The Trade Proposal Thread 2012 4.0
View Single Post
09-18-2012, 11:46 PM
Join Date: Sep 2004
Originally Posted by
Murray may be expendable but he is worth more than a 2nd rounder.
and calling him "expendable" is quite misleading in the first place.
he was still 4th in ice time for sharks d-men, a team that was top-10 in GA & top-5 in ES GA.
(he was 2nd in PK ice time, but their pk was brutal...)
unless he were to regress seriously this year, come deadline he'd easily be worth a 2nd round pick, lesser players regularly go for that much.
Originally Posted by
I do. I think San Jose would jump on this deal.
Murray had a bad year last year and is now expendable.
Handzus had a horrific year.
Both players are slow and don't entirely fit the system.
The most valuable piece is the 2nd rounder, and the second most valuable piece is Bourque. As such, San Jose pulls the trigger with ease.
Originally Posted by
This is inconsequential, particularly since I stated the deal ought to be a non-starter from Montreal's end.
don't see your logic here.
- while Therrien has been here before, and we last saw him in Pitt, how can any of us talk about "fitting the system" before we've even seen a pre-season version of how the habs will play?
- Bourque is pretty fast, didn't "fit" our system (or Calgary's) at all last season despite it
- if Handzus, with ~3min/game less of ice time, less than 1/2 the PP time, and virtually no ice time with SJ's top-6 forwards, had a "horrific" year while putting up 24pts/67 games, what do you call Bourque's 24pts/76games despite getting more than double the PP time and playing mostly with both Calgary & Montreal's top-6 forwards?
What benefit could it be for a contending team like the Sharks to diminish their NHL veteran depth, while adding a winger with a very questionable commitment level coming off of a terrible season (and really, he's been pretty bad for most of the past 2 seasons... ever since signing his long-term extension his level of play has dropped, living in Calgary that was evident well before Gauthier pulled the trigger).
The only "benefit" would be to clear some cap room, but with them sitting at ~5M$ in 2012-13 cap space (new CBA non-withstanding), adding 1.7M$ in cap room with no quality UFA's left would really make no sense... especially since it means that instead of having an extra 5M$ of cap room in the summer of 2013 (with Demers/Clowe needing new deals), they'd have 3.3M$ less to spend thanks to Bourque's deal.
an additional 2nd round pick, even for a team with a thin prospect pool, doesn't seem like nearly enough incentive in terms of what their organizational needs/focus is... and again, if Murray is "expendable", trading him at the deadline could quite easily get them a 2nd round pick without having to take on Bourque's contract and while retaining handzus's veteran presence.
I can see the case being made that it doesn't help us enough to warrant giving up a 2nd round pick... fair enough... though I suppose that depends on how bullish one is on our current roster.
Despite the gloom and doom of some, I see our team as being closer to a top-6 team then bottom-6, and Murray (as a bottom pairing, even strength gritty D presence) and Handzus (as a big bodied veteran centre who can anchor a 4th line giving it a better scoring/face-off combo than either Noke or White) would be the kind of veteran additions that could help push us to the higher end of the 6-10 slot we're likely to be sitting in.
losing Bourque in theory hurts our top-9 winger depth, which is thin, but in practice he looked terrible on Plekanec's wing, doesn't complement Eller, and it would be silly to put him on DD's line by default simply b/c he might be able to leech of enough goals to make us feel better about his long-term deal.
The 2nd is the best asset in the deal, but it's the kind of asset we'll end up moving in-season if the team is looking good and MB wants to add veteran depth heading into the playoff push... with 3 of them in place, it would be much smarter to make the addition early, giving everyone more time to get comfortable (not too mention giving the roster a bump from day one), then to wait until the trade market heats up, likely meaning we'd be getting even less return for that pick.
solid "No" for the Sharks, soft "Yes" for us... that's how i see it.
Last edited by Miller Time: 09-18-2012 at
View Public Profile
Miller Time's albums
Find More Posts by Miller Time