5th Overall: CDC 2017 Draft Consensus

[theminister]

8 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

The problem is that with every post you contradict what you said previously, and mischaracterize/misconstrue what I said to try to turn it around, which is strawmanning.  One more time -- neither you nor I nor ANYONE can accurately project him, but what we DO have is his brother as a marker.  That's all, and it cannot simply be dismissed out-of-hand as you've attempted to do.

Wait...all siblings of the same sex are genetically identical.

 

It's which genes are activated that counts. That's dictated by luck, diet and environment.

 

And, yes, families can be used to gauge likelihood. That's a non-starter.

[Gaudette Celly]

12 minutes ago, theminister said:

Glass is way off being physically ready. He needs time to bulk.

 

I spoke to him this year and he's focused on being fit for Portland's season. They should be good next year and older as a group.

 

We aren't getting help this year from the draft. Put it out of your mind.

Anything to glean?  Sounds like he's a fairly high-character kid.

[R3aL]

Vilardi is my number 1

Glass is my number 2

Mittlestadt is my number 3 - because I'm not crazy about him but I see the potential and our US scouts kill it lately and if they pick him I will believe in them.

 

I would be open to trading down and picking up Makar or Liljegren as well.

 

i really want Vilardi or Glass though really see them developing and their game translating as the have pro work ethic and character to go with their skill.

[theminister]

26 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Anything to glean?  Sounds like he's a fairly high-character kid.

He is. Got a good impression of him. It's one of the additional reasons I have him so high. Great head in his shoulders, serious kid. Looks up to Toews as a role model for being a pro. Gave a lot of credit to coach Johnston, not lip service (I can tell), so took from that he's coachable and a student. He's a wired kid.

 

He compared his game to JT and Bergeron, wants to be a player that can play in any situation. He is paying special attention to FOs so that he can get all of the icetime. I see his upside as more like Getzlaf minus the meanness but better skating. So I think he underrated himself. To me that's a great sign. He's got work ethic and with that you can do amazing things, he was on the bike post game when we chatted.

 

Took a chance to chat to Jokiharju too but that's a different discussion.

 

His legs are skinny. His arms are wiry. He needs more muscle mass to protect himself imo. He's not a project but he needs time. The Canucks have time.

 

The funny part was I asked him about his plans for the draft.... and he said he wasn't sure if he was going yet. I laughed. 

[Mathew Barzal]

1. Glass

2. Makar

3. Vilardi

4. Necas

5. Mittelstadt

[aGENT]

3 hours ago, appleboy said:

LV , but they will only have draft picks to trade unless they steel someone of interest. 

LVK will be overflowing with D, they won't likely have need for Tanev. 

[steviewonder20]

4 hours ago, theminister said:

Wait...all siblings of the same sex are genetically identical.

 

That is not a biologically accurate statement. Not all siblings are identical twins.

[theminister]

19 minutes ago, steviewonder20 said:

That is not a biologically accurate statement. Not all siblings are identical twins.

It is in fact.

 

Siblings either share XX or XY chromosomes. Female or male, respectively. They are genetically  identical.

 

They don't have to be identical twins.

 

Edit: though the recombinant factor means that you can be 1/4, 2/4, 3/4 or 4/4, you still have the same makeup 

 

 

 

 

[steviewonder20]

16 minutes ago, theminister said:

It is in fact.

 

Siblings either share XX or XY chromosomes. Female or male, respectively. They are genetically  identical.

 

They don't have to be identical twins.

 

 

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/siblings-are-around-fifty-percent-related

 

Sorry, but you are mistaken; the link above leads to a rather long and tedious article on genetics from a Stanford genetics professor but if you simply google "are siblings genetically similar" you will see that DNA is not identical with siblings. Therefore, all siblings are not genetically identical. If you can find a credible source that states that all siblings are genetically identical, please post it. In genetics, this similarity refers to DNA and when referring to (non-human) animals, requires cloning.

[theminister]

1 minute ago, steviewonder20 said:

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/siblings-are-around-fifty-percent-related

 

Sorry, but you are mistaken; the link above leads to a rather long and tedious article on genetics from a Stanford genetics professor but if you simply google "are siblings genetically similar" you will see that DNA is not identical with siblings. Therefore, all siblings are not genetically identical. If you can find a credible source that states that all siblings are genetically identical, please post it. In genetics, this similarity refers to DNA and when referring to (non-human) animals, requires cloning.

