HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Calgary Flames
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

PL3 on Waivers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-02-2011, 03:15 PM
  #26
berto14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW View Post
I just want the Flames to stop trading draft picks period. Unless it was for a bonifide, young NHL'er, then we need all the picks we have.
I agree, I just think that the situation is getting more than a little overblown. Pretty minor mistake in the grand scheme of things.

berto14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 08:11 PM
  #27
Calculon
unholy acting talent
 
Calculon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,666
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by berto14 View Post
I agree, I just think that the situation is getting more than a little overblown. Pretty minor mistake in the grand scheme of things.
Sure, if you want to keep looking at each transaction in isolation and in a vacuum.

Calculon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 09:41 PM
  #28
Medium Rare*
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calculon View Post
Sure, if you want to keep looking at each transaction in isolation and in a vacuum.
even when you look at the complete body of work Feaster has made 2 "bad moves" this one and the Modin one which wouldn't have been bad if Modin hadn't gotten hurt

Medium Rare* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 09:55 PM
  #29
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,800
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by berto14 View Post
To put it another way, the team has drafted 181 players in the 5th round or later. Of those, only 53 ever played a single game in the NHL. And of those, only 21 played 250+ games in the NHL.

So, statistically speaking, that 5th round pick would've given us about a 9% chance to draft an NHL regular. Or if you wanna be pessimistic about it, there's a 91% chance the player wasn't going to be an NHL regular.

(248 games is considered the average length of a player's NHL career according to this site: http://www.quanthockey.com/Distribut...erLengthGP.php).
So it works out because P3L played in about 9% of our games this season.

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 01:14 AM
  #30
Calculon
unholy acting talent
 
Calculon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,666
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medium Rare View Post
even when you look at the complete body of work Feaster has made 2 "bad moves" this one and the Modin one which wouldn't have been bad if Modin hadn't gotten hurt
I don't consider either the Langkow for Stempniak or the Regehr trade to be good trades. Even though Stempniak has been decent, Langkow would still have been the best centremen on this team. And I would have much preferred trading Regehr for futures or keeping him at least until the deadline instead of moving him for immediate 'help' in Butler and Byron while throwing away a 2nd round pick.

Modin was finished as a hockey player. Even if he hadn't been injured, he wasn't capable of contributing anything.

Calculon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 02:01 AM
  #31
Medium Rare*
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calculon View Post
I don't consider either the Langkow for Stempniak or the Regehr trade to be good trades. Even though Stempniak has been decent, Langkow would still have been the best centremen on this team. And I would have much preferred trading Regehr for futures or keeping him at least until the deadline instead of moving him for immediate 'help' in Butler and Byron while throwing away a 2nd round pick.

Modin was finished as a hockey player. Even if he hadn't been injured, he wasn't capable of contributing anything.
how the **** was the Regehr trade for immediate help? Butler is 24 years old and has proven himself able to be a top 4 defenseman and Byron is a close to NHL ready prospect who appears to have decent upside. The 2nd was to dump Kotalik (or get Byron back depending how you look at the trade)

and Langkow for Stempniak was brilliant. we shed tons of cap space and didn't lose anything offensively. as for Langkow being our best center, that is laughable to say the least. Jokinen is much better than Langkow

Medium Rare* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 08:20 AM
  #32
berto14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calculon View Post
Sure, if you want to keep looking at each transaction in isolation and in a vacuum.
Actually, "in the grand scheme of things" means pretty much the exact opposite of that. Yes, it sucks that we gave up an asset for a player we just sent to the minors, but there's a 90% chance that asset would have amounted to pretty much nothing anyways. I really don't see what the difference is.

And the 7th for Modin is a joke, that's literally the smallest asset you can give up for a player without getting him for free. I know folks around here are eager to criticize Feaster, but seriously, why are we even talking about this?

berto14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 08:26 AM
  #33
berto14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
So it works out because P3L played in about 9% of our games this season.
So far. That doesn't mean he can't be recalled from the minors once some moves have been made up-front.

berto14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 10:05 AM
  #34
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,800
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by berto14 View Post
So far. That doesn't mean he can't be recalled from the minors once some moves have been made up-front.
But, but, what if he's claimed on re-entry waivers?!






I think Byron is likely to be called up ahead of Pierre Luc-Skywalker the Blonde.

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 10:14 AM
  #35
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,941
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medium Rare View Post
how the **** was the Regehr trade for immediate help? Butler is 24 years old and has proven himself able to be a top 4 defenseman and Byron is a close to NHL ready prospect who appears to have decent upside. The 2nd was to dump Kotalik (or get Byron back depending how you look at the trade)

and Langkow for Stempniak was brilliant. we shed tons of cap space and didn't lose anything offensively. as for Langkow being our best center, that is laughable to say the least. Jokinen is much better than Langkow
Langkow probably would've won more faceoffs. I would prefer Horak, Backlund, or Byron at centre over Langkow because this team desperately needed some youth at that time, so I'm ok with the Stempniak trade. But to say that it's laughable at the idea that Lankgow would be our best centreman is a bit overboard. I think Lankow has two less points than Jokinen, but Jokinen has had more ice time. That's really not "much" better.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 10:15 AM
  #36
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,941
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by berto14 View Post
Actually, "in the grand scheme of things" means pretty much the exact opposite of that. Yes, it sucks that we gave up an asset for a player we just sent to the minors, but there's a 90% chance that asset would have amounted to pretty much nothing anyways. I really don't see what the difference is.

And the 7th for Modin is a joke, that's literally the smallest asset you can give up for a player without getting him for free. I know folks around here are eager to criticize Feaster, but seriously, why are we even talking about this?
What about "future considerations"??

