SN's Best and Worst trades of 2017

[Canuck Surfer]

13 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think the way Juolevi is shaping up is going to make moving, or losing Tanev to free agency, much easier to handle. OJ seems like he's going to be a very aware and calming type D to Tanev, with maybe a little more offensive upside. I'd guess Jim wouldn't move Tanev until we see what OJ can do for most of a season. 

 

 

Juolevi will be a good LHD for us as Tanev winds down.  But Tanev is a defensively oriented RHD.  I don't see how the two players are that related to any moves we might make?

 

We also have no suitable replacement for Tanev in our line up. Or prospect pool in any succession plan?  

 

My own opinion is figure out of a couple good young RHD first... 

[189lb enforcers?]

I would give JB a B, maybe a B+. 

The luxury of a rebuilding GM is the ability to make moves that are too soon to access. Who can say what some of his moves will become in the future. Grading a hypothetical is a subjective science. 

 

Predictably, the OP is still under the misapprehension that “the wasting of a 2nd rounder for Boyle” was a bad signing by the playoff-bound, young Leafs. The same rookie Leafs who, while heavily leaning on Boyle, took the reigning President Trophy Capitals into multiple games of multiple overtime periods, game after game, in the playoffs. Was that not worth a second? Had Boyle resigned there, then would it have been? Both answers are, yes.

 

Partly due to Boyle, the Leafs nearly got past the juggernaut, veteran Capitals and into the second round, where who knows what could have happened, reminiscent of the young Pens vs Detroit series of old. 

 

Not only was the Leafs-Capitals series lauded as some of the best playoff hockey that fans had witneesed in some time, it was also an experience well worth a second rounder to a team which not only had a decent crop on the farm, but also the luxury of a star group of exceptional rookies, plenty of reason not to miss the loss of one 50th OA draft pick.

 

Some rebuilds can afford to miss out on a Vey-ish pick, some can’t. Looks to me like the Leafs are not suffering the loss of that middle-second rounder, at all. Taking pot shots at a rival fan base might be cheap fun on here, but at least don’t make absurd claims that have no basis to do it, if you’re being serious at the same time. 

 

 

 

 

[JM_]

17 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Juolevi will be a good LHD for us as Tanev winds down.  But Tanev is a defensively oriented RHD.  I don't see how the two players are that related to any moves we might make?

 

We also have no suitable replacement for Tanev in our line up. Or prospect pool in any succession plan?  

 

My own opinion is figure out of a couple good young RHD first... 

just in terms of who is going to eat up big minutes with solid play. He also would pair really well with a more offensive partner if we can land that in the draft this year too. 

[48MPHSlapShot]

2 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Ahh yes, yes... further examples of the forum’s buffet-like choosing of articles which simultaneously manage to flatter the Canucks, yet dump on the Leafs or Coilers.

 

Anything else is Eastern bias click-bait, or so I’ve read on here. 

I'm like genuinely unsure of whether or not you realize which fan forum you're on. 

 

Hint: Check out the C logo with the whale at the top left of your screen.

[189lb enforcers?]

21 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

I'm like genuinely unsure of whether or not you realize which fan forum you're on. 

 

Hint: Check out the C logo with the whale at the top left of your screen.

“I’m like genuinely unsure” if sticking up for the Boyle trade is fan treason.

 

[48MPHSlapShot]

Just now, 189lb enforcers? said:

“I’m like genuinely unsure” if sticking up for the Boyle trade is fan treason.

 

Yeah, that's all you were doing.

 

[189lb enforcers?]

5 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Yeah, that's all you were doing.

 

 

 

We should be willing to discuss posts looking to dump on the Boyle trade on here without being trolled for it, no? 

[48MPHSlapShot]

15 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

 

 

We should be willing to discuss posts looking to dump on the Boyle trade on here without being trolled for it, no? 

 

3 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Ahh yes, yes... further examples of the forum’s buffet-like choosing of articles which simultaneously manage to flatter the Canucks, yet dump on the Leafs or Coilers.

 

Anything else is Eastern bias click-bait, or so I’ve read on here. 

^ "Discussion"

 

Nice bait and switch tactic though. Make a snarky, sarcastic bait post with the sole purpose of hooking people, then when you're called out on it, claim you're being trolled for having a differing opinion.

 

 

 I'ma wiggle off the line now. 

 

- Toodles

[King Heffy]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Yeah. I’m in the wait and see with that. Duchene is a top line center who hasn’t fit in so far. If he resigns with them and goes on to have a strong career consistently producing 70+ seasons it might not look quite as bad as it does today. Still a massive overpayment though

That deal reeks of ownership meddling and being unwilling to pay the price necessary to ice a competitive team.  We should consider ourselves very lucky we don't have Melnyk as our owner.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

That deal reeks of ownership meddling and being unwilling to pay the price necessary to ice a competitive team.  We should consider ourselves very lucky we don't have Melnyk as our owner.

Yep is sure does and Turris confirmed that. 

[VanGnome]

3 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Yeah, I think that comment could have been stated better. Clearly Tanev is not anywhere near the end of his career.

 

That said, he is already well into his prime years. He’s not just entering his prime. And he might actually be closer to the end of his prime than the beginning.

 

Certainly there’s a possibility that he might end up hitting the start of his decline just as the Canucks are entering their competitive phase. 

 

In that respect, there’s an argument to be made for “selling high” on Tanev and acquiring younger assets that might be better suited to the future competitive window.

 

But it’s a tough one. Tanev is still young enough that he should have a couple more prime years left and then have a slight drop off but still be very good for a few more seasons after that.

 

Eventually age and wear and tear will really catch up to him, but it’s debatable whether or not this will happen before this team has a chance to compete. Depends how close we really are and that probably won’t become clear for at least another year or two.

 

Still lots of time to make a decision on Tanev and I doubt waiting a year or two will really change the return all that much. And at this point, it’s pretty clear that we don’t have the depth on D to lose Tanev without taking a serious hit to the strength of the roster. That might change when Juolevi arrives and if we add another high end D in the 2018 draft (plus get some more help from current prospects, other trades, FA signings, or Tryamkin returns from the KHL).

MOST defencemen enter their primes roughly 300 or so consecutive games into their careers, roughly 3 and a half seasons. Because of the nature of their position, most defencemen typically don't enter the league in a full time capacity until they are roughly 23 or 24, hence 26-27 ish age, depending on their birth date.

Tanev is 28 and is into his 5th "full time" season. So by this he has "just" entered his prime years, and has at least a good 4-5 years of solid play left until he begins to tail off around the age of 32,33, but could very well play until he's 36-37 given the style of his game is largely based on positioning, not pure skill or speed.

Tanev has however been hampered by injury, so it's up in the air as to how long he actually has playing at a high level.

[rekker]

The trade of a second for Boyle was dumb.......But wait Lamarillo made the trade so TSN and Eastern media cronies thought it was one of the best moves of the deadline. Ffnn Eastern media.

[rekker]

Please. If Toronto would of traded a fourth for Pouliot it would of already been deemed a success. All hail to Amarillo.

[RetroCanuck]

4 hours ago, VanGnome said:

Tanev is literally just entering his prime as a defenceman... I think the most Ignorant Comment of the year award has just been claimed.

Jumping to conclusions that Im referring to his play lol. Im referencing his injuries and how every year he plays fewer games then the year before. Without the injuries Id probably keep him but theres no use having a guy thats injured half the year. Congrats though, that was a beautifully thoughtless reply.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

30 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

MOST defencemen enter their primes roughly 300 or so consecutive games into their careers, roughly 3 and a half seasons. Because of the nature of their position, most defencemen typically don't enter the league in a full time capacity until they are roughly 23 or 24, hence 26-27 ish age, depending on their birth date.

Tanev is 28 and is into his 5th "full time" season. So by this he has "just" entered his prime years, and has at least a good 4-5 years of solid play left until he begins to tail off around the age of 32,33, but could very well play until he's 36-37 given the style of his game is largely based on positioning, not pure skill or speed.

Tanev has however been hampered by injury, so it's up in the air as to how long he actually has playing at a high level.

Some of the recent work done on aging curves for NHL players suggests they peak a lot earlier than you’re suggesting.

 

Hockey Graphs (2017):   Part 1   Part 2

 

Canucks Army: link

 

I wouldn’t be surprised if, when all’s said and done, Tanev’s career chart will show that he entered him prime effectiveness around age 24 (as far as actual on-ice game influence) and continued at roughly the same level until around age 30, when a noticeable drop off will begin when charting his career numbers.

 

Of course, this will be more obvious in hindsight, as a player hits his prime before he’s actually recognized as being in his prime (if that makes sense?). He has to prove repeatability before his value is truly appreciated.

 

Also, given how players chart in the articles I linked earlier, it’s even possible I’m being a little too generous to Tanev in saying that he’d remain in his peak years until around 30, start a gentle decline through his early thirties, and then start really dropping off as he approaches his mid thirties.

 

The data suggests that the game could be a lot less gentle on him than the fairly conservative projections I offered in my initial post.

[VanGnome]

27 minutes ago, RetroCanuck said:

Jumping to conclusions that Im referring to his play lol. Im referencing his injuries and how every year he plays fewer games then the year before. Without the injuries Id probably keep him but theres no use having a guy thats injured half the year. Congrats though, that was a beautifully thoughtless reply.

I think it was you jumping to conclusions bud. Declaring Tanev as "nearing the end of his career" is such a supposition it's almost laughable. You can question his continued stamina/durability/usefulness as an elite defensive defenceman in the league because of a series of injuries, but the way you said it made him sound like Marc Savard. None of Tanev's injuries over the past few years have been even remotely career ending, or even threatening.

To suggest that a player, regardless of position that has suffered no severe trauma to the head, which concussions being the number one cause of premature ending of careers (Savard, Kariya, Lindros, etc), or something as serious as what Dorsett just recently suffered, is pretty asinine, to be blunt, especially when you look at the context of his age and then further compare that to position and style of play.

If anything, Tanev is unlucky. "Being in one's prime" does not solely defer to their level of play, it also takes into account their physical stature, which outside of relatively freak injuries which could happen to anyone at any time, Tanev has not suffered anything so bad that it threatens to end his career.

Or am I just jumping to conclusions, and not backing up my factual statements with enough supporting empirical evidence?

[VanGnome]

7 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Some of the recent work done on aging curves for NHL players suggests they peak a lot earlier than you’re suggesting.

 

Hockey Graphs (2017):   Part 1   Part 2

 

Canucks Army: link

 

I wouldn’t be surprised if, when all’s said and done, Tanev’s career chart will show that he entered him prime effectiveness around age 24 (as far as actual on-ice game influence) and continued at roughly the same level until around age 30, when a noticeable drop off will begin when charting his career numbers.

 

Of course, this will be more obvious in hindsight, as a player hits his prime before he’s actually recognized as being in his prime (if that makes sense?). He has to prove repeatability before his value is truly appreciated.

 

Also, given how players chart in the articles I linked earlier, it’s even possible I’m being a little too generous to Tanev in saying that he’d remain in his peak years until around 30, start a gentle decline through his early thirties, and then start really dropping off as he approaches his mid thirties.

 

The data suggests that the game could be a lot less gentle on him than the fairly conservative projections I offered in my initial post.

I'm not overly sold on analytics (just ask Tom Rowe and/or John Chayka how that's working out for them), as much as I am on the "eye test". Analytics in the context of a professional sport is great when it comes to analyzing data for fantasy picks, or as leverage during contract negotiations, but IMO doesn't really have much bearing on the actual game or the athletes themselves.

I'm more than certain a high percentage of the majority will fall within the confines of those graphs, but that just simply leads to confirmation bias and leaves little room for exceptions to the rule. Tanev is one such exception, but it's also not a fair comparison to look at the Canucks performance these past 15 or so games, since there has been a significant number of injuries to key players all throughout the lineup.

If you project where Tanev's career is likely to go given the absence of bad luck, and taking into account his style of defending, I see Tanev having far more effect on the game well into the twilight of his career which would be diametrically opposed to the narrative created by those analytics.

[oldnews]

4 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Just my opinion > The astonishing haul that Ottawa paid other teams for Duchesne is mind bending. That is the worst trade I have seen in years. 

 

It also has not worked.  Not that they're killing it? 5-4-1 in their last ten & 3 points out of a playoff spot.  And Colorado looks better so far without, lets keep it low key and call it, the distraction of Duchesne? Whereas Ottawa is 2-6-2 & ahead of only truly doofer squads in Buffalo & Arizona.

Good point regarding Duchene - that was a shocking overpayment.

 

I checked to see if DGB considered that Ottawa's worst - somehow he ranks the Burrows deal as worse....

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/goes-brown-nhl-eastern-conference-trade-grades/

 

I personally consider the Boyle move worse than the Burrows deal.

Burrows helped the Sens go to the Eastern Conference Finals - scored 5 pts in 15 playoff games doing what Burrows does - and that deal included an extension as part of the negotiation.  Still an overpayment by Ottawa, but not a moronic rental for a hopeless playoff run.   Benning probably doesn't get himself in the shortlist of best fleecings in the NHL for that deal - Yzerman might own that distinction, or the Poile/Sakic job on Dorion - perhaps Benning for the price he stole Pouliot for.

 

But the worst move of 2017 for me probably goes to Bergevin - that Sergachev / Drouin deal was painful at the time, and has only gotten multiples worse as Sergachev emerges - and the deal also had other implications - ie cap implications that can't be separated from the failure to re-sign Radulov and/or Markov.

Bergevin probably has my vote as the worst GM performance of 2017,.

 

 

[oldnews]

3 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Predictably, the OP is still under the misapprehension that “the wasting of a 2nd rounder for Boyle” was a bad signing by the playoff-bound, young Leafs.

#facepalm

Predictably, the misapprehension is yours - Boyle was a horrible, premature rental/trade - he wasn't a "signing" - he was a wasted 2nd round pick for a team that wasn't ready to be blowing futures on short term rental playoff pipe-dreams. 

[RetroCanuck]

34 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

I think it was you jumping to conclusions bud. Declaring Tanev as "nearing the end of his career" is such a supposition it's almost laughable. You can question his continued stamina/durability/usefulness as an elite defensive defenceman in the league because of a series of injuries, but the way you said it made him sound like Marc Savard. None of Tanev's injuries over the past few years have been even remotely career ending, or even threatening.

To suggest that a player, regardless of position that has suffered no severe trauma to the head, which concussions being the number one cause of premature ending of careers (Savard, Kariya, Lindros, etc), or something as serious as what Dorsett just recently suffered, is pretty asinine, to be blunt, especially when you look at the context of his age and then further compare that to position and style of play.

If anything, Tanev is unlucky. "Being in one's prime" does not solely defer to their level of play, it also takes into account their physical stature, which outside of relatively freak injuries which could happen to anyone at any time, Tanev has not suffered anything so bad that it threatens to end his career.

Or am I just jumping to conclusions, and not backing up my factual statements with enough supporting empirical evidence?

I don't feel like arguing over the holidays so  all Ill say is this. Tanev has played fewer games every year recently and has never had a full season. Ones body cannot sustain injuries non stop and not suffer from it. Tanev is considered a top pair defensemen right now bu with injuries he might not be in the future. Love Tanevs play but this is a rebuild and you want to get peak value for your older players, wether they are in their prime or not. I'm sorry you took this so offensively and Ill try not to offend you  with my honesty in the future