D-Money Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 14 minutes ago, stawns said: Pedan = Clendening Pouliot = Forslund is that why? Nope. See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, D-Money said: Pedan is nothing IMO - a throw-in, to balance contracts. To me, it's Pouliot for a 4th. Which is very much like Clendening for a recent 5th. It's strikingly similar, in fact. no, not really. Forsling was a known quantity that had upticked. You weren't getting Clendening for a 5th at that point. And as 'fringe' as Clendening was, he was also a piece that Pittsburgh wanted, so his value was arguably regained in the Sutter deal. ( I'm not going to argue about Sutter's value - I think there are a whole lot of people with loopy conceptions there - but I will say there was absolutely nothing wrong with that deal) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gameburn2 Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 15 hours ago, SamJamIam said: I'd trade all those later rounds picks he used for Sven and Granny alone. Later round draft picks are overvalued and he's cashing in on that fact. Many CDCers just don't understand probabilities, nor the ebbs and flows that add/remove value to specific draft years. Bieksa was later rounds, Tryamkin, a lot of the best Canucks were after the first round. Besides, our "second rounders" are almost first rounders because our record has been so poor 3 of the last four years. And this is likely to continue for at least one more year. There are more good young players in the world now than there has ever been. Which means the first 50 or even 90 draft picks are now worth looking at, not just the first round. I love how he drafts, I love how the team is building up its overall talent base; all I'm saying is that there is some risk to "throwing in" later round picks (2nd and 3rd in particular) to sweeten deals. Was Gudbranson worth throwing in a second? As well as a fourth? (And McCann, of course.) We got Stecher free, and Hutton was a later rounder too. For Gudbranson we gave up two decent draft picks as well as a prospect many valued (McCann.) I'd have to go into the Granlund trade to remember the details, but I'm sure you see my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 3 hours ago, D-Money said: This deal reminds me of Clendening for Forsling. At the time, it made perfect sense. Clendening had shown a ton of promise in the AHL. Even though Forsling had a great WJC tournament, he was a recent 5th round pick, and by all means still a longshot. But now that Forsling is a promising young D-man and Clendening just a fringe guy, it certainly doesn't look great. It's a gamble. Fortunately though not a large one. I'm hoping it turns out not dissimilar to Gillis robbing the Sharks of Ehrhoff and Ehrhoff landing on the right team, with the right team mates at the right time. Hopefully with similar offensive results (but hopefully not the ridiculous contract demands and consequent drain swirling of both his career and the Canucks contention window). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckinEdm Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 43 minutes ago, stawns said: You don't consider getting two 20 goal guys for two second round picks a homerun? Baertschi and Granlund were both trade wins but not homeruns i think they both top out as inconsistent 30-40 point guys. Im talking a Erat for Forsberg, or 3rd for Schultz kinda win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 1 minute ago, CanuckinEdm said: Baertschi and Granlund were both trade wins but not homeruns i think they both top out as inconsistent 30-40 point guys. Im talking a Erat for Forsberg, or 3rd for Schultz kinda win. 1 minute ago, CanuckinEdm said: Baertschi and Granlund were both trade wins but not homeruns i think they both top out as inconsistent 30-40 point guys. Im talking a Erat for Forsberg, or 3rd for Schultz kinda win. Baer was on the same ppg pace as Bo last season......give or take a cpl points. I don't disagree though, probably not homeruns, but that rarely, if ever happens anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longsuffering Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 On 10/3/2017 at 11:03 AM, Gollumpus said: I believe he's already gone. https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/canucks VANCOUVER CANUCKS PROJECTED CAP HIT : $73,319,166 PROJECTED CAP SPACE : $1,680,834 PROJECTED LTIR USED : $0 CURRENT CAP SPACE : $1,680,834 DEADLINE CAP SPACE : $7,815,878 TODAYS CAP HIT : $73,319,166 ROSTER SIZE: 24/23 CONTRACTS: 47/50 DAILY CAP TRACKER CHARTS DRAFT YEAR ROUND 1 ROUND 2 ROUND 3 ROUND 4 ROUND 5 ROUND 6 ROUND 7 2018 2019 2020 CAP HIT AAV SALARY PERFORMANCE BONUS SIGNING BONUS CONTRACT CLAUSE CONVERT TO CAD FORWARDS (14 - $43,894,167) TERMS POS STATUS AGE 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Sedin, Daniel "A" NMC LW NHL 37 $7,000,000 UFA Sedin, Henrik "C" NMC C NHL 37 $7,000,000 UFA Eriksson, Loui NMC RW, LW NHL 32 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 