Confirmed with Link: [VAN/VGK] Canucks acquire F Brendan Leipsic for D Philip Holm

[David Bruce Banner]

Best of the two TDL deals by a country mile.

 

[vancityluongo]

This is a point that has been repeated over and over in multiple threads on this forum, but there are essentially four kinds of trades that all transactions can be lumped into:

1. Poor move at the time, poor move in hindsight
2. Poor move at the time, good move in hindsight
3. Good move at the time, poor move in hindsight
4. Good move at the time, good move in hindsight

With varying degrees to each of those tiers, obviously - meh trades like Dowd/Subban could fall into any of those tiers.

Regardless of how it pans out, I think this trade was good at the time (#3 or #4) given what the reasonable market value of Philip Holm should be. Leipsic also still has a reasonable upside as a serviceable bottom-6 forward that could play an important role going forward, rather than just in an easily replaceable Jayson Megna type role.

If Leipsic continues scoring as a top-6 guy, this trade becomes the last kind of trade. Getting a #4 type trade would be a very nice result. I don't have a huge difference in how I view #2 vs #3, because due process is often as important as results. #4 is unquestionably better than #2, even though #2 feels the best because it's a value extraction "out of nowhere."

 

[pgj98m3]

Best of the two TDL deals by a country mile.

Which is incredibly sad.

 

[VanJack]

Best of the two TDL deals by a country mile.

At least both Leipsic and Mott look like they can skate.....and speed through the neutral zone is something this team desperately needs...kind of ironic though that Jokinen, the Jackets cap-dump in the deal, has a couple of goals playing with the Sedins....could be the slowest line in hockey.

 

[racerjoe]

This is a point that has been repeated over and over in multiple threads on this forum, but there are essentially four kinds of trades that all transactions can be lumped into:

1. Poor move at the time, poor move in hindsight
2. Poor move at the time, good move in hindsight
3. Good move at the time, poor move in hindsight
4. Good move at the time, good move in hindsight

With varying degrees to each of those tiers, obviously - meh trades like Dowd/Subban could fall into any of those tiers.

Regardless of how it pans out, I think this trade was good at the time (#3 or #4) given what the reasonable market value of Philip Holm should be. Leipsic also still has a reasonable upside as a serviceable bottom-6 forward that could play an important role going forward, rather than just in an easily replaceable Jayson Megna type role.

If Leipsic continues scoring as a top-6 guy, this trade becomes the last kind of trade. Getting a #4 type trade would be a very nice result. I don't have a huge difference in how I view #2 vs #3, because due process is often as important as results. #4 is unquestionably better than #2, even though #2 feels the best because it's a value extraction "out of nowhere."

I don't know, I think it depends on what you think Leipsic is/becomes. if he is a bottom 6 guy scorer, I don't think it is a good move. You can pick those players up for free, so bad move now, bad move in hindsight. If you think he is more, than then it is a good move now and tbd in the future.

 

[vancityluongo]

I don't know, I think it depends on what you think Leipsic is/becomes. if he is a bottom 6 guy scorer, I don't think it is a good move. You can pick those players up for free, so bad move now, bad move in hindsight. If you think he is more, than then it is a good move now and tbd in the future.

You can't pick up cost controlled, young bottom-6 players for free; you can pick up guys like Winnik, who cost more and have limited/no upside. Leipsic should have similar value to Gaunce, who I sure as hell would not give up for free.

I think there is a distinct difference between Leipsic and a player like Motte who fits your former description. Even if Motte pans out, he's likely a largely replaceable bottom-6 player (think Megna). I have hopes that Leipsic is closer to Higgins in usefulness, but if he doesn't reach that, like you said it's still a good move now based on his potential, tbd in the future. But again, I'm not overly fussed about the future aspect of it. Leipsic could retire tomorrow and I'd still like this more than the Granlund trade.

I might be off in discounting Holm, but nothing about his game right now screams "we shouldn't have given up on this guy." Even if he turns out to be the next Stralman, I wouldn't pin that on Benning. However, this conversation changes if we had given up a 3rd for Leipsic instead of Holm.

 

[racerjoe]

You can't pick up cost controlled, young bottom-6 players for free; you can pick up guys like Winnik, who cost more and have limited/no upside. Leipsic should have similar value to Gaunce, who I sure as hell would not give up for free.

I think there is a distinct difference between Leipsic and a player like Motte who fits your former description. Even if Motte pans out, he's likely a largely replaceable bottom-6 player (think Megna). I have hopes that Leipsic is closer to Higgins in usefulness, but if he doesn't reach that, like you said it's still a good move now based on his potential, tbd in the future. But again, I'm not overly fussed about the future aspect of it. Leipsic could retire tomorrow and I'd still like this more than the Granlund trade.

I might be off in discounting Holm, but nothing about his game right now screams "we shouldn't have given up on this guy." Even if he turns out to be the next Stralman, I wouldn't pin that on Benning. However, this conversation changes if we had given up a 3rd for Leipsic instead of Holm.

My bottom 6 scorer would be like Linden Vey... or Pirri, or Granlund. I wouldn't pay anything for any of those guys. I have yet to say my opinion of what I think he becomes, but if your thoughts of him are that he is just a bottom 6 scorer, it is a bad trade. He currently is bad defensively, does he improve enough to be a solid. He is doing a good job at scoring, is he a top 6 scorer? If you don't think so, he is Linden Vey. It totally depends on your valuation of the player on if this is a current GOOD trade or BAD trade.

 

[vancityluongo]

My bottom 6 scorer would be like Linden Vey... or Pirri, or Granlund. I wouldn't pay anything for any of those guys. I have yet to say my opinion of what I think he becomes, but if your thoughts of him are that he is just a bottom 6 scorer, it is a bad trade. He currently is bad defensively, does he improve enough to be a solid. He is doing a good job at scoring, is he a top 6 scorer? If you don't think so, he is Linden Vey. It totally depends on your valuation of the player on if this is a current GOOD trade or BAD trade.

The valuation of Leipsic is only one aspect. If we traded Holm for Granlund in 2016, that would probably be a good trade at the time. IMO Holm was essentially a negative value asset (contract spot being taken up by a 26 yr old with no intention of signing) traded for a zero value asset (at worst).

Generally speaking, there are three "tiers" of bottom-6 scorers/non-grinders that I would classify Leipsic as possibly being in. The Megna tier (okay AHL numbers, horrific NHL numbers), the Vey tier (terrific AHL numbers, meh/replacement level NHL numbers) and the Winnik/Letestu/Donskoi tier (decent but not special NHL numbers, fit a specific role). I think Leipsic is already better than the Megna tier, is currently at least as good as players in the Vey tier, and on this team is already close to as good as those three I mentioned above. My expectation is that he can play a similar role in the future to a winger equivalent of Victor Rask, or maybe Ryan Dzingel. Those are guys that have a positive non-zero trade value. Even Letestu was traded for a third, at age 33.

 

[racerjoe]

The valuation of Leipsic is only one aspect. If we traded Holm for Granlund in 2016, that would probably be a good trade at the time. IMO Holm was essentially a negative value asset (contract spot being taken up by a 26 yr old with no intention of signing) traded for a zero value asset (at worst).

Generally speaking, there are three "tiers" of bottom-6 scorers/non-grinders that I would classify Leipsic as possibly being in. The Megna tier (okay AHL numbers, horrific NHL numbers), the Vey tier (terrific AHL numbers, meh/replacement level NHL numbers) and the Winnik/Letestu/Donskoi tier (decent but not special NHL numbers, fit a specific role). I think Leipsic is already better than the Megna tier, is currently at least as good as players in the Vey tier, and on this team is already close to as good as those three I mentioned above. My expectation is that he can play a similar role in the future to a winger equivalent of Victor Rask, or maybe Ryan Dzingel. Those are guys that have a positive non-zero trade value. Even Letestu was traded for a third, at age 33.

Holm for Granlund would have been a bad trade. Holm seemingly had value (I had no idea he did) so good on jb for trying to do something with that value.

Now I am sure Leipsic had "value" around the NHL, but imo, if you don't think he is more than a bottom 6 type scorer, it is not real value. If you think he is more, than it is a good trade. It hinges on the player you think he is/will be.

Sounds like you think he is more, that means you think it is good value now.

 

[vancityluongo]

Holm for Granlund would have been a bad trade. Holm seemingly had value (I had no idea he did) so good on jb for trying to do something with that value.

Now I am sure Leipsic had "value" around the NHL, but imo, if you don't think he is more than a bottom 6 type scorer, it is not real value. If you think he is more, than it is a good trade. It hinges on the player you think he is/will be.

Sounds like you think he is more, that means you think it is good value now.

I don't think it's fair to say Holm had "value" just because he landed Leipsic. As bizarre as it is, I think Holm should have had no value and Benning actually just made a decent trade, lol. There are a dozen players in Europe that would cost nothing to sign that should have the same value (ie. zero).

Don't think I agree about Holm for Granlund either - the problem with that actual was never taking a shot on Granlund, it was about what they gave up (Shinkaruk, a marginally positive asset at the time) for a zero value asset. Again, I define Holm's value as marginally negative.

Also disagreed that anything less than a top-6 scoring player has no value. Those guys I listed shouldn't play on the top two lines of a playoff/contending team, but have value chipping in 25-30 points from a third line at a relatively low cost. If Leipsic is a 15+15 guy playing under 15 minutes/game with little to no PP time, that's a valuable asset. You seem to be lumping all bottom-6 scorers into one tier (Vey), while I think there are a few more groups than that.

 

[racerjoe]

I don't think it's fair to say Holm had "value" just because he landed Leipsic. As bizarre as it is, I think Holm should have had no value and Benning actually just made a decent trade, lol. There are a dozen players in Europe that would cost nothing to sign that should have the same value (ie. zero).

Don't think I agree about Holm for Granlund either - the problem with that actual was never taking a shot on Granlund, it was about what they gave up (Shinkaruk, a marginally positive asset at the time) for a zero value asset. Again, I define Holm's value as marginally negative.

Also disagreed that anything less than a top-6 scoring player has no value. Those guys I listed shouldn't play on the top two lines of a playoff/contending team, but have value chipping in 25-30 points from a third line at a relatively low cost. If Leipsic is a 15+15 guy playing under 15 minutes/game with little to no PP time, that's a valuable asset. You seem to be lumping all bottom-6 scorers into one tier (Vey), while I think there are a few more groups than that.

On mobile now so trying make this shorter.

I think Holm has value at the deadline cause dmen have value then especially on expiring deals.

Point two, agree mostly I just think Holm had value therefore I wouldn’t trade him for no value.

Last point is much more complicated but not all bottom 6 guys have no value. But scorers like Vey have no value.

 

[vancityluongo]

On mobile now so trying make this shorter.

I think Holm has value at the deadline cause dmen have value then especially on expiring deals.

Point two, agree mostly I just think Holm had value therefore I wouldn’t trade him for no value.

Last point is much more complicated but not all bottom 6 guys have no value. But scorers like Vey have no value.

Feel free to reply to this when you're back on desktop; we can definitely come back to this later. This is the first reasonable argument related to the Canucks I've had in a while, so I'm down to keep discussing for a while!

Fair enough about Holm's value to Vegas; doesn't change that he had no value to the Canucks as an expiring contract that for whatever reason (mishandled, actually not deserving of NHL time, didn't like it here, etc.) probably wasn't going to re-sign here. We do disagree on just how much value he had. As was mentioned hundreds of times in the Vanek thread, a guy like Brandon Davidson was available on waivers. Despite going for a third at the deadline, IMO that applies here because he's a better player than Holm and was available for free. Vegas should have taken him then over paying for Holm. Bottom-end defenseman don't/shouldn't have much value.

On the last point, I get where you're coming from. If we're just defining bottom-6 scorer as a player who scores < 30-35 points in 17+ soft minutes (even if 19 of those points are goals!!) just isn't that valuable in an absolute sense. But I'd argue that a player getting those minutes isn't a bottom-6 scorer - they're a bottom-6 forward playing top-6 minutes because the team is garbage.

A player that can put up those 30 points in limited minutes while not being a defensive liability - even if they don't kill penalties - is an important piece. A guy who fits that mold - someone like Donskoi - is equally, if not more valuable than a more traditional bottom-6 role "non-scorer" like Gaunce or Sutter or whoever.

I don't think Leipsic is at the Donskoi level yet, but I don't think he's far off.

Edit: Full paragraphs keep getting deleted because apparently there is some coding that makes a "less than #" enter a new paragraph? I'll try and type less than 20 next to test:

p>

 

[racerjoe]

Feel free to reply to this when you're back on desktop; we can definitely come back to this later. This is the first reasonable argument related to the Canucks I've had in a while, so I'm down to keep discussing for a while!

Fair enough about Holm's value to Vegas; doesn't change that he had no value to the Canucks as an expiring contract that for whatever reason (mishandled, actually not deserving of NHL time, didn't like it here, etc.) probably wasn't going to re-sign here. We do disagree on just how much value he had. As was mentioned hundreds of times in the Vanek thread, a guy like Brandon Davidson was available on waivers. Despite going for a third at the deadline, IMO that applies here because he's a better player than Holm and was available for free. Vegas should have taken him then over paying for Holm. Bottom-end defenseman don't/shouldn't have much value.

On the last point, I get where you're coming from. If we're just defining bottom-6 scorer as a player who scores < 30-35 points in 17+ soft minutes (even if 19 of those points are goals!!) just isn't that valuable in an absolute sense. But I'd argue that a player getting those minutes isn't a bottom-6 scorer - they're a bottom-6 forward playing top-6 minutes because the team is garbage.

A player that can put up those 30 points in limited minutes while not being a defensive liability - even if they don't kill penalties - is an important piece. A guy who fits that mold - someone like Donskoi - is equally, if not more valuable than a more traditional bottom-6 role "non-scorer" like Gaunce or Sutter or whoever.

I don't think Leipsic is at the Donskoi level yet, but I don't think he's far off.

Edit: Full paragraphs keep getting deleted because apparently there is some coding that makes a "less than #" enter a new paragraph? I'll try and type less than 20 next to test:

p>

I will be back!

Same to you good sir.

 

[RobertKron]

Feel free to reply to this when you're back on desktop; we can definitely come back to this later. This is the first reasonable argument related to the Canucks I've had in a while, so I'm down to keep discussing for a while!

Fair enough about Holm's value to Vegas; doesn't change that he had no value to the Canucks as an expiring contract that for whatever reason (mishandled, actually not deserving of NHL time, didn't like it here, etc.) probably wasn't going to re-sign here.

FWIW, a week or two pre-deadline, Benning cited Holm - by name - as one of the reasons why he felt the D was a strength for the organization moving forward. His name was also pushed a fair amount by the Canuck-affiliated outlets throughout the season. The org likely saw more value in him than you did.

 

[pgj98m3]

FWIW, a week or two pre-deadline, Benning cited Holm - by name - as one of the reasons why he felt the D was a strength for the organization moving forward. His name was also pushed a fair amount by the Canuck-affiliated outlets throughout the season. The org likely saw more value in him than you did.

Of course they "managed" him like they did Tryamkin alienating a prospect and then not even bothering to showcase him. What a management team!!!!

 

[racerjoe]

Feel free to reply to this when you're back on desktop; we can definitely come back to this later. This is the first reasonable argument related to the Canucks I've had in a while, so I'm down to keep discussing for a while!

Fair enough about Holm's value to Vegas; doesn't change that he had no value to the Canucks as an expiring contract that for whatever reason (mishandled, actually not deserving of NHL time, didn't like it here, etc.) probably wasn't going to re-sign here. We do disagree on just how much value he had. As was mentioned hundreds of times in the Vanek thread, a guy like Brandon Davidson was available on waivers. Despite going for a third at the deadline, IMO that applies here because he's a better player than Holm and was available for free. Vegas should have taken him then over paying for Holm. Bottom-end defenseman don't/shouldn't have much value.

On the last point, I get where you're coming from. If we're just defining bottom-6 scorer as a player who scores < 30-35 points in 17+ soft minutes (even if 19 of those points are goals!!) just isn't that valuable in an absolute sense. But I'd argue that a player getting those minutes isn't a bottom-6 scorer - they're a bottom-6 forward playing top-6 minutes because the team is garbage.

A player that can put up those 30 points in limited minutes while not being a defensive liability - even if they don't kill penalties - is an important piece. A guy who fits that mold - someone like Donskoi - is equally, if not more valuable than a more traditional bottom-6 role "non-scorer" like Gaunce or Sutter or whoever.

I don't think Leipsic is at the Donskoi level yet, but I don't think he's far off.

Edit: Full paragraphs keep getting deleted because apparently there is some coding that makes a "less than #" enter a new paragraph? I'll try and type less than 20 next to test:

p>

To your first point, Holm still had value to us, it was just in trade. Think of him as a gift card that expires at the trade deadline. There is still value to be had.

On point two I think we are close. I look at a bottom six guy with value like a Richardson. Even a Kassian, someone who doesn't need to be sheltered or given opportunity. I would put Hansen or Higgins on a level above those guys. If you think Leipsic can get there, that absolutely has value. Just with where his defensive play is currently I don't think you can say that. He might be able to score in less minutes, but he probably will also get scored on a fair bit in those tougher minutes. That is why I think you have to see him as a top 6 guy or bottom six scorer.

You hit it on that Donskoi comp/paragraph. I just don't think you can say his defensive game is good enough to be considered adequate yet.

My view on him has been skewed a bit, so I think I can't give him a true fair assessment, but I do think it hinges on where you see him as if it is a good trade or not.

 

[absolute garbage]

This is a point that has been repeated over and over in multiple threads on this forum, but there are essentially four kinds of trades that all transactions can be lumped into:

1. Poor move at the time, poor move in hindsight
2. Poor move at the time, good move in hindsight
3. Good move at the time, poor move in hindsight
4. Good move at the time, good move in hindsight

With varying degrees to each of those tiers, obviously - meh trades like Dowd/Subban could fall into any of those tiers.

Regardless of how it pans out, I think this trade was good at the time (#3 or #4) given what the reasonable market value of Philip Holm should be. Leipsic also still has a reasonable upside as a serviceable bottom-6 forward that could play an important role going forward, rather than just in an easily replaceable Jayson Megna type role.

If Leipsic continues scoring as a top-6 guy, this trade becomes the last kind of trade. Getting a #4 type trade would be a very nice result. I don't have a huge difference in how I view #2 vs #3, because due process is often as important as results. #4 is unquestionably better than #2, even though #2 feels the best because it's a value extraction "out of nowhere."

#3 is better than #2. #2 implies getting lucky, and that's not a viable consistent way to building a successful product.

All moves are made on the market, not on the ice, and on the market it's always possible to make at least a "neutral move at the time, good/poor move in hindsight". You should never make a poor move and hope to get lucky.

 

[VanJack]

Pretty hard to argue with this deal......Canucks have a bushel-full of 5-6 left shot d-men in their system, and Holm is already 26.....not sure about his contract status, but believe he had the ability to opt-out at the end of the season and head back to Sweden.

So they'd probably have lost him for nothing on July 1st...That makes Leipsic basically a 'free asset'.

 

[DFAC]

Good deal by Benning

 

[mossey3535]

I don't care to comment on the quality of the deal, but we're seeing the warts under the Lipstick now. Vegas could afford to let him go and with the playoffs on the horizon he wouldn't have been trusted to be in the lineup.

Still very entertaining though. Great wheels and vision, huge lessons to learn defensively. But couldn't you say the same about Jake or Goldy?

To those who have said he has good hockey IQ - no, he doesn't. It's more like he has half a brain. The offensive half works, the defensive half doesn't. You can't say "oh he is good at reading the play" when he is on the wrong side of his man 80% of the time. Ironically, I would say "reading the play" is a lot tougher on offence than defence. But hopefully he can start to develop his left hemisphere.

 

[pgj98m3]

Good deal by Benning

Maybe the best deal by Benning which is very sad because by any objective measure its simply re-arranging the deck chairs.

 

[VanJack]

I don't care to comment on the quality of the deal, but we're seeing the warts under the Lipstick now. Vegas could afford to let him go and with the playoffs on the horizon he wouldn't have been trusted to be in the lineup.

Still very entertaining though. Great wheels and vision, huge lessons to learn defensively. But couldn't you say the same about Jake or Goldy?

To those who have said he has good hockey IQ - no, he doesn't. It's more like he has half a brain. The offensive half works, the defensive half doesn't. You can't say "oh he is good at reading the play" when he is on the wrong side of his man 80% of the time. Ironically, I would say "reading the play" is a lot tougher on offence than defence. But hopefully he can start to develop his left hemisphere.

Any guy who's 23 and now on his fourth NHL organization, is going to have warts in his game.....it goes without saying....but if anyone can get his left-brain working in the defensive zone, it's Green.....I'm pretty sure he was on his case about this in junior at Portland....and if the worst comes to worst, they either don't qualify him as an RFA or put him on waivers and he can help Utica.

And the real positive about this deal is that if didn't cost the Canucks a draft pick....Maybe Jimbo has finally learned his lesson from past deals like the ones for Vey, Etem, Pedan, Dorsett, Pouliot, Gudbranson, Sutter... et.al...

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Hard to criticize the deal. Leipsic is playing on a tire fire of a team right now and still putting up points albeit in a small sample size. It's not like he's getting a lot of offensive help either with the team struggling.

 

[iceburg]

Any guy who's 23 and now on his fourth NHL organization, is going to have warts in his game.....it goes without saying....but if anyone can get his left-brain working in the defensive zone, it's Green.....I'm pretty sure he was on his case about this in junior at Portland....and if the worst comes to worst, they either don't qualify him as an RFA or put him on waivers and he can help Utica.

And the real positive about this deal is that if didn't cost the Canucks a draft pick....Maybe Jimbo has finally learned his lesson from past deals like the ones for Vey, Etem, Pedan, Dorsett, Pouliot, Gudbranson, Sutter... et.al...

It's been said a few times but I don't think this is an entirely fair talking point. Toronto didn't want to give him up, he was their best player and more than a point per game player as a 22 year old on their AHL team. He just wasn't one of the few they were able to protect. Las Vegas is absolutely loaded with middle six forwards and they are working to rebalance their assets. While it's not a hugely positive thing that 3 organizations gave up his rights, neither is it a very strong indictment of Leipsic as a player given these unique circumstances.

 

[Reasoned Opinion]

I don't know, I think it depends on what you think Leipsic is/becomes. if he is a bottom 6 guy scorer, I don't think it is a good move. You can pick those players up for free, so bad move now, bad move in hindsight. If you think he is more, than then it is a good move now and tbd in the future.

How do you figure this is a bad move as Leipsic was not available for "free" yet Holm was signed and cost nothing so was "free"? If anything, GM JB took something from nothing and turned into what could be something but if it isn't, what is lost? How can this possibly be a bad move in hindsight if Holm was not in their long term plans? At the very worst this was nothing ventured sort of move?

I get you like to be very negative on Benning but this is the wrong trade to be crapping on.