Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign G Michael DiPietro to 1-Year, 2-Way Deal ($840K)

[Pip]

As already stated he lost roughly 10 starts

World class development > starting 10 games

Not playing is not “world class development”. Full stop. This is straight up not a strategy for developing goalies, or any player for that matter. Makes me think back to McCann “learning from the press box”. I have time for the argument that the year was lost either way due to COVID and that the small amount of games lost down in the AHL wouldn’t have made a big difference but regardless it was still a lost year at a critical year of his development.

Trying to spin a year as a practice goalie as a positive developmental year is insane.

 

[MS]

Why couldn't he have gotten NHL level goaltending help AND another 5-10 AHL starts? This is a false dichotomy.

You can't develop without playing time, and the more playing time the better. Goalies can benefit more from targeted practices rather than the free for all that is often a main team practice. They can also benefit a lot from semi-extended breaks from playing to work with a goalie coach. However, part of this is how well a particular goalie coach simulates game conditions in their practices. IMO Melanson was better at this than Clark who is more teach-y.

But its head scratching to think that anyone would suggest that missing starts doesn't matter in development. It clearly does. Lots of times you will get in lots of practice time and the techniques you learn abandon you during the game.

It's 5-10 games over 2 months.

Might it have been slightly better for him? Sure. Did it make a big difference in his development path? Highly unlikely.

 

[mossey3535]

Delete

 

[mossey3535]

It's 5-10 games over 2 months.

Might it have been slightly better for him? Sure. Did it make a big difference in his development path? Highly unlikely.

No way. You can regain your whole mental outlook with a good goalie coach and enough games to figure things out. That kind of momentum could have changed his trajectory dramatically.

This is a weird argument in this thread since if you gave a skater 10 more games and they scored some fluke goals that lead to an actual good run of play, nobody would question it. And yet for goalies, for whom starts are so important because it's basically their entire playing time, it's being brushed off.

Like Spencer Martin was on a mediocre plateau the season before and only played 15 games. Part of the reason he was able to figure it out was that he needed up getting 25 games in Abby. He worked through stuff during games and gained more experience reading plays. If we had only played him 15 games, would his turnaround have been more or less likely? If he had played only 5 games the year before, what are the chances that he figures it out for us the next year?

 

[MS]

No way. You can regain your whole mental outlook with a good goalie coach and enough games to figure things out. That kind of momentum could have changed his trajectory dramatically.

This is a weird argument in this thread since if you gave a skater 10 more games and they scored some fluke goals that lead to an actual good run of play, nobody would question it. And yet for goalies, for whom starts are so important because it's basically their entire playing time, it's being brushed off.

I don't buy it. He's had, what? 200 starts since we drafted him? And those 10 are going to make all the difference?

He actually played really well once they finally sent him down for a few games at the end of that season.

By far the most likely outcome if he plays those 10 games is that he's the same small/athletic/all-over-the-place goalie he's always been and nothing really changes.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

The fact that this is even an argument just blows my mind...

Some intense Dunning-Kruger going on in this thread.

 

[Tables of Stats]

I think some extra games might have been better, but I don't think that any number of games would be enough to get DiPietro playing Clark's system well. Given that we've seen Clark do with goalies of a certain size and style I think it's better for us to focus on goalies that can use that system in ways the undersized DiPietro simply can't.

 

[Three On Zero]

Not playing is not “world class development”. Full stop. This is straight up not a strategy for developing goalies, or any player for that matter. Makes me think back to McCann “learning from the press box”. I have time for the argument that the year was lost either way due to COVID and that the small amount of games lost down in the AHL wouldn’t have made a big difference but regardless it was still a lost year at a critical year of his development.

Trying to spin a year as a practice goalie as a positive developmental year is insane.

The lost time due to covid was far more detrimental than the 10 or so missed games due to being a black ace

DP gets called up due to injury and misses 10 AHL games while being on the NHL bench - Non issue

DP gets called up due to covid and misses 10 AHL games while being available to play for the NHL - Giant development loss

Explain the difference between these two scenarios? Does a goalie miss out on developing every time he gets called up?

Again, IF he had been a black ace and was missing substantial ice team? THEN it becomes an issue and poor development.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

You're stuck on the sunk cost fallacy. Where he was drafted doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. Just make the correct decision and move forward.

DP doesn't have a place in the organization anymore. If any team wants to give VAN an asset for him, you just take it.

You’re partially correct and partially way off. I’ll explain each.

The whole basis of the point is that there shouldn’t be a “sunk cost”. That’s literally why we are talking about this. Not sure if you threw the word “fallacy” to make the point stronger but it doesn’t apply here lol. A fallacy is something that can disproven with fact. He’s a sunk cost- fact. No fallacy there.

The argument is WHY is he a sunk cost and trading in a high 3rd for nothing shouldn’t be something we just accept.

 

[bossram]

You’re partially correct and partially way off. I’ll explain each.

The whole basis of the point is that there shouldn’t be a “sunk cost”. That’s literally why we are talking about this. Not sure if you threw the word “fallacy” to make the point stronger but it doesn’t apply here lol. A fallacy is something that can disproven with fact. He’s a sunk cost- fact. No fallacy there.

The argument is WHY is he a sunk cost and trading in a high 3rd for nothing shouldn’t be something we just accept.

The sunk cost fallacy is the phenomenon that people (irrationally) hold on or continue with poor decisions because of previous investments made in that decision. In this case, the sunk cost is the 3rd round pick and years invested in DP. The irrational argument (fallacy) for retaining him is that we should keep him because he was a relatively high draft pick, spent a lot of time in the organization, and was highly regarded. That isn't logical. The only reason to keep him at this point should be forward-looking - will he be a good goaltender for the Canucks going forward?

It completely applies. Your weird explanation makes no sense. You're committing the sunk cost fallacy. You don't want to trade him for less than a 3rd, because he was a 3rd round pick. Using a 3rd round pick on him is the "sunk cost". The sunk cost doesn't matter anymore. Because it's sunk. Move forward and make the best possible decision with the information today.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

The sunk cost fallacy is the phenomenon that people (irrationally) hold on or continue with poor decisions because of previous investments made in that decision. In this case, the sunk cost is the 3rd round pick and years invested in DP. The irrational argument (fallacy) for retaining him is that we should keep him because he was a relatively high draft pick, spent a lot of time in the organization, and was highly regarded. That isn't logical. The only reason to keep him at this point should be forward-looking - will he be a good goaltender for the Canucks going forward?

It completely applies. Your weird explanation makes no sense. You're committing the sunk cost fallacy. You don't want to trade him for less than a 3rd, because he was a 3rd round pick. Using a 3rd round pick on him is the "sunk cost". The sunk cost doesn't matter anymore. Because it's sunk. Move forward and make the best possible decision with the information today.

You’re using a lot of words to say

Draft an (almost) 2nd rounder
He plays 3 games in 5 years with a 5.28GAA
Trade him for a 7th rounder

“Laugh all the way to the bank”

 

[mossey3535]

I don't buy it. He's had, what? 200 starts since we drafted him? And those 10 are going to make all the difference?

He actually played really well once they finally sent him down for a few games at the end of that season.

By far the most likely outcome if he plays those 10 games is that he's the same small/athletic/all-over-the-place goalie he's always been and nothing really changes.

Yes, he's had 77 PROFESSIONAL starts. So an extra 10 is 13% of his whole career, and that would still only get him to 87 starts which is barely two seasons in a tandem situation and just over one season as a 60 game starter. In comparison Demko had 117 pro starts before they gave him a sniff and he was a much better prospect. PS Spencer Martin had 200 pro starts before he began the season.

Your argument is that we know what he's going to be after effectively two pro seasons. I'm saying no team is so good at player evaluation that they can accomplish that with that sample size.

I recognize he might have lost all his perceived value in the organization and might need to be traded. But the contract makes sense since if he can't find a landing spot at least he is ECHL depth.

 

[RobertKron]

You’re using a lot of words to say

Draft an (almost) 2nd rounder
He plays 3 games in 5 years with a 5.28GAA
Trade him for a 7th rounder

“Laugh all the way to the bank”

7th round is now "mid-round?"

Aside from that, yes. Unless you have access to a time machine, I don't really see why you'd object to being happy that you're offered an okay asset in exchange for a prospect that isn't going anywhere in your organization. The conversation about drafting and developing him is a separate one.

 

[Red]

You’re partially correct and partially way off. I’ll explain each.

The whole basis of the point is that there shouldn’t be a “sunk cost”. That’s literally why we are talking about this. Not sure if you threw the word “fallacy” to make the point stronger but it doesn’t apply here lol. A fallacy is something that can disproven with fact. He’s a sunk cost- fact. No fallacy there.

The argument is WHY is he a sunk cost and trading in a high 3rd for nothing shouldn’t be something we just accept.

That's not always what a fallacy is. A fallacy can also be when you use faulty logical reasoning to justify your argument. A sunk cost fallacy is specifically when you believe that abandoning something is not worth it because of the investment you have put into it.

ie. DiPietro for a 7th can't be a "win" because we spent a 3rd round pick on him. This isn't logical – it can be a win because moving on now for a 7th is better than moving on in a year for nothing.

 

[bossram]

You’re using a lot of words to say

Draft an (almost) 2nd rounder
He plays 3 games in 5 years with a 5.28GAA
Trade him for a 7th rounder

“Laugh all the way to the bank”

I'm not saying "laugh to the bank". I'm saying, if the best you can do is a 6th or 7th rounder, then it's time to cut ties and move on. It's clear the organization has no plans for him and Mikey himself wants to move on.

Where he was drafted is irrelevant now. That's the sunk cost. You're still committing the sunk cost fallacy.

I mean, I get that you clearly don't understand these concepts. But they're not that tough.

That's not always what a fallacy is. A fallacy can also be when you use faulty logical reasoning to justify your argument. A sunk cost fallacy is specifically when you believe that abandoning something is not worth it because of the investment you have put into it.

ie. DiPietro for a 7th can't be a "win" because we spent a 3rd round pick on him. This isn't logical – it can be a win because moving on now for a 7th is better than moving on in a year for nothing.

He literally doesn't understand what the sunk cost fallacy is. So I don't know what any more reasoning will actually accomplish.

 

[krutovsdonut]

he may just be a bad fit with ian clark, but i suspect the problems run deeper. the team has been treating him like a third wheel for a while and new management obviously has not smoothed things over. i certainly hope it is not just a case of his height and style not fitting ian clark's worldview because if that was the case he should have been dealt a while ago to give him a chance elsewhere.

did word ever get out about how he got in trouble during the bubble?

 

[Johnny Canucker]

I'm not saying "laugh to the bank". I'm saying, if the best you can do is a 6th or 7th rounder, then it's time to cut ties and move on. It's clear the organization has no plans for him and Mikey himself wants to move on.

Where he was drafted is irrelevant now. That's the sunk cost. You're still committing the sunk cost fallacy.

I mean, I get that you clearly don't understand these concepts. But they're not that tough.


He literally doesn't understand what the sunk cost fallacy is. So I don't know what any more reasoning will actually accomplish.

Someone took a behavioural finance course last year in college!

Listen , I’ll simplify it as much as I can for you. The comment (mine) was in reply to someone saying “if someone offers you a 7th round pick you take it and laugh to the bank”. The point being , there shouldn’t be a sunk cost. That’s it. That’s the point.

 

[MS]

Someone took a behavioural finance course last year in college!

Listen , I’ll simplify it as much as I can for you. The comment (mine) was in reply to someone saying “if someone offers you a 7th round pick you take it and laugh to the bank”. The point being , there shouldn’t be a sunk cost. That’s it. That’s the point.

Of course there should be.

80% of 3rd round picks don't stick in the NHL.

Dipietro has basically been an average 3rd round pick to this point.

It's not some outrage that he hasn't hit as a draft pick and if we can harvest an asset 5 years later that's a win.

If you're filled with rage every time a mid-round pick doesn't make the NHL you've kind of lost the plot.

 

[bossram]

Someone took a behavioural finance course last year in college!

Listen , I’ll simplify it as much as I can for you. The comment (mine) was in reply to someone saying “if someone offers you a 7th round pick you take it and laugh to the bank”. The point being , there shouldn’t be a sunk cost. That’s it. That’s the point.

I've been graduated for many years my man. Perhaps you should take a course though. Or like, Wikipedia the term. Or something.

This idea that "there shouldn't be a sunk cost" makes no sense. Of course there's a sunk cost. It's the cost of the investment the Canucks already made in Mikey (a 3rd round pick and several years in the org).

But that is irrelevant to what the Canucks should do with him now. If a 7th is the best option, you do it.

If you're gonna be condescending, at least be smart.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

I've been graduated for many years my man. Perhaps you should take a course though. Or like, Wikipedia the term. Or something.

This idea that "there shouldn't be a sunk cost" makes no sense. Of course there's a sunk cost. It's the cost of the investment the Canucks already made in Mikey (a 3rd round pick and several years in the org).

But that is irrelevant to what the Canucks should do with him now. If a 7th is the best option, you do it.

If you're gonna be condescending, at least be smart.

Did you keep any of the receipts from those classes you graduated from?

Of course there should be.

80% of 3rd round picks don't stick in the NHL.

Dipietro has basically been an average 3rd round pick to this point.

It's not some outrage that he hasn't hit as a draft pick and if we can harvest an asset 5 years later that's a win.

If you're filled with rage every time a mid-round pick doesn't make the NHL you've kind of lost the plot.

Filled with Rage? Lol. You should know me better than that by now. I don’t feel rage, I cause it for others.

 

[crowfish]

Was his development perfect? No

Was he going to be a good NHL goaltender one day? Also no

 

[VanJack]

I can't believe the Canucks would ever want to replicate the situation they had in Abbotsford last season with three goalies, DiPietro, Silovs and Martin, all vying for playing time.

Yet here we sit in the middle of summer with three AHL goalies in Delia, DiPietro and Silovs. I guess somebody could be farmed out to the ECHL. But I can't believe that goalie guru Ian Clark can be happy with this situation.

Goalies only get getter if they actually play---and at a level that challenges their abilities. Something needs to happen before training camp.

 

[sting101]

Need more of a sweetener than that for somebody to acquire a mediocre 3rd line winger with a 2.65 million cap hit for the next two years.

If Dickinson was a 3rd line winger even a less than mediocre one his cap hit wouldn't be much of an issue.
He played as a mediocre 4th liner which is worth at most half his contract.

An overpay for someone that plays 20 minutes is one thing. For a 10-12 min guy that can't happen

As far as Dipietro guys get hurt guys play back up for long stretches. He's not been good enough and is looking for a different opportunity. He's not a Ian Clark type guy either. Time to move on no biggie

 

[iceburg]

I can't believe the Canucks would ever want to replicate the situation they had in Abbotsford last season with three goalies, DiPietro, Silovs and Martin, all vying for playing time.

Yet here we sit in the middle of summer with three AHL goalies in Delia, DiPietro and Silovs. I guess somebody could be farmed out to the ECHL. But I can't believe that goalie guru Ian Clark can be happy with this situation.

Goalies only get getter if they actually play---and at a level that challenges their abilities. Something needs to happen before training camp.

DiPietro has clearly fallen down the depth chart. My expectation is that he gets dealt. If not, he could get loaned to another organization. They want Silovs to be the next one and Delia is the veteran they brought in so that Silovs has some support. This is actually the preferred scenario for an AHL team, a young up and comer with a veteran.

 

[Hit the post]

If Dickinson was a 3rd line winger even a less than mediocre one his cap hit wouldn't be much of an issue.
He played as a mediocre 4th liner which is worth at most half his contract.

An overpay for someone that plays 20 minutes is one thing. For a 10-12 min guy that can't happen

As far as Dipietro guys get hurt guys play back up for long stretches. He's not been good enough and is looking for a different opportunity. He's not a Ian Clark type guy either. Time to move on no biggie

However that did the pro scouting on the player is hopefully no longer in the organization. Whoever vouched for him thought he could be a center (which was never his role in Dallas). Now if he could actually play center, even on the bottom two lines, it wouldn't be that bad a contract.