Roenick and the HHOF

[Canadiens1958]

Ahem

Players that are usually on playoff teams don't get a chance to be deadline pickups. Good teams are buyers, not sellers. That is the worst criteria I have ever heard.

Apply it to Tom Lysiak all you want, but it is not applicable to Roenick.

Applicable to Ron Francis, Hartford to Pittsburgh. Adam Oates from St. Louis to Boston. Just a short list.

If a team feels that the traded makes them better they will do it as evidenced by the above. Also as evidenced by the above (Hartford / Pittsburgh) at best only one will be right.

 

[arrbez]

Applicable to Ron Francis, Hartford to Pittsburgh. Adam Oates from St. Louis to Boston. Just a short list.

If a team feels that the traded makes them better they will do it as evidenced by the above. Also as evidenced by the above (Hartford / Pittsburgh) at best only one will be right.

Oates was traded because because of contract issues, was he not?

And Hartford, while a playoff team, was hardly good. They were the 6th worst team in the league the season Francis was traded.

Your point doesn't stand, IMO. There's going to be exceptions to every rule, but 99% of the time, playoff teams do not trade their key pieces at the deadline, unless they're getting a player of similar immediate value (but with a different role) in return. An example would be Pittsburgh (the contender) trading Recchi to Philadelphia (last in their division) for Tocchet.

And back to the original point, it doesn't make the least bit of sense to punish a player for NOT being traded at the deadline.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Oh Well

Oates was traded because because of contract issues, was he not?

And Hartford, while a playoff team, was hardly good. They were the 6th worst team in the league the season Francis was traded.

Agreed. That theory makes no sense at all. Roenick was on playoff teams in 15 of his first 16 NHL seasons. Apart from his rookie season, he was always a major part of his squad's success during this period. Why would Chicago/Phoenix/Philly trade their top scorer at the deadline when they were heading into the playoffs?

Making little sense.

Teams make trades to make themselves better. Francis and Oates were a major part of their teams (Hartford and St.Louis) success.

The contract issue was not a problem for Boston.

 

[arrbez]

Making little sense.

Teams make trades to make themselves better. Francis and Oates were a major part of their teams (Hartford and St.Louis) success.

The contract issue was not a problem for Boston.

The contract issue was a problem for St. Louis, hence the trade. Boston was the lucky recipient.

And if teams make trades to make themselves better, couldn't we also say that if a player wasn't traded, it was because his team felt they were better with him than without him? There's a reason why it's generally the top players in the league who spend big chunks of time with one team, while the lesser players bounce around. Being traded repeatedly is not a sign of greatness.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Nope

The contract issue was a problem for St. Louis, hence the trade. Boston was the lucky recipient.

And if teams make trades to make themselves better, couldn't we also say that if a player wasn't traded, it was because his team felt they were better with him than without him?

Nope. Simply the offers were not attractive enough to tip the balance.

 

[arrbez]

Nope. Simply the offers were not attractive enough to tip the balance.

And the attractiveness of an offer is determined by how highly the team thinks of their player, correct?

For instance, a 1st round draft pick is an attractive offer for Matt Stajan. Not nearly as attractive for Sidney Crosby.

The point being, when a star player stays put at the deadline, it generally has nothing to do with them being undesirable to other teams, and everything to do with them being extremely valuable to their current team. Is Jarome Iginla an attractive commodity to teams at the deadline every year? Absolutely. But why on earth would Calgary trade him heading into the playoffs?

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

And the attractiveness of an offer is determined by how highly the team thinks of their player, correct?

For instance, a 1st round draft pick is an attractive offer for Matt Stajan. Not nearly as attractive for Sidney Crosby.

The point being, when a star player stays put at the deadline, it generally has nothing to do with them being undesirable to other teams, and everything to do with them being extremely valuable to their current team. Is Jarome Iginla an attractive commodity to teams at the deadline every year? Absolutely. But why on earth would Calgary trade him heading into the playoffs?

You're getting into a chicken and egg sort of deal here.

Was Roenick so valuable that no offer put on the table would ever tempt Chicago?

