Islanders (Flames') First Round Pick

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

B) is incorrect. In a world where Hamhuis remained as the number 4 dman in New York and we received Dahlin, there would not be one less spot for a dman.

Not sure if the Flames players would rather have a generational dman or Hamonic. It depends on how much they like Hamonic.

Hamhuis? Anyway, in that world, you are not playing two rookies plus Kulak on D. You are getting another vet, some other way.

I guarantee you if you asked the players if they would trade Hamonic for Dahlin, they'd keep Hamonic. Maybe they wouldn't be looking at it properly, but they will always choose a present teammate.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The fall of a lottery ball doesn’t change how the deal should be evaluated

This is true. The deal was basically a number 4 dman to a bubble team in exchange for that bubble team's 1st and two 2nds. That is the deal that should be evaluated.

A lottery win by the Islanders would just be insult to injury on a pretty poor trade to begin with.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Hamhuis? Anyway, in that world, you are not playing two rookies plus Kulak on D. You are getting another vet, some other way.

I guarantee you if you asked the players if they would trade Hamonic for Dahlin, they'd keep Hamonic. Maybe they wouldn't be looking at it properly, but they will always choose a present teammate.

Meant Hamonic, Hamhuis and Hamonic are pretty interchangeable, but I mean Hamonic.

I wonder if the players would trade Hamonic for Crosby? I suspect not, what with the whole present teammate thing and all. That is why the GM has to be able to pull the trigger and be objective.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by bax

Team psyche? Yeah, no way. The players don’t care.

Matt Tkachuk disagrees

I am sure the top players care... the vision of a cup becomes that more clear with elite talent.

The bottom 6 has no interest as the player can bump them from the roster.

[FurnaceFace]

I don’t see how fans in general will freak out about this. A bunch of CP will lose their minds on it and a few others who will be texted into The Fan.

Saying “what if” doesn’t change “what’s real” and there really isn’t any correlation between the two anyway. You could play the what if game back as far as you’d like and it still doesn’t change things. It’s like the people who keep saying the puck was in or in Buffalo who bring up Brett Hull’s skate. None of it matters anymore because you aren’t changing it.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I don’t see how fans in general will freak out about this. A bunch of CP will lose their minds on it and a few others who will be texted into The Fan.

Saying “what if” doesn’t change “what’s real” and there really isn’t any correlation between the two anyway. You could play the what if game back as far as you’d like and it still doesn’t change things. It’s like the people who keep saying the puck was in or in Buffalo who bring up Brett Hull’s skate. None of it matters anymore because you aren’t changing it.

Interesting take, except "what's real" has not happened yet, its only a "what if" if it does not happen. If the pick is inconsequential, then it becomes a "what if", we are not there yet. Your analogy does not hold yet.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I don’t see how fans in general will freak out about this. A bunch of CP will lose their minds on it and a few others who will be texted into The Fan.

Saying “what if” doesn’t change “what’s real” and there really isn’t any correlation between the two anyway. You could play the what if game back as far as you’d like and it still doesn’t change things. It’s like the people who keep saying the puck was in or in Buffalo who bring up Brett Hull’s skate. None of it matters anymore because you aren’t changing it.

If BT gave up a top 3 pick, it will be more like the Tom Kurvers trade for the Leafs. That is a trade that has only been discussed for 27 years.

At first (if we give up a top 3 pick) I suspect most fans will be aghast at what an awful trade this was (unfairly judging the trade on the top 3 pick as the reason it was an awful trade as opposed to the fact that a 1st and two 2nds from a bubble team is an awful trade regardless of draft pick position).

At first what I call the company men fans will still support the trade or defend it. They will talk about how this is a reasonable price for a top 4 dman, how BT could not have forseen being a lottery team, how he had to make the trade to keep Hamonic away from Edmonton, how the 1st could not be lottery protected because if it could BT would have done that since he is not an idiot. These company men fans were around in the Feaster/Weisbrod days, defending most of those actions.

