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.

Vancouver - San Jose

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-07-2012, 09:24 PM
  #76
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,036
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckLuck View Post
Wow, okay that's great of you to use a couple of lame examples. There are exceptions to the rule, I agree; But they don't make the rule.

For every bad goaltender that's won a cup, I can name 15 good ones. And for every great goaltender that hasn't made the playoffs, I can name 10 bad ones that also didn't. So i'm not sure what your point is.
Whether you can name 15 good ones is irrelevant because most of what you could name is likely prior to the lockout when the playing field was vastly different. You look at the goalies that have won and been to the finals. You're looking at guys like Roloson, Ward, Giguere, Emery, Osgood, Fleury, Niemi, Leighton/Boucher, Luongo/Schneider, Thomas, Quick, and Brodeur. It's hit or miss. It's not a requirement to have a great goalie to win the Cup or make the finals. Most of those goalies are decent goalies that either had a good year or played well enough at the right time. A couple were elite at the time but have had their troubles as well. Only Quick and Luongo are considered elite now going forward.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 09:31 PM
  #77
CanuckLuck
Registered User
 
CanuckLuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Whether you can name 15 good ones is irrelevant because most of what you could name is likely prior to the lockout when the playing field was vastly different. You look at the goalies that have won and been to the finals. You're looking at guys like Roloson, Ward, Giguere, Emery, Osgood, Fleury, Niemi, Leighton/Boucher, Luongo/Schneider, Thomas, Quick, and Brodeur. It's hit or miss. It's not a requirement to have a great goalie to win the Cup or make the finals. Most of those goalies are decent goalies that either had a good year or played well enough at the right time. A couple were elite at the time but have had their troubles as well. Only Quick and Luongo are considered elite now going forward.
Like you said, these goalies played good at the right time. If they hadn't their team wouldn't have gone very far. Could the same be said if a couple of forwards go on a cold streak? I don't think so. I'll say it again; Goaltending is a revolving door. If your goaltending sucks it's almost impossible for your team to be successful.

My argument had nothign to do with the elite goaltenders. It was that of the 4 goaltenders that made it to the final 4, they were all playing phenomenally. And aside to Brodeur, they were probably all the MVP of their team in the post-season.

CanuckLuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 09:43 PM
  #78
CanuckLuck
Registered User
 
CanuckLuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,371
vCash: 500
I guess the old axiom 'build form the net out' holds true to me

CanuckLuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 09:44 PM
  #79
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,036
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckLuck View Post
Like you said, these goalies played good at the right time. If they hadn't their team wouldn't have gone very far. Could the same be said if a couple of forwards go on a cold streak? I don't think so. I'll say it again; Goaltending is a revolving door. If your goaltending sucks it's almost impossible for your team to be successful.

My argument had nothign to do with the elite goaltenders. It was that of the 4 goaltenders that made it to the final 4, they were all playing phenomenally. And aside to Brodeur, they were probably all the MVP of their team in the post-season.
And when teams go looking for a goalie, it's not a matter of going after the elite or very good. It's about finding a decent option that might fit your system. You don't need goalies that are all that good to use as an option because pretty much any goalie that makes it to this level is capable of playing well enough to go on a deep run. That's why goalies don't make much of a difference when teams look for one. It's speaking in terms of how they're valued.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 09:45 PM
  #80
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckLuck View Post
Like you said, these goalies played good at the right time. If they hadn't their team wouldn't have gone very far. Could the same be said if a couple of forwards go on a cold streak? I don't think so. I'll say it again; Goaltending is a revolving door. If your goaltending sucks it's almost impossible for your team to be successful.

My argument had nothign to do with the elite goaltenders. It was that of the 4 goaltenders that made it to the final 4, they were all playing phenomenally. And aside to Brodeur, they were probably all the MVP of their team in the post-season.
And there is nothing to say Niemi cannot or will not 'have a great year' going forward, or that Luongo ever will.

We don't want him, there is absolutely zero chance Doug Wilson has any interest in him. Why do we have to keep going over this?

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 09:46 PM
  #81
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,036
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckLuck View Post
I guess the old axiom 'build form the net out' holds true to me
Do you honestly believe that the Coyotes built from their net out? The Kings didn't either. Their team was built around their skaters and were banking that one of Quick or Bernier would step in and take the job playing behind what they had built. It all goes hand in hand but the difference between one goalie and the next at this point is not as great as a difference between a damn good defense and an average one.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 09:47 PM
  #82
ProstheticConscience
WWIII
 
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,500
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckEatinShark View Post
No way SJ is going to do this. Vancouver shouldn't do it either.

