Confirmed with Link: [VAN/MTL] Zack Kassian + 5th round pick for Brandon Prust | Pt. 2

[arsmaster*]

I find it pretty ridiculous that 27 games as a first year pro showed that Lindy Ruff couldn't get through to Zack Kassian...the kid who breezed through the AHL at 20 and produced roughly a PPG in that league as a 20 year old.

 

[I in the Eye]

When WD arrived, he had Kassian penciled in for the top 6 role. It was Burrows - Bonino - Kassian. Sedins were with Vrbata.

It's not like he didn't give him a chance. But then he was not consistent enough for a top 6 role, not doing the small things, and Higgins had to be moved up.

It's not like these coaches are trying to make Kassian a worse player. He theoretically has a lot of potential. Who doesn't want a 6'4 power forward in the top 6? But he was given a chance and it didn't work out.

We can fold the past up, and throw it away. The minute that Kassian was Baptized by Benching, he was born again, and free from his original sins. In Benning's eyes, in Willie's eyes, in practically everyone here's eyes, he was a different player. Benning attributed this different player, to the benching. Hell, Willie thinks he was a different man... even saying "good job" to McMillan who took Kassian's spot on the Sedin line during an empty net. Willie thought that was a great sign of character from this born again man. By all reasonable accounts, led by Willie and Benning, Kassian had changed... and he remained changed until the end of the season. Benning said so. The eyes said so. The most militant posters who have issue believing in Kassian said so. They said, let's see if he can keep this up (sample size). They didn't say he wasn't being reached.

If you disagree with this assessment on Kassian now... I assume you disagreed with this at the season's end (couple months ago)... and I assume you disagreed with Benning's thoughts and comments about Kassian at season's end as well.

I don't know how anyone can disagree with Benning with what he said at the season closing press conference. I agreed with him. I was agreeing with posters who shared strong opposing views on Kassian. We were in agreement. We were still in disagreement about why Kassian changed, but not that Kassian changed. That was accepted. I don't remember anyone disagreeing with Benning... but for some reason now, more than a few people do... hell, Benning even disagrees with himself now. And the thing is, there has been no hockey in between to reasonably change anyone's opinion about Kassian's ability to be a hockey player over the past couple months. The evidence has been only positive. The opinion, IMO, that someone had about Kassian from the time of season's close, to the time of now, should be the same.

Benning will either be right, and Kassian is worth working with and has a good chance to continue growing and become an excellent player for Montreal next season... or, Benning will be right, and Kassian cannot be reached as a player. In two months, his opinion completely changed. Benning will either be right, or he will be right. But no matter how right he's set up to be, he will still be completely wrong... because in this case, when the result is you don't keep Kassian on the team for your team to potentially benefit, and you give him away, two rights do make a wrong. Only Benning, can set himself up to be so right, and still be so wrong.

 

[arsmaster*]

Kassian was pencilled with Bonino and the coach took him off that line in the 1st period of the first preseason game (the one that wasn't on TV).

 

[Intangibos]

I was a huge fan of Kassian when we traded Hodgson, but when 4 coaches couldn't turn him into the power forward, that's something he must figure out.

Ruff
Vigneault
Tortorella
Desjardins

I bet you those 4 coaches wouldn't be able to turn Patrick Kane into a power foward either. Doesn't mean he isn't a useful player and should be shipped out.

 

[Diamonddog01]

I bet you those 4 coaches wouldn't be able to turn Patrick Kane into a power foward either. Doesn't mean he isn't a useful player and should be shipped out.

I liked Kassian and was hoping he would breakout for us. Cheered for him. But 4 coaches also weren't able to stem the bleeding regarding scoring chances against every time he stepped on the ice. That was a bigger factor in his benching and poor play than him not being physical enough.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

I see a player whose spurts of good play have often been de-railed by things outside of his control. Strong finish to a season, coach is fired and new management/regime tries to change his play. Start to play well with twins, suffer back injury.

I don't think Kassian will ever be a star, but I can see a productive middle six winger there for Montreal next year.

Not trying to absolve of all responsibility. I'm saying the stretches of solid, consistent productive play he had were derailed by things (firing of a coach, injury) that were outside of his control. He has had plenty of other stretches of unproductive, inconsistent play where it's definitely on him to get it back on track.

You chalk it about to external factors, I chalk it up to taking the job serious and seriously preparing for games. Simple difference of opinion. I share Richardson's opinion, that Kassian's inability to prepare for NHL games like a pro were the primary problems, you blame external factors.

 

[Pip]

I find it pretty ridiculous that 27 games as a first year pro showed that Lindy Ruff couldn't get through to Zack Kassian...the kid who breezed through the AHL at 20 and produced roughly a PPG in that league as a 20 year old.

No kidding, it's pretty ridiculous to say that Ruff couldn't get to him. Kassian also made significant strides under Torts.

This whole 4 coaches couldn't reach Kassian BS is very annoying to read.

 

[topheavyhookjaw]

You chalk it about to external factors, I chalk it up to taking the job serious and seriously preparing for games. Simple difference of opinion. I share Richardson's opinion, that Kassian's inability to prepare for NHL games like a pro were the primary problems, you blame external factors.

You're right, after the strong finish under Torts he shouldn't have fired him like that.

Stop beating around the bush, you know what you're saying is that Kassian is to blame for his own injuries.

And if you're right, and that is the problem, it's literally the easiest thing to fix, if a coaching staff can't keep players showing up ready to play what are you paying them for, because anyone could roll 1-2-3-4 and not motivate the troops.

 

[Intangibos]

I liked Kassian and was hoping he would breakout for us. Cheered for him. But 4 coaches also weren't able to stem the bleeding regarding scoring chances against every time he stepped on the ice. That was a bigger factor in his benching and poor play than him not being physical enough.

But that's not true at all. He created more chances (and produced) more than a number of other teammates. Do you feel the same way about Dorsett bleeding scoring chances every time he stepped on the ice?

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

You're right, after the strong finish under Torts he shouldn't have fired him like that.

Stop beating around the bush, you know what you're saying is that Kassian is to blame for his own injuries.

And if you're right, and that is the problem, it's literally the easiest thing to fix, if a coaching staff can't keep players showing up ready to play what are you paying them for, because anyone could roll 1-2-3-4 and not motivate the troops.

Injuries? Lots of players have injuries, few get called out by teammates for maturity and preparation problems.

Lots of blame for the coach and management and not the player. This suggests something about those Making these arguments- that their agenda against management is clouding their view in a troubled player.

 

[MS]

No kidding, it's pretty ridiculous to say that Ruff couldn't get to him. Kassian also made significant strides under Torts.

This whole 4 coaches couldn't reach Kassian BS is very annoying to read.

Especially since Kassian scored 8 goals in his final 16 games under Willie.

As I in the Eye mentioned, all the people now celebrating that we traded Kassian for nothing, were at the time celebrating how Benning and Willie turned him around.

Benning himself was commenting on how improved Kassian was just before he was hurt.

So what changed between then and now to make him a worthless piece of junk we should be getting rid of for nothing?

I find it pretty ridiculous that 27 games as a first year pro showed that Lindy Ruff couldn't get through to Zack Kassian...the kid who breezed through the AHL at 20 and produced roughly a PPG in that league as a 20 year old.

If people can't bend facts to support their narrative, they just flat-out start making them up.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Especially since Kassian scored 8 goals in his final 16 games under Willie.

As I in the Eye mentioned, all the people now celebrating that we traded Kassian for nothing, were at the time celebrating how Benning and Willie turned him around.

Benning himself was commenting on how improved Kassian was just before he was hurt.

So what changed between then and now to make him a worthless piece of junk we should be getting rid of for nothing?



If people can't bend facts to support their narrative, they just flat-out start making them up.

Seems pretty simple, Benning was pumping Kassian's tires in the media to try create a bit of buzz and hopefully inflate the value on a

 

[Bleach Clean]

I think the short-form takeaway of what i'm looking for is essentially:

-I'm not looking for "single game anecdotals", i'm looking for two large samples: 1."possession stats" on the large sample of games where the coaches were expressing clear displeasure with the state of Kassian's game, the benchings, call-outs in the media, etc.
2."possession stats" in the sample of games where each staff has expressed that he was making real progress, playing much more "the right way".

-It's rooted in this widespread notion that "Kassian was being misused/mistreated" and wasn't given enough opportunities, has all this huge untapped upside if only he was used more - in spite of his glaring issues with consistency. The "eye test" tells me that Kassian was a massively inconsistent player, and that he was a much better and more effective player in those stretches where he was generally being lauded for his improved play and doing the right things. I'm curious in whether that is reflected at all in the "possession stats". I'm curious if the "underuse" of Kassian was really just an "eye test" approach to incidentally protecting his "possession stats", having him benched and playing less in those instances where his game was not where it ought to be...playing him more and in greater opportunities when he was actually doing what was desired of him.

If benching Kassian was an "eye test" approach to "protecting his possession stats", then we would see this same methodology across the board no?

Example: As a 'control', I recall a specific case where Kassian played Feb 16th, got benched for the Feb 19th game, and then played again on Feb 20th. On Feb 16th, he beat out Vey in terms of CF differential. Vey played the next game (Feb 19th), Kassian didn't. Vey finished that game with the second lowest CF differential... and then stayed in the line up for the 20th. No possession stats protection required? (By the way, this was the benching that was sandwiched by Kassian's 6 points in 7 game stretch, followed by a 4 points in 3 games return)

Nominally, it doesn't seem like single game possession performance, or just performance, is tied to the benching/scratching of a player.

To your general request above: It still makes no sense. If I begin to shorten the sample to select games, somehow matching the interpretation you and I have of him being "lauded by the coaching staff" for those games, it still proves nothing in terms of possession. Even I couldn't say "look here, he killed it in terms of shot differential, and the coaches loved him, this means something". It's a fruitless endeavor.

Something that should be readily apparent is that "try" does not infer possession. Look at Dorsett as an example: Played an effort based game, but got beat out by the majority in terms of possession.

I mean you're right, i'm not likely to complete 180 on a player just because of some fancystats - any more than i'm likely to complete 180 based on any singular overall "eye test" account. Especially if they're being presented in one specific way as, "this is the way the stats are and digging further into it or looking at it from different perspectives is too much work and wrong". Any genius can look up the overall corsi numbers and form an opinion based primarily in that bulk lot...i just don't see huge value in that, especially when what i'm actually seeing when watching this player over the past number of years, is something (huge inconsistency) that an "overall average" fundamentally glosses over.

The overall average gets rid of the noise. It actually removes the thing that fans, such as yourself, put too much stock in - like his visible 'inconsistency'. Why would one "dig further into", or break up the sample, when research teaches us that this introduces more noise into a data set, which renders useless data (not predictive)? Digging into short samples = not understanding advanced stats.

It's not about doing the work. I've posted many times here with my 'homework' on display. It's about the 'why'. In this case, the work shouldn't be done because it moves us further away from the reliability of the data. Further away from a stats based argument. Sure, "Any genius can look up a number", but there are many numbers that tie in together, making one have to parse the data properly. But overall, it's not meant to confuse people anyways so...?

I don't think advanced stats are "useless", sometimes they shed light on interesting things that may not have been readily apparent and can make me think a bit (the fact that on the whole, a defensively suspect player like Kassian has fairly strong results would fall under that)...but i think they're often applied here in a very overly simplistic way, to situations that are far more complex than they really illustrate. And i think this Kassian case is one of those instances. If any "advanced stats" argument is going to truly going to massively sway my opinion, it's going to be something more fancy, advanced and comprehensive than a bulk lot of "shots for vs shots against" on the season average with a player whose game has been all over the map - up and down, good and bad.

I wouldn't start tabulating up the results for that because it would be a lot of tedious work to cross reference everything and all the rest - would be a lot easier if i had my own "advanced stats department" to set about on that task . But then...i'm not the one building the core of my opinion off these advanced stats in the first place; though if i were, i'd probably be wanting to dig a little deeper...

To put plainly: I don't feel the need to make unclear that which is clear. I've noticed this a few times when we have disagreed on something. Sometimes, there doesn't need to be 'more' - and "digging a little deeper" can actually move us further away from what is staring us in the face.

Further, the core of my opinion is based upon many different aspects including viewership and advanced stats. Advanced stats just introduce a little objectivity into a discussion that can be muddled with subjectivity - and in this case, opposite viewpoints.

 

[Canucker]

Seems pretty simple, Benning was pumping Kassian's tires in the media to try create a bit of buzz and hopefully inflate the value on a

That doesn't seem to be his M.O...he seems to do the opposite.

 

[Pip]

Seems pretty simple, Benning was pumping Kassian's tires in the media to try create a bit of buzz and hopefully inflate the value on a

Interesting. It seems to me that Benning has been very open and honest with the media (probably too much). I'm thinking that they did see Kassian as an improved player, but simply wanted Prust enough to offer up Kassian.

 

[I in the Eye]

Seems pretty simple, Benning was pumping Kassian's tires in the media to try create a bit of buzz and hopefully inflate the value on a

What evidence is there, in any of his moves, that Benning is a seasoned negotiator, and has this "using media" weapon at his disposal? When has Benning used the media to inflate value?

