Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXX

[Edge]

Which was kind of my point. Strome was drafted at 5 and is serviceable NHL player, Zibenajad at 6 is a legit #1 center. Rangers ended up with both, lol, even though they drafted neither.

I think there's merit to both sides of the discussion.

I like my odds better of finding talent higher, even though there will still be some big misses.

However, as we've seen with Colorado and Edmonton, if you can't find talent outside of a top 10 pick, then "you goin' fail."

 

[I Eat Crow]

The top cream of this draft is 9 players deep.

Hughes
Kakko
Cozens
Dach
Byram
Podzolkin
Boldy
Turcotte
Zegras

The top 2 are in one tier. Cozens, Dach, Byram, Podzolkin in the next. The American trio in the third tier. I'd be very happy with any of these guys. After that things get dicey for me.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

I think there's merit to both sides of the discussion.

I like my odds better of finding talent higher, even though there will still be some big misses.

However, as we've seen with Colorado and Edmonton, if you can't find talent outside of a top 10 pick, then "you goin' fail."

Totally

 

[mrhockey193195]

While I think you make a good point, that is where things get a little bit more foggy to me.

I think the earlier picks would more than make up for them losing a little more now, hypothetically if they do end up with the 10th pick, had they ended up with the 4th if they used it to trade down to 10 they'd likely be getting a greater asset in that trade than they would by maybe taking lesser value on Hayes/Zucc where unless they were playing horribly I think the value in return is similar rental like value regardless, if traded one for one.

Good points. Let's play a hypothetical.

Scenario 1: today, where Hayes & Zucc are playing amazingly well and the Rangers are going to pick around 10th.
picks: 10, 20 (Hayes), 30 (Zucc), 40

Scenario 2: Hayes & Zucc stink it up, lower their trade value, but the Rangers are the bottom of the league.
picks: 3, 30 (Hayes), 33, 40 (Zucc)
and then, if you valued 3 as the same as 10 & 20
picks: 10, 20, 30 (Hayes), 33, 40 (Zucc)

So with ballpark figures and a boatload of assumptions, you're right: the tanking scenario is worth more by about a late 1st/early 2nd (pick 33 is the difference). I think the error bars of those assumptions are high enough to swing the balance either way though, but I'll concede that it looks more likely that tanking is favorable.

Call me old school, but I think the end-all-be-all for me is that I think tanking is bad for a team's culture and young player's development. Did the Devils have such a better scouting system than almost every other team that the got top players with later picks (Elias, Sykora, Gomez, Parise), or was it because those players hit their full potential playing on winning teams and spending their young years isolated from the biggest responsibilities? On the flip side - were RNH, Poolparty, Yakupov all much worse than we all expected, or maybe they didn't hit their full potential because that team was a dumpster fire with (according to Andrew Ference) players who shamed teammates for working too hard in practice (yes, an extreme and a strawman - but I'm on a roll here, cut me some slack! )?

 

[Edge]

I’d kill for a top - 4 pick this yr

Definitely depends on the draft when it comes to picks.

Generally speaking, high picks are like any other tool with which you hope to build something.

In the hands of someone competent, the end result can be amazing.

In the hands of an idiot, the end result can be a dumpster fire.

 

[duhmetreE]

We will get Hughes or Kakko... I'm feeling it... can almost taste it

 

[Off Sides]

Good points. Let's play a hypothetical.

Scenario 1: today, where Hayes & Zucc are playing amazingly well and the Rangers are going to pick around 10th.
picks: 10, 20 (Hayes), 30 (Zucc), 40

Scenario 2: Hayes & Zucc stink it up, lower their trade value, but the Rangers are the bottom of the league.
picks: 3, 30 (Hayes), 33, 40 (Zucc)
and then, if you valued 3 as the same as 10 & 20
picks: 10, 20, 30 (Hayes), 33, 40 (Zucc)

So with ballpark figures and a boatload of assumptions, you're right: the tanking scenario is worth about a late 1st/early 2nd. I think the error bars of those assumptions are high enough to swing the balance either way though, but I'll concede that it looks more likely that tanking is favorable.

Call me old school, but I think the end-all-be-all for me is that I think tanking is bad for a team's culture and young player's development. Did the Devils have such a better scouting system than almost every other team that the got top players with later picks (Elias, Sykora, Gomez, Parise), or was it because those players hit their full potential playing on winning teams and spending their young years isolated from the biggest responsibilities? On the flip side - were RNH, Poolparty, Yakupov all much worse than we all expected, or maybe they didn't hit their full potential because that team was a dumpster fire with (according to Andrew Ference) players who shamed teammates for working too hard in practice (yes, an extreme and a strawman - but I'm on a roll here, cut me some slack! )?

I am old school as well, and I do appreciate the idea that culture and atmosphere are needed things, I just kind of think that the stockpiling, the more talent the better is sort of step one, where the last step is having those players you previously stockpiled being the players who are looked at to provide the culture, atmosphere.

I guess in my take, I think the in between those two things the team could get by with lesser, cheaper, shorter term players to both provide and guide and while it may not be a winning atmosphere per se, that does not mean it has to be a bad developmental atmosphere.

 

[mrhockey193195]

I am old school as well, and I do appreciate the idea that culture and atmosphere are needed things, I just kind of think that the stockpiling, the more talent the better is sort of step one, where the last step is having those players you previously stockpiled being the players who are looked at to provide the culture, atmosphere.

I guess in my take, I think the in between those two things the team could get by with lesser, cheaper, shorter term players to both provide and guide and while it may not be a winning atmosphere per se, that does not mean it has to be a bad developmental atmosphere.

Yeah, I agree with that. It's conjecture, and impossible to prove.The Pens stunk Crosby's first year, but he had Recchi, LeClair, and of course Mario by his side as leadership. How influential was that on his development? Who knows. He's probably a HOFer even if he grows up on today's Oilers (see: McDavid), but maybe that little bit helped him become a top-15 player of all time.

Maybe it isn't winning per sé, but it's having a locker room with at least a few veterans who can impart the attitude that losing is not okay.

 

[Off Sides]

Yeah, I agree with that. It's conjecture, and impossible to prove.The Pens stunk Crosby's first year, but he had Recchi, LeClair, and of course Mario by his side as leadership. How influential was that on his development? Who knows. He's probably a HOFer even if he grows up on today's Oilers (see: McDavid), but maybe that little bit helped him become a top-15 player of all time.

Maybe it isn't winning per sé, but it's having a locker room with at least a few veterans who can impart the attitude that losing is not okay.

All true,

There is obviously a balance that needs to be maintained, and no matter what the coach and team should be looking to win. It's more in my opinion on the GM to set the roster towards what his long term goals are.

Then of course that goes into a hundred other things, like if the deals are not there they are not, how much of a hair cut can they take, what if the players who would provide development to the youth are not available or do not want to sign with your team... All the same I think the GM just sticking to one direction is probably the key, at least until that direction either hopelessly fails or until it achieves.

Also thanks for showing my how to type per sé properly.

 

[duhmetreE]

Yeah, I agree with that. It's conjecture, and impossible to prove.The Pens stunk Crosby's first year, but he had Recchi, LeClair, and of course Mario by his side as leadership. How influential was that on his development? Who knows. He's probably a HOFer even if he grows up on today's Oilers (see: McDavid), but maybe that little bit helped him become a top-15 player of all time.

Maybe it isn't winning per sé, but it's having a locker room with at least a few veterans who can impart the attitude that losing is not okay.

Just put it into relatable terms.

In your line of work, did you join a team of rookies/newbies? Or was there a veteran presence? A good veteran presence is often overlooked and is the difference between winning/succeeding and losing/failing IMO.

Having veterans that are actually good players? That's something we should keep for a young team

 

[mrhockey193195]

All true,

There is obviously a balance that needs to be maintained, and no matter what the coach and team should be looking to win. It's more in my opinion on the GM to set the roster towards what his long term goals are.

Then of course that goes into a hundred other things, like if the deals are not there they are not, how much of a hair cut can they take, what if the players who would provide development to the youth are not available or do not want to sign with your team... All the same I think the GM just sticking to one direction is probably the key, at least until that direction either hopelessly fails or until it achieves.

Also thanks for showing my how to type per sé properly.

Hah! I should just retire from HF, I think that's probably the most value I'll ever impart.

Here's the thing with this season - I think having Zucc, Hayes, Kreider, McQuaid, obviously Hank, etc. has been important for Chytil (who, despite so many on these boards giving up on before he turns 20, I still think can be our future #1 C), Howden, ADA, Buchnevich, Nieves, etc. And if you have those guys on your team, you're not going to be 31st in the league. So I look at our season and say, I'm happy with what's happening. We'll pick 10th, which I don't mind. We'll get a handful of 1st/2nd round picks, which I think is incredibly important - more shots at drafting an impact player or two. Had everything fallen into place (out of place?) and we stunk with that roster and got a top 5 pick, sure, great, but I wasn't counting on that and don't mind that it didn't happen. I also will likely never be comfortable watching a Rangers game, no matter the standings, and rooting for them to lose.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I’ve been gone all day and nothing has happened.

Shocker

 

[mrhockey193195]

Just put it into relatable terms.

In your line of work, did you join a team of rookies/newbies? Or was there a veteran presence? A good veteran presence is often overlooked and is the difference between winning/succeeding and losing/failing IMO.

Having veterans that are actually good players? That's something we should keep for a young team

It's true in every single line of work. Why it is neglected by some as a factor in pro sports is confusing to me. Look, I love playing Eastside Hockey Manager as much as anyone (FWIW I've been playing for 17 years since the freeware came out ), but in real life players aren't objects defined by numerical attributes. We make fun of the term "intangibles", and sometimes rightfully so because they get overvalued in many cases, but chemistry, leadership, mentorship are all legitimate and important factors in a locker room and in a young player's development.

 

[effen]

I’ve been gone all day and nothing has happened.

Shocker

we've gone in circles a few more times D:

 

[FIRE DRURY]

we've gone in circles a few more times D:

We’re going in triangles now.

 

[duhmetreE]

We’re going in triangles now.

Because some people here are obtuse

sorry trying to be acute, I know I'm right though

 

[Thirty One]

Because some people here are obtuse

sorry trying to be acute, I know I'm right though

 

[Kovalev27]

Gorton is running out of time. He’s got at least two big deals to consummate. I was hoping a third.

And he’s got to unload namestnikov and McQuaid

AT LEAST

And he’s now got less than 4 days to do it he’s going to run out of time again like he did at last year’s deadline

 

[JimmyG89]

In what world does he NEED to unload Namestnikov? He could deal him. He has another year. It's all about the UFAs. That's it. Anything else could be done before 7/1 or before the draft.

 

[Kovalev27]

In what world does he NEED to unload Namestnikov? He could deal him. He has another year. It's all about the UFAs. That's it. Anything else could be done before 7/1 or before the draft.

He makes 4 million dollars. We need that money if we are going after guys. Like Panarin. Trade him should have done it before we gave him that contract.

 

[E-Train]

And he’s now got less than 4 days to do it he’s going to run out of time again like he did at last year’s deadline

You need to file this gripe with “Pierre Dorrian”.

 

[JimmyG89]

If that's the case, we need to trade Strome too. There won't be enough teams interested in those guys. I really doubt there is a market for Names at this point. At the draft? I can see there being movement.

 

[duhmetreE]

Shatty @ 3.325 and Pionk for Zaitsev, Horton and Liljegren

?

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Shatty @ 3.325 and Pionk for Zaitsev, Horton and Liljegren

?

Gonna need way more back if we’re taking Zaitsev and Horton

 

[17futurecap]

If that's the case, we need to trade Strome too. There won't be enough teams interested in those guys. I really doubt there is a market for Names at this point. At the draft? I can see there being movement.

Just buyout Strome this summer, the penalty is minimal.

433,333 against the cap next year
533,333 the following year