HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Joe Pavelski to Toronto...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-22-2011, 02:25 PM
  #76
DrFeelgood
Chairman Meow
 
DrFeelgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Redwood City, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
So a top pair guy and two bottom pair guys? We're in a agreement that San Jose needs a two-way guy, but Luke Schenn is not a two-way defenceman.
Three guys out of 6 that have been effective in moving the puck is good enough for me. The team doesn't need to have 6 offensive dynamos on the blueline, our play in our own end has already been bad enough this season.

Like I said, the Schenn responses are about value (in return for Pavelski) as opposed to team need. I don't think Schenn is what the Sharks need either, FWIW.

DrFeelgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 02:26 PM
  #77
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patty Ice View Post
It's not that Schenn would be more help than Beauch right now (he wouldn't) but at least he offers a wealth of potential if Pavelski was to be moved. I, for one, wouldn't touch that deal but I can understand why other Sharks fan would rather have him over Beauch.
San Jose is not the kind of team that would be placing value on potential as this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFeelgood View Post
Three guys out of 6 that have been effective in moving the puck is good enough for me. The team doesn't need to have 6 offensive dynamos on the blueline, our play in our own end has already been bad enough this season.

Like I said, the Schenn responses are about value (in return for Pavelski) as opposed to team need. I don't think Schenn is what the Sharks need either, FWIW.
I'm not saying they do need 6 puck movers. What I said was that they needed a defenceman who could move the puck, refering to a two-way guy rather than a pure physical guy like Schenn.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 02:28 PM
  #78
Patty Ice
Best in the World
 
Patty Ice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: OxNard
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 10,208
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Patty Ice Send a message via MSN to Patty Ice
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
So a top pair guy and two bottom pair guys? We're in a agreement that San Jose needs a two-way guy, but Luke Schenn is not a two-way defenceman.

To me, it seems more like "we don't want to trade Pavelski so we'll ask for a player that we know you wouldn't trade, even though we don't actually really want them" approach.
Shockingly to me, Demers has been playing at a top 4 level this year. I thought it might take a year or two longer but he has really stepped his game up. I don't know how this guy slipped through the cracks.

__________________
Patty Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 02:29 PM
  #79
DrFeelgood
Chairman Meow
 
DrFeelgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Redwood City, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
I'm not saying they do need 6 puck movers. What I said was that they needed a defenceman who could move the puck, refering to a two-way guy rather than a pure physical guy like Schenn.
And unfortunately, the Leafs don't have any two-way defensemen that the Sharks want. You can argue all day long that Beauchemin is the two-way guy the Sharks need, and to an extent I agree in the sense that he would help the defense overall. However the packages being proposed for him are completely crazy and would end up being a massive downgrade for the Sharks. If the Sharks ever make any sort of move for Beauchemin, it's not going to be for any top roster players like Pavelski.

DrFeelgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 02:31 PM
  #80
Patty Ice
Best in the World
 
Patty Ice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: OxNard
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 10,208
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Patty Ice Send a message via MSN to Patty Ice
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
San Jose is not the kind of team that would be placing value on potential as this point.
Yea...if that was all Schenn was. He has show that he can be a good contributor to a team. And his trade value is closer to Pavelski than Beauchemin's IMO.

Patty Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 02:32 PM
  #81
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFeelgood View Post
And unfortunately, the Leafs don't have any two-way defensemen that the Sharks want. You can argue all day long that Beauchemin is the two-way guy the Sharks need, and to an extent I agree. However the packages being proposed for him are completely crazy. If the sharks ever make any sort of move for Beauchemin, it's not going to be for any top roster players like Pavelski.
They've got 1 -- and whether Sharks fans agree or not (likely because he's a Leaf who's become some fans' whipping boy), Beauchemin is that guy.

That being said, it doesn't make sense for them to part with Pavelski for Beauchemin when there will be other defencemen available for picks. If Beauchemin were available for picks that's a different story, but that's just not the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patty Ice View Post
Yea...if that was all Schenn was. He has show that he can be a good contributor to a team. And his trade value is closer to Pavelski than Beauchemin's IMO.
So has Beauchemin and to a greater extent because he is a more versatile player. Because they are a team that doesn't place a large value on futures, they would be a team that trades for Beauchmein before Schenn.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 02:36 PM
  #82
Patty Ice
Best in the World
 
Patty Ice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: OxNard
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 10,208
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Patty Ice Send a message via MSN to Patty Ice
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
So has Beauchemin and to a greater extent because he is a more versatile player. Because they are a team that doesn't place a large value on futures, they would be a team that trades for Beauchmein before Schenn.
I agree with you that the Sharks would more likely trade for Beauch. I was just giving you some insight on why Shark Fans would take Schenn.

If Wilson can get Beauch for a second rounder at the deadline, I could see him making that deal...much to my chagrin.

Patty Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 02:42 PM
  #83
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patty Ice View Post
I agree with you that the Sharks would more likely trade for Beauch. I was just giving you some insight on why Shark Fans would take Schenn.

