[Trade] Toffoli to Flames for 2022 1st *, 2023 5th, Heineman, and Pitlick

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

Sacrificing future is sacrificing future, Occam's Razor can predictably evaluate this team's decisions with considerable accuracy.

That's not Occam's Razor or how it works. Listen, if you're going to prattle on like you're the smartest guy in the room, you should probably actually be smart enough to use something like this properly.

So far I've seen a rather myopic position from you that has not been supported with any significant analyses or substantive data. Just a bunch of angry ranting based on what you perceive to be truth, but failing to account for the many outliers that do not fall into your narrative. I gotta say, it's pretty transparent that you just have an axe to grind, but haven't done the work to put any real thought into your position.

It's getting old, and it's not adding anything new to the discussion. If you're going to keep doing this, at least try adding a new wrinkle to your argument now and then.

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by TOfan

What’s your take on Hamilton trade 2 and Treliving’s work at the 2020 draft?

I feel this is a loaded question lol, espeically with your username TOfan. full disclaimer I could go on for pages and pages about all the dumb things Toronto has done

I have lots to say but not entirely sure this on its own is on topic

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

No offense but you just fired like 12 questions at me and if I were to respond fully to each one this thread would be another 3 pages. Also, almost all of your questions I've already answered via other people asking effectively the same thing.

Trades either build your future, sacrifice your future, or are neutral in that regard.

Most of the trades the Flames make, sacrifice their future, which is ultimately the same reason that they will never be cup favorites. They can't get ahead of themselves. Decisions made 5 years ago put us behind Colorado. Decisions being made now hurt us 5 years out.

I don't think of it in terms of odds. I think of it in terms of:

Best player: Gaudreau. Inneffective in playoffs, especially against contending teams
Best Dman: Tanev. Nobody's winning a cup with that.
Best Goalie: Markstrom. More debatable than the first two, but I've never seen playoff promise here.

That's all I need to know really. Sure you could go into far greater detail but if you know your scoring is going to drop right off and you have no way of defending against the NHL's top scorers, well, you're not a cup favourite. We got there by literally trading away all our best D, ignoring top D in the draft as well, for short term gratifications. The only player we really have committed to (Gaudreau) is a regular season wonder.

Anyway I've answered that a lot, we all know it's true.

97% of trades? most trades have a winner and a loser. In most cases the team sacrificing its future is the loser. They are simply gambling, and we know the long term outcome of that. It's like saying 99% of lotto buyers won't come out ahead. What...99%? that's ridiculous. Surely if it were that bad people wouldn't do it..

Yes, giving away draft picks is pretty black and white, you're right about that.

Your argument is predicated on this, but you haven't really backed this up in a meaningful way. Do that and maybe people are more likely to listen.

To my mind, teams have different needs at different points in their process. A team cannot just build from assets within because they will not all hit their prime at the same time. Sometimes you need to trade some future assets for an asset now that will take you to the next level. Yes, there is a tradeoff knowing full well you will go in cycles of being good and being not so good. This is how sports works. Being at the very very top or very very bottom has a lot to do with luck and events that are usually out of your control (think Monahan's injury history as an example of something that changes your team's projection).

Trading future assets for help now isn't a bad choice if you're close. You never know how the luck will go or how series matchups will happen. If you've established a good playoff core you can always go for it. You disagree that the Flames had a good core, but I think you're wrong. Was it the best? No, but it had potential, especially with the style of game they played, to go very far.

But I'm probably wasting my time because no matter what I say you're going to say the Flames current core sucks and Toffoli is a dinosaur. You're going to say that trading anything unless you're absolutely sure of massive success is a mistake. All of those positions are myopic and probably very wrong, but hey, you're allowed to your very wrong opinion.

[djsFlames]

They couldn't keep Fox. He wasn't going to be a Flame.

Lindholm + Hanifin >> Hamilton.

