HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Florida Panthers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=28)
-   -   Bouwmeester's Value In A Trade Deadline Trade (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=537756)

Georgia Panther 07-20-2008 10:04 AM

Bouwmeester's Value In A Trade Deadline Trade
 
In the debate on whether and when to trade Bouwmeester, let's try to determine what Bouw would bring back at the deadline in trade as an impending UFA quality puck-moving blueliner. We need to look no further than the last trade deadline for a clue. Buffalo traded Brian Campbell and a 2008 7th round draft choice for a net gain of a 2008 1st rounder, a 2009 3rd rounder and a 2010 2nd rounder. Bernier was acquired from San Jose but he was a RFA which Buffalo either could not or choose not to sign and he was moved to Vancouver for the 2nd and 3rd round picks. So all Buffalo got for Campbell and a 7th round pick were the 3 draft picks. So, if the yield for Bouwmeester at the deadline is similar, which isn't so far fetched, would you be happy with a 2009 1st rounder, 2010 3rd rounder and a 2011 2nd rounder or would you prefer to trade him now?

hoax15 07-20-2008 10:15 AM

If Bouw doesn't want to be here then lets go ahead and trade him. I got a feeling we will be wanting a top-2 D along with some prospects or a 1st round pick and some offense. Can't really tell because it depends on our needs at the deadline but I got another feeling we can get a fair value for Bouw unless he openly states he doesn't want to be here.

RCGP 07-20-2008 10:51 AM

Doesn't matter what Buffalo traded Bernier for, they got Bernier in the trade. BTW Bernier is a young NHL player who helped Buffalo right away, something that a few of you guys claimed we cannot get at the deadline.

Georgia Panther 07-20-2008 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCGP (Post 14934076)
Doesn't matter what Buffalo traded Bernier for, they got Bernier in the trade. BTW Bernier is a young NHL player who helped Buffalo right away, something that a few of you guys claimed we cannot get at the deadline.

Yeah, he helped them right away for all of 17 games then was traded because Buffalo couldn't or wouldn't sign him. Of course it matters what Bernier was traded for since you claim you can get players that can help you right away in a trade deadline deal involving an impending UFA defenseman. What this proves is what you get in such a trade are draft choices and impending free agents that are difficult to sign. Now if you want to play out the string on the Campbell trade for Buffalo they later traded the second rounder they received in the Bernier trade plus their own second rounder for 34 year old defenseman Craig Rivet. So they ended up, at the end of the day, getting a 34yo journeyman blueliner and a 1st rounder for an impending UFA puck moving defenseman who was fourth in points among all NHL blueliners. Bouwmeester was 24th in points by the way. Would anyone be happy, if at the end of the day, the Panthers traded Bouwmeester for that or possibly even less as Campbell was more points productive than Bouw by far?

Dread Clawz 07-20-2008 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgia Panther (Post 14933825)
In the debate on whether and when to trade Bouwmeester, let's try to determine what Bouw would bring back at the deadline in trade as an impending UFA quality puck-moving blueliner. We need to look no further than the last trade deadline for a clue. Buffalo traded Brian Campbell and a 2008 7th round draft choice for a net gain of a 2008 1st rounder, a 2009 3rd rounder and a 2010 2nd rounder. Bernier was acquired from San Jose but he was a RFA which Buffalo either could not or choose not to sign and he was moved to Vancouver for the 2nd and 3rd round picks. So all Buffalo got for Campbell and a 7th round pick were the 3 draft picks. So, if the yield for Bouwmeester at the deadline is similar, which isn't so far fetched, would you be happy with a 2009 1st rounder, 2010 3rd rounder and a 2011 2nd rounder or would you prefer to trade him now?

Well, let's not spin things. Campbell got a 1st and Steve Bernier. What they did with Bernier after that is insignificant to this discussion. Bouw has more value than Campbell, both in the immediate term and also long term, if a team can lock him up. I'd be willing to bet a contender would risk trading a lot of young assets in the hope that they could possibly lock Bouw up long term. So maybe a 1st, a young player similar to Bernier's value/or a top prospect, and then either a top 3 d-man/ a top six forward/ or more picks like 2nds and-or mid level prospects.

Dread Clawz 07-20-2008 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgia Panther (Post 14934408)
Yeah, he helped them right away for all of 17 games then was traded because Buffalo couldn't or wouldn't sign him. Of course it matters what Bernier was traded for since you claim you can get players that can help you right away in a trade deadline deal involving an impending UFA defenseman. What this proves is what you get in such a trade are draft choices and impending free agents that are difficult to sign. Now if you want to play out the string on the Campbell trade for Buffalo they later traded the second rounder they received in the Bernier trade plus their own second rounder for 34 year old defenseman Craig Rivet. So they ended up, at the end of the day, getting a 34yo journeyman blueliner and a 1st rounder for an impending UFA puck moving defenseman who was fourth in points among all NHL blueliners. Bouwmeester was 24th in points by the way. Would anyone be happy, if at the end of the day, the Panthers traded Bouwmeester for that or possibly even less as Campbell was more points productive than Bouw by far?

How does it prove that you get impending free agents that are difficult to sign? That's an isolated case, doesn't mean we'd be getting back an RFA as well. Besides, Bernier had a poor season and didn't have much leverage in either negotiations or arbitration. Buffalo could have signed him easily, they're just cheap, their ownership is pennypinchers, that's common knowledge. That's why they didn't lock up Drury and/or Briere last summer. And that's why they didn't want to pony up for what Campbell was asking for, and traded him. We don't have that problem. Look at Horton, Weiss, Allen, Olesz. We're willing to lock up our young talent and aren't afraid to pay for it.

Georgia Panther 07-20-2008 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterBouw (Post 14934451)
Well, let's not spin things. Campbell got a 1st and Steve Bernier. What they did with Bernier after that is insignificant to this discussion. Bouw has more value than Campbell, both in the immediate term and also long term, if a team can lock him up. I'd be willing to bet a contender would risk trading a lot of young assets in the hope that they could possibly lock Bouw up long term. So maybe a 1st, a young player similar to Bernier's value/or a top prospect, and then either a top 3 d-man/ a top six forward/ or more picks like 2nds and-or mid level prospects.

They traded for 17 games of Steve Bernier for crying out loud!!!:pullhair:
What Buffalo traded the fourth best point producing defenceman for was the 26th Overall pick in the 2008 Entry Draft and a 34 year old journeyman blueliner. That's all they got for Brian Campbell in a trade deadline deal!!!:rant:

Dread Clawz 07-20-2008 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgia Panther (Post 14934519)
They traded for 17 games of Steve Bernier for crying out loud!!!:pullhair:
What Buffalo traded the fourth best point producing defenceman for was the 26th Overall pick in the 2008 Entry Draft and a 34 year old journeyman blueliner. That's all they got for Brian Campbell in a trade deadline deal!!!:rant:

Dude, stop spinning things. Jeez. What Buffalo traded Campbell for was Bernier and a 1st. What they did after that is insignificant to this discussion.

Rattrick 07-20-2008 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterBouw (Post 14934815)
Dude, stop spinning things. Jeez. What Buffalo traded Campbell for was Bernier and a 1st. What they did after that is insignificant to this discussion.

Seriously, the spin put on things by GP is just unwarranted. What does it matter if they traded Bernier? He was part of the package coming back. It's like saying Keenan made a good trade trading Luongo because we eventually got Matthias -- you just can't say that.

J17 Vs Proclamation 07-20-2008 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgia Panther (Post 14934519)
They traded for 17 games of Steve Bernier for crying out loud!!!:pullhair:
What Buffalo traded the fourth best point producing defenceman for was the 26th Overall pick in the 2008 Entry Draft and a 34 year old journeyman blueliner. That's all they got for Brian Campbell in a trade deadline deal!!!:rant:

They traded for Bernier, not Vancouver picks or Rivet. The value of the trade was Bernier and a 1st, not what occurred in the later time line. Later trades were inconsequencial to the trade value of Campbell at that time. In evaluating the Luongo trade, for future reference we could give a positive spin on it, if Matthias becomes a #1 center, just because thats what Bertuzzi got us. Evaluating trades and value does not work like that, as each trade has no corrolation with its previous.

It should also be noted Buffalo were unaware of the condition of Bernier. I've heard they were very disappointed with Bernier's condition, attitude etc.

Bouwmeester at the deadline, would have similar value to Campbell. Campbell is viewed as a relatively top tier defenseman, who can contribute criticallly during the playoffs. Bouwmeester is better defensively, but not Offensively. A contender would give up a 1st round pick, a player of potential but not one who contributes that much at that given time. Bouwmeester would not have massive value at the deadline. Pretenders will not give up alot i suspect, and top tier teams will not give up any impact players. Top tier teams often lack great prospect farms either. They only way they will give up a top 6 young forward is the have enough quality depth there.

TheHMan 07-21-2008 01:57 AM

I'd have to agree with J17. At the deadline, if I was Ottawa and I was in a good position for contending for a cup, I'd perhaps give up:

1st and a minor prospect, and a 3rd or 4th liner
or
a 2nd and a good roster player (top 6 forward/top 4 dman), and a good prospect (but not 1st draftee's).

That's pretty much it. Ultimately it comes down to whether or not Bouw is going to resign, and there's a good chance that he doesn't resign with the club he's traded to, because all he needs to do is wait a couple months for ALL the options to come on the table. I don't think many clubs are going to trade away anything they would seriously regret losing for nothing. Especially in the case of contenders, the last thing they're going to do is remove 2-3 important roster players to bring in 1, that kind of loss in depth could hurt the chemistry of the team.

Beukeboom Fan 07-22-2008 11:10 AM

I honestly think that if JM can't get JB to a long term extension, he's got to make a move before the season starts. At that point Martin could go to teams that JB is willing to sign long term with, and get a VERY good deal. I think that FLA could potentially get 80% replacement for J-Bo, as well as a 1st + good prospect right now.

If Martin waits until the deadline, a team is unlikely to move a significant roster player, so FLA will be stuck with a late 1st round DP (which has about a 30% chance of contributing at the NHL level in 2013), a good prospect, and some NHL filler.

FlaPanthers7 07-22-2008 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan (Post 14953689)
I honestly think that if JM can't get JB to a long term extension, he's got to make a move before the season starts. At that point Martin could go to teams that JB is willing to sign long term with, and get a VERY good deal. I think that FLA could potentially get 80% replacement for J-Bo, as well as a 1st + good prospect right now.

If Martin waits until the deadline, a team is unlikely to move a significant roster player, so FLA will be stuck with a late 1st round DP (which has about a 30% chance of contributing at the NHL level in 2013), a good prospect, and some NHL filler.

I agree, part of the value is the exclusivity to negotiate w/Jay while he is still a RFA. If you wait to the deadline, that shrinks. If a deal cannot get done by early next week, you've got to maximize your value.

misfit 07-23-2008 12:10 PM

GP, What Buffalo did with Bernier after the fact is completely irrelivant. They could've traded every asset they got for a bag of magic beans immediately after aquiring them, and it wouldn't change the fact that the Sabres got Steve Bernier and a 1st for Brian Campbell.

The market has pretty much been set for high end rental players in the last few years:

Brian Campbell - Bernier, 1st
Ryan Smyth - Nilsson, O'Marra, 1st
Marian Hossa (with Dupuis) - Esposito, Armstrong, Christensen, 1st
Adam Foote - 1st, 4th

I'd expect Bouwmeester to bring in a return somehwere in between what Brian Campbell and Marian Hossa got for their teams. Buffalo may have even done a little better given that Bernier had achieved more in the NHL than Espo and Christensen, and had a higher upside than Armstrong (though not as good an overall package, but Campbell is no Hossa either).

Beukeboom Fan 07-23-2008 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by misfit (Post 14965392)
GP, What Buffalo did with Bernier after the fact is completely irrelivant. They could've traded every asset they got for a bag of magic beans immediately after aquiring them, and it wouldn't change the fact that the Sabres got Steve Bernier and a 1st for Brian Campbell.

The market has pretty much been set for high end rental players in the last few years:

Brian Campbell - Bernier, 1st
Ryan Smyth - Nilsson, O'Marra, 1st
Marian Hossa (with Dupuis) - Esposito, Armstrong, Christensen, 1st
Adam Foote - 1st, 4th

I'd expect Bouwmeester to bring in a return somehwere in between what Brian Campbell and Marian Hossa got for their teams. Buffalo may have even done a little better given that Bernier had achieved more in the NHL than Espo and Christensen, and had a higher upside than Armstrong (though not as good an overall package, but Campbell is no Hossa either).

Wouldn't it be smarter to move J-Bo now and hopefully maximize his value rather than waiting to the deadline where you're likely to get late 1st round DP's & suspects rather than someone who can step right in and contribute.

I'd think that JM could get a solid replacement for JBo now rather than waiting. If he was willing to sign LT in Chicago something like:

Seabrook, Lang (included for cap purposes), Brouwer or Blunden, CHI 1st round DP

That would give you a young top pair d-men (with a lower ceiling than JB), a decent prospect, a 1st, and a short term cap hit that is still productive (50+ points and a + player on a marginal team last year without Havlat pumping up Lang's #'s).

misfit 07-23-2008 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan (Post 14966749)
Wouldn't it be smarter to move J-Bo now and hopefully maximize his value rather than waiting to the deadline where you're likely to get late 1st round DP's & suspects rather than someone who can step right in and contribute.

I'd think that JM could get a solid replacement for JBo now rather than waiting. If he was willing to sign LT in Chicago something like:

Seabrook, Lang (included for cap purposes), Brouwer or Blunden, CHI 1st round DP

That would give you a young top pair d-men (with a lower ceiling than JB), a decent prospect, a 1st, and a short term cap hit that is still productive (50+ points and a + player on a marginal team last year without Havlat pumping up Lang's #'s).

Absolutely it would be smarter to trade him now. It would've been smarter still to have traded him at the draft or much earlier on in the offseason. Of course, that all depends on when JBo decided whether or not he wanted to stay long term, and if he was clear in expressing that to the organization. I don't know anything about that. My point is, the farther along the offseason goes, the more teams become set, and the fewer teams are able to get in on a bidding war on account of not being able to take on his salary, so the earlier on the better.

Take Chicago. You used them as your example, but they would've been a perfect candidate before the signed Brian Campbell for $7M+ for 6 or 7 years (can't remember the exact number). Sure, they might be able to fit him in still by making a couple of other moves, but there's no way they give up as much now as they probably would have been willing to before they signed Campbell.

Ghoste 07-23-2008 10:32 PM

If Martin knows he can get maximum value for Bouw right now instead of the trade deadline and he is still sticking to his "no trade" guns, then you have to imagine that Bouw's camp has yet to give a definitive answer that they don't want to sign here long-term. If Martin thinks he has a shot -- getting the one-year deal in arbitration and playing through February -- to prove to Bouw that this organization is on the right path, then he'll take it.

And the way I'm looking at it is, no news is good news. Besides the "sources" saying Bouw doesn't want to be here, neither Martin nor Bouw's camp has stated this to be true. Until they do, I'll just assume that they're still trying to hammer something out.

-ghoste

Beukeboom Fan 07-24-2008 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoste (Post 14972387)
If Martin knows he can get maximum value for Bouw right now instead of the trade deadline and he is still sticking to his "no trade" guns, then you have to imagine that Bouw's camp has yet to give a definitive answer that they don't want to sign here long-term. If Martin thinks he has a shot -- getting the one-year deal in arbitration and playing through February -- to prove to Bouw that this organization is on the right path, then he'll take it.

And the way I'm looking at it is, no news is good news. Besides the "sources" saying Bouw doesn't want to be here, neither Martin nor Bouw's camp has stated this to be true. Until they do, I'll just assume that they're still trying to hammer something out.

-ghoste

I look at it differently. Martin is NOT going to come out and say "I have to trade J-Bo because he's not willing to sign long term." no matter way J-Bo and his agent tell him in private. If he says that J-Bo's value plummets. This is one of those situations that you have to read between the lines because GM's have to lie for the good of the organization.

Facts:
1) Martin has very little leverage
2) J-Bo would probably be the biggest UFA signing to date.
3) It's not in Martin's best interest to communicate the facts if J-Bo has said he's not willing to sign long term.
4) In all likelyhood, the deals won't get better from the Panther's "on-ice" perspective over the next year +. (And by that I mean the longer this goes the more likely the return would be centered around assets that aren't immediately ready to contribute at the NHL level.)

xercengetorix 07-24-2008 02:22 PM

Jay B. is a franchise player (probably in the top 5 best present and future defensemen in the NHL) and his value could be compared to the likes of Pronger, Phaneuf and Chara. Campbell is a one dimensional player- a great skating defenseman and PP quarterback- but thats it. J-Bo is worth much more because of his potential on both ends of the ice. Look what Pronger did for the Oilers and Ducks, just with his presence they went from playoff borderline to a cup contending teams. Jay B will have the same effect on an up-and-coming team and will fetch attention from half of the NHL.

