View Single Post
Old
09-30-2006, 09:10 PM
  #39
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,117
vCash: 500
Edge, n8, and AJ1982, you guys make some great points...

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ1982 View Post
If you must have a fair trade here is what I think is fair in terms of value for JJ:

To LA: JJ

To Carolina: Gleason, a 2nd rounder in 07', and a 2nd rounder in 08'

LA gets a bluechipper dman prospect and Carolina gets a solid dman with some potential and two chances to find decent prospects to refill the coffers.

If you had the 3rd overall pick in a deep draft would you give it up for Gleason and Belanger and a salary dump (which could end up coming back to bite you if the salary dump finds his game again)? I wouldn't.
I thought your breakdown of the trade was spot on, but I disagree with your analysis of the value. Gleason is NOT a bluechip defensive prospect. Johnson is a generational cornerstone franchise defenseman. This is a guy that comes along once every 10-15 years. Gleason has potential, but I don't see him as a top pairing guy, I see him as a #3, POSSIBLE #2, if all goes well for him. I'd be giving up another midlevel prospect defenseman, and or a 1st round pick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarretJoseph View Post
If Staal is anything like his older brother in regards to skill wise and using his hockey "head" - I'd bet the farm that he'd be better than JJ.
I'd love to agree with you here, but I can't. JJ's raw talent far exceeds Staal's, but both will be #1 defenders. JJ will be a cornerstone guy, Staal might be the Rangers future on defense right now, but he will need a better supporting cast to be more effective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
I agree with TB and Melnyk on this one.

I think Johnson's upside is superior, though I think Staal is the safer of the two.

Personally I would not have traded Staal for Johnson because I think the deal only makes the most sense if I can potentially pair both of them together.

To me Staal is the perfect guy I'd want to pair with Johnson and vice versa.

Having said that, making a deal for a player like this within the conference is extremely difficult and going to cost more so I can't blame the Rangers for not making the move.

On the other hand, I can't believe Carolina made the deal that they did. That one is just puzzling to me.
I agree, Staal is a much safer pick, Johnson is more boom or bust, but that boom will be pretty big if you ask me. I agree with you in the sense that Staal can be to Johnson what Beukeboom was to Leetch, but on an even higher overall talent level in terms of the pair. I would have traded Tyutin, Immonen, and a 1st if Rutherford wanted to up the ante because of the same conference. Look at what Rutherford was after...

1. A promising young NHL ready defenseman with potential and minimal cap hit.
2. A partner who could take on Tverdovsky's salary, preferrably out of the conference.
3. A team with other assets available to help the team win this year.

It pisses me off because the Rangers fit the mold to make a trade. Even if they're in the same conference, they're out of the division, so they wouldn't have to face 7 or 8 times a season to see the trade backfire. I know Rutherford would have upped the ante, that's fine, and I would have been willing to throw in a 1st round pick to my proposal to get it done, and that would have been fair value, if you ask me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
Gleason is nice defenseman, but I wouldn't trade Jack Johnson for him.

Eric Belanger?

So essentially the in the past 3 months the Canes have lost Aaron Ward, Matt Cullen and Jack Johnson and replaced them with Tim Gleason and Eric Belanger?

Sorry but that is poor asset management.

That's what seperates the team's that repeat from the team's that end up fighting for a lottery pick 3 years after they win the cup.

No amount of spinning in the world is gonna change my mind on the deal. If I'm L.A. I'm thrilled.
The Canes season is already going south. Aaron Ward, Matt Cullen, and Jack Johnson, and replaced them with Tim Gleason, Trevor Letowski, and Eric Belanger. They signed Letowski over the summer to help offset the loss of Cullen, and now Belanger is there as well. Those two together don't score or play well enough defensively from what I've seen to make up for Cullen's loss, and we all know Gleason will never make up for Jack Johnson.

Quote:
That's what seperates the team's that repeat from the team's that end up fighting for a lottery pick 3 years after they win the cup.
You really couldn't have said it any better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
Eric Belanger and Tim Gleason to replace Matt Cullen and Aaron Ward is not going to get it done, factor in losing Jack Johnson and it IS that bad.

Regardless of the reasons they had for doing it, it's poor asset management. When you HAVE to make moves like this to dump salary it sends ripples throughout the whole organization.

This little salary problem impacted their ability to resign guys, cost them a top prospect and overall landed them inferior assets to what they gave up.

Yes they feared losing him, but that doesn't mean you run out and make a trade. No one is going to convince me THAT was the best they can do. You don't go from asking for Marc Staal+more and then taking Tim Gleason and Eric Belanger.

Of course the real problem is that Carolina put themselves in a situation where they were desperate for help to begin with. Any time you do that you lose leverage.

As such they lost leverage with both Johnson AND the Kings and they paid for it.
Rutherford has lost his mind, and we figured this was going to happen to New Jersey, not Carolina. Rutherford went into panic mode, and made his worst move ever as a general manger. You're right, leverage is everything, and that's why he's not a Ranger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by n8 View Post
in a couple of years, canes fans will understand the pain of watching a young stud defenseman rockin' it in LA just for a faded chance to repeat their Stanley Cup glory.

Staal for J.Johnson. Pass for me. Both are too close. Staal is signed. J.Johsnon is not. Staal is "homegrown." I like how he has shown the ability to shut down Malkin. Plus practicing against Eric and Jordan back home must be some training!
I completely agree, and I got bashed all over the place when I said I wouldn't trade Staal for him. Why trade one bluechip defensive prospect for another? Especially when one is signed, and is almost NHL ready. Sometimes playing it safe is the way to do it.

[QUOTE=AJ1982;6621281]
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFC View Post
but your missing the point of the trade for carolina... they needed help now they desperatly needed more depth and they filled their holes with this trade... and teverdosky was trade to dump his salary... They were probably doubting there ability to sign johnnson fearing he wanted to playout his college ellibility and go back into the draft... QUOTE]

I understand they needed help but for god's sake, give up something other than the future cornerstone of your defensive corps. I also understand the salary dump idea but it still doesn't even out the trade. And finally, I don't think it is too concerning that a player wants to stay in school for his SOPHOMORE year, I really don't think there was anything that suggested JJ would not sign at a later date. The bottom line is this... the trade SUCKS for Carolina, and that is a fact.
See, that's what pissed me off. How could Rutherford be such a horses' *** and get pissy over Johnson wanting to stay in the NCAA for his SECOND YEAR of college. Is it that damn unheard of college players wanting to finish their tenure in the NCAA? Even if Johnson said "I don't want to play with you," why don't you wait a little longer? The trade deadline would have helped Rutherford gain a FAR BETTER return. Because if Michigan were to exit the tournament early, Johnson could go and sign with his NHL team, just like Pock did with us, and probably would have done so, giving that team some added muscle for the playoff run, which would have added value to Johnson. Now, you're trading him because you're tired of him not wanting to play in the NHL right away, which lowers his value, and you've already lost any leverage you once had in any deal. Oh yeah, and did I mention the fact that Johnson is a generational franchise cornerstone player? Yeah, you want to optimize the return to the best of your abilities, and giving up leverage by basically saying that "we're willing to deal him if the price is right" will not help you out at all. Rutherford put a gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger, and now he'll pay the consequences when LA wisens up and drafts a better goaltender than Bernier, and makes a run at the cup and wins it all.

Thank god he went to LA, I like the Kings, so at least he's on a team that I like to watch and root for.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote