Confirmed with Link: [CHI/VAN] Gustav Forsling traded for Adam Clendening

[Tables of Stats]

Your definition quite literally makes no sense. Basically we could trade any of our prospects who haven't regressed yet and it would be "selling high" according to you.

Yes, that is exactly the case. When you have a prospect that started out at low value and currently has a much higher value then you need to make a call; if you project that his value may ultimately drop you need to trade that prospect before his value levels off again, if you think your prospect is likely to grow significantly in value or fill an organizational need in the near term you hold onto them. In this case Benning thought that Forsling's value was at a high point and that it was likely to regress back to some mean for the near future, so he moved him. Looking longer term he may not have ultimately reached his absolute peak, but this is a risk you make whenever you trade any player that isn't already in their late 20's.

To use a business example, you have a start up that has grown significantly over a short span but is still at a point where it isn't fully established. Your current valuation is $100,000 and you've been offered a significantly larger and safer asset that is already passed the issues facing your start up but still has solid growth potential ahead of it, the question is do you take it? This is the question Benning faced and ultimately he decided that the offer was fair and sold his start up for a more proven asset.

 

[yoss]

Shrewd move by Benning by all appearances; that's right I said it, shrewd. Wonder if he gets into the lineup straightaway, bonus that apparently he's played with Stanton before. Like that he's a puck moving defensemen, we need those. It's painful to watch how they manage to get themselves hemmed in sometimes. Might help out the PP too.

 

[Archangel]

Chicago has no need for Clendening with their right side depth. another smart move by our GM keeping on top of who's available. Forsling is nothing more than a 5th round project.

The chicago board is saying that this also has to do with Clendening and his waiver eligibility next season

 

[VanillaCoke]

I love trades.

This is a clear win for this organization. I would've rather traded a 4th or 5th rounder but forsling is close enough.

 

[Intoewsables]

On one hand, I really like that Benning is targeting good, young players trapped behind depth (particularly Vey and Clendening; not so much Pedan). I have a bit of a preference towards NHL-ready prospects, so I certainly approve of the mindset here. Doesn't hurt that our pro scouting seems to be much more competent than their amateur counterparts either.

On the other, Clendening's a guy that will be waiver eligible next season. If he's not ready for full-time duty by then, this move is going to look pretty questionable. I know I'm being captain obvious here, but it would suck to give up a decent prospect for nothing if we end up having to waive Clendening (assuming he'd be picked up).

In all, I think I approve. Forsling looks like a legitimate prospect, but I think expectations were being blown out of proportion a little because of his performance at the WJC's. I don't mind giving him up for a player like Clendening who's further along in his development with similar upside.

 

[Havre]

RHD who can play on the PP. He has to be quite bad defensively then to not play.

If he is good or even just OK this is a good move by the Canucks. Would be perfect if he develops into a top 4 guy. Then our right side all of a sudden looks decent with him and Tanev.

 

[timorousme]

This guy is 22, can play the North American game and has put up an amazing amount of points (for a defenceman) in the AHL.

BUT FORSLING WAS COMPLIMENTED BY BOB MCKENZIE!!!

Never change HF.

God right. This is a good trade. They took Forsling and fast tracked him four years. Cool.

 

[rajvandam]

We just got a 2nd round draft pick who is 22 now for an 18 year old 5th round draft pick. The 22 year old has had some pretty good seasons in the AHL. I noticed though his 2 good seasons were when his AHL team missed the playoffs.

This season he's struggling but his team is leading their division. Strange.

I also notice that his team this season was allowing about 2.2 goals per game while last season and the season before his team allowed 3.4 and 2.9 goals per game. Maybe if give the green light Clendening can score some points? Not sure.

 

[Tables of Stats]

We just got a 2nd round draft pick who is 22 now for an 18 year old 5th round draft pick. The 22 year old has had some pretty good seasons in the AHL. I noticed though his 2 good seasons were when his AHL team missed the playoffs.

This season he's struggling but his team is leading their division. Strange.

I also notice that his team this season was allowing about 2.2 goals per game while last season and the season before his team allowed 3.4 and 2.9 goals per game. Maybe if give the green light Clendening can score some points? Not sure.

I don't think he's lost anything in his game or can't put up those points again, but he'd lost his shine where he was and wasn't being given the same chances he had in earlier seasons. This is because Chicago brought in a few new prospects, one of which took over his spot on the PP, and he's been forced onto a weaker pairing and asked to play a safer game. Plus, even with this 'bad' season, he'd be second in scoring among Comets d-dmen, so that has to be worth something.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

My thoughts exactly... plus we need help NOW.

Would think Weber is on the outs soon and that we'll see Clendening up here ASAP. Here's hoping we see some forward changes to this group ASAP as well. Benning (as per 1040 interview today) had a talk with Kassian today. Have to think that if he doesn't respond to Benning, he's gone at the trade deadline.

