Around the League 2015/2016 Pt 13

[MikeK]

Yep. It was the first of many bad moves by this group. Time to move on to the next circus act.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

When is WD gonna join Vey ?
Btw, it'll be hilarious if Vey plays on Flames' PP

 

[50 Shades of Vey]

No Vey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[canucksfan]

When is WD gonna join Vey ?
Btw, it'll be hilarious if Vey plays on Flames' PP

Doubtful. It is a two way deal. He likely is in the AHL most of the time.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

It is funny that Vey gets a two way deal when we signed someone like chaput to a one way.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Doubtful. It is a two way deal. He likely is in the AHL most of the time.

They have our former assistant couch as the head couch.
Injuires happen, just saying

 

[pitseleh]

The worst part is their not learning from their mistake and trading for Granlund, who is a worse player.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

How is this argument not dead yet?

Most of our first rounders haven't turned out either but that doesn't mean we should trade one for waiver bait. This reasoning is demonstrably specious.

A first round pick is not a second round pick. Your argument is flawed.

 

[geebaan]

A first round pick is not a second round pick. Your argument is flawed.

you're right, nobody good has EVER been picked in the second round

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

you're right, nobody good has EVER been picked in the second round

By the Canucks? Gee...can't think of many

 

[opendoor]

By the Canucks? Gee...can't think of many

Yeah, sure wish they'd traded the Demko pick for someone like Vey to help fill in the age gap.

 

[Huggy]

Just cause the canucks have not historically trafted well does not mean that a 2nd does not hold value, or that it was a bad trade. I never minded trying to get Vey, but when you look around the league we way over paid for a guy who was about to be waiver eligible.

can u even remember the defensemen LA took with that pick.

it wasnt a bad trade

 

[Kickassguy]

can u even remember the defensemen LA took with that pick.

it wasnt a bad trade

I'd imagine more than half the board can remember Roland McKeown.

 

[WonderTwinsUnite]

can u even remember the defensemen LA took with that pick.

it wasnt a bad trade

I thought you hated Benning after the draft? Boy, that sure lasted long.

 

[MS]

can u even remember the defensemen LA took with that pick.

it wasnt a bad trade

Roland McKeown is a stud who was a member of Canada's WJC team last year. Would be the top defensive prospect in our organization aside from Juolevi.

And if you consider it being for Garrison, it still sucks. And probably cost us a playoff round in 2015.

 

[Addison Rae]

defending that ridiculous trade is just mind numbing, for people supporting it would you trade a 2nd for Jordan Weal right now?

 

[me2]

Sunk cost fallacy alive and well.

Keeping Vey because you spent a 2nd would be the sunk cost fallacy in action.

Simply pointing out Vey was a bad move and waste of second is just starting the obvious.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Benning identified that the team had an age gap between the current NHL players and the young players and prospects. I think he was correct on that.
But identifying an issue is only part of the solution, you still need to execute properly on it. Vey and Clendening were poor trades anyway you slice it. Giving up a second for Vey who became waiver fodder is a massive fail. Second round picks have significant value even though everyone doesn't pan out. Both players acquired had very little upside even if they worked out.

The Baertschi trade is an example of where he executed properly. He acquired a player with high upside who was on the outs in Calgary. Even if Baertschi busted you can still see the logic in that trade.

 

[pitseleh]

Benning identified that the team had an age gap between the current NHL players and the young players and prospects. I think he was correct on that.

I've never seen a compelling explanation as to why an age gap actually matters.

I see why a talent gap matters (i.e. you don't have enough talent to fill out your roster to allow young players and prospects to smoothly integrate into the lineup, rather than being thrust into roles they aren't capable of).

But there's no reason that you have to have players of a certain age to fill in those gaps. There are plenty of useful players of a variety of ages that can be used to round out your roster - look at Florida, which has been heavy on under 24 and over 30 players.

If anything, the opposite is true. You want your good young players peaking together to increase your odds of a championship, rather than having some players declining while others are improving.

 

[WinterEmpire]

Benning identified that the team had an age gap between the current NHL players and the young players and prospects. I think he was correct on that.
But identifying an issue is only part of the solution, you still need to execute properly on it. Vey and Clendening were poor trades anyway you slice it. Giving up a second for Vey who became waiver fodder is a massive fail. Second round picks have significant value even though everyone doesn't pan out. Both players acquired had very little upside even if they worked out.

The Baertschi trade is an example of where he executed properly. He acquired a player with high upside who was on the outs in Calgary. Even if Baertschi busted you can still see the logic in that trade.

Forget about executing a solution, how about just ignoring it as an issue in the first place.

While it's true there is an age gap in prospects, what does that really matter? You end up sending away young prospects and picks for older players for a very short term gain. As a result, you weaken the future prospect pool and you acquire players who are older and closer to Free Agency. You then end up overpaying to keep these players in your system which has a two fold effect, you're going to block other players from coming up and competing and you destroy your cap.

Competitive teams are ones filled with established stars and young players with cost controlled contracts that can provide value above what they are paid.

Trying to fix this age gap nonsense has forced the Canucks into taking on multiple castoff players with fair/overpriced contracts with no tangible benefits.

 

[MS]

I've never seen a compelling explanation as to why an age gap actually matters.

I see why a talent gap matters (i.e. you don't have enough talent to fill out your roster to allow young players and prospects to smoothly integrate into the lineup, rather than being thrust into roles they aren't capable of).

But there's no reason that you have to have players of a certain age to fill in those gaps. There are plenty of useful players of a variety of ages that can be used to round out your roster - look at Florida, which has been heavy on under 24 and over 30 players.

If anything, the opposite is true. You want your good young players peaking together to increase your odds of a championship, rather than having some players declining while others are improving.

Moreover, age really only matters for your 4 or 5 most 'core' players that you build around for a long time - for a team like Chicago, Kane, Toews, Seabrook, Keith. Guys who are engines for a franchise for a decade.

The other 15 players on a roster are transitory. Few are there more than 2 or 3 years, whether they're 22 or 32. Aside from the bonus of getting a good performance out of an ELC, age doesn't really matter. Performance and ability should be all that matters.

So the notion of filling an 'age gap' with lower-end roster players was just screwed from the beginning. It would be different if they were trading for legitimate long-term building blocks like a Ryan O'Reilly. But they didn't.

 

[Hit the post]

No Vey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe the actual expression is Oy Vey!

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

I can only imagine what Willie must be going through right now. Poor guy.

 

[mossey3535]

I've never seen a compelling explanation as to why an age gap actually matters.

I see why a talent gap matters (i.e. you don't have enough talent to fill out your roster to allow young players and prospects to smoothly integrate into the lineup, rather than being thrust into roles they aren't capable of).

But there's no reason that you have to have players of a certain age to fill in those gaps. There are plenty of useful players of a variety of ages that can be used to round out your roster - look at Florida, which has been heavy on under 24 and over 30 players.

If anything, the opposite is true. You want your good young players peaking together to increase your odds of a championship, rather than having some players declining while others are improving.

Exactly. We are the only team in the league that uses this whole age gap business. Just try googling any team name plus "age gap". In my life I've followed the Habs, Leafs, and Canucks fairly closely because I've lived in those regions. I watch and play a lot of hockey. I've never heard of the age gap before this regime.

If you have a Lidstrom or Kane or any sort of core player, what does it matter if the rest of your roster has an even distribution of ages? That level of player is the driving force behind your team for a decade or so. By definition there's going to be a big age gap between those core players as they age and everyone else.

With the salary cap I would say it forces you into an even bigger age gap since ideally you'll get guys on ELC's who will be able to contribute a lot for their price point.

 

[opendoor]

Exactly. We are the only team in the league that uses this whole age gap business. Just try googling any team name plus "age gap". In my life I've followed the Habs, Leafs, and Canucks fairly closely because I've lived in those regions. I watch and play a lot of hockey. I've never heard of the age gap before this regime.

If you have a Lidstrom or Kane or any sort of core player, what does it matter if the rest of your roster has an even distribution of ages? That level of player is the driving force behind your team for a decade or so. By definition there's going to be a big age gap between those core players as they age and everyone else.

With the salary cap I would say it forces you into an even bigger age gap since ideally you'll get guys on ELC's who will be able to contribute a lot for their price point.

I know of one (not particularly flattering) example of a GM going on about an age gap and that was Jay Feaster in Calgary. In fact, you could sub out some names from this article 2 years into Feaster's time as a GM and it could be about the Canucks today:

Popular opinion says Jay Feaster has been taken to school a couple times over the last 22 months and change.

It started with the Robyn Regehr deal.

It continued during the Ryan O’Reilly saga.

It was cemented with the return for Jarome Iginla.

The Calgary Flames GM has been panned more than a deep-dish pizza.

While still refusing to use the word ‘rebuild’ — instead subbing the word ‘retool’ during Wednesday’s late-night Iginla trade presser — Feaster has been not-so-quietly stockpiling NCAA talent like it’s going out of style.

Feaster also noted the age gap between the current core and the what’s in the system, something they tried to address in Hanowski, who will turn 23 later this year, and the soon-to-be 21-year-old Agostino.

“There’s a gap ... and that gap exists from those 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds that we really like, to an older group to 27, 28, 29 (years old),†Feaster allowed. “And that’s where we need to start filling.â€

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/03/31/feaster-getting-schooled