Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[cross16]

29 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Why would anyone argue tanking gaurantees a Cup when the evidence doesn't exist?  We only know that refusing to tank puts teams into eternal mediocrity.

 

 

Well could be their definition of success. I know for you cup=success for some they want a consistent contender and that equals success. 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

It's also possible we'd have...

 

Noah Hanifin

 

But no Lindholm.

 

You get the gist.  Tanking in one year might get you a great player, but you almost have to tank for the perfect two years to have a chance for a cup, if tanking does more than it did in EDM.

 

Tank for McDavid.

Tank for Laine.

Tank for Dahlin.

Hope that you have enough players to contend.  Eventually.

[cross16]

11 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

But no Lindholm.

 

 

Well but like Peeps said though if we lose a few more games in 2013 we could take Lindholm instead of Monahan so then we do have them both.

 

This is all sarcasm. The only reason I point that out is to show that there is no guarantee that if you go back and use hindsight to say the Flames should have lost more, that the result today is any different. The fact that in 2015 they could have wound up drafting a player they already have supports that IMO, but i'm making a joke. 

[Heartbreaker]

4 hours ago, The_People1 said:

In the example of the Leafs, they are owned by the Ontario teachers union which is mainly concerned with yearly bottom line.  It took someone reputable like Brendan Shanahan to talk sense to them.

 

Actually, the Leafs (sic) haven't been owned by the teachers union since 2010 when ownership became MLSE. MLSE has been controlled by Rogers and Bell since 2011. 

Never liked that much. 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/rogers-bell-buy-control-of-mlse-1.997655

 

Love. 

[The_People1]

35 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Well but like Peeps said though if we lose a few more games in 2013 we could take Lindholm instead of Monahan so then we do have them both.

 

This is all sarcasm. The only reason I point that out is to show that there is no guarantee that if you go back and use hindsight to say the Flames should have lost more, that the result today is any different. The fact that in 2015 they could have wound up drafting a player they already have supports that IMO, but i'm making a joke. 

 

Of course having McDavid and Matthews would make a difference.  Even Ekblad.  

 

I get the butterfly effect argument but having a generational talent at C makes a team much better.

[The_People1]

35 minutes ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

Actually, the Leafs (sic) haven't been owned by the teachers union since 2010 when ownership became MLSE. MLSE has been controlled by Rogers and Bell since 2011. 

Never liked that much. 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/rogers-bell-buy-control-of-mlse-1.997655

 

Love. 

 

Thanks.  Didn't know.

[cross16]

42 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Of course having McDavid and Matthews would make a difference.  Even Ekblad.  

 

I get the butterfly effect argument but having a generational talent at C makes a team much better.

 

I'm meh on Ekblad. He had a monster rookie year but he's been pretty average since and honestly I think Hamilton is the better player. If Hamilton didn't swing the pendulum I dont' think Ekblad would either. 

 

Totally agree on the generational talent. no question are conversations are different today if the Flames have McDavid/Matthews. However, that goes back to my previous point that it would require luck to get either of those 2 with no guarantees it was even possible. 

[The_People1]

4 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I'm meh on Ekblad. He had a monster rookie year but he's been pretty average since and honestly I think Hamilton is the better player. If Hamilton didn't swing the pendulum I dont' think Ekblad would either. 

 

Totally agree on the generational talent. no question are conversations are different today if the Flames have McDavid/Matthews. However, that goes back to my previous point that it would require luck to get either of those 2 with no guarantees it was even possible. 

 

Well Ekblad has been set back by concussions.  I think he could've been much better by now.  

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Of course having McDavid and Matthews would make a difference.  Even Ekblad.  

 

I get the butterfly effect argument but having a generational talent at C makes a team much better.

 

Better, but is it enough?

Add them both to a good team and you have something.

Or add them to a team that manages assets well, and continues to add during the peak of those players.

 

The Flames from 2017/18 with those players is decidely better and could be considered close to being a serious contender.  Those players without Hamilton or Tkachuk is better, but you need to have more than 2 good D-men. 

[robrob74]

3 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

But no Lindholm.

 

You get the gist.  Tanking in one year might get you a great player, but you almost have to tank for the perfect two years to have a chance for a cup, if tanking does more than it did in EDM.

 

Tank for McDavid.

Tank for Laine.

Tank for Dahlin.

Hope that you have enough players to contend.  Eventually.

 

 

We use edmonton as on as an argument against it, but are we as Satoshi Nakamoto as they are at drafting? It’s the later rounds that they keep Blockchaining up, so yes it could be as bad as them, but we are not them. We have our own scouts, a different GM. It could be worse, it could be better. 

 

We we need a goalie. We lucked out and drafted Gaudreau and he meshes great with Monahan. I wonder where Monahan would be without him.... good, but I am in the minority that thinks not as good. 

 

Bennett is a prime example of a high pick that doesn’t pan out and how it can Blockchain everything up. Yakupov is another. 

17 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Better, but is it enough?

Add them both to a good team and you have something.

Or add them to a team that manages assets well, and continues to add during the peak of those players.

 

The Flames from 2017/18 with those players is decidely better and could be considered close to being a serious contender.  Those players without Hamilton or Tkachuk is better, but you need to have more than 2 good D-men. 

 

I think it can be. But of course it is how you build around them. Again it goes to show you need the draft and develop model. 

 

 

[Cowtownguy]

42 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

We use edmonton as on as an argument against it, but are we as Satoshi Nakamoto as they are at drafting? It’s the later rounds that they keep Blockchaining up, so yes it could be as bad as them, but we are not them. We have our own scouts, a different GM. It could be worse, it could be better. 

 

We we need a goalie. We lucked out and drafted Gaudreau and he meshes great with Monahan. I wonder where Monahan would be without him.... good, but I am in the minority that thinks not as good. 

 

Bennett is a prime example of a high pick that doesn’t pan out and how it can Blockchain everything up. Yakupov is another. 

 

I think it can be. But of course it is how you build around them. Again it goes to show you need the draft and develop model. 

 

 

I am not sure that Edmonton drafts poorly. How can they screw up with all of those high picks (okay, Yakupov)? They do seem to ruin talented players once they get them though. Then they trade them at half their value. But, next year will be different.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

We use edmonton as on as an argument against it, but are we as Satoshi Nakamoto as they are at drafting? It’s the later rounds that they keep Blockchaining up, so yes it could be as bad as them, but we are not them. We have our own scouts, a different GM. It could be worse, it could be better. 

 

We we need a goalie. We lucked out and drafted Gaudreau and he meshes great with Monahan. I wonder where Monahan would be without him.... good, but I am in the minority that thinks not as good. 

 

Bennett is a prime example of a high pick that doesn’t pan out and how it can Blockchain everything up. Yakupov is another. 

 

I think it can be. But of course it is how you build around them. Again it goes to show you need the draft and develop model. 

 

 

 

 

You kinda missed my point.  I was talking against tanking.  Tree years in a row of doingit and we might have ended up with McDavid, may have landed Matthews or Laine (if we were dead last of where WPG ended up) and might have got Dahlin.  It doesn;t address nets.  It doesn't fix the backend.  We end up with some really good pieces, but would still need to make trades of quality for quality.  I like the changes that have been made.  I think we missed the boat on goaltending, but that's about it.  I like our prospects.  Maybe they aren't true bluechip, but they aren;t head cases either.  

[stubblejumper1]

58 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

 

You kinda missed my point.  I was talking against tanking.  Tree years in a row of doingit and we might have ended up with McDavid, may have landed Matthews or Laine (if we were dead last of where WPG ended up) and might have got Dahlin.  It doesn;t address nets.  It doesn't fix the backend.  We end up with some really good pieces, but would still need to make trades of quality for quality.  I like the changes that have been made.  I think we missed the boat on goaltending, but that's about it.  I like our prospects.  Maybe they aren't true bluechip, but they aren;t head cases either.  

 

Since the salary cap was implemented 13 seasons ago, the following teams have won the Stanley Cup:

 

Carolina - Eric Staal second overall

Anaheim - No top three picks of their own, but Pronger was a second overall and S Neidermayer was a third overall

Detroit - No top three picks.  

Pittsburgh x3 - Crosby first overall, Fleury first overall, Malkin second overall, Jordan Staal second overall

Chicago x3 - Kane first overall, Toewes third overall, Cam Barker third overall

Boston - Seguin second overall, Nathan Horton was drafted third overall by Columbus

LA x 2 - Doughty second overall

Washington - Ovechkin first overall

 

Obviously, drafting in the top two doesn't guarantee success but this is pretty good evidence that drafting first or second overall is an important part of building a Stanley Cup winner.  

 

 

 

 

[robrob74]

8 hours ago, stubblejumper1 said:

 

Since the salary cap was implemented 13 seasons ago, the following teams have won the Stanley Cup:

 

Carolina - Eric Staal second overall

Anaheim - No top three picks of their own, but Pronger was a second overall and S Neidermayer was a third overall

Detroit - No top three picks.  

Pittsburgh x3 - Crosby first overall, Fleury first overall, Malkin second overall, Jordan Staal second overall

Chicago x3 - Kane first overall, Toewes third overall, Cam Barker third overall

Boston - Seguin second overall, Nathan Horton was drafted third overall by Columbus

LA x 2 - Doughty second overall

Washington - Ovechkin first overall

 

Obviously, drafting in the top two doesn't guarantee success but this is pretty good evidence that drafting first or second overall is an important part of building a Stanley Cup winner.  

 

 

 

 

 

Talk about hitting on the draft picks, Letang was drafted in the 3rd round the year Crosby was drafted.

[cross16]

At the same time, worth pointing out that correlation does not equal causation. Crosby/Ovechkin are generational talents and Kane is not that far behind and that type of talent doesn't show up in every draft let alone 3 in 4 years. 

 

Be interesting to see if the trend continues but IMO it's just that a trend. Does not mean we have the ability to predict the future. 

[The_People1]

7 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Be interesting to see if the trend continues but IMO it's just that a trend. Does not mean we have the ability to predict the future. 

 

Yup this is fair.

 

I've been waiting for the "I told you so" from this community for probably 5+ years. FIVE PLUS. And I know you guys want to shut me up with a Vegas win, or a Preds win, etc but I'm still waiting. 

 

I will change my stance on tanking when new information presents itself, like for example, a team wins a Cup without having tanked previously.  I'm willing to do that because that's the sign of open mindedness.  When new information presents itself that counters what you previously thought, you need to re-evaluate your previous conclusions.  Otherwise, you are just a stubborn bigot.

 

I even remember members saying a couple years back that if a team won a Cup that year having previously tanked, that they would jump to my side of the argument.  But it was either Chicago or Pittsburgh that won and rather than jump to my side,  those members never showed their face around here again.  So sad.

 

Which really means one thing.  This is an argument about ethics and morals.  It's not about whether tanking works or not because it can clearly work.  

[CheersMan]

MTL, TML and DET have something like 48 SC’s combined.  Don’t recall any of them tanking except for the Leafs recently and they have nothing to show for it yet.  

[robrob74]

5 hours ago, CheersMan said:

MTL, TML and DET have something like 48 SC’s combined.  Don’t recall any of them tanking except for the Leafs recently and they have nothing to show for it yet.  

 

Those don’t count, they’re not really modern eras. Detroit was really bad until Yzerman matured. But he was high end, drafted 4th overall. He should’ve been 1st...

 

maybe if we had every player outside of 5other teams, we’d be able to have some greats to choose from. 

[cccsberg]

On 2018-08-09 at 7:43 AM, The_People1 said:

 

Except I wasn't playing 20:20.  If you were around during that time, I was playing in real time.

