GDT: Canucks at Flyers, damn early Oct 15

This forum is to discuss game day happenings. New threads will be posted for each game.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
MVP
MVP
Posts: 31126
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: GDT: Canucks at Flyers, damn early Oct 15

Post by Blob Mckenzie »

Cousin Strawberry wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 3:40 pm If they did move Pettersson, the haul would be yuge. Think Dobson and Barzal coming back YUGE

It's an interesting concept. Pettersson definitely is our best forward but...he happens to be in an asset pool that we could conceivably draw from to land that coveted top pairing righty plus replace 75% of him in Barzal
Sorry that wouldn’t be the return. Unless you were including Hughes or Podkolzin.

Lotsa people smoking rock out there I see.
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
User avatar
Cousin Strawberry
MVP
MVP
Posts: 26169
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: GDT: Canucks at Flyers, damn early Oct 15

Post by Cousin Strawberry »

Blob Mckenzie wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 3:49 pm.

Lotsa people smoking rock out there I see.
Blobby you need to swim in larger circles...those inner ring tweakers have reddened your third eye
If you need air...call it in
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
MVP
MVP
Posts: 31126
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: GDT: Canucks at Flyers, damn early Oct 15

Post by Blob Mckenzie »

My apologies. For some reason I thought there might be a shred of reality in a trade proposal here.
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
User avatar
Chef Boi RD
MVP
MVP
Posts: 28935
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: GDT: Canucks at Flyers, damn early Oct 15

Post by Chef Boi RD »

You trade Horvat before you trade one of Pettersson or Miller bottom line. Case closed
“Tyler Myers is my guy... I was taking to Scotty Bowman last night and he was bringing up his name, and saying he’s a big guy and big guy need big minutes to play, he is playing great for ya… and I agree with him… He’s been exceptional” - Bruce Boudreau
User avatar
Meds
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13355
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: GDT: Canucks at Flyers, damn early Oct 15

Post by Meds »

Cousin Strawberry wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 1:45 pm
Mëds wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 1:32 pm
Chef Boi RD wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 10:25 am The right D is a problem, Donny for sure, no if ands or buts. The only issue with moving out Horvat is the organization lacks Center depth after the top 3. Very top heavy. Will have to start adding centre depth in the pipeline quickly, but it’s a conundrum for sure because I’m not a fan of spending that much money on 3 centres when you have big holes on defence
This is especially true considering how useless Pettersson is at faceoffs.
:lol:

Not this again
You deny that he's piss poor in the circle? That's all I'm saying.
User avatar
Meds
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13355
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: GDT: Canucks at Flyers, damn early Oct 15

Post by Meds »

Chef Boi RD wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 1:57 pm
Mëds wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 1:32 pm
Chef Boi RD wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 10:25 am The right D is a problem, Donny for sure, no if ands or buts. The only issue with moving out Horvat is the organization lacks Center depth after the top 3. Very top heavy. Will have to start adding centre depth in the pipeline quickly, but it’s a conundrum for sure because I’m not a fan of spending that much money on 3 centres when you have big holes on defence
This is especially true considering how useless Pettersson is at faceoffs.
Only you Mëds are choosing the lower skilled centre over our most skilled forward.
Who said that? I just said that Petey is useless at faceoffs, thereby implying that the loss of Horvat would expose that.

I'm definitely not keeping Bo over Pettersson right now.
User avatar
Meds
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13355
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: GDT: Canucks at Flyers, damn early Oct 15

Post by Meds »

Cousin Strawberry wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 3:40 pm If they did move Pettersson, the haul would be yuge. Think Dobson and Barzal coming back YUGE

It's an interesting concept. Pettersson definitely is our best forward but...he happens to be in an asset pool that we could conceivably draw from to land that coveted top pairing righty plus replace 75% of him in Barzal
Barzal just signed a stupidly overpriced contract. He has yet to replicate his rookie numbers and his AAV is now north of $9M. He produces less than Pettersson and makes nearly $2M more.....and he's signed for 8 years.

I'm not saying trade Pettersson, but I will say that one has to face the fact that he is in his 5th pro season and he has yet to show us that he's a gamebreaker, and as has been pointed out already this year, he can't hit the broadside of a barn some days.

