Prospect Info: 2016 Ranking #9

[henchman21]

I can say for sure that I would have viewed the trade differently if Boedker had been re-signed. I'd have hated it even more

Though I get why they felt the need to roll the dice at the time; I just hate that we had to give up Wood as part of it. Obviously you trade the bigger gamble instead of the surer thing and so move Wood instead of Meloche, but I really can't believe that there wasn't a move to be made that wouldn't have cost us one of the two top 4 RHD prospects we had in the system.

Mironov isn't a right shot, but he is a RD. How they feel about him could have made Wood a movable piece. Along with that if EJ and Barrie are here long-term and Meloche is closer to being ready (which he is IMO)... there is time to develop another RD.

In the world of trades you have to pay to acquire players. Rarely does anything of substance come cheap. The Avs paid the price to get a solid player.

 

[cgf]

Mironov isn't a right shot, but he is a RD. How they feel about him could have made Wood a movable piece. Along with that if EJ and Barrie are here long-term and Meloche is closer to being ready (which he is IMO)... there is time to develop another RD.

In the world of trades you have to pay to acquire players. Rarely does anything of substance come cheap. The Avs paid the price to get a solid player.

I'm just really skeptical about Mironov not signing another extension, which is why it's hard for me to really think about him as a prospect of ours until he actually comes over and becomes a prospect of ours. He said some things about wanting to play in the NHL when we picked him; but he seems pretty content where he is for the forseeable future. So I won't be surprised at all if both Meloche & Wood are NHLers before we even get a sniff of Mironov in an Avs sweeter.

There is time to develop another RD; and Clurman seems like really interesting step in that direction...which is why my feelings about this trade did change a little after we picked him.

But I still would've rather not made a trade than given up wood for Boedker...though obviously exploring other options would be the preferred choice. Granted I really didn't like Boedker during his time here; despite the hotstreak he was on.

 

[henchman21]

I'm just really skeptical about Mironov not signing another extension, which is why it's hard for me to really think about him as a prospect of ours until he actually comes over and becomes a prospect of ours. He said some things about wanting to play in the NHL when we picked him; but he seems pretty content where he is for the forseeable future. So I won't be surprised at all if both Meloche & Wood are NHLers before we even get a sniff of Mironov in an Avs sweeter.

There is time to develop another RD; and Clurman seems like really interesting step in that direction...which is why my feelings about this trade did change a little after we picked him.

But I still would've rather not made a trade than given up wood for Boedker...though obviously exploring other options would be the preferred choice. Granted I really didn't like Boedker during his time here; despite the hotstreak he was on.

I have that same trepidation about Mironov, but I'm not privy to the Avs' information. Highly possible they know what Mironov's current plans are.

If it wasn't for Boedker, it was likely to be somebody else. The Avs were adding and were willing to give up their mid level prospects and picks.

 

[cgf]

I have that same trepidation about Mironov, but I'm not privy to the Avs' information. Highly possible they know what Mironov's current plans are.

If it wasn't for Boedker, it was likely to be somebody else. The Avs were adding and were willing to give up their mid level prospects and picks.

I'd have rather given up our third than Wood, if that meant someone other than Boedker then so be it.

 

[ABasin]

I'm one of the 3 people and I didn't mind the trade. It just didn't work out. If the Avs made the playoffs, I think the deal would be viewed differently. And if the Avs re-signed Boedker.

But they didn't and they didn't.

And some of us (correctly) predicted right at the time of the trade that they wouldn't and they wouldn't.

I'm not one who minds rental trades, but if people do, they will hate this trade. That is more where the divide lies.

I disagree that's where the divide lies. Or perhaps a better way to put it is I disagree that's where the only divide lies. There is more reason to dislike that trade than just "not liking rental trades".

For example, while I hated that trade, I am a big fan of rental trades - for both buyer and seller - as long as the variables are correct. In this case, they were not. And IMO, it was pretty obvious they were not.

 

[cgf]

But they didn't and they didn't.

And some of us (correctly) predicted right at the time of the trade that they wouldn't and they wouldn't.



I disagree that's where the divide lies. Or perhaps a better way to put it is I disagree that's where the only divide lies. There is more reason to dislike that trade than just "not liking rental trades".

For example, while I hated that trade, I am a big fan of rental trades - for both buyer and seller - as long as the variables are correct. In this case, they were not. And IMO, it was pretty obvious they were not.

You can't really predict Dutchy and MacK both going down when they did. It happened and so your prediction came true, but if they hadn't it might not have.

 

[ABasin]

You can't really predict Dutchy and MacK both going down when they did. It happened and so your prediction came true, but if they hadn't it might not have.

And if they hadn't, it might still have. There's no way to know either way.

But what we do know for sure, is what did happen.

 

[henchman21]

You can't really predict Dutchy and MacK both going down when they did. It happened and so your prediction came true, but if they hadn't it might not have.

Yep... things lined up a certain way. If the Avs make the playoffs and get ~3 games of home revenue and playoff experience, the trades would have been well worth it. The Avs had every shot to make the playoffs, just losing both of your top centers kills that chance.

I'm not saying that is ONLY where the line divides, but that is the MAIN division. If things had worked out differently, there are far less people going around and saying "SEE!!!" Not every trade/signing/picks works out perfectly. I'd much rather a front office take a chance and betting on their team than just sitting with their hands in their pocket. If the have the chance next year around the deadline, I want them to take another shot. The main pieces are in place (if you like Z and Bigras at high end defensive prospects), so building up star power isn't needed, just supporting cast. They didn't get rid of top end pieces. They were secondary pieces for this team. If they had given up Rantanen, Z, Bigras, Meloche, or Compher... I'd get the argument much more.

 

[ABasin]

Yep... things lined up a certain way. If the Avs make the playoffs and get ~3 games of home revenue and playoff experience, the trades would have been well worth it. The Avs had every shot to make the playoffs, just losing both of your top centers kills that chance.

I love ya, Hench. But I disagree 100%. That's the same thinking that kept them from moving Stastny back in '13-14. A lot of good those few home playoff games did.

In fact, I believe that probably hurt them in the end.

I'm not saying that is ONLY where the line divides, but that is the MAIN division.

Again, I disagree. If a team is poised to make a real run at an offseason, fine. But 2 home playoff games? IMO, that's short-sighted and stupid.

It has nothing on earth to do with "liking deadline trades".

If things had worked out differently, there are far less people going around and saying "SEE!!!" Not every trade/signing/picks works out perfectly. I'd much rather a front office take a chance and betting on their team than just sitting with their hands in their pocket. If the have the chance next year around the deadline, I want them to take another shot.

Perhaps you are more accepting of a perennial playoff bubble team than I am.

The main pieces are in place (if you like Z and Bigras at high end defensive prospects), so building up star power isn't needed, just supporting cast. They didn't get rid of top end pieces. They were secondary pieces for this team. If they had given up Rantanen, Z, Bigras, Meloche, or Compher... I'd get the argument much more.

Yes, it was only a 2nd and Wood. And Berra was only a 2nd. And Stuart was only a 2nd. And Gelinas was only a 3rd. Etc. At some point these add up.

That roster was quite flawed, and Roy never really had them playing quality team hockey all season.

My personal opinion is that even if MacKinnon and Duchene were OK, that team doesn't make the playoffs. I can prove that no more or less than you can prove they would have made the playoffs in that case.

In the end, they didn't. The trade was a failure.

 

[henchman21]

I love ya, Hench. But I disagree 100%. That's the same thinking that kept them from moving Stastny back in '13-14. A lot of good those few home playoff games did.

In fact, I believe that probably hurt them in the end.



Again, I disagree. If a team is poised to make a real run at an offseason, fine. But 2 home playoff games? IMO, that's short-sighted and stupid.

It has nothing on earth to do with "liking deadline trades".



Perhaps you are more accepting of a perennial playoff bubble team than I am.



Yes, it was only a 2nd and Wood. And Berra was only a 2nd. And Stuart was only a 2nd. And Gelinas was only a 3rd. Etc. At some point these add up.

That roster was quite flawed, and Roy never really had them playing quality team hockey all season.

My personal opinion is that even if MacKinnon and Duchene were OK, that team doesn't make the playoffs. I can prove that no more or less than you can prove they would have made the playoffs in that case.

In the end, they didn't. The trade was a failure.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't a failure. The results ended up where they did, and that is how they will be judged. I just have no problems with the front office taking the risk. In fact, I want them to take risks like that. Without taking a risk, this team won't be taking the next step.

I'm not at all accepting of being a perennial playoff bubble team, but I am big believer in that you can't be a contender with a core unless you go from being a playoff bubble team to playoff team to contender. The next step for this team is becoming a playoff team. A team has to learn to crawl before they can walk. Getting into the playoffs and learning to play there is a part of the process, and one this core has yet to really do. Without that progression and constantly accepting building up prospect depth instead of taking a chance is more along the lines of accepting a perennial bubble team. This core needs to start taking the next step, or the core will have to be changed. There can only be so many core players on a team, and their primes are a limited amount of time. EJ is soon to be leaving his. Duchene is only a few years off. If they are to be apart of this team's playoff success, it has to start happening and the front office needs to push to help their core. Or jettison some of the core parts to build up others.

