Probably because Girard doesn’t hold that kind of value.

Avs decline

Wrong

An offensive Dman with a career high of 37 points doesn’t hold that much value when he makes 5M. He might be able to get Dube in return but not Backlund.

?

I was going to say they should be asking for Lindholm if they are moving Girard.

He's a top 4 dman, whos on the 2nd unit pp (ever heard of Makar), 37 points in that role is very good. Not to mention he's an all arounder not just an offensive dman as you suggest. Good in defence and great in transition.

Lol. Girard doesn't start the conversation for Lindholm

Def should get it started. What do you think you're getting for Lindholm?

If it includes Girard at least Newhook and a 1st on top.

Ya that's not happening. Think Horvat return. You could argue slightly more than that but you don't get a 25 yr old top 3 dman on a great contract + high end young potential 2c and a 1st for a rental. You're in fantasy land.

Not a chance.



He’s a number 4 with great skating which translates to his transition play. He ranks 47th among D in points per game.

47th is excellent. Especially given he isn't on a first unit pp. He was 32nd and 5v5 points. He plays 4th most minute on a team that you could argue has 3 no. 1s. I think he's safely a no. 3 and perhaps a 2 on some teams.

Lindholm is 1c but on the lower end. And is expiring. Without an extension 1v1 swap would be realistic in my mind. He was 44th in 5v5 points by centers, 81st among fwds. 37th in all situations among centers.

Ah there's the issue. You are very poorly using Horvat as an example. Last I checked the Islanders pick was roughly around 13th OA when thay trade that traded and ended up 17th. Colorado's pick is 27th. Now I would say it's fair to value Raty at a late 1st and you could probably value Newhook around 13th to 17th OA. Thus what I said is a perfectly fair comparison to the Horvat trade.

The problem is Lindholm is a far better player than Horvat and this is an offseason acquisition, not a 3 month rental

That break down didn't make any sense.

Isles pick was 13th at the time but likely going to be higher after they added Horvat. And it end up I'd say right about where the value proposition of the trade had it 15-19.

Raty was a 2nd that had a good d+1 so I think Im ok saying that value is similar to Colorado's 1st.

So then look at the rest the value of Newhook is far more than Beauviller. You said Newhook was 13-17. Beauvillier was/is worth at best a 2nd but probably a 3rd.

13-17 vs 60 (lets call it) ie. Not comparable.

Then you have Girard. Top 3, 25 yrs old right d on a great contract for 3 more yrs. That is easily worth the 17th pick. I'd say even close to 10.

So ya your value of Lindholm is far out of touch. Even if you want to say he is a better player than Horvat, he probably is slightly but theyre in the same category. Horvat was like 3rd in goal scoring in the league at the time of the trade. On pace for 50.

Ok you are basically changing the equation here to fit your narrative. Lets break this down again

Raty (top 40-70 prospect in the league) ≈ Colorado's 27th OA pick
17th OA ≈ Newhook (young NHLer with top 6 upside)
Beauvillier (25yo middle 6 winger at time of trade) ≈ Girard (25yo 2nd pair left defenseman)

To me it's clear you overvalue Girard by quite a lot.

Also I like how you bring up Horvat's goal scoring but ignore that he was scoring at a nearly 22% rate.

Hahahaha I was with you like ok, ok, and then i almost fell off my chair.

Beauvillier is worth maybe a late 2nd, maybe. He was considered a cap dump (or cap casualty) in the deal.

In what world is a middle 6 winger worth a no. 3 dman? And you're saying I'm changing the equation to fit my narrative!

Girard is one of the better defensemen in the league. Beauvillier has basically no worth as a player in profile (that is a middle 6 wingers making 5 mil).

Girard is the most valuable asset in the trade. I'd say hes 10-15 range for picks. Beavillier is more like 60-80. That difference is extreme.,

Who would you say is a comparable to Girard? Just to get an idea of who you think he is. In age and role. So a top 4 dman 26 or under, hugely productive and what are those guys worth.

I needed to mention Horvat's shooting % for what reason? I said he was on pace for 50 goals because he was. He was on fire. Scoring usually grabs attention and helps your trade value.

A decent comparable to Girard would actually be Hronek. Who went for that Isles pick and a high 2nd.

Wow you really really overvalue Girard. He is not nearly as good a hockey player as you think and in the most recent Athletic playing cards he was even considered a bit overpaid, in fact he was considered almost exactly the same as Beauvillier.

To be fair I use these cards a lot too. A few things to note. Half the metrics are a comparison to teammates. Compared to Makar, Toews and Byram, Girard (top pair dman) doesn't look as good. Beauvillier is compared to Palmieri, Engvall, Parise (middle 6 wingers). Also you have to account for how valuable a position is. Defense is the most difficult position to find talent. Closely followed by center and then wing a fair ways down. At the point of middle 6 winger, values are almost nothing, despite (Dom's interesting value proposition model), it also shows that Girard had quite a down season and Beauvillier had an average season for him.

So a lot more goes into than just looking at the "market value" figure and deducing their worth from that alone.

Try this for an exercise. Vancouver holds the 11th pick which 25 and under dman do you think they could attain in a trade for that pick? name a few in that range if you can. There aren't many.

If the Canucks were offered a 2nd for Beauvillier they'd do it immediately. Just look at Garland, his market value according to dom is 4.6 mil (it was around 8 last yr) and they are talking like the Canucks would need to add just to move him with nothing coming back (I think that is overplayed but his value is no higher than a 3rd).

I understand what you are saying here but I don't think that they are compared to players on their team as Josh Manson is valued at 8.7M in market value by the model. I also think that centers and goalies are harder positions to find talent than defense as a whole, if you talk about RD specifically then I would say that could be harder to fill than goalies but probably not centers.

The problem I think is that your image of Girard is similar players like Sergachev or Dobson. In reality he is more in line with like Brady Skjei when he was moved to Carolina at age 25.

The only 25 and under full time NHL defense I think the 11th OA pick could be a fair 1 for 1 swap with are Mikey Anderson (not that LA would do that after the extension he just got) and Ryan Lindgren. You could maybe argue Liljegren for that but I wouldn't have him higher than what Romanov returned last year. I definitely wouldn't have Girard that high, for him I would say anywhere between picks 20-27 are probably fair.

I think using Garland as an argument is flawed. Most teams are cap strapped and word was getting out Vancouver was desperate to make cap room so rumors spread that teams were essential willing to extort Vancouver for taking on an expensive but fairly solid middle 6 player in Garland. I think if Colorado was equally as desperate to make cap room for next year (ie Landeskog isn't injured) then Girard would be a likely trade candidate and probably have value similar to when even Vegas dumped Schmidt but probably closer to you guys dumping Graves. Essentially the cost of being a cap casualty.

I think it must be something like a corsiREL because it doesn't seem to value more time on ice. For instance Manson is considered "depth" and worth 8.7 and Girard is consider "top pair" and worth 4.2. It also says in the write up explaining the cards in addition to half the stats being relative to teammates, they don't include QoC. So again it's difficult to say.

As for Girard himself, he always looks really good when I watch him. He has a good reputation. He is a well balanced dman in the sense he can play pk, 5v5 or even run a PP in a pinch. He produces offence.
He's also this good at 25. Most dmen outside of the superstars are just entering the league around 23 and not becoming top 4 until their late 20s if ever. You can point to that data to say he's not a top 3 dman as I'm suggesting. I've made my case against those numbers (I still use them and get general values out of them all the time) but even if I grant you he's at the level you say he's still miles more valuable than Beauvillier.

top 4 dman vs middle 6 winger.

I'm not saying he's in the Sergachev or Dobson category at all. Those two are in different categories for starters but both are higher than Girard. Both have no. 1 potential (Sergachev already is). I've only ever said Girard is a top 3 which I believe he is currently and I think he could be a no. 2 which his role suggests he already is on those cards.

The reason you can't find many d that you could value around the 11th is because their aren't that many 25 yr old d that are succeeding beyond the superstars. Guys like Dunn, Forsling, Montour all just had breakout seasons over 25.

I'm not a Colorado fan haha we do have to face them numerous time each yr though.

You said Garland is a bad example because of cap implications and then proceeded to compare Girard to two cap casualties in Graves and Schmidt.

Mikey Anderson and Ryan Lindgren are good young dmen but very difficult comparables because they are very much defensive dmen. They can't run a PP.

As for Goalies, Center, Wingers. The volatility of the goalie position makes it almost its own category. You can pick up a waiver wire guy who becomes a bonafide starter and it happens every yr. In terms of trade value only like 5 goalies in whole league probably have much value. Dmen and Centers have the most trade value.

Anyway ya Beauvillier is on my team and I really couldn't care less if he's there in October or not. He's an ok player but his cap space would be just as helpful in finding positions we truly need, defense and center. Girard I would welcome in a second. And happily trade Beauvillier ++ for him.

We can just agree to disagree then.

Haha overwhelmed by reason you turn away. You're gonna maintain Beauvillier = Girard in trade value?

I am, but your view and mine are circumstantial. The Canucks have an abundance of wingers and no defense, whereas the Flames have an abundance of defense and only depth wingers + Huberdeau. I dont see Girard as an improvement over Kylington, at the cost of the Flames 1st line center.

We can probably say Newhook wasn't equal to #17 either now right?

The circumstantial part does have merit I'll give you that.

As for Newhook if you look at value charts based on picks 31 + 37 is roughly equal to 18. We had it pretty bang on.