It makes no sense for either team. SJ needs more top 6 wingers. Vancouver's defense is mediocre at best without Edler.
Hamhuis is the one without whom we'd really be screwed, but I'd still rather shave off my pubic hair with a cheese grater than trade Edler for less than an upgrade at his position.

But yeah, still a bad deal for both teams.

ProstheticConscience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 09:49 PM
  #83
CanuckLuck
Registered User
 
CanuckLuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
And there is nothing to say Niemi cannot or will not 'have a great year' going forward, or that Luongo ever will.

We don't want him, there is absolutely zero chance Doug Wilson has any interest in him. Why do we have to keep going over this?
Are you lost? I agree that Luongo wouldn't be a good fit in San Jose.

I wasn't even talking to you or anything you brought up in your last post.

CanuckLuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 09:53 PM
  #84
CanuckLuck
Registered User
 
CanuckLuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
And when teams go looking for a goalie, it's not a matter of going after the elite or very good. It's about finding a decent option that might fit your system. You don't need goalies that are all that good to use as an option because pretty much any goalie that makes it to this level is capable of playing well enough to go on a deep run. That's why goalies don't make much of a difference when teams look for one. It's speaking in terms of how they're valued.
I agree that teams can be reliant on a goaltender that fits their structure. BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS if your goaltender goes on a cold streak in the playoffs your team will fail. If a forward or defenseman does the same thing, I believe your team can fight its way through the adversity. I think goaltending has the larger effect compared to any other position. THAT IS IT.

CanuckLuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 09:54 PM
  #85
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,036
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckLuck View Post
I agree that teams can be reliant on a goaltender that fits their structure. BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS if your goaltender goes on a cold streak in the playoffs your team will fail. If a forward or defenseman does the same thing, I believe your team can fight its way through the adversity. I think goaltending has the larger effect compared to any other position. THAT IS IT.
Which is meaningless when we're talking about how certain goalies will be valued.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 10:11 PM
  #86
CanuckLuck
Registered User
 
CanuckLuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Which is meaningless when we're talking about how certain goalies will be valued.
I apologize but I don't understand...

CanuckLuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 10:40 PM
  #87
stryfe604
Believes in Yzergod
 
stryfe604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProstheticConscience View Post
Hamhuis is the one without whom we'd really be screwed, but I'd still rather shave off my pubic hair with a cheese grater than trade Edler for less than an upgrade at his position.

But yeah, still a bad deal for both teams.
Just wondering what you mean by trading edler you get a significant upgrade? That would mean you add more to edler and weaken your team. Which in turn would make the return for edler moderate at best. There are not too many d-men that would be considered a significant upgrade to edler. Also who do you think, reasonably with trading edler + would be so significant that it wouldn't render his return moderate

stryfe604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 10:44 PM
  #88
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,251
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by stryfe604 View Post
Just wondering what you mean by trading edler you get a significant upgrade? That would mean you add more to edler and weaken your team. Which in turn would make the return for edler moderate at best. There are not too many d-men that would be considered a significant upgrade to edler. Also who do you think, reasonably with trading edler + would be so significant that it wouldn't render his return moderate
Well during the Weber sweepstakes we speculated Edler+ Kassian/Jensen + 1st for Weber, or something to that effect.

Personally I would also be willing to trade Edler for Elite young forward talent such as Yakupov or Couturier.

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 11:54 PM
  #89
ProstheticConscience
WWIII
 
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,500
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by stryfe604 View Post
Just wondering what you mean by trading edler you get a significant upgrade? That would mean you add more to edler and weaken your team. Which in turn would make the return for edler moderate at best. There are not too many d-men that would be considered a significant upgrade to edler. Also who do you think, reasonably with trading edler + would be so significant that it wouldn't render his return moderate
Okay, that's fair enough.

Need a very, very good dman to come back to Vancouver if we lose Edler. Not that there's a hell of a lot of those lying around. Original post of "Not losing Edler" stands.

ProstheticConscience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 12:07 AM
  #90
ProstheticConscience
WWIII
 
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,500
vCash: 883
Actually, new idea for this thread's direction: SJ has lots of RD, Canucks lack RD. Who would be available from SJ's end, and what would you guys want in return?

ProstheticConscience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 12:13 AM
  #91
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,251
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProstheticConscience View Post
Actually, new idea for this thread's direction: SJ has lots of RD, Canucks lack RD. Who would be available from SJ's end, and what would you guys want in return?
Our defense is already set though, assuming Garrison can play right.

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Edler-Garrison
Ballard-Tanev.

So unless we do something around Ballard for Murray(Does he play right?) and end up with

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Edler-Tanev
Garrison-Murray

Which imo would be a waste of signing Garrison to play third-pairing.

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 12:42 AM
  #92
mriswith
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Marleau is one of the best left wingers in the game. Why anyone wouldn't want him is beyond me. As for Luongo, it's not a big deal if he's dealt in or out of conference. Goalies don't make that big of a difference to teams anymore.
Marleau is 33 in a week and is coming off of a down year while holding a 6.9 mil cap hit. His production historically slumps in the playoffs.

Obviously if we could get him for free I'd have no qualms about adding him to the team. I just wouldn't trade anything of significance for him, and absolutely not Edler.

I don't think our teams are good trading partners.

mriswith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 01:07 AM
  #93
Hatrick Marleau
Nikolay GOALdobin
 
Hatrick Marleau's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: With JR
Posts: 4,308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Our defense is already set though, assuming Garrison can play right.

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Edler-Garrison
Ballard-Tanev.

So unless we do something around Ballard for Murray(Does he play right?) and end up with

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Edler-Tanev
Garrison-Murray

Which imo would be a waste of signing Garrison to play third-pairing.
Murray is a LD.

Hatrick Marleau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 03:44 AM
  #94
Honour Over Glory
Registered User
 
Honour Over Glory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: North America
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 9,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Wouldn't your pretend math be a little more accurate if it were based on real numbers?

The Canucks face 31 shots a game, not 25...no team in the league kept shots against down at 25, not one (I'm pretty sure this shows how biased your "pretend math" is).

Odds are as a first year starter Schneider woulnd't start 62 games (especially since he's never started that many games in a season ever...even in the AHL). You'd likely see a more reasonable range like 50 games. As a result, the backup would likely play 32 games.

For save%, I think its reasonable to assume that a guy like Eddie Lack would be an average NHL backup, so a 0.905 save% (note this would put him between Andrei Pavelec and Corey Crawford...so 0.905 is probably pretty generous - Bobrovsky and Mason were 0.899 and 0.894).

So here's the pretend math: 32 games x 31 shots x (0.920-0.905) = 15 goals. 15 goals over 32 games is a goal every other game. That is huge considering how many games in the NHL are one goal games.

15 goals would have put MTL into a positive goal difference (and no team missed the playoffs with a positive goal difference).



I think Quick is one of the best assets in the league on that contract.



Osgood had a 0.930 and 0.926 save% when Detroit made it to the finals in back to back years...that's amazing goaltending. Years where he put up his normal numbers, the team got bounced. Those two playoff performances had people talking about him as a potential, borderline, HHOF guy due to his clutchness (not that I think he is).
Insanely hard to take numbers detroit goaltenders have put up the last decade or more, seriously because the team plays so well in front of them.

Manny Legace's #'s...go take a look at them.

Honour Over Glory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 03:59 AM
  #95
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
And when teams go looking for a goalie, it's not a matter of going after the elite or very good. It's about finding a decent option that might fit your system. You don't need goalies that are all that good to use as an option because pretty much any goalie that makes it to this level is capable of playing well enough to go on a deep run. That's why goalies don't make much of a difference when teams look for one. It's speaking in terms of how they're valued.
Are you sure its not because good ones at the peak of their game are very rarely traded?

How many goalies were traded at a point in their career where they were doing really well? Roberto Luongo and Patrick Roy? Does any one think Florida or Colorado did okay in those trades?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Honour Over Glory View Post
Insanely hard to take numbers detroit goaltenders have put up the last decade or more, seriously because the team plays so well in front of them.

Manny Legace's #'s...go take a look at them.
They are solid but never that good as a starter or in the playoffs. He had basically three good years (including two as a backup) over the course of a nine year career as a starter.


Last edited by DJOpus: 09-08-2012 at 04:12 AM.
DJOpus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 09:23 AM
  #96
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,036
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by schism View Post
Marleau is 33 in a week and is coming off of a down year while holding a 6.9 mil cap hit. His production historically slumps in the playoffs.

Obviously if we could get him for free I'd have no qualms about adding him to the team. I just wouldn't trade anything of significance for him, and absolutely not Edler.

