GDT: NHL Draft 7/23 R1 7pm ESPN 7/24 R2-7 Nhl Net

[TLEH]

Looking at cap friendly. roughly 25% of our cap is taken up by Toews, Shaw, and Seabrook last year... they did not play.

 

[Hawkaholic]

Looking at cap friendly. roughly 25% of our cap is taken up by Toews, Shaw, and Seabrook last year... they did not play.

They take up 0% when they are on LTIR.

 

[Toews2Bickell]

That's fine. I'd agree you don't draft him just because you'll have to pay him. I'm just arguing the amount you pay your goalie. If he's the best goalie in the league in 5 years, and wants a 10+mil contract? See ya!

of course, and thats a bridge that should be crossed when it comes, the same thing happens with skaters, players always ask for more money than the market deems they're worth, happens all the time...

 

[Hawkaholic]

of course, and thats a bridge that should be crossed when it comes, the same thing happens with skaters, players always ask for more money than the market deems they're worth, happens all the time...

I'd gladly pay the best forward or Dman in the NHL 10mil.

 

[TLEH]

They take up 0% when they are on LTIR.

yes, obviously? But its not like we used their space last season, or are using it now

 

[Toews2Bickell]

They take up 0% when they are on LTIR.

but the LTIR money can only be used after the season starts, they're only allowed to be 10% over the cap in the summer, having that dead money on the books hinders their ability to maneuver and add to the roster

 

[Hawkaholic]

but the LTIR money can only be used after the season starts, they're only allowed to be 10% over the cap in the summer, having that dead money on the books hinders their ability to maneuver and add to the roster

Nope, see Tampa Bay, 2020-21.

 

[Hawkaholic]

yes, obviously? But its not like we used their space last season, or are using it now

Because we didn't need to.

 

[TLEH]

Nope, see Tampa Bay, 2020-21.

There is no salary cap in the playoffs. In the offseason there is?

Because we didn't need to.

I am just referencing how its hard to have a competitive roster when 25% of your cap isn't being used on people on the ice

 

[Hawkaholic]

There is no salary cap in the playoffs. In the offseason there is?



I am just referencing how its hard to have a competitive roster when 25% of your cap isn't being used on people on the ice

Tampa started the season over the cap, when you include Kucherov. But he was put on LTIR before the season started, so they weren't over the cap.

 

[hawksrule]

I'd gladly pay the best forward or Dman in the NHL 10mil.

This is the key point that seems to be lost. To draft someone who if he turns out as projected we won’t then want to pay seems silly.

 

[Pez68]

historically speaking you might be right thats its never wise to spend a lot on goaltending, and the fact that there are not many highly paid goalies relative to skaters would support that argument, but hawks should still consider wallstedt regardless of commesso if he's bpa

Again, I'll be disappointed if the Hawks pick Wallstedt. The only question a team needs to ask when it comes to goaltending is this: "Is our goalie good enough to win a cup with?" If yes, you pick a skater. I think Lankinen is already good enough to win a cup with, if they build a good team around him. So I take a hard pass on drafting ANOTHER goalie. If Lankinen had flopped last season, I'd probably be more open to drafting another goalie. But at 11? Meh.

You also have to take into consideration the timelines for goalies vs. skaters. A first round skater could be playing for your team the following season. That's EXTREMELY unlikely for a goalie. In most cases, it's 3-4 years. Sometimes more.

Also, goalies are voodoo.

 

[Toews2Bickell]

fundamentally think that hockey or any other sport where resources are allocated with constraints like a cap ceiling should be viewed through this type of lense when it comes to considering if a contract is good or bad, if a gm is good or bad, if money is being allocated well or poorly etc...there is some baseline of implied production that determines the cap hit, in this case $/SPAR, doesn't have to be SPAR used but could be any other metric, but the league assigned xyz $/spar throughout the years of maroon's career, his cap hit was abc, and then its easy to calculate surplus value based on what his implied cap hit should've been based on his actual production...this seems like the right way to look at player contracts and gm decisions imo, not arbitrary rules like 'never pay this much for a goalie' etc

 

[CallMeShaft]

 

[Toews2Bickell]

"Hayton?"

 

[Pez68]

fundamentally think that hockey or any other sport where resources are allocated with constraints like a cap ceiling should be viewed through this type of lense when it comes to considering if a contract is good or bad, if a gm is good or bad, if money is being allocated well or poorly etc...there is some baseline of implied production that determines the cap hit, in this case $/SPAR, doesn't have to be SPAR used but could be any other metric, but the league assigned xyz $/spar throughout the years of maroon's career, his cap hit was abc, and then its easy to calculate surplus value based on what his implied cap hit should've been based on his actual production...this seems like the right way to look at player contracts and gm decisions imo, not arbitrary rules like 'never pay this much for a goalie' etc

Again, this is just not how hockey works. So much of a player's production is tied to the team he's on, the linemates he plays with, and his usage/deployment that it's impossible to isolate them like this.

