HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD 2013 - Trading thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-02-2013, 01:23 PM
  #476
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
The run on defensemen happens all through the early part of the draft (though yes, it's most egregious in the 2nd round), they're virtually always drafted at a premium, just like goalies seem to be drafted at discount. Hasek and Roy are much better goalies than Lidstrom is D-man, but they don't go in top-10, yet he does. When the best LW ever goes after SIX d-men, and best goalie after seven (and second-best after TEN), it's very obvious that D-men go too early in general.

I'm also pretty sure it stems from the 'true #1' obsession and generally being way too hard on D-men. People will bemoan when a '#3 type' like Desjardins ends up on top pairing, yet will not blink an eye when low-end 2nd-liners somehow find themselves playing on the top line.
Well that's why we need you, MadAr, to keep it real by stabbing yourself in the face with silverware whenever a forward, especially a modern one, looks out of place. Comparing goal to any other position will make that position look overvalued because there are only 32 starting goalies in the draft. GMs have wised up over the years as to when they can take a goalie after a run of teams won the ATD championship with goalies selected in the mid-to-late rounds. Goalies are a complete red herring here, and you're smart enough to know that.

This year was unusual in that I think Lidstrom and Potvin both went too high, with respect to other defensemen and with respect to other positions, but normally Bobby Hull is taken after only 2 or 3 blueliners come off the board, and you can't tell me that he is clearly better than any of the top-4 defensemen of all-time. Hull has gone as high as 5th overall in the draft. I don't think the blueliners start getting stretched for value until at least Paul Coffey (who is arguably undervalued still) is off the board. None of the defensemen taken in the 1st round is overvalued from a career perspective. Maybe people haven't figured this out yet, but 1st round defensemen are often among the best picks in the draft, simply because it is the only early round when they are not overvalued.

Sturminator is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 01:42 PM
  #477
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Well that's why we need you, MadAr, to keep it real by stabbing yourself in the face with silverware whenever a forward, especially a modern one, looks out of place. Comparing goal to any other position will make that position look overvalued because there are only 32 starting goalies in the draft. GMs have wised up over the years as to when they can take a goalie after a run of teams won the ATD championship with goalies selected in the mid-to-late rounds. Goalies are a complete red herring here, and you're smart enough to know that.

This year was unusual in that I think Lidstrom and Potvin both went too high, with respect to other defensemen and with respect to other positions, but normally Bobby Hull is taken after only 2 or 3 blueliners come off the board, and you can't tell me that he is clearly better than any of the top-4 defensemen of all-time. Hull has gone as high as 5th overall in the draft. I don't think the blueliners start getting stretched for value until at least Paul Coffey (who is arguably undervalued still) is off the board. None of the defensemen taken in the 1st round is overvalued from a career perspective. Maybe people haven't figured this out yet, but 1st round defensemen are often among the best picks in the draft, simply because it is the only early round when they are not overvalued.
Perhaps it's the Lidstrom pick that makes it seem to me like it was defenseman run right out of the gates.

But yeah I agree that it's the second round when it gets really bad. It gets back to normal maybe in the 400s.

MadArcand is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 02:20 PM
  #478
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
I'd say Ted Lindsay is something very significant.
Ted Lindsay is a significant piece, but so is Frank Mahovlich. The gap between those two is not significant.

Quote:
I really think you guys are downplaying how good MB's top 3 still is. Chara - Gerard is a perfect fit and then he has Pronovost anchoring his 2nd pairing.
Yes, he would still have a solid blueline, but it would no longer be strong enough to make up for the sacrifices he made in the rest of his roster.

Quote:
and please stop trying to post things like the bolded, we all know that is incorrect.
Rank all the centers in the draft, and Savard comes out around 45th. That makes him an average 2nd liner.

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 02:34 PM
  #479
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Rank all the centers in the draft, and Savard comes out around 45th. That makes him an average 2nd liner.
That would make him somewhat above average, actually.

Sturminator is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 02:41 PM
  #480
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
That would make him somewhat above average, actually.
Depends what your definition of average is. 48th and 49th would be the exact middle of the 2nd line centers, so how narrow do you want to keep the scope? What's the gap between 45th and 50th? Are there really only a couple guys who could be considered average?

It doesn't matter anyway - my point remains the same. Denis Savard on a 1st line is a weakness.

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 02:49 PM
  #481
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
That would make him somewhat above average, actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Depends what your definition of average is. 48th and 49th would be the exact middle of the 2nd line centers, so how narrow do you want to keep the scope? What's the gap between 45th and 50th? Are there really only a couple guys who could be considered average?

