Trade Ideas: Summer 2014

[TrueBlueGED]

Generally, I think if you are winning or even, what you've done in that situation by playing Crosby and drawing say, Gaustad, is you've locked an inferior offensive player onto the ice, putting your opponent team into a defensive posture for a shift. Now even if Gaustad wins the shift, it is not likely he's going to score against you.

 

Now a Bergeron is light years more dangerous. He can take your lunch and eat it, by winning the draw and scoring. I don't think anyone would call Bergeron the most gifted or athletic athlete, but he's awfully smart with the puck. So it is far more important to win a draw against Bergeron for sure.

 

Well if winning a faceoff is an advantage, then winning it is really Gaustad's only prayer of regularly winning shifts against better players. But if even in wins he gets slaughtered, what value does his faceoff specialty have when the other team can dictate matchups? You might be in a situation where his best asset is only worthwhile 41 games per year.

 

As far as Bergeron goes, of he's so smart and good (he is, not arguing the point) wouldn't he have a much easier time getting the puck back or covering for the loss, making the win/loss event itself relatively unimportant? That's how I view it, anyway.

[X. Benedict]

Well if winning a faceoff is an advantage, then winning it is really Gaustad's only prayer of regularly winning shifts against better players. But if even in wins he gets slaughtered, what value does his faceoff specialty have when the other team can dictate matchups? You might be in a situation where his best asset is only worthwhile 41 games per year.

 

As far as Bergeron goes, of he's so smart and good (he is, not arguing the point) wouldn't he have a much easier time getting the puck back or covering for the loss, making the win/loss event itself relatively unimportant? That's how I view it, anyway.

 

In the defensive zone or on a PK, an undertalented Gaustad-type is almost always a solid play which line changes don't really much dictate- Home or away. Keep the puck out. Advance a zone. Be a snowplow.

 

Neutral zone, he can be a liability.

 

Bergeron is a bit of an exception in the sense that he can start in the defensive zone and still score. (should he win a draw) Very few players can do that.

The last thing most teams want to do is take their best scorer and have him locked up 200 ft. away from scoring with a D- zone start.

 

Having a Gaustad and a Bergeron on your roster, though, you can platoon them, and dictate the pace on each end.

 

Poille probably thought Gaustad was worth a first rounder, because it would free up Mike Fisher for more offensive zone starts.

Edited July 7, 2014 by X. Benedict

[TrueBlueGED]

In the defensive zone or on a PK, an undertalented Gaustad-type is almost always a solid play which line changes don't really much dictate- Home or away. Keep the puck out. Advance a zone. Be a snowplow.

 

Neutral zone, he can be a liability.

 

Bergeron is a bit of an exception in the sense that he can start in the defensive zone and still score. (should he win a draw) Very few players can do that.

The last thing most teams want to do is take their best scorer and have him locked up 200 ft. away from scoring with a D- zone start.

 

Having a Gaustad and a Bergeron on your roster, though, you can platoon them, and dictate the pace on each end.

 

Poille probably thought Gaustad was worth a first rounder, because it would free up Mike Fisher for more offensive zone starts.

 

I think you're on to something with the PK because the puck is probably going to be in your zone anyway, so having a player that doesn't generate much offense isn't going to be a huge deal.

 

That said, I think you're missing the boat with respect to even strength play, even when it starts in the defensive zone. In my view, what you ultimately want at even strength are players who can push play and sustain offensive zone time. Gaustad is a solid play on the PK because unless the power play team screws up, you're not going to have any real chance to pressure offensively. But that's not the case at even strength, where even starting in the Dzone, quality players can still flip the ice or at least get it out of the zone so players who can play offense can get on the ice. But if Gaustad-like players win draws and then get trapped in their own zone anyway, what's the point?

 

What I'm getting at is opportunity cost. On the PK, there really isn't any (at least not consistently), but at 5v5 there definitely is. Player A wins 55% of his draws, but gets trapped in his zone for most of the rest of his shift. Player B loses 55% of his draws, but has recovery ability and can get through the neutral zone. Which player is more valuable? It gets back to what Glass was saying and Carp sort of touched on: faceoff ability is rarely going to be the determining factor in choosing between players since other things are more important.

 

I think you and others who believe strongly in the value of a faceoff win are kind of implicitly assuming that winning the draw will lead to possession. I don't think, and there currently really isn't any work to show, that that in fact is the case. Even at face value, lool at some of the stuff that have been tossed around in this thread: matchups, skill differential, on ice situation. All things which can drown out the impact of the faceoff. So if faceoffs can matter, but the number of situations is so limited that they rarely do, how much emphasis should we really put on it?

 

I apologize in advance for any typos or botched grammar, that was a lot to type from a phone :lol:

[X. Benedict]

I think you're on to something with the PK because the puck is probably going to be in your zone anyway, so having a player that doesn't generate much offense isn't going to be a huge deal.

 

That said, I think you're missing the boat with respect to even strength play, even when it starts in the defensive zone. In my view, what you ultimately want at even strength are players who can push play and sustain offensive zone time. Gaustad is a solid play on the PK because unless the power play team screws up, you're not going to have any real chance to pressure offensively. But that's not the case at even strength, where even starting in the Dzone, quality players can still flip the ice or at least get it out of the zone so players who can play offense can get on the ice. But if Gaustad-like players win draws and then get trapped in their own zone anyway, what's the point?

 

What I'm getting at is opportunity cost. On the PK, there really isn't any (at least not consistently), but at 5v5 there definitely is. Player A wins 55% of his draws, but gets trapped in his zone for most of the rest of his shift. Player B loses 55% of his draws, but has recovery ability and can get through the neutral zone. Which player is more valuable? It gets back to what Glass was saying and Carp sort of touched on: faceoff ability is rarely going to be the determining factor in choosing between players since other things are more important.

 

I think you and others who believe strongly in the value of a faceoff win are kind of implicitly assuming that winning the draw will lead to possession. I don't think, and there currently really isn't any work to show, that that in fact is the case. Even at face value, lool at some of the stuff that have been tossed around in this thread: matchups, skill differential, on ice situation. All things which can drown out the impact of the faceoff. So if faceoffs can matter, but the number of situations is so limited that they rarely do, how much emphasis should we really put on it?

 

I apologize in advance for any typos or botched grammar, that was a lot to type from a phone :lol:

 

Faceoffs stats can get odious....winning faceoffs cleanly is really an art...do that and you clear the zone. If it gets scrambled and a teammate picks it up, that is as good as a win as far as stats go. But it doesn't mean you get a clean shot.

 

Cleanly lost faceoffs in the D-zone cost the Sabres about 7 games last fall. So I'm not ready to say they are not significant, even disregarding stats, when I can see it in order --- .lost draw, puck teed up, back of net gets splashed. there was a textbook example almost every other night.

 

I can tell you one thing though....it was painful to watch Ennis, and Hodgson lose on the dot. And that the bottom 8 teams in FO% didn't make the playoffs. Which usually means they are losing matchups at center ice.

[TrueBlueGED]

Faceoffs stats can get odious....winning faceoffs cleanly is really an art...do that and you clear the zone. If it gets scrambled and a teammate picks it up, that is as good as a win as far as stats go. But it doesn't mean you get a clean shot.

 

Cleanly lost faceoffs in the D-zone cost the Sabres about 7 games last fall. So I'm not ready to say they are not significant, even disregarding stats, when I can see it in order --- .lost draw, puck teed up, back of net gets splashed. there was a textbook example almost every other night.

 

I can tell you one thing though....it was painful to watch Ennis, and Hodgson lose on the dot. And that the bottom 8 teams in FO% didn't make the playoffs. Which usually means they are losing matchups at center ice.

 

1) I eagerly await Freeman scolding us as he breaks this off into a faceoff thread.

 

2) I will grant that there may be a difference in a clean win vs. wins that are a result of a post puck-drop battle. I don't know how much of a difference, but there may be one. The question then becomes how many draws are won cleanly, and is winning cleanly a skill that can lead to repeatable results, or simply the result of fortunate luck?

 

3) Come, now. Seven games were not decided by the 70 seconds following a few lost faceoffs.

 

4) I agree that a huge problem last year for the Sabres was the center ice mismatches they faced on a regular basis. But connecting that overall mismatch to a faceoff differential is an inferential canyon I am not will to jump.

 

5) If we're just looking at last year, the best faceoff team in the league was Nashville, and powerhouses Carolina, Phoenix, and Vancouver were also top-10. Others have done the work, I'm not going to re-do it: there is zero correlation between team faceoff percentage and finish in the standings.

