Player Discussion Vitali Kravtsov - Signed 2-Year Deal with Traktor Chelyabinsk

[credulous]

If you draft Pavelski and sign him, you have one less spot to sign a UFA.

There are only X number of prospects under contract an organization will have at any given time and whether you fill up the last few of those spots with signed late round picks or signed UFA prospects or a mix of both is just totally irrelevant and there will be no meaningful difference in the results.

And again, using a guy drafted in 2003 to show what you might be missing is a bit disingenuous.

you can use devon levi or dustin wolf or jusso parssinen or rafael harvey-pinard or aiden mcdonough if you want. i'd take any of those players over max sasson or cole mcward

the point is there's no reason not to use a 7th to take a flyer on a high upside player and sign them if and only if they look promising. it costs you nothing if they are a typical 7th rounder and don't amount to anything

 

[MS]

you can use devon levi or dustin wolf or jusso parssinen or rafael harvey-pinard or aiden mcdonough if you want. i'd take any of those players over max sasson or cole mcward

the point is there's no reason not to use a 7th to take a flyer on a high upside player and sign them if and only if they look promising. it costs you nothing if they are a typical 7th rounder and don't amount to anything

And I'd take Andrei Kuzmenko, Akiro Hirose, Nils Aman, and Arshdeep Bains over Karel Plasek, Petrus Palmu, and Mackenze Stewart.

Again : there is a limited number of contract spots that any team will be allocating to prospects, and that number is even more limited once you remove high draft picks. Whether you use your late round picks and only sign the best ones or whether you only sign UFA prospects or whether you have a mix is just totally irrelevant. You aren't getting a competitive advantage by keeping your late round picks.

 

[credulous]

And I'd take Andrei Kuzmenko, Akiro Hirose, Nils Aman, and Arshdeep Bains over Karel Plasek, Petrus Palmu, and Mackenze Stewart.

Again : there is a limited number of contract spots that any team will be allocating to prospects, and that number is even more limited once you remove high draft picks. Whether you use your late round picks and only sign the best ones or whether you only sign UFA prospects or whether you have a mix is just totally irrelevant. You aren't getting a competitive advantage by keeping your late round picks.

if drafting devon levi or jusso parssinen prevents you from signing arshdeep bains that's a huge win. if drafting petrus palmu prevents you from signing arshdeep bains that's just terrible evaluation and you probably aren't in a position to sign arshdeep bains anyways. there is literally no scenario where it's better to have no late round picks than any number of late round picks. that's just nonsensical

 

[Ernie]

if drafting devon levi or jusso parssinen prevents you from signing arshdeep bains that's a huge win. if drafting petrus palmu prevents you from signing arshdeep bains that's just terrible evaluation and you probably aren't in a position to sign arshdeep bains anyways. there is literally no scenario where it's better to have no late round picks than any number of late round picks. that's just nonsensical

You don't seem to have a basic understanding of probability. 7th round picks are basically worthless because it is very unlikely you're drafting a good player - maybe 1 player out of 100 picks. Those odds are no better than signing UFA prospects, as MS is pointing out. Anything past the 4th round is basically a "replacement level" prospect and the pool of these prospects is massive. If you can use that pick to get a first look at a young player who is about to hit the waiver wire, that player has a much higher chance of "hitting" than whoever you are drafting with that 7th.

 

[credulous]

You don't seem to have a basic understanding of probability. 7th round picks are basically worthless because it is very unlikely you're drafting a good player - maybe 1 player out of 100 picks. Those odds are no better than signing UFA prospects, as MS is pointing out. Anything past the 4th round is basically a "replacement level" prospect and the pool of these prospects is massive. If you can use that pick to get a first look at a young player who is about to hit the waiver wire, that player has a much higher chance of "hitting" than whoever you are drafting with that 7th.

no i understand probability. i just disagree that a player about to hit the waiver wire (with some exceptions -- i'd trade a 7th for tolvanen in a heartbeat) is worth anything at all. you could have replaced studnicka with linus karlsson for free and been in the same position

 

[Ernie]

no i understand probability. i just disagree that a player about to hit the waiver wire (with some exceptions -- i'd trade a 7th for tolvanen in a heartbeat) is worth anything at all. you could have replaced studnicka with linus karlsson for free and been in the same position

But waiver wire pickups do turn into good players with some frequency, and getting to the front of the line has value. You can keep talking about individual cases but again just shows that you don't understand probability. Even with this strategy you are going to have way more misses than hits, but it is still the more efficient use of that asset.

