[CP Story] Cracking the Window (Hamonic Trade)

[Racki]

Excellent point regarding Vegas. Why pass on so many young players just to obtain 2nd round picks that you are praying can be as good as the kid you could have selected now?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Vox

It would be 31% chance of picking an impact player if there were three picks with 20%, 7% and 7% individual chance of picking an impact player.

Correct. But I dislike this mathematical model approach personally. You would trade all your draft picks for middle of the roster players and be a really bad team.

The value of a young drafted player making it far exceeds that of a middle of the career veteran. Lower initial salary and more years of team control.

[Vox]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Correct. But I dislike this mathematical model approach personally. You would trade all your draft picks for middle of the roster players and be a really bad team.

The value of a young drafted player making it far exceeds that of a middle of the career veteran. Lower initial salary and more years of team control.

I was just correcting the math.

[McG]

Originally Posted by Vox

It would be 31% chance of picking an impact player if there were three picks with 20%, 7% and 7% individual chance of picking an impact player.

can you please explain this? I'm just trying to understand the math.

I was thinking that 20/100 players for the first pick, 7/100 for the second, and 7/100 for the 3rd pick. so, out of 300 players picked, 34 of them made an impact. so the average is 11 1/3.

how did you get to 31%. I've forgotten my statistics... is the theory that 5 years of picking at a 20% means probability of 1 impact player? I would say that the average is the same, but the probability is different?

thanks!

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

3) I completely agree about how you have defined the cycles of NHL teams. One of the things that I find irritating is the insistence of so many fans that a team must have their cake and eat it too; in other words, teams must build and continue to improve to win a championship while simultaneously perpetually increase their draft stock. It's completely unrealistic. I like Treliving's approach which seems to indicate that he will focus in the draft on smaller windows: two or three drafts with an overabundance of picks; two or three drafts where those picks are currency.

After next years draft, Treliving will have been GM for 5 drafts, and in only one will he have accumulated more than 6 picks.

Treliving's going all in with the core of this team and no evidence he goes through cycles of an over abundance of picks. unless they are horrible again in which case it probably won't be his draft.

[Dion]

Was Bingo a NHL GM in his previous life?

Constantly amazed with the depth knowladge he has for the game.

[Vox]

Originally Posted by McG

can you please explain this? I'm just trying to understand the math.

I was thinking that 20/100 players for the first pick, 7/100 for the second, and 7/100 for the 3rd pick. so, out of 300 players picked, 34 of them made an impact. so the average is 11 1/3.

how did you get to 31%. I've forgotten my statistics... is the theory that 5 years of picking at a 20% means probability of 1 impact player? I would say that the average is the same, but the probability is different?

thanks!

Sure. The easiest way to do it is to look at the inverse situation. The chances for one or more of the picks to become an impact player are not additive, but the inverse of that - the chance that none of the players become impactful - are multiplicative.

If there is a 20%, 7%, 7% chances of being impactful, the inverse is that there is an 80%, 93% and 93% chance of NOT being impactful. The chance of all of these non-impactful events occurring is multiplicative, therefore:

.8 x .93 x .93 = 0.69 or 69% chance of NOT being impactful. Invert that again to 31% chance of 1 or more picks being impactful.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

After next years draft, Treliving will have been GM for 5 drafts, and in only one will he have accumulated more than 6 picks...

This is disingenuous. Treliving has only once drafted more than six players, but in 2015 the Flames entered the draft with nine picks. Three were used to acquire Dougie Hamilton and two were used to move up and select Oliver Kyllington. In addition to Kyllington the Flames drafted four other players including Rasmus Andersson and Andrew Mangiapane.

[Gord Wappel]

...nailed the window management thing.
and you need luck because there will be 10 other teams overlapping your window - not to mention occasional fluke seasons from teams in rebuild mode.
anyways after 48 years or so visiting CP I discover why he's called Bingo.

[Mister Yamoto]

I'm surprised that in the age of analytics nobody has come up with a formula to score players for picks trades.

My feeling is that not only would players win, they would win by miles.

When the Flames traded Iginla I got roasted for saying that Iginla had more goals left in him than Hanowski, Agostino and Klimchuk combined. So far Iginla is winning 100 goals to 3.

