Who lost the Kappo Kakko trade?

[Albatros]

If the value is near zero, why trade at all?

 

[Jack Spider]

Rangers lost their 2nd overall pick. The people who took the decision to draft him. The NYR staff that trained him, even if they are not with the team anymore.

It's a loss to them and its gotta sting. But at some point it becomes a distraction and you have to move on. Cut the loss. For the actual trade, only time will tell.

 

[Realgud]

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.

I mean.... by that logic every trade is fine value then, and there are never any losers... in reality it's fine to point out that GMs might be underrating a player and that player might start playing well after the trade. Happens all the time. You're living in the moment when it comes to answering this thread, which yeah, I understand, it's a premature thread but it's also a lot of guessing on Kakko's future impact, which is what this is about I would think.

 

[Machinehead]

I mean.... by that logic every trade is fine value then, and there are never any losers... in reality it's fine to point out that GMs might be underrating a player and that player might start playing well after the trade. Happens all the time. You're living in the moment when it comes to answering this thread, which yeah, I understand, it's a premature thread but it's also a lot of guessing on Kakko's future impact, which is what this is about I would think.

That's all a completely different story. Yeah maybe Kakko becomes Peter Forsberg in Seattle and then you judge the trade differently, although how he was handled probably more so than the trade itself.

I feel like the votes for the last option are overvaluing Kakko based on what we know now, which is that he wasn't worth much.

What got me going was somebody bringing up past trades, which is pretty objective in the moment they happened. If Kakko was getting anywhere near what Dach did, he would have.

 

[DJN21]

Kakko isn't that great. This wont matter for anyone.....

 

[Three On Zero]

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.

About Seattle and winn….. actually on second thought, I retract what I was going to say.

 

[ijuka]

Let's try an unbiased take here:

This season, Will Borgen has had very poor concrete and advanced stats, and his game score has been deeply in the negative. At a 2.7mil cap hit, he's a cap dump with negative value, though for just this season. He's a UFA whose contract ends this season.

We have a third-round pick and a sixth-round pick. Would those be enough to make a team take on a pure cap dump of 2.7mil who plays at a level below that of a replacement level player? Perhaps. So let's say that that combo for future considerations is fair value just to dump the cap hit.

Kakko is 23 years of age, RFA under team control for some three years. His cap hit is 2.4mil. His individual stats have been meh, while his concrete and advanced stats have ranged from great to excellent.

Essentially, this trade is a loss for Rangers as long as Kakko doesn't have negative value. Looking at recent RFA comparables like Tanner Jeannot and the value he fetched, I'd estimate that Kakko probably does not have negative value.

So by the information thus far, and even if Kakko merely maintains his current level of play and doesn't even take off or improve, I'd say that this is a clear loss for Rangers. They should have gotten more in return, given the information currently available.

 

[Ignatius]

Rangers lost, rest of League won

 

[PainForShane]

That's all a completely different story. Yeah maybe Kakko becomes Peter Forsberg in Seattle and then you judge the trade differently, although how he was handled probably more so than the trade itself.

I feel like the votes for the last option are overvaluing Kakko based on what we know now, which is that he wasn't worth much.

What got me going was somebody bringing up past trades, which is pretty objective in the moment they happened. If Kakko was getting anywhere near what Dach did, he would have.

@Realgud Thanks for stepping in / clarifying.

To me (OP) I enclosed the last option not to bash Drury, but more an open question of 'should the GM of my own team (whichever team) have offered significantly more'? I wasn't trying to suggest Drury didn't take the best available offer (within reason). I could've made it more clear I guess.

Anyway I enjoyed reading your discussion, both of you made some great points. Thx for that

 

[gary559]

I don't think the rest of the league was that interested in him but I do think he should have returned a little more than that. Sometimes you have to trade a player for less because they aren't helping the team with their drama. I don't think Kakko is drama, but I don't think management liked his comments to the media even if he brought up a valid point. L Rangers for not getting more, don't think Seattle is walking with an amazing haul though.

 

[wetcoast]

Rangers lose this trade pretty badly. I'm pretty shocked they couldn't get a better offer.

Maybe they had better offers out East but didn't want to trade him to a rival? If a guy is so good that you're concerned about trading him to a team in your division, maybe you shouldn't trade him for Will Borgen.

Agree with this but teams only have so much room and trades like this happen.

 

[Bouboumaster]

Rangers lost the trade because f*** 'em