(Speculation) Canucks interested in D Slater Koekkoek

[Canuck_In_Paradise]

13 hours ago, alfstonker said:

How is trading away Hutton or Edler for the unknown quantity Koekkoek a small risk? We have different definitions on "small" it seems.

No I was not against Granlund - Shink trade. I am happy to let the GM make all these decisions as it is his job on the line, I am just giving a personal opinion. In fact the Granlund - Shink was not even a risk as I saw it as Granlund had played 86 NHL games prior to coming here, Shink had played one and looked soft.

 

You keep making unrealistic comparisons which would be really worrying if you were our GM

The hutton/edler trade would be to upgrade our forwards (I believe Duchene was the rumour circulating around here a while back), while Koekkoek would be a replacement of sorts (he'd be #6/7 and everyone else would move up 1 slot to cover). As for the Granlund-Shink trade, bravo. I'd say close to 80% of the board here were ready to behead benning, so if you were one of the few who didn't, good for you.  

[alfstonker]

6 hours ago, Canuck_In_Paradise said:

The hutton/edler trade would be to upgrade our forwards (I believe Duchene was the rumour circulating around here a while back), while Koekkoek would be a replacement of sorts (he'd be #6/7 and everyone else would move up 1 slot to cover). As for the Granlund-Shink trade, bravo. I'd say close to 80% of the board here were ready to behead benning, so if you were one of the few who didn't, good for you.  

I'm not 100% positive that I was for the trade, I just based it on the logic. If I get a moment I will try to check back and see for sure - I wouldn't want to take undeserved credit.

[Canuck_In_Paradise]

2 hours ago, alfstonker said:

I'm not 100% positive that I was for the trade, I just based it on the logic. If I get a moment I will try to check back and see for sure - I wouldn't want to take undeserved credit.

Fair play mate, that's a lot better than the majority of people around here. I definitely respect that. 

[alfstonker]

3 hours ago, Canuck_In_Paradise said:

Fair play mate, that's a lot better than the majority of people around here. I definitely respect that. 

 

• Canucks First-Line
•  
• 
• Members
•  4,105
• 7,032 posts

 

Posted February 23, 2016 · Report post

Well I have held off saying anything until I have had time to read a few of the more sensible posts and had time to take this move in.

 

My opinion is this.

 

Now I agree, for a sample size you can't get any smaller than one game but despite his line mates and his TOI I was disappointed  with Shink's debut. I can't remember seeing a first round draft with such decent numbers in the AHL spend so much time on his ass and getting manhandled. That is probably unfair, I agree and he was likely very nervous but his pre-season performances against NHL teams seemed to indicate he would have performed better.

 

Much more telling for me though is Travis Green's input into this move. I mean TG has coached him all the time he has been in the AHL and from appearances seemed to be doing a good job judging by Shink's figures. I find it hard to believe that Green with all his NHL player experience would have sanctioned this move if he indeed thought Shink likely to be a 20-30 goalscorer in the NHL. 

By the way JB certainly gave me the impression TG (and his Scouts) did go along with this move, I don't have enough background knowledge of the higher workings of NHL management to understand firstly, if JB needed TG's sanction or secondly, why he felt the need to say that he got it.

 

JB is under pressure to keep this team winning and to do that he needs players who can cut it now. There is no doubt that despite there only being about 18 months more in age difference between them Granlund has played 80+ NHL games in his time and in fact was in the NHL earlier than Shink (although injury may have played some part in that)

 

So I am giving JB the benefit of the doubt on this one although I am on record some time ago saying I am not convinced JB is as good on the trading floor as he is in the draft. 

 

Now comes my one real worry in all this - Gaunce.

I now wonder why Gaunce who as far as I can see has done everything asked of him has not had a better look in the Vancouver team. I thought it might be injury but that has not been the case for some weeks now and if JB is indeed set on getting to the playoffs why was Freisen brought up and not Gaunce. Is this another player who we will suddenly see drafted out of nowhere? If he is JB better know what he is doing.

 

Also:

 

 

Posted February 23, 2016 · Report post

   On 2/23/2016 at 8:17 AM,  JamesB said: 

We all have a tendency to make up our minds first and then be selective in finding evidence to support that opinion. At least I admit that I sometimes do that (but only about 90% of the time). However, in this case, knowing nothing about Granlund I did try to look at the data -- numbers and scouting reports -- objectivelyl. And I wanted to believe this deal was good.

 

Granlund is 18 months older than Shinkaruk. So, adjusting for age it makes sense to compare the average of his 2013-14 and 2014-15 years in the AHL with Shinkaruk this year. Granlund had a PPG of .88 in 2013-14 in 0.81 in 2014-15. The combined total over the two years is 0.86. Shinkaruk has a PPG this year of 0.87 -- which is marginally more. 

 

You might argue that we should add in Shinkaruk's AHL numbers in 2014-15. Okay, but if you do that you should recognize that this does not properly adjust for age as Shinkaruk was younger in 2014-15 than Granlund was at any time he played in the AHL. So including Shinkaruk's numbers from 2014-15 biases the answer in favor of Granlund. Also, the results are biased more because Shinkaruk was coming off surgery in the early part of 2014-15. If you want to consider Shinkaruk's 2014-15 results the most reasonable thing to do would be to look at the second part of year, when he was older and fully recovered from injury. That strengthen's Shinkaruk's case. 

 

However, realistically, the two players have very similar age-adjusted AHL numbers. That is not my main concern.

 

My main concern is trajectory. Granlund's PPG in the AHL was 0.88 in 13-14, 0.81 in 2014-15 and 0.75 in 2015-15. At the NHL level his PPG was 0.375 in 2014-15 and 0.22 this year (2015-16).  I have looked at a lot of trajectories of NHL players, and this trajectory is not a good indicator.

 

His numbers have not only stopped improving, they have actually declined. That is a negative indicator. Shinkaruk, on the other hand, has shown significant improvement, which is normal for this age for guys who eventually become good NHL players.

 

Picking up Granland now might help the Canucks in the short run with Vey and Sutter both injured (so the Canucks avoid getting a really good draft pick), but it is hard to see how moves up the depth chart at center behind Henrik, Horvat, Sutter, McCann (in the future) and possibly Vey.

 

And there is nothing in the scouting report to make me feel better. As for the claim that he "can play PP", so far this year in Calgary he has 0 PP points. I assume he is not playing on the PP. The scouting reports indicate that he is good on PK, which is an advantage over Shinkaruk. But, based on scouting reports, Shinkaruk has more potential PP upside.

 

Unlike Shinkaruk Granlund is not waiver exempt, which means he has a guaranteed slot. And he is an RFA and I am concerned that Benning will overpay him (as with Weber, Sbisa, and various others).

 

When Benning was first hired he indicated that while he wanted the team to get younger he was impatient and wanted to win now. This trade shows that he meant what he said. But winning a bit more now may come at cost of losing high potential down the road.

 

I am not saying this was a terrible trade and the outcome is highly uncertain at this stage,  but I can see why a large majority of the fan base believes Calgary got the better of the deal.

 

 

 

Wait a minute, unless I'm mis-reading you, you compare their stats in the AHL, age adjusted BUT then you somehow make a fantasy comparison in the NHL. How does that work when Shink has only had one game in the NHL and not a great one at that?

 

You also don't seem to take into account mitigating factors in Granlund's second season, like where was he playing, what line, how was the team performing etc. There are a lot of things which can affect a player's production.

 

Simply put this is a question that only time will answer realistically. On AHL form both were equally good performers (incidentally probably not as good as Vey though) 

 

I am hoping both players confirm their AHL promise so that both sets of fans can be happy. I look forward to seeing Granlund in a Canuck's jersey and hoping against hope we don't see the usual idiots heaping hate on the guy when he has a poor game, goodness knows we get enough of that with Vey.

 

 

 

[Canuck_In_Paradise]

12 hours ago, alfstonker said:

 

• Canucks First-Line
•  
• 
• Members
•  4,105
• 7,032 posts

 

Posted February 23, 2016 · Report post

Well I have held off saying anything until I have had time to read a few of the more sensible posts and had time to take this move in.

 

My opinion is this.

 

Now I agree, for a sample size you can't get any smaller than one game but despite his line mates and his TOI I was disappointed  with Shink's debut. I can't remember seeing a first round draft with such decent numbers in the AHL spend so much time on his ass and getting manhandled. That is probably unfair, I agree and he was likely very nervous but his pre-season performances against NHL teams seemed to indicate he would have performed better.

 

Much more telling for me though is Travis Green's input into this move. I mean TG has coached him all the time he has been in the AHL and from appearances seemed to be doing a good job judging by Shink's figures. I find it hard to believe that Green with all his NHL player experience would have sanctioned this move if he indeed thought Shink likely to be a 20-30 goalscorer in the NHL. 

By the way JB certainly gave me the impression TG (and his Scouts) did go along with this move, I don't have enough background knowledge of the higher workings of NHL management to understand firstly, if JB needed TG's sanction or secondly, why he felt the need to say that he got it.

 

JB is under pressure to keep this team winning and to do that he needs players who can cut it now. There is no doubt that despite there only being about 18 months more in age difference between them Granlund has played 80+ NHL games in his time and in fact was in the NHL earlier than Shink (although injury may have played some part in that)

 

So I am giving JB the benefit of the doubt on this one although I am on record some time ago saying I am not convinced JB is as good on the trading floor as he is in the draft. 

