HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Dallas Stars
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Loui Eriksson - trade bait?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-19-2013, 11:28 AM
  #1
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,475
vCash: 500
Loui Eriksson - trade bait?

Are you calm yet? Okay.

Aside from Benn, he's likely the one who would bring the highest return. I'm not starting some "Let's get rid of Loui based on 16 games" bandwagon, but let's look at some points:

- Clearly this team is in dire need of a #1 Dman, heck we don't even have a #2 at this point. Aside from playing the waiting game with Dillon and Oleksiak, I don't see how we're going to fill those needs.

- We're somewhat lacking in young high end talent. Either we tank this season to grab a top 3 pick, or some of our guys in the system really overachieve.

- Eriksson will be 28 in the summer. That's far from over the hill, but typically players don't peak beyond that. He's still a darn good player, but is his value at it's highest, or is it going to go down?

- Joe has proven he's not scared to pull the trigger.

Clearly this team has needs. To acquire those needs, you explore options. Is this an option? Would anyone consider it?

Flame away...

tjcurrie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 11:30 AM
  #2
Ampersand
Dallas Stars Fan
 
Ampersand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,561
vCash: 500
Nope, not even for a second.

Ampersand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 11:36 AM
  #3
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,475
vCash: 500
To me it's a "depends on the return" kinda thing. And I think the return would be high.

tjcurrie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 11:37 AM
  #4
Satan
Connor McDallas
 
Satan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Kingston, ON
Country: Romania
Posts: 41,933
vCash: 500
The last time we traded for a top d-man worked well so let's roll the dice again.

I'm open to considering it, but the return would have to be outrageous.

Satan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 11:44 AM
  #5
StarsFan74
Registered User
 
StarsFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Country: India
Posts: 2,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
Are you calm yet? Okay.

Aside from Benn, he's likely the one who would bring the highest return. I'm not starting some "Let's get rid of Loui based on 16 games" bandwagon, but let's look at some points:

- Clearly this team is in dire need of a #1 Dman, heck we don't even have a #2 at this point. Aside from playing the waiting game with Dillon and Oleksiak, I don't see how we're going to fill those needs.

- We're somewhat lacking in young high end talent. Either we tank this season to grab a top 3 pick, or some of our guys in the system really overachieve.

- Eriksson will be 28 in the summer. That's far from over the hill, but typically players don't peak beyond that. He's still a darn good player, but is his value at it's highest, or is it going to go down?

- Joe has proven he's not scared to pull the trigger.

Clearly this team has needs. To acquire those needs, you explore options. Is this an option? Would anyone consider it?

Flame away...
He's also proven he's prone to making a very bad deal out of desperation. I see that being the case when it comes to acquiring that #1D.

I'd rather he use his "fearlessness" into trading up to get a player we want....for once.

StarsFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 11:45 AM
  #6
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Gary Oak View Post
The last time we traded for a top d-man worked well so let's roll the dice again.

I'm open to considering it, but the return would have to be outrageous.
Can't really go by moves made in the past. You win some you lose some. That's a clear loss and Joe really did "roll the dice".

I'm not talking about rolling the dice though. I'm talking about fetching some true talent. I don't have any examples to lay out, but as I said I think the return would be high and I'm pretty sure 29 teams would be lining up. I think you explore all options to make this team better and to me you can't shut out this option.

tjcurrie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 11:53 AM
  #7
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarsFan74 View Post
He's also proven he's prone to making a very bad deal out of desperation. I see that being the case when it comes to acquiring that #1D.

I'd rather he use his "fearlessness" into trading up to get a player we want....for once.
That's fine too. And I don't mean we trade Loui specifically for a defenseman. I was just laying out our needs - defensemen and young high end talent. Loui could fetch either or, or both.

I also think Joe needs to open the line when it comes to other vets like Morrow, Ryder, Robidas, and possibly Jagr depending on where we're at come deadline. Out of all those, Loui would bring the highest return.

You have to keep some vets, but you also have to explore all options and flip assets in to assets.

tjcurrie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 12:02 PM
  #8
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The KlINGberg
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 25,939
vCash: 500
Like every player who has ever been given an extension by this franchise, Loui has a no trade clause.