And Ferland wasn't long for NHL hockey at that point.

It was good asset management given the difficult situation with Fox.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

By what I interpret to be your logic, every single trade is bad if it does not result in a cup win that year, or within X years, with X not defined.

That means 97% of this year's trade deadline trades were "bad". That is ridiculous. (My cursory review showed 33 trades on trade deadline day, Avs made 1, therefor 32/33 were bad.)

Every trade is an attempt to make each team better, either now, or later, but as we all know, only one team wins the Cup every year. Every trade is an attempt to increases the chances at a Cup. Again either that year or in future year or years.

Also, what is the definition of "favourite" to win the Cup? Should a team only make a trade if they are 5-1 or better odds? 4-1? 1.9-1? What is the magic number? When are those odds to be assessed? At the trade deadline? One week before? Two weeks before?

The day leading into the playoffs, DraftKings' odds had:
Avs at +350;
Panthers +550
Flames +800
Leafs +900

The Avs were the favourites, then the Panthers, then us. The Flames were 3rd. That makes us A favourite. Not THE favourite, as that is the Avs, but A favourite. Were only the Avs allowed to make trades?

Much of what you are saying or suggesting is so black and white as to be nonsensical.

Not only were the Flames third, there was only one team above them in the west. So if the Avs faltered or had a massive injury (say, Makar), the Flames are right there as top choice to make it to the final.

TB was not in the top 4. I guess they should have thrown in the towel.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

I feel this is a loaded question lol, espeically with your username TOfan. full disclaimer I could go on for pages and pages about all the dumb things Toronto has done

I have lots to say but not entirely sure this on its own is on topic

Cali Panthers Fan hits the nail on the head.

If you look at the Lindholm-Hanifin/Hamilton-Fox-Ferland trade, I’m curious how you reconcile that with your view that the team who gives up futures losses, in most cases.

You could argue Fox was the best young asset in the trade, with the benefit of hindsight, but where are the Flames without Lindholm and Hanifin? Impossible to tell, I know. In any event, I think it’s fair to say that Treliving fleeced the Hurricanes in one of the more impactful trades in team history.

Treliving’s work at the 2020 draft also seems at odds with your position on asset management the Flames have shown. In that case Treliving acquired additional picks. I don’t think it’s as simple as ‘never trade futures’, or ‘team who acquires futures, wins’. Look at the Jets. For years Cheveldayoff was criticized for never adding to the line up. How has that worked?

[Major Major]

Lol, refuses to consider probability, makes snap judgements on 3 players based on gut feel and doesn't like "going into detail".

Nothing wrong with having an opinion but beyond me why anyone would listen.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Yeah. Possible. Hard to say after he looked like #### after the first few games though

Dude can’t skate so for sure they need a center that can carry the puck and feed him

I wouldn't say he looked like #### but he didn't provide the amount of offense we hoped for. He still has two full seasons to make up for it though. When Treliving made the trade he was thinking more than just possibly a half a season like Jarnkrok.

[chubeyr1]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Cali Panthers Fan hits the nail on the head.

If you look at the Lindholm-Hanifin/Hamilton-Fox-Ferland trade, I’m curious how you reconcile that with your view that the team who gives up futures losses, in most cases.

You could argue Fox was the best young asset in the trade, with the benefit of hindsight, but where are the Flames without Lindholm and Hanifin? Impossible to tell, I know. In any event, I think it’s fair to say that Treliving fleeced the Hurricanes in one of the more impactful trades in team history.

Treliving’s work at the 2020 draft also seems at odds with your position on asset management the Flames have shown. In that case Treliving acquired additional picks. I don’t think it’s as simple as ‘never trade futures’, or ‘team who acquires futures, wins’. Look at the Jets. For years Cheveldayoff was criticized for never adding to the line up. How has that worked?

I think that is really stretching the word fleeced.

Hamilton was the star player in that trade. At the time Ferland was also a physical 20-20 player. Fox was expected to make any teams opening night nhl roster.

Calgary gave up the better players at the time and a massive prospect.

How would you evaluate that trade if Hamilton re ups with them.
Ferland is healthy and re ups with them. Fox signs with Carolina?

I think you could say Calgary got fleeced on that trade. We gave up more than we got in return.

That said I understand why Calgary made the trade. Ferland would of been tough to sign because of cap, Hamilton was a culture change, and Fox would not sign here.

It worked out for Calgary. I would not say fleeced though.

[GioforPM]

Just thinking about the argument about decades of PO futility. Wouldn't that have the opposite effect? For years outside of 2019 the Flames were out of the POs or squeaking in and losing in round one. And in 2019 the lack of depth hurt the Flames. So in 2022, with the Flames looking extremely good, with a good goalie and a great coach, with the top line on a huge tear, doesn't the past lack of success mean this is the year you really push hard?

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

I think that is really stretching the word fleeced.

Hamilton was the star player in that trade. At the time Ferland was also a physical 20-20 player. Fox was expected to make any teams opening night nhl roster.

Calgary gave up the better players at the time and a massive prospect.

How would you evaluate that trade if Hamilton re ups with them.
Ferland is healthy and re ups with them. Fox signs with Carolina?

I think you could say Calgary got fleeced on that trade. We gave up more than we got in return.

That said I understand why Calgary made the trade. Ferland would of been tough to sign because of cap, Hamilton was a culture change, and Fox would not sign here.

It worked out for Calgary. I would not say fleeced though.

None of that matters because none of that happened.

That’s like arguing; ‘what if Lindholm put up two 50 goal seasons and Hanifin was a Norris candidate year after year?’

As it stands today, the Hurricanes have very little to show for a C who just finished second in Selke voting and a quality top 4 D, or better, on nearly any team in the league, if not every team.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

I think that is really stretching the word fleeced.

Hamilton was the star player in that trade. At the time Ferland was also a physical 20-20 player. Fox was expected to make any teams opening night nhl roster.

That is not at all my recollection. At the time Fox was very promising, but there were still questions regarding his ability to compete in the NHL right away, and his long-term potential. At the time, one of the reasons offered for the move was that the Flames might have been too deep on the blue line for everyone to slot in, with both Andersson and Kylington in the same projection window as Fox.

Calgary gave up the better players at the time and a massive prospect.

How would you evaluate that trade if Hamilton re ups with them.
Ferland is healthy and re ups with them. Fox signs with Carolina?

I think you could say Calgary got fleeced on that trade. We gave up more than we got in return.

That said I understand why Calgary made the trade. Ferland would of been tough to sign because of cap, Hamilton was a culture change, and Fox would not sign here.

It worked out for Calgary. I would not say fleeced though.

It honestly worked out pretty good for both teams in the short term, but I think Ferland's health needs to be more heavily weighted as a major factor in why he was part of the deal in the first place. Ferland had never played a full season, and one of the ever-present concerns about him at the time was how hard he needed to play in order to be effective. It was long suggested that Ferland's game was unsustainable at the level he wanted to play, and he was not nearly as effective when not playing at that level. It seemed obvious to me that these concerns, combined with his pending UFA status and the Flames's current cap situation made his inclusion in the trade obvious. And it turned out to be a very good bet for Calgary.

[chubeyr1]

Originally Posted by Inferno

I wouldn't say he looked like #### but he didn't provide the amount of offense we hoped for. He still has two full seasons to make up for it though. When Treliving made the trade he was thinking more than just possibly a half a season like Jarnkrok.

I agree with this post. Toffoli was a good hockey trade in my mind, not a rental.

Lets say Calgary trades Tkachuk. What slow right winger with a helluva shot could replace him? Bet Toffoli has a career year in that scenario. He was doing good in Calgary until we traded for Jarnkrok and Ruzicka was scratched.

That was a trade I did not like. 3 picks for a UFA that did absolutely nothing for the team. He can now walk away in UFA. We should let him walk away.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I'm not really arguing anything. I think every team is pretty unique and carries unique circumstances that determines what should be done. I think the only value of the Washington example is that patience pays off. You can list a million different reasons why they're that much better than the Flames, but we're also in a thread where a couple posters are suggesting that, at the first sign your guys can't get it done in the playoffs, you bail, or if they're not favorites, you bail.

Washington went through a stretch with Ovechkin where they went 1RD, 2RD, 1RD, 2RD, 2RD, 1RD, DNQ. That's 7 years where their best result was making the second round despite having a President's trophy to show for it. They went from "couldn't get it done in the playoffs" to not even making the playoffs. It might have been kind of consistent, but it was consistently underwhelming.

They won the cup with the same top player, same first line center, same top defenseman, same goaltending tandem and a few other of the same pieces they missed the playoffs entirely with. They didn't rebuild, they changed out the supporting cast over a few years.

The Flames have two division wins, two 1RD, 1 2RD, and a DNQ over the last four years. That's with coaching turnover and core turnover. I'm think it's more than fair to be patient and see what else this core can do. Make some changes around the supporting cast, bring in some young guys, see what happens.

Even if you want to eliminate context from each year the Flames are still a long ways from WAS. Even using a previous 4 years which is a bit of cherry pick that most flatters the Flames:

Miss
R2
R2 (Pres)
R2 (Pres)
Cup

vs.

R1
R1
Miss
R2
???

Over the 8-10 years, I think a better summary is:

WAS made the playoffs 90% of the time and were always very competitive - within a bounce of R3 about 50% of the time.

vs.

CGY made the playoffs about 63% of the time and were somewhat competitive 38% of the time - closest they got to R3 was a blown call and needing to protect a 5-4 lead for 6 minutes and then win a game 6 on the road and then win a game 7 at home...

I don't know exactly where I'd draw the 'be patient' line, but there is a TON of daylight between those two histories.


Another key difference I'd point out that helped get WAS over the top was the emergence of a very good #2C in the final 2-3 years...and I really hate to give jj any ammunition for his lukewarm takes, but Kuznetzov was a 26OA pick from 2010 who started to pay off 5 years later. Maybe Zary will do the same for us, though if he had same trajectory he wouldn't be impactful until 2025-26.

WAS has actually drafted a lot of good players with picks in the 20s.

[chubeyr1]

Originally Posted by TOfan

None of that matters because none of that happened.

That’s like arguing; ‘what if Lindholm put up two 50 goal seasons and Hanifin was a Norris candidate year after year?’

As it stands today, the Hurricanes have very little to show for a C who just finished second in Selke voting and a quality top 4 D, or better, on nearly any team in the league, if not every team.

I would do that trade 10 out of 10 times. In hindsight Calgary won that trade easily.

Yet we sent out the more valuable players and prospect in that trade. I know why we did it, and not arguing against that.

Just saying no one knew Lindholm would be as good as he has been. Hanifin? He is ok. He has never taken that next step. Good top four dman.

Calgary gave up a Norris contending Dman, a future Norris winner, and a very solid player in Ferland.

We gave up more than we got back. Difference is we were able to keep the players we traded for.

[Roof-Daddy]

God I hate when people talk about the Hanifin/Lindholm trade now.

Fox was a great prospect, but his value was massively diminished by the fact that everyone and their dog knew exactly where he was going to end up even if it took him finishing college to get there.

His worth was a couple of 2nd round picks, not "massive prospect" or "future Norris winner"

He's also a piece of crap.

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

That's not Occam's Razor or how it works. Listen, if you're going to prattle on like you're the smartest guy in the room, you should probably actually be smart enough to use something like this properly.

So far I've seen a rather myopic position from you that has not been supported with any significant analyses or substantive data. Just a bunch of angry ranting based on what you perceive to be truth, but failing to account for the many outliers that do not fall into your narrative. I gotta say, it's pretty transparent that you just have an axe to grind, but haven't done the work to put any real thought into your position.

It's getting old, and it's not adding anything new to the discussion. If you're going to keep doing this, at least try adding a new wrinkle to your argument now and then.

Three paragraphs of nothing to do with the topic. I guess if you don't have an argument you can always jostle for the best use of unrelated philosophical concepts in an effort to demonstrate that you're still smart despite having nothing to contribute

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by Major Major

Lol, refuses to consider probability, makes snap judgements on 3 players based on gut feel and doesn't like "going into detail".

Nothing wrong with having an opinion but beyond me why anyone would listen.

Do you really think if I got into probability that it would attract a lot of attention? I could do a 5 page assessment with full stats but guess what, math doesn't bring the boys from the yard.

It doesn't take all of that to understand the concept of building for the future. And I know if I did all that nobody would read it.

To save you the suspense, data is overwhelmingly in favor of more playoff success for teams that consistently invest in their future and picks. Obviously. Not shocking.

The argument here is that many don't care because they thought the incredibly small chance we had of winning this year was more important than screwing us over for the next 10.

Do they really think the math works? They don't and they don't care. They are just more interested right now in this year than the next 10. And so is the GM because that is how his contract works


P.s.. Here's quick math for you, which is vastly more than needed:

Flames had about an 8% chance of winning this year. Let's make it 10% for giggles, and ignore the qualitative issues with how the team is composed.

What chance does every team have of winning over the next 10 years? 28%.

So when we sell a pick for a playoff run, we're actually attacking the larger 28% and lowering it, so we can raise the "10%" (never was as high as 10).

Not smart (unless you don't plan on being a fan for 10 years).

You're welcome. (great teams work hard and invest in their future so at any given time their 10-year probability is effectively above 50%, not just the dice-given 28%. You can't do that if you throw away picks)

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

...The argument here is that many don't care because they thought the incredibly small chance we had of winning this year was more important than screwing us over for the next 10...

Wrong. The argument here is that the incredibly small chance the Flames had of winning the Cup this year prompted trades that will in no way "screw over" the team over the course of the next 10. You seem to be the only one convinced that this was a franchise altering, devastating setback. This is why no one is taking you seriously.

From my perspective, you have an engrained dislike for a particular player on the roster, which is not at all uncommon. There are posters here who have—and continue to—fixate on the shortcomings of Jacob Markstrom, Johnny Gaudreau, Noah Hanifin, Mark Giordano, Michael Backlund and any number of other players on the roster. For you, it just happen s to be Tyler Toffoli. The rather deeply exaggerated level of your criticism quite obviously demonstrates to the rest of us that you are incapable of making sober assessments about the team and its future for the obstruction of this rather consuming blind-spot in your own perception.

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Wrong. The argument here is that the incredibly small chance the Flames had of winning the Cup this year prompted trades that will in no way "screw over" the team over the course of the next 10. You seem to be the only one convinced that this was a franchise altering, devastating setback. This is why no one is taking you seriously.

From my perspective, you have an engrained dislike for a particular player on the roster, which is not at all uncommon. There are posters here who have—and continue to—fixate on the shortcomings of Jacob Markstrom, Johnny Gaudreau, Noah Hanifin, Mark Giordano, Michael Backlund and any number of other players on the roster. For you, it just happen s to be Tyler Toffoli. The rather deeply exaggerated level of your criticism quite obviously demonstrates to the rest of us that you are incapable of making sober assessments about the team and its future for the obstruction of this rather consuming blind-spot in your own perception.

Thanks Freud, but I'm not wrong.

You throw away first rounders you screw over the next 10 years, fact.



(by screw over, I'm not implying doomed. I just mean it's hurting out future more than its helping our present)