Toggle sidebar

Who lost the Kappo Kakko trade?

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.

Who lost the Kappo Kakko trade?

  • Total voters
    181
  • Poll closed .
Machinehead said:
Can't believe how many people are voting for the last option. :laugh:

That's the offer that landed Kakko because he's not that good and front offices around the league aren't that interested.
Click to expand...

You make a good point, but as the OP I'll defend myself here.

To me, Kakko's value probably should've been around a mid to late first. Rangers are trying to compete now, so that translates to... idk, maybe a decent 2nd pair defenseman or at least a productive bottom six forward? Something like that.

I saw this return and was just stunned. The reason I made the thread is that I thought Kakko's value was much MUCH higher, I was curious to see others thought my take was insane (hence why the 4th option). Best to evaluate in a poll form as it weeds out loud extremists on either side
 
  • Like
Reactions: Machinehead
Bear of Bad News said:
Nah, you're good - I love you, man.

You're absolutely right that the whole point of being here is typically to talk about either the past or the future.

Plus I think we all finally agree that my Kraken finally won something other than a first-round playoff series.
Click to expand...

haha all good, I don't think we ever talked before but just a thought like that... since the time is always moving on, we can never talk about the present!

Crazy Cizikas said:
It’s weird that when asked for an opinion, people without an opinion are compelled to state that they don’t have an opinion.
Click to expand...

Actually, BoBN has fooled us because he has an opinion! He voted the Rangers option, like me.

All that said, I hope Kakko becomes a better player away from all the pressure
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bear of Bad News
PainForShane said:
You make a good point, but as the OP I'll defend myself here.

To me, Kakko's value probably should've been around a mid to late first. Rangers are trying to compete now, so that translates to... idk, maybe a decent 2nd pair defenseman or at least a productive bottom six forward? Something like that.

I saw this return and was just stunned. The reason I made the thread is that I thought Kakko's value was much MUCH higher, I was curious to see others thought my take was insane (hence why the 4th option). Best to evaluate in a poll form as it weeds out loud extremists on either side
Click to expand...
It would have been that at some point. Possibly more.

The Rangers let the league watch him fall down and turn the puck over for five years.

Even in this age of analytics, a lot of GM's are old heads who want to see blood, sweat, and tears. Kakko is a visually soft player who's excruciating to watch.

The valid criticism of the Rangers here is not trading him sooner. The further he got from his draft hype, the more his value went down. He's hard to watch.

Once they finally shat and got off the pot, the value is what it is. Like I said, value is a matter of fact after the trade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PainForShane
Machinehead said:
If teams were willing to make better offers, they would have.

It's always bizarre to me that we sit here and debate value after the trade when we just found out what the value is!

Do you think Drury had a 1st rounder in his text inbox and just said no?

Ignoring that Montreal is run by complete morons for the Dach example, yes, teams have given more value to take a flier on probably worse players. That's a correct assessment. That being said, Kakko is extremely soft and very irresponsible with the puck. He's not going to make any fans among the coaches in this league and three different coaches have scratched him.

Seattle is banking on him completely transforming every shitty habit he has. And that's fine for them, because they didn't give up much, but evidently nobody else would have either, because he's not a player people want. It doesn't take many viewings to figure out why.
Click to expand...

Well right now we're both just speculating, you're speculating as much about Drury's competence as i am about his incompetence. I would argue yes, Drury is a human being. Therefore, as a human, he would totally be a bonehead and make a deal without necessarily seeking out an alternative. The fact that he scratched him before trading him, further devaluating the player confirms he's a bonehead. So it tilts a bit in my favor of speculation that Drury is A BONEHEAD. Yes. Yes very much so.

But ultimately i just focused on your statement "i can'T BELIEVE" when in fact it is very very believable and i gave you some references to see that even shitty players can get a significant return based on the quality of the GM.

GMs are not all on the same spectrum of greatness. There are good GMs and there are bad GMs. Drury is an awful GM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Svedu
KingPuckChoo said:
Well right now we're both just speculating, you're speculating as much about Drury's competence as i am about his incompetence. I would argue yes, Drury is a human being. Therefore, as a human, he would totally be a bonehead and make a deal without necessarily seeking out an alternative. The fact that he scratched him before trading him, further devaluating the player confirms he's a bonehead. So it tilts a bit in my favor of speculation that Drury is A BONEHEAD. Yes. Yes very much so.

But ultimately i just focused on your statement "i can'T BELIEVE" when in fact it is very very believable and i gave you some references to see that even shitty players can get a significant return based on the quality of the GM.

GMs are not all on the same spectrum of greatness. There are good GMs and there are bad GMs. Drury is an awful GM.
Click to expand...
It's not believable.

Drury is a bonehead but it's quite a stretch to suggest he had a better offer and just didn't know about it. This was Kakko's 6th season with the Rangers. Conversations go on all the time, and they had a pretty good idea of what his value was.

I love throwing GM's under the bus as much as anyone, particularly when it comes to free agency. One of my peeves with hockey fans is this whole "why didn't he take a better offer?" thing after a trade. Because he didn't have one. Not one that was significantly better at the time the trade was made, or he would have taken it.
 
Machinehead said:
Can't believe how many people are voting for the last option. :laugh:

That's the offer that landed Kakko because he's not that good and front offices around the league aren't that interested.
Click to expand...
That's probably true to a degree but I kinda doubt they would've traded him to an Eastern Conference team, and especially not a metro team so that probably factored in on the return too. I kinda thought the Canes might be able to snag him by dangling your GM's nephew, but alas that did not happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PainForShane
AhosDatsyukian said:
That's probably true to a degree but I kinda doubt they would've traded him to an Eastern Conference team, and especially not a metro team so that probably factored in on the return too. I kinda thought the Canes might be able to snag him by dangling your GM's nephew, but alas that did not happen.
Click to expand...
It likely would have just been Drury if that was the basis for the deal.

I think getting some draft capital was a key focus here because the time for Kakko to get a good NHL player back was two years ago.
 
The more Machinehead keeps blabbing, the more i know the trade was bad. Might be the worst rangers trade of all time truthfully.
 
Machinehead said:
It's not believable.

Drury is a bonehead but it's quite a stretch to suggest he had a better offer and just didn't know about it. This was Kakko's 6th season with the Rangers. Conversations go on all the time, and they had a pretty good idea of what his value was.

I love throwing GM's under the bus as much as anyone, particularly when it comes to free agency. One of my peeves with hockey fans is this whole "why didn't he take a better offer?" thing after a trade. Because he didn't have one. Not one that was significantly better at the time the trade was made, or he would have taken it.
Click to expand...

So if NJD or NYI made a slightly better offer, you think Drury would've taken it?

No chance any org is trading a former #2OA pick to a cross-town rival even simply for the off chance he becomes a 30/30 guy and you have to deal with it all year.

I get what you're saying but there are so many valid reasons why a better offer would be denied. I don't think it's a coincidence both he and Trouba went west.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PainForShane
DelZottoHitTheNetJK said:
So if NJD or NYI made a slightly better offer, you think Drury would've taken it?

No chance any org is trading a former #2OA pick to a cross-town rival even simply for the off chance he becomes a 30/30 guy and you have to deal with it all year.

I get what you're saying but there are so many valid reasons why a better offer would be denied. I don't think it's a coincidence both he and Trouba went west.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about slightly better.
 
Machinehead said:
We're not talking about slightly better.
Click to expand...

However we want to classify slightly versus significantly, no GM is accepting either to a division rival when we're talking about a #2OA.

The point is that better offers could've been made and denied. Better offers from East teams could've been made that were denied in favor of sending him to the West.

I don't think that was the case here but I'm confused why the idea peeves you when it happens all the time in every sport. Look at what the Raiders got for Davante Adams when the Chiefs were in dire need of a WR
 
  • Like
Reactions: PainForShane
DelZottoHitTheNetJK said:
However we want to classify slightly versus significantly, no GM is accepting either to a division rival when we're talking about a #2OA.

The point is that better offers could've been made and denied. Better offers from East teams could've been made that were denied in favor of sending him to the West.

I don't think that was the case here but I'm confused why the idea peeves you when it happens all the time in every sport. Look at what the Raiders got for Davante Adams when the Chiefs were in dire need of a WR
Click to expand...
It peeves me because it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest GM's would take objectively worse offers because they're legitimately unintelligent.
 
Machinehead said:
It peeves me because it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest GM's would take objectively worse offers because they're legitimately unintelligent.
Click to expand...
You are wrong.

But you are 100% biased more or less protecting Drurys ass, in a subtle way or not. And at the same time bashing Kakko in more or less every post. Pretty one dimensional...
 
Last edited:
Svedu said:
You are wrong.

But you are 100% biased more or less protecting Drurys ass, in a subtile way or not. And at the same time bashing Kakko in more or less every post. Pretty one dimensional...
Click to expand...
So what exactly is the argument here?

Drury could have gotten way more value for Kakko and just what, had a stroke?
 
Machinehead said:
It's not believable.

Drury is a bonehead but it's quite a stretch to suggest he had a better offer and just didn't know about it. This was Kakko's 6th season with the Rangers. Conversations go on all the time, and they had a pretty good idea of what his value was.

I love throwing GM's under the bus as much as anyone, particularly when it comes to free agency. One of my peeves with hockey fans is this whole "why didn't he take a better offer?" thing after a trade. Because he didn't have one. Not one that was significantly better at the time the trade was made, or he would have taken it.
Click to expand...
Your initial post was about the last option but this post leads me to believe you misunderstood the last option. It is about other GMs not offering something better, not about Drury not taking a better offer. Drury did fine if that was the best option, and it probably was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PainForShane
Romang67 said:
Drury had better offers on the table, but exclusively from rivals within driving distance. No other western conference team offered more.
Click to expand...
Right, that I could see. But if they blew Seattle's offer away, he would have taken it. It was probably pretty close, which affirms my point that this is pretty close to what Kakko's value is around the league.

If it wasn't close to what his value is, somebody in the West would have blown Seattle's offer away.
 
Realgud said:
Your initial post was about the last option but this post leads me to believe you misunderstood the last option. It is about other GMs not offering something better, not about Drury not taking a better offer. Drury did fine if that was the best option, and it probably was.
Click to expand...
The last option is rooted in the belief that Kakko has more value than what he got. Apparently not! Your value is what you were traded for. We don't need to speculate on the value of a player that was traded yesterday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom