Trade: Ryan O'Reilly to St Louis Blues

[jame]

29 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

There's one huge difference:  the outcome in a buyout is known, while the outcome in paying the bonus and then trading the player (i.e. whether you'll be able to get a better trade) is unknown.

Can you cite any examples of paying a big bonus to a player and then trading him?

And your first sentence is an excellent example of why many people here have had issues with you -- and why you are likely to find yourself in time out again soon.

It is known. A deadline limits return. In fact Botts came out and stated exactly that (“the cost would go up”).

a deadline is used to force a result, to drive a negotiation towards compromise. The trading of a star player should never be executed within the framework of finding a compromise. Instead, you do what Colorado did. They set a high value, and didn’t trade their disgruntled star until that value was met... even when it meant starting the season with that player... I think finding an example would require researching contracts and trade dates. I am currently not willing to put in the effort

Botts failed to get either a top prospect or a guaranteed premier pick for 5 years of an all star center.

its embarrassing 

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

Because most (nearly all of) their underlying metrics have been better all season long than what the Sabres had during their streak. And most of those same metrics were predicting more success than they were having when they were firmly in lottery territory. Many here have said they improved when their goaltending improved; I suspect their overall PDO had been abnormally low, too.

The Sabres' underlying metrics did not support a 10-game win streak. By that measure, they were playing pretty well, IIRC, but not *that* well. That run was magical.

 

That doesn't really do it for me.  In fact, it could lead to an argument that if metrics can't support a ten game win streak, the metrics might be off.

In a season with 82 games, a team is as good as its record.  That record is sometimes going to include long winning or losing streaks, but it still is what it is.

[nfreeman]

44 minutes ago, jame said:

It is known. A deadline limits return. In fact Botts came out and stated exactly that (“the cost would go up”).

a deadline is used to force a result, to drive a negotiation towards compromise. The trading of a star player should never be executed within the framework of finding a compromise. Instead, you do what Colorado did. They set a high value, and didn’t trade their disgruntled star until that value was met... even when it meant starting the season with that player... I think finding an example would require researching contracts and trade dates. I am currently not willing to put in the effort 

Botts failed to get either a top prospect or a guaranteed premier pick for 5 years of an all star center.

its embarrassing 

OK, but these are generalities that do not address my point:  that it is impossible to know how much a trade offer for ROR would've improved if the Sabres had paid the bonus, and that in that situation, most if not all NHL owners would've instructed their GMs to either save the $7.5MM or keep ROR. 

The Colorado situation isn't applicable because there was no $7.5MM bonus deadline. 

You are of course free to decline to put the time in and find facts supporting your theory, but all that does is weaken your position.

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

That doesn't really do it for me.  In fact, it could lead to an argument that if metrics can't support a ten game win streak, the metrics might be off.

In a season with 82 games, a team is as good as its record.  That record is sometimes going to include long winning or losing streaks, but it still is what it is.

I don't know enough about the metrics, tbh, but I don't think they're ever really off. They may require additional context, of course.

My understanding is that STL was good to very good on things like Corsi, shot share, expected goal differential -- all that good stuff -- but was still muddling around in terms of actual points. My guess is that something like PDO -- sometimes linked with "puck luck" -- was suppressing their points.

I would also disagree that, if the underlying metrics are not in line with a 10-game win streak, then the metrics need to be adjusted. Rather, the metrics are predicting that what's happening is unsustainable from a production standpoint. But things like randomness, chaos theory (!), PDO, "getting the bounces," and so on have roles to play as well. Those are just harder to predict, or count on.

A few years ago, COL had an entire season that sort of defied their metrics.  IIRC, they crashed back to earth the following season.

One problem with deploying the metrics comes when people who don't quite understand them in context (e.g., me) try to explain and apply them. I probably know just enough to be dangerous, as they say.

[LGR4GM]

6 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

I don't know enough about the metrics, tbh, but I don't think they're ever really off. They may require additional context, of course.

My understanding is that STL was good to very good on things like Corsi, shot share, expected goal differential -- all that good stuff -- but was still muddling around in terms of actual points. My guess is that something like PDO -- sometimes linked with "puck luck" -- was suppressing their points.

I would also disagree that, if the underlying metrics are not in line with a 10-game win streak, then the metrics need to be adjusted. Rather, the metrics are predicting that what's happening is unsustainable from a production standpoint. But things like randomness, chaos theory (!), PDO, "getting the bounces," and so on have roles to play as well. Those are just harder to predict, or count on.

A few years ago, COL had an entire season that sort of defied their metrics.  IIRC, they crashed back to earth the following season.

One problem with deploying the metrics comes when people who don't quite understand them in context (e.g., me) try to explain and apply them. I probably know just enough to be dangerous, as they say.

Correct. Stats are not there to predict what will happen on 1 shift or 1 game. They are there to help you predict what will happen over time.

[jame]

51 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

OK, but these are generalities that do not address my point:  that it is impossible to know how much a trade offer for ROR would've improved if the Sabres had paid the bonus, and that in that situation, most if not all NHL owners would've instructed their GMs to either save the $7.5MM or keep ROR. 

The Colorado situation isn't applicable because there was no $7.5MM bonus deadline. 

You are of course free to decline to put the time in and find facts supporting your theory, but all that does is weaken your position.

So it’s impossible for me to know the unknown but you are fully capable of knowing the unknown. 

This is me showing restraint.

 

[nfreeman]

22 minutes ago, jame said:

So it’s impossible for me to know the unknown but you are fully capable of knowing the unknown. 

This is me showing restraint.

 

Well, the lack of examples of a team actually paying a fat bonus and then trading the player makes it much less unknown.

And communicating like a normal human being who isn't a DB isn't "showing restraint."  It's just what normal people do.

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

I don't know enough about the metrics, tbh, but I don't think they're ever really off. They may require additional context, of course.

My understanding is that STL was good to very good on things like Corsi, shot share, expected goal differential -- all that good stuff -- but was still muddling around in terms of actual points. My guess is that something like PDO -- sometimes linked with "puck luck" -- was suppressing their points.

I would also disagree that, if the underlying metrics are not in line with a 10-game win streak, then the metrics need to be adjusted. Rather, the metrics are predicting that what's happening is unsustainable from a production standpoint. But things like randomness, chaos theory (!), PDO, "getting the bounces," and so on have roles to play as well. Those are just harder to predict, or count on.

A few years ago, COL had an entire season that sort of defied their metrics.  IIRC, they crashed back to earth the following season.

One problem with deploying the metrics comes when people who don't quite understand them in context (e.g., me) try to explain and apply them. I probably know just enough to be dangerous, as they say.

 

54 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Correct. Stats are not there to predict what will happen on 1 shift or 1 game. They are there to help you predict what will happen over time.

So, would the metrics predict the Sabres to be right about where they are now?

[That Aud Smell]

41 minutes ago, Eleven said:

So, would the metrics predict the Sabres to be right about where they are now?

roughly. which, i think, is the point.

STL probably needs the balance of the season to level out to where their underlying numbers predict they should be. and it still may not happen.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

 

So, would the metrics predict the Sabres to be right about where they are now?

I honestly do not know that off the top of my head. You would need to do a comparison to the league and then decide what inputs you were using. After that you could run a projected points total model and see what you got. My guess would be yes. They are for most fancy stats in the middle or below middle of the pack. We are 16th in points and 17th in wins. (Note I know the stuff listed below isn't really fancy stats)

 

Taking a quick look... 

18th in ES goals for (highest to lowest)

20th in ES goals against (lowest to highest)

19th in PP percentage 

9th in PK percentage

23rd in shot percentage

11th in save percentage

Our PDO is 10th but it is at 100.3 so we are within 1PDO point of ever team 10-24th. Basically we are getting some extra luck but not a ton. (Toronto is at 102.5 for example). Also we are tied with 4 teams for 2nd youngest NHL team at 26.5

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by LGR4GM

[erickompositör72]

Here's a variable I'm curious about- how much can metrics account for clutch goaltending? We definitely had it during the streak.