I don't think our teams are good trading partners.
His 'down year' included 30 goals, 3rd on the team in points where pretty much the entire team had a 'down year', and in a year where his skill set was not complimented very well in the slightest. It also included him and the rest of the top line going against the other team's top line night after night and winning that goal differential battle. And when he was moved off the top line, it was because they were asking him to help out a struggling 2nd line.

As for his supposedly slumping production in the playoffs, I implore you to find a forward other than Jagr with more goals than Marleau. Every skater historically struggles in the post-season if they play enough and it is especially true for goal scorers where consistency is not possible.

Now I'm not expecting a significant rise in his production next year because the talent issue is still there. The coaching rearrangement may allow them to play a little more openly which would help Marleau it's probably going to mean five more goals at the most. But that's still a 30-35 goal scorer that is capable of helping any line that he's on and helping to beat the best that other teams offer in the goal differential battle while being a very good PK'er and the versatility to slide from LW to C when needed and not lose a step.

In terms of a trade, I won't say it makes sense regardless of team because it always depends on the return but I'm simply arguing the line that was posted in this thread about not wanting to touch Marleau at all implying that the poster wouldn't take him at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatrick Marleau View Post
Murray is a LD.
Murray can play RD too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Are you sure its not because good ones at the peak of their game are very rarely traded?

How many goalies were traded at a point in their career where they were doing really well? Roberto Luongo and Patrick Roy? Does any one think Florida or Colorado did okay in those trades?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's not that. The good ones aren't traded because their value is not that high in the first place. The reason why is because there is not a high demand for starting goalies and there is a surplus of potential options for teams. You would think that with Luongo being available, if it was simply a matter of teams wanting elite goalies, that someone would have jumped on the opportunity by now and they haven't. The goalie dynamic is not what it once was before the lockout. Teams, in general, will focus more of their time, energy, and cap space on their skaters as opposed to finding a high-priced goalie.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 01:44 PM
  #97
Mattb124
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schism View Post
Marleau is 33 in a week and is coming off of a down year while holding a 6.9 mil cap hit. His production historically slumps in the playoffs.

Obviously if we could get him for free I'd have no qualms about adding him to the team. I just wouldn't trade anything of significance for him, and absolutely not Edler.

I don't think our teams are good trading partners.
The #2 playoff goal scorer among active players' "production historically slumps in the playoffs"? That is a...unique...way to interpret that particluar statistic.

It is pretty impressive that Marleau, in a down year, scored as many goals as the Canuck's highest scorer in Daniel Sedin (whose production fell even more year over year).

I guess that Daniel Sedin player is OK although obviously deteriorating, and if the Shark's could him for free I'd have no qualms about adding him to the team. I sure wouldn't trade anything of signifigance for him.

Mattb124 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 02:40 PM
  #98
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 17,472
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by schism View Post
Marleau is 33 in a week and is coming off of a down year while holding a 6.9 mil cap hit. His production historically slumps in the playoffs.

Obviously if we could get him for free I'd have no qualms about adding him to the team. I just wouldn't trade anything of significance for him, and absolutely not Edler.

I don't think our teams are good trading partners.
His goals per game average in the playoffs is higher than his regular season average. How is that "historically slumping"?

Clowe Me is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 05:58 PM
  #99
Back in 94
In Gillis I trust
 
Back in 94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattb124 View Post
The #2 playoff goal scorer among active players' "production historically slumps in the playoffs"? That is a...unique...way to interpret that particluar statistic.

It is pretty impressive that Marleau, in a down year, scored as many goals as the Canuck's highest scorer in Daniel Sedin (whose production fell even more year over year).

I guess that Daniel Sedin player is OK although obviously deteriorating, and if the Shark's could him for free I'd have no qualms about adding him to the team. I sure wouldn't trade anything of signifigance for him.
You failed to mention that Marleau played 10 more games than Daniel, and finished with less points. Daniel is more of a playmaker IMO.

I'm not sure why you are so offended by that statement. The Canucks management would be stupid to trade away arguably our number 1 D or any package of valuable assets for Marleau. He wouldn't replace Daniel on the first line, and he would be getting paid way too much to be playing on the second line. We just don't need him.

Back in 94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 06:35 PM
  #100
WTFetus
Moderator
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back in 94 View Post
You failed to mention that Marleau played 10 more games than Daniel, and finished with less points. Daniel is more of a playmaker IMO.
Daniel is just as much of a sniper as Marleau is. And you're ignoring the fact that Daniel plays a lot more sheltered minutes than Marleau does.

WTFetus 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 11:26 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.