HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must use the RUMOR prefix in thread title. Proposals must contain the PROPOSAL prefix in the thread title.

Oilers - Leafs

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-16-2013, 11:02 AM
  #101
ManofSteel55
Registered User
 
ManofSteel55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 14,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverWatch View Post
You might not believe it but many people don't care for RNH.

For being a 1st overall draft pick he's just not that attractive a player. Doesn't mean he's bad it just means if a team is giving up (1st overall value) in a trade it needs to be for the right type of player.

Personally i believe RNH is the second worst 1st overall since the '04 lockout.

Alexander Ovechkin
Sidney Cosby
Erik Johnson
Patrick Kane
Steven Stamkos
Taylor Hall
Nugent-Hopkins

Edmonton fans take that as an insult but seriously look at that list and tell me who he's better then besides Johnson?

Regardless Toronto would not give up anything close to what Edmonton would want for RNH. Not because they can't, because the player doesn't fit the price.
Even if that does end up being true...only one player up there, if we aren't including Nuge in the discussion, has not lived up to his potential. 2nd worst of that list could end up being an 85 point player.

ManofSteel55 is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:39 AM
  #102
Worraps
McWonderful McSummer
 
Worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,042
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyg View Post
so playing through injury is valid but being treated for cancer isnt? pick a side and stick with it, you cant have both.
When did I ever say that being treated for cancer isn't a valid excuse for a dip in performance?

Worraps is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 12:21 PM
  #103
beauchamp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Laval, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverWatch View Post
You might not believe it but many people don't care for RNH.

For being a 1st overall draft pick he's just not that attractive a player. Doesn't mean he's bad it just means if a team is giving up (1st overall value) in a trade it needs to be for the right type of player.

Personally i believe RNH is the second worst 1st overall since the '04 lockout.

Alexander Ovechkin
Sidney Cosby
Erik Johnson
Patrick Kane
Steven Stamkos
Taylor Hall
Nugent-Hopkins

Edmonton fans take that as an insult but seriously look at that list and tell me who he's better then besides Johnson?

Regardless Toronto would not give up anything close to what Edmonton would want for RNH. Not because they can't, because the player doesn't fit the price.


Being the 2nd worst of that impressive list does not make you a bad player.

Not caring to get that second worst player surely makes you a not very good evaluator of talent.

I would love for my favorite team to get that 2nd worst player, whoever he may be.

beauchamp is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 03:03 PM
  #104
Atomos2
Auston 20:16
 
Atomos2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,750
vCash: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by haterbehatin View Post
To say the price would be too much for the Leafs is fair to say you wouldn't want him on the team demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of the sport.
I'll remember this lesson next time Phaneuf is being offered to the oilers.

Anyway, RNH adds skill but makes us a whole lot softer and weaker. Especially when we're giving away pieces that are more physical. So like I said, pass.

Atomos2 is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 03:57 PM
  #105
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomos2 View Post
I'll remember this lesson next time Phaneuf is being offered to the oilers.

Anyway, RNH adds skill but makes us a whole lot softer and weaker. Especially when we're giving away pieces that are more physical. So like I said, pass.
If you think that RNH is soft then you don't know much about his game. What he is is skinny. What he is not is soft, nor is he weak.

Fourier is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 04:55 PM
  #106
cyris
On a Soma Holiday
 
cyris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Planet From Sun.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesa Awesaka View Post
i think this trade makes the oilers worse long term imo. JML, Cody Franson and Kulemin probably wouldnt be in the good for the oilers in the future. All this really does is increase their cap. Kadri is the only piece really worth anything and at most its a lateral move for a top 6 forward well what the Oilers really need our top 4 dmen and big physical two way bottom sixers.
Kulie is a big physical bottom 6er...

Not that you should be looking to trade your #1 center for him.

cyris is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 05:01 PM
  #107
TOGuy14
Registered User
 
TOGuy14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesa Awesaka View Post
i think this trade makes the oilers worse long term imo. JML, Cody Franson and Kulemin probably wouldnt be in the good for the oilers in the future. All this really does is increase their cap. Kadri is the only piece really worth anything and at most its a lateral move for a top 6 forward well what the Oilers really need our top 4 dmen and big physical two way bottom sixers.

Umm...Franson is a top 4 Dman right now (solid #4) and Kulemin is a physical bottom six guy who can contribute in scoring (he would have been second on Edmonton for hits last year)

TOGuy14 is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 05:03 PM
  #108
cyris
On a Soma Holiday
 
cyris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Planet From Sun.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
If you think that RNH is soft then you don't know much about his game. What he is is skinny. What he is not is soft, nor is he weak.
Saying player A is softer than player B does not mean player A is soft.

cyris is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 05:32 PM
  #109
McBaevid
Lottery Dynasty
 
McBaevid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 500
Nobody on Toronto interests me enough to get rid of RNH

McBaevid is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 07:33 PM
  #110
Drennan57*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beauchamp View Post


Being the 2nd worst of that impressive list does not make you a bad player.

Not caring to get that second worst player surely makes you a not very good evaluator of talent.

I would love for my favorite team to get that 2nd worst player, whoever he may be.
The point is RNH isn't remotely on the same level as any of them. He's just not a quality 1st overall pick in the grand scheme of things.

I see RNH as a top notch playmaking "2nd line center". Think in the form of a Saku Koivu with Montreal.

Drennan57* is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 07:49 PM
  #111
Worraps
McWonderful McSummer
 
Worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,042
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverWatch View Post
The point is RNH isn't remotely on the same level as any of them. He's just not a quality 1st overall pick in the grand scheme of things.

I see RNH as a top notch playmaking "2nd line center". Think in the form of a Saku Koivu with Montreal.
Let's examine the facts:

1) RNH was the consensus first overall pick projected by professional scouts to be the best hockey player born in his draft year.

2) In his first 102 games, RNH has produced at almost exactly the same level as Taylor Hall and John Tavares did in their first 102 games. He has scored significantly more points than Steven Stamkos did in his first 102 games.

3) He is a career plus player on one of the worst teams in the NHL during that period.

Your opinion that RNH is significantly worse than every other first overall pick drafted since 2004 and a career second line center, appears to be based solely on the fact that he's young.

For the purposes of context, here's what happened when he played against players his own age this year:

http://stats.iihf.com/Hydra/306/IHM306000_85B_14_0.pdf


Last edited by Worraps: 08-16-2013 at 08:00 PM.
Worraps is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 08:05 PM
  #112
Petes2424
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyris View Post
Saying player A is softer than player B does not mean player A is soft.
In the hockey world if you're called soft, softer, whatever... It means you're a punk who doesn't pay the price other guys do. There's no sugar coating it. It's not like saying someone is slower.

Petes2424 is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 08:32 PM
  #113
Drennan57*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
Let's examine the facts:

1) RNH was the consensus first overall pick projected by professional scouts to be the best hockey player born in his draft year.

2) In his first year 102 games, RNH has produced at almost exactly the same level as Taylor Hall and John Tavares did in their first 102 games. He has scored significantly more points than Steven Stamkos did in his first 102 games.

3) He is a career plus player on one of the worst teams in the NHL during that period.

Your opinion that RNH is significantly worse than every other first overall pick drafted since 2004 appears to be based solely on the fact that he's young.

For the purposes of context, here's what happened when he played against players his own age this year:

http://stats.iihf.com/Hydra/306/IHM306000_85B_14_0.pdf
That's fine everyone is entitled to their own opinion of RNH. All i'm saying is that "for me" he doesn't bring enough on the ice to warrant the praise.

I will say this tho, If Hopkins can transform his body and put power down in all areas it will change everything. Right now he thinks the game beyond what his body is capable of doing.

If he puts on some real muscle and adds an "explosive" element too all areas of his game it would change my opinion ten fold. But right now i see him as a player who is only capable of playing a "finesse" game and falls short in terms of pure physical talent.

Drennan57* is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 08:41 PM
  #114
tempest2i
The Gloaming
 
tempest2i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cowtown
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverWatch View Post
The point is RNH isn't remotely on the same level as any of them. He's just not a quality 1st overall pick in the grand scheme of things.

I see RNH as a top notch playmaking "2nd line center". Think in the form of a Saku Koivu with Montreal.
This is great. It reminds me of the time @BReynoldsMN at Hockey Wilderness called Taylor Hall "at best, a second line player".

source

tempest2i is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 10:22 PM
  #115
The Nuge
Global Moderator
Frei!!!!
 
The Nuge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,960
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverWatch View Post
That's fine everyone is entitled to their own opinion of RNH. All i'm saying is that "for me" he doesn't bring enough on the ice to warrant the praise.

I will say this tho, If Hopkins can transform his body and put power down in all areas it will change everything. Right now he thinks the game beyond what his body is capable of doing.

If he puts on some real muscle and adds an "explosive" element too all areas of his game it would change my opinion ten fold. But right now i see him as a player who is only capable of playing a "finesse" game and falls short in terms of pure physical talent.
How does he not bring enough on the ice? He's a 20 year old two way center who can pass the puck with the best in the league. When other teams are backing off him while he's running the PP, because they're scared he's going to make him look ridiculous, I'd say he's a pretty damn talented player. But he doesn't fight, so obviously, he's terrible, right?

The Nuge is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 10:25 PM
  #116
beauchamp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Laval, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
Let's examine the facts:

1) RNH was the consensus first overall pick projected by professional scouts to be the best hockey player born in his draft year.

2) In his first 102 games, RNH has produced at almost exactly the same level as Taylor Hall and John Tavares did in their first 102 games. He has scored significantly more points than Steven Stamkos did in his first 102 games.

(...)
To be fair, you have to remember the Barry Melrose factor...

beauchamp is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 10:57 PM
  #117
Drennan57*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Nuge View Post
How does he not bring enough on the ice? He's a 20 year old two way center who can pass the puck with the best in the league. When other teams are backing off him while he's running the PP, because they're scared he's going to make him look ridiculous, I'd say he's a pretty damn talented player. But he doesn't fight, so obviously, he's terrible, right?
That's entirely to do with systems. Nice try tho.

Drennan57* is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:19 PM
  #118
RipsADrive
Be afraid
 
RipsADrive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,657
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverWatch View Post
That's fine everyone is entitled to their own opinion of RNH. All i'm saying is that "for me" he doesn't bring enough on the ice to warrant the praise.

I will say this tho, If Hopkins can transform his body and put power down in all areas it will change everything. Right now he thinks the game beyond what his body is capable of doing.

If he puts on some real muscle and adds an "explosive" element too all areas of his game it would change my opinion ten fold. But right now i see him as a player who is only capable of playing a "finesse" game and falls short in terms of pure physical talent.
You're right. There's no way a player can be a star by playing the type of game you described.

Except for the best player in the history of the game of course...

RipsADrive is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:27 PM
  #119
Drennan57*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RipsADrive View Post
You're right. There's no way a player can be a star by playing the type of game you described.

Except for the best player in the history of the game of course...
Now you are comparing RNH to Gretzky?

Edmonton fans

Drennan57* is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:30 PM
  #120
beauchamp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Laval, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverWatch View Post
That's fine everyone is entitled to their own opinion of RNH. All i'm saying is that "for me" he doesn't bring enough on the ice to warrant the praise.

I will say this tho, If Hopkins can transform his body and put power down in all areas it will change everything. Right now he thinks the game beyond what his body is capable of doing.

If he puts on some real muscle and adds an "explosive" element too all areas of his game it would change my opinion ten fold. But right now i see him as a player who is only capable of playing a "finesse" game and falls short in terms of pure physical talent.
OK then.

No Martin St. Louis for you, no Phil Kessel...

beauchamp is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:31 PM
  #121
beauchamp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Laval, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverWatch View Post
Now you are comparing RNH to Gretzky?

Edmonton fans
You really understood his point...

Bravo.

beauchamp is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:41 PM
  #122
RipsADrive
Be afraid
 
RipsADrive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,657
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverWatch View Post
Now you are comparing RNH to Gretzky?

Edmonton fans
As beauchamp mentioned, you completely missed my point.

Skill in the game of hockey isn't determined purely by physical strength / size. I brought up Gretzky to prove this point as he was neither big nor strong but is still unanimously considered the greatest hockey player of all time.

RNH, like Gretzky, won't be able to dominate physically. That doesn't mean he can't be great.

RipsADrive is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:47 PM
  #123
Drennan57*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beauchamp View Post
OK then.

No Martin St. Louis for you, no Phil Kessel...
No you don't get it. Phil Kessel has "explosive" speed and an "explosive" shot. Those are the two exceptional things he brings to the game.

RNH brings nothing explosive to the game. He's not fast, he's not strong, he doesn't have a hard shot etc etc etc.

He's just a weak kid that sees the ice well and can pass good. Sorry but he's just not that impressive.

Drennan57* is offline  
Old
08-17-2013, 12:15 AM
  #124
RipsADrive
Be afraid
 
RipsADrive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,657
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverWatch View Post
No you don't get it. Phil Kessel has "explosive" speed and an "explosive" shot. Those are the two exceptional things he brings to the game.

RNH brings nothing explosive to the game. He's not fast, he's not strong, he doesn't have a hard shot etc etc etc.

He's just a weak kid that sees the ice well and can pass good. Sorry but he's just not that impressive.
No response for me? That's too bad.

If explosiveness is a requirement to be a star player in hockey I want you to explain why Gretzky was the most dominant player to ever play the game. What was it that set him apart so drastically from the rest of the players?

RipsADrive is online now  
Old
08-17-2013, 12:39 AM
  #125
Drennan57*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RipsADrive View Post
No response for me? That's too bad.

If explosiveness is a requirement to be a star player in hockey I want you to explain why Gretzky was the most dominant player to ever play the game. What was it that set him apart so drastically from the rest of the players?
Completely different time. The game was slower and it awarded the players who thought the game well. Not to mention he played in an era of garbage goaltending and overall terrible competition. Considering only 3 players from Gretzky's era wen't to the HOF that should be a good indicator.


I'm not going to get in a Gretzky debate because i honestly don't care nor do i believe he was the greatest ever. That goes to Mario Lemieux.

Drennan57* is offline  
Closed Thread

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 07:36 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.