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

[Rotting Corpse*]

Oh. Ok, got it. You're sticking with your narrative that "Benning is an idiot" and dismissing any other evidence because aren't willing to entertain the possibility that you might be judging him a bit too soon.

That clarity makes things easier.

. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

 

[CanaFan]

. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

Or maybe try evaluating his transactions based on .... oh I don't know, the transaction itself, instead of clouding it with your personal bias?

Gillis was a GMing genius according to some yet he still made several stinkers in his time.

Craig MacTavish is running the most embarrassing franchise the league has seen in decades yet he still engineered the theft of David Perron for MPS.

Good GMs can make bad trades, bad GM's can make good trades. Far better approach is to consider the merits of the trade itself, rather than just the parties involved.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Or maybe try evaluating his transactions based on .... oh I don't know, the transaction itself, instead of clouding it with your personal bias?

If you can provide a single example of a transaction I haven't done this with I will give you fifty dollars.

I would love it if this group could make a transaction that I agree with.i would love nothing more. I couldn't give a **** about this GM vs that GM or whatever. I just want my team to win.

So far virtually nothing this group has done has made any sense to me. That's not some agenda against them. I didn't bristle at their hiring and hoped like everyone else that they'd do the right things. But I can't make any sense out of what they are doing and if Benning isn't an idiot I wish he'd stop acting and talking like one soon. I sincerely wish that.

The fact that people like you have to keep bringing up Gillis in threads that have nothing to do with him is infuriating. I couldn't give a **** about Gillis. The debate over him vs this GM or that GM couldn't be less interesting to me. I don't care. I don't. I care about the current management group running the team into the ground for the sake of marketing and their own egos.

 

[CanaFan]

If you can provide a single example of a transaction I haven't done this with I will give you fifty dollars.

I would love it if this group could make a transaction that I agree with.i would love nothing more. I couldn't give a **** about this GM vs that GM or whatever. I just want my team to win.

So far virtually nothing this group has done has made any sense to me. That's not some agenda against them. I didn't bristle at their hiring and hoped like everyone else that they'd do the right things. But I can't make any sense out of what they are doing and if Benning isn't an idiot I wish he'd stop acting and talking like one soon. I sincerely wish that.

The fact that people like you have to keep bringing up Gillis in threads that have nothing to do with him is infuriating. I couldn't give a **** about Gillis. The debate over him vs this GM or that GM couldn't be less interesting to me. I don't care. I don't. I care about the current management group running the team into the ground for the sake of marketing and their own egos.

I brought up Gillis (and MacT) to illustrate why shouldn't judge a trade simply by who made it. Judge it on the merits of the trade itself, namely Forsling and Clendening. If you have done so elsewhere in this thread, then my bad but your post seemed to be validating the notion that you can judge this trade as 'bad' simply because Benning made it.

 

[Nuckles]

I brought up Gillis (and MacT) to illustrate why shouldn't judge a trade simply by who made it. Judge it on the merits of the trade itself, namely Forsling and Clendening. If you have done so elsewhere in this thread, then my bad but your post seemed to be validating the notion that you can judge this trade as 'bad' simply because Benning made it.

He doesn't dislike the trades because of Benning, he dislikes Benning because of the trades he has made.

And I feel the same way as him (though I think this Clendening trade is his first decent trade, it's definitely the first trade I don't dislike).

 

[CanaFan]

He doesn't dislike the trades because of Benning, he dislikes Benning because of the trades he has made.

And I feel the same way as him (though I think this Clendening trade is his first decent trade, it's definitely the first trade I don't dislike).

That's fine and good, he can like or dislike Benning all he wants (or at least we can debate it in the Benning thread) but this is the Forsling-Clendening trade thread and his post appeared to be siding with the argument that VKW put forward about not liking the trade because of Benning's track record. If that's not the case, then cool but his post wasn't entirely clear about that.

 

[racerjoe]

He doesn't dislike the trades because of Benning, he dislikes Benning because of the trades he has made.

And I feel the same way as him (though I think this Clendening trade is his first decent trade, it's definitely the first trade I don't dislike).

Totally agree with both. I can't wait for the deadline, even if it scares me a bit but I think it could shed some light on decisions.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

That's fine and good, he can like or dislike Benning all he wants (or at least we can debate it in the Benning thread) but this is the Forsling-Clendening trade thread and his post appeared to be siding with the argument that VKW put forward about not liking the trade because of Benning's track record. If that's not the case, then cool but his post wasn't entirely clear about that.

I never said I disliked the trade because of Benning's track record, I dislike it because I like Forsling. Benning's track record is simply a reason why plenty of people are understandably apprehensive about the trade.

 

[Reign Nateo]

http://www.secondcityhockey.com/201...dening-trade-analysis-blackhawks-canucks-2015

Article on why Clendening was available from a Blackhawks' perspective.

Spoiler: It's not because he was terrible and can't skate...

 

[Lindgren]

I never said I disliked the trade because of Benning's track record, I dislike it because I like Forsling. Benning's track record is simply a reason why plenty of people are understandably apprehensive about the trade.

So, to be clear, you dislike the trade because you like Forsling, but you and others are apprehensive about the trade because of Benning's track record. The distinction is between dislike and apprehension.

 

[Free Edler]

http://www.secondcityhockey.com/201...dening-trade-analysis-blackhawks-canucks-2015

Article on why Clendening was available from a Blackhawks' perspective.

Spoiler: It's not because he was terrible and can't skate...

But the guy who hates every move Benning makes said it was because he was awful. I'm so confused.

 

[tantalum]

http://www.secondcityhockey.com/201...dening-trade-analysis-blackhawks-canucks-2015

Article on why Clendening was available from a Blackhawks' perspective.

Spoiler: It's not because he was terrible and can't skate...

That was a lot of words to say at a certain age you are either making good strides to be a core piece or you are a depth/supporting player at best. If the latter on a team with a good talent pipeline you will be moved.

It's basically what in think I said about the trade...he could prove to be a good complimentary piece as a third pairing PP specialist type of player but he likely won't be a core player. Same thing with Vey. But the organisation needs some of this early 20s depth and it will come at some expense. Right now future prospects and picks and taking the brunt of the bill. However I suspect that will be balanced when a veteran of two are moved. Or I hope so.

 

[CanaFan]

I never said I disliked the trade because of Benning's track record, I dislike it because I like Forsling. Benning's track record is simply a reason why plenty of people are understandably apprehensive about the trade.

Fine, I can respect that. Question about Forsling then, what do you like about him over Clendening, either currently or how he projects? And if the 2014 draft were re-done tomorrow, where would you slot Forsling to go (approximately)?

 

[CanaFan]

http://www.secondcityhockey.com/201...dening-trade-analysis-blackhawks-canucks-2015

Article on why Clendening was available from a Blackhawks' perspective.

Spoiler: It's not because he was terrible and can't skate...

Reminds me a lot of why Grabner was traded by in 2010. Young guy approaching waiver-eligible status who hadn't clearly grabbed a spot on a team focused on winning today yet still had the potential to be a good (but not elite) player in the NHL. Chicago essentially re-set their time horizon with the trade by acquiring a like-player to the one they were about to lose with perhaps a higher upside but also a higher downside. Vancouver did the reverse, adding a much needed 22 yo to their mix and perhaps giving up some upside (or downside) in Forsling. Assuming a 3-4 year timeline for Forsling to potentially crack the roster, that would put the Canucks current D core at 37 (Bieksa), 36 (Hamhuis), 32 (Edler), and 29 (Tanev) by the time he is even breaking in as a wide-eyed rookie. Adding Clendening now allows the Canucks the luxury of mentoring him with veterans like Hamhuis at/near their prime rather than doing the same with Forsling well past their prime. This puts less pressure on Clendening to "sink or swim" at 22 and allows him to learn and grow his game in a reasonably stable, positive environment (i.e. not the Justin Schultz way).

I personally like this approach and while it is a gamble, it is a reasonably small one given the historic odds of 5th round picks turning out and the fact that Clendening still has room left in his own growth curve.

 

[Eye Test Approved]

I think clendening lied about his age. He looks 40

 

[Diamonddog01]

Or maybe try evaluating his transactions based on .... oh I don't know, the transaction itself, instead of clouding it with your personal bias?

Gillis was a GMing genius according to some yet he still made several stinkers in his time.

