D Prospects and Trading

[bdemz]

So when does Hexy pull the trigger on trading one of these prized D-Men? You cannot have all of these guys playing at the same time and it does no good to play them 5-6. So future top 4 in say 2-3 years should be:

Ghost - Prov
Sanheim - Myers?
then...
Gudas - Morin?....

Heard alot about them trying to trade up for Laine....could it work (1st/Schenn/Sanheim/Morin)

Click to read more...

 

[Striiker]

There's no reason to trade any of them, so no, they won't be traded.

 

[PALE PWNR]

How about we just play them all and if they all pan out we have the best defense ever. Sound good?

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

Gostisbehere for Mantha.

 

[hatcher]

Chances are 1 will get traded because they all are highly touted but playing as a 5 or a 6 would be bad asset management. 5 and 6 dman are everywhere.

 

[PALE PWNR]

Boston had Johnny ****ing Boychuk on their 3rd pairing for years when they were a contender. We don't move them until we HAVE to move them.

 

[Prongo]

I say we should let them actual become top 4 dman before even considering a move of one with them. We can cross that bridge when we get there but there is no reason to prememtively make a move because we have prospects.

Just let them grow

 

[Curufinwe]

The only reason to trade one of them is if the management think a guy is going to bust, and they can get value for him from another team that's desperate for D prospects.

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

The only reason to trade one of them is if the management think a guy is going to bust, and they can get value for him from another team that's desperate for D prospects.

I don't think they should or will make a trade, but that's just not fair. If they project Sanheim to be Bouwmeester (hardly a bust) and think Laine could be a forty-goal guy in the new NHL, then that's absolutely something worth looking at if they have confidence in Provorov, Morin, Myers, etc.

I don't think anything like that will happen, but it doesn't require being that down on a prospect to pull the trigger of the right deal came along.

 

[Curufinwe]

Sanheim doesn't get you close to Laine.

 

[macleish1974]

The problem with No. 18 in the draft: it is kind of a dead zone at least in my mind unless a super forward slips. Then you wonder why did 10 teams pass on this super forward......hmmmm???? It seems 18 is great if you need a D-man. Personally I like late in round 1: Dahlen, Howden and LaBerge. I would be happy with them if I was picking 28th. So is 18 worth a 28 and say 58?? Just curious.

 

[FLYguy3911]

Chances are 1 will get traded because they all are highly touted but playing as a 5 or a 6 would be bad asset management. 5 and 6 dman are everywhere.

Bad asset management would be trading one of those guys because you might have to play them on the 3rd pair.

If the worst thing that happens to this organization is having to play a "top 4" quality defenseman on the bottom pair, then we will be in good shape. Wouldn't it be nice to not have to squeeze your cheeks together when the 3rd pair is out on the ice against the other team's top line? Now if all these kids reach 95% of their ceilings and get 2nd and 3rd contracts with the organization and we have a bottom pair making 8+ million a year, then yes that isn't great asset management, but we are a long ways off from that happening. And if we are fortunate enough to get in that position, very few things in this league are more valuable than a young established NHL defenseman.

 

[hatcher]

Bad asset management would be trading one of those guys because you might have to play them on the 3rd pair.

If the worst thing that happens to this organization is having to play a "top 4" quality defenseman on the bottom pair, then we will be in good shape. Wouldn't it be nice to not have to squeeze your cheeks together when the 3rd pair is out on the ice against the other team's top line? Now if all these kids reach 95% of their ceilings and get 2nd and 3rd contracts with the organization and we have a bottom pair making 8+ million a year, then yes that isn't great asset management, but we are a long ways off from that happening. And if we are fortunate enough to get in that position, very few things in this league are more valuable than a young established NHL defenseman.

I hear ya. We just don't have top end dman to put them all in the lineup in the next 3 years so that's where I see a trade for a top dman.

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

Sanheim doesn't get you close to Laine.

By himself, of course not. In a package with our first and another asset, the value would get closer.

But that's still a different argument than "absolutely no trading of D prospects."

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Bad asset management would be trading one of those guys because you might have to play them on the 3rd pair.

If the worst thing that happens to this organization is having to play a "top 4" quality defenseman on the bottom pair, then we will be in good shape. Wouldn't it be nice to not have to squeeze your cheeks together when the 3rd pair is out on the ice against the other team's top line? Now if all these kids reach 95% of their ceilings and get 2nd and 3rd contracts with the organization and we have a bottom pair making 8+ million a year, then yes that isn't great asset management, but we are a long ways off from that happening. And if we are fortunate enough to get in that position, very few things in this league are more valuable than a young established NHL defenseman.

This. This. This. Why in the world are we worried about what happens if we have 5 or 6 top 4 quality defensemen? You'll have teams beating your door down. Let things shake out.

 

[Flyotes]

I am not in love with moving any of them unless the trade is a damn good haul (you'd get a better haul once they actually play and demonstrate they are great/elite) or the trade makes them legit cup contenders (very unlikely this year).

So, know when to hold'em.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Gostisbehere for Mantha.

Hey, can't win 'em all! Seriously though, while that trade may not have been my best idea, the idea of trading a young defensive prospect shouldn't be an immediate no.

 

[Curufinwe]

Having 5 or 6 quality young dmen will be a problem when their contracts are hard to fit under the cap. If that happens it won't be till sometime next decade. And it's not a bad problem to have. From what I've read Lindholm is already the #1 in Anaheim as a 22 year old, and so they will likely move Fowler or Vatanen this offseason, and get a very nice player back.

By himself, of course not. In a package with our first and another asset, the value would get closer.

But that's still a different argument than "absolutely no trading of D prospects."

The Jets would want Provorov+. I've seen several of their fans say that, and it makes sense given their lack of quality at LHD. For Sanheim, the return would be more like a Mantha-level prospect. And that would make as much sense as trading Ghost for Mantha a year ago.

 

[bb12]

The truth behind it is not all them will become a 1-2.

Ghost I don't think ever will be. He is small and he d game is just good. His offensive talent makes him very valuable but not someone to play against top lines 5d covered

Sanhiem and prov have 1st pairing ceilings. 1d and 2 d covered

Morin COULD be top pairing but seems more of a 2nd pairing d 3rd on a really deep defensive team. 4d covered

Hagg is a who knows. Could come in as a 2nd or 3rd pairing d or not make it.

Myers is an outlier and not 100% sure where he falls so let's say 6d covered

That leave 3d left for guys like gudas or mdz who may be around in 2-3 years when they are all here

So why trade any when we kinda have a d core locked up and none are 100%

 

[Stizzle]

By himself, of course not. In a package with our first and another asset, the value would get closer.

But that's still a different argument than "absolutely no trading of D prospects."

You are not getting Laine for Sanheim, our 1st, and the totally vague "another asset". It's just not happening. Especially not with the Jets. They are notoriously difficult to trade with. Give it up.

 

[Psuhockey]

By himself, of course not. In a package with our first and another asset, the value would get closer.

But that's still a different argument than "absolutely no trading of D prospects."

Winnipeg is not trading Laine. Winnipeg is a budget team and Laine gives them a cost controlled potential superstar. The highest ptotential pick available this year for the Flyers is probably #4. So would you package Sanheim for Dubois of Tkachuk?

 

[Tripod]

I say we should let them actual become top 4 dman before even considering a move of one with them. We can cross that bridge when we get there but there is no reason to prememtively make a move because we have prospects.

Just let them grow

This is how I feel too.

Let us HAVE a problem of too many good NHL Dmen before trading off guys. Plus, we will have a 2nd expansion coming at done point so might lose someone we don't want to. Let's be ready by having a nice pipeline set up.

 

[Ruck Over]

So when does Hexy pull the trigger on trading one of these prized D-Men? You cannot have all of these guys playing at the same time and it does no good to play them 5-6. So future top 4 in say 2-3 years should be:

Ghost (L&R) - Prov (LD)
Sanheim (L&R) - Myers? (RD)
then...
Gudas (RD) - Morin (LD) ?....

Heard alot about them trying to trade up for Laine....could it work (1st/Schenn/Sanheim/Morin)

Keep them all. There's no fast rule that the third pairing D can only play 10 minutes a game. 5 and 6 are often "hidden" because they're bad, not because there is a rule to do such.

San Jose, with an underrated D corps, only has an approximate five minute gap in TOI for their most and least used defenseman (in game 2 of WCF). Granted, special teams, game circumstances, can greatly influence usage, but that's wonderful management.

 

[FLYguy3911]

Does anyone have any examples of defensemen that were traded at a young age that would be comparable to our prospects? I just don't recall many high end defense prospects getting traded. Coburn? He would probably be comparable to Morin's current situation. Atlanta came to regret that trade. Reinhart? Damaged goods. Most knew his star had fallen. Seemed more like an emotional move for Edmonton more than anything.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Does anyone have any examples of defensemen that were traded at a young age that would be comparable to our prospects? I just don't recall many high end defense prospects getting traded. Coburn? He would probably be comparable to Morin's current situation. Atlanta came to regret that trade. Reinhart? Damaged goods. Most knew his star had fallen. Seemed more like an emotional move for Edmonton more than anything.

I guess it depends on whether you want true prospects or young NHLers. If the latter, Seth Jones and Zadorov spring to mind. Erik Johnson was 22 (I think)?

*Edit* McDonagh had just turned 20.