Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Everyone wanted Neal gone. That’s not the point.

Well if everyone wanted Neal gone including coaches and management then he was going to be gone this summer. Pretty easy conclusion to reach.

Pretty easy to deduce Peters wasn’t a fan as the game 5 scratch gives that away.

Treliving watched the same games we did. He also watched a season of Neal not fitting on any line, floating around, having zero chemistry with anyone. Pretty easy to deduce Treliving would be highly, highly motivated to move that contract this summer.

I mean it all adds up.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

We're back to you being categorically wrong about things. The vast majority of players do not significantly improve after age 23. Production peaks around that age and then plateaus for a couple of years before falling on average in the late 20's. Almost no one suddenly jumps 77% in point production after they've been in the year a couple of seasons. It's possible that Lindholm is an outlier, and that explanation is given more credence because it's hard to see what else could be causing it, but as a general rule, your statement above is categorically false.

Actually you are the one who is completely wrong. Where’s your facts and proof?

Most players significantly improve after age 23. Sometimes they haven’t made the nhl yet. There’s endless examples. Decades of players having breakouts in their mid 20’s. That’s the norm for non-star players I’d venture to guess.

I’ve been watching the draft closely since the mid 90’s. I’ve watched a lot of draft classes slowly develop. Sure, star players step right in and hit excellence early. Those aren’t the typical cases. Most players aren’t fully developed until their mid 20’s. That’s reality bud.

How many decades have you been paying close attention to prospects and player development may I ask?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

It comes down to sink cost fallacy, imo. A quick present value analysis comparing the financials on a Neal buyout vs a Lucic acquisition favours the Neal buyout very comfortably unless Lucic can provide about 2.5m of on ice value per year for 4 years.

The beauty of the buyout is pushing the cap hit to future years where it will be deflated in a world where the has risen every year.

So I don’t buy the assertion that the owners would draw a line in the sand on a buyout when it would basically illustrate a lack of understanding in how sunk costs work.

As for why the Lucic option was chosen? I believe Tree sees value in him. He may have had other alternatives and chosen the opportunity of a Lucic rebound along with the other qualities he brings that are lacking on the rest of the roster. Again, there was no gun to his head... he sees some value in Lucic and we don’t need to pretend he didn’t.

Imo, you are making it hard to have a discussion with you right now... come across as very defensive and not open minded to considering different viewpoints.

Yeah ok.

I literally provided a comment from a writer that says Treliving hinted that a buy out wasn't possible.

But you analyze the possibility of a buy out and tell me I'm being unreasonable?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well if everyone wanted Neal gone including coaches and management then he was going to be gone this summer. Pretty easy conclusion to reach.

Pretty easy to deduce Peters wasn’t a fan as the game 5 scratch gives that away.

Treliving watched the same games we did. He also watched a season of Neal not fitting on any line, floating around, having zero chemistry with anyone. Pretty easy to deduce Treliving would be highly, highly motivated to move that contract this summer.

I mean it all adds up.

That's how I see it. I don't know why this is such a sore spot for people. Sometimes walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ... it's a damn duck.

They wanted him gone.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Actually you are the one who is completely wrong. Where’s your facts and proof?

Here, here's some. Also here. Or here. There's plenty more out there if you'd actually read something every once in a while... God, you're annoying to deal with - you're so very wrong about so many things and yet you peddle this crap with such certainty. NHL aging curves have been well understood for years and years, and it's only become more skewed towards younger players the past five years.

I’ve been watching the draft closely since the mid 90’s. I’ve watched a lot of draft classes slowly develop. Sure, star players step right in and hit excellence early. Those aren’t the typical cases. Most players aren’t fully developed until their mid 20’s. That’s reality bud.

You appear to have no grip on reality at all and instead live in your own little world. While you're researching aging curves, I suggest you take a detour and look up "dunning-kruger". You're the poster child.

How many decades have you been paying close attention to prospects and player development may I ask?

1994. And it wouldn't matter if I'd said 2004 or 2014, because the actual playing history of the thousands of players who have suited up for an NHL team is what matters, not your addled impressions of how they progress.

[cupofjoe]

Originally Posted by GGG

The sample size is huge relative to though so the poll likely does reflect the CP population that have accounts. I suspect there isn’t really any self-selection bias in the sample vs the population.

The poll design certainly biases toward neutral because it has the closest to a factual statement as its qualifier rather than subjective statements.

I mentioned this earlier but all polls should not have the reason attached. Let the Thread be used for justification.

Not correct, the sample size only potentially represents the population who gave a crap to respond not necessarily the whole population. Whether the responding pop represents the whole pop is unknown and unproven.

Anyways stats theory is boring and certainly not the point of this thread.

[Matt Reeeeead]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah ok.



I literally provided a comment from a writer that says Treliving hinted that a buy out wasn't possible.



But you analyze the possibility of a buy out and tell me I'm being unreasonable?

It’s being analyzed because it’s already a sunk cost, and makes sense from both s financial and cap perspective... and he’s in charge of hockey decisions. The writer was simply speculating... there’s nothing concrete here to eliminate other possibilities. That’s the frustrating part.

I would think the owners might have been interested in a strategy of using inflation to their advantage... 1.9m annually in 7-8 years time is going to be a small fraction of the cap at a growth rate of 5+ percent, especially with new media contracts expected to increase growth rate of league revenue. If a buyout was not a option in comparison to keeping a Lucic cap hit on the books for 4 years at over 5M, I really have to ask why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GGG]

Originally Posted by cupofjoe

Not correct, the sample size only potentially represents the population who gave a crap to respond not necessarily the whole population. Whether the responding pop represents the whole pop is unknown and unproven.

Anyways stats theory is boring and certainly not the point of this thread.

Agreed,
Which is why I used words like suspect and likely represents rather than more definitive language.

Though I disagree that statistical theory is boring. It’s facisnating once you add human behaviour to what should be a simple math problem

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I find it fascinating that only about 1-in-5 fans have a negative view on this deal.

I bet that if this poll had been conducted, say, the day after, that figure would be a lot bigger.

I hated it at first, but some people made compelling arguments.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

https://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/3/...s-age-analysis

Well I wasn’t talking about just forwards. Defenseman and goalies often take longer to develop so removing them from the equation will change the stats significantly.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Here, here's some. Also here. Or here. There's plenty more out there if you'd actually read something every once in a while... God, you're annoying to deal with - you're so very wrong about so many things and yet you peddle this crap with such certainty. NHL aging curves have been well understood for years and years, and it's only become more skewed towards younger players the past five years.

You appear to have no grip on reality at all and instead live in your own little world. While you're researching aging curves, I suggest you take a detour and look up "dunning-kruger". You're the poster child.

1994. And it wouldn't matter if I'd said 2004 or 2014, because the actual playing history of the thousands of players who have suited up for an NHL team is what matters, not your addled impressions of how they progress.

Last thing I’ll say on this is that averages are just that. you’d think a stats guy like yourself might understand what averages really mean. If the average age to peak is 24 guess what? It likely means around half the ####ing players haven’t peaked by 24! So trying to tell me players don’t significantly improve after 23 is such clear and obvious bull####. I dare you to walk up to a real hockey ops person and try and tell them that!

You seem like you have some smarts but you appear very dense on this issue.

Your links support my point. You’ve misinterpreted what the data means.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well I wasn’t talking about just forwards. Defenseman and goalies often take longer to develop so removing them from the equation will change the stats significantly.

Gee, that's funny. I could have sworn we were talking about Elias Lindholm... who is a forward.

The mental gymnastics you consistently perform to avoid confronting your own ignorance are pathetic.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Last thing I’ll say on this is that averages are just that. you’d think a stats guy like yourself might understand what averages really mean. If the average age to peak is 24 guess what? It likely means around half the ####ing players haven’t peaked by 24!

This is just... wrong. Like, basic, grade-school level math wrong. It could mean that literally all of the players peak at 24. It could mean that exactly 50% peak at 30 and exactly 50% peak at 18. But of course, none of that is true, as you would see if you'd opened the first link I posted, which examines dozens of individual player cases based on how old they were when they started and how much they score in each year of their career.

I'm assuming it was just too much for you, though, in which case the Tulsky graph someone else posted (which I presume they got from this article, yet another of the dozens of pieces written about forward aging curves that demonstrate you don't have the first clue what you're talking about) does the job just about as well.

So trying to tell me players don’t significantly improve after 23 is such clear and obvious bull####.

Again. Dunning-kruger. Look it up. Your posts are physically painful to read.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

It’s being analyzed because it’s already a sunk cost, and makes sense from both s financial and cap perspective... and he’s in charge of hockey decisions. The writer was simply speculating... there’s nothing concrete here to eliminate other possibilities. That’s the frustrating part.

I would think the owners might have been interested in a strategy of using inflation to their advantage... 1.9m annually in 7-8 years time is going to be a small fraction of the cap at a growth rate of 5+ percent, especially with new media contracts expected to increase growth rate of league revenue. If a buyout was not a option in comparison to keeping a Lucic cap hit on the books for 4 years at over 5M, I really have to ask why?

Trelving hinted sounds like a pretty good assumption that the ownership wasn't on board with a buy out to me.

I honestly don't think I'm making leaps here.

They wanted him gone
Owners didn't want to buy him out
That made taking a contract back that you can't buy out palpable.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Last thing I’ll say on this is that averages are just that. you’d think a stats guy like yourself might understand what averages really mean. If the average age to peak is 24 guess what? It likely means around half the ####ing players haven’t peaked by 24! So trying to tell me players don’t significantly improve after 23 is such clear and obvious bull####. I dare you to walk up to a real hockey ops person and try and tell them that!

You seem like you have some smarts but you appear very dense on this issue.

Your links support my point. You’ve misinterpreted what the data means.

I think knowing the mean as opposed to the average would be more telling.

But peaking shouldn’t just mean scoreboard production. I look at guys like Yzerman as an example. He became a more effective player later even if his production dropped a little.

[cupofjoe]

Originally Posted by GGG

Agreed,
Which is why I used words like suspect and likely represents rather than more definitive language.

Though I disagree that statistical theory is boring. It’s facisnating once you add human behaviour to what should be a simple math problem

I personally find stats and stats theory fascinating as well (it was my minor in university). I just didn't want to sidetrack this thread.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think knowing the mean as opposed to the average would be more telling.

But peaking shouldn’t just mean scoreboard production. I look at guys like Yzerman as an example. He became a more effective player later even if his production dropped a little.

Hence why I also posted a WAR analysis from hockey graphs. Want to see GAR? Shock of all shocks, the same plateau exists:



But we were just talking about Elias Lindholm, and his jump from being a mid-40 points scorer in Carolina to a 78 point scorer last year. The point is that that is very, very unusual for a guy his age, and even more so for a guy who's played as many seasons in the league as he has. It's an anomaly. So either he is an outlier and is one of the very few players who significantly improves as a player in his 5th (arguably 6th) full season in the league despite no obvious change in coaching or teammate quality, or something else is going on.

[SportsJunky]

Holy crankiness around here today.

[Hey Connor, It's Mess]

Does this trade move the needle enough in either direction to warrant the vitriol and anger about it? Seems like some people just want to use the trade to be bitter and argumentative for the sake of it.

[pokerNhockey]

for some reason it won't let me link quote, but replying to Matt Reeeed's post 2740..

It comes down to sink cost fallacy, imo. A quick present value analysis comparing the financials on a Neal buyout vs a Lucic acquisition favours the Neal buyout very comfortably unless Lucic can provide about 2.5m of on ice value per year for 4 years.

I think you comparing apples to oranges here. I think it is most reasonable to compare them equally


If both players play out the contract, the flames save $500k year relative to no trade.


By my Calculations (summarized below) if both get bought out next year the Flames have a net cost of $0.3mm over the life of the contract/buyout.

Depending on when you start it the cap has raised between 3.5%/yr if you start in 2013-14, down to 1.3% if you go just last year, and approximately 2.8% if you pick any year between that as your start date.

Because of Edmonton retaining salary, and including the $0.5mm the Flames save and Oilers add next year compared to no deal, if both get bought out next year, the total hit to both teams is approximately:

Lucic

• CGY: $14.0mm
• EDM: $2.1mm

Neal

• CGY: $0
• EDM: $12.0mm

NPV@1.3%

• CGY: $13.5mm
• EDM: $13.5mm

NPV@3.5%

• CGY: $12.9mm
• EDM: $12.6mm

The other thing that has to be considered is the Flames would "only" have a $0.5mm hit on the books for three years starting in 2023-24 when they have to start resigning Gaudreau, etc where as the Oilers will have $2mm in dead cap, and from everything I have seen teams don't want the long term hit (why a 2 yr buyout is more palpable then a 8 year one).

Considering the potential fit benefits, I would say Tre did very well on this one.

[pokerNhockey]

the sunk cost fallacy would be including last years cap hits, or pretending that you didn't pick up Lucic to get rid of Neal.