banme*
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2014
- 2,573
- 0
Ah gotcha. Ya put me on the side that says the player you draft shouldn't matter in terms of initial trade value.
Canucks Managerial Thread II
- Thread starter Bourne Endeavor
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Ah gotcha. Ya put me on the side that says the player you draft shouldn't matter in terms of initial trade value.
I didn't really mind the trade at the time, wasn't idea but it was more in line with reality than for people who thought we could get the 10th, Theodore, and the 24th.
But while it wasn't 'bad' there were ultimately two problems with it. First the insistence on acquiring Nick Bonino to immediately replace Kesler. He was a valuable piece to Anaheim, if you recall rumours at the prior deadline Anaheim walked away when we tried to get him included in the deal, and he was unlikely to replicate his success with us. On Anaheim he was a great fit with Getzlaf and Perry on the PP and put up a lot of points there, for us he'd be playing with much weaker players. Second mistake of course is how Benning actually targeted Sbisa as a piece he wanted.
We'll never know what other packages could have been had but those two aspects cost us value. Now in generally I don't mind losing a bit of value here and there, but of course Benning had to go and sign Sbisa to that horrible extension and paid extra to dump Bonino for Sutter than sign him to a massive extension. When the rumours were between Pittsburgh and Anaheim no one was all that enthusiastic over Pittsburgh's offer starting with Sutter.
Yeah, you would hope people grasp the separation.
The value in the Kesler trade was horrible BUT our scouts look to have done a very good job with the pick we received. The trade for the draft pick and the subsequent use of that draft pick are two entirely different things.
If you sell your $5000 car for $500, and then invest that $500 in shares of a mining company, and then a year later that company has a massive strike and suddenly those shares are worth $10000 ... it doesn't mean you got a great deal when you sold your car.
Addison Rae
Registered User
drax0s
Registered User
You're partially right that valuing the pick as Jared McCann because that's how it turned out isn't entirely honest. However, looking at players projected to go in that area, McCann was projected to go in that 20-28th range. Depending on what scouting service you believe the 24th overall pick can easily be projected to get access to players like Fiala, Vrana, Kempe, McKeown, Schmaltz, MacInnis, Bleackley, Scherbak & Goldobin. There's were a lot of good players projected to go in that range. (source).
So no, Benning didn't trade Kesler for 24th overall because he knew McCann would be available. He likely traded him for 24th overall comfortable with the idea that he'd still get an good player at 24th overall in the 2014 draft, which he did.
What a silly argument! The value of the Kesler trade was always going to be tied heavily to the success of the first round pick even if it happened to be a higher first round pick like many thought. Benning and Co rightly decided they would be able to find that value. Period. No analogies needed.
Toxic0n
We are all mumps
On the subject of the whole "Sutter is eating up tough shutdown minutes so Horvat can be in a more offensive role" thing...Is this actually backed up by statistics or just more regurgitated Benning-speak?
I'm not a coach with 50 years of experience or whatever, by to my untrained eye, it looks like Horvat has been getting the tougher minutes and Sutter is coasting on Sedin's wing. If true, why did we overpay for Sutter?
I'm not a coach with 50 years of experience or whatever, by to my untrained eye, it looks like Horvat has been getting the tougher minutes and Sutter is coasting on Sedin's wing. If true, why did we overpay for Sutter?
Absolutely. If people don't think Benning would be torn to shreds over that trade if he wasted that pick they're kidding themselves. If the 24th overall busted you wouldn't hear a single fan saying 'that trade wasn't so bad, after all, it was a 1st Rd pick! What he did with it is irrelevant in judging that deal!'.
That draft was wide open after the top 5-7 players. Didn't look like much separated 10th overall from 24th overall to me, and in hindsight, it still appears that way IMO. Can't say I would be in a big hurry to deal McCann for Nick Ritchie right now...
And yeah, I look at the Horvat/Schneider trade as an excellent one for Gillis. Not because he got a 9th overall pick, but because of what he did with it. If that pick was wasted, again, you wouldn't hear anyone claiming what a great trade it was. No way, no how. And yeah, I thought it was common knowledge that deal was agreed upon the night before the draft - they just wanted to give the crowd something to cheer about.
Looking at the Kesler return without knowing who would get picked it looked like a respectable return under the circumstances. After seeing what Benning could do with that pick at the draft table, it looks that much better.
he didnt complete the trade until he knew categorically that horvat was available. he essentially traded for horvat. the trades are different
Pip
Registered User
Agreed. Schneider was traded for Horvat. Kesler was traded for the 24th overall (plus the extra crap) and that pick was used on McCann.
Very different scenarios
Very different scenarios
You guys have a source for that? As I remember it, the trade was filed with the leage the night before but Betman requested it not be announced until the start of the draft.
Pretty irrelevant distinction regardless. Benning had some ideas on who would be available at 24 and felt he'd get a good prospect. He was right. Gillis also felt he'd get a good prospect at 9. Again, correct. And during the Ballard traee, Gillis didn't think they'd get a good prospect with that pick, so they dealt it. Yay, 3 for 3!
As for the overall discussion, I think it's more accurate to say it depends on the pick and the year. Obviously you trade a 6th for Weber and that 6th turns out to be Datsyuk it doesn't change that deal. But 1st rounders are a bit different. When all 3 deals above were consumated the GMs should have had some idea about who would be available. When you are talking about 1sts with the draft imminent (compared to say we dealt Vrbata tomorrow for a 1st) I expect a GM to have an idea of who he's getting, even if "one of these guys".
Using the two Gillis trades as examples, Gillis deserved credit for recognizing a deep draft giving extra value to #9, and he deserves credit for recognizing a shallow draft lowered the value of 14 or whatever it was that year.
Likewise Benjing deserves credit for getting a pick with which he'd be able to get a good prospect, even if it wasn't necessarily MCcann he was betting on getting.
If you are talking later round picks, I agree that the value at the time doesn't change depending on how the picks turn out. But when you acquire a 1st with the draft order determined, you should have some idea of who is going to be available, and thus who you pick ends up factoring into whether you got a good deal.
Pretty irrelevant distinction regardless. Benning had some ideas on who would be available at 24 and felt he'd get a good prospect. He was right. Gillis also felt he'd get a good prospect at 9. Again, correct. And during the Ballard traee, Gillis didn't think they'd get a good prospect with that pick, so they dealt it. Yay, 3 for 3!
As for the overall discussion, I think it's more accurate to say it depends on the pick and the year. Obviously you trade a 6th for Weber and that 6th turns out to be Datsyuk it doesn't change that deal. But 1st rounders are a bit different. When all 3 deals above were consumated the GMs should have had some idea about who would be available. When you are talking about 1sts with the draft imminent (compared to say we dealt Vrbata tomorrow for a 1st) I expect a GM to have an idea of who he's getting, even if "one of these guys".
Using the two Gillis trades as examples, Gillis deserved credit for recognizing a deep draft giving extra value to #9, and he deserves credit for recognizing a shallow draft lowered the value of 14 or whatever it was that year.
Likewise Benjing deserves credit for getting a pick with which he'd be able to get a good prospect, even if it wasn't necessarily MCcann he was betting on getting.
If you are talking later round picks, I agree that the value at the time doesn't change depending on how the picks turn out. But when you acquire a 1st with the draft order determined, you should have some idea of who is going to be available, and thus who you pick ends up factoring into whether you got a good deal.
WTG
December 5th
Bo Horvat ranked 15th by central scouting
Chances he would be available at 9? High.
McCann ranked 10th NA skaters.
Chances he would be available at 24th overall pick? Very, very low.
Again, Gillis targeted Horvat. Benning could not have possibly targeted McCann with the 24th overall pick.
Chances he would be available at 9? High.
McCann ranked 10th NA skaters.
Chances he would be available at 24th overall pick? Very, very low.
Again, Gillis targeted Horvat. Benning could not have possibly targeted McCann with the 24th overall pick.
as far as i know, the trade was concluded on a bunch of ifs, one being that horvat was available, one being that it wasn't leaked beforehand etc. im pretty sure both sides had the capacity to void the trade right up until its completion
i dont think the NHL would be willing to hold off on announcing the trade were it to officially occur. i could see GMs of the other teams being angry about that
thepuckmonster
Professional Winner.
If a deal wasn't agreed to already in principle, why was Aquaman at Luongo's house the day of the draft?
drax0s
Registered User
Jack Tripper
Vey Falls Down
even if the 9th overall pick wasn't used on horvat, the schneider trade wasn't terrible value because goaltenders (outside of phenoms like luongo/price or terrible picks like dipietro) simply don't hold enough value to merit a top ten selection
Sure, I'd love to -- 22 seconds in. You're welcome.
Thank you. I watched Gillis and L.L. videos today but didn't think about looking at Gilman.
Hehe
drax0s
Registered User
Heh. I searched for "Schneider trade night before", 4th link is a HFB thread with someone talking about "what Gilman said". Quick video search and bam!
nothing about what he said suggests the trade was officially completed before the announcement.
Cupless44
Registered User
- Jun 25, 2014
- 7,207
- 3,366
Untrue.
The trade was made the Friday night before the draft before any draft choices were made. It just wasn't announced until the pick because the NHL wants drama at the draft.
i dunno man, the trade was completed when the pick was available. it doesnt really matter if they agreed on the trade at the start of the season
- Status
