm definitely not interesting in voting or aggressive debating or any sort of gamesmanship. In last years draft I scraped all the draft data into a program (in fact if the aim was to "win" I think I could tweak this thing a bit and do pretty well based on general opinions here lol), and in the process of that I skimmed the old draft threads. No surprise that what I thought were the best run drafts were the early ones without an aim to "win" as they were just short and sweet.

 

[BenchBrawl]

You and I were evidently the only ones who thought so. I guess if I learn whatever the f*** vsX is and the other comparison tools this forum has invented to compare players I guess maybe I might stand a chance.

I like history. I like hockey, I like drafting, so I like this exercise. But, from my perspective a lot of time is spent looking for new people to draft every year so that the draft can happen and the same GMs can compete for the title.

Here's what VsX is:

We established a benchmark number for every year, usually the number of points the 2nd scorer in the league scored (but sometimes we tweak it if there are outlier situations), then we ratio any other player's point total with this benchmark. That way we get all point totals throughout history on the same metric, on an equal footing.

Example (made up):

1.Clarke 115
2.Perreault 104
3.Lemaire 97

Perreault 104 is the benchmark (2nd scorer)

Clarke VsX score for that year: 115/104 = 1.105 (we just multiply it by 100 for aesthetics) = 110.5
Perreault VsX score for that year: 104/104 = 1 = 100
Lemaire is 97/104 = 0.933 = 93.3

Now let,s take another hypothetical season, from a different, lower scoring era:

1. Howe 67
2.M.Richard 60
3.Geoffrion 58

Benchmark is M.Richard 60 (2nd scorer)

So Howe VsX score is 67/60 = 1.117 = 111.7
Richard is 60/60 = 1 = 100
Geoffrion is 58/60 = 0.967 = 96.7

Now we can compare the two seasons

1. Howe 111.7
2. Clarke 110.5
3A.Perreault 100
3B. M.Richard 100
4. Geoffrion 96.7
5. Lemaire 93.3

This is an oversimplification, but the essence is there. It's just a tool to equalize all eras in terms of top scorers.

The usual score you see in the debates is VsX best 7 years, which means we take the best 7 VsX season scores for a player and average it to a single number. (e.g. take the best 7 seasons of Clarke based on VsX, and average it = you get Clarke's VsX career score that you'll see in the usual comparisons)

 

[BenchBrawl]

That's why the few players to have a 7 best years VsX score over 100, means they managed to be around 2nd to 1st scorer for 7 years (and when we averaged the 7 scores, the average was still over 100). Very few will have this obviously. Multiple Art Ross winners, or players that finished 2nd a lot.

 

[ted2019]

We could either move up or down from pick # 39. Depends on the offer.

 

[rmartin65]

I realize the trade is over and done with, but I'd like to throw my 2 cents out there-

While the trade is steeper than I would pay, I don't think it is a veto-worthy trade. It looks like a trade where a GM was targeting a player who, in my opinion, was the last of his tier.

I'd also like to chime in on the "politics" of the draft- while we are all people, and are thus influenced by feelings and emotions, I do honestly believe that a majority of participants vote for teams/players over GMs. While there have been a couple times where votes have left me a little... confused... on balance, I think the community does a pretty decent job.

 

[overpass]

I view this thing as three separate things:

• The draft itself: This is what I'm here for. It is mostly playing with yourself (that sounds wrong but dunno how to word it better lol) in that you have to be strategic about team building with constraints.
  
• The "history" part of it: I'm also here for this. It's enjoyable going back and watching old games and reading up on players familiar and not so familiar and the draft facilitates this nicely. I have so much hockey crap (books, cards, magazines, old games, stats programs) that this draft helps makes sense of it all. This is also where it is interesting to read others research, especially on pre Original Six players, since I feel the "historiography" for lack of a better term is far more interesting on those, than the general VsX benchmarking and awards voting view that is dominant here. Reading up on a guy like Ed Carpenter and pre 1920s hockey was a highlight of the (minors) draft for me.
• The team rankings/playoffs part of it: I'm clearly uninterested in this. This is what I think causes the most consternation here (the only other things seem to be waiting for picks on the clock and the views on unwritten draft rules which are minor in comparison). I just don't want any part of it. I try to be a good participant and make comments on interesting stuff on other teams, but I keep it positive and lighthearted, as there is already so much negativity and seriousness, why should I add to it? Sure, I will participate in the post draft part, even in the playoff discussion threads to explain my own team, but I'm definitely not interesting in voting or aggressive debating or any sort of gamesmanship. In last years draft I scraped all the draft data into a program (in fact if the aim was to "win" I think I could tweak this thing a bit and do pretty well based on general opinions here lol), and in the process of that I skimmed the old draft threads. No surprise that what I thought were the best run drafts were the early ones without an aim to "win" as they were just short and sweet.

I agree with a lot of this. Drafting a cohesive team is a fun exercise. The history and research is great. I don’t enjoy voting but I put up with it as part of the game. I realize there’s some value to digging into matchups in the “playoff” setting, but I’d be fine with no playoffs.

I could do without the “over-optimizing” atmosphere where picks that go against ATD canon get criticized, especially from new GMs. Also the way some GMs almost get offended and take it personally when a new GM goes off the board, as if they were messing up the draft order for everyone. I recognize it comes from a place of passion for the draft and its history, but I think the ATD is a better place when it’s more accessible and fun and open to new perspectives.

 

[rmartin65]

I am looking to move into the early 30s from 46. Shoot me a PM if you are interested.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I am looking to move into the early 30s from 46. Shoot me a PM if you are interested.

I have 38th, maybe we can work a deal. Not sure if Lindsay will make it to this though. We can always work a conditional.

 

[RustyRazor]

I am looking to move into the early 30s from 46. Shoot me a PM if you are interested.

I have two guys in mind for my next pick at #31, one will be considered a reach so if the first is gone I'd be willing to trade back. If you haven't made another deal by then, I'll PM you.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I view this thing as three separate things:

• The draft itself: This is what I'm here for. It is mostly playing with yourself (that sounds wrong but dunno how to word it better lol) in that you have to be strategic about team building with constraints.
  
• The "history" part of it: I'm also here for this. It's enjoyable going back and watching old games and reading up on players familiar and not so familiar and the draft facilitates this nicely. I have so much hockey crap (books, cards, magazines, old games, stats programs) that this draft helps makes sense of it all. This is also where it is interesting to read others research, especially on pre Original Six players, since I feel the "historiography" for lack of a better term is far more interesting on those, than the general VsX benchmarking and awards voting view that is dominant here. Reading up on a guy like Ed Carpenter and pre 1920s hockey was a highlight of the (minors) draft for me.
• The team rankings/playoffs part of it: I'm clearly uninterested in this. This is what I think causes the most consternation here (the only other things seem to be waiting for picks on the clock and the views on unwritten draft rules which are minor in comparison). I just don't want any part of it. I try to be a good participant and make comments on interesting stuff on other teams, but I keep it positive and lighthearted, as there is already so much negativity and seriousness, why should I add to it? Sure, I will participate in the post draft part, even in the playoff discussion threads to explain my own team, but I'm definitely not interesting in voting or aggressive debating or any sort of gamesmanship. In last years draft I scraped all the draft data into a program (in fact if the aim was to "win" I think I could tweak this thing a bit and do pretty well based on general opinions here lol), and in the process of that I skimmed the old draft threads. No surprise that what I thought were the best run drafts were the early ones without an aim to "win" as they were just short and sweet.

Very well stated.

 

[BenchBrawl]

A bit early, but my 59th pick (3rd round) is on the block.

 

[tabness]

A longshot but if anyone in the early/mid thirties looking to move down (can offer my third/fourth round and fifth round picks) you can catch me in my messages because I kind of immediately regret changing my plan and picking Jagr lol

 

[BenchBrawl]

A longshot but if anyone in the early/mid thirties looking to move down (can offer my third/fourth round and fifth round picks) you can catch me in my messages because I kind of immediately regret changing my plan and picking Jagr lol

Jagr is a nice piece, you can build a great team around him. Life is too short for regrets.

 

[tabness]

I don’t regret Jagr himself (a player I like) rather than almost certainly missing out on another player due to taking him as well as having to scrap the plan I made for this team and make a new one lol

 

[ted2019]

Want to move up from 39 to around the 33-35 range ( depending on how the draft is going). Shoot me a PM if interested.

 

[ted2019]

I have two guys in mind for my next pick at #31, one will be considered a reach so if the first is gone I'd be willing to trade back. If you haven't made another deal by then, I'll PM you.

I wouldn't mind getting that 31 spot ( from 39).

 

[BenchBrawl]

I wouldn't mind getting that 31 spot ( from 38).

38 is mine, you have 39

 

[ted2019]

38 is mine, you have 39

Duh, sorry.

 

[Professor What]

I'd been thinking about trying to move into that upper to mid 30s range, but I'm thinking that's not going to work now. LOL. I even wonder if some of the others wanting to do so might not have the same player in mind.

 

[Professor What]

@ResilientBeast and I have agreed to a trade of my second round pick (#40) and my fourth round pick (#88) for his 2nd rounder (#28) and his fifth rounder (#117).

 

[ResilientBeast]

@ResilientBeast and I have agreed to a trade of my second round pick (#40) and my fourth round pick (#88) for his 2nd rounder (#28) and his fifth rounder (#117).

Confirmed

edit: +12, - 29 for those who don't want to do math