Troy McClure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 12:15 PM
  #9
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure View Post
Like every player who has ever been given an extension by this franchise, Loui has a no trade clause.
Fair enough, but it doesnt mean he's not going to okay a trade. Suppose it means we may not be able to ship him to say Columbus in the summer to move up in the draft though.

tjcurrie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 12:25 PM
  #10
piqued
Global Moderator
anyone order a dman?
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 31,641
vCash: 131
Of course not. Loui is the kind of player you desperately try to add more of, not subtract. Sure the team has needs. The second you trade away Eriksson a player like Eriksson will be a critical need. What's the point?

piqued is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 12:36 PM
  #11
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The KlINGberg
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 25,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
Fair enough, but it doesnt mean he's not going to okay a trade. Suppose it means we may not be able to ship him to say Columbus in the summer to move up in the draft though.
This team will benefit more in the long term and short term by keeping Loui than they would by getting a draft pick.

I might listen if Loui could land a great d-man, but I doubt that would happen. No team is sitting on a surplus of all star defensemen.

Troy McClure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 12:47 PM
  #12
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued View Post
Of course not. Loui is the kind of player you desperately try to add more of, not subtract. Sure the team has needs. The second you trade away Eriksson a player like Eriksson will be a critical need. What's the point?
I imagined that'd be the initial response of the majority.

It should depend on what you can get in return, shouldnt it? You cant tell me guys like that havent been traded before. And Im sure theres examples of losing and winning the deal.

Many were saying we lost the Ribeiro deal because scoring centers are hard to come by and you dont just trade them away. I think we made out fine there. Not comparing Ribs and Loui.

Just exploring options. We have plenty of needs. How to we fill those needs? Sometimes you gotta give to get.

tjcurrie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 12:52 PM
  #13
piqued
Global Moderator
anyone order a dman?
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 31,641
vCash: 131
I don't know how you can bring him up and then say you're not comparing them. Ribs wasn't a part of the future of the team and had only 1 year remaining on his contract. Loui is a part of the core and has 3 years remaining and no reason to believe he wouldn't re-sign when the time comes.

Creating a hypothetical where the Stars get a return they can't possibly refuse doesn't have much meaning since it's not going to happen.

Eriksson is the epitome of a player you never should want to trade. He's exactly what you want a Dallas Star to be.

piqued is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 01:16 PM
  #14
StarsFan74
Registered User
 
StarsFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Country: India
Posts: 2,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
That's fine too. And I don't mean we trade Loui specifically for a defenseman. I was just laying out our needs - defensemen and young high end talent. Loui could fetch either or, or both.

I also think Joe needs to open the line when it comes to other vets like Morrow, Ryder, Robidas, and possibly Jagr depending on where we're at come deadline. Out of all those, Loui would bring the highest return.

You have to keep some vets, but you also have to explore all options and flip assets in to assets.
What GMJN needs to demonstrate first is that when the time comes, he isn't afraid to deal his own assets away i.e., the assets HE had a role bringing in to this organization. IMO, he should not be allowed to touch any of Eriksson, Benn, Larsen, etc., (and might I say on principle, not even Morrow or Robidas) before he demonstrates he will move the players he brought in, like Goligoski, Roy, Jagr, Ryder, Whitney, etc. for the betterment of the team.

StarsFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 01:27 PM
  #15
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The KlINGberg
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 25,939
vCash: 500
Joe should feel free to trade anyone he wants. He shouldn't be restrained from trading guys you like all because another GM acquired them.

Troy McClure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 01:37 PM
  #16
StarsFan74
Registered User
 
StarsFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Country: India
Posts: 2,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure View Post
Joe should feel free to trade anyone he wants.He shouldn't be restrained from trading guys you like all because another GM acquired them.[/B]
He has been left free to trade whomever he wants and he's demonstrated so far he won't touch his own assets. For example, leaving a 35 y.o. Souray untouched whilst trading (a much younger) Grossmann away for a very late 2nd rounder and a 3rd rounder, only to let the former walk away for nothing in the off-season, reeks of a pathetic inability to read the team's fortunes or a sense of hubris/need to put his own stamp on the team...or both.

StarsFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 01:42 PM
  #17
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The KlINGberg
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 25,939
vCash: 500
Or maybe Grossman was going to get a better return than Souray.

I guess I don't see many or any examples of what you're taking about.

Troy McClure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 01:48 PM
  #18
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure View Post
Or maybe Grossman was going to get a better return than Souray.

