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.

Tor-SJ

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-08-2012, 02:31 PM
  #101
kihei
Registered User
 
kihei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,311
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
Is this, like, official? I view a 1A as a guy who can dependably check the other teams top line and still put up 60 points consistently. 60pts consistently without top line calibur defensive play gets you designated a 1B in my books. 70+ consistently is a true #1, and anything under 50 points and you're probably a #2.

At least that's my opinion.
Question: how many Stanley Cups have been won by teams with a 1A centre of any variety who puts up 60 points?

kihei is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 02:36 PM
  #102
DougGilmour93
Registered User
 
DougGilmour93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsolonMoreau View Post
Not a CHANCE, don't want Franson at all and Pavelski won't go for only Bozak and Kadri.
Ok. Well I meant no offense. I'm definetely interested in a counter proposal. Maybe we could come to an agreement?

DougGilmour93 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 02:37 PM
  #103
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 21,066
vCash: 500
If there's a quantity for quality deal that sort of makes sense, it's this one.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 02:43 PM
  #104
AbsolonMoreau*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Bay Area
Country: United States
Posts: 2,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougGilmour93 View Post
Ok. Well I meant no offense. I'm definetely interested in a counter proposal. Maybe we could come to an agreement?
The Sharks and Leafs are not good trading partners as we have said many times before. You don't have the assets for us to be willing to trade Pavelski for.

AbsolonMoreau* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 02:52 PM
  #105
DougGilmour93
Registered User
 
DougGilmour93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,144
vCash: 500
Or go big?

Pavelski (2nd line center, 1st in a pinch)
Clowe (2nd line PF)
Murray (Bottom pairing rugged dman)

for

Bozak (2nd/3rd line center capable of moving up and down)
MacArthur (2nd/3rd line winger)
Kadri (high end prospect ready to crack lineup)
Blacker/Holzer (Responsible Dman vying for roster spot)
2nd in 2013


Feel free to counter.


Breakdown...

Pavelski for Bozak, Kadri, 2nd
Clowe + Murray for MacArthur + Blacker/Holzer


Last edited by DougGilmour93: 09-08-2012 at 03:07 PM.
DougGilmour93 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 03:42 PM
  #106
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan16 View Post
They are both top 3 centers in the NHL. Stop trying to twist it.
Not trying to twist anything. Crosby & Malkin are both Pittsburgh Penguins. One's a #1 centre, the other is the league's best #2.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 03:48 PM
  #107
Kegsey
#joeMONEY
 
Kegsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,845
vCash: 500
Pavelski talks start with Kessel. You guys need a #1 centre more than we need to trade Pavs. Gross overpayment only.

Kegsey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 03:48 PM
  #108
Brody
$$
 
Brody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Paris
Posts: 7,513
vCash: 560
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougGilmour93 View Post
Or go big?

Pavelski (2nd line center, 1st in a pinch)
Clowe (2nd line PF)
Murray (Bottom pairing rugged dman)

for

Bozak (2nd/3rd line center capable of moving up and down)
MacArthur (2nd/3rd line winger)
Kadri (high end prospect ready to crack lineup)
Blacker/Holzer (Responsible Dman vying for roster spot)
2nd in 2013


Feel free to counter.


Breakdown...

Pavelski for Bozak, Kadri, 2nd
Clowe + Murray for MacArthur + Blacker/Holzer
Don't feel comfortable at all giving up on Kadri, and I really want to keep Blacker.

How about Pavelski for Bozak, Colborne and a 2nd? I don't think Sharks fans will like it though.

Brody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 03:52 PM
  #109
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattb124 View Post
The Sharks have 4 top 4 defensemen, trading a player like Pavs would only happen for an overpayment for wingers.

Ditto on the Malkin commentary - he is an elite 1st line center that happens to be playing as a 2nd line center due to his team situation (Pitt has two elite 1st line centers). Pavelski didn't play center or on the second line last year, that isn't the point of the exercise.
I count 3 -- Brent Burns, Dan Boyle, and Marc Vlasic. Guys like Braun, Demers, Murray all fill in admirably, but a team who wants to go deep in the playoffs really does need a 4th.

I understand the Sharks approach, which is obviously that the best defence is a good offence, and as proven, it can be reasonably successful during the regular season.... but when you're looking at year after year of post-season disappointments, I think you have to start re-evaluating that approach.

I don't think turning one of their bonafide top 6 players into a couple of 2nd/3rd line versatility guys is going to solve their problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DougGilmour93 View Post
Or go big?

Pavelski (2nd line center, 1st in a pinch)
Clowe (2nd line PF)
Murray (Bottom pairing rugged dman)

for

Bozak (2nd/3rd line center capable of moving up and down)
MacArthur (2nd/3rd line winger)
Kadri (high end prospect ready to crack lineup)
Blacker/Holzer (Responsible Dman vying for roster spot)
2nd in 2013


Feel free to counter.


Breakdown...

Pavelski for Bozak, Kadri, 2nd
Clowe + Murray for MacArthur + Blacker/Holzer
#1. Trading Ryan Clowe is not the answer for San Jose.

#2. Trades of the magnitude generally aren't realistic.

#3. Any leaf fan who says no to this is crazy. Outside of goaltending, this basically deals with every single need that the Leafs could have this offseason. Size, a centre, a reasonably reliable defenceman...

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 03:53 PM
  #110
Kegsey
#joeMONEY
 
Kegsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
I count 3 -- Brent Burns, Dan Boyle, and Marc Vlasic. Guys like Braun, Demers, Murray all fill in admirably, but a team who wants to go deep in the playoffs really does need a 4th.

I understand the Sharks approach, which is obviously that the best defence is a good offence, and as proven, it can be reasonably successful during the regular season.... but when you're looking at year after year of post-season disappointments, I think you have to start re-evaluating that approach.

I don't think turning one of their bonafide top 6 players into a couple of 2nd/3rd line versatility guys is going to solve their problems.
We have Brad Stuart now. Burns, Boyle, Pickles, and Stuart is what he meant.

Kegsey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 04:21 PM
  #111
Mattb124
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
I count 3 -- Brent Burns, Dan Boyle, and Marc Vlasic. Guys like Braun, Demers, Murray all fill in admirably, but a team who wants to go deep in the playoffs really does need a 4th.
Brad Stuart is a top 4 d-man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
I understand the Sharks approach, which is obviously that the best defence is a good offence, and as proven, it can be reasonably successful during the regular season.... but when you're looking at year after year of post-season disappointments, I think you have to start re-evaluating that approach.
I am not sure you do. The Sharks were 8th in the league last year in goals against. If the PK wasn't vying for league worst, they likely would have been ranked slightly better. The bottom line is SJ is a good defensive team. Offense-wise they were mid-pack (13th). The system is focused on defense and possession, not offense per se.

Mattb124 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 05:20 PM
  #112
WTFetus
Moderator
Most popular
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
I understand the Sharks approach, which is obviously that the best defence is a good offence, and as proven, it can be reasonably successful during the regular season.... but when you're looking at year after year of post-season disappointments, I think you have to start re-evaluating that approach.
Year after year disappointments? This year definitely, but 10-11, they lost to the Canucks who were the better team. 09-10 they lost to the Blackhawks, who were the better team.
Losing to a better team isn't really a disappointment.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 05:41 PM
  #113
Kegsey
#joeMONEY
 
Kegsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
Year after year disappointments? This year definitely, but 10-11, they lost to the Canucks who were the better team. 09-10 they lost to the Blackhawks, who were the better team.
Losing to a better team isn't really a disappointment.
Yeah back to back WCFs and losing them to the eventual cup champs and the president's trophy winners.

I think the only real disappointment in a while besides this year is '09.

Kegsey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 06:25 PM
  #114
WarriorofTime
Registered User
 
WarriorofTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dion Phaneuf View Post
Don't feel comfortable at all giving up on Kadri, and I really want to keep Blacker.

How about Pavelski for Bozak, Colborne and a 2nd? I don't think Sharks fans will like it though.
Do you think the Sharks are rebuilding or something?

Counter: Kessel for Clowe, Demers 1st

WarriorofTime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 07:25 PM
  #115
Gavy
Registered User
 
Gavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kegsey View Post
Pavelski talks start with Kessel. You guys need a #1 centre more than we need to trade Pavs. Gross overpayment only.
Lmfao. Trade talks start with Kessel? Uhh, trade talks end as soon as you mention Kessel

Gavy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 07:34 PM
  #116
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,321
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gavy View Post
Lmfao. Trade talks start with Kessel? Uhh, trade talks end as soon as you mention Kessel
That's sort of the point. Toronto doesn't have much past Kessel that would interest the Sharks when it comes to putting someone like Pavelski or Couture on the table.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 07:34 PM
  #117
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,414
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
I could see Kulemin + Bozak/Kadri + mid pick getting it done. Immediately replaces the hole left (Kulemin), and they won't be losing any center depth if they pick up Bozak or Kadri.

Thornton
Couture
Bozak

Not sure if Leafs' fans will do that though. Maybe add a 2nd or a prospect to Pavs.
Kulemin + Kadri is a good start. Those two would have to be included for me to think about moving Pavs. I'm not sure what would be added to that.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 09:46 PM
  #118
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
Year after year disappointments? This year definitely, but 10-11, they lost to the Canucks who were the better team. 09-10 they lost to the Blackhawks, who were the better team.
Losing to a better team isn't really a disappointment.
For a team that's been as good as the Sharks have been, there should be no excuse to "losing to the better team". Anything less than the best should be considered failure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattb124 View Post
Brad Stuart is a top 4 d-man.



I am not sure you do. The Sharks were 8th in the league last year in goals against. If the PK wasn't vying for league worst, they likely would have been ranked slightly better. The bottom line is SJ is a good defensive team. Offense-wise they were mid-pack (13th). The system is focused on defense and possession, not offense per se.
Forgot that they picked up Stuart.

SJ is a good defensive team, by being dominant with the puck. They've done it for years with pretty mediocre blue liners. Obviously though, it's not working well enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Kulemin + Kadri is a good start. Those two would have to be included for me to think about moving Pavs. I'm not sure what would be added to that.
Kulemin is overvalued in Toronto. A better choice to pursue would be MacArthur. He's been better offensively, and a much easier trade for the Leafs.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 09:58 PM
  #119
WTFetus
Moderator
Most popular
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
For a team that's been as good as the Sharks have been, there should be no excuse to "losing to the better team". Anything less than the best should be considered failure..
As good as the Sharks have been? Yes, the Sharks have been good, but they were never really considered the SC favorites in any year. Unless you're the clear-cut favorite throughout the year (Vancouver in 10-11, Detroit in 07-08), I wouldn't say losing to the better team is a failure. Making the WCF two years in a row is a pretty good accomplishment in my opinion.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 09:58 PM
  #120
Kegsey
#joeMONEY
 
Kegsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gavy View Post
Lmfao. Trade talks start with Kessel? Uhh, trade talks end as soon as you mention Kessel
That's why I said the sharks will only move Pavelski for a very big overpayment. Honestly I'd rather have Pavelski anyway because of his defensive abilties, and the fact that him and Thornton on the same line means we rarely lose a face off.

Kegsey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 10:02 PM
  #121
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
As good as the Sharks have been? Yes, the Sharks have been good, but they were never really considered the SC favorites in any year. Unless you're the clear-cut favorite throughout the year (Vancouver in 10-11, Detroit in 07-08), I wouldn't say losing to the better team is a failure. Making the WCF two years in a row is a pretty good accomplishment in my opinion.
That right there is the problem.

Failing to make your team the best is just that.... failure.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 10:06 PM
  #122
Mrb1p
Registered User
 
Mrb1p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Citizen of the world
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kihei View Post
Question: how many Stanley Cups have been won by teams with a 1A centre of any variety who puts up 60 points?
Hmm wait.. I think there's one that comes to mind .... Was it the Red sox ? No the Celtics? The Pats ? Hah yeah the Bruins.

Also, NJD made it to the finals with Zajac/Henrique has their 1/2 punch.

The Flyers had Giroux and Richards who pretty much suits up what you are saying.

Toews was a 60 points center when he won the cup.

Pretty much suit's it up I think ? You could add Nashville, Phoenix, Montreal, St-louis all have been pretty much successful with ''60 point centers''.

teams win's championship, not individuals.

Mrb1p is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 10:07 PM
  #123
WarriorofTime
Registered User
 
WarriorofTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
That right there is the problem.

Failing to make your team the best is just that.... failure.
That's a bit harsh. The Sharks post-lockout have been like the Leafs were right before the Lockout. Consistently a very good team, just not quite good enough to win. I wouldn't call that "failure" necessarily.

WarriorofTime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 10:14 PM
  #124
WTFetus
Moderator
Most popular
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
That right there is the problem.

Failing to make your team the best is just that.... failure.
So in your mind, 29 teams are failures every year.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 10:15 PM
  #125
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorofTime View Post
That's a bit harsh. The Sharks post-lockout have been like the Leafs were right before the Lockout. Consistently a very good team, just not quite good enough to win. I wouldn't call that "failure" necessarily.
Sports is a harsh world. Every year 29 teams fail and 1 team doesn't. Of course, there's varying degrees of failure, but when you've been as good as the Sharks have been for as long as they have been, anything but a cup cannot be considered acceptable.

seanlinden 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 07:22 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.