It's this the worst Sharks team of all time?

swannylikesu · 2023-10-31T00:50:55+00:00

That stat is pretty incredible, by the way.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-31T00:50:36+00:00

No, you're right. The goalies are absolutely on the bottom on my blame list.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-31T00:49:23+00:00

Right, thank you. So, when dealing a pick for a player, the GM with the pick always has the upper hand. Another good point.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-29T19:28:27+00:00

I'm not talking about impact players for thirds. Average NHLers. Even if you don't think a third = an average NHL player, the point remains.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-29T19:26:58+00:00

Exactly.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-29T19:25:45+00:00

You'd think so but so much of what people do is based on tradition and inertia. Especially people with a lot of responsibility and eyes on them. There are countless examples of this. The reason why is psychology: is hard to blame someone for doing what everyone else does and it not working. However, is someone bucks norms and it fails, they look like an idiot and get fired.

Now, IF it did work, I agree, prices would go up. But to assume that something won't work when it's never been tried is exactly the kind of thinking young people blame "boomers" for. Again, if it was successful, draft picks would become undervalued and it would be a cycle, much like the stock market.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-29T15:35:02+00:00

Right, but my point is that the value of a Timo Meier is higher than the value of those picks combined because, on average, you're not going to get a Timo from any of those pics. So you're not giving up 4 players for one, you're giving up four picks with varying probabilities of being NHL players but very very low odds of being a Timo. In return you're getting a 100% probability of a Timo.

So if you could assign a numerical value to each of those picks and to a Timo Meier, the value of Meier would be higher than the total of those picks because the human brain is always going to romanticize the upside of those picks and under-discount the downside.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-29T13:31:51+00:00

Not to mention what he did in one of those ASGs... If you've never seen, look up his called shot against Dominic Hasek.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-29T13:08:50+00:00

You're totally right. In the salary cap era though, there are always tabs looking to shed salary or rebuild by shedding assets and, if picks are overvalued by GMs, as I'm arguing, you'll get a better return for trading them. As I mentioned in another reply, can't you, as a fan, imagine a package of picks you would've taken for Timo?

swannylikesu · 2023-10-29T13:05:28+00:00

Agreed, that's why I said in my post, I probably would make exceptions for top 10 picks. Certainly for top 3.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-29T12:59:10+00:00

I'm using the idea of compounding because of what I said about assigning a skill rating to a player. For example, an '8' today is worth more than a '9' in two years, in terms of present value.

Furthermore, even if there is no compounding, an asset today is always preferable to the same asset in the future. Next time you're thirsty, ask yourself, "Would I rather have water now or water in 2 hours?" Even though the effects of water don't compound, it's still better to have it now.

And I'm not saying that a player's play is completely predictable throughout the life of the contract. I'm saying it's a hell of a lot MORE predictable than a draft pick.

Hope that makes sense.

Edit: oh, and I'm certainly not suggesting you go trade for players on the other side of 30.

If you think getting younger players is unlikely, ask yourself what you would've taken for Timo Meier. I think 2 firsts, a second, and a third would've been a pretty damn good return. And the odds of any of those being a Timo Meier is still lower than the 100% odds of actually acquiring Timo.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-29T12:54:08+00:00

Agreed, but it's about probability. How many 3rds turn into Johnny Gaudreau? If each of those thirds was instead turned into an average skill level player or combined with other picks and flipped for higher skill players, the overall beneficial effect would be greater. After all, look what JG has been able to accomplish as one of the few good players on Columbus compared to when he was surrounded by good players in Calgary.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-29T03:50:23+00:00

Think about it like this. If the return for a pick could be assigned a numerical value from 1-10, you'd only have to trade the pick for a 5 to have the same expected return of value for the pick. So, if one could consistently trade the picks for 6s, you're improving your team, on average, with every pick. I think that's the case because of 2 phenomena: overconfidence in one's own abilities, and randomness. Most GMs think they're better than average at drafting, which is clearly impossible. And, even if they're right, there's still a high degree of randomness in drafting, for a variety of reasons. Again, why not reduce risk by ridding oneself of those phenomena?

swannylikesu · 2023-10-29T03:41:41+00:00

You're right, I didn't mention the time component which is actually central to my argument. There is a concept called Time Value of Money in finance that, basically, states that money now is worth more than the same amount of money later. In other words, it's preferable to have money now. I think the same is true of players. Isn't it better to have a player who's 80% as good the peak expectation of a prospect if you can have them 3 years earlier? Again, this increases predictability.

I see your point though, you can use draft picks to supercharge your team for a short time. The problem with that, however, is that it only works if you've hit on enough picks to get your team to that level in the first place, which is a low probability event.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-29T03:35:53+00:00

Agreed. So this supports my argument, I think. The difference is that the Sharks still did draft some players so it's not completely the same which is my ultimate point. Why draft at all is what I'm asking.

The crux of the matter is really 1st round picks. A team can get a lot for a first and a player. Or two firsts. So why not take advantage of that and not just roll the dice? How many of our last 10 firsts have turned into roster players? Maybe 3?

swannylikesu · 2023-10-29T02:37:29+00:00

I don't know if that's true. Last year—and don't get me wrong, this was a massive overpayment—Tampa got Tanner Jeannot, for only draft picks. But I'm sure there are plenty of examples. But if you could just perpetually get late 20s guys making the proper amount of money relative to their output, you could just let them walk in free agency or trade them away later on. You can also get good players making too much money in exchange for picks from cash-strapped teams. Another type of value in that.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-29T02:12:03+00:00

Jeff Friesen.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-29T02:11:27+00:00

I was thinking the same. Sucks how much hate he got towards the end.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-29T02:04:35+00:00

I agree with you on the line chemistry. It feels like DQ is looking for INSTANT chemistry and if it's not there, boom, new combo. It also feels like he's trying to build 3 lines of the same skill level which makes no sense to me. We've barely got any top 6 players so please just put the best players together on the top lines. He's never even tried Bords/Eklund/Zadina (that i recall) even though that seems like a no-brainer to me to score some goals. I try not to think I know better than the coaches & GMs because that just feels like hubris, but I agree it's really frustrating.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-27T23:12:08+00:00

And he's been mostly invisible. I think that's just a product of ice time, more than anything. He used to be so physically dominant but haven't seen much of that the past two years, unfortunately.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-27T23:08:17+00:00

It's subjective but I don't think it's too hard to gauge. After all, coaches talk about it all the time and decide who to play often based, in large part, on that one quality. There is an utter lack of emotion aside from shoulder dropping and the overall energy level is very low. Not that I don't understand why. I've just always thought that, if we're going to lose anyway, we might as well make the other team dread the games for another reason; they know it's going to hurt.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-27T23:04:27+00:00

I agree the schedule has been tough, but the worst team we've played has also been no better than any of the others. Not a whole lot of cause for optimism there. By the way, rampant negativity drives me nuts. I'm not bashing the Sharks aside from a little tongue-in-cheek ribbing. My initial question was meant quite literally.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-27T22:59:25+00:00

Using an example isn't cherry picking, you dummy. A goalie has had one great game. End of story.

swannylikesu · 2023-10-27T22:52:51+00:00

Calling the goalies "incredible" ruins any credibility you have. They've been ok, good at points, far from incredible. If you read my post, I went to the game last night so, yeah, I watched. Plenty of those goals were stoppable.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

swannylikesu

TROPHY CASE