Player Discussion The Bad Granlund Phenomenon Part 4 (mod warning post #393)

[LeftCoast]

Please do elaborate.

I'll take a stab. It's because /60 stats are almost always used to make an ice time argument - "If player X had more/less ice time he would produce more/less". However this hides a pretty important causal consideration. In research / statistics this is the correlation / causation problem. Does ice time determine performance or vice versa?

Taken to an extreme, the former would say that any AHL level talent, given first line minutes and PP time should produce at a first line level. Or put another way - skill doesn't matter. Clearly this is not the case.

The latter (performance determines ice time) is more rational, but it still has problems because on any team there are players who are performing and earning ice time according to the criteria the coach demands of them, but sometimes this performance doesn't translate into measurable stats. This is particularly true for defensive performance because hockey lacks a really good metric for defensive play.

 

[Canucks LB]

I liked him all last year, now this year he is becoming one of my favorite players to watch on the whole team.

Just love the unique aspects of his game, especially his versatility.

 

[TruGr1t]

I have been critical of him due to the fact he wilts when things get physical and fails to engage in puck battles. He's got a sneaky shot, though, and he appears to be developing an intriguing upside on the defensive side of the puck.

If he wants a long NHL career that's where he's gonna make his hay. Keep it up with the shutdown work and he'll be a valuable player. He's never going to be a top-six offensive player, but he looks like he could develop into a really good third-liner.

 

[DL44]

Mikael Backlund type ceiling seems attainable.

 

[Grantham]

Agreed, I think having a brother that talented surely helps in offseason training etc.

I liked him last year, but he seems to have taken another step forward this year. There was a battle level that he showed against the Oilers and in the last season that is typical of his brother.

I’m glad to have this ‘Swiss army knife’ player on our team

 

[Jay Cee]

I always thought that for a guy with "skill" upside he has a pretty complete game. That's how they raise those Finns really.

I always thought he seemed like he had some tools on the offensive side of the puck but he always seemed like he was trying to do too much and be too shifty. I noticed a lot calmer side to his overall game so far this year. It is early though.

 

[WTG]

I like this new approach of Granlund.

Less physical more positional. Seems to use his smarts more, it's really working to his advantage imo. There have been several times in the games so far I've seen Granlund position himself incredibly well to easily intercept a puck or block a pass.

 

[terrible dee]

I'll take a stab. It's because /60 stats are almost always used to make an ice time argument - "If player X had more/less ice time he would produce more/less". However this hides a pretty important causal consideration. In research / statistics this is the correlation / causation problem. Does ice time determine performance or vice versa?

Taken to an extreme, the former would say that any AHL level talent, given first line minutes and PP time should produce at a first line level. Or put another way - skill doesn't matter. Clearly this is not the case.

The latter (performance determines ice time) is more rational, but it still has problems because on any team there are players who are performing and earning ice time according to the criteria the coach demands of them, but sometimes this performance doesn't translate into measurable stats. This is particularly true for defensive performance because hockey lacks a really good metric for defensive play.

Players need a perfect storm of momentum and opportunity, to be more than what you thought or exactly what they thought they were.

Players don't stay at one level of play, they cycle up and down based on their natural talents, their confidence in themselves and the perception of their ability by those around them.

A player who is say, a 7/10 may get an opportunity for prime ice time while he is cycling closer to his basement performance level at 4/10. He gets some shifts, does nothing, that reinforces the opinion of those around him that he's actually a 4/10 and then he believes he may be as well. Now he will find it harder to get an opportunity to prove he's a 7 and if he does get one, his confidence will be lower and his chance of success reduced.

This is why they say never get too high or low in sports (or life) you want to avoid being n a funk when opportunity knocks.

Some players will get lucky and break through their ceiling, take Burrows. He's not someone who would have been thought of as a 30 goal guy (Or even an NHL guy) but his greatest asset was his passion for the game, That passion earned him opportunities that were well above his pay grade, playing with the Sedins created artificial confidence in himself that he could be a top line NHL scorer, as soon as he had the confidence all former judgments about what he could and couldn't do were off.

But Burrows could have been a career ECHL'er as well, but right place right time.....

....so what is Granland? I don't know, and neither does he, neither does Travis Green I think, he was the last in a long line of "Sedin created" offensive mirages, but last season with everyone obsessed with their decline, nobody bothered noticing they were doing it again with someone else, if it weren't for the Sedins we wouldn't even be talking about this, he would be on waivers, but now that he has some confidence, he's more than he was when he came here, so much is riding on every game for him right now, as he could go one way or another on a dime based on whether he gets any points. If he does, without the Sedins the confidence will grow exponentially and we'll see another player altogether. If he does not....

....So I think the main point with Granlund right now, is that it's not possible to say he's this or he's that, he is both creating himself and being created as a player right in front of our eyes, it could go one way or the other in the blink of an eye.

But I will say this: These are THE most important games of his career, players like this if they go back to press/box/minors/waiver types will never recover, on the other side of things he has the oportunity to establish himself as the real deal and never look back

We will see

 

[Canucks LB]

Mikael Backlund type ceiling seems attainable.

That is a spot on comparison

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Players need a perfect storm of momentum and opportunity, to be more than what you thought or exactly what they thought they were.

Players don't stay at one level of play, they cycle up and down based on their natural talents, their confidence in themselves and the perception of their ability by those around them.

A player who is say, a 7/10 may get an opportunity for prime ice time while he is cycling closer to his basement performance level at 4/10. He gets some shifts, does nothing, that reinforces the opinion of those around him that he's actually a 4/10 and then he believes he may be as well. Now he will find it harder to get an opportunity to prove he's a 7 and if he does get one, his confidence will be lower and his chance of success reduced.

This is why they say never get too high or low in sports (or life) you want to avoid being n a funk when opportunity knocks.

Some players will get lucky and break through their ceiling, take Burrows. He's not someone who would have been thought of as a 30 goal guy (Or even an NHL guy) but his greatest asset was his passion for the game, That passion earned him opportunities that were well above his pay grade, playing with the Sedins created artificial confidence in himself that he could be a top line NHL scorer, as soon as he had the confidence all former judgments about what he could and couldn't do were off.

But Burrows could have been a career ECHL'er as well, but right place right time.....

....so what is Granland? I don't know, and neither does he, neither does Travis Green I think, he was the last in a long line of "Sedin created" offensive mirages, but last season with everyone obsessed with their decline, nobody bothered noticing they were doing it again with someone else, if it weren't for the Sedins we wouldn't even be talking about this, he would be on waivers, but now that he has some confidence, he's more than he was when he came here, so much is riding on every game for him right now, as he could go one way or another on a dime based on whether he gets any points. If he does, without the Sedins the confidence will grow exponentially and we'll see another player altogether. If he does not....

....So I think the main point with Granlund right now, is that it's not possible to say he's this or he's that, he is both creating himself and being created as a player right in front of our eyes, it could go one way or the other in the blink of an eye.

But I will say this: These are THE most important games of his career, players like this if they go back to press/box/minors/waiver types will never recover, on the other side of things he has the oportunity to establish himself as the real deal and never look back

We will see

You obviously didn't hear L0uie Debrusk talking about Greens initial impressions of Markus Granlund on HNIC...Very complimentary indeed....

The rest of your post ?..he could be a great player or a crappy player in the blink of an eye..?...You're talking about half of the players in the league.

 

[terrible dee]

You obviously didn't hear L0uie Debrusk talking about Greens initial impressions of Markus Granlund on HNIC...Very complimentary indeed....

The rest of your post ?..he could be a great player or a crappy player in the blink of an eye..?...You're talking about half of the players in the league.

Yes, I am

That's exactly what I was saying.......that's why I said it

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I'll take a stab. It's because /60 stats are almost always used to make an ice time argument - "If player X had more/less ice time he would produce more/less". However this hides a pretty important causal consideration. In research / statistics this is the correlation / causation problem. Does ice time determine performance or vice versa?

Taken to an extreme, the former would say that any AHL level talent, given first line minutes and PP time should produce at a first line level. Or put another way - skill doesn't matter. Clearly this is not the case.

The latter (performance determines ice time) is more rational, but it still has problems because on any team there are players who are performing and earning ice time according to the criteria the coach demands of them, but sometimes this performance doesn't translate into measurable stats. This is particularly true for defensive performance because hockey lacks a really good metric for defensive play.

Thx for the answer!

Most stats can be miss-leading or used to make arguments they are not suited to back in a substantial matter.

 

[TruGr1t]

He actually reminds of of a slightly larger, and better skating, Kyle Wellwood.

 

[Nomobo]

Granlund was one of out more dangerous forwards vs Ottawa. Like to see him play center with some talent on the wings.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

....so what is Granland? I don't know, and neither does he, neither does Travis Green I think, he was the last in a long line of "Sedin created" offensive mirages, but last season with everyone obsessed with their decline, nobody bothered noticing they were doing it again with someone else, if it weren't for the Sedins we wouldn't even be talking about this, he would be on waivers, but now that he has some confidence, he's more than he was when he came here, so much is riding on every game for him right now, as he could go one way or another on a dime based on whether he gets any points. If he does, without the Sedins the confidence will grow exponentially and we'll see another player altogether. If he does not....

Nope. The Sedins didn't assist on a single Granlund goal until the 60th game of the season. They both assisted on 4 of his 19 goals. The same 4 goals. Whatever Granlund is, he's most certainly not a product of the Sedins.

I don't know how you could have even watched much Canuck hockey last year and come to this conclusion. It would make more sense to say he's a product of Sutter and Eriksson because that's who played with most of the year. Even Brandon "no assists" Sutter, had more assists on Granlund goals than either Sedin.

Granlund barely played a dozen games with the Sedins (and he was almost never on the same PP unit either), before he had to shut it down with wrist injury.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Granlund was one of out more dangerous forwards vs Ottawa. Like to see him play center with some talent on the wings.

I was thinking during the game I wish they'd just switch him and Eriksson. Whatever good qualities Eriksson has, I don't think anyone would consider him a crafty or creative offensive player, which Granlund can be at times.

So we end up with a 13M$ dollar checking line, it's not like we can redo those contracts now. Whoever helps Bo the most, should be playing on his wings imo. Sven might be struggling a bit but at least there's a history of chemistry there, i'm just not seeing it with Loui.

 

[Tables of Stats]

For Ronning On Empty:

My thoughts on the Grandlund trade are predicated on the following points:

1) Shinkaruk's was not increasing in value when he was traded. His value was low after his poor D+1 season in the AHL and his D+2 season going less than PPG didn't do much to improve it. This means that I did not at the time see Shinkaruk as an asset that was increasing in value as to increase in value, to me, would mean to be worth more than the late 1st rounder we used to acquire him. Personally, I see his value at the time of the trade as close to a late 2nd round pick or an early 3rd.

2) Calgary had mishandled Granlund as they had with Baertschi. I don't think it can be debated that Calgary didn't know what to do with prospects that looked to be 2nd/3rd line tweeners. With Baertschi it seemed like they wanted to coach his offense out of him and with Granlund they saw him as a depth center instead of a middle six winger. As such, they failed to get the most out of Granlund and ignored the flashes of good play he had. This means that combined with his good AHL numbers, increased size versus Shinkaruk, and enhanced development due to being older than Shinkaruk I value Granlund as being more likely to make the NHL as a middle six winger than Shinkaruk who I saw as top-6 or bust.

3) Granlund couldn't be counted on as a free asset. While Granlund may have been waved some 8 months after we traded for him we couldn't have been sure of getting him. For one, we couldn't be sure which teams might finish below us as the season had enough time left that standings at the bottom of the league could have changed significantly. Also, if we stood firm on trying to get him for free/lesser assets another team may have traded for him leaving us holding onto an obviously unwanted Shinkaruk.

