Speculation: 2014-15 Stars Trade Talk 4: Jim Nill's Trading Tactics are Classless

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

Just out of curiosity, name some third line centers who are substantially better than Eakin? I know there are some, but he seems like a top third of the league, nearly ideal third line center.

Plus, he was the guy they scaled up and down the lineup and others played well with him, sort of like Jere in years past.

I am not totally against trading him, but think many underestimate him. If we trade, I think we trade from an area of surplus - prospects, young D, etc. If we give him up, we probably aren't going to be able to replace him immediately, and thus step back a bit in the 3C area. It has to be a big upgrade somewhere else to pull off that deal.

 

[tjcurrie]

Just out of curiosity, name some third line centers who are substantially better than Eakin? I know there are some, but he seems like a top third of the league, nearly ideal third line center.

Plus, he was the guy they scaled up and down the lineup and others played well with him, sort of like Jere in years past.

I am not totally against trading him, but think many underestimate him. If we trade, I think we trade from an area of surplus - prospects, young D, etc. If we give him up, we probably aren't going to be able to replace him immediately, and thus step back a bit in the 3C area. It has to be a big upgrade somewhere else to pull off that deal.

Agree with ya here, pal.

He's still pretty young too. Not sure we've seen the best from him yet.

 

[BigG44]

I agree BigG - even with a replacement for Eakin, I don't trade him for Lehner. Aim higher if you're trading a fixture like that.

Obviously this couldn't happen until July 1, but I wonder if Nill would have any interest in Carl Soderberg. 6'3, 215 LB center, 29, set to become a UFA. Boston came out and said they won't be re-signing him.

Oh and no interest in Cowen.

I'm a big Soderberg fan. I think the best way to build a team is three scoring lines and 1 checking line. I don't think you need two defensive lines. The last big Dallas playoff run in 2008 came with Richards, Riberio, and Modano beasting out down the middle. Honestly hate thinking about it, but who knows how much further they go with a healthy D rather than playing 3 rookies most games or veterans at less than 100%.

My stupid little dream ... like if I had control of the forwards for one offseason ... I'd for sure sign Soderberg and bring back Loui Eriksson. I think Soderberg with Eakin and Ritchie could be an excellent 3rd scoring line. Soderberg could flourish on a more offensive team IMO. Boston was bottom 3rd in the league in scoring, over a half goal a game less than Dallas.

Loui Eriksson is probably done as a 30 goal scorer. That's just what tends to happen with guys his age. This offense could see him explode back to that number again, but the point is ... even as a 20 goal/40-50 point winger, he has huge value. I'd honestly even consider re-signing him after the season. I think he's an ideal winger for a risky team like Dallas. In my fantasy, he's on a line with Nichushkin and Spezza.

That leaves Hemsky getting a serious look on the top line. Nill wasn't crazy when he signed him. It would be interesting to see a complimentary set up man play with Benn and Seguin.

You'd have a decent defensive line in Roussel-Fiddler-McKenzie. They wouldn't technically have to be a checking line because you could match up Eakin and Soderberg against top lines while still expecting good offense from them. Plus, if Eakin stayed at center, Soderberg can also play wing.

 

[BigG44]

As for why people are talking about trading Eakin ... you can't expect to land a top pair D or the the type of D Dallas needs without giving up something with significant value.

Dallas' young D don't cut it. They aren't trading Klingberg or Nemeth, and Jokipakka and Oleksiak are nice thrown in pieces. They aren't the build around piece of a Top 4 defender coming back.

You've got about 5 or 6 premium assets that you can build around, and realistically you have to make one available if you're serious about making a trade. So if you're going to go on about landing Seabrook or some other appropriate D, you just got to pick one.

One asset is this year's 1st round pick. Not interested. That assets has the potential to be better than just about every tradeable asset with the exception of Nichushkin. I don't think it's unreasonable to think if one of the 11 fall or you got Conner or Meier, they'd ultimately be a better asset than a Honka, Dickinson, or Ritchie. The guy at 12 this year will likely have some high end offensive talent that's worth waiting for even if he would be a few years away.

The other asset is a guy like Honka, but I think that's a silly move as well. He's smashed all expectations. He probably would have been in the WHL on any other team, but Dallas figured out a way to get him in Austin, and the dude didn't survive ... he excelled as a 19 year old. He might be a small, but a right shot D with that offense is a building block in my book.

Same goes for Nichushkin. He's the most talented player Dallas has drafted since I've been a fan. There's no guarantee he ultimately puts it all together, but I think his potential is too great to seriously consider a move. I want three scoring lines, but I don't think you can win without two top end lines. Nuke could be the building block for another elite line behind Benn-Seguin ... especially if you're fortunate to draft and properly develop a guy like ... Conner, Zacha, Rantanen, etc.

Those are the top three assets that are going to interest teams so that leaves Ritchie and Eakin. Everyone else is a tier down. I'd rather not see either traded, but you gave to give something realistically that someone wants. We don't have other Ritchie's ready to step in in the near future. There's a damn good chance you could develop one of our center prospects into a player equal to Eakin or better. Just like Oleksiak, neither Dickinson, Shore, or Faksa true core trade pieces. They're unproven at the level that matters. Frankly, Ritchie is closer to that category than Eakin as well.

The only thing more valuable than a young defender is a young center. Eakin's window of holding significant value will close pretty quick too as he approaches free agency (unless he signs a Klingberg deal ... but don't hold your breathe on that).

So long story short ... the majority of people talking about Eakin have already gone through this process internally and just come to the conclusion that if a big time D asset hit the market, the player that might make the most sense to move is Eakin. It's not coming from a place that Eakin is flawed or needs to be moved. You just can't talk about trading for big time assets with considering which top young assets or picks you have the stones to give up. It's fun to talk about what you're getting in a deal, but there's always something going the other way ... it's got to make some sense.

 

[ItsTheCracken*]

The only way Eakin makes sense is if Dallas signs/ trade for another 3rd line center or they view Dickinson, Shore, or Faksa as NHL ready. They aren't trading Eakin before a replacement is under contract, and I doubt the organization is ready to commit to those young players yet.

Bottom line, Eakin is only available contingent on another move. They wouldn't fill a hole by creating another unless something was already in place, IMO.

Santorelli? He fits our style, probably won't have to overpay to keep.
Plus I like to think that he would help us grab Franson.

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

Big44,

I guess we basically agree. I am not against trading Eakin and it is certainly not out of the question that a team would find a 3/2 C with other potential as a good return. What team doesn't like a hustle guy with a bit of skill? What would be really weird if we traded for Shea Weber, and Eakin replaces Ribeiro there.....

I know we will have to give up chips we don't like to get a top tier defender. Only in fans dreams do you get top line guys without giving up something you don't want to.

I would add Honka to the list of tradeable assets, or Lindell, etc., simply because we have such a depth of young puck carrying D in the system, and I presume the other team would want a D back.

I agree on the current first rounder, but think next year's first is in play. Face it, if we are going for a vet D, it means we are trying to get Cup ready in the next 2-3 years max, so giving up an asset that may pay off 4-6 years down the line makes some sense. Can't build for now and in the future at the same time, or at least spend the same amount of assets on both. Besides, who knows what future trades might be made to get us back in the first round next year.

Not as enthralled with the idea, but swapping first round picks to get to a lower position may also make sense, depending on what comes back.

 

[Ghost of Kyiv]

I’m not sure if Dallas could fetch a #3 Defenseman or better with Eakin as the main peice, at least not with term and a bit of gas left in the tank (maybe Voynov could be the exception to that given his unique reputation; if they can dump enough cap to resign Sekera, the Kings biggest need would be 3C and will also need a cheap bottom pairing D preferably with some potential, I was thinking that Eakin + Oleksiak + might be a somewhat attractive offer for LA if things shake out a given way, though that is massively subject to morality issues, and there are a ton of other issues there too).

We could probably deal Eakin for a #4D, but I feel like we could acquire that level of player for a prototypical 2nd round pick + prospect type of offer nearly as easily. And I would rather do that then have a “rob Peter to pay Paul” type of scenario as I think Dallas already has an opening in the top 9 (preferably someone to fill 2LW, or that could be filled by Eakin if a 3C is added) and would ideally not vacate another. I don’t mind trading Eakin if the price is right, but he fills a need so I wouldn’t be in favor of taking any less than 100 cents on the dollar, in 2016/2017 he may be a luxury so maybe I would be willing to trade him for 80-90 cents on the dollar this time next year. I feel like any time you dangle a player, you’re often times saying that you may be willing to accept a little less than ideal trade value.

