Trade Kyrou or Not?

[Blue Sabbath]

What is the value of Stan Musial, Albert Pujols, and Brett Hull to St Louis? Are you comfortable with NEVER AGAIN having an exceptional NHL player representing St Louis? I want one for St Louis, and I want to increase my odds of getting one. I care about that MORE than I care about getting to the playoffs and losing in Round 1.

-Initially signed and scouted as a pitcher
-13th round pick
-6th round pick, acquired via trade

Did this just fly over his head or he has no response?

So the 3 players he cites as "models" for the blues to alter their path and go find are:

Musial - signed as a pitcher took 3 years to make it to majors.

AP - a 13th round draft choice. Hockey has no such lowly position.

Hull - 177th pick by Calgary who traded him.

hahahaha....such fine examples for tanking to get talent and championships.

I'm not taking a side in your dispute with the OP but the three players you mentioned are examples of extreme good fortune for St. Louis. They are the epitome of the adage that an elite player can be found or acquired by any means. It's like the argument that if a team gets to the playoffs they can win the Cup regardless of how good they really are. These are a extreme exceptions to the rule and in no way should be used as a strategy for building a sports team. I suppose it's true even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

[Bubble4427]

What is the value of Stan Musial, Albert Pujols, and Brett Hull to St Louis? Are you comfortable with NEVER AGAIN having an exceptional NHL player representing St Louis? I want one for St Louis, and I want to increase my odds of getting one. I care about that MORE than I care about getting to the playoffs and losing in Round 1.

-Initially signed and scouted as a pitcher
-13th round pick
-6th round pick, acquired via trade

Did this just fly over his head or he has no response?

So the 3 players he cites as "models" for the blues to alter their path and go find are:

Musial - signed as a pitcher took 3 years to make it to majors.

AP - a 13th round draft choice. Hockey has no such lowly position.

Hull - 177th pick by Calgary who traded him.

hahahaha....such fine examples for tanking to get talent and championships.

I'm not taking a side in your dispute with the OP but the three players you mentioned are examples of extreme good fortune for St. Louis. They are the epitome of the adage that an elite player can be found or acquired by any means. It's like the argument that if a team gets to the playoffs they can win the Cup regardless of how good they really are. These are a extreme exceptions to the rule and in no way should be used as a strategy for building a sports team. I suppose it's true even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

For every star that was at the top of the draft, there are many more that were taken later.
And many taken at the top of the draft have been less than stellar or outright busts.
Tanking guarantees nothing except encouraging a losing culture that is hard to reverse.

[dhsux]

What is the value of Stan Musial, Albert Pujols, and Brett Hull to St Louis? Are you comfortable with NEVER AGAIN having an exceptional NHL player representing St Louis? I want one for St Louis, and I want to increase my odds of getting one. I care about that MORE than I care about getting to the playoffs and losing in Round 1.

-Initially signed and scouted as a pitcher
-13th round pick
-6th round pick, acquired via trade

Did this just fly over his head or he has no response?

So the 3 players he cites as "models" for the blues to alter their path and go find are:

Musial - signed as a pitcher took 3 years to make it to majors.

AP - a 13th round draft choice. Hockey has no such lowly position.

Hull - 177th pick by Calgary who traded him.

hahahaha....such fine examples for tanking to get talent and championships.

I'm not taking a side in your dispute with the OP but the three players you mentioned are examples of extreme good fortune for St. Louis. They are the epitome of the adage that an elite player can be found or acquired by any means. It's like the argument that if a team gets to the playoffs they can win the Cup regardless of how good they really are. These are a extreme exceptions to the rule and in no way should be used as a strategy for building a sports team. I suppose it's true even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

Well the guy who "used" them made a case against himself doing so no matter how rare the players talent level might be.

I thought it fair to point out the irony.

The Cardinals for sure have been a hugely successful franchise without high draft picks for the better part of my life. Brock, Gibson, Ozzie, Suter et al not good fortune but good baseball practices. They can be found my multiple means although to your point not in huge numbers.

But I would say the same for tanking teams and look at the cost to do so!

[Harry S Deals]

What is the value of Stan Musial, Albert Pujols, and Brett Hull to St Louis? Are you comfortable with NEVER AGAIN having an exceptional NHL player representing St Louis? I want one for St Louis, and I want to increase my odds of getting one. I care about that MORE than I care about getting to the playoffs and losing in Round 1.

-Initially signed and scouted as a pitcher
-13th round pick
-6th round pick, acquired via trade

Did this just fly over his head or he has no response?

So the 3 players he cites as "models" for the blues to alter their path and go find are:

Musial - signed as a pitcher took 3 years to make it to majors.

AP - a 13th round draft choice. Hockey has no such lowly position.

Hull - 177th pick by Calgary who traded him.

hahahaha....such fine examples for tanking to get talent and championships.

I'm not taking a side in your dispute with the OP but the three players you mentioned are examples of extreme good fortune for St. Louis. They are the epitome of the adage that an elite player can be found or acquired by any means. It's like the argument that if a team gets to the playoffs they can win the Cup regardless of how good they really are. These are a extreme exceptions to the rule and in no way should be used as a strategy for building a sports team. I suppose it's true even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

I went thru the drafts for the last 10 yrs or so only about 56% of the players drafted in Top 10 actually produced (Points) in the Top 10 of their draft class, its 53% for players drafted Top 3... there are some variables, did a team take a franchise dman who perhaps wont produce points-wise at the same clip as a forward for instance but the data will show that drafting high while it can certainly help its not a lock by any means. And as i can also show the Blues have drafted very very well in almost every case lately their draft picks outperform their draft position sometimes massively a la Thomas, Kyrou, Thompson, Parayko many examples

[seattleblue]

I 100% agree on trying to get more Holloways!
I invite you to take a look at this video of Justin Carbonneau who is ranked 16th on the final central scouting NA skaters board for this upcoming draft
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebfal70rpeI

Look at all the Holloway type game he has. My argument, and I hope you find it reasonable, is that Holloway wasn't a top 5 pick he was 14th, and there are players you can still get where we pick that add these crucial needed elements. We could get another Holloway type this year.

Wow. I really like Carbonneau, and he is very similar to Holloway. I would love to see him in a Blues jersey. Thanks for sharing.

Given the circumstances this year, if we could land another Holloway, it would be a huge win.

There's also a player Tim has been spotlighting – Lakovic. He has more of a Tage Thompson feel to his game.

[STL fan in MN]

For every star that was at the top of the draft, there are many more that were taken later.
And many taken at the top of the draft have been less than stellar or outright busts.
Tanking guarantees nothing except encouraging a losing culture that is hard to reverse.

Well that’s just not true.

Obviously each draft is unique and there’s exceptions to the rule in both directions all the time but when you plot many year of data together there’s no denying the top of the draft is where the value is.

[callitwhatyouwant]

For every star that was at the top of the draft, there are many more that were taken later.
And many taken at the top of the draft have been less than stellar or outright busts.
Tanking guarantees nothing except encouraging a losing culture that is hard to reverse.

Well that’s just not true.

Obviously each draft is unique and there’s exceptions to the rule in both directions all the time but when you plot many year of data together there’s no denying the top of the draft is where the value is.

Your graph is flawed in 1 department. Since theres anywhere from 7-14 game differences for those that are in the 1st round from pick 1 to the pick 30s, you have to also account for how bad those teams were before they made that draft pick vs the ones picking towards the bottom of the round. Of course the difference that a lower player is going to give a winning franchise is going to be less than the player who is a number 1 or in that graphs case 1 and 2 picks to a bad franchise. I find it more interesting that the 3-8 spot looks to drop 6 wins below the 2nd pick. So essentially the only picks of "real value" according to your graph is picks 1 and 2. Because the other picks hardly warrant you enough difference between winning franchises and where you are at.

So unless you want the team to absolutely sell off every asset and tear it down to the studs for 5 years, that's not even feasible. San Jose and the Blackhawks have been awful for a good while now. Throw in the Sabres into that mix and that's what you have to look forward to. This argument is tired and it's infecting all of the different posts because one tired troll won't go away and people indulge IT with any answer other than "army is a good GM" "blues are stockpiled with number 1 draft players coming thru the system". The Blues had the most players playing in the juniors tourney showing up on the main stage. We are in a good spot.

[STL fan in MN]

For every star that was at the top of the draft, there are many more that were taken later.
And many taken at the top of the draft have been less than stellar or outright busts.
Tanking guarantees nothing except encouraging a losing culture that is hard to reverse.

Well that’s just not true.

Obviously each draft is unique and there’s exceptions to the rule in both directions all the time but when you plot many year of data together there’s no denying the top of the draft is where the value is.

Your graph is flawed in 1 department. Since theres anywhere from 7-14 game differences for those that are in the 1st round from pick 1 to the pick 30s, you have to also account for how bad those teams were before they made that draft pick vs the ones picking towards the bottom of the round. Of course the difference that a lower player is going to give a winning franchise is going to be less than the player who is a number 1 or in that graphs case 1 and 2 picks to a bad franchise. I find it more interesting that the 3-8 spot looks to drop 6 wins below the 2nd pick. So essentially the only picks of "real value" according to your graph is picks 1 and 2. Because the other picks hardly warrant you enough difference between winning franchises and where you are at.

So unless you want the team to absolutely sell off every asset and tear it down to the studs for 5 years, that's not even feasible. San Jose and the Blackhawks have been awful for a good while now. Throw in the Sabres into that mix and that's what you have to look forward to. This argument is tired and it's infecting all of the different posts because one tired troll won't go away and people indulge IT with any answer other than "army is a good GM" "blues are stockpiled with number 1 draft players coming thru the system". The Blues had the most players playing in the juniors tourney showing up on the main stage. We are in a good spot.

My reply in no way suggested the Blues should tank or any of that other garbage. It was 100% to refute the sentence, “For every star that was at the top of the draft, there are many more that were taken later.”, which is demonstrably false. Ridiculously false. Laughably false.

I am not following what you’re trying to say with the 7-14 game differences thing but overall, I think you’re reading too much into my reply.

[callitwhatyouwant]

For every star that was at the top of the draft, there are many more that were taken later.
And many taken at the top of the draft have been less than stellar or outright busts.
Tanking guarantees nothing except encouraging a losing culture that is hard to reverse.

Well that’s just not true.

Obviously each draft is unique and there’s exceptions to the rule in both directions all the time but when you plot many year of data together there’s no denying the top of the draft is where the value is.

Your graph is flawed in 1 department. Since theres anywhere from 7-14 game differences for those that are in the 1st round from pick 1 to the pick 30s, you have to also account for how bad those teams were before they made that draft pick vs the ones picking towards the bottom of the round. Of course the difference that a lower player is going to give a winning franchise is going to be less than the player who is a number 1 or in that graphs case 1 and 2 picks to a bad franchise. I find it more interesting that the 3-8 spot looks to drop 6 wins below the 2nd pick. So essentially the only picks of "real value" according to your graph is picks 1 and 2. Because the other picks hardly warrant you enough difference between winning franchises and where you are at.

So unless you want the team to absolutely sell off every asset and tear it down to the studs for 5 years, that's not even feasible. San Jose and the Blackhawks have been awful for a good while now. Throw in the Sabres into that mix and that's what you have to look forward to. This argument is tired and it's infecting all of the different posts because one tired troll won't go away and people indulge IT with any answer other than "army is a good GM" "blues are stockpiled with number 1 draft players coming thru the system". The Blues had the most players playing in the juniors tourney showing up on the main stage. We are in a good spot.

My reply in no way suggested the Blues should tank or any of that other garbage. It was 100% to refute the sentence, “For every star that was at the top of the draft, there are many more that were taken later.”, which is demonstrably false. Ridiculously false. Laughably false.

I am not following what you’re trying to say with the 7-14 game differences thing but overall, I think you’re reading too much into my reply.

That's my fault. But to the game difference I'm just taking the plotted picks and comparing them to the next ones in the round and what their game difference by pick is (over the 7 year average whatever that means, 7 years of wins or 7 averaging that many wins for 7 years). Not going to go into more depth since it doesn't really matter but the statistical difference starts to flatten because one can assume the teams drafting later are working from a higher win's total so it's harder to push a team that had 50 wins in a season vs a team that had 30. And since 30 would get you the 3rd pick this year and 50 would be the 27th. The plotted points would indicate that the 30 win team would be worth 39 wins over the next 37 where the 50 win team would be worth like 53. Anyways, all semantics because that's not how things would play out.

Didn't mean to attribute that to you.

[STL fan in MN]

For every star that was at the top of the draft, there are many more that were taken later.
And many taken at the top of the draft have been less than stellar or outright busts.
Tanking guarantees nothing except encouraging a losing culture that is hard to reverse.

Well that’s just not true.

Obviously each draft is unique and there’s exceptions to the rule in both directions all the time but when you plot many year of data together there’s no denying the top of the draft is where the value is.

