[Trade] Toronto trades Kasperi Kapanen to Pittsburgh - Page 8 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

SuperMatt18 · 08-25-2020, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

What names come to mind then? How many young 20-something year olds with 20 goal seasons are being moved for this price?

Ondrej Kase has identical career stats (43 goals, 97 points in 204 games) to Kapanen ( 41 goals, 90 points in 202 games) and Boston traded a 2020 1st and a prospect for him, while also dumping a year of David Backes $4.5M contract.

So yeah feels like an overpayment to me, they gave up the same return the Bruins gave up for Kase (who has much better advanced stats) while not dumping salary as well. Sure Kase had injury concerns, but really is Kapanen a better player. I don't think so.

Plus the prospect quality shouldn't be overlooked here. Hallander was a second rounder who is trending well post draft. Based on the hockey prospecting stats his nhl equivalency numbers post draft rank about 5th among the forwards in that draft, and puts him in the same tier as guys like Farabee or Hayton from that draft. So not just a throw in either.

As an aside: I wonder how many times in NHL history a team has used a first to draft a player, and then in the future used another first to trade for the player. Can't be that many times.

bubbsy · 08-25-2020, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Nope I didn't.
You stated that they got Crosby by being a garbage team.
I stated that they got him by being lucky.
I think my statement is more true than yours.

And yes it underscores how just tanking and focusing on draft picks isn't enough - you have to have some good fortune in terms of when you, how good that draft is, and how high a pick you get in a lottery world.

That's the risk of going scored earth.

Only speaking to the bolder part of your statement.

Is the risk of NOT going scorched earth equivalent to flames fortune over the past 3 decades now? You are correct that just picking high isn't enough, development, roster building strategy all play a big part (just see the oilers) and there's definitely some luck involved. But it's still a path that is required in the draft based, team building. especially for a market like Calgary which isn't a destination Ufa's are typically wanting to go to, and a team that isn't on a ntc exception list for most players.

To get high end players, flames need to draft those players. As such, until they try scorched earth, I think the odds are against them using the model of the last 30 years to build a perennial contender.

Macho0978 · 08-25-2020, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Kapanen is a year removed from a 20 goal season. During that season he saw very little powerplay time because of how top heavy the team was. It's not like he was fed a time of opportune minutes and capitalized. I think his down season is closer to having a sophomore slump than anything.

Penguins need help now. They aren't looking to rebuild while Crosby and Malkin breath, so getting help now was their goal. The only argument I see against this trade from their point-of-view is if they could have got a better forward for the pick or the cap-space. If neither are true, then I think it's a decent deal for them.

Toronto needs to move out cap-space, making this an ideal move for them.

Didn't Kapanen get a lot of those goals during Nylanders hold out on the first line? 20 goals sometime can be a very overrated total due to a good stretch. See James Neal.

No way is Kapanen worth that pick in one of the tightest off season for cap issues league wide since the cap was implemented. Throw in its not improving for 3 years I expect 3 million dollar 3rd liners value be at an all time low for a couple years even if they are young

Enoch Root · 08-25-2020, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Ondrej Kase has identical career stats (43 goals, 97 points in 204 games) to Kapanen ( 41 goals, 90 points in 202 games) and Boston traded a 2020 1st and a prospect for him, while also dumping a year of David Backes $4.5M contract.

So yeah feels like an overpayment to me, they gave up the same return the Bruins gave up for Kase (who has much better advanced stats) while not dumping salary as well. Sure Kase had injury concerns, but really is Kapanen a better player. I don't think so.

Plus the prospect quality shouldn't be overlooked here. Hallander was a second rounder who is trending well post draft. Based on the hockey prospecting stats his nhl equivalency numbers post draft rank about 5th among the forwards in that draft, and puts him in the same tier as guys like Farabee or Hayton from that draft. So not just a throw in either.

As an aside: I wonder how many times in NHL history a team has used a first to draft a player, and then in the future used another first to trade for the player. Can't be that many times.

I think Kapanen is better than Kase, personally. But that is a good comparison.

Jiri Hrdina · 08-25-2020, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Only speaking to the bolder part of your statement.

Is the risk of NOT going scorched earth equivalent to flames fortune over the past 3 decades now? You are correct that just picking high isn't enough, development, roster building strategy all play a big part (just see the oilers) and there's definitely some luck involved. But it's still a path that is required in the draft based, team building. especially for a market like Calgary which isn't a destination Ufa's are typically wanting to go to, and a team that isn't on a ntc exception list for most players.

To get high end players, flames need to draft those players. As such, until they try scorched earth, I think the odds are against them using the model of the last 30 years to build a perennial contender.

I don't disagree. I support a re-build. But I'm not sure the owners do.
And I'm not naive to the risks of it. A lot of re-builds don't work for several reasons. But personally - I'd love to see them give it a go. I would love to see the team take about a 5 year period and re-build the asset base of the franchise, which I think has been in poor shape since the early to mid 90s.

But if the owners aren't on board with that approach, I view it as largely pointless to argue about it.

SuperMatt18 · 08-25-2020, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubbsy

To get high end players, flames need to draft those players. As such, until they try scorched earth, I think the odds are against them using the model of the last 30 years to build a perennial contender.

I think you just need to draft well, whether it's scorched earth or not.

Scorched earth helps because it makes drafting easier but if you go scorched earth and still draft poorly then it doesn't matter (ie. Edmonton, Buffalo, Florida)

Really the key is you need to hit 1-2 picks each draft, if you can do that then you are in good shape. So the way I look at it is you need to hit on your 1st round pick each year, and then get one other contributor from a later round of the draft.

If you can do that you are laughing. And IMO you can even use that first in a trade - as long as it brings back a longer term piece that can make an impact.

I look at a team like Boston who have been in the mix for a while without tanking for early picks, and how they get at least 1 100 game NHLer per draft.

Spoiler!

St.Louis is similar

Spoiler!

Even a team like Tampa. Sure they went scorched earth in the past to get Stamkos/Hedman, but it was the pieces after going scorched earth that made them a contender. Look at these pieces since 2010 that were drafted outside the top 10 of the draft.

Spoiler!

Washington is the same way, they won finally with Ovechkin because they drafted well outside of the top 10 for a 7 year stretch after the tank was over.

Spoiler!

These teams are good because they constantly add pieces via the draft. If you can add 1-2 pieces that can contribute to your team at each draft then you are in good shape.

Flames had an okay stretch outside of top 10 picks but a couple of bad drafts hurt them:

2010: Ferland
2011: Baertschi, Granlund, Gaudreau
2012: Jankowski, Kulak
2013: -
2014: -
2015: Andersson, Kylington, Mangiapane
2016: Dube, Fox

And drafting poorly perpetuates the cycle. Poor drafts in 2013/2014 means the Flames didn't have the pieces coming up to support the guys they did hit on (Gaudreau, Monahan, etc) and it meant moving assets in the 2017/2018 drafts to try to fill those holes with just warm bodies. And it's where the 14/15 season was a curse. Flames weren't ready to push their chips in and should have still been focused on building through the draft, but the 2014/2015 season made them think they were closer than they actually were and they went into "window is open now" mode.

Accumulate picks for expiring / aged out assets, draft well, and IMO it doesn't matter if you go scorched earth or not.

bluejays · 08-25-2020, 05:14 PM

This is the one year the owners should actually go for a rebuild/retool. It's still possible that next year there won't be any gate revenue. That's the main factor affecting their wallets, and with this pandemic situation being what it is, this is the perfect year to do it. It doesn't have to be scorched earth, but you have some potentially coveted guys to deal to develop over a season or two, 3 or 4 future prospects.

Back to the Kapanen deal, sure he'd look okay here, but I don't think he'd be the best fit. The lineup generally looks small as is. There's no need to go Montreal in the West. If Treliving is going one last year with this subpar lineup, I'd be all in favour of signing Getzlaf. He's a big body for the bottom 6, and with some retooling on the back end and maybe a forward trade like Backlund or Monahan, you never know.

IamNotKenKing · 08-25-2020, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I think you just need to draft well, whether it's scorched earth or not.

