Confirmed with Link: [VAN/TOR] Vancouver acquires Josh Leivo in exchange for Michael Carcone.

[tantalum]

I don't like the approach, personally. You're basically just closing the door on slightly possible but extremely unlikely surprises just to get a safer minor bump in quality that doesn't even matter.

And that's my issue in a nutshell. I can understand that Carcone isn't worth much of anything and that LEivo is potentially worth more (not convinced). But why spend time on this type of move to being with? It's a nothing move for the canucks that did harm the farm team to some degree. It just doesn't make sense to me. Trading for waiver fodder so very rarely works out to be anything remotely significant it's just not worth it.

 

[Tables of Stats]

And that's my issue in a nutshell. I can understand that Carcone isn't worth much of anything and that LEivo is potentially worth more (not convinced). But why spend time on this type of move to being with? It's a nothing move for the canucks that did harm the farm team to some degree. It just doesn't make sense to me. Trading for waiver fodder so very rarely works out to be anything remotely significant it's just not worth it.

Does this move harm our ability to make other moves? No, we didn't trade away anything important or reduce our stockpile of any given resource to where we couldn't make a move. If anything a player like Leivo could be a TDL chip if a team feels they could use a little extra depth/

Does it come with a cost worth worrying about? Not especially. Sure Carcone was on a bit of a run in the AHL but the team wasn't a Carcone away from a deep playoff run. While I'd like to see more focus and resources given to the Comets for the sake of our prospects I don't think this move is egregious enough on its own to be worth any fuss.

Do we lose value in this trade? I don't think it could be argued that we lost value in this deal and, due to Toronto's needs, I'd argue that we likely gained some marginal value. Leivo does bring a few things that this team was lacking and, at the time of the trade, the Canucks had injury issues on the wings. While I know lots of people want us to bottom out if we're not going to make the playoffs no GM with our young talent should let that happen.

 

[tantalum]

Does this move harm our ability to make other moves? No, we didn't trade away anything important or reduce our stockpile of any given resource to where we couldn't make a move. If anything a player like Leivo could be a TDL chip if a team feels they could use a little extra depth/

Does it come with a cost worth worrying about? Not especially. Sure Carcone was on a bit of a run in the AHL but the team wasn't a Carcone away from a deep playoff run. While I'd like to see more focus and resources given to the Comets for the sake of our prospects I don't think this move is egregious enough on its own to be worth any fuss.

Do we lose value in this trade? I don't think it could be argued that we lost value in this deal and, due to Toronto's needs, I'd argue that we likely gained some marginal value. Leivo does bring a few things that this team was lacking and, at the time of the trade, the Canucks had injury issues on the wings. While I know lots of people want us to bottom out if we're not going to make the playoffs no GM with our young talent should let that happen.

Well one could be maybe negotiate something of substance instead of constantly looking at reclamation projects for one thing...

For the other, the entire problem with the deal has nothing to do what went that way and what came back because they are all of nothing value. It's the mentality that it is some sort of helpful move. It wasn't and was never going to be. Claiming a waiver wire cast off would have had the same nothing impact and same upside. That's exactly what teams that have temporary injury concerns so. But you don't actually improve a team in this manner with this type of move.

Now...many teams with young talent will indeed bottom out if they aren't making the playoffs. It's not always a bad move to do that. This team has SOME young talent. It doesn't have nearly enough. And given that the GM has spent 5 off seasons now building up the supposed depth which (a) isn't actually deep and (b) isn't good enough to be a playoff team continuing to go to the same well should be quite concerning. Five off seasons of supposedly building up a prospect/farm system that some want to call the best in the world (I don't) can't find a winger in its system to play for a few weeks?

That's essentially the defense of this deal: they gained maybe some marginal value or it was a nothing trade and they needed someone to fill in on the wing for a dozen games. That's not a defense. That's a deal not worth making in the first place. And I say that about every one of these deals that NHL GMs make. Not just Benning. Unless there is some extenuating circumstance like maybe in the Baertschi case you don't trade for soon to be waiver wire players.

This had a predictable ending...acquiring a guy that will end up on waivers soon. Well he would on any other team. Who knows on this team that continues to pay numerous waiver wire quality players (and even extend them with raises).

 

[Hit the post]

And that's my issue in a nutshell. I can understand that Carcone isn't worth much of anything and that LEivo is potentially worth more (not convinced). But why spend time on this type of move to being with? It's a nothing move for the canucks that did harm the farm team to some degree. It just doesn't make sense to me. Trading for waiver fodder so very rarely works out to be anything remotely significant it's just not worth it.

If Gagner was only sent to the Comets instead of the Marlies (Gagner ended up whining anyhow so **** him, he’s getting paid well and if he didn’t float in the first place he could’ve avoided that situation in the first place) would we care about Carcone?

 

[Tables of Stats]

Well one could be maybe negotiating something of substance instead of constantly looking at reclamation projects for one thing.

We're not really in a position to make a big splash. We're not exactly sellers now that we have Hughes and Pettersson but we're also unlikely to make the playoffs as anything but a surprise dark horse team.

For the other, the entire problem with the deal has nothing to do what went that way and what came back because they are all of nothing value. It's the mentality that it is some sort of helpful move. It wasn't and was never going to be. Claiming a waiver wire cast off would have had the same nothing impact and same upside. That's exactly what teams that have temporary injury concerns so. Bu tyou don't actually improve a team that way.

Leivo isn't exactly nothing. He has some skills, battles hard, and can move up and down the line-up even if he's not really exciting as a top six player. He's got less than 100 NHL games played and wasn't getting minutes in TO. It's reasonable to think that with an increased role he could have more to give and he's still young at 25.

This is the kind of low-risk medium reward move that this team can afford to make.

Now...many teams with young talent will indeed bottom out if they aren't making the playoffs. It's not always a bad move to do that. This team has SOME young talent. It doesn't have nearly enough. And given that the GM has spent 5 off seasons now building up the supposed depth which (a) isn't actually deep and (b) isn't good enough to be a playoff team continuing to go to the same well should be quite concerning. Five off seasons of supposedly building up a prospect/farm system that some want to call the best in the world (I don't) can't find a winger in its system to play for a few weeks. Come on.

How many teams draft players of Pettersson and Hughes' caliber and still tank on purpose in subsequent years?

This had a predictable ending...acquiring a guy that will end up on waivers soon. Well he would on any other team. Who knows on this team that continues to pay numerous waiver wire quality players (and even extend them with raises).

We lost nothing, had a shot at gaining something, and could still do okay in the deal.

 

[Hit the post]

We lost nothing, had a shot at gaining something, and could still do okay in the deal.

I’d support even MORE of these types of deals if this regime would attempt to replace the guys take from the Comets roster with players other than ECHL rejects and or trash on PTO deals. We do have some prospects there; why throw them in the deep end of the pool? That was the Oilers strategy.

 

[Tables of Stats]

I’d support even MORE of these types of deals if this regime would attempt to replace the guys take from the Comets roster with players other than ECHL rejects and or trash on PTO deals. We do have some prospects there; why throw them in the deep end of the pool? That was the Oilers strategy.

Yeah, I agree with that wholeheartedly. However, unless we completely revamp that side of our franchise I don't see 1 or 2 of these moves each year as doing any more damage than not making them would have done. It would be like complaining that the Canucks traded Goldobin for a package of 22-year-old B-tier prospects for the AHL. Does it hurt them NHL club? Yeah. Enough to matter? Probably not.

 

[Shareefruck]

How many teams draft players of Pettersson and Hughes' caliber and still tank on purpose in subsequent years?

Errr... I think you're really jumping the gun there putting Hughes in that category this early.

 

[Tables of Stats]

Errr... I think you're really jumping the gun there putting Hughes in that category this early.

I might be. He could be Nurse of Juolevi 2.0 and that would suck, but based on our team's needs, his level of play, and league trends I'm inclined to say that he'll be at least a sheltered 4th or 5th D-Man PP specialist type at the NHL level next season. I hope for more than that but it's harder for D-men to break in explosively at his age than it is for forwards.

Even Dahlin hasn't blown the doors off the league like Pettersson has though few would argue that they aren't very close in value.

EDIT: To clarify, I think Hughes is a fairly can't miss puck-moving defenseman who should help our transition game even if his defense at the next level isn't there yet. I also think he can both be a very important piece that makes a GM feel like the tank is over while not being an impact player within his first few seasons.

 

[tantalum]

We're not really in a position to make a big splash. We're not exactly sellers now that we have Hughes and Pettersson but we're also unlikely to make the playoffs as anything but a surprise dark horse team.

No they are sellers. Or should be. This is a team that is still several assets short of being where they need to be a competitive playoff team let alone a contender.

Leivo isn't exactly nothing. He has some skills, battles hard, and can move up and down the line-up even if he's not really exciting as a top six player. He's got less than 100 NHL games played and wasn't getting minutes in TO. It's reasonable to think that with an increased role he could have more to give and he's still young at 25.

No he is the same as just about every other 4th liner in the NHL. They battle hard. They do some nice things. You sign them for near league minimum or claim them off the waiver wire. Regardless of games played or what age you believe players peak at or how long the peaks last one thing is pretty consistent in the data...by 25 years of age a player is within 90+% of his peak performance. Leivo might improve. He might be a Marchessault. He might be an outlier. Almost nothing shows that he is an outlier so the odds are he isn't. Similar odds could be placed that Carcone becomes a NHL player I'd wager.

This is the kind of low-risk medium reward move that this team can afford to make.

Any team can likely afford such a move. It doesn't make it a good move or a meaningful move. A win on a nothing move is not a win in my world. And to me it's arguably a move that made the organization as a whole a teeny tiny bit worse. It's like going home at the end of the day satisfied that I didn't shit my pants.

How many teams draft players of Pettersson and Hughes' caliber and still tank on purpose in subsequent years?

1) Hughes isn't even on the team so he doesn't enter the discussion of whether a team should tank this year or not

2) most teams who only have 2 or 3 active young core pieces like the canucks do indeed tank. Heck the Leafs very much tanked for Matthews. They had Rielly, Nylander, Marner in the system and if you want to count Hughes those are guys you should also be counting. Some intentionally. Others not (see Vancouver). but more to the point each team has some uniqueness to it. On the canucks what you have is a few strong core pieces and almost nothing else in the system. And you have a poor supporting cast. That is how you make the decision. You don't prop up your poor supporting cast with marginal at best upgrades (if they are upgrades at all). You turn the supporting cast over and craft one that is actually worth something. You also don't assume that because you have a McDavid and Draisatl, err II mean, a Petterson and Horvat that you have the necessary pieces to move forward with

We lost nothing, had a shot at gaining something, and could still do okay in the deal.

See my previous comment about pants.

This has changed into a management discussion at this point so I'll just leave the discussion at this point.

 

[Tables of Stats]

No they are sellers. Or should be. This is a team that is still several assets short of being where they need to be a competitive playoff team let alone a contender.

I don't agree that we have that many pieces that are worth more being sold than they are to our team. Even players like Sutter and Gudbranson play a role, and while they'll need to be upgraded at some stage, I'd rather move them in a package for an upgrade rather than throw away serviceable players for picks that may take years to pan out. If we burn it down now we won't make the playoffs before Pettersson's ELC expires.

We may not do so anyway, but I think this season the team goes from basement to 25th overall this season and are playoff tweeners with a real chance at a wildcard spot the season after that. If those come true then we'll be happy to have the assets we do as buyers.

No he is the same as just about every other 4th liner in the NHL. They battle hard. They do some nice things. You sign them for near league minimum or claim them off the waiver wire. Regardless of games played or what age you believe players peak at or how long the peaks last one thing is pretty consistent in the data...by 25 years of age a player is within 90+% of his peak performance. Leivo might improve. He might be a Marchessault. He might be an outlier. Almost nothing shows that he is an outlier so the odds are he isn't. Similar odds could be placed that Carcone becomes a NHL player I'd wager.

NHL tweener > AHL lifer

Unless you think Carcone was they key throw in to some amazing deal I don't see how we lost this trade in any capacity.

Any team can likely afford such a move. It doesn't make it a good move or a meaningful move. A win on a nothing move is not a win in my world. And to me it's arguably a move that made the organization as a whole a teeny tiny bit worse. It's like going home at the end of the day satisfied that I didn't **** my pants.

How is a move where you admit we got the better player in any way making us worse? We're a bad team, we should be turning over players and trying to find gems. If anything we don't make enough of these moves to have a chance at making a hit.

1) Hughes isn't even on the team so he doesn't enter the discussion of whether a team should tank this year or not

Evaluation of the system and expected year to year growth always factors into a move such as tanking.

2) most teams who only have 2 or 3 active young core pieces like the canucks do indeed tank. Heck the Leafs very much tanked for Matthews. They had Rielly, Nylander, Marner in the system and if you want to count Hughes those are guys you should also be counting. Some intentionally. Others not (see Vancouver). but more to the point each team has some uniqueness to it. On the canucks what you have is a few strong core pieces and almost nothing else in the system. And you have a poor supporting cast. That is how you make the decision. You don't prop up your poor supporting cast with marginal at best upgrades (if they are upgrades at all). You turn the supporting cast over and craft one that is actually worth something. You also don't assume that because you have a McDavid and Draisatl, err II mean, a Petterson and Horvat that you have the necessary pieces to move forward with

How do you think we'll end up replacing all the players you want to sell off for picks and prospects when the time comes to compete or rebuild again? Teams that just tanked don't get impact UFAs and rarely have assets to trade for significant upgrades. I'm all for a hockey trade like Sutter + B Prospect for an upgrade, but I don't see how we're served by selling off chunks of our team for futures at this stage. That window has, for better or worse, already closed.

This has changed into a management discussion at this point so I'll just leave the discussion at this point.

Translation, I want the last word and pretend moral high ground.

 

[4Twenty]

Players as good or better than Leivo, Vey, Granlund, Pouliot etc are on waivers every year. I agree with you norade that they should be cycling through as many players as they can hoping to find a hit.

The problem is when you're trading assets for them and how it ultimately affects your entire organization.

The Granlund aquistion is a perfect comparison. Clearly he's shown more than Shinkaruk now and even before the trade, but trading those players for eachother a) hurt the minor league affiliate by removing a top scorer, one who was still a year+ from requiring waivers and b) did literally nothing to improve the team, yet he's been here for 3 seasons and what is there to show for it.

Wouldn't it have been better if instead of moving organizational depth for a replacement level NHL body, they just kept the organizational depth and added any comparable player to Granlund off of waivers for free? I mean that's what we see good teams do. Nashville is one of the elite teams in the league and they continually pluck guys off the waiver wire.

Long story short, yes, cycle through as many youngish players as you can in hopes of finding a gem JUST DONT TRADE ASSETS TO DO IT.

 

[Tables of Stats]

Players as good or better than Leivo, Vey, Granlund, Pouliot etc are on waivers every year. I agree with you norade that they should be cycling through as many players as they can hoping to find a hit.

The problem is when you're trading assets for them and how it ultimately affects your entire organization.

The Granlund aquistion is a perfect comparison. Clearly he's shown more than Shinkaruk now and even before the trade, but trading those players for eachother a) hurt the minor league affiliate by removing a top scorer, one who was still a year+ from requiring waivers and b) did literally nothing to improve the team, yet he's been here for 3 seasons and what is there to show for it.

Wouldn't it have been better if instead of moving organizational depth for a replacement level NHL body, they just kept the organizational depth and added any comparable player to Granlund off of waivers for free? I mean that's what we see good teams do. Nashville is one of the elite teams in the league and they continually pluck guys off the waiver wire.

Long story short, yes, cycle through as many youngish players as you can in hopes of finding a gem JUST DONT TRADE ASSETS TO DO IT.

Unless we drastically change how we run our AHL team, which I would like but don't expect to happen, I don't see a few trades per year as being damaging to anybody aside from the fans. It's just not set-up to succeed and a Carcone here and a Shinkaruk there won't move the needle much.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Leivo is the kind of player I want in our middle / bottom 6. Young with actual strenghts (board play + shot) with room still to grow. Instead of the summer signings of Beagle, Rousell and Schaller.

Leivo is a solid addition to the team, I’m impressed with what I’ve seen so far. We have grinders with no skill and skilled players with little grit. It’s nice to have someone in the middle with a mix of skill & grit that can play anywhere in the lineup and is skilled enough to play with elite players and not look out of place.

 

[Jay Cee]

Leivo is the kind of player I want in our middle / bottom 6. Young with actual strenghts (board play + shot) with room still to grow. Instead of the summer signings of Beagle, Rousell and Schaller.

I agree with you other than the fact I think Roussel has been a just fine addition. Not everyone has to be on the better side of 30, they just have to be good and contribute.

 

[4Twenty]

Unless we drastically change how we run our AHL team, which I would like but don't expect to happen, I don't see a few trades per year as being damaging to anybody aside from the fans. It's just not set-up to succeed and a Carcone here and a Shinkaruk there won't move the needle much.

It's not about "damage", it's about finding free ways to do what you're suggesting. Like does Leivo move the needle any more than Zykov, Scherbak or any other guy who was on waivers this year. I don't see it. Plus he's 25, the waiver guys are 23.

 

[Tables of Stats]

It's not about "damage", it's about finding free ways to do what you're suggesting. Like does Leivo move the needle any more than Zykov, Scherbak or any other guy who was on waivers this year. I don't see it. Plus he's 25, the waiver guys are 23.

Making waiver claims would also be good, I think we should do that and make these kinds of trades.

 

[4Twenty]

Making waiver claims would also be good, I think we should do that and make these kinds of trades.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Have you not seen enough evidence with the trades for Pedan, Vey, Granlund, Pouliot, Leipsic, Etem, Larsen, Motte and Dowd that these moves not only don't move the needle, but they require other assets to acquire.

I find the idea you want this team trading more picks and organizational depth for players who've failed to make the cut in other organizations after watching this team be so bad since they've employed this strategy to be very strange.

Even the "wins" of this strategy: Goldobin and Baertschi are basically just place holders until the team can be be better.

 

[Tables of Stats]

I disagree wholeheartedly. Have you not seen enough evidence with the trades for Pedan, Vey, Granlund, Pouliot, Leipsic, Etem, Larsen, Motte and Dowd that these moves not only don't move the needle, but they require other assets to acquire.

I find the idea you want this team trading more picks and organizational depth for players who've failed to make the cut in other organizations after watching this team be so bad since they've employed this strategy to be very strange.

Even the "wins" of this strategy: Goldobin and Baertschi are basically just place holders until the team can be be better.

And what about the parts we've traded for them? Forsling aside we haven't exactly lost much or traded anybody that had any real value. People like to argue about Shinkaruk but he clearly had little value.

 

[4Twenty]

And what about the parts we've traded for them? Forsling aside we haven't exactly lost much or traded anybody that had any real value. People like to argue about Shinkaruk but he clearly had little value.

You clearly aren't understanding me and I don't feel like explaining it to you again.

Re-read why I brought up Shinkaruk/Granlund again.

 

[Tables of Stats]

You clearly aren't understanding me and I don't feel like explaining it to you again.

Re-read why I brought up Shinkaruk/Granlund again.

Again, if we had a properly built farm team I would care more about trading players away from the AHL for the returns we've been getting. However, as it stands, our AHL team is an afterthought. Trading away players mid-season doesn't hurt at all compared to not going after good AHL players in the off-season.

Were the Comet's one Carcone away from a deep playoff run this season?

 

[xtra]

Leivo isn't exactly nothing. He has some skills, battles hard, and can move up and down the line-up even if he's not really exciting as a top six player. He's got less than 100 NHL games played and wasn't getting minutes in TO. It's reasonable to think that with an increased role he could have more to give and he's still young at 25.

This is the kind of low-risk medium reward move that this team can afford to make.

Replace levio with shinkaruk and you can say the same thing at age 24

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=130701


http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=130558

Levio has slightly better stats than shink in the AHL but nothing overwhelming.

So yea levio is a nothing player with no real upside unless you dont think shinkaruk is a nothing player?

 

[TheOtherGM]

Replace levio with shinkaruk and you can say the same thing at age 24

Hunter Shinkaruk hockey statistics and profile at hockeydb.com


Joshua Leivo hockey statistics and profile at hockeydb.com

Levio has slightly better stats than shink in the AHL but nothing overwhelming.

So yea levio is a nothing player with no real upside unless you dont think shinkaruk is a nothing player?

For all the stuff about the farm team, it's worth noting that the Comets are 20-16-2-1 and third in their division (having played more games than other teams, granted).
They're 6-3-1 over the last 10.
I was a little surprised to see that, based on what I read around here.
It's not quite the tire fire it's made out to be. Not bad. Not great. Squarely in the mediocre range I guess. Clearly things could be done better, but it's not a disaster.
That's without several good defenders and uncertainty in goal.

They're four points ahead of the Toronto Marlies, who often seem to get held up as a gold standard. The Marlies have three games in hand. Win 'em all and they'd still just be two points up on the Comets.

 

[Shareefruck]

I might be. He could be Nurse of Juolevi 2.0 and that would suck, but based on our team's needs, his level of play, and league trends I'm inclined to say that he'll be at least a sheltered 4th or 5th D-Man PP specialist type at the NHL level next season. I hope for more than that but it's harder for D-men to break in explosively at his age than it is for forwards.

Even Dahlin hasn't blown the doors off the league like Pettersson has though few would argue that they aren't very close in value.

EDIT: To clarify, I think Hughes is a fairly can't miss puck-moving defenseman who should help our transition game even if his defense at the next level isn't there yet. I also think he can both be a very important piece that makes a GM feel like the tank is over while not being an impact player within his first few seasons.

To me, the phrase "How many teams draft players of Pettersson and Hughes' caliber and still tank on purpose in subsequent years?" implies that Hughes is obviously an eventual elite player who you would be a fool not to drop everything and start being confident about contending with and building around (like Pettersson appears to be). That's a pretty premature and extreme idea to lump Hughes in with, although a lot of us are optimistic that he might get there and has potential to.

Being "at least a 4th or 5th d-man PP specialist" is worlds away from justifying that. Even if we were fairly confident that he can safely project to be a 1st pairing defenseman (which I don't think we can be just yet), it would be a stretch to a make that statement, IMO.

 

[Hit the post]

For all the stuff about the farm team, it's worth noting that the Comets are 20-16-2-1 and third in their division (having played more games than other teams, granted).
They're 6-3-1 over the last 10.
I was a little surprised to see that, based on what I read around here.
It's not quite the tire fire it's made out to be. Not bad. Not great. Squarely in the mediocre range I guess. Clearly things could be done better, but it's not a disaster.
That's without several good defenders and uncertainty in goal.

They're four points ahead of the Toronto Marlies, who often seem to get held up as a gold standard. The Marlies have three games in hand. Win 'em all and they'd still just be two points up on the Comets.

Bad Goalie can explain further but I strongly suspect it's at least partially because Demko did manage to start in about a third of the Comets games so far (and he's played pretty well considering the circumstances - ie., blueline/team in front of him). The Marlies by the same token, are pretty weak in net (that's probably being kind). As well, Gagner hasn't been in Toronto since the beginning of their season. I expect the difference between the Marlies & Comets to be more noticeable soon (ie., Demko no longer there and Gagner still being on the Marlies).