Confirmed with Link: Canucks Acquire Derek Dorsett

[Shareefruck]

I guess. It's really disrespectful to anyone making the other side of the argument imo. It's also lazy and dismissive. I don't like it.

I think that's oversensitive-- I hate that whole "an attack on an idea is a direct attack/insult towards everyone who adopts that idea" thing-- Exactly what I think people need to grow up about, personally. It makes all discussion so... constricting, and you can't say what you want to say, even if it isn't ACTUALLY disrespectful in principle, IMO.

In my opinion, saying that you think an action is stupid is no more lazy than saying something's great/exciting/boring/promising/disappointing. In all of these cases, you have the option of following it up or explaining yourself. So I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[Scurr]

Because no one has shown that what Dorsett brings is valuable.

If its so intangible that it can't be measured, then it clearly can't be worth very much.

It'll be measured in wins and losses.

How are those two things different? People want an efficient use of resources a la a stock trader want to maximize the things that provide value. So do people who are "trading hockey players to build a hockey team" because they're nuts if they don't. You argue that trading for FA X is the same because you question whether the other things actually help building a hockey team.

Stocks perform independent of each other. Hockey players do not.

The onus is on people suggesting something has value to prove it. It's not as though people who point to stats don't watch the game, and many people whose opinions I respect who rely mostly on their eyes also don't see the value in this trade.

Things like chemistry and leadership are important imo… even if I can't prove it.

 

[Scurr]

I think that's oversensitive-- I hate that whole "an attack on an idea is a direct attack/insult towards everyone who adopts that idea" thing-- Exactly what I think people need to grow up about, personally. It makes all discussion so... constricting, and you can't say what you want to say, even if it isn't ACTUALLY disrespectful in principle, IMO.

In my opinion, saying that you think an action is stupid is no more lazy than saying something's great/exciting/boring/promising/disappointing. In all of these cases, you have the option of following it up or explaining yourself. So I don't see anything wrong with that.

You think I get to say what I want to say? I'm probably too old to grow up now.

 

[Pioneer]

I'm pretty excited about getting this guy on our 4th line. I'm thinking he'll have an impact like Torres had but slightly less, and every team needs guys like that (minus the suspensions). Not to say he'll put up 20 pts but he could.

 

[Shareefruck]

You think I get to say what I want to say? I'm probably too old to grow up now.

Wasn't directed at you

 

[Pioneer]

I guess. It's really disrespectful to anyone making the other side of the argument imo. It's also lazy and dismissive. I don't like it.

That's how I feel about a poorly constructed response to an idea or opinion. If someone wishes to say something that can be considered offensive or disrespectful, an intelligent person will consider that in their response to your opinion; if you don't clarify your understanding. No doubt that will lead to a hostile discussion with no purpose

 

[Wilch]

It'll be measured in wins and losses.

Stocks perform independent of each other. Hockey players do not.

Things like chemistry and leadership are important imo… even if I can't prove it.

1. Wins and losses is attributed to the entire team, not a single player. On top of that, there are other factors including injuries, improvements and decline of various players; W/L thus cannot be used to measure the impact of a single player.

2. The point is about asset management, not a direct 100% comparison to stocks. In a controlled environment where getting the most out of your money really matters, (ELC/RFA young players, moneypuck signings) good value management is tantamount to yielding success.

3. Chemistry and leadership are indeed important, but sub 20 point grinders with good leadership qualities is rarely, if ever, the vital cog in a championship team or elite contender.

 

[Verviticus]

It'll be measured in wins and losses.

ok so uh, hes individually responsible for how the team does next season? sure.

 

[bossram]

I like Winnik as a player, but signing him and foregoing Dorsett leaves you with 1 forward on the roster that can and will drop the gloves in Zack Kassian. Do we want Kassian always thinking he needs to be the guy to step up and defend his teammates? I would say no, especially if he's going to be relied upon in a top 6 role.

Dorsett fills a need that Winnik cannot. Different roles.

For me, fighting is in no way an essential trait to have in a hockey player. Not even "heavyweights" intimidate anyone. I'd much rather have a superior player (Winnik) who would happen to come at a cheaper cost and without giving up an asset than an inferior player who's only edge is in fighting.

Chicago doesn't have any "fighters" on their roster. They just traded Bollig. Their 4th line has Kruger and Ben Smith. Not prototypical 4th liners. They're exposing market inefficiencies by exploiting teams who still think they need "toughness" and "fighters". Meanwhile they put together a more competitive team.

It also leaves you with a 3rd round pick...if Zack Kassian isn't smart enough to keep the gloves on, he's probably better off dropping them and playing on the 4th line.

3rd round pick was way too much to pay for a 4th liner. We ditched a top-four guy like Garrison PLUS other assets to get a 2nd. But it costs a 3rd for a 4th liner? There is a disconnect here. I'd rather have a Winnik and the 3rd.

Sestito (unfortunately) will likely see ice time in the bottom 6. Plus, we have plenty of guys who are willing to drop the gloves if push comes to shove...it may not be a strong part of their game, but they won't shy away if its standing up for a teammate...and isn't that enough? It's not like Dorsett is going to strike fear of a beating into anyone...if he fights 15-20 times, how many of those fights are necessary? I'm pretty sure the answer would be very close to zero.

I don't have a problem with acquiring Dorsett, I have a problem with the cost.

Agreed. I don't actually hate Dorsett. But I don't like the cost. I'd way rather have a Winnik or even Santorelli back because they're better players and wouldn't cost any assets.

Fighting is not necessary. Having the best possible players on your team is.

 

[biturbo19]

Whenever I hear Dorsett's name, I still always think of this:

This is really just beautiful, in so many different ways.

Even funnier given what the Oilers just paid Nikitin for no apparent reason.

And as Dorsett should presumably be set right up and ready for what most people here seem to think Edler does as a defenceman.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

Because no one has shown that what Dorsett brings is valuable.

If its so intangible that it can't be measured, then it clearly can't be worth very much.

No one has shown character or leadership have a tangible effect either, yet every team looks for players that possess it. Just because you cannot measure or quantify these attributes doesn't mean they're not worth anything.

I believe morale can effect performance, in any industry. Tough to prove it though. I also believe players prefer an environment where they feel teammates will stick up for one another and come to each others defense - thus helping with team morale.

 

[Barney Gumble]

No one has shown character or leadership have a tangible effect either, yet every team looks for players that possess it.

Qualities like giving a snow shower to a little kid on the ice? Imagine if Burrows did that on HNIC.

 

[PhilMick]

Qualities like giving a snow shower to a little kid on the ice? Imagine if Burrows did that on HNIC.

There's no way that was on purpose, was it?

If Burrows did it, I think the legal fallout would dwarf the Bertuzzi/Moore case

 

[Scurr]

Actually, I do think Benning is kind of dim witted.

That's not to say he won't be a successful GM, because I think while being mentally astute is a key factor, it isn't everything; as proven with Gillis.

Sometimes, dumb luck can lead to good things, and that's just as important, if not more.

I think he's dumb, and his moves are bad, but I'm not saying whether it will play out or not.

It's like watching someone put his life savings on red in a game of roulette, where the payout isn't really commensurate with the potential downside. If he wins, not bad, if he loses, yikes.

Gotta love when you can hedge.

1. Wins and losses is attributed to the entire team, not a single player. On top of that, there are other factors including injuries, improvements and decline of various players; W/L thus cannot be used to measure the impact of a single player.

I'm not attributing it all to Dorsett. If things like leadership and chemistry matter and Benning found the right mix of it, it should show up in wins and losses. Or at least how the team plays. The idea being that the sum is greater than the parts. I believe in the idea... it's up to Benning to put it to practice.

2. The point is about asset management, not a direct 100% comparison to stocks. In a controlled environment where getting the most out of your money really matters, (ELC/RFA young players, moneypuck signings) good value management is tantamount to yielding success.

Agreed. Players can't be measured like stocks though, because they don't perform independent of one another.

Winnik may indeed be the better player. If Dorsett makes all the other players on your team better... as well as being a good player... then he's providing value that can't be found on behindthenet. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

A great attitude in any work environment can increase productivity. Is that debatable?

3. Chemistry and leadership are indeed important, but sub 20 point grinders with good leadership qualities is rarely, if ever, the vital cog in a championship team or elite contender.

This runs counter to my experience with hockey. Role players make fine leaders.

ok so uh, hes individually responsible for how the team does next season? sure.

No. Things like leadership and chemistry are tangible in that way though imo.

No one has shown character or leadership have a tangible effect either, yet every team looks for players that possess it. Just because you cannot measure or quantify these attributes doesn't mean they're not worth anything.

I believe morale can effect performance, in any industry. Tough to prove it though. I also believe players prefer an environment where they feel teammates will stick up for one another and come to each others defense - thus helping with team morale.

Not everybody believes that?

 

[Wilch]

Gotta love when you can hedge.



I'm not attributing it all to Dorsett. If things like leadership and chemistry matter and Benning found the right mix of it, it should show up in wins and losses. Or at least how the team plays. The idea being that the sum is greater than the parts. I believe in the idea... it's up to Benning to put it to practice.



Agreed. Players can't be measured like stocks though, because they don't perform independent of one another.

Winnik may indeed be the better player. If Dorsett makes all the other players on your team better... as well as being a good player... then he's providing value that can't be found on behindthenet. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

A great attitude in any work environment can increase productivity. Is that debatable?

