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

[Buresflyingelbow]

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.

Erik Johnson in Colorado for 6 million is another.

 

[Svencouver]

Ngl, I'd be quite into the proposed Rasmussen/Hronek package. I think it's better value than Newhook/Lafreniere+1st honestly (who are probably what I'd want coming out of either team, although they both need a +).

I'd look into moving Garland in this case, although I couldn't tell you for what. Maybe just a 2nd for the cap space?

Kuzmenko-Pettersson-Podkolzin
Rasmussen-Miller-Boeser
Hoglander-Studnicka-Mikheyev
Joshua-Aman-Lazar
Dries

If Rasmussen ends up working at Center:

Kuzmenko-Pettersson-Podkolzin
Hoglander-Miller-Boeser
Joshua-Rasmussen-Mikheyev
Dries-Aman-Lazar

Both scenarios look pretty good with minimal adjustments.

We're stuck with Myers for one more season due to the buyout-proofing on his contract, so the defense would look like this:

Hughes-Hronek
OEL-Bear
Dermott-Myers

I'd probably give Silovs a look next year tbh.

Demko
Silovs

Hronek can play on PP2 instead of OEL, and Rasmussen has been a consistent PKer for Detroit.

 

[credulous]

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.

they need to move boeser or myers just to sign horvat assuming he gets 8-9m a year. that leaves them with 3-4m in cap space with dermott, bear and hoglander expiring and schenn gone. you can squeeze out another 6m if you assume pearson and poolman go on ltir but then you are looking at problems fielding a 23 man roster

 

[Svencouver]

they need to move boeser or myers just to sign horvat assuming he gets 8-9m a year. that leaves them with 3-4m in cap space with dermott, bear and hoglander expiring and schenn gone. you can squeeze out another 6m if you assume pearson and poolman go on ltir but then you are looking at problems fielding a 23 man roster

Garland for a 2nd
Myers + a 2nd for something that expires this year?

(This isn't taking into account whether or not we're going to get something out of the Schenn deal too, which could be a factor)

 

[Buresflyingelbow]

Horvat 50% retained + Schenn = $3.75

Byram + E.Johnson = $7 million

That’s $3.25 million in additional space for a Cup run for Colorado.

Schenn replaces Johnson at 1/6th of the price as Erik makes 6 million against the Cap. Horvat at 50% retained allows Colorado to get that 2nd Line Center and allows them to add another great piece that pro rated to $3.25 million (10 million dollar player like Patrick Kane) or some other great add.

Vancouver gets a young stud Dman they have been looking for and someone to replace Schenn for the rest of the season. Basically Byram and a negative asset to balance out the trade.

 

[credulous]

Horvat 50% retained + Schenn = $3.75

Byram + E.Johnson = $7 million

That’s $3.25 million in additional space for a Cup run for Colorado.

Schenn replaces Johnson at 1/6th of the price as Erik makes 6 million against the Cap. Horvat at 50% retained allows Colorado to get that 2nd Line Center and allows them to add another great piece that pro rated to $2.25 million (8 million dollar player like Patrick Kane) or some other great add.

Vancouver gets a young stud Dman they have been looking for and someone to replace Schenn for the rest of the season. Basically Byram and a negative asset to balance out the trade.

no way colorado does this. johnson makes too much money but he's still way better than schenn and his deal expires this offseason. swap girard for johnson and they maybe do it

 

[Canucker]

Horvat 50% retained + Schenn = $3.75

Byram + E.Johnson = $7 million

That’s $3.25 million in additional space for a Cup run for Colorado.

Schenn replaces Johnson at 1/6th of the price as Erik makes 6 million against the Cap. Horvat at 50% retained allows Colorado to get that 2nd Line Center and allows them to add another great piece that pro rated to $2.25 million (8 million dollar player like Patrick Kane) or some other great add.

Vancouver gets a young stud Dman they have been looking for and someone to replace Schenn for the rest of the season. Basically Byram and a negative asset to balance out the trade.

I don't see any way that EJ waives his nmc to come to Vancouver.

