HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Ottawa Senators (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   Trade Rumours and Proposals: Part XXXIV (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1347183)

OmniSens 02-11-2013 01:06 AM

Trade Rumours and Proposals: Part XXXIV
 
Ņoticed the other thread passed 1000.

Benjamin 02-11-2013 01:49 AM

Trade all the prospects.

BonkTastic 02-11-2013 02:19 AM

Another thing, to continue one of the discussions in the previous trade thread:

Quote:

Talent or not, if you put Turris up next to all the 3rd overall picks since 2000, you could probably group him amongst the busts.

2012 Alex Galchenyuk C
2011 Jonathan Huberdeau
2010 Erik Gudbranson
2009 Matt Duchene
2008 Zach Bogosian
2007 Kyle Turris C
2006 Jonathan Toews
2005 Jack Johnson
2004 Cam Barker D
2003 Nathan Horton
2002 Jay Bouwmeester
2001 Alexandr Svitov
2000 Marian Gaborik

Only players I wouldn't take over Turris: Svitov, Barker

Players I'd say I'd be hesitant to trade Turris for based on team needs: Bouwmeester, Horton

Players for who the jury is still out: Gudbranson, Galchenyuk, Huberdeau.
I think it's unfair to compare Turris to other 3rd rounders: it ignores the variance in skill from one draft year to the next. After all, it's not like Phoenix had the choice to draft Toews, or Duchene, or Gaborik instead of Turris. You have to measure him against his own draft class.

Here's a list of the guys selected AFTER Turris, who went 3rd overall:
(4) Thomas Hickey
(5) Karl Alzner
(6) Sam Gagner
(7) Jakub Voracek
(8) Zach Hammill
(9) Logan Couture
(10) Keaton Ellerby (recently traded for a 5th rounder!)
(11) Brandon Sutter
(12) Ryan McDonagh (heh, Gomez)
(13) Lars Eller
(14) Kevin Shattenkirk
(15) Alex Plante
(16) Colton Gillies
(17) Alexei Cherepanov (R.I.P.)
(18) Ian Cole
(19) Logan MacMillan
(20) Angelo Esposito

So, there's your top-20. Right off the bat, you can identify a guy like Voracek who you might take ahead of Turris, but an arguement can still be made for Turris because good centers are hard to come by, plus Turrs gets the defensive edge.

Hickey and Alzner were taken immediately after Turris, which in hindsight are laughably bad value for 4th and 5th overall draft picks. LA & Washington would have been much better off moving the picks for value elsewhere, all things considered, with the benefit of looking 5 years into the future.

So is there anyone in that top-20 you'd pick ahead of Turris? I'd say the only real standout guys there are McDonagh, who looks like he's going to be a legit 1st pair guy, and Couture.

Turris, where he was picked, was absolutely in line with his skill when compared to the skill available in that draft. There were LOTS of 1st round "Busts": Hickey, Alzner (to a degree), Hamill, Ellerby, Eller, Plante, Gillies, Cole, MacMillan, Esposito, Riley Nash, Backlund, Patrick White, Nick Petrecki, Nick Ross...



And as an aside, while we're on the topic of the '07 Draft: for the posters who dump on O'Brien (also an '07 draft pick) for being a bad 1st round pick (not a common sentiment these days, but it's been out there in the past): take a look at who was drafted AFTER him.
How many guys would you take over O'Brien with the benefit of hindsight? It's a short list:
- Subban (2nd round)
- Wayne Simmonds (last pick of the 2nd round)
- MAYBE Matt Frattin (4th rounder, but was a lost cause up until recently)
- Jamie Benn (5th round)
- Carl Gunnarsson (7th round)

... that's it. 181 players were drafted AFTER Jim O'Brien. One hundred and eighty one. And, of all those guys, only 5 (five!) are more palatable. That's pretty good, I'd say.

TL;DR - bad draft year was bad.

CarknerCountry 02-11-2013 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny FTW (Post 59475503)
Trade all the prospects.

LOL nobody said trade ALL the prospects...Is it really that hard for you to follow what im trying to say...

wubwubwubwub 02-11-2013 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarknerCountry (Post 59477975)
LOL nobody said trade ALL the prospects...Is it really that hard for you to follow what im trying to say...

I think he was talking about me.

TheOriginalSilf* 02-11-2013 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarknerCountry (Post 59477975)
LOL nobody said trade ALL the prospects...Is it really that hard for you to follow what im trying to say...

Actually, I do find myself having a ridiculously hard time understanding what you're trying to say most of the time. Seriously though.

You keep talking about how a trade has to be made. Why? You say that you don't want your team to be "one of those teams that plays for a top pick". Well, guess what? This team is going to play to the best of their abilities with what they have. That isn't "playing for a pick" when you're a team that over-achieved in the past season and is now missing several key pieces due to injury.

I get it. You want to win. Making a deal could be a viable option. However, that option only becomes a viable one if a deal can be found that not only helps us out now, but in the FUTURE.

Rather than continuing to clamor that Murray should make a deal, maybe you can present an actual, reasonable, realistic deal that could be made to improve this team in the future and at the time being. If there was such a deal to be made, I'm certain that management would be all over it. But it isn't that easy. This management group realizes that in order to fill (several) gaping holes because of injuries this season, they will have to sacrifice youth and potential future success of this club to maybe get a few more wins this season.

Seriously, what is the point? This team and management group are going to try and put the best team out on the ice every single season, but there's only so much you can do when guys like Jason Spezza and Jared Cowen go down for the entire season. Some guys aren't contributing like we thought they might. That's what happens.

According to your mentality, should we then deal these under-performers (at the time being) for other pieces that may help the team win more games this season (a shortened one, at that) when their selling value is at their lowest? I do not agree with you at all.

What I expect from management, and what I hope to see from management is that they continue down the path they've already began walking down. Running with what we currently have available to us and hoping that the team can pull through adversity like we did so last season all the meanwhile giving ample playing time to players who wouldn't normally receive the opportunity they are now getting with injuries in the line-up (see: Stephane Da Costa).

I don't believe your argument, that playing these young players like Silfverberg, Zibanejad and Da Costa is hurting their development, is an intelligent thought process in the slightest. It's been readily known for some time that Silfverberg has been NHL ready since showing what he can do in Binghamton. He hasn't looked out of place so far with the club and has produced as expected. You claim that he is under-performing offensively, but so is every single top 6 forward that isn't named Daniel Alfredsson or Kyle Turris. Zibanejad isn't even playing top 6 minutes most nights, so it's not like he's being overworked, and he's also been impressing with each game he plays. Da Costa has been our best forward since he's been called-up.

Your theory that the youngsters are being relied on too heavily is not only false, but irrelevant. Milan Michalek and Colin Greening are prime examples of "veterans" on this team that are under-achieving tremendously offensively so far this season. There is no negative to playing these young forwards the time that they have been playing throughout this season. They're getting ample development time in the NHL.

There's nothing we can do about injuries. They happen. We were incredibly lucky last season to avoid seeing serious injury woes plague our team. That doesn't mean a trade needs to be made immediately to fill holes that will only be present holes for several months while you're a team still currently re-building. That logic just makes absolutely no sense to me.

/rant.

Grado 02-11-2013 10:25 AM

Greening for Clowe.

San Jose gets the speed that they want, we get some toughness for our top 6. Someone who will actually drive the net and **** off a few goalies.

SensFactor 02-11-2013 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakob Silfverberg (Post 59482753)
Greening for Clowe.

San Jose gets the speed that they want, we get some toughness for our top 6. Someone who will actually drive the net and **** off a few goalies.

Dude I doubt SJ would go for this. Clowe is a proven vet that can score, I think it will take more than Greening.

Grado 02-11-2013 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensFactor (Post 59482941)
Dude I doubt SJ would go for this. Clowe is a proven vet that can score, I think it will take more than Greening.

HF wise, they would. They all want Clowe gone. :laugh: RL they wouldn't.

arglebargle 02-11-2013 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakob Silfverberg (Post 59482753)
Greening for Clowe.

San Jose gets the speed that they want, we get some toughness for our top 6. Someone who will actually drive the net and **** off a few goalies.

That's exactly the kind of pointless trade that we should be avoiding: giving up young, cheap players for older, more expensive ones for a slight short term improvement.

There's an argument to be made that Clowe isn't even better than Greening right now, and he makes more than 4 times as much and is a UFA after this season.

Grado 02-11-2013 10:53 AM

Greening is turning 27. He's no kid.

BonkTastic 02-11-2013 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakob Silfverberg (Post 59482753)
Greening for Clowe.

San Jose gets the speed that they want, we get some toughness for our top 6. Someone who will actually drive the net and **** off a few goalies.

I'd be worried that Clowe wouldn't be able to keep up in Ottawa. He's a poor skater, and Maclean's system does not favor players with an extra 10lbs in their skates...

Skating concerns aside, however, I'd do this deal in a heartbeat. Clowe's strong on the boards, strong on the puck, can play either wing, 20-goal potential every year. Nothing there not to like... outside of the skating thing, of course...

General Granny* 02-11-2013 10:55 AM

Mcguire suggested we might be talking to Minnisotta and the players that are on the block arr Setoguchi and Cullen.

SenzZen 02-11-2013 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny FTW (Post 59475503)
Trade all the prospects.

Spezza isn't a prospect.:huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakob Silfverberg (Post 59482753)
Greening for Clowe.

San Jose gets the speed that they want, we get some toughness for our top 6. Someone who will actually drive the net and **** off a few goalies.

If you think we get a lot of penalties now...

BonkTastic 02-11-2013 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Granny (Post 59483849)
Mcguire suggested we might be talking to Minnisotta and the players that are on the block arr Setoguchi and Cullen.

His contract sucks, but I'd love to see him in Ottawa. I think he's the kind of kid who Maclean would be able to get the most out of.

He's been a poor fit in Minnesota since the day they traded for him. He'll never be as good as people were projecting him 3-4 years ago, but he's far better than he's showing with the Wild.

arglebargle 02-11-2013 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakob Silfverberg (Post 59483759)
Greening is turning 27. He's no kid.

He's 4 years younger than Clowe. Those 4 years also happen to be the ages when most NHL players are at their peak. Clowe is at the tail end of them and, once again, makes 4 times as much.

This is just one of those "grass is greener" trade proposals. Clowe is simply not much of an improvement over Greening and certainly isn't going to vault the Sens into the playoffs this year.

SNAPshot 02-11-2013 11:09 AM

Ā la 2007-2008, we can deal for PM Bouchard (Comrie) and have Condra elevate Kelly-style. It's probably not enough as we don't have nearly the same supporting cast, but one can dream.

I bet we could easily get Hasek, Schaefer and Preissing back. Heck, Corvo too for that matter.

QuattroFTW 02-11-2013 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arglebargle (Post 59484185)
He's 4 years younger than Clowe. Those 4 years also happen to be the ages when most NHL players are at their peak. Clowe is at the tail end of them and, once again, makes 4 times as much.

This is just one of those "grass is greener" trade proposals. Clowe is simply not much of an improvement over Greening and certainly isn't going to vault the Sens into the playoffs this year.

While I agree that it's pointless give up what we have right now for vets who are past their prime, if Greening hasn't peaked yet there's a good chance he never will. Either that or what we're seeing from him right now is what we're probably going to get. Who knows, maybe he'll thrive in a different environment with different players and under a different coach, but I don't believe what we're getting it Greening right now is going to dramatically improve next year or the year after.

McManked 02-11-2013 11:34 AM

What is with this boards obsession over trading for players that are becoming UFA's?

Why would we trade Greening for Clowe? Is that really worth it if Clowe walks for nothing? Also, has anyone watched the Sharks this year? He's honestly terrible.

BonkTastic 02-11-2013 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manked (Post 59485399)
What is with this boards obsession over trading for players that are becoming UFA's?

Why would we trade Greening for Clowe? Is that really worth it if Clowe walks for nothing? Also, has anyone watched the Sharks this year? He's honestly terrible.

Is Clowe a UFA at the end of the year? I thought he had another year left.

Huh. Learning is fun!

Wondercarrot 02-11-2013 11:42 AM

So puzzled by Greening.
I mean its a great pick regardless (204th overall), he actually made it to the NHL, scored 17 goals his rookie year, can play on any line, he's big, fast and apparently amazingly strong.

somehow though, i always feel a little disappointed with him. he seems like a good guy, good team guy etc.
It just seems like he could be so much more, and he seems to be a guy who would have the right attitude to get there.

so, what's with Greening? (and no i wouldnt trade him for clowe, stay away from patchwork fixes, make whatever deals for elite top line talent winger and/or top pairing defenceman. nothing else)

delchief 02-11-2013 12:04 PM

I'd do Greening for Clowe. San Jose will probably try to inflate his value more than that, though. But he's a big, tough dude who is (traditionally) a goal-scorer. I like Greening's speed and size but he doesn't seem to do much with it. Clowe can play a top-6 role, hit, fight (he's a really good fighter, actually), provide another veteran presence, and give the team a slightly different look up top.

With all due respect to Lats he doesn't seem to be destined for greatness here. But maybe he could settle into Greening's 3rd line role until Mark Stone or another prospect is ready?

Clowe - Spezza - Silfverberg
Michalek - Turris - Alfie
Lats - Zibby - Neil
JOB - Smith - Condra

Dunno. Just taking a stab at it..... my only concern would be the speed thing but the bigger concern should be the puck-possession and scoring thing which Clowe could help with............. maybe..........................

McManked 02-11-2013 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delchief (Post 59486599)
I'd do Greening for Clowe. San Jose will probably try to inflate his value more than that, though. But he's a big, tough dude who is (traditionally) a goal-scorer. I like Greening's speed and size but he doesn't seem to do much with it. Clowe can play a top-6 role, hit, fight (he's a really good fighter, actually), provide another veteran presence, and give the team a slightly different look up top.

With all due respect to Lats he doesn't seem to be destined for greatness here. But maybe he could settle into Greening's 3rd line role until Mark Stone or another prospect is ready?

Clowe - Spezza - Silfverberg
Michalek - Turris - Alfie
Lats - Zibby - Neil
JOB - Smith - Condra

Dunno. Just taking a stab at it..... my only concern would be the speed thing but the bigger concern should be the puck-possession and scoring thing which Clowe could help with............. maybe..........................

I honestly question people that are loving Clowe. Apart from it being incredibly stupid because he's a UFA, he's also been the worst player on the Sharks. He's been TERRIBLE. You say he can be in the top 6, but he can't doesn't have a single goal this year. He's slow as molasses. He's a horrible defender.

I've watched the Sharks 4 times this year and EACH game I can not only say that he was just not noticable, but I did notice him, just IN A BAD WAY.

Terrible, terrible, terrible idea to trade him for Greening, especially considering he's an UFA.

General Granny* 02-11-2013 12:20 PM

Because people are remembering the Clowe from 3 years ago, not the one from now, they havent watched this guy this season or last, hes clearly in the decline.

delchief 02-11-2013 12:29 PM

Quote:

Because people are remembering the Clowe from 3 years ago, not the one from now, they havent watched this guy this season or last, hes clearly in the decline.
Fair point. Either a change of scenery (and team style) will help a player like this or it won't. Clowe always struck me as a stand-up guy who was a legit goal-scorer and brought it in the playoffs. The downside was his skating. I haven't seen him play this year so I would rely on our pro scouting to make that determination.

And any trade for him would probably be conditional on him signing a contract with us anway. And if he's really as horrible as you guys say then it won't happen.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:58 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.