View Single Post
Old
02-08-2013, 02:46 PM
  #625
Richter Scale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
Thank you for the critique. It is fair and reasonable, but I still disagree as to overall conclusion.

Letang is offensively excellent as Staal is masterfully shutdown.

Girardi added making a complementary D pair enhances value of Staal, to extent they surrender Letang+. But that is too much.
They should do 2 for 2, Neal + Letang for Staal + Girardi, but I don't see they commit for sure.

Stepan (was a 2nd) + Boyle (was a 1st) + add a 2nd and we get 2 firsts.

So I think overall value is ballpark close.

Issue is does the return justify for each team to make the deal?
Your D is thinner by 1.
Yes, we need to add from somewhere at some point. But as I said:
McD - Letang
MDZ - Stralman
is a solid 4 and we can work by committee until we improve the bottom pair.

What Letang would bring in terms of more puck time in the offensive zone would be something to not overlook.

As to Neal you're right. Anybody working w/Sid + esp. Malkin will have added numbers, but this guy has some scoring sniping ability, so he will finish, make his linemates that much more effective. Will he put up the same numbers as in Pitt? Almost certainly no. Will his scoring/sniper ability improve over Stepan + Boyle? Without a doubt. Are the intangibles of Stepan and the d of Boyle worth that? That is a fair ?, and IMO the answer is yes.

We are taking a huge gamble on Miller, and we need to pick up a guy --- possibly Matt Cullen? but we have for the moment
Richards
Miller
Halpern
= three out of 4 with options on the other spot (what we have now + for a 4th line guy, minimum minutes (maybe 6-8 per night) I'd check out Yogan on a cup of coffee. He's not ready to JT Miller a higher line, but he's big, would be motivated to stay, has demonstrated some scoring ability, and with d oriented checking linemates, defense might not be a disaster.

Don't forget we improve w/2picks + increased salary cap... all good for down the road.

Fortune favors the bold.
Must take chance here and there.

Am I right in interpreting your rationale as you giving up on this season (and possibly the next few) and going for a mini-rebuild? Personally, I'm not ready to do that and don't think it makes sense, but that is the only case/frame of reference in which I could possibly understand the basis for a trade like the one you're proposing here (regardless of whether it is actually feasible in the real world).

If you're actually trying to keep this team in contention for the cup this year and in the next couple, I don't see how this trade does that. It completely changes the composition and identity of the team. You're going from a team whose strength was its defense and two-way play and turning it into a team that barely has any of that and is primarily offensive minded. I wouldn't even be confident they'd make the playoffs with that lineup. But even if they did, come playoffs, depth matters. Neal has the potential to add a lot to the top 6, but with the terms of your trade he does so by leaving a huge hole in the bottom six. And though I like JT, I'm not ready to say he can fill that hole and make a trade based on 2 games. Look at the teams that have won the Stanley Cup in the past decade and a half -- almost all of them got significant production from their bottom 6.

While you acknowledge that it weakens our d-corps, by saying that its "just 1 more," I'm not sure you grasp how big of an impact that would have when we already have a mediocre (at best) 6th d man... Instead of having two and a half solid pairings, you now either have to run one complete garbage pair or split up the awful and have 2 pairings with d-men that drag down the effectiveness of their partner. For a team that finally has started to get its act together on defense in the past few seasons, neither of those is a prospect I can look forward to.

I don't think its as important as the chemistry on forward lines, but in general, I think people underestimate how much a defense man's partner can impact their play... Look at any of the Rangers' top 4 d-men when they're paired with either Bickel or Gilroy; they look incredibly uncomfortable and end up running around like chickens with their heads cut off way more than they would otherwise to make up for the fails made by their partner. I mean, its early this season, but just look at Suter and Weber -- they're both still great d-men, that won't change, but their individual play is certainly not the same so far.


If you're looking to stay in the hunt for the cup this year and over the next few, the only way I would come anywhere near touching a proposal like the one you've offered is if you replaced one of the 1st rounders with a serviceable d-man or depth two-way forward. And I'm not seeing much on Pitts' roster that fits either of those bills and is also someone whom they'd be willing to give up. Simply can't make a trade that leaves two monster holes.

Richter Scale is offline