Confirmed with Link: [VAN/CAR] Canucks acquire 2015 3rd (66TH OA), 2016 7th for G Eddie Lack | Pt 2

[Diamonddog01]

So what you're saying is that we got comparable value for Lack as we did for Stanton. Since the difference between what we got for Lack(a 3rd) and what we got for Stanton (nothing) is the same was the difference between what the Rangers got for Talbot and what we got for Lack.

What? This doesn't even make sense. I didn't see a 3rd was devoid of any value whatsoever. I said the deals are fairly comparable. I don't see the 79th pick as vastly changing the return on a hockey trade.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

What? This doesn't even make sense. I didn't see a 3rd was devoid of any value whatsoever. I said the deals are fairly comparable. I don't see the 79th pick as vastly changing the return on a hockey trade.

And I don't see getting a 66th as vastly changing the return on Lack compared to what we got for Stanton.

(Well, I do, but you know what I'm implying)

 

[pitseleh]

What? This doesn't even make sense. I didn't see a 3rd was devoid of any value whatsoever. I said the deals are fairly comparable. I don't see the 79th pick as vastly changing the return on a hockey trade.

If there is barely a difference between a late second, early third, and a late third, then Talbot basically returned twice the value.

 

[Diamonddog01]

If there is barely a difference between a late second, early third, and a late third, then Talbot basically returned twice the value.

Sure. As he was more valued and highly sought after, much more than Lack. In the same way Boychuk netted 2 2nds, while Garrison returned 1. The better player usually returns more in a trade.

That being said - given the value of a late pick I don't think it's a huge difference from an absolute value perspective. IE The value of two firsts is more valuable than one first, and that discrepancy is much higher than the difference between two third round picks given that firsts have inherently much more value.

 

[rune74]

Sure. As he was more valued and highly sought after, much more than Lack. In the same way Boychuk netted 2 2nds, while Garrison returned 1. The better player usually returns more in a trade.

That being said - given the value of a late pick I don't think it's a huge difference from an absolute value perspective.

That's the issue...people over valued lack to the point they thought he was worth a late 1st or early second....

I think we got a decent young player for him, which is better then nothing at all.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Sure. As he was more valued and highly sought after, much more than Lack. In the same way Boychuk netted 2 2nds, while Garrison returned 1. The better player usually returns more in a trade.

That being said - given the value of a late pick I don't think it's a huge difference from an absolute value perspective.

Saying Benning got good value for Lack by drawing a comparison to yet another trade Benning was lambasted for making (Not to mention that Garrison had a full NTC and was rightly ticked off that Benning essentially forced him to waive and only had one team on his list) isn't exactly the best comparison to make.

 

[MS]

Saying Benning got good value for Lack by drawing a comparison to yet another trade Benning was lambasted for making (Not to mention that Garrison had a full NTC and was rightly ticked off that Benning essentially forced him to waive and only had one team on his list) isn't exactly the best comparison to make.

No kidding.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Saying Benning got good value for Lack by drawing a comparison to yet another trade Benning was lambasted for making (Not to mention that Garrison had a full NTC and was rightly ticked off that Benning essentially forced him to waive and only had one team on his list) isn't exactly the best comparison to make.

I think the Garrison trade was an excellent one and we got good value for a player who was foolishly given an NTC by the previous regime. To say nothing of the fact the guy was a square peg in a round hole on the backend. Good riddance to Jason "future Norris winner" Garrison.

BTW I didn't say he got good value, I said he got market value. Sweeney just got 'good value'.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

I think the Garrison trade was an excellent one and we got good value for a player who was foolishly given an NTC by the previous regime. To say nothing of the fact the guy was a square peg in a round hole on the backend. Good riddance to Jason "future Norris winner" Garrison.

There's nothing Benning could do that you'd think was an awful trade.

After all, if Lack got value that was comparable to getting nothing(according to your opinion that a difference of a 3rd rounder is negligible) and you still support that trade, then it's clear you've made your decision about any moves Benning makes even before he makes them.

 

[Diamonddog01]

There's nothing Benning could do that you'd think was an awful trade.

After all, if Lack got value that was comparable to getting nothing(according to your opinion that a difference of a 3rd rounder is negligible) and you still support that trade, then it's clear you've made your decision about any moves Benning makes even before he makes them.

Nope, you have no idea what my interpretation of all his moves are. And I can make the exact same accusations of bias against yourself. Once again you're attempting to drag this debate into ad hominems and personal accusations / attacks.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Nope, you have no idea what my interpretation of all his moves are. And I can make the exact same accusations of bias against yourself. Once again you're attempting to drag this debate into ad hominems and personal accusations / attacks.

The jibe was only because you deliberately tried to derail the discussion by bringing in Garrison of all things.

My actual argument (which you have yet to respond to) is still unanswered:

If you are willing to say that Lack got comparable value to Talbot given that the difference was only a 3rd round pick, then why can't you say that Lack got comparable value to absolutely nothing, given that the difference in value is also "merely" a 3rd round pick?

 

[rune74]

not worth it.

 

[Barney Gumble]

I think the Garrison trade was an excellent one and we got good value for a player who was foolishly given an NTC by the previous regime.

Theory of re-allocating cap space on the blueline was sound.

End result (present makeup of the blueline) wasn't.

 

[Diamonddog01]

The jibe was only because you deliberately tried to derail the discussion by bringing in Garrison of all things.

My actual argument (which you have yet to respond to) is still unanswered:

If you are willing to say that Lack got comparable value to Talbot given that the difference was only a 3rd round pick, then why can't you say that Lack got comparable value to absolutely nothing, given that the difference in value is also "merely" a 3rd round pick?

Not sure how many times and ways I can explain this to you. They are comparable, but Talbot got a better return as he was more valued and more sought after. Not going to argue whether he's a better player, NHL GM's did according to all reports.

Again - I didn't say a 3rd is completely lacking in value. Thus attempting to state that this somehow logically committs me to thinking Lack 'got comparable value to absolutely nothing', is pure fallacy on your end. If that's whatever you're even trying to say with that awkwardly constructed sentence.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Theory of re-allocating cap space on the blueline was sound.

End result (present makeup of the blueline) wasn't.

Agreed. No defense of the Sbisa contract or player. Don't think it's completely accurate to compare 4.6 to 3.6 in an absolute sense (should be viewed more in terms of the amount relative to the cap when the deals were signed) but I was as disappointed as any as to the usage of the much needed cap space created by trading Garrison.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Not sure how many times and ways I can explain this to you. They are comparable, but Talbot got a better return as he was more valued and more sought after. Not going to argue whether he's a better player, NHL GM's did according to all reports.

Again - I didn't say a 3rd is completely lacking in value. Thus attempting to state that this somehow logically committs me to thinking Lack 'got comparable value to absolutely nothing', is pure fallacy on your end. If that's whatever you're even trying to say with that awkwardly constructed sentence.

You cannot simultaneously believe that Talbot got comparable value to Lack while believing Lack didn't get value comparable to no return at all.

In both cases the difference in value is a third, and for some reason you don't think relative value matters at all.

So you can't just pick and choose to say a 3rd makes a difference when comparing Lack to getting no return at all, but it doesn't make a difference when comparing Lack to Talbot.

The two positions are logically incompatible.

 

[Diamonddog01]

You cannot simultaneously believe that Talbot got comparable value to Lack while believing Lack didn't get value comparable to no return at all.

In both cases the difference in value is a third, and for some reason you don't think relative value matters at all.

So you can't just pick and choose to say a 3rd makes a difference when comparing Lack to getting no return at all, but it doesn't make a difference when comparing Lack to Talbot.

The two positions are logically incompatible.

You've created a dichotomy in your own mind and seem to lack the fundamentals of deductive reasoning.

Comparable doesn't mean 'identical'. I still have no idea what the hell you are trying to say with statements such as 'a 3rd makes a difference when comparing Lack to getting no return at all" or "Lack didn't get value comparable to no return at all". This looks like gibberish.

 

[biturbo19]

Don't think so.
Their beat writer reported that SJS was trying to get Jones for some time but LA preferred sending him out East... they immediately approached the Bruins at the draft to get a deal done.
Dreger (I think?) was saying that Chiarelli targeted Talbot because he saw him play a lot in the East and didn't know Lack - remember they canned their scouts so it's more or less Chiarelli making the decision alone.
Lehner was a special situation because Murray drafted him - also he is under control for the next 4 years as he is RFA.
These were the 3 teams that needed a starter and none of them apparently had their sights set on Lack.

I think the bolded is unfortunately for us, what it really comes down to in the end.

Goaltending is such a funny position. It's one where GMs really do want to have "their guy" in net. Teams get very choosy about goaltenders. Sometimes they get choosy about the dumbest things, sometimes they don't even really seem to know why they're being choosy and rely on "intangible" things. But the bottom line seems to be...GMs seem to get weirdly attached to specific goaltenders, and couldn't care less about others.

For the most part, GMs seem to either:

a)Have "their guy" and they're set.

b)Go out and get "their guy" at whatever cost in assets/cap space.

c)Roll with spare parts and cheap stopgaps until they can acquire "their guy" at some point.


Even Kenny Holland who was for a long time, infamous for believing in a devalued goaltender situation, running through cheap options and old guys and whoever else could get the job done behind Lidstrom...ultimately caved to that sort of fixation, gave Jimmy Howard (whom he'd brought along for a number of years up through the system and presumably grown attached to) that major dollar long-term contract extension.

It's just weird.

It's where you get this strange dichotomy where a guy like Lack can be worth so little, the goaltending market is generally "weak"...but when a GM finds "their guy", they'll hand them a long-term deal for 6, 7 million bucks without blinking. Nobody wants to commit halfway on a starting goaltender it seems.

I kind of get it...but at the same time, so many teams make so many big mistakes with this.

 

[Diamonddog01]

I think the bolded is unfortunately for us, what it really comes down to in the end.

Goaltending is such a funny position. It's one where GMs really do want to have "their guy" in net. Teams get very choosy about goaltenders. Sometimes they get choosy about the dumbest things, sometimes they don't even really seem to know why they're being choosy and rely on "intangible" things. But the bottom line seems to be...GMs seem to get weirdly attached to specific goaltenders, and couldn't care less about others.

For the most part, GMs seem to either:

a)Have "their guy" and they're set.

b)Go out and get "their guy" at whatever cost in assets/cap space.

c)Roll with spare parts and cheap stopgaps until they can acquire "their guy" at some point.


Even Kenny Holland who was for a long time, infamous for believing in a devalued goaltender situation, running through cheap options and old guys and whoever else could get the job done behind Lidstrom...ultimately caved to that sort of fixation, gave Jimmy Howard (whom he'd brought along for a number of years up through the system and presumably grown attached to) that major dollar long-term contract extension.

It's just weird.

It's where you get this strange dichotomy where a guy like Lack can be worth so little, the goaltending market is generally "weak"...but when a GM finds "their guy", they'll hand them a long-term deal for 6, 7 million bucks without blinking. Nobody wants to commit halfway on a starting goaltender it seems.

I kind of get it...but at the same time, so many teams make so many big mistakes with this.

It is weird. Jones just got more value than Saad imo...which is bizarre. EDIT: maybe not more, but still.

 

[realist99]

I think the bolded is unfortunately for us, what it really comes down to in the end.

Goaltending is such a funny position. It's one where GMs really do want to have "their guy" in net. Teams get very choosy about goaltenders. Sometimes they get choosy about the dumbest things, sometimes they don't even really seem to know why they're being choosy and rely on "intangible" things. But the bottom line seems to be...GMs seem to get weirdly attached to specific goaltenders, and couldn't care less about others.

For the most part, GMs seem to either:

a)Have "their guy" and they're set.

b)Go out and get "their guy" at whatever cost in assets/cap space.

c)Roll with spare parts and cheap stopgaps until they can acquire "their guy" at some point.


Even Kenny Holland who was for a long time, infamous for believing in a devalued goaltender situation, running through cheap options and old guys and whoever else could get the job done behind Lidstrom...ultimately caved to that sort of fixation, gave Jimmy Howard (whom he'd brought along for a number of years up through the system and presumably grown attached to) that major dollar long-term contract extension.

It's just weird.

It's where you get this strange dichotomy where a guy like Lack can be worth so little, the goaltending market is generally "weak"...but when a GM finds "their guy", they'll hand them a long-term deal for 6, 7 million bucks without blinking. Nobody wants to commit halfway on a starting goaltender it seems.

I kind of get it...but at the same time, so many teams make so many big mistakes with this.

I find in general that moves made by many GMs don't make sense. That as wacky as these forums can get at times, generally the people here know when a GM has paid a player too much or made a bad trade.

The free agency and trade deadlines reveals some GMs stupidity even more

 

[Canucks LB]

He got scared, he has a giant ego when it comes to drafting, he wanted to draft more, so he said **** it and went with a **** offer.

 

[rune74]

He got scared, he has a giant ego when it comes to drafting, he wanted to draft more, so he said **** it and went with a **** offer.

Heh, well that puts it all to rest...

 

[Vankiller Whale]

You've created a dichotomy in your own mind and seem to lack the fundamentals of deductive reasoning.

Speaking of ad hominem...

Comparable doesn't mean 'identical'.

No one said it did.

