HFBoards

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

Larsson for the 3rd overall pick... Yes or no.

View Poll Results: Are we a better team with Larsson or MacKinnon/Drouin?
Trade Larsson for MacKinnon/Drouin + pick BPA with 9th overall pick 28 25.69%
Stay "status quo": Keep Larsson and pick Shinkaruk/Domi (or BPA) 81 74.31%
Voters: 109. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-27-2013, 07:11 AM
  #1
DEVILS ALL THE WAY*
Yes, I'm a hypocrite
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,477
vCash: 500
Larsson for the 3rd overall pick... Yes or no.

I've been posting the idea of moving Larsson for the 3rd overall pick in this years draft, wich would be one of MacKinnon or Drouin and wanted to get the vibe of our entire board instead of having a single post in a thread of that carries about 35 pages.

Here's why I'd consider such a move...

I know no one wants to move Larsson but we can really change the face of this team going forward if we were to make a trade with Tampa for that 3rd overall pick.

Lets not be foolish here, the cost would be extremely high, as it should be. With that said, Tampa would probably ask for Larsson and I'd be in favour of flipping Drouin for Larsson, leaving us with Probably the 2nd or 3rd best d-man in the draft at #9 with Ristolainen, Nurse or Zadorov or we can trade down and land Pulock or Morrissey while landing a extra pick.

I love Larsson but Drouin, or MacKinnon for that matter, will be game changers and with what we have in the pipeline... I think we'd be a much more competitive team with Drouin/MacKinnon + Ristolainen/Nurse/Zadorov instead of Larsson + Shinkaruk/Domi.

Just my opinion.

DEVILS ALL THE WAY* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 07:13 AM
  #2
NJDEVIL
Registered User
 
NJDEVIL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
I'm with you on this one. We don't need larsson we need mackinnon or drouin. In fact I'll go on to say if we don;t trade him, he might be our biggest mistake at the draft ever considering who was available.

NJDEVIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 07:20 AM
  #3
hlaverty06
Registered User
 
hlaverty06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NJ all day
Country: United States
Posts: 7,280
vCash: 500
I would do our pick+Henrique to move up

We have a really promising young guy in Larsson and yes Henrique is clutch but I'm not totally sold on him...Slot drouin in immediately where Henrique was and bam him + Kovy+Loktionov

hlaverty06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 07:41 AM
  #4
Yashintangibles
6 Million Dollar Man
 
Yashintangibles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: At The Bank
Country: Yugoslavia
Posts: 3,598
vCash: 500
In the next 3 years most of our current NHL defensive corps is gone, I also believe Larsson is on the verge of a breakout season. There's no indication yet he can't be a top pairing dman. Think long-term, our needs tomorrow could be totally different from today's, I don't want Lou to trade Larsson.

Yashintangibles is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 08:01 AM
  #5
Nick0930
Registered User
 
Nick0930's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,233
vCash: 500
In a perfect world I'd trade Larsson, Henrique, picks, prospects and others (D'ags, Tallinder) for the #2 AND #3 pick. Instant chemistry with Drouin and Mackinnon.

Nick0930 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 08:18 AM
  #6
Saugus
Ecrasez l'infame!
 
Saugus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 97,441
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saugus
I think it's a crazy idea. Larsson is the foundation of our future defensive corps. He is not being traded for a pick. Not even a top 5 pick.

All it does is lose a guy we have developed for two years, and replace him with a guy whose development clock is at zero. Lou refused to give up the 29th pick because he didn't want to do that, what makes you think he will do it in this situation?

Saugus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 08:28 AM
  #7
åboriginal
lou ****ing sucks
 
åboriginal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LV-426
Country: Finland
Posts: 24,027
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to åboriginal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus View Post
I think it's a crazy idea. Larsson is the foundation of our future defensive corps. He is not being traded for a pick. Not even a top 5 pick.

All it does is lose a guy we have developed for two years, and replace him with a guy whose development clock is at zero. Lou refused to give up the 29th pick because he didn't want to do that, what makes you think he will do it in this situation?
My opinion as well

åboriginal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 08:30 AM
  #8
BrodeursCups
Zajac flat out sucks
 
BrodeursCups's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: NoDak now NYC area
Country: United States
Posts: 29,843
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BrodeursCups
If MacKinnon is sitting there at 3 I'd have to think VERY hard bout this. The guy does it all and will be a star in this league. I was in awe watching him last night..

It'd be a tough decision because I agree with yashin in that Larsson is going to break out soon. I really love the Greene/ Larsson pairing..

BrodeursCups is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 08:35 AM
  #9
KaossKing
Pacing Well
 
KaossKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,820
vCash: 50
Absolutely not. we could keep Larsson and have a defensive jewel, and draft a young Shinkaruk/Domi with potential to be an offensive star

KaossKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 08:50 AM
  #10
njdevsfn95
Help Vas, Sprite.
 
njdevsfn95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 29,379
vCash: 500
Larsson has the tools.

Trading him to acquire a player with a little more seems kind of counterproductive. Trade someone else to acquire him? Sure but when you could pair this guy up with Larsson, why not?

njdevsfn95 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 09:41 AM
  #11
sbresistor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,012
vCash: 500
no way bird in the hand is better than what's in the bush

sbresistor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 10:05 AM
  #12
B A T M A N
Risen
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Gotham
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,433
vCash: 500
Larsson was a fourth overall pick not long ago. What happens if this #3 overall player doesn't perform well either? Do we instantly entertain the thought of moving him for a future #2 overall player?

And on and on until we get a #1 overall player? Talk about silly.

B A T M A N is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 10:06 AM
  #13
B A T M A N
Risen
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Gotham
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbresistor View Post
no way bird in the hand is better than what's in the bush
What if there's a Dragonite lurking in the bush?

B A T M A N is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 10:09 AM
  #14
Unknown Caller
Registered User
 
Unknown Caller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Notre Dame, IN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus View Post
I think it's a crazy idea. Larsson is the foundation of our future defensive corps. He is not being traded for a pick. Not even a top 5 pick.

All it does is lose a guy we have developed for two years, and replace him with a guy whose development clock is at zero. Lou refused to give up the 29th pick because he didn't want to do that, what makes you think he will do it in this situation?
Exactly. It will just be a ridiculous cycle. In 2 years when MacKinnon isn't a 30 goal scorer and we lack a true #1 defenseman, we'll have the same thread about whether we should trade him for the next trending top 3 pick. Just stop and be patient with your prospects. 2 years ago this whole board was salivating over Larsson and most people would have taken him even if we had the first overall pick. Now at 20 years old with over 100 games played, we want to trade him? The logic has gone out the window.

Unknown Caller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 10:11 AM
  #15
Nick0930
Registered User
 
Nick0930's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Caller View Post
Exactly. It will just be a ridiculous cycle. In 2 years when MacKinnon isn't a 30 goal scorer and we lack a true #1 defenseman, we'll have the same thread about whether we should trade him for the next trending top 3 pick. Just stop and be patient with your prospects. 2 years ago this whole board was salivating over Larsson and most people would have taken him even if we had the first overall pick. Now at 20 years old with over 100 games played, we want to trade him?
Two years ago Elias wasn't 2 years closer to retirement and we had Parise. We have lots of D prospects and in my mind it would be tough passing up on the chance of having a top line guy AND a potential top 6 forward.

Nick0930 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 10:12 AM
  #16
Unknown Caller
Registered User
 
Unknown Caller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Notre Dame, IN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick0930 View Post
Two years ago Elias wasn't 2 years closer to retirement and we had Parise.
So fill your needs through free agency or trades. What happens in two years when our defense sucks? Do we trade MacKinnon for a top 3 defensive pick again?

Unknown Caller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 10:35 AM
  #17
apice3*
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middletown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 18,520
vCash: 500
HF, where we trade young talent for younger talent because it's younger.

I think we should trade Larsson for the 3rd overall pick, personally. We need a stud forward. Then in 2015, we trade Drouin for the 2nd overall pick because we need a stud D-man. Then in 2017, we trade that player for the #1 overall pick because we need a stud forward. Then in 2019, we move to Quebec for being so stupid.

apice3* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 11:00 AM
  #18
Ripshot 43
Registered User
 
Ripshot 43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 4,761
vCash: 500
Lol, I'll never get why people have to try to get little jabs in at the question or thread starter.

I can see why you would want to get Mac or Drouin but I'm about just as excited to see Larsson next year. Year 3 and 4 of a young Ds development is where you will really start to see large strides in development. I think he's already a top 4 D and the future of our D no matter who else is in the pipeline. Merril, Gelinas and the others might not make it at all, so I don't count on them.

I think both forwards will be very good but I also think Larsson will be and I wouldn't trade away the two hard years of development this team has worked on with him.

Ripshot 43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 11:01 AM
  #19
Unknown Caller
Registered User
 
Unknown Caller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Notre Dame, IN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick0930 View Post
Two years ago Elias wasn't 2 years closer to retirement and we had Parise. We have lots of D prospects and in my mind it would be tough passing up on the chance of having a top line guy AND a potential top 6 forward.
None of our defensive prospects project to be on Larsson's level. Do we have some nice pieces? Sure. But none of them have elite potential like Larsson does. Trading him just because our offensive pipeline needs to be replenished would be a huge mistake. What defensive prospect are you counting on to turn into a number one defenseman if we traded Larsson?

Unknown Caller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 11:04 AM
  #20
Traitor Zach
Waive Gionta
 
Traitor Zach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Northeast
Country: United States
Posts: 2,341
vCash: 500
Swapping Larsson for #3 is risky, because you don't know what your options at #9 are going to pan out as due to the higher draft order before that pick. This isn't a regular trade where you are looking to acquire NHL assets for NHL assets.

We know the potential with Larsson is there and that he's absolutely capable of playing at a respectable level in the NHL with the potential for a really high ceiling and he's still ONLY 20 going on 21.

You're playing a risky game of draft roulette in looking to acquire two young but high ceiling talents. And who knows what we do at #9 based on all the above. If we deal Larsson do we automatically feel obligated to go D at #9 to replace him? What if we like another forward? Do we take them instead?

Either way I don't see it happening. I think all options are on the table and it wouldn't surprise me to see Lou active at the draft, but dealing Larsson is the last thing I expect to have happen. Trading up, trading back, wouldn't stun me. Making a separate deal or two wouldn't either.

Traitor Zach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 11:54 AM
  #21
Zajacs Bowl Cut
Nova Nation
 
Zajacs Bowl Cut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southampton, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 38,017
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Zajacs Bowl Cut Send a message via Yahoo to Zajacs Bowl Cut
absolutely, positively, not.

Zajacs Bowl Cut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 12:13 PM
  #22
AfroThunder396
Lou's Secret Sauce
 
AfroThunder396's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 21,586
vCash: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Caller View Post
So fill your needs through free agency or trades. What happens in two years when our defense sucks? Do we trade MacKinnon for a top 3 defensive pick again?
What were Lou's biggest free agent splashes since the lockout?

Volchenkov (yuck)
Rolston (double yuck)
Tallinder (meh)
Zubrus (only signing universally considered to be good)
Sykora (literally no risk)
Hedberg (whatever)

Then we get into Asham/Vishnevski/Holik territory.

Lou doesn't get into bidding wars, and NJ isn't a terribly attractive place for UFA's to sign. As long as he keeps up the bargain bin mentality, don't expect us to fill any holes via trade or UFA.

Lou uses UFA to supplement a core he builds through the draft. Loktionov was a one time fleecing, we can't expect to continue getting new talent that way.

AfroThunder396 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 12:17 PM
  #23
Zajacs Bowl Cut
Nova Nation
 
Zajacs Bowl Cut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southampton, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 38,017
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Zajacs Bowl Cut Send a message via Yahoo to Zajacs Bowl Cut
Rolston was not considered yuck at the time. literally half the league wanted him.

its not like he paid a random guy a bunch of money for no reason.

Zajacs Bowl Cut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 12:23 PM
  #24
AfroThunder396
Lou's Secret Sauce
 
AfroThunder396's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 21,586
vCash: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zajacs Bowl Cut View Post
Rolston was not considered yuck at the time. literally half the league wanted him.

its not like he paid a random guy a bunch of money for no reason.
Rolston the player, yeah, but signing a +35 guy to a four year deal was a major red flag that a lot of us chose to selectively ignore.

Even then, Rolston only chose to come back to NJ because of his relationship with Lou. He turned down better offers to come here because he had history. If he hadn't played here previously, he never would have come back to NJ.

AfroThunder396 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2013, 12:35 PM
  #25
apice3*
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middletown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 18,520
vCash: 500
Didn't Rolston start off pretty hot and then saw his career practically end after a knee injury?

Some contracts you can tell are awful from day 1: Richards, Bryzgalov, etc.

Some contracts look like garbage as their careers go on: Buowmeester, Heatley, etc.

apice3* 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 03:58 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.