Post-Game Talk: Last Pre-season Game. Canucks 3 @ Oilers 2 | (Post #430)

[BloatedGuppy]

The irony in berating people for writing off Markus Granlund as an asset after too small a sample size is that we're using a handful of preseason games as the evidence to bludgeon them with. The problem here isn't "Pro Markus Granlund" or "Anti Markus Granlund", the problem is posters making grandiose and authoritative projections on players based on small sample sizes.

I like how Granlund has looked this preseason and I'm cautiously optimistic, but I don't feel any better informed about what kind of player he's going to be 3 months or 3 years from now than I was at the end of last season when he limped along with the rest of the team through the year end collapse. I will say it's nice to see there's some talent in the package, and he's not quite the slug he appeared to be on paper. Maybe a little more Baertschi and a little less Vey. Would be consistent with Calgary's MO to abandon a reasonably skilled young player for a truculence deficiency. Mind you, it's not like Shinkaruk summons visions of Bob Probert.

Time will tell. I'd like to see how he produces against good teams, that defend well. Calgary iced an AHL lineup, and Edmonton is still Edmonton. He's slick and has good vision, but he's also smallish and not always terribly intense. Hopefully we can get him clicking as a winger, I don't see him flourishing as a 4th line center carrying Dorsett around.

 

[Nucker101]

oh really? i'm thinking you:

A) don't know what the market for Shinkaruk was

and

B) don't have the first clue how to value NHL hockey players

Oh yeah, my bad. I forgot that since Benning is a professional GM, it's impossible for him to make a mistake. Just like how players never screw up easy plays sometimes, just like how refs never miss calls, just like how coaches never make the wrong decisions, etc.

I'll go back ton just waiving my pom poms for the team and supporting everything blindly because hey, they're professionals!

JFC

 

[me2]

This was the first game that's actually been a proper test for a lot of our players. They weren't really ready for it, but they bounced back for a good third.

Stetcher was one of the only guys standing out in a positive light in the first two periods. He's gonna be a hard cut to make. Obviously not amazing defensively but he has such a positive effect on the ice when the Canucks have the puck. Really wish they'd played him with a guy like Sbisa or Tryamkin so we could get a better idea of the struggles when not paired with Edler.

Thought the Sedins have been kind of lazy perimeter players in their two preseason games. I don't really blame them though. These games don't matter and their game when they play hard really takes a physical toll along the boards.

Hopefully the pros are just in cruise mode.

Etem was really trying out there. Better than his previous preseason efforts. He was trying to be physical and hard on the forecheck. But it still just wasn't really good enough. Surprised he wasn't waved already. It's disappointing because he had such a positive end to last season.

He is done for now. AHL time.

Jake Virtanen was bad. Might have just earned himself a ticket to Utica. Wasn't moving his feet or being physical enough. It seemed perhaps that he wasn't processing the game fast enough out there.

He's not doing much. He is trying hard defensively and doing ok at asset that aspect but he looks like he's playing to not make mistakes. I'd like to see him play a few games on the left side to see if that sparks him or give him some pressure free time with Green in the AHL.

I like Gaunce's game. He had some issues tonight. But I just love the way he forechecks. Uses both his body and his stick together so effectively.

I liked his game too. He was causing the Edmonton D some problems when his size and determination.

Granlund's doing a lot of little things right out there and getting rewarded for it. Was a factor on all three goals tonight. He's just such a smart player.

The big issue for Granlund will consistently producing points to keep himself in the top 9. If he slumps he doesn't bring much else and he will get dropped down the lineup he doesn't make a good fit for the 4th line.

Is there any way we can just have Sbisa play only on the PK and Larsen only on the PP? Because that's all they're really good at. NHL needs to introduce new designated special teams player roster spots haha. It's bizarre to see Sbisa make several good clears on the PK where he doesn't even ice the puck and yet be so unable to do that 5v5.

I don't think anyone could argue with that pairing being bad. Benning needs to fix it.

Well you could play Larsen as a 4th line winger.


Seems Sutter is being used as an offensive specialist. 71% o zone faceoffs. Sedin 12.5%. Horvat 33%. Gaunce 0%. McDavid was 88%.

 

[David71]

good game by granlund. good speed scored a goal. nice husttle. so who gets cut? etem?virtanen. any dman?

 

[Zaddy91]

who scored the third goal

 

[Nomobo]

Is it possible? Sure I guess. Do I expect it? No. I think Horvat has shown more in his brief career than Granlund has and is a far more complete player in terms of what you want in a 2C. Maybe if Horvat and Sutter are injured at the same time then I could see Granlund there but that isn't really a situation any of us wants to see.

If it happens it happens, but I don't think the histories of Granlund and Horvat to-date make it all that likely.

Ok, baby steps then.

I realize that there hasn't been a lot to cheer for the last couple of seasons except for rooting for some of our better young players so I understand why you're so impressed by Horvat. You have to realize though that Horvat has been given a lot more opportunity to show his stuff, he was our no.2 center for most of last season and it became quickly apparent that he was in way over his head to the point that his defensive game deteriorated to record low levels, in other words, he had one of the worst numbers in the game. Compare that to Granlund's bouncing between the AHL and NHL and playing for the Flames where he was obviously not in Hartley's good books and was relegated to a minor role playing with players whose skill level was way below his. From what I've seen of both players, I feel that Granlund is a more well rounded player.

 

[racerjoe]

FINALLY.. 16 reg season games later.. FINALLY.. 16 long games..

Less than 16 gms required to write him off... 5-6 preseason plus 20-25 reg season games required before rethinking it.


(Don't worry tho.. I agree.. I've seen plenty of preseason warriors in my time... so I'm waiting to see carry over as well...
but just pointing out some comedy in the meanwhile)

I think the test will be when he runs into his first slump. He will start fine. The team generally does start well. But he will run into a cold streak, and that is when we will see if he really is an NHL player or not. He will either respond and still look good, and do the small things well, or go back to how he has looked most of his career.

Or maybe the trade was a good one and we ended up with a better player whose potential is being realized? You can't say what happens to shink doesn't matter. It does, and that is what makes a trade good or bad. It doesn't just have to be judged right away and that is the end of it.

I don't know how granlund is going to turn out for us, but he sure looks great right now.

Value is based on that snapshot of time. Look at my example. Or how about this one.

The oilers trade McDavid to us for Granlund. McDavid for whatever reasons busts out of the NHL. Granlund is a solid player for years in the NHL... does that mean Edm won that trade? No it doesn't

Value is based upon the point in time a trade is made.

Who is or becomes a better player is another story.

 

[Nomobo]

Oh yeah, my bad. I forgot that since Benning is a professional GM, it's impossible for him to make a mistake. Just like how players never screw up easy plays sometimes, just like how refs never miss calls, just like how coaches never make the wrong decisions, etc.

I'll go back ton just waiving my pom poms for the team and supporting everything blindly because hey, they're professionals!

JFC

It's just as likely that Calgary's GM made the mistake, isn't it?

So are you condemning the trade because it was Benning who made the deal?

 

[Nomobo]

I think the test will be when he runs into his first slump. He will start fine. The team generally does start well. But he will run into a cold streak, and that is when we will see if he really is an NHL player or not. He will either respond and still look good, and do the small things well, or go back to how he has looked most of his career.



Value is based on that snapshot of time. Look at my example. Or how about this one.

The oilers trade McDavid to us for Granlund. McDavid for whatever reasons busts out of the NHL. Granlund is a solid player for years in the NHL... does that mean Edm won that trade? No it doesn't

Value is based upon the point in time a trade is made.

Who is or becomes a better player is another story.

All 101 games?

 

[Pip]

Ok, baby steps then.

