Player Discussion Vitali Kravtsov - Signed 2-Year Deal with Traktor Chelyabinsk

[Bleach Clean]

Kravtsov left pretty much everyone uninspired but if you'd take a 7th rd pick over Kravtsov for the next 3 yrs of control you are the one not evaluating your assets properly.

The odds of Kravtsov turning his game around and making the NHL in a few years is EXPONENTIALLY greater than the value of a 7th rd pick - however small the odds of both are.

Small quibble: Him turning it around and making he NHL =/= him turning it around and returning here, under Tocchet. He will not be back here, IMO. And given that understanding, the chance of Kravtsov paying off for the Canucks is exponentially less than the 7th round pick becoming something for the Canucks.

@Javaman That one got a laugh out of me. Well done.


------


Drance also has a good take on this (even though I disagree with his assessment): The failure is the pursuit of the age gap strategy at all. It's not the player himself (I disagree), but that a bullish outcome still results in an Ethan Bear situation where the savings against the cap isn't there anyway.

In other words, you could probably find a better bet on an aged player making near 1m in terms of payoff. At least that player's salary demand will always be muted relative to his actual contribution.

 

[God]

------


Drance also has a good take on this (even though I disagree with his assessment): The failure is the pursuing the age gap strategy, still. It's not the player himself (I disagree), but that a bullish outcome still results in a Bear situation where the saving against the cap aren't there anyway.

In other words, you could probably find a better bet on an aged player making near 1m in terms of payoff. At least that player's salary demand will always be muted relative to his actual contribution.

did drance actually say that? his favourite team, the florida panthers, did exactly that. they hit on a ton of age gap players.

 

[Bleach Clean]

did drance actually say that? his favourite team, the florida panthers, did exactly that. they hit on a ton of age gap players.

Yes, he did, and he's right. He says that the cumulative effect of the assets lost adds up over time. As well, Kravtsov didn't hit.

He does not, however, pan the Kravtsov deal itself. He supports it given that age gap chase context. 10 min mark of the May 23rd Canucks Talk.

On FLA: The cost to FLA was Forsling (Waivers), Mahura (Waivers), Montour (3rd, while Canucks get Dermott), Cousins, Dalpe, Duclair and Verheaghe all signed in FA. There's less cost there than what the Canucks have shelled out on age gap flyers.

 

[God]

Yes, he did, and he's right. He says that the cumulative effect of the assets lost adds up over time. As well, Kravtsov didn't hit.

He does not, however, pan the Kravtsov deal itself. He supports it given that age gap chase context. 10 min mark of the May 23rd Canucks Talk.

On FLA: The cost to FLA was Forsling (Waivers), Mahura (Waivers), Montour (3rd, while Canucks get Dermott), Cousins, Dalpe, Duclair and Verheaghe all signed in FA. There's less cost there than what the Canucks have shelled out on age gap flyers.

are you or is drance conveniently leaving out sam bennett (2nd round pick) and, to some extent, sam reinhart (top goaltending prospect + 1st)?

 

[Bleach Clean]

are you or is drance conveniently leaving out sam bennett (2nd round pick) and, to some extent, sam reinhart (top goaltending prospect + 1st)?

I think he mentions Bennett, not sure. The end point remains: With all the hits and many more misses, as well as paying to jump the waivers queue constantly, you end up with little value gain against the cap in total. Example: Ethan Bear for comparable Ethan Bear player. Could you find a better value aged player in FA? Probably. (He's not saving you much, if at all)

FLA's best value hits were free/claimed off waivers.

 

[Bitz and Bites]

The probability of Kravstov turning into something were higher than that of a 7th round pick turning into something.

I was going to post the exact same thing. Kravtsov definitely has warts to his game and probably lacks the drive and compete level to be an NHLer but maybe something clicks and he can re-invent himself as a player. It’s doubtful and it’s better that he is in Europe and not taking up a contract slot while that plays out.

 

[God]

I think he mentions Bennett, not sure. The end point remains: With all the hits and many more misses, as well as paying to jump the waivers queue constantly, you end up with little value gain against the cap in total. Example: Ethan Bear for comparable Ethan Bear player. Could you find a better value aged player in FA? Probably. (He's not saving you much, if at all)

FLA's best value hits were free/claimed off waivers.

I mean, I think the age gap thing is getting thrown around unnecessarily.

Benning said age gap to try and turn the Canucks around. This obviously wasn't the right play. They had aging Sedins and only one young player of note - Horvat. At that point, you take the FA route and sign cheap players, sure.

When you have a good base of young players to build around, then you can start acquiring players to supplement the team. Most GMs prefer younger players... obviously. And each acquisition comes with risk... obviously. Pointing towards the mistakes means you'll never take the risk and end up with a Toews or Siegenthaler or whoever.

Has Drance done a quantification of this on the athletic? I suspect he's creating a mental contingency table and assigning equal weight to a 5th round pick succeeding/failing against Bear succeeding/failing, so I'm curious to see what his quantification of "value gain" is. The point of age gap acquisitions also isn't necessarily to make cap savings, it's to acquire good players for a low cost in order to ice a competitive hockey team.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

You are reading way, way too much into a tiny transaction where they had a 16-game look at a prospect for essentially free.

