All Purpose QO thread

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

This whole discussion got started when I observed that if Latendresse has a strong season, it's going to be painful to see, considering that we got Pouliot back for him and that we just cut Pouliot loose, in effect getting no return for the asset that was Latendresse.

Wamsley's reply that Lats is NOT a 40-goal scorer is altogether reasonable (although his shooting % could conceivably increase if he's playing top-line minutes and getting higher-quality chances as a result). The most likely outcome for Lats IMHO is a third-liner role (which he provided very nicely for us for a couple of years before being dealt).

ForumGhost argued that was Lats does is irrelevant; that even if he scores 50 goals, we shouldn't care (!). This attitude is what's triggered all the debate. While there is always an element of uncertainty in dealing with young players, Wamsley's right that it's their JOB to evaluate talent and make the appropriate decision. Look at Vancouver trading Cam Neely for a washed-up Barry Pederson. They've never lived that down - and rightly so. ForumGhost's attitude would basically relieve GMs of all responsibility for outcomes. 'OOPS! Accidents happen!!' Uh, no...it's the GMs job to minimize the variables that lead to accidents.

If I wanted to be a worry-wart about Lats, I'd point out that he had put together a couple of solid seasons as a role player on our team and had scored 16 goals with minimal PP time; and that he was to some extent collateral damage from the Great Gainey Purge of 2009. He clearly was not prepared to adjust to the JM regime and, indeed, seemed to have mentally checked out on the team after that summer. In other words, he may have been evaluated by JM on the basis of an exceptionally poor and unmotivated two-month body of work prior to the trade rather than his overall development. Having said that, conditioning was always an issue with him and continues to be an issue in Minny - which doesn't say much for his learning curve.

Given the number of NHLers we've drafted only to send elsewhere, asset management IS a legitimate concern for thoughtful fans. Lats/Pouliot are just the latest element in an ongoing debate. But I think it's a valid question.

[patience is a virtue]

This whole discussion got started when I observed that if Latendresse has a strong season, it's going to be painful to see, considering that we got Pouliot back for him and that we just cut Pouliot loose, in effect getting no return for the asset that was Latendresse.

Wamsley's reply that Lats is NOT a 40-goal scorer is altogether reasonable (although his shooting % could conceivably increase if he's playing top-line minutes and getting higher-quality chances as a result). The most likely outcome for Lats IMHO is a third-liner role (which he provided very nicely for us for a couple of years before being dealt).

ForumGhost argued that was Lats does is irrelevant; that even if he scores 50 goals, we shouldn't care (!). This attitude is what's triggered all the debate. While there is always an element of uncertainty in dealing with young players, Wamsley's right that it's their JOB to evaluate talent and make the appropriate decision. Look at Vancouver trading Cam Neely for a washed-up Barry Pederson. They've never lived that down - and rightly so. ForumGhost's attitude would basically relieve GMs of all responsibility for outcomes. 'OOPS! Accidents happen!!' Uh, no...it's the GMs job to minimize the variables that lead to accidents.

If I wanted to be a worry-wart about Lats, I'd point out that he had put together a couple of solid seasons as a role player on our team and had scored 16 goals with minimal PP time; and that he was to some extent collateral damage from the Great Gainey Purge of 2009. He clearly was not prepared to adjust to the JM regime and, indeed, seemed to have mentally checked out on the team after that summer. In other words, he may have been evaluated by JM on the basis of an exceptionally poor and unmotivated two-month body of work prior to the trade rather than his overall development. Having said that, conditioning was always an issue with him and continues to be an issue in Minny - which doesn't say much for his learning curve.

Given the number of NHLers we've drafted only to send elsewhere, asset management IS a legitimate concern for thoughtful fans. Lats/Pouliot are just the latest element in an ongoing debate. But I think it's a valid question.

Thanks for the review of the discussion tCC. I'd only add that GF's point seems to be that GMs are making educated guess, but at the end of the day, they are just rolling the dice. While I agree that they are taking chances/trying to predict that which is ultimately unpredictable, I argued that the dice rolling metaphor implies an inaccurate level of randomness - kind of the opposite of educated guessing. Perhaps this is all just semantics, but it actually seems to me to be the very crux of what brings us here to discuss and debate these matters.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Thanks for the review of the discussion tCC. I'd only add that GF's point seems to be that GMs are making educated guess, but at the end of the day, they are just rolling the dice. While I agree that they are taking chances/trying to predict that which is ultimately unpredictable, I argued that the dice rolling metaphor implies an inaccurate level of randomness - kind of the opposite of educated guessing. Perhaps this is all just semantics, but it actually seems to me to be the very crux of what brings us here to discuss and debate these matters.

It's less like rolling the dice - always a highly random event - and more like deciding to play out the hand in poker. You can never know what the other guy has and therefore whether you can win the hand, but a good player will be taking informed, well-calculated risks based on probabilities.

[Wamsley01]

This whole discussion got started when I observed that if Latendresse has a strong season, it's going to be painful to see, considering that we got Pouliot back for him and that we just cut Pouliot loose, in effect getting no return for the asset that was Latendresse.

