Player Discussion Nikolay Goldobin Pt. II

[member 290103]

I don't recall many people calling the trade an age gap experiment when it was made, or expressing much dissatisfaction with it at all.

Really? Why are you so hell bent on defending Bennings mistakes? I mean, he has been presented to us as a master talent evaluator...if this is the case why does he continue to f*** up so often?

For a guy that preaches draft and develop, he sure seems to skip the former, and try to fast track everything, usually with horrid results.

I will concede that this could be at the direction of Frank, but it doesn’t make his decisions any less bad.

 

[deckercky]

There were a lot of pretty ambivalent, would-have-prefered-a-pick reactions, but it was generally thought to be a fair deal by many. Pretty sure MS, among others called it an age gap deal. Not sure you can accuse OP of hindsight, either:



Also, IIRC, it took a minute for it to come out that the Canucks retained on Hansen. Things soured somewhat after that.

Hey! Benning also got a conditional first in the trade!

 

[F A N]

Yup. Benning trying to fast track another player rather than opting for a pick and developing one properly.

There were a lot of pretty ambivalent, would-have-prefered-a-pick reactions, but it was generally thought to be a fair deal by many. Pretty sure MS, among others called it an age gap deal. Not sure you can accuse OP of hindsight, either:

This whole "age gap" thing is so overstated. There is value in a former late first round pick who has done everything but make the NHL and there is value in a draft pick. There is also value, all else being equal, in a prospect who is further along in development.

Very few late first round and high second round picks increase their value post draft. Most actually see their value slightly decrease which makes more sense for teams to hang onto them.

Goldy, at the time of the trade, was one of those late first round picks who has done everything but make the NHL. He was not worth a late first in a trade but he's the type of guy a team like the Canucks should target if the scouts like the player. It's not too different from the Baertschi trade. Sure the draft pick might turn into a better player but a 2nd round pick also has like a 1 in 4 chance of becoming an NHL player. Any teams offering a 2020 2nd round pick for Kole Lind? What about for Anderson-Dolan?

Draft picks are currency but most of the time you're looking to use it to select a player who will end up being an NHL contributor. Goldy, at the time, was in his second AHL season. He was near point per game and had NHL top 6 skill level. His play away from the puck and intensity level remained a problem unfortunately.

This was a swing and a miss but I don't have too many issues with this one.

 

[xtra]

This whole "age gap" thing is so overstated. There is value in a former late first round pick who has done everything but make the NHL and there is value in a draft pick. There is also value, all else being equal, in a prospect who is further along in development.

Very few late first round and high second round picks increase their value post draft. Most actually see their value slightly decrease which makes more sense for teams to hang onto them.

Goldy, at the time of the trade, was one of those late first round picks who has done everything but make the NHL. He was not worth a late first in a trade but he's the type of guy a team like the Canucks should target if the scouts like the player. It's not too different from the Baertschi trade. Sure the draft pick might turn into a better player but a 2nd round pick also has like a 1 in 4 chance of becoming an NHL player. Any teams offering a 2020 2nd round pick for Kole Lind? What about for Anderson-Dolan?

Draft picks are currency but most of the time you're looking to use it to select a player who will end up being an NHL contributor. Goldy, at the time, was in his second AHL season. He was near point per game and had NHL top 6 skill level. His play away from the puck and intensity level remained a problem unfortunately.

This was a swing and a miss but I don't have too many issues with this one.

Ok so here’s a simple question - would you trade a first or second round pick that’s progressing well?

if I were making a trade I’d be looking to move my failing prospects than my actual good ones.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Really? Why are you so hell bent on defending Bennings mistakes? I mean, he has been presented to us as a master talent evaluator...if this is the case why does he continue to f*** up so often?

For a guy that preaches draft and develop, he sure seems to skip the former, and try to fast track everything, usually with horrid results.

I will concede that this could be at the direction of Frank, but it doesn’t make his decisions any less bad.

Yeah, his first few years include players like Vey, Baerstchi, Pedan, Larsen, Clendening, Etem (didn’t give up much but still). Benning pretty much blew every trade targeting waiver-eligible players. I guess Granlund might count as an NHL player now though.