These teams are good because they constantly add pieces via the draft. If you can add 1-2 pieces that can contribute to your team at each draft then you are in good shape.

Flames had an okay stretch outside of top 10 picks but a couple of bad drafts hurt them:

2010: Ferland
2011: Baertschi, Granlund, Gaudreau
2012: Jankowski, Kulak
2013: -
2014: -
2015: Andersson, Kylington, Mangiapane
2016: Dube, Fox

And drafting poorly perpetuates the cycle. Poor drafts in 2013/2014 means the Flames didn't have the pieces coming up to support the guys they did hit on (Gaudreau, Monahan, etc) and it meant moving assets in the 2017/2018 drafts to try to fill those holes with just warm bodies.

Accumulate picks for expiring / aged out assets, draft well, and IMO it doesn't matter if you go scorched earth or not.

Just a question, but why did you arbitrarily exclude Calgary's first round picks in 2013, 2014 and 2016, but include the others' throughout?

theslymonkey · 08-25-2020, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Just a question, but why did you arbitrarily exclude Calgary's first round picks in 2013, 2014 and 2016, but include the others' throughout?

"Flames had an okay stretch outside of top 10 picks but a couple of bad drafts hurt them:"

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk

IamNotKenKing · 08-25-2020, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

"Flames had an okay stretch outside of top 10 picks but a couple of bad drafts hurt them:"

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk

Right, but all other teams' first rounders are listed, so it looks much worse than it is. I prefer comparisons to be complete. i.e. Take out all first rounders or leave them all in.

Using the players SuperMatt18 provided:

Boston: 12 drafted players
St. Louis: 12 drafted players
Tampa: 13 drafted players
Washington: 13 drafted players
Calgary: 11 drafted players.

Add Monahan, Bennett and Chucky and it's 14.
Add 2008 like used for Washington, and Bouma and Brodie are added, to get to 16, so Calgary actual had more who hit the criteria than the others.

St. Louis adds Pietrangelo, Jake Allen and Lehtera by adding 2008;
Boston adds JOE COLBORNE! by adding 2008; and
Tampa adds Hedman and Stamkos by adding 2008 and 2009.

GranteedEV · 08-25-2020, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Just a question, but why did you arbitrarily exclude Calgary's first round picks in 2013, 2014 and 2016, but include the others' throughout?

I believe he's saying that Klimchuk and Poirier, the only players drafted outside the top ten in those three seasons, are not NHL players.

Flash Walken · 08-25-2020, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I think you just need to draft well, whether it's scorched earth or not.

Scorched earth helps because it makes drafting easier but if you go scorched earth and still draft poorly then it doesn't matter (ie. Edmonton, Buffalo, Florida)

None of those teams went 'scorched earth'. NOT doing so has likely lead them to 'wandering the dessert'. Well, that and terrible owners which seem to go hand in hand.

Look at the disaster in Buffalo:

For example the year they drafted Eichel 2nd overall, they made just 6 picks, and even though they have drafted some good players in the first round, the lack of picks in those years is going to undercut their roster moving forward.

The year the Penguins drafted Malkin 2nd overall, they made 12 picks.

Buffalo's impatience is what is hurting them now. For example while they drafted a remarkable 6 times in the first 3 rounds in 2013, they moved 2 of the 3 players that have played more than a season in a desperate bid for Ryan O'Reilly. Coincidentally I'm sure, they had a new, very hands on owner at the helm.

Meanwhile, the Penguins do a good job of turning picks into draft capital. One of the players they drafted with the 12 picks of the Malkin draft year was Tyler Kennedy The Penguins moved him for a 2nd round pick, and then used that pick to swap with Columbus for their earlier 2nd round pick to draft Jarry.

So while Buffalo undercut their roster to try to land a big fish (sound familiar?) Pittsburgh continued to turn draft picks into draft capital.

The same is true in Florida. The year they drafted Ekblad 1st overall, they made just 6 selections. And while they made 8 selections the year they drafted Barkov, they made only two picks in the top 90. The year before selecting Barkov, just 5 picks, 2 in the first 90.

