Brannstrom or Stanley, whose more valuable

[Hellraising Senator]

Hey guys, inspired by a discussion I am having on our sens board.

Whose more valuable, and is a 1 for 1 even, or would x team have to add y to acquire either player?

Click to read more...

 

[danyhabsfan]

Not sure I understand your poll option

 

[Ctrain2k]

These voting options are confusing asf, but Brannstrom’s way better.

 

[Hellraising Senator]

Sorry guys, thought it was clear. Obviously not . My bad.

If there was a trade involving these 2 players. What would the deal likely look like. 1 for 1. Or 1 for 1 plus. Meaning one side needs to add something to aquire said player

This help?

 

[Bileur]

Options are unclear. I think your question is who has to sweeten the pot in a 1 for 1?

If so, I think Winnipeg adds to Stanley to get Brännström.

 

[GermanSpitfire]

Options unclear, got my **** stuck in a toaster

 

[jetsforever]

Brannstrom is more valuable, does that correspond to the answer with "Brannstrom" in it?
Stanley might get claimed for free by Seattle.

 

[MardyBum]

Logan Stanley??

Huh?

 

[Hellraising Senator]

It seems not a lot of math folks here haha. (Relax please, it's a joke, it is ok, you didn't like my formulaic layout, no worries)

I was quite surprised to see sens fans tell me how we had to add to get Stanley. Quite sure the majority of hockey world doesnt agree though with that assessment.

Thanks for voting folks

 

[jetsforever]

It seems not a lot of math folks here haha. (Relax please, it's a joke, it is ok, you didn't like my formulaic layout, no worries)

I was quite surprised to see sens fans tell me how we had to add to get Stanley. Quite sure the majority of hockey world doesnt agree though with that assessment.

Thanks for voting folks

I think the main ambiguity is that in "1 for 1 plus x for Stanley", it's not entirely clear if Stanley is part of the "1" or the "1 plus x" side - easier to just say 'which team adds' or 'who is more valuable'

(also if we're getting extremely pedantic, in the description you define x as a team, whereas in the poll you redefine that variable as a player/pick to be added )

 

[Hellraising Senator]

I think the main ambiguity is that in "1 for 1 plus x for Stanley", it's not entirely clear if Stanley is part of the "1" or the "1 plus x" side - easier to just say 'which team adds' or 'who is more valuable'

(also if we're getting extremely pedantic, in the description you define x as a team, whereas in the poll you redefine that variable as a player/pick to be added )

1st off, I am impressed with your verbiage and quality reply.

2nd, I didn't realize the difference between my title and post. Which is quite clearly not properly aligned. My bad, it's what happens when you smoke to much weed while playing around on these boards haha

 

[ThatsSoSlavin]

brannstrom is better

 

[SpezDispenser]

Brannstrom and I don't think it's really close.

 

[Joey Moss]

Stanley definitely stood out to me as an Oilers fan

 

[Hellraising Senator]

Stanley definitely stood out to me as an Oilers fan

As he would, ya just got swept by his jets after all

 

[VoluntaryDom]

i know i'd rather have brannstrom

 

[Joey Moss]

As he would, ya just got swept by his jets after all

In overtime games yea.. not really relevant anyways.

 

[elitepete]

Brannstrom is way more valuable, Stanley sucks

 

[Saitama]

Brannstrom is way more valuable, Stanley sucks

You are very incorrect on the second part.

 

[Hellraising Senator]

Brannstrom is way more valuable, Stanley sucks

I mean, I really like Brannstrom. That though doesn't mean Stanley sucks? (He doesn't)

 

[GermanSpitfire]

Brannstrom is way more valuable, Stanley sucks

Stanley doesn’t “suck”

I think he’s overrated because he’s big and young just like Andrej Sustr was but he’s definitely a good player.