4) Granlund is not a finished product. Granlund at 24 is only a year older than Shinkaruk and likely hasn't yet played his best NHL season yet. This means that we may yet find that we turned a busted prospect into an average 2nd liner who can PK, line up as a PP shooter, and slide between your bottom three lines as matchups dictate.

5) We traded Shinkaruk for above the expected value of a late 2nd early 3rd round pick (51-15 to 61-70) on [url=http://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-expected-value-of-nhl-draft-picks-1.317819]this list[/url]. These picks have about a 30% chance of becoming a player and those players tend to end up closer to Granlund than anything better. Even at the time Granlund wasn't tracking to bust out of the NHL so trading for him lowered the ceiling of our potential assets while raising the floor to close to an 80% chance of at least getting another 100 above replacement level NHL games out of Granlund.

6) HFBoards overvalues draft picks. The odds of getting even a top 50% second liner from a second round pick is less than even the 35% odds of getting a 100 game NHL player from that pick. Another way to look at the draft, outside of top 15 picks, is to look at what the player drafted there would be worth 2 years later. Doing this it's easy to see that most second round picks don't retain value well let alone lower round picks. While it's true that every rare while you pull a Zetterberg or a Hansen from very late picks, or get a Shea Webber from a 2nd rounder these are exceptions to the rule and we should seek a mix of scratching tickets and trading them for higher odds of getting any hit at all.

7) We can still trade Granlund for close to Shinkaruk's expected value from the original trade. An asset like Granlund who's shown versatility, potted ~20 goals, and who had above average advanced stats on an awful Canuck team last season is the type of asset teams making a playoff run want to add to their third line. Depending on how he does this season Granlund could easily be worth a 2nd round pick or a later pick and a weak/late-blooming prospect as soon as this TDL.

In short, I feel that Shink was a declining asset which we traded for an ascending one.

 

[Knight53]

I was wrong on this kid. Thought he was just one of those players where he isn't skilled enough to be in the top 6 and too weak defensively/physically to be in the bottom 6. He has improved leaps and bounds as a player over the last 2 years and is actually pretty good. Consistent in his performance every game. Really smart with an active stick, and decent poise with the puck. Can't really say anything bad about him so far in these 4 games and going back late last season, unlike many other players. IMO he's a tweener right now and I don't know how much more he'll grow as a player but there is nothing wrong with that. If you can sign him for 2-3 years at 3 million or so that would be smart.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

He actually reminds of of a slightly larger, and better skating, Kyle Wellwood.

That's actually not a bad comparable if you take out Wellwood actually being good at faceoffs.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I'll take a stab. It's because /60 stats are almost always used to make an ice time argument - "If player X had more/less ice time he would produce more/less". However this hides a pretty important causal consideration. In research / statistics this is the correlation / causation problem. Does ice time determine performance or vice versa?

Taken to an extreme, the former would say that any AHL level talent, given first line minutes and PP time should produce at a first line level. Or put another way - skill doesn't matter. Clearly this is not the case.

The latter (performance determines ice time) is more rational, but it still has problems because on any team there are players who are performing and earning ice time according to the criteria the coach demands of them, but sometimes this performance doesn't translate into measurable stats. This is particularly true for defensive performance because hockey lacks a really good metric for defensive play.

Shot suppression rates and a low GA/60 are good indicators for defensive play.

While I agree that P/60 stats can sometimes be misused, that's not a reason to dismiss the use of P/60. There are very compelling arguments to be made using rate statistics. Made by stats user who know how to parse the data properly. That in no way should get lumped into 'all p/60 arguments are bothersome'.

Lastly, I don't think the suggestion of increasing ice time is so much correlation/causation as it is linear progression. Production rates do not increase/decrease linearly with ice time. Production is likely to increase overall with increased ice-time, though. So while I understand that player X will not carry over his rate and produce at a 1st line level, given 1st line ice time, player X should definitely see an increase in overall production given increased ice-time. And if player X's production rate (p/60) is already high with limited ice, it bodes well to when that ice time is no longer as limited.

 

[Bleach Clean]

For Ronning On Empty:

My thoughts on the Grandlund trade are predicated on the following points:

1) Shinkaruk's was not increasing in value when he was traded. His value was low after his poor D+1 season in the AHL and his D+2 season going less than PPG didn't do much to improve it. This means that I did not at the time see Shinkaruk as an asset that was increasing in value as to increase in value, to me, would mean to be worth more than the late 1st rounder we used to acquire him. Personally, I see his value at the time of the trade as close to a late 2nd round pick or an early 3rd.

2) Calgary had mishandled Granlund as they had with Baertschi. I don't think it can be debated that Calgary didn't know what to do with prospects that looked to be 2nd/3rd line tweeners. With Baertschi it seemed like they wanted to coach his offense out of him and with Granlund they saw him as a depth center instead of a middle six winger. As such, they failed to get the most out of Granlund and ignored the flashes of good play he had. This means that combined with his good AHL numbers, increased size versus Shinkaruk, and enhanced development due to being older than Shinkaruk I value Granlund as being more likely to make the NHL as a middle six winger than Shinkaruk who I saw as top-6 or bust.

3) Granlund couldn't be counted on as a free asset. While Granlund may have been waved some 8 months after we traded for him we couldn't have been sure of getting him. For one, we couldn't be sure which teams might finish below us as the season had enough time left that standings at the bottom of the league could have changed significantly. Also, if we stood firm on trying to get him for free/lesser assets another team may have traded for him leaving us holding onto an obviously unwanted Shinkaruk.

4) Granlund is not a finished product. Granlund at 24 is only a year older than Shinkaruk and likely hasn't yet played his best NHL season yet. This means that we may yet find that we turned a busted prospect into an average 2nd liner who can PK, line up as a PP shooter, and slide between your bottom three lines as matchups dictate.

5) We traded Shinkaruk for above the expected value of a late 2nd early 3rd round pick (51-15 to 61-70) on [url=http://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-expected-value-of-nhl-draft-picks-1.317819]this list[/url]. These picks have about a 30% chance of becoming a player and those players tend to end up closer to Granlund than anything better. Even at the time Granlund wasn't tracking to bust out of the NHL so trading for him lowered the ceiling of our potential assets while raising the floor to close to an 80% chance of at least getting another 100 above replacement level NHL games out of Granlund.

6) HFBoards overvalues draft picks. The odds of getting even a top 50% second liner from a second round pick is less than even the 35% odds of getting a 100 game NHL player from that pick. Another way to look at the draft, outside of top 15 picks, is to look at what the player drafted there would be worth 2 years later. Doing this it's easy to see that most second round picks don't retain value well let alone lower round picks. While it's true that every rare while you pull a Zetterberg or a Hansen from very late picks, or get a Shea Webber from a 2nd rounder these are exceptions to the rule and we should seek a mix of scratching tickets and trading them for higher odds of getting any hit at all.

7) We can still trade Granlund for close to Shinkaruk's expected value from the original trade. An asset like Granlund who's shown versatility, potted ~20 goals, and who had above average advanced stats on an awful Canuck team last season is the type of asset teams making a playoff run want to add to their third line. Depending on how he does this season Granlund could easily be worth a 2nd round pick or a later pick and a weak/late-blooming prospect as soon as this TDL.

In short, I feel that Shink was a declining asset which we traded for an ascending one.

To answer:

1) Shinkaruk's value was probably lower than the late 1st rounder it took to get him. However, this is true of many prospects that have not yet cracked NHL rosters. This isn't unique to Shinkaruk. It's similar to what Goldobin is being viewed as now, for example.

2) Granlund was more likely to convert to the NHL simply due to his 2way game. This was known at the time of trade. The more advanced fringe NHLer was traded for the AHL winger with offensive upside. That's the base. Now, alter that base to include Granlund's pending waiver situation and CGY's 'mishandling' of said player. Do you think these points would affect his value in trade?

