You mean a 2nd pairing defenseman right? What has he done to be worth a top 10 pick(nevermind a top 5)
Proposal: Edm/Ana
- Thread starter Kelevra
- Start date
dracom
Registered User
Draft position means nothing after the draft. Just because Benn was drafted so late, does that mean he's not elite?
Yak was taken 1st overall, is he elite?
Until a player can prove himself to be an elite talent, he's not one and there's no guarantee he will become one. That's my stance.
Maybe the trade hasn't happened because your #4 D man doesn't hold nearly that value
You find me a case where a player better then Vatanen was traded for a top 5 pick that hadn't even played a single NHL game. See, I can play that game just as much as you. I can't think of any team in win now mode that has traded away a #3-4 RHD and PP QB who was top 30 in pts amongst D-men for anything short of an equivalent talent. In fact, the two most highly-coveted RHD of this off-season who fall into that category were recently signed to long-term deals. What is truly ironic is that the guy saying that highly-talented, 25 year old, #3-4 D-men aren't worth Pul supports a team that just trade Hall for a questionable top pairing D-man who only put up 18 pts this passed season. Is Pul worth more then Hall now?
Is Larsson worth that much more then Vatanen? I agree with you, it won't happen. What I'm disputing is that it simply comes down to value. It doesn't. NSH traded Jones for Johansen because they're a "win now" team and had a need at #1C. Yet if Jones hits his ceiling of a franchise #1D, he'll be worth more then Johansen. So why move him? Oh, because it's also about team needs and not just value and realising that the team taking on potential talent is also taking on a lot of risk that said prospect/developing player isn't going to hit his ceiling. If you're in the middle of a rebuild, why would trade a top 5 prospect you need for a proven talent that is only going to rot on a bottom feeder team? All that proven talent is going to do is reduce your chances of getting a high pick by making your team better. Therefore, such a move would be counter-productive in every sense of the word. Hence, those moves don't happen, but, again, it's not just because "potential talent" has more value then "proven talent". That's a ridiculous statement to make and you know it.
So I'll ask again: if Puljujarvi isn't an elite prospect what does that make Ritchie, and Theodore?
dracom
Registered User
Ritchie is a boom or bust prospect, not guaranteed to be anything. Needs sometime to adjust to the speed in the NHL.
Theo is an actual elite prospect. He's a prospect proven to have success in the NHL and is still young enough to improve.
dracom
Registered User
Hah, you think Theo is a bad prospect.
If Oilers management shares that same though, I guess we know why they're so bad at drafting defensemen.
Reinhart and Hickey went 4th OA didn't they? I have no doubt that Pul will be a good player, but I don't see him being the "elite" player you appear to believe he'll be. Not all players in the top 5 will be elite and improvements in scouting will never change that.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2088067&highlight=kek%E4l%E4inen
You mean that prospect that hasn't played a single game in the NHL? What has he done to be worth a top flight RHD and PP QB on a contending team?
... but didn't draft him. Actions speak louder then words.
You had to dig so deep to counter me that you could only find a Finnish website that requires translation software to read.Maybe that trade hasn't happened because it doesn't make sense for either team and has nothing to do with value?
Irrelevant question. You're developing a strawman argument. No one has said that Pul is a worse prospect then Ritchie or Theodore. No one has said that Ritchie or Theodore are elite prospects. Give it up, this narrative will lead you nowhere.
dracom
Registered User
and one has actually looked good in their time in the NHL, Yak has been pretty bad since joining the league.
Yak is a bust at this point. Theo has reached/succeeded his expectations so far.
oStealthKiller*
Master Monkey Herder
Well, unless you have the numbers of all those GMs, I guess we'll never know. Having said that, given that BM just re-signed Vatanen to a substantial extension and appears to be ok with moving Fowler over him, I suspect that Vatanen is just straight up "not available".
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Probably not.
It's a cost controlled asset, with more upside. A GM likely only makes that trade if he is very high on Vatanen, and feels he can be a top pairing quality guy. That's probably the minimum upside that a GM would need to see.
Seachd
Registered User
- Mar 16, 2002
- 25,238
- 9,836
Uh, thanks, but I'm asking for a quote from Kekalainen.
I guess so, but that's not what you're doing. Those are two very different games, because better players than Vatanen have been traded for picks and prospects
I can't think of any team in win now mode that has traded away a #3-4 RHD and PP QB who was top 30 in pts amongst D-men for anything short of an equivalent talent. In fact, the two most highly-coveted RHD of this off-season who fall into that category were recently signed to long-term deals. What is truly ironic is that the guy saying that highly-talented, 25 year old, #3-4 D-men aren't worth Pul supports a team that just trade Hall for a questionable top pairing D-man who only put up 18 pts this passed season. Is Pul worth more then Hall now?
Is Larsson worth more than Vatanen? I would say without a doubt. Would I have rather traded Hall for Larsson than Hall for Vatanen? Absolutely, why wouldn't I have? Obviously, the Oilers thought a type of defenseman other than the Barrie/Vatanen type was more valuable.
What's ridiculous (and you know it) is that you're trying to pass off "potential talent" vs. "proven talent" as an argument, as if there's only one shade of each. When teams are considering top 5 picks, clearly the chances are higher, and the belief is stronger, that these talents could have franchise/top-line potential.