However, the company men fans follow the company, so once BT is relieved of his duties most of that support for the Hamonic trade and other BT moves will dissipate. But regardless of what type of fan you are, if this is a top 3 pick it will be talked about for awhile.

[Jiri Hrdina]

^there is a distinct difference with the Kurvers trade - which is the lottery didn't exist. If it ends up being a top 3 pick it is because of bad luck more than anything.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The fall of a lottery ball doesn’t change how the deal should be evaluated

I disagree. It's all just part of the natural evaluation in hindsight that happens for literally every transaction.

[Badgers Nose]

GDT thread for the lottery? Or would that be too painful? I'm not going to post one because I'm a coward.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I disagree. It's all just part of the natural evaluation in hindsight that happens for literally every transaction.

Doesn't meant that's the right way to look at it.
Again, in this case, more than most, there is a huge element of luck.
The value of pick should be based on the relative probability of it ending up in the various spots. Where it ends up is a poor way to assess the trade as that is all about luck.
Agree to disagree.

[Resolute 14]

"You're wrong, I'm right, I'm out."

Okay then.

[GioforPM]

"Company men fans"? Good grief. That's just a way for you to dismiss legit arguments without having to deal with them.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

"You're wrong, I'm right, I'm out."

Okay then.

Jesus Christ that's not what I said.
I was actually saying that both of us can have a different opinion and that's OK.
Why must everything be so confrontational with you? Why must everything be a fight?
Have your opinion. That's fine. I'm stating my opinions and reasons for it. We can disagree and that's all it means.
We probably aren't going to convince each other.
But cripes your attitude blows.

[Resolute 14]

Umm, there was no "fight" Jiri. You expressed an opinion I thought was interesting, but disagree with. I thought the idea of a discussion forum would be to hold a discussion. But, you didn't want to discuss. Ok, that's fine. Just walk away then. But don't kid yourself. Your reply was exactly what I said it was.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Except the part where you claimed I said "I'm right, you're wrong".
NOWHERE DID I SAY THAT
So don't put words in my mouth. Do not tell me what I said.
Agree to disagree is NOT the same as "I'm right. You're wrong".

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by getbak

I checked the video from the 2010 Draft Lottery where Boston owned Toronto's first round pick from the Kessel trade. Chiarelli attended the lottery on behalf of the Bruins and the card that Daly held up had the Bruins' logo on it.

Except for a passing mention by Duthie, you wouldn't even have known it was originally the Leafs' pick.


This morning, the NHL tweeted out this...



It's not Calgary's pick anymore.

Not sure what you're point is, we know it's not our pick anymore. Of course they label it as a NYI's pick. They also mention quite clearly and usually multiple times if a team holds a pick that they acquired in a trade. I remember the pick you mentioned being discussed at length as being the Leafs pick.

Are you just trying to psychologically distance yourself from the pick? Like Resolute said it's part of the historical evaluation of any NHL transaction, of course it matters. It's silly to worry too much about it as it's done, but it's equally silly to not consider it a pick that we gave up for someone in a year that we missed the playoffs.

These are the mistakes you want to disappear as your GM matures and gains experience, so it should be discussed and kept in the forefront, somewhat.

[dammage79]

Lottery balls or not. If the Flames win the lottery they will have traded away the highest pick in their history. That's terrible on the optics. If the Isles get Dahlin or Svechnikov (instant answer to the winger woes), fans have every right to be choked and not have their anger tried to be tempered by defenders of the trade.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Not sure what you're point is, we know it's not our pick anymore. Of course they label it as a NYI's pick.

Read the posts directly before mine.

People were asking about whether or not Treliving would be in Toronto for the lottery. I answered based on what was done in the past and the graphic that the league released this morning.

Based on past history, the pick will likely be treated by the league during the lottery broadcast as the Islanders' pick, not the Flames'.

[the2bears]

So if the pick turns out to be a bust, does that change anything? Does it go from a travesty to a fleecing of the Islanders?