View Single Post
01-22-2013, 12:43 AM
Lafleurs Guy
Global Moderator
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 43,018
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
It doesn't matter what you get out of trading a veteran. Why does everyone think solely in trades? If you trade Plekanec, let's say, how do you know what you get in return will be anywhere NEAR as efficient as he could be now and in the next 5 years? Of course trading him NOW will get us a better return than LATER, but that return most probably won't bring us anything near as good as what he currently brings us now. Do you see my logic here? Just simply trading vets for the sake of trading them is never going to work, and never has worked.
Your whole argument hinges on the picks not working out. If you have multiple picks, they aren't all going to flop. You keep talking about the possibility of flops, well we got McD and Max out of the same draft. What if we got a return like that?
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Actually, we want veterans to help support the youth and help develop them. We need players that have experience in the NHL, in the playoffs it is even more important. Imagine what it would look like if we traded Gionta and Cole for the sake of trading them, got some young decent players or maybe a second rounder or two out of them. That won't benefit the team now, and only has a small chance of doing anything near as useful in the future as what they would've done on the team. As you can see, it all depends on WHO you want to trade, and for WHAT.
So keep some vets. Keep Gio (he's probably not going to bring a huge return anyway) keep Gorges as he's a vet but still young. We've got Price and others...

Don't keep vets at the expense of talent when you aren't going to win anything anyway.

Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
As everyone said, we all agree on trades that are good for the team, but we most likely won't get anything as useful in the future by trading our veterans now as these veterans probably would've done by keeping them on the squad. So what's the point? Well, it all depends on the return. Keep in mind, you're not getting many number one picks for most of our veterans, and they are much more useful on this team than what a 2nd-3rd round pick will ever get us, most probably.
Not true. Not true at all.

The picks we get now will be starting their NHL careers in two or three years. In two or three years Markov might not even be in the league. So I'm not sure what you're going on about here.

Are you saying that the only way it makes sense to deal Markov is if we get another young Markov in return? If so, you really don't understand anything here.
Originally Posted by JustAHabFan View Post
You do not know what kind of return we get for a Gionta, or a Plekanec at the trade deadline. Some desperate team who wants to make a playoff may give us some good young prospect or 1st round pick. I watched the Ottawa game and Kyle Turris played great. This is the kind of prospect we hope to get by trading a Gionta or a Plekanec.
I would've loved to have gotten Turris but they wanted younger players and prospects. I would've given up Plecs for him though and taken the chance.

Maybe he busts but I would've taken that chance on a talent like Turris. He finally seems to be realizing some of that potential too so maybe Ottawa will actually be in good shape going forward.
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
I understand your point, but why would you want to get rid of Plekanec? He is a proven veteran and is effective in all situations. Why would you want to get rid of such a big piece of our forward group just for the sake of trading?

You have to realize that Plekanec will at most, get us a first round pick from a contending team, meaning it will be lower. We can only hope this low pick will be as good as Plekanec currently is and probably will be for 5+years. Getting Turris required David Rundblad AND a second round pick, and Plekanec won't get us anywhere NEAR that return.
Nobody wants to 'get rid of' Plecs. It makes sense though to deal him for a good return. And if he's so effective, why would he only get us a 1st?

His return should be higher. A good prospect and some picks. And if he doesn't get this kind of return... then just hold onto him. Nobody is suggesting we deal him for the hell of it.
Originally Posted by Dirty Danglez View Post
I don't see this team making the playoffs this season, but trading proven vets like pleks, cole, gorges... even gio to a certain degree (obviously depending on the return) just because we want more picks makes no sense. Every rebuilding team needs their share of vets who can play big minutes... Can't just have a bunch of potential with nothing proven on the ice
Why doesn't it make sense? We aren't winning and those vets are getting older. They can help other teams win and we get help to win down the road.

It makes perfect sense.

Lafleurs Guy is online now