Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

SN's Best and Worst trades of 2017


oldnews

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, RetroCanuck said:

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

No offense was taken, I simply called you out for the language used to describe a situation that as of yet is non-factual and unsubstantiated, speculative in nature yes, but Tanev could also go on a run of 10 more years without injury (to use the other extreme). The reality simply lies somewhere in the middle.

 

Happy Holidays!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

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

 

not 'treason' at all.

 

just inebriated on Leafs koolaid.

 

We won't bother getting into how Laffable and ironic all your "stockpile tha pickz" and #proper-rebuild Laffs fluffing you've done on these boards.

 

But, but....the rebuild was already done!    #thenextBlackhawks!

 

Image result for leafs koolaid

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VanGnome said:

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.

Ok, toss out the analytics and just go with a nice meaty “hockey stat” like time on ice.

 

In 2013-14, Tanev played 64 games and averaged 20:44 a night. 

 

And if you’ll forgive the intrusion (of a brief mention of those pesky analytics), that’s right around when he started getting hyped as a fancy stats darling.

 

He’s pretty much continued at around 20-21 minutes a night and had similar stats, both conventional and analytics. This season, he’s averaging 20:51 a night. And to my eye, he’s a similarly effective player today (and an excellent one at that) to the one he was 4 years ago.

 

I’m just saying that around age 24, Tanev probably became prime Tanev. Maybe it wasn’t obvious until age 26-27 (after he’d repeated his performance level for 2-3 seasons) but he started his prime years around then. And he’s maintained his levels from 24-28.

 

I don’t see him just entering his prime now. He’s been maintaining a similar level of effectiveness for a while now. He’ll likely stay around the same level for another 2 years. Then maybe we start seeing some decline, but barely perceptible (probably will need to run analytics to really see it, but it might start sneaking into your eye test as well). It likely won’t be obvious until he moves from his early thirties to mid thirties, and then Father Time will likely make himself known to everyone (both by analytics and eye test).

 

Maybe he beats the odds. Outliers happen all the time. But I’d say it’s more likely he has an extended prime, say from 24-33, than he somehow starts to trend upwards at age 28 and has his peak years from 28-35 or whatever. I mean, it’s possible, but I’ll be surprised if he somehow finds another gear at this point in his career. He’s already an elite player in his role. And I’d argue he’s been elite for several years now.

 

But we can agree to disagree. And honestly, I think the actual substance of our disagreement is fairly narrow. For the most part, there’s a lot of convergence in the underlying narratives we have for this player and where we see his career going. We’re just coming at it from different perspectives, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours 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... 

Agree.  Tanev is only 28.  We should see 5 more years out of him after this year.  He is such a great calming and steadying influence.  He will make a great partner to help introduce young LHD to the NHL.

 

A shortage of RHD is one reason why I think that Benning is going to try and keep Gudbranson (the other reasons are physical play and leadership).  I'm not sure whether Benning can keep him but he'll try.  Guddy is 25, 26 on Jan 7 so has many years left in his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Ok, toss out the analytics and just go with a nice meaty “hockey stat” like time on ice.

 

In 2013-14, Tanev played 64 games and averaged 20:44 a night. 

 

And if you’ll forgive the intrusion (of a brief mention of those pesky analytics), that’s right around when he started getting hyped as a fancy stats darling.

 

He’s pretty much continued at around 20-21 minutes a night and had similar stats, both conventional and analytics. This season, he’s averaging 20:51 a night. And to my eye, he’s a similarly effective player today (and an excellent one at that) to the one he was 4 years ago.

 

I’m just saying that around age 24, Tanev probably became prime Tanev. Maybe it wasn’t obvious until age 26-27 (after he’d repeated his performance level for 2-3 seasons) but he started his prime years around then. And he’s maintained his levels from 24-28.

 

I don’t see him just entering his prime now. He’s been maintaining a similar level of effectiveness for a while now. He’ll likely stay around the same level for another 2 years. Then maybe we start seeing some decline, but barely perceptible (probably will need to run analytics to really see it, but it might start sneaking into your eye test as well). It likely won’t be obvious until he moves from his early thirties to mid thirties, and then Father Time will likely make himself known to everyone (both by analytics and eye test).

 

Maybe he beats the odds. Outliers happen all the time. But I’d say it’s more likely he has an extended prime, say from 24-33, than he somehow starts to trend upwards at age 28 and has his peak years from 28-35 or whatever. I mean, it’s possible, but I’ll be surprised if he somehow finds another gear at this point in his career. He’s already an elite player in his role. And I’d argue he’s been elite for several years now.

 

But we can agree to disagree. And honestly, I think the actual substance of our disagreement is fairly narrow. For the most part, there’s a lot of convergence in the underlying narratives we have for this player and where we see his career going. We’re just coming at it from different perspectives, I suppose.

Yeah, I'll drink to that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, oldnews said:

#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. 

Good article but of course oldnews has to add in his nonsense.

 

So...

