|
|
"Broke a PPG twice" as if that's a ho-hum season. And they literally did trade an MVP for Larsson. Also, Larsson is obviously better than Ceci, but Hall is *miles* better than Puljujarvi so it's a fair comparison. - Trevor Shackles
I have nothing wrong with the comparison. I just have something wrong with people who use "oh they traded the MVP Taylor Hall". Because guess what, he wasn't an MVP here. Never played like it. He was a great Left Wing that broke PPG twice and they needed a minute eating RHD.
He wasn't an MVP in Edmonton. That's why at the time the trade was bad but wasn't awful. Even the year after they didn't trade "MVP Taylor Hall for second pairing Dman Adam Larsson".
It took him 8 years to actually become one of the best left wings in the league. |
|
|
|
He's even a serviceable 2nd pair guy. Not ideal, but has filled in well on his off-side this year and 2016-17. - MaximumBone
If he was making 2.5 million we would be praising him every game. |
|
|
|
No, they traded an elite play-driving ~70 winger with injury problems for a Dman capable of shutting down top opposition. The issue can be framed in more ways than one.
As for the precedent argument, using that same argument, it's reasonable for me to propose Russell, Strome and a pick for Stone because Motion gave away Karlsson for spare parts.
Fair enough on the prospects but can you see where that might be viewed as a rather disingenuous way to start what should be a reasonable discussion of a possible trade? - MaximumBone
You absolutely cannot defend that trade, it was horrible the second it was made, but you do you. And also me giving potential pieces in a Pulj trade is nowhere near the same as a Stone one because he hasn't proven himself yet, plus the Oilers seem pretty down on him. I'm not even saying that an offer with like Ceci and White is necessarily fair value, but his value seems pretty low right now and Chiarelli has a terrible past of giving away talented young players.
Dorion isn't a good GM either, but it'd be pretty naive to think that a Pulj trade is impossible.
|
|
|
|
Russell, and I'm being serious here, is a good third pairing dman with a terrible contract. - Oilers4Life14
And Ceci is a overpaid poop defender in any capacity. His only positive is that he has an expiring contract. |
|
|
|
I have nothing wrong with the comparison. I just have something wrong with people who use "oh they traded the MVP Taylor Hall". Because guess what, he wasn't an MVP here. Never played like it. He was a great Left Wing that broke PPG twice and they needed a minute eating RHD.
He wasn't an MVP in Edmonton. That's why at the time the trade was bad but wasn't awful. Even the year after they didn't trade "MVP Taylor Hall for second pairing Dman Adam Larsson".
It took him 8 years to actually become one of the best left wings in the league. - Oilers4Life14
Yes but Oiler fans act as if he was an underperforming 50-point player. At his *worst* he was a 65-70 point player, and Larsson is like a "meh" 2nd pairing defenseman. Sure, they didn't trade him after an MVP season, but he had literally already shown the ability to score 80+ points, and that is worth at least an elite defenseman.
If they had gotten someone like Dougie Hamilton or Torey Krug, that would've made a lot more sense, but Larsson is nowhere near as good as them. |
|
|
|
You absolutely cannot defend that trade, it was horrible the second it was made, but you do you. And also me giving potential pieces in a Pulj trade is nowhere near the same as a Stone one because he hasn't proven himself yet, plus the Oilers seem pretty down on him. I'm not even saying that an offer with like Ceci and White is necessarily fair value, but his value seems pretty low right now and Chiarelli has a terrible past of giving away talented young players.
Dorion isn't a good GM either, but it'd be pretty naive to think that a Pulj trade is impossible. - Trevor Shackles
Eric
(frank)ing
Gryba
Top
Pairing
RHD
Does that sound right? There's the defense of that trade. It's not a strong defense, but they NEEDED a RHD that eats minutes, and that's what Larsson does. Do you think if Chiarelli could see into the future he'd make that trade? Absolutely not. But like Boner said, injury prone LW on a team with a lot of depth upfront (not anymore though lol) for a minute eating dman. Bad trade, turned awful last year. Should have asked for a first. |
|
|
|
Yes but Oiler fans act as if he was an underperforming 50-point player. At his *worst* he was a 65-70 point player, and Larsson is like a "meh" 2nd pairing defenseman. Sure, they didn't trade him after an MVP season, but he had literally already shown the ability to score 80+ points, and that is worth at least an elite defenseman.
If they had gotten someone like Dougie Hamilton or Torey Krug, that would've made a lot more sense, but Larsson is nowhere near as good as them. - Trevor Shackles
Offensively no. Other than that I have few complaints. |
|
|
|
And Ceci is a overpaid poop defender in any capacity. His only positive is that he has an expiring contract. - Wildschwein
uhmmmmm..
He's right handed? |
|
|
|
Eric
(frank)ing
Gryba
Top
Pairing
RHD
Does that sound right? There's the defense of that trade. It's not a strong defense, but they NEEDED a RHD that eats minutes, and that's what Larsson does. Do you think if Chiarelli could see into the future he'd make that trade? Absolutely not. But like Boner said, injury prone LW on a team with a lot of depth upfront (not anymore though lol) for a minute eating dman. Bad trade, turned awful last year. Should have asked for a first. - Oilers4Life14
Lmao then trade something else for Larsson...I understand they had a need, but they didn't need to trade a player who had already been a PPG player twice, as you said.
|
|
|
|
uhmmmmm..
He's right handed? - Oilers4Life14
So am I. Now give me 4 million dollars. |
|
DDM-Coga
Colorado Avalanche |
|
|
Location: If Chabot is not in the NHL, Ill revoke my account - AlfiesSald, AB Joined: 07.24.2009
|
|
|
Colorado fans will give us their 1st rd pick to keep Ceci on the roster so that the Ottawa pick is as close to 1st overall as possible - riceroni
tough but fair |
|
|
|
Yes but Oiler fans act as if he was an underperforming 50-point player. At his *worst* he was a 65-70 point player, and Larsson is like a "meh" 2nd pairing defenseman. Sure, they didn't trade him after an MVP season, but he had literally already shown the ability to score 80+ points, and that is worth at least an elite defenseman.
If they had gotten someone like Dougie Hamilton or Torey Krug, that would've made a lot more sense, but Larsson is nowhere near as good as them. - Trevor Shackles
Larsson is not a "meh" second pair dman. He is a good second pair dman. Again, value wise the trade is awful. The Oilers should have gotten more.
Hall broke 80 once in Edmonton. His second best year was the lockout season where he had 50 points in 45 games. He had two really good years. The next season he had 38 points in 53 games. Then in the 2015-16, the only time he's ever played the full season, he had 65 points in 82 games. His game kinda dipped off after that 80 point season. |
|
|
|
So am I. Now give me 4 million dollars. - Wildschwein
If I ever win the lotto i will legit give you 4 million.
I was just trying to find positives okay. |
|
|
|
Lmao then trade something else for Larsson...I understand they had a need, but they didn't need to trade a player who had already been a PPG player twice, as you said. - Trevor Shackles
Yeah I think everyone would have rather that been Eberle and not Hall. But for a year it worked out.
Also wish the kept Hall and didn't sign Lucic... That would have been nice. |
|
|
|
Larsson is not a "meh" second pair dman. He is a good second pair dman. Again, value wise the trade is awful. The Oilers should have gotten more.
Hall broke 80 once in Edmonton. His second best year was the lockout season where he had 50 points in 45 games. He had two really good years. The next season he had 38 points in 53 games. Then in the 2015-16, the only time he's ever played the full season, he had 65 points in 82 games. His game kinda dipped off after that 80 point season. - Oilers4Life14
You say 65 points as if that makes him a bad player. That's still an elite left-winger. |
|
|
|
You say 65 points as if that makes him a bad player. That's still an elite left-winger. - Trevor Shackles
Yeah no. That a good top line left winger. And I was talking about the decline. Went from 80 which is an elite left-winger to 65 (in a full season). 53 in his first season in New Jersey. He was on the decline until the next season where he won MVP. |
|
|
|
Yes but Oiler fans act as if he was an underperforming 50-point player. At his *worst* he was a 65-70 point player, and Larsson is like a "meh" 2nd pairing defenseman. Sure, they didn't trade him after an MVP season, but he had literally already shown the ability to score 80+ points, and that is worth at least an elite defenseman.
If they had gotten someone like Dougie Hamilton or Torey Krug, that would've made a lot more sense, but Larsson is nowhere near as good as them. - Trevor Shackles
Here's that framing issue again.
I literally called him an elite, play-driving 70 point winger but recognized the flaw that he had in his injury history. That's an accurate picture of what he was at the time of the trade as was my assessment of Larsson. You calling him a "meh" 2nd pairing Dman is another example.
Do you always work this hard to build a strawman or is it only because it's Halloween? |
|
|
|
Yeah no. That a good top line left winger. And I was talking about the decline. Went from 80 which is an elite left-winger to 65 (in a full season). 53 in his first season in New Jersey. He was on the decline until the next season where he won MVP. - Oilers4Life14
8 left-wingers had 65 points last season, that's incredibly good. He also had like no talent around him in his first season in NJ and wasn't fully healthy. He was a 25 year old when he was traded, it'd be pretty ridiculous to think that he was never going to hit like 70 points again |
|
|
|
Here's that framing issue again.
I literally called him an elite, play-driving 70 point winger but recognized the flaw that he had in his injury history. That's an accurate picture of what he was at the time of the trade as was my assessment of Larsson. You calling him a "meh" 2nd pairing Dman is another example.
Do you always work this hard to build a strawman or is it only because it's Halloween? - MaximumBone
Larsson is really nothing special. He was a good enough addition, but it would've looked a lot better if they had traded like a pick and a prospect for him. And sure Hall had some injuries, but in his last four seasons he only missed major time in one of them. Plus if they wanted to get rid of him, they could've gotten a lot more than just Larsson---at least Larsson plus some prospects.
|
|
|
|
You absolutely cannot defend that trade, it was horrible the second it was made, but you do you. And also me giving potential pieces in a Pulj trade is nowhere near the same as a Stone one because he hasn't proven himself yet, plus the Oilers seem pretty down on him. I'm not even saying that an offer with like Ceci and White is necessarily fair value, but his value seems pretty low right now and Chiarelli has a terrible past of giving away talented young players.
Dorion isn't a good GM either, but it'd be pretty naive to think that a Pulj trade is impossible. - Trevor Shackles
Who's defending the trade? I took issue with how you framed the trade and used it as impetus for starting a conversation in bad faith (Cody Ceci = bad faith).
As for the Stone proposal, you missed my point. I wasn't comparing it to the Puljujarvi situation; as you are with the Hall trade, I'm using the Karlsson trade as justification for making a different bad proposal. Dorion traded the generation's best Dman who was a year away from UFA status for a 3C, a 3rd pairing Dman, a possible top-9 forward and ambiguous picks so he would naturally be receptive to trading an elite, two-way powerforward for a 3C, a 3rd pairing Dman and ambiguous picks. To restate: can you see why someone might not be willing to discuss reasonable trade options when faced with that methodology.
And at what point did I say a Puljujarvi trade was impossible? In an effort to start this off on a better foot, the whole point of moving Puljujarvi would be to move him to a team looking to bring in the attributes he possesses (youth, size, skill and speed) and is willing to part with a more proven forward to fill out our top-6. I've suggested that Toffoli or Kreider might be a reasonable target. Since Ottawa doesn't really have one of those to spare, the only players that might make sense are players with team control of a similar age that are perhaps a better fit for McLellan so your suggestion of Batherson or Norris make a degree of sense.
Ceci is a non-starter because we can't take on cap... and also because he's awful. |
|
|
|
8 left-wingers had 65 points last season, that's incredibly good. He also had like no talent around him in his first season in NJ and wasn't fully healthy. He was a 25 year old when he was traded, it'd be pretty ridiculous to think that he was never going to hit like 70 points again - Trevor Shackles
I think the point he's trying and failing to make is that Hall himself admits that the trade was a wake-up call that got him to push to that next level- the MVP level. There's no guarantee he gets even close to that if he stays in Edmonton.
While you can't fully discount the future, I'm of the mind that you need to account for what the players were at the time MORE than what they became. The absolute result of the trade can certainly be assessed as what each team eventually got from each player, but not the framing of the trade.
For a thought experiment, let's say Larsson continues his development path and becomes a Vlasic-level (elite shutdown, ~35 pt) Dman until he's 35 and Hall sees his injury struggles get worse to the point where he has to retire at age 30. Would you then change how you framed the trade now that it was ~12 years of a top pairing Dman for ~6 years of a degrading Hall? I would stand by my point and say "no, it was still a young Dman capable of shutting down top opposition but lacking in offensive confidence for a young ~70 point play-driving winger with injury problems".
Same goes the other way. If Larsson's back becomes a problem and he becomes a fringe bottom pairing guy and Hall ascends to Lemieux status by virtue of New Jersey's water being the mana of the gods, I'd maintain my framing of the trade. |
|
|
|
Larsson is really nothing special. He was a good enough addition, but it would've looked a lot better if they had traded like a pick and a prospect for him. And sure Hall had some injuries, but in his last four seasons he only missed major time in one of them. Plus if they wanted to get rid of him, they could've gotten a lot more than just Larsson---at least Larsson plus some prospects. - Trevor Shackles
The problem with your point is that New Jersey wasn't going to trade him for a pick or prospects. He was a young Dman that was playing on their top pairing and controlling the goal share (with help from Greene, of course). Hall was the price to pay if Larsson was who they wanted.
A fair argument would be "then don't make the trade" and we could discuss the validity of that opinion for hours only to realize we actually agree on that (my stance put simply: the best route from that TDD onward would've been not trading Petry/Schutlz in consecutive years, signing Demers, keeping Hall and trading the Puljujarvi pick down to draft Sergachev), but let's not. I've discussed that FAR too many times. |
|
|
|
Larsson is really nothing special. He was a good enough addition, but it would've looked a lot better if they had traded like a pick and a prospect for him. And sure Hall had some injuries, but in his last four seasons he only missed major time in one of them. Plus if they wanted to get rid of him, they could've gotten a lot more than just Larsson---at least Larsson plus some prospects. - Trevor Shackles
As for that first sentence, I think it's fair to say you and I just won't come to agree on that so it's best we not get too deep into that. I value what I see as a right-shot defensive Dman that generally wins the goal-share, shot-share and chance-share battles against top opposition for ~22 mins/night more than you do and that's fine. Differences of opinion and interpretation are only natural. |
|
MLew65
Buffalo Sabres |
|
|
Location: hamburg, NY Joined: 01.23.2013
|
|
|
Yeah I think everyone would have rather that been Eberle and not Hall. But for a year it worked out.
Also wish the kept Hall and didn't sign Lucic... That would have been nice. - Oilers4Life14[/q
I think the Lucic signing set the Oilers back in the rebuild. Larrson for Hall bad trade. Wish Buffalo was in on that one.
|
|
|
|
I think the Lucic signing set the Oilers back in the rebuild. Larrson for Hall bad trade. Wish Buffalo was in on that one. - MLew65
The problem being that you guys didn't have a Dman of comparable ability to Lord Larsson (praise be unto him). It would've been like arriving at a club without the money for the cover fee. |
|