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.

Sjs-stl

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-22-2012, 09:51 PM
  #101
MardocAgain
Registered User
 
MardocAgain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 589
vCash: 500
Just read way more of this thread than i probably should have.

I think Marleau is a good hockey player and he seems like a good dude. He has the tendancy to either be ice cold or red hot in any given playoff series, but i think he's pretty consistent in the regular season...though i'll try to stay out of the whole 3-years declining argument.

The argument about his salary seems unnecessary. The sharks arent in cap trouble and the last few years and this year (looking like it) have been weak in free agency. Teams seem to be hanging on to their talent more. I think the Sharks are a better team having Marleau at $6.9M than not having him.

MardocAgain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 01:22 AM
  #102
Novacain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MardocAgain View Post
Just read way more of this thread than i probably should have.

I think Marleau is a good hockey player and he seems like a good dude. He has the tendancy to either be ice cold or red hot in any given playoff series, but i think he's pretty consistent in the regular season...though i'll try to stay out of the whole 3-years declining argument.

The argument about his salary seems unnecessary. The sharks arent in cap trouble and the last few years and this year (looking like it) have been weak in free agency. Teams seem to be hanging on to their talent more. I think the Sharks are a better team having Marleau at $6.9M than not having him.
They are. For the Blues, I don't think they would be. That's basically where this discussion point is from (Blues fans not wanting him due to his contract, and everything exploding from there)

Novacain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 01:49 AM
  #103
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,609
vCash: 500
Just gonna throw this out there:

It doesn't matter if Marleau is worth $6.9 million or not. What matters is if the Blues salary structure can handle such a contract. Without major reworking, and a lot of salary leaving, they can't.

It doesn't matter if the Blues could afford him or not. The Sharks aren't moving Marleau for anything the Blues would be willing to pay. His value to the future history of the Sharks franchise to worth too much.


All of that said, the player I want most on the Sharks is Vlasic. Then Thornton, I was really impressed with him in the first round against the Blues. But really, I love me some Pickles.

bluemandan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 03:16 AM
  #104
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,341
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Grouch View Post
I think you two are correct in your conclusions, but incorrect in your reasoning. The Blues have certainly had the better prospect pool in recent years, but I think your reasoning of superior draft position is being overstated in this case.

The average 1st round draft position of the Blues in the last 10 drafts is 17.08, compared to the Sharks average of 17.77. The Sharks have made 3 selections in the top 10 during that period, compared to 2 top 10 selections for the Blues.

I think the difference in drafting success for these two franchises has been one of proficiency, not one of opportunity.
1. The Sharks had to trade into the top-10 with Setoguchi and Couture. They didn't have either of those picks. Hell, they had to trade for the 14th overall that they moved up from to get Couture. They had to give up assets to get to even 8th or 9th. Michalek is the highest pick we've had in ten years at 6th.

2. You say "the Sharks have had three top-10 picks and the Blues have only had two". Great grouping. The Sharks have only earned the Michalek pick. They acquired the Setoguchi and Couture picks. And the two Blues picks were 4th and 1st overall. Come on. That's not even close.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 03:46 AM
  #105
SCinSJ
Sith Lord Burns
 
SCinSJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Rafael, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,429
vCash: 500
All of this Marleau talks seems futile.

He's not worth 6.9m to the Blues? Fine.

He's worth that to the Sharks and to many other teams.

Heck, if the Sharks were looking to trade him (and he was willing to waive his clause) there would be several other teams that would out-bid the Blues for his services anyway. I'm looking at you Toronto...

SCinSJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 02:11 PM
  #106
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
1. The Sharks had to trade into the top-10 with Setoguchi and Couture. They didn't have either of those picks. Hell, they had to trade for the 14th overall that they moved up from to get Couture. They had to give up assets to get to even 8th or 9th. Michalek is the highest pick we've had in ten years at 6th.

2. You say "the Sharks have had three top-10 picks and the Blues have only had two". Great grouping. The Sharks have only earned the Michalek pick. They acquired the Setoguchi and Couture picks. And the two Blues picks were 4th and 1st overall. Come on. That's not even close.
I think you are completely ignoring his point about the average draft position of the two teams being less than one spot apart in the last ten years.

bluemandan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 02:17 PM
  #107
Arrch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NorCal
Country: United States
Posts: 4,331
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
I think you are completely ignoring his point about the average draft position of the two teams being less than one spot apart in the last ten years.
Average draft position needs to be looked at carefully. A 1st and a 29th is worth far more than two 15ths.

Arrch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 02:29 PM
  #108
Dolph Ziggler
IC Champion
 
Dolph Ziggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: St. Louis, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 8,724
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCinSJ View Post
All of this Marleau talks seems futile.