I'm of the opinion that 2nds and 3rds are WAY overrated. I don't believe that 2nds should be traded all the time (I say space them out to weaker drafts and when you'll be picking past 45), but I think they can be used. 3rds... many times teams get better value out of trading them than they get out of actually using them (if Gelinas is a bottom pairing guy this year, that deal is worth it). Yeah, you can't get rid of all of your picks, but 6-7 picks a year (especially when you keep your firsts) is plenty to keep the pool going.

IMO the Avs are in a position to use their non-first round picks, and should be soon in the position to use their firsts to support the core (I'm thinking the 2018 first should be the first one floated). Right now the core is MacK, Landy, Duchene, EJ, Barrie, and Varlamov. EJ isn't the greatest #1, but that really isn't a bad core to build around. The prospect depth that will be supporting the core over the next few years is Rantanen, Z, Bigras, Compher and Jost. The pieces are there if they develop. I argue they need to support all of those players as much as possible, even if it means spending future assets. The Avs don't need more pieces for the sake of having pieces. They need to develop the pieces they have to support the core or transition into being a core piece themselves (which will cause a core member to leave since in a cap world, only so many can exist on a team).

People clamor like Sakic is throwing away the future around this team, but really look how much better the pool is than when they came in... they are striking a nice balance IMO.

 

[tigervixxxen]

There's a better place to have this conversation, I'm not sure where but probably not this thread.

They weren't in a position to take a risk last year. And artificially inflating the team just so they could get the experience when that foundation wasn't there for them to sustain it doesn't do much. One could argue that they got just as much benefit out of Matthias as they did Boedker. I wasn't on board with the rentals idea but Matthias I can at least see the benefit outweighed the cost. Everything about the Boedker deal was a mistake from moment one until now. The only justification is founded on impatience. I get they so badly wanted to take the next step. We all want them to, but it is going to take a lot of things to go right and including proper drafting and development for them to get there.

I'm not advocating holding on to pieces just to hold on to them but until this org can prove that it can develop and graduate non top 3 pieces to the NHL then they need to keep building. They need to prove they can turn around the AHL and get a solid foundation in there. They need as many bullets in the chamber right now. They need to prove they can get assets back in deals for expiring and non core players (Holden was a nice start), then it's more acceptable that it's a two way street where assets go back and forth. There's also no reason why they can't gather and develop a surplus of talent, if that happens then they can start dealing some of those pieces when the time is right. A draft pick isn't just a 5% chance of a NHL player or nothing. He's an asset that can help in the AHL, help get in a bigger player down the line, help the depth of the team or might turn into something useful. As it stands now the scary thought is if the Avs want to go rental hunting this year there isn't a lot of non essential pieces that have much value. The pool is looking better but it's still thin and the number of high quality pieces is low. They can't just start dealing from that well saying hey it's looking better, they can dip into it when it IS better.

 

[henchman21]

There's a better place to have this conversation, I'm not sure where but probably not this thread.

They weren't in a position to take a risk last year. And artificially inflating the team just so they could get the experience when that foundation wasn't there for them to sustain it doesn't do much. One could argue that they got just as much benefit out of Matthias as they did Boedker. I wasn't on board with the rentals idea but Matthias I can at least see the benefit outweighed the cost. Everything about the Boedker deal was a mistake from moment one until now. The only justification is founded on impatience. I get they so badly wanted to take the next step. We all want them to, but it is going to take a lot of things to go right and including proper drafting and development for them to get there.

I'm not advocating holding on to pieces just to hold on to them but until this org can prove that it can develop and graduate non top 3 pieces to the NHL then they need to keep building. They need to prove they can turn around the AHL and get a solid foundation in there. They need as many bullets in the chamber right now. They need to prove they can get assets back in deals for expiring and non core players (Holden was a nice start), then it's more acceptable that it's a two way street where assets go back and forth. There's also no reason why they can't gather and develop a surplus of talent, if that happens then they can start dealing some of those pieces when the time is right. A draft pick isn't just a 5% chance of a NHL player or nothing. He's an asset that can help in the AHL, help get in a bigger player down the line, help the depth of the team or might turn into something useful. As it stands now the scary thought is if the Avs want to go rental hunting this year there isn't a lot of non essential pieces that have much value. The pool is looking better but it's still thin and the number of high quality pieces is low. They can't just start dealing from that well saying hey it's looking better, they can dip into it when it IS better.

The Avs do need to be better about development, and they do need to gather some pieces. I really don't think they need to be gathering 10+ a year though. IMO what they have done to build up the pool is perfectly fine. The pool isn't perfect, but it is getting better and that takes time, and I don't think the pool is the best measure of the team's future.

I'd argue they have already shown they are better at development, but fruits of the labor take time. 5+ years. They haven't had that much time to show what they are really doing. Bigras and Z showed positive steps. Rantanen developed well. Grigo was a much better player at the end of last year than the beginning. Picks has been developed. There are not many signs yet, but the signs are very positive compared to 5 years ago.

