Confirmed with Link: [VAN/CBJ] Canucks acquire F Tyler Motte, Jussi Jokinen for F Thomas Vanek

[PG Canuck]

People are still okay with this trade and defending it. Just absolutely insane. Motte being a replacement level player is being quite generous.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I don't have a complete answer for you, but this might not be a bad place to start: The Canucks and Pick Value

If you want a non-Canucks army view, this journal may have some interesting insights.

https://content.iospress.com/download/journal-of-sports-analytics/jsa0015?id=journal-of-sports-analytics/jsa0015

Here are some more links that touch on the topic:

THE VALUE OF A DRAFT PICK? (older, but solid research)
The value of a draft pick
How pGPS Values Draft Slots at the 2017 Entry Draft

TL;WR - we don't lack data.

thanks. i have actually commented on that canucksarmy thread before.

here are the areas where i think we lack data

so far as i can tell none of those draft pick valuations try to compare the value of a draft pick to a replacement player (e.g., a player generally available on the market as a ufa). they all to some degree assign a notional value to draft picks who play at or below replacement level. i would argue such picks are essentially busts. the value of a draft pick is the chance it will yield a player who plays above replacement level. if you look at the various graphs valuing players and see the low success rate of late round picks, or you simply scroll through draft summaries, you can see why i suspect that the level of above replacement level success in late draft rounds is very low indeed.

the second issue that nobody i can find has systematically tracked the extent to which near busts have turned it around and made good so as to be better than replacement players. this would require a survey of a pretty subjective subset of mostly high draft picks who had failed to make the nhl as regulars as they approach or pass their waiver eligibility and then were acquired as reclamation projects by other teams and went on to prosper.

if we had two datasets like that we could compare to some extent, but you'd still have a serious debate i think about whether all near busts are equal.

 

[krutovsdonut]

People are still okay with this trade and defending it. Just absolutely insane. Motte being a replacement level player is being quite generous.

my understanding is that motte was the only trade available for vanek and that no picks were offered. the trade thus "is what it is" unless you think we should have kept vanek. it's certainly is disappointing but there is nothing to "defend" if that was the only option.

if people want to speculate based on zero evidence that benning is a liar and/or another gm could have gotten an offer that benning could not, that is up to them. i don't know if i would call that insane, but whatever it is, it moves beyond the world of facts into a fantasy land built on suppositions and seems a little obsessive. i have zero interest in that kind of discussion.

meanwhile, some people are taking a wait and see approach. in my view, it is not insane to wait and see on a 23 year old player after 8 games. to me motte has zero baggage whatever, so hopefully he can be an nhl player.

 

[pitseleh]

that's pretty unscientific though. assume benning somehow has late round magic pixie dust that makes him 50% better than anyone else at drafting players better than replacement. assume also he is also 50% worse at picking reclamation projects than average.

even with those assumptions, we still don't know if that makes a 5th round pick a more valuable option for the canucks than a reclamation project we can get for a 5th rounder. we lack baseline data. we are relying on an "eye test" that is distorted by the fact the reclamation projects are disappointing right in front of us on the active roster in a manner that is emotionally taxing compared to the disappointment from draft picks we may never even sign.

this is not a new question. i have asked it a few times. at some point i may try my inexpert hand at tracking it.

You're asking a nebulous question though, one that as framed seems unanswerable to me.

But I also think you'd be asking the wrong question.

The real question is what is the incremental value in trading for a reclamation project who is, or is close to being, eligible for waivers relative to the freely available pool of players either on waivers or that are free agents. When you look at the pool of players the Canucks have compiled versus those freely available, it would be hard to argue that they have beaten the field, let alone gotten significant incremental value by trading picks.

We also know that scoring peaks around 23-24, so a player that is at or below replacement level at 22 I think is likely to be lower probability to be more than replacement value than a draft pick.

 

[pitseleh]

so far as i can tell none of those draft pick valuations try to compare the value of a draft pick to a replacement player (e.g., a player generally available on the market as a ufa). they all to some degree assign a notional value to draft picks who play at or below replacement level. i would argue such picks are essentially busts. the value of a draft pick is the chance it will yield a player who plays above replacement level. if you look at the various graphs valuing players and see the low success rate of late round picks, or you simply scroll through draft summaries, you can see why i suspect that the level of above replacement level success in late draft rounds is very low indeed.

