HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Canes wanted Staal from the Rangers for Johnson

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-30-2006, 04:03 PM
  #26
KFC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ1982 View Post
I just broke down the trade above... JJ will be a top 4 guy in the NHL at least (why do you think Carolina wanted him to sign NOW, they believe he can step right into the top 6), Tverdovsky is only 30 and put up 50 points in the pre lockout NHL he could do it again if he gets his defensive game straight enough to not be a huge liability, Belanger is a third liner and Gleason is a potential top 4 guy who is only a top 6 guy right now. Does the trade seem fair to you?

If you must have a fair trade here is what I think is fair in terms of value for JJ:

To LA: JJ

To Carolina: Gleason, a 2nd rounder in 07', and a 2nd rounder in 08'

LA gets a bluechipper dman prospect and Carolina gets a solid dman with some potential and two chances to find decent prospects to refill the coffers.

If you had the 3rd overall pick in a deep draft would you give it up for Gleason and Belanger and a salary dump (which could end up coming back to bite you if the salary dump finds his game again)? I wouldn't.

but your missing the point of the trade for carolina... they needed help now they desperatly needed more depth and they filled their holes with this trade... and teverdosky was trade to dump his salary... They were probably doubting there ability to sign johnnson fearing he wanted to playout his college ellibility and go back into the draft... although they definantly lost this trade... it wasnt as bad as people are making it out to be... remember LA still has to sign him and up until this point that has proven to be difficult.

KFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 04:06 PM
  #27
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,814
vCash: 500
Gleason is nice defenseman, but I wouldn't trade Jack Johnson for him.

Eric Belanger?

So essentially the in the past 3 months the Canes have lost Aaron Ward, Matt Cullen and Jack Johnson and replaced them with Tim Gleason and Eric Belanger?

Sorry but that is poor asset management.

That's what seperates the team's that repeat from the team's that end up fighting for a lottery pick 3 years after they win the cup.

No amount of spinning in the world is gonna change my mind on the deal. If I'm L.A. I'm thrilled.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 04:08 PM
  #28
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,381
vCash: 500
They lost Recchi too, no?

wolfgaze is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 04:11 PM
  #29
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFC View Post
but your missing the point of the trade for carolina... they needed help now they desperatly needed more depth and they filled their holes with this trade... and teverdosky was trade to dump his salary... They were probably doubting there ability to sign johnnson fearing he wanted to playout his college ellibility and go back into the draft... although they definantly lost this trade... it wasnt as bad as people are making it out to be... remember LA still has to sign him and up until this point that has proven to be difficult.
Eric Belanger and Tim Gleason to replace Matt Cullen and Aaron Ward is not going to get it done, factor in losing Jack Johnson and it IS that bad.

Regardless of the reasons they had for doing it, it's poor asset management. When you HAVE to make moves like this to dump salary it sends ripples throughout the whole organization.

This little salary problem impacted their ability to resign guys, cost them a top prospect and overall landed them inferior assets to what they gave up.

Yes they feared losing him, but that doesn't mean you run out and make a trade. No one is going to convince me THAT was the best they can do. You don't go from asking for Marc Staal+more and then taking Tim Gleason and Eric Belanger.

Of course the real problem is that Carolina put themselves in a situation where they were desperate for help to begin with. Any time you do that you lose leverage.

As such they lost leverage with both Johnson AND the Kings and they paid for it.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 04:13 PM
  #30
shoothepuck
88
 
shoothepuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: upstate
Country: Italy
Posts: 12,197
vCash: 500
Carolina gave up more than what they got back, but an unsigned player is a risk. Just seems like an odd trade.

shoothepuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 04:44 PM
  #31
n8
WAAAAAAA!!!
 
n8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: san francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,454
vCash: 500
in a couple of years, canes fans will understand the pain of watching a young stud defenseman rockin' it in LA just for a faded chance to repeat their Stanley Cup glory.

Staal for J.Johnson. Pass for me. Both are too close. Staal is signed. J.Johsnon is not. Staal is "homegrown." I like how he has shown the ability to shut down Malkin. Plus practicing against Eric and Jordan back home must be some training!

n8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 04:48 PM
  #32
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,406
vCash: 500
what makes this puzzling for me is that the hurricanes still had next offseason and technically (though not in reality) the one after that to sign johnson. they didn't have to make this move now.

and the fact that kings gm lombardi among others who inquired obviously doesn't mind waiting to negotiate until next year makes this look even worse right now.

also, for some strange reason i had thoughts of the fedotenko-for-pitkanen deal immediately after i heard this.

BwayBshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 04:52 PM
  #33
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 14,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by n8 View Post
in a couple of years, canes fans will understand the pain of watching a young stud defenseman rockin' it in LA just for a faded chance to repeat their Stanley Cup glory.

Staal for J.Johnson. Pass for me. Both are too close. Staal is signed. J.Johsnon is not. Staal is "homegrown." I like how he has shown the ability to shut down Malkin. Plus practicing against Eric and Jordan back home must be some training!

Hmmm...sounds familiar to Ranger fans, doesn't it?

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 05:17 PM
  #34
n8
WAAAAAAA!!!
 
n8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: san francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,454
vCash: 500
LA Times apparently said something like J.Johnson would look forward to play with Rob Blake in L.A. implying he'd sign next year to get that chance which made me think, yeah. Carolina just lost some key players via free agency and they don't have any marquee defensemen that'd really attract him to skip out of college. I always saw this as J.Johnson just wanted to go for another year of college because come on, he's young and it's his only chance to live a regular college life. The next time he can go to college will be when he's retired from the NHL. give the kid a break. plus, Carolina seemed to be more interested in filling their roster spot than with doing what's best of J.Johnson. And when Kaberle is back from his injury? what then? Where is his ice time going? I don't blame the kid at all. What's going on down south? They've got Rangeritis or something. You'll know for sure when they've traded Andrew Ladd for what ever big pending UFA fish there is out there this year.

n8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 06:08 PM
  #35
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,814
vCash: 500
Like I said, I'd have loved to acquire Johnson to play with Staal, not in place of him.

But man I just cannot agree with these trade for Carolina. If this was the Rangers we'd been having a riot on here and rightfully so.

Two months ago Carolina had quality depth guys who provided character and a stud defensive prospect.

Today they have a nice/good young defenseman and an okay depth player.

Just not a good exchange.

Don't get me wrong, Tim Gleason is a good young defenseman but I don't see him on the level of a Staal or a Johnson or a Phaneuf or someone like that.

Makes you wonder what we could have gotten Johnson for if Carolina was a west coast team.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 08:37 PM
  #36
The Amity Affliction
Chasing Ghosts
 
The Amity Affliction's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 9,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
How much does Carolina regret passing up taking Marc Staal over Jack Johnson?Some members of the Canes scouting staff wanted Staal over Johnson but they were overruled by scouting director Sheldon Ferguson or Jim Rutherford who wanted Johnson

Where is the rumor of the Rangers supposed offer of Tyutin,Immonen and a pick coming from?
I said I would have offered that, hell, if Gleason and Belanger could have done it, than Tyutin and Immonen should have been able to do it. That's a MUCH BETTER package. Tyutin is LEAPS AND BOUNDS better than Gleason, and Belanger is just a checking center that had a good year offensively last season because of increased ice time.

Even if Rutherford wanted to up the ante, I would have offered a 1st round pick. But Staal for Johnson is pointless.

The Amity Affliction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 08:39 PM
  #37
AJ1982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 1,812
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AJ1982
[QUOTE=KFC;6618115]but your missing the point of the trade for carolina... they needed help now they desperatly needed more depth and they filled their holes with this trade... and teverdosky was trade to dump his salary... They were probably doubting there ability to sign johnnson fearing he wanted to playout his college ellibility and go back into the draft... QUOTE]

I understand they needed help but for god's sake, give up something other than the future cornerstone of your defensive corps. I also understand the salary dump idea but it still doesn't even out the trade. And finally, I don't think it is too concerning that a player wants to stay in school for his SOPHOMORE year, I really don't think there was anything that suggested JJ would not sign at a later date. The bottom line is this... the trade SUCKS for Carolina, and that is a fact.

