Confirmed with Link: [VAN/CBJ] Canucks acquire F Tyler Motte, Jussi Jokinen for F Thomas Vanek
- Thread starter clunk
- Start date
- Status
Well if the only positive of the trade is that we got *rid* of him then it stands to reason.
Yep, we wouldn’t have Motte and probably lose a few more games.
Dime a dozen fringe 4th liner vs higher up in the lottery.
Seems pretty easy to me.
Askel
By the way Benning should be fired.
Also could have given Goldobin more ice time, or maybe Boucher.
According to the 'spin' from the Canucks hockey ops department, they claim they've been monitoring players like Motte and Leipsic ever since their days in college and junior.....and obviously liked them a lot then.....but it begs a question, do the Canucks pro scouts get too enamored with these kind of players and overlook their flaws once they become pros?
And It's not just these guys.....for whatever reason the Canucks just seem get fixated on these kind of players. and their amateur scoring stats.....it was the same with Pouliot...do they have blinkers on?
And It's not just these guys.....for whatever reason the Canucks just seem get fixated on these kind of players. and their amateur scoring stats.....it was the same with Pouliot...do they have blinkers on?
Yeah i was totally wrong on signing him at the start of the year i thought FOR SURE wed get at least a 3rd rd pick.
So basically Benning screwed up by signing him knowing the value would not return a pick... OR... Benning lost another trade
I guess the first option is probably more accurate. What a dolt Benning is
Gaunce4gm
Trusted Hockey Man
On the flip side if he had used Goldobin or Boucher maybe they outperform Vanek and we end up finishing higher up in the standings.
We will never know.
Very unlikely Goldobin or Boucher score even close to Vanek’s level and the rest of their game is no better. We may never know 100% but we can make some reasonable estimates based on having watched these players play.
Suggesting we’d be further ahead in the standings by playing two AHL tweeners more is not reasonable.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 16,888
- 9,566
in theory we're further ahead trying our luck with two 22ish tweeners than with two placeholders. it's the same logic as stockpiling draft picks. there is some odds these tweeners turn into decent regulars and so if you do it enough some will surely hit. we are playing the odds by giving these guys a chance to play above their pay grade on a bad team and see if it unlocks anything. it is utilizing the roster to rebuild by taking endless chances on sub 25 players instead of bringing in replacement level players to play until the draft picks arrive.
my only problem with the strategy is that for some reason we keep gambling on tweeners under 6' and then they all get contracts and a decent shot at being resigned. if you assume we do hit with some of these guys, and others stick around as fourth liners in lieu of replacement players, we will in due course end up with an undersized rebuilt team in a conference and division where size will be an issue.
my only problem with the strategy is that for some reason we keep gambling on tweeners under 6' and then they all get contracts and a decent shot at being resigned. if you assume we do hit with some of these guys, and others stick around as fourth liners in lieu of replacement players, we will in due course end up with an undersized rebuilt team in a conference and division where size will be an issue.
That's because Benning declared that he was looking for a forward with size who can make plays and play in the top 9. Clearly by declaring this wish no teams would call him offering under 6' tweeners... oh wait...
I think Benning (and Weisbrod?) has identified small speedy "tweeners" as being undervalued. And it's the type of players a rebuilding team like ours should look into because we can afford these guys an opportunity to establish themselves in the NHL or prove to be busts. In addition, they do fit into the speed skilled game that Benning and Green seem to want. Personally, I think it's not a bad direction to go with. The Lightning aren't big up front either. With that said, I do believe that Benning does take size into account and I think if Benning thinks size is a need, he's going to go out and address it. We do have Horvat and Boeser who aren't small. Looking at his draft picks, size isn't going to be a problem going forward.
Askel
By the way Benning should be fired.
If Goldobin was scoring at a 50 pt pace i would be really exited(I don't think he would). Getting another 2nd line forward under 23would be worth moving from 4th overall to 6th overall. It would also have made Baertschi expandable so we probably could have traded him this deadline.To much speculation though.
