If a prospect the quality of Huberdeau is even remotely on the table I'd do what it took to get him even if it meant trading Luongo and our 1st for him. I'd do it in a heartbeat. Huberdeau is a guy that has top 10-15 scoring potential in the league. I don't see Florida dealing him and I would be shocked if they dealt him barring us overpaying, but if "overpaying" means dealing Luongo (who's redundant to us now) and a 1st that will likely be 20-30 then I'm all for it.
I don't think that's the case. Higgins and Hansen are both better than Booth and Raymond IMO. I don't think a 2nd line of Higgins, Kesler and Hansen looks that bad. Booth, Schroeder and Raymond however looks like a potential mess IMO.
IMO people are focusing too much on what looks best on paper without taking into account injuries and team depth. Especially when you consider Ryan Kesler has been healthy and performing well once in the past 4 playoffs. Look at our lineup without Kesler in it - it's putrid up the middle. Now take out a 1st or 2nd line winger and look at the roster... Much stronger IMO.
I just don't like the idea of hinging the entire season on the health of Ryan Kesler. If he goes down or is labouring through injury once again come playoff time we're done. Bring in a Marcel Goc or Dave Bolland that can step into that top 6 role and at least there's a fighting chance.
I'll just get on here, with a lot of themes on my mind.
I totally agree with you on the Kesler season-hinge point, and I think that a package that returned Goc, Howden and a 1st for Luongo gets us a lot of flexibility at the deadline and/or strengthens the eventual turnover from the Sedin era in 5 years or so, plus adds skill and grit to our bottom six and a potential sit-in for Kesler while he's hurt.
But what I'd really like to see, like I'm sure we all would, is a Luongo trade that nets us a winger that can pass the puck on the 2nd line, Kesler's injury be damned. In a vacuum I prefer the idea of setting up for a healthy playoff run than for trading to dampen the effects of the Kesler injury. Martin St. Louis would be top choice for me. 3 years left on his contract at 5.625 per, declining but still effective, heart of gold, winner. If Tampa falters out of the gate, who knows? That's too talented a side to not be successful, and Luongo might make a lot of sense for them.
I'm sure some of you have been unfortunate enough to stumble into my thread on trading Lu and Edler for Kane and Hjalmarsson, but if we were to trade with Chicago, I would be very upset at making the kind of trade we might make with Florida. There has to be an impetus not to make a conference contender better just for futures. We would either have to get Kane, Hossa or Sharp for me to be satisfied.
If we cant trade for a significant 2W, then I think we have to try to make space for as much youth as we can in the roster, and start developing our talent. If two of Kassian, Schroeder and Jensen are ready for full-time duty, I think we have to give them as much time as possible, even if it means not contending for the #1 seed in the west.
I also think some more lengthy experiments with line combos is warranted if we can't net a top winger. The problem with a lot of the instances of splitting up the Sedins that I've seen, is that to me, the prime combination is Hank and Kesler, and they're both centres. Can Daniel distribute for Kesler? Sure. He's probably the 2nd best passer on the team. But he's also an elite finisher, and I wouldn't want to take away that part of his game too much while he's feeding Kesler and Booth. And having Henrik not take faceoffs isn't really that scary to me. When you're running the Sedin cycle, the forward group moves around in a nebulous area and position isn't as important.
Something like this tickles me if we are looking to try something different with our current talent:
H. Sedin - Kesler - Burrows
D. Sedin - Schroeder - Kassian
Higgins - Lappiere - Hansen/Jensen
Raymond - Malhotra - Hansen/Weiss
But obviously I think the more standard line up is more likely and probably better.
It could be a bit of a long season (assuming its not a very short one, that is), but a lot of that hinges on what happens with Luongo.
Another huge thing is whether or not Kevin Connauton is ready to go and what that means for Keith Ballard. If Connauton is ready, it makes Ballard very expendable, but I think it would be a mistake to not use Ballard fully while we have him. I would rather have a raw Connauton come into the NHL after a Ballard trade than to have Ballard without confidence and unsure of his roll if it turns out that we can't move him and we need him and Tanev looking good going into the post season.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCF23
If a prospect the quality of Huberdeau is even remotely on the table I'd do what it took to get him even if it meant trading Luongo and our 1st for him. I'd do it in a heartbeat. Huberdeau is a guy that has top 10-15 scoring potential in the league. I don't see Florida dealing him and I would be shocked if they dealt him barring us overpaying, but if "overpaying" means dealing Luongo (who's redundant to us now) and a 1st that will likely be 20-30 then I'm all for it.
Completely agree. That's a star right there.
The last 4-5 pages of this thread have been excellent, by the way. Good work, gentlemen.
That's not what I'm trying to say. My point is that Higgins is a better option as a 2nd line winger than Malhotra or Lapierre are as a 3rd line centre.
So I guess we need a third straight year of pathetic playoff scoring before people realize the guys we're relying on right now aren't good enough?
I'll await the Schneider trade thread in 3 years after people turn on him because of our offensive problems. Maybe Eddie Lack can score for us?
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
Raymond and Booth both have a history of producing at a 2nd line rate. Lapierre is a 3/4 tweener at best.
You could say that Malhotra has a history of producing at a 3rd line rate as well. Probably just as likely that Malhotra gets back to that as Raymond getting back to his second line clip.
Even so, whenever Lapierre's been given an opportunity, he's outplayed Raymond and Booth. When Daniel went down, he produced with Henrik and Burrows when Booth/Raymond couldn't. I'm not saying this makes him better, but the numbers are a bit skewed by their roles.
Raymond has had a history of outproducing Hansen as well.
Besides, if we're talking about depth, why is going one injury deep more relevant? If you go two injuries deep, suddenly the center depth looks better.
So I guess we need a third straight year of pathetic playoff scoring before people realize the guys we're relying on right now aren't good enough?
I'll await the Schneider trade thread in 3 years after people turn on him because of our offensive problems. Maybe Eddie Lack can score for us?
At no point did I suggest that we stick with the status quo or fail to look for upgrades. It would be so nice if you contributed to the conversation rather than continuing to further your agenda. Alas, that just isn't going to happen, sadly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck
You could say that Malhotra has a history of producing at a 3rd line rate as well. Probably just as likely that Malhotra gets back to that as Raymond getting back to his second line clip.
Even so, whenever Lapierre's been given an opportunity, he's outplayed Raymond and Booth. When Daniel went down, he produced with Henrik and Burrows when Booth/Raymond couldn't. I'm not saying this makes him better, but the numbers are a bit skewed by their roles.
Raymond has had a history of outproducing Hansen as well.
Besides, if we're talking about depth, why is going one injury deep more relevant? If you go two injuries deep, suddenly the center depth looks better.
Malhotra has a history of scoring at a 3rd line rate from the 2nd line.
We have 6 wingers with a history of producing at a top 6 clip, including Raymond last season, when he obviously wasn't right. We have two centre's in the entire organization that don't look completely ridiculous in a top 6 role right now. I have no idea how you can argue that we have better centre depth.
So I guess we need a third straight year of pathetic playoff scoring before people realize the guys we're relying on right now aren't good enough?
Yet you're happy going with Lapierre and Malhotra centring the 3rd and 4th line. I guess we need a 3rd straight year of pathetic playoff scoring before you realize what a Marcel Goc or Dave Bolland would do for our ability to have 3 lines that can produce.
Goc- 5 points in his last 7 playoff games.
Bolland- 37 points in 49 playoff games.
Malhotra and Lapierre- 6 points in their last 42 playoff games combined.
For some reason you seem to think the 2nd line is the only place we could add goals to the roster. It's very odd.
At no point did I suggest that we stick with the status quo or fail to look for upgrades. It would be so nice if you contributed to the conversation rather than continuing to further your agenda. Alas, that just isn't going to happen, sadly.
Malhotra has a history of scoring at a 3rd line rate from the 2nd line.
We have 6 wingers with a history of producing at a top 6 clip, including Raymond last season, when he obviously wasn't right. We have two centre's in the entire organization that don't look completely ridiculous in a top 6 role right now. I have no idea how you can argue that we have better centre depth.
How are we defining depth exactly though? Sure, if Kesler/Higgins go down, our winger depth is the more effective replacement, but if Daniel/Henrik go down, our center depth is the more effective replacement.
It just seems very arbitrary where you choose to put the bar for what constitutes good depth
We have two potential 70+ point guys at center vs. 0,1 at wing,
we have 3,3 potential 40+ point guys at wing vs. two at center, and
we have 3,4 potential 20-25+ point guys at either wing vs. 5 at center.
Why do 40+ point guys count as better depth but 20+ and 70+ guys don't?
To be fair though, if we're talking about adding the same number of points through a top 6 winger as we are through a third line center, then I agree with you. But that's by virtue of a great 45+ point 3rd line center usually being flat out better than a 45+ point 2nd line winger. (I would obviously prefer Bolland to Doan too, but that's just silly talk)
You seem to be talking about getting among the best 3rd liners in the league vs. getting fringe second liners.
However, my assumption is that we were talking about adding a typical 2nd liner (45 points) vs. a typical 3rd line center (30 points), in which case I think we need the former more than the latter. It wouldn't be very realistic to talk about anything else, IMO.
Last edited by Shareefruck: 08-19-2012 at 08:19 PM.
How are we defining depth exactly though? Sure, if Kesler/Higgins go down, our winger depth is the more effective replacement, but if Daniel/Henrik go down, our center depth is the more effective replacement.
It just seems very arbitrary where you choose to put the bar for what constitutes good depth
We have two potential 70+ point guys at center vs. 0,1 at wing,
we have 3,3 potential 40+ point guys at wing vs. two at center, and
we have 3,4 potential 20-25+ point guys at either wing vs. 5 at center.
Why do 40+ point guys count as better depth but 20+ and 70+ guys don't?
As I said before, I have no problem rolling the dice with Kassian. Schroeder seems the bigger risk, as it's his first time in the NHL and he's undersized and may be forced into a checking role.
How are we defining depth exactly though? Sure, if Kesler/Higgins go down, our winger depth is the more effective replacement, but if Daniel/Henrik go down, our center depth is the more effective replacement.
It just seems very arbitrary where you choose to put the bar for what constitutes good depth
We have two potential 70+ point guys at center vs. 0,1 at wing,
we have 3,3 potential 40+ point guys at wing vs. two at center, and
we have 3,4 potential 20-25+ point guys at either wing vs. 5 at center.
Why do 40+ point guys count as better depth but 20+ and 70+ guys don't?
I don't know what you're talking about. If Daniel and Henrik go down, our team looks like;
Booth/Kesler/Burrows (All with a history of first line production)
Higgins/Schroeder/Hansen (wingers with a history of 2nd line production, centre with history of 2nd line AHL production)
Raymond/Lapierre/Kassian
Volpatti/Malhotra/Weise
It's still very clear that we are way better off on the wing, at least to me.
As I said before, I have no problem rolling the dice with Kassian. Schroeder seems the bigger risk, as it's his first time in the NHL and he's undersized and may be forced into a checking role.
While I agree that Kassian's the better player at this point, I disagree purely because I have so much more confidence in the 3rd line (even with a 25 point guy as a center) than I do in the second line.
Basically, I would only feel comfortable playing raw, unproven guys like Kassian/Schroeder on key lines if the other two guys could already do most of the heavy lifting themselves. Since Higgins and Hansen already do that, I don't see it being an issue, whereas since Kesler has to do it himself, Kassian would have to be REALLY good for it to ever work.
I tend to think that Schroeder fitting in defensively (which is mostly what he would have to do for it to work) is more likely than Kassian fitting in offensively (which is mostly what he would have to do for it to work)
It's more a damning opinion of Booth's inability to carry the play than it has to do with Kassian for me, personally.
Huberdeau would be ideal. Not sure if adding our 1st would get it done.
He could slot in as our 3rd line C this season and like others have said, skys the limit
I dont think he's available at all. Florida is in desperate need of forwards. They pretty much have one scoring line and a bunch of depth lines so taking one of their highly touted offensive forwards wont be happening just for a bit of an upgrade in goal.
I really dont think, if the trade goes down with florida that a huge piece will go back to vancouver without the canucks adding in something to the deal(a 1st+2nd) simply because I dont think Florida is THAT desperate to get an upgrade in Luongo(I mean come on, Theodore did have a very solid year).
Now that can change of course due to injury or if theodore plays terribly but I wouldn't really bet on it.
My guess is Florida offered a few mid-level guys, gillis asked for Bjugstad or someone similar and Florida hung up and gillis hasnt gotten a phonecall back since.
Either way this deal looks to be very much on pause with CBA discussions, I dont think anyone is talking trades right now at all.
I don't know what you're talking about. If Daniel and Henrik go down, our team looks like;
Booth/Kesler/Burrows (All with a history of first line production)
Higgins/Schroeder/Hansen (wingers with a history of 2nd line production, centre with history of 2nd line AHL production)
Raymond/Lapierre/Kassian
Volpatti/Malhotra/Weise
It's still very clear that we are way better off on the wing, at least to me.
I see it more as
Booth/Kesler/Burrows (first line center, second line wingers)
Higgins/Schroeder/Hansen (second/3rd line wingers, question mark center)
Raymond/Lapierre/Kassian (3rd line center/left winger, 4th line right-winger)
Volpatti/Malhotra/Weise (4th line center/right winger, fringe AHL left-winger)
??? / Ebbett / ??? (probably can be considered 4th line center, non-existent wingers beyond that)
I don't see it as lopsided as you do, is all I'm saying. The depth at the 3rd line (I mean normally, not in the above lineup) is better at wing than at center, but the center depth is better everywhere else (albeit, by less).
That, to me, looks reasonably balanced. The center depth on the 3rd line looks bad compared to the wingers, but every where else it looks the same or better.
Is that really so unreasonable? Granted, it's tough because I consider Hansen a 3rd liner that's better than most 2nd liners and Booth a second liner that's worse than good 3rd liners. (I also just labelled Schroeder as 4th because I think at worse he'll be better than Volpatti).
Last edited by Shareefruck: 08-19-2012 at 09:02 PM.
Yes, it is. You're putting Lapierre in a group with Raymond and Hansen, both of whom have outproduced him by a wide margin over their careers.
Lapierre has a career best 1.45 p/60 while both Raymond and Hansen consistently do better than that and have career bests over 2pts/60. Putting those guys in the same group is a real reach on your part.
So just trying to break down who's expendable for the other teams/market value etc.
The 3 named players are Chicago, Florida, Toronto. Anyone else would be out of the blue.
expendable from Chicago:
Bolland(3rd line C), Crawford/Emery, 1st pick, prospects?
Anyone like Hossa would take something extra going back to Chicago.
Expendable from Toronto:
Macarthur(2nd/3rd line winger), Franson, d prospects, forward prospects like Kadri(top 6 wing)/Colborne(top 9 C). 2nd rounder etc.(conditional 1st maybe?)
Anyone like Lupul would take something extra going back(doubt he's available due to chemistry with kessel). Doubtful Toronto gives up first pick in the package.
Expendable from Florida:
Defense like Petrovic, Goc(3rd line C), Howden(top 6/9 wing), one of the mid-level centres. 1st pick.
Doubtful they give up anyone from top line like Versteeg due to lack of depth.
I'm probably missing some but which package would you take? out of this group of course. This is judging his value based on the fact that there are very few teams interested, massive contract but still high-end talent in luongo.
