Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
GreekHockeyCoach

Is Price done

Is Price done being an elite goalie   23 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Price done being an elite goalie

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      13

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

94 posts in this topic

Why do we still have this thread?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HabsRuleForever said:

Why do we still have this thread?

Cuz some people still think we should have kept Halak?  I dunno ... Price is clearly elite and still very good/elite

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HabsRuleForever said:

Why do we still have this thread?

Im assuming to remind us to chill ;)  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, East_Coast_Juggalo_13 said:

I know this is an old post but I don’t know how you could thin MB botched the Patches deal.

At the time he should have been able to get at least a first + Domi + Suzuki that would have been the very least he could have gotten and should have look at what Stone hot the Sens very much the same caliber player in the same age bracket. Looking back yeah Domi has been great but no one knew he would be the force he is now. So I stand by my earlier assessment he could and should have gotten more

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

At the time he should have been able to get at least a first + Domi + Suzuki that would have been the very least he could have gotten and should have look at what Stone hot the Sens very much the same caliber player in the same age bracket. Looking back yeah Domi has been great but no one knew he would be the force he is now. So I stand by my earlier assessment he could and should have gotten more

So I think you can argue both sides of the equation here, but this is my take on the Pacioretty trade:

1. At the time he made the deal, MB himself said he was hoping for a better return but couldn't get one.

2. Everyone agreed that Tomas Tatar was a throw-in as a Vegas salary dump, not because MB thought he was getting a key piece in the trade here.

3. Vegas may very well be happy with the trade. Pacioretty is their leading goal-scorer, I believe, and he's signed to a reasonable long-term deal. But at the same time, we too should be happy. Tatar has replaced a lot of what we lost in Pacioretty, and we have a key prospect in Suzuki and another 2nd rounder to boot.

I think we're easily better off now than we were a year ago. That said, we all thought that MB needed to turn one of his few key assets into a prospect who had the potential to be a 1C or else a prospect who could become a top pairing D man. He did neither, with the view that Suzuki will likely become a winger. We all thought he should have been able to come up with a first rounder, and he didn't do that either. When you look at what players like Rick Nash and Matt Duchene fetched, then yes, I'd agree with you that MB fell short in his return. However, if you compare it to the Stone trade, it's not an unreasonable return. Both players got a 2nd rounder back. It's arguable whether Brannstrom or Suzuki will end up being the better NHLer. Both were recent 1st round picks and Vegas actually took Suzuki two picks before Brannstrom, albeit Brannstrom is a player a more valuable position if Suzuki does end up a winger. I'll call those prospects a wash. And Lindberg has very little value as a bottom 6 forward, whereas Tatar was a throw-in but has turned out to be a valuable player. I think we came out better than Ottawa did, although at the time of the respective trades, I think the returns the GM's were anticipating were comparable.

So almost a year down the line, I think this trade is a win for MB. I agree with you that he lucked out a bit, but we have good odds of coming out ahead given the futures we can pile on top of what Tatar has already done.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

So I think you can argue both sides of the equation here, but this is my take on the Pacioretty trade:

1. At the time he made the deal, MB himself said he was hoping for a better return but couldn't get one.

2. Everyone agreed that Tomas Tatar was a throw-in as a Vegas salary dump, not because MB thought he was getting a key piece in the trade here.

3. Vegas may very well be happy with the trade. Pacioretty is their leading goal-scorer, I believe, and he's signed to a reasonable long-term deal. But at the same time, we too should be happy. Tatar has replaced a lot of what we lost in Pacioretty, and we have a key prospect in Suzuki and another 2nd rounder to boot.

I think we're easily better off now than we were a year ago. That said, we all thought that MB needed to turn one of his few key assets into a prospect who had the potential to be a 1C or else a prospect who could become a top pairing D man. He did neither, with the view that Suzuki will likely become a winger. We all thought he should have been able to come up with a first rounder, and he didn't do that either. When you look at what players like Rick Nash and Matt Duchene fetched, then yes, I'd agree with you that MB fell short in his return. However, if you compare it to the Stone trade, it's not an unreasonable return. Both players got a 2nd rounder back. It's arguable whether Brannstrom or Suzuki will end up being the better NHLer. Both were recent 1st round picks and Vegas actually took Suzuki two picks before Brannstrom, albeit Brannstrom is a player a more valuable position if Suzuki does end up a winger. I'll call those prospects a wash. And Lindberg has very little value as a bottom 6 forward, whereas Tatar was a throw-in but has turned out to be a valuable player. I think we came out better than Ottawa did, although at the time of the respective trades, I think the returns the GM's were anticipating were comparable.

So almost a year down the line, I think this trade is a win for MB. I agree with you that he lucked out a bit, but we have good odds of coming out ahead given the futures we can pile on top of what Tatar has already done.

That's right I was thinking we got Domi in that deal but it was Tatar. I do like the return now that we have seen Tatar in action and giving how much of a surprise he has been but I still think they should have gotten a first even if it was top 10 protected or a conditional on Patches scoring 25 or more goals but either way AT THE TIME on paper we lost that trade. Now looking back it has thus far been a wash without factoring in what Suzuki MAY become. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

 

3. Vegas may very well be happy with the trade. Pacioretty is their leading goal-scorer, I believe, and he's signed to a reasonable long-term deal. But at the same time, we too should be happy. Tatar has replaced a lot of what we lost in Pacioretty, and we have a key prospect in Suzuki and another 2nd rounder to boot.

 

Tatar has brought more than Patches was bringing. Tatar: 22 goals 48 points +/- +16. Patches: 21 goals 35 points +/- -10. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, habs1952 said:

Tatar has brought more than Patches was bringing. Tatar: 22 goals 48 points +/- +16. Patches: 21 goals 35 points +/- -10. 

It's pretty even to me. Pacioretty has played 12 fewer games, so he'd project out better if he had been healthy. Like I said, Tatar replaced a lot of what we lost in Pacioretty, more fluid skater but not as good of a sniper. Regardless, as I said, the fact that you add on Suzuki and a 2nd puts us over on the trade. However, my other point was that Vegas also feels pretty good about the trade from their perspective. Tatar didn't fit in there. He didn't have success there, he didn't fill a role there, and they were essentially paying him without getting much production. So LV gets out from his contract, they add a bone fide top line sniper, they get him signed to a reasonable deal, and they do it all by giving up a 2nd rounder and a good prospect but a guy who is a bit undersized and who seemingly projects as a winger. They didn't give up a future 1st rounder, they didn't give up Glass, they didn't tear up the roster they won a ton of games with last year... so to them, I think they see it as adding Pacioretty without giving up one of their core pieces. To their active roster, it was an add without subtracting anything. I think this is a case where both teams probably feel happy about the trade.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, campabee82 said:

At the time he should have been able to get at least a first + Domi + Suzuki that would have been the very least he could have gotten and should have look at what Stone hot the Sens very much the same caliber player in the same age bracket. Looking back yeah Domi has been great but no one knew he would be the force he is now. So I stand by my earlier assessment he could and should have gotten more

You're mixing up 2 trades here.   Patches to the Knights for Tatar, Suzki + 2nd.     Galchenyuk to the Coyotes for Domi. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

16 hours ago, campabee82 said:

At the time he should have been able to get at least a first + Domi + Suzuki that would have been the very least he could have gotten and should have look at what Stone hot the Sens very much the same caliber player in the same age bracket. Looking back yeah Domi has been great but no one knew he would be the force he is now. So I stand by my earlier assessment he could and should have gotten more

I'm curious what you think we could have gotten for Galchenyuk?   You consistently stated that he wasn't very good, that he his defensive deficiencies made his production meaningless.    

Domi was a first round choice in a much deeper draft and was struggling in Arizona.    Galchenyuk was a top 3 pick in a very shallow draft struggling in Montreal. . Max was 12th overall.    So a one for one swap was definitely NOT unreasonable and I doubt we would have gotten more from anyone else in the league.   

At the time of the trade :

Galchenyuk GP 418 G 108 A 147   GPG 0.258 APG 0.352  PPG 0.61

Domi            GP 222 G  36 A 99  GPG 0.162 APG 0.446 PPG 0.608

Galchenyuk was  -34 ,  Domi was -13.    I don't put much stock in +/- for the most part as its more of a team stat (most of AG's negative comes from last year for example).   But from a glance, both were in the negative so its a wash.

From a production stand point, they were equivalent at the time of the trade , so Domi for Galchenyuk straight up seems reasonable.   NOTE the stats below include this year.