Good teams have to shed young players because they just don't have roster spots for them, and a team with lots of holes like the Canucks can afford to be more patient.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Again, these things don’t happen in a vacuum.

Yes, it’s a legitimate argument that ‘why would you trade a 7th for Studnicka when you can get Studnickas for free all the time’.

But that exact same logical thread means it’s also a legitimate argument to say ‘why would you keep your 7th round pick to spend on a very mediocre prospect when if you trade the pick you can just use that contract slot to sign an equal/better prospect as a UFA?’

You’re stuck in that vacuum where if you trade the 2nd you’ve given something away that’s gone forever. But if we trade our 2023 7th round pick, all it means is that we’re exchanging the tiny chance we’ll get a Pavelski (and when your go-to example is over 20 years old that’s not a good sign btw) with that pick for higher chance we’ll get a Tanev or a Kuzmenko with the extra space to sign UFA prospects.

You’re getting upset about an asset loss/opportunity cost when there simply isn’t one. Late round picks are essentially worthless, and if you can get value for them in trade currency, go for it.

The error in logic with the above is that it says 'All 7th rounders are essentially worthless so trade them for value' which then asserts Kravtsov _specifically_is_of_value_. He is not valuable. It also presupposes that Kravtsov represents the same or similar bet to all alternative struggling/exiting prospects potentially garnered with that 7th, which is also incorrect.

Hodgy and I were almost there. It came down to him preferring Kravtsov's high upside where as I advocated for a prospect that would at least persist here for development (more rounded). Either position is fair in a vacuum. Specifically though, Kravtsov was a poor bet to make relative to the other bets that could have been made because he was very likely to flush out of the system so quickly. That's the major contention here. That's why I call this a poor trade.

We don't even need to get into which has a better ceiling hit rate: A 7th or a Waiver Queue jump? I think it's the 7th, you think it's FAs. We are unlikely to convince the other here. You're right though in saying it's all vacuum based discussion. Why do that when we can isolate the specific bet of Kravtsov vs the 7th plus potential FA signings? It's enough, I think, to sink this trade idea on its own.

 

[Bleach Clean]

But waiver wire pickups do turn into good players with some frequency, and getting to the front of the line has value. You can keep talking about individual cases but again just shows that you don't understand probability. Even with this strategy you are going to have way more misses than hits, but it is still the more efficient use of that asset.

Good teams have to shed young players because they just don't have roster spots for them, and a team with lots of holes like the Canucks can afford to be more patient.

Not all waiver queue jumps have the same probability to hit. Or, are we assuming the bet has the same percentage chance of working out/not working out regardless of coaching, training, opportunity etc...?

Example: Putting aside cost for a moment, both Baertschi and Kravtsov were waiver queue jumps. Did Baertschi have the same percentage chance of success as Kravtsov given that he was afforded 225 games of roughly 2nd like opportunity and PP time, while Kravtsov was flushed out in 16 games of garbage time, playing on the 3rd line? Did the environment for each provide each player the same opportunity for success?

 

[MS]

if drafting devon levi or jusso parssinen prevents you from signing arshdeep bains that's a huge win. if drafting petrus palmu prevents you from signing arshdeep bains that's just terrible evaluation and you probably aren't in a position to sign arshdeep bains anyways. there is literally no scenario where it's better to have no late round picks than any number of late round picks. that's just nonsensical

As was pointed out, you just aren't grasping the math.

This is <5% stuff all round. Teams have maybe 4 or 5 contract slots in their 50 they can allocate to late round picks or UFA signings. And the odds you draft a signable player in the 7th round and use one of those slots on him and he hits as a Parssinen just aren't any different than if you don't have that pick and you sign a UFA and it turns into a Tye Kartye.

You aren't gaining some sort of competitive advantage by holding onto those picks.

You don't seem to have a basic understanding of probability. 7th round picks are basically worthless because it is very unlikely you're drafting a good player - maybe 1 player out of 100 picks. Those odds are no better than signing UFA prospects, as MS is pointing out. Anything past the 4th round is basically a "replacement level" prospect and the pool of these prospects is massive. If you can use that pick to get a first look at a young player who is about to hit the waiver wire, that player has a much higher chance of "hitting" than whoever you are drafting with that 7th.

