View Single Post
Old
11-01-2012, 03:29 PM
  #36
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Or we could have taken players that never sniff the NHL (odds are) and the depth on the NHL team would have suffered.
Indeed.

Quote:
Prospects like McNally and Corrado are nice to have, but they're still a million miles away from being NHLers. The only prospects that matter at all to the organization are ones that make a contribution on the big club, these late picks have a slim hope of doing that.
Indeed.

Quote:
I don't really care how deep the farm team is, I care how deep the Canucks are.
Sure, I agree. Although the point of having two pretty good project players is that one of them could turn into a pretty good young NHL player, I'm sure you'll agree that having these types of players is vital to an NHL team's success. And the more you have the more likely that you'll be filling holes on your big league roster with young, cheap, improving players rather than older players with higher cap hits and a stronger likelihood of declining effectiveness.

Ultimately a team can squander organizational depth to fill holes on their NHL roster (and a certain amount of it is almost always a good thing) but relying on that to ice a decent NHL team is unsustainable.

Quote:
I would trade 2nd and 3rd round picks every year for 3-5 years of Lapierre's and Higgins' type players, you'd be crazy not to. When you strike it big with those picks those are exactly the kind of players you're hoping to find.
Well, except for the fact that when you strike it big with those picks you have repeated chances to get a player like that under contract for less than his actual value until they finally hit unrestricted free agency. Look at Jannik Hansen for instance. He was a bargain at well under a million, now he is a bargain again at a million and change, and on his next contract he might well be a bargain again and he'll probably only then start making about what Higgins makes now.

I wouldn't trade 2nds and 3rds together for Steve Bernier (although I recognize why it was done under the circumstances), I wouldn't trade a 1st rounder for Keith Ballard (again I recognize why it was done), I wouldn't trade a 3rd rounder for Andrew Alberts.

I'd gladly give up those kinds of picks for a Chris Higgins or a Max Lapierre, although in the case of Higgins they could have had him for nothing eight months earlier, which is what I'd really rather be doing.

Quote:
Gillis is playing the odds when he trades those picks. He's trading lottery tickets for cash money.
Sure, but the immediate payout is relatively low and the odds of the "lottery" are relatively high, I definitely respect the value of making that trade off from time to time but if it keeps up over time you are losing value overall.

To this point I wouldn't say I'm terribly unhappy with the choices Gillis has made, but if people want an explanation for why the Canucks prospect pool is filled with nobodies then this trade off is it.

dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote