HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

CBJ-PHI (Rick Nash rumors and proposed deals; update: traded to NYR, July 23)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-19-2012, 07:46 AM
  #226
FlyersMania2
Registered User
 
FlyersMania2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,550
vCash: 500
Giroux to CBJ for Nash...

I have nothing intelligent to add to this but I couldn't help but post due to the absurdity

FlyersMania2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 08:33 AM
  #227
IrishSniper87
Registered User
 
IrishSniper87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Media, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersMania2 View Post
Giroux to CBJ for Nash...

I have nothing intelligent to add to this but I couldn't help but post due to the absurdity
The original post was actually Giroux, Bourdan, 2nd Rounder and Shelley for Nash.

And people wonder why I don't come around here much anymore, lol.

IrishSniper87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 08:43 AM
  #228
turkinaa
Registered User
 
turkinaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockey17jp View Post

4. Columbus would love to get Jody Shelley back on their roster ( if not than maybe Ian Laperriere or even Hartnell)
Laperriere retired and Hartnell is like giving up a mini-Nash (if Hartnell can sustain production). That alone makes the deal completely unfair for both sides. Now if Hartnell was a centerpiece for the trade we're talking about something different.

CBJ would be looking for at least a player for now, a top prospect or two, and at least one 1st round pick for Nash alone. Chances are good they wouldn't want anyone off our team we would part with except for JVR and even then they would want prospects we wouldn't part with such as Schenn or Couturier, not our borderline D prospects. They might take them in place of additional picks since none of them had full seasons of NHL playing time without being injured or looking out of place at times, but not as prospects.

Our chances of getting their 1st and a player like Mason (not saying we would trade for him, just an example) are better than getting Nash. We can't pay the price for him, but other teams will be able to.

turkinaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 10:37 AM
  #229
TP
Global Moderator
 
TP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 7th Circle of Hell
Country: United States
Posts: 24,533
vCash: 500
Awards:
Knock it off.

If you want to insult each other, do it in a PM. Only warning.

TP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 10:37 AM
  #230
RespectTheCouts
Couts=0 offense
 
RespectTheCouts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
None intended.. We could easily give them the Klotz while getting rid of the partying Giroux AND we get back captain material in Nash
Whaaaa..??? I'm taking this as a funny joke, I wouldn't trade Giroux for any player in the NHL at all

RespectTheCouts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 11:00 AM
  #231
Amateur Hour
Registered User
 
Amateur Hour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Negadelphia
Posts: 6,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RespectTheMajor View Post
Whaaaa..??? I'm taking this as a funny joke, I wouldn't trade Giroux for any player in the NHL at all
As you should. Please, people... enable your sarcasm detectors, especially when it's something so blatantly obvious. There isn't a single Flyers fan alive who would trade Claude Giroux for ANYONE. When his career is over, he'll be a Hall of Fame candidate and his number will hang from the rafters along with those of Clarke, Parent, Barber and Ashbee. And, no, none of that is an exaggeration -- G is going to be a Flyer for life.

Amateur Hour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 12:29 PM
  #232
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amateur Hour View Post
As you should. Please, people... enable your sarcasm detectors, especially when it's something so blatantly obvious. There isn't a single Flyers fan alive who would trade Claude Giroux for ANYONE. When his career is over, he'll be a Hall of Fame candidate and his number will hang from the rafters along with those of Clarke, Parent, Barber and Ashbee. And, no, none of that is an exaggeration -- G is going to be a Flyer for life.
Remember when we said that about richards?

Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 12:43 PM
  #233
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Remember when we said that about richards?
No, honestly, I don't.

Was Richards "untouchable"? Yes. Was he as "untouchable" as Giroux is now? No.

I don't think there was ever a time that we could honestly say that we would not trade Richards for any player in the league. I know I didn't. He was / is more of a 1B center--a terrific, terrific asset, but probably not the guy you want anchoring a traditional top line that has to carry the offense.

I really can only think of a handful of players who hold Giroux's value--and they all make at least double what he does.

From a sheer value perspective, Stamkos is probably the only player I'd swap him for--simply because he's three years younger and almost guaranteed to score an average of 40+ goals every year for the next decade.

I never felt that way about Richards--even at his peak here in Philadelphia.

Jack de la Hoya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 01:04 PM
  #234
TOCxNJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Jersey Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 1,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Remember when we said that about richards?
Other than the "flyer for life" comment, no.

I would never have said any of the other things about Richards. Giroux and Richards shouldn't even be in the same conversation.

I'm sure I'll get the "well they aren't, Richards has a Cup and Giroux does not" response...but honestly, player wise, Giroux is on another level.

TOCxNJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 01:12 PM
  #235
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOCxNJ View Post
Other than the "flyer for life" comment, no.

I would never have said any of the other things about Richards. Giroux and Richards shouldn't even be in the same conversation.

I'm sure I'll get the "well they aren't, Richards has a Cup and Giroux does not" response...but honestly, player wise, Giroux is on another level.
I don't think it is even that Richards is on "another level" as a player--I think it is simply about value. Richards was never a 90+ point forward on a $3.75 cap hit.

Jack de la Hoya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 01:23 PM
  #236
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeh82 View Post
I don't think it is even that Richards is on "another level" as a player--I think it is simply about value. Richards was never a 90+ point forward on a $3.75 cap hit.
He was a much better two way player who put up 75 points in 07-08 on a 942.4k cap hit.. Which I'd say is a better deal

Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 01:23 PM
  #237
CharlieGirl
Summer
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeh82 View Post
I don't think it is even that Richards is on "another level" as a player--I think it is simply about value. Richards was never a 90+ point forward on a $3.75 cap hit.
And Giroux doesn't know defense and doesn't play as physical as Richards. Holy ****.

You guys are seriously trying to compare Giroux to Richards? They are, always have been, and always will be two very different types of players. Comparing them is pointless. They bring very, very different things to a team and play very different roles. Every team needs some of each kind of player.

Jesus, the revisionist history around here is amazing.

CharlieGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 01:26 PM
  #238
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
And Giroux doesn't know defense and doesn't play as physical as Richards. Holy ****.

You guys are seriously trying to compare Giroux to Richards? They are, always have been, and always will be two very different types of players. Comparing them is pointless. They bring very, very different things to a team and play very different roles. Every team needs some of each kind of player.

Jesus, the revisionist history around here is amazing.
First, calm down.

Second, I dont' disagree with anything here... but that doesn't mean their values were the same, right?

A 90+ point forward with decent defense on a $3.75 contract >>> 70 point forward with very good defense on a $5.75 contract.

If you look around the league, you can find some of the latter. You'd be hard-pressed to find the former.

Jack de la Hoya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 01:27 PM
  #239
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeh82 View Post
I dont' disagree with anything here... but that doesn't mean their values were the same, right?

A 90+ point forward with decent defense on a $3.75 contract >>> 70 point forward with very good defense on a $5.75 contract.

If you look around the league, you can find some of the latter. You'd be hard-pressed to find the former.
What about Richards' 75 point year at 942k?

Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 01:31 PM
  #240
CharlieGirl
Summer
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
What about Richards' 75 point year at 942k?
And at what point is Giroux's defense decent?

Look, I love Roo. His skill with the puck is so much fun to watch and the jawdropping dangles are awesome. He's fantastic. He can get himself or his linemates into scoring positions almost effortlessly.

But let's not pretend that he is anything but barely adequate defensively.

CharlieGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 01:35 PM
  #241
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
What about Richards' 75 point year at 942k?
I was excluding ELCs--since, aside from bonuses, they aren't really negotiable in any meanginful sense.

Jack de la Hoya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 01:41 PM
  #242
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeh82 View Post
I was excluding ELCs--since, aside from bonuses, they aren't really negotiable in any meanginful sense.
Well if you leave ELCs out, then you should leave out contracts that the player signs away a ton of UFA years

Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 01:44 PM
  #243
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Well if you leave ELCs out, then you should leave out contracts that the player signs away a ton of UFA years
Fine. Look at second contracts that expire before a player hits UFA: Giroux's the best value in the league.

I'm not sure why this stirred up a hornet's nest. Perhaps we should simply reverse the discussion--my argument was that, with the possible exception of Stamkos, there is no player in the league who I would trade one-for-one for Giroux, as a matter of value and production.

I assume, based on your response, that you disagree?

Jack de la Hoya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 01:59 PM
  #244
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,897
vCash: 500
Wow, what the hell is going on in this thread.

I love Richards, but Giroux at this point in time is one of the NHL's top 10 most valuable players.

Giroux may or may not stay there, but Richards was never there. At any time.

hockeyfreak7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:14 PM
  #245
CharlieGirl
Summer
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
Wow, what the hell is going on in this thread.

I love Richards, but Giroux at this point in time is one of the NHL's top 10 most valuable players.

Giroux may or may not stay there, but Richards was never there. At any time.
It all started because someone said Roo was untouchable in Philadelphia. No big deal. Goldfish memories, that's all.

CharlieGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:22 PM
  #246
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
It all started because someone said Roo was untouchable in Philadelphia. No big deal. Goldfish memories, that's all.
Giroux is untouchable based on sheer value. 3.75m for 93 points is untouchable no matter which way you put it. If we were to get fair value for Giroux, it would put us way over the cap.

That's why he's untouchable.


Richards was untouchable from a fans perspective-- not from a management perspective. Giroux is simply untouchable for the time being because of what he brings to the team at the price that he brings it. His value can not be moved.

It's a different kind of value. Giroux is untouchable.

hockeyfreak7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:24 PM
  #247
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,910
vCash: 500
If Wayne Gretzky wasn't untouchable, Giroux is not untouchable. No player is untouchable.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:28 PM
  #248
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
If Wayne Gretzky wasn't untouchable, Giroux is not untouchable. No player is untouchable.
Setting aside the contexts--no cap, cash could be sent for players, we've really getting away from the primary question.

Sure, no player is "untouchable," in the sense that there is always some hypothetical trade that you could construct. But that's a very abstract discussion.

At issue here, I think, is a more practical and direct question: Is there any player in the league you would move the player for, one for one?

I think the answer to that, with Richards, was always "yes." I'm not sure it is, right now, with Giroux.


Last edited by Jack de la Hoya: 06-19-2012 at 02:46 PM.
Jack de la Hoya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:39 PM
  #249
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeh82 View Post
I think the answer to that, with Richards, was always "yes." I'm not sure it is, right now, with Giroux.
That's a tremendously interesting intellectual exercise, actually. There's a small handful of players (Stamkos, Malkin, Crosby, Datsyuk) that would be interesting to weigh the pro's and con's on, but you're probably right in terms of play level per dollar.

Broad Street Elite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 05:42 PM
  #250
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,834
vCash: 633
Pierre LeBrun on TSN: The #Flyers are "very aggressive" in their attempt to pry Rick Nash from Columbus.

healthyscratch 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 08:17 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.