Castagna and Walsh - The Worry Zone

[BearLover]

Hmm. I thought I posted this but apparently did not.

I don't think this is true at all. The higher draft pick is a higher investment...

Sounds like sunk cost fallacy. NHL teams are smart enough reevaluate and update their beliefs based on how guys perform, without leaning much at all on draft round. If we were discussing first rounders I'd agree with you, but once you're into the middle rounds that all goes out the window...

First, the sunk cost fallacy describes how people behave, not how economic models and beings of pure rationality are supposed to behave.

Second, the same attributes that make you a projectible high-round pick are probably still there 2-3 years later. Morgan Barron, for example, definitely outperformed his draft position and expectations (including at training camps) and nudged the Rangers towards yanking him out of school (regardless of COVID imo). If you take someone in a late round you're mostly only pulling them early if they develop on their own. If you take someone earlier you probably want to mold the clay.

Right, I'm saying that you're ascribing sunk cost fallacy to NHL GMs, but I think they're smarter than that. I also think you're overstating the difference between a mid- and late-round draft pick. We're not talking about Macklin Celebrini here. Yes, draft round is a signal of how highly an NHL team values a player. It's not nothing. But I don't believe the Flames would view/treat Castagna any differently if he were drafted in the 6th round, or Walsh any differently if he were drafted in the 3rd round.

[scoop85]

I suspect that given the accelerated movement across junior and college hockey that is impacting everyone, in the next few years that in attempt to stay nationally competitive and counteract early departures, we'll see Cornell taking in more transfers (see, i.e., Ashton and Fisher) and late recruits (see, i.e., Cornyoyer). But in the long run (and this is not profound wisdom), unless Cornell adopts some form of NIL program, likely along the lines of the Penn basketball paid internship model, it will be increasingly challenging for Cornell and the other Ivies to remain top tier D1 hockey programs.

[Pghas]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

As to the hypothetical about the #1 pick - Cornell (also Quinnipiac) is totally noncompetitive for such a player and does not even attempt to recruit him.

Exactly.  And so the question becomes, does going down that path over the next few years make sense and if so, should they?  OR should they take advantage of the transfer portal, where someone who is both talented but disgruntled (perhaps about being displaced by said hypothetical #1 pick) would welcome the opportunity (and be duly loyal) to come to Cornell and be a part of building something, and would that something be able to finish the job?

We need to be realistic about our limitations. We cannot go down the path of getting the McKennas, nor can we go down the path of bringing in a bunch of high-end transfers. These players do not want to play at an Ivy League school in the ECAC that does not offer scholarships. Any changes in philosophy will take place on the margins.

As far as how Cornell grows as a program, I'm not really sure at this point. The model has been to recruit very good, though not blue-chip, players who value an education, and develop them for four years. Stanley leaving is bearish. There's some BL catastrophizing going on here, but I really do think that if guys are leaving Cornell for a career in the AHL, then we're in trouble. Looking around the country, it's quite common for teams to retain a player of this caliber. We'd have been a top team in the country this season if we had Robertson and Bancroft back, and we'd be a top team next year if we had Castagna, Stanley, Walsh, and Fegaras back. If we want a legit chance at the Frozen Four, we need to get most of these players to stay. Beyond that, what else can we do? Casey is already recruiting the best player he can. The quality of talent coming in is pretty good. I suppose NIL is one path forward--we can't do real NIL, but some Penn basketball-style thing where we set players up with fancy internships sounds plausible and I understand Casey has already been looking into something like that.

The recruits in the pipeline look alright. But there is going to be a clear step down from the stacked 2023 recruiting class (Castagna, Walsh, Stanley, Fegaras, Robertson, Devlin, Kraft, Catalano).

Yeah I hear you.  I dont think Stanley leaving is a catastrophe, I just look more at the results the last few years - which are certainly great ones - and can see that we could use a bit more high end elite skill to get up those last few steps.  That said, it may work out that the players we develop and have a few years of experience at this level will ultimately trump the programs that are relying on one-year lottery picks.  we will see.  Also having two sons who are Cornellians I know a bit about majors and the process  - I will say that the hardest undergraduate program to get admitted to at Cornell is the Dyson business program, and at least a few of the hockey players are actually in that program, which is a pretty big recruiting pull and also suggests what those guys' intentions may be (Walsh and Fegaras are both in that program, although they may have transferred into it) in terms of NOT only thinking about hockey. Irrespective of that, Cornell is so well-represented and networked in finance that hockey players coming out of here have fantastic opportunities and I am sure they play that up.  I wonder if they take advantage of Cayuga lake in the warmer months for recruiting purposes.

[ugarte]

Right, I'm saying that you're ascribing sunk cost fallacy to NHL GMs, but I think they're smarter than that. I also think you're overstating the difference between a mid- and late-round draft pick. We're not talking about Macklin Celebrini here. Yes, draft round is a signal of how highly an NHL team values a player. It's not nothing. But I don't believe the Flames would view/treat Castagna any differently if he were drafted in the 6th round, or Walsh any differently if he were drafted in the 3rd round.

First, I don't think they are much smarter than that. Very sophisticated systems chase sunk costs all the time. But second (and more importantly imo) I am also saying that draft position matters because the non-production aspects are baked into the earlier evaluation and remain a significant factor in how they see the players years later.

[stereax]

the one thing I'll say is if you ever hear a player referred to as a "former first-round pick" you know they suuuuck.

[adamw]

Not really sure what it would take to convince BL that the player movement, and departure, is so accelerated nowadays, that any comparison to even 5-10 years ago is meaningless - but - for the sake of everyone else ...

Today, Western Michigan lost two undrafted players and their fourth-round goaltender - all to early signings. Two of those were sophomores. This is so commonplace now, it's a yawn. I really don't have time to do deep dive on actual numbers right now - because it's not easy to do from a simple database search.

You know another way I know this? I used to write a little news blurb for every player that departed early, probably up until as recently as 4-5 years ago. Now, there are so many, and they happen so fast, I don't even bother.

[BearLover]

Not really sure what it would take to convince BL that the player movement, and departure, is so accelerated nowadays, that any comparison to even 5-10 years ago is meaningless - but - for the sake of everyone else ...

Today, Western Michigan lost two undrafted players and their fourth-round goaltender - all to early signings. Two of those were sophomores. This is so commonplace now, it's a yawn. I really don't have time to do deep dive on actual numbers right now - because it's not easy to do from a simple database search.

You know another way I know this? I used to write a little news blurb for every player that departed early, probably up until as recently as 4-5 years ago. Now, there are so many, and they happen so fast, I don't even bother.

I get that it's commonplace, and I understand that it's becoming more commonplace. But the fact it's happening on a wide basis doesn't itself explain why e.g. Hoyt Stanley would make that decision--his individual calculus isn't any different than it would have been 5-10 years ago when we'd retain that type of player. These are highly personal decisions. Jackson LaCombe (high second round pick, now an NHL star) stayed at Minnesota all four years, after all.

I'm looking at it like this, basically: the last four years our season was ended by BU and Denver. How are we going to beat these teams and get to the Frozen Four? Well, we certainly can't out-recruit them. But we can out-retain them and beat them with experience. But if Cornell players are leaving early just like theirs--well, then we really have no chance at all.

[Al DeFlorio]

Good grief!  Stanley realized a life-long dream to sign a pro contract.  That's all the calculus he needed.

"Your reach should exceed your grasp, or what's a heaven for."  Enough with the repetitive deep analysis  He's taking a shot at the prize. Good luck to him.

[BearLover]

Yes, good for him. I am a fan of the Cornell hockey team, though.

[Al DeFlorio]

Yes, good for him. I am a fan of the Cornell hockey team, though.

We all are here.  Stop your posturing

[adamw]

Not really sure what it would take to convince BL that the player movement, and departure, is so accelerated nowadays, that any comparison to even 5-10 years ago is meaningless - but - for the sake of everyone else ...

Today, Western Michigan lost two undrafted players and their fourth-round goaltender - all to early signings. Two of those were sophomores. This is so commonplace now, it's a yawn. I really don't have time to do deep dive on actual numbers right now - because it's not easy to do from a simple database search.

You know another way I know this? I used to write a little news blurb for every player that departed early, probably up until as recently as 4-5 years ago. Now, there are so many, and they happen so fast, I don't even bother.

I get that it's commonplace, and I understand that it's becoming more commonplace. But the fact it's happening on a wide basis doesn't itself explain why e.g. Hoyt Stanley would make that decision--his individual calculus isn't any different than it would have been 5-10 years ago when we'd retain that type of player. These are highly personal decisions. Jackson LaCombe (high second round pick, now an NHL star) stayed at Minnesota all four years, after all.

I'm looking at it like this, basically: the last four years our season was ended by BU and Denver. How are we going to beat these teams and get to the Frozen Four? Well, we certainly can't out-recruit them. But we can out-retain them and beat them with experience. But if Cornell players are leaving early just like theirs--well, then we really have no chance at all.

Don't disagree with any of that. I share the same concern/lament. I just disagree with comparing it to 25 or even 5 years ago, or implying that it's a trend, let alone one that's caused by the new coaching staff.  Not trying to be Casey's apologist for any of this.  I tell coaches this all the time - I don't defend you because I like you, I defend because I believe it.

So - I've laid out reasons why things are different today vs. a couple years ago - and while most of that can be dismissed as speculation, if you want, I think it's well-founded.

Obviously transferring is WAY easier now than before, right? So any comparison before two years ago is pretty much irrelevant.  Robertson left, and two transfers came in.  Both of these things were unheard of just a couple years ago. That has nothing to do with Cornell doing something wrong. You don't know if 100 players would've transferred out in Schafer's tenure if it were that easy. No way to know. But credit to Casey for being prepared to replace him. Not just with two transfers in, but in being ready to get Veilleux when that opportunity presented itself, and same with Cournoyer. I'd venture to say he's way more pro-active on all of this stuff now than the past staff, partially because you have to be, and partially because you can be.

We can't get inside Stanley's head to know for sure -- but circumstances have changed, even if it's just the "atmosphere" in college sports these days.  Coaches are doing so much more recruiting to cover their rear ends for anyone leaving, that it can create a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not saying that's the case here - I'm just giving one point to consider as a difference that explains things beyond "the coach is different." Maybe Ottawa wanted him more than other 4th rounders Cornell has had in the past. Could be a one off.

You're right on Lacombe. There are others. Dylan James this year. Etc... There will always be examples in the micro.  I am just referring to the macro atmosphere. I have no clue why Stanley made that decision. But usually, if an NHL team wants you after junior year, you go. That kind of pressure is very prevalent in college hockey these days. I don't think it's unusual. I don't think it should be a cause for worry beyond the usual worry.  And I think Casey and the staff are extremely prepared to adapt to it.

And Cornell has it a lot better off than Clarkson, St. Lawrence, Union, Colgate and RPI right now.

[marty]

Good grief!  Stanley realized a life-long dream to sign a pro contract.  That's all the calculus he needed.

"Your reach should exceed your grasp, or what's a heaven for."  Enough with the repetitive deep analysis  He's taking a shot at the prize. Good luck to him.

FWIW anyone want to see BLer's calculus credentials? Didn't he "proactively" stop arguing about this a few weeks ago after the horse had already been rendered into glue?

[The Rancor]

I can't wait to read the apoplectic tirades when Cournoyer signs or transfers next season.

[BearLover]

Good grief!  Stanley realized a life-long dream to sign a pro contract.  That's all the calculus he needed.

"Your reach should exceed your grasp, or what's a heaven for."  Enough with the repetitive deep analysis  He's taking a shot at the prize. Good luck to him.

FWIW anyone want to see BLer's calculus credentials? Didn't he "proactively" stop arguing about this a few weeks ago after the horse had already been rendered into glue?

Back by popular demand!

[Pghas]

Not really sure what it would take to convince BL that the player movement, and departure, is so accelerated nowadays, that any comparison to even 5-10 years ago is meaningless - but - for the sake of everyone else ...

Today, Western Michigan lost two undrafted players and their fourth-round goaltender - all to early signings. Two of those were sophomores. This is so commonplace now, it's a yawn. I really don't have time to do deep dive on actual numbers right now - because it's not easy to do from a simple database search.

You know another way I know this? I used to write a little news blurb for every player that departed early, probably up until as recently as 4-5 years ago. Now, there are so many, and they happen so fast, I don't even bother.

I get that it's commonplace, and I understand that it's becoming more commonplace. But the fact it's happening on a wide basis doesn't itself explain why e.g. Hoyt Stanley would make that decision--his individual calculus isn't any different than it would have been 5-10 years ago when we'd retain that type of player. These are highly personal decisions. Jackson LaCombe (high second round pick, now an NHL star) stayed at Minnesota all four years, after all.

I'm looking at it like this, basically: the last four years our season was ended by BU and Denver. How are we going to beat these teams and get to the Frozen Four? Well, we certainly can't out-recruit them. But we can out-retain them and beat them with experience. But if Cornell players are leaving early just like theirs--well, then we really have no chance at all.

I mean that last paragraph is pretty much my point. Totally agree.  That's why I'm asking can we out-recruit them or out-retain them? And how? I don't think it's realistic to expect kids to say no to the NHL.  More on that later.