How would the metrics for the Hasek teams have looked?

1 hour ago, jame said:

So it’s impossible for me to know the unknown but you are fully capable of knowing the unknown. 

This is me showing restraint.

 

 

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

Well, the lack of examples of a team actually paying a fat bonus and then trading the player makes it much less unknown.

And communicating like a normal human being who isn't a DB isn't "showing restraint."  It's just what normal people do.

 

More circumstantial stuff: the dealing of ROR at the time he was dealt furthers my suspicion that there was also pressure to deal him from ownership.

Wouldn't dealing him before a bonus was paid be more of an ownership decision than a management decision? (i.e., a manager with a blank check from ownership would probably paid the bonus and then deal, right?)

Edited February 15, 2019 by erickompositör72

[jame]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

Well, the lack of examples of a team actually paying a fat bonus and then trading the player makes it much less unknown.

And communicating like a normal human being who isn't a DB isn't "showing restraint."  It's just what normal people do.

 

Toronto has paid Phil Kessel 4.8 million dollar to not only not play for them, but to play for an eastern conference rival over the last 4 seasons, and they will pay another 3.6 over the following 3 seasons. They spent 8.4 million to make a trade work for them.

Numerous other teams have taken on cap dump level contracts when paid in assets to do so.

Beyond the semantic difference of paying a Bonus, taking a cap dump, and retaining salary, the reality is that it is the same thing (paying for asset value).

But you somehow have more knowledge on what “most if not all” NHL owners would do... 

Edited February 15, 2019 by jame

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:

Here's a variable I'm curious about- how much can metrics account for clutch goaltending? We definitely had it during the streak.

How would the metrics for the Hasek teams have looked?

Define clutch goaltending because I am not 100% sure what you mean. 

2 minutes ago, jame said:

You’ll try to hide in the semantic difference of paying a Bonus, taking a cap dump, and retaining salary, but the reality is that it is the same thing (paying for asset value).

Did you get mad at me for doing this? Assuming what the other person will do and applying arguments they haven't made yet? Just saying your convo with Nfreeman might get further without that. I think that what I did helped to bring our conversation down and will try not to do it again going forward. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by LGR4GM

[jame]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

 

Did you get mad at me for doing this? Assuming what the other person will do and applying arguments they haven't made yet? 

It’s a demonstrated behavior. But fair point. I’ll edit.

Edited February 15, 2019 by jame

[erickompositör72]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Define clutch goaltending because I am not 100% sure what you mean. 

goaltenders who make the big saves at the right moment. Not just as defined by SV% or GAA; A goaltender can allow 4 goals, but if the team is up 5-4 and is bombarded in the 3rd and doesn't crack, the team has gotten "clutch goaltending"

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, jame said:

It’s a demonstrated behavior. But fair point.

No you're right and that's why I added or acknowledged that I will try not to do something similar going forward. 

2 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:

goaltenders who make the big saves at the right moment. Not just as defined by SV% or GAA; A goaltender can allow 4 goals, but if the team is up 5-4 and is bombarded in the 3rd and doesn't crack, the team has gotten "clutch goaltending"

I feel like this is a metric for this... something about 1 goal games and sv% but I don't know if off the top of my head. It would be useful information to have. 

[erickompositör72]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

I feel like this is a metric for this... something about 1 goal games and sv% but I don't know if off the top of my head. It would be useful information to have. 

Yeah, the trick is combining all of these metrics together into one formula, which is not always easy. Like reconciling quantum theory and classical physics...

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, erickompositör72 said:

Yeah, the trick is combining all of these metrics together into one formula, which is not always easy. Like reconciling quantum theory and classical physics...

 

[jame]

9 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:

 

More circumstantial stuff: the dealing of ROR at the time he was dealt furthers my suspicion that there was also pressure to deal him from ownership.

Wouldn't dealing him before a bonus was paid be more of an ownership decision than a management decision? (i.e., a manager with a blank check from ownership would probably paid the bonus and then deal, right?)

