Management Thread...less Jack Burton.

[Hit the post]

Madden may well end up a solid player one day I have simply said that's still a ways to prove at a pro level , add to that the hype or negativity toward prospects here , Shinkaruk was the next sure 50 goal a year shooter Virtanen would have been traded for a bag of pucks so it's a wait and see like most prospects .

Or Jared McCann who actually was traded for a bag of pucks.

 

[MS]

Why do you honestly think I wanted Adam Gaudette out of the 3C position? Be honest.

Was the snippet you quoted an additional reason why they could afford to move Gaudette, or was it the main point I led with? Again, just be honest.

You wanted Gaudette out of the #3 position for the same reasons I did. He sucks defensively there. And that's fair. What isn't consistent is then listing Gaudette's presence at C as a reason why trading Madden was no big deal. If Gaudette is as poor defensively and as poor of a fit at C as you claim, surely brilliant hockey minds like Jim Benning will make the correct move and either trade him for value or shift him to wing long before Madden is ever in the NHL. If you think this organization is so stupidly run that they'll leave an unfit player at C for 3-4 years to block Madden at that time ... maybe you should be criticizing them? But we all know that won't happen.

You might have some credibility if you'd voiced concerns about Madden at any point in the last year. Instead you spent it waving pom-poms for him constantly because he made Jim Benning's draft record look better and that suited your agenda at the time. Never said a thing negative, never raised a single question. Then, the instant he's traded when it no longer suits your agenda to have Madden be a high-end, high-value prospect ... everything you say is to diminish him. He's now a pipsqueak with huge size question marks who was never going to play here at C.

 

[Melvin]

Would you show an example of this in action?

I'm not really sure what you mean.

ln(x) * -0.166 + 0.95

Plug in your draft position for X.

So, 1st overall = ln(1) * -0.166 + 0.95 = 95% chance of an NHL player
10th overall = ln(10) * -0.166 + 0.95 = 56% chance of an NHL player
20th overall = 45%
30th overall = 38%

It's not perfect but it's a quick and dirty estimate that lines up with historical numbers.

 

[Hoghandler]

You wanted Gaudette out of the #3 position for the same reasons I did. He sucks defensively there. And that's fair. What isn't consistent is then listing Gaudette's presence at C as a reason why trading Madden was no big deal. If Gaudette is as poor defensively and as poor of a fit at C as you claim, surely brilliant hockey minds like Jim Benning will make the correct move and either trade him for value or shift him to wing long before Madden is ever in the NHL. If you think this organization is so stupidly run that they'll leave an unfit player at C for 3-4 years to block Madden at that time ... maybe you should be criticizing them? But we all know that won't happen.

You might have some credibility if you'd voiced concerns about Madden at any point in the last year. Instead you spent it waving pom-poms for him constantly because he made Jim Benning's draft record look better and that suited your agenda at the time. Never said a thing negative, never raised a single question. Then, the instant he's traded when it no longer suits your agenda to have Madden be a high-end, high-value prospect ... everything you say is to diminish him. He's now a pipsqueak with huge size question marks who was never going to play here at C.

I'm just happy you admitted the reason I wanted Gaudette out of the 3C position wasn't because of Tyler Madden. It was because of Gaudette.

So now I have to think the organisation is run by a bunch of morons because Gaudette isn't reliable defensively in his first full season in the NHL, and the team is trying to develop him there? Okay, sure. They are completely inept.

I don't have concerns over Tyler Madden. I view him as a very good prospect that will be able to overcome his lack of size, to become a full time NHL player. I said GM's value size, and him being 150lbs at 20 years of age will make him less desirable than a 1st rd pick. Not a controversial opinion.

So there you have it. Madden is a very good prospect, and a tiny one to boot.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Gaudette is basically a rookie.. he’s smart and he competes hard.. he will learn the 200ft game, that shouldn’t be in question.. we’ve got enough defensive wingers to cover for him while he learns. Madden might be better in 2-3 years or he might not. Gaudette is substantially better than he was last year and there’s no reason to expect him to stop improving. Whoever wants him gone is out to lunch unless they’re only thinking about this season and maybe next.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Bizarre that one of the most agenda driven posters here is calling out others for not being objective...I remember him making a big stink about trading Michael Carcone for Josh Leivo....

 

[Hoghandler]

Bizarre that one of the most agenda driven posters here is calling out others for not being objective...I remember him making a big stink about trading Michael Carcone for Josh Leivo....

To be fair, he did think Carcone was an excellent prospect. If you think you're moving a top 5 prospect for Leivo, it's easy to understand the concern.

I personally just didn't see it with Carcone. Guy was tiny, not great defensively and didn't have good enough vision to open up ice. Production profile was lacking too.

One year later, Josh Leivo is a better player at the NHL level than Carcone is at the AHL level.

 

[MS]

Bizarre that one of the most agenda driven posters here is calling out others for not being objective...I remember him making a big stink about trading Michael Carcone for Josh Leivo....

Keep making things up. I said I'd do that trade.

