Ben Hutton: Do We Really Need Him?

[VIC_CITY]

28 minutes ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

The Tanev move would happen pre draft or free up a Tanev deal to a team that has room pre ED.  Hutton for a d man like Vatenen would be the first dominon to fall in a series of moves.  

I don't think there's such a thing as pre ED room. Acquiring Tanev would force you to leave a superior dman unprotected than if you didn't acquire that extra dman. The only teams looking to trade pre ED are teams that have the best unprotected players because they stand to lose them for nothing. Most of the action will be right after the ED and up to the the actual draft. After the ED happens, tons of teams will be looking for D. That's when we'll get our best offer for Tanev. It will also mean we'll lose Sbisa, but I just don't see how it makes sense for anyone to acquire a defenseman pre ED. It just means they'll lose a better player to LV. 

 

Edit: Never say never I guess but you'd have to be buying really low because it's not just what you trade for that defenseman, it's also what you expose to LV to make room for them. Not a sellers market by any means. 

[Crabcakes]

4 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

I don't think there's such a thing as pre ED room. Acquiring Tanev would force you to leave a superior dman unprotected than if you didn't acquire that extra dman. The only teams looking to trade pre ED are teams that have the best unprotected players because they stand to lose them for nothing. Most of the action will be right after the ED and up to the the actual draft. After the ED happens, tons of teams will be looking for D. That's when we'll get our best offer for Tanev. It will also mean we'll lose Sbisa, but I just don't see how it makes sense for anyone to acquire a defenseman pre ED. It just means they'll lose a better player to LV. 

I haven't read a post saying this in quite a while and it is bang on.

 

So the cost to a team of acquiring a player like Tanev pre-ED would be the return the Canucks would want (1st + prospect, say) plus the player that team would otherwise have protected.

 

It makes the cost of trading good players very expensive if done before the expansion draft.   These types of trades will only happen after.

 

Before the ED, we'll see teams letting support type players like Sbisa go for assets that don't have to be protected.  Assets like picks or exempt young players.

 

 

 

 

[VIC_CITY]

25 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Before the ED, we'll see teams letting support type players like Sbisa go for assets that don't have to be protected.  Assets like picks or exempt young players.

 

And even then, support players will be tough to trade. Let's just say Anaheim is looking for a dman like Sbisa because they know they'll lose a better dman than Sbisa to LV, so they want a dman for insurance. But from our perspective, if we trade Sbisa to Anaheim, now all of a sudden we lose Gaunce to LV as he then becomes our most valuable unprotected player. So Anaheim needs to give us enough value for Sbisa that it would be worst losing Gaunce for. 

 

Bottom line is teams are going to lose a good player and there's not a whole lot they can do about it. But if you look at your unprotected players and say ok, if I can get ____ for my 2nd best unprotected player then I'll trade my 1st best unprotected player for that. You're going to lose that player anyways. So would you rather have the return they'd get in a trade or your 2nd best unprotected player?

[Crabcakes]

47 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

 

And even then, support players will be tough to trade. Let's just say Anaheim is looking for a dman like Sbisa because they know they'll lose a better dman than Sbisa to LV, so they want a dman for insurance. But from our perspective, if we trade Sbisa to Anaheim, now all of a sudden we lose Gaunce to LV as he then becomes our most valuable unprotected player. So Anaheim needs to give us enough value for Sbisa that it would be worst losing Gaunce for. 

 

Bottom line is teams are going to lose a good player and there's not a whole lot they can do about it. But if you look at your unprotected players and say ok, if I can get ____ for my 2nd best unprotected player then I'll trade my 1st best unprotected player for that. You're going to lose that player anyways. So would you rather have the return they'd get in a trade or your 2nd best unprotected player?

I guess it's better to lose your 2nd best unprotected asset than your best.  But listen,

 

For the team looking to get something for an asset they can't protect, they trade that asset for something, probably at a discount.  Let's say you move Sbisa for 80 cents on the dollar.  You're also going to lose your 2nd best asset, Gaunce.  Is Gaunce worth more or less than the asset coming back which is worth 80% of Sbisa?  That's the question.  Do we end up ahead or not?  Obviously, the asset coming back for Sbisa can't be selected in the draft if by protection or by exemption.

 

 For the buying team, picking up a "bargain", they get Sbisa cheaply, but they also have to be sure that Sbisa isn't drafted and they'll have to expose their next best player.  Sbisa is not exempt.  Is that next best player lower value than what they gave up, 80% of Sbisa?  So do they end up ahead?

 

The answer is very difficult to quantify but the proposition is more difficult for the buying team because of the exemption problem.  The bottom line is that if every GM is equally smart, not a whole lot gets done before the ED 

 

 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, VIC_CITY said:

I don't think there's such a thing as pre ED room. Acquiring Tanev would force you to leave a superior dman unprotected than if you didn't acquire that extra dman. The only teams looking to trade pre ED are teams that have the best unprotected players because they stand to lose them for nothing. Most of the action will be right after the ED and up to the the actual draft. After the ED happens, tons of teams will be looking for D. That's when we'll get our best offer for Tanev. It will also mean we'll lose Sbisa, but I just don't see how it makes sense for anyone to acquire a defenseman pre ED. It just means they'll lose a better player to LV. 

 

Edit: Never say never I guess but you'd have to be buying really low because it's not just what you trade for that defenseman, it's also what you expose to LV to make room for them. Not a sellers market by any means. 

Teams like ARZ and DAL have room to protect an extra D fyi. It is certainly a more limited market though. 

[VIC_CITY]

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

I guess it's better to lose your 2nd best unprotected asset than your best.  But listen,

In my scenario, you're losing both your best and 2nd best unprotected player. Your return for your best unprotected player is really what you're trading your 2nd best unprotected player for because you're assuming you're going to lose your best unprotected player to LV for nothing. So the rerurn for player # 1 has to be worth more than player # 2. Otherwise there's no point trading Sbisa. You just let LV have him.

 

Quote

 

For the team looking to get something for an asset they can't protect, they trade that asset for something, probably at a discount.  Let's say you move Sbisa for 80 cents on the dollar.  You're also going to lose your 2nd best asset, Gaunce.  Is Gaunce worth more or less than the asset coming back which is worth 80% of Sbisa?

 That's the question.  Do we end up ahead or not?  

 

Now we're on the same page (I think?)

 

Quote

Obviously, the asset coming back for Sbisa can't be selected in the draft if by protection or by exemption.

Ya we'd have to get an ED exempt asset in return.

 

Quote

 

 For the buying team, picking up a "bargain", they get Sbisa cheaply, but they also have to be sure that Sbisa isn't drafted and they'll have to expose their next best player.  Sbisa is not exempt.  Is that next best player lower value than 80% of Sbisa?  So do they end up ahead?

I don't think there's a market there for Sbisa. IMO the market is with a team like Anaheim who is already going to lose a dman. They can leave Sbisa unprotected, along with someone like Vatanen and LV can only take one of them. So Sbisa is purely insurance for the inevitable loss of a dman to LV.

 

Quote

 

The answer is very difficult to quantify but the proposition is more difficult for the buying team because of the exemption problem.  The bottom line is that if every GM is equally smart, not a whole lot gets done before the ED 

This is where GMs are going to earn their paycheque. I'm sure they've been discussing scenarios like this internally for the last year. It'll be interesting to see what they can come up with.

[VIC_CITY]

13 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Teams like ARZ and DAL have room to protect an extra D fyi. It is certainly a more limited market though. 

What does that even mean though? They don't have 3 dmen they need to protect? 

 

Klingberg, Hamhuis, Oleksiak, Nemeth. There's 4 guys that need to be protected.

[Crabcakes]

24 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

 

 

 

In my scenario, you're losing both your best and 2nd best unprotected player. Your return for your best unprotected player is really what you're trading your 2nd best unprotected player for because you're assuming you're going to lose your best unprotected player to LV for nothing. So the rerurn for player # 1 has to be worth more than player # 2. Otherwise there's no point trading Sbisa. You just let LV have him.

 

Now we're on the same page (I think?)

 

Ya we'd have to get an ED exempt asset in return.

 

I don't think there's a market there for Sbisa. IMO the market is with a team like Anaheim who is already going to lose a dman. They can leave Sbisa unprotected, along with someone like Vatanen and LV can only take one of them. So Sbisa is purely insurance for the inevitable loss of a dman to LV.

 

This is where GMs are going to earn their paycheque. I'm sure they've been discussing scenarios like this internally for the last year. It'll be interesting to see what they can come up with.

Ha, you picked up on the evolution of my post.  You're taking more care than I usually do on CDC......lol

 

Anyways, as I thought this through more deeply, it seems like there is less benefit from anybody making these pre-expansion draft deals at all.  Particularly the buyers.

 

And yes, I think that all the teams should have been beating the various scenario's around for some time.  I would expect that they would come to the same conclusions and there will be very few deals before the ED at all.

[aGENT]

57 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

What does that even mean though? They don't have 3 dmen they need to protect? 

 

Klingberg, Hamhuis, Oleksiak, Nemeth. There's 4 guys that need to be protected.

They won't protect Hamhuis. And Nemeth? Come on...

[VIC_CITY]

19 minutes ago, J.R. said:

They won't protect Hamhuis. And Nemeth? Come on...

Forget about Nemeth, I was just naming the dmen they will have to protect/leave unprotected. They can only protect 3 anyways. But in order to acquire a defenseman, you have to leave an additional defenseman unprotected.

 

Hamhuis is going to be a very important player now that they have Hitch as coach. As it stands right now, Dallas protects Klingberg, Oleksiak and Hamhuis. If they were to acquire another defenseman, they would have to leave Hamhuis unprotected. Hitch isn't gonna like that. Or...they could wait until after the ED, keep Hamhuis and THEN make a trade. See what I'm saying? There's no such thing as a free spot. It all comes with a cost.

[aGENT]

7 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

Forget about Nemeth, I was just naming the dmen they will have to protect/leave unprotected. They can only protect 3 anyways. But in order to acquire a defenseman, you have to leave an additional defenseman unprotected.

 

Hamhuis is going to be a very important player now that they have Hitch as coach. As it stands right now, Dallas protects Klingberg, Oleksiak and Hamhuis. If they were to acquire another defenseman, they would have to leave Hamhuis unprotected. Hitch isn't gonna like that. Or...they could wait until after the ED, keep Hamhuis and THEN make a trade. See what I'm saying? There's no such thing as a free spot. It all comes with a cost.

LGK is not going to take Hamhuis.

 

Unprotected all day long. 

 

Like I said there are teams with old and/or mediocre 3rd D who they're already losing someone of a similar quality. If they can upgrade that 3rd guy before the prices go up after the ED and getting first pick of who they target...

[granpappy]

11 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

I haven't read a post saying this in quite a while and it is bang on.

 

So the cost to a team of acquiring a player like Tanev pre-ED would be the return the Canucks would want (1st + prospect, say) plus the player that team would otherwise have protected.

 

It makes the cost of trading good players very expensive if done before the expansion draft.   These types of trades will only happen after.

 

Before the ED, we'll see teams letting support type players like Sbisa go for assets that don't have to be protected.  Assets like picks or exempt young players.

 

 

 

 

hutton would solve that problem.  exempt from ed.  if they were able to get foote and ? in return, why not?  foote brings in the meat and spuds jb professes to want and the toughness this team is so lacking in.   

[Crabcakes]

16 minutes ago, granpappy said:

hutton would solve that problem.  exempt from ed.  if they were able to get foote and ? in return, why not?  foote brings in the meat and spuds jb professes to want and the toughness this team is so lacking in.   

Sure but is Foote > Hutton?  Hutton is 24 with 2 season's experience (146 games) and some offense to his game and will more than likely settle in as a career 3D.  Don't tell me we pass on Hutton to pick Foote and wait 5 years to see if we've won that deal.  I just don't see it.

 

Why not draft a good D with the 33rd pick and keep Hutton too?  Is Foote that much better?  Is he as good as his dad?  How much of the attraction in his name?

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Sure but is Foote > Hutton?  Hutton is 24 with 2 season's experience (146 games) and some offense to his game and will more than likely settle in as a career 3D.  Don't tell me we pass on Hutton to pick Foote and wait 5 years to see if we've won that deal.  I just don't see it.

 

Why not draft a good D with the 33rd pick and keep Hutton too?  Is Foote that much better?  Is he as good as his dad?  How much of the attraction in his name?

Foote is slow of ... you know:)

[granpappy]

all true about hutton but how high is his ceiling?  he will likely not dominate physically or offensively.  we need to beef up.  foote could bring a dominant physical presence we could really use.  there is risk.  as i said hutton and ?  if the shoe fits.  will he follow in dad's footesteps?

[VIC_CITY]

6 hours ago, J.R. said:

LGK is not going to take Hamhuis.

 

Unprotected all day long. 

 

Like I said there are teams with old and/or mediocre 3rd D who they're already losing someone of a similar quality. If they can upgrade that 3rd guy before the prices go up after the ED and getting first pick of who they target...

So you think LV would rather take a forward from Dallas? Who were you thinking? 

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

So you think LV would rather take a forward from Dallas? Who were you thinking? 

On mobile, can't remember who I had pegged there. I think it was one of their younger, bottom pair D guys.

[VIC_CITY]

7 minutes ago, J.R. said:

On mobile, can't remember who I had pegged there. I think it was one of their younger, bottom pair D guys.

I don't think they have any other dmen that are eligible to be drafted, other than the 4 I listed. 

 

I have a feeling LV will take the max number of defensemen they can and then make a bunch of trades. They can always fill out their forward group in free agency. So I don't think Hamhuis is safe. He'd probably get a 3rd round pick and mid-tier prospect in a trade. That's pretty valuable.

[aGENT]

On 2017-6-3 at 3:50 PM, VIC_CITY said:

I don't think they have any other dmen that are eligible to be drafted, other than the 4 I listed. 

 

I have a feeling LV will take the max number of defensemen they can and then make a bunch of trades. They can always fill out their forward group in free agency. So I don't think Hamhuis is safe. He'd probably get a 3rd round pick and mid-tier prospect in a trade. That's pretty valuable.

And if Dallas lose him for a better, younger D, they'd probably be OK improving there and dropping his salary for use elsewhere.

 

He's a 2nd pair D trending to 3rd pair who's 35 this year. 

[aGENT]

On 6/3/2017 at 3:50 PM, VIC_CITY said:

I don't think they have any other dmen that are eligible to be drafted, other than the 4 I listed. 

 

I have a feeling LV will take the max number of defensemen they can and then make a bunch of trades. They can always fill out their forward group in free agency. So I don't think Hamhuis is safe. He'd probably get a 3rd round pick and mid-tier prospect in a trade. That's pretty valuable.

Just checked.

 

Kling, Lindell, Johns, Oleksiak, Hamhuis, Pateryn, Nemeth all would require protection. They're already going to lose one of Oleksiak, Johns or Hamhuis regardless of what they do and either Tanev or Edler (or other teams D) would be an upgrade on any of them.

 

Even if they don't make a move, they'll be protecting one of Oleksiak/Johns over Hamhuis IMO (my guess would be Oleksiak) and likely losing Johns anyway.

 

So they stand to lose a player of roughly equivalent value regardless of making a trade or not. They either make a trade and lose 'X' value while overall improving theirr D (while getting first pick of the D) or don't trade and lose X value regardless and simply lose depth.

 

Then pay likely even higher prices for D after the ED either by trade or UFA to rebuild that depth.