View Single Post
Old
08-30-2011, 03:13 PM
  #58
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
I think the bottom line is that we differ on the level of risk.

I think a perfect example of my opinion is how I approach Fantasy Baseball auction drafts...seriously, bear with me haha.

A few seasons ago, I'm planning for my fantasy baseball auction draft, and I'm budgeting out exactly how much I'd "like" to spend at each position. I'm taking into account which positions I feel are deep and which positions I feel are not.

Specifically at the shortstop postion, I looked at the available guys and said, I like 3 guys, and only 3 guys. I thought there was a significant drop off after Hanley Ramirez, Jose Reyes, and Jimmy Rollins. So I told myself, I HAVE to get one of those 3 in order to field the best team possible, because if I miss out on one of them, I'm going to be stuck with a far lesser option.

(This, imo, is prefectly analogous to Homer looking at goalies. He probably looked at the market. Said he liked these guys, but not these guys, and said, ideally I want him, but I have to get one of these guys because the dropoff is too great if I miss out.)

Come draft day, someone nominates Hanley, who is the highest rated. 10 owners then begin to bid for him. He goes for well over his "projected" value, because, let's face it, people wanted the best, and people also had similar thoughts to mine, in that there was a very clear top tier of players. Quite a few people dropped out early in the bidding thinking "there are other guys I like".

Later, Rollins gets nominated. I decide to bid and bid on him hard because I know that if I don't get him, there is only 1 guy left of the "top tier" and I predict he will be VERY expensive. So I flat out decide, I am getting him. So I bid and bid and get Rollins. I actually get him for just over his projected value, and far cheaper than Hanley. Again people were thinking "I can pass, there are other guys I like". (Presumably, one other guy.)

Reyes gets nominated and ends up going for MORE than Hanley because he is the last valuable commodity with 8 owners bidding on him. It's simple supply and demand, and quite easy to predict. In fact, I expected it, and managed to avoid it. I got the best value for my money, by accurately predicting what would happen.

I expect the best GMs to play the market similarly. If you enter a market in which there is one and ONLY one guy you have to have, then that is risky. Especially a market in which there are multiple suitors for that same player (See Hanley, Reyes, and Rollins.) However, if there are multiple players that you covet, you should be able to approach it appropriately. Push hard for the guy you may have ranked highest, but know when to back out. Then push even harder for the next guy, knowing that if you miss on him, you're left being desperate for the last guy. And you don't want to be that.

This example however, is not analogous to this past offseasn because there were far more owners than valuable commodities. So prices went up. In the case of the goalie market, there were far fewer teams in the market for a goalie. In fact, I'd argue it was 1:1. If you disagree with that, so be it, but as has been pointed out, it really isn't hard to figure out the contending teams that needed a goalie and had money for a goalie.
ive never disagreed with that... ?
I also just want to point out again I have NO ISSUE with the Bryzgalov signing. I'm thrilled to have a goalie. I'm not sitting here upset in the slightest. I'm just trying to make the point, that I was fairly confident someone was going to get Vokoun for a REAL bargain once we saw the Avs commit to Varlamov. Admittedly, he signed for quite a bit less than I thought, but I did think he would come fairly cheap.

Halfway through writing this I kind of forgot the crux of my argument haha, but oh well...
Sure that makes sense, but think about risk V reward...

whats the reward of a 1 year 1.5mil vokoun to us? (with no richie/carter)
whats the risk of having boucher instead of any goalie. (pretty fu-king high)

thats all there is to it. You have to take risks in sports to get ahead, but you also have to be careful. Having nothing from being greedy is a lot worse than playing it safe (especially in net)

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote