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

[Jiri Hrdina]

When you use subjective language like "throw away first rounders" you can't then say it's a 'fact'.

[Hack&Lube]

Can we talk about constructive solutions rather than argue and debate what may have been a good or bad trade as I think this past season was perfect for such all-in moves given the team's performance.

For Toffoli, I think the biggest issue is that he's not a playmaker but he's a scorer. In Montreal he had players like Suzuki carrying the puck and dishing it to him. Gaudreau wasn't available for most of Toffoli's time here as they were on different lines and we didn't really have anybody else that could fit that need.

We have Toffoli for a few more seasons now and what we really need to do if we want to salvage this trade is to get a playmaker with chemistry on him on his line. We will really need his offense to return, especially if we lose Johnny.

[Freeway]

Not to pick on anybody, but Calgary's elevation is a lot higher than, say, Los Angeles, Vancouver or Montreal, and Sutter's teams play with a ton of pace. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that perhaps it was something Toffoli wasn't used to (on both counts).

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

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

We don't know that they are though. Toffoli has two more seasons left. He may still end up helping the present. The player they might have drafted in the first round might have ended up being a bust and someone they draft in the later rounds could end up being just as good if not better than players drafted in the first round.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

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)

And this is why you fail. There is a huge amount of legwork to be done to show that this is even remotely true, to say nothing for your laughably simplistic attempt to attach and compare percentages to your argument.

You make assertions without showing your work, declare yourself immune to correction and then pompously talk down to everyone who is unwilling to swallow your empty rhetoric.

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

When you use subjective language like "throw away first rounders" you can't then say it's a 'fact'.

true. but you can't say I'm wrong. you don't know that. you can disagree. if you're going to use black and white words, then I'm going to respond with them, no offense

[Jiri Hrdina]

Ok and where/when did I say you were wrong?

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by Inferno

We don't know that they are though. Toffoli has two more seasons left. He may still end up helping the present. The player they might have drafted in the first round might have ended up being a bust and someone they draft in the later rounds could end up being just as good if not better than players drafted in the first round.

It's true, anything can happen and there is always the possibility of this being a good trade. It's just a really, really, really, really low possibility at this point. I should also mention that personally, I'm not going to care what he does in the regular season. For me to turn around and call this a good trade he'd need to play a role in bringing us to the dance. Because acquiring him reduced those odds over the next 10 years.

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Ok and where/when did I say you were wrong?

oh fine you win that lol. I guess it was textcritic. tbh I'm actually doing other work right now and kind of doing this with a side-eye

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

And this is why you fail. There is a huge amount of legwork to be done to show that this is even remotely true, to say nothing for your laughably simplistic attempt to attach and compare percentages to your argument.

You make assertions without showing your work, declare yourself immune to correction and then pompously talk down to everyone who is unwilling to swallow your empty rhetoric.

I am so sorry for failing you lol.

it's great to know the world is so complex that it is pointless to use common sense. I guess that's why we need world leaders to guide us through it all. and you. thank you again.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

It's true, anything can happen and there is always the possibility of this being a good trade. It's just a really, really, really, really low possibility at this point. I should also mention that personally, I'm not going to care what he does in the regular season. For me to turn around and call this a good trade he'd need to play a role in bringing us to the dance. Because acquiring him reduced those odds over the next 10 years.

From some quick hunting around it looks like there's about a 45% chance a pick in this range plays a significant amount of games (still not a star but makes it)

Even if the Habs draft a guy that plays 150 games the Flames still get more value out of Toffoli than a tweener at the end of the first round.

Then there's the Montreal would have picked a different player than Calgary would have noise that makes the loop endless.

Bottom line pointless to call it a lost trade, or a likely lost trade, when the math actually suggests it's more than likely that's not the case.

The odds are pretty good that the Flames do just fine in this one ... especially if they move Toffoli at the end of his contract and recoup some assets.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

I am so sorry for failing you lol.



it's great to know the world is so complex that it is pointless to use common sense. I guess that's why we need world leaders to guide us through it all. and you. thank you again.

"Common sense" is the bastion of ignorance.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Freeway

Not to pick on anybody, but Calgary's elevation is a lot higher than, say, Los Angeles, Vancouver or Montreal, and Sutter's teams play with a ton of pace. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that perhaps it was something Toffoli wasn't used to (on both counts).

I think it was Jeff Marek who spoke about it on a 32 Thoughts podcast but he said certain GM’s will not trade for players from teams who are well out of the playoff picture. The thinking is that those players simply are not checked in and it’s awfully hard to get there once you find yourself on a competitive team.

Have to wonder if Treliving gives this more thought moving forward. That said, I’m not worried about Toffoli moving forward. It will be a good thing for him and the team that he’s here from the start next year.

…provided Gaudreau signs.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Freeway

Not to pick on anybody, but Calgary's elevation is a lot higher than, say, Los Angeles, Vancouver or Montreal, and Sutter's teams play with a ton of pace. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that perhaps it was something Toffoli wasn't used to (on both counts).

I've said previously that looking at how bad Montreal was this past season, that Toffoli was probably on a Montreal Poutine conditioning shape this year.

We all know that Sutter blamed conditioning for the failure to make the playoffs his first year back and he heavily drilled conditioning into the team which showed in the results this season.

If that's all it took then a Sutter conditioning approach might bring Toffoli back - especially with the thinner air at our elevation.

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by Bingo

From some quick hunting around it looks like there's about a 45% chance a pick in this range plays a significant amount of games (still not a star but makes it)

Even if the Habs draft a guy that plays 150 games the Flames still get more value out of Toffoli than a tweener at the end of the first round.

Then there's the Montreal would have picked a different player than Calgary would have noise that makes the loop endless.

Bottom line pointless to call it a lost trade, or a likely lost trade, when the math actually suggests it's more than likely that's not the case.

The odds are pretty good that the Flames do just fine in this one ... especially if they move Toffoli at the end of his contract and recoup some assets.

45% is about right for sake of arguement.

However, please keep in mind, if you regularly give up your first round picks, it doesn't take long before there's about a 70% chance of losing an impact player and the 12 years that come with him.

The Flames regularly do this. So whether that's this pick, or the previous one, they do it often enough that odds are they have lost at least one impact player recently and possibly more.


Now consider the cap. Toffoli will be eating cap space in his years of decline. We already seen what he does in high tempo playoffs....basically if the playoffs matter then he really can't do much for you there. Meanwhile a younger guy on the rise, even if he does only pay 150 games, is going to do just fine in high tempo, at just a fraction of the cap space.

So less prospects means less cap space, it also means having guys that can't keep up at high tempo.

You have to really narrow it down and say maybe this pick doesn't work out, and maybe Toffoli is serviceable in the regular season (let's be honest he's not leading us anywhere in the playoffs anymore).

Assuming we actually care about the regular season (I'm more interested int he playoffs, where Toffoli is a wash)... and assuming this first round pick is very average, you still get a huge break on the cap out of it. Or, this guy could be our next MVP. whereas the chances of that happening with Toffoli are negligible.

The pick is your insurance policy, your cap relief, and your lotto ticket. A very, very good lotto ticket, way better odds than any 649.

Dismissing the value of draft picks is a huge mistake that can only be justified with a narrow short term lens.

[AT77]

Just a daily reminder that Toffoli absolutely sucks.

I’ll be back in a few days for another daily reminder.

God bless you all, except Toffoli.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

For me to turn around and call this a good trade he'd need to play a role in bringing us to the dance. Because acquiring him reduced those odds over the next 10 years.

Like I said, who they might have drafted could have ended up being a bust or not be that much of an impactful player so it doesn't necessarily reduce the odds. Not drafting the right players with your other picks and building your team properly reduces those odds.

You can make the same argument that refusing to trade first rounders because you're scared of what they might turn out to be is hurting your odds for the present especially when you aren't trading for rentals.

Regardless of how much of a chance any of us thought the Flames had at winning the Cup they were still touted as a contender. At the deadline there was a lot of talk around the league about how it was Colorado and them in the West and then everyone else was a tier below (Unless you were MacTavish who had to make sure he included the Oilers).

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

45% is about right for sake of arguement.

However, please keep in mind, if you regularly give up your first round picks, it doesn't take long before there's about a 70% chance of losing an impact player and the 12 years that come with him.

The Flames do regularly do this. So whether that's this pick, or the previous one, they do it often enough that odds are they have lost at least one impact player recently and possibly more.


Now consider the cap. Toffoli will be eating cap space in his years of decline. We already seen what he does in high tempo playoffs....basically if the playoffs matter then he really can't do much for you there. Meanwhile a younger guy on the rise, even if he does only pay 150 games, is going to do just fine in high tempo, at just a fraction of the cap space.

So less prospects means less cap space, it also means having guys that can't keep up at high tempo.

You have to really narrow it down and say maybe this pick doesn't work out, and maybe Toffoli is serviceable in the regular season (let's be honest he's not leading us anywhere in the playoffs anymore).

Assuming we actually care about the regular season (I'm more interested int he playoffs, where Toffoli is a wash)... and assuming this first round pick is very average, you still get a huge break on the cap out of it. Or, this guy could be our next MVP. whereas the chances of that happening with Toffoli are negligible.

The pick is your insurance policy, your cap relief, and your lotto ticket. A very, very good lotto ticket, way better odds than any 649.

Dismissing the value of draft picks is a huge mistake that can only be justified with a narrow short term lens.

The Flames have made a first round selection in each of the last three drafts, you make it sound like they've dealt their last five first rounders.

They haven't.

In isolation this one went about as well as it could with the Flames doing well enough to keep the pick from moving into a dangerous spot.

If the Habs hit on the pick you'll have a solid argument. There will be hair on it because we can't know that Calgary would have picked the same player, but value for value you can make the argument.

But looking at this trade specifically, there's a better chance that Calgary going all in, but with a non rental, likely means the value to Calgary exceeds the value to Montreal.

And this is from a guy that hates moving first rounders.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

45% is about right for sake of arguement.

However, please keep in mind, if you regularly give up your first round picks, it doesn't take long before there's about a 70% chance of losing an impact player and the 12 years that come with him.

Flames have used their first-round picks 10 times in the last 10 drafts.

In fact, during that time only two years they didn't have a first-round pick. In one of those years, they had two second-rounders which they used on Andersson and Kylington. I imagine both would be taken in the first round in a re-do.

If there was any nuance in your opinions, you would criticize the lack of high end success with their first-round picks. You know, quality over quantity.

It's almost like context matters LOL.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

The Flames regularly do this.

The Flames have traded their first round pick 3 times in the last 10 years. I wouldn't call that "regularly". You talk like they're doing it every other year and barely draft in the first round.