Love Benning making some moves and getting involved, this D move seems like a good one to me.

This.
Maybe Kassian + Weber+ Late round pick for a forward?

 

[The Stig]

I don't think he's lost anything in his game or can't put up those points again, but he'd lost his shine where he was and wasn't being given the same chances he had in earlier seasons. This is because Chicago brought in a few new prospects, one of which took over his spot on the PP, and he's been forced onto a weaker pairing and asked to play a safer game. Plus, even with this 'bad' season, he'd be second in scoring among Comets d-dmen, so that has to be worth something.

Worth something indeed. He has the tools. Lets see if Lidster can use them. He's worked wonders bringing Edler back from the dead and kept Tanev rolling along. I think Bieksa is beyond hope so I don't hold that against him. If he turns into that #6 that we can throw on the powerplay, we just got a dose of exactly what we needed.

 

[absolute garbage]

A weird trade. You rarely see just drafted players traded after they show big promise in their draft+1 season. You rarely see the Canucks draft a player like that in the first place and now that they finally had one, I'm not blaming people for being upset about the trade.

This move is obviously just about getting ahead in development. The Canucks need help ASAP and there was no time to wait Forsling to go the "Corrado-route". Forsling is definitely the more unknown here, in good and bad, so I'm pretty sure if it was possible to wait and see what Forsling could do they would've preferred it, rather than try to "quick fix" the situation like this. That wasn't the reality though, they needed an immediate impact.

How the trade is going to end up? That's impossible to say. Forsling could become the next Karlsson, or Tommernes. Clendening could become the next Campbell, or Gragnani. I'm just glad it was one for one, value was fine, and Benning didn't throw in a second rounder or something.

Will be interesting to see how WDJ handles this. Not very confident about his ways with the young guys. This could be different of course since it was a current management acquisition.

 

[God]

Ugh.

Yes, we got a good player in return. But Clendening was the odd man out in Chicago, and would be waiver eligible next year. Players like that are not worth promising prospects. They're worth 3rd round picks in 2016 (and, for that matter, Pedan is not one of them).

The hockey aspects of this trade are a wash. People criticize Forsling for a poor defensive game, but Clendening has that problem too. And Forsling is an 18 year old who, until recently, was playing top 4 minutes for the 3rd place SHL team.

The issue here is asset management. It stinks. It's stunk for every move Benning has made.

A GM said during the draft that Benning was an easy negotiator. Those words couldn't be truer.

 

[God]

I love trades.

This is a clear win for this organization. I would've rather traded a 4th or 5th rounder but forsling is close enough.

If all of our 4th and 5th round picks turn out to have draft+1 seasons like Forsling, I would be incredibly happy.

 

[God]

I also wonder why they didn't just put Sanguinetti in a couple of games to see how well he performed. Or even Biega.

 

[Wilch]

Yes, that is exactly the case. When you have a prospect that started out at low value and currently has a much higher value then you need to make a call; if you project that his value may ultimately drop you need to trade that prospect before his value levels off again, if you think your prospect is likely to grow significantly in value or fill an organizational need in the near term you hold onto them. In this case Benning thought that Forsling's value was at a high point and that it was likely to regress back to some mean for the near future, so he moved him. Looking longer term he may not have ultimately reached his absolute peak, but this is a risk you make whenever you trade any player that isn't already in their late 20's.

To use a business example, you have a start up that has grown significantly over a short span but is still at a point where it isn't fully established. Your current valuation is $100,000 and you've been offered a significantly larger and safer asset that is already passed the issues facing your start up but still has solid growth potential ahead of it, the question is do you take it? This is the question Benning faced and ultimately he decided that the offer was fair and sold his start up for a more proven asset.

Maybe he doesn't level off and progresses like Pastrnak.

You can say Benning thinks this is Forsling's peak value in the short wrong, but he isn't infallible.

 

[Tables of Stats]

Maybe he doesn't level off and progresses like Pastrnak.

You can say Benning thinks this is Forsling's peak value in the short wrong, but he isn't infallible.

And your point is? We all agree that you can't accurately predict a prospects path, but I think we can agree that having a few more 22-24 year old prospects that have cooked and are ready for a jump is a good thing. Should we have given up picks or maybe Jensen+ for him instead?

 

[JuniorNelson]

Shrewd move by Benning by all appearances; that's right I said it, shrewd. Wonder if he gets into the lineup straightaway, bonus that apparently he's played with Stanton before. Like that he's a puck moving defensemen, we need those. It's painful to watch how they manage to get themselves hemmed in sometimes. Might help out the PP too.

Right. This is what I hoped Benning would be like. He was hyped as a guy who can find needles in the haystack but you never know until he is seen in action.

I think this sends a really positive message to the league and hockey at large. The Canucks are not fancifully run any more, not under this management, is the feeling I get. I really think this is key to making useful moves at the deadline and beyond. Guys have to waive for Vancouver or it isn't going to work.

 

[Verviticus]

i would have given up jensen easily

 

[Tables of Stats]

i would have given up jensen easily

Jensen and what else? Let's not mince words here, there is no way Jensen alone gets us anywhere close to Clendening at this stage.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Ugh.

Yes, we got a good player in return. But Clendening was the odd man out in Chicago, and would be waiver eligible next year. Players like that are not worth promising prospects. They're worth 3rd round picks in 2016 (and, for that matter, Pedan is not one of them).

Meh. I'd rather give up a 5th over a 3rd. Just in general, even if it's a year out.

This deal represents better reasoning/intellect from Benning than the Pedan deal. Way better.

I do agree though that waiver priority should have been exploited somewhat.

The hockey aspects of this trade are a wash. People criticize Forsling for a poor defensive game, but Clendening has that problem too. And Forsling is an 18 year old who, until recently, was playing top 4 minutes for the 3rd place SHL team.

The issue here is asset management. It stinks. It's stunk for every move Benning has made.

A GM said during the draft that Benning was an easy negotiator. Those words couldn't be truer.

I don't think Benning is the type of GM to get a steal. He won't press the advantage in negotiations. I get the same impression.

My read on the deal: It totally comes down to Benning's "eye for talent". To deal Forsling so quickly, Benning must be pretty confident that AC is, and will likely be, a better player than Forsling. Let's see if he's right?

But 2 things I do like: He targeted a very specific skillset. Even if AC flops, he will get every opportunity to showcase his stuff due to his attributes. The right shot is huge here, despite the mediocre wheels.

And secondly, he's trying to 'vulture' players from stacked teams (generally a good idea). Continued from Vey and Pedan. But in this case, the cost seems much more in line.

 

[absolute garbage]

Ugh.

Yes, we got a good player in return. But Clendening was the odd man out in Chicago, and would be waiver eligible next year. Players like that are not worth promising prospects. They're worth 3rd round picks in 2016 (and, for that matter, Pedan is not one of them).

That is somewhat concerning, yeah. Clendening's first 2 AHL seasons were great but he hasn't been able to make the jump to the NHL despite those successful years, and is now having a disappointing third year while getting passed by younger guys coming into the system.

I'm not sure what to think of it to be honest. Is it the case of not having the proper opportunity in a deep organization and the management giving higher priority to new guys coming in since they already know what Clendening does. Or does he have major flaws in his game that prevent him getting those opportunities.

What is interesting and concerning is that Rockford is having a much better season now that Clendening is playing in a diminished role, compared to his two previous high scoring seasons in which the team wasn't very successful. Not sure if it's coincidence or that he is one of those Jack Johnson guys.

In the case of Pedan a lot of people made the "deep organization" excuse while in reality he just isn't very good. Yet, at least, although personally I'd be surprised if he ever makes it as a regular in the NHL. At least Clendening has had 2 excellent seasons (points wise at least) in the AHL, so he's got that going for him.

The issue here is asset management. It stinks. It's stunk for every move Benning has made.

A GM said during the draft that Benning was an easy negotiator. Those words couldn't be truer.

This is very similar trade to the Vey trade. The biggest difference is the Canucks have a bigger need for a player like Clendening than they did for a player like Vey, so the trade is a bit more justified. They are hoping to take a shortcut, save the development time, and insert a young player right into their lineup. That's not going to be free, and it could backfire.

But yeah other GMs have feasted on Benning, that's for sure.

 

[Verviticus]

Jensen and what else? Let's not mince words here, there is no way Jensen alone gets us anywhere close to Clendening at this stage.

a basically unknown 5th rounder with a good wjc just got him. what do you think he was worth?

 

[absolute garbage]

And secondly, he's trying to 'vulture' players from stacked teams (generally a good idea). Continued from Vey and Pedan. But in this case, the cost seems much more in line.

Yeah, that's the correct idea. Just like Stanton and Ehrhoff (even Sestito to some extent). Deep, successful organizations who simply don't have enough room to keep all their players.

Gillis got those guys for free. I remember when he traded for Ehrhoff he had been kicking tires regarding that for like a year. That's negotiating. Benning has this "give him to me, now" attitude (whether it's trades or UFAs, hello Miller's contract) and that's not going to come cheap.

 

[Tables of Stats]

a basically unknown 5th rounder with a good wjc just got him. what do you think he was worth?

You mean a 5th rounder that was trending well, had a great WJC, is younger, and fills Chicago's organizational need for lefty d-men that have years left before they're waiver eligible. I don't know, why don't you tell me what else Chicago would have taken for him if you assume Clendening's value was basically nil.