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

[Megaterio Llamas]

haha, i can't tell whether you know what i mean and are yourself not willing to play along, or if you like benning legitimately don't understand that you don't have to trade assets for replacement level players because you can just get for free from waivers or the free agent pile.

i guess either way it doesn't really matter though.

lol, I'm just kidding with ya friend. I can only expend so much energy on Granlund.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

He would be replaced by Tyler Motte or Brendan leipsic or whoever the hell and we wouldn't miss a beat.

@Melvin I too have complete faith that Benning and his crack team of talent bird dogs could and would unearth a replacement for Granlund in this scenario.

 

[F A N]

It doesn’t matter what his value was. I just used a second because it was easy. If it was less, what does that say about the Goldobin trade?

Neither player should be playing NHL hockey. One has just been gifted that chance, for two seasons.

Lol. Okay. Next time you talk about value in terms of draft picks I'm just going to assume that you're throwing it out there because it was easy.

Granlund has played 138 games with the Canucks.

And yes, he was force-fed top-6 icetime in 16-17 and was terrible and then force-fed top-9 icetime (with a long stretch in the top-6) in 17-18 and was again terrible.

Once again you are wrong. In 16-17 Granlund scored 19 goals in 69 games. Had he not been injured he might have led the team in goals. Also, JD Burke said Granlund was very good according to his statistical analysis. What are you basing your opinion on? Your bias?

 

[DL44]

This. People need to pay attention to how this argument is framed:

1. No attachment to Shinkaruk the prospect.

2. Comparison between Granlund to Shinkaruk misses the point entirely.

3. Granlund is replacement level, and so gaining him was not anything that mattered. On the flipside, losing the potential in the youth of Shinkaruk does matter. This all comes down to the methodology of cultivating value from prospects and not squandering that potential value for a fringe player.

I actually prefer a player like Granlund to one like Shinkaruk. That said, the methodology behind the deal is something I cannot agree with. The result does no belie the logic in that trade.

It comes down to the read they had on Granlund... maybe they thought they saw a 22 yr old with tools to become the next Backlund. A player who became expendable from Cgy because of Backlund finally emerging...
The things Granlund does well are worth seeing thru for another yr imo... it’s actually about where they are trending and where you think they will end up as players that matters rather than where they are at the time of trade.

 

[Bleach Clean]

It comes down to the read they had on Granlund... maybe they thought they saw a 22 yr old with tools to become the next Backlund. A player who became expendable from Cgy because of Backlund finally emerging...
The things Granlund does well are worth seeing thru for another yr imo... it’s actually about where they are trending and where you think they will end up as players that matters rather than where they are at the time of trade.

No, that line of thinking justifies any trade. With that rationale, Benning could make any move and the default rationale would be: It comes down to his read. Seemingly horrible moves would be justified like this. For instance, a Gadjovich for Duclair move could be justified with that rationale. That type of move would be horrible.

It's not about Granlund or Shinkaruk at all. It's about adopting a fringe NHLer at the cost of _any_ future_ potential in a prospect. If the team finds itself in a position to have to do so, then minimize that forgone potential to a lesser prospect. Benning did not appear to do that with this deal. On method and cost, it was a poor trade on many fronts.

 

[Peter10]

140 games of force fed top 6 ice time in which he played terrible? Did you watch the Canucks play the past 2+ seasons? First off, Granlund hasn't played 140 games with the Canucks. Second of all, I am pretty sure Granlund wasn't force fed top 6 ice time last season. Sounds like someone has no clue.

Over the last two years Granlund had more TOI/G than Daniel Sedin. So you are saying Daniel Sedin wasnt getting top 6 minutes the past two seasons? No clue eh?

 

[F A N]

Over the last two years Granlund had more TOI/G than Daniel Sedin. So you are saying Daniel Sedin wasnt getting top 6 minutes the past two seasons? No clue eh?

Huh? What does Daniel getting top 6 minutes the past two seasons have to do with anything? Are you saying that Daniel was force fed top 6 minutes as well? I will disagree with that too.

 

[F A N]

No, that line of thinking justifies any trade. With that rationale, Benning could make any move and the default rationale would be: It comes down to his read. Seemingly horrible moves would be justified like this. For instance, a Gadjovich for Duclair move could be justified with that rationale. That type of move would be horrible based upon method.

It's not about Granlund or Shinkaruk at all. It's about adopting a fringe NHLer at the cost of _any_ future_ potential in a prospect. If the team finds itself in a position to have to do so, then minimize that potential to the least amount possible. Benning did not appear to do either with this deal. On method and cost, it was a poor trade all around.