UFA Horvat, Bo C NHL 22 $5,500,000 $5,500,000 $5,500,000 $5,500,000 $5,500,000 $5,500,000 UFA Sutter, Brandon NTC C NHL 28 $4,375,000 $4,375,000 $4,375,000 $4,375,000 UFA Gagner, Sam C, RW NHL 28 $3,150,000 $3,150,000 $3,150,000 UFA Dorsett, Derek RW NHL 30 $2,650,000 $2,650,000 UFA Vanek, Thomas LW, RW NHL 33 $2,000,000 UFA Baertschi, Sven LW NHL 24 $1,850,000 RFA Boeser, Brock ELC RW NHL 20 $925,000 $925,000 RFA Granlund, Markus RW, LW, C NHL 24 $900,000 RFA Burmistrov, Alexander C, RW NHL 25 $900,000 RFA Virtanen, Jake ELC RW NHL 21 $894,167 RFA Gaunce, Brendan LW, C NHL 23 $750,000 $750,000 RFA DEFENSE (8 - $21,125,000) TERMS POS STATUS AGE 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Edler, Alexander NTC LD NHL 31 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 UFA Tanev, Christopher M-NTC RD NHL 27 $4,450,000 $4,450,000 $4,450,000 UFA Gudbranson, Erik RD NHL 25 $3,500,000 UFA Del Zotto, Michael LD NHL 27 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 UFA Hutton, Ben LD NHL 24 $2,800,000 $2,800,000 RFA Stecher, Troy ELC RD NHL 23 $925,000 RFA Pouliot, Derrick LD NHL 23 $800,000 RFA Wiercioch, Patrick LD NHL 27 $650,000 UFA GOALTENDERS (2 - $6,166,667) TERMS POS STATUS AGE 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Markstrom, Jacob G NHL 27 $3,666,667 $3,666,667 $3,666,667 UFA Nilsson, Anders G NHL 27 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 UFA RETAINED SALARY TRANSACTIONS (2) 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Luongo, Roberto $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 Hansen, Jannik $500,000 BUYOUT HISTORY (1) 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Higgins, Chris $833,333 Statistics ROSTER SIZE 24 13 6 3 2 1 0 STANDARD PLAYER CONTRACTS 47 23 11 3 2 1 0 SALARY CAP $75,000,000 $75,000,000 $75,000,000 $75,000,000 $75,000,000 $75,000,000 $75,000,000 PROJECTED CAP HIT $73,319,166 $44,766,667 $27,141,667 $15,875,000 $11,500,000 $5,500,000 $0 PROJECTED CAP SPACE $1,680,834 $30,233,333 $47,858,333 $59,125,000 $63,500,000 $69,500,000 $75,000,000 CURRENT CAP SPACE $1,680,834 - - - - - - DEADLINE CAP SPACE $7,815,878 - - - - - - CURRENT LTIR RELIEF $0 - - - - - - ESTIMATED SALARY EXPENDITURE $76,215,833 $47,000,000 $27,725,000 $12,000,000 $9,775,000 $4,450,000 $0 CARRYOVER BONUS OVERAGES $0 - - - - - - POTENTIAL PERFORMANCE BONUSES $1,700,000 $850,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 RETAINED SALARY REMAINING 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 NON-ROSTER PLAYERS (24) TERMS POS STATUS AGE 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Molino, Griffen ELC C Minor 23 $925,000 RFA Demko, Thatcher ELC G Minor 21 $925,000 $925,000 RFA Dahlen, Jonathan ELC LW, C Minor 19 $925,000 $925,000 $925,000 RFA Holm, Philip ELC D Minor 25 $925,000 RFA Juolevi, Olli ELC LD Loan 19 $894,166 $894,166 $894,166 RFA Goldobin, Nikolay ELC LW Minor 21 $863,333 $863,333 RFA MacEwen, Zack ELC C, RW Minor 21 $847,500 $847,500 $847,500 RFA Laplante, Yan-Pavel ELC C Minor 22 $836,667 $836,667 RFA Chatfield, Jalen ELC D Minor 21 $765,000 $765,000 $765,000 RFA Subban, Jordan ELC RD Minor 22 $755,000 RFA Biega, Alex RD Minor 29 $750,000 UFA Rodin, Anton RW Minor 26 $700,000 UFA Brisebois, Guillaume ELC D Minor 20 $697,500 $697,500 $697,500 RFA Boucher, Reid LW Minor 24 $687,500 RFA Chaput, Michael C Minor 25 $687,500 RFA Carcone, Michael ELC LW, C Minor 21 $675,000 $675,000 RFA Sautner, Ashton ELC LD Minor 23 $675,000 RFA Megna, Jayson RW Minor 27 $675,000 UFA McEneny, Evan LD Minor 23 $657,500 $657,500 RFA Stewart, MacKenze ELC LD, LW Minor 22 $655,000 RFA Labate, Joseph LW Minor 24 $650,000 RFA Bachman, Richard G Minor 30 $650,000 UFA Cederholm, Anton ELC LD Minor 22 $645,000 RFA Cassels, Cole ELC C Minor 22 $630,833 RFA PROFESSIONAL TRYOUTS (1) TERMS POS STATUS AGE 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 White, Ryan C PTO 29 PTO Those top three are brutal! and still paying Luongo ..... old management really screwed this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longsuffering Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 On 10/3/2017 at 0:10 PM, Hutton Wink said: Like with Sutter, JB eventually gets his man. And how did that turn-out for you !?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 27 minutes ago, longsuffering said: And how did that turn-out for you !?! Excellent. Also got Will Lockwood in the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancouver Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 Just watched some YouTube vids of pouliot, didn't realize he liked to throw down so much. There were a bunch of him scrapping in both the dub and the A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 2 hours ago, longsuffering said: Those top three are brutal! and still paying Luongo ..... old management really screwed this team. meh. The Sedins took discount after discount for this team - one year remaining - if they were overpaid for two years - transitional years - who really cares? It's relatively inconsequential. Paying Luongo 800k is also a relative non-issue. At least we have our current starter to show for his return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gameburn2 Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 12 hours ago, oldnews said: Posted this elsewhere but it's more relevant here: A 4th round pick: Stands a 4.2 to 4.6% chance of becoming a top 6 forward or top 4 blueliner. 10.6% chance of being a long term 4th liner or 6th/7th D. 14.6 to 23.8% chance of becoming a replacement level player that exceeds 100 NHL games. Just sayin'. Those odds, relative to Pouliot - mean if he has a 1 in 10 chance of being a bottom pairing D, that is a break-even risk factor relative to that pick. If he has a 1 in 22 to 24 chance of becoming a top 4 - that is a break even risk factor risk factor relative to that pick. I have to think he has slightly better than 1 to 10 to 24 odds of being something at the NHL level - in other words, a no-brainer in terms of upticking the risk factor value of a 4th round pick. The problem with Pouliot, Etem, Vey, Gudbranson, even Granlund and Baertschi is that there is a chance we are trading picks away for players that may already have proven their mediocrity. We are in a world now where if you can't show you belong by 21, then you may not be worth ANY draft pick. Baertschi looks like he was worth the pick, and really was a diamond in the rough, so far. Granlund probably. Gudbranson, Etem, Vey? Think of all the 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks Benning has moved for players other teams have found wanting. The straight up trade of Shinkaruk is different: we too had a chance to assess potential on both sides, and the age of the players was comparable, no complaints there. Hockey, unfortunately, is a zero-sum game. When you pick up a player who is 21, 22, 23 by trading away a pick who is going to be 18 or at most 19, you are NOT gaining development time, but losing competitive ground. Unless, that is, the older player really is a diamond in the rough. The stat, then, that has to complement what you note above is: how many players amount to being diamonds in the rough? I.e., how many players make a contribution to the NHL who arrive later than, say, age 21? or 22? D men may get an extra year on this basis, goalies maybe 2 years extra... but forwards? And then there is the question of assessing "contribution to the NHL" -- is it just number of games played or the ability to have a real career. Vey and Stanton played more than 100 games for us I believe: but what was their value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 1 hour ago, gameburn2 said: The problem with Pouliot, Etem, Vey, Gudbranson, even Granlund and Baertschi is that there is a chance we are trading picks away for players that may already have proven their mediocrity. We are in a world now where if you can't show you belong by 21, then you may not be worth ANY draft pick. Baertschi looks like he was worth the pick, and really was a diamond in the rough, so far. Granlund probably. Gudbranson, Etem, Vey? Think of all the 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks Benning has moved for players other teams have found wanting. The straight up trade of Shinkaruk is different: we too had a chance to assess potential on both sides, and the age of the players was comparable, no complaints there. Hockey, unfortunately, is a zero-sum game. When you pick up a player who is 21, 22, 23 by trading away a pick who is going to be 18 or at most 19, you are NOT gaining development time, but losing competitive ground. Unless, that is, the older player really is a diamond in the rough. The stat, then, that has to complement what you note above is: how many players amount to being diamonds in the rough? I.e., how many players make a contribution to the NHL who arrive later than, say, age 21? or 22? D men may get an extra year on this basis, goalies maybe 2 years extra... but forwards? And then there is the question of assessing "contribution to the NHL" -- is it just number of games played or the ability to have a real career. Vey and Stanton played more than 100 games for us I believe: but what was their value? A couple things I'm not sure I agree with. The idea that a player 'proves' their 'mediocrity' prior to their acquisition. Players don't have fixed 'essences' that you 'discover' - they change, develop, regress - they're in large part unpredictable - as are draft picks. Some are more 'proven' than you can expect of a lower percentage draft pick, some haven't lived up to expectations, but either way, it's relative to the value/odds of a pick. What they're taking a risk on is for the most part not revealed ahead of time. As a pretty good coach puts it - "you don't know - unitl you know." The zero sum theory - is it that simple?- You're not necessarily 'losing competitive ground' - first, you have the advantage of post draft development years to assess a player - those players' values are effected by the context in which they play - and you're choosing your risks - each with different skillsets, character and having developed in different circumstances. The idea that you're losing competitive ground by acquiring players that are 20 or 21 - doesn't seem to realize that draft picks come with odds themselves - and the overwhelming majority of them will wind up not being NHL roster players in the end. If you spend a draft pick on each of Vey, Pouliot, Baertschi - and those picks come with 30%, 8% and 30% odds of being viable NHL players, then it would seem you have to calculate what you actually obtained in those players relative to those pick values. If one Sven Baertschi turns out as hoped, that would represent the odds of mulitiple picks combined. You can negate the Vey 2nd - assume he had zero value to this team, and still be ahead of the sum. Stanton was taken off waivers - no picks exchanged in that acquisition. Etem wasn't acquired for a draft pick - he was acquired in a prospect swap - like the Granlund/Shinkaruk deal. The other side of these deals have also acquired players this team found 'wanting' - or vice versa - the other side of these deals had players we wanted more. Gudbranson - wasn't found 'wanting' - Florida was facing contract/cap issues - and were also being pulled in conflicting directions - with a group of eager 'analytics' guys that were pushing to fix what wasn't broken. If a few Panthers management folks found him wanting, there were certainly Panthers folks who wanted to keep him - and some that would want to bring him back. In any event, I'm not sure whether by draft picks you're referring to future picks, or including prospects the team has already selected - but in either case, they both come with odds and risks - however I'd argue that as those players approach NHL readiness, you have the advantage of assessing their viablility far moreso than you do an 18 yr old draft pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanleysteamersmyl Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 14 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said: A slow, aging pair of Sedins, no starting goalie, and a Kesler demanding a trade to one of two teams vs Crosby in his prime, Malkin in his prime, Letang in his prime and Fleury when Fleury was still good. Seems about equal to me. And some rookie named Murray who had to park his car in the outside parking lot before the 2016 Stanley Cup run. I think he parks indoor now beside Crosby. The first rookie goaltender to win two Stanley Cups in a row....and counting Good read: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/matt-murrays-wild-journey-stanley-cup-final/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gameburn2 Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 1 hour ago, oldnews said: A couple things I'm not sure I agree with. The idea that a player 'proves' their 'mediocrity' prior to their acquisition. Players don't have fixed 'essences' that you 'discover' - they change, develop, regress - they're in large part unpredictable - as are draft picks. Some are more 'proven' than you can expect of a lower percentage draft pick, some haven't lived up to expectations, but either way, it's relative to the value/odds of a pick. What they're taking a risk on is for the most part not revealed ahead of time. As a pretty good coach puts it - "you don't know - unitl you know." The zero sum theory - is it that simple?- You're not necessarily 'losing competitive ground' - first, you have the advantage of post draft development years to assess a player - those players' values are effected by the context in which they play - and you're choosing your risks - each with different skillsets, character and having developed in different circumstances. The idea that you're losing competitive ground by acquiring players that are 20 or 21 - doesn't seem to realize that draft picks come with odds themselves - and the overwhelming majority of them will wind up not being NHL roster players in the end. If you spend a draft pick on each of Vey, Pouliot, Baertschi - and those picks come with 30%, 8% and 30% odds of being viable NHL players, then it would seem you have to calculate what you actually obtained in those players relative to those pick values. If one Sven Baertschi turns out as hoped, that would represent the odds of mulitiple picks combined. You can negate the Vey 2nd - assume he had zero value to this team, and still be ahead of the sum. Stanton was taken off waivers - no picks exchanged in that acquisition. Etem wasn't acquired for a draft pick - he was acquired in a prospect swap - like the Granlund/Shinkaruk deal. The other side of these deals have also acquired players this team found 'wanting' - or vice versa - the other side of these deals had players we wanted more. Gudbranson - wasn't found 'wanting' - Florida was facing contract/cap issues - and were also being pulled in conflicting directions - with a group of eager 'analytics' guys that were pushing to fix what wasn't broken. If a few Panthers management folks found him wanting, there were certainly Panthers folks who wanted to keep him - and some that would want to bring him back. In any event, I'm not sure whether by draft picks you're referring to future picks, or including prospects the team has already selected - but in either case, they both come with odds and risks - however I'd argue that as those players approach NHL readiness, you have the advantage of assessing their viablility far moreso than you do an 18 yr old draft pick. Your argument is better presented than mine, e.g., I should have been clearer in separating out Etem, Stanton and a couple of others who were not acquired for picks. My assumption was that "being older" was the key, not the exchange. But you are right: if it was prospect swapping with players of equal age, then it weakens my argument and should have been left out. Moreover, the problem the Canucks have had is warm bodies, witness the decision to bring in the UFAs this year. Any upgrade in players would seem to help build better teams -- especially in Utica, but Vancouver too. What I was trying to get at was something I've been thinking about for a while with this mgt group: they seem to gauge a player partly at least on the basis of the high point they may have hit at one time or another. Gudbranson was a first, Baertschi, I think was quite high as well. Vey was a stud in Junior, Etem had moments before as well. And Pouliot, most recently (first round and Team Canada.) Cassels looked good against McDavid, Fox scored a huge number of goals in his last year, Juolevi won a world championship, Eriksson was at a high point for goals, etc., when he signed him. It also suggests why Benning may be comfortable moving seconds and later picks... he values having an earlier pick much more. What I'm suggesting is that while analytics (from what I know of it) can be limited, so can taking draft position into account too singlemindedly. I also think Benning is trying out a version of money ball: get College age players rather than younger players, because their actual talent level is easier to assess reliably. It wouldn't surprise me if Benning was one of the managers that favors the draft age being raised a year or two. I guess I think that it is better to go the more traditional route of getting and using as many draft picks as you can find/acquire. Especially when rebuilding. Probably Benning is figuring the home run athletes are easy enough to spot, so never get rid of 1st round picks, while all the other picks can probably be moved -- especially if they are in exchange for players that look good enough now. What qualifies as "good enough now" is the key. That and figuring out what would be lost by losing a lot of the later round picks. The other part of my concern is for why a manager would want to look so strongly and repeatedly at 21-23 yr olds on other teams, castoffs many of them, or falling in their respective teams prospect rankings. My fear is that he may be impatient, wanting a quicker turn around than is possible or healthy for a team that is rebuilding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 7 hours ago, gameburn2 said: Your argument is better presented than mine, e.g., I should have been clearer in separating out Etem, Stanton and a couple of others who were not acquired for picks. My assumption was that "being older" was the key, not the exchange. But you are right: if it was prospect swapping with players of equal age, then it weakens my argument and should have been left out. Moreover, the problem the Canucks have had is warm bodies, witness the decision to bring in the UFAs this year. Any upgrade in players would seem to help build better teams -- especially in Utica, but Vancouver too. What I was trying to get at was something I've been thinking about for a while with this mgt group: they seem to gauge a player partly at least on the basis of the high point they may have hit at one time or another. Gudbranson was a first, Baertschi, I think was quite high as well. Vey was a stud in Junior, Etem had moments before as well. And Pouliot, most recently (first round and Team Canada.) Cassels looked good against McDavid, Fox scored a huge number of goals in his last year, Juolevi won a world championship, Eriksson was at a high point for goals, etc., when he signed him. It also suggests why Benning may be comfortable moving seconds and later picks... he values having an earlier pick much more. What I'm suggesting is that while analytics (from what I know of it) can be limited, so can taking draft position into account too singlemindedly. I also think Benning is trying out a version of money ball: get College age players rather than younger players, because their actual talent level is easier to assess reliably. It wouldn't surprise me if Benning was one of the managers that favors the draft age being raised a year or two. I guess I think that it is better to go the more traditional route of getting and using as many draft picks as you can