Wamsley's reply that Lats is NOT a 40-goal scorer is altogether reasonable (although his shooting % could conceivably increase if he's playing top-line minutes and getting higher-quality chances as a result). The most likely outcome for Lats IMHO is a third-liner role (which he provided very nicely for us for a couple of years before being dealt).

ForumGhost argued that was Lats does is irrelevant; that even if he scores 50 goals, we shouldn't care (!). This attitude is what's triggered all the debate. While there is always an element of uncertainty in dealing with young players, Wamsley's right that it's their JOB to evaluate talent and make the appropriate decision. Look at Vancouver trading Cam Neely for a washed-up Barry Pederson. They've never lived that down - and rightly so. ForumGhost's attitude would basically relieve GMs of all responsibility for outcomes. 'OOPS! Accidents happen!!' Uh, no...it's the GMs job to minimize the variables that lead to accidents.

If I wanted to be a worry-wart about Lats, I'd point out that he had put together a couple of solid seasons as a role player on our team and had scored 16 goals with minimal PP time; and that he was to some extent collateral damage from the Great Gainey Purge of 2009. He clearly was not prepared to adjust to the JM regime and, indeed, seemed to have mentally checked out on the team after that summer. In other words, he may have been evaluated by JM on the basis of an exceptionally poor and unmotivated two-month body of work prior to the trade rather than his overall development. Having said that, conditioning was always an issue with him and continues to be an issue in Minny - which doesn't say much for his learning curve.

Given the number of NHLers we've drafted only to send elsewhere, asset management IS a legitimate concern for thoughtful fans. Lats/Pouliot are just the latest element in an ongoing debate. But I think it's a valid question.

Agreed. GMs have a responsibility whether it is a good deal or not.

This is not a guessing game, if it was then every team's success would be based on luck and the Cup would be passed around equally as every team eventually lucked out. The Wings would not have been able to compete for the Cup on a yearly basis when they pick late in every draft if that was the case.

Some decisions are 99% fool proof (1% being injury, think Crosby). Some decisions have a 10% success rate from the beginning (think of the stab in the dark Houle took with Thibault) and some are 50/50 coin tosses (Latendresse/Pouliot). The teams that do the work and get closer to 99% are the ones who come out ahead more often than not. They ARE accountable if at the end of the day their balance sheet is 50% or below. Every single one of these decisions can come up roses, but the more Thibault type deals you make the more you will lose. Thibault could have evolved into the best goaltender in the league and Houle would have received a pass even though it was a stupid decision. That is why analyzing the though process is more beneficial than analyzing the individual result.

If the rumour that Gainey offered Price/Plekanec for Lecavalier is true then it is one of those decisions where his thought process was poor but he ended up getting lucky.

Nobody can predict the future, but you can offer up a solid view of it that can replicate 90% of reality. History is a great reference point to predict future outcomes and although flawed because of individual circumstance, injury etc, it provides a solid blueprint of how players will advance. Sometimes you do the research, make all the proper reads and you get a curveball. We should be all willing to accept that, but it doesn't remove accountability.

I am all for criticism of GMs if it is done with the proper perspective. The perspective of the factors leading to the trade, not the 100% crystal clear view that 3 extra years of observation provide. If the deal made sense to me at the time and it failed, I can't kill the GM. If the deal looked like it was the result of panic or flawed logic, then it is openly assailable.

[Wamsley01]

It's less like rolling the dice - always a highly random event - and more like deciding to play out the hand in poker. You can never know what the other guy has and therefore whether you can win the hand, but a good player will be taking informed, well-calculated risks based on probabilities.

YEP. You know you will lose a lot of hands, but you know that if you use your information correctly and read the players well, the more you play the more likely you will be to profit. Sometimes you win going all in pre-flop with 2,7, but you make that call 100 times and you will lose money.

[ForumGhost]

Anyways, I said what I had to say. I'm not trying to absolve all GM's of their mistakes, the original point I was trying to make is that crying over spilt milk won't serve us in the present in any way, shape or form.

[bbp]

Anyways, I said what I had to say. I'm not trying to absolve all GM's of their mistakes, the original point I was trying to make is that crying over spilt milk won't serve us in the present in any way, shape or form.

I agree, it would look bad if Lats became twice the player Pouliot did.

However, it really doesn't do much good complaining and throwing more pressure on Pouliot to be better or on the GM too do better. Thinking that that sort of attitude absolves them of pressure... well everyone has too remember they are also trying to keep their job. If the gm starts doing a bunch of random stuff... he gets fired. Enough bad trades add up. He gets fired. The owner won't forget a tonn of bad trades because well... they costed him money.

The GM will always try and do the best decision.

[Wamsley01]

Anyways, I said what I had to say. I'm not trying to absolve all GM's of their mistakes, the original point I was trying to make is that crying over spilt milk won't serve us in the present in any way, shape or form.

No it won't, but some times it is justified. It is justified for fans to cry and whine about the Patrick Roy trade, it isn't justified to whine and cry about a middling player like Latendresse when we received a middling player in return.

If a GM makes a franchise altering mistake, then crying won't change anything, but I have no problem with it.