Confirmed with Link: Fox to NYR for 2019 2nd, 2020 2nd (30 gp)

[Navin R Slavin]

Hanifin and Lindy weren’t challenges to sign. They both got market deals. They both got almost exactly what we thought they were going to get. In fact I remember thinking they got less than what some of us were speculating they had asked for.

Which means the issue wasn't money; it was value. The org didn't believe they were worth "market value" to this team.

Right now, it's hard to argue that they were wrong.

 

[My Special Purpose]

Right now, it's hard to argue that they were wrong.

bleed: Hold my beer.

 

[emptyNedder]

Which means the issue wasn't money; it was value. The org didn't believe they were worth "market value" to this team.

Right now, it's hard to argue that they were wrong.

The Canes are in a great place. But the addition by subtraction argument can be too superficial because it is a true slippery slope.

By the same logic this is where you land for the Islanders. They are in the playoffs this year. They did not trade their best player. So the value of John Tavares is nothing.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Which means the issue wasn't money; it was value. The org didn't believe they were worth "market value" to this team.

Right now, it's hard to argue that they were wrong.

I think it’s hard to argue they were wrong about one of the two.

But given our desire for another top 6 winger this offseason and the fact that Lindholm put up 78 points this year I don’t think you can say that about him.

 

[emptyNedder]

But given our desire for another top 6 winger this offseason

I know we went farther in the playoffs, but I return to the Tampa model. The organization has developed Point, Gourde, and Johnson. Now they appear to be grooming Cirelli and Joseph.

Consider that only Aho and Svech in the current top 6 came from within--it is time to trust organizational development. Among Necas, Saarela, Kuokkanen, Gauthier, Geekie there should be one or two top 6 players.

 

[Novacane]

I’d say Marcus Kruger is the truest example of addition by subtraction last year. The fact we were able to get someone useful out of the transaction is that much more of a bonus

 

[emptyNedder]

I’d say Marcus Kruger is the truest example of addition by subtraction last year. The fact we were able to get someone useful out of the transaction is that much more of a bonus

Martinook has been huge. Judging from some of the videos (several of which have made it into these threads) he is the emotional/energy leader on the team.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

I think it’s hard to argue they were wrong about one of the two.

But given our desire for another top 6 winger this offseason and the fact that Lindholm put up 78 points this year I don’t think you can say that about him.

Based on the fact that we're now one game from the ECF, I'll continue to take my side of the argument.

The goal is not to assemble a team that scores goals. The goal is to assemble a team that wins.

The two top six wingers we lost last year scored 67 goals for their new teams this year -- and those two guys are now watching the Carolina Hurricanes on TV win with guys like Greg McKegg, who know their jobs and do those jobs at 100% all the time.

Hey, maybe you're right. Maybe Lindy could have been one of those guys, had he stayed. Maybe Skinner could have too. But there preponderance of the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

The Canes are in a great place. But the addition by subtraction argument can be too superficial because it is a true slippery slope.

By the same logic this is where you land for the Islanders. They are in the playoffs this year. They did not trade their best player. So the value of John Tavares is nothing.

You're exactly right. The value of John Tavares, to the Islanders, was literally nothing this season -- because they wanted very badly to sign him and were unable to do so.

But for every great player, there's an opportunity cost to keeping that player.

Are the Islanders better without John Tavares over the next ten years? We'll know in ten years.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Based on the fact that we're now one game from the ECF, I'll continue to take my side of the argument.

The goal is not to assemble a team that scores goals. The goal is to assemble a team that wins.

The two top six wingers we lost last year scored 67 goals for their new teams this year -- and those two guys are now watching the Carolina Hurricanes on TV win with guys like Greg McKegg, who know their jobs and do those jobs at 100% all the time.

Hey, maybe you're right. Maybe Lindy could have been one of those guys, had he stayed. Maybe Skinner could have too. But there preponderance of the endurance suggests otherwise.

And Connor McDavid and Patrick Kane each scored over 100 points and missed the playoffs. Guess we’d rather have Greg McKegg?

It’s ok for one’s opinion of the trade to be nuanced. It doesn’t have to be “we gave up great players for literal garbage” or “we got great players for literal garbage.” We can still like our side of the trade without the answer being “HA! Hanifin and Lindholm aren’t even worth the contracts they signed, let alone Hamilton Ferland and Fox!”

It’s tough for me to say that Lindholm isn’t worth 4.8 if Teravainen at 5.4 is a “steal.” That doesn’t mean I’m bashing the trade or think it’s bad asset management or anything, but saying he’s not worth that contract is crazy.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Again: I'm not saying Lindholm and Skinner aren't valuable players.

I'm saying they weren't sufficiently valuable players *for us*. They proved it by their presence in previous years, and they prove it by their absence now.

Right now, if we had McDavid, he would cost Aho and Slavin combined. Would that be better value for us?

Hot take: well coached teams, with sufficient talent, that buy completely in, win. Optimize for that.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Again: I'm not saying Lindholm and Skinner aren't valuable players.

I'm saying they weren't sufficiently valuable players *for us*. They proved it by their presence in previous years, and they prove it by their absence now.

Skinner is a different story because we are talking about a significantly different set of circumstances.

The quote was “the org didn’t believe they [Lindholm and Hanifin] were worth market value to this team. Right now it’s hard to argue that they were wrong.”

My question in response to that would be - if Calgary offered us Lindholm for a 3rd round pick at the draft this offseason, would you take it? Because to me, you’re willing to give up something, anything of value, for the right to pay a guy market value, you think he’s worth market value.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Skinner is a different story because we are talking about a significantly different set of circumstances.

The quote was “the org didn’t believe they [Lindholm and Hanifin] were worth market value to this team. Right now it’s hard to argue that they were wrong.”

My question in response to that would be - if Calgary offered us Lindholm for a 3rd round pick at the draft this offseason, would you take it? Because to me, you’re willing to give up something, anything of value, for the right to pay a guy market value, you think he’s worth market value.

In the quote you quoted of mine, you removed the air quotes around "market value". Those air quotes were significant. I'll let you ponder why.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

In the quote you quoted of mine, you removed the air quotes around "market value". Those air quotes were significant. I'll let you ponder why.

Or you could explain your argument with the nuance you intend the first time and save us all a lot of heartache? You know, measure twice cut once?

I’m assuming, based on this post, you meant with your “air quotes” (just regular quotes when they’re typed ) market value in both the market value and opportunity cost sense. Namely, Lindholm and Hanifin, at the dollar amount they were asking, were worth less to us than Hamilton, Ferland, and Fox. Am I correct? Please confirm, because if so I have a different bone to pick with you.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Or you could explain your argument with the nuance you intend the first time and save us all a lot of heartache? You know, measure twice cut once?

I’m assuming, based on this post, you meant with your “air quotes” (just regular quotes when they’re typed ) market value in both the market value and opportunity cost sense. Namely, Lindholm and Hanifin, at the dollar amount they were asking, were worth less to us than Hamilton, Ferland, and Fox. Am I correct? Please confirm, because if so I have a different bone to pick with you.

The dollar amount is a red herring. That's why "market value" is in quotes.

It's clear the org had come to believe that these were the wrong guys for the team that they were trying to build, maybe at any dollar amount.

Were they right? I believe they were.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

The dollar amount is a red herring. That's why "market value" is in quotes.

It's clear the org had come to believe that these were the wrong guys for the team that they were trying to build, maybe at any dollar amount.

Were they right? I believe they were.

Ok so then I suppose my question does still stands - would you accept a Lindholm for a 3rd round pick trade this offseason? (Note: this isn’t a trap question, it’s an attempt to more fully understand what you mean by “wrong guys”.)

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Ok so then I suppose my question does still stands - would you accept a Lindholm for a 3rd round pick trade this offseason? (Note: this isn’t a trap question, it’s an attempt to more fully understand what you mean by “wrong guys”.)

In your purely hypothetical case, I think the org would absolutely take that trade, yes -- and they would then flip him for a first and a prospect, recognizing that the asset in question likely has more value to other teams than to this one.

 

[The Stranger]

Opinions on the CGY trade have been dynamic...at first most here were very excited...many proclaiming "we won"...then up until mid-season, the Canes were doing poorly, the Flames were lighting it up...the players they got were outproducing the players "we" got...their players were locked up long-term and younger...Ferland's pending UFA status became a reality...in the course of just a few months many had done a 180 in their opinion...go forward another few months..now the team is in the playoffs and we've completed the full 360.

What will consensus on the trade be at the start of next season, a year from now, etc...will be fun to follow.

DW has made some great moves...the Nino trade, the Martinook trade...bringing in the the new goalies...these are uncontroversial (I think)...the CGY trade, IMO, is still a net negative (in a vacuum)...getting the equivalent of a mid-to-late first rounder for Fox has softened the blow...not an unmitigated disaster, but not good...but to paraphrase DW, you win some you lose some...and in aggregate his moves have been clear net positive for the team.

Some may speculate...if the CGY trade hadn't happened the Canes wouldn't be having the success we see today...therefore the trade is good...it's not an unreasonable perspective given the contributions from Ferland and Hamilton...we'll never know for sure...

 

[vorbis]

I mean I don't expect any true drama on this front, but at this point it bears mentioning that Fox still hasn't actually signed an ELC with the Rangers yet. until he does, his track record of not doing so looms large.

I'm sure he'll sign though. *Lucy carefully places the football between her finger and the grass*

 

[Sens1Canes2]

I agree with Hank. The org identified a couple of guys who they were willing to jettison for “net negative” prices; not that Hamilton/Ferland/Fox were considered a loss right away but the possibilities with expiring contracts coming the Canes way and the team control headed the Flames way certainly allowed for that result.

And Waddell and co. were ok with that. Because again, Lindholm and Hanifin were meh to Waddell. They were meh to me, too.

Addition by subtraction works when humans are involved but is viewed as anathema to a concept like “asset management.” In this case, the former is coming out on top so far.

 

[spockBokk]

Too bad there doesn’t appear much chance for the braintrust to retain Ferland. If by some miracle he is re-signed, the trade then magically becomes that very rare “hockey” trade where both teams are better after the player swap.

I agree with both sides of the argument regarding the trade. Sucks to lose 2 5th overall picks for potentially only Hamilton and magic beans next year. But, it’s also hard to argue with results and the other things the trade allowed the team to do...like sign de Haan as a Hanifin replacement and the yet to be realized, mystical RD for coward trade that’s has to happen this off-season...right?????

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Too bad there doesn’t appear much chance for the braintrust to retain Ferland. If by some miracle he is re-signed, the trade then magically becomes that very rare “hockey” trade where both teams are better after the player swap.

I agree with both sides of the argument regarding the trade. Sucks to lose 2 5th overall picks for potentially only Hamilton and magic beans next year. But, it’s also hard to argue with results and the other things the trade allowed the team to do...like sign de Haan as a Hanifin replacement and the yet to be realized, mystical RD for coward trade that’s has to happen this off-season...right?????

You’ve touched on something that to me is always lost in all of this - the de Haan signing. From a player in player out perspective, if you see de Haan as an even substitute for Hanifin, the trade becomes Lindholm for Hamilton, Ferland, and Fox. The fact that we didn’t create a hole by trading Hanifin is what really brought it all home for me. Free agency - when done right and not used to overpay for guys - is basically just getting assets for free, and when you pick your spots wisely can be a huge boost to a team. So when you consider that the trade also allowed us to get a valuable guy for free that we otherwise wouldn’t have been able to, it adds a positive layer to the whole situation.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

You’ve touched on something that to me is always lost in all of this - the de Haan signing. From a player in player out perspective, if you see de Haan as an even substitute for Hanifin, the trade becomes Lindholm for Hamilton, Ferland, and Fox. The fact that we didn’t create a hole by trading Hanifin is what really brought it all home for me. Free agency - when done right and not used to overpay for guys - is basically just getting assets for free, and when you pick your spots wisely can be a huge boost to a team. So when you consider that the trade also allowed us to get a valuable guy for free that we otherwise wouldn’t have been able to, it adds a positive layer to the whole situation.

Yes. We tend to try to look at this stuff in a vacuum -- this guy for this guy, that guy for that guy -- and it's all so much more dynamic than that.

Still, at the end of the day, each decision about a player is about that player. Given all the other variables, is this guy the right fit at the right price?

A lot of those decisions are luck -- but I think there's a legitimate case to be made that the org is currently much better at valuing talent/assets than they have been in a long time. Maybe ever.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Addition by subtraction works when humans are involved but is viewed as anathema to a concept like “asset management.” In this case, the former is coming out on top so far.

This is exactly what is so interesting to me.

Is team fit / chemistry a quantifiable asset? That's the core question -- and one I think we've gotten wrong for a long time. I think there's no way this org signs Alex Semin to a long-term deal, for instance.

 

[spockBokk]

You’ve touched on something that to me is always lost in all of this - the de Haan signing. From a player in player out perspective, if you see de Haan as an even substitute for Hanifin, the trade becomes Lindholm for Hamilton, Ferland, and Fox. The fact that we didn’t create a hole by trading Hanifin is what really brought it all home for me. Free agency - when done right and not used to overpay for guys - is basically just getting assets for free, and when you pick your spots wisely can be a huge boost to a team. So when you consider that the trade also allowed us to get a valuable guy for free that we otherwise wouldn’t have been able to, it adds a positive layer to the whole situation.

Exactly, it’s hard to argue that things about the trade have backfired-not getting Fox signed, as of yet not re-upping Ferland and not pulling the trigger on a Faulk deal over the dumber for fwd help.

But...

As the old adage goes, the team getting the best player generally wins a trade. Hamilton was easily the best player last summer. You might be able to make an argument on Lindholm vs Hamilton now, but Lindholm would have never had that 70pt season in CAR. Additionally, not being able to get a Ferland deal done probably directly led to acquiring Niederreiter for dead weight.

When looking on the surface, the trade highly favors CGY, I’d say. But, the subsequent moves made by the CAR braintrust in the wake of the trade have been excellent, so I can live with the trade on the surface level. It’d still have been really cool to have signed Fox and extended Ferland, but what can ya do...