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

[Tobi Wan Kenobi]

The answer to the above questions is a resounding no. How anyone can have an opinion on a player that they haven't watched play amuses me....and 3 games of the WJC isn't a big enough or realistic sample size.

Informed opinions interest me. Uninformed opinions? Not so much, except for the lol factor.

Cool story bruh

 

[VanJack]

Anyone here watch Forsling in the SEL on a regular basis? IE: More than just a few games? I met a guy from Sweden last night who is over here visiting relatives and we were talking hockey, mostly about MoDo and the issues they'd been having around the team over the last several years. I then asked him what he thought about Forsling and he said that he thought he was not looked at as that great of a prospect even for the SEL and that he was having a disappointing season.

He also said that he was a bottom pairing guy on his team, not particularly effective, and was basically just known to have a good shot but not much else. He said he didn't think the kid would ever make it to the NHL.


This took me a bit by surprise as I had been lead to believe (And it was my opinion) that he was at least a good prospect.

Anyone who actually WATCHES the SEL able to weigh in? Was he not having a very good season in the SEL? I'd like someone to weigh in who isn't just looking at stats... although his stats weren't very impressive either. Not very offensive numbers for an offensive defenseman.

He's an 18-year old d-man playing a regular shift in the SHL, top professional league in Sweden, and was apparently good enough to be an all-star playing against kids his own age at the WJC...how bad can he be? I guess we'll find out. But the Hawks seem confident enough to trade a guy they drafted in the second round and developed in the minors for three years, instead of swapping him on the open market for a much higher return. Can't blame some 'Nuck fans for having the 'worry beads' out on this one.

 

[Lindgren]

He's an 18-year old d-man playing a regular shift in the SHL, top professional league in Sweden, and was apparently good enough to be an all-star playing against kids his own age at the WJC...how bad can he be? I guess we'll find out. But the Hawks seem confident enough to trade a guy they drafted in the second round and developed in the minors for three years, instead of swapping him on the open market for a much higher return. Can't blame some 'Nuck fans for having the 'worry beads' out on this one.

I have no idea how the trade will work out, but the logic here (and numbers of other posts that agree with you) puzzles me a bit. The Hawks were willing to let Clendening go. The Canucks were willing to let Forsling go. Why should the former cause skepticism about Clendening but the latter not cause scepticism about Forsling? Why is the trade not thought to have taken place on the "open market"?

 

[TheWanderer]

I have no idea how the trade will work out, but the logic here (and numbers of other posts that agree with you) puzzles me a bit. The Hawks were willing to let Clendening go. The Canucks were willing to let Forsling go. Why should the former cause skepticism about Clendening but the latter not cause scepticism about Forsling? Why is the trade not thought to have taken place on the "open market"?

Probably because a tin foil hat, or an agenda labelled "Anti-Benning", has no merit here

 

[VanJack]

I have no idea how the trade will work out, but the logic here (and numbers of other posts that agree with you) puzzles me a bit. The Hawks were willing to let Clendening go. The Canucks were willing to let Forsling go. Why should the former cause skepticism about Clendening but the latter not cause scepticism about Forsling? Why is the trade not thought to have taken place on the "open market"?

It's simple really...you're trading an 18-year d-man playing regularly in the SHL for a 22-year old who's been playing in the minors and was deemed expendable by the Hawks. You have to believe they could have traded Clendening for a much higher return somewhere else...after all, he's a right-shooting d-man with decent pp stats....but obviously the Hawks wanted Forsling, who was only a fifth-rounder last year. Predicting that one team is going to have 'egg on its face' from this deal. Might be the Hawks. But the track record suggests otherwise.

 

[Tiranis]

Anyone who actually WATCHES the SEL able to weigh in? Was he not having a very good season in the SEL? I'd like someone to weigh in who isn't just looking at stats... although his stats weren't very impressive either. Not very offensive numbers for an offensive defenseman.

This is the list of U19 players in the SHL:

http://www.eliteprospects.com/league.php?season=2014&leagueid=SHL&nation=&sort=u19

Not only is Forsling 6th in overall scoring, he's the 1st D-man. So that discredits your 'not very offensive' numbers point. Then there's the fact that he played top 4 minutes for most of the season ahead of Chicago's 2nd round pick from 2013. Don't need to watch the games to be able to make conclusions based on that.

Then there's all the games at the WJC.

Here's Forsling's detailed stats for this season:

http://www.shl.se/statistics/player...SHL/D/All/LHC/All/All/All/dec?lang=sv&count=0

As you can see, he's 5th on his team in minutes but one of the guys ahead of him has only played 14 games. While he was out, Forsling was playing 18+ minutes a game and was tied for 3rd on the team. Also worth noting that he plays almost as much on the PK as on the PP.

 

[Lindgren]

It's simple really...you're trading an 18-year d-man playing regularly in the SHL for a 22-year old who's been playing in the minors and was deemed expendable by the Hawks. You have to believe they could have traded Clendening for a much higher return somewhere else...after all, he's a right-shooting d-man with decent pp stats....but obviously the Hawks wanted Forsling, who was only a fifth-rounder last year. Predicting that one team is going to have 'egg on its face' from this deal. Might be the Hawks. But the track record suggests otherwise.

The argument doesn't make sense. Clendening was deemed expendable. Forsling was also deemed expendable. If the Hawks could have received a higher return elsewhere, why didn't they?

Anyone the Canucks trade for will have been deemed "expendable" by whichever team trades them.

 

[CanaFan]

Have to agree with the posters questioning the logic of "well if Chicago was willing to let Clendening go there must be something wrong with him ...".

Makes no sense as any trade involves two parties "willing" to part with their asset. Obviously this should temper our expectations for Clendening somewhat - he was acquired for a player recently drafted in the 5th round - but it can't be used to credit or discredit the trade itself since the same thinking must apply to Forsling as well.

As for "track records", as far as I can tell Benning doesn't have enough of one either way to say whether Van or Chi is likely to be the loser. Odds are still high that neither player pans out. The only difference is we *know* Clendening can at least play at a high level in the AHL while that is still an unknown for Forsling.

 

[Tiranis]

The only difference is we *know* Clendening can at least play at a high level in the AHL while that is still an unknown for Forsling.

One has to be careful with these types of arguments too. Technically we don't know that McDavid can play in the AHL either but it's a "decent" bet that he can. To bring it closer to home, we didn't know that Corrado could play in the AHL and the NHL but it was a decent bet based on his development.

 

[Lindgren]

One has to be careful with these types of arguments too. Technically we don't know that McDavid can play in the AHL either but it's a "decent" bet that he can. To bring it closer to home, we didn't know that Corrado could play in the AHL and the NHL but it was a decent bet based on his development.

The trade seems to me to be about risk. At this point, it doesn't look like Clendening is going to be a top pairing guy (not saying it can't happen, but just dealing with probabilities based on his development). On the other hand, he's further along than Forsling and looks less likely to be a complete bust. There's no guarantee he'll make it in the NHL, but it seems likely. Forsling, on the other hand, could be a star, or he could be the next Leif Rohlin.

 

[Tiranis]

There's no guarantee he'll make it in the NHL, but it seems likely.

He's also a few steps from being the next Gragnani. That is a real downside here.

(I'm not actually particularly down on Clendening, just playing the devil's advocate for the most part.)

 

[Lindgren]

He's also a few steps from being the next Gragnani. That is a real downside here.

Absolutely. No guarantee. Same for Forsling.

 

[CanaFan]

One has to be careful with these types of arguments too. Technically we don't know that McDavid can play in the AHL either but it's a "decent" bet that he can. To bring it closer to home, we didn't know that Corrado could play in the AHL and the NHL but it was a decent bet based on his development.

Of course and I wouldn't use it to suggest dealing Virtanen or McCann for Clendening since the 'upside' and 'surety' of both players is obviously higher. But we are talking about a player who was recently a 5th round pick and historical odds show that the majority of these players never become impact players at even the AHL level. And while Forsling's performance in the SHL and WJC's must be factored in to his post-draft value, it also confirmed he has some of the same mobility and defensive challenges as Clendening. In many ways they seem to be quite similar as prospects, with the main difference being where they are at currently in their development curve rather than absolute ceiling.

