Value of: Malkin for Monahan

[Kraken Jokes]

There's a world of difference between the Subban-Weber trade and what this trade would be. It's not comparable at all.

 

[DrDangles]

So many brutal comments in here.

Geno just turned 30, guess it's time to get the rifle and put the old fella down

 

[nbwingsfan]

Obviously Malkin is better but it makes no sense for Calgary.

Sure it does. The Flames are looking at contending for a playoff spot as soon as this season, and Malkin would certainly put them in contendition.

Teams don't plan ahead 10 years from now. If you have a chance to get a MUCH player who's only 30 when you're a playoff team then you take it.

 

[SEALBound]

So many brutal comments in here.

Geno just turned 30, guess it's time to get the rifle and put the old fella down

Yeah, "Only my team's old guys can play anymore".

Someone should have told San Jose that.

 

[blankall]

So many brutal comments in here.

Geno just turned 30, guess it's time to get the rifle and put the old fella down

By the time a player turns 32, they almost always slow down a bit. This is especially true for guys with injury problems, like knees.

Malkin is clearly the better player now, but will that be true in 2-3 years? My guess is that in 2 years both players will converge on the 70 point mark. Monahan is already in the low 60s, with room for improvement. Malkin is currently more of a ppg player, than the 100+ point guy he was. At 32-34 he'll probably be more of a 70 point guy.

So the point is that if you were looking to compete in the next 2 years, Malkin is the better choice. If you're in the midst of a long term rebuild, with a core in their early 20s, Monahan is the best choice. It's not that Malkin is over the hill, but he is trending down, as all players do in their 30s. That makes him less of a draw for a rebuilding team.

 

[CrypTic]

Yeah, "Only my team's old guys can play anymore".

Someone should have told San Jose that.

They've been telling us that Thornton and the Sharks in general have been washed up for years. We should have traded Thornton several years ago while he still had some value and started a full-blown rebuild bc our players were too old and broken down. Same with Datsyuk and other old players.

That said, I think this is probably a case of lose-lose (tho the Pens would lose more). Unless the Flames plan to compete in the next few years, it's better for them to keep Monahan (and his lower cap hit) and their young F core. There's no way the Pens trade Malkin for Monahan.

 

[ijuka]

Malkin is better than Monahan right now, but he also is on a more costly contract, is injury prone and is 30.

This is a trade a win now-team would make, but not Flames. Both teams say no.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

If Malkin's value took that much of a hit due to age and injury concerns, Giordano must be ready for the glue factory.

 

[blankall]

They've been telling us that Thornton and the Sharks in general have been washed up for years. We should have traded Thornton several years ago while he still had some value and started a full-blown rebuild bc our players were too old and broken down. Same with Datsyuk and other old players.

That said, I think this is probably a case of lose-lose (tho the Pens would lose more). Unless the Flames plan to compete in the next few years, it's better for them to keep Monahan (and his lower cap hit) and their young F core. There's no way the Pens trade Malkin for Monahan.

Giordano, after coming off a freak injury, just played all 82 games in the season. The same cannot be said for Malkin.

Also defencemen peak later and last longer than forwards.

That being said, if we were asking for one of the best young d-men in exchange for Giordano, the answer would probably be no. Just as you are asking for one of the best young centres in the league from a rebuilding team in exchange for an aging superstar.

 

[blankall]

They've been telling us that Thornton and the Sharks in general have been washed up for years. We should have traded Thornton several years ago while he still had some value and started a full-blown rebuild bc our players were too old and broken down. Same with Datsyuk and other old players.

That said, I think this is probably a case of lose-lose (tho the Pens would lose more). Unless the Flames plan to compete in the next few years, it's better for them to keep Monahan (and his lower cap hit) and their young F core. There's no way the Pens trade Malkin for Monahan.

Players like Thornton and Datsyuk are the exception to the rule. Most players see a significant down turn by 32-33. By 35-36 most are barely NHL calibre.

You can't gamble on giving up young assets on any individual player being like Datsyuk or Thornton. Even then Datsyuk, who started off the years at 37 was nowhere near what he was. Thornton is similarly not the 100 point player he was either.

 

[DJJones]

Sure it does. The Flames are looking at contending for a playoff spot as soon as this season, and Malkin would certainly put them in contendition.

Teams don't plan ahead 10 years from now. If you have a chance to get a MUCH player who's only 30 when you're a playoff team then you take it.

This is a transition year. Even if we make the playoffs I expect to get blown out eventually in the 2nd round.

Malkin isn't going to change that, and that's assuming he stays healthy.

I'm planning 3-5 years from now and I don't trust a 34 year old to be our best player. We already are gambling on Gio holding up. I don't see how Malkin is going to improve our depth and our prospects development. That's more important to us being contenders than an upgrade at 1C. Our first line is not our problem.

 

[CaptainCrunch67]

Calgary is still rebuilding, this would be a stupid move for them that doesn't make sense.

plus even with Monahan's new contract, Malkin wouldn't be cap affordable for the Flames.

 

[DrDangles]

By the time a player turns 32, they almost always slow down a bit. This is especially true for guys with injury problems, like knees.

Malkin is clearly the better player now, but will that be true in 2-3 years? My guess is that in 2 years both players will converge on the 70 point mark. Monahan is already in the low 60s, with room for improvement. Malkin is currently more of a ppg player, than the 100+ point guy he was. At 32-34 he'll probably be more of a 70 point guy.

So the point is that if you were looking to compete in the next 2 years, Malkin is the better choice. If you're in the midst of a long term rebuild, with a core in their early 20s, Monahan is the best choice. It's not that Malkin is over the hill, but he is trending down, as all players do in their 30s. That makes him less of a draw for a rebuilding team.

Except when it comes to players of Malkin's caliber there are a lot of examples where players remain dominant with age.

Malkin will be the superior player while Pittsburgh's window is open, and Calgary isn't a Malkin away from opening a window (although Geno and Gaudreau would be a treat to watch)

 

[blankall]

Except when it comes to players of Malkin's caliber there are a lot of examples where players remain dominant with age.

Just as many examples of players who fall apart by 34. Virtually all of them are done by 36, or at least a shadow of their former selves.

 

[TT1]

Just as many examples of players who fall apart by 34. Virtually all of them are done by 36, or at least a shadow of their former selves.

4 years of Malkin from 30 to 34 > Monahan's entire career

 

[OConnellsProtege]

Just as many examples of players who fall apart by 34. Virtually all of them are done by 36, or at least a shadow of their former selves.

Sometimes that shadow of their former self is still better than most guys out there. I'm not at all arguing that this trade would work (it doesn't), just a lot of fortune-telling and what-ifs being thrown around. People were down on Crosby for his concussion issues at one time, same with Bergeron and I'm sure there were a lot of other guys, too. People were calling for them to be dealt because of the risk involved with keeping them, what would be different in Malkin's case?

 

[nbwingsfan]

Players like Thornton and Datsyuk are the exception to the rule. Most players see a significant down turn by 32-33. By 35-36 most are barely NHL calibre.

You can't gamble on giving up young assets on any individual player being like Datsyuk or Thornton. Even then Datsyuk, who started off the years at 37 was nowhere near what he was. Thornton is similarly not the 100 point player he was either.

They aren't an exception to the rule. The truly elite players are elite primarily because they think the game better than everyone else, and that doesn't go away with age. Sure there is a drop off in play, but these players are still great players at a high age. I can think of way more elite players who were still 1st line/top pairing D well into their late 30s than I can think of star players who "were barely NHL players" at 36.

Lemieux, Gretzky, Yzerman, Sakic, Lidstrom, Chara, Niedermayer, Datsyuk, MSL, Chelios, Hull, Jagr, Thornton, Macinnis, bourque, etc etc

 

[aufheben]

Malkin isn't a top five player anymore, and hes not the reason the pens won the cup. Malkin isn't even a top five forward. Crosby, Benn, Kane, Ovechkin, Kopitar, Bergeron, Tavares, Thornton, are all better.

I think he had something to do with it.

 

[CrypTic]

Players like Thornton and Datsyuk are the exception to the rule. Most players see a significant down turn by 32-33. By 35-36 most are barely NHL calibre.

You can't gamble on giving up young assets on any individual player being like Datsyuk or Thornton. Even then Datsyuk, who started off the years at 37 was nowhere near what he was. Thornton is similarly not the 100 point player he was either.

Elite players are exceptions to the rule and Malkin is clearly an elite player, though he has more health concerns than Thornton did.

Here's a good article about elite forward goal and assist production as elite players age. Appleyard on HFBoards wrote it.

http://alongtheboards.com/2015/09/peak-decline-elite-nhl-forwards/

On average, a 30 YO elite player is approximately as productive as he was at ages 24 and 25 while an elite 35 year old will be about as good as an elite 21 year old in terms of points. They've declined but they're still playing very well. Assists peak later and decline more slowly than goals, which helps Thornton (bc lol what are goals?). Looking at assists, a 35 YO elite player is better than a 21 YO elite player. Shooters with a high s% decline more than those with a more average s% who take a lot of shots (like Ovi). http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/3/17/5507218/nhl-stats-aging-curves-forward-types

Those were more recent article but there was similar information available before that showed that elite players, especially playmakers, decline more slowly than average players. It didn't seem to matter to ppl who say (for years) that teams should trade their elite players who are going to fall off a cliff any day. Thornton isn't the 100 point player he was before but he's scored .92 points per game over the last three years and is a top player.

I said that I thought this was a lose-lose trade bc the Pens are in a win-now mode and the Flames aren't. I don't know why you think I'm suggesting that the Flames trade Monahan for Malkin (assuming he was even available).

 

[blankall]

Elite players are exceptions to the rule and Malkin is an elite player, though he has more health concerns than Thornton.

Here's a good article about elite forward goal and assist production as elite players age. Appleyard on HFBoards wrote it.

http://alongtheboards.com/2015/09/peak-decline-elite-nhl-forwards/

On average, a 30 YO elite player is approximately as productive as he was aged 24 and 25 while an elite 35 year old will be about as good as an elite 21 year old in terms of points. They've declined but they're still playing very well. Assists peak later and decline more slowly than goals, which helps Thornton (bc lol what are goals?). Looking at assists, a 35 YO elite player is better than a 21 YO elite player. Shooters with a high s% decline more than those with a more average s% who take a lot of shots (like Ovi). http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/3/17/5507218/nhl-stats-aging-curves-forward-types

Those were more recent article but there was similar information available before that showed that elite players, especially playmakers, decline more slowly than average players. It didn't seem to matter to ppl who say (for years) that teams should trade their elite players who are going to fall off a cliff any day. Thornton isn't the 100 point player he was before but he's scored .92 points per game over the last three years and is a top player.

I said that I thought this was a lose-lose trade bc the Pens are in a win-now mode and the Flames aren't. I don't know why you think I'm suggesting that the Flames trade Monahan for Malkin (assuming he was even available).

Malkin has already fallen off his 24 and 25 year old production. Agree that he's still great.

However, like I said before, I see both Malkin and Monahan converging around 70 points in a couple of years. After that Monahan will continue at that pace. Malkin will continue to slow down.

Only for the next 2-3 years will Malkin be the superior player. As Calgary is not competing now, Monahan is the better choice.

 

[Major Happy*]

Flames would need to add. Monahan is a good player, but this is Evgeni Malkin we are talking about.

Most Flames fans happily decline this trade, no need for Penguins fans to get upset about it.

 

[nbwingsfan]

Malkin has already fallen off his 24 and 25 year old production. Agree that he's still great.

However, like I said before, I see both Malkin and Monahan converging around 70 points in a couple of years. After that Monahan will continue at that pace. Malkin will continue to slow down.

Only for the next 2-3 years will Malkin be the superior player. As Calgary is not competing now, Monahan is the better choice.

You really have no reason to believe Malkin will drop off significantly in 2 years other than your opinion. History has shown that players of his calibre are still elite well into their late 30s

 

[blankall]

You really have no reason to believe Malkin will drop off significantly in 2 years other than your opinion. History has shown that players of his calibre are still elite well into their late 30s

Going from 80 to 70 pts/year (pro-rated) would be quite good even for an elite player at 32-33. Many non-elite but great players are non-NHL calibre anymore. By the 34-35 range very few elite players are putting up more than 60 points per year. At 37+ it's the Jagr types who are still going. You get an occassional freak season out of a Thornton or Selanne type, but once again those are unusual.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Going from 80 to 70 pts/year (pro-rated) would be quite good even for an elite player at 32-33. Many non-elite but great players are non-NHL calibre anymore. By the 34-35 range very few elite players are putting up more than 60 points per year. At 37+ it's the Jagr types who are still going. You get an occassional freak season out of a Thornton or Selanne type, but once again those are unusual.

Age 34-35:
S. Yzerman - 79 points, 52 points (in 54 gp)
J. Sakic - 87 points, (lockout - no season)
M. Modano - (lockout - no season), 77 points
T. Selanne - (lockout - no season), 90 points
P. Datsyuk - 49 points (in 47 gp), 37 points (in 45 gp)
J. Thornton - 76 points, 65 points
M. St. Louis - 94 points, 99 points
D. Alfredsson - 87 points, 89 points
M. Sundin - 78 points, 76 points
J. Jagr - 96 points, 71 points

Looks to me that the majority of former elite players who were still playing when they were 34/35 years old still put up more than your 60 point projection for Malkin.

Health is the *only* reason Malkin might not be a point per game guy when he's 34/35 years old. If he's able to play close to a full season, there is zero reason to believe he can't do what the guys I listed above did.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Any argument that applies to a Malkin regression also applies to Crosby and Letang, as they've all had considerable injury histories and are all abut the same age.

We'd better dump 'em all for whatever we can get.