[Trade] Lightning trade J.T. Miller to Canucks for Marek Mazanec, 2019 3rd-round pick, 2020 conditional 1st-round pick

[oldnews]

8 hours ago, peaches5 said:

if the 31st pick turns out to be better than the 1st overall it doesn't change the value of the first overall pick or the 31st pick. It was just a very positive outcome for that 31st pick. You can't go back and start making a trade formula for the next 31st pick based off this positive outcome and ignore the possible negative outcomes.

exactly.

everyone knew that the pick represented contingency - virtually everyone who liked this deal at the time calculated that contingency into their ongoing so-called 'formula' - and qualified that Tampa's take/Vancouver's give in this deal won't be known until that pick is determined.

 

What some people did not need to do - as it was evident at the time - was 'calculate' Miller's value = what was exceedingly easy was:

1) to reject the absurd equations of this player with a "cap dump"

2) reject the absurd equations of this player with a 3rd or 4th line center (anyone that believed he was acquired to play a bottom 6 center role was plain out to lunch) = what would be the point of that acquisition.  In other words, make a pittance of an effort to understand what the team was/is actually doing.

 

The team had no intention of remaining a lottery contender. Some people could get behind that - for some of the reasons stated in the previous 198 pages.

 

So - if people update the "formula" you can argue that - but it remains that the result will be tracked.   That pick is tracking presently at a 19th overall.

Anything outside the top 10, imo is a 'win' for this franchise - according to the value you acknowledge above - that the actual value of that pick is the mean/median value of that pick - not projections of outliers, (and conversely, not projections of failed picks on Tampa's behalf either).

As it stood at the time, it was 'calculated' via 'formula' to be a reasonable, if not good risk for this franchise to take - particularly when you look at all the other variables surrounding this deal - something you fail to address on anything other than a surface, narrative level.

The Canucks are tracking to have "won" this deal, by a considerable margin - ie the combination of that pick's (pre-draft) value vs Miller's known pre-trade value.

However - there are two obvious contingencies remaining - which could result in a win-win - where Tampa also wins.

Tampa could take an outlier in that range.  And they could take another Brayden Point in the 3rd round.  Huge wins for Tampa if they were to pull that off.  However, hindsighting those kinds of contingencies from the future looking back - would be dishonest, relative to what you state above.  The actual value of those picks are very likely to be a 10-20ish range 1st, and a 3rd.  By that "formula" Tampa actually took the greater risk here, period.

 

The real contention in this entire discussion is not the contingency/potential of those picks - it's the gross undervaluation of this player - based on what was already known at the time of the deal.  You may not have shared the delusions of acquiring this "cap dump" for a 5th round pick, but attempting to continue to assert that this was an 'overpayment' - or that Benning did not counter / just accepted whatever Tampa wanted, etc is absurd talk wadr - you have no idea - nor do the talking heads in this market - how that trade negotiaton transpired - and moreover, assuming that no other teams were in on it is an equally blind assumption.  The real comedy in this thread emanates from the ignorance of the player that was acquired - a relatively known quantity vs pick contingencies - and that ignornance was evident throughout.  If you insist on relying on narratives, have a look at the comments of the Tampa executive, who was surprised by the twitter ignorance of this market, regarding this player.  Those comments run counter to his 'interest' in selling a win to his own market - they reflect a 'realism' / honesty of sorts.

 

Quote

Pierre Lebrun on JT Miller to TSN1040: "I had talked to a Lightning executive at the draft who said 'we aren't thrilled to lose this guy'. He was puzzled about the social media reaction [to the trade]."

 

Edited January 27, 2020 by oldnews

[peaches5]

3 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

What?!    I trade you $220 for 10 shares of a small start company called "Apple" in 1980 which have split many, many times since - now I have 560 or so shares worth $176,000 as of last Friday.   

 

In your world, the value of that trade hasn't changed?!    Wow.     

 

The word value, here are my thoughts about your interpretation of this word:

 

This is exactly what I am talking about. This totally flawed logic. You are not accounting for the risk of losing the $220. You're just looking at the outcome oh I turned $220 into $176,000. Then creating a formula over this flawed logic as justification of making this trade. 

 

The odds of you turning that $220 into 176,000 are 1/10,000, for argument's sake. So you are going to take this trade 10,000 times and one time you get $176,000 and call this a winning strategy? There are 9,999 you lose $220. 2.2 million dollars lost vs $176,000 gained is a terrible formula for success. 

 

Really? This is the same logic that is applied to the trade(s). 

 

The JT Miller trade was seen as fair by JB applying this logic you used you can give it a 50% to work out 50% chance to not. You take the trade 10,000 times and 5000 times it works and 5000 times it doesn't that is what makes it fair. You can't use hindsight to judge a trade and assert its value.

 

 

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

This is exactly what I am talking about. This totally flawed logic. You are not accounting for the risk of losing the $220. You're just looking at the outcome oh I turned $220 into $176,000. Then creating a formula over this flawed logic as justification of making this trade. 

 

The odds of you turning that $220 into 176,000 are 1/10,000, for argument's sake. So you are going to take this trade 10,000 times and one time you get $176,000 and call this a winning strategy? There are 9,999 you lose $220. 2.2 million dollars lost vs $176,000 gained is a terrible formula for success. 

 

Really? This is the same logic that is applied to the trade(s). 

 

The JT Miller trade was seen as fair by JB applying this logic you used you can give it a 50% to work out 50% chance to not. You take the trade 10,000 times and 5000 times it works and 5000 times it doesn't that is what makes it fair. You can't use hindsight to judge a trade and assert its value.

 

 

Applying your logic to the TBay point of view of the Miller trade, and it’s a huge risk on their part.   Clearly TBay should have traded Miller to a different team (for a far less risky return) or dumped a Smurf.  

[peaches5]

Just now, Alflives said:

Applying your logic to the TBay point of view of the Miller trade, and it’s a huge risk on their part.   Clearly TBay should have traded Miller to a different team (for a far less risky return) or dumped a Smurf.  

They wanted draft picks. 

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

They wanted draft picks. 

Lots of teams would love to have Miller.  Less risk trading Miller to 20 other teams than Vancouver.  Sure sounds like a big mistake by TBay.  

[oldnews]

6 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

This is exactly what I am talking about. This totally flawed logic.

 

You are correct.  Zepp is talking nonsense there - and using a worthless analogy.

Buying IT stocks in the 1980s - is nowhere near analogous to what is known about mean draft pick trade values.

It actually takes this discussion backwards - and likewise, JT MIller was not an IT future (tons of which have literally dramatically failed) - we knew a whole lot about the player based on actual samples in contexts that are nowhere near as fluid or risky as IT stocks from the childhood of posters here.

[peaches5]

24 minutes ago, oldnews said:

exactly.

everyone knew that the pick represented contingency - virtually everyone who liked this deal at the time calculated that contingency into their ongoing so-called 'formula' - and qualified that Tampa's take/Vancouver's give in this deal won't be known until that pick is determined.

 

What some people did not need to do - as it was evident at the time - was 'calculate' Miller's value = what was exceedingly easy was:

1) to reject the absurd equations of this player with a "cap dump"

2) reject the absurd equations of this player with a 3rd or 4th line center (anyone that believed he was acquired to play a bottom 6 center role was plain out to lunch) = what would be the point of that acquisition.  In other words, make a pittance of an effort to understand what the team was/is actually doing.

 

The team had no intention of remaining a lottery contender. Some people could get behind that - for some of the reasons stated in the previous 198 pages.

 

So - if people update the "formula" you can argue that - but it remains that the result will be tracked.   That pick is tracking presently at a 19th overall.

Anything outside the top 10, imo is a 'win' for this franchise - according to the value you acknowledge above - that the actual value of that pick is the mean/median value of that pick - not projections of outliers, (and conversely, not projections of failed picks on Tampa's behalf either).

As it stood at the time, it was 'calculated' via 'formula' to be a reasonable, if not good risk for this franchise to take - particularly when you look at all the other variables surrounding this deal - something you fail to address on anything other than a surface, narrative level.

The Canucks are tracking to have "won" this deal, by a considerable margin - ie the combination of that pick's (pre-draft) value vs Miller's known pre-trade value.

However - there are two obvious contingencies remaining - which could result in a win-win - where Tampa also wins.

Tampa could take an outlier in that range.  And they could take another Brayden Point in the 3rd round.  Huge wins for Tampa if they were to pull that off.  However, hindsighting those kinds of contingencies from the future looking back - would be dishonest, relative to what you state above.  The actual value of those picks are very likely to be a 10-20ish range 1st, and a 3rd.  By that "formula" Tampa actually took the greater risk here, period.

 

The real contention in this entire discussion is not the contingency/potential of those picks - it's the gross undervaluation of this player - based on what was already known at the time of the deal.  You may not have shared the delusions of acquiring this "cap dump" for a 5th round pick, but attempting to continue to assert that this was an 'overpayment' - or that Benning did not counter / just accepted whatever Tampa wanted, etc is absurd talk wadr - you have no idea - nor do the talking heads in this market - how that trade negotiaton transpired - and moreover, assuming that no other teams were in on it is an equally blind assumption.  The real comedy in this thread emanates from the ignorance of the player that was acquired - a relatively known quantity vs pick contingencies - and that ignornance was evident throughout.  If you insist on relying on narratives, have a look at the comments the Tampa executive, who was surprised by the twitter ignorance of this market, regarding this player.

 

 

JB could have all but guaranteed the pick would be a 10+ pick which is what I have never liked about the trade. I don't mind the trade. I was skeptical about Markstrom and didn't expect Hughes to be as good as he is this quickly.  So I'd hoped he protected the pick better. If we were/are picking 12th again this year I'd prefer to give that pick to Tampa. A lot of things can happen with a young team. Just look at the Avs. They were good then dropped right back to a lottery team. I would not want to see a top 5 draft pick going to Tampa.  It's still a fair deal if that does happen but I'd prefer it was designed to eliminate possibility almost entirely.

[oldnews]

21 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

They wanted draft picks. 

How do you know that?

It's possible they 'wanted' prospects.  It's possible they wanted more of a known-quantity Ie previous picks with the advantage of draft-plus seasons to assess, and/or players that are nearer to NHL ready that could come in and help alleviate future cap tightness sooner - during a window of contention.

Again, what you are stating sounds like an assumption - that is, unless you have something tangible to reference that actually comes from the horses' mouth - (not some canucksmarmy or alt pseudo source).  If you have a Tampa exec stating "we wanted picks only" then your statement might hold something more than mere narrative or assumptive value.

 

[oldnews]

2 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

JB could have all but guaranteed the pick would be a 10+ pick which is what I have never liked about the trade. I don't mind the trade. I was skeptical about Markstrom and didn't expect Hughes to be as good as he is this quickly.  So I'd hoped he protected the pick better. If we were/are picking 12th again this year I'd prefer to give that pick to Tampa. A lot of things can happen with a young team. Just look at the Avs. They were good then dropped right back to a lottery team. I would not want to see a top 5 draft pick going to Tampa.  It's still a fair deal if that does happen but I'd prefer it was designed to eliminate possibility almost entirely.

I think those are fair enough comments, even if I disagree with some of it.

The parts I agree with is that a lot of things can happen with a young team - particularly, if that young team suffers a bunch of critical losses to it's veteran foundation.

I would not have anticipated these results had I known that Sutter, Beagle, Edler, Roussel, Ferland, Motte, Leivo would all face significant injuries - that virtually the entire bottom six, critical elements in enabling the young players, would suffer that many overlapping injuries.  For me, that represents the risk of falling back into lottery contention (and I think the relative results qualify that).

I don't/didn't share the Markstrom skepticism (for a bunch of reasons I'm not going to go into here - that is a side issue) - but I am surprised that Hughes has been as effective without the puck as he has been - that has been a pleasant surprise.

However,  I think there were a number of underlying indicators that the team would/should improve - from the uptick you get from young, developing players, to the ability to go so hard into a relatively deflated market.  I think the timing and conditions were very conducive - and that the team took solid advantage of them.  This is a factor I consider to be a strong calculative aspect of what they did, not simply 'luck' - they set themselves up for that advantageous window and I think they deserve credit for how thoroughly they took advantage of it to improve the team.  Not a matter of hindsight - all stuff that's been said repeatedly - at the time - and since.  I didn't necessarily 'expect' to get MIller, and Myers, and Ferland, and Benn - all under the cap, without having to waste assets to move salary - and absorb the Luo recrap at the same time.  I considered that one hell of a good summer of work - and am not surprised the team has upticked.

And further to the point above -as we've seen this season - when the team loses Edler, Sutter, Beagle types - it takes a downturn.  They managed to middle along through that - and have produced outstanding results when healthy.  To a similar albeit lesser degree - we've seen that the past number of seasons - competitiveness intermittent with M.A.S.H. crashes - so while I did not 'expect' them to be in 1st in the Pacific, I did expect this team, when healthy, to be quite competitive.  All things (that could be) considered, I nowhere near shared the 'risk' impression that a lot of the outspoken haters of this deal did - nor did I share the devaluations of Miller - a large contingent of which were downright absurd.

[peaches5]

19 minutes ago, oldnews said:

How do you know that?

It's possible they 'wanted' prospects.  It's possible they wanted more of a known-quantity Ie previous picks with the advantage of draft-plus seasons to assess, and/or players that are nearer to NHL ready that could come in and help alleviate future cap tightness sooner - during a window of contention.

Again, what you are stating sounds like an assumption - that is, unless you have something tangible to reference that actually comes from the horses' mouth - (not some canucksmarmy or alt pseudo source).  If you have a Tampa exec stating "we wanted picks only" then your statement might hold something more than mere narrative or assumptive value.

 

I spent the last 15 minutes googling trying to find the article. It may have said prospects/picks. Here is a tidbit from Brisebois from an unrelated article that is interesting:

 

Quote

General manager Julien BriseBois had said the Lightning wouldn’t consider need in making its draft picks because most of those players won’t be in the league for a few years, if at all. He still found a way to address the team’s biggest immediate concern: the salary cap.

This is alluding to the first round pick last draft. From the video I posted yesterday you know this trade as in talks the previous day. I think JB decided to draft Podkolzin instead of sending the 12th to Tampa. JB must have been pretty high on him.

[oldnews]

4 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

I spent the last 15 minutes googling trying to find the article. It may have said prospects/picks. Here is a tidbit from Brisebois from an unrelated article that is interesting:

 

This is alluding to the first round pick last draft. From the video I posted yesterday you know this trade as in talks the previous day. I think JB decided to draft Podkolzin instead of sending the 12th to Tampa. JB must have been pretty high on him.

I can't imagine Tampa would prefer a deferred pick - particularly when they could benefit from youth-emergence alleviating cap tightness sooner - and have those assets available earlier in a contending window - so that imo indicates a concession Tampa had to make.   And I have little doubt that they shopped their options - but as has been pointed out, it was hardly an opportune time to be a seller - so I think the Canucks did a great job of going hard into a buyer's market (so many teams in no position to be buying an asset like Miller). 

 

I think Benning probably did want to retain that 2019 pick more than one in the following years, and took a calculated risk at the same time that the ensuing picks would/should not be as high (of course, however, as you point out, things happen to young teams).  I think, though, that if the team found itself, despite the influx of young talent and quality veteran supporting cast additions - if they still found themselves a lottery team in both seasons that followed, well that's a failed-rething of sorts - something you simply cannot 'bet' on when you're building a team.  I think on a certain level they knew better than to undersell themselves that hard - and additioally, there is something to be said for believing in your team, and also, giving a player like EP the right complement asap.  I think it's actually possible to be quite real about the risk the team took, and yet be 'all-in' in favour of it.

[Rob_Zepp]

2 hours ago, peaches5 said:

You can't use hindsight to judge a trade and assert its value.

Of course you can!   What an absolutely insane thing to say.   The VALUE of any deal is really only know AFTER the deal is made.   You need a dictionary sparky.   

[Kanukfanatic]

...same ole crap here I see from last weekend...

 

...closes door behind him.

[crobar]

Ya this thread has gone the way of the Dahlin thread, has become pretty redundant.

[J-Dizzle]

@peaches5 so does lighting the lamp a couple more times tonight make the deal look better yet or are we not allowed to use hindsight 

 

[peaches5]

Just now, J-Dizzle said:

@peaches5 so does lighting the lamp a couple more times tonight make the deal look better yet or are we not allowed to use hindsight 

 

it doesn't change anything.

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, peaches5 said:

it doesn't change anything.

Only if you’re a TBay fan.  

[sockeye]

I would gladly do this trade over again.  JT is a beast and well worth the draft picks.  Love the way this guy plays.

[ShawnAntoski]

1 hour ago, sockeye said:

I would gladly do this trade over again.  JT is a beast and well worth the draft picks.  Love the way this guy plays.

Still a loooong ways till the end but JT, has been a great add to the team: on and off the ice.  He brought some of the winning ways from Tampa, to a team looking/learning to win.

[Rob_Zepp]

10 hours ago, peaches5 said:

it doesn't change anything.

JT sucked again against St Louis.   I suspect he has a picture of your posts on his locker beside the word "Value".