Sven Baertschi | LW

[NameFaker]

On June 11, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Crabcakes said:

 

Are these 3 good use of the draft picks used to get them?  2nd rounders have a 1/3 probability of playing 100 games.  3rd rounders 1/4

2nd for Vey 134 games......so ya

2nd for Baertschi 138 games.......ya again

3rd for Pedan 13 games......wait and see

 

Are they place holders?  In other words, what is their quality?  But the point is, they are making the line up so they are making the team better than the alternative.  The GM is always trying to upgrade and will be looking for replacements for everybody.  That's his job.  Obviously, it is much easier to find upgrades on bottom 6 players which is why we see more action there.

 

Last season we saw Benning make upgrades on:

• Jensen (24 games) to Etem (170 games)
• Shinkaruk (8 games.....1 at the time of the trade) to Granlund (102 games) 

In answer to the question are they place holders? 

• Baertschi has a legitimate shot at being a 2nd line left wing.  I would call him a keeper until of course somebody better comes along. 
• Vey is looking more and more like a utility depth guy which is valuable but not difficult to find.  What is his upside?  Probably not top 6 but he has a shot at pushing Granlund for 4C.  Also, consider that Benning likes having natural centres on the wings so that option is not out of the question. 
• Pedan is on the bubble and the addition of more skilled players like Gudbranson, Tryamkin, Larsen, and Stecher push him down the depth chart.

So if you can get 100 games out of a 2nd rounder, it's worth it.  And one of these 3 look like a real score.

 

 

 

So, this isn't to discount what you've said, because I agree with what you've said.

 

But I think the math we're using is slightly confusing when talking about probabilities and percentages.

 

The first question we should be asking, when we trade any picks, be they second or fifth rounders, is whether the player Benning would have selected there would have been better than the player we acquired. We shouldn't be talking about historical averages of "that pick" except as a general model. It's not necessarily what Benning would

have done. In general, I think Benning picks well, and those picks have larger than historically average weight. Of course, the problem is that we'll never know who Benning really would have picked. It'd be cool for the fans to get a retroactive draft board from the Canucks or whichever specific team, but then that provides too much info for the competitors.

 

The second question we should be asking is whether the player we acquired is going to be able to help us more than the drafted player at X spot. This becomes a nuanced conversation about team dynamics, timing, and character. This is where we could envision a set of say, five players Benning might've picked, and compare their trajectories to the player acquired via trade. This, of course, is an exercise only executable with hindsight, and a significant amount at that. It's also one where a tremendous amount of data needs to be considered for us to have anywhere close to a realistic model. Again, even then, the exercise remains speculative. The set would have to have, on average, a higher value than the player acquired within the team model. I can envision further complications to this as well, but I'm not gonna bring them up right now. Rabbit hole type thinking.

 

What I mean to establish by framing the discussion this way is that we should be talking about specifics, not generalities. The latter is lazy thinking, and doesn't really benefit our understanding of hockey. To see our GM's plan and vision, we have to think like him, and all evidence suggests he is extremely specific and detail-oriented. If we're going to criticize him,  we should at least be doing it on his level.

 

Anyway, I think you're on the right track, and I support this kind of thinking on CDC. Keep at it, yo.

[kloubek]

11 hours ago, PlanB said:

Bear-cheese is going to be a gem.  First full season in the league and he nets 15 while playing on a terrible team.  Wait until the supporting pieces in the organization come into their own,  including him!

I hope so.  He was expected to perform at a 2nd line level last season, but if you look at his stats for the whole year, he didn't exactly improve them from his time in Calgary.  Career year - yes.  But in 12-13, he scored every other game.  (.50) In 13-14, he scored at pace of .42.  His 14-15 year was forgettable at .27, and his last year with us: .40.  Granted, I have little to no insight into his linemates or how he was used, and even though the stats are out there, I don't know about his ice time either.  Point being that purely from a statistical standpoint he isn't exactly improved... even though he looked better at times than others this past season.

 

Point being that I think there is little to back up that he will be a "gem", despite his 15 goals.  This coming season will be very telling for what kind of progress he's actually making.  I do hope he turns out to be our 2nd line winger; it is a position we badly need talent in.