Here are the probabilities of a subjective assessment of top-6 forward/top-4 d/starting goalies: Statistically Speaking: NHL Draft Pick Value - Article - TSN

 

[F A N]

joke post

Ignorant post

 

[coldsteel79]

Even if Vanek had busted with CBJ, his value at the point of the TDL was a mid-round pick at minimum.

Benning's weak, ineffectual trading ability knows no bounds. This was about as automatic as deals like this get, and he still found a way to screw it up. It's almost impressive.

Vanek's recent success is just rubbing salt in JB's self-inflicted wounds.

Wow, you realize when there’s no trade protection, every team in the league can offer, every team in the league chose not to give up a pick for vanek, that’s on other GM’s not Benning. Motte is better than nothing, hell just getting vanek off the team is gonna help the tank.

 

[FroshaugFan2]

Motte not even being a high end scorer the AHL is a big deal to me. I decided to have a look at how many top six forwards in the NHL were sub 0.5 ppg scorers in the AHL.

Of the top 186 scoring forwards in the NHL (my quick rough definition of a top six scorer) 2 players scored at under 0.5 PPG in their AHL careers. Riley Nash and Adrian Kempe.

From the same sample 21 players were drafted in the 5th round or later and another 7 players went undrafted.

So around 15% of top six scorers were drafted in the 5th round or later. 1% were sub 0.5 ppg AHLers.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Here are the probabilities of a subjective assessment of top-6 forward/top-4 d/starting goalies: Statistically Speaking: NHL Draft Pick Value - Article - TSN

thanks, i had not realized that was analyzed that way. it's not perfect since i think we should also count 3rd rounders who are above replacement, and i also think it's better to analyse goalies separately as they tend to be more likely to go at random all through the draft and will tend to make odds late in the draft better than they are for skaters. let's assume those two things cancel each other out for now.

chances of top 6/4/1g

roughly 10% in the 2nd round with a sharp drop as the round progresses
roughly 7% in the 3rd round
roughly 4% in the 4th round
roughly 3% in the 5-6th round
roughly 2% in the 7th round plus.

so, let's say people think benning should somehow have found a 4th rounder instead of motte, the issue is whether motte has a better than 4% chance of being an above replacement player.

a more direct comparison would be larsen for a 5th. did larsen have a better than 3% chance of being an above replacement player?

 

[opendoor]

thanks, i had not realized that was analyzed that way. it's not perfect since i think we should also count 3rd rounders who are above replacement, and i also think it's better to analyse goalies separately as they tend to be more likely to go at random all through the draft and will tend to make odds late in the draft better than they are for skaters. let's assume those two things cancel each other out for now.

chances of top 6/4/1g

roughly 10% in the 2nd round with a sharp drop as the round progresses
roughly 7% in the 3rd round
roughly 4% in the 4th round
roughly 3% in the 5-6th round
roughly 2% in the 7th round plus.

so, let's say people think benning should somehow have found a 4th rounder instead of motte, the issue is whether motte has a better than 4% chance of being an above replacement player.

a more direct comparison would be larsen for a 5th. did larsen have a better than 3% chance of being an above replacement player?

But players like Motte and Larsen are available for nothing. It isn't Motte's chance of turning into something vs. a 4th round pick's chance. It's Motte's incremental value over a similar player that you can get for nothing vs a 4th round pick. I'd argue Motte's incremental value over similar players is virtually nothing so the 4th round pick wins handily. Same with Larsen.

Trading for a pick doesn't mean you can't pick up a Motte caliber player elsewhere for nothing. Then you get the pick's chance of success as well as the player's.

 

[Cupless44]

People are still okay with this trade and defending it. Just absolutely insane. Motte being a replacement level player is being quite generous.

The trade was good for the quest for 31st as it took Vanek's scoring out of the line up but the return was pretty much nothing. Motte is an AHL player. Should not be considered for the Canuck roster next year.

 

[tantalum]

But players like Motte and Larsen are available for nothing. It isn't Motte's chance of turning into something vs. a 4th round pick's chance. It's Motte's incremental value over a similar player that you can get for nothing vs a 4th round pick. I'd argue Motte's incremental value over similar players is virtually nothing so the 4th round pick wins handily. Same with Larsen.

Trading for a pick doesn't mean you can't pick up a Motte caliber player elsewhere for nothing. Then you get the pick's chance of success as well as the player's.

