2017/2018 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[Enoch Root]

Last year, Nashville had 3, and were close to having 3 with 40. Their top 3:

49, 40, 38

Pitt had: 51, 34 and 26

This year, Vegas had: 41, 36, 29

That's 3 of the last 4 cup finalists. To say having 3 30-point guys is in some way detrimental is ridiculous.

[Samonadreau]

It's an interesting fact. It's not gospel. And its relevant considering the flames have 3 perennial 30 pt dmen. Maybe having more scoring depth and game changers up front while playing solid defensively is a better, not the only, but better recipe for success. If nothing else its interesting.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

... I’m not concluding anything. As specifically mentioned right before your bolded bit. It’s an interesting stat. Stats are used as guidance. 10 teams have successfully won the cup in the cap era without 3 x 30+ point defensemen. I thought it was an interesting statistic.

Yes, because having 3 is difficult. Not because having 3 is a detriment.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The 2012-2013 season was the strike year.

The Hawks had 3 d-men who had 30 points if you extrapolate to 82 games.

So that's 3 out of 12.

In the 2013 Lockout, Chicago had 7 forwards and 2 defensemen with 20 points during the regular season. 20 pts in 48 games is 0.416 PPG, 30 in 82 is 0.37 PPG which seems about even to me, given that they played 34 fewer games while having three extra months off. Production would logically be higher.

In the playoffs, they had one player on defense driving the bus, and it was Keith. 7 forwards and 1 D scored 10+ points.

In any regard, 9/12 winners don't have three high end offensive defensemen. If 75% of the champions are built a certain way, that's worth examining.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, because having 3 is difficult. Not because having 3 is a detriment.

Who has said detrimental????? Maybe I missed something but you’ve quoted me twice and I haven’t said anything remotely similar to that.

[Enoch Root]

Also, for Vegas this year, the 29 was Theodore, who only played 61 games.

They also had Hunt with 18 in 45 games (33 point pace) and Sbiza with 14 in 30 (38 point pace).

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, because having 3 is difficult. Not because having 3 is a detriment.

Because of the cap. That's the point.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

Because of the cap. That's the point.

Doesn't make it a bad strategy, just means you have to manage the cap.

Same with having several forwards that put up big points - makes it harder to manage the cap, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There is zero evidence to conclude this.

He found a statistical item and drew a conclusion from it that doesn't follow. Well, we don't know for sure that it doesn't follow because there is no where near enough evidence to be sure.

But the conclusion has the responsibility of evidence.

If we need a goal. Like, have to have a goal. Like, score or go home for the year. How many defensemen do you want to put on the ice to save the season? I want one. If we assume I get what I want, that leaves five spots for forwards. Right now, the Flames 5 forwards would be:

Gaudreau
Monahan
Tkachuk
Backlund
Bennett? Frolik? Jankowski? Ferland?

That team is going home. It has three forwards who for sure belong on the ice in the last minute of a Stanley Cup playoff game, and maybe four if Backlund is having a good year.

It's a cap system. We have one too many performance cars on the blue line, and we need a 4Runner.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Also, for Vegas this year, the 29 was Theodore, who only played 61 games.

They also had Hunt with 18 in 45 games (33 point pace) and Sbiza with 14 in 30 (38 point pace).

Nobody on the Vegas blue line makes more than $2.5M. You can do a lot with that.

Theodore is on an ELC. Sbisa makes $2.175M. Colin Miller makes $1M.

Schimdt, Engelland and McNabb combined don't make as much as Gio.

Meanwhile, Brodie, Hamilton and Gio cost a combined $19.15M. That's a bad use of resources. Brodie is the least good of those three. Trade Brodie.

[gilligans_off]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Flames 5 forwards would be:

Gaudreau
Monahan
Tkachuk
Backlund
Bennett? Frolik? Jankowski? Ferland?

Anyone but Brouwer lol

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Last year, Nashville had 3, and were close to having 3 with 40. Their top 3:

49, 40, 38

Pitt had: 51, 34 and 26

This year, Vegas had: 41, 36, 29

That's 3 of the last 4 cup finalists. To say having 3 30-point guys is in some way detrimental is ridiculous.

Nashville lost. They lost because Pittsburgh had better forwards than they did. Specifically, they had Malkin and Crosby. Pittsburgh actually bucks a lot of trends with that trump card. It kinda feels unfair.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Meanwhile, Brodie, Hamilton and Gio cost a combined $19.15M. That's a bad use of resources. Brodie is the least good of those three. Trade Brodie.

No, bad (*or mediocre) uses of resources are/were Mason Raymond's buyout, Troy Brouwer, Michael Frolik*, Michael Stone, and spending all our draft picks on Elliott, Smith*, and Hamonic*.


Trading Brodie is not only nonsensical but bound to backfire because he is coming off the worst season of his career and you simply won't get actual value for him. You said earlier here that Stone could easily replace Brodie on the second pair and that is simply absurd. A Stone-Hamonic pair would be a disaster over the long run. If you can't see why with your eyes here's a chart:





Brodie is so much more than point totals, although it's important for him to be contributing in that range because he's such an elite setup guy. Brodie is a guy who both gets the puck out of the defensive zone and into the offensive zone. Unless you've got a Connor McDavid lying around at center who can cover that, you live with what you have. Monahan is not a puck rusher. Pretty much any RW we pick up won't be that kind of puck rusher either.



The Black & White "Brodie is bad" attitude is insufferable. The likelyhood a Brodie trade improves this team is very, very low. Even his cap hit is completely ordinary. You want to shed cap off the backend, get rid of Hamilton. We made it deeper without him anyways.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

Really, then if you extrapolate there would be more teams with 100pt player and etc... etc... etc... it doesn't count

If you can’t extrapolate in a season of 48 games, your premises becomes useless.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm not sure of your point. That you can have too many high scoring defencemen? FWIW the Pens last year had two above 30 (Letang and Schultz), one at 26 (Cole) and one at 19 points in 56 games (Daley), which is also close to 30.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

No, bad (*or mediocre) uses of resources are/were Mason Raymond's buyout, Troy Brouwer, Michael Frolik*, Michael Stone, and spending all our draft picks on Elliott, Smith*, and Hamonic*.


Trading Brodie is not only nonsensical but bound to backfire because he is coming off the worst season of his career and you simply won't get actual value for him. You said earlier here that Stone could easily replace Brodie on the second pair and that is simply absurd. A Stone-Hamonic pair would be a disaster over the long run. If you can't see why with your eyes here's a chart:





Brodie is so much more than point totals, although it's important for him to be contributing in that range because he's such an elite setup guy. Brodie is a guy who both gets the puck out of the defensive zone and into the defensive zone. Unless you've got a Connor McDavid lying around at center who can cover that, you live with what you have. Monahan is not a puck rusher. Pretty much any RW we pick up won't be that kind of puck rusher either.



The Black & White "Brodie is bad" attitude is insufferable. The likelyhood a Brodie trade improves this team is very, very low.

Show me where I said Brodie is bad. He's not as good as Hamilton, and he's not as good as Gio. He's a fine defenseman, and I think we should trade him because it doesn't appear to be a requirement to have oodles of 30 point defensemen, and we currently have four good forwards.

We don't have a 1st round pick. We do have Rasmus Andersson, Oliver Kylington, Jusso Valimaki and Adam Fox in the pipe. We need forwards. The answer is likely not to overpay someone on July 1. Brodie is the best trade chip we have.

The benches get shortened in the playoffs. There aren't enough offensive situations in the playoffs to split between three defensemen.

You are better off in the playoffs having more of your offensive players be forwards. That is my point.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

In the 2013 Lockout, Chicago had 7 forwards and 2 defensemen with 20 points during the regular season. 20 pts in 48 games is 0.416 PPG, 30 in 82 is 0.37 PPG which seems about even to me, given that they played 34 fewer games while having three extra months off. Production would logically be higher.

.

Why is it logical that players scored more in a short season?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

.

Two seasons of stats!? Two!? You’re drawing conclusions from this? Get outta here with your stats, stats are no good here.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Why is it logical that players scored more in a short season?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Because they had three months off and only played 48 games. They were all fresh, nobody was injured or tired from last year's playoffs. That's likely a huge reason why the conference finalists that year were the previous four Cup champs. Pittsburgh, Chicago, Boston and LA. The cream was able to rise to the top because it didn't have to grind through 82 games.

Production tapers off. Remember the Countdown to 100 pts thread for Johnny? He of the 82 points? At 48 games, he had a look at it.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

Because of the cap. That's the point.

Well it’s pretty easy to fit in Gio, Brodie and Hamilton on their respective deals with where the cap is and will be. So I fail to see your point.

That’s said I’m fine with trading Brodie. You trade him because we’re deep on defense not because having too many 30 pt dmen is bad.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

not because having too many 30 pt dmen is bad.

Again, no one has said this.