AJ1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 08:55 PM
  #38
barrel_master
Amber Heard
 
barrel_master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,922
vCash: 500
An interesting view of the JJ trade. Although I agree with pretty much everyone here, I don't think the trade is as bad as everyone is making it out to be. It's possible that they really want to capitalize on their cup win last season and excite their fan base with another good performance this season. Honestly, if the org. sees an oppertunity to make this team a part of the Carolina culture with a good performance this season it's worth JJ.

http://www.tsn.ca/tsn_talent/columnists/bob_mckenzie/

barrel_master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 09:10 PM
  #39
The Amity Affliction
Chasing Ghosts
 
The Amity Affliction's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 9,341
vCash: 500
Edge, n8, and AJ1982, you guys make some great points...

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ1982 View Post
If you must have a fair trade here is what I think is fair in terms of value for JJ:

To LA: JJ

To Carolina: Gleason, a 2nd rounder in 07', and a 2nd rounder in 08'

LA gets a bluechipper dman prospect and Carolina gets a solid dman with some potential and two chances to find decent prospects to refill the coffers.

If you had the 3rd overall pick in a deep draft would you give it up for Gleason and Belanger and a salary dump (which could end up coming back to bite you if the salary dump finds his game again)? I wouldn't.
I thought your breakdown of the trade was spot on, but I disagree with your analysis of the value. Gleason is NOT a bluechip defensive prospect. Johnson is a generational cornerstone franchise defenseman. This is a guy that comes along once every 10-15 years. Gleason has potential, but I don't see him as a top pairing guy, I see him as a #3, POSSIBLE #2, if all goes well for him. I'd be giving up another midlevel prospect defenseman, and or a 1st round pick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarretJoseph View Post
If Staal is anything like his older brother in regards to skill wise and using his hockey "head" - I'd bet the farm that he'd be better than JJ.
I'd love to agree with you here, but I can't. JJ's raw talent far exceeds Staal's, but both will be #1 defenders. JJ will be a cornerstone guy, Staal might be the Rangers future on defense right now, but he will need a better supporting cast to be more effective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
I agree with TB and Melnyk on this one.

I think Johnson's upside is superior, though I think Staal is the safer of the two.

Personally I would not have traded Staal for Johnson because I think the deal only makes the most sense if I can potentially pair both of them together.

To me Staal is the perfect guy I'd want to pair with Johnson and vice versa.

Having said that, making a deal for a player like this within the conference is extremely difficult and going to cost more so I can't blame the Rangers for not making the move.

On the other hand, I can't believe Carolina made the deal that they did. That one is just puzzling to me.
I agree, Staal is a much safer pick, Johnson is more boom or bust, but that boom will be pretty big if you ask me. I agree with you in the sense that Staal can be to Johnson what Beukeboom was to Leetch, but on an even higher overall talent level in terms of the pair. I would have traded Tyutin, Immonen, and a 1st if Rutherford wanted to up the ante because of the same conference. Look at what Rutherford was after...

1. A promising young NHL ready defenseman with potential and minimal cap hit.
2. A partner who could take on Tverdovsky's salary, preferrably out of the conference.
3. A team with other assets available to help the team win this year.

It pisses me off because the Rangers fit the mold to make a trade. Even if they're in the same conference, they're out of the division, so they wouldn't have to face 7 or 8 times a season to see the trade backfire. I know Rutherford would have upped the ante, that's fine, and I would have been willing to throw in a 1st round pick to my proposal to get it done, and that would have been fair value, if you ask me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
Gleason is nice defenseman, but I wouldn't trade Jack Johnson for him.

Eric Belanger?

So essentially the in the past 3 months the Canes have lost Aaron Ward, Matt Cullen and Jack Johnson and replaced them with Tim Gleason and Eric Belanger?

Sorry but that is poor asset management.

That's what seperates the team's that repeat from the team's that end up fighting for a lottery pick 3 years after they win the cup.

No amount of spinning in the world is gonna change my mind on the deal. If I'm L.A. I'm thrilled.
The Canes season is already going south. Aaron Ward, Matt Cullen, and Jack Johnson, and replaced them with Tim Gleason, Trevor Letowski, and Eric Belanger. They signed Letowski over the summer to help offset the loss of Cullen, and now Belanger is there as well. Those two together don't score or play well enough defensively from what I've seen to make up for Cullen's loss, and we all know Gleason will never make up for Jack Johnson.