 

Now comes my one real worry in all this - Gaunce.

I now wonder why Gaunce who as far as I can see has done everything asked of him has not had a better look in the Vancouver team. I thought it might be injury but that has not been the case for some weeks now and if JB is indeed set on getting to the playoffs why was Freisen brought up and not Gaunce. Is this another player who we will suddenly see drafted out of nowhere? If he is JB better know what he is doing.

 

Also:

 

 

Posted February 23, 2016 · Report post

   On 2/23/2016 at 8:17 AM,  JamesB said: 

We all have a tendency to make up our minds first and then be selective in finding evidence to support that opinion. At least I admit that I sometimes do that (but only about 90% of the time). However, in this case, knowing nothing about Granlund I did try to look at the data -- numbers and scouting reports -- objectivelyl. And I wanted to believe this deal was good.

 

Granlund is 18 months older than Shinkaruk. So, adjusting for age it makes sense to compare the average of his 2013-14 and 2014-15 years in the AHL with Shinkaruk this year. Granlund had a PPG of .88 in 2013-14 in 0.81 in 2014-15. The combined total over the two years is 0.86. Shinkaruk has a PPG this year of 0.87 -- which is marginally more. 

 

You might argue that we should add in Shinkaruk's AHL numbers in 2014-15. Okay, but if you do that you should recognize that this does not properly adjust for age as Shinkaruk was younger in 2014-15 than Granlund was at any time he played in the AHL. So including Shinkaruk's numbers from 2014-15 biases the answer in favor of Granlund. Also, the results are biased more because Shinkaruk was coming off surgery in the early part of 2014-15. If you want to consider Shinkaruk's 2014-15 results the most reasonable thing to do would be to look at the second part of year, when he was older and fully recovered from injury. That strengthen's Shinkaruk's case. 

 

However, realistically, the two players have very similar age-adjusted AHL numbers. That is not my main concern.

 

My main concern is trajectory. Granlund's PPG in the AHL was 0.88 in 13-14, 0.81 in 2014-15 and 0.75 in 2015-15. At the NHL level his PPG was 0.375 in 2014-15 and 0.22 this year (2015-16).  I have looked at a lot of trajectories of NHL players, and this trajectory is not a good indicator.

 

His numbers have not only stopped improving, they have actually declined. That is a negative indicator. Shinkaruk, on the other hand, has shown significant improvement, which is normal for this age for guys who eventually become good NHL players.

 

Picking up Granland now might help the Canucks in the short run with Vey and Sutter both injured (so the Canucks avoid getting a really good draft pick), but it is hard to see how moves up the depth chart at center behind Henrik, Horvat, Sutter, McCann (in the future) and possibly Vey.

 

And there is nothing in the scouting report to make me feel better. As for the claim that he "can play PP", so far this year in Calgary he has 0 PP points. I assume he is not playing on the PP. The scouting reports indicate that he is good on PK, which is an advantage over Shinkaruk. But, based on scouting reports, Shinkaruk has more potential PP upside.

 

Unlike Shinkaruk Granlund is not waiver exempt, which means he has a guaranteed slot. And he is an RFA and I am concerned that Benning will overpay him (as with Weber, Sbisa, and various others).

 

When Benning was first hired he indicated that while he wanted the team to get younger he was impatient and wanted to win now. This trade shows that he meant what he said. But winning a bit more now may come at cost of losing high potential down the road.

 

I am not saying this was a terrible trade and the outcome is highly uncertain at this stage,  but I can see why a large majority of the fan base believes Calgary got the better of the deal.

 

 

 

Wait a minute, unless I'm mis-reading you, you compare their stats in the AHL, age adjusted BUT then you somehow make a fantasy comparison in the NHL. How does that work when Shink has only had one game in the NHL and not a great one at that?

 

You also don't seem to take into account mitigating factors in Granlund's second season, like where was he playing, what line, how was the team performing etc. There are a lot of things which can affect a player's production.

 

Simply put this is a question that only time will answer realistically. On AHL form both were equally good performers (incidentally probably not as good as Vey though) 

 

I am hoping both players confirm their AHL promise so that both sets of fans can be happy. I look forward to seeing Granlund in a Canuck's jersey and hoping against hope we don't see the usual idiots heaping hate on the guy when he has a poor game, goodness knows we get enough of that with Vey.

 

 

 

Those are the type of rational posts that are necessary anytime a potentially influential trade is made. Well said then, and it is even truer now with the power of hindsight. Well done, I concede that you were right from the start