 

[Buresflyingelbow]

no way colorado does this. johnson makes too much money but he's still way better than schenn and his deal expires this offseason. swap girard for johnson and they maybe do it

I thought asking for Girard was too much and not enough incentive for Colorado. Getting a guy to replace his leadership and a Horvat for the second line was great but the $3.25 million in additional Cap space put it over the top. I’d say with whatever they add with that $3.25 million and these additions it’s pretty much a guaranteed Cup.

 

[MS]

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.

What you're describing is basically the definition of bias clouding rational decision making.

And I'll admit that I'm no different. If we acquired #25 overall and it was our turn at the draft table on June 25, I'd probably have some pet player I absolutely loved and that would blind my judgement if I was offered a Newhook trade at that point.

 

[Buresflyingelbow]

no way colorado does this. johnson makes too much money but he's still way better than schenn and his deal expires this offseason. swap girard for johnson and they maybe do it

He is not way better, I’d say Schenn is built for the Playoffs and has won 2 Cups in the last 4 years. I’d say comparable except Schenn is more aggressive

 

[pitseleh]

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.

Right, so that comes full circle to whether that package is worse than a player like Newhook who is also low percentage to be high value, but a much higher percentage to be low value. I don’t think it categorically is.

Sure, if you can get Carlo and are comfortable with his health risks, or you can get Rasmussen and you think he’s got a good shot at being a quality high leverage centre you can lock up on a reasonable deal, go for it.

I can also buy that players like Newhook represent better value than a late first and is more likely to hit. But they’re generally more valuable to their current team than picks are because they are providing value now. And even if any one pick is less likely to hit than Newhook, that is not necessarily the case for two or three. This team is not in a position about being myopic about the type of return and should instead be weighing the relative values.

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.

It’s not a guarantee, but basically every offseason there are at least one or two deals like that and given the flat cap it seems as good of a year as any to take advantage. Puts the team in the conversation for a guy like Chychrun, for example.

 

[Canucker]

What you're describing is basically the definition of bias clouding rational decision making.

And I'll admit that I'm no different. If we acquired #25 overall and it was our turn at the draft table on June 25, I'd probably have some pet player I absolutely loved and that would blind my judgement if I was offered a Newhook trade at that point.

I wouldn't characterize it as a bias thats "clouding rational decision making"...its a bias of preference...i don't subscribe to the fact that, since Newhook is a contributing NHL'er he is "rationally" the best choice over a mid-to-late 1st round draft pick who may not (chances are probably 60-70% the pick becomes an NHL'er of some degree).

 

[Horvat1C]

At the deadline:

Horvat for the best package available. I've given up trying to predict what that could be. Schenn for either the best pick(s) available (a 2nd minimum) or a prospect/young player that they like (Kravtsov/Mittlestadt/Foote/etc.) From there see if an extra asset can be attained by renting out our cap space given that we now have 14M on LTIR (ie. be the middle man in a double retention deal like Toews or take back an expiring contract with a dead cap hit like Johnsson)

In the offseason:

Boeser and Garland both moved out. Boeser ideally for a 2nd/rd or again a young player that they like (Mittlestadt/Coghlan/Mcleod/etc.). Garland same deal but I imagine the return would be lower.

A Demko trade could be worked in ONLY if his health is a potential risk or he quietly asks for a trade.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I wouldn't characterize it as a bias thats "clouding rational decision making"...its a bias of preference...i don't subscribe to the fact that, since Newhook is a contributing NHL'er he is "rationally" the best choice over a mid-to-late 1st round draft pick who may not (chances are probably 60-70% the pick becomes an NHL'er of some degree).

Especially for this 2023 draft. If it’s in the same ballpark as recent deep drafts (2015 and 2003 come to mind), then we’re looking at

2015 - only 6/30 players drafted are currently not NHL regulars this season;
2003 - 6/30 players played less than 400 games over their careers.

12/60 = 20%, so an 80% chance of drafting an NHL regular out of these two draft’s first rounds.

 

[MS]

I wouldn't characterize it as a bias thats "clouding rational decision making"...its a bias of preference...i don't subscribe to the fact that, since Newhook is a contributing NHL'er he is "rationally" the best choice over a mid-to-late 1st round draft pick who may not (chances are probably 60-70% the pick becomes an NHL'er of some degree).

Picks 20-30 consistently have a 30% hit rate and about 70% busts. And the 'move the needle' rate is even lower than that.

 

[Vector]

I wouldn't characterize it as a bias thats "clouding rational decision making"...its a bias of preference...i don't subscribe to the fact that, since Newhook is a contributing NHL'er he is "rationally" the best choice over a mid-to-late 1st round draft pick who may not (chances are probably 60-70% the pick becomes an NHL'er of some degree).

There’s a whole thread where I went through this. It’s about 40% NHLer, 22% fringe player, 35% busy, and 3% impact player for picks 20-30.

 

[Canucker]

Picks 20-30 consistently have a 30% hit rate and about 70% busts. And the 'move the needle' rate is even lower than that.

Yeah, I don't agree with those rates...but i guess it all depends on what you consider a "hit" and a "bust"...I'd say it's closer to 50-50 to get an actual NHL player out of a #20-30 pick...if you want an impact player, sure...it drops off significantly...but a contributing NHL'er is about 50-50 I'd say.

 

[Vector]

Yeah, I don't agree with those rates...but i guess it all depends on what you consider a "hit" and a "bust"...I'd say it's closer to 50-50 to get an actual NHL player out of a #20-30 pick...if you want an impact player, sure...it drops off significantly...but a contributing NHL'er is about 50-50 I'd say.

It isn’t.

 

[credulous]

we really need a functional definition of 'impact' player to have these kind of discussions. some people mean andrei kuzmenko and some people mean ethan bear

i'd suggest an 'impact season' is any season in which a player is in the top 7 minutes for forwards or top 3 minutes for dmen and hits some min games played (50? seems reasonable). for goalies it'd probably just be games started but goalies are different enough i think we should probably just exclude them

if i get bored this week i might take a shot at generating the list if anyone is interested. i think it's pretty easy to generate this using the nhl's game logs

 

[Canucker]

There’s a whole thread where I went through this. It’s about 40% NHLer, 22% fringe player, 35% busy, and 3% impact player for picks 20-30.

I just did a quick look at the drafts from 2010-2018, from picks 20-30...out of those total of 90 picks...using my own opinion of what I considered an "NHL player" (*its difficult to make calls on some players in 2017/2018 drafts because they're still making their way), I totaled 52 actual NHL'ers who made an actual contribution to their team.

 

[Vector]

I just did a quick look at the drafts from 2010-2018, from picks 20-30...out of those total of 90 picks...using my own opinion of what I considered an "NHL player" (*its difficult to make calls on some players in 2017/2018 drafts because they're still making their way), I totaled 52 actual NHL'ers who made an actual contribution to their team.

Here’s the thread. I also used 2010-18. I also included all the data in a public spreadsheet.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Jesus f***.

For all of the talk when Rutherford came on about trader Jim and now “major surgery”, it’s more of sleepy Jim and a Paw Patrol bandaid.

Do something you donkeys.

 

[credulous]

Here’s the thread. I also used 2010-18. I also included all the data in a public spreadsheet.

just at a glance you have a ton of players i'd consider impact players as 'nhlers' (shea theodore, kandre miller, brock nelson, phil danault, travis konecny, jared mccann...)

 

[Canucker]

Here’s the thread. I also used 2010-18. I also included all the data in a public spreadsheet.

Yeah, I remember you doing the work on this...just a quick look and I think we are pretty close in how we rated players...just a few points of difference.

- I had Noesen as an NHL'er, you had him as a bust.
- You had Rubstov as an NHL'er I had him as a bust
-I had Trent Fredrick, Max Jones and Brett Howden as NHL'ers.

Either way, I think its about 50-50 if they make it as NHL "regulars".

 

[Uhmkay]

Rumours that NJ Devils are in the mix on Horvat. Wonder if a deal involving Luke Hughes could be made.