Proposal: Edm/Ana

[Homesick]

Errr... what has Pul done to deserve being worth a proven top 4D and PP QB on a contending team? .

You mean a 2nd pairing defenseman right? What has he done to be worth a top 10 pick(nevermind a top 5)

 

[Homesick]

You do realise that your opinion and everyone else's on here carries the same value, right? Draft position is all relative and does not give any sort of indication of what level that player will end up at. You can't just say "he was drafted 4th OA, so he's elite". That's not how it works. If the draft is a weak draft or very shallow, it may be that only the top 2 are elite talents or even just #1 OA. Equally, if you have a very deep draft, you could get elite talents much deeper. Not every draft is the 2003 draft and not every prospect drafted hits their ceiling. I'm 100% sure that throughout the years there have been more guys drafted 4th OA that turned out not to be "elite" talents then there have that turned out to be elite talents.



Jarmo Kekäläinen

He thought Puljujarvi could go 1st overall
http://yle.fi/urheilu/3-7881751

 

[dracom]

The consensus #3 player in this years draft(ISS had him #2) is no where near elite?

So you would agree that Nick Ritchie and Shea Theodore are average(at best) prospects?

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.

 

[Blitzago*]

Errr... what has Pul done to deserve being worth a proven top 4D and PP QB on a contending team? Where, in your opinion, is the indication that Pul would get you Vatanen? I don't need to prove that a deal wouldn't happen because "guess what", it hasn't happened. The burden of proof is in your court, not mine.

Regardless, I don't think those teams would trade those assets for Vatanen because they need those assets. The only teams that trade young assets for older, more proven talent, are those looking to win now. Teams drafting in the top 5 aren't looking to win now. They're looking to rebuild and are happy to wait for younger assets, with higher potential talent, emphasis on the word "potential", to develop. Hence, those deals rarely, if ever, go through. However, the reason they never go through has nothing to with top 5 picks who could become good one day having more value then proven talent that is already good and a whole lot to do with the teams owning those top 5 picks just needing them for their rebuild more then older players.

Maybe the trade hasn't happened because your #4 D man doesn't hold nearly that value

 

[mytduxfan*]

The burden of proof is mine? Why, because you don't feel like backing your opinion up?

How's this? You show me how many times a 25 year old top 3-4 defenseman has been traded for either a top 5 pick, or a player chosen with a top five pick (or a package containing either) in the past however many years, take your pick.

Now count how many times those players have been traded for less in that same period. If your time period is somewhere around the last 15 years, the ratio will be approximately X:0.

It doesn't happen. And regarding your other paragraph, of course it's value. If a team (or teams around the league) think a player has the potential to be a top-flight or franchise guy, of course that's going to affect his trade value.

So if you really believe what you're saying, what do you think is the reason the Oilers (obviously) wouldn't trade Puljujarvi (a player whose type they don't have and need) for Vatanen (a player whose type they don't have and need)?

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.

 

[Homesick]

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.

So I'll ask again: if Puljujarvi isn't an elite prospect what does that make Ritchie, and Theodore?

 

[Blitzago*]

So I'll ask again: if Puljujarvi isn't an elite prospect what does that make Ritchie, and Theodore?

Bad prospects

 

[dracom]

So I'll ask again: if Puljujarvi isn't an elite prospect what does that make Ritchie, and Theodore?

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]

Bad prospects

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.

 

[Blitzago*]

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.

19 games makes you proven in the NHL?

Yakupov had a proven 48 games in the NHL

 

[mytduxfan*]

I could do without the childish attitude but I'll bite anyway.

I was responding to the poster who said that Vatanen has more value because he has a track record of NHL success while Puljujarvi has never played a game in the NHL.
You know very well that it's not as simple as that. There are many other factors that go into gauging value than simply proven vs. not proven.

Also, highly drafted forwards like Puljujarvi almost always have a high track record of NHL success in the modern era with much more advanced scouting so chances are very high that he will do well in the league.

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.

Link?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2088067&highlight=kek%E4l%E4inen

Bob says the feeling is that Columbus isn’t sold on Jesse Puljujarvi and would prefer a centre

You mean a 2nd pairing defenseman right? What has he done to be worth a top 10 pick(nevermind a top 5)

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?

He thought Puljujarvi could go 1st overall
http://yle.fi/urheilu/3-7881751

... 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 the trade hasn't happened because your #4 D man doesn't hold nearly that value

Maybe that trade hasn't happened because it doesn't make sense for either team and has nothing to do with value?

So I'll ask again: if Puljujarvi isn't an elite prospect what does that make Ritchie, and Theodore?

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]

19 games makes you proven in the NHL?

Yakupov had a proven 48 games in the NHL

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.

 

[mytduxfan*]

19 games makes you proven in the NHL?

Yakupov had a proven 48 games in the NHL

19 games > 0 games though.

 

[oStealthKiller*]

Just curious if anyone who drafted top 10 this year would trade their player for vatanen

 

[mytduxfan*]

Just curious if anyone who drafted top 10 this year would trade their player for vatanen

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]

Just curious if anyone who drafted top 10 this year would trade their player for vatanen

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.

 

[King1s]

Puljujarvi for Vatanen. Keep it simple, value for value, low cap hit to low cap hit. Edmonton needs defense, Anaheim offense.

Keep it simple.

NO!

 

[Seachd]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2088067&highlight=kek%E4l%E4inen

Uh, thanks, but I'm asking for a quote from Kekalainen.

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 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 that much more then Vatanen?

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.

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.

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]

The OP trade doesn't address ANAs needs. Plus why would we trade Klefbom? We're trying to strengthen our depth at D.

ANA needs a cost controlled top 6 LWer, this move would be redundant.

 

[snipes]

That's a meaning you're choosing to draw from the term "win now", but it's not a universal one. To me, "win now" means win now in the literal sense i.e. we're making moves that are designed to help us win now. Trading Vatanen for Pul wouldn't be aligned with such a goal. You don't have to sacrifice your future to win the cup and saying that a team is in "win now" mode does not automatically mean that they're moving young assets for ageing players.

BM has made the team younger by trading Andersen for picks and then drafting prospects with those picks. Just because such moves didn't involve us moving out any of our 30+ players doesn't mean we're not getting any younger. If anything, that only confirms that BM wants to remain competitive and continue pushing for the cup i.e. we are still in "win now" mode.

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.

 

[mytduxfan*]

Uh, thanks, but I'm asking for a quote from Kekalainen.

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?

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

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.

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.

... 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.