Confirmed with Link: [VAN/DET] Alex Biega for David Pope

[Canucks1096]

So Biega has already been recalled by the Wings. I really hope it makes it impossible for them to take him out of the lineup.

When you grasp the fact that this guy actually played behind Del Zotto, Hutton, Gudbranson and Pouliot last season and couldn't get out of the pressbox, it doesn't reflect well on the Canucks coaching staff.

3 of the D you posted were LD. Biega is RD. So Biega played behind Tanev, Stecher and Gudbranson. Both Tanev and Stecher are better than Biega. So they made mistake by playing Gudbranson ahead of Biega.

 

[MS]

You're missing the point. Like I said, you can fill that depth role in a number of ways. It doesn't have to type of proven depth you're talking here. It can be young players that the team wants to get more looks at. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's bad management.

No, I'm not missing the point.

You yourself just stated that it's a rare occurrence for a middling AHLer like Brisebois to 'find something' and be able to contribute at the NHL level.

We just traded away proven excellent depth and put ourselves in a position where something you describe as 'rare' needs to happen in order to replace that depth when our annual injury crunch happens.

Injuries and depth on the blueline have been a huge issue here for the past couple years. Taking ourselves from a position where we had good depth coverage with a quality player to an unknown where we need an outlier result is not good management.

You trade your proven NHL depth once your younger depth is knocking on the door to play NHL minutes. Not before.

 

[iceburg]

This just seems like a pretty obvious move as part of revamping the D. They decided in the summer that they were moving on from Hutton, Pouliot, and Biega, signing players to round out a legitimate top 6, a 7th D-man they thoguht was an upgrade (FWIW I don't agree the DFantenberg is an upgrade), and targeted the 8 through 10 slots for younger players that they thought were close to being ready, or at least needed a closer look. They waited until they saw them all at training camp before making the final decision to move on from Biega.
Doesn't seem like an outrageous plan to me.

 

[4Twenty]

This just seems like a pretty obvious move as part of revamping the D. They decided in the summer that they were moving on from Hutton, Pouliot, and Biega, signing players to round out a legitimate top 6, a 7th D-man they thoguht was an upgrade (FWIW I don't agree the DFantenberg is an upgrade), and targeted the 8 through 10 slots for younger players that they thought were close to being ready, or at least needed a closer look. They waited until they saw them all at training camp before making the final decision to move on from Biega.
Doesn't seem like an outrageous plan to me.

Sure, but the dispute is whether the revamped D is an improvement.

I don't think they waited for training camp to make the decision on bulldog either, because he outperformed everybody else who isn't currently in the top 4. I think they cut bait, like you've said, to optically create this idea they're filling the roles with kids...but ultimately Biega wasn't blocking anyone....unless the arguement that practicing with the NHL team is enough for these "prospects".

Biega didn't have to play a single NHL game this season for him to still serve his purpose as system depth. The kids are going to sit if they're recalled unless two Dmen are injured at the same time.

 

[timw33]

to optically create this idea they're filling the roles with kids.

This is something that stands out to me with almost all of their decisions: that they care so much about optics and the need to maintain the illusion that they have so many young players pushing from inside the system. Just like the optics of trading an unprotected 1st round pick where they cowardly had it announced as "the 70th overall, Mazanec, and a conditional pick".

 

[Consistencee]

Benning has done such a stellar job pro scouting D over the years, I'm completely shocked people think he might not know what he's doing/ aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I know he's said it every year, but THIS year we have the depth. We have so much depth that we're getting rid of depth. I mean the fact we're giving away depth shows that we have depth! Biega was the only thing holding back the onslaught of defensive prospects we've had cooking!

I mean he's given us every reason to trust his evaluations and decisions! Give the guy a break you Negative Nancy's.

 

[tantalum]

Benning has done such a stellar job pro scouting D over the years, I'm completely shocked people think he might not know what he's doing/ aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I know he's said it every year, but THIS year we have the depth. We have so much depth that we're getting rid of depth. I mean the fact we're giving away depth shows that we have depth! Biega was the only thing holding back the onslaught of defensive prospects we've had cooking!

I mean he's given us every reason to trust his evaluations and decisions! Give the guy a break you Negative Nancy's.

A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.

 

[F A N]

No, I'm not missing the point.

You yourself just stated that it's a rare occurrence for a middling AHLer like Brisebois to 'find something' and be able to contribute at the NHL level.

We just traded away proven excellent depth and put ourselves in a position where something you describe as 'rare' needs to happen in order to replace that depth when our annual injury crunch happens.

Injuries and depth on the blueline have been a huge issue here for the past couple years. Taking ourselves from a position where we had good depth coverage with a quality player to an unknown where we need an outlier result is not good management.

You trade your proven NHL depth once your younger depth is knocking on the door to play NHL minutes. Not before.

Umm... rare as in the 1 out of 10 you mentioned: "The point in spending time developing guys is getting the 1 guy in 10 who makes it."

If Biega is playing top 4 minutes for a significant period of time, it'll be garbage time soon enough.

 

[Get North]

Calling 24 year olds like Rafferty and Clifton prospects is already a stretch but Tucker Poolman is 26 years old. By that definition guys like Baertschi and Gudbranson just left prospect status last year.

I'm not defining prospects by age, you are. Rafferty could have peaked as a player, it's impossible to know, but he's moved from NAHL, USHL, NCAA and now to the AHL. He could be in the NHL next season or in the ECHL. As long as he is trending upwards that is most important because a lot of players go to the NCAA to get education incase hockey fails. They might be older than their peers when they reach the AHL, but it doesn't matter, they also have to adjust to a high level of hockey. It will likely take a couple years in the AHL to jump to the NHL, just like Clifton/Poolman.

Rafferty signed his first pro contract in April, and you're saying calling him a prospect is a stretch. Baertschi and Gudbranson are 1st round picks, it's not comparable to Rafferty. Baertschi and Gudbranson have been in the AHL/NHL since their D+2. They were better than Rafferty at 18 years old, but that doesn't matter anymore.

 

[Hit the post]

A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.

Please to meet Mr. Chretian. Been a big fan of yours.

 

[I am toxic]

"Wait and see. They're prospects."

"Well, they are in their mid-twenties, and we have all sorts of data on them and comparables that match up with the pre-season eye-test."

"Wait and see. Sure Biega was better than that guy we paid over $3m to for several seasons, but he was blocking our prospects."

"Well, he really wasn't, you could slot those . . . prospects . . . in at any time to get a look. And what you'd see would be the same as it's been the past several years - Biega was better than these guys Benning brought in.

"Wait and see. Some of them just signed their first pro contract. We could have another Calder finalist on our hands."

"Well, the odds against that are astronomi . . ."

"Wait and see! You're toxic!

 

[Get North]

"Wait and see. They're prospects."

"Well, they are in their mid-twenties, and we have all sorts of data on them and comparables that match up with the pre-season eye-test."

"Wait and see. Sure Biega was better than that guy we paid over $3m to for several seasons, but he was blocking our prospects."

"Well, he really wasn't, you could slot those . . . prospects . . . in at any time to get a look. And what you'd see would be the same as it's been the past several years - Biega was better than these guys Benning brought in.

"Wait and see. Some of them just signed their first pro contract. We could have another Calder finalist on our hands."

"Well, the odds against that are astronomi . . ."

"Wait and see! You're toxic!

You're missing the fundamental point of the trade. It has little to do with our prospects and more to do with Benning giving Biega a chance to play somewhere else. The salaries and value in this trade is totally irrelevant.

 

[Hit the post]

You're missing the fundamental point of the trade. It has little to do with our prospects and more to do with Benning giving Biega a chance to play somewhere else. The salaries and value in this trade is totally irrelevant.

Actually they aren't in a sense we acquired a ECHLer & wasted a professional contract slot.

Better for Benning to trade him for another AHLer (where at least the player could maybe be of some use in a callup).

Nothing earth shattering but merely another move in the long list of questionable management moves.

 

[I am toxic]

You're missing the fundamental point of the trade. It has little to do with our prospects and more to do with Benning giving Biega a chance to play somewhere else. The salaries and value in this trade is totally irrelevant.

Is the fundamental point being that Benning did Biega a solid?

 

[MS]

Umm... rare as in the 1 out of 10 you mentioned: "The point in spending time developing guys is getting the 1 guy in 10 who makes it."

If Biega is playing top 4 minutes for a significant period of time, it'll be garbage time soon enough.

What on earth does the low percentage of depth prospect who make it have to do with making low-percentage moves on your actual NHL roster?

And isn't about Biega playing huge top-4 minutes. It's about a bubble team losing a point or two in the standings because they're playing a Brisebois or Sautner instead of a substantially better player in Biega if/when we get hit hard by injuries.

 

[Likwit19]

This thread needs to go the way of the dodo.

 

[Get North]

Actually they aren't in a sense we acquired a ECHLer & wasted a professional contract slot.

Better for Benning to trade him for another AHLer (where at least the player could maybe be of some use in a callup).

Nothing earth shattering but merely another move in the long list of questionable management moves.

The offer (another AHLer) was never there and that is usually a common Benning defence, but in this case it is backed by the fact he cleared waivers. Detroit has already designed their roster/contracts with important prospects and key veterans whether it is in the NHL/AHL. What's the use of Biega to them?

Detroit wasn't giving him an AHLer when they could have acquired Biega for free on waivers. Benning wanted to give Biega a chance to play on another NHL roster, that's it. Detroit had no interest in Biega, if they did, they'd claim on waivers. It doesn't sound like Detroit was calling Benning with interest for Biega, they have younger defencemen who can be better in a year than Biega.

Nobody wants a 31 year old, most likely #7-8 on a NHL team when they can give that ice-time to younger, potentially better players in the long run. Especially, a rebuilding team like Detroit. This is not a "hockey trade", it's a pure human trade.

I would also say goodwill is value and free agents may consider that signing with Vancouver. I could be reaching, but so are people who are raging over this thread and over analyzing it like they are Bob McKenzie.

Is the fundamental point being that Benning did Biega a solid?

Yeah.

I misread your point, but Rafferty is a legit prospect. He's not old either, mid-twenties is a common age for prospects exiting NCAA.

 

[hcg]

No, I'm not missing the point.

You yourself just stated that it's a rare occurrence for a middling AHLer like Brisebois to 'find something' and be able to contribute at the NHL level.

We just traded away proven excellent depth and put ourselves in a position where something you describe as 'rare' needs to happen in order to replace that depth when our annual injury crunch happens.

Injuries and depth on the blueline have been a huge issue here for the past couple years. Taking ourselves from a position where we had good depth coverage with a quality player to an unknown where we need an outlier result is not good management.

You trade your proven NHL depth once your younger depth is knocking on the door to play NHL minutes. Not before.

Surely after 4 years at the bottom of the league the Canucks have several prospects and young dmen ready to step up? They must right? They haven't been wasting time drafting busts have they?

Well that's unfortunate. What about the forward group? Also no one of note waiting to step in? Well f***.

 

[Hit the post]

I would also say goodwill is value and free agents may consider that signing with Vancouver. I could be reaching, but so are people who are raging over this thread and over analyzing it like they are Bob McKenzie.

Biega is a minor leagurer; I doubt favorable treatment of him is going to have any kind of effect on future FAs wanting to sign here or not. In fact, I'd argue not strong arming players who signed NTCs in good faith to waive them like Benning has would have a greater impact.

What's the use of Biega to them?

He's been recalled already from their AHL affiliate, so I guess SOME limited use?

I just assumed Benning felt he was doing Biega a favor; but if as you say no NHL team would want him given his age, etc., what kind of favor is he really doing him if that’s the case?

In any event, as I’ve already said more than once; nothing important in the greater scheme of things this trade.

 

[DL44]

I just checked and Biega is on the roster for the Wings!
Looks like he's reported directly to the NHL team... was listed as a healthy scratch last game.
I guess that was the 'Benning promised to get him to team that needed him' part of it.

Det's next three: @ Mon, v Tor, @ Van... Let's hope we get to see him play here.

 

[F A N]

What on earth does the low percentage of depth prospect who make it have to do with making low-percentage moves on your actual NHL roster?

And isn't about Biega playing huge top-4 minutes. It's about a bubble team losing a point or two in the standings because they're playing a Brisebois or Sautner instead of a substantially better player in Biega if/when we get hit hard by injuries.

This is why I said you missed my point. Geesh.

 

[timw33]

Ok so we're 4 games in and we've already recalled Ashton Sauntner.

 

[Hit the post]

Ok so we're 4 games in and we've already recalled Ashton Sauntner.

A chance Biega draws in against us. Another trade win for Benning.

 

[JAK]

Have to actually see Fantenberg to actually play to decide whether moving Biega was a mistake or not....

But at this rate, it probably was.

 

[timw33]

Have to actually see Fantenberg to actually play to decide whether moving Biega was a mistake or not....

But at this rate, it probably was.

Fantenberg has been in concussion protocol and sounds like he's been sick. Which makes it more bizarre why you turf the healthy veteran depth who has been soldiering for this team for years for someone else only because you signed them recently.