Exactly.

The error in logic with the above is that it says 'All 7th rounders are essentially worthless so trade them for value' which then asserts Kravtsov _specifically_is_of_value_. He is not valuable. It also presupposes that Kravtsov represents the same or similar bet to all alternative struggling/exiting prospects potentially garnered with that 7th, which is also incorrect.

Hodgy and I were almost there. It came down to him preferring Kravtsov's high upside where as I advocated for a prospect that would at least persist here for development (more rounded). Either position is fair in a vacuum. Specifically though, Kravtsov was a poor bet to make relative to the other bets that could have been made because he was very likely to flush out of the system so quickly. That's the major contention here. That's why I call this a poor trade.

We don't even need to get into which has a better ceiling hit rate: A 7th or a Waiver Queue jump? I think it's the 7th, you think it's FAs. We are unlikely to convince the other here. You're right though in saying it's all vacuum based discussion. Why do that when we can isolate the specific bet of Kravtsov vs the 7th plus potential FA signings? It's enough, I think, to sink this trade idea on its own.

We're dealing with a $2 scratch-n-win ticket with palm trees on it (late round pick) vs. a $2 scratch-n-win with puppies on it (waivers-type young player) vs. a $2 scratch-n-win with pretty flowers on it (prospect UFA signing).

It's all the same low-percentage shit. Trade one away, you get more of another. In all cases, it's mostly likely it's crap and there's a <5% chance you get a hit. Thinking that stockpiling one of these is getting you ahead in the game just isn't correct.

You're manufacturing a competitive advantage that simply doesn't exist and then manufacturing outrage when teams aren't maximizing this non-existent advantage.

 

[pitseleh]

Outside a handful of high probability options potentially on the waiver wire/in the UFA market, I’m not sure the difference in baseline probabilities and outcomes between waiver fodder, low picks, and UFAs really matter one way or another across the sample of players you’re going to be able to bet on.

Having a 3% or 5% shot at a player across 20 or 30 bets based on which avenue you take probably won’t make much of a difference, compared to luck or developing a competitive advantage in identifying good players, giving them good training, etc.

The caveat being that you probably shouldn’t trade picks for players you can likely get for free. Draft picks are the only group that you get to see the evolution of a player without tying up a roster/contract spot with so have a bit of an advantage over the other two options. If a player goes gangbusters in their D+1 or D+2 season, you learn that for free. If a UFA does the same you’re competing against every other team in the league for him.

I think where you are in the competitive cycle matters probably more for what path you should follow than the odds. This Canucks team needs players to hit now, so should are more justified in bringing forward their bets. Less so for the 2015 Canucks.

 

[Ernie]

Not all waiver queue jumps have the same probability to hit. Or, are we assuming the bet has the same percentage chance of working out/not working out regardless of coaching, training, opportunity etc...?

Example: Putting aside cost for a moment, both Baertschi and Kravtsov were waiver queue jumps. Did Baertschi have the same percentage chance of success as Kravtsov given that he was afforded 225 games of roughly 2nd like opportunity and PP time, while Kravtsov was flushed out in 16 games of garbage time, playing on the 3rd line? Did the environment for each provide each player the same opportunity for success?

Nobody is making that claim. This is about targeting young players who the pro scouts think could use a change of scenery. Nobody is saying jump to the front of the queue for a 28 year old replacement level player, obviously.

 

[Ernie]

Outside a handful of high probability options potentially on the waiver wire/in the UFA market, I’m not sure the difference in baseline probabilities and outcomes between waiver fodder, low picks, and UFAs really matter one way or another across the sample of players you’re going to be able to bet on.

I think there is evidence that waiver fodder has a higher chance of succeeding because they've already shown enough ability to be on the cusp of the NHL. Sometimes a young player just needs a different opportunity or different style of coaching to get them over the hump. But you're right, it's not a slam dunk either way.

Having a 3% or 5% shot at a player across 20 or 30 bets based on which avenue you take probably won’t make much of a difference, compared to luck or developing a competitive advantage in identifying good players, giving them good training, etc.

Yes, and this is where you see teams successfully farming these late round / UFA prospect picks. Also, having a good development system gives you a leg up in signing UFA prospects.

