HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

The case for a 1-year surgical tank for the Habs

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-17-2013, 02:44 PM
  #926
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I disagree.

There will always be below average or above average draft years.

The total number of NHL players is fixed at ~650, some players are below average and some are above average. If you increase the size of the talent pool, say by growing the game in the USA, then you just raise the skill level of the average player, but you still have half of players above average and half below average.

However, you're correct in the context of this thread. The 2004 and 2006 drafts are irrelevant here, as we're talking about rebuilding the Habs right now, and the 2013 draft will not be that weak.

However #2, I realize I'm making a math error, as I write this post, and that you may be entirely correct and what I wrote in the above three paragraphs, but I'll leave it there for the sake of completeness.

Here goes: You can have a nearly-uninterrupted sequence of great drafts if the average skill level is rising. The draft class players are not just competing against each other, they're competing against all the players drafted in the last 10 years or so. If the average skill level is continuously rising, then nearly every draft can be a great draft as the players coming in are much better than the players already in.
Voila.

I believe this will be happening for the next 5-6 years, beyond that it's hard to predict. Guys like Moen-Armstrong-Prust are on the way out. The NHL will transform in a more offensive league again as the skill level increase. That's why I think they feel good about the possibility for a final expansion.

SOLR is offline  
Old
01-17-2013, 02:48 PM
  #927
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Consider that the Habs will have only one high first round draft pick in 2013. Where would they get another? Obviously not from a team that would be drafting in the #20-30 bracket. Would the Islanders, Blue Jackets, or other bottom ranking team trade #1 for a Hab veteran? Extremely unlikely. It will take time for the Habs to build a contending team. Sure, they already have promising prospects (although no Crosbys or Malkins), but Habs fans shouldn't ignore other lowly teams that are already following a prescription for rebuilding. The Oilers have a pretty good head start, as the Penguins and Blackhawks did earlier. Won't the Blue Jackets be selecting before the Habs for the next few drafts? (Let's disregard the vagaries of the lottery.)
Like I said, we'd be better off trying to trade for prospects. There's always some team out there who's a contender who is looking to trade for good vets. Last year Washington held some other team's pick and they drafted Filip Forsberg 13th overall. I mentioned Bobby Ryan earlier in this thread... those are the kinds of moves we should be making.

And I've stated these BEFORE the picks were made and BEFORE Bobby Ryan became a 30 goal scorer. We have vets to deal that other clubs will be interested in. If say Washington were to come back and have another great year, we should do everything we can at the deadline to pry away Forsberg from them. If they aren't willing to do it, move on to the next team and try again... And if it's a 1st rounder, then consider it depending on what we're giving up. If we want more, ask for it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
There are alternative routes to becoming strong. The Rangers and Bruins made favorable trades for veterans, not to mention signing UFAs. Adding Suter and Parise give the Wild instant cachet. Would anyone care to predict when the Habs will overtake the powerful teams by a adopting tanking strategy (surgical or otherwise)? I suppose it would depend on how long they stink. As soon as they start winning they'll be settling for middling draft positions.
The Bruins and Rangers have a history of signing the best FAs out there. We don't. We've never been able to do this because (for whatever reason) FAs don't want to come here. If we'd been able to sign Zedeno Chara well... sure go ahead. But that's not likely to happen. (BTW it's also worth noting that the only reason the Rangers can even sign some of these guys is because we took the desastrous Gomez FA signing off their hands. It's also worth noting that these clubs ripped off other clubs for McD, Seguin, Rask and Hamilton...)

I don't tihnk we need to 'tank' for years upon years to rebuild. If we dealt away Pleks, Markov and Cole we'd probably sink in the standings this year and maybe next. But Galchenyuk will be up next year, we've got Tinordi who's a year or two away, Emelin and PK and Max are all on the upswing... Plus we'd get the returns on those vets and probably a high pick this year.

That's a much more compelling scenario than going out and trying to sign big name FAs who never seem to want to come here to begin with...

Lafleurs Guy is online now  
Old
01-17-2013, 11:18 PM
  #928
AmeriHab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: NY
Posts: 374
vCash: 500
If Price goes down and this tweak turns into more, the tank won't be by choice. If we are that bad, at least we will get to really enjoy our enforcer by committee line with moen white and prust. Wasn't prust giving white fighting lessons this week at camp?

AmeriHab is offline  
Old
01-18-2013, 04:07 AM
  #929
Rutabaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Country: France
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Let's say hypothetically we trade Plekanec, Markov, and Cole, for three 1st rounders, leaving aside the fact that we could probably do better on the trade market.

