HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Buyer Beware of Trade Deadline

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-06-2012, 01:25 PM
  #26
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadBruins View Post
The only loss on the list is the Kaberle trade IMO. I'm still not sold on Colborne, but he was a valuable asset at the time. As was the 1st round pick. Even if those pieces never amount to anything, it was far too much to give up for a soft 5th defenseman who racked up points on a terrible team. I doubt Chiarelli regrets any moves made during the 10/11 season though. It's a loss on paper only.

Karsums and Lashoff for Recchi and 2nd was also a huge steal.
This is exactly right. The price they paid was hefty, even if the prospects don't pan out. Those are valuable assets.

LSCII is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 01:36 PM
  #27
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
The trade and the cup win are not mutually exclusive. You can look at them as two independent activities. Many other players could have had a far better impact than what TK did here. So yes, they won the cup but it wasn't because of that move. What you're doing is dismissing the bad trade because of the cup win, and that's just ridiculous. If anything, they won the cup despite having that anchor tied around their necks. He was a defensive liability every time he was on the ice.
Ya, I'm gonna have to disagree. I'm not going to try and convince you that Kaberle was a star, but he did chip in, even if it was minimally.

We won the Cup, he was a deadline pick up for what? Junk that won't amount to anything in the NHL and likely wouldn't crack the Bruins roster. Not sure how any move that involved players on the Cup winning team can be viewed as anything but win.

Maybe it's just me

patty59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 01:37 PM
  #28
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
This is exactly right. The price they paid was hefty, even if the prospects don't pan out. Those are valuable assets.
Even if they don't pan out?

patty59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 01:40 PM
  #29
lopey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Thunder Bay ON Canad
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
I think it's time to move on from the Versteeg trade. There's a reason he's been with 5 teams in his short career.
Very good point.

lopey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 01:40 PM
  #30
Fair Warning
Registered User
 
Fair Warning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Syracuse, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadBruins View Post
Karsums and Lashoff for Recchi and 2nd was also a huge steal.
Agreed. That's a huge win missing from this list, even if it was 2009.

Fair Warning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 01:42 PM
  #31
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by remer View Post
The Peverley trade is a tough one.

Peverely signed for 3 years a t 3.25 mill than a UFA. Was a waiver wire pick-up for Atlanata at the time. A bit of a late bloomer. 29 years of age with 36 points.

Wheeler signed for one more year at 2.55 mill than a RFA. First round draft pick. 26 years of age with 35 points.

Stuart signed for two more years at 1.7 mill than a UFA. First round draft pick. 27 years of age with 7 points.
Stuart was a healthy scratch leading up to the trade and Wheeler was getting worse by the second in Boston. They were both in need of a scenery change. We got a guy who you could move up and down the lineup, kill penalties and play any forward position effectively.

Huge win for the Bruins. Huge.

patty59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 01:44 PM
  #32
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
Ya, I'm gonna have to disagree. I'm not going to try and convince you that Kaberle was a star, but he did chip in, even if it was minimally.

We won the Cup, he was a deadline pick up for what? Junk that won't amount to anything in the NHL and likely wouldn't crack the Bruins roster. Not sure how any move that involved players on the Cup winning team can be viewed as anything but win.

Maybe it's just me
Man, the shine coming off that cup is really clouding up some folks view...

I get that he was part of the cup winning team, but what he was brought in to be and what he ended up being were two very different things. He ended up being the worst guy on the bottom pairing, and the price they paid - a top prospect in the organization, a first round pick, and a second round pick - was far to much to pay for a number 5/6 dman.

You can justify it away if it makes you feel better by saying they won the cup, or the players and picks they traded won't amount to anything, but lets at least be honest with ourselves. They didn't pay that type of price for a guy to log 15-16 minutes per night on the bottom pairing, which is what they got from him. It was a bad trade. Period.

That being said though, it's okay. They took a shot and despite it not working out and despite the guy not doing what he was ultimately brought in to do, they won a cup. FWIW, I'd rather the GM took his shot and missed rather than wonder what if, cup win or not.

LSCII is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 01:45 PM
  #33
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
Stuart was a healthy scratch leading up to the trade and Wheeler was getting worse by the second in Boston. They were both in need of a scenery change. We got a guy who you could move up and down the lineup, kill penalties and play any forward position effectively.

Huge win for the Bruins. Huge.
The same could be said of Michael Ryder going into last year's playoffs too, and of Dennis Wideman the year before. So it's hard to quantify what type of impact, if any, either one of those guys could have or would have had.

LSCII is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 01:55 PM
  #34
the overrated
wicked overrated
 
the overrated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Suburbia
Country: United States
Posts: 4,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
You've just done what everyone does when talking about Kaberle in a positive light. You bring up his assists, yet you disregard the multiple defensive gaffes, and his overall lack of defensive ability. The guy may have been second in assists, but anyone who watched those games can tell you that he was the match up the opposing teams were targeting. All through the Vancouver series, whenever he was on the ice, Vagneault tried like hell to get the sedins out against him. Why is that, if he was such a stout player and had a reasonable plus minus? If he were so good, why did Claude essentially limit his minutes as much as he did?

There's a reason he was a plus 8, and it's because CJ didn't put him out in key spots or where he could negatively impact the game for them. So I say they may have won the cup, but again, it was despite having to roll with Kaberle on the backend not because of it.

That trade is a loss for the price they paid alone, and while the cup win certainly makes it more palatable, it doesn't make take away the fact that they grossly overpaid for a player who's contributions were marginal at best.
I never said that he was "so good" and never denied that he had defensive gaffes - I just pointed out that there were actual positive facts that could be argued in his favor, compared to the theoretical "many players" that could have theoretically had a bigger impact, as you suggested.

Plus, couldn't it be as easily argued that these "many other players" could have been even worse and had a negative impact? If we're going to hypothesize how well the unknown players could have played, shouldn't we also consider that they might have been worse?

The B's traded a good (but not great) prospect (and, IMHO, not their best prospect) and traded picks that weren't their highest pick, for a player that played at least a small role in their winning a Cup. They overpaid for Kaberle, but not to an extent that it bothered me.

the overrated is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 02:07 PM
  #35
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
Even if they don't pan out?
Yes, because you're trading futures, which is still an asset even if it's an unknown. The team acquiring knows they may not pan out at the time. How they use the picks or the prospects is up to them, but that doesn't mean they don't have value. What you're doing by judging them after the fact is devaluing them with a little Monday morning quarterbacking. It's not fair to look at it, because they traded the potential pick not who that pick became (or didn't become). You can't discount the value of a pick because the acquiring team chose the wrong guy. They weren't trading for a known commodity, they were trading for the chance of drafting someone who could develop.

LSCII is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 02:09 PM
  #36
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the overrated View Post
I never said that he was "so good" and never denied that he had defensive gaffes - I just pointed out that there were actual positive facts that could be argued in his favor, compared to the theoretical "many players" that could have theoretically had a bigger impact, as you suggested.

Plus, couldn't it be as easily argued that these "many other players" could have been even worse and had a negative impact? If we're going to hypothesize how well the unknown players could have played, shouldn't we also consider that they might have been worse?

The B's traded a good (but not great) prospect (and, IMHO, not their best prospect) and traded picks that weren't their highest pick, for a player that played at least a small role in their winning a Cup. They overpaid for Kaberle, but not to an extent that it bothered me.
That's a fair statement.

LSCII is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 02:11 PM
  #37
kman22
Registered User
 
kman22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the overrated View Post
I never said that he was "so good" and never denied that he had defensive gaffes - I just pointed out that there were actual positive facts that could be argued in his favor, compared to the theoretical "many players" that could have theoretically had a bigger impact, as you suggested.

Plus, couldn't it be as easily argued that these "many other players" could have been even worse and had a negative impact? If we're going to hypothesize how well the unknown players could have played, shouldn't we also consider that they might have been worse?

The B's traded a good (but not great) prospect (and, IMHO, not their best prospect) and traded picks that weren't their highest pick, for a player that played at least a small role in their winning a Cup. They overpaid for Kaberle, but not to an extent that it bothered me.
When he strolled out in front of the net and lost the puck against Tampa, I think that was the most angry I got about the Kaberle deal.

kman22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 02:12 PM
  #38
BrainOfJ
Playoff Odds: 24.6%
 
BrainOfJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: State St.
Country: United States
Posts: 20,022
vCash: 500
Lol...having Rich Peverley and Tomas Kaberle really hurt our cup chances last year.

BrainOfJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 02:16 PM
  #39
BrainOfJ
Playoff Odds: 24.6%
 
BrainOfJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: State St.
Country: United States
Posts: 20,022
vCash: 500
Kaberle didn't fix our power play by any means...but he contributed 11 points(best of all D-men, only one less than Milan Lucic and Peverley) and significantly improved our break out from our own zone. Was he everything we expected? No. Did he contribute to a stanley cup run? yes.

Was the trade made to improve our chances at winning a Stanley Cup? Yes. Did we? Yes.

sounds like a win to me.

BrainOfJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 02:24 PM
  #40
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heelsox View Post
Lol...having Rich Peverley and Tomas Kaberle really hurt our cup chances last year.
Ah yes, the ol' cup win argument when you aren't able to actually articulate a relevant point about something.

Case in point: Someone posts that they overpaid for Kaberle and that he didn't play to the level that was expected based on the cost to obtain. Clearly that means they won a cup, so you're obviously wrong. Question a coaches move here? Well, they won a cup last year, so what do you know? Question a move by the FO? They won a cup, so they clearly know more than you. Question a player? Well they have their name on the cup, so you must be wrong.

Easily the worst argument of all time. Lacking in reason, and relevance, IMO.

Here's a newsflash. Teams can win a cup with players who didn't perform up to expectations. Coaches can still win a cup and make a bad decision. A GM can make a bad trade and still overcome that to be successful.

And the most important thing of all is that it's okay to acknowledge these things. They won't take the cup win away if you say that a deadline deal didn't go the way it was anticipated. They won't scratch off the player's names if you admit the overcame some holes on the roster. It's okay. They already won. If anything, admitting these things is actually more of a testament to the organizational depth created by the FO, the coaching scheme, and dedication of the players to overcome these challenges.

LSCII is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 02:29 PM
  #41
Bruins1993
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 93
vCash: 500
This guys is a joke i guess winning the stanley cup isnt good enough for him

Bruins1993 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 02:31 PM
  #42
BrainOfJ
Playoff Odds: 24.6%
 
BrainOfJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: State St.
Country: United States
Posts: 20,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
Ah yes, the ol' cup win argument when you aren't able to actually articulate a relevant point about something.

Case in point: Someone posts that they overpaid for Kaberle and that he didn't play to the level that was expected based on the cost to obtain. Clearly that means they won a cup, so you're obviously wrong. Question a coaches move here? Well, they won a cup last year, so what do you know? Question a move by the FO? They won a cup, so they clearly know more than you. Question a player? Well they have their name on the cup, so you must be wrong.
How about the leading scorer of all our defenders when the player was brought in to bring offense from the back end? Does that fall under "name on the cup?"


Quote:
Here's a newsflash. Teams can win a cup with players who didn't perform up to expectations. Coaches can still win a cup and make a bad decision. A GM can make a bad trade and still overcome that to be successful.

And the most important thing of all is that it's okay to acknowledge these things. They won't take the cup win away if you say that a deadline deal didn't go the way it was anticipated. They won't scratch off the player's names if you admit the overcame some holes on the roster. It's okay. They already won. If anything, admitting these things is actually more of a testament to the organizational depth created by the FO, the coaching scheme, and dedication of the players to overcome these challenges.
There's no doubt that Kaberle was overpaid for because he didn't fit into our long term plans...but let's be real, other than the 2nd from this year that was conditional...the first and Colborne were expendable assets. We've got a log jam of forward prospects and established NHL players 26 and under, and we already had Toronto's first....so we overpaid to an extent...but we were really playing with house money.


I'm definitely FARRRRRRRR from one of the people who say "Cup=greatest player ever1!!!!" and I hate when people bring up the cup run as an excuse for players...but Kaberle was brought in to improve our chances at a cup, he contributed to a cup run, and we won a cup. If that's a losing trade, then I hope we get absolutely robbed this deadline as well

BrainOfJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 02:33 PM
  #43
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 19,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the overrated View Post
The problem with "could have" scenarios is that they're only a theoretical; in reality, Kaberle was 2nd on the team in assists and was a reasonable +8. I'm more confident with the facts of what happened than in the theories of what might have happened with another player in his place.

The B's overpaid for him, but not to the point that it was a loss, IMHO.



I don't think it was a tough one at all; Stuart would be redundant on this team (with better players at better cap hits, e.g. McQuaid) and I don't think Wheeler being slotted on the 3rd line with Pouliot & Kelly would have created a line as productive as Peverley did with those two. It both helped the team in the short term (as in last year's Cup run) and also in the long run (as in this year.)

I'd do that trade again 1000x over.

Excellent analysis, on all points.

I didn't want Kaberle, and I don't think he was worth trading for, but the bottom line is that they DID win the Cup with him and he DID contribute. Any conjecture about someone else being better is irrelevant at this point. You could play that game all day.

Chiarelli doesn't have to shoot for the moon this time around; I'd guess he's going to attempt to do what he said: add depth at defense (priority) and forward without subtracting. The "big" names are going to be fought over by teams that are more on the desperate/needy side.