 

[Bad News Benning]

The trade seems to me to be about risk. At this point, it doesn't look like Clendening is going to be a top pairing guy (not saying it can't happen, but just dealing with probabilities based on his development). On the other hand, he's further along than Forsling and looks less likely to be a complete bust. There's no guarantee he'll make it in the NHL, but it seems likely. Forsling, on the other hand, could be a star, or he could be the next Leif Rohlin.

Forsling will not be a star I can tell you that much. He will be lucky to play a game in the NHL let alone be a star. He will likely spend most of his career in Sweden like many others who fail to adapt to North American hockey.

 

[Free Edler]

This is the list of U19 players in the SHL:

http://www.eliteprospects.com/league.php?season=2014&leagueid=SHL&nation=&sort=Defensemen

Not only is Forsling 6th in overall scoring, he's the 1st D-man. So that discredits your 'not very offensive' numbers point. Then there's the fact that he played top 4 minutes for most of the season ahead of Chicago's 2nd round pick from 2013. Don't need to watch the games to be able to make conclusions based on that.

I was looking at that first list. Is Linus Hultstrom any good? He seems to be scoring at a pretty good clip for a young defenceman.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Have to agree with the posters questioning the logic of "well if Chicago was willing to let Clendening go there must be something wrong with him ...".

Makes no sense as any trade involves two parties "willing" to part with their asset. Obviously this should temper our expectations for Clendening somewhat - he was acquired for a player recently drafted in the 5th round - but it can't be used to credit or discredit the trade itself since the same thinking must apply to Forsling as well.

As for "track records", as far as I can tell Benning doesn't have enough of one either way to say whether Van or Chi is likely to be the loser. Odds are still high that neither player pans out. The only difference is we *know* Clendening can at least play at a high level in the AHL while that is still an unknown for Forsling.

we get a little to obsessed with "equal value" and "winning" and "losing" trades, both of which are missing the forest for the trees in my opinion.

if we get something we need now for something we have a surplus of, which is what clendening for forsling seems like to me, then great. if chicago also benefits, if down the road chicago turns out to benefit more, who cares (unless, of course, we meet them in the playoffs)? did clendening make our team better than forsling would have? that's the real measure of success.

for the same reasons, this "there must be something wrong with him if the geniuses in chicago [or LA] were willing to toss him" argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me. i mean, there might be something wrong with him. there was certainly something wrong with cam barker. but look at vey: i'm not sold on him yet, but he was expendable because there were guys better than him. but by itself, him not being as good as the young forwards they kept (tyler toffoli and tanner pearson) doesn't mean there's something "wrong" with vey; it just means that pearson and especially toffoli are awesome players and vey is less awesome. it just so happened that LA had a surplus and it made sense for them to pick up a future asset for a redundant present one.

 

[CanaFan]

we get a little to obsessed with "equal value" and "winning" and "losing" trades, both of which are missing the forest for the trees in my opinion.

if we get something we need now for something we have a surplus of, which is what clendening for forsling seems like to me, then great. if chicago also benefits, if down the road chicago turns out to benefit more, who cares (unless, of course, we meet them in the playoffs)? did clendening make our team better than forsling would have? that's the real measure of success.

for the same reasons, this "there must be something wrong with him if the geniuses in chicago [or LA] were willing to toss him" argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me. i mean, there might be something wrong with him. there was certainly something wrong with cam barker. but look at vey: i'm not sold on him yet, but he was expendable because there were guys better than him. but by itself, him not being as good as the young forwards they kept (tyler toffoli and tanner pearson) doesn't mean there's something "wrong" with vey; it just means that pearson and especially toffoli are awesome players and vey is less awesome. it just so happened that LA had a surplus and it made sense for them to pick up a future asset for a redundant present one.

Agree with pretty much all this and tbh I would argue the "full pipeline" is one of the best opportunities to acquire an asset at a slight discount from their 'true' value (player demanded trades i.e. Ryan Kesler scenarios being the other). In the end, most probably don't pan out (like most prospects and unproven kids) but every so often you luck out and pluck a Naslund off a stacked Pittsburgh roster and it can end up being a massive steal.

