View Single Post
Old
11-11-2003, 08:45 AM
  #11
VaFlyer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lynchburg, VA
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
That's your opinion, but most would consider Comrie has the better player at this point in time. Gagne had ONE good year, and since then has slipped alot. IMO they are about at an equal level, and both could probably use a change.
I try not to get into these who-is-better type debates, but lets look at the numbers and see who "really" has only had 1 good year:

Mike Comrie - 23 years old - 3 years in NHL

2003-04 (?????)
2002-03 Edmonton NHL 69 20 31 51 -18 90 170 11.76 (decrease)
2001-02 Edmonton NHL 82 33 27 60 +16 45 170 19.41 (increase)
2000-01 Edmonton NHL 41 8 14 22 +6 14 62 12.90
Total NHL 192 61 72 133 +4 149 402 15.17

Simon Gagne

2003-04 Philadelphia NHL 11 2 5 7 +2 2 23 8.70 (???)
2002-03 Philadelphia NHL 46 9 18 27 +20 16 115 7.83 (injuries)
2001-02 Philadelphia NHL 79 33 33 66 +31 32 199 16.58 (increase)
2000-01 Philadelphia NHL 69 27 32 59 +24 18 191 14.14 (increase)
1999-00 Philadelphia NHL 80 20 28 48 +11 22 159 12.58
Total NHL 285 91 116 207 +88 90 687 13.25

I think it is fair to say that Simon would be considered the better player by stats, but by a very, very slim margin. Comrie declined after his one good year. Gagne is probably better defensively and has never been a minus player, Comrie last year was a -18. Gagne also played in the Olympics something Comrie has yet to do despite being the same age.

I just don't see the value of this trade being way off. They both have 1st line potential. Simon has shown to be a little injury prone, which should be helped playing in the West, while Comrie has 1st line potential but refuses to play for the team that currently has his rights.

VaFlyer is offline