Melvin
21/12/05
It was bad because we should have traded for a pick or a prospect like we did with nothing in the tank Burrows. Instead we got more half busted age gap junk.
Pro Tank Thread "You said that we'd be better now, better now. But you always let us down."
- Thread starter Jack Burton
- Start date
- Status
It was bad because we should have traded for a pick or a prospect like we did with nothing in the tank Burrows. Instead we got more half busted age gap junk.
Blade Paradigm
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2017
- 823
- 1,172
Goldobin was 21 when he was acquired by the Canucks in 2017. He was a first-round pick in 2014 who many considered to be enigmatic but highly skilled. Most recently, he had scored at a near point-per-game pace in the AHL.
In fact, when he acquired him he was six months younger (21 years, 144 days) than Adam Gaudette is today (21 years, 356 days). He was also only 31 days older than Hunter Shinkaruk when we traded him away (21 years, 113 days).
Shinkaruk's trajectory up to the point we traded him was virtually identical to Goldobin's when we acquired him. Canucks fans wanted quite a bit from the Shinkaruk trade -- he was still a prospect in the eyes of this fan base; the Sharks received an aging veteran for a prospect of equivalent value to Shinkaruk. The consensus opinion immediately after the Goldobin acquisition was that Vancouver had acquired a promising young player.
If we trade away Adam Gaudette right now, there will be outrage about giving away one of our prospects. If Gaudette, near 22 years of age, is still a prospect, it is logical to conclude that Goldobin was also a prospect at that time.
Last edited:
I will quote you because you simple move goal posts whenever its needed or fitting. There are reasons why people are disagreeing with you and it is because a lot of your takes are just not making any sense at all
Above you say a retool is a type of rebuild, now how does that align with the below?
You are just talking nonsense here and you know it
Melvin
21/12/05
Yup.
I made the point at the time thst he was the same thing as Hunter Shinkaruk when we traded him. I took heat for being low on both players yet both have gone precisely as I expected.
Adam Gaudette is developing into a much different kind of player.
Blade Paradigm
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2017
- 823
- 1,172
Shinkaruk and Goldobin are different players. Goldobin has made further progress since joining Vancouver. Hunter Shinkaruk regressed. Goldobin has an excellent skill set but tends to avoid contact and hovers in the middle far too often. Shinkaruk had a high motor, but possessed a slow release on his wrist shot, a complete lack of a one-timer, and average speed.
My point is that some expected Vancouver to trade Shinkaruk for something of great value. I believe some felt we could have swindled Jonathan Drouin from Tampa Bay. When we acquired something of identical value to Shinkaruk, the price was even lower than what we received from the Shinkaruk deal.
Last edited:
Melvin
21/12/05
Well, they are different players. Also, Vancouver and San Jose are different teams with different needs.
The price wasn't lower. You're using hindsight and applying Hansen's unexpected fall off a cliff to appraise the value at the time. Hansen at the time of the trade had much more value than waiver junk like granlund.
There isn't a chance in the world we couldn't have gotten a pick for Hansen. We opted to do what we always do, take a player who used to be a top prospect but had fallen out of favour and was close to busting. This is our favourite type of player to acquire. It wasn't something we had to settle on because Hansen's value was low.
Blade Paradigm
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2017
- 823
- 1,172
I'm reading reactions to the trade from February 28, 2017. The response was quite positive in favor of Vancouver:
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/thre...lay-goldobin-conditional-4th-rounder.2196807/
From the first five pages:
Emerson Etem is an example of a player who was too old to be considered a prospect -- 23 years, 206 days old at the time of the trade for Nicklas Jensen. He had spent parts of four seasons in the NHL failing to progress despite being a point-per-game player in the AHL.
That is an example of a player to avoid in a trade.
Goldobin was a young, high-profile player who was developing year-to-year at lower levels but had yet to receive a lengthy audition at the NHL level. Those are the kinds of prospects that one can realistically hope to acquire in exchange for aging middle-six forwards: Dahlen and Goldobin were successful acquisitions at the time.
Last edited:
Melvin
21/12/05
Why do you keep doing this? I don't care what a bunch of other people said. I disagreed then and I disagree now.
I can dig up quotes on here for or against any position you want. Who cares? I have my own opinions based upon my own logic and reasoning.
I hated the trade at the time and everything with Goldobin has played out as I expected.
Is this going to be your response to every debate on here? Here's a bunch of quotes from random idiots! Like it proves anything.
I can dig up quotes on here for or against any position you want. Who cares? I have my own opinions based upon my own logic and reasoning.
I hated the trade at the time and everything with Goldobin has played out as I expected.
Is this going to be your response to every debate on here? Here's a bunch of quotes from random idiots! Like it proves anything.
Blade Paradigm
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2017
- 823
- 1,172
Your entire argument hinges on your belief that Nikolay Goldobin was not a prospect. The quotations serve the purpose of illustrating the consensus that he was considered a prospect. I have provided an age comparison of his age at the time of the trade with that of a player Canucks fans considered to be a prospect, and that of a player we consider currently to be a prospect.
In what world was Nikolay Goldobin not a prospect at the time of the trade? He is still on his entry-level contract!
In April, you rated him as a better prospect than Olli Juolevi, and fifth-best in the Canucks' system.
In July, you defined him as a prospect.
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/canucks-2018-prospect-rankings-7.2516653/
Last edited:
Megaterio Llamas
el rey del mambo
He is? How is this possible. He is entering his fourth full year as a pro in North America.
Blade Paradigm
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2017
- 823
- 1,172
He received two years of ELC slide. He did not play the minimum number of NHL games (10 games) in 2014-15 or 2015-16 for either his 18-year-old or 19-year-old seasons to be counted against his ELC. 18 and 19 year olds are eligible for ELC slide. During a slide year, the player is not paid a base salary but still receives their signing bonus.
This explains the nine-game rule at the start of a young player's career. As soon as they play their tenth game of the season, that year counts against the ELC.
Nikolay Goldobin - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
Goldobin's first actual "year" towards the ELC was the season the Canucks acquired him, 2016-17.
Another example is Alexander Nylander:
Nylander played 4 games with the Sabres in 2016-17. He had 6 games remaining on his ELC slide.
Entry-Level Slide Candidates - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
Nylander played 3 games with the Sabres in 2017-18. He had 7 games remaining on his ELC slide.
Entry-Level Slide Candidates - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
Nylander is now 20 years old and is no longer eligible for ELC slide, so his ELC begins this season.
Last edited:
Melvin
21/12/05
Let me just stop you right there. My argument has nothing to do with whether or not he met the definition of the term "prospect." if you're just jumping on me for poor phrasing then you got me. I should have said junior aged player or some such to make it more clear what I meant.
My point was that at the time of the trade I would have preferred a younger player or a draft pick. An unsigned player. An asset that wouldn't already be waiver eligible today. Jonathan Dahlen was perfect. Nikolai Goldobin less so. I don't know what term there is for this to delineate it from within the broad term of "prospect."
You don't need to spend all this time digging through quotes that I'm not going to read. It's such a waste of time because I was never going to challenge you on this point. Of course he was a prospect and of course he still is one. But he wasn't the kind of asset I was looking for at the time.
Last edited:
Megaterio Llamas
el rey del mambo
I'm just surprised to learn a late birth date can still 'slide' in their twenty year old year. I knew that most players could slide as 18 and 19 year olds but that late birthdate twenty year olds playing as rookie pros in the AHL can slide that year, this I did nor know.
Melvin
21/12/05
The only age variable is your age when you sign the ELC. If you sign at age 18 basically right after the draft as Goldobin did then your contract can slide for two seasons.
Kole Linds contract as a AHL rookie pro will not slide because of when he signed. Had he signed three months earlier it could have.
The Canucks seldom sign players so immediately.
Blade Paradigm
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2017
- 823
- 1,172
You have inferred that Goldobin was "half busted age gap junk." I would respect your opinion with regards to how you felt about this prospect if his style of play did not appeal to you, but I disagree that he was old, or "half-busted."
In his draft year, he was a 94-point player in the OHL. In his D+1 year, he played in Liiga and produced at a rate historically comparable with Mikko Koivu and Sami Kapanen at the same age, scored 5 points in 7 games at the World Juniors, and recorded 5 points in 9 AHL games.
In his D+2 season, he played only 9 games with the San Jose Sharks to remain eligible for an ELC slide. He joined the AHL San Jose Barracudas and scored 44 points in 60 games.
In his D+3 season -- his first ELC year --, he improved his production in the AHL to a near point-per-game ratio with 41 points in 46 games.
He then joined the Canucks.
Frankly, one could consider those to be development years. He improved each season.
Last season was his first full NHL season; he scored at a pace of 17 goals, 30 points over 82 games as a 22-year-old. The only hurdle in his way is his style of play, not his skill set.
If the Canucks would have acquired a mid-tier, 18 or 19-year-old prospect, or a 2nd-to-4th round draft pick, that player would probably have had to be developed over the course of a few seasons. The Sharks developed Goldobin but required veterans for a Stanley Cup bid; the Canucks acquired him to join their prospects of similar age.
I look at the 2017 NHL Draft and wonder who we may have selected with that pick. I'm not certain how many have more upside than Goldobin had in 2017. I am certain that they would have needed development time. With our other 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round picks, we selected Kole Lind, Jonah Gadjovich, Michael DiPietro, and Jack Rathbone. There is a low chance we may have picked a gem, but in all likelihood, we would have selected another player of that middling tier -- a player who, today, would be among the most recent training camp cuts. That seems to be a risk-reward scenario, not unlike the chance taken on Goldobin.
Last edited:
Melvin
21/12/05
Would you trade Goldobin for a second round pick today? I would. Who cares if the player selected has a low chance of blah blah blah. Goldobin is unlikely to do us much good since he still hasn't established himself as an NHL player and now requires waivers to be sent to Utica. This is the situation I foresaw, which is why I was unhappy with the trade. "Half busted junk" may have been too harsh but the point was around acquiring players earlier in their development which this management group has shown repeated reluctance to do (Dahlen being the only real example.)
What I said at the time of the trade, which I think has borne out, was that we acquired Goldobin at the critical make or break juncture of his career, when he pretty much needed to immediately establish himself or he would probably bust. I disliked acquiring another player of this type, since its been a favorite of Benning dating back to linden vey.
Notice that we acquired Dahlen and Goldobin at the same time but one has ample time to develop in the AHL while the other could be lost to waivers in a month? Exactly.
Last edited:
clunk
Registered User
Blade Paradigm
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2017
- 823
- 1,172
I don't think it matters when in their development the player is acquired as long as they are developing. To have the rights to a player earlier in their career doesn't make that player any more likely to blossom. The Canucks have worked with hundreds of prospects from the day they were drafted. That doesn't make them any more special than a player developed by another organization. Any player is available to be traded at the right price.
Dahlen has developed well, but if we were to acquire him today instead of two years ago, I think you would be just as pleased. If Dahlen were to achieve a point-per-game season in the AHL this year and we were instead to have acquired him next year, I'm sure you would be happy too.
You wouldn't reject trading for a 21-year-old Jonathan Dahlen out of principle, would you? How about a 21-year-old Adam Gaudette?
Bolded is simpleton talk. Teams generally do not trade young players who look to be important part of their future. They trade older players like Goldobin and Vey who look like they won't be, or very young players like Dahlen (or just straight up draft picks) who they don't know yet what they will be. Targeting the former is obviously stupid, latter is good.
Horse McHindu
They call me Horse.....
- Jun 21, 2014
- 9,668
- 2,650
What I should have said back then, was “this is a retool........not a full tear down.” So yeah - my bad.
Retooling and Full Tear Downs are both different styles of rebuilds. My personal opinion is that a “retool” style of rebuild is usually better than a full tear down......and that a full tear down should only be used as a last “Hail Mary” resort.
As far as my other comments go, if you truly think that my comments were nonsense (i.e. the presence of vets forcing kids to earn their spots rather than said spots being gifted to them), then I think the more likely scenario is that you simply do not understand the game of hockey at an elite level......and you know what? That’s perfectly ok.
Contrary to popular belief on here, guys like Dahlen, Gaudette, and Lind being in Utica and helping Utica be a contender, is not a bad thing at all. It’s actually an extremely good thing all things considered.
Roussel-Pettersson-Boeser
Baertschi-Horvat-Virtanen
Leipsic-Sutter-Eriksson
Schaller-Beagle-Motte
Goldobin
Edler-Gudbranson
Hutton-Tanev
Del Zotto-Stecher
Pouliot
Markstrom
Nilsson
A Utica team consisting of Dahlen, Lind, Gaudette, Juolevi, and Demko, along with what would hopefully be Granlund, Gagner, and Gaunce joining them, wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.
Horse McHindu
They call me Horse.....
- Jun 21, 2014
- 9,668
- 2,650
Toronto?
You see, here’s the thing:
Not too long ago, a very wise man once told me that there is only ONE metric for success in the NHL: Winning Stanley Cups. Everything else be damned. I’m sure if this wise man was reading your post, he’d be a little confused as to why you cited Toronto here.
Horse McHindu
They call me Horse.....
- Jun 21, 2014
- 9,668
- 2,650
It’s definitely worth a try. Why not have a pesky shit disturber with a decent amount of skill, playing alongside Pettersson and Boeser? Roussel has skill and smarts, and can also protect Pettersson a little if other players take liberties. Roussel has enough physicality to make up for Pettersson’s slight and still growing frame.
It’s worth experimenting with at the very least. Nothing ventured nothing gained. Back in the day, I wouldn’t be surprised if you laughed at the idea of Burrows playing with the twins.
Horse McHindu
They call me Horse.....
- Jun 21, 2014
- 9,668
- 2,650
The problem with some posters on here, is that they misunderstand Hansen’s value........just as they did with Eddie Lack.
League perception value was vastly different from Canuck fan perception. In Vancouver - Hansen was seen as an elite 3rd line player that could fill in as a 2nd liner. In VNcouver - Eddie Lack was seen as an excellent backup that had earned the right to be a starting goalie.
Around the league however, Hansen was seen as solid 3rd line player while Eddie Lack was seen as a back-up goalie.
In both cases, the CNucks received fair market value for both players. Hansen and Lack then proceeded to lay turd sandwiches in their new destinations.
League perception value was vastly different from Canuck fan perception. In Vancouver - Hansen was seen as an elite 3rd line player that could fill in as a 2nd liner. In VNcouver - Eddie Lack was seen as an excellent backup that had earned the right to be a starting goalie.
Around the league however, Hansen was seen as solid 3rd line player while Eddie Lack was seen as a back-up goalie.
In both cases, the CNucks received fair market value for both players. Hansen and Lack then proceeded to lay turd sandwiches in their new destinations.
- Status