I agree. And I believe it's within Botts job responsibilities to not only explain to Pegula what an artificial deadline will do (depreciate the trade return), but change his mind and allow Botts to trade (if Pegula has given a must trade direction) when the best possible offer is available.

Pegula doesn't care about money... and besides Botts took back almost 7.5 million in garbage, so it wasn't about the money. IF Pegula gave a trade directive on ROR, it was Botts responsibility to ensure maximum return (i.e. the Colorado/Duchene playbook).

The ROR trade is one of the worst trades any GM not named Chiarelli or Milbury has made in the last 25 years. He botched it on every level.

[erickompositör72]

6 minutes ago, jame said:

I agree. And I believe it's within Botts job responsibilities to not only explain to Pegula what an artificial deadline will do (depreciate the trade return), but change his mind and allow Botts to trade (if Pegula has given a must trade direction) when the best possible offer is available.

Pegula doesn't care about money... and besides Botts took back almost 7.5 million in garbage, so it wasn't about the money. IF Pegula gave a trade directive on ROR, it was Botts responsibility to ensure maximum return (i.e. the Colorado/Duchene playbook).

The ROR trade is one of the worst trades any GM not named Chiarelli or Milbury has made in the last 25 years. He botched it on every level.

Who knows? Maybe Pegula decided to draw the line with the Sabres being a money-pit. 6million (or whatever it was) is really a lot of money, and Pegula has thrown away so much already. People with a lot of money have money because they care about money. This is all pure speculation... and maybe, to endear himself to the owner, JBott said "hey, I can make this work without throwing millions out the door"

Obviously, this is a dynamic we'll never be privy to, unless JBott is unceremoniously fired and gets twitter.

Edited February 15, 2019 by erickompositör72

[Eleven]

48 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

roughly. which, i think, is the point.

STL probably needs the balance of the season to level out to where their underlying numbers predict they should be. and it still may not happen.

 

39 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I honestly do not know that off the top of my head. You would need to do a comparison to the league and then decide what inputs you were using. After that you could run a projected points total model and see what you got. My guess would be yes. They are for most fancy stats in the middle or below middle of the pack. We are 16th in points and 17th in wins. (Note I know the stuff listed below isn't really fancy stats)

 

Taking a quick look... 

18th in ES goals for (highest to lowest)

20th in ES goals against (lowest to highest)

19th in PP percentage 

9th in PK percentage

23rd in shot percentage

11th in save percentage

Our PDO is 10th but it is at 100.3 so we are within 1PDO point of ever team 10-24th. Basically we are getting some extra luck but not a ton. (Toronto is at 102.5 for example). Also we are tied with 4 teams for 2nd youngest NHL team at 26.5

 

It would seem to me from these responses that the streak should NOT be disregarded when looking at the Sabres' season as a whole.

[jame]

5 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:

Who knows? Maybe Pegula decided to draw the line with the Sabres being a money-pit. 6million (or whatever it was) is really a lot of money, and Pegula has thrown away so much already. People with a lot of money have money because they care about money. This is all pure speculation... and maybe, to endear himself to the owner, JBott said "hey, I can make this work without throwing millions out the door"

Obviously, this is a dynamic we'll never be privy to, unless JBott is unceremoniously fired and gets twitter.

What does it say about Botts if he thought 7.5 million for Sobotka and Berglund wasn't throwing money out the door?

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, jame said:

What does it say about Botts if he thought 7.5 million for Sobotka and Berglund wasn't throwing money out the door?

That's a good question. 

[erickompositör72]

8 minutes ago, jame said:

What does it say about Botts if he thought 7.5 million for Sobotka and Berglund wasn't throwing money out the door?

 

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

That's a good question. 

To be fair, they are(/were) actual roster players, as opposed to money out the window.

[That Aud Smell]

30 minutes ago, Eleven said:

It would seem to me from these responses that the streak should NOT be disregarded when looking at the Sabres' season as a whole.

how could it properly be disregarded? it happened.

it should be regarded in its proper context.