Pro Tank Thread "You said that we'd be better now, better now. But you always let us down."

[Ryp37]

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.

The problem was, like it always has been with this regime, Bennings target in the trade.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

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.

You overestimate the collective intelligence of NHL general managers. There are countless examples of promising young players being moved in exchange for veterans, as well as players developing with their second teams. The reigning GM of the Year traded away Filip Forsberg, a consensus Top 5 player from the 2012 NHL Draft, less than a year after drafting him in exchange for Martin Erat. The Capitals knew what Forsberg would be. They wanted their veteran player.

The history of the Vancouver Canucks is shaped by players who were let go too early, either going to other teams, i.e., Cam Neely, or coming to Vancouver, i.e., Markus Naslund and Todd Bertuzzi.

The Flames traded away a 23-year-old Brett Hull after two point-per-game seasons.

23-year-old Mats Sundin was traded to Toronto from Quebec City in a deal centered around Wendel Clark going the other way.

Mike Milbury was notorious for trading away the Islanders' best young players in the late 1990s and early 2000s: Bryan Berard for Felix Potvin, Bryan McCabe and Todd Bertuzzi for Trevor Linden, Zdeno Chara and the 1st round pick used to select Jason Spezza for Alexei Yashin, and Olli Jokinen and Roberto Luongo for Mark Parrish and Oleg Kvasha.

To say that teams always protect their best young players is to give them too much credit. McPhee might have made another blunder by handing Nick Suzuki to Montreal in exchange for Max Pacioretty. I'm not one to write off a prospect for being 21 years old instead of 19 as long as the player is tracking well. Various circumstances, such as the short-term objectives of a team, could result in the exchange of prospects for veterans.

Jared McCann for Erik Gudbranson is one that we would like to have back.

 

[CanaFan]

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.

Yes, the metric for “how successful a franchise has been since 19xx” is generally measured in cups. That is correct.

When the discussion is “does tanking work” and we are talking about teams that were in the gutter with us as recently as 2 years ago (2016), then other metrics are more appropriate.

Unless you think winning a cup within 2 years is the standard that all tanking teams should be held to? If so, will you hold Benning to that standard as well when the time comes?

 

[absolute garbage]

You overestimate the colective intelligence of NHL general managers. There are countless examples of promising young players being moved in exchange for veterans, as well as players developing with their second teams. The reigning GM of the Year traded away Filip Forsberg, a consensus Top 5 player from the 2012 NHL Draft, less than a year after drafting him in exchange for Martin Erat. The Capitals knew what Forsberg would be. They wanted their veteran player.

The history of the Vancouver Canucks is shaped by players who were let go too early, either going to other teams, i.e., Cam Neely, or coming to Vancouver, i.e., Markus Naslund and Todd Bertuzzi.

The Flames traded away a 23-year-old Brett Hull after two point-per-game seasons.

23-year-old Mats Sundin was traded to Toronto from Quebec City in a deal centered around Wendel Clark going the other way.

To say that teams always protect their best young players is to give them too much credit. McPhee might have made another blunder by handing Nick Suzuki to Montreal in exchange for Max Pacioretty. I'm not one to write off a prospect for being 21 years old instead of 19 as long as the player is tracking well. Various circumstances, such as the short-term objectives of a team, could result in the exchange of prospects for veterans.

Jared McCann for Erik Gudbranson is one that we would like to have back.

Which one of these players was a stagnating AHLer struggling to make the jump again? Your examples literally only prove my point.

You should stick to scouting reports.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

Which one of these players was a stagnating AHLer struggling to make the jump again? Your examples literally only prove my point.

You should stick to scouting reports.

Goldobin had not stagnated at the AHL at the time of the acquisition, so your point is moot. His development had not stalled. Unlike Baertschi and Granlund, who had played NHL games and struggled to adapt, Goldobin was untested in the NHL. One could not have concluded anything about his abilities at the NHL level because he had not played for any extended period of time in the NHL -- he was at the point in his career, in the first year of his ELC, when he would have been transitioning into the NHL

One can easily draw parallels between the examples given and Nikolay Goldobin. You suggested that no team gives up important members of their future core group. Most of the players mentioned were highly-touted prospects, and all were moved. Some were in their early 20s; a few had played in the NHL and failed to adapt with their initial clubs.

Some were moved despite finding success in the NHL. Others, like Forsberg, were traded for rental types like Erat.

My point is that Doug Wilson's decision to trade Nikolay Goldobin could just as easily not have been about moving a failed prospect, but rather about meeting his competitive team's short-term needs at the expense of a promising, young, untested player. Baertschi, Granlund and Etem were reclamation projects, but Goldobin does not fit that bill. He had not yet failed at any level.

 

[Melvin]

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?

Oh, that's not true at all. Dahlen has already burned a year off his elc and if he spends the entire year in the minors he will be close to at that point what Goldobin was then. I would be very displeased were he a target at that point.

Players are not fixed assets. The time that you acquire them is critical.

I don't place much value on gaudette either.

 

[absolute garbage]

Goldobin had stagnated at the AHL at the time of the acquisition, so your point is moot. His development had not stalled. Unlike Baertschi and Granlund, who had played NHL games and struggled to adapt, Goldobin was untested in the NHL.

One can easily draw parallels between the examples given and Nikolay Goldobin. You suggested that no team gives up important members of their future core group. Most of the players mentioned were highly-touted prospects, and all were moved. Some were in their early 20s; a few had played in the NHL and failed to adapt with their initial clubs.

Some were moved despite finding success in the NHL. Others, like Forsberg, were traded for rental types like Erat.

My point is that Doug Wilson's decision to trade Nikolay Goldobin could just as easily not have been about moving a failed prospect, but rather about meeting his competitive team's short-term needs at the expense of a promising, young, untested player.

I was strictly talking about unproven young players. Bringing in young PPG players in the NHL to the conversation is completely besides the point.

Forsberg was traded just like Dahlen was, pretty much right after being drafted. Completely different to guys like Goldobin and Vey who couldn't by a cup of coffee in the NHL despite years of pro experience, indicating some serious flaws in their game.

Goldobin did in fact stagnate in the AHL, by the virtue of being there. Top 6 skill players, the only kind of player Goldobin will ever be if he makes it, rarely even play in the AHL and if they do, it's for a very short amount. Nowhere near what Goldobin or Vey or Shinkaruk did at the time of their respective trades, so it's indeed safe to assume they will bust and that they are a bad target.

Wilson traded Goldobin because he was expendable; he had obvious issues in his pro game and was passed by younger players in their system. This nowhere near a Suzuki, Forsberg or Dahlen type of trade where the prospect has just been drafted and has no pro experience (at least on NA ice).

In terms of potential and value in a player, there's a HUGE difference in a 19 year old one season removed from draft vs 21 year old with one or two non-NHL pro seasons under his belt.

 

[THE Green Man]

You only get ONE SHOT do not miss your chance to blow this opportunity comes once in a lifetime.

Unless you're Edmonton- then it's 4 bloody lifetimes....

I believe that we already have great management and that sometime between 2019 and 2021, we are going to see this team become elite once again (2020-2021 has been my prediction right from Day One).

And there goes the little credibility you have left. Luckily this season will hopefully be a 2 birds with one stone situation:
Lie to ownership saying this could be a playoff team- then have team (obviously) come no where even close to the playoff race. Therefore get a good lottery pick and fire JB and Weis out of a cannon to get a proper GM in the fold to make the right pick and surround the youth with proper veterans not on 4 year contracts.

 

[MadaCanuckle]

Lol what? I dont even know if that was english. In 3 games u get 5 rookies? What does that have to do with the convo

The post i commented to claimed NJD had 8 rookies on openning night.

The post you quoted said NJD had 8 rookies in a game.
The post I quoted said NJD had only 4 rookies in the game. Both were wrong. And if you don't understand english, please go back to school. Not Benning school, because that man speaks even worse than you.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

I was strictly talking about unproven young players. Bringing in young PPG players in the NHL to the conversation is completely besides the point.

Forsberg was traded just like Dahlen was, pretty much right after being drafted. Completely different to guys like Goldobin and Vey who couldn't by a cup of coffee in the NHL despite years of pro experience, indicating some serious flaws in their game.

Goldobin did in fact stagnate in the AHL, by the virtue of being there. Top 6 skill players, the only kind of player Goldobin will ever be if he makes it, rarely even play in the AHL and if they do, it's for a very short amount. Nowhere near what Goldobin or Vey or Shinkaruk did at the time of their respective trades, so it's indeed safe to assume they will bust and that they are a bad target.

Wilson traded Goldobin because he was expendable; he had obvious issues in his pro game and was passed by younger players in their system. This nowhere near a Suzuki, Forsberg or Dahlen type of trade where the prospect has just been drafted and has no pro experience (at least on NA ice).

In terms of potential and value in a player, there's a HUGE difference in a 19 year old one season removed from draft vs 21 year old with one or two non-NHL pro seasons under his belt.

I didn't mean to suggest that Goldobin is a Suzuki or Forsberg. I as merely responding to your statement here:

Teams generally do not trade young players who look to be important part of their future.

Nobody here can tell teams not to trade young, promising players. They still do, for every reason they can think of. Sometimes, they pull the trigger when everyone else would tell them not to make that trade -- hence, Forsberg for Erat.I am not referring to the players, but the impulses and unpredictability of the GMs.

With regards to your opinion, I am not quite so pessimistic about 21-year-old prospects, hence my allusion to other players who developed later in their careers. We've seen players develop firsthand after being given up by their first team. I would not trade for players older than that, but I believe a 21-year-old player still has potential, as long as there was improvement from their rookie AHL season to their sophomore year. Frankly, I think style of play, hockey IQ and tendencies have far more to do with translation to the NHL than age.

21-year-old point producers in the AHL, ranked by points per game: 21-Year Old AHL Players - Regular Season Stats

Based on my scouting report of Goldobin, I would not have targeted him if better options were available. His skill set, however, warranted his selection in the first round of his draft class. I prefer skilled, intelligent forecheckers with east-west intuition and puck protection abilities -- line drivers. However, the entire argument here is about determining a player's rate of success based on age. I agree that potential begins to dwindle with age. I don't believe that players have crossed the threshold into low-potential territory at the age of 21.

I broke down Goldobin's game at the AHL level and was not particularly impressed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFB-QswSUik

From the start of the season to the end of October, the Comets have worked with Goldobin to better involve himself with the play, to be less prone to making high-risk plays when the danger outweighs the benefits, and to skate with greater intensity on a more frequent basis. He still turns the puck over occasionally with errant passes. He doesn't carry the puck enough in the offensive zone and is much more interested in give-and-go plays when he could probably do more to influence a shift with the puck on his stick. Once every so often, he gets the puck in open ice off the rush and picks up speed, but, for the most part, he does not play with that kind of hustle or assertiveness.

Currently, he is a fundamentally east-west player who loves to make lateral passes and who plays a cerebral game around the middle of the offensive zone with a strong bias towards the left half of the zone; he is much more reserved on the right side, especially along the boards, than he is on the left. More often than not, if a teammate has the puck on the left side of the ice, he transitions into the middle for a one-time attempt. He can look passive at times, as he is always positioning himself around the middle of the zone with his stick on the ice to receive the puck, often opting to remain there rather than make himself open along the boards. He often is reactive to plays, waiting for the puck to become loose among a crowd rather than putting his own pressure on the opposition. If he does forecheck along the boards, he fishes for the puck and doesn't engage with his body, or he won't hustle hard enough to get to the boards before the opposition gets there.

Goldobin is, at his essence, a very highly-skilled finesse player with uncanny puck skills; however, his positioning and habits need to be reworked if he is to take full advantage of his skill set. He does not play with enough tenacity or courage. He does not battle through obstacles and tends to let others do a lot of the hard work in traffic for him. He is a sublime passer and is a lethal threat with his shot; he isn't the most dangerous one-on-one player, but he protects the puck well, has sufficient edge work skills to weave his body around obstacles and remain elusive with the puck on his stick, and has terrific puck retention skills. He also can be explosive at times, but needs to play at a higher tempo and utilize this speed more frequently to pressure the opposition. If there is a loose puck, he can gather it in, control it, and distribute it effectively. Through the neutral zone, he is skilled at zone entries with good side-stepping abilities. The Comets are in the process of changing some of his habits so that he doesn't handcuff teammates with unexpected puck decisions and also puts himself in better position to affect the play positively without the puck.

