Confirmed with Link: [VAN/BOS] Canucks acquire F Jack Studnicka for G Mikey DiPietro, D Jonathan Myrenberg

[m9]

can anyone cite examples of teams giving up an unsigned developing prospect for a stalled prospect on the waiver bubble? i feel like this type of trade is very rare. the rule of thumb is you only move developing prospects for premium assets.

i went through the pens extensive trade history and the only example i can find of rutherford moving an unsigned prospect was filip gustovson in the brassard/dunn tdl trade which was a blockbuster. every other player traded had some wilkes-barre games. second closest was kapanen who had 4 ahl games, and that was another blockbuster.

if this was a necessity trade just to get a warm body due to injuries that is surely on management for not stocking the farm enough, and surely they also could have found a warm body off waivers or trading an ahl asset. they passed up kiefer bellows two days ago.

either they really love studnika, or they know something about myrenberg, or this was a desperation move. it's a clear win for the bruins to move a guy who did not fit the line up they were going to have to expose to waivers for a live still improving prospect with size who plays the hardest position to fill in hockey.



maybe that is it. they desperately want speed.

There are definitely some questions regarding the process here for me. Traded a 2nd to dump a bottom six C/W guy 3 weeks now. Now we are a moving an OK prospect and a depth prospect for a guy who projects a similar role? So now we are out a 2nd and two prospects to go from Dickinson to Stillman & Studnicka? Guys who are all fringe/waiver level guys? I get there are some salary considerations in there as well but we've seen the chasing it's own tail story from management before and I feel like there's a bit of that going on here.

 

[arttk]

More likely Studnicka will find himself playing on the top line RW next game, Miller will shift back to C and Horvat will be on the third line. Cuz Canucks doing Canucks things.

I think Bo will be gone by Jan and we will have lazar, aman and Stud filling out the 3rd and 4th line C.

 

[UrbanImpact]

LMAO!

Canucks voted like top 5 worst prospect pool.

They then trade a prospect from that said pool that isnt even in their top 5 and all of sudden they gave away a valuable Right Dman! It sounds like people are complaining just to complain

Their top 5 btw- Lekkerimaki, Klimovich, Pettersson, Silovs, Mcdonough

The fact that Myrenberg is a Right Shot D is nothing of extra value to the Canucks. As Allvin said, Myrenberg is 5 years away if he even makes it. 5 years from now who knows what the CAnucks positional need is going to be.... They will probably address their Defence via trade or drafting Dmen with higher 1st, 2nd round picks.

My scouting on players we traded:

Dipietro- Done like dinner. Being sub 6 feet, it was always a long road ahead for him to be an NHL regular. I still think he could be a decent AHLer but even that i have some serious doubts with. Goalie Guru Ian Clarke was not a big big fan of him at all and the Canucks have subsequently drafted 4 goalies since drafting Dipietro in 2017.

Myrenberg is an unknown. Recently fired Rachel Doeirie who was working for the Canucks analytics team just tweeted that she really likes Myrenberg and he has a chance to be a #5-6 in the NHL one day. I'd probably refer to her as she obviously had inside knowledge with the organization.

Pretty even trade imo, a Right shot Centre with a chance to be a top 9 F for a a Right shot D with a chance to be 3rd pairing D.

I also dont mind the extra contract space it frees up for the Canucks to sign a College Free Agent in the Spring.

 

[pitseleh]

Seems like a good test for new management’s pro scouting. Studnicka was tracking like a reasonable bet to be a middle-6 player a few years ago but has scuffled since. Will be a waste if turns out he is another replacement level player, especially since there was a decent chance he would end up on waivers and the team would have had a high priority.

Don’t love hearing that the justification for the trade was the GM liked him as a prospect and that they are giving up someone they liked in a position of need because the player is five years away.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

I don't mind Allvin making bets like this, especially with Nils Aman working out the way he was.

 

[credulous]

I don't mind Allvin making bets like this, especially with Nils Aman working out the way he was.

this trade was made pretty much because aman isn't working out (yet). he shouldn't be in the nhl lineup

 

[m9]

LMAO!

Canucks voted like top 5 worst prospect pool.

They then trade a prospect from that said pool that isnt even in their top 5 and all of sudden they gave away a valuable Right Dman! It sounds like people are complaining just to complain

Just because the prospect pool is bad doesn't mean it's meaningless to trade the ones you have. You just have to be realistic about their value - which most in this thread have been. Myrenberg being a top 7 or 8 prospect for us isn't his true value and I think people understand that. He's a B/C prospect that would be in the teens on an average team. I think most people in here understand that and have been reasonable about the trade.

Their top 5 btw- Lekkerimaki, Klimovich, Pettersson, Silovs, Mcdonough

The fact that Myrenberg is a Right Shot D is nothing of extra value to the Canucks. As Allvin said, Myrenberg is 5 years away if he even makes it. 5 years from now who knows what the CAnucks positional need is going to be.... They will probably address their Defence via trade or drafting Dmen with higher 1st, 2nd round picks.

That's your opinion on the top 5. After #1 you can put the next handful in any order - some had Myrenberg in the top 5, some didn't. The order is irrelevant, they're all in the same tier. I think the part people had a problem with here is that Allvin dismissed a player 5 years away. Like, pretty much every non 1st round pick is years away. It's just lip service to try to dismiss a player they just traded.

My scouting on players we traded:

Dipietro- Done like dinner. Being sub 6 feet, it was always a long road ahead for him to be an NHL regular. I still think he could be a decent AHLer but even that i have some serious doubts with. Goalie Guru Ian Clarke was not a big big fan of him at all and the Canucks have subsequently drafted 4 goalies since drafting Dipietro in 2017.

Myrenberg is an unknown. Recently fired Rachel Doeirie who was working for the Canucks analytics team just tweeted that she really likes Myrenberg and he has a chance to be a #5-6 in the NHL one day. I'd probably refer to her as she obviously had inside knowledge with the organization.

Pretty even trade imo, a Right shot Centre with a chance to be a top 9 F for a a Right shot D with a chance to be 3rd pairing D.

I also dont mind the extra contract space it frees up for the Canucks to sign a College Free Agent in the Spring.

It was obvious DiPietro has no future here and no value. Myrenberg is the "key" part for Boston, if there is one.

I don't get the "contract slot" thing - Myrenberg wasn't signed, so it's a 1 for 1 contract thing. If you were worried about contract slots, a better question is why was DiPietro even qualified when it was obvious he had no value and no role here?

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

It's pretty much a repeat of the age gap approach.

Boston knows Studnicka will not work in their plans. They are already thinking about remortgaging into the future because their rebuild is inevitable.

Canucks are hoping this guys talent translates from the AHL to the NHL right now.

Granted the bar is set so low that we say "at least it wasn't a pick."

 

[m9]

It's pretty much a repeat of the age gap approach.

Boston knows Studnicka will not work in their plans. They are already thinking about remortgaging into the future because their rebuild is inevitable.

Canucks are hoping this guys talent translates from the AHL to the NHL right now.

Granted the bar is set so low that we say "at least it wasn't a pick."

I don't think it's an "age gap" thing. The team had a need due to injury and instead of wasting time with a player with no future they decided they would rather give up assets for a player that may have a future vs just a complete warm body who will be gone as soon as everyone gets healthy.

The comparisons to the Clendening/Forsling trade are fair. In both cases the Canucks filled an injury situation with the same approach I've said above. I would even say Clendening and Studnicka are in very similar spots. The main difference as I see it is the Canucks gave up a B prospect to get Clendening and this time gave up a C & D prospect.

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

I don't think it's an "age gap" thing. The team had a need due to injury and instead of wasting time with a player with no future they decided they would rather give up assets for a player that may have a future vs just a complete warm body who will be gone as soon as everyone gets healthy.

The comparisons to the Clendening/Forsling trade are fair. In both cases the Canucks filled an injury situation with the same approach I've said above. I would even say Clendening and Studnicka are in very similar spots. The main difference as I see it is the Canucks gave up a B prospect to get Clendening and this time gave up a C & D prospect.

It's still an age gap move in my eyes since we need an NHL guy and gave away futures. It's not like "Benning age gap" but still an age gap move.

It's frustrating to see how much Michael DiPietro was horribly managed. Barely saw any game time the past 2 years due to being stuck on a taxi squad. Granted, he was in tough to be an NHL starter anyways but yeah....just another asset depreciated by Benning for no reason.

 

[Nucker101]

I don't think it's an "age gap" thing. The team had a need due to injury and instead of wasting time with a player with no future they decided they would rather give up assets for a player that may have a future vs just a complete warm body who will be gone as soon as everyone gets healthy.

The comparisons to the Clendening/Forsling trade are fair. In both cases the Canucks filled an injury situation with the same approach I've said above. I would even say Clendening and Studnicka are in very similar spots. The main difference as I see it is the Canucks gave up a B prospect to get Clendening and this time gave up a C & D prospect.

This is where I'm at as well.

But I still would rather have Dickinson/2nd/Myrenberg over Stillman/Studnicka/Cap Savings

So in that sense it is a bit annoying since they've somehow weakened the current and future prospect pool even more just 2 and a half weeks into the season.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

This trade will be good. There are plenty of ways to paint this as a negative, but if the same people used the same creativity, they could also make a strong case for it being a positive thing.

 

[goldnblack]

We're amazed we got anything for Studnicka tbh. He was leapfrogged by 3-4 guys this year. Had to go.

 

[Diversification]

he means he's bad defensively

i like picking up studnicka. there's a chance he's a player. i think giving up myrenberg was too steep a price though. myrenberg is exactly the kind of prospect the canucks lack. high ceiling low probability. would have rather seen a pick move in the deal

I see. Then it’s a good thing that he’ll be brought into a forward core known for its two-way acumen.

 

[vancityluongo]

This trade seems fine. No one would care about Myrenberg if he shot left; and those things ebb and flow. We have an absolute logjam of bottom pairing RH defensemen anyways.

49 points in 60 games as a 20 year old three years ago in the AHL is definitely interesting although he seems to have stalled pretty hard since. He's an RH center too, which is a slight bonus. Generally seems like a nothing trade though - a version of Linden Vey for two guys that have a very little chance of contributing meaningfully more.

 

[CherryToke]

Everything is garbage until proven otherwise

 

[mriswith]

What would we value Myrenberg at straight up for a pick? A 4th? A 3rd?

Paying a 4th equivalent for waiver bait isn't very consequential but seems unnecessary to trade a prospect on the rise for one that's completely done in an org.

It's still an age gap move in my eyes since we need an NHL guy and gave away futures. It's not like "Benning age gap" but still an age gap move.

It's frustrating to see how much Michael DiPietro was horribly managed. Barely saw any game time the past 2 years due to being stuck on a taxi squad. Granted, he was in tough to be an NHL starter anyways but yeah....just another asset depreciated by Benning for no reason.

Taking our best AHL prospects and players and leaving them to rot on a taxi squad, not playing any games for a year, was one of the dumbest things the last regime did. Gross negligence bordering on sabotage.

 

[racerjoe]

What would we value Myrenberg at straight up for a pick? A 4th? A 3rd?

Paying a 4th equivalent for waiver bait isn't very consequential but seems unnecessary to trade a prospect on the rise for one that's completely done in an org.


Taking our best AHL prospects and players and leaving them to rot on a taxi squad, not playing any games for a year, was one of the dumbest things the last regime did. Gross negligence bordering on sabotage.

He was taken in the 5th round sooo a 5th?

 

[krutovsdonut]

i'd say myrenberg is worth at least a 4th now simply by continuing to progress and not show a ceiling. he's ahead of players drafted ahead of him who have stagnated or regressed.

 

[Grantham]

Because Jack has the potential to be a defensively sound 3C? Just look at Bruins' fans reaction to this deal.

Dipietro and Myrenberg are dime a dozen, nothing prospects that every team has in abundance.

Serious question...are you M2B and are you really in Siberia?

I ask because someone changed their name in your honour

 

[Gstank]

So far for those counting the proscouting department has acquired

Johansson, Alman, Stillman (cap dump?) Studnicka, Bear and Pederson (who I think is just AHL depth)

 

[me2]

Serious question...are you M2B and are you really in Siberia?

I ask because someone changed their name in your honour

Vancouver is hockey Siberia. So in a way we are all in Siberia.

 

[Petey But Really Jim]

Serious question...are you M2B and are you really in Siberia?

I ask because someone changed their name in your honour

https://forums.hfboards.com/members/m2beezy.228721/

this is the og is it not?

 

[joelCAMEL]

I don't think it's an "age gap" thing. The team had a need due to injury and instead of wasting time with a player with no future they decided they would rather give up assets for a player that may have a future vs just a complete warm body who will be gone as soon as everyone gets healthy.

The comparisons to the Clendening/Forsling trade are fair. In both cases the Canucks filled an injury situation with the same approach I've said above. I would even say Clendening and Studnicka are in very similar spots. The main difference as I see it is the Canucks gave up a B prospect to get Clendening and this time gave up a C & D prospect.

I do not remember Clendening being acquired because of Canuck injuries. I thought it was because Benning wanted a young defenceman with NHL potential ... former 2 round pick, led Boston College defencemen in scoring during his 2 years there, led Rockford defencemen in scoring in his first year and led all Rockford scorers in his second year. I was excited about him after the trade to Vancouver, for a 5 round pick, Forsling. Then I saw Clendening skate.

It is a compliment to Forsling that you considered him a B prospect. He played 38 games with Chicago in his first year, but that was because his contract stipulated it. After that, he was sent to the minors. He played 84 NHL games in the next 3 years before being place on waivers, by his third NHL team.

I like the trades made by the current management, and accept that some trades required draft picks or prospects to be exchanged. Like it or not, Rutherford will be changing this team by trade. His teams have not drafted well.

 

[Vector]