Joe Thornton
 

What would it take to get Joe Thornton?

More than he's worth to other teams. Unless the Sharks start rebuilding it's not happening.

Sharks aren't ready to call it a day yet with their current lineup, and I don't think they have to. They have some good young players to take the reigns for Thornton and Marleau when they star t to decline and end up on the 2nd line. IMO they could both retire as Sharks unless something unforeseen happens. So to answer the question, more than it would be worth.

IF the Sharks decided to trade Joe Thornton, it would either be for ONE great young player, or for two or three nice young pieces.

A youngish (no older than 27), franchise player or two/three REALLY good pieces.

Bottom line is: You won't get Thornton without completely imploding your franchise, which would defeat the purpose of acquiring Thornton in the first place.

Way more than you'd want to give up.

It's a bit of a loaded question, because if they trade Thornton, then their team must be heading in a completely different direction than expected. We'd then have to guess what that directions is: Build around offence or defence?

If I were to take a complete guess, I'd say something centered around Bogosian.

No way. I like Bogosian, but the only way Thornton is traded for anything but a forward/group of forwards is if that defenseman is a franchise player. Bogosian, while a top-pairing defenseman and possibly a future #1, is not that.

Basically, we have Burns/Vlasic/Demers/Braun/prospects at defense. We have Couture and that's essentially it at forward (maybe Hertl). If Joe is traded, it's for forwards.

Considering the high cost it'd take to land Thornton and that he's a ufa in 2014, I'd rather have Snow make a play for Vlasic or Burns. Quality players in their prime, with 5-6 yrs still on their deals.

They'd still be Isles, when the team moves to Brooklyn.

Good luck with that...

I don't think there is any way San Jose would be able to get a 27 and under franchise talent for Thornton.

I wouldnt trade Bogo straight up for Thornton...

lol no way in hell a team gives up a younger franchise player in return.

Hence the "Way more than you would be willing to give up" comments.

Sheesh.

I think that goes beyond any reasonable expectations, and basically asks for a lot more than Thornton would be worth at this stage in his career. It would be the equivalent of, say, Anaheim wanting a young 40 goal scorer for Teemu Selanne. Or, at least, a slightly younger than he is now Teemu. I don't care how important Teemu is to Anaheim, but wanting an equivalent player to him who is younger? Not going to happen.

Thornton is barely a franchise player anymore. Who in their right mind would trade a younger, better player for an older, worse one.

Value isn't universal between teams. He's much more valuable to the Sharks than he is around the league. We don't expect any teams to be willing to give that up, that's just what it would take to pry him out of San Jose.

Nobody... That's the point.

Read my post again.

I never said Vlasic or Burns was available.

I said that considering the high cost it'd take to get Thornton(sp) and because he's a ufa in 2014,I'd rather have Snow make an offer for Vlasic or Burns. Both are in their prime and have 5/6 yrs left on their contracts.

No interest in giving up a big payment, for a short term addition.

I highly doubt that. Thornton is a great player, but there are good deals that could be made for him that don't require a team to give San Jose a better, younger player. That's just ridiculous. Overpaying for a player doesn't necessarily require that level of absurdity.

70+ points, good defensively, dominates possession against the toughest competition night-in and night-out. How exactly is he not a franchise player anymore? He isn't his 100 point self anymore, but he's a better overall player and isn't super sheltered defensively like some other players.

Who said they had to be better than Thornton? You should also note that a single younger player wasn't the only option in that post. We can argue all day what is value is using hypothetical players, but without names, it's pretty pointless.

You're taking the "better" to mean talent. If you have two equivalent players, and one is 5 or more years younger, which one is better moving ahead? The younger one.

You should note that I'm not arguing about whether Thornton would/could be worth two or three good prospects. This is about how ridiculous it is to say "We would only trade Thornton for someone of the same caliber, but who is younger." Have you ever seen a trade like that in the NHL?

Thorton would return less then what people expect cause he has a NTC

Joe Thornton is a franchise player right now. As such, he won't be traded unless it's for a young player with 1st line capabilities.

/End thread.

Then why say younger and better if younger is implied in better?