 

[Tiranis]

I was looking at that first list. Is Linus Hultstrom any good? He seems to be scoring at a pretty good clip for a young defenceman.

I posted the wrong list

http://www.eliteprospects.com/league.php?season=2014&leagueid=SHL&nation=&sort=u19

 

[Free Edler]

I posted the wrong list

http://www.eliteprospects.com/league.php?season=2014&leagueid=SHL&nation=&sort=u19

Oops.

Wow, Holmstrom is looking like a real find for Detroit.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Agree with pretty much all this and tbh I would argue the "full pipeline" is one of the best opportunities to acquire an asset at a slight discount from their 'true' value (player demanded trades i.e. Ryan Kesler scenarios being the other). In the end, most probably don't pan out (like most prospects and unproven kids) but every so often you luck out and pluck a Naslund off a stacked Pittsburgh roster and it can end up being a massive steal.

upthread i posted, but no one noticed, that around the turn of the 90s, the habs had a ridiculous pipeline of young d-men where 24 year old petr svoboda was the oldest guy, and desjardins, lefebvre, schneider, and odelein were all coming into the league at almost exactly the same time, alongside a couple of other guys that didn't work like alain cote and donald dufresne. they also had sean hill waiting in the minors and brisebois still in junior.

so crafty old pat quinn sends a 2nd and a 4th round pick to steal lumme and diduck from them. those were our two best defensemen of that era.

 

[Tiranis]

Oops.

Wow, Holmstrom is looking like a real find for Detroit.

His skating is god-awful. I wanted us to take him in the 6th or 7th but that's definitely a case where there's more to it than stats. (Still, much better gamble than the ones we took.)

 

[CanaFan]

upthread i posted, but no one noticed, that around the turn of the 90s, the habs had a ridiculous pipeline of young d-men where 24 year old petr svoboda was the oldest guy, and desjardins, lefebvre, schneider, and odelein were all coming into the league at almost exactly the same time, alongside a couple of other guys that didn't work like alain cote and donald dufresne. they also had sean hill waiting in the minors and brisebois still in junior.

so crafty old pat quinn sends a 2nd and a 4th round pick to steal lumme and diduck from them. those were our two best defensemen of that era.

Yep pretty much the same approach. And while I can understand people cautioning not to get too excited about Clendening, it is the type of gamble I feel offers a slight premium to the Canucks owing to the fact that Chicago had to deal Clendening to avoid losing him on waivers next year (when they otherwise might have preferred to keep him)while Vancouver had no such pressure to move Forsling.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

The argument doesn't make sense. Clendening was deemed expendable. Forsling was also deemed expendable. If the Hawks could have received a higher return elsewhere, why didn't they?

Anyone the Canucks trade for will have been deemed "expendable" by whichever team trades them.

I think the key issue is that people have a lot less confidence in Benning deciding someone is expendable than they do the Blackhawks.

Benning's track record in terms of whom he deemed "expendable" as of late(Seguin, Garrison, Santorelli) hasn't exactly been encouraging.

 

[CanaFan]

I think the key issue is that people have a lot less confidence in Benning deciding someone is expendable than they do the Blackhawks.

Benning's track record in terms of whom he deemed "expendable" as of late(Seguin, Garrison, Santorelli) hasn't exactly been encouraging.

Roster players are a whole different matter than prospects. One has to do with how you want to construct your team today, the other has more to do with how you project these players to develop.

And "not having confidence" in Benning is a flawed argument when trying to assess a trade at the outset, since it will apply to every single trade he ever makes and there isnt a GM in the league who has made 100% good or 100% bad moves in his tenure. It speaks more to each person's subjective take on Benning rather than the specifics of the trade itself.

 

[684]

I think the key issue is that people have a lot less confidence in Benning deciding someone is expendable than they do the Blackhawks.

Benning's track record in terms of whom he deemed "expendable" as of late(Seguin, Garrison, Santorelli) hasn't exactly been encouraging.

Yup very true, it's something to keep our eyes on for sure. I'll keep my tabs open on Forsling.