HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
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.

Chris Pronger Trade Scenario

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-14-2004, 08:01 AM
  #76
Wisent
Registered User
 
Wisent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Mannheim
Country: Germany
Posts: 3,667
vCash: 500
Pronger has become virtually untradeable with his new contract.

Wisent is offline  
Old
08-14-2004, 08:33 AM
  #77
guitaraholic*
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisent
Pronger has become virtually untradeable with his new contract.

then so is peter forsberg, joe sakic and any other player that makes 8+ million a year. To assert that Pronger is "virtually untradeable" is hysterical.

guitaraholic* is offline  
Old
08-14-2004, 04:12 PM
  #78
Kubera55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitaraholic
To say that Gonchar is more valuable than Pronger is simply incorrect. YOu wouldn't/can't find a single GM in the league that would take Gonchar over Pronger. Not one. So your premise is wrong and your points rendered therefore moot.
Anyone who thinks Gonchar is better or more desirable by teams than Pronger simply lacks an understanding the NHL whether they call it the "new NHL" or the old one. Either way, you're just wrong.
You know, I make it a habit to never, ever, flame someone unless they come after me first. Does this count? Hrumph. *counts to ten*

Alright, let's try again.

Look up north a bit, see where I lay out the reasons I think Gonchar is more valuable than Pronger? Not better, more valuable. It's the part about same age, both playing huge minutes and both being All-Stars, Gonchar being better on offense and costing half-as-much and Pronger having injury problems? Right, there you go, that's the paragraph.

Now, when people have a discussion (not a monologue, or shouting, flaming, or being annoying) they respond to one another's arguments with something other than simple-minded statement of opinion. You see, if all we came here to do was state our blind opinions, well really, what would be the point?

Now, would you care to back up your statement that 'No other team in the league would ever want Gonchar over Pronger' statement? I won't even ask you to apologize for insinuating that I know nothing about hockey or that I must be an idiot.

Here, let me get you started:

1) Pronger was league MVP and won the Norris! Gonchar, despite his numerous accolades has never reached such heights!

This is, of course true. And if you scroll back further, I even allow as how Pronger's 'upside' is higher than Gonchar's. But I'd retort that Pronger's recent injuries, huge salary, and recent stretches of mediocre play make him significantly more risky than the Russian scoring machine.

I could also point out that Leetch has multiple Norris trophys to Pronger's one, and the Conn Smyth and Stanley Cup ring to go with it, and I'm already conceding that salary being equal, Pronger is worth more than Leetch. So individual accolades have to be at least put in perspective.

2) Hey, but Pronger is huge, nasty, and twice the defensive force that Gonchar is! Or so you might argue.

Of course, I'd point out that Gonchar doesn't taken dumb penalties, as Pronger is prone to do. And I'd point out that Gonchar is hardly a slouch in his own zone... the guy plays 25 minutes a night and has done so for years, and has a respectable +/- despite playing for a team that hasn't been as successful as Pronger's Blues.... oh yeah, and Gonchar didn't get to have a Norris Trophy winning Hall of Fame partner like Al McInnis to boost his offensive production and help him out at both ends.

Still, yes, Pronger IS more physical and better in his own zone. But Gonchar IS better on offense and has much more speed. Which is more valuable? Eh, pretty close if you ask me. Every team in the league wants a big crease-clearing defenseman with attitude and some offensive game. But every team wants a premier offensive PP QB who can log big minutes in all situations and be a danger on every shift. Who's career was more valuable, Scott Steven or Ray Bourque? (Count the Norris Trophys . . . which is hardly fair, but you get my point).

See? This is how debate works. Though usually it's not so much of a one man show. Now you go try.

PS - About your final point that 'Forsberg, Sakic, and all the other players in the NHL making $8 million or more also being untradable'.... you're being awfully flip there. How many $8 million players have been traded in the last few years, other than rental deals? Did you notice anyone getting huge youth return for them? Jagr got Washington crap, and they ate 40% of his deal. Dallas has supposedly been trying to move Guerin for a year with no takers. The Wings got down on their knees and begged someone, anyone, to take Cujo off their hands at the beginning of the year and couldn't do it.

The last 'big payday' veteran for kids deals I can honestly remember were the Jagr to Washington deal, Lindros to the Rangers deal, and the two Islander deals of roughly the same time (Yashin and Peca). Now look how of those deals turned out, and maybe you'll see why GMs are a little more hesitant these days.

Kubera55 is offline  
Old
08-16-2004, 04:30 PM
  #79
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisent
Pronger has become virtually untradeable with his new contract.
Perhaps you could clarify something for me... why is it that Pronger wasn't untradable with a $9.5M salary but he is with a $10M salary?

degroat* is offline  
Old
08-16-2004, 04:37 PM
  #80
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubera55
You know, I make it a habit to never, ever, flame someone unless they come after me first. Does this count? Hrumph. *counts to ten*

Alright, let's try again.

Look up north a bit, see where I lay out the reasons I think Gonchar is more valuable than Pronger? Not better, more valuable. It's the part about same age, both playing huge minutes and both being All-Stars, Gonchar being better on offense and costing half-as-much and Pronger having injury problems? Right, there you go, that's the paragraph.

Now, when people have a discussion (not a monologue, or shouting, flaming, or being annoying) they respond to one another's arguments with something other than simple-minded statement of opinion. You see, if all we came here to do was state our blind opinions, well really, what would be the point?

Now, would you care to back up your statement that 'No other team in the league would ever want Gonchar over Pronger' statement? I won't even ask you to apologize for insinuating that I know nothing about hockey or that I must be an idiot.

Here, let me get you started:

1) Pronger was league MVP and won the Norris! Gonchar, despite his numerous accolades has never reached such heights!

This is, of course true. And if you scroll back further, I even allow as how Pronger's 'upside' is higher than Gonchar's. But I'd retort that Pronger's recent injuries, huge salary, and recent stretches of mediocre play make him significantly more risky than the Russian scoring machine.

I could also point out that Leetch has multiple Norris trophys to Pronger's one, and the Conn Smyth and Stanley Cup ring to go with it, and I'm already conceding that salary being equal, Pronger is worth more than Leetch. So individual accolades have to be at least put in perspective.

2) Hey, but Pronger is huge, nasty, and twice the defensive force that Gonchar is! Or so you might argue.

Of course, I'd point out that Gonchar doesn't taken dumb penalties, as Pronger is prone to do. And I'd point out that Gonchar is hardly a slouch in his own zone... the guy plays 25 minutes a night and has done so for years, and has a respectable +/- despite playing for a team that hasn't been as successful as Pronger's Blues.... oh yeah, and Gonchar didn't get to have a Norris Trophy winning Hall of Fame partner like Al McInnis to boost his offensive production and help him out at both ends.

Still, yes, Pronger IS more physical and better in his own zone. But Gonchar IS better on offense and has much more speed. Which is more valuable? Eh, pretty close if you ask me. Every team in the league wants a big crease-clearing defenseman with attitude and some offensive game. But every team wants a premier offensive PP QB who can log big minutes in all situations and be a danger on every shift. Who's career was more valuable, Scott Steven or Ray Bourque? (Count the Norris Trophys . . . which is hardly fair, but you get my point).

See? This is how debate works. Though usually it's not so much of a one man show. Now you go try.

PS - About your final point that 'Forsberg, Sakic, and all the other players in the NHL making $8 million or more also being untradable'.... you're being awfully flip there. How many $8 million players have been traded in the last few years, other than rental deals? Did you notice anyone getting huge youth return for them? Jagr got Washington crap, and they ate 40% of his deal. Dallas has supposedly been trying to move Guerin for a year with no takers. The Wings got down on their knees and begged someone, anyone, to take Cujo off their hands at the beginning of the year and couldn't do it.

The last 'big payday' veteran for kids deals I can honestly remember were the Jagr to Washington deal, Lindros to the Rangers deal, and the two Islander deals of roughly the same time (Yashin and Peca). Now look how of those deals turned out, and maybe you'll see why GMs are a little more hesitant these days.
I'm not even getting involved in this Gonchar's value vs Pronger's value discussion, but I will be glad to point out that some of the nonsense your wrote is, frankly, laughable.

1. The only recent stretch of mediocre play from Chris Pronger was his first few games of the 02-03 season when he returned from injury. Nobody that watched Chris Pronger play on a regular basis in the year that just finished would label anything about his play mediocre.

2. Chris Pronger hasn't been paired on a regular shift with Al MacInnis since before Joel Quenneville was the Blues coach. How could not know this and begin to evaluate Chris Pronger as a player is beyond me. And if you really think that MacInnis is the reason behind his production then perhaps you could explain to me how Pronger finished 2nd in scoring among defensemen while MacInnis played a grand total of 2 games all season?

degroat* is offline  
Old
08-16-2004, 05:14 PM
  #81
guitaraholic*
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 898
vCash: 500
honestly, Stich, I found Kubera55's comments so off base and uninformed that I didn't even bother replying to them. I appreciate you taking the time to correct at least a couple of his more eggregious errors. When people can't even get basic facts correct then I fail to see the point in further 'debate' with them. Such is the case here.

guitaraholic* is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 06:39 AM
  #82
Jysk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Skellefteć Sweden
Posts: 319
vCash: 500
Goncar better then Pronger

Let me try one

Scott Nichol is better then Joe Sakic ...... wow this is fun

Jysk is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 11:50 AM
  #83
Kubera55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Right, again, I've been polite, well as polite as can be expected, and yet again, I'm being called an idiot.

Let's try again children, and I really hope you are children because only kids actually believe this is how a civilized discussion sounds.

1) Oh, McInnis and Pronger weren't regular partners...hmmm well they sure did spend a lot of time together whenever I caught a Blues game. But o.k., they weren't on the chart together.

Regardless, at what point did I say McInnis was responsible for all of Pronger's scoring? I said that he had the benefit of a HoF partner/teammate and a better supporting cast. Is that untrue? Did Gonchar have that? Is my point somehow invalidated because Pronger played 30 minutes a night and McInnis played 25 minutes a night and somehow the Blues kept them from ever being on the ice together regularly? No small feat keeping them apart, I might add.

Even if I take your argument at face value, that they weren't ever on the ice together, wouldn't Pronger still benefit from having a HoF teamate drawing PK coverage away (for when Pronger is on) and handling the defensive load, freeing Pronger up more for his ice-time?

2) Riiiight, let's just ignore the $10 million dollar elephant in the room. All these All-Stars can't get moved for squat but Pronger is different and special. While the Rangers and Caps were throwing All-Stars out the window like ballast all last year, I'm sure it would be totally different if they'd had a stud like Pronger. Leetch? Gonchar? Kovalev? Bondra? ******* compared to Chris. Pay no attention to the fact that he makes close to twice what any of those players make. Because lord knows, no GM in the league pays attention to salary these days. Could you be anymore of a homer?

Guys, the Rangers, my own dearly beloved (even if soft headed) Rangers, are crucifying teams over salary. They jammed 40% of Jagr's salary down Washingtons throat and gave them nothing in return. Point out the spend-thrift team left that's just going to ignore Pronger's $10 million a year and slap it on their payroll like it doesn't matter. Go ahead, I'll wait.

The Blues eat salary (like 50%), or they eat a similar contract coming back, or they get squat. That's how it works, and we know I'm right.

Know how?

History. Show me an example of a player in Prongers salary bracket being traded for the type of youth return you are demanding (since the aforementioned Lindros, Jagr, Yashin, and Peca deals). You won't find one.

3) Pronger's mediocre play... well I remember right after he got his big ticket contract (2 years ago? 3? I forget) there were numerous articles about him taking it easy. And despite his team making the playoffs like they always do, I can't help but notice Pronger was a minus 1 this year. That's a big step down from his usual +20 or better. What happened? Probably wasn't his fault, or at least entirely his fault, but GMs pay attention to these minor little details. (Should I bring up McInnis and Jackman being out all year here and how supporting cast has an effect on everyone's performance? Or will you connect the dots on your own?).

4) At NO POINT did I say Gonchar was better than Pronger. I said more valuable. The difference is huge.

Who's a better hockey player, Eric Lindros or Keith Primeau?

Why, Eric Lindros, of course. He's got a league MVP, numerous All-Star appearences, the Olympics, World Cup appeareances, as well as a few 100 point NHL seasons, and is one of the most fearsome fighters and hitters in the league when he's on his game.

Who's more valuable in trade?

Why, Keith Primeau, of course. He's healthy, he's signed to a reasonable contract, and he can play his rugged style of hockey without getting hurt every 20 games.

Salary, injury history, and recent play matter.

Kubera55 is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 12:18 PM
  #84
Kubera55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitaraholic
honestly, Stich, I found Kubera55's comments so off base and uninformed that I didn't even bother replying to them. I appreciate you taking the time to correct at least a couple of his more eggregious errors. When people can't even get basic facts correct then I fail to see the point in further 'debate' with them. Such is the case here.
My point in my previous post was that you DIDN'T debate. You simply stated a blank opinion and acted like we were all supposed to stomp and cheer for your brilliance. Even if you were/are right, what would be the point of that? Is that interesting? Do you find yourself having lots of fascinating real life discussions where all you say is "I think X" and everyone goes "why yes, X rules!" and then you all get a beer? If so, I pity you.

Educate me guitar. Tell me I'm wrong. I'm FINE with that. But I want reasons why. I want to have an intelligent and informed discussion on hockey. And I'm perfectly alright with being wrong in the long run.

But, I do not want to be mindlessly insulted by 12-year-olds who lack the common sense to tie their own shoes.

Right now you can engage in an intelligent debate with me. You can point out where you think I'm logically wrong. You can bring facts to the table that I am unaware of or have left out. Or you can continue to act like a lazy, dumb, 12-year-old. If it's the latter, seriously, save me the time and just shut-up. I may disagree with Stich's points, and I definitely don't enjoy his tone, but I at least respect the fact that he took the time out to actually write a response.

Kubera55 is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 01:33 PM
  #85
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubera55
Right, again, I've been polite, well as polite as can be expected, and yet again, I'm being called an idiot.

Let's try again children, and I really hope you are children because only kids actually believe this is how a civilized discussion sounds.
Perhaps someone who is blatantly lying about another player shouldn't be calling others children?

Quote:
1) Oh, McInnis and Pronger weren't regular partners...hmmm well they sure did spend a lot of time together whenever I caught a Blues game. But o.k., they weren't on the chart together.
Other than special teams, they haven't had a regular shift together in years.

Quote:
Regardless, at what point did I say McInnis was responsible for all of Pronger's scoring? I said that he had the benefit of a HoF partner/teammate and a better supporting cast. Is that untrue? Did Gonchar have that? Is my point somehow invalidated because Pronger played 30 minutes a night and McInnis played 25 minutes a night and somehow the Blues kept them from ever being on the ice together regularly? No small feat keeping them apart, I might add.

Even if I take your argument at face value, that they weren't ever on the ice together, wouldn't Pronger still benefit from having a HoF teamate drawing PK coverage away (for when Pronger is on) and handling the defensive load, freeing Pronger up more for his ice-time?
I never once said that they weren't ever on the ice together. You're incredibly good twisting others' words around and making asinine assumptions.

Once again, if MacInnis was even partially responsonsible for Pronger's production then how did Pronger finish 2nd among defensemen in scoring while MacInnis was out of the season?

Avoiding this question again only displays your immaturity.

Quote:
3) Pronger's mediocre play... well I remember right after he got his big ticket contract (2 years ago? 3? I forget) there were numerous articles about him taking it easy.
Give me links. If there were numerous articles backing up what you're saying surely you'll be able to find some.

Somehow I doubt you'll come up with even one. Perhaps it's because I follow the Blues religiously and someone like myself might remember the media bashing Pronger for his play? Perhaps...

Quote:
And despite his team making the playoffs like they always do, I can't help but notice Pronger was a minus 1 this year. That's a big step down from his usual +20 or better. What happened?
Probably wasn't his fault, or at least entirely his fault, but GMs pay attention to these minor little details. (Should I bring up McInnis and Jackman being out all year here and how supporting cast has an effect on everyone's performance? Or will you connect the dots on your own?).
So let me get this right... because I said that Pronger's production isn't a result of having MacInnis on his team then you assume I also don't think that Pronger's plus minus was effected by his teammates? Surely you releaze how utterly stupid of an assumption that is?

If you were as much of an expert on Pronger and the Blues as you are presenting yourself as you'd be well aware that while the absense of MacInnis and Jackman certainly had an effect on his plus minus the real reason for it was the team's lack of ability to score goals.

Maybe... just maybe... the fact that the Blues scored the fewer goals during the regular season than any other playoff team might have had a decent impact on his plus minus?

degroat* is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 01:37 PM
  #86
shadoz19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubera55
My point in my previous post was that you DIDN'T debate. You simply stated a blank opinion and acted like we were all supposed to stomp and cheer for your brilliance. Even if you were/are right, what would be the point of that? Is that interesting? Do you find yourself having lots of fascinating real life discussions where all you say is "I think X" and everyone goes "why yes, X rules!" and then you all get a beer? If so, I pity you.

Educate me guitar. Tell me I'm wrong. I'm FINE with that. But I want reasons why. I want to have an intelligent and informed discussion on hockey. And I'm perfectly alright with being wrong in the long run.

But, I do not want to be mindlessly insulted by 12-year-olds who lack the common sense to tie their own shoes.

Right now you can engage in an intelligent debate with me. You can point out where you think I'm logically wrong. You can bring facts to the table that I am unaware of or have left out. Or you can continue to act like a lazy, dumb, 12-year-old. If it's the latter, seriously, save me the time and just shut-up. I may disagree with Stich's points, and I definitely don't enjoy his tone, but I at least respect the fact that he took the time out to actually write a response.
Don't bother you're wasting your time.

shadoz19 is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 01:39 PM
  #87
guitaraholic*
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadoz19
Don't bother you're wasting your time.

now *that's* a valuable contribution to this discussion. I'm impressed.

guitaraholic* is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 02:47 PM
  #88
Kubera55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitaraholic
now *that's* a valuable contribution to this discussion. I'm impressed.
Once again, here is Stich arguing and making a point. I still don't love his tone, but at least he has a point.

What's yours again?

Stich - Sorry, I think we both need to take a step back here. Most of my vitriol is aimed at Guitar, who seems to serve no purpose other than to continue to insult people needlessly, and I think I let that spill over in my reply to you.

A little more calmly now:

1) It was never my intent to say that McInnis is solely responsible for Prongers ups or downs. I'm well aware that Pronger is an excellent, probably HoF, player in his own right.

I was merely trying to make a comparison between the supporting cast that Pronger has had throughout his career and the cast that Gonchar has. We actually seem to agree on this, at least in part. Pronger's +/- this year did dip, most likely because he had less quality teamates. However, I think it would be only be fair to say that at least some of his guady offensive and +/- numbers in the past would also be the result of having those same quality teammates, no? And Gonchar didn't have those players.... hence some of the disparity can be explained away as being independent of the two players individually.

One thing that also seems fair to say.... when Pronger was deprived of those teamates, he suddenly put up a much more 'mortal' season. Minus 1, still among the league leaders in scoring, and big minutes in all situations (and about 90 PIMS). Now, the reason I bring THAT up, is because statistically speaking, Pronger's year would be a very normal year for Gonchar, save the PIMs.

One interpretation of this data could be to say that Pronger, without his supporting cast, was essentially a bigger, more PIM prone, Gonchar. Again, that's only for this year, and it's a sweeping inference with only one season to back it up. But when you throw in Pronger's injuries, and his salary.... you see where I'm going here?

2) I do not have the time right now to locate the links that attacked Pronger two or three years ago. I know that's a cop out, and I'm sorry. But I'm traveling tomorrow and I have a bunch of errands to run . . . for the record, I remember at least one major piece online, probably SI or ESPN, after that, it was smaller stuff... but you'll have to forgive me for not being able to look that up right now. For the moment, I'll concede the point and you can have that he's been consistent in his effort, save injuries, for the last two-to-three years.

But still no word on all the time he was out injured? Still nothing about his salary? The guy has missed what, about a hundred games in the last three years, and now he's missing the WC with the same knee problem... surely you don't think it fair or wise to sweep all of that under the rug? Doesn't Gonchar get any credit for playing and producing while Pronger was on the shelf? For costing half as much, for taking fewer penalties, and for scoring more?

3) I never claimed to be an expert on Pronger. And to be honest, I think your closeness to the situation may be clouding your view. I'm a Ranger fan, and if you had offered me a late 1st round pick, a deferred 2nd rounder, and two B-prospects for Leetch last year, you think I wouldn't have flammed you?

It's hard, I understand that. But the thesis of my argument here is that two franchise defensemen got moved at the deadline this year (Leetch and Gonchar). Both were multi-All-Stars with all the hardware, and neither had the injury concerns or salary of Pronger. Well, Leetch has injury concerns, but I would argue less than Pronger.

And what did they get? Some prospects, not much. Hence my original (flamed by Guitar) offer and reasoning behind it. And while the side-debate of Pronger vs. Gonchar is interesting, even if I ceded the field and said, why yes, Pronger is more valuable than Gonchar.... how much more could you possibly expect? Gonchar was worth a late first, late 2nd, and a solid B+ young player (Morrison). This thread starts off with people offering and demanding A+ prospects, top ten picks, and heaps of youth.... do even you honestly believe that Pronger is worth that much more than Leetch and Gonchar? And if so, why?

Kubera55 is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 03:02 PM
  #89
X8oD
Registered User
 
X8oD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 612 Warf Ave.
Country: United States
Posts: 7,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
Perhaps you could clarify something for me... why is it that Pronger wasn't untradable with a $9.5M salary but he is with a $10M salary?
Pre and post CBA, no way around that. Anybody making 8-10 mil a season will be untradable under the new CBA unless nothing changes.

X8oD is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 04:01 PM
  #90
Wisent
Registered User
 
Wisent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Mannheim
Country: Germany
Posts: 3,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitaraholic
then so is peter forsberg, joe sakic and any other player that makes 8+ million a year. To assert that Pronger is "virtually untradeable" is hysterical.
I just think that with the new environment that the new CBA will introduce (I think such contracts as Prongers will be given much more rarely in that environment) no team can afford to get such an expensive contract. The difference between he 9.5 he got in his last contract is, that this was under the old CBA, which didn't include the salary restrictions that the knew one presumably will. And, as you said, players like Forsberg or Sakic will be virtually untradeable too then (not that I see them traded anyway, even under the old CBA).

Wisent is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 04:36 PM
  #91
X8oD
Registered User
 
X8oD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 612 Warf Ave.
Country: United States
Posts: 7,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisent
I just think that with the new environment that the new CBA will introduce (I think such contracts as Prongers will be given much more rarely in that environment) no team can afford to get such an expensive contract. The difference between he 9.5 he got in his last contract is, that this was under the old CBA, which didn't include the salary restrictions that the knew one presumably will. And, as you said, players like Forsberg or Sakic will be virtually untradeable too then (not that I see them traded anyway, even under the old CBA).
you dont need to explain. It made sense.

Its just, those who choose to read and elaborate into things that need not be, nothing ever makes sense.

X8oD is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 05:02 PM
  #92
The Legend
Stamkos in 2016
 
The Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,708
vCash: 500
2 first rounders, 2 second rounders, and Aki Berg

The Legend is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 06:33 PM
  #93
guitaraholic*
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by X8oD
Pre and post CBA, no way around that. Anybody making 8-10 mil a season will be untradable under the new CBA unless nothing changes.
so despite the FACT that two players have already been qualified at or re-signed for over 9 million per year by two seperate teams in your OPINION nobody wants these guys (which is essentially what you're saying when you claim they have no trade value) ?
I'm just asking is all... the facts seem to contradict your opinion.

guitaraholic* is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 06:53 PM
  #94
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,805
vCash: 91
Let me make a few points here....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubera55
1) I was merely trying to make a comparison between the supporting cast that Pronger has had throughout his career and the cast that Gonchar has. We actually seem to agree on this, at least in part. Pronger's +/- this year did dip, most likely because he had less quality teamates. However, I think it would be only be fair to say that at least some of his guady offensive and +/- numbers in the past would also be the result of having those same quality teammates, no? And Gonchar didn't have those players.... hence some of the disparity can be explained away as being independent of the two players individually.
I think we'd all agree that Gonchar's is more of an offensive defenseman, where Pronger is more of a defensive defenseman....so I'd expect Gonchar to put up better offensive numbers. Maybe a bit of the disparity in the production between the two can be attributed to quality of linemates, but I think much of it comes from the style of play each player has.

Besides....even in Pronger's best offensive season he hasn't scored 26 goals like Gonchar did a couple of seasons ago. That you can't attribute to having better teammates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubera55
2) But still no word on all the time he was out injured? Still nothing about his salary? The guy has missed what, about a hundred games in the last three years, and now he's missing the WC with the same knee problem... surely you don't think it fair or wise to sweep all of that under the rug? Doesn't Gonchar get any credit for playing and producing while Pronger was on the shelf? For costing half as much, for taking fewer penalties, and for scoring more?
I love Gonchar. I'd love to have him on the Blues. But, when both are healthy I promise you the *vast* majority of players, coaches and GM's in the league would rather have Pronger than Gonchar. Even given the choice between Pronger at 80% and Gonchar at 100%, I think a majority of all three groups would take Pronger. Sorry to say it, but that's the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubera55
3) It's hard, I understand that. But the thesis of my argument here is that two franchise defensemen got moved at the deadline this year (Leetch and Gonchar). Both were multi-All-Stars with all the hardware, and neither had the injury concerns or salary of Pronger. Well, Leetch has injury concerns, but I would argue less than Pronger.

And what did they get? Some prospects, not much. Hence my original (flamed by Guitar) offer and reasoning behind it. And while the side-debate of Pronger vs. Gonchar is interesting, even if I ceded the field and said, why yes, Pronger is more valuable than Gonchar.... how much more could you possibly expect? Gonchar was worth a late first, late 2nd, and a solid B+ young player (Morrison). This thread starts off with people offering and demanding A+ prospects, top ten picks, and heaps of youth.... do even you honestly believe that Pronger is worth that much more than Leetch and Gonchar? And if so, why?
a) Leetch *was* a franchise defenseman...maybe as recently as 3 years ago when he went 20-58-78. Since then, his play has faltered and over the last 2 seasons he played 108 games, going 25-41-66. In that same time, Pronger has played 85 games (missing virtually all of the '02-03 season), and going 15-44-58. A few less goals, but a higher PPG average. I wouldn't call Leetch a franchise defenseman at this point in time.

A "franchise player" is the one player who, if you were building a team from scratch, you'd take to build your team around. Guys like Thornton, Iginla, Richards, Lidstrom, and even Sundin and Sakic are franchise players. Guys like Modano (as late as 2000), Jagr (as late as 2002), Lemieux (when healthy and in his prime) and arguably a Naslund or Bertuzzi are/were franchise players. Yzerman as late as 1998. Chelios as late as 2000. Those are franchise players. Pronger is certainly in that class. Gonchar is a *very good* defenseman, but IMO not a "franchise player". One of the first 3 or 4 I'd take, but not the *first* one I'd take.

b) Write this down and keep it next to your mouse...players are always overvalued here at HF. A general rule is that Player X (whoever it is) is worth twice as much here on the boards than he really would be in a trade. Usually it's more. Rarely does someone actually peg what a player's true worth is in a trade. Even more rare is when a player is undervalued. Plus, you have to consider how desperate a team is to get rid of a given player. If New Jersey wanted to unload Martin Brodeur, they'd take a bit less to move him. If New Jersey had no desire to move Brodeur but was listening to offers, then they'd extort everything they could out of the other team. In this case, the Blues have no need nor desire to move Pronger...so they should get a better deal before signing off (but not something along the lines of 5 1st-round picks, a team's top 11 prospects, 200 lbs. of filet mignons, 3 pints of blood and the firstborns of the team's owner, GM, coaches and all of their sons and daughters and their next-door neighbors and their friends).

So....what would I realistically expect if Pronger were traded today? A 1st round pick in '05 and two mid-level forward prospects. Not much more. If Pronger were signed to more than one year, I'd expect the Blues to eat some of his salary....right now, say $5-6 million. If he fetched more, I'd be (pleasantly) surprised. If he didn't, I'd be disappointed but not shocked.

c) I'd rate Morrison as an A-/B+ prospect....but now I'm splitting hairs.

Irish Blues is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 07:02 PM
  #95
guitaraholic*
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 898
vCash: 500
"all of their (no thanks) and daughters...."

man, I'd make that trade.

guitaraholic* is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 09:08 PM
  #96
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 16,671
vCash: 50
As for Leetch, he's past his prime. Still a good player but he won't be challenging for the Norris unlike Pronger.

Gonchar got $5.5m in a arbitration. Boston knew that when they traded for him, they would have factored that figure in.

Now take Kasperitius's salary away from Pronger's and you've got about the same money as Gonchar. Pronger is the much better player even if Gonchar does score more. Most people would agree. Given the salaries are now evened up by the Kasperitius salary dump I'd expect Pronger to fetch a lot more.


I'd take Morrison, 1st and the 2nd over Kasparaitis, 2nd , 3rd, 2 low level prospects.

"none of the Rangers high-end kids, including but not limited to Tjutin, Jessiman, Montoya, Blackburn, Lundqvist, Lundmark, and Korpikowski." That doesn't leave much. I presume Balej and Murray get protected under the but not limited to?

If the Blues put Pronger and $4m on the market, they would be knocked down in the rush.

me2 is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 11:16 PM
  #97
Kubera55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Irish, I'm so glad to meet you. And I'm not being even slightly sarcastic.

But, now for a few rejoinders:

1) Leetch is past his prime, no doubt about that. But when healthy, he still plays 25-30 minutes a night, and he's one of the most dangerous scoring defensemen in the league. No, I wouldn't build a franchise on a 36-year-old. But would you really build a franchise on a 30-year old with serious knee injuries? I have to say, I'm not sure I agree with your definition of a 'franchise' defensemen.

2) Interestingly, and I would argue, significantly, the team acquiring each of these alleged 'franchise' defensemen would get them for one full season, then have to bid on them as UFA's just like everyone else. I would argue that no team would be trading for Pronger as a 'franchise building' move. It's a playoff/Cup Contender short-term rental. And, as such, I'd make relatively little out of the age difference between Leetch and the other two. Over the course of a single season, Leetch can and will still deliver 60+ points, 25 minutes a night, and if properly supported, a solid +/-, and some great clutch play. That's a franchise defensemen, in my view, and while Gonchar and Pronger will give you more in the longterm, the acquiring team must bid on them just like everyone else, limiting the difference.

Regardless, I've already conceded that Pronger is worth more than Rent-a-Leetch, so this is mostly semantics.

2) Interesting that you qualified your statement about Gonchar vs. Pronger by saying 'if healthy'. Of course, I agree if healthy Pronger is easily the best player of the three. The problem is that he's had two serious injuries, and the knee just knocked him out of the WC. That's not healthy. Ask any Ranger fan who watched Pavel Bure melt before their eyes what a degenerative knee can do, and while Pronger isn't nearly that far-gone, it's definitely got to be a factor...

The fact seems to be that only Gonchar of the three is 'whole'. The other two have substantial injury concerns, and given Pronger's salary and style of play, that has to be a substantial problem. Would I want a 100% Pronger over a 100% Gonchar? Sure. How about 80% Pronger vs. 100% Gonchar? Getting dicey. And when you factor in that the acquiring team has $4 million left over to pursue a marquee defensive defenseman to pair with Gonchar? Well, now I have to say that Gonchar looks pretty darn good.

3) Sadly, I think you are right about player value here on HF... particularly when homerism gets involved. But hey, I keep trying. Every now and again I get involved in a serious and intelligent discussion, like now, which makes it worth while. Gotta keep tryin', ya know?

4) As for your value... that's awfully close to where I began, so it's not like I can disagree by much. I still think that St.Louis would have to eat a little salary, but a mid-level 1st and two solid prospects? Sounds about right. I offered a high 2nd and 3rd, but a 1st should be attainable. It's just not going to come from a team like NY... the Rangers will be in Top Ten land, and I don't think that is what you had in mind. (Least I hope not).

5) Me2 - Sorry, the 'including but not limited to' language is a lawyer thing. (I'm in law school, sorry ;-)) . What it means is, "no one on this list, and possibly some others." So I was offering two prospects, just not any of the Rangers really high end guys. I don't tend to include Murray or Balej in that list, though clearly there is a lot of healthy disagreement there.

Kubera55 is offline  
Old
08-17-2004, 11:22 PM
  #98
Kubera55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitaraholic
so despite the FACT that two players have already been qualified at or re-signed for over 9 million per year by two seperate teams in your OPINION nobody wants these guys (which is essentially what you're saying when you claim they have no trade value) ?
I'm just asking is all... the facts seem to contradict your opinion.
How are the two connected at all? I'm not even mad at this one, it's an honest question.

Sure, Pronger got qualified. And Sergie Federov got paid close to $10 million a year by Anaheim. There is no doubt that if Pronger was a UFA, some team would belly up to the bar and pay him huge cash. The question asked is whether or not some team would trade heaps of youth to St.Louis for the right to pay Pronger's mega-salary. That's a very different question, isn't it?

Heck, if Jagr were UFA tomorrow, some team would offer him mega-millions, wouldn't they? And yet even at the $6.5 million a year he's costing the NYR, he's viewed as virtually untradeable. The Blues could take Jagr AND Kasparitius and pay less than a million combined more than for Pronger alone.... and if I had made that offer, you'd have probably had an annuerism.

Just because a player is getting paid a lot doesn't mean he can be traded for a lot. Getting paid a lot by necessity diminishes trading value.

Kubera55 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 05:37 AM.

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

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