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

Status
Not open for further replies.

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,626
5,890
It's ridiculous that this discussion is still going on. The premise is still really, really simple.

It continues to be the wrong move to trade a 40% probability player for a 30% one.

It's ridiculous because there are still posters who argue that this is the wrong move when nobody in their right mind would trade Granlund for Shinkaruk right now. Apparently, Thomas Edison got kicked out of school for being addled. Yet, we are suppose to base everything on probability of high potential?

And you're ignoring the fact that Granlund had outproduced Shinkaruk at the AHL level and had shown more at the NHL level. The probability that Granlund was an NHL player was > Shinkaruk. Plenty of penny stocks have a bigger probability of doubling your investment than bank stocks.

It was always feasible that this trade would work out as it did, but the odds were not in favour of it doing so.

According to who? In terms of being an NHL player, Granlund clearly had the odds in his favour. He was in the NHL player at the time of the trade who could play on the 4th line at the very least. Shinkaruk was at the time of the trade still a top 6 or bust player.

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.

Huh? This was actually a low risk move. The GM traded a "prospect" who he didn't think will ever develop into an NHL player for an NHL player who he thinks has upside.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
I know people have been giving him a break because he's played alright defensively, but it is pretty tough to play 18 minutes a night for six games and not register a point. Neat trick.
 

Peen

Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
Oct 6, 2013
29,639
24,983
I know people have been giving him a break because he's played alright defensively, but it is pretty tough to play 18 minutes a night for six games and not register a point. Neat trick.


The Gaunce complex. Hes playing better than he was last year. Overall net positive.. at least from my eye test. Im not sure what his advanced stats are.

Whats the point of getting 32 points if the team concedes possession/goals when you're on the most moreso than scoring?
 

Regal

Registered User
Mar 12, 2010
24,539
13,832
Vancouver
The Gaunce complex. Hes playing better than he was last year. Overall net positive.. at least from my eye test. Im not sure what his advanced stats are.

Whats the point of getting 32 points if the team concedes possession/goals when you're on the most moreso than scoring?

There seems to be this assumption that Granlund was a terrible possession player last year, when he and Gaunce were the only positive corsi players to play regularly.
 

Hit the post

I have your gold medal Zippy!
Oct 1, 2015
22,288
14,030
Hiding under WTG's bed...
I know people have been giving him a break because he's played alright defensively, but it is pretty tough to play 18 minutes a night for six games and not register a point. Neat trick.
Happens to 2nd liners (note: not saying Granlund is a 2nd liner :)) - they tend to be inconsistant offensively (and thus have dry spells/scoreless streaks) IMHO.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
Except Granlund has been awful on the PK, has been a negative possession player, and isn't scoring despite receiving over 18 minutes per game. Not a good start.
 

TruGr1t

Proper Villain
Jun 26, 2003
22,894
6,484
The problem is he's fallen off defensively and just looked lost in Boston. He's always streaky as hell offensively, but he gets a free ride due to his two-way play. If he can't be a good PKer, and isn't strong defensively, then he's not particularly useful game-to-game.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,419
Vancouver, BC
The problem is he's fallen off defensively and just looked lost in Boston. He's always streaky as hell offensively, but he gets a free ride due to his two-way play. If he can't be a good PKer, and isn't strong defensively, then he's not particularly useful game-to-game.

That Boston game was an anomaly defensively, though. He had been very good defensively through 5 games before throwing up a total stinker.

Offensively, he's been completely invisible so far this season outside of the first game against Edmonton.
 

Jyrki21

2021-12-05
Sponsor
That Boston game was an anomaly defensively, though. He had been very good defensively through 5 games before throwing up a total stinker.

Offensively, he's been completely invisible so far this season outside of the first game against Edmonton.
When Benning lauded his two-way prowess, it's possible he meant season-by-season alternation of the "way" in question.
 

DL44

Status quo
Sep 26, 2006
17,894
3,801
Location: Location:
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.

Can you bump the Eriksson thread when he comes back?

He could use some of your shutout/Granlund call out mojo as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nomobo

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
26,994
6,571
It's ridiculous because there are still posters who argue that this is the wrong move

What does the phrase "at the time of the trade" mean to you?

Every single one of your arguments have been addressed. Most have been defeated, but do keep going.
 

Megaterio Llamas

el rey del mambo
Oct 29, 2011
11,219
5,929
North Shore
*edit - actually scratch all that. It was the 2011 draft where we passed over multiple players to get to Yensen. 2013 we only really passed on Hartman,. who I did really want. But never mind ;)
 
Last edited:

sting101

Registered User
Feb 8, 2012
15,707
14,508
What does the phrase "at the time of the trade" mean to you?

Every single one of your arguments have been addressed. Most have been defeated, but do keep going.
Hmmm

Discuss future of prospect

Decide prospect is not really in your future plans and likely won't succeed with his play style

Shop prospect for a young defenseman prospect. No takers

Calgary enters conversation with an offer of their own prospect who they feel doesn't fit on their team. Weisbrod being exposed to said prospect (Granlund) helps convince JB that he will be a useful player for the Canucks at the NHL level. Canuck scouts decide better to cash in while prospect is probably at his peak value.

Canucks despite bad optics make trade.

Canucks win trade.


At which point did our management screw this one up? They made a bold unpopular move and now it's paying off and all the idiots that thought it was terrible or questionable (myself) can either be a man and give Benning credit or be a child and say they should have done better when doing better is a complete fabrication in their minds of something that didn't exist.

Granlund has been very good.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,875
3,570
Vancouver, BC
I don't mind Granlund not producing if he's playing the way that he currently is, and I'd take it over what he did last year (modestly producing while playing poor/soft defensive hockey) pretty easily. Bodes well for the possibility of him turning into a legitimate key player in the future.

He's looked like a guy who's just on the cusp of it so far this season.
 

DL44

Status quo
Sep 26, 2006
17,894
3,801
Location: Location:
I don't mind Granlund not producing if he's playing the way that he currently is, and I'd take it over what he did last year (modestly producing while playing poor/soft defensive hockey) pretty easily. Bodes well for the possibility of him turning into a legitimate key player in the future.

He's looked like a guy who's just on the cusp of it so far this season.
I stated it elsewhere...
Would like to see him centering Vanek next... I think Burmistrov has proven to be dependable and smart enough to possibly fit along side Sutter-Dorsett in a 2 way role... He's not creating enough along side Vanek yet. Wanna see what Granlund can do..

That's the next line tinker I wanna see Green make after the next loss.
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
granlund has no natural linemates so i expect him to be all over the place all year. pretty valuable to have a guy you can drop in with nearly any line or linemates and count on decent play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PassLikeA10YrOldBoy

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
26,994
6,571
Hmmm

Discuss future of prospect

Decide prospect is not really in your future plans and likely won't succeed with his play style

Shop prospect for a young defenseman prospect. No takers

Calgary enters conversation with an offer of their own prospect who they feel doesn't fit on their team. Weisbrod being exposed to said prospect (Granlund) helps convince JB that he will be a useful player for the Canucks at the NHL level. Canuck scouts decide better to cash in while prospect is probably at his peak value.

Canucks despite bad optics make trade.

Canucks win trade.


At which point did our management screw this one up? They made a bold unpopular move and now it's paying off and all the idiots that thought it was terrible or questionable (myself) can either be a man and give Benning credit or be a child and say they should have done better when doing better is a complete fabrication in their minds of something that didn't exist.

Granlund has been very good.


Sting, you admit that you were questionable on the move? Why? Did the trade seem wonky to you at the time?

Granlund has received credit. It's one of the few moves Benning got right. Did that change history and make a bizarre move seem less bizarre? Nope. The move was still questionable and that's the point.