Quote:
That's what seperates the team's that repeat from the team's that end up fighting for a lottery pick 3 years after they win the cup.
You really couldn't have said it any better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
Eric Belanger and Tim Gleason to replace Matt Cullen and Aaron Ward is not going to get it done, factor in losing Jack Johnson and it IS that bad.

Regardless of the reasons they had for doing it, it's poor asset management. When you HAVE to make moves like this to dump salary it sends ripples throughout the whole organization.

This little salary problem impacted their ability to resign guys, cost them a top prospect and overall landed them inferior assets to what they gave up.

Yes they feared losing him, but that doesn't mean you run out and make a trade. No one is going to convince me THAT was the best they can do. You don't go from asking for Marc Staal+more and then taking Tim Gleason and Eric Belanger.

Of course the real problem is that Carolina put themselves in a situation where they were desperate for help to begin with. Any time you do that you lose leverage.

As such they lost leverage with both Johnson AND the Kings and they paid for it.
Rutherford has lost his mind, and we figured this was going to happen to New Jersey, not Carolina. Rutherford went into panic mode, and made his worst move ever as a general manger. You're right, leverage is everything, and that's why he's not a Ranger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by n8 View Post
in a couple of years, canes fans will understand the pain of watching a young stud defenseman rockin' it in LA just for a faded chance to repeat their Stanley Cup glory.

Staal for J.Johnson. Pass for me. Both are too close. Staal is signed. J.Johsnon is not. Staal is "homegrown." I like how he has shown the ability to shut down Malkin. Plus practicing against Eric and Jordan back home must be some training!
I completely agree, and I got bashed all over the place when I said I wouldn't trade Staal for him. Why trade one bluechip defensive prospect for another? Especially when one is signed, and is almost NHL ready. Sometimes playing it safe is the way to do it.

[QUOTE=AJ1982;6621281]
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFC View Post
but your missing the point of the trade for carolina... they needed help now they desperatly needed more depth and they filled their holes with this trade... and teverdosky was trade to dump his salary... They were probably doubting there ability to sign johnnson fearing he wanted to playout his college ellibility and go back into the draft... QUOTE]

I understand they needed help but for god's sake, give up something other than the future cornerstone of your defensive corps. I also understand the salary dump idea but it still doesn't even out the trade. And finally, I don't think it is too concerning that a player wants to stay in school for his SOPHOMORE year, I really don't think there was anything that suggested JJ would not sign at a later date. The bottom line is this... the trade SUCKS for Carolina, and that is a fact.
See, that's what pissed me off. How could Rutherford be such a horses' *** and get pissy over Johnson wanting to stay in the NCAA for his SECOND YEAR of college. Is it that damn unheard of college players wanting to finish their tenure in the NCAA? Even if Johnson said "I don't want to play with you," why don't you wait a little longer? The trade deadline would have helped Rutherford gain a FAR BETTER return. Because if Michigan were to exit the tournament early, Johnson could go and sign with his NHL team, just like Pock did with us, and probably would have done so, giving that team some added muscle for the playoff run, which would have added value to Johnson. Now, you're trading him because you're tired of him not wanting to play in the NHL right away, which lowers his value, and you've already lost any leverage you once had in any deal. Oh yeah, and did I mention the fact that Johnson is a generational franchise cornerstone player? Yeah, you want to optimize the return to the best of your abilities, and giving up leverage by basically saying that "we're willing to deal him if the price is right" will not help you out at all. Rutherford put a gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger, and now he'll pay the consequences when LA wisens up and drafts a better goaltender than Bernier, and makes a run at the cup and wins it all.

Thank god he went to LA, I like the Kings, so at least he's on a team that I like to watch and root for.

The Amity Affliction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 09:13 PM
  #40
AJ1982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 1,812
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AJ1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretzNYR99 View Post
Edge, n8, and AJ1982, you guys make some great points...



I thought your breakdown of the trade was spot on, but I disagree with your analysis of the value. Gleason is NOT a bluechip defensive prospect. Johnson is a generational cornerstone franchise defenseman. This is a guy that comes along once every 10-15 years. Gleason has potential, but I don't see him as a top pairing guy, I see him as a #3, POSSIBLE #2, if all goes well for him. I'd be giving up another midlevel prospect defenseman, and or a 1st round pick.
Just to clarify, I never said Gleason was a blue chipper, I said he was a solid top 6 dman who could potentially be a top 4 guy.

AJ1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 09:17 PM
  #41
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post

Makes you wonder what we could have gotten Johnson for if Carolina was a west coast team.
Or if we were on the West coast.

I've been thinking the same...

BigE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 09:20 PM
  #42
The Amity Affliction
Chasing Ghosts
 
The Amity Affliction's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 9,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ1982 View Post
Just to clarify, I never said Gleason was a blue chipper, I said he was a solid top 6 dman who could potentially be a top 4 guy.
Oh, I know you weren't saying that, but I was saying because Gleason isn't a bluechip prospect, you would have to include a lot more than what you were including. My bad for not clarifying that for you. If it was a 1st rounder, the trade would STILL be lopsided in favor of LA due to the fact that a generational talent like Johnson comes along every 10-15 years. You're being set back for who knows how long. Now to acquire a franchise defender, you'd have to get one in a trade, or tank to become a bottom feeder and get another draft pick, and quite frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if Carolina tanked, maybe this year, maybe next... not saying they will, but it's not out of the question, especially after losing a talent like Johnson. It would really have to depend on the draft class and how much of a read their scouts could get on the defenders.

Bottom Line: They should have taken one of the Staal offers if they were on the table.

The Amity Affliction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 09:21 PM
  #43
The Amity Affliction
Chasing Ghosts
 
The Amity Affliction's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 9,341
vCash: 500
I actually haven't thought about it if we were on the west coast or if Carolina was on the west coast.

That is an interesting idea though, Edge...

Ahh, screw it, I'm only going to get more pissed off.

The Amity Affliction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 09:29 PM
  #44
AJ1982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 1,812
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AJ1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretzNYR99 View Post
Oh, I know you weren't saying that, but I was saying because Gleason isn't a bluechip prospect, you would have to include a lot more than what you were including. My bad for not clarifying that for you. If it was a 1st rounder, the trade would STILL be lopsided in favor of LA due to the fact that a generational talent like Johnson comes along every 10-15 years. You're being set back for who knows how long. Now to acquire a franchise defender, you'd have to get one in a trade, or tank to become a bottom feeder and get another draft pick, and quite frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if Carolina tanked, maybe this year, maybe next... not saying they will, but it's not out of the question, especially after losing a talent like Johnson. It would really have to depend on the draft class and how much of a read their scouts could get on the defenders.

Bottom Line: They should have taken one of the Staal offers if they were on the table.
Oh okay, that makes sense. My reasoning for only giving up two 2nd rounders is because JJ has not proven himself at the pro level yet. He potentially could be a generational talent, as you say, but IMO that is certainly not a given. IMO he is a safe bet "just" to be a good top pairing dman. With two 2nd rounder you could get a similar total value as that. In short, I don't know if JJ will reach max potential and be a "Scott Stevens", to me the biggest chance is that he will be a top pairing guy, the possibility is there to be better or worse.

AJ1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 09:38 PM
  #45
KFC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
Gleason is nice defenseman, but I wouldn't trade Jack Johnson for him.

Eric Belanger?

So essentially the in the past 3 months the Canes have lost Aaron Ward, Matt Cullen and Jack Johnson and replaced them with Tim Gleason and Eric Belanger?

Sorry but that is poor asset management.

That's what seperates the team's that repeat from the team's that end up fighting for a lottery pick 3 years after they win the cup.

No amount of spinning in the world is gonna change my mind on the deal. If I'm L.A. I'm thrilled.
Its not spinning... they lost the deal... but they got the depth they needed. No one says they're going back to the finals but they should be able to remain competative which is critical right now because they are trying to build a fan base... and they obviously thought JJ wasn't going to sign with them, yes they could have done much better but they filled some needs. so its not a complete loss.

KFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 09:43 PM
  #46
KFC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=AJ1982;6621281]
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFC View Post
but your missing the point of the trade for carolina... they needed help now they desperatly needed more depth and they filled their holes with this trade... and teverdosky was trade to dump his salary... They were probably doubting there ability to sign johnnson fearing he wanted to playout his college ellibility and go back into the draft... QUOTE]

I understand they needed help but for god's sake, give up something other than the future cornerstone of your defensive corps. I also understand the salary dump idea but it still doesn't even out the trade. And finally, I don't think it is too concerning that a player wants to stay in school for his SOPHOMORE year, I really don't think there was anything that suggested JJ would not sign at a later date. The bottom line is this... the trade SUCKS for Carolina, and that is a fact.
well they obviously they felt that he wasn't going to sign with them, they must have known somthing we don't... yes if they had waited they could have gotten a better deal but they felt that these needs for a 3rd line center and a d-man were pressing enough that they had to make a move now.

KFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 10:03 PM
  #47
The Amity Affliction
Chasing Ghosts
 
The Amity Affliction's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 9,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ1982 View Post
Oh okay, that makes sense. My reasoning for only giving up two 2nd rounders is because JJ has not proven himself at the pro level yet. He potentially could be a generational talent, as you say, but IMO that is certainly not a given. IMO he is a safe bet "just" to be a good top pairing dman. With two 2nd rounder you could get a similar total value as that. In short, I don't know if JJ will reach max potential and be a "Scott Stevens", to me the biggest chance is that he will be a top pairing guy, the possibility is there to be better or worse.
That's fine, the whole potential bit. You're right about that, but what you're forgetting here is that to do that to one, you have to do that to the other. Gleason is not even an established 6th NHL defender yet, and his career hinges on his potential, so even if you want drop Johnson's value down because he's still an unproven prospect, you have to do the same for Gleason, as he has not established himself in the NHL yet. So there, we're back to stage 1, Johnson still wins, therefore the value coming in return should be greater. Also, another problem with 2 2nd rounders is that they might not be top 10 picks. They could be around #45 for all we know, maybe even #50, or closer to #60. Johnson was a top 3 pick in his draft class, and is regarded as a potentially generational talent. A package consisting of a POTENTIAL TOP 4 and 2 2nd rounders in no way shape or form can justify trading him. I know I wouldn't trade him for that. It would be like trading Dubinsky and Immonen for Ovechkin before last season started. Two potentially good players, for a potentially dominating talent. Just doesn't balance out.

The Amity Affliction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 10:15 PM
  #48
The Amity Affliction
Chasing Ghosts
 
The Amity Affliction's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 9,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFC View Post
well they obviously they felt that he wasn't going to sign with them, they must have known somthing we don't... yes if they had waited they could have gotten a better deal but they felt that these needs for a 3rd line center and a d-man were pressing enough that they had to make a move now.
But to call out a future cornerstone player who is potentially a generational talent as "available if the right deal comes along," thus losing any leverage in a deal including him?

What not to do as a GM 101

- Never give away leverage in deals, you end up screwing yourself.

By declaring Johnson available, Rutherford lost his leverage, and has screwed himself.

- Deal when necessary, and deal what needs to be dealt to accomplish your goals.

Really, was it that necessary to deal a potential generational talent of a future franchise defenseman just to get Oleg Tverdovsky off of their hands and get a checking player so they can have a 50/50 chance at repeating?

- Short-Term Thinking

Again, I'll bring up the 50/50 chance at repeating this year. Do you take the risk and go for it again, or do you realize that you have a great team core built in place with guys like Staal, Cole, Johnson, Ward, Ladd, etc. and wait and restock some more players in the draft and build up? Not to mention they had a bad cap situation, so why are you going to take on more NHL contracts in one season when you can draft those kinds of players that left, your Cullens and Aaron Wards, in the upcoming drafts, and take them in at entry level and two-way deals that won't count against the cap so much? Poor asset and financial management by Rutherford. What was he thinking?

The Amity Affliction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 10:17 PM
  #49
The Amity Affliction
Chasing Ghosts
 
The Amity Affliction's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 9,341
vCash: 500
This is starting to remind me more and more of the Zubov deal...

The Amity Affliction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2006, 10:30 PM
  #50
DaveMatthew
Registered User
 
DaveMatthew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 6,675
vCash: 500
Sounds about right. I'm gonna be honest, I don't think Marc Staal's top end is much higher than Tim Gleason's, is at all.

I watched both these guys in junior, and some of you are really underestimating Gleason. He'll be a solid #2 or #3 defenseman, much like Staal will be.

DaveMatthew 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 10:13 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.