Proposal: Brodin to Habs

[Randy Randerson]

You miss remembered or did not have all the details. It was a sign and trade value. Patch for 5 years, not as a pending UFA.

I have an answer to you if you disagree about weather it was a pending UFA return or a 5 year player return with Patch. It was confirmed to be a sign and trade by many sources when the trade was announced.

fair enough, 5 years for a 31yo vs 3 years for a 25yo for players of the same value tier when playing well (1st line W vs 2/3 Dman) where the winger was struggling heavily at an age that wouldn't be out of the ordinary for declines to take place. Brodin today is still at least the value of Pacioretty in September even with an extension, and you guys got Suzuki with significant adds for him, so the "prospects like Suzuki don't get traded for players like Brodin" still doesn't hold water, and that should be painfully obvious to a fanbase that just acquired him

 

[Habs Halifax]

fair enough, 5 years for a 31yo vs 3 years for a 25yo for players of the same value tier when playing well (1st line W vs 2/3 Dman) where the winger was struggling heavily at an age that wouldn't be out of the ordinary for declines to take place. Brodin today is still at least the value of Pacioretty in September even with an extension, and you guys got Suzuki with significant adds for him, so the "prospects like Suzuki don't get traded for players like Brodin" still doesn't hold water, and that should be painfully obvious to a fanbase that just acquired him

Same tier when playing well? I don't think so. Patch is a top line player and a proven 30+ goal scorer. Brodin is a good top 4D but with 20-25 pts production. Not the same tier. Close but not the same.

- 2 more years in term
- Patch > Brodin with the same term
- Age goes to Brodin for sure. But Brodin from age 25-27 vs Patch from 30-35. I don't consider this a major gap in value. Both players are likely the same in that range.

There is a bit of value difference here.

 

[57special]

Brodin was picked #10oa, and is a far above average result for picking in that position. He has been playing top 4 d minutes on a loaded backend( Suter Spurgeon, Scandella, Dumba) since he was 19, and shows zero signs of slowing down at 25 yo. There is every reason to believe he can play another 10 years, as he has decent size, very good IQ and technique, and skating to burn.
Hers is a list of #10 oa picks since 2000-16;
Jost
Rantanen
Ritchie
Nichushkin
Koekkoek
Brodin
McIlwraith
Paajavi- svensson
Hodgson
Ellerby
Frolik
Bordon
Valabik
Kostitsyn
Nystrom
Blackburn
Yakubov

You can go further back, but it's not till Selanne in the 80's that you get much of note. It's pretty clear that Brodin is a big success story, and better than a team can reasonably expect drafting at #10 oa.



Suzuki was picked #13 oa. Below are #13 oa picks since 2000 before Suzuki;

Bean
Zboril
Vrana
Morrissey
Faksa
Bartschi
Gormley
Kassian
Teubert
Eller
Tlusty
Zagrapan
Stafford
Brown
Semin
Hemsky
Hainsey

A couple of very good players on that list, with maybe one or two that MIGHT end up having a better career than Brodin's, when it's all said and done. Also a LOT of forgettable names. Hard to say with the most recent ones, of course. What Habs fans are expecting Wild fans to believe is that Suzuki will end up being one of the the top #13 oa picks, if not THE top #13oa pick, since they believe that Suzuki is worth more than Brodin right now. This is all before he has played a single pro game.

They could be right, and Suzuki MIGHT be a top 6 C that will have a better career than Brodin's, but the odds are pretty strongly against it.

Giving up Brodin for Suzuki alone strikes me as complete and utter madness, and I'm just a fan. GM's have to live and die with the consequences of their decisions. Trading an above average player like Brodin for a prospect, and then not having that prospect work out, is a recipe for dismissal, especially for team like the Wild who have an owner who expects their team to be competitive.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Same tier when playing well? I don't think so. Patch is a top line player and a proven 30+ goal scorer. Brodin is a good top 4D but with 20-25 pts production. Not the same tier. Close but not the same.

I don't believe in the Hall/Larsson trade as a precedent, but Pacioretty is a very poor man's Taylor Hall at his peak and Brodin is as good as Larsson and of a very similar stylistic mold, that should give you context for 1-for-1 trade value - Peak Pacioretty for Brodin is not nearly as lopsided as Hall for Larsson. Brodin is easily on peak Pacioretty's tier of value, and it was a leap of faith on Vegas's part to think they were getting anything close to that, so really the balance of value between current Brodin and September Pacioretty is in Brodin's favour

Now, being that you guys got Suzuki+2nd+Tatar (who had recently been acquired for a 1st+2nd+3rd package) for Pacioretty, if Brodin was even close (as you say he is) to Pacioretty's value then Brodin is easily worth Suzuki+

 

[AKL]

Brodin was picked #10oa, and is a far above average result for picking in that position. He has been playing top 4 d minutes on a loaded backend( Suter Spurgeon, Scandella, Dumba) since he was 19, and shows zero signs of slowing down at 25 yo. There is every reason to believe he can play another 10 years, as he has decent size, very good IQ and technique, and skating to burn.
Hers is a list of #10 oa picks since 2000-16;
Jost
Rantanen
Ritchie
Nichushkin
Koekkoek
Brodin
McIlwraith
Paajavi- svensson
Hodgson
Ellerby
Frolik
Bordon
Valabik
Kostitsyn
Nystrom
Blackburn
Yakubov

You can go further back, but it's not till Selanne in the 80's that you get much of note. It's pretty clear that Brodin is a big success story, and better than a team can reasonably expect drafting at #10 oa.



Suzuki was picked #13 oa. Below are #13 oa picks since 2000 before Suzuki;

Bean
Zboril
Vrana
Morrissey
Faksa
Bartschi
Gormley
Kassian
Teubert
Eller
Tlusty
Zagrapan
Stafford
Brown
Semin
Hemsky
Hainsey

A couple of very good players on that list, with maybe one or two that MIGHT end up having a better career than Brodin's, when it's all said and done. Also a LOT of forgettable names. Hard to say with the most recent ones, of course. What Habs fans are expecting Wild fans to believe is that Suzuki will end up being one of the the top #13 oa picks, if not THE top #13oa pick, since they believe that Suzuki is worth more than Brodin right now. This is all before he has played a single pro game.

They could be right, and Suzuki MIGHT be a top 6 C that will have a better career than Brodin's, but the odds are pretty strongly against it.

Giving up Brodin for Suzuki alone strikes me as complete and utter madness, and I'm just a fan. GM's have to live and die with the consequences of their decisions. Trading an above average player like Brodin for a prospect, and then not having that prospect work out, is a recipe for dismissal, especially for team like the Wild who have an owner who expects their team to be competitive.

Comparing them to other players historically taken at the same draft spot as them isn’t a great argument for anything really

 

[Habs Halifax]

I don't believe in the Hall/Larsson trade as a precedent, but Pacioretty is a very poor man's Taylor Hall at his peak and Brodin is as good as Larsson and of a very similar stylistic mold, that should give you context for 1-for-1 trade value - Peak Pacioretty for Brodin is not nearly as lopsided as Hall for Larsson. Brodin is easily on peak Pacioretty's tier of value, and it was a leap of faith on Vegas's part to think they were getting anything close to that, so really the balance of value between current Brodin and September Pacioretty is in Brodin's favour

Now, being that you guys got Suzuki+2nd+Tatar (who had recently been acquired for a 1st+2nd+3rd package) for Pacioretty, if Brodin was even close (as you say he is) to Pacioretty's value then Brodin is easily worth Suzuki+

Regardless of the gap in value we disagree with between Patch and Brodin, we have a 2 year gap in term which is huge. Habs had zero chance to get that Patch return as a pending UFA or for a 1, 2, 3 year term contract.

Vegas also had Tatar who did not fit and they even retained on him. They likely took a very long hard look at weather to trade Suzuki or not and the trade happened right after rookie camp. Vegas swallowed the pill after they were able to come to terms on an extension

As far as Hall vs Patch. I take Hall every single day of the week. Patch is a goal scoring winger and plays a responsible 200' game. Hall is dynamic and one of the best young players in the league. He can do what Patch can do (goal scoring) and also so much more in terms of play making and breaking a game open type skills.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Comparing them to other players historically taken at the same draft spot as them isn’t a great argument for anything really

I'd agree with that when Suzuki has played above junior, but that's useful for some context at this point. He's really a mystery box with a reasonably high ceiling and a reasonably high chance of busting. HF, and especially the fanbase of the prospect being talked about, is really prone to shiny-new-toy syndrome and focus on the best case scenario outcome without accounting for likely outcome or bust risk, which I think is the point that 57special was getting at

Regardless of the gap in value we disagree with between Patch and Brodin, we have a 2 year gap in term which is huge. Habs had zero chance to get that Patch return as a pending UFA or for a 1, 2, 3 year term contract.

Vegas also had Tatar who did not fit and they even retained on him. They likely took a very long hard look at weather to trade Suzuki or not and the trade happened right after rookie camp. Vegas swallowed the pill after they were able to come to terms on an extension

As far as Hall vs Patch. I take Hall every single day of the week. Patch is a goal scoring winger and plays a responsible 200' game. Hall is dynamic and one of the best young players in the league. He can do what Patch can do (goal scoring) and also so much more in terms of play making and breaking a game open type skills.

a 2 year gap in guaranteed service time (there's no reason to exclude the possibility of re-signing Brodin, that would be the actual likely outcome for the acquiring team) is only a huge deal if you're actively looking for a reason to value Pacioretty above Brodin rather than doing the accounting to see where the truth lies. I do agree that Montreal rode Pacioretty out of town, but I don't see that as an item that increases his value in a trade negotiation, it would be the opposite

Tatar was acquired for too much by Vegas and he wasn't good there, but the suggestion that a 27yo player with a 2nd line production history goes from an NHL GM valuing him at 1st+2nd+3rd picks to being valueless in 28 games is crazy. He wasn't worth what Vegas traded for him, but he was easily worth a couple of 2nd's

 

[Habs Halifax]

Probably, but it's a case of shooting high or not shooting at all.

I understand. I call it pry-away factor. I'd be asking for a lot too if the Habs decided to trade Petry. But I'm not asking for a Suzuki type either. It's a very high starting point that won't fly with most GM's. Maybe you can find a sucker.

 

[Brando]

fair enough, 5 years for a 31yo vs 3 years for a 25yo for players of the same value tier when playing well (1st line W vs 2/3 Dman) where the winger was struggling heavily at an age that wouldn't be out of the ordinary for declines to take place. Brodin today is still at least the value of Pacioretty in September even with an extension, and you guys got Suzuki with significant adds for him, so the "prospects like Suzuki don't get traded for players like Brodin" still doesn't hold water, and that should be painfully obvious to a fanbase that just acquired him

Were you not just arguing with me that Tatar's value wouldn't be affected by a bad 20-game stretch? Now you're saying Paciotetty's value decreased after struggling in the first 20 games?

 

[Randy Randerson]

Were you not just arguing with me that Tatar's value wouldn't be affected by a bad 20-game stretch? Now you're saying Paciotetty's value decreased after struggling in the first 20 games?

no, the previous full season in Montreal, the time in Vegas is post-trade so it wouldn't affect the trade. Pacioretty was also at an age where the cause had a good chance to be "decline" rather than "slump"

I think he's also been pretty good in Vegas, pacing for 30 goals and 50pts on relatively sustainable underlying numbers

 

[AKL]

I'd agree with that when Suzuki has played above junior, but that's useful for some context at this point. He's really a mystery box with a reasonably high ceiling and a reasonably high chance of busting. HF, and especially the fanbase of the prospect being talked about, is really prone to shiny-new-toy syndrome and focus on the best case scenario outcome without accounting for likely outcome or bust risk, which I think is the point that 57special was getting at

That would be a better argument if the success rates were linear. According to this article TSN did last year though, you're better off having the 26th pick than the 25th pick, and the 15th is actually the worst pick to have in the first round.

