Flames Management Confidence - Trading

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Anyone giving Treliving a 1 or 2 for his trading abilities clearly just has an axe to grind. Hard to take that kind of opinion seriously.

See, in my mind, moving a 2nd round pick for Lazar should disqualify Treliving from a trade grade higher than 3.

That trade is WOEFUL.

Tre has had some good ones, but IMO he's also had some real stinkers.

IMO Treliving's best trades were a couple of years ago now, Hudler, Russell, Glencross, Sven.

Since the pressure has been on, he's looked worse in the trade department.

2nd, 3rd, 5th, 1st, 2nd, 2nd for Hamonic, Stone, Lazar is IMO, a very poor use of assets.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

See, in my mind, moving a 2nd round pick for Lazar should disqualify Treliving from a trade grade higher than 3.

That trade is WOEFUL.

Just my opinion, but to me that says you're letting the emotion of a single deal cloud things to the point where you're not really assessing impact at all.

Getting a 2nd and 3rd for Glencross, a 2nd and 4th for Hudler, a player prospect and an almost first rounder for Russell should more than balance out the impact of the Lazar gamble.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Just my opinion, but to me that says you're letting the emotion of a single deal cloud things to the point where you're not really assessing impact at all.

Getting a 2nd and 3rd for Glencross, a 2nd and 4th for Hudler, a player prospect and an almost first rounder for Russell should more than balance out the impact of the Lazar gamble.

Just keep reading the rest of my post then where I detail other moves I believe were poor returns.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Just keep reading the rest of my post then where I detail other moves I believe were poor returns.

I quoted the part I was talking about effectively thanks ... your over reaction and condemnation based on the Lazar trade alone.

I didn't like the Lazar trade at the time it happened.

I thought the Stone trade was a decent move though, and it worked, he bolstered their blueilne and they made the playoffs. Rentals for second tier teams are never a great bet and that payment wasn't all that gaudy given the results.

I also get the Hamonic deal and don't mind it, sure I'd love it to be one 2nd rounder lighter but I get that it was a move to bolster the blueline and top four defensemen are never easy to acquire.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Niemo said the overpayment was not needed. Nowhere did the poster say the team didn’t need a defenseman so I think your anger is misplaced.

I agree with Niemo. Many teams go into the offseason with needs and that wasn’t the right time for the Flames to overpay.

The Brett Hull trad and the first Olli Jokinen trade were examples of the team “overpaying” at an opportune time IMO.

I don't think the Flames overpaid at the time for Ramage and Wamsley. We had to give good value for proven pieces.

We needed a reliable back up goalie and got one of the best in the game. Backup might not be the right word per se, as Wamsley had 40 games for 5 of the 6 seasons prior to our trading for him. Perhaps 1B is a better descriptor. Doug Dadswell's GAA of 4.37 wasn't inspiring confidence. We had to make a move.

Most people also don't recall that Ramage was an all star the season we acquried him. He played in the all star game in 1981 1984 1986 1988. He played parts of 7 more seasons after he left the Flames cup winning team. He wasn't some scrub. He was a proven NHL all star defenceman who joined an extremely deep and proven blueline. He was in a support role for us, because he wasn't going to supplant MacInnis . And that season the McCrimmon-Suter pairing was literally the best pairing in the league, with both of them earning 2nd Team All Star selections (with some guy named Gretzky as the center on that 2nd All Star Team). The season after Ramage left us he went to Toronto and was back in a leading role. He scored 49 points and put up 202 PM.


To trade for a proven all star defenceman and a 1B goalie you're going to have to give up some good pieces. The Flames were building to win. This was perhaps the most successful regular season team we have ever had to that point in the franchise history. Loob was also a First Team All Star. Bullard and Loob topped 100 points. Mullen topped 40 goals. Niewendyk scored 51.

At that time they also had the best prospect pool in the history of the franchise. So they traded from their strength - the prospect pool. Here were the choices at the time for the trade. You tell me which one you would have included in the deal:

Niewendyk - Age 20, scored 51 goals that season
Suter - Age 23 lead the d in points with 91 that year
Hull - Age 23 26 goals in 52 games
Roberts - Age 21 2nd year in the NHL
Fleury - yet to crack an NHL roster, no trade value

So the narrative that we overpaid is off point. We had to trade a top prospect to the Blues to get proven NHL all star calibure talent. All of the top prospects we had in the system at the time played over 1000 games and all were stars. We were in it to win. They wanted a prospect for the long haul. Instead of saying there was an overpayment, I think a better descriptor is that it was a trade that worked out very well for both teams.

[Strange Brew]

^ Cliff Fletcher at the time said he had never traded a player like Brett Hull before. I am fine with whatever descriptor you want to use, point is Flames were prepared to give up premium assets to get what they wanted. Could Fletcher have negotiated a better deal? Did he undervalue the future HHOFer? Who knows. As you point out, it worked.

As for Treliving, it’s interesting that his supporters generally point to his asset sales (Glencross, Hudler, Russell) as his best deals. I agree. I give Treliving a 5 for his deadline sales.

I don’t rate him as highly as for his subsequent deals. Just my opinion, but seems to me his focus is on targeting the players he wants and is prepared to pay a high price to get them. He is not out there bargain shopping. The Lazar deal is a head scratcher, as there was seemingly no reason to give up such a high pick. I was even surprised by the Smith deal, in that I thought it was clear that Arizona didn’t want him anymore and it was a buyers market for goalies. And although I overall like the Hurricanes deal, I’m still surprised he had to give up so many young assets to get it done.

I like that he is prepared to make deals and knows what he wants but IMO he doesn’t always get full value for his own assets. So overall I waffle between a 3 and a 4. What is missing in his resume is an under the radar acquisition where he picks up a struggling player at a discount and he ends up being a contributor.

[activeStick]

No GM is perfect and has their hits and misses. To me, Hamilton from Boston, the return for Hudler and the return for Glencross were very clear wins. The Hamonic deal to me was his only clear miss and even then, became a miss when the Flames ended up giving the Isles a high 1st rounder in a season that the majority of people didn't think would be as high as it ended up being.

I'd much rather have a GM for my favorite team who has zero fear in making moves to address his team's needs than one who hums and haws and never pulls the trigger on anything for fear of losing a deal.

I'd say Treliving is a bit better than average.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

See, in my mind, moving a 2nd round pick for Lazar should disqualify Treliving from a trade grade higher than 3.

That trade is WOEFUL.

Tre has had some good ones, but IMO he's also had some real stinkers.

IMO Treliving's best trades were a couple of years ago now, Hudler, Russell, Glencross, Sven.

Since the pressure has been on, he's looked worse in the trade department.

2nd, 3rd, 5th, 1st, 2nd, 2nd for Hamonic, Stone, Lazar is IMO, a very poor use of assets.

Sigh, I think you have unrealistic expectations if you expect him to never, ever lose a trade. I think Lazar for a 2nd round pick at the time it happened in his career is hardly "woeful". At worst, it's an overpayment for a bottom of the roster NHLer who was/is very young and had/has room to improve.

And I don't think those are bad trades of draft picks when the percentage chance of those players playing 100 NHL games is pretty low after the 1st round. Wheras we have been and will continue to get several prime years from Hamonic, Stone, and Lazar until we move on, and then we can still probably recoup a few of those picks when they're done.

You have a bias towards draft picks over veteran/established players (as evidenced by your valuation of the best trades being veterans for draft picks), and I understand that long term you need to draft and develop, but I don't have a problem trading picks for sure thing NHLers in their prime. That's what you would hope half of those picks would turn into once they developed, but that takes 2-5 years in some cases to even see a return on that investment.

As long as you're not ALWAYS trading away 1st and 2nd round picks to fill the roster, and you have a relatively strong prospect pool or roster of young core players, you should be fine long term.

I cannot fathom how anyone gives Treliving even a 3, which would be average. Compare to the ability to even make trades by other GMs and you can see that Brad has a unique skill among the GMs.

[ColoradoFlamesFan]

I like what he’s done.
Does he take chances? Sure, but I’d rather him active and searching than MIA like other GMs.
So many variables that scouts can’t pick up and the question of fit with the team.
Were some over payments? In hindsight you can say yes, but at the time it seemed like the right move.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Sigh, I think you have unrealistic expectations if you expect him to never, ever lose a trade. I think Lazar for a 2nd round pick at the time it happened in his career is hardly "woeful". At worst, it's an overpayment for a bottom of the roster NHLer who was/is very young and had/has room to improve.

