Who Would We Protect in an Expansion Draft?

[The Rage Kage]

I agree with striiker. Also, Schenn is a 23 (I think) year old center coming off a 20 goal, .5 ppg season, I wouldn't say that's worthless

 

[Flyotes]

Is this your way of conceding that it would be foolish to leave Schenn unprotected in an expansion draft?

No, because like I said, there are reasons I would be okay, if I absolutely had to, give him up for nothing, even if that is shocking to do. I do not prefer to do that, however. If I do not want a guy in the core, I don't.

I'll try to parse this down.

own intelligence/thinks leaving Schenn open is crazy/ROI/attacks ability to notice simple things

You criticized my understanding of assets. I gave you a reason to think otherwise. I even offered a suggestion. You attacked my knowledge on a subject, which is a different category from intelligence. Not sure what your point is here. I never claimed I was smart. I claimed I know the subject a bit. It's a grim/dismal science.

If you wouldn't do it and think it would be silly to do so, that's totally fine. I just want a better foundation and would rather start sooner than pretend he is better than he is.

In regards to ROI, I'd rather cut bait than dump wasted time. Prefer trade. Expansion draft is an easy out.

I've read Husserl's Ideas (actually had to get it reprinted in a good translation). I understood that, but that's no protection against understanding simple ideas. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[GapToothedWonder]

SeanCWombBroom, you buy and pay off a car for 14,000 dollars. You expect that in 5 years the car will still be worth 10,000. In reality it doesn't hold value like you expect, 5 years down the road it is only actually worth 8,000 dollars. You don't like driving it anymore and want a new car. Would you rather give the car away for nothing or sell it for 8,000 dollars?

 

[The Rage Kage]

Good analogy

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Good analogy

Eh, not really. It isn't simply that you aren't giving Schenn away for nothing, you are choosing to keep someone else instead of Schenn.

I am in no way advocating leaving Schenn unprotected (I am a big Schenn fan and in no way want to get rid of him unless it is an overpayment). But that analogy is not very good. It isn't just that Schenn (the car) has depreciated in value, it is that you have a choice to make in terms of keeping one car over another. Maybe car A has depreciated less than car B, but car B is a pickup that you get more use out of than the Sedan, something like that.

 

[ILoveStephanieBrown]

Eh, not really. It isn't simply that you aren't giving Schenn away for nothing, you are choosing to keep someone else instead of Schenn.

I am in no way advocating leaving Schenn unprotected (I am a big Schenn fan and in no way want to get rid of him unless it is an overpayment). But that analogy is not very good. It isn't just that Schenn (the car) has depreciated in value, it is that you have a choice to make in terms of keeping one car over another. Maybe car A has depreciated less than car B, but car B is a pickup that you get more use out of than the Sedan, something like that.

Ok but going by that logic, you still shouldn't just give car A away for nothing.

 

[flyershockey]

Yeah, you make room in the garage for both cars A and B while getting rid of your other crappier car. I'll let you decide who the other car is.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Ok but going by that logic, you still shouldn't just give car A away for nothing.

Yeah, but again that is not what is going on here. You are being forced to give something away. You can't make room because the rules say you have leave someone unprotected. That's why you can't just look at it as your car depreciated so give it away for nothing. It is car A has depreciated and car B has depreciated, which will I keep?

 

[GapToothedWonder]

Hmm I guess that is true. SeanC also only picked 6 forwards so guess he is saying he would rather give away car A (along with B and C) for nothing and use that space for a ping pong table?

 

[Striiker]

This conversation should have died days ago...

 

[Random Forest]

Yeah, but again that is not what is going on here. You are being forced to give something away. You can't make room because the rules say you have leave someone unprotected. That's why you can't just look at it as your car depreciated so give it away for nothing. It is car A has depreciated and car B has depreciated, which will I keep?

Yeah, but if Car A is Raffl (for example) and Car B is Schenn, you could just keep Car B and then later trade it for Car A + other assets if you are so intent on losing Car B and keeping Car A.

There is no justification for losing Schenn for nothing.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Yeah, but if Car A is Raffl (for example) and Car B is Schenn, you could just keep Car B and then later trade it for Car A + other assets if you are so intent on losing Car B and keeping Car A.

There is no justification for losing Schenn for nothing.

Look, I am 100% in agreement that it would be insane to leave Schenn unprotected. In theory that scenario could play out, but there is no guarantee. All I'm saying is that if you leave Schenn unprotected, it is not analogous to getting rid of a car for nothing just because it has depreciated. It is more like being forced to choose between two cars that have depreciated, and choosing one over the other.

 

[Flyotes]

SeanCWombBroom, you buy and pay off a car for 14,000 dollars. You expect that in 5 years the car will still be worth 10,000. In reality it doesn't hold value like you expect, 5 years down the road it is only actually worth 8,000 dollars. You don't like driving it anymore and want a new car. Would you rather give the car away for nothing or sell it for 8,000 dollars?

Not a bad analogy. Here is my response:

I'm concerned about the core of the team moving forward, so I have to add a caveat. The caveat is: I collect cars and my car collection is evaluated by a car historian who comes every year and I want to impress him. I get to only present him with 3 cars (centers). The first one is an elite car. The second hopefully is as well, but the third falls into a utility category.

If I couldn't sell the car, then I would give it away for nothing, because it is bringing down the merit of my collection -- better to cut bait and try to bring in another stud, then continue to let it depreciate the value of my collection year after year. Sure, the merit will drop significantly at the loss of said car, but I'm playing the long game. Maybe my collection is worse off for 2 years, but I plan on building or procuring a brand new car by next appraisal.

(This is why I hope he does well on wing. Not wanting to roll out a bad 2C for years on end).

 

[The Rage Kage]

Ok, then you have two cars, one with more value than the other and you can only keep one. Any smart person takes the one with more value. And anyways we won't be giving anyone of value away in order to keep schenn

 

[JDinkalage Morgoone]

I ended up in the Top Gear thread somehow. You guys should be more like Jeff Tambellini and bike instead of driving cars.

 

[flyershockey]

If Brayden Schenn was a car, what car would he be?

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Ok, then you have two cars, one with more value than the other and you can only keep one. Any smart person takes the one with more value. And anyways we won't be giving anyone of value away in order to keep schenn

That's fine. And again, I'm not saying to leave him unprotected and I agree you keep Schenn and that he has more value than the alternative. But like I said earlier, the analogy is deciding which car to keep. Yes, it would be stupid to keep the lesser car. I am in no way arguing that it wouldn't be. The analogy used was that someone was getting rid of a car for nothing because it depreciated rather than selling it. That is not at all analogous to looking at two cars and choosing which one to get rid of.

The person getting rid of the more valuable car (Schenn) is doing so because he thinks Schenn is not the more valuable car. That is stupid on his part, for sure. But again, I am not even talking about the decision to leave Schenn unprotected...all I said was the analogy wasn't a good one. It is an indictment on his ability to value his assets. It is not a guy just saying, "Duh...me no like Schenn, me get rid of Schenn." It is a guy saying "Schenn is not as valuable as my other options, so I will let him go." Both are wrong, but the analogy to simply giving a car away because it has depreciated is not at all analogous to the situation.

If Brayden Schenn was a car, what car would he be?

 

[Striiker]

The way some people on here talk about him you'd think he's like this

I couldn't find a picture of a car that's good now but will get much better if people are ****ing patient.

 

[Appleyard]

The way some people on here talk about him you'd think he's like this

I couldn't find a picture of a car that's good now but will get much better if people are ****ing patient.

Here is a picture of the car you are looking for.

Patience is a virtue.

Though Schenn does not have such a good driver/developer of cars behind the wheel. (if we can use that as an analogy for hockey IQ.)

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Here is a picture of the car you are looking for.

Patience is a virtue.

Though Schenn does not have such a good driver/developer of cars behind the wheel. (if we can use that as an analogy for hockey IQ.)

 

[FlyersFan61290]

Only on HF is a 22/23 year old, who just finished his first full NHL season while getting limited minutes and producing as a low tier 2C, not a good enough complimentary player. Meanwhile the team has a 2x Hart finalist. Sure it's logical to leave Schenn unprotected in an expansion draft.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

The way some people on here talk about him you'd think he's like this

I was thinking more of this....

 

[Striiker]

I was thinking more of this....

I think that's closer to Emery. At least no one can argue that Schenn still runs.