Fantasy GM Thread | The One Where We Inch Closer to the TDL

[MS]

I get that argument. But at the same time, you hear from scouts that are pretty giddy about these upcoming two draft classes and you think that they could be closer to a 2014 caliber draft than the 18/19 drafts.

Obviously projecting the depth of a draft class is pretty difficult and most draft classes do get overhyped so this could also very well be the case here, I get that too. Most draft classes are more like 18/19 than 14.

I'm not as high on this draft as others. It's obviously a good draft, but I've been following drafts for a long time and virtually every draft gets lumped into hyperbolic takes one way or another as either the Best Draft Ever or the Worst Draft Ever.

This draft has lots of forward talent and lots of CHL talent and a great top 5 (the three things that really 'ping' for people evaluating draft strength) but a very weak defensive group, a mediocre European/US group, and a lot of smallish players. It will be a good draft and better than usual but some of these sorts of 'guaranteed NHLers right through pick 30!' type takes are totally absurd.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Lol. A number of those (Tor and Edm) would be scouting CBJ.

They want Gavrikov.

 

[Vector]

You forgot two of the biggest candidates IMO: Johnsson in New Jersey and Reilly in Boston.

Reilly really intrigues me. Despite being crowded out on Boston's deep left side, he can probably help our blueline next year, and with that extra year on his contract the sweetener could be significant.

Boston's problem is they don't really have any worthwhile trade assets.

I definitely missed Johnsson. He’s a prime candidate. Reilly’s second year probably makes him a no go for this team.

 

[MS]

It's not a strawman at all. It's literally what you've been saying. There is no other way to interpret this:







You're literally pointing at the outcome of the trade, Tuch's explosion and Krebs disappointing, as proof of the model you want to use. Outliers can't be the model.


The equivalent of Tuch is a blue chip prospect. You were using Tuch as the comparison - "the odds that a player like this blows up like Tuch aren't really any different than for a draft pick".

If you make a statement like that you have to compare the player to an equivalent draft pick. The prospect equivalent of Tuch is far more likely to blow up than someone like Tuch.


I don't have an issue with this. I largely agree with your post in this thread other than a Newhook-ranged mid 1st 2023 pick given this draft class has a lot more value to me than it does to you. Everyone wants quality over quantity in every deal and views on what makes quality will differ.

My specific issue with what you were saying earlier was pointing at a player blowing up as proof of the model. I'm not rejecting Rasmussen as part of the return. I'm rejecting any trade where the requirement for the trade to be worth it is for the 23 y/o almost 24 y/o player to blow up after the trade. If that's the view of the trade then we need more coming back or we may as well take the prospect equivalent of that package instead because it can't be the model that your 23 y/o almost 24 y/o player blows up after the trade for it be worth it.

Buffalo took back an NHL player as the centerpiece. That NHL player did well. Again, even if Tuch had continued on his Vegas level of play, Buffalo would have done very well here.

I was very clearly referring to the sort of picks we'd get back in a Horvat deal. Obviously #5 overall is highly likely to be an impact player but that's really totally irrelevant in a discussion of a Horvat trade.

Again : I'll take my chances on established NHL players where the floor for the trade is getting an NHL player and there is still the potential of the player blowing up for a home run over a #25 overall draft pick where the floor is far lower and the ceiling is less likely.

 

[me2]

Buffalo took back an NHL player as the centerpiece. That NHL player did well. Again, even if Tuch had continued on his Vegas level of play, Buffalo would have done very well here.

I was very clearly referring to the sort of picks we'd get back in a Horvat deal. Obviously #5 overall is highly likely to be an impact player but that's really totally irrelevant in a discussion of a Horvat trade.

Again : I'll take my chances on established NHL players where the floor for the trade is getting an NHL player and there is still the potential of the player blowing up for a home run over a #25 overall draft pick where the floor is far lower and the ceiling is less likely.

You can often pick those players up with a #25 pick.

 

[Killer Orcas]

Dallas seems like an ideal landing spot for Horvat, Asset and fit wise. Roster construction wise it fits and Canucks would probably get Dellandrea, BIchsel and a 1st for him or they might try and get Johnson and 2023 1st and a cap dump like Faska.

