HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Toronto Maple Leafs (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Speculation: Should Burke have waited to trade schenn? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1224833)

goonx 07-05-2012 08:45 AM

Should Burke have waited to trade schenn?
 
With the UFA so thin this year on D should Burke have waited to trade schenn once carle and suter got signed?

Once these UFA got signed, Schenn is arguably the next big name out there and could fetch a bit more via Trade.

Thoughts?

IBeL13f 07-05-2012 09:07 AM

I don't think we ever would have gotten a better return on him straight-up than we did.

mokspeed 07-05-2012 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBeL13f (Post 52154883)
I don't think we ever would have gotten a better return on him straight-up than we did.

Agreed - Schenn's value was at an all time low. Unless they packaged him up with some other pieces for a #1C, he wouldn't have gotten better value. It was a pure hockey trade to fit organization needs - and in addition to that, both players were underperforming and needed a fresh start.

Calacatz 07-05-2012 09:15 AM

so when Schenn was playing well Philly fans still laughed at the thought of trading him str8 up for JVR and now we were able to cash in on the guy and you are questioning the return?

A number 5 dman was the next big name out there? He is a guy most fans gave up on and wanted traded in hopes that his draft status and potential could still be appealling and we landed a great piece in return!

Just a great hockey trade!

Count Von Grabo* 07-05-2012 09:16 AM

His trade value took a plunge this year. I'll take JVR's potential over Schenn, especially with Gardiner, Rielly, and Franson on the blueline for years to come (hopefully).

I really liked Schenn, but he was replaceable.

Mess 07-05-2012 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goonx (Post 52154125)
With the UFA so thin this year on D should Burke have waited to trade schenn once carle and suter got signed?

Once these UFA got signed, Schenn is arguably the next big name out there and could fetch a bit more via Trade.

Thoughts?

Yes, or they shouldn't have traded him at all but rather continued to develop him as he is only 22 and most Dmen don't even make the NHL until this time, while Luke already has 4 years under his belt. Or they could have chosen to get rid of other defenseman first among the current group if it was a numbers issue.

If the Leafs were going to trade him it should have been in a deal that returned a #1C or #1G, which is a position of need for the team.

Schenn was traded in hopes the opening on D would secure Justin Schultz, and that backfired big time on the Leafs after he signed in Edmonton. Otherwise as you say, what was the rush as it could have waited until later this summer when teams are looking for Dmen all over the league.

smitty10 07-05-2012 09:21 AM

16 no's and 0 yes'. I think you've got your answer :D

NewFang 07-05-2012 09:23 AM

He had to do it anyways, to try and entice Schultz. The time was right.

IBeL13f 07-05-2012 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calacatz (Post 52155141)
so when Schenn was playing well Philly fans still laughed at the thought of trading him str8 up for JVR and now we were able to cash in on the guy and you are questioning the return?

A number 5 dman was the next big name out there? He is a guy most fans gave up on and wanted traded in hopes that his draft status and potential could still be appealling and we landed a great piece in return!

Just a great hockey trade!

I believe all of those people are wrong. He's going to be so damn good. Luckily, JVR can be even better.

bobermay 07-05-2012 09:27 AM

Thereshouldbeathirdoption...Idon'tthinkitmatters.. .

(Spacebarisnotworking,haha:laugh:)

mooseOAK* 07-05-2012 09:27 AM

How much more of a return are you expecting?:help:

Calacatz 07-05-2012 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mess (Post 52155237)
Yes, or they shouldn't have traded him at all but rather continued to develop him as he is only 22 and most Dmen don't even make the NHL until this time, while Luke already has 4 years under his belt. Or they could have chosen to get rid of other defenseman first among the current group if it was a numbers issue.

If the Leafs were going to trade him it should have been in a deal that returned a #1C or #1G, which is a position of need for the team.

Schenn was traded in hopes the opening on D would secure Justin Schultz, and that backfired big time on the Leafs after he signed in Edmonton. Otherwise as you say, what was the rush as it could have waited until later this summer when teams are looking for Dmen all over the league.

Hey Mess
- ur 1st point - I would have had no problem keeping him either with a year to play under carlyle. even tho I am happy with trade, I still think Luke could have worked his way to being a strong 2nd pairing guy again.
- 2nd point - If Schenn was used to get Luongo I would have lost my mind!! Not many other #1 goalies out there, as for #1c we have other assets to use. Even If we could get a legit #1, I have np working with our 1st rounder next year and adding from there...
3rd point - I agree that Schultz played a potential factor in this but I also feel Burke feels confident with the debth he has as well. Rielly may impress and make the team, Franson can attract more minutes, Holzer might make a jump or Blacker... so if Philly was ready to part with JVR and he was on Burkes list then I dont blame him for Jumping..

