[SIGNING] Goldobin signs with CSKA Moskow

[smokes]

So who won the trade?

[Borvat]

28 minutes ago, smokes said:

So who won the trade?

Noone.  

 

 

 

 

[Provost]

1 hour ago, smokes said:

So who won the trade?

In a stretch I say we lost in the end.

 

If we hadn’t traded Burrows and Hansen, we probably wouldn’t have made those dismal UFA signings that summer and next to replace them with other veterans to “show them the way.”  We could have easily had our own guys on cheap 2 year contracts to ease us into the new generation without giving up the term we had to for guys like Gagner, Roussel, Beagle, etc.

 

I am only saying that looking back, I thought they were great trades at the time 

[The Lock]

55 minutes ago, Provost said:

In a stretch I say we lost in the end.

 

If we hadn’t traded Burrows and Hansen, we probably wouldn’t have made those dismal UFA signings that summer and next to replace them with other veterans to “show them the way.”  We could have easily had our own guys on cheap 2 year contracts to ease us into the new generation without giving up the term we had to for guys like Gagner, Roussel, Beagle, etc.

 

I am only saying that looking back, I thought they were great trades at the time 

I don't see where 2 and 2 add up here. The signings were separate from the trade and could have literally been anything afterwards. If we're basing a trade on what happened after in terms of other transactions, we might as well consider everything one giant transaction because where exactly do we stop?

 

Not only that, but the Burrows trade is a different trade from this one. You do you in the end though. If you want to overthink then overthink, but there's a point where you could overthink to the point where you're getting nothing out of it, can skew results, etc.

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

In a stretch I say we lost in the end.

 

If we hadn’t traded Burrows and Hansen, we probably wouldn’t have made those dismal UFA signings that summer and next to replace them with other veterans to “show them the way.”  We could have easily had our own guys on cheap 2 year contracts to ease us into the new generation without giving up the term we had to for guys like Gagner, Roussel, Beagle, etc.

 

I am only saying that looking back, I thought they were great trades at the time 

These trades were made with the expansion in mind. We didn't want to risk losing these guys for nothing, so we took a gamble on prospects that didn't need protection. It didn't pan out, but they were the right moves and had they worked out, then would've been home runs for guys that were on their way out (proven by the fact that they didn't last much longer in the league after being moved). Everyone was calling for us to trade vets for picks and prospects and we did so and now we complain that we did so?

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

Not sure if it will happen, but the Canucks can still choose to qualify him which I believe would allow them to retain his rights and leave him on the reserve list, even if he doesn't sign the QO.

 

Its an option should they still want to revisit this option later, but I highly doubt they will bother.

[Provost]

20 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

These trades were made with the expansion in mind. We didn't want to risk losing these guys for nothing, so we took a gamble on prospects that didn't need protection. It didn't pan out, but they were the right moves and had they worked out, then would've been home runs for guys that were on their way out (proven by the fact that they didn't last much longer in the league after being moved). Everyone was calling for us to trade vets for picks and prospects and we did so and now we complain that we did so?

I don’t see how expansion came into play for any of these signings or trades.

 

We wouldn’t have been giving Hansen or Burrows extensions long enough to make it to expansion, and certainly not with any protection status to take up a spot.  Signing the other veterans only raises the possibility of losing them for nothing.

 

Like I said, it is only looking back that you can judge this... that was the question.  Not whether they were good trades when they were made (which pretty much everyone agrees they were).

[Wilbur]

24 minutes ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

Not sure if it will happen, but the Canucks can still choose to qualify him which I believe would allow them to retain his rights and leave him on the reserve list, even if he doesn't sign the QO.

 

Its an option should they still want to revisit this option later, but I highly doubt they will bother.

I wouldn't if I were Canuck management.  Goldy clearly isn't good enough to make the team so he deserves a fresh start wherever he can find it.

[theo5789]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

I don’t see how expansion came into play for any of these signings or trades.

 

We wouldn’t have been giving Hansen or Burrows extensions long enough to make it to expansion, and certainly not with any protection status to take up a spot.  Signing the other veterans only raises the possibility of losing them for nothing.

 

Like I said, it is only looking back that you can judge this... that was the question.  Not whether they were good trades when they were made (which pretty much everyone agrees they were).

I believe Hansen had another year left on his contract. Burrows was expiring, but we were able to net a former 2nd rounder prospect with potential chemistry with EP and got Burrows an extension for his future financial security. At the end of the day, we got "value" for them. In hindsight, yes the prospects and picks didn't pan out the way we wanted, but we simply got some lottery tickets and they aren't all winners. We still have Linus Karlsson from the original Burrows trade.