Craig MacTavish is running the most embarrassing franchise the league has seen in decades yet he still engineered the theft of David Perron for MPS.

Good GMs can make bad trades, bad GM's can make good trades. Far better approach is to consider the merits of the trade itself, rather than just the parties involved.

Well said. There are a few posters on here who will criticize Benning on each and every single move he makes, despite knowing absolutely nothing regarding the players involved (Pedan, Clendening, Dorsett, etc).

Benning could trade Bieksa for Stamkos and I'm sure we'd see a slew of arguments as to Benning is such an idiot, how Bieksa is actually underrated due to some obscure advanced statistic, blah blah blah.

It's predictable and growing increasingly tiresome.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

Well said. There are a few posters on here who will criticize Benning on each and every single move he makes, despite knowing absolutely nothing regarding the players involved (Pedan, Clendening, Dorsett, etc).

Benning could trade Bieksa for Stamkos and I'm sure we'd see a slew of arguments as to Benning is such an idiot, how Bieksa is actually underrated due to some obscure advanced statistic, blah blah blah.

It's predictable and growing increasingly tiresome.

These threads are starting to be like smashing my head against a wall...

Some guys hold a grudge way to long...

 

[VanJack]

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.

You have to at least ask yourself, when the Hawks made the decision that Clendening was available, couldn't they at least have acquired a pro prospect back again, or at the very least extracted a draft pick or two?...apparently they wanted Forsling, who was a lowly fifth rounder just a year ago....they wanted him rather than anything else they were offered....so it comes down to which organization has the best book on him....Canucks obviously thinking he'll bust or stay in Sweden, Hawks convinced of the opposite. Only time will tell.

 

[thepuckmonster]

You have to at least ask yourself, when the Hawks made the decision that Clendening was available, couldn't they at least have acquired a pro prospect back again, or at the very least extracted a draft pick or two?...apparently they wanted Forsling, who was a lowly fifth rounder just a year ago....they wanted him rather than anything else they were offered....so it comes down to which organization has the best book on him....Canucks obviously thinking he'll bust or stay in Sweden, Hawks convinced of the opposite. Only time will tell.

This is just false. We traded him for a similar defenseman who's 4 years further in his development. Clendening may have been deemed expendable but there's not a lot of teams looking to take on a green NHL defender who are competing now. We are in desperate need of 20-24 year old players and we moved an 18 year old who's behind Subban and Hutton on our prospect depth.

He had a great WJC but so did Clendening when he played. Basing a prospects entire development curve on one 2-week tournament is terrible evaluation tactics. Forsling had a lot of upside, he always did. He went in the 5th round because the question is whether or not he will reach that upside. The Hawks can afford to wait it out and see if he does. We traded an attractive asset for another one, that's as simple as it gets.

No one knows what else Benning offered instead of Forsling. Maybe he offered Jensen, Freisen, you don't know. Clendening has proven more at the AHL level than any of our D prospects have. That alone is more proven.

 

[me2]

Well said. There are a few posters on here who will criticize Benning on each and every single move he makes, despite knowing absolutely nothing regarding the players involved (Pedan, Clendening, Dorsett, etc).

Benning could trade Bieksa for Stamkos and I'm sure we'd see a slew of arguments as to Benning is such an idiot, how Bieksa is actually underrated due to some obscure advanced statistic, blah blah blah.

and there are people on here that would defend it as the greatest trade in hockey history despite Stamkos having lost both his legs a month prior in bagel related accident.

 

[VanJack]

This is just false. We traded him for a similar defenseman who's 4 years further in his development. Clendening may have been deemed expendable but there's not a lot of teams looking to take on a green NHL defender who are competing now. We are in desperate need of 20-24 year old players and we moved an 18 year old who's behind Subban and Hutton on our prospect depth.

He had a great WJC but so did Clendening when he played. Basing a prospects entire development curve on one 2-week tournament is terrible evaluation tactics. Forsling had a lot of upside, he always did. He went in the 5th round because the question is whether or not he will reach that upside. The Hawks can afford to wait it out and see if he does. We traded an attractive asset for another one, that's as simple as it gets.

No one knows what else Benning offered instead of Forsling. Maybe he offered Jensen, Freisen, you don't know. Clendening has proven more at the AHL level than any of our D prospects have. That alone is more proven.