I still have no idea what the hell you are trying to say with statements such as 'a 3rd makes a difference when comparing Lack to getting no return at all" or "Lack didn't get value comparable to no return at all". This looks like gibberish.

If the difference between Talbot and Lack is the same as the difference between Lack's return and nothing, then that means that Talbot's return is as comparable to Lack's is as Lack is to getting zero value in return.

 

[racerjoe]

Maybe to an extent, but then...

If San Jose had a "general agreement" on value in place for Lack and there was clear, serious interest...

Before Benning closes the deal for a 3rd+7th with Carolina, surely he goes back to San Jose one last time (who he was obviously in constant contact with through the draft), and says..."okay, i'm about to do something really stupid and trade Lack for a 3rd+7th...i'm going to pull the trigger on that deal, unless you can beat that offer right now with something better."

And if the other GM truly covets Lack at that point, they're going to either ante up to what amounts to the initial "low asking price" of one 2nd round draft pick. Or they aren't that invested in the idea of getting Lack specifically (don't think he's worth a 2nd or are fixated on something else they want with that pick and simply aren't going to give it up), so they let Benning go off and make his Carolina trade. I mean, you know Benning has set his hard deadline on this deal to draft weekend...Lack was getting dealt at the draft, there was no more "waiting it out" or "playing chicken" beyond that point. That was always the clear end of the game.

I mean, there's some degree of "playing chicken" with these trades, but when Benning is about to run his car off the road into the ditch with a Carolina trade and you know that's about to happen...you make a slight compromise and give up what amounts to the "low asking price", which according to most here...was an absolute bargain. In that game of chicken, you don't let the piece you really covet get away because you're too wrapped up in the game to just grab the bargain value where it lies.


We're not talking about haggling over a watermelon at the fruit stand. We're talking about trading for an NHL Starting Goaltender. If you can get the one you really like at a "bargain price", you only play chicken up to a point...not beyond the point where you lose the guy altogether and have to pay more for someone you're less sold on. It just doesn't make sense for a sane General Manager to do that.

It really just seems like Eddie's value among GMs looking for goaltenders this week, was peculiarly low. Just not that much serious interest. Even as much an idiot as you may think Benning is...he was clearly working the phones for a long time on this, and even a monkey can manage a legitimate bidding war (if one exists). It just doesn't seem there was anything of the sort.

Like Pitseleh said, GMs are often pretty stupid about goaltending and their valuation thereof. The goaltending market is always a bizarre one, because there are always GMs who will do stupid things to get their guy. There are constantly goaltending deals that are largely inexplicable to fans outside of, "clearly GM so-and-so really wanted this particular goaltender".

Basically, no matter how much a "game of chicken" plays into this...if Doug Wilson truly believed Lack > Jones, he's not going to screw it up by letting Benning trade Lack to another team for less than he's willing to pay.

That would be insanity. Whereas, simply valuing Jones over Lack is just more like bad evaluation. Which one is more believable?

I don't think SJ was that interested in Lack, and Benning thought Buf would take him once Edm got Talbot. He gambled and lost. But I do see him doing what I suggested and thinking he had something then backpedalling.

Maybe advanced stats are starting to creep into how goalies are viewed these days as well. Over the past 2 seasons, here's how the goalies that were traded ranked in save percentage on high quality shots(min 35 games started, stats provided by war-on-ice.com)

Martin Jones - 1st in the NHL
Cam Talbot - 4th in the NHL
Reto Berra - 9th in the NHL(he was shockingly traded for a 2nd)
Robin Lehner - 34th in the NHL(another sign BUF overpaid)
Eddie Lack - 45th in the NHL

Pending UFA Michael Neuvirth ranks 7th in the NHL so I can see why teams didn't pony up for Lack if they value these stats. Jones and Talbot thrived when facing high quality shots so perhaps GM's viewed them as having more natural talent and upside than Lack.

I'm only speculating of course.

An article came out (I will try to find it), before the draft about the top 4 goalies suspected to be traded, Jones wasn't apart of it, despite the fact Talbots adjusted sv% was still better it dropped if he was a Canuck, and Eddies went up if he was a Ranger.

What was then also suggested was the situation each goalie played in, giving Edm as an example, saying that neither Fasth or Scrivens were as bad as they produced, but being in constant mode of bad D hurt them more, and thus effected their stats more.

The actual article ended by saying depending on price Eddie could be the best bargin. Again written before the draft.

 

[Mudshark50]

Too many goalies. One's a UFA in a year. One's going to get you something back in a trade.

You play the hand with the cards you're dealt.