We're not getting Max Pacioretty 3 times, and we're not getting Terry Ryan 3 times. Looking at the Timmins-era 1st rounders, we'd get:

Andrei Kostitsyn, 10th overall
Kyle Chipchura, 18th overall
Carey Price, 5th overall
David Fischer, 20th Overall
Ryan McDonagh, 12th overall
Max Pacioretty, 22nd overall

Louis Leblanc, 18th overall
Jarrod Tinordi, 22nd overall
Nathan Beaulieu, 17th overall
Alex Galchenyuk, 3rd overall

Out of the six players for which we have had enough time to evaluate, we see three fantastic NHLers (50%) who are on par with Plekanec,Cole, and Markov; a 2nd liner who is a step down (Andrei Kostitsyn) and two busts (Fischer and Chipchura).

Thus, if we trade Plekanec, Cole, and Markov, the most likely outcome is to get 2 NHLers, either 2 very good ones or one very good one and one decent one, with one bust. That's a decent return. We'll also have cleared 15.25 million worth of cap space, giving us the means to make noise on the UFA market and upgrade. And again, this leaves aside the fact that I think we could do better than 3 1st rounders.
You cant expect to trade for something better than a 13-15th pick.
Otherwise, the implications involved in such a trade implies that there is more on the line (since it will likely be around Subban or Price).

The success rate for the picks between 15th and 60th. (trades involving 4thD, and average 2nd liner for a 2nd round picks are the ones that occur in such a process...) is around 30%/40%.
In a great year like 2003, we have between 15 and 18 good picks. Which means that several of the vets would be traded for peanuts.

The problem that some people dont understand here is that there is a difference between the actual value of the picks and the value of the players after the signing of the second contract.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Like I said, we'd be better off trying to trade for prospects. There's always some team out there who's a contender who is looking to trade for good vets. Last year Washington held some other team's pick and they drafted Filip Forsberg 13th overall. I mentioned Bobby Ryan earlier in this thread... those are the kinds of moves we should be making.

And I've stated these BEFORE the picks were made and BEFORE Bobby Ryan became a 30 goal scorer. We have vets to deal that other clubs will be interested in. If say Washington were to come back and have another great year, we should do everything we can at the deadline to pry away Forsberg from them. If they aren't willing to do it, move on to the next team and try again... And if it's a 1st rounder, then consider it depending on what we're giving up. If we want more, ask for it...
Good picks or good prospects are not traded, im sorry, but thats how it is. Forsberg wont be moved, unless we give them a much better player that kills any logic behind such a move (Carey P. or PK S, possibly Max P.)

Of you course you have to made the deal before Ryan become a 30 goal scorer, the problem is that no one is going to give away a 30 goal-scorer, and especially not if he's under ELC and 20 or 21 years old...
NO ONE is going to do deal you such a player.

Since the lockout, good prospects traded means :
-That the player is underachieving and wont be as good as planned at the draft-day. (Setoguchi, Mueller, Frolik, Brule...)
-That somebody massively screwed up, in which case, your job might be threatened. (Rask, McDonagh)
-The other end of the deal involves another prospect (Schenn, Van Riemsdyk, Turris, Tarasenko, Hodgson...).

The number of good prospects traded to a team that is arguably in a situation similar to a rebuilding is close to none. For the simple reason that teams in such a situation dont have the tools to receive such prospects.
Gardiner and Colborne are the only ones i believe.


I also wish that the people favourable to a rebuild would remember that the 2005 lockout was a huge help for teams struggling with young players...

Rutabaga is offline  
Old
01-18-2013, 04:15 AM
  #930
Mats86
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,725
vCash: 500
If we don't sign Subban likely be a long winter in Montreal. Although, I think the team will start the season decent.

I wouldn't tank though...this draft is so deep don't see the need like most draft. If this draft is like the 03 draft, see some great talent come mid-late first round to second round. Guys like Corey Perry, Patrice Bergeron, Mike Richards, Parise, Weber, etc.... should be there. Love having those extra 2nds in a deep draft. Smart move by Habs on this one. With Timmins drafting should be a great draft by Habs.

Mats86 is offline  
Old
01-18-2013, 05:03 AM
  #931
Jsweenie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 65
vCash: 500
Teams don't tank. Ever. No coach plays to lose. No player plays to lose. If they did it would make them look unemployable. Management can fire coaches, trade players etc. but in the case of a team like Montreal, their key players are core players. Max pac, price, desharnais, eller, gorges, subban (will sign before first month of season is over). Management could hypothetically trade players like cole, gionta, Markov, plekanec for draft picks and prospects. But with a management overhaul, as well as the pr problems caused by the lockout, a team like the Canadiens will be looking for a playoff appearance. I think we can do both. If galchenyuk is playing well enough to make one of our top 6 forwards redundant, we could potentially trade a gionta or cole for a mid first rounder. I'm not 100% sure on the rules but if we got a bubble teams pick and said team didn't make the playoffs then we could potentially unload salary, make room for youth in our top lines and move up in the draft. If not, a first round pick is still great in a deep draft.

I think this team is better than we give them credit for. They say we need a Crosby. We have a Carey price.

Jsweenie is offline  
Old
01-18-2013, 07:33 AM
  #932
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jsweenie View Post
Teams don't tank. Ever. No coach plays to lose. No player plays to lose. If they did it would make them look unemployable. Management can fire coaches, trade players etc. but in the case of a team like Montreal, their key players are core players. Max pac, price, desharnais, eller, gorges, subban (will sign before first month of season is over). Management could hypothetically trade players like cole, gionta, Markov, plekanec for draft picks and prospects. But with a management overhaul, as well as the pr problems caused by the lockout, a team like the Canadiens will be looking for a playoff appearance. I think we can do both. If galchenyuk is playing well enough to make one of our top 6 forwards redundant, we could potentially trade a gionta or cole for a mid first rounder. I'm not 100% sure on the rules but if we got a bubble teams pick and said team didn't make the playoffs then we could potentially unload salary, make room for youth in our top lines and move up in the draft. If not, a first round pick is still great in a deep draft.

I think this team is better than we give them credit for. They say we need a Crosby. We have a Carey price.
I'm aware that few teams enter seasons with the intention of rebuilding and selling and getting a high draft pick, that they only shift to this after they're in 12th place at the deadline.

But what I'm proposing is an innovative strategy. And to you I say that "It's never been done before" is never a valid argument against innovation.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
01-18-2013, 07:38 AM
  #933
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
You cant expect to trade for something better than a 13-15th pick.
Otherwise, the implications involved in such a trade implies that there is more on the line (since it will likely be around Subban or Price).

The success rate for the picks between 15th and 60th. (trades involving 4thD, and average 2nd liner for a 2nd round picks are the ones that occur in such a process...) is around 30%/40%.
In a great year like 2003, we have between 15 and 18 good picks. Which means that several of the vets would be traded for peanuts.

The problem that some people dont understand here is that there is a difference between the actual value of the picks and the value of the players after the signing of the second contract.




Good picks or good prospects are not traded, im sorry, but thats how it is. Forsberg wont be moved, unless we give them a much better player that kills any logic behind such a move (Carey P. or PK S, possibly Max P.)

Of you course you have to made the deal before Ryan become a 30 goal scorer, the problem is that no one is going to give away a 30 goal-scorer, and especially not if he's under ELC and 20 or 21 years old...
NO ONE is going to do deal you such a player.

Since the lockout, good prospects traded means :
-That the player is underachieving and wont be as good as planned at the draft-day. (Setoguchi, Mueller, Frolik, Brule...)
-That somebody massively screwed up, in which case, your job might be threatened. (Rask, McDonagh)
-The other end of the deal involves another prospect (Schenn, Van Riemsdyk, Turris, Tarasenko, Hodgson...).

The number of good prospects traded to a team that is arguably in a situation similar to a rebuilding is close to none. For the simple reason that teams in such a situation dont have the tools to receive such prospects.
Gardiner and Colborne are the only ones i believe.


I also wish that the people favourable to a rebuild would remember that the 2005 lockout was a huge help for teams struggling with young players...
1) I'm perfectly happy with picks in the 18-30 range, particularly for a deep draft like 2013.
2) High picks do get traded, see Jordan Staal, Jeff Carter, Mike Richards, and Symeon Varlameov trades as examples.
3) Your argument that "it's never been done before" is not a valid argument against innovation. Innovative strategies by definition have never been done before, as such your logic is completely circular; i.e. you're arguing against innovation on the basis that innovation is innovative.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
01-18-2013, 07:40 AM
  #934
Erik Estrada
One Country United!
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Land of the Habs
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,028
vCash: 500
I'll support doing almost everything to win until we know reaching the playoffs is unrealistic. February? March? That doesn't mean the Habs need to behave like a Stanley Cup contender by trading picks or prospects for vets. No Kaberle-type trades please...

With that said, I think there needs some kind of miracle for this lineup to make the playoffs... It just doen't look good.

Erik Estrada is offline  
Old
01-18-2013, 08:13 AM
  #935
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Good picks or good prospects are not traded, im sorry, but thats how it is. Forsberg wont be moved, unless we give them a much better player that kills any logic behind such a move (Carey P. or PK S, possibly Max P.)
Good picks and prospects are traded for every year. Please stop with this. Was Braeden Schenn a bad prospect? This happens every year man. Our problem is that we've spent no time trying to do this. We've been stuck with GMs happy with 8th place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Of you course you have to made the deal before Ryan become a 30 goal scorer, the problem is that no one is going to give away a 30 goal-scorer, and especially not if he's under ELC and 20 or 21 years old...
NO ONE is going to do deal you such a player.
NO KIDDING!

That's what I said five years ago man. You have to get those players BEFORE they become stars. That's the whole reason why you deal for them as prospects!!!!!!

Same with say... Claude Giroux from a couple of years ago. People LAUGHED at that and now...

Dude, good prospects usually go onto become good players. So look for teams that have them and are making a playoff run. Then offer them something they can't refuse. If a team is going for a cup and you show up with Markov, Cole, Pleks or a combination of these guys they are going to listen to you.

Again, last year I mentioned Washington's extra pick. People here said no. Well, now they've drafted Forsberg... would you be interested now? Is it harder to get the prospect now? We just never seem to learn...

It makes sense to deal away prospects when you are a contender. The window to win a cup can be short and sometimes you've got to go for it. Too bad we're never in this position...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Since the lockout, good prospects traded means :
-That the player is underachieving and wont be as good as planned at the draft-day. (Setoguchi, Mueller, Frolik, Brule...)
-That somebody massively screwed up, in which case, your job might be threatened. (Rask, McDonagh)
-The other end of the deal involves another prospect (Schenn, Van Riemsdyk, Turris, Tarasenko, Hodgson...).
Prospects and picks are always avaialable. You've got to be willing to pay the price though. Most teams are shooting for 8th and most teams don't intentionally rebuild. That doesn't mean it's not a smart idea. We've had the worst asset management in the league. We've let tons of players walk for zero... I won't list them you know who they are. And we wasted Cammy and benched AK just before trading him. Went after Kaberle.

We could write a book on how not to become a contender.

Fortunately for us that's been mitigated by our great scouting group and a lottery win that turned into Price (our first top five pick in 20 years.)

If we'd actually tried to rebuild we'd be so much further ahead now. But we've continued to do things the wrong way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
The number of good prospects traded to a team that is arguably in a situation similar to a rebuilding is close to none. For the simple reason that teams in such a situation dont have the tools to receive such prospects.
Gardiner and Colborne are the only ones i believe.

I also wish that the people favourable to a rebuild would remember that the 2005 lockout was a huge help for teams struggling with young players...
If you think that we can't get prospects and picks with the vets that we have, you are dead wrong.

Lafleurs Guy is online now  
Old
01-18-2013, 08:46 AM
  #936
Rutabaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Country: France
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Good picks and prospects are traded for every year. Please stop with this. Was Braeden Schenn a bad prospect? This happens every year man. Our problem is that we've spent no time trying to do this. We've been stuck with GMs happy with 8th place.
Schenn was traded for Richards, a player with a better level than the ones we have. And Richards was playing for a team that was nowhere near a rebuilding phase.

The problem is not to have a GM happy with a 8th place, its that the GM needs to be competent in order to change that 8th place to a 7th, then a 6th etc...

If we are using Chicago or Pittsburgh as a model, well fine, lets go bankrupt and have a team so putrid that 5 years of Top-5 picks are necessary to turn things around.

But since our team with Price, Subban and Pacioretty already have 3 high-caliber players under 25, i think its going to be difficult to suck that bad. Sure, we were 15th last year, we needed an horrible interim coach, being Top-3 in man-games lost by injury and a incredible number of poor decisions by our GM.

(Did Pittsburgh trade for picks ?
Did Columbus, Edmonton, Chicago or the Islanders ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
That's what I said five years ago man. You have to get those players BEFORE they become stars. That's the whole reason why you deal for them as prospects!!!!!!
Its impossible to do nowadays. Top-5 picks have already a huge reputation when they're drafted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Same with say... Claude Giroux from a couple of years ago. People LAUGHED at that and now...
And of course, the Flyers would have greacefully let Giroux walk away, not realizing what they had between their hands.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Dude, good prospects usually go onto become good players.
I dont think that GM are very smart in general, but if allegedly (important word) good prospects are traded, history showed us that there is only a limited number of options about the why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
So look for teams that have them and are making a playoff run. Then offer them something they can't refuse. If a team is going for a cup and you show up with Markov, Cole, Pleks or a combination of these guys they are going to listen to you.
A combination is impossible considering the cap situation.

The problem is that these players are in a situation where they are very difficult to move at a right value. Not flashy enough to give you a grade A prospect or a Top-8 pick. But too important to give them away without really nitpicking on the return.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Again, last year I mentioned Washington's extra pick. People here said no. Well, now they've drafted Forsberg... would you be interested now? Is it harder to get the prospect now? We just never seem to learn...
Washington's extra pick is from Colorado, a team that was not supposed to be picking that low. No way that they deal this one.

The only pick you could have was Washington's and if you deal them away a good player, obviously, it would have been a lower pick than 16th.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
It makes sense to deal away prospects when you are a contender. The window to win a cup can be short and sometimes you've got to go for it. Too bad we're never in this position...
It doesnt make any sense anymore to deal away prospects.
Picks, yes, because there is an unknown element, but prospects, not really, because they can bring a plus to a team at a fair price, and there is an implication on the rest of the prospect pool.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Prospects and picks are always avaialable. You've got to be willing to pay the price though.
I would love it if you can show me 5 good prospects that were/are traded to a team that is in the midst of a rebuilding scenario. I can only come up with two.
Otherwise, the prospects are not that good, the deal is dramatically lopsided, or the team receiving the prospect was the better one of the two at the time (like in Schenn's/Richard's case, or in Staal's/Pouliot's, Kessel's/Seguin's...)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Most teams are shooting for 8th and most teams don't intentionally rebuild. That doesn't mean it's not a smart idea. We've had the worst asset management in the league. We've let tons of players walk for zero... I won't list them you know who they are. And we wasted Cammy and benched AK just before trading him. Went after Kaberle.
A solid asset management is enough to be a regular presence in PO. And not as a team stealing the 8th spot in the 82th game.
Phoenix and Nashville are proving it every year. Without very high picks...
And from that point, you can be a decent team (Devils-like) with only a few good moves.
Thats why they all chose this road.

You believe that Bergevin could be hired if he says to Molson that we have to blow this team apart whereas other candidates surely have an idea or two with that current core ?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
If you think that we can't get prospects and picks with the vets that we have, you are dead wrong.
I believe that you are really overestimating the return we can find for them.

Rutabaga is offline  
Old
01-18-2013, 11:17 AM
  #937
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Schenn was traded for Richards, a player with a better level than the ones we have. And Richards was playing for a team that was nowhere near a rebuilding phase.
Dude... stop trying to make excuses. We have the resources to make that kind of trade. Pleks, Markov, Gionta, Cole... a combination of any of those players. And Richard's contract (if I remember) sucked.

You keep trying to come up with silly reasons why we can't do this. We can. We just don't want to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
The problem is not to have a GM happy with a 8th place, its that the GM needs to be competent in order to change that 8th place to a 7th, then a 6th etc...
Rebuild and watch us progress. We'll improve year by year... why do you think this won't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
If we are using Chicago or Pittsburgh as a model, well fine, lets go bankrupt and have a team so putrid that 5 years of Top-5 picks are necessary to turn things around.

But since our team with Price, Subban and Pacioretty already have 3 high-caliber players under 25, i think its going to be difficult to suck that bad. Sure, we were 15th last year, we needed an horrible interim coach, being Top-3 in man-games lost by injury and a incredible number of poor decisions by our GM.
We're not Pittsburgh and we're not starting from zero. That's my point. We're not going to be at the bottom for long. Maybe this year and that's it. Price, Subban, Max... that's great to start with. Next year Galchenyuk. Next thing you know we're in 8th then 6th then we're contenders.

We're not starting from zero dude. Stop being silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
(Did Pittsburgh trade for picks ?
Did Columbus, Edmonton, Chicago or the Islanders ?
No. Those clubs did things the hard way and sucked for years. They didn't accelerate their rebuilds they tried to go against the rebuild. The Islanders basically traded away a Stanley cup winning team of prospects. The Oilers lost out on first rounders trying to get an RFA...

If they'd done the opposite, they'd be better off.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Its impossible to do nowadays. Top-5 picks have already a huge reputation when they're drafted.
BS. The Ducks were in the hunt for a cup. Absolutely you make those kinds of trades. I'd make that trade if I were them. And Burke said as much back then... he wouldn't trade Ryan for a rental it would have to be a smart hockey deal. Koivu and Souray is a smart hockey deal for them.

They'd have been stupid not to make that deal. And we were stupid for not offering it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
And of course, the Flyers would have greacefully let Giroux walk away, not realizing what they had between their hands.
I don't think they would've let him go either. But it's hilarious that folks here laughed us out of the room saying that we'd be crazy to give up Markov. Well...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
I dont think that GM are very smart in general, but if allegedly (important word) good prospects are traded, history showed us that there is only a limited number of options about the why.

A combination is impossible considering the cap situation.

The problem is that these players are in a situation where they are very difficult to move at a right value. Not flashy enough to give you a grade A prospect or a Top-8 pick. But too important to give them away without really nitpicking on the return.
Yeah right... prospects can't be traded. Except they are all the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Washington's extra pick is from Colorado, a team that was not supposed to be picking that low. No way that they deal this one.
We didn't even try. We wasted Cammy to save face and a desperate play for the GM to save his job... and then we totally screwed up AK.

That was it. No sale, no realization that we were out of it. And a 13th overall isn't worth Pleks? Well if Pleks isn't worth a 13th then why is he so indispensible? Which is it? You are contradicting yourself here. On the one hand he's Yzerman and we can't give him up. On the other he's not worth a 13th overall in a year where Backstrom was hurt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
The only pick you could have was Washington's and if you deal them away a good player, obviously, it would have been a lower pick than 16th.
Yeah right... and we got all we could for AK and Cammy too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
It doesnt make any sense anymore to deal away prospects.
Picks, yes, because there is an unknown element, but prospects, not really, because they can bring a plus to a team at a fair price, and there is an implication on the rest of the prospect pool.
I'm all for dealing away prospects when you're a contender. Sure, go for it. If you get a vet who can get you to a cup for the next couple of years it's absolutely worth it.

We're just never in this position... because we didn't rebuild to begin with. Going the quick fix route has killed us. We do things backwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
I would love it if you can show me 5 good prospects that were/are traded to a team that is in the midst of a rebuilding scenario. I can only come up with two.
Otherwise, the prospects are not that good, the deal is dramatically lopsided, or the team receiving the prospect was the better one of the two at the time (like in Schenn's/Richard's case, or in Staal's/Pouliot's, Kessel's/Seguin's...)
I've done this before. Go look it up yourself, I'm not doing the work here. Prospects and picks get traded for all the time. We're not talking about trying to get Nathan Mackinnon man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
A solid asset management is enough to be a regular presence in PO. And not as a team stealing the 8th spot in the 82th game.
Phoenix and Nashville are proving it every year. Without very high picks...
And from that point, you can be a decent team (Devils-like) with only a few good moves.
Thats why they all chose this road.

You believe that Bergevin could be hired if he says to Molson that we have to blow this team apart whereas other candidates surely have an idea or two with that current core ?
I don't think the core needs to be blown apart. I think the core is now Price, Subban and Max. That's what we'll buidl with. They are the core of this team. Pleks, Gionta, Markov, Cole... they are expendable assets.

If Molson wants a cup, yeah I think he'd listen. Why wouldn't he? It's just a question of what he deems success. If it's 8th place, well then no. If it's a strategy of just make the playoffs and wait and see then no.

If it's a cup though? Absolutely. That's what Leonsis did. He blew apart the team and was rewarded for it. He hasn't won a cup (yet) but he'll have multiple shots at it with a core that's still in it's prime. Some owners actually care about trying to win cups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
I believe that you are really overestimating the return we can find for them.
Assuming Cole and Markov play well, both are worth a first. Pleks is worth a solid prospect + a pick. That's two firsts, a good prospect and probably a 2nd to work with. Not unrealistic at all. And this is a deep draft dude. Factor in our own pick plus the one we got from Calgary and we'd have three firsts (one probably top ten) two seconds and the prospect...

Rebuild is done. And we'd be in awesome shape going forward.

Lafleurs Guy is online now  
Old
01-18-2013, 03:38 PM
  #938
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,875
vCash: 500
Rutabaga,

You say that we have no one as good as Mike Richards.

That means that Thomas Plekanec would not fetch Brayden Schenn and Wayne Simmonds in a trade.

Fine. I'll settle for any 1st rounder + Wayne Simmonds or equivalent value.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
01-18-2013, 03:40 PM
  #939
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,875
vCash: 500
Lafleur's guy,

The Oilers did trade for picks. They acquired the 1st rounder used on Jordan Eberle in a trade, I think as part of the Chris Pronger trade, it was a 22nd overall I think.

I know it's an exception, but what an exception indeed.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
01-18-2013, 03:45 PM
  #940
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 16,880
vCash: 500
Who cares who we draft when they end up trading him before his prime for "character" reasons.

Et le But is offline  
Old
01-18-2013, 04:05 PM
  #941
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
Who cares who we draft when they end up trading him before his prime for "character" reasons.
Let the past be the past.

SOLR is offline  
Old
01-18-2013, 04:22 PM
  #942
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Lafleur's guy,

The Oilers did trade for picks. They acquired the 1st rounder used on Jordan Eberle in a trade, I think as part of the Chris Pronger trade, it was a 22nd overall I think.

I know it's an exception, but what an exception indeed.
You're right, I stand corrected. Forgot about that.

Lafleurs Guy is online now  
Old
01-19-2013, 02:22 AM
  #943
Rutabaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Country: France
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
The contradiction is not mine. Its the market's. Potential, even when the odds are not that good, is always more valuable than the current value of a veteran player.
That doesnt mean that you cant get lucky in trades, like in Gaustad's case. But you cant normally expect to receive such a gift...that happens once a year.

Is Plekanec better than the average 15th best player of a draft year ? Yes, without a doubt.
Would an average team, 8th or 9th of his conference, trade Plekanec for their 1st round pick, in a standard situation ? Not likely at all.

If you cant understand that the owners are not great fans of risks and gambles such as a rebuilding process is, well, too bad. I guess this thread could live on for a while.
But i would really like to see some names of good prospects traded to a rebuilding team. That should not be too long.
You always say that you've done this before, but instead of throwing some proposals as possible whereas they're just absolutely not realistic and completely out of touch with the actual reality at the time, i would like to see where i can find players that fit that profile.

Could Cammalleri be worth a 1st rounder ? Absolutely. Is it easy ? No its not, and there is only a limited number of options.

Its easy to say that we should have done this or that when the deals you are suggesting as models were just impossible to made.

Because, i am sorry, No and again No, there was just no way that Bobby Ryan would have been traded here.
You see, the Ducks did trade for Chris Pronger without losing Ryan, but somehow, according to you, they surely would have done so for Souray or Koivu. Of course.
Just like James Van Riemsdyk was not going anywhere. Or Claude Giroux. (And Pronger was again traded to their team without either of them moving the other way, whereas they werent core players...).

Dont try to re-write the story.

Rutabaga is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 03:11 AM
  #944
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
The contradiction is not mine. Its the market's. Potential, even when the odds are not that good, is always more valuable than the current value of a veteran player.
That doesnt mean that you cant get lucky in trades, like in Gaustad's case. But you cant normally expect to receive such a gift...that happens once a year.

Is Plekanec better than the average 15th best player of a draft year ? Yes, without a doubt.
Would an average team, 8th or 9th of his conference, trade Plekanec for their 1st round pick, in a standard situation ? Not likely at all.

If you cant understand that the owners are not great fans of risks and gambles such as a rebuilding process is, well, too bad. I guess this thread could live on for a while.
But i would really like to see some names of good prospects traded to a rebuilding team. That should not be too long.
You always say that you've done this before, but instead of throwing some proposals as possible whereas they're just absolutely not realistic and completely out of touch with the actual reality at the time, i would like to see where i can find players that fit that profile.

Could Cammalleri be worth a 1st rounder ? Absolutely. Is it easy ? No its not, and there is only a limited number of options.

Its easy to say that we should have done this or that when the deals you are suggesting as models were just impossible to made.

Because, i am sorry, No and again No, there was just no way that Bobby Ryan would have been traded here.
You see, the Ducks did trade for Chris Pronger without losing Ryan, but somehow, according to you, they surely would have done so for Souray or Koivu. Of course.
Just like James Van Riemsdyk was not going anywhere. Or Claude Giroux. (And Pronger was again traded to their team without either of them moving the other way, whereas they werent core players...).

Dont try to re-write the story.
last I remember is Hogson from the Nucks, and he was traded for another youngster - Kassian, not a vet. So, they traded youth for youth.

even the J. Carter and B. Richards trades, LAK and CBJ didnt trade for vets, they sent away guys like Simmonds, Schenn and Voracek for +/- 25 years old players. And later on Carter was traded for... a 25 years old Johnson...

in the Cap Space era, no teams will trade picks and prospects alone for let's say Markov and Plekanec... they represent 10 Mil in salary combined, no team can afford to add without sending salary back.

You're wasting your time with LG, he'll always come back with "it's doable" or something.


Last edited by ECWHSWI: 01-19-2013 at 03:17 AM.
ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 04:17 AM
  #945
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
1) I'm perfectly happy with picks in the 18-30 range, particularly for a deep draft like 2013.
2) High picks do get traded, see Jordan Staal, Jeff Carter, Mike Richards, and Symeon Varlameov trades as examples.
3) Your argument that "it's never been done before" is not a valid argument against innovation. Innovative strategies by definition have never been done before, as such your logic is completely circular; i.e. you're arguing against innovation on the basis that innovation is innovative.
And yet, those 3 players were traded FROM contenders - or teams that thought they were, and they werent traded for vets. They were traded for other young players. Youth for youth. When you trade your 22 years old for a 25 or 26 years old, you're getting a player for now AND the future... nothing in common with acquiring 30+ players such as Cole, Markov or Plekanec for example.

At the very least, one should ask himself why it's never been done before (it's not like it's something so outside the box no GM ever thought of that)

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 04:55 AM
  #946
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Is Plekanec better than the average 15th best player of a draft year ? Yes, without a doubt.
Between 2015 and 2018 (When it will count), Pleks will be between 32 and 35 years/old, it is therefore very self explanatory that I can logically say that you are dead wrong if we draft the 15th best player in the 2013 draft, he will be better than a Pleks over 32 years old, if only for the smaller cap hit!

It seems like you don't get it to the bone. You are making the assumption that we would draft the 15th best player in 2013 with any first round ticket we could get out of Pleks. That pick also could get us a Maxpac, a Mcdo or a Subban. Trying to approximate the results before the pick is made is ludicrous. Yes things could go wrong, but they can also go right. To evaluate it in the middle of these outcomes doesn't help your argument, it's not common sense because simply it's not how it works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Would an average team, 8th or 9th of his conference, trade Plekanec for their 1st round pick, in a standard situation ? Not likely at all.
What exactly is a standard situation? Does that really exist? When you have a guy like Plekanec, who is signed for a few years and you want to trade him at the deadline, you will get a first rounder out of it if not more from a contender in the present. Gaustad...Zemgus Girgensons (after another trade)

SOLR is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 05:08 AM
  #947
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
And yet, those 3 players were traded FROM contenders - or teams that thought they were, and they werent traded for vets. They were traded for other young players. Youth for youth. When you trade your 22 years old for a 25 or 26 years old, you're getting a player for now AND the future... nothing in common with acquiring 30+ players such as Cole, Markov or Plekanec for example.

At the very least, one should ask himself why it's never been done before (it's not like it's something so outside the box no GM ever thought of that)
I'm not sure if anyone is suggesting that the value of each of these player is a first rounder. Pleks probably, if well sold. Cole and Markov we could get lucky, but they are more likely to be 2nd rounder returns. (And that in the context of a rebuild is still fine.)

SOLR is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 05:29 AM
  #948
Rutabaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Country: France
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLR View Post
Between 2015 and 2018 (When it will count), Pleks will be between 32 and 35 years/old, it is therefore very self explanatory that I can logically say that you are dead wrong if we draft the 15th best player in the 2013 draft, he will be better than a Pleks over 32 years old, if only for the smaller cap hit!

It seems like you don't get it to the bone. You are making the assumption that we would draft the 15th best player in 2013 with any first round ticket we could get out of Pleks. That pick also could get us a Maxpac, a Mcdo or a Subban. Trying to approximate the results before the pick is made is ludicrous. Yes things could go wrong, but they can also go right. To evaluate it in the middle of these outcomes doesn't help your argument, it's not common sense because simply it's not how it works.



What exactly is a standard situation? Does that really exist? When you have a guy like Plekanec, who is signed for a few years and you want to trade him at the deadline, you will get a first rounder out of it if not more from a contender in the present. Gaustad...Zemgus Girgensons (after another trade)

What i meant is that an average 15th best player of any entry draft would be, in the vast majority of the cases (if not in every case !), a worse player than Plekanec.
Not an average 3rd liner, far from it, but still an inferior player.

Its not an assomption, its simply a look at the past, before the lockout, or just 3 years ago. The data is there, even with Timmins, its still very difficult to get a valuable return given how good the player you gave away was.
There is a serious overestimation of the value of the picks around the league which make a rebuild much more difficult to achieve than some might think around here.

Gaustad's trade was considered by 99% of the hockey community as a mistake. This happens only once a year...

Rutabaga is offline  
Old
01-19-2013, 08:03 AM
  #949
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
1) I'm perfectly happy with picks in the 18-30 range, particularly for a deep draft like 2013.
2) High picks do get traded, see Jordan Staal, Jeff Carter, Mike Richards, and Symeon Varlameov trades as examples.
3) Your argument that "it's never been done before" is not a valid argument against innovation. Innovative strategies by definition have never been done before, as such your logic is completely circular; i.e. you're arguing against innovation on the basis that innovation is innovative.
It has been done before, it happens all the time. Even if it wasn't point number three drives things home as well. Great points and thanks for saving me a whole bunch of writing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLR View Post
Between 2015 and 2018 (When it will count), Pleks will be between 32 and 35 years/old, it is therefore very self explanatory that I can logically say that you are dead wrong if we draft the 15th best player in the 2013 draft, he will be better than a Pleks over 32 years old, if only for the smaller cap hit!

It seems like you don't get it to the bone. You are making the assumption that we would draft the 15th best player in 2013 with any first round ticket we could get out of Pleks. That pick also could get us a Maxpac, a Mcdo or a Subban. Trying to approximate the results before the pick is made is ludicrous. Yes things could go wrong, but they can also go right. To evaluate it in the middle of these outcomes doesn't help your argument, it's not common sense because simply it's not how it works.

What exactly is a standard situation? Does that really exist? When you have a guy like Plekanec, who is signed for a few years and you want to trade him at the deadline, you will get a first rounder out of it if not more from a contender in the present. Gaustad...Zemgus Girgensons (after another trade)
Stop, you're making too much sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLR View Post
I'm not sure if anyone is suggesting that the value of each of these player is a first rounder. Pleks probably, if well sold. Cole and Markov we could get lucky, but they are more likely to be 2nd rounder returns. (And that in the context of a rebuild is still fine.)
Markov and Cole are dependent on their performances. If Cole plays like he did last year, I don't see how he doesn't get at least a 1st. Ditto with Markov. They won't be high 1sts but we should get at least a 1st if they're playing well.

Nice thing is that we could combine them together or with other assets to get a higher return too.

Lafleurs Guy is online now  
Old
01-19-2013, 08:27 AM
  #950
LeMAD
Registered User
 
LeMAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLR View Post
Between 2015 and 2018 (When it will count), Pleks will be between 32 and 35 years/old, it is therefore very self explanatory that I can logically say that you are dead wrong if we draft the 15th best player in the 2013 draft, he will be better than a Pleks over 32 years old, if only for the smaller cap hit!
The chances we draft a guy as good as Plekanec with a 15th pick are way too small for my liking.

LeMAD is offline  
Closed Thread

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 08:34 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.