The evidence points to Benning uses the media for the opposite... to deflate value:

- Through the media, he shows all of his cards (it builds trust, but does so in a dog-eat-dog environment where other GM's are often using information to squeeze value from you... It's inviting wolves to the sheep).
- Through the media, he shares his priority ranking (all the surrounding issues are on the table, again, in an environment where other GM's are often trying to pay as low a price as possible).
- Through the media, he communicates a rather low target price (what he's hoping for... "fairness"... again, in an environment where other GM's are often trying to pay as low as possible). What results in the negotiation is "below fairness".
- In practice, his walkaway price is very low (what's more important to him is getting what he wants, not what he pays). In his deals, Benning bleeds value.
- Through the media, he communicates a "fair" first offer (again, in an environment where the first offer is used as the "low offer"). His first offers aren't aggressive enough. Even if he's not spelling out exactly what he wants (i.e. 2nd for Lack). He's spelling out that he wants "fair". He's not asking for more than what he sees as "fair" (which is what he should be doing in a dog-eat-dog world).
- In practice, he counters too low, too quickly. If he feels his first offer is "fair", he can't be countering or accepting offers much lower than the 1st offer, armed with the same information used to determine what the first "fair" offer should be. If a 2nd for Lack is "fair", then he cannot accept less than a 2nd for Lack. By doing so, it's not being "fair" to him.
- He's gotten screwed in every deal, because while he is not looking for a lot of "back and forth" (why I think he'd communicate a "fair first offer), it's common and expected in the environment.

Benning does not know how to use the media to communicate (1) why the target price should be high; (2) why the walkaway terms should be low (if I don't get what I want, there is a very low amount of variation possible, because this is why I can easily walk away); and (3) why he won't be getting off a high 1st offer. With all his moves to date, media has been used to deflate value (either by Benning, or who he is negotiating with). It hasn't been used to effectively inflate value. Not once.

But, if Benning did attempt to use the media to inflate Kassian's value (which he didn't, and doesn't know how to), he did a ****** job of this as well.

It was an honest assessment. Benning was pleased with Kassian at the end of the season.

 

[Canucker]

While I've never been a huge Kassian fan, I always felt that there must have been something behind the scenes that prevented Kassian from climbing the ladder with the Canucks...whether it was off ice issues, consistency or a lack of attention to details he never really caught on with anyone in management. That being said, at some point you have to **** or get off the pot...if Benning knew that Kassian wasn't going to be a long term fit for the team he was building, he needed to do his best to build up the asset in order to maximize his value to trade. Trying to force a square peg into a round hole isn't going to work, then publicly complaining that the square peg won't become round doesn't make anything better either. Put him in a position where he can gain some value, then trade high. What Benning did was poisoning an asset.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

That doesn't seem to be his M.O...he seems to do the opposite.

I wouldn't want to be presumptuous about Bennings MO because he's only been around a year but I think he's shown to use the media to get a message out a few times, for better or worse.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Interesting. It seems to me that Benning has been very open and honest with the media (probably too much). I'm thinking that they did see Kassian as an improved player, but simply wanted Prust enough to offer up Kassian.

Not sure that jibes with the evidence available- reports say Benning had been talking to teams for months, even on the day he was traded they were shopping him hard. I don't see this as Benning targeting A couple players but rather doing anything to find a team willing to take on the risk.

In the end Montreals GM didn't want to take the 1 for 1 risk, he demanded insurance in the form of a 5th round pick

 

[arsmaster*]

Not sure that jibes with the evidence available- reports say Benning had been talking to teams for months, even on the day he was traded they were shopping him hard. I don't see this as Benning targeting A couple players but rather doing anything to find a team willing to take on the risk.

In the end Montreals GM didn't want to take the 1 for 1 risk, he demanded insurance in the form of a 5th round pick

You don't know who demanded what.

I think knowing benning and the quality linden loves about him about his one tracked focus of getting what he wants suggests he probably made the offer as he knows how valuable guys like Prust are.

 

[Pip]

Not sure that jibes with the evidence available- reports say Benning had been talking to teams for months, even on the day he was traded they were shopping him hard. I don't see this as Benning targeting A couple players but rather doing anything to find a team willing to take on the risk.

In the end Montreals GM didn't want to take the 1 for 1 risk, he demanded insurance in the form of a 5th round pick

No doubt Kassian was being shopped but that doesn't necessarily mean that he had zero value or there was absolutely no interest in him. Reports are that Benning called Montreal on Prust and then Kassian was added to the deal. I think it's entirely possible and even likely that Benning and co simply value a player like Prust very highly and were willing to give up a young player who they saw improve, but wasn't a good "fit" or something along those lines.

If Kassian is a negative value player then why trade him at all? Just waive him at the beginning of the season. He'd be a darn good Comet

 

[Samzilla]

No doubt Kassian was being shopped but that doesn't necessarily mean that he had zero value or there was absolutely no interest in him. Reports are that Benning called Montreal on Prust and then Kassian was added to the deal. I think it's entirely possible and even likely that Benning and co simply value a player like Prust very highly and were willing to give up a young player who they saw improve, but wasn't a good "fit" or something along those lines.

If Kassian is a negative value player then why trade him at all? Just waive him at the beginning of the season. He'd be a darn good Comet

The irony being if Kassian was waived and we lost him for nothing when he was picked up by another team, a number of us would have raged against Benning for not getting any value for Kassian.

Only in light of this crazy trade are we faced with the reality that Benning would have gotten better value by waiving Kassian. How insane is that? Our GM is so bad he can't outperform giving away a player for free.

 

[I in the Eye]

No doubt Kassian was being shopped but that doesn't necessarily mean that he had zero value or there was absolutely no interest in him. Reports are that Benning called Montreal on Prust and then Kassian was added to the deal. I think it's entirely possible and even likely that Benning and co simply value a player like Prust very highly and were willing to give up a young player who they saw improve, but wasn't a good "fit" or something along those lines.

If Kassian is a negative value player then why trade him at all? Just waive him at the beginning of the season. He'd be a darn good Comet

In hindsight, at the draft, I think Kassian was probably offered to Boston in a deal for Lucic. I don't know of "reports" saying that Benning has been talking to teams for months, or that they were shopping Kassian hard. At times I think the Canucks were, but I don't think constantly. Definitely, I think, an attractive or main piece used in trade proposals for specific players they were targeting.

At the trade deadline, I think that Benning probably/perhaps could have accepted Boston's two 2nd's (what Boston paid for Connolly) but Benning deemed it too low (Benning didn't have to give Kassian away, and Benning said he wouldn't give Kassian away, why a deal wasn't done). Benning wanted a "hockey deal" and have returning a "player of a similar ilk"... if Kassian was to be traded.

This offseason, after losing out on Lucic (or perhaps, they had visions of both Lucic and Prust), I think Weis Benning probably identified Prust as a player they really wanted/needed on the team.

Didn't get "a player of a similar ilk" at the deadline, didn't get Lucic at the draft, Montreal didn't want to trade Prust (despite the Canucks really wanting him), but how could Montreal not trade Prust when Canucks caved and put Kassian on the table... Knowing how much Weis Benning wanted Prust, cheeky Montreal also used this to their advantage and asked for a pick, lol. Playing chess with a child. Chances are, the pick started out higher (maybe can squeeze a 1st or 2nd!), but Benning "negotiated" down to a 5th. As soon as Kassian was on the table, Montreal takes that deal 10/10 times (regardless of a pick or not).

 

[arttk]

No kidding, it's pretty ridiculous to say that Ruff couldn't get to him. Kassian also made significant strides under Torts.

This whole 4 coaches couldn't reach Kassian BS is very annoying to read.

Yeah that narrative needs to die.

First coach called him up to the NHL. Wasn't like Ruff gave up on him, it was a hockey trade, blue chipper for blue chipper.

2nd coach had like half a season to work with him due to lockout and then got fired.
3rd coach got through to him but got fired too,
4th coach "got through" to him. After the benching, he was scoring almost at 1PPG with 10-13 minutes of ice time and zero PP time.

Such a false and obviously BS narrative.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

No doubt Kassian was being shopped but that doesn't necessarily mean that he had zero value or there was absolutely no interest in him. Reports are that Benning called Montreal on Prust and then Kassian was added to the deal. I think it's entirely possible and even likely that Benning and co simply value a player like Prust very highly and were willing to give up a young player who they saw improve, but wasn't a good "fit" or something along those lines.

If Kassian is a negative value player then why trade him at all? Just waive him at the beginning of the season. He'd be a darn good Comet

Many hockey people in the media have insinuated Benning was shopping him hard and many teams were staying away.

Firstly I don't think Benning would have waved Kassian because I doubt he would want Kassian with the kids in Utica. Secondly, looking at the roster, with the loss of Juice it is quite soft. Adding Prust helped fix a bit of that hole. If we need the pick we can trade prust for a pick at the deadline. Wouldn't be surprised to see him back in Montreal at the deadline for our pick back.