HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Fri Jan 22: Poni worth a 2nd

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-22-2010, 03:17 PM
  #76
Number13
Registered User
 
Number13's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,346
vCash: 500
Just to clarify, we lost hte conditional pick on the Antro deal right? It was related to how far NYR made it in the playoffs and they didn't get far enough or something, or am i wrong?

Number13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2010, 03:18 PM
  #77
stoney
Registered User
 
stoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
I thought that it was higher the way some people think that losing a 2nd round pick kills the future or gaining one is reason for a party so I had to look it up.
Turning back to the 2004 draft as an example, 19 of 30 2nd round picks haven't played one game. 6 have played over 100, none over 200 games yet. (David Booth would have by now if he didn't get killed earlier this season).

stoney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2010, 04:56 PM
  #78
Leafed
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 565
vCash: 500
we retain more value in keeping him. Stajan also.

trade Stempniak

test the market for Hagman and Grabovsky,...especially since they will both probably have good Olympics

since they are not rentals, we would prob take a player back

Hagman + Grabs for top 6 winger?

similar to Steen and Cola for Stemps, but this time with better results hopefully

Leafed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2010, 05:03 PM
  #79
zeke
#freewilly
 
zeke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28,908
vCash: 500
We won't be able to get a first for Poni, but I could easily see a team adding another signifciant pick on top of a 2nd for him.

zeke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2010, 06:04 PM
  #80
All_blueandwhite
Registered User
 
All_blueandwhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Put Goose Stuffs In View Post
Yeah let's trade Poni for a 2nd. Why not hand that first overall pick to Boston on a silver platter?
You think Burke's state of mind going into the Deadline will be "OK, what moves can I make to ensure Boston doesn't get a good pick and cover up my horrible mistake?"

The picks are gone. Face it. We can't let the idea of Boston getting a top prospect interfere with trying to improve this team. If that's how GMs, specifically Burke, went about their business, they would be fired.

All_blueandwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2010, 06:06 PM
  #81
All_blueandwhite
Registered User
 
All_blueandwhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Luke View Post
we retain more value in keeping him. Stajan also.

trade Stempniak

test the market for Hagman and Grabovsky,...especially since they will both probably have good Olympics

since they are not rentals, we would prob take a player back

Hagman + Grabs for top 6 winger?

similar to Steen and Cola for Stemps, but this time with better results hopefully
Well seeing as Hagman and Grabs ARE top 6 players, I don't think trading them for a single top 6 winger is good asset management

All_blueandwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2010, 06:09 PM
  #82
All_blueandwhite
Registered User
 
All_blueandwhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool Hand Luke View Post
I could actually see Atlanta trading Kovalchuk to a contender for players + prospects + 1st 2010, and then flipping the 1st for Poni. It would be a late 1st and it would mean another warm body for Atlanta to cushion the blow of losing Kovy.
Well trading Kovalchuk would leave a hole at LW on one of their top 2 lines, and obviously Poni has great chemistry with Antropov...

All_blueandwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2010, 06:34 PM
  #83
Mike1
Registered User
 
Mike1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Mississauga,Ontario
Posts: 3,541
vCash: 500
Big mistake if we trade Ponikorovsky. I can think of some others though I would prefer never to see again.

Mike1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2010, 07:22 PM
  #84
noobman
Registered User
 
noobman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,636
vCash: 500
Pittsburgh has a late 2nd round pick, don't they?

Quote:
Originally Posted by All_blueandwhite View Post
Well trading Kovalchuk would leave a hole at LW on one of their top 2 lines, and obviously Poni has great chemistry with Antropov...
The expectation is a 1 for 1, or 1 for 2 trade for Kovalchuk. That means that Atlanta will be getting a somewhat big name player coming back their way. Alexi Ponikarovsky and a bunch of prospects + picks won't cut it.

noobman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2010, 07:43 PM
  #85
All_blueandwhite
Registered User
 
All_blueandwhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by noobman View Post
Pittsburgh has a late 2nd round pick, don't they?



The expectation is a 1 for 1, or 1 for 2 trade for Kovalchuk. That means that Atlanta will be getting a somewhat big name player coming back their way. Alexi Ponikarovsky and a bunch of prospects + picks won't cut it.
I wasn't talking about Atlanta aquiring Poni in a deal involving Kovalchuk. I meant in a completely separate deal

All_blueandwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2010, 09:56 PM
  #86
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by All_blueandwhite View Post
Well seeing as Hagman and Grabs ARE top 6 players, I don't think trading them for a single top 6 winger is good asset management
So a hypothetical trade of Grabs and Hagman for Heatley is bad asset management?

smoke meat pete* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2010, 11:44 PM
  #87
All_blueandwhite
Registered User
 
All_blueandwhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynrehab View Post
So a hypothetical trade of Grabs and Hagman for Heatley is bad asset management?


Usually when you refer to 50 goal scorers you don't call them top 6 players. You call them first liners/franchise players/etc.

IDK about everyone else, but when someone says top 6 talent, I think of a 2nd liner, who might be able to fill in on the top line. Something we already have in Grabovski and Hagman. You don't generalize a guy like Heatley as top 6 talent, because obviously he wouldn't play on a teams 2nd line.

Obviously we have different means of interpreting "top 6 talent". If the person who offered up that trade had a 1st liner in mind as the return for those 2, obviously I'd be all for it. But if by top 6 talent he meant the same thing that I understand it to mean, I'm not sure that's good asset management

All_blueandwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2010, 12:05 AM
  #88
John-Eric Iannicello
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,298
vCash: 500
Sometimes it's more than just the value you get directly in trade. You gain cap space if you move Ponikarovsky (granted it's a move for a prospect/pick..whatever). That cap space goes towards other moves for the team (hopefully good ones).

I think at the end of the day, as I've said before in other threads, Ponikarovsky is fighting vs. Hagman, Stempniak, Kulemin, Blake, Kessel and to a lesser extent Stalberg for a spot as a winger in the top-six next season. The question then comes down to is he 'that much better' than what you already have under contract? The one main thing he has going for him is his size, outside of that, to me, he doesn't pull far and away ahead of the pack in terms of pure skill and what he brings to the table. He's gone through major slides in consistency, and bad penalties.. similar to other wingers on this team.

Ponikarovsky vs. Hagman - both bring inconsistent offence, both are great when they are on. Hagman is under contract at a good price. Will Ponikarovsky cost more to retain?

vs. Stempniak - This is a UFA vs. UFA battle. The edge obviously would go to Ponikarovsky, but Stempniak is three-years younger and produces at a decent pace. Will he command less than what he's making? More than Ponikarovsky? (I think he's gone anyways)

vs. Kulemin - Kulemin seems to be coming into his own, and should eclipse Ponikarovsky's numbers in the near future. Will likely be much more cap friendly also.

vs. Blake - Blake will be a hard sell so he'll likely be on the roster next season. I'd imagine Burke would love to get his cap hit off the team.

vs. Kessel - obvious answer here.

vs. Stalberg - A young, non-established player with a cap friendly contract. Managment will probably pencil him into the roster for next season. He's a big body, with great speed.

It wouldn't surprise me if Burke believes that 2+m dollars Ponikarovsky is making (plus whatever raise he's in line for) is better used for maybe a Raffi Torres, or a Colby Armstrong. Maybe not players who will put up 25gs and 50pts, but may bring other elements Ponikarovsky doesn't.

I wouldn't be against retaining Ponikarovsky (at around 3m), but unless Burke can find a taker for someone like Hagman or Blake before the deadline.. I think Ponikarovsky's a goner. I just can't see him having those three as wingers under contract going into next season. It doesn't leave him with enough room to bring in his own guys to shape this team.

John-Eric Iannicello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2010, 12:32 AM
  #89
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by All_blueandwhite View Post


Usually when you refer to 50 goal scorers you don't call them top 6 players. You call them first liners/franchise players/etc.

IDK about everyone else, but when someone says top 6 talent, I think of a 2nd liner, who might be able to fill in on the top line. Something we already have in Grabovski and Hagman. You don't generalize a guy like Heatley as top 6 talent, because obviously he wouldn't play on a teams 2nd line.

Obviously we have different means of interpreting "top 6 talent". If the person who offered up that trade had a 1st liner in mind as the return for those 2, obviously I'd be all for it. But if by top 6 talent he meant the same thing that I understand it to mean, I'm not sure that's good asset management
Unfortunately, there is no dictionary for these type of things, but, anyone in the top 3 is on the 1st line, anyone top 6 is a 1st or 2nd liner. But that's just me.

smoke meat pete* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2010, 12:35 AM
  #90
smoke meat pete*
VoiceofReason
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-Eric Iannicello View Post
I think at the end of the day, as I've said before in other threads, Ponikarovsky is fighting vs. Hagman, Stempniak, Kulemin, Blake, Kessel and to a lesser extent Stalberg for a spot as a winger in the top-six next season.
I'm not the only one to consider top 6 anyone who plays on the 1st or 2nd line.

smoke meat pete* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:17 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.