My point:

It still leaves us with a hole on the top pairing.
- gretzky

My point:

The term "top pairing" is purely academic when you have numerous defensemen capable of playing 25 minutes any given night.

lmao talk about homerism.. best case 3/4, Schen is already 3, and has the potential to be a #2 on any team. Stop kidding yourself

As for your evaluation, I love your look at prospects.

"MPS has a rare ability of size and speed, you don't see that often", yes I agree, but his POTENTIAL is to become a first line guy. He currently isn't.

Gardiner has the POTENTIAL to become a top pairing D. He currently isn't. He has very nice speed, and very good vision, from what we have seen. He has potential to become a top 4 or even top 2. Will that pan out? Who knows.

Why is it that every oiler player you mention is "A LOCK!" to become what their maximum potential allows. RNH COULD be a franchince centre. He could also become a Daigle, Turris, Kabanov, etc...

Prospects are called prospects for a reason, because you DON'T know how they will turn out. There is risk associated with them.
- mfreedman

Do you even know how to read?

Because I never once said a player was a lock other than RNH for becoming a first liner. Seriously do you see him becoming anything less? He is already leading our team in points and on our top line as a rookie, lol.

Do you even know how to read?

Because I never once said a player was a lock other than RNH for becoming a first liner. Seriously do you see him becoming anything less? He is already leading our team in points and on our top line as a rookie, lol.
- gretzky

So you didn't say it then, but you're saying it now?

Do you even know how to read?

Because I never once said a player was a lock other than RNH for becoming a first liner. Seriously do you see him becoming anything less? He is already leading our team in points and on our top line as a rookie, lol.
- gretzky

No, he is not a lock. Granted he looks good, but let me show you something:

Alexander Daigle Rookie year, first 20 games:

------------------G-A
1- OTT v. QUE 0 2
2- OTT @ STL 2 1
3- OTT @ FLA 1 1
4- OTT @ TBL 1 0
5- OTT v. DAL 0 2
6- OTT @ NYI 0 2
7- OTT v.MDA 1 0
8- OTT v.PHI 0 0
9- OTT @ BOS 0 0
10 OTT @ DAL 1 0
11 OTT @ EDM 0 1
12 OTT @ WIN 0 0
13 OTT @ HAR 1 0
14 OTT v. FLA 1 0
15 OTT @ MTL 0 1
16 OTT v. MTL 0 1
17 OTT v. NYI 0 1
18 OTT v. NJD 0 1
19 OTT v. BUF 0 1
20 OTT v. NYR 0 0

Total: 20GP 8G 14A 22PTS

Looks like a lock right?

No, he is not a lock. Granted he looks good, but let me show you something:

Alexander Daigle Rookie year, first 20 games:

------------------G-A
1- OTT v. QUE 0 2
2- OTT @ STL 2 1
3- OTT @ FLA 1 1
4- OTT @ TBL 1 0
5- OTT v. DAL 0 2
6- OTT @ NYI 0 2
7- OTT v.MDA 1 0
8- OTT v.PHI 0 0
9- OTT @ BOS 0 0
10 OTT @ DAL 1 0
11 OTT @ EDM 0 1
12 OTT @ WIN 0 0
13 OTT @ HAR 1 0
14 OTT v. FLA 1 0
15 OTT @ MTL 0 1
16 OTT v. MTL 0 1
17 OTT v. NYI 0 1
18 OTT v. NJD 0 1
19 OTT v. BUF 0 1
20 OTT v. NYR 0 0

Total: 20GP 8G 14A 22PTS

Looks like a lock right?
- mfreedman

While I agree with your assertion that RNH is not a lock, in 1992-1993 there were 34 players at or above a PPG pace. Last season there were 7. If RNH continues a PPG pace through 20GP it means so much more. That being said: a) I don't think he's a lock for a future #1 centre, and b) I think he'll finish the season well below a PPG pace.

While I agree with your assertion that RNH is not a lock, in 1992-1993 there were 34 players at or above a PPG pace. Last season there were 7. If RNH continues a PPG pace through 20GP it means so much more. That being said: a) I don't think he's a lock for a future #1 centre, and b) I think he'll finish the season well below a PPG pace.
- Morris

we can all agree though, that Kessel will maintain his >2ppg, correct?

well after last night
to sens - reality
to flyers - ownership of the sens

No, he is not a lock. Granted he looks good, but let me show you something:

Alexander Daigle Rookie year, first 20 games:

------------------G-A
1- OTT v. QUE 0 2
2- OTT @ STL 2 1
3- OTT @ FLA 1 1
4- OTT @ TBL 1 0
5- OTT v. DAL 0 2
6- OTT @ NYI 0 2
7- OTT v.MDA 1 0
8- OTT v.PHI 0 0
9- OTT @ BOS 0 0
10 OTT @ DAL 1 0
11 OTT @ EDM 0 1
12 OTT @ WIN 0 0
13 OTT @ HAR 1 0
14 OTT v. FLA 1 0
15 OTT @ MTL 0 1
16 OTT v. MTL 0 1
17 OTT v. NYI 0 1
18 OTT v. NJD 0 1
19 OTT v. BUF 0 1
20 OTT v. NYR 0 0

Total: 20GP 8G 14A 22PTS

Looks like a lock right?
- mfreedman

Daigle was how long ago?

Scouting is much better now.

Also, I was merely pointing out what scouts have been saying all along.

If you think RNH doesn't have an extremely high chance of becoming a top liner you shouldn't be posting.

Daigle was how long ago?

Scouting is much better now.

Also, I was merely pointing out what scouts have been saying all along.

If you think RNH doesn't have an extremely high chance of becoming a top liner you shouldn't be posting.
- gretzky

just like you shouldn't be posting if you think Schenn's ceiling is "at best" a #3 d-man.

Daigle was how long ago?

Scouting is much better now.

Also, I was merely pointing out what scouts have been saying all along.

If you think RNH doesn't have an extremely high chance of becoming a top liner you shouldn't be posting.
- gretzky

I think what we're taking issue with is the idea that Schenn is done developing, or that he is at best going to pan out as a 3/4 guy while RNH is in some substantial way more likely to be a surefire #1 centre. Or at least that he's more likely to be a #1C than Schenn is to be better than a 3/4 defenseman.

A fairly tame crazy one:

To Minnesota:
Linus Omark
Sam Gagner

To Edmonton:
Cal Clutterbuck
Nick Schultz

A crazy crazy one:

To Nasvhille
Todd Bertuzzi
2012 1st
2013 conditional 1st
Riley Sheahan

To Detroit
Shea Weber

1st is dependent on Weber re-signing with Detroit.

Daigle was how long ago?

Scouting is much better now.

Also, I was merely pointing out what scouts have been saying all along.

If you think RNH doesn't have an extremely high chance of becoming a top liner you shouldn't be posting.
- gretzky

There is a difference between a lock, and having an extremely high chance. I believe most players picked in the top 3 have an extremely high chance of becoming top players in their position.

I was simply stating this because of the way you were making the leaf players of Schenn, Gardiner, Aulie, etc... as lost causes (not your wording, but similar to what you said), while RNH, and MPS were valued far higher.

I am currently willing to bet that IF there was a trade involving EDM and TOR of Schenn for MPS, Edmonton would have to offer up MPS plus, which goes against what you were saying. Not to say MPS is not a valueable prospect, I know he is, but when you evaluate an Oiler player on what you believe they will come, and then evaluate a leaf player on what they currently are, it causes inconsistencies in your logic.

Granted that the trade scenario I mentioned obviously wouldn't happen, I would like you to keep in mind the name of the thread, as well as the fact that the value I offered would be considered a more than reasonable offer for your two players. Again, this doesn't imply that Oilers management would accept the trade in 1,000 years, as people grow attached to the players that they draft, and most teams would never trade away a #1 pick so early (again, I refer you to the title of the thread).

So far, I have heard the comments from fans of teams not involved that the trade seems like fair value, although it would never happen. And while I don't expect that oyu would be happy giving away a #1 pick in a trade, just try to take a step back and evaluate it as objectively as you can. It is pretty fair value, and a lot to give up on both sides, IMO, but that's what makes it interesting.

A fairly tame crazy one:

To Minnesota:
Linus Omark
Sam Gagner

To Edmonton:
Cal Clutterbuck
Nick Schultz

A crazy crazy one:

To Nasvhille
Todd Bertuzzi
2012 1st
2013 conditional 1st
Riley Sheahan

To Detroit
Shea Weber

1st is dependent on Weber re-signing with Detroit.
- Morris

The first one makes a lot of sense for EDM, but I just wouldn't see Clutterbuck leaving Minny. I think Minn would need a big overpayment to get rid of him, and while it is good value coming back, I just wonder if it would be enough. I do though thinkt hat Cal would be a PERFECT player for Edmonton.

2nd one I'm not so sure. I personally think that if Nashville was going to trade away Weber, they would wnat a stud prospect and not just draft picks. I would think along the lines of Tatar + Helm + 2012 1st +... Would it surprise you if to get Weber, a top 5 pick would have to come back? I.e. would you trade RNH + for Weber?

There is a difference between a lock, and having an extremely high chance. I believe most players picked in the top 3 have an extremely high chance of becoming top players in their position.

I was simply stating this because of the way you were making the leaf players of Schenn, Gardiner, Aulie, etc... as lost causes (not your wording, but similar to what you said), while RNH, and MPS were valued far higher.

I am currently willing to bet that IF there was a trade involving EDM and TOR of Schenn for MPS, Edmonton would have to offer up MPS plus, which goes against what you were saying. Not to say MPS is not a valueable prospect, I know he is, but when you evaluate an Oiler player on what you believe they will come, and then evaluate a leaf player on what they currently are, it causes inconsistencies in your logic.

Granted that the trade scenario I mentioned obviously wouldn't happen, I would like you to keep in mind the name of the thread, as well as the fact that the value I offered would be considered a more than reasonable offer for your two players. Again, this doesn't imply that Oilers management would accept the trade in 1,000 years, as people grow attached to the players that they draft, and most teams would never trade away a #1 pick so early (again, I refer you to the title of the thread).

So far, I have heard the comments from fans of teams not involved that the trade seems like fair value, although it would never happen. And while I don't expect that oyu would be happy giving away a #1 pick in a trade, just try to take a step back and evaluate it as objectively as you can. It is pretty fair value, and a lot to give up on both sides, IMO, but that's what makes it interesting.
- mfreedman

How is saying that I feel a guy wont be better than a #3 D man saying he is a "lost cause"???

How is saying that I feel a guy wont be better than a #3 D man saying he is a "lost cause"???
- gretzky

Well done avoiding the rest of the post and commenting on one thing that doesn't fully agree with you.

By lost cause, I meant that you figured our expectations of what they could be wouldn't be met, i.e. expecting Schenn to be a top pairing D was a lost cause. Sorry, next time I'll clarify.

However, next time maybe you should worry about the overall point of the message rather than trying to find one meaningles point to focus on.

Well done avoiding the rest of the post and commenting on one thing that doesn't fully agree with you.

By lost cause, I meant that you figured our expectations of what they could be wouldn't be met, i.e. expecting Schenn to be a top pairing D was a lost cause. Sorry, next time I'll clarify.

However, next time maybe you should worry about the overall point of the message rather than trying to find one meaningles point to focus on.
- mfreedman

I stopped reading because when the first part doesn't make sense the rest usually doesn't either.

I stopped reading at RNH is valued higher, etc. Of course he is valued higher he is a 1st overall pick, lol. Do you really think a 22 year old stay at home D man who is currently struggling should even be mentioned with him?

I stopped reading because when the first part doesn't make sense the rest usually doesn't either.

I stopped reading at RNH is valued higher, etc. Of course he is valued higher he is a 1st overall pick, lol. Do you really think a 22 year old stay at home D man who is currently struggling should even be mentioned with him?
- gretzky

I stopped reading there because you repeated the first part of the same sentence again. I assumed you were just stating the same thing.

Why do you bother having a discussion with someone when you are not going to listen to a thing they say? You have lost my interest because you clearly don't bother listening to the person in the discussion, so why bother discussing at all?

And if you had read the next few words they stated (These weren't your word...)

The first one makes a lot of sense for EDM, but I just wouldn't see Clutterbuck leaving Minny. I think Minn would need a big overpayment to get rid of him, and while it is good value coming back, I just wonder if it would be enough. I do though thinkt hat Cal would be a PERFECT player for Edmonton.

2nd one I'm not so sure. I personally think that if Nashville was going to trade away Weber, they would wnat a stud prospect and not just draft picks. I would think along the lines of Tatar + Helm + 2012 1st +... Would it surprise you if to get Weber, a top 5 pick would have to come back? I.e. would you trade RNH + for Weber?
- mfreedman

I see what you mean about the first trade. I'd be willing to chuck in some other pieces (Jones or something), but Minnesota would probably would something more substantial then Edmonton was willing to give. I have this hunch that Clutterbuck is on his way up in point totals, and could become a poor man's Dustin Brown (45ish points).

I was trying to simulate Detroit's characteristic shrewdness in trades, but you're probably right on this one as well. The two firsts amount essentially to 2nds from Detroit.

I wouldn't trade RNH as part of a package for Weber alone, but I get how that would be the asking price.

And gretz, before you respond, It's not a contradiction to say that I wouldn't trade RNH + for Weber alone but I would trade him in a package for Schenn because a) that package is for many good pieces and b) Weber's future in Nashville is uncertain and you might be able to get him outside of a trade, where Schenn's in Toronto is pretty set unless a major trade came along

I see what you mean about the first trade. I'd be willing to chuck in some other pieces (Jones or something), but Minnesota would probably would something more substantial then Edmonton was willing to give. I have this hunch that Clutterbuck is on his way up in point totals, and could become a poor man's Dustin Brown (45ish points).

I was trying to simulate Detroit's characteristic shrewdness in trades, but you're probably right on this one as well. The two firsts amount essentially to 2nds from Detroit.

I wouldn't trade RNH as part of a package for Weber alone, but I get how that would be the asking price.

And gretz, before you respond, It's not a contradiction to say that I wouldn't trade RNH + for Weber alone but I would trade him in a package for Schenn because a) that package is for many good pieces and b) Weber's future in Nashville is uncertain and you might be able to get him outside of a trade, where Schenn's in Toronto is pretty set unless a major trade came along
- Morris

All good points.

While I don''t know if the Asking price for Weber would be RNH, I am positive it would include one of RNH, Hall, Eberle, MPS, or 2 1sts as a start. Again, it is a huge price to pay, but so would letting Weber go for anything less.

And to be honest, I can see Weber actually ending up in EDM by years end, becasue of the need of both teams.

EDM needs that all around hsutdown D men, and nashville needs those inexpensive talented forwards. You 2 do make very good trading partners. Seeing how it's the title of the thread, let's try out a scenario.

MPS + 2012 1st (conditional if Weber resigns). With Nashvilles defence first system, I can see MPS being the target.

This is a big price to pay for Weber, but in the end the 2012 draft pick that you are likely to select (if you took a defence) would probably have the upside of becoming a Weber, with them more likely falling short. Getting Weber guarantees the upside of Weber (someone please try to argue this point :lol so in the end, it is well worth the payment IMO

To Nashville: Kovalchuk, Parise
To New Jersey: Suter and Weber

Morris, My apologies go out to you, and decent Oiler fans everywhere. It's unfortunate that fools like "gretzky" make the city of Edmonton seem nothing more than a cold, mean, unpleasant place, where scouting reports are a religion, and biased perspective is common place.

gretzky, Do your fellow Edmontonians a favor and stop tarnishing their team, and their city. Live outside the bubble that is Edmonton, and broaden your perspective on not only the game of hockey... but life in general. While your at it, do Wayne Gretzky a favor and abandon your account.

Crazy Trade #1:

CBJ receives: Gudbranson + Markstrom + 2012 1st + 2012 3rd:

FLA receives: Rick Nash

Rationalization: While it seems weird that a CBJ team that just made trades for Carter and Wiznewski to become competative would trade away Nash, the team is in need of a future Goaltender, and some back-end strength, to actually become competative in the future. FLA on the other hand, gets some elite scoring talent to build on. (obviously would never happen, however, Nash is not being traded from CLB, and MArkstrom is not leaving FLA)
- mfreedman

If you knew this why did you waste your time as well as mine?
The defense is quite fine with respect to becoming "competitive in the future."

If you knew this why did you waste your time as well as mine? The defense is quite fine with respect to becoming "competitive in the future."
- dawgzhouse

Please note the title of this blog. That is why

Please note the title of this blog. That is why
- mfreedman

Sorry, my fault. I thought 'whacky' was different than implausible.

Sorry, my fault. I thought 'whacky' was different than implausible.
- dawgzhouse

Implausible to me is what whacky is defined as. A whacky trade involves players that teams normally wouldn't deal.

Something along the lines of Brassard for a pick + prospect, would seem plausible, but defeats the purpose of the topic for me.

I want to see star players involved, and obviously a fan of whatever team is trading that player is not going to be a fan of the trade I suggest.

I also feel that CLB would win the Nash trade IMO