I see Clarke Mac being moved or maybe even Lupul in the next spash. Lupes is at an all time high for value.. cap firendly with a year to give a team a chance to extend and hasn't had the best past with Carlyle. Although he gelled well with Kessel, a 1st line of Phil, JVR and #1 centre can be much more potent...

Calacatz 07-05-2012 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mooseoak (Post 52155553)
how much more of a return are you expecting?:help:

this

Sonny21 07-05-2012 09:29 AM

That's one thing Burke deserves credit, even when players values seem to be down from previously he does not give them away and patiently waits until he gets the return he thinks it's fair.

So it's a no for me in terms of the poll.

Stephen 07-05-2012 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mess (Post 52155237)
Schenn was traded in hopes the opening on D would secure Justin Schultz, and that backfired big time on the Leafs after he signed in Edmonton. Otherwise as you say, what was the rush as it could have waited until later this summer when teams are looking for Dmen all over the league.

No he wasn't. That would have been an ancillary selling point, but we traded Schenn to get a 23 year old winger who is probably the second most talented player on the roster next to Phil Kessel.

Vexed 07-05-2012 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mess (Post 52155237)
Yes, or they shouldn't have traded him at all but rather continued to develop him as he is only 22 and most Dmen don't even make the NHL until this time, while Luke already has 4 years under his belt. Or they could have chosen to get rid of other defenseman first among the current group if it was a numbers issue.

If the Leafs were going to trade him it should have been in a deal that returned a #1C or #1G, which is a position of need for the team.

Schenn was traded in hopes the opening on D would secure Justin Schultz, and that backfired big time on the Leafs after he signed in Edmonton. Otherwise as you say, what was the rush as it could have waited until later this summer when teams are looking for Dmen all over the league.

I think it is short-sighted to believe that the only need for this club is a 1C or 1G. JVR fills another need which is potential top 6 (really potential top 3) with size. He has a higher ceiling then Schenn and has proven more to this point then Schenn.

I would agree with you 100% if they traded Schenn for an older player to fill the role JVR will.

I really don't think Schenn was moved for Schultz since this trade would have happened last year had it not been for an injury (hehe bob got it right if you all remember). Burke said at that point on McCowans show that it makes sense to make a relative lateral move in terms of potential/talent/age from a position of strength to fill a weakness. Does that mean it can only fill your biggest weakness? Does acquiring a 1C really mean anything with the team we have? Do we really think that one position so important that filling it would turn our fortunes?

There are teams with legit 1C's and 1G's that don't make the playoffs. I believe the oversimplification of our teams issues is a problem amongst fans. Yes, we need a C and a G but we also need skilled size upfront on the wings.

number72 07-05-2012 09:33 AM

Wow. As of right now I think yes but until Burke finishes his trades it is hard to pass judgement.

The trade was from an area the team is weak in (defence or GA) to an area the team is strong in offence (GF). And one reason why holding off makes sense is the demand of defenders in NHL - Wings, Philly and Penguins all need a defenceman. And not that Schenn will fit into that level but he would be a more valuable trading piece today than when he was traded.

That said, if Burke changes up the team and unloads the overabundance of bad or mid tier players and contracts (lombo/connolly etc) so that players are not press boxed or stuffed into the AHL because there is waiver exception reason than this trade might make sense.

Vexed 07-05-2012 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by number72 (Post 52155773)
Wow. As of right now I think yes but until Burke finishes his trades it is hard to pass judgement.

The trade was from an area the team is weak in (defence or GA) to an area the team is strong in offence (GF). And one reason why holding off makes sense is the demand of defenders in NHL - Wings, Philly and Penguins all need a defenceman. And not that Schenn will fit into that level but he would be a more valuable trading piece today than when he was traded.

That said, if Burke changes up the team and unloads the overabundance of bad or mid tier players and contracts (lombo/connolly etc) so that players are not press boxed or stuffed into the AHL because there is waiver exception reason than this trade might make sense.

I see your point but I really don't see those other teams being able to offer anything better than JVR honestly and even then Philly had backed off on wanting us to add to the deal. If it was a 'take it or leave it', I would have taken it as I don't see how a better deal could be made other than by just hoping.

You have to make the read of your staff too. If opinions changed internally of Schenns future potential, that would have a huge impact

TheTotalPackage 07-05-2012 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mooseOAK (Post 52155553)
How much more of a return are you expecting?:help:

Yup.

In fact, I believe the Leafs are the ones who got JvR at a lower price.

QMJHLfollower 07-05-2012 09:43 AM

Yes, I would have wanted to keep him, but I'm happy with the return.

Ash35 07-05-2012 09:44 AM

Schenn's game was regressing in a big way. He was looking really slow and robotic in his skating and stick work. Even in the World Championships who could just tell the Coach cringed whenever the play came near him, It's too bad cause he looked good two years ago. We got good value back and we should never draft a defencemen that high again without an offensive upside. Sometimes players mature at a young age, look so much more poised then other 18 year old's but then plateau and I think that's what might of happend to here. We will find out though.

IBeL13f 07-05-2012 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexxed14 (Post 52155705)
I think it is short-sighted to believe that the only need for this club is a 1C or 1G. JVR fills another need which is potential top 6 (really potential top 3) with size. He has a higher ceiling then Schenn and has proven more to this point then Schenn.

I would agree with you 100% if they traded Schenn for an older player to fill the role JVR will.

I really don't think Schenn was moved for Schultz since this trade would have happened last year had it not been for an injury (hehe bob got it right if you all remember). Burke said at that point on McCowans show that it makes sense to make a relative lateral move in terms of potential/talent/age from a position of strength to fill a weakness. Does that mean it can only fill your biggest weakness? Does acquiring a 1C really mean anything with the team we have? Do we really think that one position so important that filling it would turn our fortunes?

There are teams with legit 1C's and 1G's that don't make the playoffs. I believe the oversimplification of our teams issues is a problem amongst fans. Yes, we need a C and a G but we also need skilled size upfront on the wings.

Absolutely. How would adding a top-line Center or a legitimate #1 Goalie not turn around our fortunes? Our biggest problems for the past years (other than Wilson's run-and-gun system not meshing with the players Burke provided him with) have been down the middle and in net. Putting a proven PPG player between Lupul and Kessel (thus shifting Bozak to 3rd-line duties) and a top-15 goaltender in net would do wonders for this club, and the jump we would see would surprise a lot of people who believe that we really are a 5th-last-place team. Those teams that have the pieces we are missing most likely are missing pieces we already hold (like perennial 35+ goal scorers, and wing and defensive depth).

Other than that, I agree with what you were saying :laugh:

BudForLife 07-05-2012 09:45 AM

Come on. We should be grateful that we got JVR. Last season when the rumours started most people believed it would be Schenn + to get the deal done. So let's not complain about the trade. Both players are under performing and both teams are taking a risk. I hope that JVR reaches his potential and at the same time I wish Luke the best.

Dayjobdave 07-05-2012 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTotalPackage (Post 52156077)
Yup.

In fact, I believe the Leafs are the ones who got JvR at a lower price.

I'm pretty sure with Parise and Suter off the market Holmgren would not be parting with JVR today unless it was in a deal for Rick Nash or Bobby Ryan, so we should be very happy that we got him.

I like Luke. I've always liked Luke. I think he will be a good player in the league for a long time. JVR's tool-kit is significantly better. Period.

Deal may work out, it may not, but there is no doubt we moved our organizational ceiling miles ahead with the trade.

Now, if someone were to suggest that its a good time to move Franson, I may agree...

Vexed 07-05-2012 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBeL13f (Post 52156189)
Absolutely. How would adding a top-line Center or a legitimate #1 Goalie not turn around our fortunes? Our biggest problems for the past years (other than Wilson's run-and-gun system not meshing with the players Burke provided him with) have been down the middle and in net. Putting a proven PPG player between Lupul and Kessel (thus shifting Bozak to 3rd-line duties) and a top-15 goaltender in net would do wonders for this club, and the jump we would see would surprise a lot of people who believe that we really are a 5th-last-place team. Those teams that have the pieces we are missing most likely are missing pieces we already hold (like perennial 35+ goal scorers, and wing and defensive depth).

Other than that, I agree with what you were saying :laugh:

I know we need those roles filled but I am suggesting that we could still be like the current Anaheim rather than the championship Anaheim. 1C, MVP winger, #1 goalie, decent youth and notable D. Yet they struggle to maintain playoff positions. There is also Carolina and Montreal.

All I am saying is that getting those much needed pieces wont solve all our problems and that we can't sit around doing nothing on our other issues while we try and solve the big ones.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:47 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.