The Shanny Pollock Maneuver - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Atodaso · 06-17-2015, 10:24 AM

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/20...ource=twitter#

This is a fantastic article on why trading for 2016 first rounders may be an even better strategy than acquiring firsts this year. It applies just as much to Calgary as it does to Toronto.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Street Pharmacist · 06-17-2015, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atodaso

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/20...ource=twitter#

This is a fantastic article on why trading for 2016 first rounders may be an even better strategy than acquiring firsts this year. It applies just as much to Calgary as it does to Toronto.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

That is actually a very good read

Jason14h · 06-17-2015, 10:42 AM

There's a reason it isn't done anymore. GM's are more likely to trade a known commodity and pick then an unknown.

Look at what happened with Toronto and Kessel/Seguin.

With an unknown pick it makes placing value very hard for both sides of the equation, and the risk on both sides is extremely high.

They also left out a lot of the details on HOW Montreal did it. It wasn't just a smart GM.

JonDuke · 06-17-2015, 11:31 AM

I know about 30 people on this forum who would call this strategy the da chief maneuver.

Finger Cookin · 06-17-2015, 11:33 AM

Didn't Pollock also have an advantage of having first dibs on players from Quebec? Or did that go away before the 70s? I can't remember.

getbak · 06-17-2015, 12:04 PM

Looking at those deals, it seems like they were all taking advantage of expansion teams that needed to fill out their rosters.

Free agency didn't really exist back then, and the Original Six teams controlled anyone who was good enough to play in the NHL, so the expansion teams had to make trades to acquire players from the Original Six teams. Because they were expansion teams, they didn't really have any valuable players to send back, so a lot of the trades they made were either for cash or future draft picks.

It doesn't seem like it's a set of circumstances that apply to the NHL in 2015.

skudr248 · 06-17-2015, 12:07 PM

Jesse Puljujarvi
This is who I want the Flames to pick next year

Sylvanfan · 06-17-2015, 12:28 PM

Yeah, I think the timing of when they happened was everything. When Sam Pollack pulled those deals, he had 6 expansion teams to pick on who were trying to build a roster as getback mentions. Plus those expansion teams started out in the same Division so every expansion team had a decent shot at getting to the Stanley Cup at the beginning.

Today in a 30 team league, where entire rosters have completely turned over since the last expansion...all teams have a more equitable asset base.

Plus every GM knows the risk associated with trading a first round pick for next year now. If you miss the playoffs the odds of that pick being a top 3 is higher than ever. As much as some teams do need to win now...they also know how important it is to not trade those future first round picks because of how much risk those assets carry in appreciating.

If anything I think these new lottery rules will make teams much more gun shy, or at least insist that the pick be conditional and lottery protected.

PeteMoss · 06-17-2015, 12:30 PM

For what its worth - Jakob Chychrun - played some forward last year. He wasn't putting up all those points exclusively as a defenseman although he is really good.

Itse · 06-17-2015, 12:39 PM

The point about the odds of winning a top 3 pick going up quickly with multiple picks was interesting.

It might make it less important for rebuilding teams to hit absolute rock bottom.

On the other hand the price of 1st rounders might go up with the new lottery system.

tvp2003 · 06-17-2015, 12:47 PM

Wasn't it the Leafs who in 1989 traded their first round pick in the following year's draft (i.e. 1991 instead of 1990) for Tom Kurvers? And then started freaking out because they sucked and were going to finish last in 1990/91, which would have meant losing out on Eric Lindros?

Mister Yamoto · 06-17-2015, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Wasn't it the Leafs who in 1989 traded their first round pick in the following year's draft (i.e. 1991 instead of 1990) for Tom Kurvers? And then started freaking out because they sucked and were going to finish last in 1990/91, which would have meant losing out on Eric Lindros?

They didn't lose Lindros, they lost Niedermayer. Who turned out to be an even better player.

Haw far ahead can picks be traded?

Phanuthier · 06-17-2015, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Wasn't it the Leafs who in 1989 traded their first round pick in the following year's draft (i.e. 1991 instead of 1990) for Tom Kurvers? And then started freaking out because they sucked and were going to finish last in 1990/91, which would have meant losing out on Eric Lindros?

yeah...pretty funny stuff

Quote:

Now why you ask would the Leafs trade Pearson (their 1988 1st Round choice) and a pair of second round picks for three players from the worst team in the league? Because by making Quebec slightly worse and Toronto slightly better, it diminished the chances of Toronto finishing last overall in the league. Sounds like a noble goal… except the SOLE reason the Leafs did this was to avoid their last-place finish turning their draft pick into the first overall draft choice. This would result in New Jersey turning Tom Kurvers… into teenage phenom Eric Lindros.

https://urbaneblog.wordpress.com/200...y-part-3-of-3/

IgiTang · 06-17-2015, 01:02 PM

Yawn... The article seems like a comparison on how GM's did things compared to the last 15-20 years and I can tell you exactly why this is a terrible idea and simply will not work nowadays in one word...

Scouting.

Back then, teams didn't scout for 3rd, 4th round picks because they didn't really need to. Let alone, scout in rounds after the first round in future drafts.

Quebec and Ontario were essentially the only two regions scouted at that time.
Europe?.. Nope.. Western Canada and US? Not unless they are hearing rumblings of an absolute stud, teams weren't going out there.

Nowadays, if you don't know who's likely going to round out the top 90 in the year after this and potentially the year after that, then you aren't doing your job as a director of scouting for a team.

A team isn't going to give you a much better pick or be more willing to give up a first for a guy like Phaneuf in a draft 2 years away if they aren't willing to do it now.

Teams that maybe willing to consider it are teams who project to be near the top of the league by that draft but likely will be near the cap and not be able to afford these players.

Flawed strategy imo

868904 · 06-17-2015, 01:14 PM

Why is this called the Shanny Pollock Maneuver?

Seems to me Sam Pollock is the only one who was able to accomplish this.

Looks like the Leaf media has really taken a liking to Shanny. They are crediting him for things he hasn't even accomplished yet.

Itse · 06-17-2015, 01:36 PM

I get the arguments against, but on the other hand since the importance of drafting has increased, even slight improvements in returns when trading for draft picks is at least worth exploring.

I also think the psychological side holds true as much as ever. Humans are naturally inclined to overvalue the present and undervalue the future, statistics be damned.