It doesn't matter anyway - my point remains the same. Denis Savard on a 1st line is a weakness.
He's right on the border line. I would say generally there's going to be 5 categories per position: high-end, above average, average, below average, and low-end. That's 6 per category with a couple extra, so 45th and 46th would be the borders of the above average and average categories most of the time. Of course, it's not always going to fit perfectly because sometimes you just have larger or smaller groups of players that are near the same caliber.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 07:31 PM
  #482
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,356
vCash: 500
I do think this trade improves my team Sturm, I upgrade the top 6 significantly (not majorly) with Lindsay and Savard in for Mahovlich and Keats, and my top four on defence remains top 10 in the league. I had one of the best third lines in the draft to start with, my forwards as a whole are anything but average now.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 07:54 PM
  #483
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
It doesn't matter anyway - my point remains the same. Denis Savard on a 1st line is a weakness.
Not with Lindsay and Maltsev on the wings.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 07:57 PM
  #484
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
Not with Lindsay and Maltsev on the wings.
Lindsay is one of the best LWs, but Maltsev is one of the worst RWs. Overall, that gives you pretty average wingers to flank a very weak center.

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 07:59 PM
  #485
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Lindsay is one of the best LWs, but Maltsev is one of the worst RWs. Overall, that gives you pretty average wingers to flank a very weak center.
I would love to see 10 better wing combo's on a 1st line than mine.

I guess I can expect to be voted 4th by everyone in Mark's divison if this goes down, to be expected I guess.

Also: Lindsay-Savard-Maltsev>Lindsay-Keats-Selanne IMO.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 08:05 PM
  #486
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Lindsay is one of the best LWs, but Maltsev is one of the worst RWs. Overall, that gives you pretty average wingers to flank a very weak center.
In no particular order:

Babe Dye
Marion Gaborik
Ken Hodge
Bill Guerin
Glenn Anderson
Cam Neely
Mark Recchi
Dany Heatley
Bryan Hextall Sr
Odie Cleghorn
Jack Walker
Theo Fleury
George Armstrong
Lanny McDonald
Eddie Oatman
Rod Gilbert
Ace Bailey

Are all 1st line RW who are easily below Maltsev....care to retract your statement?

markrander87 is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 08:08 PM
  #487
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
I would love to see 10 better wing combo's on a 1st line than mine.

I guess I can expect to be voted 4th by everyone in Mark's divison if this goes down, to be expected I guess.
A lot of teams split up their top 2 wingers, so there might now be 10 better wingers on 1st lines, but there are defiantely better winger combos on more than 10 teams.

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 08:14 PM
  #488
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
A lot of teams split up their top 2 wingers, so there might now be 10 better wingers on 1st lines, but there are defiantely better winger combos on more than 10 teams.
Considering Ted Lindsay is easily the 2nd best LW All Time and I just posted 17 1st line RW who are below Maltsev, without even looking it's quite obvious MB has one of the top 5-10 winger combos for a first line, now factor in he used 3 of his top picks on D and you are running out of ammo...

markrander87 is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 08:27 PM
  #489
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
In no particular order:

Babe Dye
Marion Gaborik
Ken Hodge
Bill Guerin
Glenn Anderson
Cam Neely
Mark Recchi
Dany Heatley
Bryan Hextall Sr
Odie Cleghorn
Jack Walker
Theo Fleury
George Armstrong
Lanny McDonald
Eddie Oatman
Rod Gilbert
Ace Bailey

Are all 1st line RW who are easily below Maltsev....care to retract your statement?
Well, I'd take quite a few of those guys ahead of Maltsev, but I suppose that's not the point.

With so many people splitting up their top-2 wingers, that left quite a few weaker wingers on 1st lines. If we made a list of RWs, Maltsev would be between 30th and 35th.

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 08:39 PM
  #490
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Well, I'd take quite a few of those guys ahead of Maltsev, but I suppose that's not the point.

go ahead and list them...


Quote:
With so many people splitting up their top-2 wingers, that left quite a few weaker wingers on 1st lines. If we made a list of RWs, Maltsev would be between 30th and 35th.
How many times are you going to change your point? You said Maltsev was one of the worst first lines RW....judging by the list I provided that is incorrect.

markrander87 is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 09:03 PM
  #491
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,205
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
So this trade breaks down to:

Team 1Team 2Difference
1st: 151st: 29+14 Team 1
3rd: 902nd: 50+40 Team 1
6th: 1648th: 242+78 Team 2
18th: 54822nd: 690+142 Team 2

I have erased the player names for the time being so we can focus on the raw value of the picks exchanged. If this deal had happened before the draft, would it have been approved? I would guess not.

It could be argued, perhaps correctly, that a 40 pick swap from the 2nd to 3rd round is worth a 78 pick swap from the 6th to 8th round, so the middle part of this deal probably roughly balances out. Indeed, I don't think Mahovlich/Keats for Gerard/Savard would be seen as problematic.

But is a 14 point jump in the 1st round worth an 18th for 22nd swap? No, it's not. Team 1 gets a major upgrade in the 1st round for almost nothing - the difference between a 4th liner and a spare. But...ah what the hell, how strict a standard do we want to set here?

monster, do you really think you are improving your team in this deal? Did you go to mark with this proposal, or did he come to you? Have you tried to pursue other options in trading Mahovlich and/or Imlach? It is obviously your right not to answer these questions, but I'd like to know, because I am surprised that you would consider this trade (even in its new form) an improvement to your team. My personal opinion is that you could simply fire Imlach (which would be funny) and replace him with an MLD manager and be better off than you are here. Is giving up this much value worth it just to keep Imlach, who was a 16th round pick for you - on par with the value of a 4th liner? Is the difference between a 16th rounder and an MLD guy greater than the value you are giving up in this deal?

But...if you really want to go through with the trade after all this discussion, I will not veto it.

This deal is right on the edge of what I consider imbalancing, but I think this committee has done its part now. The reason that this trade committee exists is to enforce a kind of "due diligence" on GMs when they make trades because of the ripple effect trades have on other teams in the draft. I think that effect has been achieved here. This trade still stinks, but if the guy who is clearly giving up value in the deal thinks it is the best way for him to move forward, I don't think we should stop it, though I'd like to see monster's answers to my questions before I cast an official vote.
If you look at it this way, I do think Mahovlich (50) and Keats (242) is fairly close in value to Gerard (90) and Savard (164).

Kelly (15) and Kolzig (690) for Lindsay (29) and Vachon (548) is barely different from Kelly vs Lindsay straight up when you consider the vast difference between 1st round picks and backup goalies, a definite advantage for the team getting Kelly. I'm not sure if it's bad enough to veto though.

Edit: Would anyone veto Kelly for Lindsay straight up? If not, then we should definitely let this trade go through.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-02-2013 at 09:14 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 09:25 PM
  #492
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If you look at it this way, I do think Mahovlich (50) and Keats (242) is fairly close in value to Gerard (90) and Savard (164).

Kelly (15) and Kolzig (690) for Lindsay (29) and Vachon (548) is barely different from Kelly vs Lindsay straight up when you consider the vast difference between 1st round picks and backup goalies, a definite advantage for the team getting Kelly. I'm not sure if it's bad enough to veto though.

Edit: Would anyone veto Kelly for Lindsay straight up? If not, then we should definitely let this trade go through.


You have got to get away from looking at the draft numbers. Savard was a steal at 164 as was Gerard (as you already mentioned)

It was also mentioned that people say MB took Mahovlich too early so again looking at the draft pick is a really poor way to guage a trade with actual players involved.

I really think you are down playing the gap between Savard and Keats.


And I don't know where to post this, but just so everyone involved is aware, MB and I have both agreed to boycott the remainder of the season if this 2nd trade gets vetoed. We are getting tossed around by a flawed system and it has sucked any type of fun we were having with this.

markrander87 is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 09:26 PM
  #493
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,356
vCash: 500
In real life Lindsay and Kelly were about even as hockey players.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 09:31 PM
  #494
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,217
vCash: 500
You're going to boycott the season? Lol. Now I'm tempted to vote just to see how that plays out...

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 09:35 PM
  #495
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
You're going to boycott the season? Lol. Now I'm tempted to vote just to see how that plays out...
I didn't say I would boycott this season, lol.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 09:37 PM
  #496
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
You're going to boycott the season? Lol. Now I'm tempted to vote just to see how that plays out...
Pretty typical response, you wonder why so many veteran GM's have left.

If the trade is vetoed and I leave I leave on top, you guys voted a trade that I was involved in that (by way of the veto)would have put my team at too much of a competitive advantage.

We've done nothing but fall in line and follow the rules yet still we are still waiting on whatever type of decision this committee makes.

markrander87 is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 09:38 PM
  #497
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
I didn't say I would boycott this season, lol.
What did you just PM me then??? Did I misread your PM?

markrander87 is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 09:46 PM
  #498
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,205
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
You have got to get away from looking at the draft numbers. Savard was a steal at 164 as was Gerard (as you already mentioned)

It was also mentioned that people say MB took Mahovlich too early so again looking at the draft pick is a really poor way to guage a trade with actual players involved.

I really think you are down playing the gap between Savard and Keats.

You know, I was strongly leaning towards approving the trade, but when you basically misquote me to serve your own ends, it makes it harder to vote for you. I don't think Eddie Gerard was steal. If anything, he was a mini-reach as every defenseman drafted in the third round was. I said that he was the last defenseman drafted who would be viable as a #1 here, not that he was a steal. I also said that I was considering drafting him to anchor my second pairing if you didn't trade up to draft him. He definitely wasn't a steal though - he basically went where he should compared to other defensemen.

Quote:
And I don't know where to post this, but just so everyone involved is aware, MB and I have both agreed to boycott the remainder of the season if this 2nd trade gets vetoed. We are getting tossed around by a flawed system and it has sucked any type of fun we were having with this.
Attempting to bully the trade committee like this isn't going to get you very far.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 09:49 PM
  #499
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
What did you just PM me then??? Did I misread your PM?
Check it again. I'm not quitting on this ATD, whatever happens. Future ones is a differen't story.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
04-02-2013, 09:51 PM
  #500
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
Check it again. I'm not quitting on this ATD, whatever happens. Future ones is a differen't story.
Sorry man, I did misread that.

markrander87 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 06:58 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.