Florida did a good job two years prior to that, making 23 selections in years 2010 and 2011, including 14 picks in the top 3 rounds those two years! Those are easily their two best draft years of the cap era, producing players like Donskoi, Hyman, Bjugstad, Huberdeau, Trochek. Unfortunately...They whiffed on Gudbranson at 3rd overall (in much the same way the hawks whiffed on Barker at 3rd overall).

But the Panthers squandered it, largely due to ownership problems. They didn't even sign Donskoi. They dealt Hyman to Toronto for Greg McKegg before he'd ever played a game in Florida.

Trading Markstrom for Luongo, a guy out of the league for a guy carrying his team in the second round. Trading a 2nd and 3rd round pick for 42 year old jagr. Trading a 3rd round pick for Teddy Purcell. Trading a 2nd and a 4th for Hudler. Trading for Reilly smith and marc savard's cap hit and then attaching Savard's cap hit to a 2nd round pick a year later and letting Reilly Smith walk away to Las Vegas. Trading a 6th and a 7th round pick for the rights to Keith Yandle and then paying him 6 million dollars a year. Signing Dave Bolland to a 5 year 5.5 million dollar deal (sound familiar) and then attaching a former 1st round pick in Crouse to him just a year later to have him gone.

These are not scorched earth moves, these are 'WIN NOW' moves; Incrementally shipping assets out the door in a desperate attempt for playoff revenue and relevancy.

Quote:

Really the key is you need to hit 1-2 picks each draft, if you can do that then you are in good shape. So the way I look at it is you need to hit on your 1st round pick each year, and then get one other contributor from a later round of the draft.

If you can do that you are laughing. And IMO you can even use that first in a trade - as long as it brings back a longer term piece that can make an impact.

This is how you maintain your station from where you're at in order to offset the age related decline of your team. Turning 1-2 picks per year into roster players is essentially average drafting for a team with an already established group. The Flames are not that, they have deficit spent for more than a decade. The evidence for this is they are no more competitive now than they were 3 years ago before guys like Rasmus were a twinkle in our eye. They still have to sign guys like Rinaldo on PTOs and sign guys like Brouwer and Neal and trade picks for guys like Stone and Elliott and mike smith just to field a roster.

The flames have a physical shortage of bodies. They weren't playing Rinaldo because they wanted to, they were playing him because they had to. They didn't sign Stone because of how great he was, they signed him because the next best option was Davidson and behind him, the ghost of Brennan Evans.

Quote:

I look at a team like Boston who have been in the mix for a while without tanking for early picks, and how they get at least 1 100 game NHLer per draft.

Spoiler!

This is confirmation bias because you aren't going far enough back to examine how they actually established their core group that has carried them in competitiveness for 13 years.

17 years ago it was 2 picks in the 2nd round that yielded Bergeron. A year later it was 2 picks in the second round that Yielded Krejci. 2 picks in the 2nd round in 2006 yielded Milan Lucic. The 3rd that year yielded Brad Marchand. They drafted Phil Kessel 5th overall in 2006 and traded him for the picks that became Tyler Seguin and Dougie Hamilton.

Quote:

St.Louis is similar

Spoiler!

2006 St. Louis drafts first overall Eirk Johnson then picks again at 25th for Berglund. 4 Picks in the first 90. Berglund was eventually used to get O'Reilly, Johnson became Shattenkirk who became one of the two first round picks St. Louis used to get Schenn.

2007 They pick 13th, 18th, 26th, then two more picks in the 2nd and another pick in the 3rd. Those 3 first round picks have played almost 2200 nhl games.

Quote:

Even a team like Tampa. Sure they went scorched earth in the past to get Stamkos/Hedman, but it was the pieces after going scorched earth that made them a contender. Look at these pieces since 2010 that were drafted outside the top 10 of the draft.

Spoiler!

#1 and the most important, trying to prove that going scorched earth isn't necessary and then using an example of going scorched earth and hand waving away that it wasn't actually important that they drafted a 60 goal scorer and 6'6" 70 point defender isn't a very effective way of proving your point.

