[Trade] Canucks trade Jason Dickinson, 2024 2nd-round pick to Blackhawks for Riley Stillman

[JeremyCuddles]

3 hours ago, D-Money said:

Another assist for Dickinson tonight. That’s 2G 3A in 4 games with Chicago…

Yeah but how many celebratory jerseys has he inspired to hit the ice during a game? Yeah, that's what I thought.

[ShawnAntoski]

Stillman for Dickenson, a 2nd and a 3rd

Plus, 5pts in 4 games.  It seems JB, still in charge - just kidding !

 

 

[Drakrami]

I cant believe people dont criticize this trade more. We are #32 in the standings and we just traded a 2nd to move cap..... lol. 

 

I've been so down on Dickinson as a player I'm glad hes gone, but this trade, losing a 2nd is actually quite big. 

[granpappy]

16 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

I cant believe people dont criticize this trade more. We are #32 in the standings and we just traded a 2nd to move cap..... lol. 

 

I've been so down on Dickinson as a player I'm glad hes gone, but this trade, losing a 2nd is actually quite big. 

its pretty amazing when you think of it ... there is almost nothing, it seems, that has gone right for us lately and it has quickly become a very large snowball

[I.Am.Ironman]

Let's not pretend that the fan base wasn't ready to drive Dickinson to the airport. That said, to pay a premium to ditch him, a 4C at 2.5AAV with only 2 years left is a waste. Especially after a down year. His value couldn't have decreased much lower - you may as well hope for a rebound year... which he is having.

[Mustard Tiger]

So we paid them a high pick next year so they don't tank with us this year eh 

[MikeBossy]

1 hour ago, Drakrami said:

I cant believe people dont criticize this trade more. We are #32 in the standings and we just traded a 2nd to move cap..... lol. 

 

I've been so down on Dickinson as a player I'm glad hes gone, but this trade, losing a 2nd is actually quite big. 

100% agree - we should not be trading draft picks at all - especially a 2nd rounder.

[Diamonds]

2 hours ago, Drakrami said:

I cant believe people dont criticize this trade more. We are #32 in the standings and we just traded a 2nd to move cap..... lol. 

 

I've been so down on Dickinson as a player I'm glad hes gone, but this trade, losing a 2nd is actually quite big. 

I hate the losing of a 2nd (we've traded way too many of them the last few years), but it also seems that cap space is the number 1 asset in the NHL this season. 

 

The fact that we've been a mediocre/bad team the last few seasons but have been at or over the cap is the real issue. Even if the Canucks decided to go full rebuild, they're still going to need to take some bad contracts back as teams won't be able to fit our players otherwise. So in order to do anything (bolster the roaster or trade players for prospects and picks) we will need cap space of our own. Doesn't change the fact that it's frustrating to give up draft picks though.

[HKSR]

At this rate, that 2nd round pick will be looking like the equivalent of a late 1st rounder.

[canuck73_3]

10 minutes ago, HKSR said:

At this rate, that 2nd round pick will be looking like the equivalent of a late 1st rounder.

A 2nd round pick is a second round pick. 

[HKSR]

2 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

A 2nd round pick is a second round pick. 

It is, but there's a big difference between picking 34th OA and 61st OA.  Both 2nd round picks.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, HKSR said:

It is, but there's a big difference between picking 34th OA and 61st OA.  Both 2nd round picks.

statistically not really. 

 

https://stg.tsn.9c9media.ca/statistically-speaking-nhl-draft-pick-value-1.786131

[HKSR]

12 minutes ago, JM_ said:

statistically not really. 

 

https://stg.tsn.9c9media.ca/statistically-speaking-nhl-draft-pick-value-1.786131

Except there's so much more than just numbers.  What that chart tells me is that teams would be more than willing to trade 10th OA for 23rd OA, and in fact would have to add to the trade to make it happen since 23rd OA results in a Top 4/Top 6 player with 33.3% odds, whereas 10th OA is only a measly 13% chance.  So based on that chart alone, every team that gets 10th OA would want 23rd OA instead. 

 

Hmmm.. wonder why that doesn't happen?  Flawed approach perhaps...

 

I think a much better approach is to group the picks.  1OA to 3OA, 4OA to 6OA, 7OA to 15OA, etc.  By the 2nd round, you could probably group them by every 10 picks.  They kinda do that later on... Picks 61 to 70 is 7.5% odds.  I'd look at 31 to 40 together which is 22.5% odds.  There's a big difference.

Edited October 26, 2022 by HKSR

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Except there's so much more than just numbers.  What that chart tells me is that teams would be more than willing to trade 10th OA for 23rd OA, and in fact would have to add to the trade to make it happen since 23rd OA results in a Top 4/Top 6 player with 33.3% odds, whereas 10th OA is only a measly 13% chance.  So based on that chart alone, every team that gets 10th OA would want 23rd OA instead. 

 

Hmmm.. wonder why that doesn't happen?  Flawed approach perhaps...

of course no one would set out to do that. What the chart does show tho is picking in the 2nd round is always going to be a bit of a crap shoot, since most players picked in that range all have some kind of development hurdle, and you just never know who's going to develop or not. Look at Woo vs Durzi, e.g. 

 

So for me the lesson would be just get more 2nd round picks, because its pretty even odds no mater where you're picking in that round, 32 or 61 just doesn't really matter. 

Edited October 26, 2022 by JM_

[HKSR]

1 minute ago, JM_ said:

of course no one would set out to do that. What the chart does show tho is picking in the 2nd round is always going to be a bit of a crap shoot, since most players picked in that range all have some kind of development hurdle, and you just never know who's going to develop or not. Look at Woo vs Durzi, e.g. 

 

So for me the lesson would be just get more 2nd round picks, because its pretty even odds no mater where you're picking in that round, 31 or 64 just doesn't really matter. 

I edited my post above.  Take a look.

 

That table is pretty flawed because it looks at groupings arbitrarily.  Sure it's 7.5% odds if you pick 61 to 70, but why not look at 31 to 40 as a grouping?  Why only 31 to 35?  Because if you take picks 31 to 40, the odds added together would be increased significantly.

[JM_]

1 minute ago, HKSR said:

I edited my post above.  Take a look.

 

That table is pretty flawed because it looks at groupings arbitrarily.  Sure it's 7.5% odds if you pick 61 to 70, but why not look at 31 to 40 as a grouping?  Why only 31 to 35?  Because if you take picks 31 to 40, the odds added together would be increased significantly.

I think the table is pretty good tho, because its a really big time scale (1990-2013) so that would help deal with things like variations in talent between draft years.

 

But for sure we can slice it up into different cohorts and get a different look. 

 

I like to actually go look at the draft results after a few years. Thats why I brought up Woo vs Durzi, based on where they were picked Woo should be in the NHL by now.

 

Its kind of interesting that 41-45 seems to be the sweet spot. I wonder if that has something to do with good players dropping? just randomness playing out? 

[Provost]

6 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Except there's so much more than just numbers.  What that chart tells me is that teams would be more than willing to trade 10th OA for 23rd OA, and in fact would have to add to the trade to make it happen since 23rd OA results in a Top 4/Top 6 player with 33.3% odds, whereas 10th OA is only a measly 13% chance.  So based on that chart alone, every team that gets 10th OA would want 23rd OA instead. 

 

Hmmm.. wonder why that doesn't happen?  Flawed approach perhaps...

Not really, you just use more than one piece of information.  This particular model doesn't quantify the calibre of player with a great amount of specificity.  All top 6 forwards aren't created equal, Connor McDavid is a top 6 forward... so is Conner Garland.  This particular model doesn't discriminate any difference between the two.

This particular model has been around for a while and it really is useful for quantifying picks outside the 1st round.. or late 1st round onwards where you aren't going to spend hundreds of hours analyzing every player in great detail with very advanced models like you would for the very top picks.  This particular story just has a set number of years so it still has some volatility where one really good or bad pick at a spot can change the values quite a bit.  You add in another decade to it and you would see it even out a bit more and those little anomalies sort out.

If you are making a decision on whether to have a trade that includes the 25th pick or two mid-late 2nd rounders... that is what this model helps with.  The 2nd rounders are a little less likely to make it, but two of them have more value than the single 1st round pick.  Same as if you are sitting in the 15-20 spot and someone offers you a later 1st round pick plus a 2nd... that probably gets you a better value.


 

[HKSR]

2 minutes ago, JM_ said:

I think the table is pretty good tho, because its a really big time scale (1990-2013) so that would help deal with things like variations in talent between draft years.

 

But for sure we can slice it up into different cohorts and get a different look. 

 

I like to actually go look at the draft results after a few years. Thats why I brought up Woo vs Durzi, based on where they were picked Woo should be in the NHL by now.

 

Its kind of interesting that 41-45 seems to be the sweet spot. I wonder if that has something to do with good players dropping? just randomness playing out? 

Hard to say... I think it would have helped if he showed it pick by pick (problem is the table would be really big lol).  41-45 is basically the middle of the 2nd round... wonder if that's where teams start reaching for higher risk but high reward players.  It's all just stats that could be grouped in various ways to tell different stories.

[JM_]

1 minute ago, HKSR said:

Hard to say... I think it would have helped if he showed it pick by pick (problem is the table would be really big lol).  41-45 is basically the middle of the 2nd round... wonder if that's where teams start reaching for higher risk but high reward players.  It's all just stats that could be grouped in various ways to tell different stories.

yep we can get into the weeds fast. I just hope we don't trade any more of them. 

[HKSR]

9 minutes ago, Provost said:

Not really, you just use more than one piece of information.  This particular model doesn't quantify the calibre of player with a great amount of specificity.  All top 6 forwards aren't created equal, Connor McDavid is a top 6 forward... so is Conner Garland.  This particular model doesn't discriminate any difference between the two.

This particular model has been around for a while and it really is useful for quantifying picks outside the 1st round.. or late 1st round onwards where you aren't going to spend hundreds of hours analyzing every player in great detail with very advanced models like you would for the very top picks.  This particular story just has a set number of years so it still has some volatility where one really good or bad pick at a spot can change the values quite a bit.  You add in another decade to it and you would see it even out a bit more and those little anomalies sort out.

If you are making a decision on whether to have a trade that includes the 25th pick or two mid-late 2nd rounders... that is what this model helps with.  The 2nd rounders are a little less likely to make it, but two of them have more value than the single 1st round pick.  Same as if you are sitting in the 15-20 spot and someone offers you a later 1st round pick plus a 2nd... that probably gets you a better value.


 

I think what the problem with the model is is that it has arbitrary groupings.  If he showed each and every pick then we could calculate odds on our own based on a quantitative value.  Right now, he has them grouped to tell his story.  Like I said, group picks 31 to 40 and compare to 61 to 70 and it would tell a much different story.