find/acquire. Especially when rebuilding. Probably Benning is figuring the home run athletes are easy enough to spot, so never get rid of 1st round picks, while all the other picks can probably be moved -- especially if they are in exchange for players that look good enough now. What qualifies as "good enough now" is the key. That and figuring out what would be lost by losing a lot of the later round picks. The other part of my concern is for why a manager would want to look so strongly and repeatedly at 21-23 yr olds on other teams, castoffs many of them, or falling in their respective teams prospect rankings. My fear is that he may be impatient, wanting a quicker turn around than is possible or healthy for a team that is rebuilding. I don't think you can lump these deals into a single mindset ie based on a high point. For example, Gudbranson's "high point" was immediately preceding the deal - he'd just emerged as a legit top 4 hard and big minutes D in Florida - that deal wouldn't be based on mere pedigree from years previous. I agree that draft position/pedigree is utterly worthless in due course, however at the same time, it can indicate a certain level of being naturally gifted which doesn't tend to simply disappear. Vey wasn't just a 'stud in junior' - he was also a point per game AHL player over a large sample - and circumstance matter when you're attempting to crack a deep NHL team (as was the case with Pouliot - who additionally suffered a couple untimely injuries at the start of seasons he was attempting to break into the NHL). Cassels was a draft pick of this franchise - wasn't acquired - and is a good example that crap happens to your own picks as well - so you have to account for the actual percentages of value that a draft pick represent. He was a 3rd round pick - with about a 1 in 5 chance of ever making it from the get-go - who also suffered serious abdominal injuries at key points of his development - entirely unpredictable. Fox was a free agent longshot overager signing that cost nothing. Etem was also a point per game AHLer over large sample - and was acquired for Jensen, not a pick. There really isn't a pattern aside from the team assessing that these were reasonably good risks to take on relatively NHL ready players - and a large part of the reason they were looking in that age range was the demographic gap in a team that had contended, traded futures to tweak that contending team, and hadn't drafted particularly well either. So barring a tear down - which wasn't in the cards for this market or ownership (and not facilitated by the contracts Benning inherited either) - they went about filling the gap between an aging veteran group and a lack of a prospect pool. All in all I'd say they did a pretty damn good job of it - and didn't sacrifice building their younger prospect pool in the process - they still have a fair measure of their own picks emerging and upticking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheYjUstMaKeYoUwooZy Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 21 hours ago, gameburn2 said: Bieksa was later rounds, Tryamkin, a lot of the best Canucks were after the first round. Besides, our "second rounders" are almost first rounders because our record has been so poor 3 of the last four years. And this is likely to continue for at least one more year. There are more good young players in the world now than there has ever been. Which means the first 50 or even 90 draft picks are now worth looking at, not just the first round. I love how he drafts, I love how the team is building up its overall talent base; all I'm saying is that there is some risk to "throwing in" later round picks (2nd and 3rd in particular) to sweeten deals. Was Gudbranson worth throwing in a second? As well as a fourth? (And McCann, of course.) We got Stecher free, and Hutton was a later rounder too. For Gudbranson we gave up two decent draft picks as well as a prospect many valued (McCann.) I'd have to go into the Granlund trade to remember the details, but I'm sure you see my point. I don't see your point at all. By saying we are "throwing" in picks you are assuming the deals get done with less. Hockey trades are done by both sides and fleecing the other team in every trade doesn't happen. And I have said it multiple times before.... if you trust Benning's drafting then trust when he trades the pick, because he has a rough idea of what players he is giving up on by trading the pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gameburn2 Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 5 hours ago, TheYjUstMaKeYoUwooZy said: I don't see your point at all. By saying we are "throwing" in picks you are assuming the deals get done with less. Hockey trades are done by both sides and fleecing the other team in every trade doesn't happen. And I have said it multiple times before.... if you trust Benning's drafting then trust when he trades the pick, because he has a rough idea of what players he is giving up on by trading the pick. What I'm trying to