View Single Post
06-28-2012, 07:34 AM
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 20,858
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Tender Rip View Post
Hmm... some times when meeting people more obstinate than oneself, a rare thing in my case, one must be patient.

1: I completely understand and realize that your overarching point of view before and after the draft is that - Great, Shero builds a tremendous pipeline. That has major value for a lot of reasons. . In a vacuum, I can only agree with this.
2: One of those reasons you have pointed to many, many times is that these highly valued D-men prospects can be moved for other assets if needed. Like many others here, you have been pointing to our recent experiences moving puck moving D-men as primary examples. Not just in this thread.
3: I point out that those we moved for great returns were not prospects and had already made it to the NHL, playing big minutes, providing lots of offense and succeeded on a big team.
Nevermind that I find guys like Despres, Morrow etc. to look like ultimately better NHL talents than Whitney and Goligoski, down the line, I don't think this means more or comparable trade value before they show that they can succeed in the NHL. I have therefore asked you to give some examples to this presumed trade value of prospect D-men to justify frequently telling me that my reservations are wrong.
You were given an example of a blueliner taken with a mid first round pick just a year beforehand, bringing back the best fwd prospect in the world. A trade you were aware of, but tried in every way to downplay.

....and your list of unproven blueliners was one player, a player I had already mentioned myself, who got St.Louis an asset you yourself said fell solely due to the Russian factor.
I think that is a very weak reply on your part, and I think it very dodgy to point to a draft pick yet to be realized as an example of great trade value.
Then you mentioned Voinov because his presence liberated LA to trade Johnson, but that of course says nothing about Voinov's TRADE VALUE prior to proving himself, which is what I have very explicitly been inquiring about. It said a lot about trade value of NHL proven young puck movers though, as Jack Johnson was the principal piece in getting Carter despite having been atrocious defensively pretty much throughout his NHL career.
Again, you have a great example of how a young blueliner with no NHL experience can be traded for exactly what you want, but you continue to type with one hand over your eye.

Your agenda is crystal clear... Sadly.

Non sequitor much? When did I talk of roster problems at all? There is no relation between what you quoted from me and any of the above.
You are the one who is so concerned about how difficult it will be for all of these blueliners to make this team, hence your "worries" about their trade value not being maximized.

Not me.

A point on which I have agreed entirely in principle, yet added that with the depth of blueliners already on the team, it is obvious that our recent and very capable D-prospects will be kept down longer than if they'd been forwards where our pipeline and internal competition is no way near as hard.
I am sure we could choose to agree with each other on both these points in isolation.
And there we have it...

You continue to operate under the assumption competition is a bad thing, every prospect will pan out and that Shero won't max out the trade value of these blueliners when the time comes.

Yet somehow you want to claim we agree in any manner...

He could back you on wanting Whitney, which is something we could go back and find was vocally shared by me, Champagne Wishes and no doubt many, many others.

If you insist.
July 1st 2010:

Once again you skip over context when it suits you, which is ironic given your propensity to be a finger jockey.

You stated I was agt signing Martin because I claimed the Pens had a top 3 D in the league, yet I still don't see that quote anywhere.

I wanted the Pens to sign Michalek and Whitney. I wanted the balance both brought to the team and had just watched Michalek have a phenomenal series agt Det. When rumors of the Pens signing Martin were flying, I was agt it. It was overkill in my mind.

After he signed, reading what Cole said about having a great top four now, convinced me Shero made the right moves. When I looked over their blueline and got over missing out on Whitney, I agreed with Cole and thought the Pens had a top three blueline.

Ironically, I'm one of the few Martin supporters left, even though I initially didn't want Shero to sign him.

However as disapointed as most of us are in this season's performance, this blueline played extremely well last season and Shero was lauded as a genius. The depth of his blueline also allowed Shero to move GoGo for Neal as well.

Again, context is a refreshing thing.

...and so we come to one of those where one can just say mea culpa. I didn't remember it as St.Louis trading to take him on draft day. So, my mistake.

I will repeat though, that the value for Rundblad here as a trade asset, I find it unreasonable to see this as viable example.
The value depended on what St.Louis did with that pick and how that prospect would later develop, and thus isn't a fair indication on Rundblad's market value. Rundblad was a 17th overall pick who had developed well since his draft and was traded for a 16th overall pick a year later.
St.Louis made out like bandits because they picked right/gambled on the high profile Russian who is now coming over.
You are backtracking to suit your purposes. Please...

It's funny how you were agreeable to the value of the trade when you didn't believe it happened moments before the pick took place.

And you preach about debating honestly...

Again, you are going out of your way to discount this trade and it is transparent why.

When we traded for Hossa, the 1st rounder (29) involved became Daultan Leveille who is most likely a complete bust - ie. that 1st round pick was as worthless as Angelo Esposito, but only because of who was picked. Seeing that Markström went 31st and Voinov 32nd for instance. So many say that Hossa came really cheap, and in the greater scheme of things he sure did. But the value of a pick is entirely relative to where that pick ends up, and who you end up choosing.
Kessel ultimately yielded Boston Seguin, Jared Knight and Dougie Hamilton. Who really thinks that reflects Kessel's asset value?
This is more posturing and filler to make a muddled point...

Rundblad was traded with Ott still on the board. Murray wanted him more than Tarasenko. Just man up and admit that much... My God.

You look very petty here.

Many of us were not. Ultimately this was a consequence of having collected numerous assets competing for similar positions and being forced by sheer numbers to deal an asset while his value was low. Considering Letestu's 2010/2011 season and capacity to deliver secondary scoring at a bargain cap-hit, a 4th rounder was not a particularly great return, but it obviously beats getting nothing at all for Nick Johnson.
Those who thought Shero for getting a 4th was genius are the same people who are OK with ditching most any player going through a difficult patch, never mind their asset value.
This is semantics, but the general consensus was, in my mind and all I had read before and after the trade, that people were thrilled to get a 4th.

Letestu also didn't get traded because of too much competition, he simply made himself expendable with his poor play. I didn't want him to be moved, but I admitted then as I do now he cashed his own ticket out of town.

As for Johnson, you are preaching to the choir.

I still don't see the relevance of Letestu to the Pens blueline pipe.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline   Reply With Quote