Pronger trade return- 2 Firsts, 1 Second, 1 top (then) Prospect=Smid, and 2nd or 3rd line farward= Joffory Lupul. So basically 3 firsts 1 second and a seasoned player, which is still underpayment. Jay could fetch more because other teams are very aware what this kind of defenseman can do for their team.

If Martin cant sign him long term, then he has to trade him. Teams will overpay for him just like they do for free agents. I say pull the trigger.

Anod 07-24-2008 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan (Post 14977620)
I look at it differently. Martin is NOT going to come out and say "I have to trade J-Bo because he's not willing to sign long term." no matter way J-Bo and his agent tell him in private. If he says that J-Bo's value plummets. This is one of those situations that you have to read between the lines because GM's have to lie for the good of the organization.

Facts:
1) Martin has very little leverage
2) J-Bo would probably be the biggest UFA signing to date.
3) It's not in Martin's best interest to communicate the facts if J-Bo has said he's not willing to sign long term.
4) In all likelyhood, the deals won't get better from the Panther's "on-ice" perspective over the next year +. (And by that I mean the longer this goes the more likely the return would be centered around assets that aren't immediately ready to contribute at the NHL level.)


IMO reading between the lines is dangerous and leads to bad rumors. Isn't reading between the lines Eklunds job? and he is wrong 99% of the time.

Anod 07-24-2008 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SJSHARK (Post 14978554)
Jay B. is a franchise player (probably in the top 5 best present and future defensemen in the NHL) and his value could be compared to the likes of Pronger, Phaneuf and Chara. Campbell is a one dimensional player- a great skating defenseman and PP quarterback- but thats it. J-Bo is worth much more because of his potential on both ends of the ice. Look what Pronger did for the Oilers and Ducks, just with his presence they went from playoff borderline to a cup contending teams. Jay B will have the same effect on an up-and-coming team and will fetch attention from half of the NHL.

Pronger trade return- 2 Firsts, 1 Second, 1 top (then) Prospect=Smid, and 2nd or 3rd line farward= Joffory Lupul. So basically 3 firsts 1 second and a seasoned player, which is still underpayment. Jay could fetch more because other teams are very aware what this kind of defenseman can do for their team.

If Martin cant sign him long term, then he has to trade him. Teams will overpay for him just like they do for free agents. I say pull the trigger.


There are big differences between Prongers situation and Bouwmeesters

1) Pronger had a LOT of Playoff experience, Bouwmeester has none
2) Pronger had 4 years left on a decent contract, when he was traded, Bouwmeester has 1 year of restricted free agency.
3) Pronger has a better all round game. His hitting is second to none, his defensive positioning is top notch and he can score points. Bouwmeester is still developing and he is a sound positional defenseman but his hitting is not ferocious and his scoring is not where everybody expected..

Beukeboom Fan 07-24-2008 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anod (Post 14978884)
IMO reading between the lines is dangerous and leads to bad rumors. Isn't reading between the lines Eklunds job? and he is wrong 99% of the time.


I'm not spreading rumors though based on reading between the lines. I'm just not putting any faith in what a GM says publically about an ongoing contract negotiation.

Same situation when a player is asked about being traded from a bad team. The standard response is "I want to win the guys here in this room. I don't want to be traded." Even if a player wants to get the hell out of dodge, there is NO way he can come out and say that.

Acadmus 07-25-2008 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan (Post 14979473)
I'm not spreading rumors though based on reading between the lines. I'm just not putting any faith in what a GM says publically about an ongoing contract negotiation.

Same situation when a player is asked about being traded from a bad team. The standard response is "I want to win the guys here in this room. I don't want to be traded." Even if a player wants to get the hell out of dodge, there is NO way he can come out and say that.

Unless you're in the NFL, you mean;) Guys trash their teams and demand trades there left and right.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 AM.

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.