say is that in a rebuild it makes no sense to trade any picks. The goal instead should be to acquire them. I assumed this was obvious. Undoubtedly some of those deals would not have happened without including picks. That was why the other side often went for these deals. It doesn't mean it was a good idea to make the deal from our side. Especially if picks are the material for your rebuild. We'll never know who we missed by throwing in these picks in these deals. I see the point of keeping someone like Tanev, and certainly the value of a right-age goalkeeper (Markstrom), but the rest of the older crowd of players could be/should have been moved in favour of more picks, rather than using our own picks. The larger the pool of younger players, the greater the chance of building a good future. Because I value Benning's ability to draft, I don't want him throwing in/throwing away 2nd, 3rd and even 4th round picks for players who may never amount to much. I know ppl will point out that the majority of picks won't work out either. But if you have the ability to draft well, you have to be confident about your ability to pick more winners than the team that is happy enough to have you take their players who have dropped sufficiently in their depth chart to be moved for your picks. Besides, if they want your picks... this suggests there is league-wide value in having picks, even as low as 4th. It seems a bit arrogant to me to assume that someone's expendable 20-plus year old prospect is going to be our find -- especially when we have the option of using the best drafting gm and best scouting staff we have had in a generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 7 minutes ago, gameburn2 said: What I'm trying to say is that in a rebuild it makes no sense to trade any picks. The goal instead should be to acquire them. I assumed this was obvious. Picks come with inherent risk. Trading a lottery pick for a specific player is a reduction of risk. A known quantity like Pouliot is a lot easier to assess and value than a later round pick. You don't even know which players will be available and if they're any good. That's why picks become more valuable on draft day...and why players except the most certain busts are typically worth more than a mid round pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheYjUstMaKeYoUwooZy Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 45 minutes ago, gameburn2 said: 1.)What I'm trying to say is that in a rebuild it makes no sense to trade any picks. The goal instead should be to acquire them. I assumed this was obvious. Undoubtedly some of those deals would not have happened without including picks. That was why the other side often went for these deals. It doesn't mean it was a good idea to make the deal from our side. Especially if picks are the material for your rebuild. We'll never know who we missed by throwing in these picks in these deals. I see the point of keeping someone like Tanev, and certainly the value of a right-age goalkeeper (Markstrom), but the rest of the older crowd of players could be/should have been moved in favour of more picks, rather than using our own picks. The larger the pool of younger players, the greater the chance of building a good future. Because I value Benning's ability to draft, 2.)I don't want him throwing in/throwing away 2nd, 3rd and even 4th round picks for players who may never amount to much. I know ppl will point out that the majority of picks won't work out either. But if you have the ability to draft well, you have to be confident about your ability to pick more winners than the team that is happy enough to have you take their players who have dropped sufficiently in their depth chart to be moved for your picks. Besides, if they want your picks... this suggests there is league-wide value in having picks, even as low as 4th. 3.)It seems a bit arrogant to me to assume that someone's expendable 20-plus year old prospect is going to be our find -- especially when we have the option of using the best drafting gm and best scouting staff we have had in a generation. 1.) This logic only works if Rebuilds are done purely through drafting and they are not. Trading picks for rental players are counter productive but rolling the dice on prospects that have hit a wall somewhere else and still show promise is not. Though some didnt work out.... Vey.... others like Sven did. 2.) How is this any different than a draft pick? By this logic trades should also only be for picks in a rebuild, . So no Granny, Sven, Dahlin, Goldy . You even concede the point in the next sentence which means your entire argument is based on a preconceived notion that drafting is the only way to rebuild a team. 3.) Sven and Granny say hi. So does Bertuzzi, how about Naslund. Lots of people need a change in scenery.... or cant find the time to develop in a championship team. Not to mention Drafting skill is only talent evaluation.... WHICH IS NOT ONLY GOOD FOR DRAFTING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.