Strawman. I don't expect him to lose 0 trades, I expect him to lose less trades than he wins or I expect those wins to be huge wins to offset consistent low level losses.

Lazar is a replacement level forward who has played a season for the flames and barely scraped above 10 minutes a night. He was outplayed by Shore, acquired from the same team, for a 7th round pick. Lazar for a 2nd is awful, made worse when you consider how many other picks have been shipped out.

And I don't think those are bad trades of draft picks when the percentage chance of those players playing 100 NHL games is pretty low after the 1st round. Wheras we have been and will continue to get several prime years from Hamonic, Stone, and Lazar until we move on, and then we can still probably recoup a few of those picks when they're done.

This is classic flames fan justification. 'Recoup' the picks' is a joke I've been making on this message board for 10 years.

You have a bias towards draft picks over veteran/established players (as evidenced by your valuation of the best trades being veterans for draft picks),

Nope, this is another strawman. I don't have a bias towards picks, I have a bias towards production to cost ratio, anticipated apex of play and a recency bias towards production. Trading away Glencross for picks isn't great because they got picks, it's great because they got SOMETHING for a player who was out of the league the next year. Trading Hudler for picks wasn't a great trade because it was just picks, it was capitalizing on a high value player who again, was out of the league in a blink of an eye.

and I understand that long term you need to draft and develop, but I don't have a problem trading picks for sure thing NHLers in their prime. That's what you would hope half of those picks would turn into once they developed, but that takes 2-5 years in some cases to even see a return on that investment.

Again, this is classic Flames Fan justification for a strategy that has never borne fruit. If your rational made any sense, no teams in the league would ever draft players. They would trade all their picks, every year, for roster players, to the point where picks had no value, because no one wanted them.

As long as you're not ALWAYS trading away 1st and 2nd round picks to fill the roster, and you have a relatively strong prospect pool or roster of young core players, you should be fine long term.

Well, according to some, the Flames have the 29th rated prospect pool in the NHL and have traded 1st and/or 2nd rounders 3 years in a row. So by your definition, not mine, the flames will not be fine in the long term.

I cannot fathom how anyone gives Treliving even a 3, which would be average. Compare to the ability to even make trades by other GMs and you can see that Brad has a unique skill among the GMs.

He has made some very good trades. He has also whiffed. If you can't fathom someone thinking differently and presenting arguments to reinforce that, maybe you're the one with the bias.

[Enoch Root]

Lazar for a 2nd is a pretty small trade that doesn't tip the scales on Treliving's trade record either way.

Also, Lazar is about to play his 23 year old season - it's too early to decide whether this minor trade was won or lost.

[Robbob]

I think people are thinking to much of the magic box and draft picks. Look at the 2nd round from 2013. Lazar and his 12 points just from last season is better that 75% of the players career numbers from that draft (in the second round). His 51 career points puts him tied for 1st.

Look at the 2014 2nd round. There are 2-3 out of 30 players that you would consider successful picks. Same could be said for 2015 and probably 2016, although it is to early to tell. Bottom line getting a player like Lazar out of the second round is probably on the more successful side for that pick. You only hear about the successful 2nd rounders, but in reality they probably come with the same odds as a roulette wheel.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, according to some, the Flames have the 29th rated prospect pool in the NHL and have traded 1st and/or 2nd rounders 3 years in a row. So by your definition, not mine, the flames will not be fine in the long term

LOL. Disagree with most of what you’ve said in this thread but this comment is particularly obtuse. Farm systems are only one aspect of a team’s long term future. You’d have to be pretty dense not to think that the quality of the Flames NHL players under 25 is a much, much bigger determinant of our long term future than our draft pick gambles. Prospects are a roll of the dice. Above average and star NHLers under 25 are proven commodities to be built around for years. The Flames will be fine long term based on the youth of guys like Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm, Tkachuk, Hanifin, etc. Those building blocks are far more important than having a couple extra 1st rounders.

I see Ricardo is trolling this thread pretty hard

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I think people are thinking to much of the magic box and draft picks. Look at the 2nd round from 2013. Lazar and his 12 points just from last season is better that 75% of the players career numbers from that draft (in the second round). His 51 career points puts him tied for 1st.

Look at the 2014 2nd round. There are 2-3 out of 30 players that you would consider successful picks. Same could be said for 2015 and probably 2016, although it is to early to tell. Bottom line getting a player like Lazar out of the second round is probably on the more successful side for that pick. You only hear about the successful 2nd rounders, but in reality they probably come with the same odds as a roulette wheel.

Thank you. Perfect response. Lazar being a 4th line player is already a better return on investment than you would likely get with that 2nd round pick, and he's playing right now and for the foreseeable future. Occasionally you get a better player, but Lazar was a former first rounder who had (and I am going to say he still does have) potential to be a quality NHLer. Bingo's analysis of his progression from the first half to second half of last year indicates he is still improving, but without the tangible results on the score sheet.

Either way, describing the Lazar deal as woeful or awful is an exaggeration. We lost that deal, maybe only slightly so.

And it's fair to say that the Flames prospect system as of RIGHT NOW is near the bottom of the league, but that negates the fact that so many great core players for the Flames are under 25. That's what a good prospect system does, gets you good, young, and cheap core players who give you their prime years of play.

But I'll be the first to say that I hope Treliving doesn't trade any more draft picks for the next year or so. We definitely need to draft some players to develop for the next wave of replacement when the current core gets too expensive or becomes less productive.

[Fire]

I like Treliving but lets not argue that the Lazar for a 2nd was an even trade . There is a outside chance it will be fine if Lazar turns it around but I bet Treliving would take the 2nd rounder back if given the choice. A 2nd rounder has a good chance to be nothing but it has a lot of value especially at draft time.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Strawman. I don't expect him to lose 0 trades, I expect him to lose less trades than he wins or I expect those wins to be huge wins to offset consistent low level losses.

Lazar is a replacement level forward who has played a season for the flames and barely scraped above 10 minutes a night. He was outplayed by Shore, acquired from the same team, for a 7th round pick. Lazar for a 2nd is awful, made worse when you consider how many other picks have been shipped out.


This is classic flames fan justification. 'Recoup' the picks' is a joke I've been making on this message board for 10 years.


Nope, this is another strawman. I don't have a bias towards picks, I have a bias towards production to cost ratio, anticipated apex of play and a recency bias towards production. Trading away Glencross for picks isn't great because they got picks, it's great because they got SOMETHING for a player who was out of the league the next year. Trading Hudler for picks wasn't a great trade because it was just picks, it was capitalizing on a high value player who again, was out of the league in a blink of an eye.


Again, this is classic Flames Fan justification for a strategy that has never borne fruit. If your rational made any sense, no teams in the league would ever draft players. They would trade all their picks, every year, for roster players, to the point where picks had no value, because no one wanted them.

Well, according to some, the Flames have the 29th rated prospect pool in the NHL and have traded 1st and/or 2nd rounders 3 years in a row. So by your definition, not mine, the flames will not be fine in the long term.



He has made some very good trades. He has also whiffed. If you can't fathom someone thinking differently and presenting arguments to reinforce that, maybe you're the one with the bias.

Who the hell is this classic Flames fan and why do you hate him so much? Is it because he disagrees with you?

I pointed out your emotion on Lazar isn't weighted, and this post does nothing to alleviate that notion.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Who the hell is this classic Flames fan and why do you hate him so much? Is it because he disagrees with you?

I pointed out your emotion on Lazar isn't weighted, and this post does nothing to alleviate that notion.

I guess if you don't want to have a substantive discussion you could try to turn it personal again, but I'm not really interested.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I guess if you don't want to have a substantive discussion you could try to turn it personal again, but I'm not really interested.

Where was it personal?

If you want to go Chicken Little on a minor trade you're going to get a reaction.

Expect and prepare for it.

I was substantive as hell when I pointed out how little the Lazar trade matters in the grand scheme of things. If you wanted a conversation you could have replied to that. You didn't.

[nik-]

How is saying an awful trade is an awful trade Chicken Little?

People can talk about percentages on a 2nd round pick all day long. The fact is we celebrate getting them for Glencross and then dismiss them when we use one to get Lazar?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

How is saying an awful trade is an awful trade Chicken Little?

This ...

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

See, in my mind, moving a 2nd round pick for Lazar should disqualify Treliving from a trade grade higher than 3.

That trade is WOEFUL.

A discussion on a GM's trading status comes down to a minor trade.

And any comment I've made on the Lazar deal is about balance, not celebrating and ignoring at all.