Again, don't trade him. I'm curious to see how a 2nd line of Mikheyev - Pettersson - Kuzmenko looks, and perhaps even see Podkolzin there too.

Right now (a whopping 2 games in) I'm trading either or both of Horvat and Miller before I move Pettersson.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 18171
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: GDT: Canucks at Flyers, damn early Oct 15

Post by Topper »

How much extra to get the isles to toss in an iron lung for Bo?
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
Ronning's Ghost
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:25 pm
Location: New Westminster

Re: GDT: Canucks at Flyers, damn early Oct 15

Post by Ronning's Ghost »

Chef Boi RD wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 9:11 am Do you think it’s wise to tie up big money in 3 Centermen? Two, yes but paying the big bucks to your 3C is that smart dispersal of cap money? Especially considering the depth issues we have on defence.
I have always been interested in the theory of optimized cap distribution in the abstract. In a hypothetical league wherein any level of talent could be matched to a fair market cap hit, what proportion of the cap do you think should go to each of:

#1 C
#2 C
#3 C
#4 C

?
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: GDT: Canucks at Flyers, damn early Oct 15

Post by Per »

donlever wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 1:54 pm Mëds should review Docs naked Salming pics.

He'd have a better appreciation for Swedes.
Would that be Börje or Bianca? :|

Image
Image
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Chef Boi RD
MVP
MVP
Posts: 28935
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: GDT: Canucks at Flyers, damn early Oct 15

Post by Chef Boi RD »

Blob Mckenzie wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 3:49 pm
Cousin Strawberry wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 3:40 pm If they did move Pettersson, the haul would be yuge. Think Dobson and Barzal coming back YUGE

It's an interesting concept. Pettersson definitely is our best forward but...he happens to be in an asset pool that we could conceivably draw from to land that coveted top pairing righty plus replace 75% of him in Barzal
Sorry that wouldn’t be the return. Unless you were including Hughes or Podkolzin.

Lotsa people smoking rock out there I see.
The funny part about what you said we should add is that Petterson is better than any of those two and as well as Hughes is better than any of those two so in the end your Isles rape the Canucks with your proposal.

BenningBuilt
“Tyler Myers is my guy... I was taking to Scotty Bowman last night and he was bringing up his name, and saying he’s a big guy and big guy need big minutes to play, he is playing great for ya… and I agree with him… He’s been exceptional” - Bruce Boudreau
User avatar
Chef Boi RD
MVP
MVP
Posts: 28935
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: GDT: Canucks at Flyers, damn early Oct 15

Post by Chef Boi RD »

Ronning's Ghost wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 8:52 pm
Chef Boi RD wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 9:11 am Do you think it’s wise to tie up big money in 3 Centermen? Two, yes but paying the big bucks to your 3C is that smart dispersal of cap money? Especially considering the depth issues we have on defence.
I have always been interested in the theory of optimized cap distribution in the abstract. In a hypothetical league wherein any level of talent could be matched to a fair market cap hit, what proportion of the cap do you think should go to each of:

#1 C
#2 C
#3 C
#4 C

?
Well 1C and 2C I’d set aside a lot of dough for those two iloirysgt spots if you are lucky enough to have two legitimate top 2 centres in which I believe we do in Pettersson and Miller and I’d drop that percentage of cap considerably for the 3C like Nuge money area between $5 and $5.5 million max. $4.5 million ideally. This is why Horvat will be a tough signing. 4C I’d earmark $1.5 to $2.5 for.
“Tyler Myers is my guy... I was taking to Scotty Bowman last night and he was bringing up his name, and saying he’s a big guy and big guy need big minutes to play, he is playing great for ya… and I agree with him… He’s been exceptional” - Bruce Boudreau
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
MVP
MVP
Posts: 31126
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: GDT: Canucks at Flyers, damn early Oct 15

Post by Blob Mckenzie »

Chef Boi RD wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 2:10 pm
Blob Mckenzie wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 3:49 pm
Cousin Strawberry wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 3:40 pm If they did move Pettersson, the haul would be yuge. Think Dobson and Barzal coming back YUGE

It's an interesting concept. Pettersson definitely is our best forward but...he happens to be in an asset pool that we could conceivably draw from to land that coveted top pairing righty plus replace 75% of him in Barzal
Sorry that wouldn’t be the return. Unless you were including Hughes or Podkolzin.

