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, 07:19 PM
  #51
Elysian
@AdamBath
 
Elysian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
I really couldn't see Loui ever traded unless it was for another franchise type player. Loui is the type of guy I WANT to see play for the Stars his entire career.

Elysian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 08:45 PM
  #52
DaStars99
Purdue Alumnus
 
DaStars99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,092
vCash: 500
Not even a chance

DaStars99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 09:09 PM
  #53
MetalGodAOD
Moderator
Star Rangers
 
MetalGodAOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 12,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
Regardless of the reasoning, the fact is those trades brought ample return.

Like I said I'm fine with Loui sticking around. This isn't a thread about why Loui shouldn't be here or why we don't need him. I'm sure he and Benn can play together and be dynamic for a few more seasons. There's no NEED to unload him. I don't think Loui is Teemu Selanne though where he'll keep the pace in to his 40s. There is a window there. And I'd just rather explore options. I don't think this team is in the position to not explore options. If someone has a Brayden Schenn for us and wants Loui, I do it. If someone has an Alex Goligoski for us and wants Loui, I tell them to stick it up their @zz.
There's inherent risk in doing something like what you're proposing. Let's say we package Loui and trade for a young 20s prospect like an OEL or Hedman. You're trading proven talent for potential, and can very easily end up in a Neal-Goligoski situation if the player doesn't react well to the trade or the new system. Just not worth it for a proven 70 point player.

MetalGodAOD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 09:12 PM
  #54
Brand New Stars
Registered User
 
Brand New Stars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: McKinney/C-Stat, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 3,391
vCash: 500
While Eriksson was easily a better player than Neal at the time of that trade, let's not compare Goligoski to OEL or Hedman.

Brand New Stars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 09:16 PM
  #55
MetalGodAOD
Moderator
Star Rangers
 
MetalGodAOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 12,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brand New Stars View Post
While Eriksson was easily a better player than Neal at the time of that trade, let's not compare Goligoski to OEL or Hedman.
This organization could easily ruin a defensive talent like that.

MetalGodAOD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 09:33 PM
  #56
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 18,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetalGodAOD View Post
This organization could easily ruin a defensive talent like that.
This seriously bothers me.

We could probably make Weber look like a bottom pairing defender with the way we're going.

LatvianTwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 09:53 PM
  #57
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetalGodAOD View Post
There's inherent risk in doing something like what you're proposing. Let's say we package Loui and trade for a young 20s prospect like an OEL or Hedman. You're trading proven talent for potential, and can very easily end up in a Neal-Goligoski situation if the player doesn't react well to the trade or the new system. Just not worth it for a proven 70 point player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brand New Stars View Post
While Eriksson was easily a better player than Neal at the time of that trade, let's not compare Goligoski to OEL or Hedman.
I see your point, and thats always the risk in any trade especially when it comes to younger unproven commodities, but I would do either of those deals.

What hurts the most about the Neal trade is that he was what, 22 when we traded him? Well that and the fact that Goligoski sucks. I would say both OEL and Hedman have a heckuva lot more going for them at this point than what Goligoski did when Joe traded for him.

tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 09:54 PM
  #58
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The KlINGberg
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 25,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
This seriously bothers me.

We could probably make Weber look like a bottom pairing defender with the way we're going.
I don't think this organization has seen young talent like that on D in about fifteen years.

We hope Oleksiak and Nemeth have it, but they haven't had much to ruin.

Troy McClure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 10:13 PM
  #59
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure View Post
I don't think this organization has seen young talent like that on D in about fifteen years.

We hope Oleksiak and Nemeth have it, but they haven't had much to ruin.
No doubt. Last stud D-man we actually brought up was D-Hatch.

Could be like when you need two batteries and you pair a decent one with one that's totally dead. The decent one won't work either. Gotta get rid of the dead batteries.

I like Pittsburgh's crop of young D-men: Joe Morrow 20, Simon Despres 21, Olli Maatta 18. Not suggesting Loui for one of them straight up, just throwing it out there. Besides, it's our turn to win the deal with them.

tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 10:17 PM
  #60
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 18,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
No doubt. Last stud D-man we actually brought up was D-Hatch.

Could be like when you need two batteries and you pair a decent one with one that's totally dead. The decent one won't work either. Gotta get rid of the dead batteries.

I like Pittsburgh's crop of young D-men: Joe Morrow 20, Simon Despres 21, Olli Maatta 18. Not suggesting Loui for one of them straight up, just throwing it out there. Besides, it's our turn to win the deal with them.
I'd want all three and more for Loui. Dead serious, we're not sending another winger to Pittsburgh.

LatvianTwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 10:22 PM
  #61
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
I'd want all three and more for Loui. Dead serious, we're not sending another winger to Pittsburgh.
I'd at least want some kind of insurance. Or a tradsies backsies option after one year.

tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 10:37 PM
  #62
KiedisA
Registered User
 
KiedisA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Northern Marianas
Posts: 978
vCash: 500
For years now Loui has done everything to prevent us from falling onto the abyss..
Scoring 70+, PK starter, best 2-way player since Jere, taking no penalties..

So yeah, he is untouchable..

KiedisA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 10:47 PM
  #63
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiedisA View Post
For years now Loui has done everything to prevent us from falling onto the abyss..
Scoring 70+, PK starter, best 2-way player since Jere, taking no penalties..

So yeah, he is untouchable..
I'm not about to argue against anything that Loui has done for us. Thats not what this is about.

Ive already argued my points though and provided examples of the type of deal I would deal him for. If you disagree thats fine.I didnt expect many to see my point when I started this thread to be honest.

tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 11:01 PM
  #64
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 15,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
My view is that this team is headed in the right direction as well, but how much better will we be with our current stock of players 25 and under? We have a couple nice pieces but lack true high end talent when looking at the prospect pool. Its at least not very deep. IF the opportunity presents itself to rob Peter who is your present, to pay Paul who is your future, I say you bank on Paul and build him up as much as you can. Soon Peter may not have anything left in his pockets and youll wish you robbed him when his pockets were full. And so on.
Sorry man, I'm not buying this. I understand where you're coming from with just looking at every option but piqued is right, there is no surplus in talent anywhere on this team to make a trade of the kind you're proposing; it's almost definitely a lateral move.

This season has seen the Stars bring along a number of young players. Don't pry into your core to make a trade at this point, wait until you know more about your young players. Aside from Dillon and Eakin (and probably Oleksiak) we don't know what we've got, or just how special any of them can be. The point is, theoretically I'm open to trading a loved player for the right price BUT the timing has to be right. The timing here just isn't right.

The Texas Rangers model pre-playoff days was a beauty and something the Stars should follow. When they were developing their young players in the minors and giving them time in the majors they were constantly signing a few veterans in the offseason whom they were more than 50% sure would return a usable asset via trade midseason. Some of those players turned into prospects who turned into players or were shipped off elsewhere to bring in other guys who played/are playing for them. That model takes one important thing that the Stars haven't demonstrated a penchant for - giving precedence to long term success by giving up on the short term to make it happen.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 11:37 PM
  #65
Fly Like a C5
Registered User
 
Fly Like a C5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 902
vCash: 500
If we accept the premise that Loui has peaked and that his 36 goal season was an anomaly, we are still left with a player who can score 25-30 goals while having Selke caliber defense. Loui's success isn't based on speed or physicality, but on his outstanding hockey sense. That means that he should be able to continue to play a high level for at least 6 or 7 more seasons. A player like that is very valuable. Not only does he bring goal scoring and excellent defense to the team; he's a veteran for younger players to emulate. In the next two years the team is going to have to replace Jagr, Whitney, Ryder, and Morrow and that means several young guys playing in the top 6. You're going to want some reliable and experienced players to help steady those young guys. The only way trading Eriksson truly helps the team is if he gets Dallas a young #1 defenseman. Trading Eriksson for Morrow and Despres is a lateral move. Guys like Karlsson and Pietrangelo are very rarely available. Joe should be willing to listen to any offer for a Dallas player, but you don't give any consideration to a deal unless it involves a young #1D.

Fly Like a C5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 12:22 AM
  #66
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
Sorry man, I'm not buying this. I understand where you're coming from with just looking at every option but piqued is right, there is no surplus in talent anywhere on this team to make a trade of the kind you're proposing; it's almost definitely a lateral move.

This season has seen the Stars bring along a number of young players. Don't pry into your core to make a trade at this point, wait until you know more about your young players. Aside from Dillon and Eakin (and probably Oleksiak) we don't know what we've got, or just how special any of them can be. The point is, theoretically I'm open to trading a loved player for the right price BUT the timing has to be right. The timing here just isn't right.

The Texas Rangers model pre-playoff days was a beauty and something the Stars should follow. When they were developing their young players in the minors and giving them time in the majors they were constantly signing a few veterans in the offseason whom they were more than 50% sure would return a usable asset via trade midseason. Some of those players turned into prospects who turned into players or were shipped off elsewhere to bring in other guys who played/are playing for them. That model takes one important thing that the Stars haven't demonstrated a penchant for - giving precedence to long term success by giving up on the short term to make it happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly Like a C5 View Post
If we accept the premise that Loui has peaked and that his 36 goal season was an anomaly, we are still left with a player who can score 25-30 goals while having Selke caliber defense. Loui's success isn't based on speed or physicality, but on his outstanding hockey sense. That means that he should be able to continue to play a high level for at least 6 or 7 more seasons. A player like that is very valuable. Not only does he bring goal scoring and excellent defense to the team; he's a veteran for younger players to emulate. In the next two years the team is going to have to replace Jagr, Whitney, Ryder, and Morrow and that means several young guys playing in the top 6. You're going to want some reliable and experienced players to help steady those young guys. The only way trading Eriksson truly helps the team is if he gets Dallas a young #1 defenseman. Trading Eriksson for Morrow and Despres is a lateral move. Guys like Karlsson and Pietrangelo are very rarely available. Joe should be willing to listen to any offer for a Dallas player, but you don't give any consideration to a deal unless it involves a young #1D.
Good points fellas. And I can't say I really disagree with anything. Like I said, not saying we need to trade him, just saying it could be worth kicking tires to see if anyone will give something that WILL make it worth pulling the trigger. If nothing is available or offered, fine. The point isn't to get rid of Eriksson. The point is that he is someone teams could back up the truck for. And when you look up and down the lineup, hes the one guy approaching the area of 30 that would bring in anything substantial. Everyone else is either Kari, under 25, or not worth a lot on the market.

I'd argue that getting a couple good young players (whether defensemen or forwards) wouldn't necessarily be a lateral move though. Not if we get two high caliber players in return who are younger. But that's an IF - which is basically what this is based on.


Last edited by tjcurrie: 02-20-2013 at 01:27 AM.
tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 01:35 AM
  #67
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 15,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
Good points fellas. And I can't say I really disagree with anything. Like I said, not saying we need to trade him, just saying it could be worth kicking tires to see if anyone will give something that WILL make it worth pulling the trigger. If nothing is available or offered, fine. The point isn't to get rid of Eriksson. The point is that he is someone teams could back up the truck for. And when you look up and down the lineup, hes the one guy approaching the area of 30 that would bring in anything substantial. Everyone else is either Kari, under 25, or not worth a lot on the market.

I'd argue that getting a couple good young players (whether defensemen or forwards) wouldn't necessarily be a lateral move though. Not if we get two high caliber players in return who are younger. But that's an IF - which is basically what this is based on.
Well, I believe my original point still stands, that right now we don't know enough about our youngest players to trade away a player as good as Eriksson. Kicking the tires may be viable at some point in time but I feel strongly that now is not that time, and I don't think a good case can be (or has been) made to the contrary.

The other thing that I'm not sure I saw anybody mention yet (didn't read every post in the thread) is that Loui signed the best contract extension of any Stars player in recent memory. Regardless of when he signed the extension relative to his success, he gave up the most prime of free agency years (27-32) with that extension; it was a sweet deal then and it's a sweeter deal now. You only trade a guy who made that kind of commitment to the organization if somebody comes to you and absolutely blows you away with an offer. You don't shop him now.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 01:01 PM
  #68
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The KlINGberg
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 25,943
vCash: 500
If you can guarantee that this pick or prospect is a future hall of famer like the examples you gave, of course it's a good idea.

Since that can't be guaranteed, it's pointless to talk about trading a guy with a NTC for a bag of magic beans.

Troy McClure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 04:56 PM
  #69
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 18,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
Well, I believe my original point still stands, that right now we don't know enough about our youngest players to trade away a player as good as Eriksson. Kicking the tires may be viable at some point in time but I feel strongly that now is not that time, and I don't think a good case can be (or has been) made to the contrary.

The other thing that I'm not sure I saw anybody mention yet (didn't read every post in the thread) is that Loui signed the best contract extension of any Stars player in recent memory. Regardless of when he signed the extension relative to his success, he gave up the most prime of free agency years (27-32) with that extension; it was a sweet deal then and it's a sweeter deal now. You only trade a guy who made that kind of commitment to the organization if somebody comes to you and absolutely blows you away with an offer. You don't shop him now.
Factoring in his contract, I'd say he's one of the most valuable wingers in the game. You don't find near elite forwards for under 5M anymore.

LatvianTwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 05:11 PM
  #70
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure View Post
If you can guarantee that this pick or prospect is a future hall of famer like the examples you gave, of course it's a good idea.

Since that can't be guaranteed, it's pointless to talk about trading a guy with a NTC for a bag of magic beans.
Wasnt saying I trade for any of those guys. Id want something a little more sure as well.

Jeff Carter for Jakub Voracek and a 1st (Sean Couturier)

Mike Richards for Brayden Schenn, Wayne Simmonds, and a 2nd

Those are the type of deals Im talking about.

tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 05:33 PM
  #71
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The KlINGberg
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 25,943
vCash: 500
Loui can still be a great contributor for another five years. You're talking about deals that punt that value at least five years down the road. Sorry but I have no interest in putting off any push to win that far away. I have even less interest in putting Loui's value into what amounts to hockey lottery tickets.

If this young talent is even half of what management is selling it to be, this team should be a consistent playoff team within the next few years, and having Loui around will be a lot more useful than having another name incubating in the system.

Troy McClure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2013, 10:01 PM
  #72
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 15,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
Wasnt saying I trade for any of those guys. Id want something a little more sure as well.

Jeff Carter for Jakub Voracek and a 1st (Sean Couturier)

Mike Richards for Brayden Schenn, Wayne Simmonds, and a 2nd

Those are the type of deals Im talking about.
These aren't the kind of deals you mentioned earlier. These are packages of "good" NHL player, draft pick, +/- a prospect, which have even less guarantee than a one for one swap. The thing is, if you're giving up Eriksson, who is one of the most proven and consistent contributors at any position in the NHL, we need the same coming back, basically Letang without the injury history. Because that's not going to happen it's a bit of a fruitless exercise.

A package like what either of the two Philly centers returned would leave me extremely unsatisfied.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 05:39 AM
  #73
Sports
McDavid
 
Sports's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: McDavid
Country: United States
Posts: 3,316
vCash: 500
This thread got me on a bit of a train of thought.
Given Kari's injury history, and the way Lou plays, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say Lou's career will be longer, and likely more consistent down the stretch as well.
Given that Kari is also 1 3/4ths years older than Lou, I think he is more eligible for trade talk.
Not that i'm necessarily saying his value is anywhere near Lou's, or that he should be traded either.
Its just that it seems like when this team is ready to compete, their backup will probably need to be closer to a 1B than a 2A with Kari around, considering they'd likely see a bit more work than with an injury-free #1.

Sports is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 07:43 AM
  #74
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 15,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undecided View Post
This thread got me on a bit of a train of thought.
Given Kari's injury history, and the way Lou plays, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say Lou's career will be longer, and likely more consistent down the stretch as well.
Given that Kari is also 1 3/4ths years older than Lou, I think he is more eligible for trade talk.
Not that i'm necessarily saying his value is anywhere near Lou's, or that he should be traded either.
Its just that it seems like when this team is ready to compete, their backup will probably need to be closer to a 1B than a 2A with Kari around, considering they'd likely see a bit more work than with an injury-free #1.
Goalies generally don't return the kind of value a player of a different position but relatively equal caliber would. Look at what Florida got for Luongo way back when...a questionable Bertuzzi, a serviceable defender (Bryan Allen), and a backup goaltender (Auld). The market just isn't there.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:16 AM
  #75
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
These aren't the kind of deals you mentioned earlier. These are packages of "good" NHL player, draft pick, +/- a prospect, which have even less guarantee than a one for one swap. The thing is, if you're giving up Eriksson, who is one of the most proven and consistent contributors at any position in the NHL, we need the same coming back, basically Letang without the injury history. Because that's not going to happen it's a bit of a fruitless exercise.

A package like what either of the two Philly centers returned would leave me extremely unsatisfied.
Yes, these are the type of deals I mentioned from the start. Along with a Kessel type deal for two 1st rounders from a bottom feeder. That one is a little more risky but if it's a team at or near the bottom - you gotta figure you're getting a top 3 pick at least. Either these or a one for one forward for defenseman.

And If we ended up with either of those packages Philly ended up with, I'm satisfied.

tjcurrie 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 07:20 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.