Yes, it is. You're putting Lapierre in a group with Raymond and Hansen, both of whom have outproduced him by a wide margin over their careers.
Lapierre has a career best 1.45 p/60 while both Raymond and Hansen consistently do better than that and have career bests over 2pts/60. Putting those guys in the same group is a real reach on your part.
Personally I don't think your effectiveness as a third liner hinges on production-- I'd still rather play Lapierre than Raymond or last season's version of Booth, actually. He's not on Hansen's level, obviously, but when he was played on the 3rd line, it became one of our best lines in the playoffs, and when Daniel went down he got 6 points in 7 games.
He plays on the 4th line, but while he isn't perfect, I would definitely consider him closer to a 3rd line caliber player overall. He's scored at a 28 point pace in the past, as well.
Given a full season on a strong 3rd line, he's probably an effective 25 point 3rd-line caliber guy.
Last edited by Shareefruck: 08-19-2012 at 09:33 PM.
So just trying to break down who's expendable for the other teams/market value etc.
The 3 named players are Chicago, Florida, Toronto. Anyone else would be out of the blue.
expendable from Chicago:
Bolland(3rd line C), Crawford/Emery, 1st pick, prospects?
Anyone like Hossa would take something extra going back to Chicago.
Expendable from Toronto:
Macarthur(2nd/3rd line winger), Franson, d prospects, forward prospects like Kadri(top 6 wing)/Colborne(top 9 C). 2nd rounder etc.(conditional 1st maybe?)
Anyone like Lupul would take something extra going back(doubt he's available due to chemistry with kessel). Doubtful Toronto gives up first pick in the package.
Expendable from Florida:
Defense like Petrovic, Goc(3rd line C), Howden(top 6/9 wing), one of the mid-level centres. 1st pick.
Doubtful they give up anyone from top line like Versteeg due to lack of depth.
I'm probably missing some but which package would you take? out of this group of course. This is judging his value based on the fact that there are very few teams interested, massive contract but still high-end talent in luongo.
From that list I'd target Hossa as long as the + from our end is someone like Raymond.
Anything else and I'd rather hold on to our elite goalie.
Personally I don't think your effectiveness as a third liner hinges on production-- I'd still rather play Lapierre than Raymond or last season's version of Booth, actually.
Your effectiveness as a third liner does not hinge on production but when you're talking depth, you need to consider your players ability to move up the lineup. Neither Raymond or Hansen are out of place on a 2nd line while Lapierre would stick out like a sore thumb as a 2nd line centre.
I don't think the points Lapierre put up as a winger are relevant at all to the discussion.
So just trying to break down who's expendable for the other teams/market value etc.
The 3 named players are Chicago, Florida, Toronto. Anyone else would be out of the blue.
expendable from Chicago:
Bolland(3rd line C), Crawford/Emery, 1st pick, prospects?
Anyone like Hossa would take something extra going back to Chicago.
Expendable from Toronto:
Macarthur(2nd/3rd line winger), Franson, d prospects, forward prospects like Kadri(top 6 wing)/Colborne(top 9 C). 2nd rounder etc.(conditional 1st maybe?)
Anyone like Lupul would take something extra going back(doubt he's available due to chemistry with kessel). Doubtful Toronto gives up first pick in the package.
Expendable from Florida:
Defense like Petrovic, Goc(3rd line C), Howden(top 6/9 wing), one of the mid-level centres. 1st pick.
Doubtful they give up anyone from top line like Versteeg due to lack of depth.
I'm probably missing some but which package would you take? out of this group of course. This is judging his value based on the fact that there are very few teams interested, massive contract but still high-end talent in luongo.
Looks okay, alhough due to Toronto's lack of expendable assets, I think their 1st would have to be in play. Also, Kadri also plays centre, which adds to versatility in our lineup, as he could challenge either Schroeder or Kassian for their spot. What I'd expect from each team:
