Confirmed with Link: [VAN/FLA] Canucks acquire Erik Gudbranson, 2016 5th ~ PT 3

[ahmon]

You guys are both essentially correct, from different angles.

Vey is a 'skill-style' player. He does have pretty good vision, fairly high offensive IQ, and is useful pretty much only on the PP. He has no grit and intangibles whatsoever, and the only redeemable thing about him is his 'skill'.

That said, his 'skill' is incredibly pedestrian and not NHL caliber. So calling him 'skilled' relative to NHL players is a complete misnomer.

He's basically an 'AHL skill center' and a complete garbage player at the NHL level.

That's a matter of "how" skilled he is.

That was never the point of discussion.

The point of discussion was whether or not Benning prioritized "physicality, character, defensive prowess" over "skill" when acquiring Linden Vey.

 

[CanaFan]

Vey still shows a lot more glimpses of skill than Prust ever had in his whole career. So it's not fair to put them in the same category. In 2014, most people who didn't know about Vey saw him as a potential 2nd line (or at worst, 3rd line) center. When he was utitlized on the PP, he did his job and then trailed off.



PS: For embedding videos, click the "share" button on Youtube and you get a new, shorter link. I see you pasted the whole URL, which doesn't work with the embedded feature.

Thanks for the YT tip, that'll make life easier in future.

And obviously I'm not COMPARING Vey to Prust or saying they are EQUIVALENT. I'm merely saying even a slug like Prust has SOME skill, so you can't qualify a player as skilled in a vacuum. It needs to be relative to the level that is present in the larger population (in this case the NHL). So while Prust is at or near the very bottom of skill, I still see Vey as having skill that is probably in the 40th-50th percentile (i.e. average-to-slighly-below-average). Yes he shows the odd flash I suppose, but shift-in, shift-out it simply isn't there. He only *looks* like a skill player because of the absence of any other defining trait. If he hit like Virtanen or worked as hard as Burrows I doubt anyone would call him a "skill player", they would call him a role player, even if you keep his skill level exactly what it is today.

So to wrap this up, I will concede two points:

1. Based on his CHL and AHL career, I can accept that Benning likely *thought* he was acquiring a skilled player in Vey, though if I also assume he watched Vey in any capacity then he should have been realistic in the "level" of skill Vey actually possessed. I don't see him as a Kyle Wellwood who had skill coming out his ass but simply didn't have the skating, size, or dedication to translate it to the NHL. Unless his skills have drastically diminished, I suspect his numbers were a result of slightly above average skill (for the league he was in), big minutes, and talented line mates resulting in inflated numbers.

2. Lacking any other identifiable trait, I suppose Vey is a "more skill than anything else" player. He is not highly skilled, but I guess relative to his other traits then skill is the default position. Still seems a very apologetic description of skill but whatever.

 

[Jyrki21]

Different system, different partner, yeah I think we can expect some differences. Hopefully for the better

this seems like a hopelessly optimistic position

Well don't forget that with the current weak dollar, his output in Florida gets multiplied by about 1.2.

That's how it works, right?

 

[fancouver]

Thanks for the YT tip, that'll make life easier in future.

And obviously I'm not COMPARING Vey to Prust or saying they are EQUIVALENT. I'm merely saying even a slug like Prust has SOME skill, so you can't qualify a player as skilled in a vacuum. It needs to be relative to the level that is present in the larger population (in this case the NHL). So while Prust is at or near the very bottom of skill, I still see Vey as having skill that is probably in the 40th-50th percentile (i.e. average-to-slighly-below-average). Yes he shows the odd flash I suppose, but shift-in, shift-out it simply isn't there. He only *looks* like a skill player because of the absence of any other defining trait. If he hit like Virtanen or worked as hard as Burrows I doubt anyone would call him a "skill player", they would call him a role player, even if you keep his skill level exactly what it is today.

So to wrap this up, I will concede two points:

1. Based on his CHL and AHL career, I can accept that Benning likely *thought* he was acquiring a skilled player in Vey, though if I also assume he watched Vey in any capacity then he should have been realistic in the "level" of skill Vey actually possessed. I don't see him as a Kyle Wellwood who had skill coming out his ass but simply didn't have the skating, size, or dedication to translate it to the NHL. Unless his skills have drastically diminished, I suspect his numbers were a result of slightly above average skill (for the league he was in), big minutes, and talented line mates resulting in inflated numbers.

2. Lacking any other identifiable trait, I suppose Vey is a "more skill than anything else" player. He is not highly skilled, but I guess relative to his other traits then skill is the default position. Still seems a very apologetic description of skill but whatever.

That's a fair way to describe Vey as we're not really discussing "how" skilled he is, but whether he "is" skilled or not. And on a spectrum, he'd be closer to skill than speed or physicality.

In the end, we should also take into consideration the state of the team when Vey was brought in. He's coming into the Canucks while they are rebuilding, when the Sedins are declining, goaltending and defence a mess.

Wellwood was brought in when the Canucks were on their way up and going head-to-head with the Hawks. He had PPG Sedins, prime Kesler, Luongo, Demitra and Raymond. The only guy who was in decline was still a HHOF in Sundin. Wellwood was a waiver pick-up to play a minor role on the team, which is did admirably. I feel if Wellwood played on today's team, he wouldn't be able to do what he did either. In contrast, Vey would have performed better if he was on a better team.

 

[iloveloov*]

That's a matter of "how" skilled he is.

That was never the point of discussion.

The point of discussion was whether or not Benning prioritized "physicality, character, defensive prowess" over "skill" when acquiring Linden Vey.

This. ahmon could have chosen to chase red herrings with CanaFan's other examples of gritty and defensive players the same way Cana did with Linden Vey's skill level.

"How" gritty is Brandon Sutter or Marcus Granlund in the NHL?

"How" defensive is Luca Sbisa or Andrey Pedan in the NHL?

None of it has any relevance to what was being discussed. Whether Benning prioritizes gritty defensive players over skilled offensive players, which there isn't any evidence he does but herp derp what a meat n taters dinosaur Benning is.

 

[CanaFan]

This. ahmon could have chosen to chase red herrings with CanaFan's other examples of gritty and defensive players the same way Cana did with Linden Vey's skill level.

"How" gritty is Brandon Sutter or Marcus Granlund in the NHL?

"How" defensive is Luca Sbisa or Andrey Pedan in the NHL?

None of it has any relevance to what was being discussed. Whether Benning prioritizes gritty defensive players over skilled offensive players, which there isn't any evidence he does but herp derp what a meat n taters dinosaur Benning is.

Fine.

"Skilled" targets

Baertschi, Vrbata, Vey

"Physicality", "Defense", "Character" targets

Gudbranson, Sbisa, Prust, Sutter, Dorsett, Granlund, Pedan


7/10 = 70% have been acquisitions whose primary or most notable skillset has been for their character, physical play, or defensive prowess.

Herp derp meat n taters dinosaur hockey after all, especially if you look at what Benning traded away to acquire those pieces.

 

[MS]

Fine.

"Skilled" targets

Baertschi, Vrbata, Vey

"Physicality", "Defense", "Character" targets

Gudbranson, Sbisa, Prust, Sutter, Dorsett, Granlund, Pedan


7/10 = 70% have been acquisitions whose primary or most notable skillset has been for their character, physical play, or defensive prowess.

Herp derp meat n taters dinosaur hockey after all, especially if you look at what Benning traded away to acquire those pieces.

You can probably add Miller, whose supposed 'veteran net presence' is in the same intangibles vein.

 

[HankNDank]

Ah but you get to avoid the use of stats. Gotcha.

BTW

Keith...10th and 6th in Norris voting before he won at age 26.
Seabrook...never had real serious Norris consideration but was 13th in voting at age 24. And a Calder winner
Chara...7th in voting at 25, 2nd at 26.


So far Burns is an exception. Chara is a minor exception maybe. Keith and Seabrook are not. Doughty is not. Those are all guys that play and have played at a high level since their early 20s.

Keith put up an average of 28 points per year aged 25 and under. He has averaged 49 points per year aged 26 and up. Egro, he has improved vastly after he turned 24.

Seabrook put up and average of 28 points per year aged 25 and under. He has put up 40 points per year aged 26 and up. Ergo he has improved after he turned 24.

Chara put up an average of 13 points per year up until 24. He put up an average of 44 points per year in his next full 10 seasons. Ergo, he has improved vastly after he turned 24.

Doughty put up an average of 40 points per game up until 24. He has put up 48 points per game since then. Ergo he has improved.

I didn't avoid the use of stats, I thought they were just so obvious I didn't need to point them out. Besides, you are the one making the claim, burden of proof is on you. I provided some examples, I am still waiting on the data that shows - league wide - once you turn 24 as a defender, you have reached your limit, with the exception of a few outliers.

I am not saying these guys weren't good in their early 20's. I am saying they got better after 24 years old. I have proven my point, they all got better.

BTW, didn't you say earlier that you don't use Norris voting as a reference for how good they are due to some bias or something yadda yadda yadda?

 

[Alan Jackson]

Fine.

"Skilled" targets

Baertschi, Vrbata, Vey

"Physicality", "Defense", "Character" targets

Gudbranson, Sbisa, Prust, Sutter, Dorsett, Granlund, Pedan


7/10 = 70% have been acquisitions whose primary or most notable skillset has been for their character, physical play, or defensive prowess.

Herp derp meat n taters dinosaur hockey after all, especially if you look at what Benning traded away to acquire those pieces.

So, there have been fewer targets matching one category, than targets matching anyone of *THREE* other categories?

Huh.

Also, considering Granlund's AHL pedigree, I'd consider him a "skill" target. Where do Vrbata or Bonino fit?

 

[CanaFan]

So, there have been fewer targets matching one category, than targets matching anyone of *THREE* other categories?

Huh.

Also, considering Granlund's AHL pedigree, I'd consider him a "skill" target. Where do Vrbata or Bonino fit?

Well the conversation was "targeting skill" and my counterpoint was he targets "character, grit, and defense" or "not skill" so I think the groupings are consistent with the discussion being had.

As for the rest:

- Vrbata is in my skill list already.

- Bonino would count if he was still here and not traded away for a less skilled, more defensively proficient player.

- Granlund is hard to define but I don't see the "skill focus" in him that I grudgingly conceded in Vey. With Granlund we got a jack-of-all-trades bottom 6er who is probably defined as well by his defensive conscientiousness as anything else. The player we traded away for him was a "top 6 or bust skill player". We prioritized NHL surety and defensive awareness over pure offensive skill in that case.

*Edit - To be clear, I've never said every acquisition Benning has made has been devoid of skill. NHL players all have skill to some degree and so by default you will get *some* in every trade or draft pick you make. My point is that in the totality of Benning's acquisitions - apart from draft picks - he has primarily brought in players who have a relatively low skill level compared to an average NHL player. And some of that has been his focus on building up the bottom 6, I get that. But these acquisitions aren't free either. They have cost us promising first round picks or prospects with reasonably high upsides (McCann, Shinkaruk, Forsling), high draft picks (3x 2nds, 3x 3rds), or vets that already had a higher skill level to begin with (Bonino, Kassian). You can't just look at the guys they've brought in in isolation, there is also the cost and type of player that they gave up to do so.

The net effect has, IMO, been a downgrading of our skill in the present and future in order to secure players who fit a very specific role or archetype.

 

[Proto]

I think what's being missed here is that Benning thinks it's a mark of toughness to have guys that win puck battles and are on the "right side of the puck." The Canucks went on at length about how Granlund fights for the puck all over the ice and stays on the right side of the puck.

In a very general sense it's not a bad philosophy, but this group has real issues actually identifying players that do this effectively at the NHL level. I don't think anyone would really question the effort level of these players or their willingness to at least try to get the puck, but they're not good at it, are typically weak on the puck, and have no outstanding qualities as players.

It's really an error in execution on Benning's part, as most of his mistakes are. If Miller and Sbisa and Vey and Granlund could fill the roles Benning thinks they can fill, his moves would all make sense. But they can't.

I would guess Gudbranson will end up being similar. He'll be better than the other players listed but the acquisition cost was also much higher.

 

[Jay Cee]

Well the conversation was "targeting skill" and my counterpoint was he targets "character, grit, and defense" or "not skill" so I think the groupings are consistent with the discussion being had.

As for the rest:

- Vrbata is in my skill list already.

- Bonino would count if he was still here and not traded away for a less skilled, more defensively proficient player.

- Granlund is hard to define but I don't see the "skill focus" in him that I grudgingly conceded in Vey. With Granlund we got a jack-of-all-trades bottom 6er who is probably defined as well by his defensive conscientiousness as anything else. The player we traded away for him was a "top 6 or bust skill player". We prioritized NHL surety and defensive awareness over pure offensive skill in that case.

*Edit - To be clear, I've never said every acquisition Benning has made has been devoid of skill. NHL players all have skill to some degree and so by default you will get *some* in every trade or draft pick you make. My point is that in the totality of Benning's acquisitions - apart from draft picks - he has primarily brought in players who have a relatively low skill level compared to an average NHL player. And some of that has been his focus on building up the bottom 6, I get that. But these acquisitions aren't free either. They have cost us promising first round picks or prospects with reasonably high upsides (McCann, Shinkaruk, Forsling), high draft picks (3x 2nds, 3x 3rds), or vets that already had a higher skill level to begin with (Bonino, Kassian). You can't just look at the guys they've brought in in isolation, there is also the cost and type of player that they gave up to do so.

The net effect has, IMO, been a downgrading of our skill in the present and future in order to secure players who fit a very specific role or archetype.

Actually, and I am not defending him in this case, but I think Benning acquired Granlund and Vey because he thinks they could or will be good players. I think "playing the right way" is important to him and that is the type of player he wants, but at the end of the day, Vey and Granlund will not be in the NHL very long if all they are is 4th line players or 13th forward even on a Jim Benning team.

 

[fancouver]

Fine.

"Skilled" targets

Baertschi, Vrbata, Vey

"Physicality", "Defense", "Character" targets

Gudbranson, Sbisa, Prust, Sutter, Dorsett, Granlund, Pedan


7/10 = 70% have been acquisitions whose primary or most notable skillset has been for their character, physical play, or defensive prowess.

Herp derp meat n taters dinosaur hockey after all, especially if you look at what Benning traded away to acquire those pieces.

How about a more unbiased breakdown of Benning's targets. Let's double-count the same player that falls into either category so we aren't being biased.

"Skill" - guys who are traded for or drafted with the projection to play in the top 6 or provide point production

1) Vrbata
2) Bonino
3) Vey
4) Baertschi
5) Virtanen
6) McCann
7) Larsen
8) Brisebois
9) Boeser
10) Stecher
11) Forsling
12) Zhukenov


"Speed" - burners

1) Sutter
2) Virtanen
3) Bartkowski

"Physicality" - guys who are traded for to provide grit and fighting

1) Dorsett
2) Prust
3) Pedan
4) Sbisa
5) Gudbranson
6) Tryamkin
7) Mckenzie
8) Petit

"Character" - potential leaders on the team including veterans

1) Gudbranson
2) Dorsett
3) Sutter
4) Prust
5) Miller

"Role players" - bottom 6 role, defence, PK

1) Granlund
2) Etem
3) Tryamkin


Looks like a pretty balanced list to me. Every category is being filled out.

 

[xtr3m]

Keith put up an average of 28 points per year aged 25 and under. He has averaged 49 points per year aged 26 and up. Egro, he has improved vastly after he turned 24.

Seabrook put up and average of 28 points per year aged 25 and under. He has put up 40 points per year aged 26 and up. Ergo he has improved after he turned 24.

Chara put up an average of 13 points per year up until 24. He put up an average of 44 points per year in his next full 10 seasons. Ergo, he has improved vastly after he turned 24.

Doughty put up an average of 40 points per game up until 24. He has put up 48 points per game since then. Ergo he has improved.

I didn't avoid the use of stats, I thought they were just so obvious I didn't need to point them out. Besides, you are the one making the claim, burden of proof is on you. I provided some examples, I am still waiting on the data that shows - league wide - once you turn 24 as a defender, you have reached your limit, with the exception of a few outliers.

I am not saying these guys weren't good in their early 20's. I am saying they got better after 24 years old. I have proven my point, they all got better.

BTW, didn't you say earlier that you don't use Norris voting as a reference for how good they are due to some bias or something yadda yadda yadda?

All recent cup champions on stacked teams that were allowed to develop within the same organization. Chances are, someone that was traded from a team like Panthers to a team like Canucks won't develop into a Keith/Seabrook/Doughty/Chara.

 

[CanaFan]

How about a more unbiased breakdown of Benning's targets. Let's double-count the same player that falls into either category so we aren't being biased.

"Skill" - guys who are traded for or drafted with the projection to play in the top 6 or provide point production

1) Vrbata - Qualifies.
2) Bonino - Cost us Kesler, a more "skilled" player. Was soon after traded for Sutter, a less skilled player.
3) Vey - Qualifies (barely).
4) Baertschi - Qualifies.
5) Virtanen - Cost a 6th overall pick where more skilled players were available.
6) McCann - Did qualify until Benning traded him for a modestly skilled D.
7) Larsen - Sure, I guess.
8) Brisebois - Disagree. Point production is not part of his projection.
9) Boeser - Yep.
10) Stecher - TBD. Doesn't really project as a point producer.
11) Forsling - Traded away.
12) Zhukenov - Sure I guess.


"Speed" - burners

1) Sutter - Agree but cost us Bonino from the "skill" list.
2) Virtanen - Agree but cost us Nylander/Ehlers who are both fast and more skilled.
3) Bartkowski - Yep

"Physicality" - guys who are traded for to provide grit and fighting

1) Dorsett - Yep
2) Prust - Cost us Kassian who would have been included in a "skill" list.
3) Pedan - Yep
4) Sbisa - Cost us Kesler ("skill")
5) Gudbranson - Cost us McCann ("skill")
6) Tryamkin - Yep
7) Mckenzie - Yep
8) Petit - Yep

"Character" - potential leaders on the team including veterans

1) Gudbranson - Cost McCann
2) Dorsett - Yep
3) Sutter - Cost Bonino
4) Prust - Cost Kassian
5) Miller - Sure

"Role players" - bottom 6 role, defence, PK

1) Granlund - Cost Shinkaruk who would have easily fit on the "skill" list
2) Etem - Yep
3) Tryamkin - Yep


Looks like a pretty balanced list to me. Every category is being filled out.

Sure, if every one of those players was claimed for free off waivers then sure. But they aren't and there is a COST going in the other direction. And you can't ignore that when you are assessing the "balance" of these moves. I mean we could trade Henrik Sedin tomorrow for a draft pick and select Ty Ronning, but that doesn't make it a "trade for skill" deal.

Once you add in the "cost" of each of these pieces - using your own classifications - the direction takes a sharp turn away from "balanced" to "building a fast, character, gritty" team with lower emphasis on "skill". I mean when you need to count Zhukenov and Brisebois amongst your "skill acquisitions" it is a bit troubling don't you think?

 

[opendoor]

Keith put up an average of 28 points per year aged 25 and under. He has averaged 49 points per year aged 26 and up. Egro, he has improved vastly after he turned 24.

Seabrook put up and average of 28 points per year aged 25 and under. He has put up 40 points per year aged 26 and up. Ergo he has improved after he turned 24.

Chara put up an average of 13 points per year up until 24. He put up an average of 44 points per year in his next full 10 seasons. Ergo, he has improved vastly after he turned 24.

Doughty put up an average of 40 points per game up until 24. He has put up 48 points per game since then. Ergo he has improved.

I didn't avoid the use of stats, I thought they were just so obvious I didn't need to point them out. Besides, you are the one making the claim, burden of proof is on you. I provided some examples, I am still waiting on the data that shows - league wide - once you turn 24 as a defender, you have reached your limit, with the exception of a few outliers.

I am not saying these guys weren't good in their early 20's. I am saying they got better after 24 years old. I have proven my point, they all got better.

BTW, didn't you say earlier that you don't use Norris voting as a reference for how good they are due to some bias or something yadda yadda yadda?

Shocking that averages from a player's early 20s including their rookie seasons are lower than from their mid 20s when they're in their prime.

More than numbers, you have to consider these players' role when they turned 24 and how much they improved from that. Doughty and Keith were already #1 defensemen on contenders and cup winners by that age. Seabrook was a #2 on a cup winner. The equivalent for a guy like Gudbranson would be going from a #4/5 guy at 23/24 to a solid #4 guy later one which is what most people are expecting.

Only Chara out of that group saw a significant increase in his effectiveness after 24 and he's obviously an outlier.

 

[tantalum]

I didn't avoid the use of stats, I thought they were just so obvious I didn't need to point them out. Besides, you are the one making the claim, burden of proof is on you. I provided some examples, I am still waiting on the data that shows - league wide - once you turn 24 as a defender, you have reached your limit, with the exception of a few outliers.

I am not saying these guys weren't good in their early 20's. I am saying they got better after 24 years old. I have proven my point, they all got better.

BTW, didn't you say earlier that you don't use Norris voting as a reference for how good they are due to some bias or something yadda yadda yadda?

You actually didn't prove much because what was said was D-men with 300+ games of experience and how much they improved post that age and experience level. You are also aren't understanding that performance fluctuates from year to year but by and large those players are functioning at a very high level were doing so at that younger age and experience level. Pointing out what you think are exceptions does not mean the general trend doesn't hold. Which is what I believe what I said and indeed players don't tend to get tangibly better beyond 24 years of age. Several articles have been written on it. Typically they use production as you did which isn't great but it's what we have.

It doesn't mean someone can't be better at 26 than 24 but it means that when you around that 24 years of age the development curve is at or near it's peak and flattening out. D-men do indeed, in general, have a flatter curve for longer than forwards (especially snipers) and perform within ~90% of that peak from 24-34ish. Some will peak earlier and others later but that peak isn't normally leaps and bounds different from what they are at age 24. In most of your examples you are talking likely Hall of Fame players who have been at the top amongst their peers since they were kids. I think one would expect those players to be more likely to be able to put together that really superior year earlier and later in their careers. Players do get dialed in for extended periods and have those career years.

The averages you use are also biased and fail to account for trends in the players games. A before 24 average for a guy like Keith is heavily influenced from his younger years where production was down as it forms a more signficant share of the average, yet before his post-24 year he had seasons of over 30 points. His PP time likely began to increase, his PP points indeed went up and hey Toews and Kane showed up and magically the team became much more offensive. What is a considered a tangible increase in production and what is considered normal output fluctuations do to player and environment? Hard to tease those out which is why you look at the general performance trend over the entire population so as to minimize those individual effects.

Now having clearly laid out that there are nuances to any matter of fact statement that I probably shouldn't have taken as being obvious when I first said the comment what makes anyone think that Gudbranson is going to have this huge growth in the next year or two? If D-men at the time they are 24 years of age are operating at their peak or within the 90-110% of their peak what you have at that age is for all practical purposes what you get. Typically. Not every single time, but typically. And given the shift of the Panthers organization to a highly metric based evaluation they know this. It is a reason for the move they made. They evaluated his play, his likely play and the cap hit he may take up or wanted.

Also clearly I used the Norris voting as you used that in your argument. If it's meaningful that a guy finished third last year in voting surely it's meaningful they were under consideration before they were 24. I actually think it is more meaningful when they are younger because many of these things are often based on multiple year reputations though it is getting better and the Norris voting has been one of the quickest to recognize the younger guys now.

 

[fancouver]

Sure, if every one of those players was claimed for free off waivers then sure. But they aren't and there is a COST going in the other direction. And you can't ignore that when you are assessing the "balance" of these moves. I mean we could trade Henrik Sedin tomorrow for a draft pick and select Ty Ronning, but that doesn't make it a "trade for skill" deal.

Once you add in the "cost" of each of these pieces - using your own classifications - the direction takes a sharp turn away from "balanced" to "building a fast, character, gritty" team with lower emphasis on "skill". I mean when you need to count Zhukenov and Brisebois amongst your "skill acquisitions" it is a bit troubling don't you think?

If you're talking about the cost, that's fair, but then you need to apply it to everything else too.

Boeser was a skill guy drafted over potential prospects who had more physicality in their game.

Further, you say we took Virtanen at 6th, but then there's more skilled players available, like Ehlers and Nylander. So what? We still took a guy who fit 3 criteria in Virtanen: Skill, speed and physicality over Nylander who is only skill and speed. That doesn't seem like Benning is targeting more meatheads, but getting a player who is more well-rounded.

 

[settinguptheplay]

If Gudbranson can even make small gains over the next couple of years he will be able to anchor our second pairing for a decade.