Fair enough.

 

It's been awhile, I admit.

 

I suppose I should have said they share commonalities.

[steviewonder20]

14 minutes ago, theminister said:

Fair enough.

 

It's been awhile, I admit.

 

I suppose I should have said they share commonalities.

Ah, we've found common ground, a rare event on CDC. Have a good night.

[Pete M]

16 hours ago, theminister said:

It's the irony of the statement that they hadn't been thinking of asset management prior when they scouted, traded for and signed Sbisa, and gave him a role to grow into.

 

It's the same with the Sutter and Guddy trades, and the claims of bad asset management because of the acquisition costs and necessary extensions.

 

I've pointed it out to so many people so many times... does anyone really believe that Sutter at the end of his contract at 32yo wouldn't return an equal or greater amount than a 3rd liner on a cheap contract, a depth prospect and a low 2nd if we included a high 3rd with him? It's ludicrous to me that others can't see that when Burr and Brian Boyle just went for what they did.

 

If Guddy stays for 6 years and they chose to move him afterwards, don't you think a 30yo mammoth, rugged, veteran RHD wouldn't return a good prospect and a high 2nd? 

 

In both cases, the worst you could say is thst it is an asset timeline deferal.  The problem with the term asset management is that many who use it don't understand what the totality of it is. It's a multifaceted strategy.

As long as they see this team as what it is and make a trade to improve its future and not lose an asset.

A team (trade partner) would have to protect Tanev after the trade, then possibly lose an asset to LV...the priority for the team would be to improve its "D" thereby leaving a forward unprotected.

This may be a hard trade to make/ arrange, again they need to see a lot of value in the player that they are getting. Tanev does have a lot of value.

 

 

[theminister]

23 minutes ago, Pete M said:

As long as they see this team as what it is and make a trade to improve its future and not lose an asset.

A team (trade partner) would have to protect Tanev after the trade, then possibly lose an asset to LV...the priority for the team would be to improve its "D" thereby leaving a forward unprotected.

This may be a hard trade to make/ arrange, again they need to see a lot of value in the player that they are getting. Tanev does have a lot of value.

 

 

Well, they are going to lose an asset, every team will, it's a question of the value of the asset and relative to the competition's losses. You just want to lose less than them. 

 

Look at it this way... what is the normal trade value of the pieces that they might risk losing? 

 

Would any of Sbisa, Dorsett, Gaunce, Pedan return more than a low 2nd to a high 4th? IMO they all fall in that range, more or less, and each of them are worth more to the team than the return value.

 

So if you can split the difference and assume the Canucks are going to lose the value of a 3rd round pick in the ED then you need to ask whether moving a player now, whether that be Tanev or someone else, can change that amount by a significant enough factor to make it worthwhile.

 

If the total range of value is no more than 40 spots in a draft, and that's being generous, then are you losing that potential value in the forced trade at an inopportune time. Can you gain more than that value by waiting for a better market to make a trade?

 

If you're discussing moving Tanev, likely the most valuable trade chip, then it's highly probable that you can gain back the 40 spots in value by waiting to move him AFTER the ED when the market is much more fertile.

 

The problem with the idea of rushing to make a trade before the ED is that it could trick someone into believing they are maximizing value when they are doing the opposite.

 

And that's one facet of  'Asset Management' that is so poorly understood.

 

[Pete M]

26 minutes ago, theminister said:

Well, they are going to lose an asset, every team will, it's a question of the value of the asset and relative to the competition's losses. You just want to lose less than them. 

 

Look at it this way... what is the normal trade value of the pieces that they might risk losing? 

 

Would any of Sbisa, Dorsett, Gaunce, Pedan return more than a low 2nd to a high 4th? IMO they all fall in that range, more or less, and each of them are worth more to the team than the return value.

 

So if you can split the difference and assume the Canucks are going to lose the value of a 3rd round pick in the ED then you need to ask whether moving a player now, whether that be Tanev or someone else, can change that amount by a significant enough factor to make it worthwhile.

 

If the total range of value is no more than 40 spots in a draft, and that's being generous, then are you losing that potential value in the forced trade at an inopportune time. Can you gain more than that value by waiting for a better market to make a trade?

 

If you're discussing moving Tanev, likely the most valuable trade chip, then it's highly probable that you can gain back the 40 spots in value by waiting to move him AFTER the ED when the market is much more fertile.

 

The problem with the idea of rushing to make a trade before the ED is that it could trick someone into believing they are maximizing value when they are doing the opposite.

 

And that's one facet of  'Asset Management' that is so poorly understood.

 

Its a matter of weighing Sbisa's worth vs Tanev return in order to not lose Sbisa at the ED.

then hope that Utica "D" or Juolevi can fill the voids left by Tram and one of Tanev or Sbisa. 

 

[theminister]

27 minutes ago, Pete M said:

Its a matter of weighing Sbisa's worth vs Tanev return in order to not lose Sbisa at the ED.

then hope that Utica "D" or Juolevi can fill the voids left by Tram and one of Tanev or Sbisa. 

 

But it's more than that. That's what I'm saying.

 

If Sbisa is only worth a, say, 50th OA pick and Gaunce is worth a 70th OA pick (these are just approximations for purposes of an example), and these are the two most likely to get selected, then you get the value of only 20 spots in the draft of gained value by them selecting one over the other. Even if you don't make a move you're losing a 50th OA pick in value but the gained advantage is significantly less because you're still keeping the 70th OA in value. It's not a 3rd round pick extra you're losing it is 20 spots in the 3rd round.

 

If you're potentially selling low on Tanev to save that value of 20 spots now rather than wait until after the ED then it's got to be within that range, or less, to gain anything of value. If you split the difference then it may only be worth 10 spots in the 3rd round.

 

So what I'm saying is, you should only move an asset if you believe you are getting the same value you would after the ED, which IMHO is unlikely, or gaining the difference in the values between the two pieces of the next likely player to be taken by LV.

 

In essence, moving Tanev now for the sake of saving 20 spots in value between the 50th and 70th pick, the difference between Sbisa and Gaunce, is a false economy because you should be able to actualize more afterwards.

 

In truth, I believe the difference in value between Gaunce and Sbisa is actually less than my example. So, no, there isn't an imperative to make a trade now. The Canucks are going to lose the same approximate value in the ED, there's no real way around it, and will be in the lowest range of losses around the league.

 

This is an exercise in opportunity cost analysis.

 

 

[Boudrias]

1 minute ago, theminister said:

But it's more than that. That's what I'm saying.

 

If Sbisa is only worth a, say, 50th OA pick and Gaunce is worth a 70th OA pick (these are just approximations for purposes of am example), and these are the two most likely to get selected, then you get the value of only 20 spots in the draft of gained value by them selecting one over the other. Even if you don't make a move you're losing a 50th OA pick in value but the gained advantage is significantly less because you're still losing the 70th OA in value. It's not a 3rd round pick extra you're losing it is 20 spots in the 3rd round.

 

If you're potentially selling low on Tanev to save that value of 20 spots now rather than wait until after the ED then it's got to be within that range, or less, to gain anything of value. If you split the difference then it may only be worth 10 spots in the 3rd round.

 

So what I'm saying is, you should only move an asset if you believe you are getting the same value you would after the ED, which IMHO is unlikely, or gaining the difference in the values between the two pieces of the next likely player to be taken by LV.

 

In essence, moving Tanev now for the sake of saving 20 spots in value between the 50th and 70th pick in value, the diffetence between Sbisa and Gaunce, is a false economy because you should be able to actualize more afterwards.

 

In truth, I believe the difference in value between Gaunce and Sbisa is actually less than my example. So, no, there isn't an imperative to make a trade now. The Canucks are going to lose the same approximate value in the ED, there's no real way around it, and will be in the lowest range of losses around the league.

 

 

Don't you think that valuation can be relative based on the two teams in the deal and their development time lines? Vancouver is at least 3 years away from serious playoff contention. Their trading partner might be far more advanced and their valuation of Tanev might be much higher. Another aspect might be how Tanev would fit with the players they anticipate partnering him with. Vancouver on the other hand being so far down the development curve have less concern on that point.

 

The potential deals that will surround the ED will cloud valuations there is no doubt. But at the end of the day deals have to make sense to the teams making them. The margin of error in deal making is fairly high anyway. My take is that teams higher in their development curve are under more pressure to ensure their deals have value. Failure to act or failure to acquire value could potential set them back and actually hurt the long term value of other roster players depending on their development and age.

