Just won draft lottery!!

[Instant Karma]

My mistake. I thought Bass's response was yours. Withdrawn.

Ah, that makes sense. I have to admit that I was really confused for awhile there!

[Mr. Guru]

Whoever said 1 and 4 for Eichel is on drugs

1...Matthews obviously.

4...If you can't wait till draft day and the fins go 2 and 3 Tkachuk is the next best.

KISS method.

Matthews and Eichel are very very even. I wouldn't be surprised if Matthews turned out better. He's impressed me more in my limited views. Coin flip at this point. Def wouldn't add Tkachuk to the deal that's for sure.

[keytolife]

and



Just to clarify your guidance, is this regarding his 4th overall pick which was the OP's true question, or where you suggesting that he try and move the 1st overall pick for a "Real NHL Player"?

Big difference between the two IMO. Want to be clear for the OP.

Incidently, I would take Tkachuk at 4th if the Fins and Matthews go 1-3.

I´m actually speaking of both picks or more in general unless there are very special circumstances ( McD or the league hates prospects) its always a good idea to check the value for the picks. Most of the time there is shiny new toy syndrome and you get a steal of a deal.

[Hollywood]

I would go with Tkachuk!

[lucafen4]

for 4th I would take Dubois over Tkachuck, but not wrong with either

[rtstr]

Fantasy isn't about points, it's about prognostication - points are the end, but quality prognostication is the means to that end.

I get this point, but I think it's kind of silly. Fantasy is absolutely about points. This is not rocket science, it doesn't take all that much prognostication if you ask me. You either know about hockey and your league, or you don't. Identify players, identify trends, recognize proportional player values based on league setups and you're good. In my opinion all those are prerequisites that the majority of this board has covered as it is, not in depth "prognostication". Just hockey fandom, man.

Accounting for that, I'll always recommend that OP (and others) follow the general rule of collect the best players, and collect the most points available in your setup. You can disagree and I respect that, but you're probably not going to win many fantasy leagues if you trade Matthews+Tkachuk for Eichel+scrub unless it's like an 8 team league.

At the end of the day, I think your argument is way more effective in other scenarios. Matthews is pretty much a sure thing I think. If he wasn't (presumably) so close to Eichel, then yes of course I'd rather have the "proven" commodity and a filler instead of two prospects. (*But calling Eichel a proven commodity is worthy of its own thread as it is.)

[Instant Karma]

I get this point, but I think it's kind of silly. Fantasy is absolutely about points. This is not rocket science, it doesn't take all that much prognostication if you ask me. You either know about hockey and your league, or you don't. Identify players, identify trends, recognize proportional player values based on league setups and you're good. In my opinion all those are prerequisites that the majority of this board has covered as it is, not in depth "prognostication". Just hockey fandom, man.

Accounting for that, I'll always recommend that OP (and others) follow the general rule of collect the best players, and collect the most points available in your setup. You can disagree and I respect that, but you're probably not going to win many fantasy leagues if you trade Matthews+Tkachuk for Eichel+scrub unless it's like an 8 team league.

At the end of the day, I think your argument is way more effective in other scenarios. Matthews is pretty much a sure thing I think. If he wasn't (presumably) so close to Eichel, then yes of course I'd rather have the "proven" commodity and a filler instead of two prospects. (*But calling Eichel a proven commodity is worthy of its own thread as it is.)

Well, yeah, what I bolded above is more or less what I'm talking about here. Prognostication just sums all of that up in a word. If it was a matter of looking at who has the most points, well, I could just write a program to do that for me rather easily.

That's the point I was trying to make. Points are the measure of success, not the means towards it. Otherwise you could train a chimp to do it.

[rataylor22]

I get this point, but I think it's kind of silly. Fantasy is absolutely about points. This is not rocket science, it doesn't take all that much prognostication if you ask me. You either know about hockey and your league, or you don't. Identify players, identify trends, recognize proportional player values based on league setups and you're good. In my opinion all those are prerequisites that the majority of this board has covered as it is, not in depth "prognostication". Just hockey fandom, man.

Accounting for that, I'll always recommend that OP (and others) follow the general rule of collect the best players, and collect the most points available in your setup. You can disagree and I respect that, but you're probably not going to win many fantasy leagues if you trade Matthews+Tkachuk for Eichel+scrub unless it's like an 8 team league.

At the end of the day, I think your argument is way more effective in other scenarios. Matthews is pretty much a sure thing I think. If he wasn't (presumably) so close to Eichel, then yes of course I'd rather have the "proven" commodity and a filler instead of two prospects. (*But calling Eichel a proven commodity is worthy of its own thread as it is.)

You just wrote a who post outlying while IK is "silly" by saying you need to do exactly what IK was saying to win.

[rtstr]

You just wrote a who post outlying while IK is "silly" by saying you need to do exactly what IK was saying to win.

No, I didn't. I just misinterpreted IK's original post. IK understands-- I was interpreting his comment as if "prognostication" was some in-depth procedural review. I countered and said that the only things I think are important are things that I consider to be common knowledge/prerequisites for most people who do fantasy hockey. He countered and said "well, that's what I was talking about". Crisis averted. We're on the same page after all. But at the time I wrote the post, no, I was not saying to do exactly what IK said because I thought he was saying something completely different. So that's absolutely not what i was "outlying" (I assume you mean outlining?) at the time.

Honestly, I think you're one of the more annoying people on this forum. You very rarely add any valuable insight or mature conversation.

I'm going to start trolling all of your idiotic posts, if I can somehow find the time to keep up with them all.

[rataylor22]

No, I didn't. You're just misinterpreting what I wrote, just like I misinterpreted IK's original post. IK understands-- I was interpreting his comment as if "prognostication" was some in-depth procedural review. I countered and said that the only things I think are important are things that I consider to be common knowledge/prerequisites for most people who do fantasy hockey. He countered and said "well, that's what I was talking about". Crisis averted. We're on the same page after all. But at the time I wrote the post, no, I was not saying to do exactly what IK said because I thought he was saying something completely different.

Honestly, I think you're one of the more annoying people on this forum. You very rarely add any valuable insight or mature conversation. I'm going to start trolling all of your idiotic posts, if I can somehow find the time to keep up with them all.

But yet, you in essence said do exactly what IK said to do. Soooooo.........

[rtstr]

But yet, you in essence said do exactly what IK said to do. Soooooo.........

Ah, well, "in essence", and if we went back in time and my brain came to the same conclusion using a different thought process, well then yes, I suppose you'd be correct. You win. There. Do you want a lolli-pop, little boy?

I'm happy to talk about hockey, but I'm not really here to argue pointless semantics with you.

[rataylor22]

Ah, well, "in essence", and if we went back in time and my brain came to the same conclusion using a different thought process, well then yes, I suppose you'd be correct. You win. There. Do you want a lolli-pop, little boy?

I'm happy to talk about hockey, but I'm not really here to argue pointless semantics with you.

ohs nose, someone finds me anoising and has to "act tough" by resorting to childish name calling. Sure, I'm the "little boy lol. Hows trajik.

[rtstr]

ohs nose, someone finds me anoising and has to "act tough" by resorting to childish name calling. Sure, I'm the "little boy lol. Hows trajik.

It was like 60-40 making a joke vs name calling. I was making a joke about your innate need to get the last word and win. That was the 60%. The 40% was name calling, though. I'll give you that! I apologize if you're offended.

[Instant Karma]

No, I didn't. I just misinterpreted IK's original post. IK understands-- I was interpreting his comment as if "prognostication" was some in-depth procedural review. I countered and said that the only things I think are important are things that I consider to be common knowledge/prerequisites for most people who do fantasy hockey. He countered and said "well, that's what I was talking about". Crisis averted. We're on the same page after all. But at the time I wrote the post, no, I was not saying to do exactly what IK said because I thought he was saying something completely different. So that's absolutely not what i was "outlying" (I assume you mean outlining?) at the time.

Honestly, I think you're one of the more annoying people on this forum. You very rarely add any valuable insight or mature conversation.

I'm going to start trolling all of your idiotic posts, if I can somehow find the time to keep up with them all.

FWIW, all I meant by prognostication was using understanding of the status quo to predict future events, which could involve as little or as much as necessary to arrive at that understanding. (Typically in fantasy hockey, much is better.)

[rtstr]

FWIW, all I meant by prognostication was using understanding of the status quo to predict future events, which could involve as little or as much as necessary to arrive at that understanding. (Typically in fantasy hockey, much is better.)

Don't worry you made it clear enough now

I agree that it's an integral process, for sure! But-- I definitely disagree that more is better. I've lost more matchups/trades than I've won due to overmanaging my teams or overanalyzing my players. My rule is: when in doubt, go with your gut. That doesn't involve a whole lot of prognostication, and it's fair if you don't agree with that approach.

Example: I traded Byfuglien for Kronwall 2 years ago, when everyone on this forum was CERTAIN that Byfuglien was done as a dman and needed to be sold in d-heavy leagues
Another Example: Anyone who traded Kane this offseason
Another Example: The millions of times I've left points on the bench because player B seemed like a better start than player A after evaluating why he might have a "better opportunity to score" even if player A was a better own.

Anyway, THAT is what I mean when I said prognostication isn't necessarily a good thing, but I digress. We're just beating a dead horse now, and I don't want rataylor to jump in and yell at me because you and I are having a normal conversation with actual substantiated thoughts, working towards the common goal that is communication.