It will probably get moved to the trade thread, but I wish we get Selanne. I just don't understand why so many people think Anaheim will be demanding a lot for him.
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
It will probably get moved to the trade thread, but I wish we get Selanne. I just don't understand why so many people think Anaheim will be demanding a lot for him.
Because he's a PPG player, one of the greatest goal scorers of all time, and the market for rentals is very weak. Presumably there are gonna be a few teams he'll be willing to waive his NTC for, and the cost will likely be steep.
The Kreider example was sarcasm at its finest, first off.
Second, Hall is second on the Oilers in scoring despite having played less games then most. For that Oilers team I would say it is pretty irreplaceable.
Yield to the logic of what fact? Your own eyes make you think that your own logic can even remotely be considered fact. Girardi+ will not get you Taylor Hall. Girardi +++ will not get you Taylor Hall.
We all know Ryan Callahan can score. Is he replaceable? For the right price sure. But you would be hard pressed to find a Rangers fan here who would trade Callahan for anything less then an overpayment that would most likely cause said GM who is making the overpayment to lose his job. Just because the Rangers have an offer for Callahan that would be worth more then Callahans actual worth does not mean the Rangers should make the trade. It is nearly impossible to fathom how you can't seem to understand that logic. For all intensive purposes just assume that Taylor Hall is EDM's version of Callahan except with a higher offensive ceiling.
You and a handful of others insist on not facing facts:
"As to Hall:
The issue is NOT whether or not he is productive, BUT WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN BE REPLACED, AND IS THE VALUE RECEIVED WORTH MORE TO OILERS."
That is what should be critical for EO, and they put Hall on the table we should grab him if the pieces are right.
There is a level of overpayment for Hall which we can live with, and should do, because even at overpayment, overpayment comes with the territory and is reality for getting a pre-elite sniper.
As said, Oilers should do this, because they have enough snipers they can employ.
Unless you can successful argue against the above, I'll hold to my position, and chide you for criticizing me.
It can't be helped some people here won't actually move Girardi + under (virtually) any conditions.
It can't be helped some people there won't actually move Hall under (virtually) any conditions.
The point is in theory it can be done, and my proposal does fit mutual needs (D+ for EO, sniper for NYR). The only ? is are the pieces arguably a win win for both.
You and a handful of others insist on not facing facts:
"As to Hall:
The issue is NOT whether or not he is productive, BUT WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN BE REPLACED, AND IS THE VALUE RECEIVED WORTH MORE TO OILERS."
That is what should be critical for EO, and they put Hall on the table we should grab him if the pieces are right.
There is a level of overpayment for Hall which we can live with, and should do, because even at overpayment, overpayment comes with the territory and is reality for getting a pre-elite sniper.
As said, Oilers should do this, because they have enough snipers they can employ.
Unless you can successful argue against the above, I'll hold to my position, and chide you for criticizing me.
It can't be helped some people here won't actually move Girardi + under (virtually) any conditions.
It can't be helped some people there won't actually move Hall under (virtually) any conditions.
The point is in theory it can be done, and my proposal does fit mutual needs (D+ for EO, sniper for NYR). The only ? is are the pieces arguably a win win for both.
Im glad you think you are that special but IMO I have already successfully argued against your position. Good day.
What derails your argument from the beginning is the fact that you actually think Hall would be on the table. It would take such a large overpayment to pry him away since Hall is not on the trade from that it could not be worth it for the NYR in any way. I fail to see how that is hard to understand.
that's the problem. We need to keep those Dmen who can play 13 minutes a game. Less time for them = more time for G and McD, which is already crazy in itself.
Taylor Hall will be an Oiler for a long time. Deal with it.
When was the last time, in the history of the NHL, that a team traded their #1 D (++) for a winger when they were leading the entire NHL in winning % after 50+ games?
I think the bottom line here is that if you like Taylor Hall that much then you should get Center Ice and watch Oilers games. He's not coming to NY any time soon. This is all pure fantasy and terribly pointless.
Either Rangers will get another sniper elsewhere, making Hall acquisition less valuable, OR NOT
AND
Oilers will get other All Star shut down D + from elsewhere OR NOT
Unless/until those things happen, the proposed deal serves a function, and useful to the club(s), so it is not all pure fantasy/pointless.
Im glad you think you are that special but IMO I have already successfully argued against your position. Good day.
What derails your argument from the beginning is the fact that you actually think Hall would be on the table. It would take such a large overpayment to pry him away since Hall is not on the trade from that it could not be worth it for the NYR in any way. I fail to see how that is hard to understand.
Can I take your remarks to mean you acknowledge Hall could be on the table IFIFIFIFIFIFIF there was enough overpayment?
This logic is core to my argument.
If you want to disagree about the pieces to the trade being too much or not enough overpayment, that's fine and open to discussion.
As explained, Hall is not the only sniper there, so an argument can be made if the return is generous enough, and especially if it is complementary enough to their needs, there is a point at which they make a deal and I believe my deal is should be viewed as so adequately beneficial, except by those who have an emotional attachment to a player, and not an intellectual pursuit of improving their team.
Either Rangers will get another sniper elsewhere, making Hall acquisition less valuable, OR NOT
AND
Oilers will get other All Star shut down D + from elsewhere OR NOT
Unless/until those things happen, the proposed deal serves a function, and useful to the club(s), so it is not all pure fantasy/pointless.
Again:
When was the last time, in the history of the NHL, that a team traded their #1 D (++) for a winger when they were leading the entire NHL in winning % after 50+ games?
Again: Trading away your best defenseman when you're leading your division, your conference, and the entire league in winning % along with ANOTHER top 4 defenseman (and picks or whatever else you were adding to it) makes no sense for the Rangers no matter how many goals Taylor is on pace to score this year. Hall is the face of the franchise in Edmonton, unless they want to have riots in the streets, he's not going ANYWHERE. Math equations, rationalization about how it could help both teams, etc... doesn't change the fact that it's simply not going to happen no matter how much you try to convince yourself (and others) that it's somehow better for both teams.
As I said, barring injury Kreider + next Dave Keon, unless he develops a superior shot, then he could = next Pavel Bure.
Those are not outlandish statements.
Kreider already demonstrates good size and huge terrific speed.
It is not a given, but there is no reason to automatically discount the kid's future.
Outlandish doesn't even begin to describe it. There's a huge difference between automatically discounting his future and comparing him to Pavel Bure, particularly since your comparison exhibits a complete ignorance to what made Pavel Bure the player that he was. Hint: it wasn't just his speed and his shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister
Either Rangers will get another sniper elsewhere, making Hall acquisition less valuable, OR NOT
AND
Oilers will get other All Star shut down D + from elsewhere OR NOT
Unless/until those things happen, the proposed deal serves a function, and useful to the club(s), so it is not all pure fantasy/pointless.
that's the problem. We need to keep those Dmen who can play 13 minutes a game. Less time for them = more time for G and McD, which is already crazy in itself.
Taylor Hall will be an Oiler for a long time. Deal with it.
"... that's the problem. We need to keep those Dmen who can play 13 minutes a game. Less time for them = more time for G and McD, which is already crazy in itself. ...."
As to what you said, I'm a bit confused.
I think you had it reversed. Less time DG/McD = more time for them.
But we have the benefit of Hall improving offense making D easier / more time of possession in other end. And we have enough IMO to get by for now.....
As to what I think you meant, I disagree. Erixon can cover the lion's share of #4, and will be play better with increased minutes. He has the physical skills and enough to be a 4 here.
1 or 2, I agree is pushing it, but he valued at a top 10ish projected draft pick compares favorably with McDonagh in that regard, and while there's no guarantee Erixon will mature as fast as McD, he will hold down the 4th.
We can go by committee for a few more minutes per game, assuming no pickup, which can't be that difficult to get an improvement at 5 or 6, for balance of the year.
We then have both trade and promotion options.
"Taylor Hall will be an Oiler for a long time. Deal with it."
Probably.
But they may yet consider my generous offer.
When was the last time, in the history of the NHL, that a team traded their #1 D (++) for a winger when they were leading the entire NHL in winning % after 50+ games?
Again: Trading away your best defenseman when you're leading your division, your conference, and the entire league in winning % along with ANOTHER top 4 defenseman (and picks or whatever else you were adding to it) makes no sense for the Rangers no matter how many goals Taylor is on pace to score this year. Hall is the face of the franchise in Edmonton, unless they want to have riots in the streets, he's not going ANYWHERE. Math equations, rationalization about how it could help both teams, etc... doesn't change the fact that it's simply not going to happen no matter how much you try to convince yourself (and others) that it's somehow better for both teams.
It is in fact better for both teams, given Oiler needs, and Ranger pathetic offense/PP; also you'd have a well rested Staal taking over those minutes, so yes, there is loss on D, to which I admit, but there is also offset, which you fail to acknowledge.
Outlandish doesn't even begin to describe it. There's a huge difference between automatically discounting his future and comparing him to Pavel Bure, particularly since your comparison exhibits a complete ignorance to what made Pavel Bure the player that he was. Hint: it wasn't just his speed and his shot.
That's exactly what it is.
Agree to disagree, respectfully.
Hagelin has made me look good.
I was not alone in pressing for his arrival.
I have been, however, the one most solidly heralding Kreider's potential stardom.
Shall we give it 2 years and both hope for NYR sakes he REALLY makes me look good?
My record is good.
Trade Roszi resulting in accelerated development of McD, MDZ
Showing a lack of understanding of cause and effect? McDonagh's accelerated development is not a result of trading Rozsival. Trading Rozsival was a result of McDonagh's accelerated development. Del Zotto, on the other hand, did not benefit at all from trading Rozsival, as he was still stalled in his development and eventually sent down/hurt after Rozsival's departure. Del Zotto's accelerated development happened because he grew up, simple as that. Yes, this happened after Rozsival was gone, but you're making the mistake of assuming that because one event follows another, that event was caused by the other. It's a fallacy.
So, beyond bringing up Hagelin, what about your record is good and how do those things apply to your ability to realistically and accurately assess the probability and value of a trade? I mean, I was clamoring for players to make the 3rd line more dynamic from the beginning of the season right up until Mitchell and Hagelin got called up (and actually, I'm still clamoring for one more player to have the same effect). Does that somehow make my understanding of the trade market excellent? Another fallacy.
bern, based on things you've said in the past, you put equal stock in creativity as realism in your proposals. Thinking outside the box really only works well if you're the one making the actions. And that's the biggest frustration with your proposals. They're all "this is what I would do if I were the Rangers," ignoring all other factors. Most of the rest of us try to say "this player is rumored to be available and here's how I think Sather would have to go about acquiring this player" followed by "I think it's worth it" or "I don't think it's worth it."
Taylor Hall is not available and will not be available and even if he was, no package that would get him would be worth it for this team. Simple as that.
"... that's the problem. We need to keep those Dmen who can play 13 minutes a game. Less time for them = more time for G and McD, which is already crazy in itself. ...."
As to what you said, I'm a bit confused.
I think you had it reversed. Less time DG/McD = more time for them.
But we have the benefit of Hall improving offense making D easier / more time of possession in other end. And we have enough IMO to get by for now.....
As to what I think you meant, I disagree. Erixon can cover the lion's share of #4, and will be play better with increased minutes. He has the physical skills and enough to be a 4 here.
1 or 2, I agree is pushing it, but he valued at a top 10ish projected draft pick compares favorably with McDonagh in that regard, and while there's no guarantee Erixon will mature as fast as McD, he will hold down the 4th.
We can go by committee for a few more minutes per game, assuming no pickup, which can't be that difficult to get an improvement at 5 or 6, for balance of the year.
We then have both trade and promotion options.
"Taylor Hall will be an Oiler for a long time. Deal with it."
Probably.
But they may yet consider my generous offer.
No. I did not have it wrong. If your 5/6 Dmen play 8 minutes, instead of maybe 15, that's a much bigger toll on G and McD over a long stretch.
And as someone mentioned, Hall is the face of the franchise, someone they will build around. And if they knew anything, they would pick a Dman, not another forward at next year's draft.
Are the Capitals trading Ovi? No.
Would the Penguins ever trade a healthy Crosby? No.
Would we ever trade Lundqvist? No.
So why would EDM trade Hall?
It is you, my friends with the mancrush on Girardi , that are ignoring reality.
PS
Math equations are real.
Yea youre right i have a mancrush on our best defenseman on the team. What a terrible thing to have. You are a clown. Spare yourself the embarassment and stop with these ridiculous posts
It is in fact better for both teams, given Oiler needs, and Ranger pathetic offense/PP; also you'd have a well rested Staal taking over those minutes, so yes, there is loss on D, to which I admit, but there is also offset, which you fail to acknowledge.
Again (3rd request):
When was the last time, in the history of the NHL, that a team traded their #1 D (++) for a winger when they were leading the entire NHL in winning % after 50+ games?
I'm not "failing to acknowledge" anything, other than the facts and you're failing to acknowledge the most important thing: REALITY.
(NYR) There's no reason on earth the Rangers would trade away 50% of their top 4 defenseman when they are leading the league in <gasp> defense and winning %. It makes no sense. Trade away your best D when you're thinking about a deep playoff run. Maybe the Wings are looking to move Lidstrom, too. Get real.
(EDM) First pick overall, huge upside, franchise-type forward with huge growth potential that will only bite them in the ass down the road. There no reason to trade him. He's 20 years old, making under $4 million/year and he's on the perfect team to grow on. Little pressure, lots of young teammates, and a bright future.
, that are ignoring reality.