1. Being open to all possibilities is not hedging, it's called being prudent. I'd rather not be some jackass who pretends to know what the future will be.

2 & 3. You can't tell me great attitude will turn Jannik Hansen into a 30 goal scorer. Malhotra had a great attitude, Hansen still had hands of stone playing on a line with him. At the end of the day, you're paying a solid piece of asset for someone who will have little effect on the score sheet, and whatever intangibles he's got on top of that isn't enough to earn him more than $2m a year.

 

[The Bob Cole]

This is really just beautiful, in so many different ways.

Even funnier given what the Oilers just paid Nikitin for no apparent reason.

And as Dorsett should presumably be set right up and ready for what most people here seem to think Edler does as a defenceman.

What's even funnier is people using on incident to pick apart careers.

While arguments can be made for both your points, using one play as an indication (and an image no less, with no context on the rest of the decisions made on the player) is really not a fair way to make an argument.

Dorsett didn't do anything too abnormal to what you see players do tons of times during a game. Perhaps he could have been in front of the puck a bit more aggressively, but we often see the first forechecker let the player go through the neutral zone on the PK (into an area the team is supposed to have locked off where the D will stand him up at the blue line to force a dump-in or difficult pass, thus giving him the open option) and clearly his defense pairing failed to communicate who should be on what side of the ice. Thus Dorsett screaming in the photo and wondering what the heck went on after the goal.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Still think we overpaid for Dorsett (especially considering what these picks were bringing back at the deadline) but I do think he will be a fan favourite in the lineup.

 

[biturbo19]

What's even funnier is people using on incident to pick apart careers.

While arguments can be made for both your points, using one play as an indication (and an image no less, with no context on the rest of the decisions made on the player) is really not a fair way to make an argument.

Dorsett didn't do anything too abnormal to what you see players do tons of times during a game. Perhaps he could have been in front of the puck a bit more aggressively, but we often see the first forechecker let the player go through the neutral zone on the PK (into an area the team is supposed to have locked off where the D will stand him up at the blue line to force a dump-in or difficult pass, thus giving him the open option) and clearly his defense pairing failed to communicate who should be on what side of the ice. Thus Dorsett screaming in the photo and wondering what the heck went on after the goal.

Okay, but is anyone doing that here? Picking apart a players' entire career based on one play?

 

[Scurr]

1. Being open to all possibilities is not hedging, it's called being prudent. I'd rather not be some jackass who pretends to know what the future will be.

If luck is the deciding factor in all of this we should save the money and get a monkey or poster to do it.

2 & 3. You can't tell me great attitude will turn Jannik Hansen into a 30 goal scorer. Malhotra had a great attitude, Hansen still had hands of stone playing on a line with him. At the end of the day, you're paying a solid piece of asset for someone who will have little effect on the score sheet, and whatever intangibles he's got on top of that isn't enough to earn him more than $2m a year.

Does it have to? What's a 3rd round pick worth? What would it be worth to you to have your entire roster play 1% better? 3%? 5%?

We lost a lot more than three really good players when we lost Malhotra, Salo and Samuelsson imo. Dorsett isn't going to make the difference himself... but a good leadership group is paramount to success. Benning thinks he'll make a difference... I'll wait and see how they do.

 

[me2]

I'd rather be lucky than good.

 

[Canucker]

Winnik may indeed be the better player. If Dorsett makes all the other players on your team better... as well as being a good player... then he's providing value that can't be found on behindthenet. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

A great attitude in any work environment can increase productivity. Is that debatable?

Why is Dorsett's "great attitude" more productive than Winnik's?

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Why is Dorsett's "great attitude" more productive than Winnik's?

Because Dorsett gives the team a edge physically that it needs and doesn't have. If our top forwards were Perry & Getzlaf instead of Henrik and Daniel perhaps Winnik over Dorsett would be a good arguement. However when you have little grit throughout the lineup somewhere you need to find some. Of course i see others posters say that you do not need any grit so each to their own.

 

[Rendole]

The only thing I know about Dorset is he snow showered some Montreal kids on the ice during the playoffs this year

 

[bo2shink*]

The only thing I know about Dorset is he snow showered some Montreal kids on the ice during the playoffs this year

As a kid, I'd rather have that story than the one where nothing happened.

 

[Scurr]

Why is Dorsett's "great attitude" more productive than Winnik's?

I'm not betting that it is... Benning is. I don't even pretend to know them very well as players, never mind what kind of people they are. I'm cautiously optimistic because I think you can also make a "possession" argument for all of Linben's moves. I'm not scared of them talking about things like "character" because I still believe in those things. So I'm left hoping that maybe the "scout" actually has an eye for talent and knows how to put a team together.