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 10:35 AM
  #37
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,941
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by berto14 View Post
To put it another way, the team has drafted 181 players in the 5th round or later. Of those, only 53 ever played a single game in the NHL. And of those, only 21 played 250+ games in the NHL.

So, statistically speaking, that 5th round pick would've given us about a 9% chance to draft an NHL regular. Or if you wanna be pessimistic about it, there's a 91% chance the player wasn't going to be an NHL regular.

(248 games is considered the average length of a player's NHL career according to this site: http://www.quanthockey.com/Distribut...erLengthGP.php).
The later rounds of the draft are about more than simply obtaining NHL talent. It can be about depth and competition in the system. It can be about options. And yes it can be assets. Value is relative, and given that the Flames organization has a specific need, or demand, which is prospects, the value of certain commodities, like draft picks or bonafide prospects (as mentioned by MVW) should be adjusted around the Flames economy.

A 5th round pick has the statistical value of "only 9%" in an organization that is full and healthy in the prospect department. But for an organization starved of future talent, the Flames would label "potential-Datsuk" value to their later round picks.


Last edited by MarkGio: 12-03-2011 at 11:10 AM.
MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 11:30 AM
  #38
berto14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
The later rounds of the draft are about more than simply obtaining NHL talent. It can be about depth and competition in the system. It can be about options. And yes it can be assets. Value is relative, and given that the Flames organization has a specific need, or demand, which is prospects, the value of certain commodities, like draft picks or bonafide prospects (as mentioned by MVW) should be adjusted around the Flames economy.

A 5th round pick has the statistical value of "only 9%" in an organization that is full and healthy in the prospect department. But for an organization starved of future talent, the Flames would label "potential-Datsuk" value to their later round picks.
I'm not defending Feaster's actions or claiming these weren't mistakes on his part. They were. However, this is getting blown WAY out of proportion here. You said yourself that "this is evidence that Feaster is incapable of managing" and further went on to claim that Iginla and Sutter are running the team because, heaven forbid, our GM listened to our captain and coach. Every single GM makes mistakes, but these are so minor they're hardly even worth mentioning, let alone using them as an indication of Feaster's ability to do his job.

berto14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 12:34 PM
  #39
Medium Rare*
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Langkow probably would've won more faceoffs. I would prefer Horak, Backlund, or Byron at centre over Langkow because this team desperately needed some youth at that time, so I'm ok with the Stempniak trade. But to say that it's laughable at the idea that Lankgow would be our best centreman is a bit overboard. I think Lankow has two less points than Jokinen, but Jokinen has had more ice time. That's really not "much" better.
Langkow would have won more faceoffs? Maybe, but he would still be well below 50% like he always is. Being better than our centermen at faceoffs is like being the tallest midget, in grand scheme we would still be the worst faceoff team.

and you ignore the fact Langkow is also playing on a team that is a middle of the pack offensive team rather than one of the worst. So when you factor in the "only 2 more points" with fewer team goals you have Jokinen contributing on an even larger number of the teams goals.

also consider Feaster had said prior to the trade that Langkow would be our #3 center, so he wouldn't be getting the chances here he has in Phoenix. So yes I can easily say its laughable.

Medium Rare* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 02:16 PM
  #40
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,941
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medium Rare View Post
Langkow would have won more faceoffs? Maybe, but he would still be well below 50% like he always is. Being better than our centermen at faceoffs is like being the tallest midget, in grand scheme we would still be the worst faceoff team.

and you ignore the fact Langkow is also playing on a team that is a middle of the pack offensive team rather than one of the worst. So when you factor in the "only 2 more points" with fewer team goals you have Jokinen contributing on an even larger number of the teams goals.

also consider Feaster had said prior to the trade that Langkow would be our #3 center, so he wouldn't be getting the chances here he has in Phoenix. So yes I can easily say its laughable.
These are really "glass half empty" arguements. For that to be the case, I'll admit that mine are "glass half full" (or vice versa). In actuality they're both similiar centremen in stats this year, and they're both playing a similiar game right now. I just think it's a little extreme, even for stylistic writing, to say Jokinen is much better and it's laughable to think Langkow would be our best centremen. Especially given that our depth down the middle is pretty weak. Don't get me wrong, I like Jokinen and I think he's doing really well, and the team failure is by no means a reflection of Jokinen alone, but I digress.

We had Backlund, Morrison, Horak, and now Jokinen play along side Iginla, so it's fair to say that Langkow would've had a shot on the top line, AND... very well could've been our best centreman. But it's all speculation.

Again, I'm for the Stempniak trade. I would rather Horak, Byron, or Backlund playing down the middle than Langkow. Mind you, I would prefer Lankgow over Stajan.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 02:23 PM
  #41
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,941
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by berto14 View Post
I'm not defending Feaster's actions or claiming these weren't mistakes on his part. They were. However, this is getting blown WAY out of proportion here. You said yourself that "this is evidence that Feaster is incapable of managing" and further went on to claim that Iginla and Sutter are running the team because, heaven forbid, our GM listened to our captain and coach. Every single GM makes mistakes, but these are so minor they're hardly even worth mentioning, let alone using them as an indication of Feaster's ability to do his job.
Maybe you're right and it's unfair to say that Feaster is incompetant because of the few mistakes we've seen thus far. It's just that this particular mistake (a fifth for PL3) was a blatant and an obvious mistake. GM's should'nt be making clear errors that the typical fan could point out immediately. Not to be confused with those hind-sight, over-time mistakes that are understandable at the time, but turned out to be a bad idea.

I know every GM makes mistakes, and I'm not jumping on the "Fire Feaster" bandwagon, but I'm pissed off at this trade, and justifyably so.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:09 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.