This is about how to properly evaluate a GM, not to give kudos to Benning for a trade he ended up winning. I realize, those trade wins are few and far between, but let's not lose sight of the obviously asymmetrical method in which Benning manages in order to pat him on the back. That's how bad GMs stay in their jobs for 4 years.
 

sting101

Registered User
Feb 8, 2012
15,707
14,508
Sting, you admit that you were questionable on the move? Why? Did the trade seem wonky to you at the time?

Granlund has received credit. It's one of the few moves Benning got right. Did that change history and make a bizarre move seem less bizarre? Nope. The move was still questionable and that's the point.

This is about how to properly evaluate a GM, not to give kudos to Benning for a trade he ended up winning. I realize, those trade wins are few and far between, but let's not lose sight of the obviously asymmetrical method in which Benning manages in order to pat him on the back. That's how bad GMs stay in their jobs for 4 years.
Like most fans here i wanted the Canucks to start rebuilding the cupboards. Shinkaruk showed in his first camp that he may be an exciting scorer for the future. He was on a roll in Utica as well. The optics of the trade were that JB was trying to win now with the addition of Granlund and that we may have taken a lesser player for a faster payout.

The reality was that the canucks had done their homework and cashed in on a player that wasn't going to translate very well to NHL hockey. As fans living in Vancouver we weren't privy to the games in Utica and the viewpoint of Travis Green which i'm sure the management team would have consulted. Furthermore Weisbrod vouched for this player and was exposed to him and his development. As the facts rolled out it became clear it wasn't a questionable move at all.

In this case they did their homework and cashed in before he became worthless which he is.

How you and others relate this back to Benning is up to you. For me this was a good move.
 

stampedingviking

Registered User
Jul 2, 2013
4,217
2,377
Basingstoke, England
Sting, you admit that you were questionable on the move? Why? Did the trade seem wonky to you at the time?

Granlund has received credit. It's one of the few moves Benning got right. Did that change history and make a bizarre move seem less bizarre? Nope. The move was still questionable and that's the point.

This is about how to properly evaluate a GM, not to give kudos to Benning for a trade he ended up winning. I realize, those trade wins are few and far between, but let's not lose sight of the obviously asymmetrical method in which Benning manages in order to pat him on the back. That's how bad GMs stay in their jobs for 4 years.
Or maybe, just maybe, Benning (and Green/the scouts?) realised that Shink would not amount to much and actually did something right?
 

RobertKron

Registered User
Sep 1, 2007
15,410
8,492
Like most fans here i wanted the Canucks to start rebuilding the cupboards. Shinkaruk showed in his first camp that he may be an exciting scorer for the future. He was on a roll in Utica as well. The optics of the trade were that JB was trying to win now with the addition of Granlund and that we may have taken a lesser player for a faster payout.

The reality was that the canucks had done their homework and cashed in on a player that wasn't going to translate very well to NHL hockey. As fans living in Vancouver we weren't privy to the games in Utica and the viewpoint of Travis Green which i'm sure the management team would have consulted. Furthermore Weisbrod vouched for this player and was exposed to him and his development. As the facts rolled out it became clear it wasn't a questionable move at all.

In this case they did their homework and cashed in before he became worthless which he is.

How you and others relate this back to Benning is up to you. For me this was a good move.

Not sure why you’d assume this was a result of “doing their homework” when one of the main traits of this management group - at that time especially - was that they didn’t seem to ever do any homework on anything.
 

DL44

Status quo
Sep 26, 2006
17,894
3,801
Location: Location:
Not sure why you’d assume this was a result of “doing their homework” when one of the main traits of this management group - at that time especially - was that they didn’t seem to ever do any homework on anything.

Nothing.. ever..
Its also known that Benning has never watched video.
And his scouting staff are simply party planners spread across north america to simply show him a good time as he rolls into town.
His prospects ranking pre draft come from... ESPN Deportes.

(Hyperbolic sarcasm seems to be the language here now)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->