 

[F A N]

Ok so here’s a simple question - would you trade a first or second round pick that’s progressing well?

if I were making a trade I’d be looking to move my failing prospects than my actual good ones.

Generally speaking you would want to move your failing prospects for value and keep your good ones. At the same time the goal is to improve your club. So to answer your question I would trade a previous first or second round pick that's progressing well if I think the move improves the team or if your assessment of the player has changed. I mean if you had Ekblad fresh off winning Rookie of the Year and you have an opportunity to trade for McDavid would you consider it? I sure hope you would.

The earlier you can correctly identify which prospects will develop into an NHL contributors as projected the better. Take Kole Lind after his draft +1 year. If you were concerned that his skating didn't improve all that much then it's a good idea to look and see if you can trade him for value. Asset management includes managing risks. Just because a prospect looks like he has progressed doesn't mean that he has improved in the area you think he needs to improve on to reach his potential in the NHL.

 

[canuckking1]

Hey! Benning also got a conditional first in the trade!

Hahaha I forgot about that. Wasn’t it if the sharks won the Stanley cup?

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I don't recall many people calling the trade an age gap experiment when it was made, or expressing much dissatisfaction with it at all.

They didn't.

The Hansen and Burrows trades were literally the only two trades Benning's made that actually fall under the "rebuilding" heading. Neither one worked out (because of course they didn't) but at the time they were the kind of deals we were all (well, most of us) were clamoring for him to do.

As for the way he was treated, he didn't get the job done. There were flashes here and there, but ultimately what did he do to secure a spot over other players? To me, it ended up not being a successful deal, but at least the attempt was made.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

He was never a healthy scratch when the veteran limit allowed him to be in the lineup. See Post #732 below.

Yeah I know, @UticaHockey Hockey was right on the money. He was scratched in favor of other veterans because he was dogging it and giving the puck away for breakaway goals against all the time. His play sucked ass and he was full value for a seat in the press box by any fair measure.

I was watching every game too remember.

 

[F A N]

They didn't.

The Hansen and Burrows trades were literally the only two trades Benning's made that actually fall under the "rebuilding" heading. Neither one worked out (because of course they didn't) but at the time they were the kind of deals we were all (well, most of us) were clamoring for him to do.

As for the way he was treated, he didn't get the job done. There were flashes here and there, but ultimately what did he do to secure a spot over other players? To me, it ended up not being a successful deal, but at least the attempt was made.

Speaking of the Burrows deal. We still have Linus Karlsson to show for it.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Really? Why are you so hell bent on defending Bennings mistakes? I mean, he has been presented to us as a master talent evaluator...if this is the case why does he continue to f*** up so often?

For a guy that preaches draft and develop, he sure seems to skip the former, and try to fast track everything, usually with horrid results.

I will concede that this could be at the direction of Frank, but it doesn’t make his decisions any less bad.

I'm not hell bent on defending the mistakes of Benning, who I agree is incompetent. I'm hell bent on pointing out sophomoric, incoherent mischaracterizations of his tenure that aren't even necessary to demonstrate that he's incompetent. The trade was for a decent 21-year-old prospect and a pick and had little in common with his age gap trades, which uniformly involved trading picks for much older prospects.

 

[Luck 6]

They didn't.

The Hansen and Burrows trades were literally the only two trades Benning's made that actually fall under the "rebuilding" heading. Neither one worked out (because of course they didn't) but at the time they were the kind of deals we were all (well, most of us) were clamoring for him to do.

As for the way he was treated, he didn't get the job done. There were flashes here and there, but ultimately what did he do to secure a spot over other players? To me, it ended up not being a successful deal, but at least the attempt was made.

I don’t really care about “how he was treated”, but I do think he should have been force fed more opportunity to truly ensure he was someone worth letting go. Don’t get me wrong, he probably was, but you can’t teach offensive talent and Goldobin seemed to have that component down at every other level than the NHL.

When we traded for Baertschi, we did exactly that, let him work through his issues in the NHL. I suppose the difference is this is a different time for the Canucks, we’re in a playoff push, and we need to dress the best roster. But still, I don’t see Goldobin as a detriment playing on Horvat’s wing for a dozen or so games to truly assess where he’s at. Goldobin seemingly did everything he could do in the AHL, he should have got some sort of shot.

 

[RobertKron]

I don’t really care about “how he was treated”, but I do think he should have been force fed more opportunity to truly ensure he was someone worth letting go. Don’t get me wrong, he probably was, but you can’t teach offensive talent and Goldobin seemed to have that component down at every other level than the NHL.

When we traded for Baertschi, we did exactly that, let him work through his issues in the NHL. I suppose the difference is this is a different time for the Canucks, we’re in a playoff push, and we need to dress the best roster. But still, I don’t see Goldobin as a detriment playing on Horvat’s wing for a dozen or so games to truly assess where he’s at. Goldobin seemingly did everything he could do in the AHL, he should have got some sort of shot.

I mean he did stick in Vancouver all 18-19 with 15 min per game (2+min on the PP) and his most common linemates were like Pettersson, Boeser, and Horvat.

I'm curious to see how he does in the KHL. It's a weird league, and it seems hit or miss if players - even talented ones - really click over there or not. If I'm not mistaken, Goldobin has been over here since he was like 15, so it might be an interesting transition.

Anyway, I wonder how he's getting his car over there.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I'm not hell bent on defending the mistakes of Benning, who I agree is incompetent. I'm hell bent on pointing out sophomoric, incoherent mischaracterizations of his tenure that aren't even necessary to demonstrate that he's incompetent. The trade was for a decent 21-year-old prospect and a pick and had little in common with his age gap trades, which uniformly involved trading picks for much older prospects.

Doesn't sound like it's that different; the result is still preferring older prospects over picks. You'd think Hansen at the time would have returned a fairly good draft pick (late 1st/early 2nd). Seems like you're drawing a superficial distinction between the two.

 

[Peen]

I don't recall many people calling the trade an age gap experiment when it was made, or expressing much dissatisfaction with it at all.

That's such bullshit. We all thought that the age gap thing was f***ing moronic.

 

[Bad Goalie]

Yeah I know, @UticaHockey Hockey was right on the money. He was scratched in favor of other veterans because he was dogging it and giving the puck away for breakaway goals against all the time. His play sucked ass and he was full value for a seat in the press box by any fair measure.

I was watching every game too remember.

I never disagreed with this. I said he was never scratched when the veteran rule allowed him to be dressed and the Comets only had 6 vets. I stated perfectly clear that when the vet number was more than the allowable 6 late in the season, he was the odd man out and l listed the 6 vets who were played ahead of him. It was 3(?) like straight games. He played the last game vs Syracuse and set up the Comets only goal in a 2-1 loss. Lind was the goat in that one with a cross ice pass allowing the goon, Witkowski, to score a short handed goal which turned out to be the winner. Lind did this all season long, but never got scratched as punishment.

He was not scratched while only 5 vets played and he was healthy. That did not happen. He was always in the 6 when the Comets only had 6. You should recall the game where Baertschi was hurt, Graovac was still in Vancouver and Hamilton was hurt that Goldy won the game with 2 stellar efforts to score the tying and winning goals late in the 3rd period of a game they had no business being in.

I am not defending his play that led to the late scratches. His game took a late southern route when Vancouver needed forward help and he was overlooked in favor of MacEwen and Bailey. I think he saw the handwriting in black and white capital letters and he played like a lost soul. MacEwen played the same way right after he was demoted.

Goldobin didn't become the #13 scorer in the AHL and #2 on the Comets by being a ****** player all season. I agree wholeheartedly that he made major gaffes with the puck trying to force plays. They became too numerous in the last few games, and I called him out on every one of them. Cull was sending home a major reminder the hard way. However, any time you had a choice between Sorenson, Stevenson, Malone, LeBlanc, or such the only serious chance for any offense was Goldobin.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Looks like he's done with the Canucks. He signed a two year deal with CSKA in the KHL.

i wish him well. he was very close to figuring it out.

