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

[denkiteki]

Its a good trade... realistically we could only hope Forsling has the same development curve as Clendening. If its similar, it would be considered a great pick already. Its possible Forsling develops even better but its more likely he doesnt develop the way we hope and end up being a career euro-player.

Basically this was a smart move by Benning. He knows Chicago has a logjam right now with many prospects around Clendening's age so they likely don't have room for him and less leverage in a deal. What Chicago gets is an interesting prospect and key part is he's a lot younger so by the time he's ready, their logjam will likely be cleared. Given we lack NHL ready depth, this trade actually seems perfect on paper. We give up a prospect who likely will follow a similar curve but is younger to get someone who's likely ready now on a team with no room for "now" and likely would need to waive him or deal him for whatever in a year. I.e. thats how we got Stanton off waivers for nothing.

This is also a move similar to Vey move where Benning found a situation where the team needed to make a move sooner or later and likely took less to get a deal done. Great asset and risk management and even if the move doesnt work out, the risk isn't all that big.

 

[CanaFan]

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.

Fair to say it is speculating but one could just as easily speculate that no team other than Vancouver had Forsling rated higher than the 7th round. Since we don't "know" it's safest to just go on draft position and avoid speculating either way.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was valued like a late 2nd by Chicago (think Vey for 50th).

To quote you ... "all of that is pure speculation."

 

[Verviticus]

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.



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

well washington did it when they got forsberg and it turned out alri.... hmm

 

[CanaFan]

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.

Waiver eligibility isn't the issue, the issue is whether you would be "skeptical" of Corrado's value for not having cracked an NHL roster by the age of 22 or draft +4, which is the charge you were levying against Clendening.

Or let me ask it this way: Would you have been in favour of dealing a nearly 22 yo Corrado (not waiver eligible) before the Bieksa injury for a Forsling-like prospect?

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

Sure it's somewhat rare I guess. Does that mean anything?

 

[Bo Ho*]

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

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

That condition on the trade related more to Ehrhoff's value than White's though.

 

[CanaFan]

well washington did it when they got forsberg and it turned out alri.... hmm

How did that 3rd pick in 2006 turn out for Philadelphia when they gave up on a 23 yo Patrick Sharp?

hmm

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Waiver eligibility isn't the issue, the issue is whether you would be "skeptical" of Corrado's value for not having cracked an NHL roster by the age of 22 or draft +4, which is the charge you were levying against Clendening.

Or let me ask it this way: Would you have been in favour of dealing a nearly 22 yo Corrado (not waiver eligible) before the Bieksa injury for a Forsling-like prospect?

I'd have been somewhat ambivalent. It wouldn't really make sense for us given we lack young defensemen pushing for a roster spot(Or at least did, prior to the Pedan/Clendening trades) but I could appreciate that Forsling likely has the higher upside and a lot more time to reach it, so I'd be okay with it.

Sure it's somewhat rare I guess. Does that mean anything?

Well if we had traded Forsling several years after being drafted I don't think that would say anything about whether or not Benning specifically targeted him. But several months? I know that with Forsberg Caps management felt they made a mistake drafting him which is why they traded him so soon, but I'm not sure of any examples where a player was traded so soon afterward where the GM wasn't down on the player and/or he'd been somewhat disappointing post draft.

 

[Tiranis]

Corrado has also done a lot better possession wise in his call ups than Clendening. It's not much of a sample size for the latter but it goes with my eye test. If you ask me who has the higher NHL upside, it's absolutely Corrado.

I think the Canucks Army article was on point that successful NHL players tend to swim, as opposed to sink, pretty fast, even on their first NHL call up.

 

[Verviticus]

Waiver eligibility isn't the issue, the issue is whether you would be "skeptical" of Corrado's value for not having cracked an NHL roster by the age of 22 or draft +4, which is the charge you were levying against Clendening.

Or let me ask it this way: Would you have been in favour of dealing a nearly 22 yo Corrado (not waiver eligible) before the Bieksa injury for a Forsling-like prospect?

if corrado couldn't be an nhl regular by the start of next year and never showed what he showed last year and the year before, id be very, very down on him as a player and would happily flip him for forsling

 

[WTG]

Corrado has also done a lot better possession wise in his call ups than Clendening. It's not much of a sample size for the latter but it goes with my eye test. If you ask me who has the higher NHL upside, it's absolutely Corrado.

I think the Canucks Army article was on point that successful NHL players tend to swim, as opposed to sink, pretty fast, even on their first NHL call up.

Clendenning has only played 5 nhl games.... give him some time

 

[Tiranis]

Clendenning has only played 5 nhl games.... give him some time

Sure but there's a reason why Chicago picked Trevor van Riemsdyk, straight out of college with no pro experience, over him to start this season.

 

[Verviticus]

Clendenning has only played 5 nhl games.... give him some time

corrado played 3 games just after turning 20 and looked great

 

[God]

yeah well clendening scored in his first nhl game so take that, haters

 

[WTG]

Sure but there's a reason why Chicago picked Trevor van Riemsdyk, straight out of college with no pro experience, over him to start this season.

Trevor van Riemsdyk made have made a better impression in training camp pushing Clendenning further down the depth chart.



Is there any reason to assume that Chicago thinks Clendenning isn't good enough to play in the NHL? I don't see the big deal in this trade. Forsling has to become as good as Clendenning for Chicago to break even. Yet people are freaking out and jump on every opportunity to hate on everything that Benning does. The chances that Forsling becomes a good top 4 defender are slim. Chances Clendenning will become a top 4 defenseman are higher than Forslings.

Do people here really think that Chicago traded Clendenning for Forsling because they though Forsling was a better prospect? What's to say that not many GMs were willing to take Clendenning and they saw Forsling as the best possible option to get minimal return for Clendenning and not give him away for nothing for waivers.

 

[me2]

yeah well clendening scored in his first nhl game so take that, haters

Also his last?

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

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.

Frankly, I could give a **** about Forsling. I hate that he is kicking Weber to the curb for a slightly younger Weber and Sbisa continues to play because he's "his guy."

 

[Wisp]

Frankly, I could give a **** about Forsling. I hate that he is kicking Weber to the curb for a slightly younger Weber and Sbisa continues to play because he's "his guy."

Yannik Weber is the bridge you want to die on?

Weber is not a great player nor has the potential to be a great player. On a contender he'd be in the press box. The best thing I can say about him is he's better than Sbisa and Stanton. He's rightly scratched for Corrado and Clendening.

 

[Wilch]

Yannik Weber is the bridge you want to die on?

Weber is not a great player nor has the potential to be a great player. On a contender he'd be in the press box. The best thing I can say about him is he's better than Sbisa and Stanton. He's rightly scratched for Corrado and Clendening.

I think his beef is with Sbisa's suckage, not so much propping up Weber.

 

[Wisp]

I think his beef is with Sbisa's suckage, not so much propping up Weber.

Well that's fair enough.

If Weber was a left D I wonder if it'd be a different story.

 

[CanaFan]

corrado played 3 games just after turning 20 and looked great

And then looked sub-par the next two seasons and is only really looking good in his most recent assignment. Players take time, esp young D. Sure Clendening isn't likely to be the next Yandle based on his slow uptake to the NHL, but he doesn't need to be to give us good value for Forsling. At this point it makes sense to value the surety of Clendening over the risk but *maybe* higher ceiling of Forsling, given the ages of our core D and significant gap in the succession of our D prospects.

 

[CanaFan]

I'd have been somewhat ambivalent. It wouldn't really make sense for us given we lack young defensemen pushing for a roster spot(Or at least did, prior to the Pedan/Clendening trades) but I could appreciate that Forsling likely has the higher upside and a lot more time to reach it, so I'd be okay with it.



Well if we had traded Forsling several years after being drafted I don't think that would say anything about whether or not Benning specifically targeted him. But several months? I know that with Forsberg Caps management felt they made a mistake drafting him which is why they traded him so soon, but I'm not sure of any examples where a player was traded so soon afterward where the GM wasn't down on the player and/or he'd been somewhat disappointing post draft.

Well *if* they felt Forsberg was a mistake it may have had something to do with, you know, investing a 12th OA pick in the kid. I'm not sure how Benning could go from liking Forsling enough to take a flyer on him in the 5th to being "disappointed" after playing regularly in the SHL and being named an All-Star at the WJCs. Surely you can see that makes absolutely no sense, right? So that leaves the other conclusion, namely that Benning simply liked the upside and/or time horizon on Clendening more than Forsling.

 

[Luongos Knob]

If clendening busts and forsling becomes good im not going to be happy

 

[Zarpan]

Corrado has also done a lot better possession wise in his call ups than Clendening. It's not much of a sample size for the latter but it goes with my eye test. If you ask me who has the higher NHL upside, it's absolutely Corrado.

I think the Canucks Army article was on point that successful NHL players tend to swim, as opposed to sink, pretty fast, even on their first NHL call up.

What sort of possession info are you looking at? What I'm seeing indicates that possession wise they are pretty similar. Certainly not a lot better for Corrado.

 

[maroon 6]

If clendening busts and forsling becomes good im not going to be happy

So let me guess

If Forsling busts and Clendening becomes good you're going to be happy?

 

[alternate]

I'd have been somewhat ambivalent. It wouldn't really make sense for us given we lack young defensemen pushing for a roster spot(Or at least did, prior to the Pedan/Clendening trades) but I could appreciate that Forsling likely has the higher upside and a lot more time to reach it, so I'd be okay with it.

Well if we had traded Forsling several years after being drafted I don't think that would say anything about whether or not Benning specifically targeted him. But several months? I know that with Forsberg Caps management felt they made a mistake drafting him which is why they traded him so soon, but I'm not sure of any examples where a player was traded so soon afterward where the GM wasn't down on the player and/or he'd been somewhat disappointing post draft.

Based on what? It's not like Forsling has been playing in a men's league while Clendening was playing against teenagers. Sure Clendening isn't a teenager, but by just barely (when he first played in the AHL). And there's no arguing Clendening's AHL production, despite a decline (change in priorities?) this season. Realistically, both have about the same potential--2nd pairing, top PP unit type potential. And both have the same risks--undersized, defensively questionable.

There's only three reasons to not like this trade:
1-You feel Forsling is going to be great and Clendening is a sure bust. I don't feel this position can be logically defended. Nothing about their development so far says this is the likely outcome. Could happen, sure. But to be down on this trade because of the likelihood of it is a tad silly.

2-You're sentimental for Forsling. It was fun watching him put up PP points at the WJC and you've grown emotionally attached. The heart wants what it wants, can't argue with that.

3-You're anti-Benning. Chicago is so smart and Benning aw shucks he sure tries his darnedest. But he could have had Garrison and Santorelli and really the same whole team as last year and he drafted guys that are big. D'uh potato head can't make good deals.

I see it as pretty much the perfect trade. Fills a gap on the current roster for an asset that the acquired asset makes redundant anyhow. If Benning gave up a 3rd instead of Forsling, and Clendening does hit and becomes a mainstay in the lineup, considering AC will be right in his prime when Forsling is ripe, it might be hard to fit both of them into a top 6. They're strengths become redundant and you still have both's weaknesses. And if you do fit both in, don't think there's also a spot for Subban.

And it can't be understated that this is a piece that can contribute while the Sedins are still productive players.