There is a reason why year after year the good teams trade away their picks for established players. It's because players are better than picks. You make picks hoping they become players.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Brewmaster

Saying that Andersson, Kylington, Parsons and Dube all look to be NHL bound, and all four could turn out to be impact players is far fetched IMO. The reason for the low % of draft picks becoming impact players is because very few can take the steps forward from being good Junior/NCAA/AHL players to become NHL regulars. Most draft picks experience some degree of success in lower leagues which is why every fan base tends to over-rate their own prospects. The Flames have a solid young core of players that have proven themselves in the NHL which is something to get excited about, but I think there may be some lean years ahead for prospects that will make an impact.

I think I said NHL bound, and you'd hope 2 of 4 would be impact players or something to that effect, but point taken.

I guess my point is that (so far) they are on a path. Paths don't continue without interruption or change in pace, but when you go 1 or 2 years out from a draft date and they are improving at a pace that is either expected or greater than expected then you have a positive result.

I wasn't saying this about Hunter Smith as a 2nd round pick for example.

So a 2nd is worth X, but a player chosen in the 2nd round that jumps off the page in the first year or 2 is worth considerably more than X.

The Flames seem to have about 5 to 6 players in that category, which to me frees them up to use more futures than normally I'd be comfortable with.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Itse

I feel that "draft picks have such and such odds of becoming impact players" creates a false equivalency. I don't have a problem with using draft picks to get established players as such, but guys on ELC's create just unbeatable bang for the buck.

Nashville got 13 points in the playoffs out of Viktor Arvidsson and 12 points out of Colton Sissons for a combined price $1.4M. Pittsburg got 21 points out of Guentzel for about $700k.

Hamonic might be fine for his pricetag, but it's not even in the ballpark of best possible value you can get by drafting players. Penguins won't mind one bit if Guentzel is a flash in the pan, he still helped them to that cup. If Nashville had won, Arvidsson and Sissons could have retired for all they care.


Despite what I said above, I don't think we're totally screwed.

We should have good young players on ELC's pushing for spots for about the next three seasons, after which a lot of contracts are going to come up for renewal anyway. At around that time there's likely to be about 1-2 seasons of gap with incoming prospects, which is not too bad.

This is about the point where I think we should stop selling draft picks, but we haven't crossed it.

I also don't know how Treliving plans to handle our draft picks long term, but I'm sure he has a plan. Probably several.

So, I'm a little concerned about our draft situation because I think drafting helps in keeping a window open. However, it's too early to start seriously worry about it.

Not exactly a parallel comparison, as generally it's easier to introduce a young, ELC forward, than a defenseman. Acquiring that development time, has an opportunity cost benefit to Calgary too.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

I'm surprised that in the age of analytics nobody has come up with a formula to score players for picks trades.

My feeling is that not only would players win, they would win by miles.

When the Flames traded Iginla I got roasted for saying that Iginla had more goals left in him than Hanowski, Agostino and Klimchuk combined. So far Iginla is winning 100 goals to 3.

There is a reason why year after year the good teams trade away their picks for established players. It's because players are better than picks. You make picks hoping they become players.

Was listening to a baseball show the other day that referred to a book that suggested pro teams should never retain their own free agents, the cost is too high because the decline rates are too steep.

Not sure that works if a UFA is 27 but I think it points to an emotional line that teams get caught up in.

Really with the Flames floundering the way they were they should have traded Iginla 2 years earlier and got much more for him. The deal they did make was pretty bad when you think of it. Pittsburgh surrendered something like prospects number 7 and 9 off their list plus a very late 1st round pick.

A better Iginla deal may have helped your 100-3 ratio, but even then young players would take time to get going, and would contribute long after Iginla retires.

An aging player with a huge cap hit is going to eventually hurt a team pretty badly.

[ricardodw]

It sure looks good but your analysis does not address any down side risk of opening the window.

When The Flames traded for Hamilton they thad just come off a 97 point finish followed by a first round playoff win that was a coming out party for Ferland.

Going into the 2015-16 season they were adding Giordano, Hamilton, Frolik and Bennett replacing Byron Schlemko, Diaz,.. Glencross already gone.

In goal the Flames had 2 solid Middle of the pack NHL goalies (.918 and .912 sv %) and Hiller with a solid resume at least as good as Smith's. They had argualbly one of the best young goalies forcing his way into the NHL. They had one of the top 10 coaches in the NHL.

This team resulted in the Flames drafting Tkachuk 6th overall.

At least the Flames knew exactly what draft picks they were giving up for Hamilton.

Would the Islanders make the trade if the 1st pick was top 10 protected?

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Would the Islanders make the trade if the 1st pick was top 10 protected?

I would guess no, the chance of a top 10 pick is probably the only way that the Islanders could win the trade.

And whether or not this is a good trade for the Flames is 100% on how well Hamonic does for the Flames.

If any of those picks turn out to be something then good for the Islanders and good for that player(s). It has no impact whatsoever on the Flames.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

In goal the Flames had 2 solid Middle of the pack NHL goalies (.918 and .912 sv %) and Hiller with a solid resume at least as good as Smith's. They had argualbly one of the best young goalies forcing his way into the NHL. They had one of the top 10 coaches in the NHL.

This team resulted in the Flames drafting Tkachuk 6th overall.

At least the Flames knew exactly what draft picks they were giving up for Hamilton.

Would the Islanders make the trade if the 1st pick was top 10 protected?

I'm sure Calgary management is pretty confident they're not heading for 25th overall with next year's pick (6th).

I think without Hamonic they were pretty safely inside the league's top 15 and potentially pushing towards top ten.

With a filled out blueline I think they're a good bet to appear on most contender lists (8 teams) when the puck drops.

Can bad things happen? Sure they can. But you can't manage that way. You have to manage to what you feel will happen and make decisions accordingly.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Not exactly a parallel comparison, as generally it's easier to introduce a young, ELC forward, than a defenseman. Acquiring that development time, has an opportunity cost benefit to Calgary too.

I agree with you on a general level, although the draft picks we used to get Hamonic would not have been used to draft players specifically to replace him.

I just wanted to make a point that I believe drafting is still important for teams trying to win it all, because of the potential cap savings.

As I said, I don't think we're TOO short on draft picks after the Hamonic trade. We needed someone on the top 4 anyway, it was just a question of who and at what price. I just hope Hamonic makes the trade worth it.

Btw; I think any discussion where we're discussing the odds of draft picks turning into players should also consider the possibility that veteran acquisitions can also essentially turn out to be busts, and it's not even that rare.

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Was listening to a baseball show the other day that referred to a book that suggested pro teams should never retain their own free agents, the cost is too high because the decline rates are too steep.

I agree with that but I think superstars are the exception. I think pro teams should never sign other teams superstars in free agency. You are paying them for what they did for another team. I also think think keeping superstars should be a bigger priority for teams.

The Angels paid Albert Pujols a quarter of a billion. Mostly for what he had done already for the Cardinals.

To me, the only way that price tag can make sense is if it's the Cardinals paying it. Call it legacy pay. A reward for what he has done for the Cardinals.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bingo

...Can bad things happen? Sure they can. But you can't manage that way. You have to manage to what you feel will happen and make decisions accordingly.

A thousand time, THIS.

I think there are a number of posters who fall into the category of "expecting the worst" with every change the team chooses to make. By expecting the worst the Flames would be significantly reducing their opportunity to capitalize on the possibility of good fortune.

I think the argument here boils down to deciding whether or not the Flames's window to start competing for a Stanley Cup is opening, or whether it is still a year or two away. The roster as it stands today does not appear to contain many holes, and most of the core is very young. The top four defense is among the best in the league and is cost controlled for another three years. One of the top-six forwards is still playing on his ELC for another two years. Honestly, the timing looks like it could not be much better to start to contend. Management clearly sees it this way as well.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm sure Calgary management is pretty confident they're not heading for 25th overall with next year's pick (6th).

I think without Hamonic they were pretty safely inside the league's top 15 and potentially pushing towards top ten.

With a filled out blueline I think they're a good bet to appear on most contender lists (8 teams) when the puck drops.

Can bad things happen? Sure they can. But you can't manage that way. You have to manage to what you feel will happen and make decisions accordingly.

Along with the Flames going from solid up and comemr to 6th draft pick overall.

Dallas went from 2nd overall in President's cup to 3rd overall pick

Winnipeg went from 99 pts to drafting Laine 2nd overall.

Florida went from 91 to 103 pts to picking #10.

Pretty well happens every year to one or 2 teams coming off a break through season like the Flames just did.

The Flames seem to be going to war with a bottom tier starter goalie slated to start 50 games.... How can that go horribly wrong?