 

[F A N]

I don’t really care about “how he was treated”, but I do think he should have been force fed more opportunity to truly ensure he was someone worth letting go. Don’t get me wrong, he probably was, but you can’t teach offensive talent and Goldobin seemed to have that component down at every other level than the NHL.

When we traded for Baertschi, we did exactly that, let him work through his issues in the NHL. I suppose the difference is this is a different time for the Canucks, we’re in a playoff push, and we need to dress the best roster. But still, I don’t see Goldobin as a detriment playing on Horvat’s wing for a dozen or so games to truly assess where he’s at. Goldobin seemingly did everything he could do in the AHL, he should have got some sort of shot.

It was easier for Baertschi to earn ice time compared to Goldobin during their early Canucks days especially PP time, but I don't think you can take away from what Baertschi did to more consistently earn a spot either. Baertschi's career has effectively been derailed by injuries (including concussions). But when he got going he would continually move his feet and you'll find him in the corners. Baertschi threw more hits, blocked more shots, and gave the puck away less compared to Goldobin. Of course Baertschi also played more of a safe game offensively.

Not that Baertschi is a consistent player but when the effort is there, you notice Baertschi moving his feet out there. Not so much for Goldobin. At the end of the day, Baertchi has ended up on the score sheet more often than Goldobin did Baertschi often responded to healthy scratches positively too.

 

[Bleach Clean]

They didn't.

The Hansen and Burrows trades were literally the only two trades Benning's made that actually fall under the "rebuilding" heading. Neither one worked out (because of course they didn't) but at the time they were the kind of deals we were all (well, most of us) were clamoring for him to do.

As for the way he was treated, he didn't get the job done. There were flashes here and there, but ultimately what did he do to secure a spot over other players? To me, it ended up not being a successful deal, but at least the attempt was made.

Not for everyone and I’ll explain why: The Goldobin deal was still an age gap solution. Only, few cared because Benning had finally traded a player for a prospect. It was the next best thing to trading an exiting player for a pick. It had the earmarks of what people were desperate to see.

For Benning, it was the best of both worlds. Nothing had really changed. They still tried to accelerate the rebuild by targeting a prospect on the cusp rather than truly investing in a rebuild asset like a pick or a very early prospect. They did what they wanted and it was close enough to what others wanted to result in a match.

It was the same thing, just packaged more to the liking of the average fan. They were still following their strategy.

 

[I am toxic]

Not for everyone and I’ll explain why: The Goldobin deal was still an age gap solution. Only, few cared because Benning had finally traded a player for a prospect. It was the next best thing to trading an exiting player for a pick. It had the earmarks of what people were desperate to see.

For Benning, it was the best of both worlds. Nothing had really changed. They still tried to accelerate the rebuild by targeting a prospect on the cusp rather than truly investing in a rebuild asset like a pick or a very early prospect. They did what they wanted and it was close enough to what others wanted to result in a match.

It was the same thing, just packaged more to the liking of the average fan. They were still following their strategy.

Well said.

It was a rare confluence where Benning's idiotic strategy of age gap/compete now coincided somewhat with a sane strategy of building for the future by moving aging expensive assets for something young, cheap and with upside potential.

Given how monumentally bad his moves were at that time, it is no wonder we began planning a parade to celebrate a glimmer of light appearing at the end of a long, dark, miserable, depressing tunnel.

Only to realize it was an oncoming train of brutal defense and coaching systems propped up by otherworldly goaltending.

 

[MS]

Ok so here’s a simple question - would you trade a first or second round pick that’s progressing well?

if I were making a trade I’d be looking to move my failing prospects than my actual good ones.

Yup.

Very occasionally you see a prospect traded who the trading team clearly didn’t want to move, but felt they had to to get an elite asset.

In the vast majority of cases, teams are identifying prospects they think will bust, and trying to pass them off on some rube while they still have a bit of value.

In every deal Benning made for a non-established young age gap player, it was for a player in the 2nd group and Benning was the rube.

 

[krutovsdonut]

dahlen and goldobin were solid prospects at that tdl of the kind that often change hands at tdls. not perfect bluechip cannot miss guys, but guys who had the talent and didn't quite get the rest but had the potential.

they were decent returns for the assets we moved for them.

they didn't work out as prospects often don't.

to say that all prospects moved at tdls are guys their teams sees as busts is wrong, but it is fair that many are talented players off to bad starts in their organization that are change of scenery candidates. by definition those players are gambles.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

dahlen and goldobin were solid prospects at that tdl of the kind that often change hands at tdls. not perfect bluechip cannot miss guys, but guys who had the talent and didn't quite get the rest but had the potential.

they were decent returns for the assets we moved for them.

they didn't work out as prospects often don't.

to say that all prospects moved at tdls are guys their teams sees as busts is wrong, but it is fair that many are talented players off to bad starts in their organization that are change of scenery candidates. by definition those players are gambles.

I think it depends on the prospect and how old they are. Goldobin was 21 years old when we acquired him, with a sample size of three seasons after his draft and two pro seasons in the AHL. The sample size post-draft matters since San Jose had a better idea of the type of player he would become and elected to part ways with him. I would have preferred a draft pick where we'd have a clean slate on the prospect we could draft, or packaging Hansen with other pieces to get a better return. Oh well, it's by no means a terrible trade by Benning, but it does fall under the age gap experiment that has backfired pretty much every time.

 

[VanJack]

dahlen and goldobin were solid prospects at that tdl of the kind that often change hands at tdls. not perfect bluechip cannot miss guys, but guys who had the talent and didn't quite get the rest but had the potential.

they were decent returns for the assets we moved for them.

they didn't work out as prospects often don't.

to say that all prospects moved at tdls are guys their teams sees as busts is wrong, but it is fair that many are talented players off to bad starts in their organization that are change of scenery candidates. by definition those players are gambles.

Lol!..Yep, Canuck fans were 'over the moon' when Jimbo turned Burrows and Hansen into Dahlen and Goldy at the trade deadline a few years back. But now you'd have to serious question whether guy will ever reappear in N.A.

The moral of the story?....teams very rarely if ever trade 'A-level' prospects at the deadline, and draft picks are usually always more valuable.

 

[F A N]

Yup.

Very occasionally you see a prospect traded who the trading team clearly didn’t want to move, but felt they had to to get an elite asset.

In the vast majority of cases, teams are identifying prospects they think will bust, and trying to pass them off on some rube while they still have a bit of value.

In every deal Benning made for a non-established young age gap player, it was for a player in the 2nd group and Benning was the rube.

to say that all prospects moved at tdls are guys their teams sees as busts is wrong, but it is fair that many are talented players off to bad starts in their organization that are change of scenery candidates. by definition those players are gambles.

I agree with @krutovsdonut. Blockbuster trades involving top shelf prospects that teams clearly didn't want to move don't happen often. You get those in trades for guys like Mark Stone not bottom 6 players like an aging Burrows and Hansen.

I think it depends on the prospect and how old they are. Goldobin was 21 years old when we acquired him, with a sample size of three seasons after his draft and two pro seasons in the AHL. The sample size post-draft matters since San Jose had a better idea of the type of player he would become and elected to part ways with him. I would have preferred a draft pick where we'd have a clean slate on the prospect we could draft, or packaging Hansen with other pieces to get a better return. Oh well, it's by no means a terrible trade by Benning, but it does fall under the age gap experiment that has backfired pretty much every time.

I think you put too much stock on a team's willingness to trade a player. The Canucks gave up Madden, does that mean the Canucks didn't like Madden as a prospect or indicate anything about Madden's future? Of course not. It could mean that he's not considered the team's top prospect as it has been reported. The same theory applies to Washington trading Filip Forsberg. The other team might have had more time and opportunities to observe their own prospects but opportunity and change of scenery can play an important role in a prospect's development.