HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Notices

Chi - SJ

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-09-2012, 01:14 PM
  #1
TurdFerguson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 744
vCash: 500
Chi - SJ

Hawks fan here. Curious to know what SJ fans think of this:

Chi gets: Pavelski

SJ gets: Bolland, Stalberg

In looking at the needs of both teams, Hawks need a 2nd line center who can win faceoffs. Also a bonus that he's a righty.

SJ needs a better 3rd line and gets arguably the best 3rd line shutdown center in the game. They also get Stalberg, who has the speed and size to chase down the puck in the corner. Not saying he's a legitimate 1st line winger, but he'd likely make his biggest impact with Thornton.

All of these players can score goals, Pavelski obviously being the best at it so far.

Haven't checked this with other Hawks fans yet, but i figured this would be the better place to ask. Feel free to tell me everything that's wrong with this.

TurdFerguson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 01:16 PM
  #2
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 47,356
vCash: 500
Pavelski for Sharp & Stalberg. Overpayment by the Hawks but the only way I would trade Pavs. Don't see a point in exchanging an elite 2nd line center or a good first line winger for two third liners, no matter how good at their jobs they are.

Anyways, neither will ever happen. I don't think Chicago and SJ are good trading partners. The offer sheet probably adds up to that.

Kitten Mittons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 01:34 PM
  #3
TheJuxtaposer
Lost a bet
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,007
vCash: 567
A top prospect instead of Stalberg. I do like Bolland though.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 01:42 PM
  #4
TurdFerguson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
A top prospect instead of Stalberg. I do like Bolland though.
Honestly surprised you'd want a top prospect instead of Stalberg. I was under the impression that SJ was in "win now" mode. What kind of prospect?

TurdFerguson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 01:53 PM
  #5
vilpertti
Registered User
 
vilpertti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurdFerguson View Post
Honestly surprised you'd want a top prospect instead of Stalberg. I was under the impression that SJ was in "win now" mode. What kind of prospect?
Sharks are, people on this forum aren't really affiliated with the team and this being a prospect-focused board by title, it's no surprise there is a bias towards prospects among many of the people posting here.

vilpertti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 01:58 PM
  #6
BigDmitriy
Registered User
 
BigDmitriy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 977
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BigDmitriy Send a message via MSN to BigDmitriy Send a message via Yahoo to BigDmitriy
Yeah, I think I'd only trade Pavs for Bolland + a top prospect (ie Saad). Would Chicago do it? Otherwise, I'd probably also do Sharp + Stalberg

BigDmitriy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 02:12 PM
  #7
TurdFerguson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDmitriy View Post
Yeah, I think I'd only trade Pavs for Bolland + a top prospect (ie Saad). Would Chicago do it? Otherwise, I'd probably also do Sharp + Stalberg
I'd counter with Bolland and Morin. I don't think you'd get favorable responses from many Hawk fans when asking for Sharp and Stalberg though.

TurdFerguson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 02:29 PM
  #8
sharski
Registered User
 
sharski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,342
vCash: 500
IMO, I would not do it as Sharks GM, because Pavs is a good top-6 player on a good contract who brings almost everything you want in a player... I'd only trade him for a clear and too-good-to-pass-up upgrade in talent, not depth

sharski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 03:08 PM
  #9
JayP812
The Team of Tomorrow
 
JayP812's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bay Area
Country: United States
Posts: 5,797
vCash: 449
Not bad, Stalberg partially makes up for the offense we lose, Bolland replaces Pavs' defensive ability. I'd have to think about it.

JayP812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 03:40 PM
  #10
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurdFerguson View Post
Honestly surprised you'd want a top prospect instead of Stalberg. I was under the impression that SJ was in "win now" mode. What kind of prospect?
The Sharks would want Stalberg not a prospect. They are in win now mode but some posters here don't realize it. ;P

I would do this trade even though I would detest giving up Pavs. We'd have to at least include a pick though I think. I doubt CHi does this trade as you listed. Too lopsided.


Last edited by NWShark*: 09-09-2012 at 04:17 PM.
NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 03:42 PM
  #11
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDmitriy View Post
Yeah, I think I'd only trade Pavs for Bolland + a top prospect (ie Saad). Would Chicago do it? Otherwise, I'd probably also do Sharp + Stalberg
This is ridiculous. Sharp is probably worth more than Pavs.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 03:54 PM
  #12
sjshark91
Registered User
 
sjshark91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 23,553
vCash: 2810
No thanks.

sjshark91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 03:55 PM
  #13
Vaasa
Registered User
 
Vaasa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
The Sharks would want Stalberg not a prospect. They are in win now mode but some posters here don't realize it. ;P

I would do this trade even though I would detest giving up Pavs. We'd have to at least include a pic though I think. I doubt CHi does this trade as you listed. Too lopsided.
Really? I love Bolland, but I wouldn't do this deal at all. Bolland + Stahlberg do not = Pavelski, let along = more than Pavelski. Especially when you take contracts into consideration. Stahlberg only has 1 year left until UFA at which he's going to want a significant raise over the $850k he's making now. Bolland is a UFA in 2 years and already making nearly $4 mil. So Pavs at $4 mil for 2 years is definitely a better option than both for ~$4.5 mil. Especially considering Pavs will likely re-sign at a decent price (he's getting a raise, but will sign for less than UFA money IMO). And there has to be a chance that Chicago would make Stahlberg available anyway for a pick or prospect if they think he won't re-sign. Given that his brother just joined the Sharks org, there is a decent chance he would consider coming here as a UFA no matter what.

So in the end, it sucks for the Sharks. No way I move Pavs unless it's a massive overpayment. And this isn't even a fair offer, or overpayment, let alone massive overpayment.

Vaasa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 04:22 PM
  #14
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaasa View Post
Really? I love Bolland, but I wouldn't do this deal at all. Bolland + Stahlberg do not = Pavelski, let along = more than Pavelski. Especially when you take contracts into consideration. Stahlberg only has 1 year left until UFA at which he's going to want a significant raise over the $850k he's making now. Bolland is a UFA in 2 years and already making nearly $4 mil. So Pavs at $4 mil for 2 years is definitely a better option than both for ~$4.5 mil. Especially considering Pavs will likely re-sign at a decent price (he's getting a raise, but will sign for less than UFA money IMO). And there has to be a chance that Chicago would make Stahlberg available anyway for a pick or prospect if they think he won't re-sign. Given that his brother just joined the Sharks org, there is a decent chance he would consider coming here as a UFA no matter what.

So in the end, it sucks for the Sharks. No way I move Pavs unless it's a massive overpayment. And this isn't even a fair offer, or overpayment, let alone massive overpayment.
You're probably right, I didn't even look at the contracts. I was just looking at the talent trade. I would rather not move Pavs but getting what I consider an elite 3rd line center and a player who will still probably develop into a top 6er looks like a good deal to me.

Also, we can hope but you don't know for sure Pavs takes a discount next time. He knows his worth and there should be money available with other contracts coming off the books. I bet he gets 6 million unless the new CBA knocks the cap down significantly.


Last edited by NWShark*: 09-09-2012 at 04:38 PM.
NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 04:40 PM
  #15
murdock1116
Registered User
 
murdock1116's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
This is actually a pretty good trade proposal. If the Sharks were to do it, we would have a really balanced roster from top to bottom. Don't know if I would do it, but would certainly think about it.

Marleau - Thornton - Stalberg
Clowe - Couture - Havlat
Galiardi - Bolland - Wingels
? - Desjardins - Burish

Vlasic - Burns
Stuart - Boyle
Murray - Braun

Niemi

murdock1116 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 05:32 PM
  #16
BigDmitriy
Registered User
 
BigDmitriy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 977
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BigDmitriy Send a message via MSN to BigDmitriy Send a message via Yahoo to BigDmitriy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaasa View Post

So in the end, it sucks for the Sharks. No way I move Pavs unless it's a massive overpayment. And this isn't even a fair offer, or overpayment, let alone massive overpayment.
Precisely...the reason I said Sharp + Stalberg is because that = an overpayment. Otherwise, why the Sharks do it?

BigDmitriy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 06:27 PM
  #17
Squeeven
Registered User
 
Squeeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,512
vCash: 500
As much as Bolland and Stalberg would help give us amazing 2nd and 3rd lines, the Hawks having 2 of the top 3 leaders in faceoffs sounds just as bad, lol...no deal. Maaaaybe something like:

SJ gets:
Patrick Sharp
Brandon Saad


Chicago gets:
Pavelksi
John Mccarthy


I think that sounds kinda fair to me? But that would be tough for me to trade Pavelski, even for that.

Squeeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 06:29 PM
  #18
Winky
Registered User
 
Winky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeeven View Post
As much as Bolland and Stalberg would help give us amazing 2nd and 3rd lines, the Hawks having 2 of the top 3 leaders in faceoffs sounds just as bad, lol...no deal. Maaaaybe something like:

SJ gets:
Patrick Sharp
Brandon Saad


Chicago gets:
Pavelksi
John Mccarthy


I think that sounds kinda fair to me? But that would be tough for me to trade Pavelski, even for that.
It isn't close to being fair. Sharp is overpayment for Pavs, but, as others have said, that's what it would take from a Sharks POV. Pavs brings too much to the table to trade for a couple of third liners.

Winky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 06:42 PM
  #19
BigDmitriy
Registered User
 
BigDmitriy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 977
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BigDmitriy Send a message via MSN to BigDmitriy Send a message via Yahoo to BigDmitriy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winky View Post
It isn't close to being fair. Sharp is overpayment for Pavs, but, as others have said, that's what it would take from a Sharks POV. Pavs brings too much to the table to trade for a couple of third liners.
I agree with this.

BigDmitriy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 06:53 PM
  #20
sjWHOOP
Registered User
 
sjWHOOP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 68
vCash: 500
id personally probably do this trade. definitely ups the sharks offensive depth incase a top 6th player gets injured and either 2 can easily fill in the position. last year the sharks were definitely hurting when havlat was out and wingles stepped in.

but i also just really love bolland and a player like him is exactly what we need in the bottom 6, so when the top 6 isn't producing in the playoffs someone from the bottom 6 could step up for the first time in sharks history

sjWHOOP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 07:07 PM
  #21
Arrch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NorCal
Country: United States
Posts: 4,294
vCash: 50
Last time this came up, it seemed like a lot of Hawks fans wouldn't trade Bolland for Pavelski straight up.

Arrch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 08:31 PM
  #22
TheJuxtaposer
Lost a bet
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,007
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurdFerguson View Post
Honestly surprised you'd want a top prospect instead of Stalberg. I was under the impression that SJ was in "win now" mode. What kind of prospect?
Well, let me amend that to "NHL-ready forward prospect". Because I'm not all that impressed with Stalberg, not to mention the fact that he's almost a UFA. The only reason I think some are okay is because we have Stalberg's brother.

But I think that a third line of Burish-Bolland-Wingels could be an elite defensive line and could definitely pop some goals. The could take on the secondaries and leave Couture super sheltered in prime-o offensive minutes.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 10:34 PM
  #23
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Well, let me amend that to "NHL-ready forward prospect". Because I'm not all that impressed with Stalberg, not to mention the fact that he's almost a UFA. The only reason I think some are okay is because we have Stalberg's brother.

But I think that a third line of Burish-Bolland-Wingels could be an elite defensive line and could definitely pop some goals. The could take on the secondaries and leave Couture super sheltered in prime-o offensive minutes.
Ok I'm with you now. Yes that 3rd line would be scary good.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 10:14 AM
  #24
hateseed
TentacleGrapeSoda
 
hateseed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Coastal California
Posts: 457
vCash: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrch View Post
Last time this came up, it seemed like a lot of Hawks fans wouldn't trade Bolland for Pavelski straight up.
hate to say it, but this ^^^^

hateseed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 01:07 PM
  #25
Trojan35
Registered User
 
Trojan35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
You know what else improves the 3rd line? Putting Pavelski there.


I don't get why people would want to trade top 6 players on discounted contracts for one or two 3rd liners on market value contracts. The only way Pavelski moves is if a better talent is coming back, or the sharks are trying to reload for the future (prospects). And as we established, no reason for the Hawks to move Sharp for Pavelski.

Trojan35 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 02:58 AM.

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.