He's not worth 6.9m to the Blues? Fine.

He's worth that to the Sharks and to many other teams.

Heck, if the Sharks were looking to trade him (and he was willing to waive his clause) there would be several other teams that would out-bid the Blues for his services anyway. I'm looking at you Toronto...
It's not that he's not worth it. The Blues not being able to handle the contract is different then saying he's not worth the contract.

Dolph Ziggler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 02:37 PM
  #109
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrch View Post
Average draft position needs to be looked at carefully. A 1st and a 29th is worth far more than two 15ths.
Not necessarily. I'd rather have Radulov and Karlsson than Erik Johnson and Daultan Leveille.

The point is perfectly valid. It is a huge mis-characterization to lump the Blues in with teams like the Penguins, Blackhawks, Islanders, or Oilers.

bluemandan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 02:42 PM
  #110
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Inglorious One View Post
It's not that he's not worth it. The Blues not being able to handle the contract is different then saying he's not worth the contract.
Well said.

bluemandan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 02:47 PM
  #111
Inub0i
I will Q
 
Inub0i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: UC Irvine, Irvine
Country: United States
Posts: 8,615
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Inub0i Send a message via MSN to Inub0i Send a message via Skype™ to Inub0i
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Inglorious One View Post
It's not that he's not worth it. The Blues not being able to handle the contract is different then saying he's not worth the contract.
I think the whole pissing match in this thread could've been avoided with this statement.

Inub0i is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 04:39 PM
  #112
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,341
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
I think you are completely ignoring his point about the average draft position of the two teams being less than one spot apart in the last ten years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
Not necessarily. I'd rather have Radulov and Karlsson than Erik Johnson and Daultan Leveille.

The point is perfectly valid. It is a huge mis-characterization to lump the Blues in with teams like the Penguins, Blackhawks, Islanders, or Oilers.
You can't argue with specific players like that. I'd rather have Crosby and Letang (1st and 62nd) than Vladimir Mihalik and Brendan Mikkelson (30th and 31st). Just ask yourself if you think Edmonton would trade first overall for 14th and 15th overall.

You're also assuming both teams had the same number of picks. The Sharks have been trying to win the Cup since the lockout, so they traded away tons of picks. We haven't had a first since 2007 (except Coyle, who wasa barely a first and we traded away). The Blues have gone through a major rebuild, so they have stock piled picks.

Bottom line is, you can't ignore that our situations have been completely different.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 05:01 PM
  #113
Dolph Ziggler
IC Champion
 
Dolph Ziggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: St. Louis, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 8,724
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inub0i View Post
I think the whole pissing match in this thread could've been avoided with this statement.
I didn't bother reading through the rest of the thread, but I'm a little surprised a fellow Blues fan hadn't said it already.

It's hardly the first time we've had to explain to a different fan base that it's literally not possible for the Blues to take on a particular contract, regardless of the player and his value lol.

Dolph Ziggler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 08:57 PM
  #114
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
You can't argue with specific players like that. I'd rather have Crosby and Letang (1st and 62nd) than Vladimir Mihalik and Brendan Mikkelson (30th and 31st). Just ask yourself if you think Edmonton would trade first overall for 14th and 15th overall.

You're also assuming both teams had the same number of picks. The Sharks have been trying to win the Cup since the lockout, so they traded away tons of picks. We haven't had a first since 2007 (except Coyle, who wasa barely a first and we traded away). The Blues have gone through a major rebuild, so they have stock piled picks.

Bottom line is, you can't ignore that our situations have been completely different.
All of that is true. The Blues have been trading players for picks while the Sharks have been doing the opposite. But why can't I use specifics? If someone can use the specific pick NUMBER, why can't I use players that were picked at those numbers? It is a perfectly valid point that sometimes two fifteenth picks are more valuable than a 1st and 29.

I don't see how you can claim that I am assuming that the teams had the same number of picks. I didn't even mention anything about the number of picks. Its like you made up a point just to counter it.

I'm not ignoring that the situation of the two teams are different. But the fact is that on average, the spot that both teams picked at in the first round is close during the time frame in question. How many picks, and how the teams ended up with them is irrelevant.

If you want, we can talk absolutes. In which case the Blues have had a HUGE advantage over the Sharks in the draft. But not in average draft position, which is what I was pointing out.

Marleau got a fair contract when he got it. With the cap going up, and contracts getting larger, his contract is scaling with his decline in production. But the Blues aren't structured to have an almost $7M contract up front. If Marleau had a cap-circumventing contract, where his cap-hit was larger than his salary, the Blues could do that.

The only thing I'm taking exception to is the people that think that the Blues have the talent they do because of large amounts of high draft picks. Have the Blues had a large amount of draft picks the past few seasons? Yes. Do the Blues have more recent success in the first round than any other team? One could certainly make an argument for it. But they haven't done it with a high average draft position. The Blues have only had three top ten picks in that time. They traded one of them at the draft (to San Jose, drafted Couture, Blues moved backed and got Eller who they had higher than Couture), they traded one of the players (EJ), and have one on the team (Pietrangelo.)

[Not all of this is directed at you Juxtaposer, got on a roll and just kept typing]


Last edited by bluemandan: 05-23-2012 at 09:05 PM.
bluemandan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 09:08 PM
  #115
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,341
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
All of that is true. The Blues have been trading players for picks while the Sharks have been doing the opposite. But why can't I use specifics? If someone can use the specific pick NUMBER, why can't I use players that were picked at those numbers? It is a perfectly valid point that sometimes two fifteenth picks are more valuable than a 1st and 29.

I don't see how you can claim that I am assuming that the teams had the same number of picks. I didn't even mention anything about the number of picks. Its like you made up a point just to counter it.

I'm not ignoring that the situation of the two teams are different. But the fact is that on average, the spot that both teams picked at in the first round is close during the time frame in question. How many picks, and how the teams ended up with them is irrelevant.

If you want, we can talk absolutes. In which case the Blues have had a HUGE advantage over the Sharks in the draft. But not in average draft position, which is what I was pointing out.
You cannot argue that a pick has the value of the player drafted with it. Or I guess the #3 pick is officially more valuable than the #1 pick because Toews is better than EJ. It is not valid at all that two 15th overalls are more valuable than 1st overall and 29th overall. It's not close at all. The point is, 'average draft position' means absolutely nothing, especially when one team has had a 1st overall and a 4th overall.

When you're arguing that the Blues have drafted much better in the first round compared to the Sharks, number of picks is a big deal. One team has a pick at 1, 20, and 30. The other team had a pick at 16. They both average to 16, but the former team will 100% have the better player.

Whatever though, I'm not even really sure what we're arguing any more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
Marleau got a fair contract when he got it. With the cap going up, and contracts getting larger, his contract is scaling with his decline in production. But the Blues aren't structured to have an almost $7M contract up front. If Marleau had a cap-circumventing contract, where his cap-hit was larger than his salary, the Blues could do that.
I thought we were done with the Marleau bit?

But, if it's at all relevant, Joe Thornton has a cap hit of $7M next season but a salary of only $6M.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 11:45 PM
  #116
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
You cannot argue that a pick has the value of the player drafted with it. Or I guess the #3 pick is officially more valuable than the #1 pick because Toews is better than EJ. It is not valid at all that two 15th overalls are more valuable than 1st overall and 29th overall. It's not close at all. The point is, 'average draft position' means absolutely nothing, especially when one team has had a 1st overall and a 4th overall.

When you're arguing that the Blues have drafted much better in the first round compared to the Sharks, number of picks is a big deal. One team has a pick at 1, 20, and 30. The other team had a pick at 16. They both average to 16, but the former team will 100% have the better player.

Whatever though, I'm not even really sure what we're arguing any more.



I thought we were done with the Marleau bit?

But, if it's at all relevant, Joe Thornton has a cap hit of $7M next season but a salary of only $6M.
Me either. Like I said, I started responding to you then just got on a roll. I remember you from the playoff thread, and you are good peoples.

But I still contend that average draft position CAN matter, and that the players selected with the picks matter as well. Especially since we are talking about drafts that already happened. 1,29 v 15,15 is just one example. 8,22 v 12,18 is much more debatable.

And I didn't mean a slight on Marleau. I meant that while his production has gone down the past few years, salaries have gone up at such a rate that he isn't overpaid.

As for Joe, yes. I suspect that in the next few seasons we will see these players with front loaded contracts start to get moved to smaller salary team. Their production will no longer justify their cap-hits, but their salaries will be reasonable for what they bring to the table. The large cap-hit will help small market teams meet the floor, while the big-market teams will be looking for cap relief and not demand huge returns.


Last edited by bluemandan: 05-23-2012 at 11:50 PM.
bluemandan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-24-2012, 02:27 AM
  #117
SCinSJ
Sith Lord Burns
 
SCinSJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Rafael, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Inglorious One View Post
It's not that he's not worth it. The Blues not being able to handle the contract is different then saying he's not worth the contract.
OK got it. It is hard to know the situation for every team and surprisingly not everyone is so clear...

SCinSJ 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 09:17 PM.

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.