I understand the 5% chance of the NHL player can also impact the AHL. Gelinas right now has a much, much larger impact on this team (and maybe even the AHL team) than the 3rd round pick currently does and likely does in the future. If he plays here the whole season, the deal was 100% worth it IMO. People will look at the Gelinas deal as one where they gave up a 3rd, but that is looking at it in a vacuum. Gelinas was obviously brought into replace Holden (and Holden was very nearly traded at the deadline)... the deal is realistically more of Holden + 3rd for Gelinas + 4th.

I'm not arguing about the results of the deals for Boedker or Matthias. They were rentals and what the team did failed. Failure happens. Taking a risk and betting on your core while supporting them is something I will argue for (I get the argument that people didn't think they were ready for that risk... I don't agree, but I get it), and sometimes that will end in failure. The 23 and under roster on this team is pretty damn good. The 25 and under is one of the best and highest potential in the league. I argue those players need supported, not left out to dry waiting for the 2017 2nd round pick to pan out in 2020 (if we are lucky). I'm not saying sell everything off, I'm saying using a 2nd, 3rd, B level prospects to support the current core isn't a bad strategy.

Look at the 23 and under roster on this team:

Landy-MacK-Rantanen
Grigo-Jost-____
Greer-Compher-_____
Morrison-Beaudin-_____
Nantel-Grimaldi-_____

Zadorov-______
Bigras-Meloche
Geertsen-Mironov
Boikov-Clurman
_____-Lindholm

Martin
_____

There are holes at RW. Draft one high next year (I still say draft a D high should be first priority) or plan on Compher/Grimaldi/Beaudin switching to wing (or a winger switch sides). The sure thing high end #1D is lacking (top pairing RD in general), but Z has that talent level. Again draft one high. Those are not issues typically solved outside the top 40 picks (look at the players in the top 9/top4... all are top 40 picks). Now not all of those players will pan out, but at least half fall in the category of should or already have.

 

[cgf]

Peacock & Loche were born to form a devastating top pairing together. Trust.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

Boedker and Matthias not being with the team this year does not mean the Avs were looking at them as rentals. I still think that at the time of the deal Boedker was looked at as being plan B to Radulov. Radulov priced himself out of this team so they offered a contract to Boedker. He decided to go to SJ so they signed Colbourne. Matthias just apparently wanted to go back to Canada so nothing they could do about that.

 

[Former Ladder]

Boedker and Matthias not being with the team this year does not mean the Avs were looking at them as rentals. I still think that at the time of the deal Boedker was looked at as being plan B to Radulov. Radulov priced himself out of this team so they offered a contract to Boedker. He decided to go to SJ so they signed Colbourne. Matthias just apparently wanted to go back to Canada so nothing they could do about that.

I think they were both a tryout and a rental. They targeted guys that if they fit well with the team that they would resign them (or attempt to). I don't think they liked how Boedker fit but I do think they wanted to retain Matthias but he wanted too much to stay so they looked elsewhere.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

I think they were both a tryout and a rental. They targeted guys that if they fit well with the team that they would resign them (or attempt to). I don't think they liked how Boedker fit but I do think they wanted to retain Matthias but he wanted too much to stay so they looked elsewhere.

If that is the case why did they offer him a contract? It seems they liked him enough to offer him one.

 

[ABasin]

There's a better place to have this conversation, I'm not sure where but probably not this thread.

They weren't in a position to take a risk last year. And artificially inflating the team just so they could get the experience when that foundation wasn't there for them to sustain it doesn't do much. One could argue that they got just as much benefit out of Matthias as they did Boedker. I wasn't on board with the rentals idea but Matthias I can at least see the benefit outweighed the cost. Everything about the Boedker deal was a mistake from moment one until now. The only justification is founded on impatience. I get they so badly wanted to take the next step. We all want them to, but it is going to take a lot of things to go right and including proper drafting and development for them to get there.

I'm not advocating holding on to pieces just to hold on to them but until this org can prove that it can develop and graduate non top 3 pieces to the NHL then they need to keep building. They need to prove they can turn around the AHL and get a solid foundation in there. They need as many bullets in the chamber right now. They need to prove they can get assets back in deals for expiring and non core players (Holden was a nice start), then it's more acceptable that it's a two way street where assets go back and forth. There's also no reason why they can't gather and develop a surplus of talent, if that happens then they can start dealing some of those pieces when the time is right.

Exactly so, especially the bolded.

The only real chance the Avs had of making the playoffs prior to the deadline deals, was Varlamov playing out of his mind. The only real chance the Avs had of making the playoffs after the deadline deals, was Varlamov playing out of his mind.