Lotsa people smoking rock out there I see.
The funny part about what you said we should add is that Petterson is better than any of those two and as well as Hughes is better than any of those two so in the end your Isles rape the Canucks with your proposal.

BenningBuilt
No idea what you’re yammering about. If you think Petey returns Barzal and Dobson, you’re as dumb ass bag of hammers.
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
User avatar
5thhorseman
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:04 am

Re: GDT: Canucks at Flyers, damn early Oct 15

Post by 5thhorseman »

Ronning's Ghost wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 8:52 pm I have always been interested in the theory of optimized cap distribution in the abstract. In a hypothetical league wherein any level of talent could be matched to a fair market cap hit, what proportion of the cap do you think should go to each of:

#1 C
#2 C
#3 C
#4 C

?
You describe an assumption where every contract is fair value, and presumably value correlates 100% with performance. Putting aside other intangibles such as how well players gel with one another, any allocation will do. The total value (performance) will always be the same. No-one has an edge.

But the assumption is flawed. Contending teams have players on ELCs or on hometown discounts, which by definition are not fair value. Or sign players who outperform their contracts. Therein lies the edge, not in allocation of cap to fair value contracts.

Unless I misunderstood your problem statement.
Ronning's Ghost
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:25 pm
Location: New Westminster

Re: GDT: Canucks at Flyers, damn early Oct 15

Post by Ronning's Ghost »

5thhorseman wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:52 pm
Ronning's Ghost wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 8:52 pm I have always been interested in the theory of optimized cap distribution in the abstract. In a hypothetical league wherein any level of talent could be matched to a fair market cap hit, what proportion of the cap do you think should go to each of:

#1 C
#2 C
#3 C
#4 C

?
You describe an assumption where every contract is fair value, and presumably value correlates 100% with performance. Putting aside other intangibles such as how well players gel with one another, any allocation will do. The total value (performance) will always be the same. No-one has an edge.

Unless I misunderstood your problem statement.
It seems to me like you understood where I was going generally, but it appears that I didn't explain what I meant by 'any level of talent at fair market cap hit' clearly.

I meant that every level of talent was available: If the GM wanted to spend on McDavid level talent, he could get that, but if he preferred a Trocheck level of talent, that was available, too. And those contracts were at the going rate in the current NHL market for that kind of player (so not an ELC, or a hometown discount, or a pleasant surprise on a late bloomer), and the players were playing up to the expectations of their contracts, with the value GMs place on intangibles at contract time correctly accounted for, too. But in the NHL market, GMs have to pay different amounts per point (or per Corsi For, SV%, leadership value, or whatever other performance characteristics interest him) at different points of the talent scale, as well as different amounts for different types of contributions (offence, defence, toughness, etc.)

I didn't mean for that to imply that contract value would correlate 100% with performance in the sense of contribution to team success per dollar, since I don't think anyone knows -- quantitatively, anyway -- exactly what that is, either on an individual or team basis, and that is the effect I was trying to explore. That is, how should a GM balance out his roster? So, for example, knowing exactly what fairly-paid high-scoring wingers go for, how many do you want at each scoring level, and at what part of your lineup would you rather start spending on other types of contributions from your wingers, instead? The implication being that if he had too many, or not enough, a smart GM would trade from some part of his lineup to derive the optimal balance. To choose perhaps the most obvious example, no GM would appear to believe that it is worth spending as much on his team's back-up goalie as their starting goalie.

We discuss this sort of thing here in the specific all the time, in the sense of the Canucks should trade from this point of strength to shore up this weakness (largely forwards for D, in the current roster composition), but I was trying to get a sense of the ideal blueprint to which posters were striving.
5thhorseman wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:52 pm
But the assumption is flawed. Contending teams have players on ELCs or on hometown discounts, which by definition are not fair value. Or sign players who outperform their contracts. Therein lies the edge, not in allocation of cap to fair value contracts.
It is, of course, true that this league of all fair value contracts does not exist. It is a hypothetical I described (or attempted to) for the sake of a thought experiment.

But do you believe this deviation from fair market value is the principle edge a GM can obtain in team composition? Performance above fair market value?

I suppose part of the premise of my question is that team balance is also a significant factor, but maybe it just isn't.
Post Reply