Canucks Management & Ownership Discussion | Part 24

[CanaFan]

Precisely- over who? There was no competition for top 6 spotss that's why Higgins and Raymond were gifted time there.

Not sure that's the correct definition of "gifted". I understand it to mean being given something ahead of someone who deserves it more. If Raymond is the most deserving player available at that time, then he has "earned" it. Yes, in a perfect world we would have had a better player in the second line 2LW spot but there is only so much talent and (in a cap world) salary a team can acquire and retain at any one time. I would disagree immensely with saying Raymond was gifted his spot, merely that he was never quite as good as fans wanted him to be. Which is fine, I know I was critical of his playstyle at the time, but as in all things it was relative to the rest of the team at the time. I know if we had 2009-10 Raymond on the 2015-16 Canucks he would easily be one of my favourite players.

 

[ATypicalCanadian]

For all intents and purposes. The Canucks are shut down till Labour Day

Jim Benning is in Portland and his summer home... Trevor Linden is biking somewhere for a month.. Back on Tuesday September 6


So do not expect any news for the next month.

Which makes me very happy. Although Benning probably can do stuff still if his vacation doesn't extend a whole month and where the **** is Weisbrod.

On a side note this time last year we'd have been just witnessed the Sutter trade(July 28th) and been discussing it to death for the next week..

Happy Sutterversary guys

 

[iloveloov*]

See responses in red

People have followed this sport for considerable lengths of time, and are quite familiar with the fact that a non-producing healthy scratch about to hit waiver eligibility has pretty much zero value. And Calgary's GM pretty much confirmed that when he said that Granlund was a player they'd probably have to waive next season.

You mean like Sven Baertschi? You must be furious that Benning paid a 2nd round pick for such a useless asset.

Meanwhile high-scoring 21 y/o AHL players with 2.5 years of waiver eligibility remaining generally have considerable value.

You're obsessed with waiver eligibility. People in the know would focus more on a player's ability to play NHL hockey.

There's no way to 'prove' exactly how much value either player had, but anyone with a lick of common sense should be able to see pretty easily that Shinkaruk had considerably more.

There is a way to prove how much value Shinkaruk had, it's to look at what he was most recently traded for. That would prove he's worth 1 Markus Granlund.

You can't 'prove' that Filip Forsberg had more value than Martin Erat in 2013, either ... but common sense tells you that a #11 overall pick from a year prior should probably net more than an old winger with 4 goals in 40 games.

Common sense? No, you mean hindsight. Everyone knows hindsight is 20 20

Uh, terrible logic.

Just because Borna Rendulic has played more games than a majority of 2nd/3rd round picks doesn't mean he's worth a 2nd round pick. He's dime-a-dozen AHL filler garbage that we got for free.

So is Granlund.

You better watch what you say or I'll sick crobro on you

Uh, what?

Dano was the main part in the Saad trade. You can make an argument he was a throw-in in the Ladd deal (I disagree) but definitely not the Saad one.

Nope Anisimov was the main part of that trade. Dano was a throw-in who has since been dumped by 2 teams before the age of 22 which will probably be the case with Shinkaruk soon.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

See responses in red

To your 3rd point, if the only way to know the value of a player is what he's traded for, then I guess a young luongo was only worth Parrish and kvasha, and a prime Joe Thornton is only worth Stuart Sturm and crap.
GMs never make mistake, every trade is fair. Right?

 

[iloveloov*]

To your 3rd point, if the only way to know the value of a player is what he's traded for, then I guess a young luongo was only worth Parrish and kvasha, and a prime Joe Thornton is only worth Stuart Sturm and crap.
GMs never make mistake, every trade is fair. Right?

It is the best way to to know the value of a player with some very few rare exceptions yes.

 

[CanaFan]

See responses in red

There is a way to prove how much value Shinkaruk had, it's to look at what he was most recently traded for. That would prove he's worth 1 Markus Granlund.

You are confusing value with price. They are not the same thing.

Note that economic value is not the same as market price, nor is economic value the same thing as market value. If a consumer is willing to buy a good, it implies that the customer places a higher value on the good than the market price. The difference between the value to the consumer and the market price is called "consumer surplus". It is easy to see situations where the actual value is considerably larger than the market price: purchase of drinking water is one example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics)

This is how people can determine that the Forsberg-Erat trade or the Seguin-Eriksson+ trades were poor value AT THE TIME. No hindsight was used to form those opinions, however it has since validated them.

In your world there is no such thing as a "bad" trade since you apply a "value=price" mindset and refuse to consider that things (including hockey players) have an intrinsic value that, while challenging to quantify precisely, is independent of what another person (GM) is willing to pay.

 

[CanaFan]

It is the best way to to know the value of a player with some very few rare exceptions yes.

Why would there be exceptions? Either the rule always holds (price = value) or it never holds (price =/= value). You cannot apply exceptions to a simplistic, one-size-fits-all decision rule like this.

 

[MS]

You mean like Sven Baertschi? You must be furious that Benning paid a 2nd round pick for such a useless asset.

Yeah, we probably overpaid there (Treliving sounded shocked at the time of the trade at the return he got). But was a completely different situation as it was a talented player who had a falling-out with management.

You're obsessed with waiver eligibility. People in the know would focus more on a player's ability to play NHL hockey.

I'm not 'obsessed' with it. It's a thing that contributes to a player's value. To ignore it is completely stupid. A 'people in the know' like Treliving listed it as one of the main reasons they dealt Granlund.

As for Granlund's ability to play NHL hockey? He sucks. He's small, slow, weak, and a terrible possession player. Yet another Jim Benning pro scouting screwup.

There is a way to prove how much value Shinkaruk had, it's to look at what he was most recently traded for. That would prove he's worth 1 Markus Granlund.

So if Benning gets drunk tomorrow and trades Bo Horvat for a 7th rounder, Bo Horvat is worth a 7th round pick? I don't think so.

Bad deals for bad value happen. This is one of them. So is nearly every other trade Benning has made.

Common sense? No, you mean hindsight. Everyone knows hindsight is 20 20

What?

That was universally considered a terrible trade at the time. Same as Shinkaruk-Granlund. It isn't hindsight that Forsberg was worth more.

With your mindset, there is literally no such thing as a bad deal. Benning is incapable of screwing up in your eyes. If he dealt Tanev for a mid-round draft pick? Good deal, guess that's all he was worth!

Nope Anisimov was the main part of that trade. Dano was a throw-in who has since been dumped by 2 teams before the age of 22 which will probably be the case with Shinkaruk soon.

You're claiming that a 20 y/o with 8 goals in 35 NHL games was a throw-in but a guy aged 28 and one year from UFA with 7 goals in 52 games was the centerpiece? Really?

 

[racerjoe]

You are confusing value with price. They are not the same thing.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics)

This is how people can determine that the Forsberg-Erat trade or the Seguin-Eriksson+ trades were poor value AT THE TIME. No hindsight was used to form those opinions, however it has since validated them.

In your world there is no such thing as a "bad" trade since you apply a "value=price" mindset and refuse to consider that things (including hockey players) have an intrinsic value that, while challenging to quantify precisely, is independent of what another person (GM) is willing to pay.

This times a million. Look at the Kesler deal. It would appear Benning held value for Sbisa, and that the ducks looked at him as a cap dump. Two different people had a different value of a player.

The Erat - Forsberg trade. Hell look at the Hodgson trade, where GM's said they would have paid more. Or look at Beartschi where we had the best offer by far. 1 idiot can change the price, but not the value.

 

[CanaFan]

This times a million. Look at the Kesler deal. It would appear Benning held value for Sbisa, and that the ducks looked at him as a cap dump. Two different people had a different value of a player.

The Erat - Forsberg trade. Hell look at the Hodgson trade, where GM's said they would have paid more. Or look at Beartschi where we had the best offer by far. 1 idiot can change the price, but not the value.

Exactly. A player's "value" is innate, which is why you end up with trades that are "good" value (Stojanov for Naslund) as well as those that are "poor" value (2nd for Vey).

Now to be clear, it is difficult to peg a player's "value" as there are different qualities to look at (past history, age, contract, status, health, intangibles, etc) and different weights to apply to each so there is certainly a degree of qualitative subjectivity to how anyone values a player. But that subjectivity is all ANY of us - including Jim Benning - have at our disposal to decide if we like a trade or not. There is no stock listing showing the current price of a player, it is only what we perceive it to be. But that isn't invalid because in the absence of an objective measure like a stock listing, your own personal qualitative assessment is all you can use. It is all GM's use themselves though some are definitely better at it than others.