Would you rather have the 15th or 26th pick in the 2019 draft?

It's cool to see the patterns develop, but using it as any kind of predictor of success or chance of becoming X in the NHL is severely flawed.

 

[Habs Halifax]

no, the previous full season in Montreal, the time in Vegas is post-trade so it wouldn't affect the trade. Pacioretty was also at an age where the cause had a good chance to be "decline" rather than "slump"

Tavares is 29 next year. Better win this year or he will decline like you say Patch will very soon. See how stupid this sounds? Decline for top of the line-up players from age 30-35 needs to stop. Were talking about minuscule amounts here and up and down seasons. It's a factor but a very small one

- Why did the Sharks sign Burns from age 32-39 at $8M AAV?

- Why did the Leafs sign Marleau from age 38-40 at $6.25M cap hit? That's like very close to Patch's AAV with Vegas and Patch is only 30.

 

[Randy Randerson]

That would be a better argument if the success rates were linear. According to this article TSN did last year though, you're better off having the 26th pick than the 25th pick, and the 15th is actually the worst pick to have in the first round.

Would you rather have the 15th or 26th pick in the 2019 draft?

It's cool to see the patterns develop, but using it as any kind of predictor of success or chance of becoming X in the NHL is severely flawed.

It's a neighbourhood play to make a point though, Suzuki is far from a guarantee is the point, where Brodin is. I agree that it's oversimplified, but the principle rings true

I do actually think that this kind of modelling is used by NHL teams to make trades though, it's a good check and balance to figure out what sort of risk and reward you're taking when the trades involve picks or recently drafted prospects

Tavares is 29 next year. Better win this year or he will decline like you say Patch will very soon. See how stupid this sounds? Decline for top of the line-up players from age 30-35 needs to stop. Were talking about minuscule amounts here and up and down seasons. It's a factor but a very small one

- Why did the Sharks sign Burns from age 32-39 at $8M AAV?

- Why did the Leafs sign Marleau from age 38-40 at $6.25M cap hit? That's like very close to Patch's AAV with Vegas and Patch is only 30.

agree that Tavares is likely to start declining in a few years, there's a lot of evidence to support that being the likely scenario. the Leafs window is absolutely now

Have a look around for some of the studies on age & performance, most suggest that forwards show big declines from their peaks in the 32yo range and Defensemen around 34. Guys like Tavares and Burns leverage those remaining prime years to get paid for a bunch of non-prime ones, if they were willing to take 3-4 year deals the teams would be opting for that. The Marleau singing was bad from the get go, it's hard to rationalize that one, but you can see that he didn't get 7 years because he didn't have prime years left to leverage a longer contract with

we're getting away from the original point though, which is that guys like Suzuki do get traded for players like Brodin

 

[Habs Halifax]

I agree that Tavares is likely to start declining in a few years, there's a lot of evidence to support that being the likely scenario. the Leafs window is absolutely now

Have a look around for some of the studies on age & performance, most suggest that forwards show big declines from their peaks in the 32yo range and Defensemen around 34. Guys like Tavares and Burns leverage those remaining prime years to get paid for a bunch of non-prime ones, if they were willing to take 3-4 year deals the teams would be opting for that. The Marleau singing was bad from the get go, it's hard to rationalize that one, but you can see that he didn't get 7 years because he didn't have prime years left to leverage a longer contract with

we're getting away from the original point though, which is that guys like Suzuki do get traded for players like Brodin

You agree with yourself that Tavares will decline above minuscule amounts from age 30-35 range. If I had him on my team, I would not be worried till he hit 35. Just like I'm not worried about Weber in the next 3 or 4 years.

Show us an example. A guy like Brodin on a 3 year term then UFA (top 4D and 20-25 pts of production) for a grade A prospect in Suzuki who is trending very well in his draft +1 and +2 years of development. I'd like to see your examples?

I'll put your witch hunt skills to the test. Lets look at Marleau in terms of decline from age 30-35. Do you see it? The decline you are talking about when it becomes a potential concern is at age 35, not 30. From 30-35, were are talking about a minuscule amount and it depends on the player

 

[Brando]

It's a neighbourhood play to make a point though, Suzuki is far from a guarantee is the point, where Brodin is. I agree that it's oversimplified, but the principle rings true

I do actually think that this kind of modelling is used by NHL teams to make trades though, it's a good check and balance to figure out what sort of risk and reward you're taking when the trades involve picks or recently drafted prospects


agree that Tavares is likely to start declining in a few years, there's a lot of evidence to support that being the likely scenario. the Leafs window is absolutely now

Have a look around for some of the studies on age & performance, most suggest that forwards show big declines from their peaks in the 32yo range and Defensemen around 34. Guys like Tavares and Burns leverage those remaining prime years to get paid for a bunch of non-prime ones, if they were willing to take 3-4 year deals the teams would be opting for that. The Marleau singing was bad from the get go, it's hard to rationalize that one, but you can see that he didn't get 7 years because he didn't have prime years left to leverage a longer contract with

we're getting away from the original point though, which is that guys like Suzuki do get traded for players like Brodin

Yes that was the point. The overall trade of Suzuki and Schlemko for Brodin is fair in my opinion. You were arguing against that.

 

[A Loyal Demidog]

Suzuki + Alzner for Brodin

 

[AKL]

Suzuki + Alzner for Brodin

Yeah not with Alzner’s contract

 

[57special]

Comparing them to other players historically taken at the same draft spot as them isn’t a great argument for anything really

It is when his only bona fides are;

1- his junior scoring
2- his position taken in the draft. As long as that he mentioned as part of his value as a prospect, can we not at least consider what the position in a draft returns, historically?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

It is when his only bona fides are;

1- his junior scoring
2- his position taken in the draft. As long as that he mentioned as part of his value as a prospect, can we not at least consider what the position in a draft returns, historically?

Because not every team would've taken the same guy. You can factor it in, but you also have to factor in who was taken 1, 2 maybe even 5 spots after.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Yes that was the point. The overall trade of Suzuki and Schlemko for Brodin is fair in my opinion. You were arguing against that.

I believe that's low unless you're placing some value on Schlemko, the conversation that you're asserting yourself into here is the other guy saying that guys like Suzuki don't get traded (without pluses) for guys like Brodin at all. Is that a position you agree with?

You agree with yourself that Tavares will decline above minuscule amounts from age 30-35 range. If I had him on my team, I would not be worried till he hit 35. Just like I'm not worried about Weber in the next 3 or 4 years.

Show us an example. A guy like Brodin on a 3 year term then UFA (top 4D and 20-25 pts of production) for a grade A prospect in Suzuki who is trending very well in his draft +1 and +2 years of development. I'd like to see your examples?

I'll put your witch hunt skills to the test. Lets look at Marleau in terms of decline from age 30-35. Do you see it? The decline you are talking about when it becomes a potential concern is at age 35, not 30. From 30-35, were are talking about a minuscule amount and it depends on the player

Pacioretty is an example that we just went through in some detail, and we drew a parallel with the Hall/Larsson deal that draws a line in value between Pac and Brodin. Trying to get too granular like that and find an exact match will end with no results. Instead, I'd like you to show an example of a similar player to Brodin getting traded for something centered around a prospect, and show that the prospect is obviously less valuable than Suzuki. I've shown my work already, show yours

Tavares is also declining from a very high plateau, he'll likely be a good player at 35 but also not the player that he is now and probably not worth his cap hit at that point. His game also isn't speed dependent which might help him age well as his footspeed declines, yet to be seen

 

[AKL]

It is when his only bona fides are;

1- his junior scoring
2- his position taken in the draft. As long as that he mentioned as part of his value as a prospect, can we not at least consider what the position in a draft returns, historically?

1) So compare his junior scoring to others at the same age, not others drafted in his position
2) This one assumes that I think mentioning his draft position is relevant. I didn’t look at the post that mentioned his draft position but I also don’t care where he was drafted. If a guy is drafted 13th and has almost 2ppg and a guy is drafted 30th and has 2ppg I don’t care that one was drafted 17 spots later. That means nothing in regards to anything anymore. Draft rankings only go as far as the unknown. When there is something to look at post-draft, that’s far more pertinent

 

[Habs Halifax]

I believe that's low unless you're placing some value on Schlemko, the conversation that you're asserting yourself into here is the other guy saying that guys like Suzuki don't get traded (without pluses) for guys like Brodin at all. Is that a position you agree with?


Pacioretty is an example that we just went through in some detail, and we drew a parallel with the Hall/Larsson deal that draws a line in value between Pac and Brodin. Trying to get too granular like that and find an exact match will end with no results. Instead, I'd like you to show an example of a similar player to Brodin getting traded for something centered around a prospect, and show that the prospect is obviously less valuable than Suzuki. I've shown my work already, show yours

Tavares is also declining from a very high plateau, he'll likely be a good player at 35 but also not the player that he is now and probably not worth his cap hit at that point. His game also isn't speed dependent which might help him age well as his footspeed declines, yet to be seen

Tavares highest productive season in his 20's so far is like what? 86 pts 4 seasons ago. He then had drop off but another 84 pts season last year. He's on pace for 87 pts this year. I'm willing to bet he is a pt/game player still in his early 30's

 

[57special]

OK, the Suzuki is scoring at about the same rate as Khovanov(who's lack of scoring previously can be explained), Veleno and Dewar, as well as a host of other players in the CHL. Bottom line is that he is untested, and while an interesting and potentially good player in the NHL, is not guaranteed to be anything. Nobody is saying that he is the elite class of prospects, or he would've been drafted higher. It's not like he is dominating a junior league right now, like ...Yakupov, or Puljujarvi?

To ignore the fact that top prospects sometime just don't work out when talking about trading one of them for an accomplished, still young, NHL player, strikes me as wrongheaded, to say the least.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

OK, the Suzuki is scoring at about the same rate as Khovanov(who's lack of scoring previously can be explained), Veleno and Dewar, as well as a host of other players in the CHL. Bottom line is that he is untested, and while an interesting and potentially good player in the NHL, is not guaranteed to be anything. Nobody is saying that he is the elite class of prospects, or he would've been drafted higher. It's not like he is dominating a junior league right now, like ...Yakupov, or Puljujarvi?

To ignore the fact that top prospects sometime just don't work out when talking about trading one of them for an accomplished, still young, NHL player, strikes me as wrongheaded, to say the least.

I don't think anybody is ignoring it. It's assumed that trading for a prospect carries risks. The discussion is whether or not you like the prospect enough that it's worth the risk.

 

[AKL]

OK, the Suzuki is scoring at about the same rate as Khovanov(who's lack of scoring previously can be explained), Veleno and Dewar, as well as a host of other players in the CHL. Bottom line is that he is untested, and while an interesting and potentially good player in the NHL, is not guaranteed to be anything. Nobody is saying that he is the elite class of prospects, or he would've been drafted higher. It's not like he is dominating a junior league right now, like ...Yakupov, or Puljujarvi?

To ignore the fact that top prospects sometime just don't work out when talking about trading one of them for an accomplished, still young, NHL player, strikes me as wrongheaded, to say the least.

Don’t think anyone has said Suzuki is a guarantee, the point is you need to take a risk to get a 1C if you’re not going to try to draft one or be in a position to “easily” get one with that potential.

Can’t trade for them when they’re already young 1C’s in the NHL, gotta try to do it before then. Suzuki is performing right now like a top flight center prospect with potential to be a 1C, but if he’s not your guy there are others like him.