Around the NHL 2018-2019

[Stoner]

1 minute ago, WildCard said:

I always hate this response. "That person is paid millions, they must know what they're doing!" For someone who continuously questions authoritative figures, it amazes me that you hold this stance PA

Fair. I question. I don't often express an opinion so strongly as to suggest I would be better at managing a hockey team than a GM. Is the Washington GM stupid? Is it that cut and dry? Did he go to a dealership and pay $100,00 for a Corolla? There's a lot of nuance in these situations. Dudacek brings the context.

[LGR4GM]

27 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

1) Do you think you know more and better than the Washington GM? Others can answer too. 2) It kind of boils down to that. 3) Oddly, our own GMs get the benefit of the doubt almost every time.

I will break this down. Sorry I wrote more than I intended but it is a good question to think about from time to time. 

1) Whenever anyone in anything I am not directly involved in makes a decision a person could lazily toss this out, "but you don't know what they know".  My counter is simple. What I do know is that Tom Wilson outperformed his career averages by significant margins last year. I could scour the league and find multiple players who put up his point totals that are making far less than he is going to. The logical issue I have with your statement then is that you are basing it off of the unknown of what some GM knows as opposed to the known of what we here know. What we know I have stated. If we aren't using that as a basis for this discussion than we should shut the entire board down until we get a live feed or go pro camera that follows all the NHL front offices around. 

2) I do not believe it does. It boils down to using the information we have, not the information the Washington GM has. The information I have says it is an over-payment. Again, if we aren't going to use the information we have because Washington's gm has more than we might is well not talk hockey at all. The other point I would make is I am less biased then the Washington GM because I have no attachment to Tom Wilson or what he did in the 2018 playoffs. I see bias and falling in love with certain players as a problem GM's and coaches have quite often. I am guilty of it as well with Sabres players. 

3) I don't trust Botterill. I made the mistake of ignoring data when it came to Murray and thought he knew better. Botterill is currently a GM that I question because his drafting in rounds 2-7 is questionable in my mind. He has made way off the board picks in the 3rd or later in 2 years and that concerns me. Laaksonen and then everyone after Pekar give me pause. I don't particularly care for the pick of Samuelsson but since I do not have good enough data to say much, I can't. This is the example of the GM having more information than I do and in my case I lack even the basics to really present a well informed counter argument. If I were Botterill I would have drafted Jonatan Berggren not Mattias Samuelsson at #32. In this case though I have to defer to Botterill because there is limited information to counter his thoughts. In the case of Tom Wilson, there is not. sh% does vary year to year no doubt. However it is relatively stable. There will be an outlier year here or there but a player with a career average of 12.2 is not suddenly going to consistently shoot at say 23.3 even if one year he manages it. Projecting over 5 years is even better because I could guarantee that Wilson's 5 year average will fall below 11.4%.  If by some miracle it is higher, that would make him a rare outlier and not the norm. You have to construct contracts based on norms. 

Evan Rodriguez for example will score more with more ice time as long as he also increases his shots relative to that ice time increase. He is a 8% shooter thus far in his NHL career. He has roughly 1 full season of data over the course of 2 years. Even still, I would guess that 8% is closer to his actual average. He is harder to predict because we have less years and less full years. I would be wary of overpaying him even if he does well this coming season. If Erod comes in as a full time 2nd line winger or something, getting 15minutes a night, and I see his sh% go to say 15%, that is questionable. If he still shoots at say, 9% then I am less worried about him maintaining production. 

Edited July 31, 2018 by LGR4GM

[WildCard]

I mean if we're not going to question moves made by GM's what the fck are we even doing here

[Eleven]

50 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Do you think you know more and better than the Washington GM? Others can answer too. It kind of boils down to that. Oddly, our own GMs get the benefit of the doubt almost every time.

Are you serious?

10 minutes ago, WildCard said:

I mean if we're not going to question moves made by GM's what the fck are we even doing here

Correct.

[TrueBlueGED]

52 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Fair. I question. I don't often express an opinion so strongly as to suggest I would be better at managing a hockey team than a GM. Is the Washington GM stupid? Is it that cut and dry? Did he go to a dealership and pay $100,00 for a Corolla? There's a lot of nuance in these situations. Dudacek brings the context.

I don't think it's as simple as being able to manage a hockey team better than a GM. That's taking criticism of individual moves too far. But I do think there are cases where GMs get lost in their own reasoning and biases where a perspective removed from the particulars of the team might be a more appropriate judge of action. GMs regularly make contract mistakes, whether it's signing David Clarkson based on one season or thinking Brian Bickell is worth a long term contract because he hit a hot streak in the playoffs. Most of these are foreseeable mistakes from the outside. It doesn't make the GM stupid or bad if they're isolated incidents. But on the flip side, being the GM of a winning team doesn't mean every decision they make is in the team's best interest. They're still people, and like everyone, make mistakes. 

[TrueBlueGED]

30 minutes ago, WildCard said:

I mean if we're not going to question moves made by GM's what the fck are we even doing here

I dunno about right now, but in a couple months we'll be making fun of your fantasy football team. 

[WildCard]

2 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

I dunno about right now, but in a couple months we'll be making fun of your fantasy football team. 

 I'll remember to quote this when I'm looking down at you in the standings. So pretty much from September - January 

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, TrueBlueGED said:

I don't think it's as simple as being able to manage a hockey team better than a GM. That's taking criticism of individual moves too far. But I do think there are cases where GMs get lost in their own reasoning and biases where a perspective removed from the particulars of the team might be a more appropriate judge of action. GMs regularly make contract mistakes, whether it's signing David Clarkson based on one season or thinking Brian Bickell is worth a long term contract because he hit a hot streak in the playoffs. Most of these are foreseeable mistakes from the outside. It doesn't make the GM stupid or bad if they're isolated incidents. But on the flip side, being the GM of a winning team doesn't mean every decision they make is in the team's best interest. They're still people, and like everyone, make mistakes. 

What are you - some sort of reasonable person?

(Works best with a Butthead voice.)

[pi2000]

2 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Fair. I question. I don't often express an opinion so strongly as to suggest I would be better at managing a hockey team than a GM. Is the Washington GM stupid? Is it that cut and dry? Did he go to a dealership and pay $100,00 for a Corolla? There's a lot of nuance in these situations. Dudacek brings the context.

There's a practice in hockey, probably other sports too, where pending FA's are often rewarded for past performance in their next contract.     Does WSH win the Cup without Wilson?   Personally I don't think they do... and for that he was rewarded with a sizable pay increase.     That said, I look at his contract as more of a reward for past performance, rather than future expectations.    

[That Aud Smell]

38 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

There's a practice in hockey, probably other sports too, where pending FA's are often rewarded for past performance in their next contract.     Does WSH win the Cup without Wilson?   Personally I don't think they do... and for that he was rewarded with a sizable pay increase.     That said, I look at his contract as more of a reward for past performance, rather than future expectations.    

If you're a franchise, is that a sound way to do business? I tend to think not.

[WildCard]

1 hour ago, pi2000 said:

There's a practice in hockey, probably other sports too, where pending FA's are often rewarded for past performance in their next contract.     Does WSH win the Cup without Wilson?   Personally I don't think they do... and for that he was rewarded with a sizable pay increase.     That said, I look at his contract as more of a reward for past performance, rather than future expectations.    

The McDavid and Eichel contracts were supposed to be signs of eliminating this too, but I guess it's not juts going to all disappear at once

[ubkev]

56 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

If you're a franchise, is that a sound way to do business? I tend to think not.

That was way more diplomatic than what I was going to write.

[pi2000]

3 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

If you're a franchise, is that a sound way to do business? I tend to think not.

Doesn't matter, they already won.    

[Weave]

3 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

If you're a franchise, is that a sound way to do business? I tend to think not.

The other way requires a working crystal ball.

[WildCard]

@CapFriendly
Based on the #Rangers current roster as we have it displayed, the club only has one forward (Mika Zibanejad) under contract past the 2019-20 season.

That being the case, New York has a mere $5,350,000 committed at the forward position for 2020-21.

[TrueBlueGED]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

The other way requires a working crystal ball.

It really doesn't. Projections aren't going to be perfect, of course, and there will be misses. But it's not some great unknown, either. 

[Eleven]

3 hours ago, pi2000 said:

Doesn't matter, they already won.    

Isn't the goal to win again?  Or should the Caps just fold or move to Quebec or something?

[Weave]

32 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

It really doesn't. Projections aren't going to be perfect, of course, and there will be misses. But it's not some great unknown, either. 

 

I would think the most accurate projections are based on past performance.

 

These aren't the most interesting arguments, really.  there is elements of both in play.  the reality is, contracts aren't based on projections or past performance nearly as much as they are based on what the market will bear.  Or, at minimum, the perception of the market.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Weave

[WildCard]

2 minutes ago, Weave said:

I would think the most accurate projections are based on past performance.

Depends on the circumstances. Ovie's past performance at 25? Sure. Are you going to give Ovie that same contract at 35? Of course not

[Weave]

17 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Depends on the circumstances. Ovie's past performance at 25? Sure. Are you going to give Ovie that same contract at 35? Of course not

Sure, lets argue the point at the extremes and not the margins.  That makes sense.

We are talking about a player in his prime.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Weave

[WildCard]

31 minutes ago, Weave said:

 

I would think the most accurate projections are based on past performance.

 

These aren't the most interesting arguments, really.  there is elements of both in play.  the reality is, contracts aren't based on projections or past performance nearly as much as they are based on what the market will bear.  Or, at minimum, the perception of the market.

 

10 minutes ago, Weave said:

Sure, lets argue the point at the extremes and not the margins.  That makes sense.

We are talking about a player in his prime.

And when it comes to the market, especially the market's perception of players who just won a Stanely Cup, the market is usually desperate and overpays 

[Weave]

2 minutes ago, WildCard said:

 

And when it comes to the market, especially the market's perception of players who just won a Stanely Cup, the market is usually desperate and overpays 

Ok?  I tend towards agreeing here.  Doesn’t really change the dynamics though.  My only point was regarding the dynamics, not whether Wilson is worth that contract in my opinion.

I’ll be honest, after the better part of a decade watching our team moving out anything of value when a contract is up, I’m not sure how much I’ll be inclined to bitch when our team overpays to keep a player that was a key part of winning a championship.  Its been a long damned time since we’ve had to decide whether to pay a hero.

[WildCard]

@manny_hockey
Cody Ceci ranks 666th of 694 regular skaters in total WAR over the last 3 seasons. He's my 83rd-ranked RD

That's the guy who created/runs corsica hockey. The reason for that tweet is prior to arbitration, Ceci wants $6M per year from Ottawa. Even without that stat, Ceci had 19pts last year

[Brawndo]

https://www.nhl.com/coyotes/video/c-60818503

 

Behind the scenes for Arizona’s Draft. 

 

Chayka speaks with Botterill about Fasching and wonders if there is anything off of the Pittsburgh Roster he could trade for to make a ROR Deal work. 

[stuuuuuuuuu]

1 hour ago, WildCard said:

@manny_hockey
Cody Ceci ranks 666th of 694 regular skaters in total WAR over the last 3 seasons. He's my 83rd-ranked RD

That's the guy who created/runs corsica hockey. The reason for that tweet is prior to arbitration, Ceci wants $6M per year from Ottawa. Even without that stat, Ceci had 19pts last year

Sounds like he really just wants out of of that organization