: Value of:
Joe Pavelski to Toronto...
View Single Post
01-23-2011, 09:40 AM
Join Date: Apr 2010
As a broad note, anybody saying Pavelski is expendable because of Marleau/Thornton/Couture doesn't seem to have a clear understanding of what makes players expendable. I can't think of any good example of a team that has
1) been trying to contend right now,
2) moved out a player who is currently of high quality,
3) for depth in return- by this I mean receiving players of lesser individual quality than the one moved out,
4) and not regretted it.
I've seen a bunch of comments about how Pavelski is redundant, or in the past, about how Couture was redundant. I simply don't accept that thinking at all. Look at the Blackhawks last year- they had what, 9 top-6 forwards? How did that work out for them? In some cases it's appropriate to move quality for depth, however I think Pavelski is over the threshold of quality where that's really likely to work out. Moving a 50-point winger for depth is probably not something that will haunt a team. Moving a 30-point defenseman middle-of-the-road defenseman for depth is not likely to haunt a team. Moving a 60 point center (with a reasonable shot at producing slightly more than that for his current team, without having an expanded role) for depth
the sort of move that can end up haunting a team, because quality centers are really hard to find and your team really can't have too many of them.
Originally Posted by
I've always seen it. No doubt SJ would want Beauchemin, but not at the cost of Pavelski. If they could get him for picks they would absolutely do so, but that's not what the OP proposed. They'll pick up the best possible rental available rather than trading a significant player from their roster.
Didn't you just spend a month arguing that Marleau for Beauchemin was fair?
Originally Posted by
Schenn is not a better defenceman at this point in his career, and doesn't fit what SJ needs as well as Beauchemin either.
You've struggled with this all thread. Let me try to explain it to you.
There are two kinds of proposals being made here. Some people are asking for returns that the Sharks would actually consider given their position right now, i.e. plausible trades. However many Sharks fans look at Toronto's roster and see nothing that is both available and sufficient justification for giving up Pavelski. Kaberle + for Pavelski might be fair, but Kaberle is expiring, wants to stay in the East, NTC, etc. so he's out. After the massive return Burkie gave up to get Kessel, he's not available either. After that, there's nobody on the Leafs with enough talent right now for it to be clearly reasonable to trade Pavelski for on the basis of talent and current need. Therefore, the plausible trades are exhausted.
Then people are turning to trades based on fair value rather than plausibility, since the question posed by the thread is what kind of value Toronto would have to give up to get Pavelski. They are looking at the roster and, based on
rather than on
, looking at Schenn as the closest in value. The accuracy of that evaluation is subject to debate, which is why we have forums in which to discuss it. What the Pavelski for Schenn comments are doing, then, is indicating perceived similar value, not suggesting the most plausible deal or the deal that best fills the Sharks needs right now. These are two distinct kinds of proposals, with different means of evaluating the trade.
I hope that helps. If it's still ambiguous to you, let me know and I'll try to phrase it differently.
Last edited by Model T: 01-23-2011 at
. Reason: edited a few times to expand the scope as I read through the thread
View Public Profile
Model T's albums
Find More Posts by Model T