The Rebuild Started...

[Melvin]

The other thing is that linden vey and Emerson etem were both aquired because they played for the coach. It's not even a case of trying to identify talented players who havent been given enough of a chance, it's merely a case of appeasing your shitty coach by trading for guys he coached in juniors. Laughable strategy.

 

[CanaFan]

But you need to look at it with some context as well. Naslund played with Lemieux in his first half of the season. Naslund was over ppg. When he was taken off of Lemieux line Naslund had 6 points in 24 games before the trade to Van. Naslund didn't get his first point with the Canucks until the last of the season. Naslund ended that season with 9 point in his last 34 games. Prior to that to season Naslund 15 P in 85. So around 119 game stretch with Lemieux Naslund had 24 points.

So without Lemieux at the time Naslund was at the Etem Granlund Baer level.

No, he wasn’t. And until you can understand that this discussion will go nowhere.

 

[Canucks1096]

No, he wasn’t. This is borne out by how Naslund turned out vs how Etem and Granlund have turned out. And until you can understand that this discussion will go nowhere.

Just because someone disagree it doesn't mean they don't understand. If you struggle that much in the nhl. I think it's fair to say that player should play in the ahl instead

 

[CanaFan]

Just because someone disagree it doesn't mean they don't understand. If you struggle that much in the nhl. I think it's fair to say that player should play in the ahl instead

Naslund “struggled” enough that Pittsburgh decided to play him on the top line with Lemieux.

Etem and Granlund struggled so much that they were 3rd/4th liners and bouncing back and forth between AHL and NHL.

The difference is fairly obvious to everyone else in this thread except you it seems.

 

[Canucks1096]

Naslund “struggled” enough that Pittsburgh decided to play him on the top line with Lemieux.

Etem and Granlund struggled so much that they were 3rd/4th liners and bouncing back and forth between AHL and NHL.

The difference is fairly obvious to everyone else in this thread except you it seems.

Without Lemieux 24 points in 119 games. 99.99999 % players don't get to play with a Lemieux.

Is it fair for me say Naslund was a boarder line nhl player without Lemieux at that time? Stats don't lie

Btw forgot to ask how is Yakapov is considered reclamation player and Virtanen is Not?

 

[CanaFan]

Without Lemieux 24 points in 119 games. 99.99999 % players don't get to play with a Lemieux.

Is it fair for me say Naslund was a boarder line nhl player without Lemieux at that time? Stats don't lie

Btw forgot to ask how is Yakapov is considered reclamation player and Virtanen is Not?

He was talented enough to be played with Lemieux. You think Pittsburgh didn’t have any better options at the time lol. You think Etem would have scored near PPG with Lemieux? Not a chance.

Was Etem ever considered to play with the Sedins? Has Green used Granlund in a scoring role? No, because neither have anything close to the talent Naslund had. Naslund struggled with his confidence early on in his career, as was known when we acquired him in 96. But his talent was undisputed and that’s what evident as soon as you watched him play. Scouting isn’t just looking up stats my man.

And what does Virtanen have to do with being a reclamation project? Did Benning acquire him in a trade hoping to reclaim him?

 

[Canucks1096]

He was talented enough to be played with Lemieux. You think Pittsburgh didn’t have any better options at the time lol. You think Etem would have scored near PPG with Lemieux? Not a chance.

Was Etem ever considered to play with the Sedins? Has Green used Granlund in a scoring role? No, because neither have anything close to the talent Naslund had. Naslund struggled with his confidence early on in his career, as was known when we acquired him in 96. But his talent was undisputed and that’s what evident as soon as you watched him play. Scouting isn’t just looking up stats my man.

And what does Virtanen have to do with being a reclamation project? Did Benning acquire him in a trade hoping to reclaim him?

They had better options but they didn't really have a better fit. Pits likes to give Lemieux lesser talent and load up the second line to balance the lines. The second line was Jagr Francis Nedved.. The checking line was Murry and Smolinski. So Sandstorm and Naslund played with Lemieux. Everyone else had no talent and were just grinder. Naslund was the best fit on that line.

But the point I am trying to make without Lemieux he would of been at the Baer Etem Granlund level. Sure he was talented and sure he Lack of confidence. But when you are a reclamation player, one main Criteria is that you are not producing. It doesnt matter how talented you are.

Naslund 15 points in his first 85 games
Without Lemieux line 24 points in 119 games.. baer Granlund Etem all outscored Naslund in there first 85 games in lower scoring era as well. Granlund has 19 goal playing a scoring role. Higher scoring era and Lemieux as a center. I can see him scoring 30 plus and Baer too.

I am just curious on why you think Yakapov is Reclamation and not Virtanen?

I think how good Naslund became is making you forget how bad Naslund was for most of his 3 seasons. There a reason why Pits gave up on Naslund. What Naslund later on in his career has nothing to do with this conversation.

It's more than fair to say without Lemieux Naslund was on the same level as Baer Granlund and Etem in there first 3 seasons. Naslund was sent down to the IHL in 94 and 95.

When Naslund wasn't playing WITH Lemieux. Etem Baer and Grandlund all produce more in a lower scoring era. This means nothing to you?

 

[CanaFan]

They had better options but they didn't really have a better fit. Pits likes to give Lemieux lesser talent and load up the second line to balance the lines. The second line was Jagr Francis Nedved.. The checking line was Murry and Smolinski. So Sandstorm and Naslund played with Lemieux. Everyone else had no talent and were just grinder. Naslund was the best fit on that line.

But the point I am trying to make without Lemieux he would of been at the Baer Etem Granlund level. Sure he was talented and sure he Lack of confidence. But when you are a reclamation player, one main Criteria is that you are not producing. It doesnt matter how talented you are.

Naslund 15 points in his first 85 games
Without Lemieux line 24 points in 119 games.. baer Granlund Etem all outscored Naslund in there first 85 games in lower scoring era as well. Granlund has 19 goal playing a scoring role. Higher scoring era and Lemieux as a center. I can see him scoring 30 plus and Baer too.

I am just curious on why you think Yakapov is Reclamation and not Virtanen?

I think how good Naslund became is making you forget how bad Naslund was for most of his 3 seasons. There a reason why Pits gave up on Naslund. What Naslund later on in his career has nothing to do with this conversation.

It's more than fair to say without Lemieux Naslund was on the same level as Baer Granlund and Etem in there first 3 seasons. Naslund was sent down to the IHL in 94 and 95.

When Naslund wasn't playing WITH Lemieux. Etem Baer and Grandlund all produce more in a lower scoring era. This means nothing to you?

Jesus, what is you with this “Virtanen is a reclamation project” thing?

How can Virtanen be a reclamation project for the team that drafted him? Was Yakupov a reclamation project for Edmonton? Virtanen might be a reclamation project ... if another team traded for him. But so far no team has, so wtf are you talking about?


And clearly Naslund was a far superior player than Etem, Granlund, etc since we actually have the gift of history to confirm it. It confirms that the potential he showed in Pittsburgh was real. We’ve already seen that the lack of potential Etem showed in Anaheim and NYR never materialized. And Granlund at age 25 is pretty damn close to doing the same. I mean, if they were actually the same gambles as Naslund was, can you explain why they’ve worked out so poorly? Any possibilities pop into that head of yours?

Naslund was a scorer and needed to play in a scorers role to be effective. He did it with Pittsburgh and he did it in his first full year in Vancouver where he scored 21 goals. Hell, he flashed it in one of his games after we acquired him where he scored a hat trick. It doesn’t matter that he struggled in his rookie year because we traded for him AFTER he demonstrated he had NHL scoring potential in his 2nd season. You seem obsessed with the fact that he didn’t score much the previous year and dismiss what he had shown recently.

By comparison, what the hell had Etem or Granlund done to suggest they could be “reclaimed” like Naslund was? Where was their production? What coaches were playing them on Calgary or NYR’s top lines because they could see the potential in these players?

Oh ya, they didn’t.

 

[carrotshirt]

I Don't understand why you are bringing 2014 in the conversation. Look at the voting. Hardly anyone voted for 2014.