A very average player can play for a shit team, get used in the top six with their best players, get power play time, and outproduce vastly superior players on deeper teams, that aren't deployed anywhere near the same way.... There's also line chemistry to take into account, which is quite often not quantified by point production. Tom Wilson is only a 45-50 point winger, but he makes his line SO much more effective, because he brings an element that makes them more successful as a unit...

 

[Toews2Bickell]

Again, this is just not how hockey works. So much of a player's production is tied to the team he's on, the linemates he plays with, and his usage/deployment that it's impossible to isolate them like this.

A very average player can play for a shit team, get used in the top six with their best players, get power play time, and outproduce vastly superior players on deeper teams, that aren't deployed anywhere near the same way.... There's also line chemistry to take into account, which is quite often not quantified by point production. Tom Wilson is only a 45-50 point winger, but he makes his line SO much more effective, because he brings an element that makes them more successful as a unit...

you try to make an assessment about their future production as much as possible taking into consideration from the past, so everything you bring up is fair game when determining future production, whether a gm likes it or not the aav/term they hand out in a contract is implicitly betting on production to be a certain level to justify the cap hit...i think a mistake the analytics community make is probably putting too much weight into their models but on the flip side people think that they're useless entirely, they're finding explicit relationships between production and value, you're just making implicit assumptions...i'd rather be on the explicit side as much as possible when evaluating players/contracts etc

 

[Pez68]

you try to make an assessment about their future production as much as possible taking into consideration from the past, so everything you bring up is fair game when determining future production, whether a gm likes it or not the aav/term they hand out in a contract is implicitly betting on production to be a certain level to justify the cap hit...i think a mistake the analytics community make is probably putting too much weight into their models but on the flip side people think that they're useless entirely, they're finding explicit relationships between production and value, you're just making implicit assumptions...i'd rather be on the explicit side as much as possible when evaluating players/contracts etc

And this right here is why you see so many players overpaid, and signed to bad contracts. Because most of these negotiations are tied directly to point production, and don't actually take into account what that player brings to a team.

Vegas was very successful in their expansion draft not because they targeted players that produced, but because they targeted good players that weren't getting the opportunity they needed to produce and realize their potential...

The mistake the analytics community makes is believing hockey is anything like baseball, where individual contributions can be evaluated by statistical models. A lot of the analytics are useless, and I've explained why quite often. Evolving Hockey routinely draws conclusions based on their data that make absolutely no f***ing sense, and are 100% wrong.

Case in point:

 

[Toews2Bickell]

And this right here is why you see so many players overpaid, and signed to bad contracts. Because most of these negotiations are tied directly to point production, and don't actually take into account what that player brings to a team.

Vegas was very successful in their expansion draft not because they targeted players that produced, but because they targeted good players that weren't getting the opportunity they needed to produce and realize their potential...

The mistake the analytics community makes is believing hockey is anything like baseball, where individual contributions can be evaluated by statistical models. A lot of the analytics are useless, and I've explained why quite often. Evolving Hockey routinely draws conclusions based on their data that make absolutely no f***ing sense, and are 100% wrong.

Case in point:

not going to bat for the metrics the 'advanced stats' community has come up with to evaluate players, some of it looks off just seeing how it values patrick kane as a player...but still think everything i mentioned holds true about contract values and making bets on future production...everything you said is 100% correct, relying solely on numbers in a vacuum is not enough to make decisions, the same holds true in other fields like finance where people have set out billions of dollars to try to come up with models to outperform the market with quantitative strategies, almost none of them work consistently...same holds true for hockey, too complex, too many variables, but that still doesn't render everything the analytics community has done worthless, its just another data point

 

[CallMeShaft]

"Hayton?"

Kelley really seems to approve of Arizona's recent picks.

 

[Drumman44]

Kelley really seems to approve of Arizona's recent picks.

Always gets me. They know they are on camera but Stan can barely contain his smile

 

[Toews2Bickell]

@Kevin Musto

 

[LavalPhantom]

The issue with drafting a goalie (and apologies if someone made this point before) is that they usually take more time to pan out and you lose benefiting entirely from the entry contract years. A forward or defenseman can help a few years while costing nothing against the cap. For a goalie it’s less likely.

 

[Kevin Musto]

@Kevin Musto

HOLY SHIT LET'S f***ING GOOOOO

 

[Kevin Musto]

Stan's table flip lol