If Wilson can get Beauch for a second rounder at the deadline, I could see him making that deal...much to my chagrin.
If you go with that approach (wanting Schenn over Beauch simply because of futures value), what in your opinion is wrong with the premise of Beauchemin + futures for Pavelski? They would be much more likely to trade for Beauchemin + futures then use those futures to try and replace Pavelski.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 02:47 PM
  #84
DrFeelgood
Chairman Meow
 
DrFeelgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Redwood City, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
If you go with that approach (wanting Schenn over Beauch simply because of futures value), what in your opinion is wrong with the premise of Beauchemin + futures for Pavelski? They would be much more likely to trade for Beauchemin + futures then use those futures to try and replace Pavelski.
Because the Sharks have no interest in trading Pavelski. They just re-signed him to a cap friendly deal, he's the best playoff performer, best faceoff guy, best shot blocker, and one of the best two-way forwards on the team.

Giving all of that up for some middle of the road defensive help is a step backwards for the Sharks. Not to mention, the same help is probably available elsewhere for a much cheaper price.

Asking for Pavelski for Beauch + futures is like asking for Kessel for Wallin + futures.

DrFeelgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 02:50 PM
  #85
Patty Ice
Best in the World
 
Patty Ice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: OxNard
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 10,208
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Patty Ice Send a message via MSN to Patty Ice
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
If you go with that approach (wanting Schenn over Beauch simply because of futures value), what in your opinion is wrong with the premise of Beauchemin + futures for Pavelski? They would be much more likely to trade for Beauchemin + futures then use those futures to try and replace Pavelski.
Did you not read my posts? I said I wouldn't deal for either. Beauchemin is not worth Pavelski and would be a major downgrade to the overall team. Schenn would offer the same downgrade (if not a bit worse) but at least offers potential for much bigger things than Beauch ever could. However, as you said, the Sharks aren't in it for potential. Which is why I WOULDN'T TRADE PAVELSKI FOR SCHENN OR BEAUCH (sorry to the other posters for the caps but I need for him to see my side).

EDIT: and it's a ridiculous premise that the Sharks trade Pavelski for Beauch + futures and then "try" to replace Pavelski. Sharks aren't here to do the Leafs any favors.

Patty Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 02:58 PM
  #86
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFeelgood View Post
Because the Sharks have no interest in trading Pavelski. They just re-signed him to a cap friendly deal, he's the best playoff performer, best faceoff guy, best shot blocker, and one of the best two-way forwards on the team.

Giving all of that up for some middle of the road defensive help is a step backwards for the Sharks. Not to mention, the same help is probably available elsewhere for a much cheaper price.

Asking for Pavelski for Beauch + futures is like asking for Kessel for Wallin + futures.
Then why are you saying that it would take Schenn? A much more reasonable answer would be: We're not trading Pavelski for a defenceman and will simply pick up a rental.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patty Ice View Post
Did you not read my posts? I said I wouldn't deal for either. Beauchemin is not worth Pavelski and would be a major downgrade to the overall team. Schenn would offer the same downgrade (if not a bit worse) but at least offers potential for much bigger things than Beauch ever could. However, as you said, the Sharks aren't in it for potential. Which is why I WOULDN'T TRADE PAVELSKI FOR SCHENN OR BEAUCH (sorry to the other posters for the caps but I need for him to see my side).

EDIT: and it's a ridiculous premise that the Sharks trade Pavelski for Beauch + futures and then "try" to replace Pavelski. Sharks aren't here to do the Leafs any favors.
My post wasn't specifically directed towards you, moreso the ridiculous Sharks fans who ask for Schenn to lose Pavelski. Your post simply provided the perfect reasoning, being that Schenn had future upside. SJ is not the kind of team that places value on future upside. If they were (the premise under which they would ask for Schenn), they would have no problem trading Pavelski for Beauchemin + futures.

Trading Pavelski for Beauchemin + futures then trying to replace Pavelski is a lot more likely than them trading for Schenn.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 03:36 PM
  #87
DrFeelgood
Chairman Meow
 
DrFeelgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Redwood City, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
Then why are you saying that it would take Schenn? A much more reasonable answer would be: We're not trading Pavelski for a defenceman and will simply pick up a rental.
As i've mentioned about twelve times now, it's a value response. Pavelski for Beauch + is crazy. Pavelski for Schenn is more in the realm of possiblity, but neither team would do it for reasons already stated multiple times in this thread as well.

We're really running in circles here


DrFeelgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 04:30 PM
  #88
Admiral*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 2,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Velvet Hammer View Post
i said beauchmin, holzer and lashoff for pavs and a 3rd.

straight up pav > beauchmin i know this, but you get 2 good players in holzer and lashoff aswell.

tell me, what are sanjose current d pairs, pp and 5on5?
You do realize that Lashoff is 24, only two years younger than Pavelski, and hasn't managed to make it out of the AHL yet? No value at all, he got traded for AHL scraps Alex Berry and Stefano Giliati earlier this year. Holzer is nothing special either.

Admiral* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 05:47 PM
  #89
kb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral View Post
Schenn is a second pairing defenseman, it doesn't matter if on the Sharks he might be their first. Leafs fans just tend to overvalue Schenn because he's about the only valuable thing they have.
Yes, Schenn's a second paring defenseman, and being so old he's only going to get worse from here on in, while Pavelski will just keep getting better and better because he's younger and more highly drafted and rated.

kb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 05:47 PM
  #90
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,905
vCash: 2283
For the needs of Toronto, I think they would set their sights higher than Joe Pavelski. They need a #1 center and Pavs is a very high quality #2 with a very, very small chance of being a quality #1. If the Sharks falter down the stretch and miss the playoffs, I'd be happy to can Doug Wilson and seek out the highest value for Joe Thornton.

And at that point, we'd be talking about Luke Schenn and a 1st in 2012.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 05:53 PM
  #91
kb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
For the needs of Toronto, I think they would set their sights higher than Joe Pavelski. They need a #1 center and Pavs is a very high quality #2 with a very, very small chance of being a quality #1. If the Sharks falter down the stretch and miss the playoffs, I'd be happy to can Doug Wilson and seek out the highest value for Joe Thornton.

And at that point, we'd be talking about Luke Schenn and a 1st in 2012.
For a clearly declining, overpaid, playoff choking player saddled with a long-term contract? He'll be lucky to fetch anything - and this package is totally laughable.

kb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 06:34 PM
  #92
magic school bus
***********
 
magic school bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 14,674
vCash: 1965
Schenn is being requested because we think he is a good player - better than Beauchemin. i think we can all agree on this.

Pavelski is better than Schenn right now, but Schenn does have the potential to grow and become a better player than Pavs. this is not a guarantee, so there is risk on SJ's side. there is no guarantee that Schenn will become a better defenseman than Pavelski is a forward.

SJ has no immediate need to trade Pavs so his value is not tarnished in any way. Toronto would need to offer something to make SJ consider trading him away - Schenn is it. the risk balances out Schenn's potential to become a better player.

not a likely trade to happen at this point IMO.

magic school bus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 06:36 PM
  #93
magic school bus
***********
 
magic school bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 14,674
vCash: 1965
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb View Post
For a clearly declining, overpaid, playoff choking player saddled with a long-term contract? He'll be lucky to fetch anything - and this package is totally laughable.
long term is a Savard, Zetterberg, Richards, Kovalchuk type deal.

Thornton's contract is more than fair and isnt even that long.

magic school bus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 07:06 PM
  #94
DrFeelgood
Chairman Meow
 
DrFeelgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Redwood City, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb View Post
For a clearly declining, overpaid, playoff choking player saddled with a long-term contract? He'll be lucky to fetch anything - and this package is totally laughable.
Why would Toronto be worried about his playoff performance?

DrFeelgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 07:18 PM
  #95
crazyforhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFeelgood View Post
Why would Toronto be worried about his playoff performance?
hiliarious


I do agree that they need to look for a #1 not even a great #2 like little joe

ask Cgy...who has had at times 3 good #2 on much better team than Tor........hard to replace a true#1...and what it does to your top line

crazyforhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2011, 09:13 PM
  #96
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by magic school bus View Post
Schenn is being requested because we think he is a good player - better than Beauchemin. i think we can all agree on this.

Pavelski is better than Schenn right now, but Schenn does have the potential to grow and become a better player than Pavs. this is not a guarantee, so there is risk on SJ's side. there is no guarantee that Schenn will become a better defenseman than Pavelski is a forward.

SJ has no immediate need to trade Pavs so his value is not tarnished in any way. Toronto would need to offer something to make SJ consider trading him away - Schenn is it. the risk balances out Schenn's potential to become a better player.

not a likely trade to happen at this point IMO.
Schenn is not a better defenceman at this point in his career, and doesn't fit what SJ needs as well as Beauchemin either.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2011, 12:52 AM
  #97
ThorntonFan19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,803
vCash: 500
I really dont see any need for Schenn. We already have Vlasic, Demers, Petrecki, Braun and Doherty.

I doubt Schenn will be better than Vlasic, Demers or Doherty in when they are in their prime. Mainly because of Schenn's one-way game.

ThorntonFan19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2011, 12:57 AM
  #98
Sonny21
Registerd User
 
Sonny21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,623
vCash: 50
How about Kadri and Beauchemin for Pavelski and 3rd? I have no idea when it comes to proposals, so whatever.

Sonny21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2011, 01:10 AM
  #99
AbsolonMoreau*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Bay Area
Country: United States
Posts: 2,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny21 View Post
How about Kadri and Beauchemin for Pavelski and 3rd? I have no idea when it comes to proposals, so whatever.
Nope...

AbsolonMoreau* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2011, 01:11 AM
  #100
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,905
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb View Post
For a clearly declining, overpaid, playoff choking player saddled with a long-term contract? He'll be lucky to fetch anything - and this package is totally laughable.
Yeah, Joe Thornton would be lucky to fetch anything. I've heard it all.

Pinkfloyd 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 01:35 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.