Unfortunately ours seems to either mis-judge the qualities that the player possesses (i.e. Prust = character, Vey = high skill, etc) or is very bad at applying the weightings (i.e. Physicality is #1 quality, Grit is #2, Character is #3, Size is #4, etc).

But just because this is what he sees when he looks at Shinkaruk doesn't mean he is objectively "correct". His is, at the end of the day, an opinion just like anyone else's. He just happens to be the guy in position to enact the transaction.

 

[iloveloov*]

Responses in red

Yeah, we probably overpaid there (Treliving sounded shocked at the time of the trade at the return he got). But was a completely different situation as it was a talented player who had a falling-out with management.

You're wrong. You couldn't be more wrong if you were Mr. Wrong and you were the mayor of Wrongsville.

I'm not 'obsessed' with it. It's a thing that contributes to a player's value. To ignore it is completely stupid. A 'people in the know' like Treliving listed it as one of the main reasons they dealt Granlund.

As for Granlund's ability to play NHL hockey? He sucks. He's small, slow, weak, and a terrible possession player. Yet another Jim Benning pro scouting screwup.

If waiver eligibility does contribute to a player's value then it is in a very small way, you're missing the forest for the trees.

So if Benning gets drunk tomorrow and trades Bo Horvat for a 7th rounder, Bo Horvat is worth a 7th round pick? I don't think so.

Bad deals for bad value happen. This is one of them. So is nearly every other trade Benning has made.

What?

That was universally considered a terrible trade at the time. Same as Shinkaruk-Granlund. It isn't hindsight that Forsberg was worth more.

With your mindset, there is literally no such thing as a bad deal. Benning is incapable of screwing up in your eyes. If he dealt Tanev for a mid-round draft pick? Good deal, guess that's all he was worth!

There's always a good amount of logic behind every NHL trade. Your caricatures of NHL managers are just untrue in reality they are smart guys who have to take risks that don't always turn out well but could've gone either way. Martin Erat was a damn good player a few short months before he was traded, averaging 60-70 points on a Nashville team that had no offense. Forsberg exploded and Erat fell off a cliff but Forberg could have been a bust and Erat could have gotten back to the beast of a 2 way winger he was a year prior. Forsberg and Erat's respective values were about the same which both GMs agreed on.

You're claiming that a 20 y/o with 8 goals in 35 NHL games was a throw-in but a guy aged 28 and one year from UFA with 7 goals in 52 games was the centerpiece? Really?

Anisimov is a damn good player too, a big strong proven 40 point defensive center who was always worth more than Dano.

 

[iloveloov*]

Exactly. A player's "value" is innate, which is why you end up with trades that are "good" value (Stojanov for Naslund) as well as those that are "poor" value (2nd for Vey).

Now to be clear, it is difficult to peg a player's "value" as there are different qualities to look at (past history, age, contract, status, health, intangibles, etc) and different weights to apply to each so there is certainly a degree of qualitative subjectivity to how anyone values a player. But that subjectivity is all ANY of us - including Jim Benning - have at our disposal to decide if we like a trade or not. There is no stock listing showing the current price of a player, it is only what we perceive it to be. But that isn't invalid because in the absence of an objective measure like a stock listing, your own personal qualitative assessment is all you can use. It is all GM's use themselves though some are definitely better at it than others.

Unfortunately ours seems to either mis-judge the qualities that the player possesses (i.e. Prust = character, Vey = high skill, etc) or is very bad at applying the weightings (i.e. Physicality is #1 quality, Grit is #2, Character is #3, Size is #4, etc).

But just because this is what he sees when he looks at Shinkaruk doesn't mean he is objectively "correct". His is, at the end of the day, an opinion just like anyone else's. He just happens to be the guy in position to enact the transaction.

What?? A player's value is not innate if it can change the second he gets arrested or signs a bloated contract. It's actually the exact opposite. Maybe if everyone's DNA and memories could be analyzed with a supercomputer you could make that argument and it wouldn't be useless but we're not there yet.

 

[Verviticus]

lol you're actually defending the erat for forsberg trade

here's a thing that will blow your mind: nhl gms are not good at their jobs

 

[CanaFan]

What?? A player's value is not innate if it can change the second he gets arrested or signs a bloated contract. It's actually the exact opposite. Maybe if everyone's DNA and memories could be analyzed with a supercomputer you could make that argument and it wouldn't be useless but we're not there yet.

Innate meaning qualities belonging to the player, which includes his "behaviour" and his contract.

This is the opposite of your view that the player has only extrinsic or acquired value, such as the price paid by a GM to acquire him.

Let me ask, if a player only has such value as the acquiring team paid, what value do the Sedins have? Since they have never been traded do they have any value? Do they have value but it is unknown? Are we incapable of estimating their value without Benning trading them first? In absence of any trades, is their default value the price we paid to acquire them in the first place, namely a 2nd and 3rd overall pick? Or has their value changed since then?

Please tell.

 

[Hit the post]

What?? A player's value is not innate if it can change the second he gets arrested or signs a bloated contract. It's actually the exact opposite. Maybe if everyone's DNA and memories could be analyzed with a supercomputer you could make that argument and it wouldn't be useless but we're not there yet.

I guess then Keith Ballard really was worth a 1st round pick + Grabner by that logic.

 

[PM]

guys, that just means weisbrod is in charge while JB and TL are on break...don't relax too much just yet

What could possibly go wrong with George Costanza at the helm.

 

[Hit the post]

What could possibly go wrong with George Costanza at the helm.

 

[geebaan]

lol you're actually defending the erat for forsberg trade

here's a thing that will blow your mind: nhl gms are not good at their jobs

I can't believe we've gotten to the point, where Benning is being defended because of the Erat trade this is getting to Stockholm syndrome levels.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

lol you're actually defending the erat for forsberg trade

here's a thing that will blow your mind: nhl gms are not good at their jobs

But it's GMs that set the market value of players. I have seen nothing that suggests Benning was only attempting to deal Shinkaruk to Calgary, thus shinkaruks call was likely set by a defined open market.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

I guess then Keith Ballard really was worth a 1st round pick + Grabner by that logic.

It was definitely a snap shot of what he was worth at the time.

 

[CanaFan]

But it's GMs that set the market value of players. I have seen nothing that suggests Benning was only attempting to deal Shinkaruk to Calgary, thus shinkaruks call was likely set by a defined open market.

Market value is not what we care about. If Benning traded Juolevi tomorrow for a 5th round pick would that be his "value", or just the grossly misguided opinion of one individual?

Value =/= Price

 

[ProstheticConscience]

????
What's with the response?

*sigh* Do you honestly think Raymond was the same player in 2010 than he was in 2013? Seriously.

*edit* Okay, I didn't mean to come off as snarky as I did and sorry if I pissed you off with the post you quoted, but the above question stands.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Market value is not what we care about. If Benning traded Juolevi tomorrow for a 5th round pick would that be his "value", or just the grossly misguided opinion of one individual?

Value =/= Price

That isn't how it works. If OJ is made widely available his Value amongst GMs would be known pretty quickly. You might be right if a GM is exclusively dealing with 1-2 GMs.

 

[DL44]

*sigh* Do you honestly think Raymond was the same player in 2010 than he was in 2013? Seriously.

That was my point you argumentative nut!

Read the first page of the 2013 Raymond thread I linked... you can see people were good with his performance level... in 2013!!

So obviously the fan base during his peak production season in 2010 were "ok" with the developing kid's work.

Sorry.. should of not assumed people could read between the lines.

I was AGREEING WITH YOU... Dick.

 

[CanaFan]

That isn't how it works. If OJ is made widely available his Value amongst GMs would be known pretty quickly. You might be right if a GM is exclusively dealing with 1-2 GMs.

That is how it works, otherwise there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" trade. By definition every trade is "perfectly balanced" if the player's "value" is only what you could get back.

Was Seguin worth exactly Eriksson+? Or was that poor value for Seguin?

What about Kessel for the pile of crap Pittsburgh gave up?

Thornton for Sturm, Stuart, and Primeau?

In each of those cases one team clearly fleeced the other, yet what you are proposing suggests "fleecing a team" is impossible, since the value they receive in trade is "all they are worth".

I think the mistake you are making is assuming that the NHL is an efficient market where GM's have perfect information and make rational decisions. They don't. They make misevaluations all the time, sometimes egregious ones, sometimes subtle ones.

But to assume that value = trade price is simplistic and just flat out incorrect.