 

I do expect some creative deal making before, during and after the ED. Bennings challenge is not losing a top 4 d-man for no value which in my estimation he will if he stands pat. A strong d-core over the rebuild period helps the development of his forward group.

[theminister]

30 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Don't you think that valuation can be relative based on the two teams in the deal and their development time lines? Vancouver is at least 3 years away from serious playoff contention. Their trading partner might be far more advanced and their valuation of Tanev might be much higher. Another aspect might be how Tanev would fit with the players they anticipate partnering him with. Vancouver on the other hand being so far down the development curve have less concern on that point.

 

The potential deals that will surround the ED will cloud valuations there is no doubt. But at the end of the day deals have to make sense to the teams making them. The margin of error in deal making is fairly high anyway. My take is that teams higher in their development curve are under more pressure to ensure their deals have value. Failure to act or failure to acquire value could potential set them back and actually hurt the long term value of other roster players depending on their development and age.

 

I do expect some creative deal making before, during and after the ED. Bennings challenge is not losing a top 4 d-man for no value which in my estimation he will if he stands pat. A strong d-core over the rebuild period helps the development of his forward group.

No, the valuation of the asset is the same. A dollar is worth a dollar even if a dollar is more valuable to me as a poor person than it is to you as a rich person. It has the same purchasing power.

 

Now, one team may be willing to spend more than another but they won't view Tanev as more valuable to them now unless they think they are getting a deal ie. A bargain price.

 

I think you may be confusing the two discussions, the value of Tanev to a contending team and the value of trading for him before or after the ED. Is there more value to be gained relative to the loss by moving him now? Thats highly unlikely because of the added loss to another team. It's possible, yes, but it needs to make sense to the other team for sure, as you say.

 

Where the poor evaluation comes in is when we say top 4 D man instead of Sbisa. The trade value is derived from the latter not the former.

[aGENT]

26 minutes ago, theminister said:

I think you may be confusing the two discussions, the value of Tanev to a contending team and the value of trading for him before or after the ED. Is there more value to be gained relative to the loss by moving him now? Thats highly unlikely because of the added loss to another team. It's possible, yes, but it needs to make sense to the other team for sure, as you say.

To the right team, a pre-ED Tanev trade might work (though far from guaranteed, as you note).

 

TOR, TBL and ARZ all being possibilities. Though personally I see TBL and ANA as likely trade partners for their respective extra F and D. But all could stand to improve their 3rd, protected D and wouldn't lose a terrible (or no) amount of value exposing their current 3rd D vs 4th.

 

Great if it hapens and we get full (or darn close) value for Tanev. If we don't, we wait. As you say, the value would need to be Tanev's 'regular' market minus the difference in value between Sbisa/Gaunce. Roughly anyway. 

 

Of course waiting also means a likely loss of depth (Sbisa), making trading Tanev harder on our end. 

[theminister]

Just now, J.R. said:

To the right team, a pre-ED Tanev trade might work (though far from guaranteed, as you note).

 

TOR, TBL and ARZ all being possibilities. Though personally I see TBL and ANA as likely trade partners for their respective extra F and D. But all could stand to improve their 3rd, protected D and wouldn't lose a terrible (or no) amount of value exposing their current 3rd D vs 4th.

 

Great if it hapens and we get full (or darn close) value for Tanev. If we don't, we wait. As you say, the value would need to be Tanev's 'regular' market minus the difference in value between Sbisa/Gaunce. Roughly anyway. 

 

Of course waiting also means a likely loss of depth (Sbisa), making trading Tanev harder on our end. 

I'll ask you this... In what possible scenario is Tanev worth more to a trade partner before the ED rather than after?

 

I don't think there is one. At best it would be the same.

[aGENT]

Just now, theminister said:

I'll ask you this... In what possible scenario is Tanev worth more to a trade partner before the ED rather than after?

 

I don't think there is one. At best it would be the same.

Depends on how many teams are interested. 1 or 2, probably not. 3 or 4+ and somebody might try to beat everyone else to the punch. 

 

And as I said, teams could have him for a slight discount (Sbisa minus Gaunce). That may hold value to a team, it may not.