View Single Post
Old
10-09-2013, 12:07 PM
  #141
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
FAT SLOB
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 47,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Obviously...but I don't think Richards is worth both (plus the pick). I think Simmonds and Schenn together bring more to the table than Richards alone and Richards alone brings less to the table than Simmonds and Schenn together.
Questionable. Neither one comes close to covering his defensive play, which is vital and a problem with the forward corps since the trades.


Quote:
This is true, but building around a guy like Richards without having traded him for Schenn and Simmonds, it's hard to say just who would have been built around him. Would a set-up of G, Richards, Couturier down the middle look better than G-VL-Couturier? Would Laughton be in the mix? Who would be playing on the wings? Too many what ifs out there. Schenn and Simmonds bring more to the table than Richards does, and at a lower cost. Over time that cost might increase, but that can also be said about the guys with whom you are building around Richards.
Actually, Richards in place of Lecav could be superior, or at least equal. It's not like Richards is a slouch. Like I said, Schenn and Simmonds do not bring more to the table. If they did the defensive play among the forwards wouldn't be so nightmarish. We certainly wouldn't need Giroux on the PK anymore...or if he did still PK, let's not forget how many SH opportunities Richards and Giroux made for each other. We haven't been anywhere near the SH threat we were since Richards was hauled out.

Edit: As for building around him, that's the chief issue. And it's a big part of the reason he had to be traded. You can thank Holmgren's cap and asset management for that scenario. People always wanted examples of it actually holding the team back...well, there it is. One of the biggest examples for any team since the cap era began. It's probably that and the Chicago detonation right after they Cupped in '10...except one of those teams has done better than the other.

Quote:
Two trades? Simmonds and Schenn were in the same deal. Simmonds + Schenn > Richards. That is what I am saying. Those two together bring more to the table than Richards.
My bad, I thought we were still including Couturier on some level.

And no, they don't bring more to the table than what Richards did. They haven't even replaced it yet, much less surpassed it. His defensive game has to be taken into account.



Quote:
No, that isn't the same thing because Simmonds and Schenn aren't bring less to the table than Richards is bringing.
Except they are, which is part of the problem with the plummet in the forward corps' defensive ability since the trades.

Quote:
Simmonds alone has scored more than Richards since the trade, Schenn has also been relatively productive.
Richards provided more than just points. He was/is a multi-faceted player...a top special teams player and elite two way player.

Quote:
Both players bring the type of energy to the team that Ricahrds brought. Both players cost less than Richards (which is ever so important around here for every single issue ever...unless it doesn't go with your argument).
They do bring energy. But the moment either one needs a raise, the two of them combined are going to price themselves over Richards.

Quote:
Would you trade Malkin at a 100 points per season for two players that score 80 points per season, have lower salaries, are younger, and bring similar styles of play to the ice? I know I would.
I would too. But, we didn't do that. We haven't replaced his defensive abilities or special teams abilities. People staring only at production stats are ignoring the big picture. We knew from the start that the outcome of this trade would be heavily dependent on Schenn. So far he's just not delivering. Luckily he's young, so there's still time.

Edit: I'll expand on my Malkin example. When you ask if I would trade him for two 80 points players, that's like trading a mountain in the Rockies for two mountains in the Appalachians. Sure, neither one may be as good for climbing, but both of them together might give you hiking and camping opportunities that equal or surpass your old Rocky peak.

What I was trying to get at is trading Malkin for 3 33 point players who equal his production is like trading your Rocky mountain for a pile of crap the same height. Yes, you have something the same height, but at the end of the day it's not nearly as satisfying. You certainly wouldn't want to climb it.

Replacing a player like Richards with guys who can only surpass his point production is sort of like that. You've got the same height, but the whole overall product isn't as good as what you gave up...especially if the points production is partly cancelled by the downgrade from top defensive play to average defensive play.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.

Last edited by Beef Invictus: 10-09-2013 at 12:38 PM.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote