Confirmed with Link: [VAN/VGK] Canucks acquire D Nate Schmidt for a 3rd in 2022

[Britton]

It would have been protected, and the protection is what would have permitted the pick to slide to the following year. Again -- that's simply what the phrase means. The Canucks traded a protected pick.

You clearly misunderstood the question, if the Canucks missed the playoffs this year, the pick would have been completely unprotected the next year which is the whole point. When people talk about protecting a pick it refers to the idea that they wouldn't be forced to give up a lottery pick under any circumstances, meanwhile the Canucks pick was only semi protected for 1 season and trying to make an argument that the pick is protected just like any other is completely disingenuous.

 

[arttk]

It wasnt a fluke. You exaggerated by saying Tanev has a muffin shot, then you tried to divert by talking about PP1. I simply pointed out that Tanev doesn't have a muffin shot, I never said he should be on PP1. You go on making up stuff and knocking down straw men, we enjoy that as much as reasoned debate here.

You know what, you are right about the strawman stuff, I will take that back.

Back to the muffin shot. Still think his shot sucks, he scores like 2 goals a season. We’ve seen teams leave him open and there is a reason for that. His shot is so crap that you take the chance of him shooting because it’s so harmless.
That goal was a fluke, if he takes that shot it wont go in like 99 out of a 100. But thats playoff hockey and fluke goals settles a lot of OT games.

 

[m9]

A ‘protected’ pick is if it’s a #1 if you make the playoffs and a #2 if you don’t and the pick is locked into the 16-45 range.

If you want to get technical, this was ‘semi-protected’. If not for COVID, we’re probably staring at giving up an unprotected pick in 2021.

If the exact same conditions were on the Neely deal, we give up the Linden pick instead of the Wesley pick.

That's not really a 'protected' pick you're describing, that's a 'conditional' pick.

The pick the Canucks traded was protected in 2020 and unprotected in 2021. There's really no other way it can be described.

At the end of the day it's semantics, so who cares. But the NBA has used protected pick trades much more commonly than the NHL and how @bandwagonesque has described them is correct in terms of how they are generally described.

 

[arttk]

Using a Chris Tanev on the Pply is on coaching. Who ever said Chris Tanev is a valued Pply player?
Saying that, is the problem. No need to put down aspects of the player's skills unless someone stating certain pkayer possesses this skill or that skill and thus should be a Pply player for sure; when said player clearly does not produce said qualities. Right?

What’s wrong with saying a player lacks a certain skill? This is sports talk, almost 100% of the convo regarding player is talking about what they are good at and what they are not? There is no player that ranks 100 across all skills so you are always going to be saying what a player is good and bad at. On top of that, this is hockeys future board and how do you think people talk about prospects? That kid is swell but that kid is even more swell?

 

[bandwagonesque]

A ‘protected’ pick is if it’s a #1 if you make the playoffs and a #2 if you don’t and the pick is locked into the 16-45 range.

If you want to get technical, this was ‘semi-protected’.

This simply isn't true. In all North American sports including the NHL, when a 1st round pick is described as "protected," it nearly always means that it converts into another 1st round pick the following year or a later date if it falls within a certain range in the first year.

If not for COVID, we’re probably staring at giving up an unprotected pick in 2021.

Again, that's not what "protection" means. If any traded pick that can ever be awarded to the recipient team at all is described as "unprotected," then the term is meaningless.

If the exact same conditions were on the Neely deal, we give up the Linden pick instead of the Wesley pick.

This has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

[bandwagonesque]

You clearly misunderstood the question, if the Canucks missed the playoffs this year, the pick would have been completely unprotected the next year which is the whole point. When people talk about protecting a pick it refers to the idea that they wouldn't be forced to give up a lottery pick under any circumstances, meanwhile the Canucks pick was only semi protected for 1 season and trying to make an argument that the pick is protected just like any other is completely disingenuous.

No. People either don't know what "pick protection" is generally understood to mean or they're pretending not to in order to be able to use a sensational word in a description of a trade they're criticizing.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Okay, so it sounds like McCrimmon made an early pass at talking to other teams about Schmidt and a bunch of other GMs maybe tried to squeeze him on price, thinking Vegas was desperate. (Meanwhile, per Drance, it sounds like Florida was ready to offer a decent package but were maybe on Schmidt's no-trade list?) And then Benning jumped on the Schmidt offer when Vegas called, either because he shrewdly assessed the situation or because he doesn't really know how to negotiate. Either way, it was the right move on his part.

I still don't fully understand why Vegas was so willing to send a very good defender to a division rival that had nearly ousted them in the playoffs just a few weeks ago. Maybe they were just in a scramble to sign Pietrangelo and didn't have the bandwidth to circle back to other teams. Or they just aren't that worried about the Canucks next year. Or they really think this Canada division thing is going to happen.

Oh well, good for us.

It's probably a combination of those reasons: VGK doesn't think VAN is in their class, there will be a Canadian division and they prioritized Pietrangelo. All are plausible.

The FLA rumour makes sense, , somewhat, and Schmidt's NTC being in place for them also makes sense. They would be going 31m+ on defense, which isn't unheard of, but it's doable even if rich. The NTC though seems like the block here.



This really just leaves NYR (not spending (just gave 4.8 AAV to DeAngelo)) or BOS (who knows what they're doing?). NYI drops off from the list having just traded Toews, having to re-sign Pulock and having Barzal up Edit: This year (@420Canuck)

Finally, there's the evaluation of this contract vs. the FA market (brought up by Melvin).

All in all, the trade makes a lot more sense now than it did at the time. Still a good deal for VAN regardless.

 

[4Twenty]

It's probably a combination of those reasons: VGK doesn't think VAN is in their class, there will be a Canadian division and they prioritized Pietrangelo. All are plausible.

The FLA rumour makes sense, , somewhat, and Schmidt's NTC being in place for them also makes sense. They would be going 31m+ on defense, which isn't unheard of, but it's doable even if rich. The NTC though seems like the block here.



This really just leaves NYR (not spending (just gave 4.8 AAV to DeAngelo)) or BOS (who knows what they're doing?). NYI drops off from the list having just traded Toews, having to re-sign Pulock and having Barzal up next year.

Finally, there's the evaluation of this contract vs. the FA market (brought up by Melvin).

All in all, the trade makes a lot more sense now than it did at the time. Still a good deal for VAN regardless.

Barzal needs a contract now. He’s an RFA. Not next year.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

It would have been protected, and the protection is what would have permitted the pick to slide to the following year. Again -- that's simply what the phrase means. The Canucks traded a protected pick. Except for a tiny number of exceptions in the NBA where the pick eventually converts to another asset, all protected picks eventually are awarded unconditionally if they are still outstanding once the protection elapses.

Did you read his post? If the Canucks missed the playoffs both years, then the 2nd year's pick would clearly be unprotected.

If you're arguing about it from a semantics perspective (which seems silly in the first place), then the most appropriate label would be "conditional 1st" given the conditions attached to the pick protection. It was protected for one year and then deferred to an unprotected 1st if they missed the playoffs. This isn't even a narrative, "make Benning look bad" argument...it's just the facts of the trade.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Did you read his post? If the Canucks missed the playoffs both years, then the 2nd year's pick would clearly be unprotected.

That's what the term "protected pick" means, and what it has always meant. The statement, "Benning traded an unprotected pick" isn't true. I don't know what else to say at this point.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

That's what the term "protected pick" means, and what it has always meant. The statement, "Benning traded an unprotected pick" isn't true. I don't know what else to say at this point.

...but the pick had a chance at being unprotected, so how does your explanation make logical sense? He traded a conditional pick that could have been either protected/unprotected depending on the circumstances.

 

[F A N]

A ‘protected’ pick is if it’s a #1 if you make the playoffs and a #2 if you don’t and the pick is locked into the 16-45 range.

If you want to get technical, this was ‘semi-protected’. If not for COVID, we’re probably staring at giving up an unprotected pick in 2021.

If the exact same conditions were on the Neely deal, we give up the Linden pick instead of the Wesley pick.

As others have said, it is simply astounding that you can’t grasp the concept of what a protected pick means.

 

[bandwagonesque]

...but the pick had a chance at being unprotected, so how does your explanation make logical sense? He traded a conditional pick that could have been either protected/unprotected depending on the circumstances.

"Protection" of a draft pick generally refers to it not being conveyed immediately if it falls within a certain range but being conveyed eventually regardless of what range it falls in, just as was the case with the Miller pick. Again -- that's simply what the word means, and all I'm doing is making that clear. I didn't decide that's what the word would mean so I can't tell you why it means that and not something else, but it does. I'm really not sure what else to say.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

"Protection" of a draft pick generally refers to it not being conveyed immediately if it falls within a certain range but being conveyed eventually regardless of what range it falls in, just as was the case with the Miller pick. Again -- that's simply what the word means, and all I'm doing is making that clear. I didn't decide that's what the word would mean so I can't tell you why it means that and not something else, but it does. I'm really not sure what else to say.

Why would you call it a protected first if there was a possibility that the Canucks could give up an unprotected first? The only appropriate way to classify the pick is a conditional pick since it provided for both. Anything else is misleading.

 

[m9]

Why would you call it a protected first if there was a possibility that the Canucks could give up an unprotected first? The only appropriate way to classify the pick is a conditional pick since it provided for both. Anything else is misleading.

Because the initial pick had protection on it, that's why.

It can be described as a conditional pick too, that's fine but it's a weird choice to use that term when it's guaranteed they would receive a 1st round pick eventually. A conditional pick would be more if it had potential to fall into a different round.

It's actually funny because the Canucks original release on the trade described it as a "conditional pick" and people didn't like the terminology because it basically looked like they were trying to hide that they had traded a 1st.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Why would you call it a protected first

Because that's what it is.

if there was a possibility that the Canucks could give up an unprotected first?

The pick in general, when the trade took place, was protected. It makes no sense to refer to the pick eventually awarded as either protected or unprotected.

The only appropriate way to classify the pick is a conditional pick since it provided for both. Anything else is misleading.

Then you can address this to sports journalists, sports executives, and fans, because they're the ones using a word in a way you don't think they should.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Because the initial pick had protection on it, that's why.

Yes, for one of the possibilities (Canucks missing the playoffs).
Go google articles that reported the trade - the majority will call it a conditional 1st because of the conditions attached to it. Calling it anything else is stupid since it doesn't accurately represent the contingencies of the pick. Just another classic bandy argument based on misleading semantics of a fringe point.

 

[Scholarships]

The first in the JT Miller is a protected first. The only thing being argued is the protection that was negotiated. I'll use two NBA trades as an example:

First, consider the Lakers 1st round pick: 2021 first round draft pick to New Orleans
L.A. Lakers' 1st round pick to New Orleans protected for selections 8-30 in 2021 and unprotected in 2022 [L.A. Lakers-New Orleans-Washington, 7/6/2019]

Then, consider the Buck's 2022 1st round pick: 2022 first round draft pick to Cleveland
Milwaukee's 1st round pick to Cleveland protected for selections 1-10 in 2022, 1-10 and 25-30 in 2023 and 1-8 in 2024; if Milwaukee has not conveyed a 1st round pick to Cleveland by 2024, then Milwaukee will instead convey its 2024 2nd round pick and 2025 2nd round pick to Cleveland [Cleveland-Milwaukee-Washington, 12/7/2018]

Both 1sts are protected, but the terms of the protection are different

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Then you can address this to sports journalists, sports executives, and fans, because they're the ones using a word in a way you don't think they should.

Just did a quick Google search on the Miller trade to see the terminology used.

Miller traded to Canucks by Lightning - "conditional 1st"

A look back at the J.T. Miller trade by one of its biggest critics | Offside - "conditional 1st"

Canucks make bold J.T. Miller trade, but questions remain on defence - Sportsnet.ca - "conditional 1st round pick."

The pick in general, when the trade took place, was protected. It makes no sense to refer to the pick eventually awarded as either protected or unprotected.

We didn't even know what pick we were giving up, so nope, wrong.

But sure, let's go with your nonsensical, illogical interpretation of something that you can't even explain yourself. Talk about a dumb hill to die on.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Yes, for one of the possibilities (Canucks missing the playoffs).
Go google articles that reported the trade - the majority will call it a conditional 1st because of the conditions attached to it.

The terms "conditional" and "protected" are used nearly interchangeably for lottery-protected picks, although "conditional" has a wider application elsewhere. The point, which isn't affected by that overlap, is that the pick wasn't unprotected. And this isn't a fringe point or semantics -- the claim was smack in the middle of a post and one of the most important parts of it. It's turned into semantics because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

The terms "conditional" and "protected" are used nearly interchangeably for lottery-protected picks, although "conditional" has a wider application elsewhere. The point, which isn't affected by that overlap, is that the pick wasn't unprotected. And this isn't a fringe point or semantics -- the claim was smack in the middle of a post and one of the most important parts of it. It's turned into semantics because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

If this is the case, and you truly believe this, then I am at a loss for why you disagreed with my posts calling it a conditional pick. Arguing in bad faith, I guess.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Just did a quick Google search on the Miller trade to see the terminology used.

Miller traded to Canucks by Lightning - "conditional 1st"

A look back at the J.T. Miller trade by one of its biggest critics | Offside - "conditional 1st"

Canucks make bold J.T. Miller trade, but questions remain on defence - Sportsnet.ca - "conditional 1st round pick."



We didn't even know what pick we were giving up, so nope, wrong.

But sure, let's go with your nonsensical, illogical interpretation of something that you can't even explain yourself. Talk about a dumb hill to die on.

Those articles were likely all adapted/plagarized/rearranged from the same wire service report. And as I said, the pick could be described as conditional, but not as unprotected.

 

[bandwagonesque]

If this is the case, and you truly believe this, then I am at a loss for why you disagreed with my posts calling it a conditional pick. Arguing in bad faith, I guess.

I disagreed with the other stuff in it. The last one was a bit of a throwaway, I admit.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Those articles were likely all adapted/plagarized/rearranged from the same wire service report. And as I said, the pick could be described as conditional, but not as unprotected.

Of course they are . Let's go with that, instead of journalists having a firm grasp on the English language and knowing what conditional means.

 

[Javaman]

Those articles were likely all adapted/plagarized/rearranged from the same wire service report. And as I said, the pick could be described as conditional, but not as unprotected.

If the 1st round pick for Miller had ended up being the first overall pick in the '21 draft, would you still insist it was a "protected" pick?