HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Value of: Joe Thornton (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1280657)

startainfection 11-07-2012 06:52 PM

Joe Thornton
 
What would it take to get Joe Thornton?

Vankiller Whale 11-07-2012 06:54 PM

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

InfinityIggy 11-07-2012 07:00 PM

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.

TheJuxtaposer 11-07-2012 07:11 PM

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.

DuckEatinShark 11-07-2012 07:58 PM

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.

Mafoofoo 11-07-2012 07:59 PM

Way more than you'd want to give up.

TurdFerguson 11-07-2012 08:00 PM

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.

TheJuxtaposer 11-07-2012 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurdFerguson (Post 55609481)
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.

CREW99AW 11-07-2012 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by startainfection (Post 55607715)
What would it take to get Joe Thornton?

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.

AbsolonMoreau* 11-07-2012 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CREW99AW (Post 55610031)
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...

Sojourn 11-07-2012 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckEatinShark (Post 55609399)
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.

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

Jets 11-07-2012 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurdFerguson (Post 55609481)
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.


I wouldnt trade Bogo straight up for Thornton...

Kershaw 11-07-2012 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckEatinShark (Post 55609399)
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.

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

Arrch 11-07-2012 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sojourn (Post 55611297)
I don't think there is any way San Jose would be able to get a 27 and under franchise talent for Thornton.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tortorella (Post 55611561)
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.

Sojourn 11-07-2012 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arrch (Post 55611635)
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.

Bernier the Boats 11-07-2012 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckEatinShark (Post 55609399)
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.

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

Arrch 11-07-2012 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sojourn (Post 55611747)
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.

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.

Quote:

Thornton is barely a franchise player anymore. Who in their right mind would trade a younger, better player for an older, worse one.
Nobody... That's the point.

CREW99AW 11-07-2012 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbsolonMoreau (Post 55610759)
Good luck with that...

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.

Sojourn 11-07-2012 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arrch (Post 55612003)
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.

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.

WTFetus 11-07-2012 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBurke (Post 55611813)
Thornton is barely a franchise player anymore. Who in their right mind would trade a younger, better player for an older, worse one.

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.

Arrch 11-07-2012 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sojourn (Post 55612061)
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.

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.

Sojourn 11-07-2012 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arrch (Post 55612169)
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?

Ricky Bobby 11-07-2012 09:49 PM

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

TheJuxtaposer 11-07-2012 10:00 PM

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.

Arrch 11-07-2012 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sojourn (Post 55612451)
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.

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:41 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.