Confirmed with Link: [VAN/VGK] Canucks acquire F Brendan Leipsic for D Philip Holm

[me2]

MDZ, Nilsson, Gagner make about 9 M combined. He could of decided to get two players on lower contract and offered a big contract about 6 to 7 M for one player but he didn't. Benning have no money to play with is wrong.

He offered a big contract consistently to ufa? Aside from Eriksson he never signed a ufa for more than 3yrs. Trade futures? He does trade picks for younger player. But.you are making sound like he trading young players/picks for old Veterans.

I will be honest I am not a fan Benning as well but I do call things the way I see it. With so much generalization about Benning. It is getting a little ridiculous.

Those three are $8.65m and I disagree about having room. A good backup is $2m+ at least. A decent UFA dman is $2m+. Nobody good is coming for $4.6m to play on a badly run tank team.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Yeah, you go ahead and crunch those numbers. You'll still be missing the point.

Lucic was drafted where...?

Let's just target 6th round picks because Datsyuk.

 

[Melvin]

Let's just target 6th round picks because Datsyuk.

Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you really not understand that the odds are irrelevant to the point?

Nobody around here thinks the odds are high, or even decent.

 

[F A N]

Why don't you explain what you're actually skeptical about, instead of randomly giving me additional homework assignments that I'm supposed to come up with from scratch? If you don't think a hockey trade works the same way as a poker hand, then show me why not. And why did you waste my time with a poker example if that's the case?

I've addressed your poker example already, and explained why it's consistent with what I've been arguing rather than the "gotcha" that you suggested. I don't see why an argument about a trade would function differently. Why don't you address what I said about that example before moving onto other things? Do you accept my explanation of it?

I'm not saying that outcome never matters-- The outcome of a trade can be a premise or a conclusion or irrelevant in an argument (it was irrelevant in the first conclusion above). It depends entirely on what's being argued. What I am saying is that your example was a bad one because it did a bait and switch with the outcome where it was relevant (aka a part of the conclusion) in circumstances that were consistent with my point and irrelevant in circumstances that you suggested contradicted it. As demonstrated above.

I asked because I realized I may have misunderstood your point. That's all. And I think I may have. I don't have enough information to verify this belief (hence I was asking) but it's not important enough for me to continue this discussion. So FYI.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you really not understand that the odds are irrelevant to the point?

Nobody around here thinks the odds are high, or even decent.

I think there's a difference between rebuild and turf all of the roster. Bird in the hand, you know.

Baertschi's age and pedigree make him a decent player to hold on to.

You do realize we're both banking on the same logic right? I hope Baer can improve and mesh with his linemates and improve, you want the 2nd rounder to be a great player. It's both just hopefully, but mine has a higher probability of panning out.

 

[Melvin]

I think there's a difference between rebuild and turf all of the roster. Bird in the hand, you know.

Baertschi's age and pedigree make him a decent player to hold on to.

You do realize we're both banking on the same logic right? I hope Baer can improve and mesh with his linemates and improve, you want the 2nd rounder to be a great player. It's both just hopefully, but mine has a higher probability of panning out.

You haven't demonstrated that the 26 year old who has a career-high of 35 points and who has averaged 63 games played over the past 3 seasons has a higher probability of "panning out" in any meaningful determination. "Pan out" doesn't have any meaning in this context.

It is not just about getting "an NHL player," you have to consider timing and asset value. Sven Baertschi will need to be re-signed after this season and I think that his mediocre production can be pretty easily replaced at a similar cost on the free agency market. He just isn't overly likely to be holding much surplus value IMO in the coming years.

While you can make a reasonable argument for keeping him, I would rather toss another ping pong ball into the cage and sign some other winger who can do what Baertschi does.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

You haven't demonstrated that the 26 year old who has a career-high of 35 points and who has averaged 63 games played over the past 3 seasons has a higher probability of "panning out" in any meaningful determination. "Pan out" doesn't have any meaning in this context.

It is not just about getting "an NHL player," you have to consider timing and asset value. Sven Baertschi will need to be re-signed after this season and I think that his mediocre production can be pretty easily replaced at a similar cost on the free agency market. While you can make a reasonable argument for keeping him, I would rather toss another ping pong ball into the cage and sign some other winger who can do what Baertschi does.

That's more on injuries than performance.

Not sure given our history with 2nd rounders

 

[me2]

Lol @ saying he's peaked when we've just watched the Sedins peak in their 30s and Kesler peak late as well.

Baertschi doesn't play a crash and bang style. To say he's already peaked is premature. He can be the BMo to the Horvat and Boeser line for all I care, he's still going to be a beneficiary and likely hit 50.

On average forwards peak or have peaked by 25 and there is no shortage of studies on this. Of course there are exceptions, fluke years etc, different usage etc. He might be the exception to the rule, but your are better expecting the norm.

Kesler's career year 75 points, 46 ES, he was 25. His best goal scoring year he was 26, career shooting percentage, only 40 ES points.

The Sedins are unsually, by if you look at their careers their peak starts at 25, they missed their 24 year old year. From 25 onwards, they sat around or just under PPG, every season, they had two great years at 29 and 30, but those two years are out of ordinary, compared to the 75-82 point place they ran before and after. Maybe they peaked late, maybe it was ozone usage or shooting percentages, or maybe they did peak late.

 

[PG Canuck]

That's more on injuries than performance.

Not sure given our history with 2nd rounders

But our GM is a draft guru...we shouldn’t trust him?

 

[Shareefruck]

I asked because I realized I may have misunderstood your point. That's all. And I think I may have. I don't have enough information to verify this belief (hence I was asking) but it's not important enough for me to continue this discussion. So FYI.

For future reference, it would be helpful to lead your response with this information, because responding to detailed explanation with:

Okay. Please define and give an example of "conclusions" then in a hockey context. Use a trade example.

Are you saying that the outcome of a trade doesn't matter?

... has a pretty dismissive and accusational "Oh yeah? Well nevermind that, what about THIS, then!" tone, at least from my perspective. What specifically is it that you may have misunderstood, though?

In a hockey trade, the arguments that people make still need to have premises and conclusions that follow logically (where true premises would always result in that conclusion). If the nature of a trade (like a poker hand) creates uncertain outcomes, then it is impossible to rationally draw certain conclusions that promise a certain outcome and do not account for this uncertainty.

Therefore, the principle holds true either way.

If you have a conclusion that appropriately accounts for uncertainty and is a statement about likelihood of an outcome based on known information, then that could be rational (and if so, would always be true/correct, like your "the player should always call with that poker hand" argument), and a contradictory outcome is irrelevant/would not change the correctness or rationality of this conclusion.

If you have a conclusion that doesn't account for uncertainty and is a statement about what the outcome will be given certain premises, of course the outcome of the trade would matter, but that could never be a rational/valid argument to begin with, regardless of how probable the conclusion is.

If you make an argument that logically needs to consider an uncertain outcome in order to be true, but doesn't include this in their premises, then, in theory, that would be an irrational argument as well (even if the outcome ends up agreeing with the argument).

However a person's argument happens to be framed, it's impossible for them to be rational while also drawing conclusions that can turn out to be incorrect.

Is there any confusion about what I mean?

 

[Canucks1096]

Sorry, what?

HOW many players has Benning rescued from the garbage can and made into good NHLers? What's that? Oh, none? Right. That's what I thought.

Clendening's been given a chance by 5 NHL teams now. Vey? Where's he? Oh yeah, nowhere. Pouliot...oh yeah. He's terrible, just like Pens fans said.

"Oh, if we do find a way to measure castoffs...!" Yeah, we have. It's called let Benning trade a few draft picks for them and watch the Canucks lose lots and lots of games.

Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffft. Why am I bothering. Enjoy the losing.

I didn't write that.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I think there's a difference between rebuild and turf all of the roster. Bird in the hand, you know.

Baertschi's age and pedigree make him a decent player to hold on to.

You do realize we're both banking on the same logic right? I hope Baer can improve and mesh with his linemates and improve, you want the 2nd rounder to be a great player. It's both just hopefully, but mine has a higher probability of panning out.

There's been no shortage of statistical analyses that show by 25 or 26, the majority of NHLers are who they are. You want to cross your fingers and hope statistical outliers take place? So does Benning apparently. Tell me how that's worked out.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I didn't write that.

Remembered another one: Hansen. 3rd line agitating buzzsaw with a 20 goal season under his belt with virtually no PP time; 9th round pick. Taken so far back the draft doesn't even go that far anymore.

You can get good players from anywhere in the draft. Yes, the odds get lower the further back the player's taken, but there still is at least a chance. The star players are overwhelmingly taken in the first round, and that's very heavily weighted in the top ten, but you still can get good players down the line. Benning supporters usually love to trot out Lind, Gadjovic, Demko and Gaudette to praise his drafting genius and therefore competence, it's weird how nobody in this thread seems to want him to do the one thing he's supposed to be good at.

 

[Hit the post]

Not sure given our history with 2nd rounders

Problem with Gilligan is that he tended to deal those picks (though not always for rentals).

2008.......Yann Sauve....bust
2009.......Anton Rodin.....showed promise but he had the Salo illness (injured all the time)
2010........Dealt pick (part of a package to get Steve Bernier - who still played some NHL games this season)
2011.........Dealt pick (for a 3rd & a 4th round pick in the same year)
2012........Alexander Mallet....bust
2013.........Dealt pick (for rental bust Roy & a D prospect that is still in this league)

 

[M2Beezy]

He'll be 26 at the start of next season, and his points/82 career best is 45. Suggesting he's "at least a 50 point player in his prime, maybe more" is just wrong. Barring injury he's a 40 point player. He's in his prime right now. People like to act like he's a young kid, but he'll be 26 the next time he plays a regular season game...he's not a young kid. He is what he is.

I think your selling Baertchi short. If he was on an NHL quality team with other good players so much of his effort would be rewarded in points. He has been playing with some good players here and had results and when hes been forced to play with our boatload of Benning picked duds he still produces or does everything in his power to produce. Now he is inconsistent which is why i couldnt call him a 1st liner but i think if we do have some better offence coming up in the next year or so Baertchis production will go up too and i dont think you could say hed be just benefiting from having better linemates. Right now hes unjustly getting most worse numbers cause his line mates have not been that good and even when he is with good guys (Horvat Boeser) it doesnt last long and the coach brakes it up. Id trade him if the deal was right of course but think we should hold onto him as part of our offence going fwd

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

There's been no shortage of statistical analyses that show by 25 or 26, the majority of NHLers are who they are. You want to cross your fingers and hope statistical outliers take place? So does Benning apparently. Tell me how that's worked out.

He also hasn't played close to a full season. Maybe he is just injury prone. But I'd still wager he'll hit 50 points if he plays a full season.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

He also hasn't played close to a full season. Maybe he is just injury prone. But I'd still wager he'll hit 50 points if he plays a full season.

69 and 68 games aren't close to a full season?

And the fact that this guy is the best example of Benning's strategy should tell you why the team's been in the dumpster for three solid years. The huge flaw in the thinking is the assumption that you're getting someone just as good as a raw pick, only older and further along in their development. The execution just hasn't borne that out here, because you're not trading up in development. By definition you're always going to get a player the other team gave up on and deemed expendable.

 

[CanaFan]

I think your selling Baertchi short. If he was on an NHL quality team with other good players so much of his effort would be rewarded in points. He has been playing with some good players here and had results and when hes been forced to play with our boatload of Benning picked duds he still produces or does everything in his power to produce. Now he is inconsistent which is why i couldnt call him a 1st liner but i think if we do have some better offence coming up in the next year or so Baertchis production will go up too and i dont think you could say hed be just benefiting from having better linemates. Right now hes unjustly getting worster numbers cause his line mates have not been that good and even when he is with good guys (Horvat Boeser) it doesnt last long and the coach brakes it up. Id trade him if the deal was right of course but think we should hold onto him as part of our offence going fwd

“worster”??

Really??

Jesus even my 4 year old doesn’t say “worster”.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

“worster”??

Really??

Jesus even my 4 year old doesn’t say “worster”.

 

[M2Beezy]

“worster”??

Really??

Jesus even my 4 year old doesn’t say “worster”.

I dont think Ive ever said it either. I typed too fast not what I meant u know what i meant

 

[CanaFan]

I dont think Ive ever said it either. I typed too fast not what I meant u know what i meant

lol fair nuff

Seemed bad even for your relaxed standards.

 

[M2Beezy]

lol fair nuff

Seemed bad even for your relaxed standards.

Edited it anyways

 

[ZEBROA]

I dont think Ive ever said it either. I typed too fast not what I meant u know what i meant

Is there always spelling bees in these places? In my country four year olds would say "sämle" or someting.. let the wordpolice translate that

 

[Canucks1096]

Doesn’t the fact that you’re stretching back to the late 90’s and early 2000’s for your handful of examples tell you something about the rarity of these “cast offs” that turn into impact players? Including rumours about a guy who was on the block but never actually traded? Like these are not frequent events. How many players are waived all the time who never become a Jason Pominville or merely top out as a Curtis Lazar? It’s nearly uncountable.

And you’re inventing rationales for why Vey, Clendenning, and Pouliot didn’t make their clubs. Cup winning teams add young players all the time. Good ones at least. The financial pressures of winning cups has forced the Blackhawks to jettison vets and add youth multiple times. If Clendenning was any good he’d have been gold to the Hawks. And hindsight confirms Vey, Clendenning, and Pouliot weren’t good players that couldn’t crack a good rosters. They were/are poor players that simply weren’t good enough and weren’t worth acquiring in the first place.

Again, look at the evidence of this strategy under Benning. 10 players, 9 duds. 1 ok player.

Now let’s compare how Benning’s non-1st round draft picks do in the next year. Between Tryamkin, Gaudette, Demko, Lind, Lockwood, Gadjovich, and Forsling I’m willing to bet we find at least 1 impact player (top 6 F / top 4 D). Like I say, it’s not a high bar to exceed.

Yes it is rare that these castoffs become nhl players but that's not the argument. The argument is I don't think there is much of a difference by getting castoffs vs a pick from 2nd to 7th. Yes there are a players waive all the time but I am not counting the Grenier because they had never upside to begin with. I am stretching back because a trade is a different from a draft. From a draft there are 180 picks from round 2 to 7. 186 now. Trades there about 20 to 30 a year and not all of them are casts off trades. Also lot of players they don't stick around in the nhl organization for a long time and decide to go to Europe insteqd

There are more I thought of Stralman, Grabner, Sharp, B Clark, Kunitz, Muzzin, W Kalrsson, Haula, Schutz, Steen, Teravainen, Marchestsault, J Blake, Knuble,

Benning had 23 picks from round 2 to round 7 in the last 4 years. So if one of them become a a top 6 F/top 4 D. That means 4% our of all those pucks became top 6 f/top 4 D.

I randomly pulled up 2010 drafts from round 2 to round 7. I only saw 6 legit top 4 F/top 4 D. Fraulk, Toffoli, Zucker, Gallagher, Klingberg, Stone, that draft was about 3% chance.

Very hard you to convince me a castsoff doesn't have a 3% chance to become a top 6 F/top 4. I listed 20 examples already

Some drafts may harder but it won't be higher by that much.

 

[Melvin]

Yes it is rare that these castoffs become nhl players but that's not the argument. The argument is I don't think there is much of a difference by getting castoffs vs a pick from 2nd to 7th. Yes there are a players waive all the time but I am not counting the Grenier because they had never upside to begin with. I am stretching back because a trade is a different from a draft. From a draft there are 180 picks from round 2 to 7. 186 now. Trades there about 20 to 30 a year and not all of them are casts off trades. Also lot of players they don't stick around in the nhl organization for a long time and decide to go to Europe insteqd

There are more I thought of Stralman, Grabner, Sharp, B Clark, Kunitz, Muzzin, W Kalrsson, Haula, Schutz, Steen, Teravainen, Marchestsault, J Blake, Knuble,

Benning had 23 picks from round 2 to round 7 in the last 4 years. So if one of them become a a top 6 F/top 4 D. That means 4% our of all those pucks became top 6 f/top 4 D.

I randomly pulled up 2010 drafts from round 2 to round 7. I only saw 6 legit top 4 F/top 4 D. Fraulk, Toffoli, Zucker, Gallagher, Klingberg, Stone, that draft was about 3% chance.

Very hard you to convince me a castsoff doesn't have a 3% chance to become a top 6 F/top 4. I listed 20 examples already

Some drafts may harder but it won't be higher by that much.

You're completely ignoring the business side which is the most important part. Players are not fixed assets