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

[RandV]

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.

You know these acquisitions would be much better if we were actually a rebuilding team and had roster space and patience to spare to let players like Vey and Glendening have permanent roster spots on the pro team for a season or two.

But as things are now we're trying to be competitive and have vets throughout the lineup, acquiring players so close to waiver eligibility is risky especially when we have other players trying to break in that get crowded out.

I don't have a problem with Glendening though, especially with the price paid for him.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

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)?

I didn't know that much about Clendening, but I would have valued Forsling at about a mid-late 2nd round pick, which for a player that close to waiver eligibility without having broken into the NHL yet is a high price to pay when generally they go for much cheaper.

If even when you're that close to waivers and you're still not being afforded an opportunity in the NHL, to me that's a sign to avoid giving up value for that player, unless they end up waived or unsigned or at most a late round pick.

 

[VanJack]

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

LOL Hard not to get depressed at the Canucks' track record as talent evaluators. If the Hawks thought Clendening was gong to be a top four guy and a future powerplay qb, there's no way they ever trade him to Vancouver....and the last time the 'Nucks were in Florida, Pirri was back in the lineup after being a healthy scratch for a number of games.

 

[Reign Nateo]

LOL Hard not to get depressed at the Canucks' track record as talent evaluators. If the Hawks thought Clendening was gong to be a top four guy and a future powerplay qb, there's no way they ever trade him to Vancouver....and the last time the 'Nucks were in Florida, Pirri was back in the lineup after being a healthy scratch for a number of games.

The article posted explains this pretty clearly. With Rundblad looking like a top 4 defenceman going forward (and a puck mover), the Blackhawks' top 4 looks pretty set for a while with Keith-Seabrook, Hjalmarsson-Rundblad. (Rundblad has been playing pretty excellent lately, take your jaw off the floor). And quite heavy on skilled defencemen. I don't really see a need to shoe-horn Clendening in there. Next year they have a bottom pairing open with 4 young guys fighting for a spot on it before free agency or anything else. Stephen Johns is a big defenceman that has taken great strides this year, and plays a physical brand of hockey and is massive, he brings another element that is missing from the Hawks defence and is almost a lock for the 5th spot. That leaves Pokka, Trevor van Reimsdyk, Tim Erixon and Dahlbeck as options for one spot. They reset the prospect clock on Clendening and don't lose any of their defensive depth.

Now you could argue that they chose to trade Clendening over these other youngsters and therefore they value him less. I would disagree. I would say they moved Clendening because he had value. Let's look at these guys. Pokka was just aquired, developing well and they traded Nick Leddy to get him. They weren't going to trade him realistically. Stephen Johns is a special blend of size and ability, a need for them, they aren't moving him realistically either. Erixon is almost waiver material. Not much value there. van Reimsdyk has been injured most of the year and is unknown, what are they going to get for him, and why waste the potential asset he may become? Dahlbeck doesn't have much value. Would any of these guys bring them an 18 year old with potential to let incubate? Probably not. But Clendening could.

Basically they chose to trade the guy that A) was expendable and B) had some value. That list becomes Clendening in a hurry if you are familiar with their team and a reason Hawks fans talked about dealing him so much. They could have waived one of the other guys and kept Clendening as a 6/7th defenceman and let him work his way up, or they take an asset like Forsling and wish him the best and let some of their other guys hopefully turn into assets. It has nothing to do with Clendening not developing or having majour issues. It's simply running a hockey team. Are there 22 year old defenceman that leap frog entire depth charts of similar players? Sure, but they also don't come along very often and they rarely get traded. The Hawks knew they had to make a move on defence and they chose to use some of their depth to reset a prospect slot and take a chance on developing some value long-term. It's a nice situation for them to be in and the Canucks get a talented young defenceman that is NHL ready to develop. Win-win at this point. Who know what the future holds.

 

[Zarpan]

I didn't know that much about Clendening, but I would have valued Forsling at about a mid-late 2nd round pick, which for a player that close to waiver eligibility without having broken into the NHL yet is a high price to pay when generally they go for much cheaper.

If even when you're that close to waivers and you're still not being afforded an opportunity in the NHL, to me that's a sign to avoid giving up value for that player, unless they end up waived or unsigned or at most a late round pick.

Based on past trade history, I think the value for a player in Clendening's situation is approximately a 3rd round pick.

Most of the players you are thinking about are not top prospects. They can't get an opportunity in the NHL because they are simply not good enough to beat out mediocre/fringe players ahead of them. Those players are worth a late round pick or nothing.

However, Clendening's case is different. He would have made most rosters in the league, but Chicago has a huge amount of defensive depth, both at the NHL level and for prospects.

As a reminder, Clendening was considered Chicago's 3rd or 4th best prospect entering the season. Four of six voters had him as a top 60 prospect at NHL.com - http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=729655

Pronman had him ranked at #85.

A prospect of that decent caliber is going to come at a higher price than a late round pick. I don't think top 100 prospects get traded for late round picks very often (unless they prove to be a bust at the NHL level), even if their waiver exempt status is ending soon. I looked through trade history and didn't see much to indicate that.

 

[CanaFan]

I didn't know that much about Clendening, but I would have valued Forsling at about a mid-late 2nd round pick, which for a player that close to waiver eligibility without having broken into the NHL yet is a high price to pay when generally they go for much cheaper.

Ok, so you have Forsling rated *quite* high then. So does Benning's draft acumen at least go up a hair in your eyes for having a 5th rounder appreciate in value so much in half a season, or does it only count against his trading acumen? And bonus points if your post does not contain the words "But he was a Gradin pick"

If even when you're that close to waivers and you're still not being afforded an opportunity in the NHL, to me that's a sign to avoid giving up value for that player, unless they end up waived or unsigned or at most a late round pick.

I think you have to look at the context of the team and the depth that is keeping that player from making the roster. Chicago has the lowest GAA in the western conference and has several young D (Erixon, Rundblad, Van Riemsdyk) playing fairly regular minutes for them so how likely are they to carry a 4th sub-23 yo defenseman on that roster? If it was Edmonton or Buffalo that Clendening couldn't crack, then absolutely there is cause for concern. But I don't agree that his failure to make a strong Chicago roster is necessarily an indicator of his (lack of) NHL upside given his impressive track record through College, WJC's, and AHL so far. Sure he could bust but I think you're ascribing too much value simply on the unknown aspect of Forsling's future development ("the sky's the limit") and simultaneously not giving any value to the known aspect of Clendening's ("he's already maxed out").

 

[vanuck]

Just to chime in here: saying Forsling was just a 5th rounder is like saying Patrick White had the value of a 1st round pick half a year after being drafted. Don't think anyone would agree with that.

 

[CanaFan]

Just to chime in here: saying Forsling was just a 5th rounder is like saying Patrick White had the value of a 1st round pick half a year after being drafted. Don't think anyone would agree with that.

I agree in general (Forsling > 5th) but White was widely viewed as a gigantic reach in the late 1st round immediately after the draft. If you had polled all 30 teams 10 minutes after the selection they almost certainly would have pegged his value much lower than where Vancouver picked him.

On the other hand, we can be fairly confident that all 30 teams 'agreed' that Forsling was approximately a 5th round talent since we know that no team took him higher than that (i.e. in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th). So he starts as a 5th round value whereas White was never worth a 1st to any team outside of Vancouver.

Now I agree Forsling has progressed to the point where his stock was certainly higher than a 5th, but we are only speculating as to how high (same with Clendening). I do find it interesting how many posters are now claiming to rate Forsling so highly (a mid-second in some cases) yet in the weeks between the WJC and the trade still held the view that Benning ran a 'meh' 2014 draft. A 5th rounder to a mid-second in barely 6 months? That's some not bad drafting in my books ...

 

[vanuck]

I agree in general (Forsling > 5th) but White was widely viewed as a gigantic reach in the late 1st round immediately after the draft. If you had polled all 30 teams 10 minutes after the selection they almost certainly would have pegged his value much lower than where Vancouver picked him.

On the other hand, we can be fairly confident that all 30 teams 'agreed' that Forsling was approximately a 5th round talent since we know that no team took him higher than that (i.e. in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th). So he starts as a 5th round value whereas White was never worth a 1st to any team outside of Vancouver.

Now I agree Forsling has progressed to the point where his stock was certainly higher than a 5th, but we are only speculating as to how high (same with Clendening). I do find it interesting how many posters are now claiming to rate Forsling so highly (a mid-second in some cases) yet in the weeks between the WJC and the trade still held the view that Benning ran a 'meh' 2014 draft. A 5th rounder to a mid-second in barely 6 months? That's some not bad drafting in my books ...

Personally I thought it was pretty impressive that he was playing top 4 minutes in the SHL at age 18, though I'm not sure how much it raised his stock by (to maybe being taken in the 2nd/3rd?). The White example was just to show how the value of players taken with draft picks can differ from the draft picks themselves depending on how well/poorly they show after being taken, and that we can't really describe Forsling as 'only' a 5th rounder based on what he's been doing. IMO there are better ways to argue the case for trading him, though I was only trying to play the other side for argument's sake.

 

[CanaFan]

Personally I thought it was pretty impressive that he was playing top 4 minutes in the SHL at age 18, though I'm not sure how much it raised his stock by (to maybe being taken in the 2nd/3rd?). The White example was just to show how the value of players taken with draft picks can differ from the draft picks themselves depending on how well/poorly they show after being taken, and that we can't really describe Forsling as 'only' a 5th rounder based on what he's been doing. IMO there are better ways to argue the case for trading him, though I was only trying to play the other side for argument's sake.

Oh I fully agree Forsling's value is higher than the 5th we used to take him based on his minutes in the SHL and PP performance at the WJCs. Whether it is higher or lower than Clendening's value is the real question and one I'm reluctant to try to answer right now.

 

[Wisp]

Just to chime in here: saying Forsling was just a 5th rounder is like saying Patrick White had the value of a 1st round pick half a year after being drafted. Don't think anyone would agree with that.

Patrick White actually had the value of a second round pick in the end, but I get what you're saying.

 

[vanuck]

Patrick White had the value of a second round pick in the end, so maybe not the best example.

In the end?

 

[Verviticus]

yeah he wasnt signed so the team that had his rights got a compensation 2nd

 

[Wisp]

In the end?

Sharks got a compensatory second round pick for not signing him.

I get what you're saying though, just being needlessly picky.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Ok, so you have Forsling rated *quite* high then. So does Benning's draft acumen at least go up a hair in your eyes for having a 5th rounder appreciate in value so much in half a season, or does it only count against his trading acumen? And bonus points if your post does not contain the words "But he was a Gradin pick"

Sure, I guess. But one skater out of 6 that's outperforming the players drafted around them isn't anything to talk about. We might have a gem in Demko, but I don't pretend to know how to project goalies all that well. But he's playing well and went where he was expected to so I can't complain.

Of course, Benning trading him so soon after drafting him definitely leads me to believe that Benning wasn't the one who pushed for us to draft him.

I think you have to look at the context of the team and the depth that is keeping that player from making the roster. Chicago has the lowest GAA in the western conference and has several young D (Erixon, Rundblad, Van Riemsdyk) playing fairly regular minutes for them so how likely are they to carry a 4th sub-23 yo defenseman on that roster? If it was Edmonton or Buffalo that Clendening couldn't crack, then absolutely there is cause for concern. But I don't agree that his failure to make a strong Chicago roster is necessarily an indicator of his (lack of) NHL upside given his impressive track record through College, WJC's, and AHL so far. Sure he could bust but I think you're ascribing too much value simply on the unknown aspect of Forsling's future development ("the sky's the limit") and simultaneously not giving any value to the known aspect of Clendening's ("he's already maxed out").

Erixon and Rundblad were both acquired this year. If Chicago felt like he should challenge for a roster spot they wouldn't have traded for two players to play a similar role.

 

[CanaFan]

Sure, I guess. But one skater out of 6 that's outperforming the players drafted around them isn't anything to talk about. We might have a gem in Demko, but I don't pretend to know how to project goalies all that well. But he's playing well and went where he was expected to so I can't complain.

Of course, Benning trading him so soon after drafting him definitely leads me to believe that Benning wasn't the one who pushed for us to draft him.



Erixon and Rundblad were both acquired this year. If Chicago felt like he should challenge for a roster spot they wouldn't have traded for two players to play a similar role.

Or they felt that at the ripe old age of 22 he still wasn't ready for a full-time top 6 role. How old is Corrado again? Is he a throw-away too because he's nearly 22 and didn't make the opening-day roster?

The draft stuff we can hash out another time but I'm not sure trading him has any bearing on who pushed for him at the draft. GM's trade drafted kids all the time, and not just the ones they "didn't pick".

 

[TheWanderer]

The article posted explains this pretty clearly. With Rundblad looking like a top 4 defenceman going forward (and a puck mover), the Blackhawks' top 4 looks pretty set for a while with Keith-Seabrook, Hjalmarsson-Rundblad. (Rundblad has been playing pretty excellent lately, take your jaw off the floor). And quite heavy on skilled defencemen. I don't really see a need to shoe-horn Clendening in there. Next year they have a bottom pairing open with 4 young guys fighting for a spot on it before free agency or anything else. Stephen Johns is a big defenceman that has taken great strides this year, and plays a physical brand of hockey and is massive, he brings another element that is missing from the Hawks defence and is almost a lock for the 5th spot. That leaves Pokka, Trevor van Reimsdyk, Tim Erixon and Dahlbeck as options for one spot. They reset the prospect clock on Clendening and don't lose any of their defensive depth.

Now you could argue that they chose to trade Clendening over these other youngsters and therefore they value him less. I would disagree. I would say they moved Clendening because he had value. Let's look at these guys. Pokka was just aquired, developing well and they traded Nick Leddy to get him. They weren't going to trade him realistically. Stephen Johns is a special blend of size and ability, a need for them, they aren't moving him realistically either. Erixon is almost waiver material. Not much value there. van Reimsdyk has been injured most of the year and is unknown, what are they going to get for him, and why waste the potential asset he may become? Dahlbeck doesn't have much value. Would any of these guys bring them an 18 year old with potential to let incubate? Probably not. But Clendening could.

Basically they chose to trade the guy that A) was expendable and B) had some value. That list becomes Clendening in a hurry if you are familiar with their team and a reason Hawks fans talked about dealing him so much. They could have waived one of the other guys and kept Clendening as a 6/7th defenceman and let him work his way up, or they take an asset like Forsling and wish him the best and let some of their other guys hopefully turn into assets. It has nothing to do with Clendening not developing or having majour issues. It's simply running a hockey team. Are there 22 year old defenceman that leap frog entire depth charts of similar players? Sure, but they also don't come along very often and they rarely get traded. The Hawks knew they had to make a move on defence and they chose to use some of their depth to reset a prospect slot and take a chance on developing some value long-term. It's a nice situation for them to be in and the Canucks get a talented young defenceman that is NHL ready to develop. Win-win at this point. Who know what the future holds.

Totally agree. We could say we won the trade because we got a guy who has gone through the AHL and is NHL ready. Hawks fans could say they win because they got an equivalent asset who is not waiver eligible and will come into play perhaps when there is more fluidity in their defensive situation a few years down the road.

 

[dwarf]

One can also argue, that we are trading away a blue chip prospect for a future waiver wire player. Same with the Vey deal, a second rounder for future waiver wire fodder.

This still may be the case, though I hope I am wrong. And I think everyone here, also wants this to be wrong. And it seems that everyone is trying to convince themselves this is not a possibility.

Lets hope Benning knows what he is doing.

If both of these deals fail, I will once again be left to wonder why we have ever made a trade at all.

 

[CanaFan]

One can also argue, that we are trading away a blue chip prospect for a future waiver wire player. Same with the Vey deal, a second rounder for future waiver wire fodder.

Anythings "possible" obviously.

This still may be the case, though I hope I am wrong. And I think everyone here, also wants this to be wrong. And it seems that everyone is trying to convince themselves this is not a possibility.

Lets hope Benning knows what he is doing.

If both of these deals fail, I will once again be left to wonder why we have ever made a trade at all.

Huh I don't see many saying this isn't a possibility, in fact there are many here who have taken the view that this is the more likely outcome. Blind optimism doesn't seem as commonplace as blind pessimism in most of our threads these days.

And if both players bust well... so what? You can't shy away from trying to make moves you think are right just because they might not work out. No GM bats 1.000 but the good ones keep trying and over time win more than they lose.

 

[thepuckmonster]

One can also argue, that we are trading away a blue chip prospect for a future waiver wire player. Same with the Vey deal, a second rounder for future waiver wire fodder.

This still may be the case, though I hope I am wrong. And I think everyone here, also wants this to be wrong. And it seems that everyone is trying to convince themselves this is not a possibility.

Lets hope Benning knows what he is doing.

If both of these deals fail, I will once again be left to wonder why we have ever made a trade at all.

Blue chip insinuates that they're ready to step into the NHL, which Forsling most certainly is not.

 

[Verviticus]

Sharks got a compensatory second round pick for not signing him.

every time i type the word compensatory i feel like i just made it up. what a stupid sounding word

Blue chip insinuates that they're ready to step into the NHL, which Forsling most certainly is not.

what? no, its a term taken from stocks (taken from casino chips ultimately) to denote the most reliable/safest bets

forsling doesnt qualify regardless

 

[dwarf]

Blue chip insinuates that they're ready to step into the NHL, which Forsling most certainly is not.

My view of the terminology of a blue chip prospect, is someone who will eventually become a top 2 Dman or better, or a first line player.

McDavid was a blue chip prospect at 16, but no one would suggest he was NHL ready at 16. Just my two cents.

 

[thepuckmonster]

every time i type the word compensatory i feel like i just made it up. what a stupid sounding word



what? no, its a term taken from stocks (taken from casino chips ultimately) to denote the most reliable/safest bets

forsling doesnt qualify regardless

Learn something new everyday. Although I've only ever heard it used to describe NHL ready prospects.

The more you know.

 

[me2]

I agree in general (Forsling > 5th) but White was widely viewed as a gigantic reach in the late 1st round immediately after the draft. If you had polled all 30 teams 10 minutes after the selection they almost certainly would have pegged his value much lower than where Vancouver picked him.

On the other hand, we can be fairly confident that all 30 teams 'agreed' that Forsling was approximately a 5th round talent since we know that no team took him higher than that (i.e. in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th). So he starts as a 5th round value whereas White was never worth a 1st to any team outside of Vancouver.

Now I agree Forsling has progressed to the point where his stock was certainly higher than a 5th, but we are only speculating as to how high (same with Clendening). I do find it interesting how many posters are now claiming to rate Forsling so highly (a mid-second in some cases) yet in the weeks between the WJC and the trade still held the view that Benning ran a 'meh' 2014 draft. A 5th rounder to a mid-second in barely 6 months? That's some not bad drafting in my books ...

all of that is pure speculation. Teams could have had Forsling rated much much higher but had a few guys rated higher still on the board, heck he could have been rated in the 50s by some teams but if a few of their preferred guys were available he slips. Just think of the Canucks infamous leaked draft list, based on that list guys ranked in the 40s would have slipped a long long way before the Canucks took them based on who was ahead.

At any rate none of this really matters, all that matter is that Forsling's stock rose a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if he was valued like a late 2nd by Chicago (think Vey for 50th).

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Or they felt that at the ripe old age of 22 he still wasn't ready for a full-time top 6 role. How old is Corrado again? Is he a throw-away too because he's nearly 22 and didn't make the opening-day roster?

Corrado has another year before he's eligible for waivers doesn't he? If this time next year he still hasn't made the team I'd jump all over an 18-year old playing for team Sweden and playing top-4 minutes on his SHL team for him.

The draft stuff we can hash out another time but I'm not sure trading him has any bearing on who pushed for him at the draft. GM's trade drafted kids all the time, and not just the ones they "didn't pick".

It's pretty rare to happen just 6 months after drafting him, when they'd been tracking well to boot.