Or was Roenick so overrated no team ever offered anything of value in a trade for Chicago?

In Roenick I think it's a bit of both, especially his post Chicago days. However the in demand argument I dont see, since you could say Niklas Lidstrom, Marty Brodeur, Steve Yzerman, Mario Lemieux, and Joe Sakic were never "in demand" at the deadline.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Is this list updated to include this last season? May I see it?

It is updated but I don't share it on these boards any longer. I don't have the time nor the desire to spend the hours defending the ratings and the methodology as I once did.

 

[Ogopogo*]

To be fair, when Ogopogo first started posting his lists, he was pretty patronizing to anyone who disagreed with his rankings and that ruffled feathers. But then some people reacted with over the top criticisms of his list whenever he tried to present it. I think his list is a useful tool and worth looking at, but it's obviously not the be-all end-all of player rankings.

I always welcomed constructive criticism and, in fact, I have made changes to my system based on some of the input from folks on these boards.

But, I took offense to the posters who began with things like "This list is crap..." and "What a stupid system..." and believe me, there were many who thought that was an intelligent way to enter dialogue with me about my work.

Did I get pissed off and post some insults? Yes, absolutely. But, the only time I did is when the orignal poster insulted me first.

I never said I was perfect and one of my flaws is getting pissed off when insulted. Now, saving myself the hassle, I no longer post my list and I am satisfied with that.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Intreesting Example

And the attractiveness of an offer is determined by how highly the team thinks of their player, correct?

For instance, a 1st round draft pick is an attractive offer for Matt Stajan. Not nearly as attractive for Sidney Crosby.

The point being, when a star player stays put at the deadline, it generally has nothing to do with them being undesirable to other teams, and everything to do with them being extremely valuable to their current team. Is Jarome Iginla an attractive commodity to teams at the deadline every year? Absolutely. But why on earth would Calgary trade him heading into the playoffs?

Interesting example. Overlooking how Calgary obtained Jarome Iginla in the first place.

Bottom line is some teams or GMs tend to fall in love with certain players. Then the player under performs and is traded or leaves as a free agent generating much less return value, perhaps true value as in the case of Jeremy Roenick.

 

[Canadiens1958]

In Demand

You're getting into a chicken and egg sort of deal here.

Was Roenick so valuable that no offer put on the table would ever tempt Chicago?

Or was Roenick so overrated no team ever offered anything of value in a trade for Chicago?

In Roenick I think it's a bit of both, especially his post Chicago days. However the in demand argument I dont see, since you could say Niklas Lidstrom, Marty Brodeur, Steve Yzerman, Mario Lemieux, and Joe Sakic were never "in demand" at the deadline.

They were all "In Demand" at the deadline and at other times - in fact, as was posted elsewhere, Scotty Bowman wanted to move Yzerman, but a better package has to be coming the other way.

Excellent players are always in demand at the trade deadline as teams try to improve for a Stanley Cup run, playoff run or the future.
Evidenced by the Andy Bathgate trade to Toronto or the Frank Mahovlich trade to Detroit but the package has to be attractive.

If you look at the Hasek to Detroit trade, in the off season, the package going to Buffalo from Detroit in no way reflects Hasek's perceived board value.

 

[arrbez]

You're getting into a chicken and egg sort of deal here.

Was Roenick so valuable that no offer put on the table would ever tempt Chicago?

Or was Roenick so overrated no team ever offered anything of value in a trade for Chicago?

In Roenick I think it's a bit of both, especially his post Chicago days. However the in demand argument I dont see, since you could say Niklas Lidstrom, Marty Brodeur, Steve Yzerman, Mario Lemieux, and Joe Sakic were never "in demand" at the deadline.

Yeah, exactly. I'm not saying Roenick was the most untouchable player in the league. I'm saying that it would make absolutely zero sense for a team to trade their top scorer (which Roenick was multiple times on each of Chicago, Phoenix, and Philly) heading into the playoffs. And for this reason, it makes no sense to punish him for not being traded at the deadline.

 

[arrbez]

Interesting example. Overlooking how Calgary obtained Jarome Iginla in the first place.

Traded as a prospect for a player in a contract hold-out in the second month of the season? Surely you're not suggesting that's in any way similar to a playoff team trading their best forward (who was actually playing for them, and therefore of great value) at the trade deadline.

But to get back on subject, could you see the Flames looking to trade Iginla at the trade deadline this season? Would that make any sense? Do you think other teams even make serious deadline inquiries about guys like that if they're heading into the playoffs on a strong team? They don't ask, because they know that the guy won't be traded. In the offseason, sure. But not at the deadline.

 

[arrbez]

Excellent players are always in demand at the trade deadline as teams try to improve for a Stanley Cup run, playoff run or the future.
Evidenced by the Andy Bathgate trade to Toronto or the Frank Mahovlich trade to Detroit but the package has to be attractive.

If you look at the Hasek to Detroit trade, in the off season, the package going to Buffalo from Detroit in no way reflects Hasek's perceived board value.

Hasek and Bathgate are examples of guys being traded from poor teams to good ones. Mahovlich was traded from one weak team to another, and was seen by many as a depreciating asset at the time.

I'm not saying good players don't get traded. Good players get traded all the time. I'm saying that 99% of the time, they don't get traded from one good team to another at the trade deadline, which is what you're punishing Roenick for. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Seriously.................

Hasek and Bathgate are examples of guys being traded from poor teams to good ones. Mahovlich was traded from one weak team to another, and was seen by many as a depreciating asset at the time.

I'm not saying good players don't get traded. Good players get traded all the time. I'm saying that 99% of the time, they don't get traded from one good team to another at the trade deadline, which is what you're punishing Roenick for. It just doesn't make sense.

Hasek was traded from the 2nd place Sabres after a heartbreaking elimination in the 7th game of the conference semi-finals at the hands of Mario Lemieux and the Penguins.Buffalo was not a poor team but it fits the pro Hasek mantra to call them poor.

Again you drift from playoff teams to a vague good / poor diachotomy because the history of trades does not support your view. Throw in how and when defensemen like Guy Lapointe, Larry Murphy, Paul Coffey or goalies like Tom Barasso, Ed Belfour or Grant Fuhr were traded and you see the potential benefit to both teams.

Fact of the matter is that Roenick was the Roenick show on ice everywhere he played and astute GMs would look at this and see a potential disruption with no benefits. Have yet to see anyone make the point that Roenick made certain players better like Oates did or Thornton or many others. No one is punishing Roenick, just recognizing what he did not bring to the game.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Hasek was traded from the 2nd place Sabres after a heartbreaking elimination in the 7th game of the conference semi-finals at the hands of Mario Lemieux and the Penguins.Buffalo was not a poor team but it fits the pro Hasek mantra to call them poor.

Surely you must concede that it is an advantage to have the Vezina winning goalie on your team? Hasek was obviously one of the major reasons the Sabres did end up finishing second in their division in 2000-01. Once Hasek left town, Buffalo finished last in their division and out of the playoffs for three seasons in a row. How does that happen if they weren't a poor team?

Trades are so situational and random that it seems pointless to evaluate players based on whether they got traded or not. Sometimes it makes sense to make a trade and sometimes it doesn't, there are a ton of factors that go into it like whether or not the team is a contender, the depth at the player's position, the player's contract status, the team's financial situation, whether other similar players are available, etc., etc. Sometimes guys are not in demand but teams dump them for pennies on the dollar anyway and sometimes guys are in heavy demand but the teams just aren't going to trade them regardless.

Don't rate Roenick based on what his GMs did or didn't do, rate him on how he played. And based on that, I think he's a little short of the HHOF.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Trade Analysis

Surely you must concede that it is an advantage to have the Vezina winning goalie on your team? Hasek was obviously one of the major reasons the Sabres did end up finishing second in their division in 2000-01. Once Hasek left town, Buffalo finished last in their division and out of the playoffs for three seasons in a row. How does that happen if they weren't a poor team?

Trades are so situational and random that it seems pointless to evaluate players based on whether they got traded or not. Sometimes it makes sense to make a trade and sometimes it doesn't, there are a ton of factors that go into it like whether or not the team is a contender, the depth at the player's position, the player's contract status, the team's financial situation, whether other similar players are available, etc., etc. Sometimes guys are not in demand but teams dump them for pennies on the dollar anyway and sometimes guys are in heavy demand but the teams just aren't going to trade them regardless.

Don't rate Roenick based on what his GMs did or didn't do, rate him on how he played. And based on that, I think he's a little short of the HHOF.

Ed Belfour had a few Vezina's under his belt but it did not stop Chicago from trading him to San Jose and making a playoff run with Jeff Hackett. Addition by subtraction in this case.

Buffalo missing the playoff three years in a row. Well Vyacheslav Kozlov only played 38 games before being hurt which is what the Sabres effectively got in return for Hasek. Also you neglect the Peca trade to the Islanders for Pyatt and Connolly who have yet to prove anything at the NHL level and won't. Contrast with the trade that brought Bathgate to the Leafs where the Leafs gave up players who went on to play over 3,000 NHL games for app.a season and a half
of Bathgate and Mckenney.

Buffalo paid the price of making brutal trades.

As for rating Roenick or any other player for that matter. There is a popular point of view that tries to make a case "if the player was on another team" he would have accomplished more. Well my perspective tends to balance that view by asking the rather obvious question -"Did other teams really want him and how much?"

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Ed Belfour had a few Vezina's under his belt but it did not stop Chicago from trading him to San Jose and making a playoff run with Jeff Hackett. Addition by subtraction in this case.

Sure, because Hackett was outplaying Belfour. That's when teams make trades, when they have better options on their own roster. That is why many are arguing that Roenick had no reason to be traded, as he was contributing to the teams that he was on.

Buffalo missing the playoff three years in a row. Well Vyacheslav Kozlov only played 38 games before being hurt which is what the Sabres effectively got in return for Hasek. Also you neglect the Peca trade to the Islanders for Pyatt and Connolly who have yet to prove anything at the NHL level and won't. Contrast with the trade that brought Bathgate to the Leafs where the Leafs gave up players who went on to play over 3,000 NHL games for app.a season and a half
of Bathgate and Mckenney.

Buffalo paid the price of making brutal trades.

Mike Peca wasn't a loss because he didn't even play in 2000-01. He sat out the entire season in a contract dispute. The Sabres still finished second in their division and made the playoffs. If anything, the Sabres were lucky to get Connolly and Pyatt because Peca wasn't coming back anyway. Not to mention that in 2001-02 Tim Connolly scored 45 points and finished third on the team in scoring as a 20 year old. Connolly's problem has always been injuries, not talent. Unless you blame the Buffalo head office for failing to foresee Connolly's problems with head injuries, I don't see that as a bad trade at all.

There wasn't much difference between the 2001 and 2002 Sabres, other than the Hasek/Kozlov trade. And regardless of how desperately you keep trying to knock Hasek, the results speak for themselves.

As for rating Roenick or any other player for that matter. There is a popular point of view that tries to make a case "if the player was on another team" he would have accomplished more. Well my perspective tends to balance that view by asking the rather obvious question -"Did other teams really want him and how much?"

That's a fair question. But answering that question solely from trades that were made is not going to give you the entire picture. As someone already mentioned, did other teams want Nicklas Lidstrom? How do we know? He's never been traded.

If you want to get a complete answer to that question, you have to look beyond trades. There are other things that give you clues, like whether the player got a lot of Hart Trophy votes and whether he was a highly-sought after free agent. But the most basic is how well he played. Teams want to add good players to their team, it's pretty simple.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Explains................

Sure, because Hackett was outplaying Belfour. That's when teams make trades, when they have better options on their own roster. That is why many are arguing that Roenick had no reason to be traded, as he was contributing to the teams that he was on.



Mike Peca wasn't a loss because he didn't even play in 2000-01. He sat out the entire season in a contract dispute. The Sabres still finished second in their division and made the playoffs. If anything, the Sabres were lucky to get Connolly and Pyatt because Peca wasn't coming back anyway. Not to mention that in 2001-02 Tim Connolly scored 45 points and finished third on the team in scoring as a 20 year old. Connolly's problem has always been injuries, not talent. Unless you blame the Buffalo head office for failing to foresee Connolly's problems with head injuries, I don't see that as a bad trade at all.

There wasn't much difference between the 2001 and 2002 Sabres, other than the Hasek/Kozlov trade. And regardless of how desperately you keep trying to knock Hasek, the results speak for themselves.



That's a fair question. But answering that question solely from trades that were made is not going to give you the entire picture. As someone already mentioned, did other teams want Nicklas Lidstrom? How do we know? He's never been traded.

If you want to get a complete answer to that question, you have to look beyond trades. There are other things that give you clues, like whether the player got a lot of Hart Trophy votes and whether he was a highly-sought after free agent. But the most basic is how well he played. Teams want to add good players to their team, it's pretty simple.

The same Hackett who was dealt to the Canadiens for Thibault while Belfour went on to win a Stanley Cup with Dallas. Belfour had become a distraction in Chicago.

Fact remains that Roenick was traded by the Hawks in an off season trade for Zhamnov(far from a HOF player), hardly a ringing endorsement of his contribution but an indication that no one had ever offered more especially at the trade deadline.

Connolly's issue has always been that he is a perimeter player without the necessary skills. Buffalo at the time and since has never been a team where a perimeter player could contribute regularly. Why make a trade that goes against
the character of the team?

Again the Hasek for Kozlov trade. Constant criticism that the Canadiens did not get enough from Colorado in the Roy trade BUT no one criticizes Buffalo for what they obtained for Hasek. The return for Hasek speaks for itself as well.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

The same Hackett who was dealt to the Canadiens for Thibault while Belfour went on to win a Stanley Cup with Dallas. Belfour had become a distraction in Chicago.

Belfour got traded because he was about to become an unrestricted free agent that Chicago couldn't afford, and Jeff Hackett was outplaying him anyway which made it a no-brainer move for the Blackhawks. That's a classic example of the factors that can cause even a very good player to get traded.

Fact remains that Roenick was traded by the Hawks in an off season trade for Zhamnov(far from a HOF player), hardly a ringing endorsement of his contribution but an indication that no one had ever offered more especially at the trade deadline.

Zhamnov was one season removed from finishing 3rd in the league in scoring in 1994-95, and was considered one of the league's top centers. The trade was Roenick for Zhamnov, a first round pick, and a prospect. You actually see this a negative for Roenick?

Secondly, all this shows is what Roenick's value was in 1996. It says absolutely nothing regarding his value at any other stage of his career. Especially when you are talking about trade deadline deals, where contract situation is just as important as player talent.

Connolly's issue has always been that he is a perimeter player without the necessary skills. Buffalo at the time and since has never been a team where a perimeter player could contribute regularly. Why make a trade that goes against the character of the team?

Hate to keep arguing this off-topic point, but your observations are way off. Connolly's problem is that he lacks skills? Have you ever watched him play? He has some of the best hands in the entire league. And if perimeter players can't contribute in Buffalo, why are Danny Briere and Miroslav Satan the two top points-per-game Sabre scorers in the post-Hasek era?

Again the Hasek for Kozlov trade. Constant criticism that the Canadiens did not get enough from Colorado in the Roy trade BUT no one criticizes Buffalo for what they obtained for Hasek. The return for Hasek speaks for itself as well.

Lots of people criticize Buffalo for the Hasek trade, and as well they should. The Sabres should have got more in return for the best goalie in the world. But both Roy and Hasek more or less forced their team's hands, and therefore the return for both was less than it could have been if they were in a better bargaining position.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lots of people criticize Buffalo for the Hasek trade, and as well they should. The Sabres should have got more in return for the best goalie in the world. But both Roy and Hasek more or less forced their team's hands, and therefore the return for both was less than it could have been if they were in a better bargaining position.