Your graph is flawed in 1 department. Since theres anywhere from 7-14 game differences for those that are in the 1st round from pick 1 to the pick 30s, you have to also account for how bad those teams were before they made that draft pick vs the ones picking towards the bottom of the round. Of course the difference that a lower player is going to give a winning franchise is going to be less than the player who is a number 1 or in that graphs case 1 and 2 picks to a bad franchise. I find it more interesting that the 3-8 spot looks to drop 6 wins below the 2nd pick. So essentially the only picks of "real value" according to your graph is picks 1 and 2. Because the other picks hardly warrant you enough difference between winning franchises and where you are at.

So unless you want the team to absolutely sell off every asset and tear it down to the studs for 5 years, that's not even feasible. San Jose and the Blackhawks have been awful for a good while now. Throw in the Sabres into that mix and that's what you have to look forward to. This argument is tired and it's infecting all of the different posts because one tired troll won't go away and people indulge IT with any answer other than "army is a good GM" "blues are stockpiled with number 1 draft players coming thru the system". The Blues had the most players playing in the juniors tourney showing up on the main stage. We are in a good spot.

My reply in no way suggested the Blues should tank or any of that other garbage. It was 100% to refute the sentence, “For every star that was at the top of the draft, there are many more that were taken later.”, which is demonstrably false. Ridiculously false. Laughably false.

I am not following what you’re trying to say with the 7-14 game differences thing but overall, I think you’re reading too much into my reply.

That's my fault. But to the game difference I'm just taking the plotted picks and comparing them to the next ones in the round and what their game difference by pick is (over the 7 year average whatever that means, 7 years of wins or 7 averaging that many wins for 7 years). Not going to go into more depth since it doesn't really matter but the statistical difference starts to flatten because one can assume the teams drafting later are working from a higher win's total so it's harder to push a team that had 50 wins in a season vs a team that had 30. And since 30 would get you the 3rd pick this year and 50 would be the 27th. The plotted points would indicate that the 30 win team would be worth 39 wins over the next 37 where the 50 win team would be worth like 53. Anyways, all semantics because that's not how things would play out.

Didn't mean to attribute that to you.

I think you might be misreading the graph. GSVA is a very specific fancy stat trying to measure the impact of players. You can go find a similar graph that shows games played but obviously 1000 games played from Connor McDavid differs from 1000 games played from Lars Eller which differs from 1000 games played by Pat Maroon. Is GSVA a perfect measurement of all ways a player can positively or negatively contribute to their team? Almost certainly not. But it’s better than games played IMO.

And this person chose 7 years because that’s how long a team keeps the draft rights of plays (7 years or age 27, whichever comes sooner). So he’s only counting the first 7 years of a player’s career, I would assume to more accurately tie it to draft pick value. But I’d also assume if he took a player’s entire career that it would show a similar arc.

As for anything to do with good teams and bad teams, this is many years of data rolled together so that should all even out. And a team may be good when a player is drafted but the bad or at least mediocre 2-5 years later when that kid is actually trying to make the NHL.

[Blue Sabbath]

For every star that was at the top of the draft, there are many more that were taken later.
And many taken at the top of the draft have been less than stellar or outright busts.
Tanking guarantees nothing except encouraging a losing culture that is hard to reverse.

Well that’s just not true.

Obviously each draft is unique and there’s exceptions to the rule in both directions all the time but when you plot many year of data together there’s no denying the top of the draft is where the value is.

Your graph is flawed in 1 department. Since theres anywhere from 7-14 game differences for those that are in the 1st round from pick 1 to the pick 30s, you have to also account for how bad those teams were before they made that draft pick vs the ones picking towards the bottom of the round. Of course the difference that a lower player is going to give a winning franchise is going to be less than the player who is a number 1 or in that graphs case 1 and 2 picks to a bad franchise. I find it more interesting that the 3-8 spot looks to drop 6 wins below the 2nd pick. So essentially the only picks of "real value" according to your graph is picks 1 and 2. Because the other picks hardly warrant you enough difference between winning franchises and where you are at.

So unless you want the team to absolutely sell off every asset and tear it down to the studs for 5 years, that's not even feasible. San Jose and the Blackhawks have been awful for a good while now. Throw in the Sabres into that mix and that's what you have to look forward to. This argument is tired and it's infecting all of the different posts because one tired troll won't go away and people indulge IT with any answer other than "army is a good GM" "blues are stockpiled with number 1 draft players coming thru the system". The Blues had the most players playing in the juniors tourney showing up on the main stage. We are in a good spot.

My reply in no way suggested the Blues should tank or any of that other garbage. It was 100% to refute the sentence, “For every star that was at the top of the draft, there are many more that were taken later.”, which is demonstrably false. Ridiculously false. Laughably false.

I am not following what you’re trying to say with the 7-14 game differences thing but overall, I think you’re reading too much into my reply.

That's my fault. But to the game difference I'm just taking the plotted picks and comparing them to the next ones in the round and what their game difference by pick is (over the 7 year average whatever that means, 7 years of wins or 7 averaging that many wins for 7 years). Not going to go into more depth since it doesn't really matter but the statistical difference starts to flatten because one can assume the teams drafting later are working from a higher win's total so it's harder to push a team that had 50 wins in a season vs a team that had 30. And since 30 would get you the 3rd pick this year and 50 would be the 27th. The plotted points would indicate that the 30 win team would be worth 39 wins over the next 37 where the 50 win team would be worth like 53. Anyways, all semantics because that's not how things would play out.

Didn't mean to attribute that to you.

I think you might be misreading the graph. GSVA is a very specific fancy stat trying to measure the impact of players. You can go find a similar graph that shows games played but obviously 1000 games played from Connor McDavid differs from 1000 games played from Lars Eller which differs from 1000 games played by Pat Maroon. Is GSVA a perfect measurement of all ways a player can positively or negatively contribute to their team? Almost certainly not. But it’s better than games played IMO.

And this person chose 7 years because that’s how long a team keeps the draft rights of plays (7 years or age 27, whichever comes sooner). So he’s only counting the first 7 years of a player’s career, I would assume to more accurately tie it to draft pick value. But I’d also assume if he took a player’s entire career that it would show a similar arc.

As for anything to do with good teams and bad teams, this is many years of data rolled together so that should all even out. And a team may be good when a player is drafted but the bad or at least mediocre 2-5 years later when that kid is actually trying to make the NHL.

Thanks.

[Absolut]

Nobody is untouchable, but Kyrou took significant steps playing all zones this year. Rough playoff series, but I’m not seeing where we replace his production.

[seattleblue]

Nobody is untouchable, but Kyrou took significant steps playing all zones this year. Rough playoff series, but I’m not seeing where we replace his production.

Well their 2021 first round pick plays RW with a wicked shot and an edge and paced for 25+ goals under Montgomery
And their 2022 first round pick also plays RW with a wicked shot and is immediately a better board battler than Kyrou

Those are the first two places I would look to replace his production.
The whole idea is BECAUSE it's a trade from strength, BECAUSE he's now a reliable quantity and BECAUSE there are 49 days until he gets more control.
If they don't do it, no huge deal. I would prefer to trade Buchnevich like some others but he has 4 year full NTC and I am also not sure his contract is as appealing.

[Absolut]

Nobody is untouchable, but Kyrou took significant steps playing all zones this year. Rough playoff series, but I’m not seeing where we replace his production.

Well their 2021 first round pick plays RW with a wicked shot and an edge and paced for 25+ goals under Montgomery
And their 2022 first round pick also plays RW with a wicked shot and is immediately a better board battler than Kyrou

Those are the first two places I would look to replace his production.
The whole idea is BECAUSE it's a trade from strength, BECAUSE he's now a reliable quantity and BECAUSE there are 49 days until he gets more control.
If they don't do it, no huge deal. I would prefer to trade Buchnevich like some others but he has 4 year full NTC and I am also not sure his contract is as appealing.

True regarding shots and ntc, but neither has his speed

[Bubble4427]

For every star that was at the top of the draft, there are many more that were taken later.
And many taken at the top of the draft have been less than stellar or outright busts.
Tanking guarantees nothing except encouraging a losing culture that is hard to reverse.

Well that’s just not true.

Obviously each draft is unique and there’s exceptions to the rule in both directions all the time but when you plot many year of data together there’s no denying the top of the draft is where the value is.

So you are saying that there are no stars taken out of the top 10 in almost every draft?
You also are saying that drafting in the top 3 guarantees you future success. Nail Yakapov was never close to being a star.
How many top 3 picks do the Dallas Stars have compared to the Sabres or Blackhawks? If you think that the only way to get good players is to draft early….I politely disagree.

[smegma]

It would be nice to see a full year of Kyrou and Holloway. Be even nicer to see a 2C added to the current roster.