[Article] Offseason grades from the Athletic

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

4 hours ago, The_Rocket said:

 

for the OEL contract, I just don’t think it makes sense to separate the contract from the trade. If you don’t take on the contract, then you can’t do the trade. Why give the contract a D and the trade a B+. They are not mutually exclusive. You cannot judge them separately.

I think their reasoning is that the trade evaluation is separate from the cap management analysis on the new players acquired.

 

Unlike most of their compatriots at The Athletic (who IIRC rated the trade either a D-minus or F for Vancouver), Drance and Dayal think the deal itself was a good one for the Canucks, based on moving out the full weight on Player Name, Roussel, and Beagle; getting a high end asset in Garland back, and also securing nearly $6M of cap retention on OEL. Those parts alone were worth far more than what Vancouver gave up in the two draft picks (EDIT: sorry, three picks, counting the 7th rounder). Enough of an overall “sweetener”/value gain that even taking back OEL’s “negative value” contract becomes a net positive, and a significant enough one to rate the overall trade a B+.

 

But looking at the 2021-22 roster and moving forward, they don’t believe OEL is anywhere near value for his contract, and that’s why, as a separate asset, they rate OEL a D grade, from a cap management perspective.

 

I’m not saying I necessarily agree with their lettergrades, or even the methodology, but I think it’s understandable, and not really all that far off (especially if you’re going heavier on analytics in your evaluation).

Edited September 16, 2021 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

[Viper007]

22 hours ago, Industrious1 said:

I actually liked a lot of the moves this off-season, however, I'd also have been fine to wait for some of those contracts to come off the books in a year.  

 

My belief is that politics dictated these deals (Jim wants to keep the GM seat, like anybody would) but at the same time I think he did a pretty solid job considering what he had to work with.  There is always the possibility that these guys just suck when they get to Vancouver, that is a story we are familiar with as Canucks fans...but that is true of any trade, really.  

Sure, it's easy for you and I and other canucks' fans to just wait a year and let all those contracts come off the books, but is it fair to the players to waste another year of their playing careers?

 

I believe JB did the right thing for the team.  He's going for it this year, and for the next few.  You wait those contracts out this year, it leaves a sour taste in players' mouths like Petey, who has already stated that he wants to be on a winning team for his next contract.  It all starts this year, where the canucks should be a perennial playoff team and hopefully add a few more pieces to become a contender.

[Dr. Crossbar]

. 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Dr. Crossbar
Irrelevant

[cuporbust]

On 9/15/2021 at 1:55 PM, The_Rocket said:

Full article here

 

drance and Dayal grading the whole off season. Full article posted in the next comment, but I encourage you to read it from the source. 
 

my biggest disagreements:

 

D grade for the Poolman signing; I think he is better than either writer is giving credit

 

C grade for Schmidt trade: the player had a bad season then asked out and was flexing is M-NTC. Getting any kind of return is a huge win considering the contract 

 

and D+ for the OEL deal: it’s weird how they have the trade itself a b+ (about right) but then gave OEL a D+. Doesn’t make sense. 
 

Edit:

 

forgot to mention, grading the Hughes and Pettersson contracts a D-minus when the haven’t even signed yet makes no sense. They should have just waited until after they signed to write the article

Everyone has a pre season opinion. 

Edited September 17, 2021 by cuporbust

[J.I.A.H.N]

Just a thought about OEL......which I still maintain has to play out

 

Did the Athletic put into the equation that OEL playing behind a vastly superior offense, in comparison to Arizona's offense, my have a resurgence?

 

I mean, if Benning's thought process turns out and our offense is much improved, then certainly the Canucks will have the puck more........

 

I think most defensemen in the league would be happy about that.........

 

So, let's give it time to play out 

[iinatcc]

On 9/15/2021 at 10:55 PM, The_Rocket said:

Full article here

 

drance and Dayal grading the whole off season. Full article posted in the next comment, but I encourage you to read it from the source. 
 

my biggest disagreements:

 

D grade for the Poolman signing; I think he is better than either writer is giving credit

 

C grade for Schmidt trade: the player had a bad season then asked out and was flexing is M-NTC. Getting any kind of return is a huge win considering the contract 

. 

 

For Schmidt C mean average considering Canucks gave a 3rd to get him and recouped a 3rd to trade him away pretty much makes this a wash. So C is fair 

 

A D for Poolman is about right especially with the term. Plus Benning giving term had not proven to be successful. Who knows maybe the signing will turn out good for Vancouver but, for now, it feels like another typical Benning overpayment at the free agent signing . Especially if you consider the Larsson signing in Seattle 

 

I think Canucks did ok this off season and the Athletic was fair on the team. I think people forget that the Canucks are not in a bubble. And that the evaluation of their moves also depends and is compared with on the moves of other teams. 

 

Take Chicago, Carolina, and Dallas for instance I say did great this off season. Heck I say Seattle also did good overall. 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2021 by iinatcc

[SilentSam]

Had to post this somewhere..

 

 

[Fan since 82]

On 9/15/2021 at 10:00 PM, Alflives said:

Two guys pretending to be hockey experts, who never played.  

 

Sounds like the majority of folks on CDC.

[King Heffy]

1 hour ago, Fan since 82 said:

Sounds like the majority of folks on CDC.

Majority of CDC's actually watched hockey before, unlike these unqualified morons.

[Fan since 82]

6 hours ago, King Heffy said:

Majority of CDC's actually watched hockey before, unlike these unqualified morons.

Not naming names but plenty of morons frequent this forum as well.