Burn it Down?

[Sarasti]

Just now, The_People1 said:

 

Whether it happens by mistake, miscalculation, or sacrificing long term for short term, these trades do happen.  They do happen.  Let's make one of these happen.

 

 

 

They do. Hell Lindholm and Hamilton could be considered an example.

Maybe not superstar caliber but Hamilton is garnering Norris attention this far and I think few would argue Lindholm is our most complete forward outside Tkachuk. RHS RW/C to boot.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Me: Let's trade player A for player B.

You: What?!  Why would you want to trade Player A for Player C,D, and E?

Me: ....Huh?

 

No seriously lol... let's trade our best scorer in the last 4 years for another player who will be our best scorer for the next 4 years.  Okay?  I just don't understand the thought process.  Did i say let's trade our best scorer in the last 4 years and end there?

 

No team is going to trade a player like you refer to.

Forsberg for Gaudreau?

Yeah, that's not happening.

Gaudreau for Stone?

Nope.

 

If they do, it's luck on our side or a bad GM on their side.

When was the last trade that happened that did what you want?

Stone was traded because he wasn't signing.

Karlsson ditto.

Hall was traded because Chia is an idiot.

Did I miss any where the polayer is in his prime?

[robrob74]

14 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

No team is going to trade a player like you refer to.

Forsberg for Gaudreau?

Yeah, that's not happening.

Gaudreau for Stone?

Nope.

 

If they do, it's luck on our side or a bad GM on their side.

When was the last trade that happened that did what you want?

Stone was traded because he wasn't signing.

Karlsson ditto.

Hall was traded because Chia is an idiot.

Did I miss any where the polayer is in his prime?

 

That is why I am saying we aren’t going to get the help now, it’ll be a team looking to get over the edge and give up a future star for our current. It is still a crapshoot though.
 

But nowadays that doesn’t happen, as Forsberg is probably one of the last deals of its kind simply because younger, lower money contract players are highly valued in the new NHL.

[travel_dude]

13 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

That is why I am saying we aren’t going to get the help now, it’ll be a team looking to get over the edge and give up a future star for our current. It is still a crapshoot though.
 

But nowadays that doesn’t happen, as Forsberg is probably one of the last deals of its kind simply because younger, lower money contract players are highly valued in the new NHL.

 

That was a case of win now for a team loading up on role players for the playoffs.

 

[Sarasti]

 

Ryan O'Reilly has been traded twice.

The first time the Avs got a package that included Zadorov and Compher.

The second time the Sabres got a package that included Tage Thompson, Vladimir Sobotka, Patrik Berglund and a couple early round picks. (The 2019 first rounder turned into Ryan Johnson.).

 

I don't know much about Tage Thompson or that 2019 first rounder... but Zadorov and Compher fit pretty well in Colorado and the Avs seem pretty fine without ROR.

 

ROR has been traded twice in his prime.

Example off the top of my head.

[The_People1]

25 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

No team is going to trade a player like you refer to.

Forsberg for Gaudreau?

Yeah, that's not happening.

Gaudreau for Stone?

Nope.

 

If they do, it's luck on our side or a bad GM on their side.

When was the last trade that happened that did what you want?

Stone was traded because he wasn't signing.

Karlsson ditto.

Hall was traded because Chia is an idiot.

Did I miss any where the polayer is in his prime?

 

I know 99.999% of trade suggestions on this message board are unrealistic and you are right.  At the same time though,

 

I say: Let's trade Gaudreau for Marner,

You respond to: Let's trade Gaudreau for a bag of pucks.

 

Who are you responding to?

[travel_dude]

21 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I know 99.999% of trade suggestions on this message board are unrealistic and you are right.  At the same time though,

 

I say: Let's trade Gaudreau for Marner,

You respond to: Let's trade Gaudreau for a bag of pucks.

 

Who are you responding to?

 

Obviously, I would have no issue with the talent of a Marner for Gaudreau trade.

I have a big problem with the salary exchange; adding Brodie to make the salary work leaves us in the hole.

My initial post was directed at those that want to trade him for futures. 

I actually suggested that Tkachuk for Gaudreau would be more reasonable, maybe even more so due to the cap implications.

[JTech780]

40 minutes ago, Sarasti said:

 

Ryan O'Reilly has been traded twice.

The first time the Avs got a package that included Zadorov and Compher.

The second time the Sabres got a package that included Tage Thompson, Vladimir Sobotka, Patrik Berglund and a couple early round picks. (The 2019 first rounder turned into Ryan Johnson.).

 

I don't know much about Tage Thompson or that 2019 first rounder... but Zadorov and Compher fit pretty well in Colorado and the Avs seem pretty fine without ROR.

 

ROR has been traded twice in his prime.

Example off the top of my head.

 

Except none of the players that the teams got for O'Reilly are as good as O'Reilly, or have won Cups, which O'Reilly has just done.

 

Colorado doing well has little to do with the players they got in return for O'Reilly as both Zadorov and Compher are role players.

[The_People1]

8 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Obviously, I would have no issue with the talent of a Marner for Gaudreau trade.

I have a big problem with the salary exchange; adding Brodie to make the salary work leaves us in the hole.

My initial post was directed at those that want to trade him for futures. 

I actually suggested that Tkachuk for Gaudreau would be more reasonable, maybe even more so due to the cap implications.

 

Ya sorry i didn't mean literally "you" directly but the general answer to most trade suggestions is "why are we trading our best player?"  Like, they only read half the sentence and started to post a reply... because the original suggestion is we trade our best player to get an even better player.  But the response doesn't even show they've read the person's original suggestion. 

[jjgallow]

I know this is totally useless and unproductive but meh....I'll say it anyway...we should done this in the offseason lol.

 

Reading the debate it's almost as if those against a trade, are actually for a trade but think it will go badly   @travel_dude

 

Those in favour of a trade, aren't disagreeing but are proposing trades they would find acceptable.

 

 

So....this is becoming less and less about the acceptability of trading Gaudreau and more about the deal itself.

 

which is...actually amazing progress.  internet forum rules, the more heated the arguement the more similarly everyone is actually thinking. lol

 

 

I'll just say one thing:   It still seems like we're all allergic to Two Words:   Draft Picks.

 

Even though they are probably the best and only fair value currency to perform such a deal.   Before someone says "yeah but we don't know what we're getting" I'm calling bull.

People are allergic to those 2 words because they are impatient.

[JTech780]

49 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ya sorry i didn't mean literally "you" directly but the general answer to most trade suggestions is "why are we trading our best player?"  Like, they only read half the sentence and started to post a reply... because the original suggestion is we trade our best player to get an even better player.  But the response doesn't even show they've read the person's original suggestion. 

 

The problem is that we won't get a better player for Gaudreau, unless we luck out on a draft pick.

 

The Leafs aren't trading Marner for Gaudreau and Brodie, that trade doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the Leafs. Gaudreau doesn't make them better and they have a bunch of defensemen like Brodie and he is a UFA so I don't see a fit there.

 

I just don't see a situation where we could trade Brodie and get a better player.

[JTech780]

31 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

I know this is totally useless and unproductive but meh....I'll say it anyway...we should done this in the offseason lol.

 

Reading the debate it's almost as if those against a trade, are actually for a trade but think it will go badly   @travel_dude

 

Those in favour of a trade, aren't disagreeing but are proposing trades they would find acceptable.

 

 

So....this is becoming less and less about the acceptability of trading Gaudreau and more about the deal itself.

 

which is...actually amazing progress.  internet forum rules, the more heated the arguement the more similarly everyone is actually thinking. lol

 

 

I'll just say one thing:   It still seems like we're all allergic to Two Words:   Draft Picks.

 

Even though they are probably the best and only fair value currency to perform such a deal.   Before someone says "yeah but we don't know what we're getting" I'm calling bull.

People are allergic to those 2 words because they are impatient.

 

I think most people don't have a problem with getting draft picks, it's that majority of draft picks outside of the top 3 don't turn out to be stars or as good as Gaudreau.

 

It has very little to do with scouting or development and lot to do with luck. 

 

So if you are trading Gaudreau for picks chances are you won't get anything close to the level of Gaudreau in return, unless you get lucky at the draft or lucky that the team you are trading with tanks like Ottawa did after trading for Duchene.

[ABC923]

How about Gaudreau + Brodie for Ceci + Nylander + 2nd? Assuming Brodie isn't out long term, this gives the leafs a better defender who plays more to the style of the leafs new coach and current team.  They also get a dynamic (most of the time) winger with a very good contract.  We have to tough it out with Ceci for the year, but then he's gone, plus we get another scoring right shot RW who is signed long term to a fair contract.  The 2nd rounder is negotiable.

 

Also worth mentioning: Money is close to even on this deal, plus both teams shake up their respective team cultures.

[bosn111]

While The People didn't like my suggestion in Trade suggestions for what someone like Gaudreau could bring back, I think that the players themselves may not be the perfect deal but the concept is valid.

 

My suggestion was Gaudreau (small, all star, p/g LW), Brodie (top 4, skating D) and Jankowski (bottom 6 C, PK specialist) for Beauvillier (22 yo, 2nd line LW had 21 goals and 36 points 2 years ago, 18 goals 28 points last season and has 7 goals and 14 points in 19 games this season, on pace for 28 goals and 56 points) + Eberle (2nd line RW who has been on a 20+ goal pace EVERY SEASON including a 34 g 76 p in 78 games season) + Pulock (Future if not current top pair RD), High end offensive young forward prospect and a conditional 1st/2nd round draft pick. Rather than a 1 for 1 star caliber, you are getting slightly better D, 2 upgrades at 2nd line with in house taking over Johny's top line spot, plus prospect and pick at the cost of 1 top liner, one top 4 D and a lesser forward. Basically you are stocking on futures without sacrificing the present. If Tkachuk wasn't showing he can handle the higher spot, I wouldn't make this suggestion.

 

The issue is not trying to sacrifice the current team for futures, it is to upgrade the team as a whole while also building up the future. If you don't like players X and Y, that's fine, the concept I still believe is valid. IF you can upgrade the 2nd line on 2 positions plus upgrade D and gaining futures for a combination of Gaudreau and Brodie, I would go for it. I would not move Gaudreau just for picks, same for Monahan, it has to be beneficial now and in the future. Brodie as an upcoming UFA is a different question at the TDL.

 

[jjgallow]

49 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

It has very little to do with scouting or development and lot to do with luck. 

 

 

Like how the Oilers were unlucky in their last 4 rebuilds? 

 

I would fundamentally disagree with this and I would even go as far to say that our recent drafting has been exceptional.  Development, less so.

[The_People1]

44 minutes ago, bosn111 said:

While The People didn't like my suggestion in Trade suggestions for what someone like Gaudreau could bring back, I think that the players themselves may not be the perfect deal but the concept is valid.

 

My suggestion was Gaudreau (small, all star, p/g LW), Brodie (top 4, skating D) and Jankowski (bottom 6 C, PK specialist) for Beauvillier (22 yo, 2nd line LW had 21 goals and 36 points 2 years ago, 18 goals 28 points last season and has 7 goals and 14 points in 19 games this season, on pace for 28 goals and 56 points) + Eberle (2nd line RW who has been on a 20+ goal pace EVERY SEASON including a 34 g 76 p in 78 games season) + Pulock (Future if not current top pair RD), High end offensive young forward prospect and a conditional 1st/2nd round draft pick. Rather than a 1 for 1 star caliber, you are getting slightly better D, 2 upgrades at 2nd line with in house taking over Johny's top line spot, plus prospect and pick at the cost of 1 top liner, one top 4 D and a lesser forward. Basically you are stocking on futures without sacrificing the present. If Tkachuk wasn't showing he can handle the higher spot, I wouldn't make this suggestion.

 

The issue is not trying to sacrifice the current team for futures, it is to upgrade the team as a whole while also building up the future. If you don't like players X and Y, that's fine, the concept I still believe is valid. IF you can upgrade the 2nd line on 2 positions plus upgrade D and gaining futures for a combination of Gaudreau and Brodie, I would go for it. I would not move Gaudreau just for picks, same for Monahan, it has to be beneficial now and in the future. Brodie as an upcoming UFA is a different question at the TDL.

 

 

Ya that's fair bosn.

 

I don't want to turn this into a Trade thread but the concept is valid.  The players you suggested i'm totally not on board with. 

 

Eberle is washed up.  Pulock is not 1st pairing material in my opinion.  We need more.  If we put Gaudreau on the table, then NYI has to consider Barzal.  After that, we balance out with throw ins.  Barzal is going RFA and could get $9-mil-per long term... maybe the Islanders don't have the appetite for that and rather have Gaudreau.

[cross16]

43 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ya that's fair bosn.

 

I don't want to turn this into a Trade thread but the concept is valid.  The players you suggested i'm totally not on board with. 

 

Eberle is washed up.  Pulock is not 1st pairing material in my opinion.  We need more.  If we put Gaudreau on the table, then NYI has to consider Barzal.  After that, we balance out with throw ins.  Barzal is going RFA and could get $9-mil-per long term... maybe the Islanders don't have the appetite for that and rather have Gaudreau.

 

This is the real crux of this for me and why this isn't nearly as easy an exercise as it seems. I went team by team and it's tough because the player you would want, why are they moving them? I agree, if you want to deal with the Islanders you'd want Barzal but why do the Islanders do that? I get what you are saying that maybe it's contract, but that's a team flush with cap space so why not sign Barzal?

 

Star for star trades are tough for this reason, teams don't typically move them. I agree with the theme here that if Gaudreau gets moved I think best case scenario you are getting a potential star back and not an immediate one, and the level of that potential is going to vary greatly. If the Flames truly want to move Gaudreau then I think they need to find a player out there who they feel is about to break out and just held back by opportunity. Try and get that player a top prospect and a pick and it's probably the best you are going to do in a Gaudreau trade. That or you target an Iginla type trade and get that level of prospect. Both trades have a considerable amount of risk involved so weighting that risk is really the crux of this discussion IMO. 

 

 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

I know this is totally useless and unproductive but meh....I'll say it anyway...we should done this in the offseason lol.

 

Reading the debate it's almost as if those against a trade, are actually for a trade but think it will go badly   @travel_dude

 

Those in favour of a trade, aren't disagreeing but are proposing trades they would find acceptable.

 

 

So....this is becoming less and less about the acceptability of trading Gaudreau and more about the deal itself.

 

which is...actually amazing progress.  internet forum rules, the more heated the arguement the more similarly everyone is actually thinking. lol

 

 

I'll just say one thing:   It still seems like we're all allergic to Two Words:   Draft Picks.

 

Even though they are probably the best and only fair value currency to perform such a deal.   Before someone says "yeah but we don't know what we're getting" I'm calling bull.

People are allergic to those 2 words because they are impatient.

 

For the record, I have never said a trade of Gaudreau works for me.

But, I will participate in the discussion to debate what that value would need to be.

There aren't many (any?) modern day examples of that type of trade that works for the trading team.

 

But I think we all understand that you simply want to gut the team until they get the rebuild right.

Unless you end up with a special talent with a draft pick, you are further behind than if you stayed the course.

 

 

 

 

[jjgallow]

14 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

For the record, I have never said a trade of Gaudreau works for me.

But, I will participate in the discussion to debate what that value would need to be.

There aren't many (any?) modern day examples of that type of trade that works for the trading team.

 

But I think we all understand that you simply want to gut the team until they get the rebuild right.

Unless you end up with a special talent with a draft pick, you are further behind than if you stayed the course.

 

I don't think you really understand my position, no.   I don't think finishing last is the answer at all.     But that's a really long conversation. 

 

Here's where we agree...you're afraid BT will botch it.

 

Yeah so am I.  Lol

 

I beleive a rebuild movement is needed.    I beleive a Gaudreau trade is an excellent first step.  I also beleive it will happen. 

 

Do I think it will be  good trade?

 

..

 

No.

 

Lol.  Only that it Could be.

[Thebrewcrew]

Ferraro makes some good points

 

 

[The_People1]

16 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

This is the real crux of this for me and why this isn't nearly as easy an exercise as it seems. I went team by team and it's tough because the player you would want, why are they moving them? I agree, if you want to deal with the Islanders you'd want Barzal but why do the Islanders do that? I get what you are saying that maybe it's contract, but that's a team flush with cap space so why not sign Barzal?

 

Star for star trades are tough for this reason, teams don't typically move them. I agree with the theme here that if Gaudreau gets moved I think best case scenario you are getting a potential star back and not an immediate one, and the level of that potential is going to vary greatly. If the Flames truly want to move Gaudreau then I think they need to find a player out there who they feel is about to break out and just held back by opportunity. Try and get that player a top prospect and a pick and it's probably the best you are going to do in a Gaudreau trade. That or you target an Iginla type trade and get that level of prospect. Both trades have a considerable amount of risk involved so weighting that risk is really the crux of this discussion IMO. 

 

Yes, i wouldn't suggest Barzal unless there was clear evidence the Islanders do not want to pay what Barzal is asking... I'm just using Barzal as an example countering bosn's suggestion.

 

We've heard Hall might be available.

Dallas ownership is not happy with Benn and to some extent, Seguin.

The Leafs are not happy with where they are so "maybe" they are open to trades.

 

Not crazy to suggest trades for these players who are in the rumour mill.

[JTech780]

 

[cross16]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Yes, i wouldn't suggest Barzal unless there was clear evidence the Islanders do not want to pay what Barzal is asking... I'm just using Barzal as an example countering bosn's suggestion.

 

We've heard Hall might be available.

Dallas ownership is not happy with Benn and to some extent, Seguin.

The Leafs are not happy with where they are so "maybe" they are open to trades.

 

Not crazy to suggest trades for these players who are in the rumour mill.

 

It's never crazy to suggest anything. 

 

the craziness level is derived for your perception on whether or not it will happen 😉

[CheersMan]

8 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

……..well a at least not till the offseason.

Something is broken real bad, out scored 20-3 in the last 5 games.

There is a pulse but she's faint. Makes the UFA decisions real easy come trade deadline if things don't change.

 

 

[jjgallow]

56 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

It's never crazy to suggest anything. 

 

the craziness level is derived for your perception on whether or not it will happen 😉

 

More generally,  change is inevitable,  we are mostly speaking in whens here and not ifs