Brian Burke guest speaker at Sports Law Society (UofC)

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

True, however I think Burke is right in saying that using a similiar strategy or system in hockey is a completely different ball game (parden the pun). There are no full count, two out, bases loaded scenario's in hockey.

Also all of the Moneyball teams realized that looking at numbers wasn't really working (see the Moneyball draft for an example) and went back to scouting.

There is also a ton more value in a moneyball format in a league without a salary cap where you're dealing with teams with payrolls of $230 million competing with teams with payrolls of $50 million. The shorter entry level deals also limit the extent you can exploit that since for example the Flames only have Monahan at a small cap hit for three years.

[Sample00]

One of the best reads ever on CP. Thanks very much!

[timbit]

Thank a lot Five-hole for your great post.

Very insightful.

[Zarley]

Fantastic summary, Five-hole. The more I hear from and read about Burke, the more convinced I am that we have the right guy in charge to build this team for the long term.

Without taking things too off topic, I'd personally be interested in his insights into the law profession in general.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

the market inefficiency thing was close to what Feaster was doing

No it's not.

U.S. College players aren't a market inefficiency & Jankowski is the exact opposite of a Moneyball pick (picking a younger guy with a dubious statistical record that a scout fell in love with).

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Also all of the Moneyball teams realized that looking at numbers wasn't really working (see the Moneyball draft for an example).

... The Moneyball Draft (2002 Draft) worked just fine. It landed Nick Swisher, Joe Blanton and 12 other guys who later went on to play in the majors with varying degree's of success/longevity. That's pretty damn successful by baseball draft standards.

[Scoutski]

Awesome post! Thanks so much for this!

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Mattman

Okay Burke suuuuuuuure thats what happened

I was not aware this was even a thing, but it totally happens. My goodness.

[AcGold]

I think the proper way to approach it is asset management in the same way people approach a stock market. Selling your highest valued assets for nothing or drastically lower valued assets is bad management, when we stop doing that we'll be a better team. Look at Kiprusoff, Iginla, Bouwmeester, Phaneuf, Regehr; all those assets gone, what do we have to show for their return? Stop giving away NMC's and stop waiting until contracts are up to make desperate trades and our asset base will start to grow. If we rely on drafting and development alone we're screwed, we need to start making trades that result in us gaining asset value. A great example of this was the Smid/Horak deal, huge win for us, legitimate top 4 dman for a nobody, chaching!

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Parallex

No it's not.

U.S. College players aren't a market inefficiency & Jankowski is the exact opposite of a Moneyball pick (picking a younger guy with a dubious statistical record that a scout fell in love with).

There are different definition of market inefficiencies... looking at guys that others might not look at is the basic definition... Jankowski fits that bill (as does Gaudreau). He also had giant stats in his draft year... at low level.

.. The Moneyball Draft (2002 Draft) worked just fine. It landed Nick Swisher, Joe Blanton and 12 other guys who later went on to play in the majors with varying degree's of success/longevity. That's pretty damn successful by baseball draft standards.

The A's had 7 of the first 39 picks that year. Four made the MLB (57%). Of the other 37 picks, 20 made (63%). They decided to bypass all high school players at the beginning of the draft and so they missed out on guys like Matt Cain and Joey Votto. To their credit they realized this was stupid and moved from that strategy. When you've got 18% of the first 39 picks, you're going to have guys make it to the big leagues.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I think the proper way to approach it is asset management in the same way people approach a stock market. Selling your highest valued assets for nothing or drastically lower valued assets is bad management, when we stop doing that we'll be a better team. Look at Kiprusoff, Iginla, Bouwmeester, Phaneuf, Regehr; all those assets gone, what do we have to show for their return? Stop giving away NMC's and stop waiting until contracts are up to make desperate trades and our asset base will start to grow. If we rely on drafting and development alone we're screwed, we need to start making trades that result in us gaining asset value. A great example of this was the Smid/Horak deal, huge win for us, legitimate top 4 dman for a nobody, chaching!

While I agree with the opening statement it's not that easy (or simple).

Sometimes you have to sell your assets for a seemingly low value because the alternative is akin to selling them for nothing (Example: upcoming UFA's, once their contract rights expire their value bottoms out to zero) you mentioned Iginla... the alternative to the value returned for Iginla was zero. Ultimately you have to assume that all actors are working for their own self-interest so trades that result in us gaining asset value are difficult to make since the other person is also looking to gain asset value and those guys won't be wrong 100% of the time.

While I agree that Feaster's Edm trade was a win for us the equation isn't Smid for a nobody... It's Smid for Middling Prospect + $10ism Million Actual Dollars + 3Mish in Cap Allocation.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

Advanced NHL statistics are simply BETTER than current NHL statistics. That's why they're called 'advanced.'

No one is disputing that. They have some value and are obviously better than the basic stats.

But most hockey people would say that the value of stats just isn't anywhere near the value of having a good hockey mind watch a game and evaluate the players. Advanced stats will never replace scouting. Not even close. Some people want it to and think it will or already has. It won't.

Advanced stats are not a substitute for watching a player play multiple times. If you're good at evaluating hockey talent then watching the player will give you so much more than advanced stats ever could.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The A's had 7 of the first 39 picks that year. Four made the MLB (57%). Of the other 37 picks, 20 made (63%).

57% vs. 63%... That's practically the same. They managed to do as well as the field with significantly less bonus money... still not seeing how this was a "failure". The money matters, it matters a lot (Unless you're the NY Yankees). They did well getting what they got versus what they had the ability to get.

They decided to bypass all high school players at the beginning of the draft and so they missed out on guys like Matt Cain and Joey Votto.

Almost every team in MLB missed out on Votto at least once (he was a second round pick). They didn't miss on Votto because they didn't take HS players they missed out on Votto because nobody (including them) knew that Votto was going to be Votto.

Amusingly Votto is they type of player Moneyball loves most, lot's of power and Amazing Plate recognition). If I had a MLB team and I could just take any player it'd be Mike Trout... but Joey Votto would be second.

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

To their credit they realized this was stupid and moved from that strategy.

They didn't move away from that strategy. They still pursue market inefficiencies it's just that the market has changed. The A's have more money so they can take more risks. For the A's moneyball was about risk-management. They still value OBP... but the rest of MLB values OBP more then it used to.

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

There are different definition of market inefficiencies... looking at guys that others might not look at is the basic definition... Jankowski fits that bill.

Only if the market doesn't correctly valuate players in the Quebec Prep School Leagues... I tend to think that it probably does.

[Sylvanfan]

I personally think in hockey, teams are going to need to focus more on value that helps other parts of the organization more so than what you pay the on ice players. Right now Calgary's ability to spend money on payroll is not an issue. It's the other practices that look to need improvement, and may need innovative ways to do the same things the Rangers do, but at a lesser cost. In a salary cap environment it's the hidden costs that the lesser revenue teams will need to do more efficiently.

[undercoverbrother]

Did you ask if he is happy Kevin Lowe is ####ting the bed in Mulletville?

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

There are different definition of market inefficiencies... looking at guys that others might not look at is the basic definition... Jankowski fits that bill (as does Gaudreau). He also had giant stats in his draft year... at low level.



The A's had 7 of the first 39 picks that year. Four made the MLB (57%). Of the other 37 picks, 20 made (63%). They decided to bypass all high school players at the beginning of the draft and so they missed out on guys like Matt Cain and Joey Votto. To their credit they realized this was stupid and moved from that strategy. When you've got 18% of the first 39 picks, you're going to have guys make it to the big leagues.

Big high schoolers often have signing issues, because they need to be bought out of going to college. Teams like the A's can't/won't shell out huge cheques to have them brought in.

[Five-hole]

First off, thank you all for the kind comments. It was a lot of work and I'm really glad you're enjoying it. Sorry for the poor English in the OP as I was compiling it when I should have been paying attention in Trusts, but you know, priorities. (Sadly, Burke's spot had to end though he was willing to keep answering questions because Trusts was happening in the same room. Burke joked that since it was Trusts, he should definitely keep going, and that when he was in law school they called "wills and trusts" "stiffs and gifts".)

I had a couple of questions in this thread and via PM that I'll address. These are not Flames-related per se and have more to do with the legal profession and legal work within pro sports.

First off, I had a question via PM about legal jobs in pro sports in general.

Burke noted that there are two sides to the pro sports industry. There's what he called the "talent side" and then what he called alternately "the business side" and "everything else". The talent side is hockey ops, player agent-type stuff. This is Jay Feaster, Brian Burke, Pat Morris, Don Meehan, etc.

Burke said the talent side is extremely difficult to get into. In addition, it's extremely volatile, very risky, and very hard to carve out a career in. It is the very opposite of stable. He mentioned he's lived in numerous different cities, has held numerous different jobs over the last 25 years, and been fired and out of work many times.

On the other hand, the "business side" is much larger and far more stable. He said there is a hidden, or at least far less visible, side of the business that requires lawyers. He noted that there is a banking industry devoted to pro sports teams, there are firms whose entire business model is selling sports teams, there are in-house legal teams (Burke noted that the Flames are the only NHL team without an in-house legal department, which I found very interesting), and there are lots of jobs with the NHL itself in the legal department.

Burke said that a job in the pro sports industry (and I think he was referring to the talent side here) is extremely statistically unlikely. He said that out of his Harvard class of 1500-1600 law students, there were two in pro sports -- he and someone in the NFL. He said this is probably statistically average for lawyers.

However I think this needs to be "read together" with his comments that you have one life to live, it's not a dress rehearsal, and you had better try to get what you want out of this life because there isn't another go-around. That, and that you have to work your ass off to get anywhere special.

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

Thanks a lot for this post. My girlfriend is currently in law school with the aspirations of a job in pro sports as a lawyer. I'm sure most the stuff Burke said she's already heard in her sports law class, but wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on this, and anything else he said about how women should "break the last barrier" on sports teams.

Hopefully some of the comments above help. His comments regarding women breaking the last barrier to get into the talent side of pro sports largely focussed around the myth that you have to have played at a high level to be able to evaluate professional athletes. He didn't delve that deeply into the topic as this sort of got him off track and he started talking about scouting, but I will infer a few things based on the overall impression I got from his talk.

Earlier, he briefly mentioned the You Can Play program (which I forgot to bring up, sorry about that) and talked about the need to get rid of the homophobic atmosphere of pro sports dressing rooms. I think it's fair to say that Burke feels the talent side of pro sports work is also an old boys club and will be difficult to break into as a woman for the same reason that gay boys stop playing pro sports once they reach a certain age. That is, that pro sports is a "man's man" game, which leads to sexism and homophobia (which is really unfortunate, men, we can be better than that). He did note that this is changing, very slowly.

He also mentioned that he thought women had broken down "all barriers" except this one, which I found interesting, given that many professions, notably the legal profession, have a long way to go to attain gender equality. While I think law firms are very image-conscious in their hiring policies and strive hard to hire equally, the fact remains that there are very few managing partners that are women and partners in law firms are still largely male. I think the biological fact that women need to take time off to give birth is part of the reason, and the perception that women will drop out of the work force for this reason makes up the rest of it. Further there's still a stigma against paternal leave in the legal community.

I should at this point say that this is from the perspective of a third-year law student and not a practicing lawyer, so take the appropriate number of grains of salt along with it.

Originally Posted by Zarley

Fantastic summary, Five-hole. The more I hear from and read about Burke, the more convinced I am that we have the right guy in charge to build this team for the long term.

Without taking things too off topic, I'd personally be interested in his insights into the law profession in general.

After his hookers and lawyers joke, Burke noted that the profession has an obligation, and more importantly, individual lawyers should act in a way, to remove the negative stigma that lawyers have. He said that the profession has been amongst the most respected and revered since Roman times because of the invaluable service that it provides to the community. He said that the legal profession attracts the best and brightest society has to offer because of the prestige of the career, the monetary opportunity it affords, and because the work is very challenging. He challenged all of us to be good lawyers, to practice law ethically and with good business and personal acumen, and to give back to the community in the same way he asks his hockey players to give back.

[Flash Walken]

Wow, that part about not having in house legal council is staggering.

I mean, really, it's baffling.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by fotze

Isn't in house legal council and in house legal department a big difference. Five-hole said department, that implies to me, multiple full time lawyers.

Might explain the Feaster almost blunder with O'Reilly.

Explains it almost completely to me.

Yeah, you're right, council and department mean different things. I equate them as being the same thing, separate from other departments.

Maybe I'm over reacting, but that's huge admission by Burke.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

After his hookers and lawyers joke, Burke noted that the profession has an obligation, and more importantly, individual lawyers should act in a way, to remove the negative stigma that lawyers have. He said that the profession has been amongst the most respected and revered since Roman times because of the invaluable service that it provides to the community. He said that the legal profession attracts the best and brightest society has to offer because of the prestige of the career, the monetary opportunity it affords, and because the work is very challenging. He challenged all of us to be good lawyers, to practice law ethically and with good business and personal acumen, and to give back to the community in the same way he asks his hockey players to give back.

The oft repeated quote from Shakespeare is generally misunderstood - "let's kill all the lawyers". Shakepeare was speaking from the point of view of an anarchist, and to kill all the lawyers was to remove the protections to society that lawyers provide.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by fotze

Isn't in house legal council and in house legal department a big difference. Five-hole said department, that implies to me, multiple full time lawyers.

Might explain the Feaster almost blunder with O'Reilly.

I did not intend that distinction. I don't recall what word he used and can't infer based on the context which one was meant exactly.

ATCO doesn't have in-house lawyers. They're the only utility in Alberta that doesn't. Instead, they farm out their work to outside counsel. I don't think you can infer quality of legal decision-making based on whether a business uses in-house or outside legal counsel. One might be more expensive than the other, but that may be about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk