Confirmed with Link: Hartman and 5th to Preds for Ejdsell, 1st and 4th

[Tysonson3]

Not saying it was a good or bad trade yet as there’s still plenty of time for it to go either way. This was only his second full nhl season. That said he did score more goals this playoffs than Turris.... I think almost the whole team underperformed this playoffs including Hartman.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

Statsny > Hartman.

Stastny > Turris. Heck I thought Stastny was better defensively than Johansen as well.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

Nobody is going to trade us the ridiculous package poile traded him for him lol. We would be very lucky to get a fourth for him.

Eh I'd actually offer a good prospect from the Flames for him lol.

 

[Legionnaire11]

Stastny and Hartman are not comparable in any way other than them both being traded at the deadline.

Cost, salary, contract and expectations are all incomparable between them so why is Stastny even being brought up?

 

[maplepred]

Eh I'd actually offer a good prospect from the Flames for him lol.

Oh yeah?! I’m all ears?! Who’s the prospect??

 

[Osprey]

A number of people seem to be justifying the trade against the Stastny trade, as though Poile could've traded the 1st for a rental like Stastny or traded it for Hartman, and since rentals are risky, he made the smart move in acquiring a kid who has term. The problem with that is those weren't the only two options.

There was a third option: keep the 1st round pick and, if Poile wanted a bottom-6 pest so badly, acquire a different one that would've cost a lot less (say, a 3rd-round pick). I maintain that that would've been the smart decision.

There's just no reason to pay a 1st-round pick for a bottom-6 player, especially when you already have an abundance of bottom-6 players. That's just foolish asset management. Imagine if Poile had made the same trade a year ago, except for last year's 1st-round pick. Tolvanen would be some other team's property right now. Poile likely wouldn't have gotten a steal like that two years in a row, but you can still get a good player with any 1st round pick.

If the concern was having to wait a year or two for the player to be ready, he could've used this year's 1st on an over-age player who originally went undrafted. LA did that in 2012, right after they won their first Cup. They wanted a player who could immediately help them win another one, so they used their #30 pick to draft an almost-20-year-old Tanner Pearson, who went on to make a big impact for them in their next two Cup runs.

Hartman is a pretty decent player who might get better. There's nothing wrong with wanting to acquire him and being glad that he's on the team. It's just that it was a bad move to trade a 1st for him. It's like if a team offered the Preds a 1st for Sissons. Most teams would probably like to have him in their bottom 6, and the Preds would certainly like to keep him, but Poile and each of us would be lining up to drive him to the airport if some team offered a 1st for him, because a 1st for a bottom-6 player is highway robbery.

 

[Soundgarden]

I think a question people who are talking Stastny we need to ask is if St. Louis would even trade him our way. Yes, I know he went in our division anyway, but maybe Poile asked about him as well as Hartman. Who knows.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I think they thought they had things solved with the Turris trade, so I doubt there was any thought of Stastny. I don't remember thinking of him. And for a good while there I too thought we had the solution in Turris.

Things went off the rails a bit after that, but I don't believe there's much point to second-guessing that one. You'd have to have a time machine.

Another scoring winger was still the thing we talked about heading to the deadline iirc.

Getting Hartman was a head-scratcher, still kind of is, but there's time for it to pan out.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

Oh yeah?! I’m all ears?! Who’s the prospect??

Mangiapane. He doesn't really have room on the Flames.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I would say he is more of a younger version of Matthew barnaby or Steve Ott. Just a annoying pest that takes stupid penalties with little offensive upside.

Yep. And they are going to have to think about letting him have a little slack to play his game if they really want to get the best of him. He's his best as a hard-working agitator, and he'll get penalties playing his style. Yes, even some very dumb ones. But if he isn't constantly second-guessing himself and trying to be something he isn't, he'll also draw penalties and get opponents off their games. Ideally to our net advantage.

The role of the agitator is kind of fading, not unlike the power forward, the enforcer. The demand for everybody to be disciplined and accountable all through the lineup is taking some of the color out of the game, for better or worse. But I don't really know why you make this trade for this type of player, even paying a premium for him, if you aren't willing to let him play his game.

Preds might be a little too nice sometimes. I think Hartman could help the team... but they'll have to adapt to eachother a little more than they have so far if it's going to work out.

 

[klt2001]

Hartman better stop losing his kewl in the playoffs when things aren't going his way or I would trade him. He seems undisciplined and a hot head. At least he was better than Turris though. Turris was a no show in the playoffs and looked frustrated out there trying to score. I would give these two guys a chance though as this was just their first time w/ this team and they haven't had much time to gel w/ this team so I would give them another chance and see how they do next year. But if they still play poorly in the playoffs again then I would be fine trading them.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Hartman better stop losing his kewl in the playoffs when things aren't going his way or I would trade him. He seems undisciplined and a hot head. ...

I think that's the problem right now with Hartman... people want him to be something he isn't. All those agitator types, they are gonna do stupid things sometimes and be hot headed, and I have no idea whatsoever why you'd trade for him at a premium price if you didn't think you could make use of that, since it's his bread and butter.

Without that agitation and hot-headedness, he's just another generic bottom-6 grinder. I have to think that Poile consciously wanted that fire-in-the-belly addition to the team. It hasn't been integrated at ice level into the team consciousness yet, however. Clearly. But Hartman getting 100pims - and a lot of them undisciplined and hot-headed ones - isn't automatically a net negative player for me. Not if he draws 120pims from the opponents and gets the team fired up sometimes when they get a little complacent. Which is what the old school agitator role used to aim for.

 

[klt2001]

I think that's the problem right now with Hartman... people want him to be something he isn't. All those agitator types, they are gonna do stupid things sometimes and be hot headed, and I have no idea whatsoever why you'd trade for him at a premium price if you didn't think you could make use of that, since it's his bread and butter.

Without that agitation and hot-headedness, he's just another generic bottom-6 grinder. I have to think that Poile consciously wanted that fire-in-the-belly addition to the team. It hasn't been integrated at ice level into the team consciousness yet, however. Clearly. But Hartman getting 100pims - and a lot of them undisciplined and hot-headed ones - isn't automatically a net negative player for me. Not if he draws 120pims from the opponents and gets the team fired up sometimes when they get a little complacent. Which is what the old school agitator role used to aim for.

True but he has been a stupid agitator. Taking penalties when it wasn't needed and we were up or at critical moments where we had a chance to get back into the game until he committed a stupid penalty. He needs to be smarter. There is a time and place and more than not he seemed to pick the wrong time to be an agitator that hurt more than helped the team. He needs to be an agitator that affects the other team and gets them off their game. Not an agitator that helps the other team get a PP and score on us to get back into the game or get a lead on us. You can still be an agitator but not commit stupid penalties. I would still keep him but still think he can play better and smarter.

 

[Lateralous]

I still don’t mind this trade. Ryan Hartman is roughly the type of player you can expect to get with a late 1st round pick. He already has a 19 goal season under his belt and was a huge scorer in junior, so given that he is under team control for several more years, I feel like Poile was just moving the timeline up 3 years on this years 1st rounder to coincide with the Preds window for contending.

Given that Poile probably thinks he has the top 6 addressed long term with jofa, Turris, Fiala and tolvanen, getting a guy with Hartman’s skill set for the third line is a fairly logical move IMO

 

[glenngineer]

1. We didn't trade for Stastny or any top 6 player because we had Tolvanen coming. Poile didn't want to take away a spot from the kid. Was that a slight overthought? Probably so but that's what he did.

2. Hartman, while we traded a 1st for him, we have him for another 4 years. He's a good player. Can play in all situations. There is no guarantee Stastny wins a Cup with the Jets but that 1st is gone with nothing to show for it if they don't win it. Moving the 1st's the way they were are smart moves for both clubs. Something to also ponder, we used a 1st to take Watson. Two years ago, he was on waivers and headed back to Milwaukee then all of a sudden, he found his groove as an NHL player. Some players take more time to develop than others. Some never get the chance. Hartman is going to help us round out our bottom 6 for the next 4 years. Does it matter if we gave up a first for him or a third or whatever package it was? He's a viable NHL player. You make that move every day of the week. Trading away a player that may never see the ice for one that you know can place is worth it.

And for all the talk of him and stupid penalties, see Hartnell, he's done it an entire career and people love the guy. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[Osprey]

I still don’t mind this trade. Ryan Hartman is roughly the type of player you can expect to get with a late 1st round pick. He already has a 19 goal season under his belt and was a huge scorer in junior, so given that he is under team control for several more years, I feel like Poile was just moving the timeline up 3 years on this years 1st rounder to coincide with the Preds window for contending.

Given that Poile probably thinks he has the top 6 addressed long term with jofa, Turris, Fiala and tolvanen, getting a guy with Hartman’s skill set for the third line is a fairly logical move IMO

Hartman wasn't a huge scorer in juniors. His numbers were pretty average for the OHL and typical of what a lot of bottom-6 NHLers, like Watson, produced there.

His 19-goal season was because he was used in a top-6 role. He spent the majority of his time that season playing with either Toews or Hossa.

He can't be expected to repeat his 19-goal season when he's used in the bottom 6. No GM in his right mind would use a 1st-round pick to draft a player that he intends to use there. You draft a player who you hope might develop into a top 6 player and who you're willing to give that opportunity to, as Chicago did. Similarly, no GM should be trading a 1st-round pick for a forward that he has no intention of using in the top 6. If Poile were planning to use Hartman in the top 6, in order to give him every opportunity to duplicate his 19-goal season, then the price might be somewhat justified. You said, yourself, though, that the team's top 6 is already addressed long term.

 

[glenngineer]

Hartman wasn't a huge scorer in juniors. His numbers were pretty average for the OHL and typical of what a lot of bottom-6 NHLers, like Watson, produced there.

His 19-goal season was because he was used in a top-6 role. He spent the majority of his time that season playing with either Toews or Hossa.

He can't be expected to repeat his 19-goal season when he's used in the bottom 6. No GM in his right mind would use a 1st-round pick to draft a player that he intends to use there. You draft a player who you hope might develop into a top 6 player and who you're willing to give that opportunity to, as Chicago did. Similarly, no GM should be trading a 1st-round pick for a forward that he has no intention of using in the top 6. If Poile were planning to use Hartman in the top 6, in order to give him every opportunity to duplicate his 19-goal season, then the price might be somewhat justified. You said, yourself, though, that the team's top 6 is already addressed long term.

So explain Watson and Upshall as 1st's for us? They were projected at 3rd line forwards, at best. If that's the best available you take them, which is what Poile did. On the flip side, how many gems have Poile and Fenton landed after the 1st? Weber, Josi, Rinne, Hornqvist, Arvidsson, Erat, Klein, Smith, Saros just to name a bunch off the top of my head. I think he's done better with picks after the 1st than he's done in the 1st over the years.

Regardless, if you use a 1st to draft or as a trade piece, if you get an NHL player of substance, whether it's top or bottom 6, you're still getting an NHL player.

 

[Lateralous]

Hartman wasn't a huge scorer in juniors. His numbers were pretty average for the OHL and typical of what a lot of bottom-6 NHLers, like Watson, produced there.

His 19-goal season was because he was used in a top-6 role. He spent the majority of his time that season playing with either Toews or Hossa.

He can't be expected to repeat his 19-goal season when he's used in the bottom 6. No GM in his right mind would use a 1st-round pick to draft a player that he intends to use there. You draft a player who you hope might develop into a top 6 player and who you're willing to give that opportunity to, as Chicago did. Similarly, no GM should be trading a 1st-round pick for a forward that he has no intention of using in the top 6. If Poile were planning to use Hartman in the top 6, in order to give him every opportunity to duplicate his 19-goal season, then the price might be somewhat justified. You said, yourself, though, that the team's top 6 is already addressed long term.

Yeah, my mistake on the OHL numbers, i must have looked at PIMs when I pulled it up on my phone but I'm glad you brought up Watson. Despite his "bottom 6" label, where would this team have been without him in these playoffs? Last year too.

Not sure where this rule came from that you should only use 1st round picks for top 6 forwards but that's certainly not how NHL GM's actually think, especially when talking about a pick in the late 20's. Good teams use those picks all the time to fill particular roles on offense other than just pure scorers. In this case, I'm sure Poile was also looking to add a little more grit and energy with the Hartman acquisition.

I also believe your top6/bottom 6 thinking is outdated. Good NHL teams all have at least three lines capable of contributing. I don't care what his role was in Chicago or if he can reach that total again in his current role. What is appealing is having a guy that has the ability to pot 19 goals in the "bottom 6" because that is depth and all the best teams have it.

 

[Osprey]

So explain Watson and Upshall as 1st's for us? They were projected at 3rd line forwards, at best. If that's the best available you take them, which is what Poile did. On the flip side, how many gems have Poile and Fenton landed after the 1st? Weber, Josi, Rinne, Hornqvist, Arvidsson, Erat, Klein, Smith, Saros just to name a bunch off the top of my head. I think he's done better with picks after the 1st than he's done in the 1st over the years.

Regardless, if you use a 1st to draft or as a trade piece, if you get an NHL player of substance, whether it's top or bottom 6, you're still getting an NHL player.