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, kloubek said:

I hope so.  He was expected to perform at a 2nd line level last season, but if you look at his stats for the whole year, he didn't exactly improve them from his time in Calgary.  Career year - yes.  But in 12-13, he scored every other game.  (.50) In 13-14, he scored at pace of .42.  His 14-15 year was forgettable at .27, and his last year with us: .40.  Granted, I have little to no insight into his linemates or how he was used, and even though the stats are out there, I don't know about his ice time either.  Point being that purely from a statistical standpoint he isn't exactly improved... even though he looked better at times than others this past season.

 

Point being that I think there is little to back up that he will be a "gem", despite his 15 goals.  This coming season will be very telling for what kind of progress he's actually making.  I do hope he turns out to be our 2nd line winger; it is a position we badly need talent in.

We badly need first line prospect talent too.  IMHAO, Baer is a place holder for when JB either trades for or develops from within elite top six wingers.  

[kloubek]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

We badly need first line prospect talent too.  IMHAO, Baer is a place holder for when JB either trades for or develops from within elite top six wingers.  

Yeah, we really do.  I don't Baertschi's as having a top end ceiling either, but I do think he could potentially be capable of being a reasonable 2nd line scorer.  When we likely draft a player capable of LW in this draft, it will help a lot.  That individual should just be hitting their stride at the end of the Sedins' contracts.  And if we miss on that draft, we're pretty much hooped unless we snag good players via free agency.

[Crabcakes]

11 hours ago, NameFaker said:

So, this isn't to discount what you've said, because I agree with what you've said.

 

But I think the math we're using is slightly confusing when talking about probabilities and percentages.

 

The first question we should be asking, when we trade any picks, be they second or fifth rounders, is whether the player Benning would have selected there would have been better than the player we acquired. We shouldn't be talking about historical averages of "that pick" except as a general model. It's not necessarily what Benning would

have done. In general, I think Benning picks well, and those picks have larger than historically average weight. Of course, the problem is that we'll never know who Benning really would have picked. It'd be cool for the fans to get a retroactive draft board from the Canucks or whichever specific team, but then that provides too much info for the competitors.

 

The second question we should be asking is whether the player we acquired is going to be able to help us more than the drafted player at X spot. This becomes a nuanced conversation about team dynamics, timing, and character. This is where we could envision a set of say, five players Benning might've picked, and compare their trajectories to the player acquired via trade. This, of course, is an exercise only executable with hindsight, and a significant amount at that. It's also one where a tremendous amount of data needs to be considered for us to have anywhere close to a realistic model. Again, even then, the exercise remains speculative. The set would have to have, on average, a higher value than the player acquired within the team model. I can envision further complications to this as well, but I'm not gonna bring them up right now. Rabbit hole type thinking.

 

What I mean to establish by framing the discussion this way is that we should be talking about specifics, not generalities. The latter is lazy thinking, and doesn't really benefit our understanding of hockey. To see our GM's plan and vision, we have to think like him, and all evidence suggests he is extremely specific and detail-oriented. If we're going to criticize him,  we should at least be doing it on his level.

 

Anyway, I think you're on the right track, and I support this kind of thinking on CDC. Keep at it, yo.

Good criticism Name Faker.  Well thought out post.

 

Of course my stats, while true, are a bit of a ham fisted way of looking at it because players acquired are further along with their development, are usually older and have had more opportunity to have played more NHL games.  Since the players that Benning has acquired are more experienced, he has a more reliable opinion of the sort of player they will become.  So while Shinkaruk may have a higher ceiling than Granlund, Benning knows that he has an NHLer in Granlund (albeit a bottom 6 C) and as such has reduced risk by making the deal.  

 

In the Gudbranson trade, Benning would have had a pretty good idea of who he would have selected at 33 OA in the upcoming draft but it's very difficult to know even 1 month before the draft, whether it would even be possible to make that selection.   His preferred candidate may have been picked by another team, or a better candidate may have fallen in the draft.  For each pick, I imagine that Benning has as many as 10 possible alternatives.  I believe he said that he had 8 possibles for the 5th OA.  

 

Since there are so many variables involved, maybe the best you can do is to make a generality.

[NameFaker]

7 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Good criticism Name Faker.  Well thought out post.

 

Of course my stats, while true, are a bit of a ham fisted way of looking at it because players acquired are further along with their development, are usually older and have had more opportunity to have played more NHL games.  Since the players that Benning has acquired are more experienced, he has a more reliable opinion of the sort of player they will become.  So while Shinkaruk may have a higher ceiling than Granlund, Benning knows that he has an NHLer in Granlund (albeit a bottom 6 C) and as such has reduced risk by making the deal.  

 

In the Gudbranson trade, Benning would have had a pretty good idea of who he would have selected at 33 OA in the upcoming draft but it's very difficult to know even 1 month before the draft, whether it would even be possible to make that selection.   His preferred candidate may have been picked by another team, or a better candidate may have fallen in the draft.  For each pick, I imagine that Benning has as many as 10 possible alternatives.  I believe he said that he had 8 possibles for the 5th OA.  

 

Since there are so many variables involved, maybe the best you can do is to make a generality.

That's a good point Crabby. It's honestly just too much work to put together an honest analysis. I don't have the time, and if I did, I'd be writing for CanucksArmy or something, trying to score a job somewhere.

 

For us measly fans, though, it's just fun to speculate. I guess the generalities are what make these discussions compelling, too. Without antithesis, it'd be kinda dull around here. Like a palaeontology convention about the reliability of Carbon-14 dating processes.

 

Personally, I'm way more down with Gudbranson than that 33rd and the fourth for a fifth is more or less a "meh" sorta exchange. The real lynchpin is McCann. If we don't snag Dubois, I think we're screwed, because I just don't believe we have that bonafide #1 guy at center. Maybe we could trade for it later on, but we'd likely have to overpay, again. Regardless, draft day should be interesting. My only regret is being overseas so I can't watch it flatscreen and all, chips in one fist, brew in the other, butt sewn to the couch.

[underscore]

On 6/11/2016 at 9:03 AM, nzan said:

ok, i'm willing to admit maybe I'm wrong...my whole point is that we're employing a great strategy of getting players of value in exchange for picks that everyone values extremely highly (but have extremely low probabilities of turning into actual value).

 

using those three draft spots and looking over the last 20 years, I've identified 6 years where you would absolutely prefer those three picks than Baer, Pedan and Vey, so close to 30%...and yeah, maybe Benning would have unearthed a Keith or Weber in addition to the choices made in those spots...

 

Those years are:

1998 - Brad RIchards

2003 - Jimmy Howard

2004 - Brandon Dubinsky

2006 - Milan Lucic

2008 - Travis Hamonic

2009 - Tyson Barrie

Its easy to come to that conclusion in hindsight. How did these guys look at 23 vs Sven?

Edited June 16, 2016 by underscore

[Bob Long]

Great deal for Sven at 1.85 mil cap hit for 2 years. That's a good deal for a 15-20 goal guy.

[cripplereh]

I see him this year if things work out getting 22 to 27 goals as he is happy and should play that way.Contracts are always a distraction no matter what players say!

[kingofsurrey]

Sure would like to See Baer on the Powerplay.   Make it happen.

 

He is most skillful player on our roster right now with some serous moves in his game. Hank and Dank need to lose a bit of PP! .   Love to see BAER on the PP 1 . 

 

Maybe we run a PP1A and a PP1B next year.   50-50 in time. 

[LaBamba]

If the game is legitimately changing this kid will only get better. Even if his production stays the same his contract is extremely manageable. 

[JamesB]

8 hours ago, Bob Long said:

Great deal for Sven at 1.85 mil cap hit for 2 years. That's a good deal for a 15-20 goal guy.

Have to give Benning some credit. This contract looks about right.

[Rush17]

2 hours ago, JamesB said:

Have to give Benning some credit. This contract looks about right.

The contract looks great if you ask me.  Hes going to be making that contract look real nice come mid way next season.  I'm amped to have him back. Probably the best thing you can do for yourself is to take a hair cut so fans cant vilify you lol.  

 

Baer will re-up the year after bo is locked up long term.  Great situation for everyone here.  Makes JB look emazing too.  I was suspecting 2.5 per for 2 years.  much better dollar amount for him. love it!

[Putgolzin]

13 hours ago, underscore said:

Its easy to come to that conclusion in hindsight. How did these guys look at 23 vs Sven?

Yeah, good point, there's a possibility that Sven at 27 has blossomed into a Naslund type of player.

Not a very good possibility, but perhaps in the same realm of possibility that the 2nd we spent to acquire him will have turned into a young Shea Weber (which was the point of my original discussion).

What's more realistic is that Sven will be a legitimate top 6 player in the league and the 2nd will not/barely be a full-time NHL player.

So, I continue to think that Benning is dummying GM's when he's getting young players in exchange for magic beans.

[Crabcakes]

15 hours ago, Bob Long said:

Great deal for Sven at 1.85 mil cap hit for 2 years. That's a good deal for a 15-20 goal guy.

It's real good because Baertchi has not reached his ceiling

[Crabcakes]

2 hours ago, nzan said:

Yeah, good point, there's a possibility that Sven at 27 has blossomed into a Naslund type of player.

Not a very good possibility, but perhaps in the same realm of possibility that the 2nd we spent to acquire him will have turned into a young Shea Weber (which was the point of my original discussion).

What's more realistic is that Sven will be a legitimate top 6 player in the league and the 2nd will not/barely be a full-time NHL player.

So, I continue to think that Benning is dummying GM's when he's getting young players in exchange for magic beans.

Sven's birthday is Oct 5, 1992....... he IS 23 years old.

 

Your post is misleading.  I know it was unintentional. 

 

Not to take away from your actual point.  Best case scenario, I agree, he has a shot at developing into a Naslund type.  Realistically, I think he'll top out at 2LW.  He would be a nice compliment to a rugged RW.  A future 2nd line of Baer Horvat Virtanen would be awesome.

 

[Bob Long]

3 hours ago, nzan said:

Yeah, good point, there's a possibility that Sven at 27 has blossomed into a Naslund type of player.

Not a very good possibility, but perhaps in the same realm of possibility that the 2nd we spent to acquire him will have turned into a young Shea Weber (which was the point of my original discussion).

What's more realistic is that Sven will be a legitimate top 6 player in the league and the 2nd will not/barely be a full-time NHL player.

So, I continue to think that Benning is dummying GM's when he's getting young players in exchange for magic beans.

I think the Nazzy bar is high, but Sven can be a regular 20-25 goal scorer I think. When you look at how he and Bo clicked last year - and that's with most of Bo's draws in our end - I'm pretty excited to see what these two can do together with Sutter taking over some of Bo's shut down role. So that pretty much means WD will split them up, eh 

Edited June 17, 2016 by Bob Long

[Bob Long]

29 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

A future 2nd line of Baer Horvat Virtanen would be awesome.

 

That has to be the plan, doesn't it? The next top line might be ??-Dubois-Boeser. 

[Putgolzin]

3 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Sven's birthday is Oct 5, 1992....... he IS 23 years old.

 

Your post is misleading.  I know it was unintentional. 

 

Not to take away from your actual point.  Best case scenario, I agree, he has a shot at developing into a Naslund type.  Realistically, I think he'll top out at 2LW.  He would be a nice compliment to a rugged RW.  A future 2nd line of Baer Horvat Virtanen would be awesome.

 

Not misleading at all, you missed the point.

In the same way he's not yet 27 years old, he's not yet blossomed into a Naslund type player.

The point was that in a dream scenario he could eventually turn into a Nazzy, just like the 2nd we gave up for him could eventually turn into a Shea Weber (Alf's philosophy on why we would never give up 2nd rounders).

 

I agree with you that the realistic high end is a decent 2nd line winger...which is way better than the realistic high end of the 2nd, which is a maybe-NHLer.

[Honky Cat]

20 hours ago, Bob Long said:

Great deal for Sven at 1.85 mil cap hit for 2 years. That's a good deal for a 15-20 goal guy.

13 out of his 15 goals came in the last 40 games of the season,when he found his groove....I don't think 20-25 goals ver a whole season, is out of the question at all..IMO