Did you read the link to the article on why the Hawks traded for Forsling and deemed Clendening expendable?....to quote: "The Black Hawks haven't come to regret may of the times they've given up young talent in recent history....Clendening, as intriguing as he was, fell down the depth chart pretty clearly in the first half of the season"... so to the list of Jeremy Morin, Brandon Pirri, Dylan Olsen you can now add Clendening.....and none of them are really game-changers with their new teams, despite having gaudy statistics in Rockford.....if the Canucks had actually drafted decently between '06 and '10, they wouldn't trolling other organizations for expandable prospects.

 

[RandV]

If you can provide a single example of a transaction I haven't done this with I will give you fifty dollars.

I would love it if this group could make a transaction that I agree with.i would love nothing more. I couldn't give a **** about this GM vs that GM or whatever. I just want my team to win.

So far virtually nothing this group has done has made any sense to me. That's not some agenda against them. I didn't bristle at their hiring and hoped like everyone else that they'd do the right things. But I can't make any sense out of what they are doing and if Benning isn't an idiot I wish he'd stop acting and talking like one soon. I sincerely wish that.

The fact that people like you have to keep bringing up Gillis in threads that have nothing to do with him is infuriating. I couldn't give a **** about Gillis. The debate over him vs this GM or that GM couldn't be less interesting to me. I don't care. I don't. I care about the current management group running the team into the ground for the sake of marketing and their own egos.

The problem is you're projecting some arbitrary value on a guy that was just selected with a 5th round pick, who recently got some attention because of a solid WJC tourney. This being a future/prospect orientated site a lot of people view draft picks as valuable mystery boxes but the moment that box is opened at the draft perceptions of the prospects value tends to fling wildly North or South regardless of the position said prospect was drafted in.

The general opinion on here is that to acquire a teams 1st round pick would require a hefty price. If said team uses that pick on a goalie or a projected defensive forward it immediately becomes chump change. If they use it on an Anthony Mantha type suddenly it's worth a franchise player.

Point is while he's had a good season it's only been a little over half a year since we drafted Forsling in the 5th round, that's way too soon to tell anything. Perhaps if he was back in the draft the flaws scouts saw last time around are still there (hint: NHL teams tend to be nervous with smallish players, especially on D) and he'd still be a late pick.

I thought Benning paid too much and/or didn't take advantage of the other teams position when he traded for Vey and Pedan, but I have no problem with this trade. I don't think Forsling immediately becomes worth a 2nd, or even 3rd round pick just because he had a good WJC tourney.

 

[Pip]

His draft stock was rising even without the WJs

 

[VanJack]

So, to be clear, you dislike the trade because you like Forsling, but you and others are apprehensive about the trade because of Benning's track record. The distinction is between dislike and apprehension.

Generally I like the job JB is doing, but with d-men, I'm not so sure. Apparently the GM thought Sbisa was a decent return on the Kesler deal...now he's a longshot to even be qualified imo...then he signs Sanguinetti as a depth d-man, but looking more and more like they have no confidence in him to actually play a game in Vancouver...then they bounce Corrado back and forth between the press box and Utica, when obviously he should have been in the lineup from the beginning and would be that much further along in his development. Then they acquire Clendening, which consigns Stanton and Weber to the pressbox.Is there a plan?...Am I just not seeing it?

 

[Ryp37]

Did you read the link to the article on why the Hawks traded for Forsling and deemed Clendening expendable?....to quote: "The Black Hawks haven't come to regret may of the times they've given up young talent in recent history....Clendening, as intriguing as he was, fell down the depth chart pretty clearly in the first half of the season"... so to the list of Jeremy Morin, Brandon Pirri, Dylan Olsen you can now add Clendening.....and none of them are really game-changers with their new teams, despite having gaudy statistics in Rockford.....if the Canucks had actually drafted decently between '06 and '10, they wouldn't trolling other organizations for expandable prospects.

It's pretty simple Blackhawks didn't think he could crack their roster next season (turns out they have a deep roster) so rather than give it a chance and end up waiving him they essentially replaced him for a pro spect they like and can not worry about for a few years.

Guys like Pirri asked for a trade and he's actually top line in florida right now