I'm not sure what you want me to explain, since you just acknowledged that Poile has done better after the 1st round. That seems like an admission that players like Watson and Upshall didn't work out as well as hoped.

I also believe your top6/bottom 6 thinking is outdated. Good NHL teams all have at least three lines capable of contributing. I don't care what his role was in Chicago or if he can reach that total again in his current role. What is appealing is having a guy that has the ability to pot 19 goals in the "bottom 6" because that is depth and all the best teams have it.

I don't disagree with any of that. It's definitely good to have depth that can move up the lineup and contribute more. The issue is one of cost. Does it make more sense to pay such a price for depth whose skills will go underutilized most of the time or for a player whose skills will be properly taken advantage of? A 1st should be used to acquire a player who pushes someone else down the depth chart, not to be the added depth, IMO.

 

[glenngineer]

I'm not sure what you want me to explain, since you just acknowledged that Poile has done better after the 1st round. That seems like an admission that players like Watson and Upshall didn't work out as well as hoped.

You made a comment that you don't draft a forward in the 1st if they won't be a top 6 player and I don't concur with that. You can get good quality players in the first that aren't top 6 as you suggest as well as landing players later in the draft that can play top 6 minutes.

The draft is a crap shoot most of the time. If you trade high picks, you want NHL talent coming back. That's what Poile did.

 

[Osprey]

You made a comment that you don't draft a forward in the 1st if they won't be a top 6 player and I don't concur with that. You can get good quality players in the first that aren't top 6 as you suggest as well as landing players later in the draft that can play top 6 minutes.

Of course you can get good quality players in the 1st that aren't top 6 players. That doesn't mean that they should be selected as early as possible. You can get a solid 4th-line center with the 1st-overall pick, too. That doesn't mean that you should. It'd be absolutely foolish to spend the pick that way under the justification that plenty of top-6 players have been drafted in later rounds, so you can just get yours then.

The Preds could've used the 4th-overall pick in 2013 on Ryan Hartman instead of Seth Jones. They didn't need any top 4 defensemen at the time. If Poile liked Hartman, should he have just picked Hartman with that pick, instead? If he had, the team wouldn't have Johansen right now, since Hartman would not have returned Johansen. This is why it's generally considered wise to draft the "best player available," not draft by need or reach for someone that you really want.

 

[Armourboy]

When it comes to players and where to get and use them, I'll trust Poile.

 

[Lateralous]

I don't disagree with any of that. It's definitely good to have depth that can move up the lineup and contribute more. The issue is one of cost. Does it make more sense to pay such a price for depth whose skills will go underutilized most of the time or for a player whose skills will be properly taken advantage of? A 1st should be used to acquire a player who pushes someone else down the depth chart, not to be the added depth, IMO.

I guess this is where we disagree. On a contender, I think Hartman and his skill set is appropriately slotted on the 3rd line. At the time of the trade, the 2nd line looked fine and as we discussed earlier, I'm sure Tolvanen is the long term plan in place of Smith.

Yeah, if we were guaranteed that another Tolvanen level guy was going to inexplicably fall to the Preds again, you might want to hold onto that pick but otherwise Hartman is exactly the type of player you normally get at that stage of the draft. Poile decided to cash in his lottery ticket for a guy he thought would strengthen the bottom 6 and will be under team control for the next 4 years, which coincides nicely with the Preds window to contend.

If anything, I would think the debate would be whether adding Edjsell was an overpayment but my understanding is that there were other teams in on Hartman

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Poile is a student of the game. Despite his age and experience, he seems to be surprisingly progressive. But at the same time, he has seen A LOT of what has gone before in the NHL. I'm not sure the Preds have another stereotypical "agitator" in the system. Watson and Sissons throw their weight around, but by and large I'm not sure the Preds have a reputation as a team that makes you "pay the price" or which "gets under the skin" of their opponents. Poile wants a complete set. He has most of the rest of the collection, and like any master collector, he wants one of everything.

Agitators are a risky business, though. I remember the first couple times around with Andrew Shaw in Chicago, and he was getting rave reviews and everybody wanted that kind of guy. But then we started hearing the same complaints about undisciplined penalties and the cons outweighing the pros and then he was gone from the Hawks. With Hartman as his heir apparent. But the Hawks couldn't recapture that role with him either, and now here he is... it's tricky to walk the line to walk the line and not get fined and all that. I hope Hartman finds the path and strikes the balance, but it's not assured this will work out in the modern NHL.

 

[TitansVolsPreds615]

Ejdsell in AHL playoffs so far 7G 4A in 7 games.