I realize that there hasn't been a lot to cheer for the last couple of seasons except for rooting for some of our better young players so I understand why you're so impressed by Horvat. You have to realize though that Horvat has been given a lot more opportunity to show his stuff, he was our no.2 center for most of last season and it became quickly apparent that he was in way over his head to the point that his defensive game deteriorated to record low levels, in other words, he had one of the worst numbers in the game. Compare that to Granlund's bouncing between the AHL and NHL and playing for the Flames where he was obviously not in Hartley's good books and was relegated to a minor role playing with players whose skill level was way below his. From what I've seen of both players, I feel that Granlund is a more well rounded player.

Horvat wasn't handed the second line role. He started on the fourth line in his rookie year and worked his way up. He struggled early last year but rebounded and had a great second half of the season.

 

[The Drop]

Where would you play Granlund to get the most out of him?

In the AHL. Where he belongs.

 

[Nomobo]

I think the test will be when he runs into his first slump. He will start fine. The team generally does start well. But he will run into a cold streak, and that is when we will see if he really is an NHL player or not. He will either respond and still look good, and do the small things well, or go back to how he has looked most of his career.



Value is based on that snapshot of time. Look at my example. Or how about this one.

The oilers trade McDavid to us for Granlund. McDavid for whatever reasons busts out of the NHL. Granlund is a solid player for years in the NHL... does that mean Edm won that trade? No it doesn't



Value is based upon the point in time a trade is made.

Who is or becomes a better player is another story.

Edmonton won the trade. They knew he wasn't going to pan out and they saw in Granlund a player that would help them. They also knew that even though Mcdavid was extremely hyped, there was no way they could hide the flaws in MCDavid's game from the other 29 GM's so they took Granlund who was a good player for them for years.


Good story eh?

Value is totally subjective at the point in time.

 

[Nomobo]

Horvat wasn't handed the second line role. He started on the fourth line in his rookie year and worked his way up. He struggled early last year but rebounded and had a great second half of the season.

He was handed the second line because Sutter got injured and he was in over his head. Sutter was going to be the 2nd line pivot.

 

[Nomobo]

In the AHL. Where he belongs.

Brilliant, thanks for that.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

The irony in berating people for writing off Markus Granlund as an asset after too small a sample size is that we're using a handful of preseason games as the evidence to bludgeon them with. The problem here isn't "Pro Markus Granlund" or "Anti Markus Granlund", the problem is posters making grandiose and authoritative projections on players based on small sample sizes.

Granlund's detractors are basing it on his 102 NHL games.

Granlund's newest drove of #1 fans are basing it on 3 exhibition games.

Not exactly the same thing.

 

[Shareefruck]

[/B]

Edmonton won the trade. They knew he wasn't going to pan out and they saw in Granlund a player that would help them. They also knew that even though Mcdavid was extremely hyped, there was no way they could hide the flaws in MCDavid's game from the other 29 GM's so they took Granlund who was a good player for them for years.


Good story eh?

Value is totally subjective at the point in time.

Perceived value is not subjective, at least not in the sense that you're arguing. It may not be accurate relative to the ultimate outcome, but the difference in perceived value itself is undeniable. Even if the GM knew that McDavid would bust, he would still be an idiot making a horrible trade if the only thing that he had the forsight to get for the massive perceived value of McDavid is Granlund, regardless of which one actually turns out to be better. Even if you were shrewd enough to know that Granlund would turn out to be a superstar, unbeknownst to everyone else, it would still be a missed opportunity considering that you could realistically and conservatively get Granlund + several 1st round picks for McDavid.

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

He was handed the second line because Sutter got injured and he was in over his head. Sutter was going to be the 2nd line pivot.

Your views exist in a different reality than mine. Neat.

Granlund >>>>> Sutter and Horvat. Preseason proved it. We can all go home now. Forums done.

 

[Nick Lang]

Is it just me, but is Larsen an NHL d-man?......but looks like he'd been gifted a spot....if Stecher ends up in Utica, he's going to be a treat to watch.

I thought Larsen played fairly well for early expectations. He made some pretty good d plays when the top Oilers players were cycling. He also seemed to be able to jump behind the net early enough to engage attackers before they can set up the net front play which surprised me a bit.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Your views exist in a different reality than mine. Neat.

Granlund >>>>> Sutter and Horvat. Preseason proved it. We can all go home now. Forums done.

Fedor Fedorov is finally gonna win the Calder this year. I can feel it.

 

[Nucker101]

It's just as likely that Calgary's GM made the mistake, isn't it?

So are you condemning the trade because it was Benning who made the deal?

Read my original post, nowhere did I say that the trade's winner/loser has been determined. I just simply stated that it's understandable that people want to criticize the trade because Benning seemingly paid more than many would have expected for Granlund, who seemed like someone who was no longer in Calgary's plans and was waiver eligible this year. Shinkaruk was waiver exempt this year so Benning had time and leverage on his side to squeeze more out of the Flames.

 

[Nomobo]

Perceived value is not subjective, at least not in the sense that you're arguing. It may not be accurate relative to the outcome, but the difference in perceived value itself is undeniable. Even if the GM knew that McDavid would bust, he would still be an idiot making a horrible trade if the only thing that he had the forsight to get for the massive perceived value of McDavid is Granlund, regardless of which one actually turns out to be better.

Read the story again. There was no massive perceived value because the flaws were apparent to the other GM's. At best he was a lottery ticket, he might be able to overcome those flaws but consensus was that chances were slim.

 

[Shareefruck]

Read the story again. There was no massive perceived value because the flaws were apparent to the other GM's. At best he was a lottery ticket, he might be able to overcome those flaws but consensus was that chances were slim.

Jesus Christ.

So you're taking the initiative to change the analogy so that McDavid no longer has any perceived value, thus leaving no point in using McDavid in the analogy in the first place?

 

[Nomobo]

Read my original post, nowhere did I say that the trade's winner/loser has been determined. I just simply stated that it's understandable that people want to criticize the trade because Benning seemingly paid more than many would have expected for Granlund, who seemed like someone who was no longer in Calgary's plans and was waiver eligible this year. Shinkaruk was waiver exempt this year so Benning had time and leverage on his side to squeeze more out of the Flames.

Sorry, I didn't read your original post.

Obviously Benning saw more value in Granlund than the posters on this board and the cost was worth it. He didn't want to drag it out for fear of not getting him. I'm not saying this is what occurred but trying to find a logical explanation for it because let's face it, we'll never know.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Granlund's detractors are basing it on his 102 NHL games.

Granlund's newest drove of #1 fans are basing it on 3 exhibition games.

Not exactly the same thing.

That one sample size is small and the other is extremely small does not alter the reality that both are making projections based off small sample sizes, involving a young player few had seen play in any meaningful capacity.

Honestly, suggesting that 102 games forms the bedrock for airtight projections is straying into the realm of special pleading. Anyone writing Granlund off based on 102 games was jumping to conclusions, full stop. Anyone swearing him in as the new local star after 3 preseason games are engaging in the same knee jerk behavior.

Value is based upon the point in time a trade is made.

Who is or becomes a better player is another story.

That's fair, and I think a reasonable argument can be made that the trade was questionable on the value front at the time it was made.

That said, Bonose also has a point that the occupants of this forum fancy themselves unerring arbiters of value when it comes to NHL players, and reality does not always support those assertions. Whether any given poster is better at valuating players than our current GM is of course open to debate, but I think taking the word of the posters themselves on the subject as writ is rather deeply comical.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

That one sample size is small and the other is extremely small does not alter the reality that both are making projections based off small sample sizes, involving a young player few had seen play in any meaningful capacity.

Honestly, suggesting that 102 games forms the bedrock for airtight projections is straying into the realm of special pleading. Anyone writing Granlund off based on 102 games was jumping to conclusions, full stop. Anyone swearing him in as the new local star after 3 preseason games are engaging in the same knee jerk behavior.

I don't agree. Magnitude matters. There is no magic line where a sample becomes meaningful. A sample of 102 nhl games is far more meaningful than a sample of a couple exhibition games. Is it bulletproof? Of course not, but Id weight it at about 100x