No. I do understand. You prefer Samheim because of the position he plays and the fact that the Flyers don't have top three defensemen and you prefer to have as many potential candidates as possible.

And there is not a single thing wrong with that. At all.

But I am not overrating Drouin. He's already cracked the NHL, put up points. He's developing, just like Sanheim is. He plays a position the Flyers don't have, is 20 years old,,and I am simply mor comfortable moving Sanheim, with Ghost, Provorov and Morin developing.

It's not any more complex than that. It's not rocket science
- AllInForFlyers

How do you know your not overrating Drouin? Are you willing to make that deal just because Drouin is further along in the development curve, and has put up a few points. I'm far more confident that the Flyers can find another avenue to add a winger than they are to add top defenseman.

You can't tell me that you don't have an opinion on what Drouin is and more importantly, what he will become, which is a factor in why you would make the deal. If it comes down to position, keeping the defense prospect is a no brainer.

Ultimately, I can't tell you that you're wrong and that it wouldn't be a good deal for the Flyers. None of us can. My issue is the reasoning and the Ladd example, and that other players have been traded. I don't see what that has to do with it.

MacDonald has 4 years left on his deal after this season. Carle only has two. TB is going to take on two extra years to save 500K in cap space?
- MJL

No they save 1 mill. 500k off the difference between the 2 and another 500k retained off AMac.

How do you know your not overrating Drouin? Are you willing to make that deal just because Drouin is further along in the development curve, and has put up a few points. I'm far more confident that the Flyers can find another avenue to add a winger than they are to add top defenseman.

You can't tell me that you don't have an opinion on what Drouin is and more importantly, what he will become, which is a factor in why you would make the deal. If it comes down to position, keeping the defense prospect is a no brainer.
- MJL

You can't win an argument over what a prospect might do. Because clearly, keeping the defenseman isn't always a no-brainer, because Luca Sbisa isn't here, and MDZ isn't in New York. Luke Schenn isn't in Toronto.

Prospects get moved. You don't have to do it. But it does happen, and the world keeps on spinning

Because last time I checked, moving a defenseman for a forward hasn't worked out too poorly for Toronto with JVR

No they save 1 mill. 500k off the difference between the 2 and another 500k retained off AMac.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

They save 1M for two seasons. What about the remaining two years of MacDonalds deal? They're still not saving anything in those years.

You can't win an argument over what a prospect might do. Because clearly, keeping the defenseman isn't always a no-brainer, because Luca Sbisa isn't here, and MDZ isn't in New York. Luke Schenn isn't in Toronto.

Prospects get moved. You don't have to do it. But it does happen, and the world keeps on spinning

Because last time I checked, moving a defenseman for a forward hasn't worked out too poorly for Toronto with JVR
- AllInForFlyers

I'm not arguing over what a prospect might do. So again, you're basing making the deal on the fact that defenseman have been traded before for a forward in NHL history? How does that make sense.

Every team has a specific need and reasoning for making a trade, and trading a player. The fact that Del Zotto isn't in NY, and the Flyers traded for Schenn, has squat to do with whether or not they should trade Sanheim for Drouin.

Drouin could very well be an elite LW. Sanheim could very well be a top pairing d man. No one knows -- you're always going by your better judgement as a GM.

I have so much faith in Hextall and his scouting department right now after two drafts and some post draft signings. Early returns are over the moon even into the late picks and FA kids. As a GM you just have to have trust in the guys you get, and that you and your staff did right. Not trading for what turns out to be a star stinks and is fodder for dreamy what-if scenarios. But trading AWAY what turns out to be a star is far worse. You had it in your hands and let it slip.

Drouin is still largely an NHL unknown. Sanheim is entirely an unknown. But except for generational players, all prospects are really unknowns. Sanheim is no less an unknown than a Forsberg or Tarasenko or Kuznetsov or Larkin or any similarly draft selected blooming star was. He could be a bust; he could be a star. Hexy reached for Sanheim draft day bc he believed in him. He's done nothing but prove him right so far. Doubt he's giving up on him now. A good GM will always believe in their own guys first and foremost.

I'm not arguing over what a prospect might do. So again, you're basing making the deal on the fact that defenseman have been traded before for a forward in NHL history? How does that make sense.