Trading your draft picks away while trying to rebuild through the draft, is good. (Vancouver)

Trading your draft picks away when you're finally good enough to make the playoffs, is the worst thing ever.  (Toronto)

 

I wonder if Vancouver is on their way into the playoffs in a year or two, and have a few youngsters absolutely lighting it up and leading the way (as Toronto did).  If Vancouver was to trade for a big physical playoff vet for a 2nd round pick, oldnews will be in here calling it the worst trade of the year.  Have you not for years been saying how a competitive environment and playoff experience was key for our youngsters?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lastresort318 said:

Benning has made a couple of good moves and the only move I really didn't like was the Jordan Subban trade. I feel like we gave up a prospect for no real reason to get a fourth liner when we are not a playoff team.

Subban is what it cost to get a centre to fill in, while we have injuries. Simple as that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

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

 

The way I look at it without Canucks bias, as a hockey fan, I can see the reasoning behind a move like trading a 2nd for Boyle,  but I can also see the reasoning behind a move like trading a 2nd for Linden Vey.  But reasoning to me doesn’t shelter a move from being labeled a fail or success. I leave that purely on the result.  In this case both the Vey trade and the Boyle trade were gambles that ended up failing. 

 

There is some small difference when comparing those types of trades: 

 

In Canucks favor, when leafs traded for Boyle they knew it was a short term possibility, where when Canucks traded for Vey, they were hoping he’d become a long term benefit.

 

But in the Leafs favor, the leafs had multiple 2nd round picks and they’ve had multiple 2nd round picks in both of the two years prior, so in a sense they could afford to take a gamble (house money)they had an overflowing prospect pool.  Where Canucks haven’t had the luxury of picking multiple times in the 2nd round for multiple years.  Prior to JB, Canucks only had one 2nd round pick (mallet) in the previous 4 years and a relatively empty prospect pool. 

 

Had Boyle re-signed or guided them to a deep playoff run possibly that would have turned the move into a success but just as Vey didn’t amount to anything neither did Boyle, so in the end I’d consider it a fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours 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.

Yeah. His very first post criticizes this site for building up the Canucks, while pooing on the Coilers and Laffs.

 

Am I missing something with this poster? He's a leaf fan right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lastresort318 said:

Benning has made a couple of good moves and the only move I really didn't like was the Jordan Subban trade. I feel like we gave up a prospect for no real reason to get a fourth liner when we are not a playoff team.

Subban was never going to play for us. He is waiver fodder this coming fall. Also, he is getting a chance with a new organization which reflects well on JB and the club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rekker said:

Subban was never going to play for us. He is waiver fodder this coming fall. Also, he is getting a chance with a new organization which reflects well on JB and the club. 

Exactly. Benning has always seemingly tried to do good by the players he has traded. Some he had no choice with (Kesler), some he has. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 420BEAR said:

Subban is what it cost to get a centre to fill in, while we have injuries. Simple as that. 

I know why he did it, but we clearly are not going to do anything this year. Dowd will be gone in a year or two while Jordan Subban could become a NHL caliber defenseman. Just feel like we went with short term when long term is what we need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Lastresort318 said:

I know why he did it, but we clearly are not going to do anything this year. Dowd will be gone in a year or two while Jordan Subban could become a NHL caliber defenseman. Just feel like we went with short term when long term is what we need.

At this point, there is more of a chance that Dowd will prove to be a useful player for many years than Subban becoming an NHL-calibre D-man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Lastresort318 said:

I know why he did it, but we clearly are not going to do anything this year. Dowd will be gone in a year or two while Jordan Subban could become a NHL caliber defenseman. Just feel like we went with short term when long term is what we need.

Subban could very well be a NHL d-man eventually, but not for the canucks. There will be no room for him if the others develop the way we all hope they do. And whether it is short term or not, we needed a centre, that can play now and go down(Utica) once the others return from injury. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, D-Money said:

At this point, there is more of a chance that Dowd will prove to be a useful player for many years than Subban becoming an NHL-calibre D-man.

Hey may be NHL caliber for many years, but how many will be for us? I really don't think he will be with the Canucks organization for very long. I would rather have Subban and take the risk of him. Fourth line forwards are much easier to find then bottom pairing Defensemen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, 420BEAR said:

Subban could very well be a NHL d-man eventually, but not for the canucks. There will be no room for him if the others develop the way we all hope they do. And whether it is short term or not, we needed a centre, that can play now and go down(Utica) once the others return from injury. 

If the others all develop we might not need him. However, it is very unlikely that most develop to NHL level. We also don't have that many Defensemen prospects that have NHL potential. Dowd, I also feel like, will be gone soon. Don't really think that he will be a longterm player for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lastresort318 said:

Hey may be NHL caliber for many years, but how many will be for us? I really don't think he will be with the Canucks organization for very long. I would rather have Subban and take the risk of him. Fourth line forwards are much easier to find then bottom pairing Defensemen.

But almost useless AHL D-men who will never play an NHL game are much easier to find than a quality 4th line forward. (See what I did there?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...