 

[Coffee]

Congratulations Uncle Vitali!

awwwe!!!

Congrats brother

 

[Bleach Clean]

We're dealing with a $2 scratch-n-win ticket with palm trees on it (late round pick) vs. a $2 scratch-n-win with puppies on it (waivers-type young player) vs. a $2 scratch-n-win with pretty flowers on it (prospect UFA signing).

It's all the same low-percentage shit. Trade one away, you get more of another. In all cases, it's mostly likely it's crap and there's a <5% chance you get a hit. Thinking that stockpiling one of these is getting you ahead in the game just isn't correct.

You're manufacturing a competitive advantage that simply doesn't exist and then manufacturing outrage when teams aren't maximizing this non-existent advantage.

Ah but if I have both the $2 scratch and win with puppies and the ones with flowers, I have a greater chance to win the lottery than just the $2 scratch and win with palm trees, no?

Ok, it's all low percentage, fine. In a vacuum, trading a 7th for waiver bound player is fine. Getting a 7th rounder for a waiver bound player is fine. The argument isn't about the strategy, it's how that strategy applies to the case of Kravtsov.

Does he represent the same bet as a 28 year old replacement level player, even at the low end? From your take that "It's all the same low-percentage shit." I think you would say that he does. That the player coming back doesn't matter. That the environment that player is entering doesn't matter.

If that's true, then I disagree. The time with the player matters. The target matters. Even if it's a difference going from 3% to 5% and putting that player in a better environment to develop vs a bad one, every fraction of a percent could mean the difference.

Nobody is making that claim. This is about targeting young players who the pro scouts think could use a change of scenery. Nobody is saying jump to the front of the queue for a 28 year old replacement level player, obviously.

Read above: MS's exact quote: "It's all the same low-percentage shit. "

Meaning, to jump the queue for a 28 year old replacement level player is the same bet as jumping it for Kravtsov. Regardless of opportunity, coaching, training etc... It's all the same bet, according to MS.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Outside a handful of high probability options potentially on the waiver wire/in the UFA market, I’m not sure the difference in baseline probabilities and outcomes between waiver fodder, low picks, and UFAs really matter one way or another across the sample of players you’re going to be able to bet on.

Having a 3% or 5% shot at a player across 20 or 30 bets based on which avenue you take probably won’t make much of a difference, compared to luck or developing a competitive advantage in identifying good players, giving them good training, etc.

The caveat being that you probably shouldn’t trade picks for players you can likely get for free. Draft picks are the only group that you get to see the evolution of a player without tying up a roster/contract spot with so have a bit of an advantage over the other two options. If a player goes gangbusters in their D+1 or D+2 season, you learn that for free. If a UFA does the same you’re competing against every other team in the league for him.

I think where you are in the competitive cycle matters probably more for what path you should follow than the odds. This Canucks team needs players to hit now, so should are more justified in bringing forward their bets. Less so for the 2015 Canucks.

There was an argument made that teams tend to sign their late picks (doubling down on mistakes), but I tend to think it works for the team more than it works against them. They see how the prospect is tracking and can decide accordingly.

Drafting can also double up with the low end signings in that you gain information on both sides with control. Whereas you have to chase the college FA and hopefully sign him in order to capitalize on the information he has shown you. (While he is being pursued by other teams)

Last, does the team taking a flyer on Kravtsov display a competitive advantage to identify good players? Or a good training/play environment for said player? To me, no. They chased him as a target (pro scouting) and he flushed out of the team in 16 games.

 

[Ernie]

Read above: MS's exact quote: "It's all the same low-percentage shit. "

Meaning, to jump the queue for a 28 year old replacement level player is the same bet as jumping it for Kravtsov. Regardless of opportunity, coaching, training etc... It's all the same bet, according to MS.

I hope you're being facetious because if not you're pretty far out on a limb here. This whole conversation has been about the Kravtsov trade and the value of the 7th pick. The main point is that these are all relatively inconsequential moves, and not worth getting your panties in a bunch over the Canucks expending late round picks this way.

 

[RobsonStreet]

I can’t believe I’m doing this but here we are: the probability (percentage) of a 7th rounder playing fewer NHL games in their career than Kravtsov just did with the Canucks - about 80%. So even at this “no value” career AHL player threshold, don’t bet on your late picks converting.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I hope you're being facetious because if not you're pretty far out on a limb here. This whole conversation has been about the Kravtsov trade and the value of the 7th pick. The main point is that these are all relatively inconsequential moves, and not worth getting your panties in a bunch over the Canucks expending late round picks this way.

There's no reason to get ones knickers in a knot and saying it's low percentage either. It is understood.

What is in contention is whether the outcome rate of this low percentage bet is the same across player options available and environment. Sure, let's do the waiver queue jump. Does the player selected matter? The environment? Training? Etc... If they do, then there were better bets, even at the low end, than Kravtsov. If they do not, and "it's all the same low percentage shit", then it doesn't matter if you choose Kravtsov or a 28 year old replacement level player.

 

[God]

One thing that's overlooked is the fact that waivers are literally a last resort. Almost every single player who's gone on to star for a team after switching teams probably would've been on waivers if there were no takers, but pro scouts push for acquiring these guys and they end up traded for the best package (which ends up being a mid to low pick) because teams don't want to chance getting scooped on the waiver queue.

Cases like Forsling are incredibly rare, because he was on a deep Carolina blue line. To Florida's credit, they are very good at finding age gap players, and I still don't know if it's a scouting thing or a usage thing. Probably a bit of both.

 

[MS]

I hope you're being facetious because if not you're pretty far out on a limb here. This whole conversation has been about the Kravtsov trade and the value of the 7th pick. The main point is that these are all relatively inconsequential moves, and not worth getting your panties in a bunch over the Canucks expending late round picks this way.

Yeah.

I don't even know how to respond to this.

They traded a <5% pick for a <5% longshot, but as a result of trading that pick, it probably means they have extra room to sign a <5% UFA in 2028.

It's just a whole lot of nothing. There is nothing wrong with the process here, but regardless the whole thing is just inconsequential.

 

[Hodgy]

The problem I have with the initial discussion, and something @Bleach Clean and @credulous both seem to explicitly or implicitly be stating, is that they value the 7th round pick over someone like Kravtsov or Studnicka because the latter have a lower ceiling than the 7th round pick. But as I have said in the past, this is poor logic since this "theory" relies on projecting the player's "ceiling" vis a vis the ceiling of a player you would get in the 7th round, which is by and large impossible and a fools errand. There is just no value in this theory since it depends on what is generally an impossible project. Like, unless the player you are trading for is like Evan Fuller, the conclusion that such player's ceiling is materially less than the ceiling of a 7th round pick is bogus.

 

[credulous]

The problem I have with the initial discussion, and something @Bleach Clean and @credulous both seem to explicitly or implicitly be stating, is that they value the 7th round pick over someone like Kravtsov or Studnicka because the latter have a lower ceiling than the 7th round pick. But as I have said in the past, this is poor logic since this "theory" relies on projecting the player's "ceiling" vis a vis the ceiling of a player you would get in the 7th round, which is by and large impossible and a fools errand. There is just no value in this theory since it depends on what is generally an impossible project. Like, unless the player you are trading for is like Evan Fuller, the conclusion that such player's ceiling is materially less than the ceiling of a 7th round pick is bogus.

i don't think that accurately reflects my argument

my argument isn't that the average 7th round pick has more value than the average player traded for a 7th round pick. it's the exact opposite. however, i think the average 7th round pick and the average player traded for a 7th round pick are both worth less than the average replacement player. in this case: nothing

you're not holding 7th round picks hoping to get the average outcome though. sometimes you get the home run outcome and get dustin wolf or joe pavelski or arturs silov (maybe) and you get a real asset for no investment. the chances of that happening are low but when it happens it can provide a huge advantage

it's okay to occaisonally trade a 7th (or 5th or 6th or whatever) to pick up a player you think might be undervalued. some of these moves have decent results: see tolvanen or forsling for example. however, if you are trading picks for players that have no more impact than what you can get for free (off waivers or from the minors or as a free agent) then you lose the opportunity to draft devon levi or jusso parssinen for no real gain

i don't really have a problem with the kravtsov deal. he seemed like a player that might actually have a future as more than a fringe player. i do have a problem with the idea that getting 40 games of studnicka or whatever is worth giving up any pick even one that is a longshot to pay off. just play karlsson instead