Agreed. Really you can look at it that way or the simple way of x% of players from this round turn into something. Either way Motte/Jokinen lose the comparison. But your comment is bang on.

Especially around deadline time when multiple Mottes are on waivers.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Wow, you realize when there’s no trade protection, every team in the league can offer, every team in the league chose not to give up a pick for vanek, that’s on other GM’s not Benning. Motte is better than nothing, hell just getting vanek off the team is gonna help the tank.

Do you actually believe this? A couple weeks prior to the deadline Benning said he's looking to make hockey trades. That's exactly what he made: a hockey trade. You really believe that no team offered a draft pick?

 

[Kickpuncher]

Wow, you realize when there’s no trade protection, every team in the league can offer, every team in the league chose not to give up a pick for vanek, that’s on other GM’s not Benning. Motte is better than nothing, hell just getting vanek off the team is gonna help the tank.

It's Benning's job to get what he wants and needs in trades.

Draft picks for way crappier players were flying around like candy at the deadline. Benning's failure to get one is absolutely on him.

If other teams know they can dupe him into a rehab project because he has a soft spot for them, they're going to do it. It's his responsibility not to get played.

 

[tyhee]

Even if Vanek had busted with CBJ, his value at the point of the TDL was a mid-round pick at minimum.

Benning's weak, ineffectual trading ability knows no bounds. This was about as automatic as deals like this get, and he still found a way to screw it up. It's almost impressive.

Vanek's recent success is just rubbing salt in JB's self-inflicted wounds.

Vanek along with Pat Maroon were easily one of the best tdl players for a playoff push

no surprise he's helped columbus while we are struggling to score goals

Benning gets a F- for this trade but there is no grade if he failed to make a trade and we are 3 points above Arizona or Buffalo

Well you could consider the results so far.......
Fighting for 31st place is a pretty good metric for judging a GM.

I hesitate to raise this possibility, but in view of how demonstrably bad this trade seems for the Canucks for 2017-18 and how meaningless it appears to be for future seasons, is it possible that JB looked at the standings and made a move aimed at a stealth tank?

I think the Canucks are worse without Vanek than they would have been with him and that in the long run that could help their draft position. With Vanek still on the team they might still be fighting it out for the rarified position of 28th overall. The only thing arguing against it that I see, other than arguing it isn't how Benning usually operates, is that it would have been nice to get a draft pick back so that at least there would be at least a possibility of another asset coming later.

Imo this is a better argument for the management defenders (though I don't fit that description) than the argument that it is better to get a known player who is next to nothing than an unknown who is very likely to be nothing.

Whether or not the Canucks succeed in their quest for #31, they come out with a higher pick in every round of the draft (subject to the vagaries of the lottery, where finishing lower brings a better chance and high floor in the 1st round) and that probably means they are better off for having made the trade than not having made it. Of course, getting an asset back that has some chance of being a solid future player would have made it even better.

[Insert Jokinen extended 5 years @ $4.5 mill per season with all but the league minimum salary to be paid as signing bonuses and Motte extended on a 2 year 1-way at $2.8 million per season jokes here.]

One more thing-even though Vanek was good enough to help the Canucks this season, I thought the Vanek signing was awful at the time it was made. If the best argument in favour of making this trade was that it weakens the Canucks for the frenzy to become #31, then it has to be recognized that maybe they'd have an easier time reaching #31 if they never had him.

 

[2011 still hurts]

>30 something draft picks traded near TDL
>Benning somehow can't negotiate atleast a 4th for one of the best rental wingers available
>gets a waiver wire fourth liner instead who turns out won't reinvent his game and become a successful reclamation project
>"B-but it's the same thing as a 2018 draft pick!!!"

yikes

 

[coldsteel79]

You guys are delusional, until I hear that another gm was offering picks for vanek, I’m gonna take McKenzie’s word that there weren’t any draft picks available for him, you guys keep spinning around in your hate-filled existence.

 

[Kickpuncher]

I hesitate to raise this possibility, but in view of how demonstrably bad this trade seems for the Canucks for 2017-18 and how meaningless it appears to be for future seasons, is it possible that JB looked at the standings and made a move aimed at a stealth tank?

I think the Canucks are worse without Vanek than they would have been with him and that in the long run that could help their draft position. With Vanek still on the team they might still be fighting it out for the rarified position of 28th overall. The only thing arguing against it that I see, other than arguing it isn't how Benning usually operates, is that it would have been nice to get a draft pick back so that at least there would be at least a possibility of another asset coming later.