That's going to factor into their value, whether the team wants to compete now or not. Hence the Oilers, who would love nothing more than to make the playoffs this season, sprinting to the stage to take Puljujarvi, when there were likely many teams out there who would have offered up plenty of veteran "proven talent" that would improve the blue line, if they thought there was a chance it would work.
Anaheim made the playoffs in 2005-06, so might have thought they had a chance to compete at the time of the 2005 draft. How thrilled would they have been to trade Bobby Ryan a few weeks after drafting him for a middle-pairing guy like Vatanen?
snipes
How cold? I’m ice cold.
- Dec 28, 2015
- 55,612
- 63,854
Good post. I think you've captured what "win now" means. I've got a few points to add.
Win now mode is about putting a team together to compete for a cup immediately. It means using assets (draft picks/prospects) if necessary to acquire proven talent. It means not trading players who are 24-32ish for younger talent. You aren't thinking years down the road, you are absorbed in the immediate season and playoff run.
Every team of course wants to win, that's obvious. "Win now" mode is more going all out for the here and now as opposed to next season. Sometimes future sacrifices are made for immediate gain in win now mode versus a rebuilding team that are thinking 3-5 years down the line. Both want to "win" of course, but the way a team manages assets is different.
Bob McKenzie is a legit source. If you choose to ignore him, that's your prerogative, not mine. Funny how Bob, Dreger and Lebrun are all legit when "Fowler wasn't worth 8th or 9th OA", but when Bob says Kek isn't high on Pul it's "not a quote and, thus, not good enough".
How about the fact that, despite having the option, Kek didn't draft him. Is that good enough for you?
When? When has a player better then Vatanen ever been traded for a single pick or prospect that hasn't played a single NHL game? That's what I'm asking. It doesn't happen because teams with a pick/prospect good enough to acquire players better then Vatanen actually need those picks and would prefer waiting for the better talent. I'm not saying that Pul doesn't have a higher upside the Vatanen, I'm saying that there is a risk that he doesn't make and, thus, his value isn't = elite 1st line RW (the value you seem to be putting on Pul), a player that would be worth more then Vatanen.
Trades for multiple picks/prospect aren't a far comparison and, thus, don't count.
... or, neither of those players were available, especially to a divisional/conference rival with a player who could become the #1 player in the league in the future on their team. Why do you think EDM overpaid for Larsson? Because he's soooooo much better then Vatanen/Barrie? Get out of here. He's not. You know as well as I do that EDM needed a RH PP QB with more offensive upside then Larsson, but no one was giving that type of player up unless they were getting a Hall-esq return. PC didn't want to send Hall to a divisional rival either (smart move), so he shipped him out East for the best RHD available and that was Larsson. Is Larsson the exact player you needed? Personally, I don't think so, but PC was desperate to address a need and took the best player available.
Anyway, the point is that Larsson ain't that much better then Vatanen, if at all, yet he returned Hall. So "yeah", I think in terms of pure "value", Vatanen is worth more then Pul because Pul isn't worth Hall.
I'm not doing that at all. I'm questioning:
(a) The future elite status you've attached to him.
(b) The likelihood he'll hit his ceiling.
What you're doing is not factoring risk in your valuation of Pul. The way you're valuing him its not even like he's dead-set to become an elite superstar player in the NHL, he is an elite superstar in the NHL and, therefore, worth a tonne more then Vatanen. That's not true. Right now he's just a kid with a bright future if he works hard and puts in the hours. No GM in the league is valuing Pul the way you are. No GM is looking at him and saying, he's 100% going to be an elite superstar. There may even be a few GMs who don't even think his ceiling is "elite" superstar (IMO, Matthews > Laine >> Pul, but that's just me). If GMs valued futures the way you're doing right now, why is that deals involving futures for proven talent always have more futures going the other way? For example:
Gudbranson = proven #4 RH D-man
5th round pick
McCann = top 6 C
2nd round pick
4th round pick
Surely, by your logic, McCann is definitely going to be a top 6 C and, therefore, top 6 C = poor little #4 D-man and there would be no need for the extras. It doesn't make any sense? It's almost like both GMs in this deal acknowledge that McCann may not hit his ceiling and, thus, are factoring in the risk by adding more pieces. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that more pieces have to be added to McCann in order to acquire Gudbranson, doesn't that mean McCann has less value then Gudbranson? This is all despite McCann having the "potential" to be a better player then Gudbranson in the future.
Huh? BR was drafted after the lockout and ANA had just come 22nd in the league in 03-04. How the hell were we in a position to compete at the time we drafted BR? Weak comparison.
You're not reading what I'm writing are you? I never said that EDM should trade Pul for Vatanen, it doesn't make sense for either team. My point is that he's Pul isn't worth Vatanen because there is risk that he'll never hit his ceiling. Again, you're valuing him as if he's already a 1st line RW and you're refusing to consider at all that he may never reach that level.
Your consistent attempts to dismiss Vatanen as a player by referring to him as a "middle pairing guy" doesn't change the fact that his value is through the roof right now. I'm sure if he was in the East, PC would be coughing up Hall to acquire him. He certainly fulfills EDMs need for a more offensive-minded RH D-man then Larsson will.