The overall pro scouting from this regime so far on young/fringe players has been very good (Aman, Joshua, Bains, Wolanin, etc.) and there's no reason to suggest this nothing transaction is any cause for concern.

What on earth is a 'qualifying contract slot'?

Also.

With our Russian connection running through from Podz, Kuz to Gonchar and ... is Dan working for us at this point?

It was a fair bet to see if having his country men around would help him get back on track.

I'm not infatuated with the work our new management has done so far but @Bleach Clean is being just silly here.

Low risk high reward move that didn't pan out.

 

[Zarpan]

Again, a 7th is not free. (You keep saying this, and it's not true)

While it is technically something, a 2026 7th round pick is pretty close to valueless. Based on trade value charts, 20 7th round picks in 2026 equal one 6th round pick in 2023.

Benning gave up around 600x the value of a 2026 7th round pick for Linden Vey.

 

[NickyFotiu]

I think Krav left because of a lack of confidence in himself as an AHL player. I have to give him credit though. Despite his past he said all the right things in 2022-23 both in NY and Van. I do wish he would have given himself a chance in the AHL to build his game and confidence. I do think he has the skating and shooting skills to be an NHL player. He just has to figure out the rest of the puzzle starting with fitness. I wish him the best of luck because despite some youthful hiccups he seems like a good guy.

 

[wavaxa2]

Man, if the 7th is nothing, then Lockwood must be uber nothing, since everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that he was part of the deal too. I would rather have Lockwood than Kravtsov myself. Lockwood at least makes a defensive effort, has some grit to his game, and is a useful guy to have on a farm team.

 

[Phrasing]

A 7th rounder and a career AHL player exchanged for a player with talent who has shown very little so far that could benefit from a change of scenery is not a bad bet versus what that 7th rounder could produce 3-5 years from now.

 

[MS]

Man, if the 7th is nothing, then Lockwood must be uber nothing, since everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that he was part of the deal too. I would rather have Lockwood than Kravtsov myself. Lockwood at least makes a defensive effort, has some grit to his game, and is a useful guy to have on a farm team.

Lockwood is a UFA. He is literally worthless. We can sign him back in 5 weeks if we want.

 

[racerjoe]

Lockwood is a UFA. He is literally worthless. We can sign him back in 5 weeks if we want.

Even above that by trading him we kept a contract slot open to have the ability to make other deals, or sign guys like Hirose... getting rid of lockwood was probably more valuable than the 7th.

 

[m9]

Even above that by trading him we kept a contract slot open to have the ability to make other deals, or sign guys like Hirose... getting rid of lockwood was probably more valuable than the 7th.

We traded the lowest pick you could, and a contract slot... this was as free as you could get. the 7th for a contract slot is probably the fair value, and we got Krav on top of that for free.

This is complaining to complain.

They traded a contract for a contract, nothing was opened up and it's weird to term it the way you have here. By your logic they got a contract back which should be a negative worth a 7th and then we are back to the actual trade.

----

Anyways, as for the actual trade. The acquisition cost is basically zero, who cares about that. I do think it's noteworthy they chased this player for awhile and it was obvious basically immediately that this isn't a useful NHL player right now. So yeah, not great scouting on this one.

 

[RobsonStreet]

Honestly, a GM could probably use a 5th, 6th, or 7th to jump the waiver order whenever they hear about a player they like that’s available. Provided amateur scouting is not awful, they come out ahead.

Put another way, trading a mystery box with a 5 percent shot at an Ethan Bear for actual Ethan Bear makes sense most of the time.

 

[racerjoe]

They traded a contract for a contract, nothing was opened up and it's weird to term it the way you have here. By your logic they got a contract back which should be a negative worth a 7th and then we are back to the actual trade.

----

Anyways, as for the actual trade. The acquisition cost is basically zero, who cares about that. I do think it's noteworthy they chased this player for awhile and it was obvious basically immediately that this isn't a useful NHL player right now. So yeah, not great scouting on this one.

I don't think you understood what I was saying...

7th = Freeing up a contract spot.

So 7th would be equal to us giving away Lockwood to free a spot (or in our case keep it open).

Thus it could be viewed as Krav for free.

 

[credulous]

probability of playing N games is the wrong way to look at the value of late draft picks. the value of late draft picks is the lotto ticket aspect. sometimes you get kevin bieksa or mackenzie weegar and they help your team for years. trade too many late picks and you never get those hits

 

[Bleach Clean]

A 7th rounder and a career AHL player exchanged for a player with talent who has shown very little so far that could benefit from a change of scenery is not a bad bet versus what that 7th rounder could produce 3-5 years from now.

In theory that sounds fine. In practice, with Kratsov specifically, you would add to the 7th rounder's side of the ledger: The trade potential for a player that plays the Tocchet's style and wants to remainin NA. Then on Kravtsov's side you would add: Is likely never going to play for Tocchet again, even if does come back to NA eventually.

To sum, you can make a far better bet with that 7th, in an alternative trade, than 16 games of nothing.

 

[RobsonStreet]

probability of playing N games is the wrong way to look at the value of late draft picks. the value of late draft picks is the lotto ticket aspect. sometimes you get kevin bieksa or mackenzie weegar and they help your team for years. trade too many late picks and you never get those hits

That’s a bit like saying, “My strategy for wealth creation is playing the lottery. You can’t win if you don’t play.”

The Bieksas and Weegars are the very reason why late picks are (slightly) overvalued. All else being equal, keep them. If they provide a marginal return? Don’t sweat it too much.

 

[Bleach Clean]

That’s a bit like saying, “My strategy for wealth creation is playing the lottery. You can’t win if you don’t play.”

The Bieksas and Weegars are the very reason why late picks are (slightly) overvalued. All else being equal, keep them. If they provide a marginal return? Don’t sweat it too much.

If they're overvalued, then trade them for NA based bets that play the way the coach wants. The other team then gives you a player that is at least a going concern for an asset they are overvaluing.

 

[credulous]

That’s a bit like saying, “My strategy for wealth creation is playing the lottery. You can’t win if you don’t play.”

The Bieksas and Weegars are the very reason why late picks are (slightly) overvalued. All else being equal, keep them. If they provide a marginal return? Don’t sweat it too much.

the issue specifically is that getting a borderline nhler (~100 career games) isn't very valuable. you can get those for free. trading a pick for a studnicka or granlund is bad because you can replace those players for free and you're giving up the chance at a bieksa or weegar. you can't be like 'a 5th for studnicka is fine because the average 5th round pick plays 17.4 games and studnicka played 32' (all trades and numbers made up, don't hold them to me)

 

[Hodgy]

Boom/bust is fine, so long as it has a greater runway that 16 games. I don't even think the Canucks expected that.

Why? They likely (almost certainly) would have known that he wasn't willing to play in the AHL, and given that he was only worth a 7th round pick, it is almost a certainty that they would have known there was a good chance he wasn't going to be able to cut it in the NHL. All of the facts suggest that the Canucks would have believed that there was a good or decent chance that Kravtsov would be heading back to the KHL. With that said, I am sure the Canucks hoped he would break out in Vancouver and re-sign.

Was he going to reinvent himself here from the bench?

No. He had plenty of opportunity to begin to reinvent himself on the ice but failed to do so which isn't a surprising result given that he was acquired for 7th round pick in 2026.

You could argue that a never-to-return, lazy Kravtsov is worth more than the long-shot 7th rounder, of course. That said, I'd rather be on this side of that argument than your side of it. I'll take the 7th.

Whelp, if you can argue that, which very obviously you reasonably can, and we had the opportunity of seeing whether he could re-invent himself in a different atmosphere in Vancouver, then I think its pretty obvious that the trade was fine.

Again, I think he had like a 5-10% of turning things around in Vancouver, and now has like a 1-5% chance of turning things around in the KHL. These seem like decent odds when compared to the odds of a 7th round pick succeeding.

When the environment is built to oppose what he naturally is as a player, it's all but inevitable he fails within 16 games. (Miracle percentage aside)

There was zero inevitability to his failing notwithstanding how many times you state this.

probability of playing N games is the wrong way to look at the value of late draft picks. the value of late draft picks is the lotto ticket aspect. sometimes you get kevin bieksa or mackenzie weegar and they help your team for years. trade too many late picks and you never get those hits

Ya, that's definitely true, but you have to look at the ceiling of the player/prospect you are trading that pick for. Many times you are absolutely right, but in the case of Kravtsov, I don't think this applies as his ceiling remains relatively high albeit he's very unlikely to reach it.

 

[credulous]

Ya, that's definitely true, but you have to look at the ceiling of the player/prospect you are trading that pick for. Many times you are absolutely right, but in the case of Kravtsov, I don't think this applies as his ceiling remains relatively high albeit he's very unlikely to reach it.

sure, i'm not commenting on kravtsov specifically. just the common justification that '14th round picks only make the nhl 2.7% of the time'

 

[Hodgy]

the issue specifically is that getting a borderline nhler (~100 career games) isn't very valuable. you can get those for free. trading a pick for a studnicka or granlund is bad because you can replace those players for free and you're giving up the chance at a bieksa or weegar. you can't be like 'a 5th for studnicka is fine because the average 5th round pick plays 17.4 games and studnicka played 32' (all trades and numbers made up, don't hold them to me)

Again, it really depends on the ceiling of the player you are trading for. The issue is if you are trading for low ceiling players and then justifying those trades by referencing very low success rates of the picks you are trading but ignoring the higher ceilings of the players that could be drafted with those picks. The argument, however, is a bit dubious since it all comes down to player ceiling evaluations, whether at the amateur draft level, or at the professional scouting level, and those are always subject to being very wrong.