HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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
01-23-2011, 03:15 AM
  #101
ThorntonFan19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,803
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.
Pass.

Pavelski should be untouchable. He's too young and too valuable to this team to trade. He and Couture will be anchoring our top two lines once the big 3 leave in 2014.

ThorntonFan19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2011, 05:24 AM
  #102
Marksman
Registered User
 
Marksman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
The most likely trade between these two teams would be sending Kaberle for pick and prospect. Not this, playoff team should not give roster players like JP.

Marksman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2011, 09:40 AM
  #103
Model T
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 401
vCash: 500
As a broad note, anybody saying Pavelski is expendable because of Marleau/Thornton/Couture doesn't seem to have a clear understanding of what makes players expendable. I can't think of any good example of a team that has
1) been trying to contend right now,
2) moved out a player who is currently of high quality,
3) for depth in return- by this I mean receiving players of lesser individual quality than the one moved out,
4) and not regretted it.

I've seen a bunch of comments about how Pavelski is redundant, or in the past, about how Couture was redundant. I simply don't accept that thinking at all. Look at the Blackhawks last year- they had what, 9 top-6 forwards? How did that work out for them? In some cases it's appropriate to move quality for depth, however I think Pavelski is over the threshold of quality where that's really likely to work out. Moving a 50-point winger for depth is probably not something that will haunt a team. Moving a 30-point defenseman middle-of-the-road defenseman for depth is not likely to haunt a team. Moving a 60 point center (with a reasonable shot at producing slightly more than that for his current team, without having an expanded role) for depth is the sort of move that can end up haunting a team, because quality centers are really hard to find and your team really can't have too many of them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
I've always seen it. No doubt SJ would want Beauchemin, but not at the cost of Pavelski. If they could get him for picks they would absolutely do so, but that's not what the OP proposed. They'll pick up the best possible rental available rather than trading a significant player from their roster.
Didn't you just spend a month arguing that Marleau for Beauchemin was fair?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
Schenn is not a better defenceman at this point in his career, and doesn't fit what SJ needs as well as Beauchemin either.
You've struggled with this all thread. Let me try to explain it to you.

There are two kinds of proposals being made here. Some people are asking for returns that the Sharks would actually consider given their position right now, i.e. plausible trades. However many Sharks fans look at Toronto's roster and see nothing that is both available and sufficient justification for giving up Pavelski. Kaberle + for Pavelski might be fair, but Kaberle is expiring, wants to stay in the East, NTC, etc. so he's out. After the massive return Burkie gave up to get Kessel, he's not available either. After that, there's nobody on the Leafs with enough talent right now for it to be clearly reasonable to trade Pavelski for on the basis of talent and current need. Therefore, the plausible trades are exhausted.

Then people are turning to trades based on fair value rather than plausibility, since the question posed by the thread is what kind of value Toronto would have to give up to get Pavelski. They are looking at the roster and, based on value rather than on plausibility or filling needs, looking at Schenn as the closest in value. The accuracy of that evaluation is subject to debate, which is why we have forums in which to discuss it. What the Pavelski for Schenn comments are doing, then, is indicating perceived similar value, not suggesting the most plausible deal or the deal that best fills the Sharks needs right now. These are two distinct kinds of proposals, with different means of evaluating the trade.

I hope that helps. If it's still ambiguous to you, let me know and I'll try to phrase it differently.


Last edited by Model T: 01-23-2011 at 11:16 AM. Reason: edited a few times to expand the scope as I read through the thread
Model T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2011, 02:27 PM
  #104
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model T View Post
Didn't you just spend a month arguing that Marleau for Beauchemin was fair?




You've struggled with this all thread. Let me try to explain it to you.

There are two kinds of proposals being made here. Some people are asking for returns that the Sharks would actually consider given their position right now, i.e. plausible trades. However many Sharks fans look at Toronto's roster and see nothing that is both available and sufficient justification for giving up Pavelski. Kaberle + for Pavelski might be fair, but Kaberle is expiring, wants to stay in the East, NTC, etc. so he's out. After the massive return Burkie gave up to get Kessel, he's not available either. After that, there's nobody on the Leafs with enough talent right now for it to be clearly reasonable to trade Pavelski for on the basis of talent and current need. Therefore, the plausible trades are exhausted.

Then people are turning to trades based on fair value rather than plausibility, since the question posed by the thread is what kind of value Toronto would have to give up to get Pavelski. They are looking at the roster and, based on value rather than on plausibility or filling needs, looking at Schenn as the closest in value. The accuracy of that evaluation is subject to debate, which is why we have forums in which to discuss it. What the Pavelski for Schenn comments are doing, then, is indicating perceived similar value, not suggesting the most plausible deal or the deal that best fills the Sharks needs right now. These are two distinct kinds of proposals, with different means of evaluating the trade.

I hope that helps. If it's still ambiguous to you, let me know and I'll try to phrase it differently.
Nope. I argued that Beauchemin would be a player high on SJ's priority list to trade for if available.

I haven't struggled with anything here. Trades are not made based on some arbitrary "value". They're made because they satisfy team needs. San Jose's needs are not futures, they need players to win now.

The people who ask for Schenn are no more than those who simply don't want to trade Pavelski (which is fine), and rather than stating that, propose a player that they know Leafs fans wont trade. My point is that anyone who asks for Schenn to be included in a deal should have absolutely no problem with the premise of Beauchemin + futures.


Last edited by Patty Ice: 01-23-2011 at 03:12 PM. Reason: minor flame
seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2011, 05:01 PM
  #105
Model T
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
Nope. I argued that Beauchemin would be a player high on SJ's priority list to trade for if available.

I haven't struggled with anything here. Trades are not made based on some arbitrary "value". They're made because they satisfy team needs. San Jose's needs are not futures, they need players to win now.

The people who ask for Schenn are no more than those who simply don't want to trade Pavelski (which is fine), and rather than stating that, propose a player that they know Leafs fans wont trade. My point is that anyone who asks for Schenn to be included in a deal should have absolutely no problem with the premise of Beauchemin + futures.
I have bolded for you the part you're struggling to understand. This is an internet forum, not a GM meeting. People here sometimes do make proposals based on value rather than need, because they don't execute the deals and there's no harm to them in doing things that way. This is what people who are proposing Pavelski/Schenn deals are doing. They are estimating arbitrary value. That is the part you seem to be missing.

Model T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2011, 06:10 PM
  #106
LEAFANFORLIFE23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatsyukSOGoal View Post
Let's put it this way. Pavelski is worth more to San Jose than Schenn is to Toronto, Pavelski is going nowhere.

You cannot get Pavelski for Beauchemin, period. It's not like people here don't watch Toronto games, and don't see you guys trashing Beauchemin on your own board. Beauchemin will not get you anything of value, and if he is traded at all, it will be a lateral trade in terms of value.
no Schenn is worth more to the Leafs then pavs EVER could be to the Sharks. Pavs is the better player but he gets moved from SJ before Schenn gets dealt from Toronto unless somebody blows Burkes doors off

LEAFANFORLIFE23 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2011, 06:20 PM
  #107
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 28,188
vCash: 500
Beauchemin has been freakin awful this seen and Pavelski has the ability to be unbelievable + is way younger.

Original proposal is laughable.

LickTheEnvelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2011, 07:23 PM
  #108
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model T View Post
I have bolded for you the part you're struggling to understand. This is an internet forum, not a GM meeting. People here sometimes do make proposals based on value rather than need, because they don't execute the deals and there's no harm to them in doing things that way. This is what people who are proposing Pavelski/Schenn deals are doing. They are estimating arbitrary value. That is the part you seem to be missing.
Yup, this is an internet forum, where people try to put themselves in the shoes of a GM. There's no point in having a discussion over value, because that's not what GMs discuss. Relevant discussions are made based on team needs.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2011, 07:43 PM
  #109
Burke needs me
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 101
vCash: 500
not a chance...
maybe if he threw in 2 first round picks too...
as he has been known to do....

Burke needs me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2011, 08:19 PM
  #110
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,928
vCash: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb View Post
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.
Yes, cause everyone was arguing their ages, and obviously 9th round Zettyberg is worse than any given 1st round bust just cause he was drafted later. And, would you care to explain how Schenn is more highly "rated"? Good grief...


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.
This is Joe Thornton we're talking about... right? Because he's taken a HTD to stay with the Sharks for only three more years (and he says that he never does longer deals than that ever), not remotely clearly declining, and if you've bothered to watch any of the Sharks Playoff games from this past spring, you'll notice that Thornton was the reason that the Sharks even beat Detroit. Yeesh, almost as bad as jfried.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burke needs me View Post
not a chance...
maybe if he threw in 2 first round picks too...
as he has been known to do....
I think you are my favorite Leaf fan. I like your username.

TheJuxtaposer 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 06:12 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.