Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolven
Yes, I did simplify a bit. The only reason to discuss it is to try and determine Andersson's trade value.
I find it interesting to see the responses to mentioning Celebrini and Bedard because immediately people come to their defense and excuse their minuses because they are on bad teams.
On the other hand, with Andersson they ignore that the Flames were gutted, especially on D and that the team essentially built a top 4 D out of two guys. Andersson was trying to cover the other team's best lines with a 24 year old 3rd line player with 148 games played and when Bahl went down the replacement was Bean or Hanley... but all of the chances against and goals against were on Andersson's side of the ice in a zone D system.
It just seems like the group of people on this board refuse to accept that Andersson is good, even on a bad year.
In the end, I believe Andersson's trade value is higher than Hanifin's due to the nature of being a RHS and the fact that it is a seller's market with no alternatives. As long as Andersson and his agent do not actually do something to limit the market (the previous rumours were debunked by Conroy), he should get an asset that is more valuable than a late 1st and a B Prospect (Hanifin) and with retention I expect him to be equivalent to 2 1sts in value or higher.
If you trade him this summer then you assume that the extension will happen and bake that into the price (since you can no longer put conditions in around an extension being signed later). Basically put the risk onto the buying team to put together a contract he says yes to. I know there are rumours that Andersson wants to test free agency but I think the 8 year extension holds a lot more value to him than dropping to 7 or 6 years. Whatever team receives him will have a big advantage on the extension where they will either re-sign him or get an asset for a late sign and trade (Leafs-Marner).
If the Stars do not meet the price, then send him to one of the Sharks, Red Wings, Bruins, Hurricane, Leafs, etc. but not the Golden Knights.
|
Yeah, I definitely don't mind the discussion, nor am I trying to claim that Andersson is bad. If I was the GM, and trading for him, I would probably find it too risky to sign him to $8.5M x 8, so I would probably treat him as a rental.
Cellebrini and Bedard definitely get the benefit of the doubt from me. The same way Parekh would for mistakes, Andersson wouldn't. The main reason is experience, it takes several years before a player starts defending well at the NHL level.
The reason I am a bit more skeptical is that Bahl did better away from Andersson. While Andersson struggled away from Bahl. That's why, I have a hard time figuring out who was carrying whom defensively on that pairing. Hanley and Bean both played much better with Weegar. Hanifin and Gio played better with Tanev than with Andersson. If my memory doesn't betray me, Zadorov also struggled when he was paired with Andersson.
Code:
Bahl - Andersson 48.7%xG, 2.63xGA/60
Hanley - Andersson 47.4%xG, 2.18xGA/60
Bean - Andersson 43.5%xG, 3.63xGA/60
Bahl - Weegar 64.9%xG, 1.62xGA/60
Hanley - Weegar 57.0%xG, 2.04xGA/60
Bean - Weegar 58.7%xG, 1.81xGA/60
As far as trade value: I hope the Flames manage to get at least 1st + 2nd + 3rd in a trade. If the Flames could get someone like Robertson out of an Andersson trade, I would be pretty ecstatic.
PS: to the rest of CP I apologize for going a bit in circles on the Andersson discussion, but it's the off-season.