Bichsel is a player that would definitely interest me shame he's not a RHD though he'd be the dream partner for Hughes if was.

 

[Vector]

You can often pick those players up with a #25 pick.

A pick in the mid-20s is just as likely to bust as become an NHL or fringe NHLer. If you’re aiming for a late 1st, taking a more established player mitigates that risk while having about the same chance as providing an impact.

 

[Vector]

I wanted Bichsel at the draft. Would still love to have him now.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

You can often pick those players up with a #25 pick.

"Often"? If you look at the 5 year stretch of drafts from 2015-2019, there is exactly one impact player taken in the 25-30 range on Tuch's level - Tage Thompson. Crummy odds.

 

[m9]

I'm fine with the team targeting young, NHL players instead of late 1sts/prospects as long as they supplement it with acquiring 2nd round picks. If you have 2-3 swings in the 2nd round for a few years in a row you are going to get guys who trend up to that "late 1st" evaluation during their +1 year anyway without chasing them as as the centerpiece of the deal. Teams basically give away these picks (especially when they are in a future draft) and the cost is pretty minimal.

 

[MS]

You can often pick those players up with a #25 pick.

Maybe yes, but nobody who wants the pick wants to do that.

As I've said a few times, the Venn Diagram of people who say 'But currency!' on draft picks and people who get really made when draft picks are actually used as currency is a perfect circle.

If we got #25 overall back in a Horvat trade and then traded it to Colorado in June for Alex Newhook, this board would be furiously angry.

I'm fine with the team targeting young, NHL players instead of late 1sts/prospects as long as they supplement it with acquiring 2nd round picks. If you have 2-3 swings in the 2nd round for a few years in a row you are going to get guys who trend up to that "late 1st" evaluation during their +1 year anyway without chasing them as as the centerpiece of the deal.

They're still low-percentage assets.

This team needs to be targeting high-percentage assets, and the best high-percentage assets possible.

2nd round picks are window dressing and you don't diminish the main part of the trade by focusing on those.

"Often"? If you look at the 5 year stretch of drafts from 2015-2019, there is exactly one impact player taken in the 25-30 range on Tuch's level - Tage Thompson. Crummy odds.

I thought he was referring to trading the pick for a young potential breakout player.

But yes, if that was what was intended, it's just factually wrong.

 

[credulous]

Bringing this over from the Around the NHL thread because it's more appropriate here.

People seem to think I'm being closed-minded on trade returns. I'm not. I just want players back who represent high-percentage outcomes. I like the type of asset that is a 70-100% chance of being a quality NHL player. I don't like the sort of asset that represents a 20% chance of being a quality NHL player. And I definitely don't like taking back multiples of the 20% group and then ending up with nothing.

These are the sorts of assets I like :

- top-10 (or even top-15) draft picks.
- top-25 league wide NHL prospects (ie. Shane Wright)
- established young NHL players with upside, especially those that play C or D (ie. Michael Rasmussen)

These are the sorts of assets I don't like :

- draft picks below #20 overall
- 'pedigree' former #1 picks who have name recognition but are flatlining in the minors in their draft +3 (ie. Lapierre, Bourque, Cossa)
- guys in their draft+5 approaching waiver eligibility who haven't stuck in the NHL.
- B prospects who weren't overly high picks and have some potential but are not blue-chippers. Especially when they're small or wingers.

If you get assets from the first group, you're probably doing very well in a Horvat trade. If you get nothing but assets from the second group, you're getting f***ed. And signing Horvat is a far better option than taking a bad quantity return from the second group.

this is very helpful, thankyou

previous posts of yours have led me to believe you think getting any kind of nhl player -- even a marginal one -- was preferable to getting players still in the ahl or non-premium draft picks. i think a lot of your posting has pointed at player value equals number of nhl games played. i don't think that's the worst model for player value but i think there's a lot more nuance to it than that

my only position has been that whatever the canucks get back the most important thing is the replacement value of those assets. if they get established nhlers back that are no better than what can be harvested on the waiver wire or in free agency i'll be extremely disappointed. if they get back a player like carlo or roslovic who has nhl ability and will help the team but who isn't really an asset beyond the next 2-3 years and could plausibly be replaced by a free agent signing i'll also be disappointed but less so

i think the ideal (plausible) return for horvat is a premium prospect like marco kasper or mavrik bourque but if they get back something like rasmussen + wallinder or newhook + foudy + 1st i'll at least understand what they were trying to do even if i don't have a lot of faith in newhook or rasmussen really amounting to much more than a good second liner

 

[pitseleh]

As I've said a few times, the Venn Diagram of people who say 'But currency!' on draft picks and people who get really made when draft picks are actually used as currency is a perfect circle.

That’s just not true. The reactions to the Dermott trade and to the Bear trade as separate from the Dickinson trade were mostly positive.

They're still low-percentage assets.

This team needs to be targeting high-percentage assets, and the best high-percentage assets possible.

2nd round picks are window dressing and you don't diminish the main part of the trade by focusing on those.

They need high percentage, high value assets, not just high percentage assets. And teams are not giving those assets up for what the Canucks are offering. High percentage, low value players aren’t going to move the needle here.

The argument is really about the expected outcome of the assets being targeted and the dispersion of outcomes are that expected average. There also doesn’t seem to be much dispute that draft picks have a lower expected value on average. There is disagreement about how much risk the team needs to take on to have enough spins of the wheel to put themselves in a position to win, and the relative upside of picks versus players already in the league.

 

[MS]

this is very helpful, thankyou

previous posts of yours have led me to believe you think getting any kind of nhl player -- even a marginal one -- was preferable to getting players still in the ahl or non-premium draft picks. i think a lot of your posting has pointed at player value equals number of nhl games played. i don't think that's the worst model for player value but i think there's a lot more nuance to it than that

my only position has been that whatever the canucks get back the most important thing is the replacement value of those assets. if they get established nhlers back that are no better than what can be harvested on the waiver wire or in free agency i'll be extremely disappointed. if they get back a player like carlo or roslovic who has nhl ability and will help the team but who isn't really an asset beyond the next 2-3 years and could plausibly be replaced by a free agent signing i'll also be disappointed but less so

i think the ideal (plausible) return for horvat is a premium prospect like marco kasper or mavrik bourque but if they get back something like rasmussen + wallinder or newhook + foudy + 1st i'll at least understand what they were trying to do even if i don't have a lot of faith in newhook or rasmussen really amounting to much more than a good second liner

No - absolutely not 'any' NHL player. Good pro scouting still has to come into it. Like, someone mentioned Ty Dellandrea as a centerpiece from Dallas and ... that's a nope from me. Young NHL player but to me he has very limited upside and might have a 500-game Riley Nash career. I'd take him as a 3rd piece or something as he'd be useful C depth, but this isn't a player I'd put high value on, as opposed to Rasmussen who is tracking like he could be a two-way horse.

I like players on sharp development curves and players who have moved up levels and substantially increased their odds of NHL success in doing so.

I don't want anything to do with Mavrik Bourque as a prime piece. This is an example of a name-value pedigree player who isn't seeing dynamic results in the AHL in his draft+3. More suspect than prospect at this point, maybe a fringe top-100 NHL prospect. If you're dealing with Dallas, you want Wyatt Johnston.

 

[MS]

That’s just not true. The reactions to the Dermott trade and to the Bear trade as separate from the Dickinson trade were mostly positive.

They need high percentage, high value assets, not just high percentage assets. And teams are not giving those assets up for what the Canucks are offering. High percentage, low value players aren’t going to move the needle here.

The argument is really about the expected outcome of the assets being targeted and the dispersion of outcomes are that expected average. There also doesn’t seem to be much dispute that draft picks have a lower expected value on average. There is disagreement about how much risk the team needs to take on to have enough spins of the wheel to put themselves in a position to win, and the relative upside of picks versus players already in the league.

Horvat is one of the most in-demand assets to be moved at the deadline (or really at all) in the last decade. Damn f***ing rights we should be asking for high percentage, high-value assets.

And again, I'm not supporting taking a high-percentage, low-ceiling player like Dellandrea.

The people here who I'm disagreeing with on picks are virtually all the same people who criticized the Bear and Dermott trades for 'age gap' and not promoting a pick surplus.

 

[pitseleh]

Horvat is one of the most in-demand assets to be moved at the deadline (or really at all) in the last decade. Damn f***ing rights we should be asking for high percentage, high-value assets.

Maybe we have different definitions but I don’t see a player like Newhook as a player that fits that definition. He’s high percentage to be a low value player, low percentage to be a high value player.

The people here who I'm disagreeing with on picks are virtually all the same people who criticized the Bear and Dermott trades for 'age gap' and not promoting a pick surplus.

That might very well be but the idea of picks being currency is certainly a more broadly held belief.

 

[mriswith]

Buffalo took back an NHL player as the centerpiece. That NHL player did well. Again, even if Tuch had continued on his Vegas level of play, Buffalo would have done very well here.

I was very clearly referring to the sort of picks we'd get back in a Horvat deal. Obviously #5 overall is highly likely to be an impact player but that's really totally irrelevant in a discussion of a Horvat trade.

Again : I'll take my chances on established NHL players where the floor for the trade is getting an NHL player and there is still the potential of the player blowing up for a home run over a #25 overall draft pick where the floor is far lower and the ceiling is less likely.

It was a key piece but not the centrepiece. They held off the deal for months until Vegas finally conceded and offered Krebs. It doesn't make any sense to land your centrepiece in a deal but stall it out for months and risk it collapsing because the additions aren't quite right. If we got offered Byfield+ for Horvat, we would have to be insane to stall it out quibbling over the +.

I'll take whichever package has the highest likelihood of providing us with an impact player. I don't care how many already peaked or low ceiling bottom of the roster pieces we get and I don't care if the bust risk is higher as long as the chance of getting an impact player is higher, and I'm not saying any specific player fits the former category, I'm saying this as an archetype.

It seems like you have been placing a high value on protecting the downside of the deal - making sure we don't end up with nothing from the Horvat trade - whereas I don't place a high value on protecting the downside of this deal if it comes at any cost of getting a player that moves the needle. It seems like the bar you want to hit is an NHL player and the bar I want to hit is an impact player.

If the established NHLer package has the highest likelihood of providing an impact player, cool I'll take it. If that's the futures package, I'll take that instead and accept the higher bust risk in exchange.

 

[MS]

Maybe we have different definitions but I don’t see a player like Newhook as a player that fits that definition. He’s high percentage to be a low value player, low percentage to be a high value player.


That might very well be but the idea of picks being currency is certainly a more broadly held belief.

Again, I find the perceptions of 'high value' to be interesting.

Of the 32 players taken #16-31 in the 2018-19 drafts, Newhook is the 2nd best player. Relative to what you'd expect from a draft pick, he's a very high-value outcome. People think that #25 overall or prospects like Lapierre/Bourque have a better chance of being 'high value' than this sort of young NHL player ... and statistically and mathematically that just isn't the case.

Would Shane Wright be a better target than Alex Newhook? Of course. Is Detroit's 1st round pick a better target than Newhook? Yes. But people tend to vastly overrate the value of picks past #20 overall and vastly overrate the potential of 1st round picks who haven't hit the NHL by their draft +3.

 

[pitseleh]

Again, I find the perceptions of 'high value' to be interesting.

Of the 32 players taken #16-31 in the 2018-19 drafts, Newhook is the 2nd best player. Relative to what you'd expect from a draft pick, he's a very high-value outcome. People think that #25 overall or prospects like Lapierre/Bourque have a better chance of being 'high value' than this sort of young NHL player ... and statistically and mathematically that just isn't the case.

I see all of those as low value given their likely contribution to the team and relative to contract expectations. Newhook is probably a ~$3 million player who is likely going to be paid ~$3 million/year until he hits UFA. The only way he adds real value is if he blows up and exceeds his next contract, which is a low probability outcome. Getting a $3 million player for $3 million per year isn't much better than having a draft pick bust.

I can see the argument that Newhook has a higher probability of providing upside than a low first rounder or those types of prospects, but in that context they are still low value.

But when we’re talking about high percentage, high value players it’s got to be a player that provides a strong likelihood of overperformance, like a Wright or a JT Miller in 2019.

And that’s where the picks as currency point becomes relevant, because I think you’re more likely to be able to make those plays for high value players in the offseason with a low first rounder than you are with a Newhook type, based on history.

Would Shane Wright be a better target than Alex Newhook? Of course. Is Detroit's 1st round pick a better target than Newhook? Yes. But people tend to vastly overrate the value of picks past #20 overall and vastly overrate the potential of 1st round picks who haven't hit the NHL by their draft +3.

I think that’s reasonable - I especially agree on the prospect side where people underrate how much value decays if a player isn’t progressing rapidly post-draft. I don’t feel particularly confident one way or another on the low pick vs player point.

I’m just less sure that pushing for current NHLers at the deadline is the best strategy. It’s one thing if other teams need to move out money or if it’s the offseason. But for contenders gunning for it, they are going to be loath to detract from their rosters and you should be able to extract more value in futures than current players, all else equal.

Edit: and to be clear if teams that are actually offering grade a assets, those are obviously preferable, but I’m just skeptical that you’re getting a Wright or Byram or Wyatt Johnson level asset for rental Horvat.

 

[credulous]

Horvat is one of the most in-demand assets to be moved at the deadline (or really at all) in the last decade. Damn f***ing rights we should be asking for high percentage, high-value assets.

And again, I'm not supporting taking a high-percentage, low-ceiling player like Dellandrea.

The people here who I'm disagreeing with on picks are virtually all the same people who criticized the Bear and Dermott trades for 'age gap' and not promoting a pick surplus.

dermott and bear are a totally separate issue to me. the bear trade was fine in that the canucks really needed anyone who could play 15-20 minutes a night on the right side and giving up a 5th is whatever. he even has some upside although i think less than what others around here believe. i believe with better planning and a little foresight though the canucks could have gotten someone basically as good as bear for free. someone like ilya lyubushkin, brendan smith, dmitri kulikov or haydn fleury could have filled that spot and nothing would have really changed

with dermott i think was just bad pro scouting. dermott had so many chances to seize a spot on the toronto blueline and kept losing out to marginal nhl defenders. giving up a 3rd for him was really poor value even ignoring his concussion issues. there were definitely better players available for free than dermott in the 2022 offseason. that third round pick could have been better used in so many ways

if the canucks had moved the 3rd as part of a deal to add a player like marino or bjorkstrand i don't think anyone would be complaining

the one big disagreement i have with you is the value of middle round picks. you're right in that they are all longshots to pay off but when i look at rosters of good teams every single one of them has multiple players that were taken with middle round picks playing important roles. that says to me you need to get lucky (or be very good at drafting) and hit on some of those picks to end up with a good team. given you can't really do anything to get luckier and being very good at drafting doesn't seem like a repeatable skill the only way i see to increase the chances of landing those 'lucky' picks is to pick as much as possible. the value of middle round picks (3rds, 4ths, 5ths) seems so low that it's lunacy to me to throw them around with abandon. you should be trying to squeeze them out whenever you can by moving players that don't matter to teams that don't value picks. one of the most concerning things to me about both benning and now rutherford/allvin is that they seem like spenders and not savers when it comes to those picks. it's unlikely to matter really in the near term but over the long term hitting on those picks is the difference between being an aging no hope team like philadelphia or san jose and a stanley cup contender like the dallas stars

 

[604]

the biggest risk to canucks success is that management don't realize this and try to address all the bad money on the books by adding more bad money to the books. i'm bracing myself for a long term deal to severson or gavrikov (or god forbid both) this offseason. imo signing either of those players to myers size deals pretty much dooms vancouver for the next 4-5 years

Yep, another OEL trade would be just as devastating as the last one...

(which basically meant we would not win with the current Hughes + Petey + Demko core).

 

[MS]

I see all of those as low value given their likely contribution to the team and relative to contract expectations. Newhook is probably a ~$3 million player who is likely going to be paid ~$3 million/year until he hits UFA. The only way he adds real value is if he blows up and exceeds his next contract, which is a low probability outcome. Getting a $3 million player for $3 million per year isn't much better than having a draft pick bust.

I can see the argument that Newhook has a higher probability of providing upside than a low first rounder or those types of prospects, but in that context they are still low value.

But when we’re talking about high percentage, high value players it’s got to be a player that provides a strong likelihood of overperformance, like a Wright or a JT Miller in 2019.

And that’s where the picks as currency point becomes relevant, because I think you’re more likely to be able to make those plays for high value players in the offseason with a low first rounder than you are with a Newhook type, based on history.


I think that’s reasonable - I especially agree on the prospect side where people underrate how much value decays if a player isn’t progressing rapidly post-draft. I don’t feel particularly confident one way or another on the low pick vs player point.

I’m just less sure that pushing for current NHLers at the deadline is the best strategy. It’s one thing if other teams need to move out money or if it’s the offseason. But for contenders gunning for it, they are going to be loath to detract from their rosters and you should be able to extract more value in futures than current players, all else equal.

Edit: and to be clear if teams that are actually offering grade a assets, those are obviously preferable, but I’m just skeptical that you’re getting a Wright or Byram or Wyatt Johnson level asset for rental Horvat.

On Newhook - to be clear, I would find him to be a bit of an underwhelming core piece in a return for Horvat, especially as I'm not convinced he's a C long-term. I just find him to a fascinating case that does a great job of highlighting peoples' repulsion to getting decent NHL players vs. desire to get late first round picks relative to the actual expected value of both assets. Rasmussen is far more interesting than Newhook.

On contenders wanting to move quality young players : yes, it's not easy to pry those players away. But those teams also don't have high picks, and often don't have the sort of Shane Wright-level prospect you'd want either. So if you aren't targeting and getting this sort of player, you're boxing yourself into taking a quantity over quality package with a whole bunch of low-percentage assets.

And I think it's oversimplifying to say, 'oh, just use the pick as currency'. It's not that easy. It's f***ing great when a Devon Toews trade happens and it's easy to point to that, but those sorts of deals are not common. If you're trading for a pick, you're probably going to end up using the pick. And if you end up using the pick, you're probably going to get attached to the player and ride out the low-percentage eventualities.

 

[Svencouver]

Genuinely asking - What *would* have to happen to sign Horvat? Not saying that's what I want or what we should do, but who would have to be moved out, realistically? I'd probably look for some Garland deal first, but who after that has to go in order to make it work? Mostly just asking for potential lineup projections.

 

[Canucker]

Again, I find the perceptions of 'high value' to be interesting.

Of the 32 players taken #16-31 in the 2018-19 drafts, Newhook is the 2nd best player. Relative to what you'd expect from a draft pick, he's a very high-value outcome. People think that #25 overall or prospects like Lapierre/Bourque have a better chance of being 'high value' than this sort of young NHL player ... and statistically and mathematically that just isn't the case.

Would Shane Wright be a better target than Alex Newhook? Of course. Is Detroit's 1st round pick a better target than Newhook? Yes. But people tend to vastly overrate the value of picks past #20 overall and vastly overrate the potential of 1st round picks who haven't hit the NHL by their draft +3.

I don't necessarily disagree that later 1st round picks, into the 2nd round can be "overrated" by people around here...I think there is an undiscovered scout in all of us who like to prognosticate these things...but there are some cases where drafts are deeper than others...for me, I "feel" like I know what I'm going to get with Newhook (to continue with this example), and I would rather take a chance at a later 1st round pick that had more of an "unknown" quantifier than the "known" commodity. More risk, more reward I guess...obviously no guarantees for either asset, just a personal preference. Newhook could be the next young superstar, or he could be the next Tyson Jost.

 

[rypper]

Genuinely asking - What *would* have to happen to sign Horvat? Not saying that's what I want or what we should do, but who would have to be moved out, realistically? I'd probably look for some Garland deal first, but who after that has to go in order to make it work? Mostly just asking for potential lineup projections.

I think there would have to be a ton of "fence-mending" by management and Horvat.

Maybe they wash his car once a week, do his laundry, buy him a footlong meatball sub etc. That sort of thing.