2012 Draft

1 11 Washington Filip Forsberg L Leksands IF [Swe-1] 383 139 157 296 167 2018-19
1 3 Montreal Alex Galchenyuk C Sarnia Sting [OHL] 474 123 168 291 177 2018-19
1 5 Toronto Morgan Rielly D Moose Jaw Warriors [WHL] 455 48 187 235 99 2018-19
1 17 San Jose Tomas Hertl C Slavia Praha HC [Czech] 389 110 118 228 117 2018-19
1 18 Chicago Teuvo Teravainen L Jokerit Helsinki [SM-liiga] 344 73 138 211 64 2018-19
3 78 Philadelphia Shayne Gostisbehere D Union College [ECAC] 284 43 135 178 95 2018-19
1 6 Anaheim Hampus Lindholm D Rogle BK Angelholm [Swe-1] 433 47 120 167 212 2018-19
1 9 Winnipeg Jacob Trouba D U.S. National Development Team [USHL] 392 39 127 166 295 2018-19
1 30 Los Angeles Tanner Pearson L Barrie Colts [OHL] 373 79 80 159 103 2018-19
1 7 Minnesota Matt Dumba D Red Deer Rebels [WHL] 342 56 94 150 184 2018-19

2013 Draft

1 1 Colorado Nathan MacKinnon C Halifax Mooseheads [QMJHL] 441 148 239 387 179 2018-19
1 6 Calgary Sean Monahan C Ottawa 67's [OHL] 460 168 185 353 92 2018-19
1 2 Florida Aleksander Barkov C Tappara Tampere [SM-liiga] 397 128 189 317 60 2018-19
1 5 Carolina Elias Lindholm C Brynas IF Gavle [SEL] 441 90 170 260 94 2018-19
1 4 Nashville Seth Jones D Portland Winterhawks [WHL] 452 54 167 221 144 2018-19
1 9 Vancouver Bo Horvat C London Knights [OHL] 362 94 115 209 100 2018-19
1 12 Phoenix Max Domi L London Knights [OHL] 289 58 136 194 263 2018-19
1 3 Tampa Bay Jonathan Drouin L Halifax Mooseheads [QMJHL] 307 59 132 191 110 2018-19
1 8 Buffalo Rasmus Ristolainen D TPS Turku [SM-liiga] 412 36 154 190 203 2018-19
1 14 Columbus Alexander Wennberg C Djurgardens IF Stockholm [Swe-1] 344 35 142 177 67 2018-19

 

 

Edited by HabsAlways
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, HabsAlways said:

I'm curious what you think we could have gotten for Galchenyuk?   You consistently stated that he wasn't very good, that he his defensive deficiencies made his production meaningless.    

Domi was a first round choice in a much deeper draft and was struggling in Arizona.    Galchenyuk was a top 3 pick in a very shallow draft struggling in Montreal. . Max was 12th overall.    So a one for one swap was definitely NOT unreasonable and I doubt we would have gotten more from anyone else in the league.   

At the time of the trade :

Galchenyuk GP 418 G 108 A 147   GPG 0.258 APG 0.352  PPG 0.61

Domi            GP 222 G  36 A 99  GPG 0.162 APG 0.446 PPG 0.608

Galchenyuk was  -34 ,  Domi was -13.    I don't put much stock in +/- for the most part as its more of a team stat (most of AG's negative comes from last year for example).   But from a glance, both were in the negative so its a wash.

From a production stand point, they were equivalent at the time of the trade , so Domi for Galchenyuk straight up seems reasonable.   NOTE the stats below include this year.

2012 Draft

1 11 Washington Filip Forsberg L Leksands IF [Swe-1] 383 139 157 296 167 2018-19
1 3 Montreal Alex Galchenyuk C Sarnia Sting [OHL] 474 123 168 291 177 2018-19
1 5 Toronto Morgan Rielly D Moose Jaw Warriors [WHL] 455 48 187 235 99 2018-19
1 17 San Jose Tomas Hertl C Slavia Praha HC [Czech] 389 110 118 228 117 2018-19
1 18 Chicago Teuvo Teravainen L Jokerit Helsinki [SM-liiga] 344 73 138 211 64 2018-19
3 78 Philadelphia Shayne Gostisbehere D Union College [ECAC] 284 43 135 178 95 2018-19
1 6 Anaheim Hampus Lindholm D Rogle BK Angelholm [Swe-1] 433 47 120 167 212 2018-19
1 9 Winnipeg Jacob Trouba D U.S. National Development Team [USHL] 392 39 127 166 295 2018-19
1 30 Los Angeles Tanner Pearson L Barrie Colts [OHL] 373 79 80 159 103 2018-19
1 7 Minnesota Matt Dumba D Red Deer Rebels [WHL] 342 56 94 150 184 2018-19

2013 Draft

1 1 Colorado Nathan MacKinnon C Halifax Mooseheads [QMJHL] 441 148 239 387 179 2018-19
1 6 Calgary Sean Monahan C Ottawa 67's [OHL] 460 168 185 353 92 2018-19
1 2 Florida Aleksander Barkov C Tappara Tampere [SM-liiga] 397 128 189 317 60 2018-19
1 5 Carolina Elias Lindholm C Brynas IF Gavle [SEL] 441 90 170 260 94 2018-19
1 4 Nashville Seth Jones D Portland Winterhawks [WHL] 452 54 167 221 144 2018-19
1 9 Vancouver Bo Horvat C London Knights [OHL] 362 94 115 209 100 2018-19
1 12 Phoenix Max Domi L London Knights [OHL] 289 58 136 194 263 2018-19
1 3 Tampa Bay Jonathan Drouin L Halifax Mooseheads [QMJHL] 307 59 132 191 110 2018-19
1 8 Buffalo Rasmus Ristolainen D TPS Turku [SM-liiga] 412 36 154 190 203 2018-19
1 14 Columbus Alexander Wennberg C Djurgardens IF Stockholm [Swe-1] 344 35 142 177 67 2018-19

 

 

As was stated above I mixed up the trades I was thinking Domi was traded for Patches. I agree we won the Domi-Galchenuk trade easily still not a huge fan of his lack of discipline in taking dumb penalties but he is a great forward, maybe not our #1 center of the future (time will tell whether Kotkaniemi will take that spot) but certainly one of our best forwards this year and hopefully for a few more to come. Again Tatar is great I like his style and he plays hard every night and hopefully Suzuki comes in sooner rather than later and is also a force but that doesn't change the fact that MB traded one of his biggest assets and didn't shore up our biggest need which is a solid #1 LHD. looking at our prospect pool and forward depth MB should have gotten back at least Suzuki + 1st or 2nd + an NHL ready #1 LHD even if it meant throwing in another player or prospect. the trade could have and should have gotten us a stronger return. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, campabee82 said:

As was stated above I mixed up the trades I was thinking Domi was traded for Patches. I agree we won the Domi-Galchenuk trade easily still not a huge fan of his lack of discipline in taking dumb penalties but he is a great forward, maybe not our #1 center of the future (time will tell whether Kotkaniemi will take that spot) but certainly one of our best forwards this year and hopefully for a few more to come. Again Tatar is great I like his style and he plays hard every night and hopefully Suzuki comes in sooner rather than later and is also a force but that doesn't change the fact that MB traded one of his biggest assets and didn't shore up our biggest need which is a solid #1 LHD. looking at our prospect pool and forward depth MB should have gotten back at least Suzuki + 1st or 2nd + an NHL ready #1 LHD even if it meant throwing in another player or prospect. the trade could have and should have gotten us a stronger return. 

I was satisfied with the trade because I was very high on Suzuki when he was drafted, but I think we have to remember that at the time most people thought that Tatar was a throw-in/salary dump.  He certainly wasn't looked at as a huge added value to the deal (even though in retrospect 1 for 1 he's been better than patches this year and is younger) - at best he was a warm body for our top 9.    So i can see why you'd have been a bit underwhelmed by the trade.  

 

But the biggest thing is that Its nearly a year later so its easy to say NOW that we dont  need more centres (and its entirely possibly Suzuki ends up being a RW in the NHL)  but at the time, our biggest need was definitely down the middle.   No one knew for sure how JK would develop & adapt,  no one knew how Poehling would improve and no one knew Max Domi would excel (or was even going to be tried) at centre.

At the time we made the Patches trade we had Danault, Plekanec and a lot of questions at centre.  So getting a top flight young centre in Suzuki was just as viable as getting a LHD at the time. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, campabee82 said:

As was stated above I mixed up the trades I was thinking Domi was traded for Patches. I agree we won the Domi-Galchenuk trade easily still not a huge fan of his lack of discipline in taking dumb penalties but he is a great forward, maybe not our #1 center of the future (time will tell whether Kotkaniemi will take that spot) but certainly one of our best forwards this year and hopefully for a few more to come. Again Tatar is great I like his style and he plays hard every night and hopefully Suzuki comes in sooner rather than later and is also a force but that doesn't change the fact that MB traded one of his biggest assets and didn't shore up our biggest need which is a solid #1 LHD. looking at our prospect pool and forward depth MB should have gotten back at least Suzuki + 1st or 2nd + an NHL ready #1 LHD even if it meant throwing in another player or prospect. the trade could have and should have gotten us a stronger return. 

Patches for Suzuki, Tatar and 2nd.

At the time of that trade, JK was a question mark and not expected to make our lineup.   So down the middle as somebody else said we had Danault and Pleks and other than Kotkaniemi no other Center prospects in the system that would be considered potential #1 or 2C.    Despite Poehling's strong showing at the WJC at the time he was considered a strong #2 or #3 C prospect.   We had Domi., but he was unproven at C.   Our needs at the time was a C or LHD.    MB was happy to get a prospect as I don't think anyone thought we'd be fighting for a playoff spot this season and he was going with his rebuild but not a rebuild.    So the return for Paccioretty was another high potential C prospect in Suzuki, a 2nd round choice (which is where we got Paccioretty) and Tatar.     Sure Tatar was a throwin, but he was a former 2nd round choice with 3x20 goal seasons, one 19 goal season and a career high in one of those.    

So yes, Tatar may have been a throwin ... but he was a throwin to replace Paccioretty immediately on the LW with an expectation of 20-25g from him and above that we got another C prospect and the 2nd.    Overall I'd say MB did well on that trade.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, campabee82 said:

At the time he should have been able to get at least a first + Domi + Suzuki that would have been the very least he could have gotten and should have look at what Stone hot the Sens very much the same caliber player in the same age bracket. Looking back yeah Domi has been great but no one knew he would be the force he is now. So I stand by my earlier assessment he could and should have gotten more

First of all, no one can say for sure what MTL could have gotten because we’re not fielding any of the trade calls.  We have no idea the names and/or picks being bandied back and forth during trade calls, we can only speculate.  Second, if You wanted a 1st for Patches, then he should have been traded at the 2016 deadline, the 1st time we tanked.  Same with Price.  According to one rumour I saw at that time, Bergie was offered Barzal, Strome and a 1st for Patches by Garth snow.  I think MTL made out like gangbusters compared to Carolina who traded the prospect they got in the Skinner deal for basically Thomas Jurco.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, East_Coast_Juggalo_13 said:

First of all, no one can say for sure what MTL could have gotten because we’re not fielding any of the trade calls.  We have no idea the names and/or picks being bandied back and forth during trade calls, we can only speculate.  Second, if You wanted a 1st for Patches, then he should have been traded at the 2016 deadline, the 1st time we tanked.  Same with Price.  According to one rumour I saw at that time, Bergie was offered Barzal, Strome and a 1st for Patches by Garth snow.  I think MTL made out like gangbusters compared to Carolina who traded the prospect they got in the Skinner deal for basically Thomas Jurco.

I doubt Bergevin got a better offer than the one he took for Pacioretty. We know he inquired about some young centers like Borgstrom and Robert Thomas and so on and was told they weren't available, so sure, he probably got the best deal he could have at the time, and it's worked out well for him thus far. I think the issue many people took with MB on some of his trades is how he denigrated his own talent to the point that their trade value dropped... I've hashed this out before, but to recap some of the highlights

- MB and MT repeatedly bash Subban in the media, talk about how he's a selfish player, burn him for a small mistake while other guys get off with no public warning for worse, and go on about how he's too fancy with the puck. They refuse to support him for Team Canada or the Norris or anything else. If you don't like the guy and you want to trade him, prop him up and bring up his value, don't do what they did and then lose a trade because of it. Subban should have fetched much more than just Weber.

- Galchenyuk... in a lost season, play the guy at center and get him on the 1st PP wave and give him offensive linemates. His trade value would have been higher if he had put up another season as a 30-goal 1st line center than if he were put down constantly, benched, and played on the 4th line behind guys like Flynn and King and Weise and so on. They traded Galchenyuk at his lowest possible value.

- Plekanec... a guy they could have easily dealt for a 1st rounder and more a couple of years ago, and instead they wait until he's seen as a depth veteran instead of a top 6 player. Then they bring him back when he's got nothing left and have to buy him out. Not great asset management.

- And yes, Pacioretty... if you know you want to trade him, you don't pass up decent trade offers and you certainly don't tell the NHL that you're not going to re-sign him and you want to get rid of him because there are attitude problems in the locker room. It does nothing to help his trade value and it's just stupid.

So again, the trade worked out well for us in the end (thus far), but I certainly believe MB could have gotten more for all of these guys if he didn't sell them all at their lowest points and if he didn't personally contribute to lowering their value with his comments to the media.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, East_Coast_Juggalo_13 said:

 I think MTL made out like gangbusters compared to Carolina who traded the prospect they got in the Skinner deal for basically Thomas Jurco.

This. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BigTed3 said:

I doubt Bergevin got a better offer than the one he took for Pacioretty. We know he inquired about some young centers like Borgstrom and Robert Thomas and so on and was told they weren't available, so sure, he probably got the best deal he could have at the time, and it's worked out well for him thus far. I think the issue many people took with MB on some of his trades is how he denigrated his own talent to the point that their trade value dropped... I've hashed this out before, but to recap some of the highlights

- MB and MT repeatedly bash Subban in the media, talk about how he's a selfish player, burn him for a small mistake while other guys get off with no public warning for worse, and go on about how he's too fancy with the puck. They refuse to support him for Team Canada or the Norris or anything else. If you don't like the guy and you want to trade him, prop him up and bring up his value, don't do what they did and then lose a trade because of it. Subban should have fetched much more than just Weber.

- Galchenyuk... in a lost season, play the guy at center and get him on the 1st PP wave and give him offensive linemates. His trade value would have been higher if he had put up another season as a 30-goal 1st line center than if he were put down constantly, benched, and played on the 4th line behind guys like Flynn and King and Weise and so on. They traded Galchenyuk at his lowest possible value.

- Plekanec... a guy they could have easily dealt for a 1st rounder and more a couple of years ago, and instead they wait until he's seen as a depth veteran instead of a top 6 player. Then they bring him back when he's got nothing left and have to buy him out. Not great asset management.

- And yes, Pacioretty... if you know you want to trade him, you don't pass up decent trade offers and you certainly don't tell the NHL that you're not going to re-sign him and you want to get rid of him because there are attitude problems in the locker room. It does nothing to help his trade value and it's just stupid.

So again, the trade worked out well for us in the end (thus far), but I certainly believe MB could have gotten more for all of these guys if he didn't sell them all at their lowest points and if he didn't personally contribute to lowering their value with his comments to the media.

Bingo.   Domi > Galchenyuk  (and younger, and cheaper and RFA longer etc)  but the real point here is that if Galchenyuk hadnt been devalued by his own GM could we not have gotten Domi + 2nd for him? 

So while Im totally happy with the trade, I still feel like we got less than fair value in a 1 for 1 because of our own GM's actions. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Bingo.   Domi > Galchenyuk  (and younger, and cheaper and RFA longer etc)  but the real point here is that if Galchenyuk hadnt been devalued by his own GM could we not have gotten Domi + 2nd for him? 

So while Im totally happy with the trade, I still feel like we got less than fair value in a 1 for 1 because of our own GM's actions. 

This was also my point when I was saying we lost the trade. At the time we did in fact on paper lose the trade, but as my dad always said hind sight is always 20/20 now we can see we didn't do too bad but should have been able to get more.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, maas_art said:

I was satisfied with the trade because I was very high on Suzuki when he was drafted, but I think we have to remember that at the time most people thought that Tatar was a throw-in/salary dump.  He certainly wasn't looked at as a huge added value to the deal (even though in retrospect 1 for 1 he's been better than patches this year and is younger) - at best he was a warm body for our top 9.    So i can see why you'd have been a bit underwhelmed by the trade.  

 

But the biggest thing is that Its nearly a year later so its easy to say NOW that we dont  need more centres (and its entirely possibly Suzuki ends up being a RW in the NHL)  but at the time, our biggest need was definitely down the middle.   No one knew for sure how JK would develop & adapt,  no one knew how Poehling would improve and no one knew Max Domi would excel (or was even going to be tried) at centre.

At the time we made the Patches trade we had Danault, Plekanec and a lot of questions at centre.  So getting a top flight young centre in Suzuki was just as viable as getting a LHD at the time. 

Plekanec was only brought back to play his 1000th game as a Hab. We basically only had Danault.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.