 

In 2017 UFA, we signed Gagner, Burmistrov, Del Zotto, and Nilsson. These were all stop gaps for prospects to beat out or to buy time for them to develop. We got a pick for Nilsson when we brought up Demko. We got a pick for Del Zotto. Burmistrov terminated his contract, no harm no foul. Gagner simply got beat out for a spot much earlier than expected by a 165 lbs center and another young college center who both lit up preseason a year after we signed him. Would we not have signed him anyway with one or both of those veteran wingers (who were bottom 6 guys by that point with Gagner supposedly filling a top 6 spot) and missed out on prospect/pick opportunities? Who knows. We signed these guys after the expansion, so there was no concern of losing them to expansion. Oh and we also signed Vanek and perhaps had we kept one or two of those veteran wingers, then we wouldn't have signed him later that summer as well, who was one of the few bright spots of that season and netted us Motte who IMO is a positive add for our team.

 

Beagle was a 4th line center who we probably would've been looking at anyway. Roussel was supposedly a younger version of Burrows, so perhaps we wouldn't have signed him if we had kept Burrows, but then we would've simply kept an aging version of Burrows (one who was 1 year away from being out of the league) and people would be calling out Benning once again for not trading him sooner and wasting away a forward and cap for an even lesser player at the time.

 

If we want to look at the trades in isolation, we gave ourselves a chance to hit a couple of home runs, we didn't. Hansen and Burrows didn't do much for their respective new teams. Neither side "won" or "lost" the trade. We have yet to miss out on any opportunities due to the cap of these players and we still have some prospects in the system and a current roster player from those said UFA signings, so it certainly a negative stretch to suggest we have "lost" the trades due to this reason.

[JM_]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

I don’t see how expansion came into play for any of these signings or trades.

 

We wouldn’t have been giving Hansen or Burrows extensions long enough to make it to expansion, and certainly not with any protection status to take up a spot.  Signing the other veterans only raises the possibility of losing them for nothing.

 

Like I said, it is only looking back that you can judge this... that was the question.  Not whether they were good trades when they were made (which pretty much everyone agrees they were).

 

They were still good trades, regardless imo. Most prospects don't work out. If one does work out then a trade like that is a home run. 

[Pete M]

He reminds me of Jake consistency wise...Jake has disappeared for many games in the second half of the season...if Jake doesn't get more consistent, then his fate may end up like Goldy's...the next couple of years will determine JV's fate with the Canucks...especially if the up and coming players including MacEwen start to produce more than Jake. I hope Utica starts to become more of a breeding ground than a grave yard for developing young players....similar to what the Winnipeg Moose did for the Canucks.

 

I wish Goldy all the best.

Edited April 13, 2020 by Pete M

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

22 hours ago, Wilbur said:

I wouldn't if I were Canuck management.  Goldy clearly isn't good enough to make the team so he deserves a fresh start wherever he can find it.

I’d qualify him and maintain rights. Doesn’t stop Goldie from getting a fresh start somewhere else. Just means we’d gain an asset by trading his rights to any NHL team wishing to sign him.

 

He’s still only 24. Goldobin has high level skills, but has struggled with his consistency. He really only thrives in a top-6 role with talented linemates and plenty of offensive opportunities. It’s quite possible he goes to Russia and becomes a leading scorer in the KHL. At that point, teams might very well be interested in bringing him back to the NHL.

[coastal.view]

On 4/11/2020 at 11:19 PM, canuktravella said:

schaller was a waste of 2 mill in cap and did nothing    benning signs a bunch lemons  every few yrs ( schaller, eriksson, gagner, benn, sutter) all under achieving on their contracts  id take goldy at 700k any day over these bums 

he'll be free soon

go ahead and sign him

 

 

Edited April 13, 2020 by coastal.view

[theo5789]

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

I’d qualify him and maintain rights. Doesn’t stop Goldie from getting a fresh start somewhere else. Just means we’d gain an asset by trading his rights to any NHL team wishing to sign him.

 

He’s still only 24. Goldobin has high level skills, but has struggled with his consistency. He really only thrives in a top-6 role with talented linemates and plenty of offensive opportunities. It’s quite possible he goes to Russia and becomes a leading scorer in the KHL. At that point, teams might very well be interested in bringing him back to the NHL.

Linden Vey has been one of the KHL better scorers for a few years and hasn't gotten a look back in the NHL. Grigorenko the same, but younger too. I'm sure others fit the bill. Goldobin would have to light the league on fire to get a look especially when looking at a return at 27 (two years in the KHL and the start of the following season).

 

If he isn't ripping up the KHL, I can't see many teams willing to pay a cost to acquire him, so it may be more beneficial to him that a team could sign him for free thus mitigating the risk on themselves. Doing what's best for the player seems to fit in more with how the Canucks organization has embraced the respect culture. Plus it was noted that Goldobin had said that the Canucks weren't going to sign him and thus why he is looking to the KHL for a contract possibly with an out clause should an NHL team take a chance on him.

[canuktravella]

1 hour ago, coastal.view said:

he'll be free soon

go ahead and sign him

 

 

ya in 2 yrs 

[canuktravella]

Just now, canuktravella said:

ya in 2 yrs 

we can retain his rights  let him own the khl be pure offense. Green never really gave him a chance  sorta like  willie with virtanen   not as good a coach as everyone thinks 

Edited April 13, 2020 by canuktravella

[The Lock]

34 minutes ago, canuktravella said:

we can retain his rights  let him own the khl be pure offense. Green never really gave him a chance  sorta like  willie with virtanen   not as good a coach as everyone thinks 

Maybe. However, what coach is actually "perfect"?

 

I feel like some people search for the "perfect coach" but if that coach ends up being a unicorn bathing in a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, is that a realistic pursuit at that point?

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

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

Linden Vey has been one of the KHL better scorers for a few years and hasn't gotten a look back in the NHL. Grigorenko the same, but younger too. I'm sure others fit the bill. Goldobin would have to light the league on fire to get a look especially when looking at a return at 27 (two years in the KHL and the start of the following season).

 

If he isn't ripping up the KHL, I can't see many teams willing to pay a cost to acquire him, so it may be more beneficial to him that a team could sign him for free thus mitigating the risk on themselves. Doing what's best for the player seems to fit in more with how the Canucks organization has embraced the respect culture. Plus it was noted that Goldobin had said that the Canucks weren't going to sign him and thus why he is looking to the KHL for a contract possibly with an out clause should an NHL team take a chance on him.

Canucks gave up a 5th for the rights to Philip Larsen. Basically the Dman version of Goldobin, in terms of a player who couldn’t quite catch on in the NHL by age 24, went over and put up numbers in the KHL for two seasons, and then earned NHL interest (and a pick for the Oilers, who had qualified him and still held rights).
 

If Goldobin can manage to be a top scorer in the KHL, I think teams will have interest, and be willing to pay at least a mid-round pick for his services.

 

Goldy might very well have a similar trajectory to a guy like Dadanov, who got a fairly good look in NA during his early twenties, but didn’t really catch fire as a professional until his mid twenties in the KHL, and now has returned to the NHL and scored 182 points over the past three seasons.

 

EDIT: Basically, with Goldobin, I think the player and the team were in a tough spot. Goldy has elite skill, but hasn’t been able to prove consistency at the NHL level. Based on what we saw from

him, both when deployed as a top-6 in Vancouver, and from his Utica play, he’s currently around a half point per game NHL forward, when played in a scoring role. That’s not quite enough for him to hold onto a spot in the Canucks’ top-six. Given his deficiencies, he probably needed to show around 50 points/82 games scoring to guarantee himself a top-six NHL spot by age 24. He just wasn’t quite there yet. I think he does have the potential, as his game matures, and hopefully he gains consistency, to become maybe a 50-60 points per season, playmaking winger, which is a player most teams have room for in their top-six (even if they “don’t play physical” and “don’t play defense”).

Edited April 13, 2020 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

[drummer4now]

Meh another Shirokov type player bytes the dust..

 

[The Lock]

Honestly, thinking about it, I don't see the whole "he wasn't given a fair shot" argument.

 

1) How much time is a "fair shot"? 15 minutes per game? 18 minutes per game? 20 minutes per game? How much?

2) When, in most projects history (and yes, Goldy's been a project) has it worked out past the time Goldy's been on the team for?

3) If we gave Goldy more time, who on the team will be given less time and, subsequently, not be given a "fair shot"? It has to be someone. There's only 12 forward spots available any given night.

 

If you want to talk about Goldy not being given a fair shot, then please also mention who shouldn't have been put in that position instead because that's just as relevant. I want some perspective on what people are thinking rather than just simply saying Goldy was "mishandled". Give me context please. I'm not saying this to oppose. I want to be sure people are saying things while actually thinking of the overall picture rather than just Goldy.

 

(Editted to fix a spelling error)

Edited April 14, 2020 by The Lock