By your logic, Jonathan Dahlen and Adam Gaudette will have very little trade value by next season. Obviously, we would be better off keeping them, but the notion that they would not appeal to other teams is food for thought.

This also implies that Kole Lind and Jonah Gadjovich only have a two-year window before their value tanks. They aren't making the Canucks this year, so if next year they return to the AHL, they become very poor commodities for other teams.

One must then conclude that the Canucks should have kept Hunter Shinkaruk and seen his development through, or traded him earlier. All we were ever going to receive from a Shinkaruk trade at that point in time was something less than desirable. The Canucks were simply offloading a player who, in their eyes, had no potential and was hemorrhaging trade value.

 

[dwarf]

Looking forward to this season. Cheering the young players on, and hoping we lose every game. Winning now means nothing, we need to build a team to contend. Sure hope we end up dead last.

 

[Icebreakers]

The worst stretch of tanking is in the final 10-15 games where you have to watch guys like Granlund or Motte score a random hatrick against the Jets in a meaningless game while the Sens and Habs play a 3 point game.

 

[me2]

By your logic, Jonathan Dahlen and Adam Gaudette will have very little trade value by next season. Obviously, we would be better off keeping them, but the notion that they would not appeal to other teams is food for thought.

By his logic they would have dimished trade value in 2 years if they are still in the AHL having shown little growth in correcting their flaws and the team has grown tired with them. A pretty reasonable assumption.

This also implies that Kole Lind and Jonah Gadjovich only have a two-year window before their value tanks. They aren't making the Canucks this year, so if next year they return to the AHL, they become very poor commodities for other teams.

That sounds about right. Failure to show significant improvement in weaknesses diminishes you value. If they are showing significant improvement they won't be up for sale.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

By his logic they would have dimished trade value in 2 years if they are still in the AHL having shown little growth in correcting their flaws and the team has grown tired with them. A pretty reasonable assumption.

That sounds about right. Failure to show significant improvement in weaknesses diminishes you value. If they are showing significant improvement they won't be up for sale.

Sure, but don't you think it takes a little more nuance to make that assessment than to make the blanket statement that all 21 year olds are failed NHL prospects?

If the players have not progressed, then this should be evident both in the statistics and in their style of play. I disagree that a player whose point-per-game average has improved from 0.73 PPG to 0.89 PPG from their rookie AHL season to their sophomore season has stagnated from a statistical point of view. I hadn't followed Goldobin as a Sharks AHL prospect, so I don't know where he may have improved in terms of on-ice play.

 

[Zombotron]

The worst stretch of tanking is in the final 10-15 games where you have to watch guys like Granlund or Motte score a random hatrick against the Jets in a meaningless game while the Sens and Habs play a 3 point game.

On that note, how many 3 point games are we going to see in our own conference? I can maybe see Chicago at the bottom of the West, maybe Edmonton or Arizona if either fails to take a step forward, or Anaheim if age catches up to Getzlaf/Perry/Kesler.

Barring an unexpected nightmare season from a more competitive team, who's going to join us at the bottom of the Western Conference? All of our tank competition is in the East. The pro-tank contingent should be pretty excited about that.

 

[me2]

Sure, but don't you think it takes a little more nuance to make that assessment than to make the blanket statement that all 21 year olds are failed NHL prospects?

If the players have not progressed, then this should be evident both in the statistics and in their style of play. I disagree that a player whose point-per-game average has improved from 0.73 PPG to 0.89 PPG from their rookie AHL season to their sophomore season has stagnated from a statistical point of view. I hadn't followed Goldobin as a Sharks AHL prospect, so I don't know where he may have improved in terms of on-ice play.

Being skilled at AHL level was not his weakness. His all round game was, SJ recognised that. Same thing held him back last year with us. Same thing so far this year.

 

[Grub]

Time to put the old boots and get back in the tank. I hate cheering to lose, completely hate it, especially when we have young players like Petterson and Boeser who needs to be in a winning environment. With that said, after looking at the quality in Pre-season, and after seeing us collect more scrubs like Motte, Leipsic, Grandlund, Schaeller etc....

By being near the bottom next year will do us only good.
1. Benning will most likely gets fired
2. We get a chance to draft in the top 5.

In fact, I don't think we should even make a tank thread. With the quality that's been shown on the ice, this team is going to be a bottom feeder regardless if we have a tank. I can't bare another night seeing on the score sheet 4-3 SO, with the third tying goal given to either Motte, Leipsic, Grandlund and Gagner.... 1 more bad year also gives our other prospects the chance to develop more and join this team.

 

[VanJack]

I'm actually more interested in what happens in Utica this season than VanCity. They lost me when they signed Beagle, Schaller and Roussel. Not wishing any injuries on anyone, but if some of the Canuck veterans go down again they'll be forced to use some Utica callups. Bring it on.

 

[timw33]

This might end up being an Avalanche 16-17 season.

We have like....3 good forwards (1 rookie 1 sophomore), 2 legit NHL defenders, and are one goalie injury away from career 3GAA goaltending. I can just see things going south in a big hurry, and if it does it needs to lead to sweeping management and roster personnel change.

 

[Zombotron]

Opponent	Date
Detroit	November 6th
New York Rangers	November 12th
Montreal	November 17th
Ottawa	January 2nd
Montreal	January 3rd
Detroit	January 20th
New York Rangers	March 13th
Ottawa	March 20th

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Zombotron]

Mark those dates down, those should be this year's biggest tank games. I get a tank matchup for my birthday. Awesome.

It's a 16-point swing against the Eastern Conference's worst (best?)

 

[ProstheticConscience]

This might end up being an Avalanche 16-17 season.

We have like....3 good forwards (1 rookie 1 sophomore), 2 legit NHL defenders, and are one goalie injury away from career 3GAA goaltending. I can just see things going south in a big hurry, and if it does it needs to lead to sweeping management and roster personnel change.

There's no way. We're stuck with Benning for 2 more years minimum. This coming season was always going to be a complete write-off; "Well, the faces of the franchise just left! Of course the team's going to have a rough patch while new leadership emerges!" <---get used to that. We'll be hearing it a lot.

 

[Icebreakers]

This might end up being an Avalanche 16-17 season.

We have like....3 good forwards (1 rookie 1 sophomore), 2 legit NHL defenders, and are one goalie injury away from career 3GAA goaltending. I can just see things going south in a big hurry, and if it does it needs to lead to sweeping management and roster personnel change.

Then we draft 4th overall.

 

[Peter10]

There's no way. We're stuck with Benning for 2 more years minimum. This coming season was always going to be a complete write-off; "Well, the faces of the franchise just left! Of course the team's going to have a rough patch while new leadership emerges!" <---get used to that. We'll be hearing it a lot.

There are Lafreniere and Holtz in the 2020 draft, so...

 

[absolute garbage]

By your logic, Jonathan Dahlen and Adam Gaudette will have very little trade value by next season. Obviously, we would be better off keeping them, but the notion that they would not appeal to other teams is food for thought.

If they don't blow up the AHL this season and earn a call up to the NHL at some capacity, yes they should have little trade value next summer. If they get sent down next year at this time, they should be pretty much valueless.

This also implies that Kole Lind and Jonah Gadjovich only have a two-year window before their value tanks. They aren't making the Canucks this year, so if next year they return to the AHL, they become very poor commodities for other teams.

Correct. If they don't light up the AHL this season their value next summer will be low. If they are PPG players the following year, they might salvage it a bit. Very similar to Shinkaruk.

One must then conclude that the Canucks should have kept Hunter Shinkaruk and seen his development through, or traded him earlier. All we were ever going to receive from a Shinkaruk trade at that point in time was something less than desirable. The Canucks were simply offloading a player who, in their eyes, had no potential and was hemorrhaging trade value.

Yes. The real issue was they traded him for a bag of pucks. Waiver-free scorer for Utica would've been a more useful asset to the organisation.