Imo this is a better argument for the management defenders (though I don't fit that description) than the argument that it is better to get a known player who is next to nothing than an unknown who is very likely to be nothing.

Whether or not the Canucks succeed in their quest for #31, they come out with a higher pick in every round of the draft (subject to the vagaries of the lottery, where finishing lower brings a better chance and high floor in the 1st round) and that probably means they are better off for having made the trade than not having made it. Of course, getting an asset back that has some chance of being a solid future player would have made it even better.

[Insert Jokinen extended 5 years @ $4.5 mill per season with all but the league minimum salary to be paid as signing bonuses and Motte extended on a 2 year 1-way at $2.8 million per season jokes here.]

One more thing-even though Vanek was good enough to help the Canucks this season, I thought the Vanek signing was awful at the time it was made. If the best argument in favour of making this trade was that it weakens the Canucks for the frenzy to become #31, then it has to be recognized that maybe they'd have an easier time reaching #31 if they never had him.

I get that you're playing devil's advocate here and don't necessarily hold this opinion.

I guess I'd say that this probably gives Benning more credit than he deserves. From a tank perspective, the Canucks are undoubtedly better off without Vanek than with him. But yeah, like you said, not getting a pick back here is a big part of the problem and also -- as you mentioned -- it's not really his MO. He hasn't actively tried to tank since he got here (aside from a brief window at last year's trade deadline). Most other moves he has made have been from the perspective of improving the team immediately... and we can all see how successfully *that* has gone.

 

[Kickpuncher]

You guys are delusional, until I hear that another gm was offering picks for vanek, I’m gonna take McKenzie’s word that there weren’t any draft picks available for him, you guys keep spinning around in your hate-filled existence.

Yeah, it's not delusion; getting consistently bent over in trades is just called being a bad GM.

 

[2011 still hurts]

You guys are delusional, until I hear that another gm was offering picks for vanek, I’m gonna take McKenzie’s word that there weren’t any draft picks available for him, you guys keep spinning around in your hate-filled existence.

Yeah man how could we ever believe such a thing when Benning has such a good track record of getting good value from trades!!!!!!

Don't question this genius guys!!!! He's s master negotiator bros!!!

 

[krutovsdonut]

But players like Motte and Larsen are available for nothing. It isn't Motte's chance of turning into something vs. a 4th round pick's chance. It's Motte's incremental value over a similar player that you can get for nothing vs a 4th round pick. I'd argue Motte's incremental value over similar players is virtually nothing so the 4th round pick wins handily. Same with Larsen.

Trading for a pick doesn't mean you can't pick up a Motte caliber player elsewhere for nothing. Then you get the pick's chance of success as well as the player's.

that to me would be an argument that the individual player acquired would have no greater incremental chance of being better than a replacement player, including younger players who are waived, which i suppose is a subset of replacement players.

for larsen, he was quite obviously not taken as a replacement player. he was taken for the significant upside he had if he was finally able to play physically in the nhl. i don't know that there are many similar replacement level gambles out there.

for motte, he is barely 23 on the second year of an elc and and has another year of waiver exemption. he's already well ahead of average as a 4th round pick with over 60 nhl games. i don't see how you equate him to a replacement player who would be at least two years older. a player like motte is just not easily available except at a price.

Chicago Blackhawks: Did We Give Up On Tyler Motte Too Soon?

 

[racerjoe]

Really I don't know what is worst, not getting a draft pick back in a Vanek trade, on not being offered a draft pick for Vanek. Really pick your poison.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Do you actually believe this? A couple weeks prior to the deadline Benning said he's looking to make hockey trades. That's exactly what he made: a hockey trade. You really believe that no team offered a draft pick?

i love how you are incredulous that someone doesn't take your word for it that benning is a flat out liar based on the pathetic circumstantial case you make by cherry picking a quote.

 

[PM]

Motte is producing less than a dedicated goon this year. I'd prefer Darcy Hordichuk or Aaron Volpatti on the 4th line over him.

 

[pgj98m3]

Motte is producing less than a dedicated goon this year. I'd prefer Darcy Hordichuk or Aaron Volpatti on the 4th line over him.

At this point we are better served by players like Motte.....anything to minimize the chance we accidentally win any more games this season.