Every team has a specific need and reasoning for making a trade, and trading a player. The fact that Del Zotto isn't in NY, and the Flyers traded for Schenn, has squat to do with whether or not they should trade Sanheim for Drouin.
- MJL

No. You asked me why I would do it. I explained it. I used examples to say it's just not that big a deal, ultimately, because they usually wind up being net neutral.

There's reasons to keep or move anyone. But telling me that you can't move Sanheim for a forward is simply a preference, not anything based on empirical data that shows what would happen.

People have different preferences. You asked me to justify mine, and I did, but because you don't like,the answer, you ask me the same thing again and again.

But doing so doesn't make you or me more right. Because neither of us, nor anyone else, truly knows

Watching Tyson Barrie tearing it up tonight against LA.
I think Sanheim is going to be a very similar kind of defenseman.
I'm not in a rush to trade this kid.

Drouin could very well be an elite LW. Sanheim could very well be a top pairing d man. No one knows -- you're always going by your better judgement as a GM.

I have so much faith in Hextall and his scouting department right now after two drafts and some post draft signings. Early returns are over the moon even into the late picks and FA kids. As a GM you just have to have trust in the guys you get, and that you and your staff did right. Not trading for what turns out to be a star stinks and is fodder for dreamy what-if scenarios. But trading AWAY what turns out to be a star is far worse. You had it in your hands and let it slip.

Drouin is still largely an NHL unknown. Sanheim is entirely an unknown. But except for generational players, all prospects are really unknowns. Sanheim is no less an unknown than a Forsberg or Tarasenko or Kuznetsov or Larkin or any similarly draft selected blooming star was. He could be a bust; he could be a star. Hexy reached for Sanheim draft day bc he believed in him. He's done nothing but prove him right so far. Doubt he's giving up on him now. A good GM will always believe in their own guys first and foremost.
- Mononoke

And again: That is totally fine. There is nothing wrong with that, at all

No. You asked me why I would do it. I explained it. I used examples to say it's just not that big a deal, ultimately, because they usually wind up being net neutral.

There's reasons to keep or move anyone. But telling me that you can't move Sanheim for a forward is simply a preference, not anything based on empirical data that shows what would happen.

People have different preferences. You asked me to justify mine, and I did, but because you don't like,the answer, you ask me the same thing again and again.

But doing so doesn't make you or me more right. Because neither of us, nor anyone else, truly knows
- AllInForFlyers

It's not a big deal, seriously? Of course it is a big deal. It's a huge deal. Again using history to justify making the deal, because of some belief that all trades usually wind up net neutral doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The possibility exists that Sanheim could develop into a defensive stud, and Drouin could be a bust. There is also the flip side to that.

So in my opinion, neither of us know enough about either player to make the call on who will be the better player, or even if they'll wind up equal. So what else is next that we can look at? How about need? I agree that the Flyers can use a LW, but does that need out weigh the need for top young defenseman? Not in my book. Not even close. Wing is the least important position in hockey. With how difficult it is to get top young defenseman these days, defense may be the most important position in hockey. Especially when you consider the Flyers drafting strength and failures. That's my justification for not making that deal. It's based on the Flyers situation, and not who has been traded in the past, or some idea of how trades normally wind up. Did the JVR trade wind up net neutral?

It's not that I don't like the answer, it's just that anything you offered from trades being net neutral, to Ladd being traded for Ruutu, to Del Zotto not being in NY, to the Flyers trading for Schenn, is not reasonable justification in my opinion. It flat out doesn't make sense. Not to mention that the Flyers are giving up more than just Sanheim.

If you can tell me that Drouin is going to be a star and the much better player, I'm all in. I don't think you can tell me that. So if you don't know that, what is your basis for making the trade? It would really help to know that, to really get to the actual meat of the debate.

It's not a big deal, seriously? Of course it is a big deal. It's a huge deal. Again using history to justify making the deal, because of some belief that all trades usually wind up net neutral doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The possibility exists that Sanheim could develop into a defensive stud, and Drouin could be a bust. There is also the flip side to that.

So in my opinion, neither of us know enough about either player to make the call on who will be the better player, or even if they'll wind up equal. So what else is next that we can look at? How about need? I agree that the Flyers can use a LW, but does that need out weigh the need for top young defenseman? Not in my book. Not even close. Wing is the least important position in hockey. With how difficult it is to get top young defenseman these days, defense may be the most important position in hockey. Especially when you consider the Flyers drafting strength and failures. That's my justification for not making that deal. It's based on the Flyers situation, and not who has been traded in the past, or some idea of how trades normally wind up. Did the JVR trade wind up net neutral?

It's not that I don't like the answer, it's just that anything you offered from trades being net neutral, to Ladd being traded for Ruutu, to Del Zotto not being in NY, to the Flyers trading for Schenn, is not reasonable justification in my opinion. It flat out doesn't make sense. Not to mention that the Flyers are giving up more than just Sanheim.
- MJL

You do realize the three words "in your opinion" are the only relevant aspects of what we are talking about?

It doesn't have to make sense to you. You just wouldn't do it. And there's nothing wrong with that

Watching Tyson Barrie tearing it up tonight against LA.
I think Sanheim is going to be a very similar kind of defenseman.
I'm not in a rush to trade this kid.
- Marc D

Someone mentioned Bowmeester actually with regards to Sanheim. I like that comparison.

Someone mentioned Bowmeester actually with regards to Sanheim. I like that comparison.
- Just5

And yet Bouwmeester has been traded twice

You do realize the three words "in your opinion" are the only relevant aspects of what we are talking about?

It doesn't have to make sense to you. You just wouldn't do it. And there's nothing wrong with that
- AllInForFlyers

Why have a debate then? I don't think you really know why you would do it. I think it's the shiny new toy syndrome.

And yet Bouwmeester has been traded twice
- AllInForFlyers

Nothing to do with it.

Why have a debate then? I don't think you really know why you would do it. I think it's the shiny new toy syndrome.
- MJL

So when I say that Drouin immediately becomes the best 1LW in the entire organization at 20 years old is the same as me not knowing why I would do it?

Because that is actually why I would consider it, hence being defined as a "reason"

So when I say that Drouin immediately becomes the best 1LW in the entire organization at 20 years old is the same as me not knowing why I would do it?

Because that is actually why I would consider it, hence being defined as a "reason"
- AllInForFlyers

That might be a logical reason if you ignore the cost to obtain the player. That explains the interest, but we're talking about a deal, and the cost to make the deal. If you don't know how Drouin is going to turn out, or if he'll even be a better player than Sanheim will be, why are you willing to trade Sanheim plus other assets for Drouin? Shiny new toy.

Other than maybe he is further along and older, what makes Drouin better than Sanheim ultimately as a player?

Why not Sanheim straight up for Drouin. Why the extra assets to TB?

Why have a debate then? I don't think you really know why you would do it. I think it's the shiny new toy syndrome.
- MJL

Nothing worse than shiny new toy syndrome.

Not even washed up chronically injured NMC corpse syndrome can hold a candle to it

That might be a logical reason if you ignore the cost to obtain the player. If you don't know how Drouin is going to turn out, or if he'll even be a better player than Sanheim will be, why are you willing to trade Sanheim plus other assets for Drouin? Shiny new toy.

Other than maybe he is further along and older, what makes Drouin better than Sanheim ultimately as a player?
- MJL

Remember me saying you ask the same thing over and over again, because you don't like the answer?

Remember me saying you ask the same thing over and over again, because you don't like the answer?
- AllInForFlyers

I remember you not answering the question, which is certainly your right. Why does TB get the extra assets in the deal? Draft position?

Saying he'd be the teams top LW explains the interest in the player, but not why the cost is fair, or makes sense.

Plenty of teams will be interested in Drouin, but will they think it's worth the cost. That's the debate. We're past being interested, now were debating the price. I like the car, but am I happy with the price.

Iginla just scored his 600th, banked it off an LA defenseman

Nothing worse than shiny new toy syndrome.

Not even washed up chronically injured NMC corpse syndrome can hold a candle to it
- Just5

They're all shiny new toys. One you drafted, one you didn't

They're all shiny new toys. One you drafted, one you didn't
- AllInForFlyers

Some favor the one they don't have over the one they do. That makes it better.

They save 1M for two seasons. What about the remaining two years of MacDonalds deal? They're still not saving anything in those years.
- MJL

That is the trade off. They get a cheaper hit for longer. That gives them an extra 1 mill to lock up Stamkos.... The can also demote AMac if they want to and save an extra 950k. So 1,950,000. Sometimes I feel you argue with people just for the sake of arguing. That is all you seem to do here.

aaaaannnnddd we are tied with Edmonton in points

only problem is they've played 4 more games than us