Clearly there is a thing with being a 1st round pick.

https://www.si.com/hockey/news/from-the-draft-to-the-nhl-a-round-by-round-look-at-the-leagues-skaters-and-goalies#:~:text=Notable%3A%20The%20deeper%20you%20go,(54%20out%20of%20644).

but part of that is being the best top 10 players every year.
Not that all of them make it but a large number of them do.
But they only make up 40% of the league and a large portion of that is the higher end talent which teams aren't trading. AKA Malkin, Crosby, McDavid, Matthews, Draisaitl,, MacKinnon, etc... You know right away it's going to end well.
Given it's hard to find a McDavid in the 2nd or 3rd round. But you can find a Point or Jake.
The NHL will always have a drafting problem compared to other sports. Because 18 is young to draft. Where other physical sports, NFL, the draft age is 20+
Even the NBA is 19 years old. They want that one year of higher level competition. AKA NCAA.
It gives a lot more information.

But once you get past all that high end talent, you being to realize more talent at 18 doesn't mean more talent at 22. People grow, develop, get better.
So just collecting 1st doesn't mean collecting talent. You could end up with Gudbranson. Not that I think he was horrible, but he wasn't all that good.
Or Jack Johnson, or Ceci.
I mean at some point, I don't care what round they are drafted in I don't want that. It's better to gamble elsewhere.

I accept your concept but disagree with the execution. If you feel that saying a player is valueless, or even negative value, while others think that he does have value, is potentially hostile and only serves to piss people off... then the other side of the coin does the same. The other side being when "homerism" comes into play and people think that their low value players are worth other team's high value simply because player A was on their team. Posting AGMs with (for example) bottom 6 players being moved for star talent.

If one side of the coin is allowed then the other should be as well. It's not swearing, or name calling of other posters, or kicking puppies. It is accurate, or inaccurate, opinion of value... or even relatively groundless rival hate or favorite team homerism.

Personally, I would rather see people say that Crosby/Ovechkin are trash than see people do an AGM trading a package including something like Sceviour/Panik and a 3rd for Gaudreau. A fan of a team trading junk to your team for a star is much more annoying than someone saying some arguable value guy is valueless (Piljujarvi in this case).

Many people on here seem to think that Dumoulin is nearly worthless because all they do is look at point production. Instead of taking it as a hostile attack because you (royal "you") can't handle someone disagreeing with your opinions, you counter it, or move past their inaccurate "opinion".

I agree with things like name calling need to be policed, but stupid AGMs, stupid replies, and stupid replies to replies... That is life.

... and how do you get a different color name?

I want to hone in on your Dumolin example as it strikes a similar irk I've had with you and other users regarding Puljujarvi's value in the past.

If you're willing to concede that Dumolin does have value based on his underlying numbers, the little things he does right, and all the other extraneous reasons, why do you disparage Puljujarvi's advanced stats? The only thing he's done wrong so far in his career is play hurt, exclusively with Lucic, or for 8min/night on the 4th line. He hasn't had a chance to put up numbers despite gaudy shooting metrics because Edmonton can't get past its 80s-90s school of thought.

I agree that Puljujarvi hasn't been worth what Holland's ask has continued to be, and that some users using him as a key piece to acquire legitimate star talent are asinine. I will never concede that "Puljujarvi is worth nothing" is a valid assessment until we see what he does with semi-competent management and coaching. It borders on - to take terminology used in your post - "anti-homerism". The school of thought of "Edmonton always ruins it's prospects, therefore they all must be bad" is just as homer-ish as Oilers fans thinking their prospects are all bonafide NHL talents with to-the-moon value. I will be willing to concede that point, as I stated, should Puljujarvi fall flat out of the gate and continue to show that he's no more than a bottom-six NHLer.

On the essence of trolling, we delete the kinds of AGMs you mention - the Panik-for-Gaudreau types - and warn/infract accordingly. In terms of the raw definition, they are no different than a wildly off-value assessment of (in this case) Jesse Puljujarvi. Those AGMs, despite the utter lack of thought put into them, are designed to incite some sort of reaction out of the opposing fanbase or the guys that found time to post here 10,000+ times. If Nail Yakupov can be traded for a package greater than what you're offering for Puljujarvi, your approach is in-line with that definition, especially if you're going to make the immediate comparison. As moderators, we have to approach these as identical issues: too many people get way too fired up about the inconsistency of someone else's value as they would with what the consensus thinks and historically, leaving these kinds of posts up has only served to derail threads and incite the kind of name-calling and generally poor behaviour we're working to crack down on.

I think it's less about the disagreeability of opinions, and you touch on an important point regarding the individuality we all approach CapFriendly with (nobody's going to agree on everything and you need some sense of disagreement in order to be productive here). It's worth keeping in focus the duality of these trades and using history as a basis: Oilers fans live and breathe the idea of Puljujarvi having some value (mileage may vary), but no league executive would be in their right mind to offer excess value.

Honestly, might even be semantics, but I could fundamentally live with you having claimed "Puljujarvi for a fourth rounder". It's at least comparable to the Yakupov trade, highlights that you think he has negligible value, and at least fits what an NHL team would do. I think the idea of Puljujarvi only being worth an upgrade to a seventh rounder falls too much on that "anti-homer" extreme end of the deal. It's much more antagonistic and much less realistic.

I'll reverse your warning: pretty clear to me at this point you aren't trying to get Oilers fans' riled up, but I do hope you're willing to reflect on this conversation a bit regarding his value.

Moderator. They'll promote just about anyone these days

I have a couple posting-tendencies that are not good for mods. I'll tend to mirror/swing the pendulum if something that I do not agree with is pushed. I will go further than that realistic position that you mentioned (example being P+7 for 6). Instead of putting a real offer on the table, I will often just hit the ball back. Someone posting P for a 4th I might not even comment on. It's not a level that I would be grossly upset about actually going through. I would still think it too much, but meh. The further it goes to the "oh my goodness" to me the further I tend to go with the counter.

There are also players that I just do not like. Athanasiou is one of those. Before Edmonton traded for him Detroit fans hated me because I shot on him a good bit. Especially when they came up with large returns for him. Again, the further from base, the further I went with it. There are also players that I do not think are bad at all, even good, but are stunningly over rated by the team's fans. Saad was one of those. So if you were able to track my history, the "trollness" would follow individual players as opposed to being for or against teams.


Stats wise... While I feel that (most) advanced stats have their place in the overall picture, many, most, have the same value as something like +/- to me. For example, pushing possession is considered a very positive advanced stat, but if he is not putting up points it is basically a negative to me... the puck dies on your stick. So looking at that stat doesn't really help the overall picture. I'll look at advanced stats (or normal stats for that matter) for some specifics, but I prefer to use the eye test. My opinion is mine and I form it myself. Just a statement showing why I have confidence in my position, I have already considered most of what you are going to counter with. I will use numbers to bump or smooth my stance, not form it.

However, I admit that if I don't like a guy, good numbers aren't going to change my mind, or, if I do like a guy, bad numbers aren't going to shift me much.

Conversations like these are what I hope to push Banks and the crew to develop some sort of messaging format on CapFriendly. I've absolutely observed the kinds of trends you're mentioning here, as well as in other users, but being able to have this dialogue and get a reference for the persona behind the avatar would solve a lot of the case-by-case issues with the "more tenured" members .

Appreciate the insight!

PMs would allow that too, without airing the laundry.