2017/2018 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Saying it’s 50/50 is just as arbitrary though. The fact there are two outcomes doesn’t make it a coin flip. It comes down to the probability of either scenario for which we don’t know anything

I apologize but this post makes no sense. There are two outcomes both of which have no greater probability of occuring than the other. Calling it 50/50 is giving equal probability to both as there is no further information to bump one ahead of the other. Arbitrary or not, that's where it stands. So why am I defending what should be the most logical observation in this whole conversation?

I'm not bashing being critical of anyone who think otherwise. Just saying what my perception is. It's neither for or against the player, it's not driven by a desire to want the player traded. It's just where the truth lies at this point with what we know. Everything else is subjective.

If we want to dive into why I THINK Fox is one of the most easily tradeable assets the Flames have then we can go there. But to debate over a 50/50 call is just plain weird.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I apologize but this post makes no sense. There are two outcomes both of which have no greater probability of occuring than the other.

Not trying to be argumentative but no this makes no sense
Historically few college players don’t sign
So one outcome is significantly more likely than the other
Based on past information it is more likely that he signs. The Vesey and Wheelers are the exceptions not the norm

[jammies]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I apologize but this post makes no sense. There are two outcomes both of which have no greater probability of occuring than the other. Calling it 50/50 is giving equal probability to both as there is no further information to bump one ahead of the other. Arbitrary or not, that's where it stands. So why am I defending what should be the most logical observation in this whole conversation?

I'm not bashing being critical of anyone who think otherwise. Just saying what my perception is. It's neither for or against the player, it's not driven by a desire to want the player traded. It's just where the truth lies at this point with what we know. Everything else is subjective.

If we want to dive into why I THINK Fox is one of the most easily tradeable assets the Flames have then we can go there. But to debate over a 50/50 call is just plain weird.

Either you are Batman, or you aren't Batman. Therefore it's a 50% chance you're Batman. That's the logic you are using.

And before you claim that's not the logic you're using, you have to show that it's actually been a 50% chance over time in similar situations that the outcome you are postulating happens. Which it doesn't. So stop saying it's a 50% chance, because it just isn't. Two possible ultimate results to a question don't make each equally probable.

[sempuki]

Man... humans are not really built to understand statistics, it's quite apparent.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Still 50/50. I don't understand how the time when he signs with the Flames if at all makes any difference. It's either or.

That's the point. It's not 50/50 either just because there are two choices.

[Zevo]

Well that sucks dammage79, that means there's a 50/50 chance the next big school shooting in N.A. is in Canada. Fingers crossed!

[TheScorpion]

So Mexico and Cuba are no more?

[Calgary4LIfe]

Unable to quote...


I hate to say it, but I am with Dammage on this one. There is a substantial risk that Fox doesn't sign with the Flames.



Players leave money on the table every single year around the league by signing NMCs/NTCs. It isn't a reach to think that a player may return to the NCAA - in the best school in the NCAA to boot - and then become a free agent where he can then sign with any team he wishes to. He is from the NY area.



How great is that risk? "Substantial" is my answer. Not sure if it is 50/50, but it is substantial nonetheless. Sure, him coming to all the Flames' camps and saying nice things about the city and the fans are great. So did Justin Schultz in Anaheim before he suddenly did a 180. The GM was shocked at the time, as Schultz told him how excited he was to play in Anaheim.



Just look at Hickey last year with the Flames. Way less hype around him as a prospect, but you can be sure he told the Flames he isn't signing with them, or gave them enough reason to reach that conclusion. Remember Treliving stating: "look for an announcement on the Hickey signing soon"... only to be followed by a couple weeks of silence, and then an announcement of Hickey returning to school. Treliving then traded him away in a package for Smith.


I like Fox as a prospect, and think he may end up becoming a very dynamic player in the NHL. I think he will be looked at as one of the team's best and most skilled players.



On the right side you have:

Hamilton
Hamonic
Stone
Andersson
Fox


If I am Fox, I am looking at a pretty solid depth chart. Sure, the Flames are likely to trade Stone in the next year or two, but that still leaves quite the depth there. He may not even be leaving any money on the table by returning to Harvard, as he may think he is NHL-ready now and will sign with a team that has a lot less depth. Sure, his contract will be delayed, but his 2nd contract should pay him a lot more (assuming he does well). I don't think that he gets a sniff on the Flames for at least a couple of seasons once signing with them, barring injuries.



A lot can happen and a lot can change between now and then, so who knows. However, anyone discounting the chances of him snubbing the Flames as nothing to worry about hasn't really been paying attention to the whole picture. Nobody - except Fox - really knows one way or the other, but in today's NCAA world, it sure is a heck of a lot easier to snub your drafting team than it was 10 years ago.

[Caboose]

I just watched AC's video of Gaudreau highlights at the World Championships. Now, I understand not wanting to trade a promising defensive prospect for "only" a 20 goal, 50-ish point winger, but to those that are skeptical of Hayes, please take a look at that highlight video. It's pretty clear to me that the chemistry still exists and Hayes, and possibly even Johnny could benefit from it. Hayes is a big fellow with some hands in tight, and yes, while that may sound a lot like Ferland, I'm personally sold on the history between the two college buddies and the possibility of an acquisition cost that may be a prospect from our deepest position.

Count me in on Hayes. Feel free to disagree, but I could certainly see a strong chance of this being a smart, relatively low cost move.

And for those drooling over UFAs or the like, Hayes has very similar numbers to James Neal and is only 26, and is a natural centre, AND has been noted to have excellent defensive play against other teams top lines. To me, that would be a boon as well, as one of Ferland's issues in my opinion is less than stellar defensive play. A defensively minded winger that can still pot the points on that top line would help bolster an already terrific duo, and have the trickle down we all want for the rest of the lines.

Again, you're allowed to disagree. I'm not a GM or even necessarily a well informed fan. But I for one certainly hope that Treliving has worked the phone lines on this one and may be able to swing a reasonably inexpensive deal for Hayes.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Caboose

I just watched AC's video of Gaudreau highlights at the World Championships. Now, I understand not wanting to trade a promising defensive prospect for "only" a 20 goal, 50-ish point winger, but to those that are skeptical of Hayes, please take a look at that highlight video. It's pretty clear to me that the chemistry still exists and Hayes, and possibly even Johnny could benefit from it. Hayes is a big fellow with some hands in tight, and yes, while that may sound a lot like Ferland, I'm personally sold on the history between the two college buddies and the possibility of an acquisition cost that may be a prospect from our deepest position.

Count me in on Hayes. Feel free to disagree, but I could certainly see a strong chance of this being a smart, relatively low cost move.

And for those drooling over UFAs or the like, Hayes has very similar numbers to James Neal and is only 26, and is a natural centre, AND has been noted to have excellent defensive play against other teams top lines. To me, that would be a boon as well, as one of Ferland's issues in my opinion is less than stellar defensive play. A defensively minded winger that can still pot the points on that top line would help bolster an already terrific duo, and have the trickle down we all want for the rest of the lines.

Again, you're allowed to disagree. I'm not a GM or even necessarily a well informed fan. But I for one certainly hope that Treliving has worked the phone lines on this one and may be able to swing a reasonably inexpensive deal for Hayes.

I don't argue that Hayes is better defensively than Ferland, but Ferland is VERY sound defensively. I remember two blips last year where people started sounding off on him and 'sucking defensively', but Ferland I argue is actually really good defensively.


I just don't get why this board is so low on a guy who does everything so well. It isn't a fluke that he scored 20 goals. I think 30 goals isn't out of reach for him. He is defensively sound, he has great speed, he is good in front of the net and devastating in the corners, he can fight, he can score, he can make plays....


Ferland is 100% perfect for that line with Gaudreau and Monahan. Flames need to find another winger with Bennett and Jankowski. That's the issue. Heck, all the Flames really need to do is move Tkachuk to that Bennett-Jankowski line and have someone like Lazar with Backlund and Frolik.



Ferland is a solid 200ft player. He doesn't have many weaknesses in his game. He is just so underrated here for some reason.

[Caboose]

Honestly, I'm a pretty big fan of Ferland. I loved the fact that he came out this year and used that laser shot and potted as many goals as he did. He does have great talent and seems to fit on that top line, but it's hard to argue against the fact that he occasionally just goes completely cold and stops scoring. Now, I'm not expecting the guy to get 50, but for him to be accepted (on this site at least) as a top line winger, he needs to even out his play and show that he can stay useful during the cold streaks.

But despite my previous post, I'm okay with him up there as well. I was mostly just pointing to Hayes as a possible target and outlining why he'd be a good fit. Ferland on the second line and bumping Frolik down to third, and so on would be ideal to me. Or even Hayes on second. Whatever works.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by sempuki

Man... humans are not really built to understand statistics, it's quite apparent.

50/50, some understand stats and some do not.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Caboose

Honestly, I'm a pretty big fan of Ferland. I loved the fact that he came out this year and used that laser shot and potted as many goals as he did. He does have great talent and seems to fit on that top line, but it's hard to argue against the fact that he occasionally just goes completely cold and stops scoring. Now, I'm not expecting the guy to get 50, but for him to be accepted (on this site at least) as a top line winger, he needs to even out his play and show that he can stay useful during the cold streaks.

But despite my previous post, I'm okay with him up there as well. I was mostly just pointing to Hayes as a possible target and outlining why he'd be a good fit. Ferland on the second line and bumping Frolik down to third, and so on would be ideal to me. Or even Hayes on second. Whatever works.

Funny... you are the only poster I am able to quote presently - all my other posts today turn up blank when I quote.


I do agree that Hayes is a decent target for the Flames, though I do think that he would be more costly than anticipated to acquire. To me it makes no difference if Ferland is playing top line or 2nd line, and I also agree that Frolik needs to be pushed down to the 3rd. A top 6 RW'er would definitely be an asset to this team, but I am also fine with no acquisition.


Gaudreau - Monahan - Ferland
Tkachuk - Bennett/Jankowski - Bennett/Jankowski

Frolik - Backlund - Foo/Mangiapane/Lazar


I think that is a good enough lineup. My only concern is if a prolonged injury or two hit the Flames, and Dube, Klimchuk and a few others aren't ready for a long stay, but that is the problem with any team really.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The Flames don't need a 50 pt winger?

They had 1 last year. MT would have been 2 without his injury.

If there is a single thing the Flames need more than anything...its a scoring winger and particularly one that can play with Gaudreau.

Strange take.

First off Kevin Hayes is not a 50 point winger, he is a 40 point winger.
Nope, they need a 70 point winger. If GG doesn't have his mismanagement Ferland probably betters his 41 points. Frolik had a bad year, otherwise he is around a 40 point winger. Tkachuk easily is a 40+ point winger when healthy. If Bennett had better linemates and more ice time he is a 40 point winger with the upside to be much better. The Flames don't need another 40-50 point winger, especially for a high price

[H2SO4(aq)]

All the people piling on damage must have misread his post. He isn’t saying it’s 50/50 because only two outcomes exist. He’s saying it’s 50/50 because in his opinion there’s a 50% chance Fox signs.

Personally I disagree, I think the chance he signs would be roughly 80%, but again that’s a loose guess. Jiri wants to point to past college prospects as a baseline on percentage. And while that is valid to an extent, is neglects the fact that “high profile” college prospects have a greater risk of becoming free agents than lesser known players. For that reason I don’t believe damage is being obtuse by saying the odds are probably 50%. It’s a reasonable assumption. And all you guys piling on with your “funny” drive by 50/50 jokes are petty.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

All the people piling on damage must have misread his post. He isn’t saying it’s 50/50 because only two outcomes exist. He’s saying it’s 50/50 because in his opinion there’s a 50% chance Fox signs.

Personally I disagree, I think the chance he signs would be roughly 80%, but again that’s a loose guess. Jiri wants to point to past college prospects as a baseline on percentage. And while that is valid to an extent, is neglects the fact that “high profile” college prospects have a greater risk of becoming free agents than lesser known players. For that reason I don’t believe damage is being obtuse by saying the odds are probably 50%. It’s a reasonable assumption. And all you guys piling on with your “funny” drive by 50/50 jokes are petty.

Higher profile college prospects are highly unlikely to wait the 4+ years required to become UFA's, so I disagree with that statement. It's those late bloomers that need the 4 years in college to develop that sometimes decide they might as well test the waters.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I apologize but this post makes no sense. There are two outcomes both of which have no greater probability of occuring than the other. Calling it 50/50 is giving equal probability to both as there is no further information to bump one ahead of the other. Arbitrary or not, that's where it stands. So why am I defending what should be the most logical observation in this whole conversation?



I'm not bashing being critical of anyone who think otherwise. Just saying what my perception is. It's neither for or against the player, it's not driven by a desire to want the player traded. It's just where the truth lies at this point with what we know. Everything else is subjective.



If we want to dive into why I THINK Fox is one of the most easily tradeable assets the Flames have then we can go there. But to debate over a 50/50 call is just plain weird.

It’s not 50/50 though. When you go on an airplane, do you have a 50/50 chance of crashing? Either you do or you don’t? No, you have a 1/11,000,000 chance of crashing.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

First off Kevin Hayes is not a 50 point winger, he is a 40 point winger.
Nope, they need a 70 point winger. If GG doesn't have his mismanagement Ferland probably betters his 41 points. Frolik had a bad year, otherwise he is around a 40 point winger. Tkachuk easily is a 40+ point winger when healthy. If Bennett had better linemates and more ice time he is a 40 point winger with the upside to be much better. The Flames don't need another 40-50 point winger, especially for a high price

Just for the sake of nitpicking, Hayes is actually a 45 point winger.

Aside from that, only 4 forwards on the Flames scored more than Hayes last season. Only 3 outscored him the year before.

Beggars can’t be choosers, and the Flames *absolutely* need another guy who is good for 40+ points easy. Sure, a 70 point forward would be even better, mostly because we’ve only seen 2 different 70+ point guys since Jarome (and only witnessed that point total 3 times since before he left).

You can say “if this and that and this other thing happens then we’ve got all of these 40 point forwards” but, sorry, that’s not the way it works. Some guys may excel under Peters, others will drop off. No sense in counting your 40 point chickens before they hatch.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Higher profile college prospects are highly unlikely to wait the 4+ years required to become UFA's, so I disagree with that statement. It's those late bloomers that need the 4 years in college to develop that sometimes decide they might as well test the waters.

And that’s totally fair. My objection is mostly to the mob mentality of this forum and how people have piled on damage, while misrepresenting his words, to discredit his argument. I don’t necessarily agree with him either, but I take issue with the people who misinterpret his point to make petty jokes at his expense.

[Jiri Hrdina]

He said 50 50 based on an assumptions that there is no information to say that either outcome is more likely. And that’s not true.
Anyways moving on