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

[MS]

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.

View attachment 712235

The other aspect of this that I've been repeating a lot recently is that trading late round draft picks doesn't happen in a vacuum.

If you trade some 5th/6th/7th rounders, it isn't like you're just purely subtracting those from your system moving down the road. Instead, if you're not signing a 6th rounder in 2 years when they turn 20 it means you have an extra slot to sign an NCAA/CHL/Euro UFA.

And the thing with late round picks is that there is a tendency to make bad signings on sunk costs like Plasek/Palmu/Focht in recent years and the drafted prospect you're signing can tend to be worse than the Aman/Bains/Johansson prospect you'd be getting as a UFA.

Basically I'm currently coming around to the opinion that you can trade all of your 5th/6th/7th round picks every year and just sign UFA prospects with the contract slots you're freeing up, and you'll actually break even or maybe even come out ahead even if you get nothing in return for the picks.

 

[Hodgy]

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'

Ya, for sure. But like I said it my other post, its kind of a dubious theory in that evaluating player ceilings isn't some science that can be relied upon to determine whether a trade is good or bad based on the application of the theory.

 

[RobsonStreet]

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)

Agreed. If you go back and look, the cutoffs I used were 200 games played and .5 points per game for forwards, .3 points per game for D. I used 100 games played for goalies.

As you increase thresholds, the falloff gets steeper, making the expected value on late picks lower. The graph on the right shows what happens if I bump up points per game to .7 for forwards and .5 for D.

 

[MS]

The other aspect of this that I've been repeating a lot recently is that trading late round draft picks doesn't happen in a vacuum.

If you trade some 5th/6th/7th rounders, it isn't like you're just purely subtracting those from your system moving down the road. Instead, if you're not signing a 6th rounder in 2 years when they turn 20 it means you have an extra slot to sign an NCAA/CHL/Euro UFA.

And the thing with late round picks is that there is a tendency to make bad signings on sunk costs like Plasek/Palmu/Focht in recent years and the drafted prospect you're signing can tend to be worse than the Aman/Bains/Johansson prospect you'd be getting as a UFA.

Basically I'm currently coming around to the opinion that you can trade all of your 5th/6th/7th round picks every year and just sign UFA prospects with the contract slots you're freeing up, and you'll actually break even or maybe even come out ahead even if you get nothing in return for the picks.

And here I am showing my work on this, for the record :

Trade Targets: Draft Picks vs Young Players

Do you ever go outside You know I don’t.

forums.hfboards.com

 

[RobsonStreet]

The other aspect of this that I've been repeating a lot recently is that trading late round draft picks doesn't happen in a vacuum.

If you trade some 5th/6th/7th rounders, it isn't like you're just purely subtracting those from your system moving down the road. Instead, if you're not signing a 6th rounder in 2 years when they turn 20 it means you have an extra slot to sign an NCAA/CHL/Euro UFA.

And the thing with late round picks is that there is a tendency to make bad signings on sunk costs like Plasek/Palmu/Focht in recent years and the drafted prospect you're signing can tend to be worse than the Aman/Bains/Johansson prospect you'd be getting as a UFA.

Basically I'm currently coming around to the opinion that you can trade all of your 5th/6th/7th round picks every year and just sign UFA prospects with the contract slots you're freeing up, and you'll actually break even or maybe even come out ahead even if you get nothing in return for the picks.

Agreed. It makes intuitive sense because you get a free look at how a lot of these players fare as they bump up a level of competition. You’re also not having to project as far out in time.

The flip side is also true: if hypothetically, they lowered draft eligibility to 16, NHL scouts would be flailing.

 

[RobsonStreet]

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.

Well, for the sake of exploring this, here’s all the waiver claims I could find for this season.

 

[m9]

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.

I understood what you said, I just don't really agree with the breakdown. Anyways we can both agree the acquisition cost was extremely low.

 

[VanJack]

Is suppose there's a slim chance that Kravstov spends a couple of years in the KHL, and then morphs into the second coming of Andrei Kuzmenko and returns to the Canucks as a 26-year old.

Then again.....probably not.

 

[MS]

Is suppose there's a slim chance that Kravstov spends a couple of years in the KHL, and then morphs into the second coming of Andrei Kuzmenko and returns to the Canucks as a 26-year old.

Then again.....probably not.

This is pretty much exactly Evgeny Dadonov's career arc with Florida so it isn't impossible.

 

[ghostingtaro]

dont let the door hit you on the way out

 

[Bleach Clean]

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.

If those good players can just be signed instead, as was the case with FLA on the low end, then you can keep the picks to make even more good value bets (or not). In other words, there's nothing mandating a jumping of the waiver queue.

The Kravtsov bet is a clear pro scouting mistake though. I think it's less pointing at the failure rate of this type of move, which is going to be likely from the outset, than it is recognizing that Tocchet and Kravtsov was just not going to work. That this particular move was an inevitable failure. So make that same bet somewhere else.

 

[VanJack]

When you acquire another NHL team's disappointing prospects, there's always a chance it won't work out. That's where the price you paid to acquire the guy in the first place becomes paramount.

It seemed like Benning was always blowing second and third round draft picks on these guys. Then when they flopped, he doubled down on the original mistake by re-signing them anyway.

Canucks gave up little for Kravstov, and still retain his rights for the next couple of years in the KHL. So it's 'live and learn' and you move on.

 

[vorky]

Now it is official, 2-years with Traktor Chelyabinsk

 

[ChilliBilly]

had hoped that we got Kuzmenko lucky on this trade. This guy has serious talent. sorry to see him bolt. It is just strange how some players fail to understand the commitment required to be a NHL level talent (and rewarded with $). These are some of the privileged people on the bloody planet, and they don't do it.

As a side note, this is a testament to the Sedins. They committed to coming to camp in shape. God what a pair of class guys.

 

[Petey O]

had hoped that we got Kuzmenko lucky on this trade. This guy has serious talent. sorry to see him bolt. It is just strange how some players fail to understand the commitment required to be a NHL level talent (and rewarded with $). These are some of the privileged people on the bloody planet, and they don't do it.

As a side note, this is a testament to the Sedins. They committed to coming to camp in shape. God what a pair of class guys.

He's being qualified. If he's worth a damn in two years he will be back.

 

[F A N]

I agree with much of what has been said here. I would say that changing your mind on the player is fine, but after 16 games? That only happens because the coach benched him (for the right reasons) and made management's decision for them.

You have to ask this question about management's vision here. No matter how much push back there is. Even at this low, low cost, what is management really thinking is going to happen here? He came as advertised. Lazy and inconsistent. They knew what they were getting. They also knew who his coach would be. Putting those two things together, I'm not sure how they could have reasonably expected a different result?

I'm just spitballing here. I think in Kravtsov's case, he clearly wasn't and hasn't been in a good situation. He has wanted out for at least two years now. Often times, players who aren't happy with their situation and role on the team don't put in 100% to earn a bigger role or put themselves in a better situation. They usually just keep sulking. That happens. But there has been flashes of his talent and there's a valid argument that his underlying numbers suggest a player who could scale if given more ice time and opportunities.

I bet management did think that the training staff and Tocchet could work with Kravtsov and Kravtsov would have some familiar faces. Given the Canucks situation, they should audition players for next year and Kravtsov had showed well they may be more comfortable moving more of our higher priced wingers.

But again it goes back to the point of the Canucks wanting to install a new culture and structure and then have the players come back after a big summer. You would think that includes a player like Kravtsov.

Again, spitballing here, Kravtsov was already a player lacking confidence and as much as little stock we could take from his initial interview here the guy sounded listless. Those healthy scratches especially towards the end likely deflated him some more. On the Canucks side, Tocchet clearly wasn't happy with his work ethic. If you saw Kravtsov play in those 16 games and if he talked like he did in that video interview in the exit interviews, I certainly doesn't inspire confidence. So like I said, it could be that the Canucks weren't that confident about Kravtsov and Kravtsov didn't want to risk another season of like all his past NHL seasons.

 

[VanJack]

He's being qualified. If he's worth a damn in two years he will be back.

Yes, this probably explains a lot. Canucks probably weren't convinced he could crack their opening night roster, and obviously Kravstov could earn a lot more money in the KHL than playing in Abbotsford next season.

So it's a compromise for the player and team. He earns more money playing in one of Europe's top leagues, and the Canucks don't have to re-sign him. But they still retain his rights, and after two years, maybe he's ready to return to the NHL and make a serious bid for a job.

Just another prospect in the pipeline, albeit an older one.

 

[EdJovanovski]

Congratulations Uncle Vitali!

 

[strattonius]

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)

There's better odds that Studnicka will turn his game around and be a meaningful NHL player than the odds a 7th rd pick will garner.

Your logic assumes all trades 'like the Studnicka' trade never have the player turn their game around. It's conveniently shrouded in a world of complete hindsight. The odds that a player like Studnicka came to Vancouver and was a pleasant surprise and turned his game around is BETTER ODDS than a 7th rd pick.

 

[Bleach Clean]

There's better odds that Studnicka will turn his game around and be a meaningful NHL player than the odds a 7th rd pick will garner.

Your logic assumes all trades 'like the Studnicka' trade never have the player turn their game around. It's conveniently shrouded in a world of complete hindsight. The odds that a player like Studnicka came to Vancouver and was a pleasant surprise and turned his game around is BETTER ODDS than a 7th rd pick.

But what is the value add of Studnicka turning it around vs getting a player off of the scrap heap to perform like Studnicka? To me, nothing.

The very reason you draft is to gain quality not as easily obtained otherwise. Yes, there is an equal or lower chance you gain anything from the 7th rounder. You could make that case, but then you would also need to make the case that the high end is equal or greater too. That you're just as likely to turn a Studnicka into a Pavelski over that same frequency, therefore trade all 7th rounders for fringe players.

 

[credulous]

yeah the point is not that studnicka is garbage it's that studnicka is very unlikely to ever amount to more than a depth player. the chances of studnicka becoming yanni gourde or alex burrows are infinitesimal. the chances of a 5th/6th/7th round pick becoming jamie benn, joe pavelski or ondrej palat are still tiny but much greater than that of studnicka ever being a meaningful player to the canucks

 

[strattonius]

yeah the point is not that studnicka is garbage it's that studnicka is very unlikely to ever amount to more than a depth player. the chances of studnicka becoming yanni gourde or alex burrows are infinitesimal. the chances of a 5th/6th/7th round pick becoming jamie benn, joe pavelski or ondrej palat are still tiny but much greater than that of studnicka ever being a meaningful player to the canucks

It's more about the chances of a trade for a Studnicka type player - not specifically Studnicka. So making a trade for an early 20's reclamation project. And I get these aren't valuable pieces but we are comparing to 7th rd picks.

That's where we circle back around to Kravtsov. The chances that he came to Vancouver and turned his game around were significantly higher than the odds a 7th rd pick even made the NHL at any capacity.

Not commenting on 5th rd picks. They are exponentially more valuable than a 7th. If we had moved a 5th for Kravtsov it's definitely in the bad trade bag.

 

[MS]

But what is the value add of Studnicka turning it around vs getting a player off of the scrap heap to perform like Studnicka? To me, nothing.

The very reason you draft is to gain quality not as easily obtained otherwise. Yes, there is an equal or lower chance you gain anything from the 7th rounder. You could make that case, but then you would also need to make the case that the high end is equal or greater too. That you're just as likely to turn a Studnicka into a Pavelski over that same frequency, therefore trade all 7th rounders for fringe players.

Again, these things don’t happen in a vacuum.

Yes, it’s a legitimate argument that ‘why would you trade a 7th for Studnicka when you can get Studnickas for free all the time’.

But that exact same logical thread means it’s also a legitimate argument to say ‘why would you keep your 7th round pick to spend on a very mediocre prospect when if you trade the pick you can just use that contract slot to sign an equal/better prospect as a UFA?’

You’re stuck in that vacuum where if you trade the 2nd you’ve given something away that’s gone forever. But if we trade our 2023 7th round pick, all it means is that we’re exchanging the tiny chance we’ll get a Pavelski (and when your go-to example is over 20 years old that’s not a good sign btw) with that pick for higher chance we’ll get a Tanev or a Kuzmenko with the extra space to sign UFA prospects.

You’re getting upset about an asset loss/opportunity cost when there simply isn’t one. Late round picks are essentially worthless, and if you can get value for them in trade currency, go for it.

 

[credulous]

But that exact same logical thread means it’s also a legitimate argument to say ‘why would you keep your 7th round pick to spend on a very mediocre prospect when if you trade the pick you can just use that contract slot to sign an equal/better prospect as a UFA?’

you can always just choose not to sign the picks if you think there's better value in the free agent market

the value of late picks isn't that you get names to put on your prospect rankings or bodies to fill out the bottom of the ahl roster it's that you get exclusive negotiating rights to whoever you pick. you can draft pavelski AND sign tanev/kuzmenko

 

[MS]

you can always just choose not to sign the picks if you think there's better value in the free agent market

the value of late picks isn't that you get names to put on your prospect rankings or bodies to fill out the bottom of the ahl roster it's that you get exclusive negotiating rights to whoever you pick. you can draft pavelski AND sign tanev/kuzmenko

If you draft Pavelski and sign him, you have one less spot to sign a UFA.

There are only X number of prospects under contract an organization will have at any given time and whether you fill up the last few of those spots with signed late round picks or signed UFA prospects or a mix of both is just totally irrelevant and there will be no meaningful difference in the results.

And again, using a guy drafted in 2003 to show what you might be missing is a bit disingenuous.