 

[Bleach Clean]

The problem I have with the initial discussion, and something @Bleach Clean and @credulous both seem to explicitly or implicitly be stating, is that they value the 7th round pick over someone like Kravtsov or Studnicka because the latter have a lower ceiling than the 7th round pick. But as I have said in the past, this is poor logic since this "theory" relies on projecting the player's "ceiling" vis a vis the ceiling of a player you would get in the 7th round, which is by and large impossible and a fools errand. There is just no value in this theory since it depends on what is generally an impossible project. Like, unless the player you are trading for is like Evan Fuller, the conclusion that such player's ceiling is materially less than the ceiling of a 7th round pick is bogus.

That's not quite accurate. The ceiling could be the same (top end), but the likelihood of reaching it has to be downgraded from the base state due to being older and trending downward (out of the league). The pick is the base state (a reset opportunity for NYR).

In the case of Kravtsov, I would rather the team have made the bet on the base state (what NYR did) than to bet on Kravtsov turning it around (what VAN did) in an environment ill suited to develop the player.

The better bet would have been to give the opportunity to a 28 year old replacement level player. He would have been free.

Oh, and I completely understand MS's position here too. He's saying it's all irrelevant because both options had a low percentage chance of working out. Whereas I'm saying that even with that low percentage context in mind, teams like FLA have shown you can make more astute pro scouting and environment based bets at an even lower cost than a 7th. So there is a difference even at that low margin. It's your choice to see it or not though...

 

[F A N]

The other aspect of this that I've been repeating a lot recently is that trading late round draft picks doesn't happen in a vacuum.

If you trade some 5th/6th/7th rounders, it isn't like you're just purely subtracting those from your system moving down the road. Instead, if you're not signing a 6th rounder in 2 years when they turn 20 it means you have an extra slot to sign an NCAA/CHL/Euro UFA.

And the thing with late round picks is that there is a tendency to make bad signings on sunk costs like Plasek/Palmu/Focht in recent years and the drafted prospect you're signing can tend to be worse than the Aman/Bains/Johansson prospect you'd be getting as a UFA.

Basically I'm currently coming around to the opinion that you can trade all of your 5th/6th/7th round picks every year and just sign UFA prospects with the contract slots you're freeing up, and you'll actually break even or maybe even come out ahead even if you get nothing in return for the picks.

I think the issue is that we are working with too many variables and decisions that are not ideal. Math doesn't work well when it involves changing variables. So a lot of times we can cherry pick stats and math. Here are a few examples that I believe are true (I am also going off from what I have read over the years and using very general terms):

The odds of drafting a top 4 Dman or top 6 forward drops steeply after the 1st overall pick. By the late first round, the odds are like 1 in 4.

The chances of drafting even an NHL player (using a loose games played definition) is also 1 in 4. The odds are again much lower in terms of drafting a top 4 Dman or top 6 forward. The odds get worse after the 2nd round and so on.

Having more draft picks increases your odds of drafting a good NHL player but then there's the above.

Top 4 Dmen and top 6 forwards are available to be drafted in the mid to later rounds every single draft year.

etc.

We often give contending teams the excuse that it's difficult drafting well when drafting late in the first round and most contending teams trade away their 1st and 2nd round picks some time. Few of them efficiently trade these picks for a top 6 forward or top 4 Dman who they can provide good value for a few years and be traded for an asset later. Tampa probably did as well of a job as any in recent memory. A perfect example of that would be the Brandon Hagel trade. The Jeannot trade not so much. But it doesn't change the point that these type of trades are available. Fiala was traded for the 19th pick and a former 2nd round pick who is a good prospect.
..............................

In terms of your point about preferring prospect UFAs, one could employ the strategy of drafting players from Europe and planning on playing in the NCAA. You're not force to sign the player and you get first crack at the player/hold their rights. But if you go strictly based on odds, a team is usually better off trading for an NHL player who provides some value.

 

[RobsonStreet]

I think the other part that’s lost in these conversations is that the best depth players are typically failed top-six players. Targeting so called “high floor” players in the draft or via waivers is often the worst option. If you’re making small bets, better to do so on the Kravtsovs, Tolvanens, and Sprongs over the Will Lockwoods and Tim Schallers. Bottom-line for me is I’m completely fine seeing more of this from management.