In a six year span Tampa made the following overall picks: #1, #2, #29, #6, #27, #10, #19, #3. They made 17 picks in the top 3 rounds over that time, picking multiple times in the 1st round twice. They selected less than their 7 natural allotted picks just one time in those years.

Scorched earth is the absolute foundation of that roster and it's dishonest to suggest that it isn't.

Quote:

Washington is the same way, they won finally with Ovechkin because they drafted well outside of the top 10 for a 7 year stretch after the tank was over.

Spoiler!

Again, you can't just waive away the example of when they did go scorched earth to establish their core group to prove that they didn't go scorched earth, it doesn't work that way.

The year the Caps drafted Ovechkin (first overall *hint hint*) they drafted three times in the 1st, twice in the second and twice in the 3rd. 13 total picks that year.

The next year they drafted twice in the 1st again.

The year after that, twice in the first AGAIN, including Backstrom at #4 overall and then THREE picks in the 2nd. Ten picks in total.

So over 3 drafts they made 30 picks, more than an entire draft year's worth of extra picks over their given alotment.

The year after drafting Backstrom they still picked twice in the 2nd round with one pick in the top 5. 10 picks in total that draft.

Then the next year they picked twice in the 1st and twice in the second.

So while the point you're trying to raise is that you don't need a top 5 pick to be a contender, that you don't need to go 'scorched earth', the examples you're using prove the opposite. All of the core groups have had top 5 picks but more accurately multiple top 5 picks, to establish their group moving forward and THEN have continued to draft successively with multiple high picks and multiple picks per round in the first 3 rounds.

Quote:

These teams are good because they constantly add pieces via the draft. If you can add 1-2 pieces that can contribute to your team at each draft then you are in good shape.

Flames had an okay stretch outside of top 10 picks but a couple of bad drafts hurt them:

2010: Ferland
2011: Baertschi, Granlund, Gaudreau
2012: Jankowski, Kulak
2013: -
2014: -
2015: Andersson, Kylington, Mangiapane
2016: Dube, Fox

And drafting poorly perpetuates the cycle. Poor drafts in 2013/2014 means the Flames didn't have the pieces coming up to support the guys they did hit on (Gaudreau, Monahan, etc) and it meant moving assets in the 2017/2018 drafts to try to fill those holes with just warm bodies. And it's where the 14/15 season was a curse. Flames weren't ready to push their chips in and should have still been focused on building through the draft, but the 2014/2015 season made them think they were closer than they actually were and they went into "window is open now" mode.

Accumulate picks for expiring / aged out assets, draft well, and IMO it doesn't matter if you go scorched earth or not.

This is not the case and you have proved it in your post.

Those teams are good because they consistently drafted multiple times in multiple rounds for multiple years and drafted multiple top 5 picks during that span.

After they did that, they THEN continued to do the same thing, but their competitiveness turned 4th overall picks in Backstrom into 11th, 13th and 16th overall picks in Forsberg, Orlov and Wilson.

The washington capitals have drafted in the first round in 4 of the last 5 years.

The Flames have drafted in the first round in 3 of the last 5.

bubbsy · 08-25-2020, 07:40 PM

Awesome post.

I keep thinking of Dora from finding nemi.

Just keep drafting, just keep drafting, just keep drafting

IamNotKenKing · 08-25-2020, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I believe he's saying that Klimchuk and Poirier, the only players drafted outside the top ten in those three seasons, are not NHL players.

That’s part of what he’s saying, but he’s also comparing the Flames to the Bruins, Lightning, Blues and Caps, and not comparing apples to apples by removing three of Calgary’s first round picks, but keeping those in for the other teams, esp. Boston’s 1st overall in Seguin and 9th overall in Hamilton.

savemedrzaius · 08-25-2020, 08:15 PM

Seems like a good trade. Apparently this Hollander is a good prospect as well so Leafs and Dubas got a nice return.

It sucks to see Kappy go but he never gelled with the top 2 lines and as a 3rd line player he was replacable.

TheScorpion · 08-25-2020, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Awesome post.

I keep thinking of Dora from finding nemi.

Just keep drafting, just keep drafting, just keep drafting

So we're going to go exploring to find Antti Niemi? Sounds fun!

Ashasx · 08-25-2020, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubbsy

I keep thinking of Dora from finding nemi.

this is my favorite post on this forum

powderjunkie · 08-25-2020, 09:11 PM

I completely agree with FW's notion about draft pick quantity. The flip side of this same issue is how absolutely terrible the Flames drafting has been for decades.

Since picking Gary Roberts at #12 in 1984, here is who the Flames organization has selected with their first available pick each year:

Spoiler!

Regardless of what circumstances lead this being their highest draft pick in a year, I find it hard to believe that any team’s amateur scouting has a worse track record in making their most important decision each year.

28 years between Roberts and Monahan = Stillman, Phaneuf, Backlund, Morris, and 24 varying levels of disappointment.

SuperMatt18 · 08-25-2020, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Just a question, but why did you arbitrarily exclude Calgary's first round picks in 2013, 2014 and 2016, but include the others' throughout?

I excluded top 10 picks for all teams in that view. The point is you need to be able to draft well outside of the top 10 to be able to become an elite team in the NHL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

None of those teams went 'scorched earth'. NOT doing so has likely lead them to 'wandering the dessert'. Well, that and terrible owners which seem to go hand in hand.

Look at the disaster in Buffalo:

For example the year they drafted Eichel 2nd overall, they made just 6 picks, and even though they have drafted some good players in the first round, the lack of picks in those years is going to undercut their roster moving forward.

I disagree on not calling Edmonton or Buffalo scorched earth. Edmonton had 4 first overall picks, they just did a poor job of having any talent to sell to accumulate picks and sold low on a lot of pieces that should have garnered a better return (Petry, Dubnyk for example).

Also you’re cherry picking the Eichel draft for Buffalo. In the four draft stretch from 2012-2015 they had 14 picks in the first two rounds. That’s pretty good pick accumulation (6 extra picks in the top two rounds) they just didn’t draft well.

Overall I think we are saying the same thing though: Accumulate picks, draft well, and keep accumulating more picks.

I think the difference is you think you need to go scorched earth AGAIN to accumulate picks where I think you just need to smartly manage the life span of your assets.

Really the approach I want is the New England Patriots approach to roster building. Accumulate picks, sell high on aging assets, and add to the core by shrewd drafting and trades.

Washington had 10 straight seasons where they didn’t make it out of the second round with Ovechkin and Backstrom on the roster prior to winning the cup. If they were following the advice people want the Flames to take people would have advised they needed to trade Ovechkin and Backstrom, and go scorched earth to rebuild a core that wasn’t working.

Instead they identified the core pieces, moved on from aging declining assets (Mike Green, Troy Brouwer, etc), sold high on some pieces (Varlamov), kept the pieces that were still top end players, and kept adding to that core via strong drafting.

The Flames did go scorched earth after the Iginla era, and do have top picks on this roster. Monahan, Tkachuk, and Bennett are all top 6 picks. People just don’t think they are good enough pieces, when really it’s the poor drafting and lack of upcoming prospects around them that’s the issue.

Where the Flames need to get better, is at strategically moving assets to accumulate more draft capital even in seasons where they are good. For example one of Brodie or Hamonic should have been moved in the past offseason for picks, especially with Valimaki, Kylington, and Andersson in the fold.

They should probably be shopping Backlund right now just because he’s 31 years old and is potentially going to decline in the next two seasons, sell while he still has value. Even Giordano in that same vein is a guy they should probably shop at 36 years old (a bit different as the captain) but a guy who’s best years are behind him.

Thing is it all needs to start with a strong scouting group, draft philosophy, and by not moving picks for short term solutions. It’s easier to move on from those aging veterans when you have pieces to backfill the holes left on their roster, so you need to draft well to kick start the whole thing.

Sylvanfan · 08-25-2020, 10:09 PM

I look at the Kings right now, and I think that's a team who will be better in 2 years. They had 6 picks in the first 95 last year, they have 6 more this year and 5 secured for next year. Plus they have guys they will deal this coming year. That's the type of plan that I think works.