I suppose this is another process vs results argument. "Fringe NHLer" could mean a Marchessault, a Baertschi, a Dale Wiese, or a Zach Dalpe. Ever watch shark tank? "Sharks" like Greiner and Cuban invest based on the value they bring to the table. If you like a player and think that all he needs is opportunity and you can afford him the opportunity, that player is more valuable to your team than a team who is just as high on the player but can't afford him the opportunity needed.

The reality is that many here overrated Shinkaruk's value. At the time of the draft, many of us thought we had a top 10 talent who fell in the draft. That is clearly not correct. He was available where we drafted him because teams questioned his ability to score in the NHL. Sure he was having a good season at the time of the trade, but overall, he was hardly developing well. For most of us, we probably wouldn't have traded Shinkaruk for less than a 3rd. But ask fans from other teams and they weren't trading a 3rd for Shinkaruk. And although Shinkaruk was waiver exempt, he was reaching the point where is value can rapidly diminish based on how close he is to being a scorer in the NHL. This was a good trade. Most Flames fans think the Canucks won the trade. Somehow, some Canucks' posters here are too stubborn to admit that they were wrong.

 

[KingOfTheES]

Imagine a world where a 'gotcha' moment is saying 138 is not 140.

Granlund is trash that gets scored on more than he scores. There are currently better players available in FA that would provide more in less TOI for less cap-space.

 

[racerjoe]

Lol. Okay. Next time you talk about value in terms of draft picks I'm just going to assume that you're throwing it out there because it was easy.



Once again you are wrong. In 16-17 Granlund scored 19 goals in 69 games. Had he not been injured he might have led the team in goals. Also, JD Burke said Granlund was very good according to his statistical analysis. What are you basing your opinion on? Your bias?

Or you could just read the context of the post...

 

[Peter10]

Huh? What does Daniel getting top 6 minutes the past two seasons have to do with anything? Are you saying that Daniel was force fed top 6 minutes as well? I will disagree with that too.

You were arguing Granlund didnt get top 6 minutes. Considering Daniel Sedin played less than Granlund, it means he wasnt getting top 6 minutes either according to your logic.

Granlund got top 6 minute despite average/poor play. In 16-17 he was put in situations to succeed and barely managed 32 point despite a shooting percentage that was 50% higher than his normal average. If that season is something you hang your hat on to declare a great Benning victory in a trade you should really think about raising the bar because it cant go much lower anymore.

 

[DL44]

No, that line of thinking justifies any trade. With that rationale, Benning could make any move and the default rationale would be: It comes down to his read. Seemingly horrible moves would be justified like this. For instance, a Gadjovich for Duclair move could be justified with that rationale. That type of move would be horrible based upon method.

It's not about Granlund or Shinkaruk at all. It's about adopting a fringe NHLer at the cost of _any_ future_ potential in a prospect. If the team finds itself in a position to have to do so, then minimize that forgone potential to a lesser prospect. Benning did not appear to do that with this deal. On method and cost, it was a poor trade on many fronts at the time.

What does it matter that it can be used to justify any trade?
What matters is whether his read was right at the end.

Anyways... same ol discussion for the last 2 yrs.

 

[geebaan]

What does it matter that it can be used to justify any trade?
What matters is whether his read was right at the end.

Anyways... same ol discussion for the last 2 yrs.

So hypothetically, you'd be okay if JB traded, lets say Hughes, for lets say Steve Bernier, if Hughes then had a career ending injury, and Bernier played the whole year on the 4th line? Cause we'd "win" that trade.

 

[DL44]

So hypothetically, you'd be okay if JB traded, lets say Hughes, for lets say Steve Bernier, if Hughes then had a career ending injury, and Bernier played the whole year on the 4th line? Cause we'd "win" that trade.

No... but I'd be ok if he thought a prospect winger like Shinkaruk wasnt going to translate to the NHL, so he opted to make a trade for a versatile 22 yr old (playing a position of need at the time) that he felt was more of a NHL caliber player.
I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[Melvin]

What does it matter that it can be used to justify any trade?

Because it illustrates that it is poor logic.

 

[DL44]

Because it illustrates that it is poor logic.

No.. it's actually the basis of most trades...
You attempt to acquire a player upgrade in a trade based how you feel said assets will project.
Where's the poor logic?

 

[F A N]

You were arguing Granlund didnt get top 6 minutes. Considering Daniel Sedin played less than Granlund, it means he wasnt getting top 6 minutes either according to your logic.

That's not what I was arguing at all. Can you read? I don't think Granlund or Daniel was force fed top 6 minutes. Seem like your opinion is that both were?

Granlund got top 6 minute despite average/poor play. In 16-17 he was put in situations to succeed and barely managed 32 point despite a shooting percentage that was 50% higher than his normal average. If that season is something you hang your hat on to declare a great Benning victory in a trade you should really think about raising the bar because it cant go much lower anymore.

He was put on Sedins' line. That has historically been based on chemistry. Granlund played well with the Sedins. I am not hanging my hat on anything. A good deal is a good deal. This is clearly a deal that worked out in Canucks' favour. No idea why people like you keep denying this.

 

[Melvin]

No.. it's actually the basis of most trades...
You attempt to acquire a player upgrade in a trade based how you feel said assets will project.
Where's the poor logic?

What does it matter that it can be used to justify any trade?

If it can be used to justify any trade, then it is poor logic. This is because it serves no purpose to trade evaluation and makes discussing trades moot.

 

[DL44]

If it can be used to justify any trade, then it is poor logic. This is because it serves no purpose to trade evaluation and makes discussing trades moot.

It doesn't justify all trades tho..
Only if it's a legit regular player trade.
I.e. many trades are to shed players for other off-ice issues... Like Kassian or Hoffman trades... or others like Kesler where they demanded a trade.. or where players weren't going to re-sign... or some deadline deals or deals where you are selling off vets..

But for transactions like the Shink-Granny trade...
Sure..

 

[Bleach Clean]

It doesn't justify all trades tho..

It does because you are completely beholden to the result alone. This means that you cannot critique a trade as it is made, with all current information brought to bear. You must 'wait and see' and rely wholly on the determination of the GM. That is a mega appeal. It actually eliminates the impetus to discuss trades until an undetermined future date.

It's both process and result to determine good/bad trades, not just result. That means that there has to be an account at the time of transaction.



Edit: DL44/Literally, I'll leave it here: You are actually altering your logic based upon the deal. You've said no to Geeban's deal, without actually deferring to Benning's thought process in full. For Shinkaruk's deal, you defer to Benning's thought process in full. Clearly, there is a divide between when to defer, and when it's obvious not to defer. When you do not defer, that's actually emphasizing the process or method behind the deal, not just the result.

Lastly, you've gone from "What does it matter if it justifies any trade?" to "it doesn't justify all trades tho"...

 

[Melvin]

It doesn't justify all trades tho...

I was just answering the question I quoted.

 

[FroshaugFan2]

Brett McKenzie signs with Boston's AHL team.



Sbisa has been offered a try out and isn't considering Europe at this time.

https://swisshockeynews.ch/index.ph...has-received-an-invitation-to-a-training-camp

Patrick McNally signs with Eispiraten Crimmitschau (great name and logo) of the DEL 2 (yikes).

Eispiraten-Crimmitschau.de : RSS-Feed

 

[krutovsdonut]

What does it matter that it can be used to justify any trade?
What matters is whether his read was right at the end.

Anyways... same ol discussion for the last 2 yrs.

no, the discussion is getting steadily worse. now you are facing desperate sophistry that would make a 12th century scholastic philosopher blush. benning was right to trust the team's read on shinkaruk. he took a worthwhile gamble on granlund and got a useful warm body out of the deal. at every single point since the trade granlund has been better than shinkaruk and he still is.

 

[FuzzyTitus]

no, the discussion is getting steadily worse. now you are facing desperate sophistry that would make a 12th century scholastic philosopher blush. benning was right to trust the team's read on shinkaruk. he took a worthwhile gamble on granlund and got a useful warm body out of the deal. at every single point since the trade granlund has been better than shinkaruk and he still is.

Debatable. He got a body. Wasn't more useful than a waiver wire pick-up while taking a non-waiver eligible roster player from Utica who was coming off a good season.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Debatable. He got a body. Wasn't more useful than a waiver wire pick-up while taking a non-waiver eligible roster player from Utica who was coming off a good season.

perfect example of sophistry.

you discount granlund's "good" statistical season where he scored 19 nhl goals and claim he has been no better than a waiver pick up.

but you count shinkaruk's "good" statistical ahl season.

sure, that makes sense.

in the real world, "waiver wire pick ups" who score 19 goals in 69 games are a huge unexpected win, regardless of the usage they get to achieve that. only a small percentage of waiver wire pick ups can do that, and for that matter only a small percentage of them can get the usage to do that even on a bad team and underwater.

and in the real world, the canucks assessment of the value of shinkaruk as a prospect went down during that "good" ahl season regardless of his ahl stats. and in the real world, they turned out to be right.

and in the real world, non-waiver eligible players are not valuable if they are not a good prospect.

granlund is no great shakes so far in his career, but has been a young cheap nhl replacement level player who filled a roster role for us and gave us scoring we needed and he still might do more. shinkaruk has not been any of those things. win.