Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
The 5th is a non-starter for Leaf fans, you wont be getting a top 10 pick from any team because it means they're more than one piece away from being a contender.
I'd increase our offer to L. Schenn, Kulemin, and T. Biggs.
Keep Luke Schenn, we already have an older Schenn, his name is Paul Martin.
Keep Luke Schenn, we already have an older Schenn, his name is Paul Martin.
I guess in terms of being a whipping boy and questionable decision making they are similar. They are mostly opposites though. Martin is as soft as a teddy bear but lugs the puck well. Schenn is pretty mean and physical from what I've seen.
How about that ol' point you neglected to include about the Hawks preferring to convert wingers rather than use him in a 2C role? The man's own team - that's desperate for a 2nd line center - doesn't even consider him an option.
It's completely relevant - junior stats from a half-decade ago don't mean anything. Bolland was a more productive junior player than Eric Staal, too. Maybe you guys can work out a trade.
I won't even acknowledge "junior stats" as an argument moving forward, so you may as well save some keystrokes. It's absurd.
Sharp is a natural C who was moved to wing, just so you know. Q prefers balanced scoring on the top 2 lines and the more traditional checking center at 3C, where Bolland plays. Same thing with Sutter in Carolina. He could be a 2C but his value is greater at 3C and they've tried several guys at 2C.
You continue to completely miss the point about Bolland in Juniors but oh well. It's pretty simple that Bolland has shown to have the scoring skills to be a productive 2C but you can't compare his point totals with Staal who has played a lot of 2C. Well, actually, you've tried to do so and create a red herring by misapplying the junior stats in the vague hope it will support your point but it doesn't.
But keep flailing around with silly comparison to Schremp and refuse to "acknowledge: the point. Just hysterical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superunknown94
Ian Laperriere, Darcy Tucker, Chad Larose (sound familiar?). Go look up their junior stats. Hardly an accurate way of projecting a player's potential.
Yawn...not the point but thanks for the contribution anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper
There's too much idiocy in this thread to differentiate. We have people bringing up junior stats from 5 years ago as an argument.
Sharp is a natural C who was moved to wing, just so you know. Q prefers balanced scoring on the top 2 lines and the more traditional checking center at 3C, where Bolland plays. Same thing with Sutter in Carolina. He could be a 2C but his value is greater at 3C and they've tried several guys at 2C.
I don't think Sharp is a natural 2C so much, but I did always wonder why he isn't playing it anymore. Sure, he is great as LW and Chicago isn't terribly deep there either, but not even when Toews is concussed and Kane loses like 60% of his faceoffs? It seems a better approach in times of injury problems to try a rookie left wing with a good, experienced center than try the rookie center. Center is just the higher impact position there. There has to be some reason as to why Q isn't playing him as center, right? What do you think it is?
You continue to completely miss the point about Bolland in Juniors but oh well. It's pretty simple that Bolland has shown to have the scoring skills to be a productive 2C but you can't compare his point totals with Staal who has played a lot of 2C. Well, actually, you've tried to do so and create a red herring by misapplying the junior stats in the vague hope it will support your point but it doesn't.
I don't think Sharp is a natural 2C so much, but I did always wonder why he isn't playing it anymore. Sure, he is great as LW and Chicago isn't terribly deep there either, but not even when Toews is concussed and Kane loses like 60% of his faceoffs? It seems a better approach in times of injury problems to try a rookie left wing with a good, experienced center than try the rookie center. Center is just the higher impact position there. There has to be some reason as to why Q isn't playing him as center, right? What do you think it is?
I'm not a Hawks fan so I'm only speculating. I just think he's more effective on the wing, sniper-like shot, great speed, etc. He's not a great creator for others so I think it's just the better fit. But as stated before, trading for Staal instead of addressing the net and D concerns isn't their top priority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superunknown94
Like you are?
No, but I doubt you have a good sense of what my original point was anyway. Care to share?
I'm not a Hawks fan so I'm only speculating. I just think he's more effective on the wing, sniper-like shot, great speed, etc. He's not a great creator for others so I think it's just the better fit. But as stated before, trading for Staal instead of addressing the net and D concerns isn't their top priority.
Oh, I assure you I had zero thoughts about trading Staal to them with this question.
It just seems weird to me, that you say both Sharp and Bolland are not only serviceable, but good 2Cs, but IRL Q is playing someone like Kane or Kruger there, who are obviously not good 2C. I disagree about Bolland as 2C, but Sharp did do very well as center in their cup run, so I am honestly baffled by them choosing to not play him there anymore. Ever. Even with Toews out and Kane struggling as center.
Good lord. Hey Stormcast, yes Dave Bolland showed serious offensive upside in juniors. But he only shows flashes of it at the NHL level and is better utilized as a matchup guy for his team.
Pens fans are damn near unanimous when it comes to finding a way to give Staal a larger role with the team. He's shown to be a top 2 center and deserves that role. Whether it be rolling Sid/Geno out together, having a hybrid C/W system with Geno, etc etc. His offense has become just as important as his positional play and if he stays here, we don't want what he showed this year to go away.
He's on a different level from Bolland at this point. Maybe that changes down the road.
I guess in terms of being a whipping boy and questionable decision making they are similar. They are mostly opposites though. Martin is as soft as a teddy bear but lugs the puck well. Schenn is pretty mean and physical from what I've seen.
And exactly what the pens need. Kulemin, Schenn and Colburnn, for Staal and Martin?
I provided plenty of examples that debunk your theory about junior success translating to NHL, at least to a similar degree.
Just as I thought, you don't get it. And your examples, like LaRose, don't debunk anything.
Again my point, from #542 was "it's not a leap to expect Bolland to be a bigger point producer - given his track record in Juniors for piling up points - with a more offensive role in the NHL. Hardly a groundbreaking line of thinking."
Compare that to yours..."Hardly an accurate way of projecting a player's potential."
It's not a matter of of how someone projects from Juniors to the NHL. It's a simple concept that if Staal produced more moving from 3C to 2C so would Bolland in all likelihood, given the fact he demonstrated offensive prowess while in a scoring role. All we're talking about is incremental increases not some sea change on the stat sheet.
And your point about LaRose? It supports the contention. LaRose, after piling up points in Juniors, started exclusively on the 4th line and a PKer then later moved up to the 3rd line and played in a checking role. He displayed good defensive acumen and was given more offensive responsibility, playing almost exclusively in the top 6 the last few years. He's not an offensive dynamo but his point totals have gone up significantly, and not surprisingly given that he'd already shown scoring skills.
It's simply a reasonable expectation. The same logic was being applied to Bolland in that it's not crazy to expect him, like Staal and LaRose, to produce more in a more offensive role.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpp9
Good lord. Hey Stormcast, yes Dave Bolland showed serious offensive upside in juniors. But he only shows flashes of it at the NHL level and is better utilized as a matchup guy for his team.
Super. Now feel free to re-read. I'm not arguing for him to be the full-time option at 2C and in fact stated he's seen as more valuable at 3C. I've also stated Staal is the better player. Sheesh.
The chances of the Leafs trading the 5th go down even further.
Season subscribers received an email invitation for a draft party at the ACC. This is the first time they've done this for season-ticket holders, and I highly doubt they'd do that and then turn around and trade away their pick.
It's amazing how a few posters in this thread are the most vocal ones trying to discredit the value and worth Staal has to a team, yet they sure do post a lot on this thread.
If he isn't that good, then why continue posting about him or post offers about him going to your team?
Super. Now feel free to re-read. I'm not arguing for him to be the full-time option at 2C and in fact stated he's seen as more valuable at 3C. I've also stated Staal is the better player. Sheesh.
So why are you continuing to ramble on about Bolland then? We don't want him back in a trade for Staal. And as you've said, we don't make good trading partners.
Enough's enough. You don't think there's a big gap between the two players. Pens fans do. Leave it at that.
Rather this thread be full of unrealistic returns for Staal than petty arguments about Dave friggin' Bolland.
So why are you continuing to ramble on about Bolland then? We don't want him back in a trade for Staal. And as you've said, we don't make good trading partners.
Enough's enough. You don't think there's a big gap between the two players. Pens fans do. Leave it at that.
Rather this thread be full of unrealistic returns for Staal than petty arguments about Dave friggin' Bolland.
I'm simply correcting and clarifying the simple point that was being made. Of course, it's rejected out of context because it seems to have even a vague reference to another player actually having similar a skill set to the Incomparable Mr. Staal. I realize that's like treason in the 'Burgh but someone needs to speak the truth.
Gee, maybe I should check with you before posting, huh?
No, on second thought I'll post what I want, and you're free to do the same.
I'm simply correcting and clarifying the simple point that was being made. Of course, it's rejected out of context because it seems to have even a vague reference to another player actually having similar a skill set to the Incomparable Mr. Staal. I realize that's like treason in the 'Burgh but someone needs to speak the truth.
Gee, maybe I should check with you before posting, huh?
No, on second thought I'll post what I want, and you're free to do the same.
Just think its funny. Their skillsets are nothing alike. And common sense should tell you you're going to get hyperbolic replies when you start using junior stats to make an argument over Staal's production the last two seasons.
Feel free to muddy the thread at your pleasure. I'm out. Have a good one.
Just think its funny. Their skillsets are nothing alike. And common sense should tell you you're going to get hyperbolic replies when you start using junior stats to make an argument over Staal's production the last two seasons.
Funny doesn't begin to describe it.
Yeah, I guess you're right. Two shutdown C's on Cup winning teams who often come up in Selke discussions.
If you're still confused on this simplest of points, I seriously can't help you.
Considering I never said any of those things, it's no wonder you've got a bad opinion of me. Please, go back and find where I stated any of them. Any of them at all.
You're misreading posts, then getting snippy over what you believe you read.
Again, just because you haven't used those exact words doesn't mean you haven't been arguing those points. lol
It's amazing how a few posters in this thread are the most vocal ones trying to discredit the value and worth Staal has to a team, yet they sure do post a lot on this thread.
If he isn't that good, then why continue posting about him or post offers about him going to your team?
Yeah ^this^.
I posted this a few pages back, but none of the fans from other teams replied.