Artemis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 02:40 PM
  #44
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 11,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heelsox View Post
......

I'm definitely FARRRRRRRR from one of the people who say "Cup=greatest player ever1!!!!" and I hate when people bring up the cup run as an excuse for players...but Kaberle was brought in to improve our chances at a cup, he contributed to a cup run, and we won a cup. If that's a losing trade, then I hope we get absolutely robbed this deadline as well
I'm not sure I follow this train of thought...

You say you hate it when people bring up the Cup run as an excuse for players, but then you go on to say Kaberle was brought in to improve our chances (as would be the goal of acquiring any player), he "contributed" to a Cup run, and "we won."

Doesn't it boil down to whether his contributions were more positive than negative? So I ask you, given the value the Bruins gave up, IN HINDSIGHT, do you think they could have acquired another player with that talent who would have contributed more? Personally I'd say hell yes. Kaberle was terrible. Revisionist history and a Cup don't change that.

Now, full disclosure, I wanted him too. I supported him as long as I could. I didn't think the deal was fair, but I sensed a bit of a make-up on PC's part to Burke. I'm not going to complain BECAUSE we won a Cup, but I don't think anyone should go so far as to call that trade a win. PC didn't get fair value in talent return in hindsight, and history showed us this team didn't need Kaberle to win. Now you can argue that if you'd like as it's subjective, but in my opinion he did very little for this team. And his points were marginally meaningful...I mean off the top of your head name one big goal/assist he had that sticks out?

IMO that trade was a loss. What might have been underrated in it, though, was the commitment PC showed to the players to make such a move. That might have gone further than what Tomas actually did on the ice.

bp13 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 02:52 PM
  #45
BrainOfJ
Playoff Odds: 24.6%
 
BrainOfJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: State St.
Country: United States
Posts: 20,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
I'm not sure I follow this train of thought...

You say you hate it when people bring up the Cup run as an excuse for players, but then you go on to say Kaberle was brought in to improve our chances (as would be the goal of acquiring any player), he "contributed" to a Cup run, and "we won."
I guess I should clarify, cup run for excuses this year. Like when Krejci struggles, and we hear about "23 in 25!!!!!!!!!!" or when Horton goes missing and everyone says "How can you talk about Horton, he was so clutch!!"...talking about the actual stanley cup run is different.

Quote:
Doesn't it boil down to whether his contributions were more positive than negative? So I ask you, given the value the Bruins gave up, IN HINDSIGHT, do you think they could have acquired another player with that talent who would have contributed more? Personally I'd say hell yes. Kaberle was terrible. Revisionist history and a Cup don't change that.
Tough call, I mean yeah in Hindsight...but in Hindsight, with someone else we also may get eliminated in the first round, or third round, or lose in the cup finals, or maybe we win as well...but the joy is, we don't have to play the what if game.

Quote:
Now, full disclosure, I wanted him too. I supported him as long as I could. I didn't think the deal was fair, but I sensed a bit of a make-up on PC's part to Burke. I'm not going to complain BECAUSE we won a Cup, but I don't think anyone should go so far as to call that trade a win. PC didn't get fair value in talent return in hindsight, and history showed us this team didn't need Kaberle to win. Now you can argue that if you'd like as it's subjective, but in my opinion he did very little for this team. And his points were marginally meaningful...I mean off the top of your head name one big goal/assist he had that sticks out?

IMO that trade was a loss. What might have been underrated in it, though, was the commitment PC showed to the players to make such a move. That might have gone further than what Tomas actually did on the ice.
What sticks out to me truthfully is how much our break out from our own zone improved with Kaberle here, not something that shows up on the stat sheet or anything...but before Kaberle was here, it was absolutely atrocious, and he did improve that. Some times he'd go for a long stretch pass that wouldn't work out and everyone would jump on that, but for the most part, I think that's where he contributed the most outside of his 11 playoff points. The trade was a long term loss for sure, but Chia was in a position where the seat was getting hot for both him and Julien, the fans were getting restless after 2010, The goalie was having the greatest statistical season of all time...and last year was the year to go for it. If I'm in Chia's situation, I gladly give up those assets that IMO were pretty expendable to do whatever it takes to get closer to that cup. They felt that was Kaberle and the goal was achieved.

BrainOfJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 02:55 PM
  #46
Boston Bruno
Registered User
 
Boston Bruno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,133
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=bp13;43687855]I'm not sure I follow this train of thought...


IMO that trade was a loss. What might have been underrated in it, though, was the commitment PC showed to the players to make such a move. That might have gone further than what Tomas actually did on the ice.[/QUOTE]

Agreed on this. After coming off the loss to Philly in that heart break, it sure helped the bruins mentally. Going forward with Kelly Pevs and Kaberle? That speaks volumes on expectations and will to win.

Thomas playing like he was from another universe certainly helped though

Particularly the finals. Crazy.

Oh, and my player of choice this year would be Zidlicky from the wild.. Dog house..should not cost THAT much to aquire..might have the tools we want. Unless Chia wants Shut Down D - then Hal Gill.. (insert sounds of mod with pitchforks and torches)
...

Boston Bruno is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 02:56 PM
  #47
Dellstrom
We Like Eich
 
Dellstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 19,328
vCash: 500
I don't consider the Kaberle trade a huge loss. Tyler Biggs isn't that special, Colborne probably wouldn't have any use either. It was a loss, but he helped us win a cup. Fine by me.

Pevs for Wheeler and Stuart is even at the most. The guy stepped up huge for Horton in the finals.

Dellstrom is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 02:56 PM
  #48
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSCII View Post
Man, the shine coming off that cup is really clouding up some folks view...

I get that he was part of the cup winning team, but what he was brought in to be and what he ended up being were two very different things. He ended up being the worst guy on the bottom pairing, and the price they paid - a top prospect in the organization, a first round pick, and a second round pick - was far to much to pay for a number 5/6 dman.

You can justify it away if it makes you feel better by saying they won the cup, or the players and picks they traded won't amount to anything, but lets at least be honest with ourselves. They didn't pay that type of price for a guy to log 15-16 minutes per night on the bottom pairing, which is what they got from him. It was a bad trade. Period.

That being said though, it's okay. They took a shot and despite it not working out and despite the guy not doing what he was ultimately brought in to do, they won a cup. FWIW, I'd rather the GM took his shot and missed rather than wonder what if, cup win or not.
Kaberle did pretty much what I thought he was going to do. You can say that Colborne, the 30th pick and a late 2nd is too much for Kaberle all you want, but the fact remains he lead our D in points and the team won the Cup.

You can think that's a weak argument all you want, but they added a guy to a championship team without giving up a roster player. That guy contributed.

The goal is to win a Cup, they made moves and the players they brought in contributed to that goal. That's what actually happened. People can say that they could have gotten a better player for that package all they want, but what they can't say is that they would have won the Cup with that player.

I don't know how much clearer I can be.

patty59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 03:06 PM
  #49
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
Kaberle did pretty much what I thought he was going to do. You can say that Colborne, the 30th pick and a late 2nd is too much for Kaberle all you want, but the fact remains he lead our D in points and the team won the Cup.

You can think that's a weak argument all you want, but they added a guy to a championship team without giving up a roster player. That guy contributed.

The goal is to win a Cup, they made moves and the players they brought in contributed to that goal. That's what actually happened. People can say that they could have gotten a better player for that package all they want, but what they can't say is that they would have won the Cup with that player.

I don't know how much clearer I can be.
So you expected Kaberle to be a bottom pairing player? Let's go over why he was brought in:

1. To fix the powper play. Did he do that? No, the PP got even worse with him here.
2. As a legitimate number 2 dman. Did he occupy that role? No. He ended up on the bottom pairing with CJ basically trying to hide him for most of the playoff run.
3. To fix the transition game. Did he? Not really. The team was still hemmed into their end during long parts of games, and I didn't see much impact on breaking into the offensive zone. They still relied on dump and chase, as a matter of fact. If you want to give him partial credit, feel free.
4. Add some offensive production from the back end. Okay, this is the one area where he contributed, IMO, but like BP13 said do you recall any significant scoring plays he was responsible for off the top of your head?

So to me, the Kaberle deal is and will always be a bad trade, IMO. They simply overpaid, cup results not withstanding.

LSCII is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2012, 03:08 PM
  #50
LSCII
Dark Cloud
 
LSCII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central MA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucic View Post
I don't consider the Kaberle trade a huge loss. Tyler Biggs isn't that special, Colborne probably wouldn't have any use either. It was a loss, but he helped us win a cup. Fine by me.

Pevs for Wheeler and Stuart is even at the most. The guy stepped up huge for Horton in the finals.
See, why is this so hard for some to admit though? The deal was a loss, but it's okay because the ends justify the means. Pretty straight forward to me.

The irony is that the same people who are claiming it was a win would have likely be the first to lament the deal had the team not won the cup.

LSCII is online now   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 11:35 AM.

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.