I said that Carcone was a bigger loss than people were thinking and that he was a better prospect than Jonathan Dahlen. The big argument you remember was people freaking out over the latter statement, which I made in the aftermath of that deal.

Carcone hasn't continued to develop the way I thought - he was having a huge breakthrough and a strech of games where he was dominating in the AHL leading up to that deal - but he's definitely better than Dahlen, so I was half-right.

 

[MS]

To be fair, he did think Carcone was an excellent prospect. If you think you're moving a top 5 prospect for Leivo, it's easy to understand the concern.

I personally just didn't see it with Carcone. Guy was tiny, not great defensively and didn't have good enough vision to open up ice. Production profile was lacking too.

One year later, Josh Leivo is a better player at the NHL level than Carcone is at the AHL level.

See above. I'm on record as supporting the Leivo trade.

Unfortunately, troll accounts love inventing strawmen and attacking them to try and make me look bad.

 

[Hoghandler]

See above. I'm on record as supporting the Leivo trade.

Unfortunately, troll accounts love inventing strawmen and attacking them to try and make me look bad.

You don't like interpretations of your opinions?

Did I mischaracterize your opinion? I'm happy to correct myself if I did.

Did you not think he was a top 5 prospect for the Canucks?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Keep making things up. I said I'd do that trade.

I said that Carcone was a bigger loss than people were thinking and that he was a better prospect than Jonathan Dahlen. The big argument you remember was people freaking out over the latter statement, which I made in the aftermath of that deal.

Carcone hasn't continued to develop the way I thought - he was having a huge breakthrough and a strech of games where he was dominating in the AHL leading up to that deal - but he's definitely better than Dahlen, so I was half-right.

"Would have made a hell of a lot more sense to claim Zykov and keep Carcone."....MS

 

[Didalee Hed]

I'm not really sure what you mean.

ln(x) * -0.166 + 0.95

Plug in your draft position for X.

So, 1st overall = ln(1) * -0.166 + 0.95 = 95% chance of an NHL player
10th overall = ln(10) * -0.166 + 0.95 = 56% chance of an NHL player
20th overall = 45%
30th overall = 38%

It's not perfect but it's a quick and dirty estimate that lines up with historical numbers.

That’s perfect. I just wanted to see how you applied it. Thanks.

 

[Hoghandler]

"Would have made a hell of a lot more sense to claim Zykov and keep Carcone."....MS

Well, I guess that's settled.

Leivo is a better player at the NHL level than Zykov is at the AHL level too.

 

[MS]

I'm just happy you admitted the reason I wanted Gaudette out of the 3C position wasn't because of Tyler Madden. It was because of Gaudette.

This continues to be both pathetic and amazing.

I'm not 'admitting' anything. I never said otherwise. Your claim was that Madden's upcoming presence would allow them to deal Gaudette easier. Which, again, goes directly against what you said a week later.

So now I have to think the organisation is run by a bunch of morons because Gaudette isn't reliable defensively in his first full season in the NHL, and the team is trying to develop him there? Okay, sure. They are completely inept.

Uh, no.

You said Gaudette should be trade bait because he didn't project as a center long-term and wasn't close to good enough defensively. Then you're listing him as a C blocking Madden 3-4 years down the road. Those two statements don't line up. You think the organization is going to sabotage themselves by leaving an incompetent #3 center in place for 3-4 years?

I don't have concerns over Tyler Madden. I view him as a very good prospect that will be able to overcome his lack of size, to become a full time NHL player. I said GM's value size, and him being 150lbs at 20 years of age will make him less desirable than a 1st rd pick. Not a controversial opinion.

So there you have it. Madden is a very good prospect, and a tiny one to boot.

You never for a second questioned his size or his position or suggested he was devalued as a result until the moment he was dealt. End of story. Now you're furiously backpedaling.

 

[MS]

You don't like interpretations of your opinions?

Did I mischaracterize your opinion? I'm happy to correct myself if I did.

Did you not think he was a top 5 prospect for the Canucks?

Top-10 prospect.

A lot of ignorant comments on Carcone here. This was a top-10 prospect in the organization right now who was torching the AHL at age 22 and Utica's best forward almost every game. He was also the fastest forward prospect in our system and the only prospect in our system close to earning an NHL callup.

And I stand by that. He was a top-10 prospect for the team at the time, based on his performance. Tons of speed and some grit. Thought maybe he had Paul Byron upside. Didn't develop further.

Same old story. Get blown up in an debate, bring up things from years ago. Care to let us know the account you were posting under at the time?

 

[Hoghandler]

Yeah, it looked like you were starting to get it, then you got emotional. When you get emotional, it doesn't serve you well. There is nothing 'pathetic' or 'amazing'.

I have made it abundantly clear why I was concerned about Adam Gaudette. It wasn't because of Tyler Madden, it was because of Adam Gaudette.

The organisation obviously see's things differently than I do with this player, hence keeping him in his role, and moving Madden. Whether that turns out to be the right move remains to be seen.

Acknowledging Madden could be blocked at centre due to the organisation's view of Gaudette isn't contradicting my POV whatsoever. Because I'm not the one making the decision to play Adam Gaudette at centre.

If the bolded doesn't make this hit home, not sure what will.

 

[Hoghandler]

Top-10 prospect.



And I stand by that. He was a top-10 prospect for the team at the time, based on his performance. Tons of speed and some grit. Thought maybe he had Paul Byron upside. Didn't develop further.

Same old story. Get blown up in an debate, bring up things from years ago. Care to let us know the account you were posting under at the time?

Top 10 prospect, my mistake.

I didn't bring up anything.

So you stand by your POV in regards to the Leivo trade? That you would rather they pick up Zykov and keep Carcone?

 

[MS]

Top 10 prospect, my mistake.

I didn't bring up anything.

So you stand by your POV in regards to the Leivo trade? That you would rather they pick up Zykov and keep Carcone?

That was obviously an incorrect statement. I also said, multiple times, that I would have signed off on the Leivo-Carcone trade from a Canuck perspective.

For the record, I'd seen a couple impressive games from Zykov when he was with Carolina that made me think fairly highly of him. Turns out he was roided to the gills at that point.

You really want to talk about stuff from years ago rather than the current debate, eh? I'm not discussing this anymore unless you clarify what name you were posting under at the time. As we've established, attacking old posts by posters here when your thoughts from the time aren't on record is absolutely gutless.

 

[Upoil]

I'm not really sure what you mean.

ln(x) * -0.166 + 0.95

Plug in your draft position for X.

So, 1st overall = ln(1) * -0.166 + 0.95 = 95% chance of an NHL player
10th overall = ln(10) * -0.166 + 0.95 = 56% chance of an NHL player
20th overall = 45%
30th overall = 38%

It's not perfect but it's a quick and dirty estimate that lines up with historical numbers.

Neato.

Can you share the ANOVA and regression outputs?

 

[Melvin]

Neato.

Can you share the ANOVA and regression outputs?

Regression Statistics
Multiple R	0.90634677
R Square	0.821464468
Adjusted R Square	0.820850943
Standard Error	0.074944935
Observations	293
ANOVA
	df	SS	MS	F	Significance F
Regression	1	7.520412899	7.520412899	1338.927646	6.8856E-111
Residual	291	1.634472304	0.005616743
Total	292	9.154885203
	Coefficients	Standard Error	t Stat	P-value	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Lower 95.0%	Upper 95.0%
Intercept	0.950877922	0.021774906	43.66852114	8.5776E-130	0.908021651	0.993734192	0.908021651	0.993734192
DraftPos	-0.166311514	0.004545103	-36.59136026	6.8856E-111	-0.175256957	-0.157366071	-0.175256957	-0.157366071

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Upoil]

Regression Statistics
Multiple R	0.90634677
R Square	0.821464468
Adjusted R Square	0.820850943
Standard Error	0.074944935
Observations	293
ANOVA
	df	SS	MS	F	Significance F
Regression	1	7.520412899	7.520412899	1338.927646	6.8856E-111
Residual	291	1.634472304	0.005616743
Total	292	9.154885203
	Coefficients	Standard Error	t Stat	P-value	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Lower 95.0%	Upper 95.0%
Intercept	0.950877922	0.021774906	43.66852114	8.5776E-130	0.908021651	0.993734192	0.908021651	0.993734192
DraftPos	-0.166311514	0.004545103	-36.59136026	6.8856E-111	-0.175256957	-0.157366071	-0.175256957	-0.157366071

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Super cool. Obviously significant - which makes sense. I'm not sure if I am surprised that the R square is that high. I'm assuming your cut-off for being an NHL player was not crazy low?

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Melvin]

Super cool. Obviously significant - which makes sense. I'm not sure if I am surprised that the R square is that high. I'm assuming your cut-off for being an NHL player was not crazy low?

Thanks for sharing.

Oh right, I forgot to mention that I used 250 games as my cutoff, which is higher than most (most people tend to use 100 games I think.) It is of course arbitrary but any cut-off would be and I don't know of a non-arbitrary way to do it. I basically call this the Derrick Pouliot bar.

 

[racerjoe]

Oh right, I forgot to mention that I used 250 games as my cutoff, which is higher than most (most people tend to use 100 games I think.) It is of course arbitrary but any cut-off would be and I don't know of a non-arbitrary way to do it. I basically call this the Derrick Pouliot bar.

i vaguely remember people talking about a cut off to use, and I think it was mentioned being however many games it takes to collect an nhl pension.

 

[Melvin]

i vaguely remember people talking about a cut off to use, and I think it was mentioned being however many games it takes to collect an nhl pension.

I like that idea but I think pension qualification is based on games on the roster as opposed to games played so that would be much more difficult to figure out.

 

[racerjoe]

I like that idea but I think pension qualification is based on games on the roster as opposed to games played so that would be much more difficult to figure out.

Bummer than. Either way as always thanks for posting and putting in such great effort. I appreciate it.