I am looking forward to seeing if a Hutton Gudbranson pairing can develop some chemistry. A second pairing equivalent of Keith/Seabrook would be nice. Please bear in mind I said 2nd pairing. I am making no claims of either player even touching the capabilities of the K/S pairing. But the optics of that pairing is enticing. Will definitely be on my watch closely list for next season.

Now watch them not pair them together... /sigh

 

[CanaFan]

If you're talking about the cost, that's fair, but then you need to apply it to everything else too.

Boeser was a skill guy drafted over potential prospects who had more physicality in their game.

Further, you say we took Virtanen at 6th, but then there's more skilled players available, like Ehlers and Nylander. So what? We still took a guy who fit 3 criteria in Virtanen: Skill, speed and physicality over Nylander who is only skill and speed. That doesn't seem like Benning is targeting more meatheads, but getting a player who is more well-rounded.

Sure, I have no problem with the Virtanen pick but I'm trying to show Benning's overall direction of moves and if you are going to classify Virtanen as "skill" I feel it's fair to show he passed on "higher skill". And I have no problem if you do the same with Boeser, I'm trying to do an accurate accounting of Benning's moves - both what he has acquired and has moved out - and I'll give him all the credit in the world for a pick like Boeser. I'd be as happy as anyone if we made more of them.

 

[Cupless44]

You actually didn't prove much because what was said was D-men with 300+ games of experience and how much they improved post that age and experience level. You are also aren't understanding that performance fluctuates from year to year but by and large those players are functioning at a very high level were doing so at that younger age and experience level. Pointing out what you think are exceptions does not mean the general trend doesn't hold. Which is what I believe what I said and indeed players don't tend to get tangibly better beyond 24 years of age. Several articles have been written on it. Typically they use production as you did which isn't great but it's what we have.

It doesn't mean someone can't be better at 26 than 24 but it means that when you around that 24 years of age the development curve is at or near it's peak and flattening out. D-men do indeed, in general, have a flatter curve for longer than forwards (especially snipers) and perform within ~90% of that peak from 24-34ish. Some will peak earlier and others later but that peak isn't normally leaps and bounds different from what they are at age 24. In most of your examples you are talking likely Hall of Fame players who have been at the top amongst their peers since they were kids. I think one would expect those players to be more likely to be able to put together that really superior year earlier and later in their careers. Players do get dialed in for extended periods and have those career years.

The averages you use are also biased and fail to account for trends in the players games. A before 24 average for a guy like Keith is heavily influenced from his younger years where production was down as it forms a more signficant share of the average, yet before his post-24 year he had seasons of over 30 points. His PP time likely began to increase, his PP points indeed went up and hey Toews and Kane showed up and magically the team became much more offensive. What is a considered a tangible increase in production and what is considered normal output fluctuations do to player and environment? Hard to tease those out which is why you look at the general performance trend over the entire population so as to minimize those individual effects.

Now having clearly laid out that there are nuances to any matter of fact statement that I probably shouldn't have taken as being obvious when I first said the comment what makes anyone think that Gudbranson is going to have this huge growth in the next year or two? If D-men at the time they are 24 years of age are operating at their peak or within the 90-110% of their peak what you have at that age is for all practical purposes what you get. Typically. Not every single time, but typically. And given the shift of the Panthers organization to a highly metric based evaluation they know this. It is a reason for the move they made. They evaluated his play, his likely play and the cap hit he may take up or wanted.

Also clearly I used the Norris voting as you used that in your argument. If it's meaningful that a guy finished third last year in voting surely it's meaningful they were under consideration before they were 24. I actually think it is more meaningful when they are younger because many of these things are often based on multiple year reputations though it is getting better and the Norris voting has been one of the quickest to recognize the younger guys now.

It can be affected by the environment around young defencemen though. Gubrandson has played 5 years or 300 games but when he was thrown into the mix at 19 Florida was pretty much in shambles. Not much talent, a non playoff team, struggling franchise, a place no one even wanted to play. Gubrandson himself will be the first to tell you he had growing pains and struggled with high expectations. But everything I have read also said he was one of the most accountable players and one of the first Panthers that gave a **** about playing there.

Sounds like he has made some strides last year in his play. I was not a fan of the trade but I am keeping an open mind. I do think his best hockey is ahead of him.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Closing this one up.

Please redirect all trade talk to the Jim Benning Era Transaction Summary thread. Thanks