Former Canucks: Players & Management (Willie Desjardins fired by Kings, COO Victor De Bonis to SEA)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tables of Stats

Registered User
Nov 1, 2011
4,367
4,123
Vancouver, BC
Zero times any number is zero. Granlund level is one that has no value. Both players suck but at least is younger and could benefit from a change in scenery. We've sat through three years of the Markus Granlund experience in Vancouver. We know what he is. I would take Rychel, frankly.

It likely wouldn't hurt to trade Granlund for Rychel aa long-term neither project to be players of any value and Rychel is younger and bigger. That said, a trade of a player trending rapidly towards zero, for a player who peaked at slightly above zero and then trended down to zero, for another player who's shown zero inclination to have any remaining upside still leaves you at zero.

In addition to your idea being unlikely to yield value, you can't just keep flipping assets like this is an EA Sports game. We made our gamble on a player who, like Baertschi, had skill but needed ice time to either make his case or bust. The same kind of move you're talking about making with Rychel three years later. It's unlikely that any GM would then move Granlund in another similar move.

Plus, while many will disagree with me, Granlund can at least fill an NHL roster spot which neither Rychel nor Shinkaruk have managed to do you in their careers. Yes, we'd have a hard time being worse in terms of standings even if we did switch Granlund for either of those two players and played them the same number of minutes we've been playing Granlund but we'd certainly have the weaker roster with such moves made.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
It likely wouldn't hurt to trade Granlund for Rychel aa long-term neither project to be players of any value and Rychel is younger and bigger. That said, a trade of a player trending rapidly towards zero, for a player who peaked at slightly above zero and then trended down to zero, for another player who's shown zero inclination to have any remaining upside still leaves you at zero.

In addition to your idea being unlikely to yield value, you can't just keep flipping assets like this is an EA Sports game. We made our gamble on a player who, like Baertschi, had skill but needed ice time to either make his case or bust. The same kind of move you're talking about making with Rychel three years later. It's unlikely that any GM would then move Granlund in another similar move.

Plus, while many will disagree with me, Granlund can at least fill an NHL roster spot which neither Rychel nor Shinkaruk have managed to do you in their careers. Yes, we'd have a hard time being worse in terms of standings even if we did switch Granlund for either of those two players and played them the same number of minutes we've been playing Granlund but we'd certainly have the weaker roster with such moves made.

Sure you can. I don't know what you mean. The. Flames traded baertschi for a pick. They used that pick on Andersson. If they don't like Andersson they can probably still trade him for a pick or a younger prospect. There's no reason you can't just keep on flipping like this.

Granlund can fill a roster spot on the Canucks because the Canucks are f***ing terrible and because they keep gifting him a spot whether he earns it or not. It's self fulfilling. Rychel would probably be a regular on the Canucks too if Jim benning had traded something for him.
 
Feb 24, 2017
5,094
2,865
The trade itself has been proven as completely meaningless in any scheme of things, and anyone who thought Shinkaruk would turn out to be something (myself amongst that group) was clearly wrong. Ok.

What's still annoying is a) the theory behind the trade is still stupid b) the people frothing right now with "lol shinkasucks" posts are also convinced Kole Lind is a potential HHOFer and that Will Lockwood can probably still make a miraculous comeback to play in the NHL.
Is this post aimed at @Etteduag ot Reseob intentionally or just subconsciously?
 

Tables of Stats

Registered User
Nov 1, 2011
4,367
4,123
Vancouver, BC
Sure you can. I don't know what you mean. The. Flames traded baertschi for a pick. They used that pick on Andersson. If they don't like Andersson they can probably still trade him for a pick or a younger prospect. There's no reason you can't just keep on flipping like this.

Granlund can fill a roster spot on the Canucks because the Canucks are ****ing terrible and because they keep gifting him a spot whether he earns it or not. It's self fulfilling. Rychel would probably be a regular on the Canucks too if Jim benning had traded something for him.

They flipped a player for a pick. That's different from just flipping players constantly like most posters here suggest we should be doing. Yes, you do need to flip assets and we've been awful at getting value for guys leaving as UFAs but that doesn't mean you can just flip every player you don't like for more lottery tickets as you please. At any rate, the odds Rychel makes more of an impact at the NHL level than Granlund are so slim that any trade for that player which the other team would take likely loses us value or nets nothing.

This whole idea of trading Granlund for Rychel while poo-pooing the Shinkaruk for Granlund trade just smacks of hypocrisy. Shinkaruk was only a prospect in the minds of some posters here when he was traded and his play post-trade 100% agrees with that assessment. Granlund for Rychel is a trade where we give up a slightly above replacement forward for a chance at a player that could someday reach that level but very likely won't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sting101 and Nomobo

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
They flipped a player for a pick. That's different from just flipping players constantly like most posters here suggest we should be doing. Yes, you do need to flip assets and we've been awful at getting value for guys leaving as UFAs but that doesn't mean you can just flip every player you don't like for more lottery tickets as you please. At any rate, the odds Rychel makes more of an impact at the NHL level than Granlund are so slim that any trade for that player which the other team would take likely loses us value or nets nothing.

This whole idea of trading Granlund for Rychel while poo-pooing the Shinkaruk for Granlund trade just smacks of hypocrisy. Shinkaruk was only a prospect in the minds of some posters here when he was traded and his play post-trade 100% agrees with that assessment. Granlund for Rychel is a trade where we give up a slightly above replacement forward for a chance at a player that could someday reach that level but very likely won't.

Now that is some revisionist history. Shinkaruk at the time was leading our ahl team in scoring and absolutely one of our top propsects at the time. To suggest otherwise is fabrication.

I am not interested in discussing that trade for the umptieth time. The fact that we can even discuss granlund for rychel proves my point. Granlund is worthless and is an NHLer in the same way that linden Vey was an NHLer when he was here but ceased to be the moment we cut him.

Trading him for Rychel would suit me just fine so the fact that we have him instead of H's means very little.
 
Last edited:

Megaterio Llamas

el rey del mambo
Oct 29, 2011
11,219
5,929
North Shore
They flipped a player for a pick. That's different from just flipping players constantly like most posters here suggest we should be doing. Yes, you do need to flip assets and we've been awful at getting value for guys leaving as UFAs but that doesn't mean you can just flip every player you don't like for more lottery tickets as you please. At any rate, the odds Rychel makes more of an impact at the NHL level than Granlund are so slim that any trade for that player which the other team would take likely loses us value or nets nothing.

This whole idea of trading Granlund for Rychel while poo-pooing the Shinkaruk for Granlund trade just smacks of hypocrisy. Shinkaruk was only a prospect in the minds of some posters here when he was traded and his play post-trade 100% agrees with that assessment. Granlund for Rychel is a trade where we give up a slightly above replacement forward for a chance at a player that could someday reach that level but very likely won't.

I think at this point Rychel has basically washed out. And yeah, I personally never had much hope for Shinkaruk. I was pissed we didn't take Ryan Hartman with that pick for a long time. Shinkaruk was always going to be a top six scorer or bust, and more likely the latter.
 

EpochLink

Canucks and Jets fan
Aug 1, 2006
59,493
15,327
Vancouver, BC
My understanding is that Shinkaruk's family was also a bit of a distraction in a Hodgson-like manner. Once I learned about that I understood the trade (and its timing) a lot more, even though I still don't see it as a "big win" (or if it is, it's a hell of an indictment of Benning's body of work).

Yeah like this team needed another Hodgson like family matter on this team. His wealthy family from Calgary probably butted heads with management, after seeing Horvat succeed as fast..they thought their son should be with him.
 

Tables of Stats

Registered User
Nov 1, 2011
4,367
4,123
Vancouver, BC
Now that is some revisionist history. Shinkaruk at the time was leading our ahl team in scoring and absolutely one of our top propsects at the time. To suggest otherwise is fabrication.

I am not interested in discussing that trade for the umptieth time. The fact that we can even discuss granlund for rychel proves my point. Granlund is worthless and is an NHLer in the same way that linden Vey was an NHLer when he was here but ceased to be the moment we cut him.

Trading him for Rychel would suit me just fine so the fact that we have him instead of H's means very little.

Sure, he had some points but just potting a few points does not a prospect make. Call it revisionist if you'd like, but there was and still is a good split in opinion about that trade from the time. Those that were for it turned out to be correct.
 

Hit the post

I have your gold medal Zippy!
Oct 1, 2015
22,288
14,030
Hiding under WTG's bed...
i actually can't follow that analogy. when would this virtanen/beagle trade occur?
That's why I said "if". Or removing the players names, I'd be against dealing any Canuck 1st round pick that wasn't tracking as well as expected for a 4th line forward. Better for the Canucks to stick with the partially scratched lotto ticket.

I'll admit it wasn't a good example as Granlund hadn't proven anything at the NHL at that point and at least Beagle is a legit 4th line NHLer right now.
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
The trade itself has been proven as completely meaningless in any scheme of things, and anyone who thought Shinkaruk would turn out to be something (myself amongst that group) was clearly wrong. Ok.

What's still annoying is a) the theory behind the trade is still stupid b) the people frothing right now with "lol shinkasucks" posts are also convinced Kole Lind is a potential HHOFer and that Will Lockwood can probably still make a miraculous comeback to play in the NHL.

the only theory behind the trade was that the canucks were done with shinkaruk and moved him to get immediate help. they were right to do it. those who believed shinkaruk could be sold for more wrongly assumed the canucks were wrong and therefore discounted the fact other teams would also be seeing him start to fade. the reality is shinkaruk was not worth more than a granlund to anyone but over-invested canuck fans.

i agree it was not much of a deal, but granlund is a better player and he has given value and i guess he has one last year to be an nhl'er.

the insanity here over the trade and the lasting rancor for granlund that it begat is regrettable. what is more regrettable is that the folks who perpetrated all that tocix idiocy will regret nothing and learn less. it would be nice if folks could root for the poor guy finally.
 

Hit the post

I have your gold medal Zippy!
Oct 1, 2015
22,288
14,030
Hiding under WTG's bed...
the insanity here over the trade and the lasting rancor for granlund that it begat is regrettable. what is more regrettable is that the folks who perpetrated all that tocix idiocy will regret nothing and learn less. it would be nice if folks could root for the poor guy finally.
Well I've admitted more than once that I was wrong about Granlund (I didn't think he would be even an NHLer at any capacity). I'll give credit to Benning for seeing that Shinkaruk's talent's wouldn't translate to the NHL. However, it's not like those critics of the trade didn't have any basis in logic though. Shinkaruk was leading the Comets in goal scoring at the time he was dealt & was given a grand total of one NHL game with the Canucks.
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
That's why I said "if". Or removing the players names, I'd be against dealing any Canuck 1st round pick that wasn't tracking as well as expected for a 4th line forward. Better for the Canucks to stick with the partially scratched lotto ticket.

I'll admit it wasn't a good example as Granlund hadn't proven anything at the NHL at that point and at least Beagle is a legit 4th line NHLer right now.

ok, gotcha. it's a bit of a stretch on both ends. shink is not virt and granlund is not beagle.

more like trading gaunce for a third rounder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hit the post

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
Sure, he had some points but just potting a few points does not a prospect make. Call it revisionist if you'd like, but there was and still is a good split in opinion about that trade from the time. Those that were for it turned out to be correct.

We can argue all day about how quality of a prospect he was, but to say he wasn't a prospect at all is bizarre and wrong.
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
Well I've admitted more than once that I was wrong about Granlund (I didn't think he would be even an NHLer at any capacity). I'll give credit to Benning for seeing that Shinkaruk's talent's wouldn't translate to the NHL. However, it's not like those critics of the trade didn't have any basis in logic though. Shinkaruk was leading the Comets in goal scoring at the time he was dealt & was given a grand total of one NHL game with the Canucks.

as i recall, there were rumblings beforehand about the way he was playing and particularly whether he could get to the same spots in the nhl to score. i was not a member here. the fact he was traded was not a shocker to me, and my expectation on the returns were never high.

it's funny but the shinkaruk trade is an example of benning et al being aware well before a good chunk of the fanbase of a problem with a player. instead of that teaching humility to the fanbase, and maybe increased their respect for benning, it has made them angrier. sometimes it's almost like gillia and gilman run half the accounts around here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stampedingviking

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,043
14,072
Yep, with Shinkaruk's departure to the Habs, the Vancouver Province is finally declaring a 'winner' in the Granlund trade....I guess Jimbo can't lost them all.
 

Tables of Stats

Registered User
Nov 1, 2011
4,367
4,123
Vancouver, BC
We can argue all day about how quality of a prospect he was, but to say he wasn't a prospect at all is bizarre and wrong.

You're talking him up like he had actual value. It's pretty clear both from the trade and his subsequent play that this is a false assumption. Even if you hate Benning's trades, and I know I loathe a few of them, you have to admit that he'sd have held on to Shinkaruk for dear life or asked for way too much in a trade if he thought he was a legit player. As much as we may question the players he targets Benning has only ever traded away pieces he was done with while letting everybody else walk.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
No. Not really. The Canucks get 140 games and counting out of Granlund. The Flames got sweet fanny apple out of Shink.

The decision goes the Benning.

So what? We "got" 120 games out of Linden Vey. Who cares? We are a f***ing terrible team with a GM desperate to prop up his own acquisitions.
 

racerjoe

Registered User
Jun 3, 2012
12,154
5,850
Vancouver
You're talking him up like he had actual value. It's pretty clear both from the trade and his subsequent play that this is a false assumption. Even if you hate Benning's trades, and I know I loathe a few of them, you have to admit that he'sd have held on to Shinkaruk for dear life or asked for way too much in a trade if he thought he was a legit player. As much as we may question the players he targets Benning has only ever traded away pieces he was done with while letting everybody else walk.


He pretty clearly had the same value as Goldobin when we traded for him. Let’s call it value of mid second round pick. Now yes since that trade his value has fallen of a cliff. However we traded him for a player who because of Waivers (doesn’t matter if he was better or not) had no value.

In hindsight shrink sucks and I was wrong about him. I still think he would probably do as good as Granlund has in the same role. They both suck and are both currently worthless. One has just had an absolute ton of undeserved prime playing time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->