3) If another team wants Granlund, that's fine. If VAN doesn't get him for free, that's also fine. The point is that Benning didn't need to chase the free-falling Granlund. Fringe NHL assets are usually not worth outbidding yourself to get... Let alone giving up one of your organization's top prospects, wanted or unwanted.

4) Irrelevant to the evaluation of the trade as it was made.

5) "lowered the ceiling of our potential assets while raising the floor" is why many posters had a problem with the process of the trade: The former better serves the ideal of a rebuild, while the latter better serves a re-tool. But really, simply waiting would have put Benning in a position to not have to choose. The clock was running on Granlund while Shinkaruk had time.

6) A mixed strategy is fine if you still have a GM focused on pick frequency as the top priority. Benning is not that GM. If a 2nd round pick grants 35% odds at getting a decent NHL player, what do two 2nd round picks grant? With these odds, 1 out of every 3 2nd rounders hits the benchmark. So 10 players in that round. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable with 2 chances at hitting on one of those 10 players instead of 1 chance (or none)? I know I would. So it's not so much that picks are overvalued at HF, it's that the effect of pick frequency doesn't really register with fans in general.

7) Again, irrelevant to the evaluation of the trade at the time.


You make some solid points Norade. The key differences in how we evaluate this deal are that I put a greater emphasis on negotiating position, how each player was trending at the time, contract status and pick frequency. I completely understand your point about trading off for the surer asset. While I do think there is a kind of market inefficiency in trading picks for high-skilled fringe assets, Benning's team was never in a position to employ this strategy to the greatest effect. In a rebuild, picks have to be the priority. There's no shortcut.

 

[racerjoe]

To answer:

1) Shinkaruk's value was probably lower than the late 1st rounder it took to get him. However, this is true of many prospects that have not yet cracked NHL rosters. This isn't unique to Shinkaruk. It's similar to what Goldobin is being viewed as now, for example.

2) Granlund was more likely to convert to the NHL simply due to his 2way game. This was known at the time of trade. The more advanced fringe NHLer was traded for the AHL winger with offensive upside. That's the base. Now, alter that base to include Granlund's pending waiver situation and CGY's 'mishandling' of said player. Do you think these points would affect his value in trade?

3) If another team wants Granlund, that's fine. If VAN doesn't get him for free, that's also fine. The point is that Benning didn't need to chase the free-falling Granlund. Fringe NHL assets are usually not worth outbidding yourself to get... Let alone giving up one of your organization's top prospects, wanted or unwanted.

4) Irrelevant to the evaluation of the trade as it was made.

5) "lowered the ceiling of our potential assets while raising the floor" is why many posters had a problem with the process of the trade: The former better serves the ideal of a rebuild, while the latter better serves a re-tool. But really, simply waiting would have put Benning in a position to not have to choose. The clock was running on Granlund while Shinkaruk had time.

6) A mixed strategy is fine if you still have a GM focused on pick frequency as the top priority. Benning is not that GM. If a 2nd round pick grants 35% odds add getting a decent NHL player, what do two 2nd round picks grant? With these odds, 1 out of ever 3 2nd rounders hits the benchmark. So 10 players in that round. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable with 2 chances at hitting on one of those 10 players instead of 1 chance (or none)? I know I would. So it's not so much that picks are overvalued at HF, it's that the effect of pick frequency doesn't really register with fans in general.

7) Again, irrelevant to the evaluation of the trade at the time.


You make some solid points Norade. The key differences in how we evaluate this deal are that I put a greater emphasis on negotiating position, how each player was trending at the time, contract status and pick frequency. I completely understand your point about trading off for the surer asset. While I do think there is a kind of market inefficiency in trading picks for high-skilled fringe assets, Benning's team was never in a position to employ this strategy to the greatest effect. In a rebuild, picks have to be the priority. There's no shortcut.

Sorry to jump in here guys;

But this seems to be the main sticking point for most people when talking to or about this trade and what has transpired. I admit I have probably sold Granlund a bit short as a player, and he is probably better than I expected. This does not change my view of the trade though. Value is taken in a snapshot of time. In rare cases like say Hodgson for Kassian it is value of TBD. For the most part though it is this is how much X cost vs how much Y cost. Granlund was and or is the type of player a rebuilding or a building team in general should not pay to get. You can pick these guys up for free. great hidden gems if you draft one, but your primary goal is to find players you can BUILD around and if you are building around Granlund your team is never going to be good.

 

[vancityluongo]

It's ridiculous that this discussion is still going on. The premise is still really, really simple.

At the time of the trade, most people who argued against the trade would put the expected probability of Shinkaruk being a top-6 NHL player above the expected probability of Granlund reaching that same level. Let's say for shits and giggles that E(Ps) = 0.40 and E(Pg) = 0.30. Obviously none of these numbers are empirical but that's generally what my perception of each player would have been. Fast forward a year and a half, and those numbers have definitely changed. Shinkaruk is probably down to a 15% shot, while Granlund is up to around 70%. Great! But is it?

It continues to be the wrong move to trade a 40% probability player for a 30% one. An easy extrapolation of this example is that someone like Andrei Svechnikov currently has a 95% probability projection, while Cole Cassels is damn near 0%. If Vegas trades what ends up being the 2nd overall pick to take Svechnikov for Cassels, that's a terrible f***ing trade, no matter how it pans out. Cassels could find that McDavid shutdown magic out of nowhere and go on to become an elite defensive player while Svechnikov could simply become the next Nik Zherdev. But based on current probabilities, that would be an outrageous outcome.

It was always feasible that this trade would work out as it did, but the odds were not in favour of it doing so. The numbers above were picked because it was probably most likely that neither would cut it in full-time NHL roles, so props to Granlund for significantly improving on his projection by taking advantage of opportunities. But maybe more importantly than the trade in a vacuum, it continued a trend (that has since continued) of Benning giving up more in a trade than what the consensus around here perceived to be market value. Maybe the above is flat out wrong, and smart hockey people would have pegged Shinkaruk and Granlund equally at 40%. Or maybe the gap is even larger, and one was better than the other by a 20% margin rather than 10%. No one can say for sure, but I still have yet to see a well evidenced argument of how comparable 23 year olds worked out to be better *on average* than 22 year old players that were in Shinkaruk's position. In other words, what is the best approximation of the expected probability of both of those players? Over the past year and a half of this discussion, I have mostly seen it as being similar to the numbers above.

That doesn't mean that there aren't other factors obviously (upside, attitude, style fit, etc.); this is certainly an oversimplification of the argument. As well, if a GM with a proven track record is taking risks on differences of 5% or so, I could easily accept that as being within the reasonable realm of moves to make to extract value beyond what the market consensus dictates. Not every transaction is going to be a 40% consensus player for another 40% consensus player.

Bac to Granlund; he does genuinely look better on the ice this year. I stick by my preseason prediction that he would improve his game, but due to an ice-time reduction post essentially the same numbers as last year, leading to "I told you so" comments from both supporters and detractors of the trade.

 

[y2kcanucks]

6 games in, leads Canuck forwards in ice-time. Offensively though he's looked great...those 0 goals he's put up have really been clutch. Not much of a goal scorer though, we're really seeing his playmaking skills with his 0 assists and all. Jake Virtanen is the only other Canuck forward to have 0 points after the first 6 games, and he's hardly played. I told ya so.

 

[The Drop]

6 games in, leads Canuck forwards in ice-time. Offensively though he's looked great...those 0 goals he's put up have really been clutch. Not much of a goal scorer though, we're really seeing his playmaking skills with his 0 assists and all. Jake Virtanen is the only other Canuck forward to have 0 points after the first 6 games, and he's hardly played. I told ya so.

Amazing how versatile he is and his elite defensive play on those PKs