Also the funny thing is some of past post gave there reasons why the Canucks are not rebuilding. There answers were trying to trade for Subban, Lucic and signing Eirksson. They choose use examples 2 years ago instead of recent ones.

I brought up 2014 because that’s when management set the course of the team, and as it says in the very post you quoted, they still have not deviated from that course.

Sure there’s been some overturn on the roster, but the cavalcade of vets signed to term in the last two years tells you the team is not rebuilding.

The sheer volume of your awful posts is making this thread a real chore to follow.

“Pretend I can properly articulate my point and can rebut your sound arguments, then you’ll see I’m right!”

 

[Canucks1096]

Jesus, what is you with this “Virtanen is a reclamation project” thing?

How can Virtanen be a reclamation project for the team that drafted him? Was Yakupov a reclamation project for Edmonton? Virtanen might be a reclamation project ... if another team traded for him. But so far no team has, so wtf are you talking about?


And clearly Naslund was a far superior player than Etem, Granlund, etc since we actually have the gift of history to confirm it. It confirms that the potential he showed in Pittsburgh was real. We’ve already seen that the lack of potential Etem showed in Anaheim and NYR never materialized. And Granlund at age 25 is pretty damn close to doing the same. I mean, if they were actually the same gambles as Naslund was, can you explain why they’ve worked out so poorly? Any possibilities pop into that head of yours?

Naslund was a scorer and needed to play in a scorers role to be effective. He did it with Pittsburgh and he did it in his first full year in Vancouver where he scored 21 goals. Hell, he flashed it in one of his games after we acquired him where he scored a hat trick. It doesn’t matter that he struggled in his rookie year because we traded for him AFTER he demonstrated he had NHL scoring potential in his 2nd season. You seem obsessed with the fact that he didn’t score much the previous year and dismiss what he had shown recently.

By comparison, what the hell had Etem or Granlund done to suggest they could be “reclaimed” like Naslund was? Where was their production? What coaches were playing them on Calgary or NYR’s top lines because they could see the potential in these players?

Oh ya, they didn’t.

I don't understand why you bring future results in the argument. We are looking at the results before they got traded. Once again the facts peove without Lemieux Grandlund Etem Baer were better THAN Naslund

The point about Virtanen he is struggling early 20 year old. I don't think anyone is willing to trade him for a 3rd round pick. If you guys value pick so much. People should have no problem trading him for a 3rd round pick.

Also to make it fair you need to let me use Naslund as my examples because you use Kucherov AND Saad in your argument but Benning didn't draft any of those type of players in the later Rounds. Not fair if I can't use Naslund and you guys can use Kucherov as an argument.

 

[Canucks1096]

Tomorrow is my last day on this thread. Getting tired of having the same topic over and over again. As of right now nobody can convince me that a 2nd to 7th round player has a better chance than trading for struggling early 20 year old.

Throw your best argument out.

 

[CanaFan]

I don't understand why you bring future results in the argument. We are looking at the results before they got traded. Once again the facts peove without Lemieux Grandlund Etem Baer were better THAN Naslund

Because I’m arguing Naslunds time on Pittsburgh’s top line matters and distinguished him from marginal junk like Etem and Granlund while you’re arguing it didn’t. History shows that I’m right. It’s called validating a hypothesis.

To be honest, you should be using Stojanov as your example of a Benning reclamation project in that trade. Stojanov played AHL up until that season, played 58 NHL games on the 4th line and was mostly ineffective. That’s much closer to what Etem was when we traded for him than Naslund who had showed he had the potential to be a scorer by age 22.

The point about Virtanen he is struggling early 20 year old. I don't think anyone is willing to trade him for a 3rd round pick. If you guys value pick so much. People should have no problem trading him for a 3rd round pick.

But he’s not struggling. He’s not scoring. There’s a difference though you probably don’t see it. Jake, as he is today, is worth more than a 3rd round pick because he’s a useful NHLer even if he only scores 10 goals a year for the rest of his career. No reclamation needed.

Also to make it fair you need to let me use Naslund as my examples because you use Kucherov AND Saad in your argument but Benning didn't draft any of those type of players in the later Rounds. Not fair if I can't use Naslund and you guys can use Kucherov as an argument.

Huh??

You have me confused with someone else bro.

 

[Canucks1096]

Because I’m arguing Naslunds time on Pittsburgh’s top line matters and distinguished him from marginal junk like Etem and Granlund while you’re arguing it didn’t. History shows that I’m right. It’s called validating a hypothesis.



But he’s not struggling. He’s not scoring. There’s a difference though you probably don’t see it. Jake, as he is today, is worth more than a 3rd round pick because he’s a useful NHLer even if he only scores 10 goals a year for the rest of his career. No reclamation needed.



Huh??

You have me confused with someone else bro.

So I can't use Naslund and I can't use Ladd as well. So you are much indirectly telling my examples have pretty to be exactly the same as BAER Granlund and Etem. I guess I can't debate on this because you are not letting me debate.

But if you get a 3rd round pick you have a chance to get Zetterberg and Datsyuk. Won't it be a good idea to trade him? This is the problem with some Canucks fans they are so bias on the player the team draft. Especially a local boy.

Sorry because you took over this debate with the user that starts with a. Now I am getting you two mixed up.

Anyway you did indirectly say Sharp for 3rd round Stralman for 3rd pick and bishop for 4th round pick. Benning is not capable of making these trades but also not capable of drafting those players in later round.

So where do go with this debate now. Do you have any other method to prove to me that later picks are better than struggling 20 year old?

 

[CanaFan]

So I can't use Naslund and I can't use Ladd as well. So you are much indirectly telling my examples have pretty to be exactly the same as BAER Granlund and Etem. I guess I can't debate on this because you are not letting me debate.

Well, uh ya. Because they are DIFFERENT. I’m certainly “letting you debate” but I’m challenging your sloppy comparables.

But if you get a 3rd round pick you have a chance to get Zetterberg and Datsyuk. Won't it be a good idea to trade him? This is the problem with some Canucks fans they are so bias on the player the team draft. Especially a local boy.

Jake is an established NHLer.

Vey wasn’t. Clendenning wasn’t. Pedan wasn’t. Goldobin wasn’t. Motte wasn’t. Pouliot wasn’t. Granlund wasn’t. Etem barely was.

Sigh.

Sorry because you took over this debate with the user that starts with a. Now I am getting you two mixed up.

Anyway you did indirectly say Sharp for 3rd round Stralman for 3rd pick and bishop for 4th round pick. Benning is not capable of making these trades but also not capable of drafting those players in later round.

So where do go with this debate now. Do any have other method to prove to me that later picks are better than struggling 20 year old?

Sure, look at the list of players I’ve given you above. Other than Baertschi, there’s nothing of value there.

Look at our prospect pool including Tryamkin, Gaudette, Demko, and Lind.

Which would you rather have for a rebuild?

 

[Canucks1096]

Well, uh ya. Because they are DIFFERENT. I’m certainly “letting you debate” but I’m challenging your sloppy comparables.



Jake is an established NHLer.

Vey wasn’t. Clendenning wasn’t. Pedan wasn’t. Goldobin wasn’t. Motte wasn’t. Pouliot wasn’t. Granlund wasn’t. Etem barely was.

Sigh.




Sure, look at the list of players I’ve given you above. Other than Baertschi, there’s nothing of value there.

Look at our prospect pool including Tryamkin, Gaudette, Demko, and Lind.

Which would you rather have for a rebuild?

You once told me I shouldn't assume that these prospects will make it to the nhl. You said a lot of prospects will be bust. I am pretty sure that was you. So are you telling me I should assume now that these player would be good?

Also listing a bunch of bells and whistles doesn't matter because we are talking about percentage. Let's say 3 out 4 make it. There were about 30 2nd to 7th round pick since Benning took over. Too lazy to count. That's about 10%. I believe Benning made 10 of those trade. So trades is actually higher Percentage.

So you need to find a way drafting in later round will have a higher percentage that trades for struggling 20 years old.

 

[CanaFan]

You once told me I shouldn't assume that these prospects will make it to the nhl. You said a lot of prospects will be bust. I am pretty sure that was you. So are you telling me I should assume now that these player would be good?

Also listing a bunch of bells and whistles doesn't matter because we are talking about percentage. Let's say 3 out 4 make it. There were about 30 2nd to 7th round pick since Benning took over. Too lazy to count. That's about 10%. I believe Benning made 10 of those trade. So trades is actually higher Percentage.

So you need to find a way drafting in later round will have a higher percentage that trades for struggling 20 years old.

Seems sufficient to me. Benning has traded more picks in rounds 2-4 than 5-7 so I’m not really worried about the %’s late in the draft, as it’s skewed towards earlier picks anway.

Vey - 2nd
Pedan - 3rd
Clendenning - Forsling
Baertschi - 2nd
Granlund - Shinkaruk
Goldobin - Hansen
Etem - 6th + Jensen
Larsen - 6th
Pouliot - 4th + Pedan
Motte - Vanek
Leipsic - Larsen


That’s a fair bit of value to only get Baertschi and maybe Leipsic out of and even then their upside is already fairly exhausted.

Had we used those picks or targeted appropriate value picks in trade we’d have roughly:

2nd
2nd
2nd (Hansen)
3rd
3rd (Forsling)
3rd (Vanek)
4th
5th (Shinkaruk)
6th
6th
7th (Larsen)

Considering we drafted Demko, Lind, and Woo with our only 3 2nd round picks I think I’m being fair in equating those.

Out of our 3rds we have drafted Tryamkin, Brisebois, Lockwood, Dipietro, and Madden so pick 3 of those 5.

In the 4th we haven’t drafted much so I’ll take a 0 on that.

In the 5th we’ve drafted Forsling, Gaudette, Candella, Gunnarrsson, and Utenen. Give me one of those at random and let’s see how they turn out.

Won’t worry about the 6ths or 7th.


So even if it’s just Demko, Lind, Woo, and 3 of our 3rd rounders and we toss the rest, that’s still a better looking pile of assets than what Benning got out of his putrid reclamation trades.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Seems sufficient to me. Benning has traded more picks in rounds 2-4 than 5-7 so I’m not really worried about the %’s late in the draft, as it’s skewed towards earlier picks anway.

Vey - 2nd
Pedan - 3rd
Clendenning - Forsling
Baertschi - 2nd
Granlund - Shinkaruk
Goldobin - Hansen
Etem - 6th + Jensen
Larsen - 6th
Pouliot - 4th + Pedan
Motte - Vanek
Leipsic - Larsen


That’s a fair bit of value to only get Baertschi and maybe Leipsic out of and even then their upside is already fairly exhausted.

Had we used those picks or targeted appropriate value picks in trade we’d have roughly:

2nd
2nd
2nd (Hansen)
3rd
3rd (Forsling)
3rd (Vanek)
4th
5th (Shinkaruk)
6th
6th
7th (Larsen)

Considering we drafted Demko, Lind, and Woo with our only 3 2nd round picks I think I’m being fair in equating those.

Out of our 3rds we have drafted Tryamkin, Brisebois, Lockwood, Dipietro, and Madden so pick 3 of those 5.

In the 4th we haven’t drafted much so I’ll take a 0 on that.

In the 5th we’ve drafted Forsling, Gaudette, Candella, Gunnarrsson, and Utenen. Give me one of those at random and let’s see how they turn out.

Won’t worry about the 6ths or 7th.


So even if it’s just Demko, Lind, Woo, and 3 of our 3rd rounders and we toss the rest, that’s still a better looking pile of assets than what Benning got out of his putrid reclamation trades.

I think you might be generalizing.

 

[Canucks1096]

Seems sufficient to me. Benning has traded more picks in rounds 2-4 than 5-7 so I’m not really worried about the %’s late in the draft, as it’s skewed towards earlier picks anway.

Vey - 2nd
Pedan - 3rd
Clendenning - Forsling
Baertschi - 2nd
Granlund - Shinkaruk
Goldobin - Hansen
Etem - 6th + Jensen
Larsen - 6th
Pouliot - 4th + Pedan
Motte - Vanek
Leipsic - Larsen


That’s a fair bit of value to only get Baertschi and maybe Leipsic out of and even then their upside is already fairly exhausted.

Had we used those picks or targeted appropriate value picks in trade we’d have roughly:

2nd
2nd
2nd (Hansen)
3rd
3rd (Forsling)
3rd (Vanek)
4th
5th (Shinkaruk)
6th
6th
7th (Larsen)

Considering we drafted Demko, Lind, and Woo with our only 3 2nd round picks I think I’m being fair in equating those.

Out of our 3rds we have drafted Tryamkin, Brisebois, Lockwood, Dipietro, and Madden so pick 3 of those 5.

In the 4th we haven’t drafted much so I’ll take a 0 on that.

In the 5th we’ve drafted Forsling, Gaudette, Candella, Gunnarrsson, and Utenen. Give me one of those at random and let’s see how they turn out.

Won’t worry about the 6ths or 7th.


So even if it’s just Demko, Lind, Woo, and 3 of our 3rd rounders and we toss the rest, that’s still a better looking pile of assets than what Benning got out of his putrid reclamation trades.

You didn't include Goldobin. If you are including Motte. You need to include Goldobin as well. So Goldobin Liepsic Baer. You are not counting 6th and 7th round picks So I shouldn't include them in my percentage so Etem and Larsen I will take out and add Goldobin trade. So that 3 out of 10. So 30%. Dahlen is a separate category so I won't include him.

There were 3 second round picks 5 3rd round picks. To say 6 out of 8 will make it is very optimistic considering probably only less than 20% of second and third round picks actually make it to the nhl.

Anyway I have another idea. How about we come back to this thread in 2 to 3 years and then we will have real data and not fake data.

 

[Bleach Clean]

1 if you are putting something in a primary mode. To me you are not open to a mix strategy.

2 how would hockeysfuture voting prove anything? It doesn't take a master degree to know most people are against me. It doesn't stop me from debating because it doesn't matter to me how many disagree with me. A forum poll is not going to do anything for me. Correct me if I am wrong but I dont think you are high on Virtanen. A lot people think he can be some top 6 F. So if there is a poll that more people think Virtanen is a top 6 F. Are going to change your mind? Probably not.

3 I did show my work. Hawks is a good example. The rebuild was over in 2009/2010. Ladd Sharp Versteeg all their team gave up on them. Those players all played key roles vs getting a lot of picks. Only Hammajarson on the team that was acquire by a pick traded to them.

Bolland and Keith both were drafted by Hawks own second round pick. Buff by there own 8th round pick.

If you like want more evidences. The evidence is all the rebuilding teams like Pits Edm Jets Leafs they all got better and it wasn't because they got a lot of picks. So if those team traded some picks for struggling early 20 year old. The results won't get worst.


4 Sharp for 3rd round pick, Stralman for 3rd round pick. Bishop for 4th round pick. All these players were worth more than the pick. One example is insufficient evidence. How do you know what Draft pick Baer is worth? I am not saying he is worth a 1st but I don't think anyone thought Hartman will get a 1st


5 user NL and I when we had this discussion I counted 6 top 6/top D in 2012 draft. I told him every draft is a going to be a little different and there are few more argument on other players we decided on 10 players in a draft that would become top 4/top 6

I think we are starting to go around circles. Most likely I am going to end this discussion soon.

1. Having a primary aspect to a mixed strategy does not overturn the mixed aspect of said strategy. You are setting up a false dichotomy here. You're saying all things need to occur in equal measure in order for the strategy to be recognized as being truly mixed. That's false.

2. Most posters on HF VAN are against the lack of logic in your position. This is why I suggest a poll on the main HF polls section. These will be people you haven't interacted with commenting on your position.

3. By 'show your homework' I mean 20+ years of data on picks from round 2 through 7 against trades for struggling early 20 year old players. Selecting 1 team doesn't create a broad enough sample size. You will need a mountain full of data to prove your case here. The reason: If you know anything about statistical samples, your data set is far too small so as to be reliable. There is too much noise.

4. The Baertschi case is about judging his pick value when he was traded to the Canucks from CGY, not about what he could be worth now. Explain how his value diminished from a mid 1st rounder to a 2nd rounder, if the market is perfectly even between draft picks and STYOs.

5. You are generalizing here. You really do not have conclusive evidence to support "For me I don't think there is much of a difference between pick 2nd to 7th vs struggling early 20 year old." I know because if you did, it would be a game changer. It would alter GM practice in the NHL so much that picks would be dealt at an exponential rate. It's fantasy land stuff.

 

[CanaFan]

You didn't include Goldobin. If you are including Motte. You need to include Goldobin as well. So Goldobin Liepsic Baer. You are not counting 6th and 7th round picks So I shouldn't include them in my percentage so Etem and Larsen I will take out and add Goldobin trade. So that 3 out of 10. So 30%. Dahlen is a separate category so I won't include him.

There were 3 second round picks 5 3rd round picks. To say 6 out of 8 will make it is very optimistic considering probably only less than 20% of second and third round picks actually make it to the nhl.

Anyway I have another idea. How about we come back to this thread in 2 to 3 years and then we will have real data and not fake data.

I’ve included Goldobin. He’s not an NHLer and doesn’t have a good chance to be one. He’s in the process of busting.

I’ve given you a list of players we actually took in those rounds. That is the comparable opportunity cost of Benning’s failed reclamation strategy.

Which do you take?

 

[CanaFan]

I think you might be generalizing.

Can you elaborate?

 

[CanaFan]

Question for @Canucks1096 ... keep our 2nd in 2019 or trade it for Michael Dal Colle?

 

[Canucks1096]

1. Having a primary aspect to a mixed strategy does not overturn the mixed aspect of said strategy. You are setting up a false dichotomy here. You're saying all things need to occur in equal measure in order for the strategy to be recognized as being truly mixed. That's false.

2. Most posters on HF VAN are against the lack of logic in your position. This is why I suggest a poll on the main HF polls section. These will be people you haven't interacted with commenting on your position.

3. By 'show your homework' I mean 20+ years of data on picks from round 2 through 7 against trades for struggling early 20 year old players. Selecting 1 team doesn't create a broad enough sample size. You will need a mountain full of data to prove your case here. The reason: If you know anything about statistical samples, your data set is far too small so as to be reliable. There is too much noise.

4. The Baertschi case is about judging his pick value when he was traded to the Canucks from CGY, not about what he could be worth now. Explain how his value diminished from a mid 1st rounder to a 2nd rounder, if the market is perfectly even between draft picks and STYOs.

5. You are generalizing here. You really do not have conclusive evidence to support "For me I don't think there is much of a difference between pick 2nd to 7th vs struggling early 20 year old." I know because if you did, it would be a game changer. It would alter GM practice in the NHL so much that picks would be dealt at an exponential rate. It's fantasy land stuff.

1 that is youe opinion and I respect that

2 I don't care what other posters think.

3 you are the one that is claiming picks 2 to 7 is better. Shouldn't you show your homework? So there is not clear argument on both ways so that makes me wrong and you right? You even said the data is not available?


4 just because you were pick at a certain point. It doesn't mean you belong in that category from the start.

5 would you find another job that you don't see any difference from your current job? Probably not. GM makes trades because that they are getting advantage. If There is no advantage why make that trade?

 

[CanaFan]

1 that is youe opinion and I respect that

2 I don't care what other posters think.

3 you are the one that is claiming picks 2 to 7 is better. Shouldn't you show your homework? So there is not clear argument on both ways so that makes me wrong and you right? You even said the data is not available?


4 just because you were pick at a certain point. It doesn't mean you belong in that category from the start.

5 would you find another job that you don't see any difference from your current job? Probably not. GM makes trades because that they are getting advantage. If There is no advantage why make that trade?

Re: #5 there is an advantage. Benning shortens the development timeline and gets a warm body sooner. The cost is upside and the odds of getting more than a warm body.

There is a reason why no other rebuilding team has made as many of these moves as Benning has in the past 4 years. Think about why.

 

[me2]

So it seems every agrees, even Canucks1096, Benning's age gappers are worth less than a 1/3 of what he paid for them. The strategy failed for us. What's left to argue?