That may be the case, but at this point, its all 20:20

[cccsberg]

On 2018-08-09 at 9:40 AM, robrob74 said:

 

Pittsburgh won with what was supposed to be questionable D, even with Letang out of it for a bit. I think Toronto can manage. There D is going to get a year older and a bit better.

 

if they can stay on offence, they don’t need the D.

Pittsburg did, but then again Crosby, Malkin and Kessel are all a notch or two better than their TML equivalents....  And MAF is one of the All-time great goalies.

[cccsberg]

7 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Yup this is fair.

 

I've been waiting for the "I told you so" from this community for probably 5+ years. FIVE PLUS. And I know you guys want to shut me up with a Vegas win, or a Preds win, etc but I'm still waiting. 

 

I will change my stance on tanking when new information presents itself, like for example, a team wins a Cup without having tanked previously.  I'm willing to do that because that's the sign of open mindedness.  When new information presents itself that counters what you previously thought, you need to re-evaluate your previous conclusions.  Otherwise, you are just a stubborn bigot.

 

I even remember members saying a couple years back that if a team won a Cup that year having previously tanked, that they would jump to my side of the argument.  But it was either Chicago or Pittsburgh that won and rather than jump to my side,  those members never showed their face around here again.  So sad.

 

Which really means one thing.  This is an argument about ethics and morals.  It's not about whether tanking works or not because it can clearly work.  

C'mon Peeps, you yourself proved your assertion incorrect.  Detroit never tanked, won multiple Cups and was a powerhouse for 2 generations.

[robrob74]

33 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Pittsburg did, but then again Crosby, Malkin and Kessel are all a notch or two better than their TML equivalents....  And MAF is one of the All-time great goalies.

 

I dunno, Tavares is pretty dammed good, and Matthews is as well. Then Marner is just as good or better than Gaudreau, so they have a pretty good punch. Tavares will only make a ton more room for both whether he plays with them or not.

 

Andersson is no slouch in net. Babcock won the cup with Osgood.

[travel_dude]

44 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

I dunno, Tavares is pretty dammed good, and Matthews is as well. Then Marner is just as good or better than Gaudreau, so they have a pretty good punch. Tavares will only make a ton more room for both whether he plays with them or not.

 

Andersson is no slouch in net. Babcock won the cup with Osgood.

 

I think you may be kidding yourself about Marner.  He played with Kadri and Marleau.  JH has played with a plethora of wingers that don't measure up to Marleau.

Played with an injured Monahan and an anemic PP and still managed 84 points.  I would give Marner the edge in goal scoring ability, but only because JH has a lousy breakaway move.

 

 

[stubblejumper1]

10 hours ago, cross16 said:

At the same time, worth pointing out that correlation does not equal causation. Crosby/Ovechkin are generational talents and Kane is not that far behind and that type of talent doesn't show up in every draft let alone 3 in 4 years. 

 

Be interesting to see if the trend continues but IMO it's just that a trend. Does not mean we have the ability to predict the future. 

 

A trend is the general movement over time of a statistically detectable change.  Over the past 13 years there has been no change - all but one of the Cup winners had at least one 1st or 2nd overall pick on their roster.  I would argue it is more of a constant than a trend.

 

McDavid, and maybe even Austin Matthews can be considered "generational talents."    That is 5 generational talents in 13 years, or one every 2.6 years.  With Dahlin and this Lafreniere kid considered "generational talents" there could 2 more over only 3 years.  Maybe we really need to tighten up our definition of generational talents.

 

I'm sure some GMs will eventually figure out how to consistently win the Cup (in the cap era) without drafting high, but so far it is like cold fusion.  I am curious to see which problem is solved first.

[stubblejumper1]

3 hours ago, cccsberg said:

C'mon Peeps, you yourself proved your assertion incorrect.  Detroit never tanked, won multiple Cups and was a powerhouse for 2 generations.

 

Detroit was a powerhouse because along with drafting well, they were able to outspend every other team in the NHL.  They are a big reason why the cap was implemented.