I’ve always felt that 2 years before free agency is the perfect time to deal a potentially expendable player, it seems to me to be the best time to trade and still extract maximum value (both on ice value from the player and the value returned in trade). Eakin’s got 3 years left before he can get free agent status (barring a long term deal) so I would probably look to deal him this time next year.

 

[Ghost of Kyiv]

Personally, I hate the idea of trading Honka. Undersized defenseman are succeeding in the NHL like never before, and while we have other defense prospects, none of them really compare to Honka in terms of max upside and even their low end projection (I feel like Honka's reasonable minimum would be a bottom pairing PP specialist type, so it's not like he is a risk reward type of guy). But I feel like undersized D are still undervalued league wide as many just assume that because a player is little, that they can't play defense. I think we get a first hand look at that whenever we open up a Klingberg thread only to find fans of opposing teams assuming he can't play D. And I feel like Honka may have been underrated by the scouting community this time last year, hence why he was viewed as a mild reach when Dallas picked him at 14 only to excel in the AHL as a 18/19 year old. I feel like Honka is a "more valuable to us then he would be in a trade" type of player, I know that term gets overused, but given our long term team needs, I think it's the truth with Honka.

Honestly, I think I would trade the 12th overall before I would trade Honka, not to say that Connor, Zacha or whomever you pick will be any less of a player then Honka, but I feel like they would be viewed more favorably in a trade given many team's aversions to undersized defenseman. I feel like the 12th overall would be equally as valuable to another team as it would be to us (or perhaps even more given our prospect depth).

 

[Ghost of Kyiv]

I don’t think trading Val would be a very prudent move this year either, your selling low on him, and him alone will not be enough to get you the mythical white unicorn we have all been searching for (AKA a number 1 defenseman).

If Dallas does want to trade Nuke for decent value, I think they have a phenomenal opportunity to massively boost his trade value this year and potentially use him to acquire that 1D next year. If Dallas did want to do that, than play Val exclusively on the first line with Segs and Benn. Additionally, Dallas’ top PP unit likely has one open spot open for a left handed shot which Val could fit in barring another addition. I think if you give him those minutes, than his numbers would see a massive boost, and you could much more easily acquire that D man we all have been yearning for without having to add a massive amount on top of him.

I think Val is poised to have a sizable breakout in production (even if his overall play would hypothetically be a tad disappointing). It’s never a safe assumption to predict a breakout, but all the signs point to Val being as good of a candidate as any league wide; I think trading him prior to giving Val that chance could be a massive disservice to your franchise's long term health.

Edit: this is in response to the 12 different Nuke threads on the main board more-so than any poster here.

 

[tjcurrie]

I'm certainly not against trading Eakin, just not straight up for Lehner.

Say Boston was forced in to dealing Hamilton, I would dangle Eakin like a carrot (Pun intended). I would also probably dangle that 1st rounder though too.

Honka I don't like the idea of dealing. I think Erik Karlsson is proving that a guy like that can excel in this league. Doesn't need to be over-sized or rugged or even top-notch defensively. Not to put that expectation on the kid, but he plays that way and that's why we drafted him. Not that I would never ever have him involved in any deal, but I just don't like the idea in general.

I'm iffy on Eriksson. Nothing wrong with having a smart guy with defensive awareness and a goal scoring touch riding the wing, but I see him as having lost a big step. Maybe I'm wrong. Suppose even if he has, he could still contribute, and move up and down as needed, even add to the PP. And 20 goals and 50 points is 20 goals and 50 points.

So sure, I guess I just somewhat talked myself in to it in under 2 minutes.

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

Abilify,

The unknown on Val is similar to those rumors of being discontent with Eakin - there was that report that Val wasn't happy in Dallas, later disputed, but still out there. It may have something to do with him being possible trade bait, when otherwise he wouldn't be. Agree, his value goes up if he has a great year, but of course, his value goes down if he doesn't, so waiting is a risk, as it trading him at all.

I agree Eakin doesn't bring much alone as main piece. You think undesized guys might be undervalued, how about hustle guys with moderate skill? While all teams love that kind of guy, I doubt many shell out too many assets for them, as they are seemingly available all over the place, like Eaves, or Horcoff cheap, etc. Granted, Eakin is in his prime or before, but then there are contract timing issues as noted.

As to Honka, agree trading your top prospect is tough, and in a few years Honka and Klingberg as your puck carriers should be awesome. I just think we are gonna have to give up something beyond what we like to do (quality to get quality) and a lot of GM's are going to want Honka, Nuke, Ritchie, Pollack, Dickenson just to start a conversation for any deal for a top NHL player, sort of top end now for top end later.

Seguin and Spezza were nearly miracle trades, only possible because Jim Nill is a magician, and those teams wanted to trade top players like that. Louis was tough to lose, but even so, GMJN2 really spoiled us. Also, he has thinned the herd of prospects a bit with those two deals, and at some point, perhaps giving up one great asset is better than 2-3 mid level ones?

 

[Ghost of Kyiv]

Abilify,

The unknown on Val is similar to those rumors of being discontent with Eakin - there was that report that Val wasn't happy in Dallas, later disputed, but still out there. It may have something to do with him being possible trade bait, when otherwise he wouldn't be. Agree, his value goes up if he has a great year, but of course, his value goes down if he doesn't, so waiting is a risk, as it trading him at all.

I agree Eakin doesn't bring much alone as main piece. You think undesized guys might be undervalued, how about hustle guys with moderate skill? While all teams love that kind of guy, I doubt many shell out too many assets for them, as they are seemingly available all over the place, like Eaves, or Horcoff cheap, etc. Granted, Eakin is in his prime or before, but then there are contract timing issues as noted.

As to Honka, agree trading your top prospect is tough, and in a few years Honka and Klingberg as your puck carriers should be awesome. I just think we are gonna have to give up something beyond what we like to do (quality to get quality) and a lot of GM's are going to want Honka, Nuke, Ritchie, Pollack, Dickenson just to start a conversation for any deal for a top NHL player, sort of top end now for top end later.

Seguin and Spezza were nearly miracle trades, only possible because Jim Nill is a magician, and those teams wanted to trade top players like that. Louis was tough to lose, but even so, GMJN2 really spoiled us. Also, he has thinned the herd of prospects a bit with those two deals, and at some point, perhaps giving up one great asset is better than 2-3 mid level ones?

I think the chances of Val having a good year are greater than the chances of him having a bad year. So I think his expected value to Dallas is greater than his current trade value; I don't think it's a good move to trade those types (unless it's for another undervalued asset, Maatta was out most of the year, maybe he fits that category; but I'm against doing something like Nuke + 12th for Hanifin or something similar). I know Val isn't a sure bet, but I think it's a smart bet, and I love +EV (expected value) plays.

The guys who are "seemingly available all over the place" have limited value because you can easily find reasonably priced alternatives all over the place, and in a world of supply and demand, that is key. But the players who are seen as the gold standard of those type of players do get significant assets beyond their worth, see the Bolland and Clarkson contracts as an example.

The players who I don't want to trade are the more valuable to Dallas then they will fetch in a trade type of players. Honka fits into that category, so I don't want to deal him. The 12th probably doesn't fit into that category so I would sooner trade that. I am fine trading Ritchie if need be and the price is right, Dickinson and Dallas' other prospects as well (Lindell being the possible exception, I think he fits into the more valuable to us category unless another team really loves him). Not that I want to trade the 12th, Ritchie, Dickinson or the others.

I don't think our prospect depth is overly thin, so I'll take the one great asset over the 2-3 mid level ones any day of the week. Quality beats quantity with very few exceptions.

Also just as an aside, I responded to your Honka opinion in this thread partially because of your Honka related post on the Talbot thread (ie thinking Honka wouldn't be off the table for a potential Talbot trade). So it's not just a give to get a top notch D type of veiwpoint I was responding to, it's also an I think you are underrating Honka's long term value to Dallas type of response.

Your right that Dallas fans have been spoiled the last couple of years, and I don't expect to get a deal as favorable as either the Seguin or the Spezza deal for a top notch player, but there are always bargains for mid level players Nill should be able to exploit. So I don't think we should force the issue and overpay with our prospects to get that caliber of player on defense. I think we'll have better luck in that regard next year then we will this year, but I could be wrong. I want to bargain hunt, as many have likely noticed getting favorable trade value is the modus operandi I most subscribe too, even if that means waiting a couple of extra years or getting a player that doesn't exactly fit team needs. Though I certainly understand the alternative, possibly more widely held, viewpoint as well.

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

Well, we all generally agree, and will see what Nill does.

I hesitate to use Bolland or Clarkson, because those guys were seen as some of the worst deals ever, but IIRC, on the UFA front, right, not trades? Yes, some GM's go nuts both on July 1 and trade deadline day. Draft day trades or mid season usually a bit more reasonable in two way value because they don't have to make them quickly.

Ditto on the "expected value" No one knows, not even Nill, unless he is hiding injuries (not cool by GM standards) and it is a risk he has to take if player X gets offered for Y and Z.

And Ditto for quality over quantity, which is why Nill has done the deals he has done. The old saying that the team that gets the best player wins the trade is still usually true. Thus, obtaining, say Seabrook, we would be the best player, even if Honka or someone equally valuable goes back, at least IMHO, and we would win that trade. Can't have it both ways in real life.

BTW, I think Honka is great, thought he was ranked about 16 and taken 14, mostly because Nill always likes speed and skill. Great pick, doing well. But, if you deal from areas of strength and surplus, D prospects (of varying kinds) is the place to look, over say, right wing, where the whole system is a bit thin (No one behind Nuke and Ritchie of any consequence (yet)

So, if it came down to needing to deal one of those two, I would say Honka. I would try Lindell, as well as Oleksiak and anyone lower on the prospect chart, but it came down to getting the best player in the deal, I would consider dealing Honka.

But, we agree that if Nill can keep dealing away second tier prospects and second round picks to cash strapped or disenchanted teams to get their best players, I hope he continues to do it.

 

[LT]

Ottawa fans seem to be down for a deal involving Daley, sending us Lehner and Legwand.

Can't say I'd be upset if that were to happen.

 

[Magic Mittens]

Legwand isn't terrible, nothing great either though. I'd be ok with this trade. Lehner could become our #1, or be a solid back up

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

I think that last trade makes some sense from the Dallas prospective, but didn't the Sens say they wanted a top 6 FW?

 

[LT]

What you want and what you get don't always match up.

 

[ItsTheCracken*]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=771579&navid=nhl:topheads

Okposo is on the block, apparently. I think he would fit beautifully in our system. They don't pick until the 3rd this draft, so a package with our 2nd should be pretty nice.

2nd + Top 9 Forward (Garbutt?) + Prospect (Ully?) ---> Okposo + 4th?

 

[masinaLFC]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=771579&navid=nhl:topheads

Okposo is on the block, apparently. I think he would fit beautifully in our system. They don't pick until the 3rd this draft, so a package with our 2nd should be pretty nice.

2nd + Top 9 Forward (Garbutt?) + Prospect (Ully?) ---> Okposo + 4th?

Ritchie Nichushkin Hemsky in the top 9.. why would we trade valuable assets for another RW?

 

[LT]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=771579&navid=nhl:topheads

Okposo is on the block, apparently. I think he would fit beautifully in our system. They don't pick until the 3rd this draft, so a package with our 2nd should be pretty nice.

2nd + Top 9 Forward (Garbutt?) + Prospect (Ully?) ---> Okposo + 4th?

He's gonna cost a lot more than that.

 

[defensorfidei]

Feel free to crucify the following...what about Kessel? Too much to get him? I don't know, maybe a package of Hemsky + Daley + a prospect + our first might move the needle and I think Kessel would be a great fit. Yes I'm severely armchair gm-ing, but what do you think?

 

[Satan]

Use assets to get defense

 

[LT]

Talbot likely traded this week, according to Dreger.

Its down to Edmonton, San Jose, Buffalo, and Dallas.

 

[masinaLFC]

Talbot likely traded this week, according to Dreger.

Its down to Edmonton, San Jose, Buffalo, and Dallas.

Please not Dallas

 

[Unspecified]

Please not Dallas

2nd this....

The asking price for him is going to be inflated like crazy.