There wasn't much Buffalo could do. Hasek threatened to retire if he wasn't traded, and he actually threatened to retire if Buffalo asked for too much in a trade.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Again...........

Belfour got traded because he was about to become an unrestricted free agent that Chicago couldn't afford, and Jeff Hackett was outplaying him anyway which made it a no-brainer move for the Blackhawks. That's a classic example of the factors that can cause even a very good player to get traded.



Zhamnov was one season removed from finishing 3rd in the league in scoring in 1994-95, and was considered one of the league's top centers. The trade was Roenick for Zhamnov, a first round pick, and a prospect. You actually see this a negative for Roenick?

Secondly, all this shows is what Roenick's value was in 1996. It says absolutely nothing regarding his value at any other stage of his career. Especially when you are talking about trade deadline deals, where contract situation is just as important as player talent.



Hate to keep arguing this off-topic point, but your observations are way off. Connolly's problem is that he lacks skills? Have you ever watched him play? He has some of the best hands in the entire league. And if perimeter players can't contribute in Buffalo, why are Danny Briere and Miroslav Satan the two top points-per-game Sabre scorers in the post-Hasek era?



Lots of people criticize Buffalo for the Hasek trade, and as well they should. The Sabres should have got more in return for the best goalie in the world. But both Roy and Hasek more or less forced their team's hands, and therefore the return for both was less than it could have been if they were in a better bargaining position.

The pending free agency was a factor in the Belfour trade BUT he was not performing and trying to play head games with Hackett something that Belfour is well known for as he always saw the other goalie as a threat and not a teammate.At that point Belfour was not coming back as he had lost his teammates.

Roenick and Zhamnov had flatlined after promising starts. Zhamnov more so.Roenick was outscored by Chris Chelios and matched by Suter two defensemen.

Connolly. My comment was that he lacks the skills to be a perimeter player not that he lacks skills.The skills that he has "good hands" would be more effective 10-15 feet closer to the net as he does not have a shot. Daniel Briere is not a perimeter player.First saw him playing bantam then thru the Q. Satan goes to the net.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The pending free agency was a factor in the Belfour trade BUT he was not performing and trying to play head games with Hackett something that Belfour is well known for as he always saw the other goalie as a threat and not a teammate.At that point Belfour was not coming back as he had lost his teammates.

Belfour is a perfect example of a guy who changed teams for the wrong reasons. But obviously he was in demand. Would he gain bonus points for you for wearing out his welcome in both Chicago and Dallas? I would think not, and this demonstartes how silly it can be to judge a player based on what his GM did or didn't do, unless there are clear reasons that the trade was made (see Belfour).

Roenick and Zhamnov had flatlined after promising starts. Zhamnov more so.

That's a misleading statement regarding Zhamnov. Coming off his third-place finish in scoring, Zhamnov had 59 points in an injury-shortened 58 games in 1995-96. Surely Chicago would have expected him to be a contender for top-tens in the scoring race for years to come. In actuality, yes, he had indeed flatlined and never reached that 1995 level again. But nobody knew that at the time.

 

[canucks4ever]

one year is not enough to define somebody as the best player in the game though. That is my point. It was a pretty obvious point too, so I must conclude you fail at grasping the obvious. The fact that Sakic only time came even close to a Hart Trophy (the year he won) means he was not the best player in the game. Players who were consistently winners or consistently in contention were the best players in the game.

So according to that logic, only Gretzky, Lemieux and Jagr can say that they were the best forward in the game during the last 30 years.

Sakic was the first team center 3 times in his career. He's the 2nd best forward of the 1995-2004 era, I dont need to hear the he was never the best garbage.

 

[member 51464]

So according to that logic, only Gretzky, Lemieux and Jagr can say that they were the best forward in the game during the last 30 years.

Sakic was the first team center 3 times in his career. He's the 2nd best forward of the 1995-2004 era, I dont need to hear the he was never the best garbage.

I think everyone is going to refuse to take your argument's seriously until you get a trendy avatar!