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

J. Johnson for Kessell

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-17-2009, 05:35 PM
  #76
Dr Quincy
Registered User
 
Dr Quincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 16,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frolov 6'3 View Post
You dont have to like him, that's not my point. I think anyone can see your view about MY BOY (is he ?) in the post above. It doesnt really matter what I say because if it's true/a rumour, nonsense or something I never even talked about...it doesnt really matter for you.

Thanks though.
The fact that in his rookie year JJ got more ice time than 3 guys not in the NHL this year and a guy (Harrold) who SHOULDN'T be in the NHL, doesn't really mean that he's proven anything. In 07-08 LA was a team going nowhere, but they had a high profile highly drafted Dman and a bunch of scrubs. It's not like he was getting ice time on the Red Wings or anything.

Dr Quincy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2009, 05:43 PM
  #77
Dr Quincy
Registered User
 
Dr Quincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 16,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donzo View Post
Just wanted to make a correction. LA's system is, in fact, more defensive-minded than Boston's, and was much moreso than LA's system the year before.

Goals for:
2007-08 - 14th
2008-09 - 28th

Goals against:
2007-08 - 28th
2008-09 - 14th

PP %:
2007-08 - 17th (17.5%)
2008-09 - 14th (19.2%)

PK %:
2007-08 - 30th (78%)
2008-09 - 7th (82.8%)

In other words, this is a team that took a big step forward defensively while also taking a significant one backward offensively (minus the PP). This doesn't necessarily fundamentally alter the discussion about Kessel's trade value, but it would be reasonable to assume that his offensive stats would be slightly lower in LA than Boston.
That is one logical conclusion. Another logical conclusion is that Boston has better players, and this manifested itself in a better defense than LA (2nd in the league in goals against) and a better offense (2nd in the league in goals for).

You can't just say that LA had a bad D and mediorcore O in 08, and a mediocore D and a horrible O in 09 and attribute it all to style of play.

There are other factors and variables. You have different goalies in both years, different defensemen and a few different forwards.

If you think Boston's system is some highflying free wheeling system, then ask some Eastern Conference fans. I heard many a complaint in here this year about how boring Boston was and how we played the trap too much.

Indeed, Julien's system only sends in 1 forechecker and has the D collapse in on the goalie very conservatively.

Unless LA is playing with 0 forecheckers (and sorry, I won't buy it if you tell me they are) then there is no way that LA is "more" defensively oriented than Boston.

The difference in Boston's goals scored and LA's isn't style, but personnel.

Dr Quincy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2009, 05:52 PM
  #78
Donzo
Registered User
 
Donzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Country: United States
Posts: 25
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Quincy View Post
That is one logical conclusion. Another logical conclusion is that Boston has better players, and this manifested itself in a better defense than LA (2nd in the league in goals against) and a better offense (2nd in the league in goals for).

You can't just say that LA had a bad D and mediorcore O in 08, and a mediocore D and a horrible O in 09 and attribute it all to style of play.

There are other factors and variables. You have different goalies in both years, different defensemen and a few different forwards.

If you think Boston's system is some highflying free wheeling system, then ask some Eastern Conference fans. I heard many a complaint in here this year about how boring Boston was and how we played the trap too much.

Indeed, Julien's system only sends in 1 forechecker and has the D collapse in on the goalie very conservatively.

Unless LA is playing with 0 forecheckers (and sorry, I won't buy it if you tell me they are) then there is no way that LA is "more" defensively oriented than Boston.

The difference in Boston's goals scored and LA's isn't style, but personnel.
I don't get Versus or Center Ice, and almost never see Boston play, so I'll defer to you regarding their style. And of course it is partially a personnel issue--Boston obviously has better players than the Kings right now. And yes, I also forgot to mention that LA's defensive improvements were despite the fact that they had LaBarbera in net for half the year.

But my points were, 1) behind Terry Murray, LA's emphasis shifted heavily to the defensive side of the game and 2) whether because of a different team playing style or because he would have a less impressive supporting cast, Kessel's numbers probably wouldn't be quite as good in LA. Again, not saying it should impact his trade value. I don't really think we're disagreeing here.

Donzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2009, 06:26 PM
  #79
Dr Quincy
Registered User
 
Dr Quincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 16,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donzo View Post
I don't get Versus or Center Ice, and almost never see Boston play, so I'll defer to you regarding their style. And of course it is partially a personnel issue--Boston obviously has better players than the Kings right now. And yes, I also forgot to mention that LA's defensive improvements were despite the fact that they had LaBarbera in net for half the year.

But my points were, 1) behind Terry Murray, LA's emphasis shifted heavily to the defensive side of the game and 2) whether because of a different team playing style or because he would have a less impressive supporting cast, Kessel's numbers probably wouldn't be quite as good in LA. Again, not saying it should impact his trade value. I don't really think we're disagreeing here.
No we probably aren't disagreeing much. One other point though: I think a case could easily be made that Kessel's numbers would go UP in LA.

There are 5 regular players on the Kings (I'm not counting guys who were 1/2 year players like Moller, or played for other teams like Williams) who had more PP time a game than Kessel. In Boston Phil was only used on the 2nd unit, and often just to lead the breakout from behind his own net (he was the only guy on the team who could create speed throught the neutral zone).

I have to think that in LA he would see PP time ahead of Handzus, Stoll, and maybe one of Brown or Frolov (or perhaps they would use 4 forwards and Doughty on the PP).

Give Kessel the extra hour and 10 minutes of PP time that Stoll got in LA last year and trust me he'd score a few more goals.

All this is moot though because I don't see a deal going down between these 2 teams for these 2 players.

Dr Quincy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2009, 06:29 PM
  #80
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 114,570
vCash: 505
I don't think the Bruins do this.

Even I agree that JMFJ is a bit overrated, but he just needs to play for a whole year.

__________________
Philadelphia's Real Alternative
(ynotradio.net)

Stop Feeding the Rumor-Monger

"I wonder if Norstrom has Forsberg's spleen mounted on his wall." - KINGS17

My 50 Favorite Albums of 2014 (sorry it's late)
GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 06:31 AM
  #81
Gary
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Behind enemy lines
Posts: 5,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimaio19 View Post
Seems like revisionist history to me. Boyes, when traded, was nowhere near the quality of player that Kessel is. I don't know of any San Jose, Toronto or Boston fan that ever thought Boyes was a star player or "almost sure thing". In fact, when he had his break out year and scored 26 goals, many people thought that was where his ceiling was. Indeed, his next year with the B's he looked completely lost at times, his defensive play was terrible and he looked every bit the journeyman that many thought he was. He didn't fit the system the B's were trying to install, and his play reflected that.

Kessel scored almost as many goals last year as Boyes did in just under 2 years with the Bruins. Kessel was a top 5 pick, Boyes was a guy who was traded for Jeff *** Jillson. Boyes was 24 going on 25 when dealt, Kessel is 21 going on 22.

The Kessel to Boyes comparison is a total fail.

The other half of the equation is equally as bad. Wideman, although less heralded than JJ, had proven he was a solid d-man and had logged a lot of quality minutes on the St. Louis blueline.

JJ has proven nothing except the fact that he's a prima donna.

Your reading and comprehension is a total fail...

Where the hell did i compare boyes to kessel or JJ to wideman?
Only comparison i was making is the gap between the two sets of prospects.
Kessel seems so much better then JJ does, BUT Boyes seemed so much better then Wideman at one time too...and that deal worked out okay.

Buddy was talking of teams trading for future potential sometimes. It's not necessarily about who the better player is NOW...but who the Bruins' brass and L.A.s' brass thinks will be better 2-3-4 years down the road.

Gary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 06:34 AM
  #82
Gary
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Behind enemy lines
Posts: 5,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Might want to check those facts again. People were upset initially (at the trade deadline) because people thought Boyes had the higher ceiling.

Wideman and Boyes became an immediate wash the first season Wideman played for Boston, as he emerged as Boston's #2 dman... this was the same year Boyes hit 40 goals.

That was a trade of potential for potential. Yes Boyes scored 26 the year previous, but went on to have a very subpar season that led to him being dealt.

Wideman had a very good rookie campaign with the Blues, scoring more then any of their dmen and avg'ing 21+ minutes per game.

Not a very good comparison at all. Johnson has done nothing, zero, zilch, and is going by pedigree alone. Kessel has scored 36 goals in 70 games as a 21 year old. That's a whole world of difference.
Your reading and comprehension is a total fail...

Where the hell did i compare boyes to kessel or JJ to wideman?
Only comparison i was making is the gap between the two sets of prospects.
Kessel seems so much better then JJ does, BUT Boyes seemed so much better then Wideman at one time too...and that deal worked out okay.

Buddy was talking of teams trading for future potential sometimes. It's not necessarily about who the better player is NOW...but who the Bruins' brass and L.A.s' brass thinks will be better 2-3-4 years down the road.

I'll put my initial post into laymans terms...

IF the Bruins brass (GM, assistant GM, coaches, scouts, advisors, etc.) feel that in the LONGTERM JJ is going to be a #1 stud defenseman and more valuable to the Bruins then Phil Kessel then in Claude I trust. Just because it's not fair value now, dont mean it wont be fair value down the road.


Last edited by Gary: 06-18-2009 at 06:45 AM.
Gary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 07:53 AM
  #83
Frolov 6'3
Unregistered User
 
Frolov 6'3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 9,126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Quincy View Post
The fact that in his rookie year JJ got more ice time than 3 guys not in the NHL this year and a guy (Harrold) who SHOULDN'T be in the NHL, doesn't really mean that he's proven anything. In 07-08 LA was a team going nowhere, but they had a high profile highly drafted Dman and a bunch of scrubs. It's not like he was getting ice time on the Red Wings or anything.
Are you going to tell me Jack Johnson wont be in the NHL for the next 10 seasons ? I dont have to expect anything positive from you about the Kings. That's a lesson I've learnt already. Every Kings topic that pops up, you, randall graves and konk are there to tell how much the Kings suck. We know that yes. Dont cry about every little detail that you see, now it's Jonhson's ice-time again. Please, just stay away for once if you have nothing to add.

Frolov 6'3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 08:42 AM
  #84
Kaoz*
Ima Krejciist.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary View Post
Your reading and comprehension is a total fail...

Where the hell did i compare boyes to kessel or JJ to wideman?
Only comparison i was making is the gap between the two sets of prospects.
Kessel seems so much better then JJ does, BUT Boyes seemed so much better then Wideman at one time too...and that deal worked out okay.

Buddy was talking of teams trading for future potential sometimes. It's not necessarily about who the better player is NOW...but who the Bruins' brass and L.A.s' brass thinks will be better 2-3-4 years down the road.

I'll put my initial post into laymans terms...

IF the Bruins brass (GM, assistant GM, coaches, scouts, advisors, etc.) feel that in the LONGTERM JJ is going to be a #1 stud defenseman and more valuable to the Bruins then Phil Kessel then in Claude I trust. Just because it's not fair value now, dont mean it wont be fair value down the road.
Don't make jest of someones comprehension when you have no clue what the hell you're talking about. You compared the Boyes trade with this offer and it's completely ridiculous.

Boyes was not established, and he was not a 40 goal scorer. He was a kid who had one good season followed up by a horrible one. Wideman was also a kid who had one good season, and one not so bad season. Both had potential, but neither were what their team needed. Hence the trade.

Many Bruins fans were upset at the deal at the time because no one knew who Wideman was, just that guy the went flying on that breakaway that time. Not many mourned the loss of Boyes after his recent play. Many of the more astute Bruins fans and Blues fans pointed out at the time that Wideman had a ton of potential, just as Boyes did and the trade wasn't actually bad, as there was no "gap" in talent. They were right.

Had Boyes been a 40 goal scorer as you suggested, then you'd have a point. He wasn't that however, he was a 13 goal scorer that had an aversion to playing in a defensive system and couldn't put it together.

Kessel on the other hand has just had a great season at the age of 21, a season only matched by a few elite snipers at the same age in the past dozen or so years. Johnson... not so much. There is a gap there, and it is quite significant.

So, you comparing the two trades is "complete fail" (trendy term by the way), or as I prefer to say, dumb.

Kaoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 09:51 AM
  #85
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Beukeboom Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 12,104
vCash: 500
I'm not saying that it's a good deal, but I think the important point to be made is that a hell of a lot easier to contribute as a young winger (with one of the top 3 elite playmaking centers) on a good team in the NHL than it is a top 4 d-man on a really bad team.

I happen to REALLY like both players, and while Kessel has a ton of value, I don't think you can look at JJ's first year and a half in the NHL to determine his value, as he's definetely a work in progress. If a GM saw something special (very possible IMO) they might be willing to "overpay" to get JJ compared to what most on this board would think is fair value based on his NHL career to date.

In either case - I don't see BOS willing to trade their leading goal scorer for a developing d-man when they were the #1 seed in the East and should be set up for a big year next year.

Beukeboom Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 10:18 AM
  #86
Kaoz*
Ima Krejciist.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan View Post
I'm not saying that it's a good deal, but I think the important point to be made is that a hell of a lot easier to contribute as a young winger (with one of the top 3 elite playmaking centers) on a good team in the NHL than it is a top 4 d-man on a really bad team.

I happen to REALLY like both players, and while Kessel has a ton of value, I don't think you can look at JJ's first year and a half in the NHL to determine his value, as he's definetely a work in progress. If a GM saw something special (very possible IMO) they might be willing to "overpay" to get JJ compared to what most on this board would think is fair value based on his NHL career to date.

In either case - I don't see BOS willing to trade their leading goal scorer for a developing d-man when they were the #1 seed in the East and should be set up for a big year next year.
While I see your point, and agree that in no way is JJ worthless, I disagree that what Kessel did last year was easier then succeeding as a Dman in this league.

There have been only 7 other players since 97-98 who scored 36 goals in the league at his age. Kessel is one of a few to do it, made even more remarkable by the fact that he did it with no first unit PP time, battled mono midseason (at which point his production dropped off for 4 weeks), and played with a torn rotator cuff needing surgery for the ending of the season. 78% of his goals came at Even Strength.

If Kessel did go to LA and got first unit PP time, his production would be more likely to increase then it would be to decrease.

Kaoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:26 AM
  #87
Gary
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Behind enemy lines
Posts: 5,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Don't make jest of someones comprehension when you have no clue what the hell you're talking about. You compared the Boyes trade with this offer and it's completely ridiculous.

Boyes was not established, and he was not a 40 goal scorer. He was a kid who had one good season followed up by a horrible one. Wideman was also a kid who had one good season, and one not so bad season. Both had potential, but neither were what their team needed. Hence the trade.

Many Bruins fans were upset at the deal at the time because no one knew who Wideman was, just that guy the went flying on that breakaway that time. Not many mourned the loss of Boyes after his recent play. Many of the more astute Bruins fans and Blues fans pointed out at the time that Wideman had a ton of potential, just as Boyes did and the trade wasn't actually bad, as there was no "gap" in talent. They were right.

Had Boyes been a 40 goal scorer as you suggested, then you'd have a point. He wasn't that however, he was a 13 goal scorer that had an aversion to playing in a defensive system and couldn't put it together.

Kessel on the other hand has just had a great season at the age of 21, a season only matched by a few elite snipers at the same age in the past dozen or so years. Johnson... not so much. There is a gap there, and it is quite significant.

So, you comparing the two trades is "complete fail" (trendy term by the way), or as I prefer to say, dumb.
ok. you win. never before in hockey has a great player been traded for a good player with future potential in mind.

Gary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:56 AM
  #88
Kaoz*
Ima Krejciist.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary View Post
ok. you win. never before in hockey has a great player been traded for a good player with future potential in mind.
Straight up?

Well I guess you could consider Zhitnik for Coburn. Maybe use Johnsons past trade? Him and Oleg for Gleason and Belanger?

Yup, lotsa cases can probably be found where a team traded their best young established goal scorer for a defenseman yet to make an impact in the NHL. Good luck finding one.

Kaoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 12:00 PM
  #89
8BostonRocker24
Registered User
 
8BostonRocker24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Los Gatos via Boston
Country: China
Posts: 9,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary View Post
ok. you win. never before in hockey has a great player been traded for a good player with future potential in mind.
You sentence doesn't say anything about Kessel being younger, more established... much less that both Kessel and Johnson might be signed for similar cap numbers this upcoming season.

8BostonRocker24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 12:28 PM
  #90
Bruin72
Registered User
 
Bruin72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cambridge< Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs0492 View Post
If they don't have the cap space to sign Kessel, where do they magically get it from in order to sign JJ?



Phil Kessel is lookin at 4mill plus per year where as I cant see JJ lookin for much more than 2mill because he hasnt proved anything yet!!!!!

Bruin72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 12:37 PM
  #91
Vic Rattlehead*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: St-Hubert, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by elsubz View Post
lol people are funny. One good year and the guy has become a hall of famer.

I'm simply gonna laugh how overpaid this kid is gonna be and the major let down he's gonna have next season. Seriously, some talk like this guy has managed 5 consecutive 40 goals seasons. People surely has a short memory with these breakout seasons in the past years.
No one called him a hall of famer. Stop acting like a child.

Vic Rattlehead* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 05:09 PM
  #92
Dr Quincy
Registered User
 
Dr Quincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 16,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frolov 6'3 View Post
Are you going to tell me Jack Johnson wont be in the NHL for the next 10 seasons ? I dont have to expect anything positive from you about the Kings. That's a lesson I've learnt already. Every Kings topic that pops up, you, randall graves and konk are there to tell how much the Kings suck. We know that yes. Dont cry about every little detail that you see, now it's Jonhson's ice-time again. Please, just stay away for once if you have nothing to add.
Look Nostradamus, not one of us can say where Jack Johnson will be in 10 years. What we know is that he was a very highly thought of Dman prospect when drafted. He is far from a bust and looks to be an NHL caliber dman. I'm not ready to say he's a top 3 guy or a bottom 3 guy yet though. Sorry, the fact that 2 years ago he got more ice time than Kevin Dallman or Peter Harrold doesn't hold a lot of sway with me. OTOH Phil Kessel scored 36 goals this year, and played well in the playoffs.

We aren't trading him for Johnson no matter how many times Johnson wins the "Best Dman on a Last Place Team" award.

Dr Quincy 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 07:24 PM.

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.