[Taro T]

 

 

Faceoffs stats can get odious....winning faceoffs cleanly is really an art...do that and you clear the zone. If it gets scrambled and a teammate picks it up, that is as good as a win as far as stats go. But it doesn't mean you get a clean shot.

 

Cleanly lost faceoffs in the D-zone cost the Sabres about 7 games last fall. So I'm not ready to say they are not significant, even disregarding stats, when I can see it in order --- .lost draw, puck teed up, back of net gets splashed. there was a textbook example almost every other night.

 

I can tell you one thing though....it was painful to watch Ennis, and Hodgson lose on the dot. And that the bottom 8 teams in FO% didn't make the playoffs. Which usually means they are losing matchups at center ice.

That right there is the whole key - clean wins & in your own end, clean losses.

 

And a guy that can consistently win 55% is going to lose very few cleanly (a sad night in Beantown 31 years ago not withstanding) and when he goes against a sub-50% guy will win a bunch cleanly. Even if that clean shot from the point gets stopped, it's a lot harder to get it back from the ensuing scramble/cycle.

 

I'm surprised they don't keep those stats - clean win, win w/ slight edge, win w/ no edge (e.g. winning right out of the zone, etc.), and wash. I'd also be surprised if those wouldn't lead to effects on the possession stats.

[nfreeman]

1) I eagerly await Freeman scolding us as he breaks this off into a faceoff thread.

 

I'm not the "stay on topic" hard-ass around here. And the FO discussion has been excellent.

 

But you do deserve a scolding for other sins. So watch it, mister.

[Iron Crotch]

Evander Kane anyone? http://www.hockeybuz...p?post_id=61213

 

What would you move for him (player(s), pick(s), prospect(s))?

 

I'd send them CoHo and a 2nd for Kane (or thereabouts)... price might even be less if the Jets are in a hurry to get rid of him.

[Hoss]

Evander Kane anyone? http://www.hockeybuz...p?post_id=61213

 

What would you move for him (player(s), pick(s), prospect(s))?

 

I'd send them CoHo and a 2nd for Kane (or thereabouts)... price might even be less if the Jets are in a hurry to get rid of him.

 

It would cost twice that to get him, and I don't think we're at the stage of going after a guy like that yet. Maybe next offseason is a possibility. Especially with the first rounders we'll have.

[inkman]

It would cost twice that to get him, and I don't think we're at the stage of going after a guy like that yet. Maybe next offseason is a possibility. Especially with the first rounders we'll have.

Ennis, a 1st (Blues) and a 2nd? Closer I think...

[Iron Crotch]

It would cost twice that to get him, and I don't think we're at the stage of going after a guy like that yet. Maybe next offseason is a possibility. Especially with the first rounders we'll have.

 

He wants out and they want him out so the price won't be as high as you think. They're supposedly asking for a roster player and a pick. The price isn't crazy high.

 

As well, Kane would have to go to a team that can accommodate his $6 million salary.

[Hoss]

 

 

He wants out and they want him out so the price won't be as high as you think. They're supposedly asking for a roster player and a pick. The price isn't crazy high.

 

As well, Kane would have to go to a team that can accommodate his $6 million salary.

 

The price is and has been very high. There's nothing saying Winnipeg "wants him out." They want him out if what they have coming in is outrageous.

 

 

Ennis, a 1st (Blues) and a 2nd? Closer I think...

 

Ennis and the Blues first is probably near Hodgson's value.

 

I think that it would take the Isles first next year and then a player like Hodgson. But I wouldn't make that trade. If we get to next offseason and the Isles pick is 6-10 then I would give them that pick, a 2nd and Hodgson.

[dudacek]

Evander Kane anyone? http://www.hockeybuz...p?post_id=61213

 

What would you move for him (player(s), pick(s), prospect(s))?

 

I'd send them CoHo and a 2nd for Kane (or thereabouts)... price might even be less if the Jets are in a hurry to get rid of him.

 

A 22-year-old power forward who can skate and score? Yes please.

Kane clearly has douche tendencies, but I agree with Spud that he could blossom under Nolan.

 

If its a Buffalo trade, you are probably looking for the standard three-for-one.

 

If it's me, and the price is a roster player and a couple top prospects, then I offer Stewart as a similar player to fill his roster slot, and Girgorenko as a top prospect who fills the Jets biggest need. The Jets would want Foligno over Stewart.

 

The struggle is the third piece —I'd offer the Blues first, but i doubt that would be enough. Hodgson or Ennis would be too much, unless we had something else coming back.

Edited July 9, 2014 by dudacek

[Brawndo]

I guess the Tyler Myers Price Tag is too rich for the Red Wings

 

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/detroit/story/source-defenseman-mike-green-is-wings-top-trade-target-070814

[Brawndo]

Dave Davis ‏@DaveDavisHockey 9m

According to Fox Sports Detroit, the big obstacle in a Tyler Myers trade to the Red Wings is that the Sabres want Anthony Mantha.

[Hoss]

Dave Davis ‏@DaveDavisHockey 9m

According to Fox Sports Detroit, the big obstacle in a Tyler Myers trade to the Red Wings is that the Sabres want Anthony Mantha.

 

Good. Mantha and Kindl or Nyquist, Kindl and a 2nd would be okay with me. Otherwise no deal.

[thewookie1]

Dave Davis ‏@DaveDavisHockey 9m

According to Fox Sports Detroit, the big obstacle in a Tyler Myers trade to the Red Wings is that the Sabres want Anthony Mantha.

 

Hold your position GMTM! We'll send you supplies!

[dudacek]

I only trade Tyler Myers if we are getting a better player in return.

There is no incentive to trade a 24-year-old 6'7" right handed defenceman who can skate and score 10 goals and 35 points for a package.

Like Tim Murray said, you only look at it if the other team is prepared to do something stupid.

[LGR4GM]

I only trade Tyler Myers if we are getting a better player in return.

There is no incentive to trade a 24-year-old 6'7" right handed defenceman who can skate and score 10 goals and 35 points for a package.

Like Tim Murray said, you only look at it if the other team is prepared to do something stupid.

Anthony Mantha 6'5" 205lb RW/LW 57goals in 57 games played last year in the Q. If that is part of the package you are getting a player that makes Myers expandable.

 

Mantha also had 24goals in 24 playoff games in the Q.

 

Now imagine in 2 years Tyler Myers. Now imagine in 2 years Mantha getting set up by Reinhart. One of those makes me warm in fuzzy.

[LastPommerFan]

Anthony Mantha 6'5" 205lb RW/LW 57goals in 57 games played last year in the Q. If that is part of the package you are getting a player that makes Myers expandable.

 

Mantha also had 24goals in 24 playoff games in the Q.

 

Now imagine in 2 years Tyler Myers. Now imagine in 2 years Mantha getting set up by Reinhart. One of those makes me warm in fuzzy.

 

Would Mantha be our 1st line RW immediately, or is Stafford still better?

[LGR4GM]

Would Mantha be our 1st line RW immediately, or is Stafford still better?

Depends on what Mantha does at camp but yes he has the potential to immediately be the best winger the Sabres have. He skates well. Shoots incredibly well. Has size and from all reports has greatly improved his defensive game in the last 2 years.

[sabre snipe]

I would love to get Mantha but from reading Detroit boards they will riot if they give him up for Myers…which I'm perfectly okay with :) i definitely think murray should hold out for him, exactly the kind of player we need (finishing winger). were in no rush to move myers where detroit has young forward talent to the max and needs a good current NHL defenseman to stay in contention for the cup now.

 

Just curious though, I'm as big of a Zadorov fan as any here on this board, and i know there are a ton, but i remember myself and other wanting Mantha in the draft last year… couldn't believe he fell to detroit. so-- Would you trade zadorov straight up for mantha at this point (hypothetically speaking that detroit would accept)? i think both have improved their stock a lot, even being mid-first rounders in the 1st place

[dudacek]

 

Anthony Mantha 6'5" 205lb RW/LW 57goals in 57 games played last year in the Q. If that is part of the package you are getting a player that makes Myers expandable.

 

Mantha also had 24goals in 24 playoff games in the Q.

 

Now imagine in 2 years Tyler Myers. Now imagine in 2 years Mantha getting set up by Reinhart. One of those makes me warm in fuzzy.

 

Exactly. If Murray is holding out for Mantha-plus, he is doing the right thing.

[Hoss]

Soooo... Patrick Kane?

 

;)

[thewookie1]

What about

 

Myers, Stafford/Stewart, and Armia for Mantha, 2015 1st, a D-Man (Kindl?), and Sheahan