I guess I don't see many or any examples of what you're taking about.
I don't either. I can't think of one person who argued Dallas should have kept Grossmann. He had value, and I agree with Dallas that they shouldn't have paid him the raise that was coming.

It would have been nice to get something for Souray, but you don't lose anything by not trading him. He was a free asset in free agency. Grossmann on the other hand was an asset you developed and invested a huge amount of time and effort in. That would have been a travesty to lose him for nothing. I don't like that they turned their backs on a pick or potentially more for Souray, but it's not surprising GMJN chose to try and win rather than sell assets. That's what he does. Hopefully that doesn't happen again though should the situation present itself again.

It seems that GMJN came down to deciding between Grossmann and Daley, and he chose Daley. I'm fine with that choice. He may be a bit older, but he's more mobile, and he moves the puck better (not to say Grossmann was terrible though). GMJN obviously values puck movement and mobility which isn't a bad thing.

BigG44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 01:50 PM
  #19
Chaos
3, 2, 1
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 7,786
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Chaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarsFan74 View Post
He has been left free to trade whomever he wants and he's demonstrated so far he won't touch his own assets. For example, leaving a 35 y.o. Souray untouched whilst trading (a much younger) Grossmann away for a very late 2nd rounder and a 3rd rounder, only to let the former walk away for nothing in the off-season, reeks of a pathetic inability to read the team's fortunes or a sense of hubris/need to put his own stamp on the team...or both.
That pick was right in the middle of the 2nd round at the time of the trade. Had the Kings not gone on to win the Cup, it would have been in the middle of the round come draft time.

__________________
Chaos is always right.

-Vagrant
Chaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 01:55 PM
  #20
StarsFan74
Registered User
 
StarsFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Country: India
Posts: 2,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure View Post
Or maybe Grossman was going to get a better return than Souray.
Or maybe he wasn't going to.

Or maybe it'd have made sense if he decided to bring Souray back.

Quote:
I guess I don't see many or any examples of what you're taking about.
Has he traded away a player (of consequence) he was responsible for bringing into this organization? No, he let the Dvoraks, Burishes, Sourays, etc. walk for nothing. Henceforth, he'd better deal away any of his Jagrs, Ryders, Whitneys, Roys, etc., in case he doesn't plan on re-signing any of them.

StarsFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 01:57 PM
  #21
StarsFan74
Registered User
 
StarsFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Country: India
Posts: 2,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaos View Post
That pick was right in the middle of the 2nd round at the time of the trade. Had the Kings not gone on to win the Cup, it would have been in the middle of the round come draft time.
I am well aware.

StarsFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 02:00 PM
  #22
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,823
vCash: 500
I think 90% of us are going to agree with you that if Dallas is out of the playoffs or close to missing, we'd prefer they'd stop rolling the dice and trade expiring contracts.

This need to identify how the player came into the organization is going to lose most people. It's an unnecessary distinction. Honestly, who cares? He's not trading players that he thinks can help the team for a final push into the playoffs ... that's a more logical way to look at it. He's not playing favorites.

He clearly pointed out that he felt Fistric was ready for a bigger role, and I think most of us agreed. He didn't think he was hurting the playoff chances by moving Grossmann. Finally, I think an overwhelming majority of people agree Grossmann had more value that Souray ... so they traded the better asset for the better return.

BigG44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 02:04 PM
  #23
Brand New Stars
Registered User
 
Brand New Stars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: McKinney/C-Stat, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 3,389
vCash: 500
I love Loui, but I'd trade anyone for the right price.

Brand New Stars is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 02:04 PM
  #24
StarsFan74
Registered User
 
StarsFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Country: India
Posts: 2,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
It seems that GMJN came down to deciding between Grossmann and Daley, and he chose Daley. I'm fine with that choice. He may be a bit older, but he's more mobile, and he moves the puck better (not to say Grossmann was terrible though). GMJN obviously values puck movement and mobility which isn't a bad thing.
How do you know it was between Daley and Grossmann? Daley has a limited NTC clause too.

Seems like confirmation bias to me.

StarsFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 02:06 PM
  #25
Chaos
3, 2, 1
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 7,786
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Chaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarsFan74 View Post
I am well aware.
Then dont keep claiming he traded Grossmann for a 'late 2nd rounder.'

Chaos 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 07:54 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.