Value of: Bo Horvat

Neutrinos

Registered User
Sep 23, 2016
8,587
3,597
Yeah, all those teams that passed on Kucherov, Datsyuk, etc. are so silly. Of course someone might bloom late. If you want to be even remotely correct, suggest that players ranked in that area are to be considered. So the 6-8 idea is much, much closer to reality than your assertion.

It has nothing to do with silly, we're talking about the value of a pick
 

CanadienShark

Registered User
Dec 18, 2012
37,357
10,608
It has nothing to do with silly, we're talking about the value of a pick
Yeah, and you don't seem to grasp the concept of value. Value is fluid. You can't look at Apple stock now and say that it had the same value 20 years ago.
 

Neutrinos

Registered User
Sep 23, 2016
8,587
3,597
Yeah, and you don't seem to grasp the concept of value. Value is fluid. You can't look at Apple stock now and say that it had the same value 20 years ago.

I never said the value of a pick remains a constant year to year, so it seems you don't even know what my argument is that you're trying to discredit

With that said, I've grown bored with this topic, so I won't be responding to anymore messages
 

CanadienShark

Registered User
Dec 18, 2012
37,357
10,608
I never said the value of a pick remains a constant year to year, so it seems you don't even know what my argument is that you're trying to discredit

With that said, I've grown bored with this topic, so I won't be responding to anymore messages
You literally said you need to consider all available players. And clearly when doing so, you're accounting for current value, not value at the time. I know exactly what I'm discrediting. This is too easy. Don't respond then, you're objectively wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoHorvat 53

Neutrinos

Registered User
Sep 23, 2016
8,587
3,597
Yeah I don't think so. This is an argument that has factual basis. Sorry man, you just don't seem to understand the math behind chance.

Your argument is based on the opinions of 3 random GM's

That hardly qualifies as a "factual basis"

Anyway, I've said my piece, so I won't be engaging in further discussion
 

Rowlet

Registered User
Oct 13, 2018
3,227
3,277
The value of any given pick is based on the best player available at that draft slot

Whether or not teams scout accurately to maximize that value is irrelevant

Agree to disagree if you see things differently, but I'm going to leave it at that

This is statistically incorrect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoHorvat 53

Mac Attack

Beefy Legs
Aug 15, 2018
1,166
725
Your argument is based on the opinions of 3 random GM's

That hardly qualifies as a "factual basis"

Anyway, I've said my piece, so I won't be engaging in further discussion
Nope. Over 14 gms as per my previous post, and I called it a sample size. It looks at approximate value, not exact. And you have given no examples, because there isn't even one GM in the league who always picks the best player available in the first round, which is what you would need for the value of the pick to be equal to the best player available. You literally have a sample size of zero to back your argument. You couldn't even cherry pick one GMs drafting to back your claim.
 

Neutrinos

Registered User
Sep 23, 2016
8,587
3,597
Nope. Over 14 gms as per my previous post, and I called it a sample size. It looks at approximate value, not exact. And you have given no examples, because there isn't even one GM in the league who always picks the best player available in the first round, which is what you would need for the value of the pick to be equal to the best player available. You literally have a sample size of zero to back your argument. You couldn't even cherry pick one GMs drafting to back your claim.

I'll address this and then I really am done since there seems to be no point in continuing

The value of each pick is determined by who the best available player is in that draft slot regardless of whether or not the GM maximizes the pick's value by selecting said best player

Cherry picking selections would serve no purpose as it's irrelevant to my argument
 

Mac Attack

Beefy Legs
Aug 15, 2018
1,166
725
I'll address this and then I really am done since there seems to be no point in continuing

The value of each pick is determined by who the best available player is in that draft slot regardless of whether or not the GM maximizes the pick's value by selecting said best player

Cherry picking selections would serve no purpose as it's irrelevant to my argument
The only issue is that when you select at the draft, you don't know who the best player is. So the value can only be who the best player is according to scouts before they have started their career.
 

Neutrinos

Registered User
Sep 23, 2016
8,587
3,597
The only issue is that when you select at the draft, you don't know who the best player is. So the value can only be who the best player is according to scouts before they have started their career.

Yes, at the time of the draft a pick's value is purely speculative based on the perception of the players available

The exact value of the pick is determined in the following seasons

That's why I said - and perhaps should have repeated for the sake of clarity - 'I'm fairly confident there will be a player available at #7 in this year's draft that Vancouver should've given up 3 years of Horvat for when it's looked back on in retrospect'
 

Mac Attack

Beefy Legs
Aug 15, 2018
1,166
725
Yes, at the time of the draft a pick's value is purely speculative based on the perception of the players available

The exact value of the pick is determined in the following seasons

That's why I said - and perhaps should have repeated for the sake of clarity - 'I'm fairly confident there will be a player available at #7 in this year's draft that Vancouver should've given up 3 years of Horvat for when it's looked back on in retrospect'
Okay, we are good now.
 

Sweetpotato

Registered User
Jan 10, 2014
6,769
3,970
Edmonton
You can't just select players from 6 - 8 as an accurate measure of the 7th pick. The correct way to assess the value of the #7 pick is by showing every player that could've been drafted with that pick. For example, Dylan Larkin was available to be drafted at #7 in 2014. In 2015, Barzal and Chabot could've been drafted at #7

With that said, I'm not necessarily pushing a Horvat for #7 swap, but the Canucks wouldn't even have Horvat had they not made a similar trade when they moved Schneider

That trade was not well received at the time, and yet, in hindsight, Vancouver fans are thrilled with how it turned out

So, I'm fairly confident there will be a player available at #7 in this year's draft that Vancouver should've given up 3 years of Horvat for when it's looked back on in retrospect
No its not, by that logic why didn't Edmonton draft Kucherov 1st OA in 2011 instead of RNH....because he wasn't slated to be drafted at that position. You're as if they should make this trade and then its their fault they don't end up with a better player when ACTUALLY its all a percentage chance. In layman's terms why would vancouver trade Horvat for a 50% or lower chance of drafting a player as good or slightly better...Middlestadt doesn't make up for the risk they're taking.
 

Rowlet

Registered User
Oct 13, 2018
3,227
3,277
I was agreeing with you about the other guy

yeah i know, statistics is hard for some people lol.

clearly the Thrashers should have taken Zetterberg at #1, that's totally a reasonable thing that could have happened, instead of him going 200+ picks later.
 

Mac Attack

Beefy Legs
Aug 15, 2018
1,166
725
yeah i know, statistics is hard for some people lol.

clearly the Thrashers should have taken Zetterberg at #1, that's totally a reasonable thing that could have happened, instead of him going 200+ picks later.
Lol that's exactly it. He said later that apparently he meant something else but he was definitely saying what you are getting at.
 

BoHorvat 53

What's a god to a Kane
Dec 9, 2014
3,681
1,819
You can't just select players from 6 - 8 as an accurate measure of the 7th pick. The correct way to assess the value of the #7 pick is by showing every player that could've been drafted with that pick. For example, Dylan Larkin was available to be drafted at #7 in 2014. In 2015, Barzal and Chabot could've been drafted at #7

With that said, I'm not necessarily pushing a Horvat for #7 swap, but the Canucks wouldn't even have Horvat had they not made a similar trade when they moved Schneider

That trade was not well received at the time, and yet, in hindsight, Vancouver fans are thrilled with how it turned out

So, I'm fairly confident there will be a player available at #7 in this year's draft that Vancouver should've given up 3 years of Horvat for when it's looked back on in retrospect

This point really makes no sense in the real world. Using your logic, every 7th overall pick is worth more than Horvat. You get players like Pastrnak, Kuznetsov who were technically available at 7, but you would look real dumb drafting at the time. The draft is a crapshoot. Even Larkin/Barzal, one would’ve looked stupid taking either at 7. You are not drafting with hindsight in case you didn’t know...
 

CanadienShark

Registered User
Dec 18, 2012
37,357
10,608
Yes, at the time of the draft a pick's value is purely speculative based on the perception of the players available

The exact value of the pick is determined in the following seasons

That's why I said - and perhaps should have repeated for the sake of clarity - 'I'm fairly confident there will be a player available at #7 in this year's draft that Vancouver should've given up 3 years of Horvat for when it's looked back on in retrospect'
And again, you fail to realize that value isn't static. It's fluid. You spell out an argument against the stance you seem to be taking.

Top picks have value for good reason. Looking at a late round pick years ago and suggesting they held that sort of value is silly. The only good measure we have is scouts to determine approximate value, and our own opinions of course. If you spot a late round gem years early, great, but that player doesn't yet hold much value.
 

GOilers88

Fer Da
Dec 24, 2016
14,167
20,652
Yes, at the time of the draft a pick's value is purely speculative based on the perception of the players available

The exact value of the pick is determined in the following seasons

That's why I said - and perhaps should have repeated for the sake of clarity - 'I'm fairly confident there will be a player available at #7 in this year's draft that Vancouver should've given up 3 years of Horvat for when it's looked back on in retrospect'
That is the most insane way I've ever heard of to build a team.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you basically just said that they should trade Horvat because there's a chance that someone drafted at 7 this year could possibly turn out to be better than Horvat a few years from now?
 

Rowlet

Registered User
Oct 13, 2018
3,227
3,277
That is the most insane way I've ever heard of to build a team.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you basically just said that they should trade Horvat because there's a chance that someone drafted at 7 this year could possibly turn out to be better than Horvat a few years from now?

it's even worse. They're suggesting to trade Horvat because someone picked AFTER 7 could possibly turn out better. Even if it's 100 picks later.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->