Proposal: Toronto - Minnesota

[bobg1]

Zucker
Spurgeon

Nylander
Liljegren

You want to get rid of 2 high 1st rounders for nobody?????

 

[bobg1]

Or even Spurgeon for a 2019 1st + a prospect?

You do realize Spurgeon was a 6th round draft choice

 

[AKL]

You do realize Spurgeon was a 6th round draft choice

10 years ago.....What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Nylanderthal]

10 years ago.....What does that have to do with anything?

The fact it was ten years ago is a large reason why he’s a non starter in a Nylander deal.

 

[mammothCacti]

Wait, so are you saying Jake Gardiner (a 50pts D) was worth more than Aho (60pts W) last year?

Ya know, that's actually quite an apt comparison for a Spurgeon - Nylander trade. Ie. Why the Leafs wouldn't touch it.

 

[sasha barkov]

You do realize Spurgeon was a 6th round draft choice

You do realize that makes no sense

 

[sasha barkov]

You have no clue how good Spurgeon is, do you? First pairing Dmen do not go for a late first and a so-so prospect, or the Leafs would already have one.

Lolololololol Spurgeon is not a first pairing defenseman. He’s an ok #2 and a solid #3

 

[Scott Stevens]

So much sass and passive aggressiveness in this thread

 

[DingDongCharlie]

Lolololololol Spurgeon is not a first pairing defenseman. He’s an ok #2 and a solid #3

I hope you don’t mean pairings. If you’re saying he’s a solid bottom pairing defenceman you’re out to lunch

 

[AKL]

Lolololololol Spurgeon is not a first pairing defenseman. He’s an ok #2 and a solid #3

First of all, being a #2 IS WHAT A FIRST PAIRING DEFENSEMAN IS.
Second of all, he's more than an "ok" #2. He's a good #2.
Lastly, I'm going to assume you don't watch him play and just stat watch, so nothing you say has any credibility here.

 

[ImNeverWrong]

Lolololololol Spurgeon is not a first pairing defenseman. He’s an ok #2 and a solid #3

uhhh, you know PAIR means a set of 2 things, right? If he's an OK #2, that would make him a FIRST pair dman.

Lolololololol Just checked my birth cirtificate, it says I’m born in 1990, but that may just be a typo, as far as dumba, yes it is fair value.

Things are starting to make more sense.

 

[Nylanderthal]

First of all, being a #2 IS WHAT A FIRST PAIRING DEFENSEMAN IS.
Second of all, he's more than an "ok" #2. He's a good #2.
Lastly, I'm going to assume you don't watch him play and just stat watch, so nothing you say has any credibility here.

In fairness being an okay-goodish #2 means you’re just barely top pairing, also likely means you require a certain type of partner to mask your flaws, luckily Rielly and Spurgeon would be a good fit so he’d be okay on our top pairing.
Still not interested if the cost is Nylander in any sort of way.

 

[Wabit]

I hope you don’t mean pairings. If you’re saying he’s a solid bottom pairing defenceman you’re out to lunch

Well in all fairness, he would be the solidest 3rd pairing d-man in the league.

 

[AKL]

In fairness being an okay-goodish #2 means you’re just barely top pairing, also likely means you require a certain type of partner to mask your flaws, luckily Rielly and Spurgeon would be a good fit so he’d be okay on our top pairing.
Still not interested if the cost is Nylander in any sort of way.

In fairness he's not an "okay-goodish" #2. He's a legitimately good #2.

 

[sasha barkov]

First of all, being a #2 IS WHAT A FIRST PAIRING DEFENSEMAN IS.
Second of all, he's more than an "ok" #2. He's a good #2.
Lastly, I'm going to assume you don't watch him play and just stat watch, so nothing you say has any credibility here.

I’ve watched him quite a few times actually, and I said he’s an ok #2 that’s doesnt mean he’s as good as a first pairing guy because I view him as a good #3, and when I watched him he got out muscled A lot and wasn’t that good defensively, so that’s why I think a good #3 would be a good label for him

 

[sasha barkov]

In fairness being an okay-goodish #2 means you’re just barely top pairing, also likely means you require a certain type of partner to mask your flaws, luckily Rielly and Spurgeon would be a good fit so he’d be okay on our top pairing.
Still not interested if the cost is Nylander in any sort of way.

Exactly, he’s too small, which is why he needs a bigger defenseman to mask his flaws

 

[sasha barkov]

In fairness he's not an "okay-goodish" #2. He's a legitimately good #2.

Disagree, he’s pretty much a meh to ok #2 that needs a particular D partner to mask his flaws, but a solid #3 that thrives in that role

 

[AKL]

I’ve watched him quite a few times actually, and I said he’s an ok #2 that’s doesnt mean he’s as good as a first pairing guy because I view him as a good #3, and when I watched him he got out muscled A lot and wasn’t that good defensively, so that’s why I think a good #3 would be a good label for him

Disagree, he’s pretty much a meh to ok #2 that needs a particular D partner to mask his flaws, but a solid #3 that thrives in that role

Your ignorance doesn't change reality.

 

[MMC]

Since this has essentially turned into another Nylander thread, it’s getting locked. If you would like to make a specific proposal regarding the two teams, or discuss other forwards than Nylander, feel free to make another thread and do so. If you want to discuss a potential Nylander trade to the Wild, do so in the Nylander thread