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.
Obviously different styles, but yeah, Kassian is a great comparison as to the level of player I think Leipsic could be. Agreed that a Hansen or Higgins are a notch above that; if he could get there, this trade is a slam dunk win.
Not sure if I agree with the gift card analogy, simply because that's not the value they inherited; VGK will likely re-sign him, whereas the Canucks wouldn't have. They'll also get to use him as a depth option for the playoffs, while for the Canucks the season was already over. His value was in Utica, but as the Utica thread will tell you, the organization isn't exactly cognizant of the Comets' needs at the best of times, so not sure that went into their value equation.
Vegas also could have just signed him in July at no cost. Or moved a lesser player. They had all the leverage. But yeah, it comes down to IMO they just didn't identify the right defenseman. This is a wholly different conversation if we sent Biega instead. To RobertKron's point - the Canucks seemed to think he was worth something, but they also thought that of Phil Larsen and Luca Sbisa. Granlund was promoted this past year like a future core piece.
Agreed that Leipsic's defensive game isn't there just yet, but I'm not worried about that part. He's not so far off in that area - like say, Goldobin is - where no coach would let him play through it. Especially with Green's ties, Leipsic will get a lot of leeway to iron out his warts.
#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.
Agreed, but it's hard to say that results
never trump due process. Most of the time #2 involves luck, but sometimes there are moves that sacrifice value but end up working out due to GM skill and foresight. Bold actions that don't extract full value can end up working out (Seth Jones probably could've gotten a bigger package, but Johansen has worked out just fine for Nashville and they had a logjam on D), especially over beating around the bush and trying to get an extra toss in player, resulting in no moves being made (Nonis).
