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

[Anton Dubinchuk]

[QUOTE="Navin R Slavin, post: 160538677, member: 114634”]
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.[/QUOTE]

Without knowing what goes into making these decisions, I like to think Tulsky is a primary reason for this.

 

[Sens1Canes2]

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.

And it really helps that De Haan is miles better than Hanifin right now. It’s not close. Dude never makes a mistake. He’s playing with one surgically repaired shoulder and without the use of the other, and still is out there zero-ing anyone he plays against.

Yes I know last night he turned it over a few times in his own end. I can’t remember any mistakes remotely like those this season. He’s been so good.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

When looking on the surface, the trade highly favors CGY, I’d say.

Only if you think that assets have absolute value. If you think that assets have situational value, I think the trade is even on the face of it. Hamilton is having more impact/better fit here than he had in Calgary, and Lindholm is having more impact/better fit in Calgary than he had here, and everyone else is a wash at this point.

The difference is that we have more assets on the back end of it. If those assets turn into nothing, it's an even trade. If those assets turn into something, I think the trade favors us.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Without knowing what goes into making these decisions, I like to think Tulsky is a primary reason for this.

Yuuuuuuuup. Yup. Yes, yuppity yup.

A lot of what I'm saying is me interpreting the things that Tulsky said in his MIT/Sloan talk. Again: if you haven't watched it, watch it. It's brilliant.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

God, it's fun to be debating this stuff from where we're at now, instead of where we we've been at for the past decade.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

And it really helps that De Haan is miles better than Hanifin right now. It’s not close. Dude never makes a mistake. He’s playing with one surgically repaired shoulder and without the use of the other, and still is out there zero-ing anyone he plays against.

Yes I know last night he turned it over a few times in his own end. I can’t remember any mistakes remotely like those this season. He’s been so good.

Agreed, and while we gave up years of age, de Haan is still under a reasonable contract for 3 more years after this one. So while there’s some amount of cap control lost by moving from Hanifin to de Haan, its effect is far enough in the future to make it virtually intangible. Too much could happen between now and then to really care about “aging” our guy 5 years, especially when he’s so much better as you said.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Yuuuuuuuup. Yup. Yes, yuppity yup.

A lot of what I'm saying is me interpreting the things that Tulsky said in his MIT/Sloan talk. Again: if you haven't watched it, watch it. It's brilliant.

I have, he’s really smart. I still am blown away by his relatively simple point of teams inherently liking their players more than any other team, because at some point they made a decision to value them more than any other team did in order to acquire them. It gives a much more satisfying reason for GM bias than mere homerism and stubbornness.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

I think Elias is a solid player and I don't mean this to try and run him down now that he plays for someone else.

But starting the moment he did that mocking clap at PNC Arena, Lindholm played the rest of the season and playoffs at a 50-point pace. His last two seasons with us, he scored 44 and 45. He turned back into... not a pumpkin, but back into the player he has always been. Back into the player we traded.

I don't follow the Flames closely enough to put my finger on exactly what changed, but it's pretty obvious that Lindholm was riding the Johnny Gaudreau train for all it was worth. And Gaudreau still scored at a 95 point pace after Lindholm disappeared, so that wasn't it. Elias kept getting fed shifts with the same guy who inflated his numbers for a half-season, but the numbers stopped being inflated.

I guess what I'm saying is, he wasn't ever going to be the solution to our lack of scoring punch. He is and will always be a complimentary 40-50 point guy. That's not a bad thing, but it's not something we desperately need right now.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

I think Elias is a solid player and I don't mean this to try and run him down now that he plays for someone else.

But starting the moment he did that mocking clap at PNC Arena, Lindholm played the rest of the season and playoffs at a 50-point pace. His last two seasons with us, he scored 44 and 45. He turned back into... not a pumpkin, but back into the player he has always been. Back into the player we traded.

I don't follow the Flames closely enough to put my finger on exactly what changed, but it's pretty obvious that Lindholm was riding the Johnny Gaudreau train for all it was worth. And Gaudreau still scored at a 95 point pace after Lindholm disappeared, so that wasn't it. Elias kept getting fed shifts with the same guy who inflated his numbers for a half-season, but the numbers stopped being inflated.

I guess what I'm saying is, he wasn't ever going to be the solution to our lack of scoring punch. He is and will always be a complimentary 40-50 point guy. That's not a bad thing, but it's not something we desperately need right now.

Is that what you’re saying?

Because what I think you’re saying is “disrespect the Storm Surge at your own peril.”

 

[tarheelhockey]

Is that what you’re saying?

Because what I think you’re saying is “disrespect the Storm Surge at your own peril.”

That also

 

[bleedgreen]

I think Elias is a solid player and I don't mean this to try and run him down now that he plays for someone else.

But starting the moment he did that mocking clap at PNC Arena, Lindholm played the rest of the season and playoffs at a 50-point pace. His last two seasons with us, he scored 44 and 45. He turned back into... not a pumpkin, but back into the player he has always been. Back into the player we traded.

I don't follow the Flames closely enough to put my finger on exactly what changed, but it's pretty obvious that Lindholm was riding the Johnny Gaudreau train for all it was worth. And Gaudreau still scored at a 95 point pace after Lindholm disappeared, so that wasn't it. Elias kept getting fed shifts with the same guy who inflated his numbers for a half-season, but the numbers stopped being inflated.

I guess what I'm saying is, he wasn't ever going to be the solution to our lack of scoring punch. He is and will always be a complimentary 40-50 point guy. That's not a bad thing, but it's not something we desperately need right now.

Oh I think we could really use a righty who could be a playmaker, and put up 40-50. When Williams retires we have zero of those. I get the whole making rationalizations to like what we have no instead of before, but of course we could use Lindy.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Oh I think we could really use a righty who could be a playmaker, and put up 40-50. When Williams retires we have zero of those. I get the whole making rationalizations to like what we have no instead of before, but of course we could use Lindy.

Assisted by #88... Martyyyyy NEEEEEEEECASSSSSSS.

But I’m with you. My whole argument with Hank this morning was basically “you can defend the trade and still admit that we gave up a pretty decent player that would certainly add value in a vacuum.”

Whether you think the players we got back are worth what we gave up (I do), you don’t have to pretend we don’t need another top 6-9er who is preferably a righty.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

I think Elias is a solid player and I don't mean this to try and run him down now that he plays for someone else.

But starting the moment he did that mocking clap at PNC Arena, Lindholm played the rest of the season and playoffs at a 50-point pace. His last two seasons with us, he scored 44 and 45. He turned back into... not a pumpkin, but back into the player he has always been. Back into the player we traded.

I don't follow the Flames closely enough to put my finger on exactly what changed, but it's pretty obvious that Lindholm was riding the Johnny Gaudreau train for all it was worth. And Gaudreau still scored at a 95 point pace after Lindholm disappeared, so that wasn't it. Elias kept getting fed shifts with the same guy who inflated his numbers for a half-season, but the numbers stopped being inflated.

I guess what I'm saying is, he wasn't ever going to be the solution to our lack of scoring punch. He is and will always be a complimentary 40-50 point guy. That's not a bad thing, but it's not something we desperately need right now.

This article in the Sporting News from October nails it, in my opinion:

Is Elias Lindholm really this good? It's complicated - TheHockeyNews

"The bigger threat to Lindholm’s hot streak is whether he can stick with Monahan and Gaudreau. On the surface, they appear to be clicking nicely, but they’ve allowed six more shot attempts than they’ve generated in 5-on-5 play, per corsica.hockey, making them the 14th-worst line in the NHL in Corsi plus-minus among the 34 trios with at least 50 minutes together – and the 11th-worst defensively. On the flip side of Lindholm getting so many high-danger chances – he’s also giving up the most high-danger shot attempts per 60 minutes of his career. Gaudreau, Monahan and Lindholm are finding the net as a group, but they’re not dominating the play by any means, so it wouldn’t be unfathomable to see coach Bill Peters try a different right winger with Monahan and Gaudreau at some point – especially once Lindholm’s luck regresses to the mean."

Change of scenery helps guys. He was shooting at a 25% clip the first month of the season playing with a top line. Will his numbers be that good over the long term? Too early to say.

 

[bleedgreen]

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 honestly think they just wanted to change the team up. They knew the fans wanted something different after Francis/Peters and they wanted to put their stamp on it.

The had Faulk and Skinner, who obviously weren’t going to get the big move done.

Hanifin and Lindy were the two things that people wanted. Our two most valuable trade assets that couldn’t potentially be available because of their contracts. Waddell and TD wanted to go shopping and those two were the cash they had available. They talked for one day when they had months in front of them to talk. I don’t think it had anything to do with the players. Right before the trade Luke wrote about how the management wasn’t married to the old managements players and that could make it interesting.

And that’s it. They went shopping with the cash they had. It had little to do with the players imo.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Oh I think we could really use a righty who could be a playmaker, and put up 40-50. When Williams retires we have zero of those. I get the whole making rationalizations to like what we have no instead of before, but of course we could use Lindy.

I'm not saying we're better just deleting him from the lineup wholesale. That's what I meant by the first line. He's a solid player, obviously any team is better with him than without him as a Y/N proposition.

But in the context of a hockey trade, swapping a 40-point RH winger for a 40-point RHD is a total no-brainer. We are absolutely a better-built hockey team for having made that deal. We didn't give up an 80-point guy unless we were somehow going to sign Johnny Gaudreau. We gave up a middle-6 Swiss Army knife player, which is really not that difficult to replace given some time to draft, work trades, and monitor the FA market.

 

[My Special Purpose]

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.

Does it, though? What if we sign Ferland and he sucks or gets injured? We'd win the trade, but get worse as a team? The whole point of this thread is that you can't judge a player's impact outside the context of team success. Resigning Ferland doesn't magically win this trade for us unless his production matches or exceeds the value of the contract.

Oh I think we could really use a righty who could be a playmaker, and put up 40-50. When Williams retires we have zero of those. I get the whole making rationalizations to like what we have no instead of before, but of course we could use Lindy.

Again, you're either missing the point of this thread or you just refuse to agree with it. Yes, we could use a player *like* Lindy, a right-shot playmaker good for 40-50 points, but it can't *be* Lindy. There's a reason this team is better without him, and whether we can explain it, or quantify it, or not, doesn't change that fact.

I want Lindy nowhere near this team, even if he were offered for free. As Hank said, I'll flip him. But he's never pulling our sweater over his head again.

 

[bleedgreen]

I'm not saying we're better just deleting him from the lineup wholesale. That's what I meant by the first line. He's a solid player, obviously any team is better with him than without him as a Y/N proposition.

But in the context of a hockey trade, swapping a 40-point RH winger for a 40-point RHD is a total no-brainer. We are absolutely a better-built hockey team for having made that deal. We didn't give up an 80-point guy unless we were somehow going to sign Johnny Gaudreau. We gave up a middle-6 Swiss Army knife player, which is really not that difficult to replace given some time to draft, work trades, and monitor the FA market.

I know we like to spin it the way we look better but this trade has always seemed at the surface Hanifin for Hamilton, Lindy for Ferland and assign Fox where you choose. Calgary definitely framed it that way and we did in the beginning too it seemed. We swapped a young high end potential d we lost a little faith in for a developed but still in his prime guy who can help us right now. Then we gave up a euro playmaker type stuck on the wing when we had Skinner/TT/Aho all there already and needed a lot more sandpaper , preferably with some skill and we got that.

Lindy is a 50pt skill guy and Ferland is 40pt power forward. Good swap if we keep him. We aren’t.

Turning Lindy into a few picks is pretty crap but better than losing him for nothing. There’s no spin that erases that to me, but I do concede it looks better with the picks than it did before.

 

[bleedgreen]

This article in the Sporting News from October nails it, in my opinion:

Is Elias Lindholm really this good? It's complicated - TheHockeyNews

"The bigger threat to Lindholm’s hot streak is whether he can stick with Monahan and Gaudreau. On the surface, they appear to be clicking nicely, but they’ve allowed six more shot attempts than they’ve generated in 5-on-5 play, per corsica.hockey, making them the 14th-worst line in the NHL in Corsi plus-minus among the 34 trios with at least 50 minutes together – and the 11th-worst defensively. On the flip side of Lindholm getting so many high-danger chances – he’s also giving up the most high-danger shot attempts per 60 minutes of his career. Gaudreau, Monahan and Lindholm are finding the net as a group, but they’re not dominating the play by any means, so it wouldn’t be unfathomable to see coach Bill Peters try a different right winger with Monahan and Gaudreau at some point – especially once Lindholm’s luck regresses to the mean."

Change of scenery helps guys. He was shooting at a 25% clip the first month of the season playing with a top line. Will his numbers be that good over the long term? Too early to say.

He’s at least a 50 pt guy on a decent team. There’s no reason to try to bring him down. He’s a bit better than he was last year, and in a much better position. I don’t get the tearing down of Lindy now. Doesn’t make the trade better.

 

[bleedgreen]

Does it, though? What if we sign Ferland and he sucks or gets injured? We'd win the trade, but get worse as a team? The whole point of this thread is that you can't judge a player's impact outside the context of team success. Resigning Ferland doesn't magically win this trade for us unless his production matches or exceeds the value of the contract.



Again, you're either missing the point of this thread or you just refuse to agree with it. Yes, we could use a player *like* Lindy, a right-shot playmaker good for 40-50 points, but it can't *be* Lindy. There's a reason this team is better without him, and whether we can explain it, or quantify it, or not, doesn't change that fact.

I want Lindy nowhere near this team, even if he were offered for free. As Hank said, I'll flip him. But he's never pulling our sweater over his head again.

Comical. But go on. You’ll get there someday.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I know we like to spin it the way we look better but this trade has always seemed at the surface Hanifin for Hamilton, Lindy for Ferland and assign Fox where you choose. Calgary definitely framed it that way and we did in the beginning too it seemed.

Front office spin aside, the reality of the deal is this:
Hurricanes+Hamilton+Ferland+Related Moves >>> what we had before

That’s all there is to it from our side of the equation. Lindy is a good player, but we are better for having moved him to address glaring weaknesses. And ultimately that’s the point of a trade — to make our team better, not to “win the trade”.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I get some of the hand wringing over Lindholm, as we still lack forward talent especially RW, but setting that aside, would anyone want to be paying Hanifin $5m / year to be our 6th best defenseman? Maybe he’ll live up to that contract, but if that’s his market value, then I’m ok with moving on.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

He’s at least a 50 pt guy on a decent team. There’s no reason to try to bring him down. He’s a bit better than he was last year, and in a much better position. I don’t get the tearing down of Lindy now. Doesn’t make the trade better.

There was nothing about that article tearing him down. That article was, I thought, a realistic exploration of the question: why was he so good for that short period of time, and what's his actual value?

That's what all these threads are about: perceived value of players. He's a perfectly fine person, and I'm sure he'll have a nice career. Stop acting like a little league dad.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

I know we like to spin it the way we look better but this trade has always seemed at the surface Hanifin for Hamilton, Lindy for Ferland and assign Fox where you choose. Calgary definitely framed it that way and we did in the beginning too it seemed. We swapped a young high end potential d we lost a little faith in for a developed but still in his prime guy who can help us right now. Then we gave up a euro playmaker type stuck on the wing when we had Skinner/TT/Aho all there already and needed a lot more sandpaper , preferably with some skill and we got that.

Lindy is a 50pt skill guy and Ferland is 40pt power forward. Good swap if we keep him. We aren’t.

Turning Lindy into a few picks is pretty crap but better than losing him for nothing. There’s no spin that erases that to me, but I do concede it looks better with the picks than it did before.

You're wrong.

 

[CanesFanBudMan]

Dougie is so much better than Hanifin it is not even funny. If not for draft pedigree Hanifin is the type of player you can sign a a free agent for 3mm.

This is slight hyperbole

 

[Brock Anton]

Looks like that desire to return for his senior year, win a championship and earn his degree died quickly, eh? Wonder what changed.....