I didn't like the Vanek or Gagner signings when they happened and I don't like them today, when you are a bottom 5 team for three years in a row you need to get young players in the line-up. Virtanen should have been playing 15 minutes7 game since december, Goldobin should have been a top six fixture IMO. If they sink then we know what we have, this playing of useless Veterans and ending up on the bottom of the league has to stop. This is why I don't want to resign Sedins & Jokinen trade Baertshi, Tanev, Del Zotto , Gudbransson and Granlund . tMake room for the young players , let them sink or swim, at least I could see the plan, this signing of useless Vetereans and being a crap team have to stop.
On the flip side, Comets fans will tell you that's poor player development.
I think there's a balance between giving young players the opportunity to succeed and putting them in a position to succeed.
hellstick
Registered User
Kickpuncher
Registered User
Looks like a completely generic replacement player so far. Nothing that stands out about him whatsoever.
pgj98m3
Registered User
- Jan 8, 2012
- 1,539
- 1,078
Oh my God......we are such a bad team that you are actually calling for Dowd to be called up.
RobertKron
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2007
- 15,516
- 8,652
Which is weird, because it's pretty hard to fall over without landing on an undersized guy who put up numbers at lower levels and has had a hard time translating that to the NHL due to lack of strength/smarts/skill/consistency/etc.
Sure but that doesn't mean they aren't/weren't undervalued. You can easily acquire a Marchessault back before he scored 30 goals for the Panthers. And for whatever reason a team would even expose him to the expansion draft even after scoring 30 goals.
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
Just out of curiosity, how many years does this approach have to fail before you figure out there's a reason nobody uses it besides Benning? And don't talk about the Lightning. Their small guys are actually good players, not "tweeners" with or without the quotation marks.
i think its pretty obvious at this point that they exposed him purely out of spite
but yeah, small skilled guys are still undervalued, which is a shame that benning couldnt pick up on any of the good ones available in the past few years
Cancuks
Former Exalted Ruler
Wonder how much the Canucks spend on shuttling scouts around the NHL/AHL watching diamonds in the rough like Motte and Dowd.
Puck Ingrate
Registered User
Even if they are undervalued, you have to look at the results of the Canucks reliance on this strategy and understand their implications. By objective standards, Benning's execution has been poor (Vey for a 2nd, Pedan for a 3rd, Clendening for Forsling, Larsen for a 5th, Etem for Jensen and a 6th). More importantly, even the best of these acquisitions (Baertschi, Granlund, Pouliot) are non-core players with low to moderate maximum upside who are fairly easily replaceable.
That leads to at least one of these three conclusions:
- The strategy works, but Canucks' management has done a very poor job of identifying and acquiring the right players while throwing away other assets in the process.
- The strategy doesn't work, which, when you think about it, is probably why it's uncommon and why other teams are willing to trade NHL-capable tweeners for "riskier" picks that may not pan out at all.
- The strategy works, but isn't likely to garner players with high upside, meaning that it's not worth your time to rely on it to meaningfully improve your team long-term.
Last edited:
A: is the only one of those three that isnt easily countered by linking players like marchessault and gourde
considering the obvious devaluation of players like point, debrincat or even gaudreau, pretty easy to say its just a systemic weakness of player evaluation in the nhl
considering the obvious devaluation of players like point, debrincat or even gaudreau, pretty easy to say its just a systemic weakness of player evaluation in the nhl
Puck Ingrate
Registered User
Only one of those players (Marchessault) had a breakout season after being traded by their original team. The rest were either drafted and were never tweeners to begin with (Gaudreau, Point, DeBrincat) or signed as a free agent (Gourde); the latter four players were all retained until they established themselves as NHL regulars.
That's the point -- teams generally don't trade away tweeners with significant upside.
Last edited:
ah yeah im thinking more broadly. my bad
edit: well gourde still fits the bill - that he was available is the market equivalent of 29 teams offering him up for future considerations to tampa. the other three were intentionally draft cases to show the inefficiency in small players
edit: well gourde still fits the bill - that he was available is the market equivalent of 29 teams offering him up for future considerations to tampa. the other three were intentionally draft cases to show the inefficiency in small players
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Fort Marcy Stakes (Gr. 2) - BELMONT AT THE BIG A - RACE 8Wagers: 4Staked: $6,259.00Event closes- Updated:
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Whimsical Stakes (Gr. 3) - WOODBINE RACE 8Wagers: 2Staked: $108.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Ruffian Stakes (Gr. 2) - BELMONT AT THE BIG A - RACE 10Wagers: 3Staked: $350.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
-