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 contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Tor - SJ

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-21-2011, 12:43 AM
  #101
Mafoofoo
Custom User Title
 
Mafoofoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 13,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
Burns & Beauchemin are absolutely alike in terms of style of play and relative strengths/weaknesses. Beauch is suffering from Toronto, and that wouldn't happen in SJ with their large forward group. SJ can play a dump & chase game, which allows them to support the puck much better than Toronto does. He'd also play a ton with Boyle (a good puckmover) or Demers/Wallin/Huskins, all of whom are better puckmovers than Phaneuf.
Beach will not play with Boyle. Murray will be Boyle's partner since so far he's shown that he doesn't play as well with other d partners. We're looking for someone to pair with Vlasic. In the perfect world it'd be

Boyle-Murray
Vlasic-Player X
Braun-Demers
Huskins or Wallin flip a coin for the 7th slot or something.


Vlasic isn't the offensive guy and I don't think Beauch can be the offensive guy to make up for that pair.

Mafoofoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 12:44 AM
  #102
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 37,220
vCash: 500
Not interested in Beauchemin. He is not a two-way d-man. He's a stay-at-home d-man with a good outlet pass who can be a good trigger man on a 2nd unit. He's never been anything more than that. He doesn't have the poise with the puck that the Sharks could better utilize. If the choice is trading a 1st for Beauchemin or letting it ride, I would let it ride and I'm fairly certain DW would too. That is an asinine asking price for someone who is a 2nd pairing d-man on average+ teams.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 12:45 AM
  #103
JeffMangum
Man Girardi
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 59,241
vCash: 50
Look, jfried, you don't even come close to watching as much of Burns as I do. I'm a Wild fan. I see nearly every game. And I've seen 25+ Leafs games this season in comparison, and Burns has always, and always has been a better player than Beauchemin ever was. They are not currently comparable, seeing as Beauchemin has never come close to putting up the offensive numbers Burns has put up, and they are completely different in their defending styles.

__________________
Soon.
JeffMangum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 01:23 AM
  #104
wraith985
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 987
vCash: 500
Another Beauchemin-to-San Jose trainwreck of a thread, derailed even further by jfried's delusions. Honestly, Toronto fans, give it a rest. There have been a billion Beauchemin-for-Setoguchi threads. How many times do you have to see "not interested in Beauchemin" before it sinks in?

wraith985 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 01:23 AM
  #105
Vaasa
Registered User
 
Vaasa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
Well, Beauchemin is good and a good fit for the Sharks... and once we can establish that then it's worthwhile to talk about valuation. What I take issue with the idiotic Sharks fans who wouldn't want him at any price.

Personally, I'd like to see at least one sharks fan come up with a definitive profile of the type of defenceman they are looking for, taking into account Doug Wilson's indications (like Hjalmarsson / Wisniewski) thus far.
First, you can't say Wisnewski was offered to the Sharks at all. Unless you can prove that he was (which you can't), you can't say that Wiz going to Montreal was in any way a "decision" by Doug Wilson.

Second, you are using Hammer's play this year as the basis for what you think Doug Wilson saw in him when he made the offer sheet. You describe Hammer as a purely defensive guy, but let's look at what Doug Wilson saw when he made the offer sheet:

- Hjalmarsson played most of the playoffs with Brian Campbell, a player very similar to Dan Boyle. What he showed in those games was NOT that he was a defensive stalwart, but that he had mobility, could skate the puck, and could make the first pass (often to Campbell) to transition the offense.

- When the Sharks-Chicago series ended, Hjalmarsson had 5 points in the playoffs in first full NHL season. That's the same number of points that Sharks rookie Jason Demers had in the playoffs, and Demers was pretty much an offense-only guy last season. That would have tied him for 3rd in playoff points by the defense on the Sharks.

- Hjalmarsson went on to get another 3 points in the next round.

- The thing everyone commented about Hjalmarsson's game in that series was not his defensive abilities, it was his poise with the puck. His ability to skate and his smart passing under pressure.

All of these things are signs of a 2-way defenseman. Not a purely defensive guy. Add on that Hammer was in his first full NHL season (having played 34 games over the prior 2 seasons), and I can guarantee you that what Doug Wilson made an offer sheet on was not a young defenseman he thought would be a defensive stalwart but rather that he was getting a steal of a young 2-way guy that in a year or two would hopefully be the young #2 2-way the Sharks were looking for.

Notice that is a skill set similar to Hamhuis (who is more physical), a player you insist the Sharks made a huge offer to get (despite the Sharks beat writer saying they never talked to him). Add in the rumor's out of Toronto that DW tried to Kaberle (not Beauchamin) last year and the fact he was trying to replace Rob Blake (a 2-way, if an aging one) and the whole basis of your supposed "evidence" that DW wants a defensive player goes out the window.

Finally, despite your flogging of Beauchamin as some sort of "bargain" who is would immediately fill some major hole in the Sharks D that would catapult them immediately to serious playoff contendor, he simply isn't that player. Even in Anaheim he wasn't that great of a player. In the 08-09 playoffs when they still had both Nieds and Pronger, he was 4th in ice-time per game (behing Pronger, Nieds, and Whitney). He also spent nearly 30% of that playoff series with Sheldon Brookbank on the 3rd pairing. And for a supposed trigger-shot pointman, he got a whopping 2:02 of PP for the ENTIRE playoffs.

In the 07-08 playoffs he got 7:47 of powerplay time the whole playoffs and was barely ahead of Schneider in ice time. He also had ZERO points that entire playoffs.

Beauchamin was in decline long before he got to Toronto. And most Sharks fans watched him his entire career in Anaheim. That fact that you think we have no idea what type of player he is, or what his skill set is, is laughable.

And the fact that you think he is "comparable" in nearly any way to Burns or Hamhuis is just sad.

Now, just to make you feel good. I will admit that there is certainly a chance that Doug Wilson will trade for him. That's because Doug Wilson is a moron who's three "great" trades of Thornton, Boyle, and Heatley all pretty much fell into his lap. Wilson has no idea how to build a Cup-winning team, and if he does trade for Beauchamin, I hope it's the final straw that gets his butt fired. Because that sort of ******** trade is the sort of thing that should break the already bowed camels' back.

Vaasa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 01:26 AM
  #106
Vaasa
Registered User
 
Vaasa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
He'd also play a ton with Boyle (a good puckmover) or Demers/Wallin/Huskins, all of whom are better puckmovers than Phaneuf.
The fact that you think Wallin has any sort of puck-moving skills just proves even more that you don't watch the Sharks. Wallin is absolutely horrid at moving the puck. It's one of the major reasons that a lot of Sharks fans would rather bench (or better waive) his butt and bring up Braun full time.

Vaasa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 01:33 AM
  #107
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaasa View Post
First, you can't say Wisnewski was offered to the Sharks at all. Unless you can prove that he was (which you can't), you can't say that Wiz going to Montreal was in any way a "decision" by Doug Wilson.

Second, you are using Hammer's play this year as the basis for what you think Doug Wilson saw in him when he made the offer sheet. You describe Hammer as a purely defensive guy, but let's look at what Doug Wilson saw when he made the offer sheet:

- Hjalmarsson played most of the playoffs with Brian Campbell, a player very similar to Dan Boyle. What he showed in those games was NOT that he was a defensive stalwart, but that he had mobility, could skate the puck, and could make the first pass (often to Campbell) to transition the offense.

- When the Sharks-Chicago series ended, Hjalmarsson had 5 points in the playoffs in first full NHL season. That's the same number of points that Sharks rookie Jason Demers had in the playoffs, and Demers was pretty much an offense-only guy last season. That would have tied him for 3rd in playoff points by the defense on the Sharks.

- Hjalmarsson went on to get another 3 points in the next round.

- The thing everyone commented about Hjalmarsson's game in that series was not his defensive abilities, it was his poise with the puck. His ability to skate and his smart passing under pressure.

All of these things are signs of a 2-way defenseman. Not a purely defensive guy. Add on that Hammer was in his first full NHL season (having played 34 games over the prior 2 seasons), and I can guarantee you that what Doug Wilson made an offer sheet on was not a young defenseman he thought would be a defensive stalwart but rather that he was getting a steal of a young 2-way guy that in a year or two would hopefully be the young #2 2-way the Sharks were looking for.

Notice that is a skill set similar to Hamhuis (who is more physical), a player you insist the Sharks made a huge offer to get (despite the Sharks beat writer saying they never talked to him). Add in the rumor's out of Toronto that DW tried to Kaberle (not Beauchamin) last year and the fact he was trying to replace Rob Blake (a 2-way, if an aging one) and the whole basis of your supposed "evidence" that DW wants a defensive player goes out the window.

Finally, despite your flogging of Beauchamin as some sort of "bargain" who is would immediately fill some major hole in the Sharks D that would catapult them immediately to serious playoff contendor, he simply isn't that player. Even in Anaheim he wasn't that great of a player. In the 08-09 playoffs when they still had both Nieds and Pronger, he was 4th in ice-time per game (behing Pronger, Nieds, and Whitney). He also spent nearly 30% of that playoff series with Sheldon Brookbank on the 3rd pairing. And for a supposed trigger-shot pointman, he got a whopping 2:02 of PP for the ENTIRE playoffs.

In the 07-08 playoffs he got 7:47 of powerplay time the whole playoffs and was barely ahead of Schneider in ice time. He also had ZERO points that entire playoffs.

Beauchamin was in decline long before he got to Toronto. And most Sharks fans watched him his entire career in Anaheim. That fact that you think we have no idea what type of player he is, or what his skill set is, is laughable.

And the fact that you think he is "comparable" in nearly any way to Burns or Hamhuis is just sad.

Now, just to make you feel good. I will admit that there is certainly a chance that Doug Wilson will trade for him. That's because Doug Wilson is a moron who's three "great" trades of Thornton, Boyle, and Heatley all pretty much fell into his lap. Wilson has no idea how to build a Cup-winning team, and if he does trade for Beauchamin, I hope it's the final straw that gets his butt fired. Because that sort of ******** trade is the sort of thing that should break the already bowed camels' back.
So long...and so little information.

1. When a player is traded for picks, they don't care who that player goes to. They want the best picks they can get. If Wilson wanted Wisniewski, he would've ponied up an offer that would've at least had montreal paying more.

2. I'm using Hjalmarsson's play last year as the basis for what Doug Wilson saw when he made the offer sheet. Hjalmarsson was a stay at hoem defenceman who relied on Campbell to generate offence from that pair. He was the guy that allowed Campbell to take risks.

3. For all we know, Wilson could've made an offer on Beauchemin, with Burke declining because he planned to trade Kaberle.

4. In Anaheim, Beauchemin was #3 on a Stanley cup winner who relied on 3 defenceman. It's not like Pittsbugh who's offence carried them to the cup. Pronger/Niedermayer/Beauchemin were the big guys for them. In Toronto, he's been a #1 defenceman which explains his poor play.

5. Beauchemin is bascially the exact same defenceman as Hamhuis, and very similar in style/composition to Burns (with Burns being better in every way). When you realize that a guy like Burns isn't available, Beauchemin would be near the top of SJ's priority list if abvailable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaasa View Post
The fact that you think Wallin has any sort of puck-moving skills just proves even more that you don't watch the Sharks. Wallin is absolutely horrid at moving the puck. It's one of the major reasons that a lot of Sharks fans would rather bench (or better waive) his butt and bring up Braun full time.
He doesn't. Phaneuf is worse.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 01:52 AM
  #108
Jesus Toews*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Davis, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
5. Beauchemin is bascially the exact same defenceman as Hamhuis, and very similar in style/composition to Burns (with Burns being better in every way). When you realize that a guy like Burns isn't available, Beauchemin would be near the top of SJ's priority list if abvailable.

.
Please just stop.

Jesus Toews* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 01:57 AM
  #109
Vaasa
Registered User
 
Vaasa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
So long...and so little information.

1. When a player is traded for picks, they don't care who that player goes to. They want the best picks they can get. If Wilson wanted Wisniewski, he would've ponied up an offer that would've at least had montreal paying more.
And yet you can't prove this. You simply assume. Just as you would probably think that when a team is going to trade a superstar like Joe Thornton that they would make sure every other GM in the league knew about it so that they could get the best deal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
2. I'm using Hjalmarsson's play last year as the basis for what Doug Wilson saw when he made the offer sheet. Hjalmarsson was a stay at hoem defenceman who relied on Campbell to generate offence from that pair. He was the guy that allowed Campbell to take risks.
The you didn't watch the playoffs. Hjalmarsson was not a stay-at-home purely defensive guy at all during the playoffs. He was not there to let Campbell take chances. That's like Suter is purely a defensive player who is there to let Weber take risks. Watch the freaking players and you'll know that's not true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
3. For all we know, Wilson could've made an offer on Beauchemin, with Burke declining because he planned to trade Kaberle.
Entirely possible. As I stated, Doug Wilson is a moron. And Beauchamin is exactly the player he likes. He's an overpaid, underskilled, marginal defenseman who has been on a cup-winning team in the past. He's a slightly younger, slightly more mobile, significantly more overpaid, Nic Wallin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
4. In Anaheim, Beauchemin was #3 on a Stanley cup winner who relied on 3 defenceman. It's not like Pittsbugh who's offence carried them to the cup. Pronger/Niedermayer/Beauchemin were the big guys for them. In Toronto, he's been a #1 defenceman which explains his poor play.
Yes, and yet you ignore that on that same Anaheim team, with those same 2 future HOF fame defenseman, that they cut his minutes and his responsibilities as soon as they could get halfway decent players to replace him. You ignore that for the last 4 years, including 2 years before he ever went to Toronto, that Beauchamin's minutes were cut, he was removed from the PP, and his play generally deteriorated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
5. Beauchemin is bascially the exact same defenceman as Hamhuis, and very similar in style/composition to Burns (with Burns being better in every way). When you realize that a guy like Burns isn't available, Beauchemin would be near the top of SJ's priority list if abvailable.
I realize other people's opinion on this does not matter to you, but the fact that you think that Beauchamin is in any way comparable to Hamhuis is a joke. Unless you mean to say that all NHL defenseman are comparable, because they play defense? Because that's about the only way the 2 are comparable.

As for guys who would be near the top of SJ's priority list? How about any of these guys before Beauchamin:

Jan Hejda
Fedo Tyutin
Filip Kuba
Matt Carle
Andy Greene
Steve Montador
Joni Pitkanen
Ian White

There is a good chance that at least one of those guys will come at a cheaper price than you are saying Beauch is worth. And any of them fill the Sharks needs better, either in skillset, cost, or contract length.

Vaasa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 02:00 AM
  #110
ManoWarrior
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
5. Beauchemin is bascially the exact same defenceman as Hamhuis, and very similar in style/composition to Burns (with Burns being better in every way). When you realize that a guy like Burns isn't available, Beauchemin would be near the top of SJ's priority list if abvailable.

ManoWarrior is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 02:01 AM
  #111
JeffMangum
Man Girardi
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 59,241
vCash: 50
Now you're comparing Beauchemin to Hamhuis. Good lord. Please go back to the Leafs board and stay there this time.

JeffMangum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 02:12 AM
  #112
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaasa View Post
And yet you can't prove this. You simply assume. Just as you would probably think that when a team is going to trade a superstar like Joe Thornton that they would make sure every other GM in the league knew about it so that they could get the best deal?



The you didn't watch the playoffs. Hjalmarsson was not a stay-at-home purely defensive guy at all during the playoffs. He was not there to let Campbell take chances. That's like Suter is purely a defensive player who is there to let Weber take risks. Watch the freaking players and you'll know that's not true.



Entirely possible. As I stated, Doug Wilson is a moron. And Beauchamin is exactly the player he likes. He's an overpaid, underskilled, marginal defenseman who has been on a cup-winning team in the past. He's a slightly younger, slightly more mobile, significantly more overpaid, Nic Wallin.



Yes, and yet you ignore that on that same Anaheim team, with those same 2 future HOF fame defenseman, that they cut his minutes and his responsibilities as soon as they could get halfway decent players to replace him. You ignore that for the last 4 years, including 2 years before he ever went to Toronto, that Beauchamin's minutes were cut, he was removed from the PP, and his play generally deteriorated.



I realize other people's opinion on this does not matter to you, but the fact that you think that Beauchamin is in any way comparable to Hamhuis is a joke. Unless you mean to say that all NHL defenseman are comparable, because they play defense? Because that's about the only way the 2 are comparable.

As for guys who would be near the top of SJ's priority list? How about any of these guys before Beauchamin:

Jan Hejda
Fedo Tyutin
Filip Kuba
Matt Carle
Andy Greene
Steve Montador
Joni Pitkanen
Ian White

There is a good chance that at least one of those guys will come at a cheaper price than you are saying Beauch is worth. And any of them fill the Sharks needs better, either in skillset, cost, or contract length.
1. Simple logic proves this. Why would the Islanders take less of a return to send him to Montreal?? You're accusing Garth Snow of being too lazy to get the best value for his player.

2. I watched the playoffs, Chicago did a good job of activating the D, but Hjalmarsson most definitely is the conservative stay-at-home guy.

3. Doug Wilson is the guy that runs your team. Moves must be considered within his priorities.

4. Like I said, those 3 defencemen carried that team to a cup. Beauchemin was the perfect complimentary top defenceman.

5. I realize that you underrate Beauchemin, but to suggest that Hamhuis is in any way significantly different from Beauchemin beyond age is ridiculous. Your priority list goes against what the GM has indicated a need for.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 02:57 AM
  #113
StalockSuperfan
Registered User
 
StalockSuperfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
It's amazing how many sharks fans can be completely inconsistent with their desires for a defenceman. Rather than simply saying that you think a defenceman that you see once a year is a poor fit, I'd like to know what kind of defenceman you think you need. My impression is that the Sharks need a two-way guy who can play in all situations, am I wrong?
Once a year? Are you forgetting he played several years in the pacific division where we all saw him 8 times a year?

StalockSuperfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 03:26 AM
  #114
dnicks17
Moderator
.
 
dnicks17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,273
vCash: 1115
That's like saying Brett Lebda is comparable to Brian Rafalski, but has a lesser skillset or that Gunnarsson is comparable to Lidstrom, but has a lesser skillset.

You can't compare a two-way defenseman who has been almost completely devoid of offense to a dynamic offensive guy like Burns.

dnicks17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 03:32 AM
  #115
dnicks17
Moderator
.
 
dnicks17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,273
vCash: 1115
Beauchemin is the defensive two-way version of Cam Barker.

dnicks17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 05:37 AM
  #116
Graveland
HONE YOUR CRAFT
 
Graveland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: United States
Posts: 12,105
vCash: 50
Oh wow hes still at it

Graveland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 08:37 AM
  #117
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 37,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
1. Simple logic proves this. Why would the Islanders take less of a return to send him to Montreal?? You're accusing Garth Snow of being too lazy to get the best value for his player.

2. I watched the playoffs, Chicago did a good job of activating the D, but Hjalmarsson most definitely is the conservative stay-at-home guy.

3. Doug Wilson is the guy that runs your team. Moves must be considered within his priorities.

4. Like I said, those 3 defencemen carried that team to a cup. Beauchemin was the perfect complimentary top defenceman.

5. I realize that you underrate Beauchemin, but to suggest that Hamhuis is in any way significantly different from Beauchemin beyond age is ridiculous. Your priority list goes against what the GM has indicated a need for.
1. Simple logic may prove that to you but in the real world of the NHL, simple logic doesn't cut it when you have a cap and a lot of teams also have salary concerns. The Sharks did not have the cap space to take on all of Wisniewski's salary and you can bet that was required out of Snow.

2. So you've basically said that Beauchemin is simply an older Hjalmarsson and that both are conservative stay-at-home d-men. Then you sit there and say we need a two-way d-man and that Beauchemin is that. I'm sorry but you can't classify a d-man as both stay-at-home and two-way.

3. DW may run the team but he still has to answer to the owners and abide by a salary cap. He may very well add Beauchemin at some point but it's not going to be for the cost you believe it will be. And even with all of that, it doesn't mean it's the right fit. You can believe it and DW can believe it but you both could and most likely would be wrong.

4. To claim that Beauchemin was every bit a part of that Cup run for the Ducks as Niedermayer and Pronger is very disingenuous and irrelevant since that happened four years ago and he is not the same player with the same help.

5. You're really reaching when you make this claim consistently. The two play a similar style but one is significantly more effective than the other in pretty much all aspects. Even if a GM has a different priority list than the fans, that doesn't mean he's right. This is why GM's get criticized. Because it's pretty obvious what the issues are on the Sharks for those who have watched them regularly. If Doug Wilson can't see that this team needs better puck movement from their blue line, he's not that good of a GM. And a lot of signs have been pointing to him not being a good GM lately.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 10:45 AM
  #118
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
1. Simple logic may prove that to you but in the real world of the NHL, simple logic doesn't cut it when you have a cap and a lot of teams also have salary concerns. The Sharks did not have the cap space to take on all of Wisniewski's salary and you can bet that was required out of Snow.

2. So you've basically said that Beauchemin is simply an older Hjalmarsson and that both are conservative stay-at-home d-men. Then you sit there and say we need a two-way d-man and that Beauchemin is that. I'm sorry but you can't classify a d-man as both stay-at-home and two-way.

3. DW may run the team but he still has to answer to the owners and abide by a salary cap. He may very well add Beauchemin at some point but it's not going to be for the cost you believe it will be. And even with all of that, it doesn't mean it's the right fit. You can believe it and DW can believe it but you both could and most likely would be wrong.

4. To claim that Beauchemin was every bit a part of that Cup run for the Ducks as Niedermayer and Pronger is very disingenuous and irrelevant since that happened four years ago and he is not the same player with the same help.

5. You're really reaching when you make this claim consistently. The two play a similar style but one is significantly more effective than the other in pretty much all aspects. Even if a GM has a different priority list than the fans, that doesn't mean he's right. This is why GM's get criticized. Because it's pretty obvious what the issues are on the Sharks for those who have watched them regularly. If Doug Wilson can't see that this team needs better puck movement from their blue line, he's not that good of a GM. And a lot of signs have been pointing to him not being a good GM lately.
1. If Wisniewski was the guy that SJ wanted, they would've made the cap space.

2. Beauchemin is an older Hjalmarsson who is more versatile and more offensive.

3. Those owners care about making the playoffs and going from there.

4. Beauchemin wasn't as big a part of the cup run as those 2, but he was close with teh minutes he logged and the fact that Anaheim's forwards weren't really that great in comparison to other cup winning teams. He's the perfect high end complimentary defenceman.

5. I'm really not reaching. They are very similar defenceman in terms of quality and style. Other than age, the most substantial difference between the two is that Hamhuis plays on a team with Luongo in net and the Sedins + Kesler + Burrows + Malhotra up front. Beauchemin plays on a team with Kessel, Grabovski, Kulemin, MacArthur, Bozak and goaltending amongst the worst in the league. Beauchemin has also had to play a slightly larger role than Hamhuis has.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 06:50 PM
  #119
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,850
vCash: 50
Jesus... The mods really need to close this thread. It's going nowhere and jfried wouldn't know facts if they smacked him in the head. He claims that one of those posts was "so long, yet so little information", but that post included specific numbers about PP points, goal totals, etc. Jeez. The fact that someone can be so blind is terrifying. I understand if Leaf fans want to defend Beauch, but they must be embarrassed about the manner in which jfried has chosen to do it.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 07:22 PM
  #120
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 37,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
1. If Wisniewski was the guy that SJ wanted, they would've made the cap space.

2. Beauchemin is an older Hjalmarsson who is more versatile and more offensive.

3. Those owners care about making the playoffs and going from there.

4. Beauchemin wasn't as big a part of the cup run as those 2, but he was close with teh minutes he logged and the fact that Anaheim's forwards weren't really that great in comparison to other cup winning teams. He's the perfect high end complimentary defenceman.

5. I'm really not reaching. They are very similar defenceman in terms of quality and style. Other than age, the most substantial difference between the two is that Hamhuis plays on a team with Luongo in net and the Sedins + Kesler + Burrows + Malhotra up front. Beauchemin plays on a team with Kessel, Grabovski, Kulemin, MacArthur, Bozak and goaltending amongst the worst in the league. Beauchemin has also had to play a slightly larger role than Hamhuis has.
1. Cap space doesn't come out of thin air and salary does still matter to teams like the Islanders and the Sharks. I know you don't have to deal with that in Toronto but that's the reality of things when you're not the Leafs. The Isles needed to shed the salary so they weren't taking any back. The Sharks didn't have the capability of making 3.25 mil in cap space come out of nowhere. They would have had to waive someone and stash them in the AHL. They can't do that as the GM doesn't have the owners' permission to make that move.

2. No. Both are versatile in the literal sense. Just different in that versatility. They're definitely not the same style.

3. The owners care about the playoffs because it makes them money but they're not going to give the GM free reign to spend what he wants and trade what he wants to save a team. This group canned Lombardi when the 2002 team went south and prevented him from doing anything stupid in that sense. They will do the same to DW if things don't turn around in time.

4. If Beauchemin was so perfect in that sense, why is he and Phaneuf struggling. He is anything but. He has a specific style, a specific skill set, and a specific level of play. He can't play with just anybody.

5. You can believe what you want to even if you are in an extreme minority. I'd like for you to actually give some reasoning behind it. All you've ever said is that they're the same. It's just an empty comment without any substance.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 08:35 PM
  #121
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
1. Cap space doesn't come out of thin air and salary does still matter to teams like the Islanders and the Sharks. I know you don't have to deal with that in Toronto but that's the reality of things when you're not the Leafs. The Isles needed to shed the salary so they weren't taking any back. The Sharks didn't have the capability of making 3.25 mil in cap space come out of nowhere. They would have had to waive someone and stash them in the AHL. They can't do that as the GM doesn't have the owners' permission to make that move.

2. No. Both are versatile in the literal sense. Just different in that versatility. They're definitely not the same style.

3. The owners care about the playoffs because it makes them money but they're not going to give the GM free reign to spend what he wants and trade what he wants to save a team. This group canned Lombardi when the 2002 team went south and prevented him from doing anything stupid in that sense. They will do the same to DW if things don't turn around in time.

4. If Beauchemin was so perfect in that sense, why is he and Phaneuf struggling. He is anything but. He has a specific style, a specific skill set, and a specific level of play. He can't play with just anybody.

5. You can believe what you want to even if you are in an extreme minority. I'd like for you to actually give some reasoning behind it. All you've ever said is that they're the same. It's just an empty comment without any substance.
1. Cap space doesn't come out of thin air, but when you're talking about the playoffs versus non playoffs and a $3m player for 1/2 a season, teams will make the neccessary moves. They could've sent Huskins to a team that was short a blueliner.

2. Hjalmarsson is more of a shutdown guy, Beauchemin a 2-way guy.

3. How do you think DW is going to turn things around? Make trades!

4. Beauchemin & Phaneuf are struggling because A) Phaneuf isn't that good, and B) the entire Leaf team is struggling. He & Phaneuf would be no problem as the top pair (in the 23-24 minute a night context) if Toronto had better puck support.

5. Watch both of them play. They have extremely similar games both in style and overall calibre.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 08:41 PM
  #122
dnicks17
Moderator
.
 
dnicks17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,273
vCash: 1115
Francois Beauchemin is an older Cam Barker who is more versatile and more defensive.

Things they have in common:
- mobile
- good slapper
- inconsistent
- poor decision making
- giveaway machine


There really isn't a better comparison.

dnicks17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 08:42 PM
  #123
JeffMangum
Man Girardi
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 59,241
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnicks17 View Post
Francois Beauchemin is an older Cam Barker who is more versatile and more defensive.

Things they have in common:
- mobile
- good slapper
- inconsistent
- poor decision making
- giveaway machine


There really isn't a better comparison.
Great comparison. I see both on a gamely basis, and this is 100% dead on.

JeffMangum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 08:47 PM
  #124
allworldcaucasn*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bay Area
Country: United States
Posts: 4,659
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to allworldcaucasn*
Kaberle for a 1st. He will re-sign with Toronto anyway.

allworldcaucasn* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2011, 09:04 PM
  #125
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnicks17 View Post
Francois Beauchemin is an older Cam Barker who is more versatile and more defensive.

Things they have in common:
- mobile
- good slapper
- inconsistent
- poor decision making
- giveaway machine


There really isn't a better comparison.
Beauchemin is much better defensively, so the comparison isn't even close. Beauchemin's giveaways, consistency, and poor decision making are blown out of proportion on these boards. He plays in a ridiculously unstructured system, with a partner who is horrible with the puck.

seanlinden 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 07:34 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.