Canucks1096
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2016
- 5,608
- 1,667
I appreciate your trying to support your argument but here's where I see it falling short:
1. In 2015 (when the picks were exchanged) there was very limited knowledge of the projection of 2nd and 3rd round picks. This is true a year in advance of the any draft including 2019. Sure there are early favorites and a lot of prognosticating. But there is no material different in one year vs the next in the likelihood of success of a particular draft class, especially once you get out of the top 10 picks. When they gave up the pick in 2015, the only value they could calculate would be based on general projections of draft success across years. In 2019 Hoglander was available at 40. And, to further challenge the conclusions that moving down 10 spots didn't mater, there are at least 3 NHLers that went in the next 10 after the 2nd rounder in 2016.
2. Absolutely agree with the bolded. Sutter was just one of the bad contracts that has resulted in the loss of significant assets. That doesn't strengthen the argument for Sutter. It reinforces the fact that management made a bad trade and doubled down when they gave Sutter an high $$ long term extension.
3. If the point is that they could have moved the contract at 50% retention then your argument already fails. I never said Sutter at $1.5M or even $2M was a bad contract. I said his contract was untradeable until now, with weeks left, maybe. They still might have to retain salary. Again, that confirms the poor decision to extend him on those terms.
As a general comment, it isn't strong to say "they could have ("have" not "of"...sorry, a pet peeve of mine) if they wanted to". That assumes you were in the room and knew all the terms of the proposal. If we've learned anything, reports in the press only know part of the story. Sure, they "could have" traded Sutter for a 1st round pick if they added Pettersson to the deal...
1 I have no idea how this defend your they could of got a Hoglander type of a pick statement. The fact is there were no Hoglander available at that range. It's kind of like this. Baer got traded for a 2nd, people like to link Andersson into that trade because he was available at that range. 2016, around that range there are no Hoglander so it's fair to say they wouldn't of gotten a Hoglander. If you want to judge what could happened. Sure go ahead.
It really depends on what your definition of NHL player is. All 3 of those players never played a full season yet. Two of them were healthy scratches this year. 2016 draft, the players are about 23/24 now. At that point you're pretty much close to what you're. Sure they missed out on those players but those three don't really move the needle. If you want to use fringe NHL player as argument. Sure go ahead. Fringe nhl player is better than no NHL player.
2/3 sure it doesn't strengthen the Sutter bad contract. But you were indicating because of Sutter bad contract and others. They couldn't resign Markstrom Tanev Toffoli. I am saying it didn't have any impact .
Are you telling me Jim Benning said to himself. Because Sutter had only 1 year on a his contract, I can't sign long term contracts to Tanev and Markstrom? Schmidt and Holtby = around the same salary as Markstrom and Tanev. It had to do with term and not salary.
If you don't like to go with reports. Well I do. It was reported on The athletic that they could of move Sutter at 50% and trade Virtanen and resign Toffoli but they decided not too. It's just silly saying because of this bad contract, we couldn't keep that player and that. Sure you can give a general statement like Sutter cap could put better use.
Have a great night