Proposal: Trade Rumours/Proposals 2019-20 Part VII

Status
Not open for further replies.

DaveMatthew

Bring in Peter
Apr 13, 2005
14,507
13,180
Ott
What player was an example of penny pinching vs hockey eval ?

Good hockey Eval’s
Turris, EK, MD , RD, ... I want to add $9.5x8 Stone and Pageau.

Penny pinching driven out of town.
Zibby , ?

There's no way to say Mark Stone was good "evaluation". I would bet on him being a more productive and effective player over the next 8 years than whoever we draft with the SJ pick, to be honest, and definitely more impactful than Erik Brannstrom.

Turris? Yes.

Karlsson? Okay, but he's still a top pairing defenseman and won't hurt you, even at his salary, and from everything Pierre Dorion has said, he wanted to keep him, but he had no interest in staying.

Stone? The guy will be the best player on one of the best teams in the NHL for a while. Even if he made $11M and not $9.5M, Stone will help teams win playoff games much more than hurt them, and the end goal is not to accumulate "talent", but to win playoff games.
 

KnuckChuckinTkachuk

Give'yer balls a tug
Jan 23, 2011
2,095
945
I would say that the Sens would never take a chance on Ho-Sang, but we did take a chance on Duclair and it's worked out very well so who knows.

I will say that there's no way Boychuk agrees to be traded to the Sens. He has a NTC that allows him to only list 8 teams he can be traded to, and we're certainly not on that list.

What we should do is offer the Isles an attractive package of prospects/picks for Pulock. Assuming they can't trade Boychuk, need Mayfield and his steal of a contract and want to keep Dobson on the right-side, perhaps they consider trading Pulock if the return is right.

While I would obviously prefer Pulock I don't think the Isles will entertain trading him. They will try anything to make the space for him and Barzal.

Either way, if we don't want to take Boychuk I get that too but anything reasonable that brings Ho-Sang to Ottawa I'm down with.
 

KnuckChuckinTkachuk

Give'yer balls a tug
Jan 23, 2011
2,095
945
There's no way to say Mark Stone was good "evaluation". I would bet on him being a more productive and effective player over the next 8 years than whoever we draft with the SJ pick, to be honest, and definitely more impactful than Erik Brannstrom.

Turris? Yes.

Karlsson? Okay, but he's still a top pairing defenseman and won't hurt you, even at his salary.

Stone? The guy will be the best player on one of the best teams in the NHL for a while.

Pretty likely but if the SJ pick becomes Lafreniere its a different story...
 

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
There's no way to say Mark Stone was good "evaluation". I would bet on him being a more productive and effective player over the next 8 years than whoever we draft with the SJ pick, to be honest, and definitely more impactful than Erik Brannstrom.

Turris? Yes.

Karlsson? Okay, but he's still a top pairing defenseman and won't hurt you, even at his salary, and from everything Pierre Dorion has said, he wanted to keep him, but he had no interest in staying.

Stone? The guy will be the best player on one of the best teams in the NHL for a while. Even if he made $11M and not $9.5M, Stone will help teams win playoff games much more than hurt them, and the end goal is not to accumulate "talent", but to win playoff games.

I put (or meant to) a *with stone/Pageau ... I think Stone provided equal value this year at $9.5? My guess is his value tapers off never exceeding positive value and ending in the negative $1-4 / year average. Who knows ... at best I see him providing equal value (not positive) over the term.

Brannstrom our up negative value this year .. but probably $.2 ? Or so?
 

DaveMatthew

Bring in Peter
Apr 13, 2005
14,507
13,180
Ott
I put (or meant to) a *with stone/Pageau ... I think Stone provided equal value this year at $9.5? My guess is his value tapers off never exceeding positive value and ending in the negative $1-4 / year average. Who knows ... at best I see him providing equal value (not positive) over the term.

Brannstrom our up negative value this year .. but probably $.2 ? Or so?

I guess it depends on how you define "value". If Stone leads Vegas to the Cup and puts up a performance like, let's say O'Reilly did for the Blues, that's well worth every penny they're paying him. So at very best, he's a Stanley Cup Champion, and that's fantastic value.
 

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
I guess it depends on how you define "value". If Stone leads Vegas to the Cup and puts up a performance like, let's say O'Reilly did for the Blues, that's well worth every penny they're paying him. So at very best, he's a Stanley Cup Champion, and that's fantastic value.

Not sure ? Vegas could win the cup with or without Stone playing well and they probably won’t either way. He could also cost $80 million for 7 more years and do nothing. Think of what the Jays paid for Tuliwotski ... at least they have the capital (and so does Vegas) to buy out the contract. We don’t, so a $9.5 boat anchor really hurts us if there isn’t close to neutral value there. See Bobby Ryan.
 

DaveMatthew

Bring in Peter
Apr 13, 2005
14,507
13,180
Ott
Not sure ? Vegas could win the cup with or without Stone playing well and they probably won’t either way. He could also cost $80 million for 7 more years and do nothing. Think of what the Jays paid for Tuliwotski ... at least they have the capital (and so does Vegas) to buy out the contract. We don’t, so a $9.5 boat anchor really hurts us if there isn’t close to neutral value there. See Bobby Ryan.

And we can get "value" out of prospects and young players and also do nothing.

The goal is to win playoff games. I'd rather try to do that by overpaying for Mark Stone than by overpaying Nikita Zaitsev and Colin White while hoping Erik Brannstrom pans out.

The nature of hockey is very different from baseball. I don't think you can moneyball your way to a Cup.

And the value of a Mark Stone goes beyond the stats and analytics. I'd be much more confident in Lafreniere/Stutzle/Byfield, or whoever we draft, becoming a star if they played their first season or two with Stone. Look at what he did for Tkachuk. He wouldn't be where he is today if he didn't start his career on Stone's line or as his tenant.
 
Last edited:

jhutter

Registered User
Dec 23, 2016
1,189
819
What player was an example of penny pinching vs hockey eval ?

Good hockey Eval’s
Turris, EK, MD , RD, ... I want to add $9.5x8 Stone and Pageau.

Penny pinching driven out of town.
Zibby , ?

The question that myself and many Sens fans have is whether or not the players that you included within the "good hockey evaluations" were left unsigned due to it being a good evaluation or for money reasons. Everything I have seen in the last few years leads me to believe that it's primarily money.
 

Bileur

Registered User
Jun 15, 2004
18,475
7,194
Ottawa
What player was an example of penny pinching vs hockey eval ?

Good hockey Eval’s
Turris, EK, MD , RD, ... I want to add $9.5x8 Stone and Pageau.

Penny pinching driven out of town.
Zibby , ?

Are you saying trading Turris +++ for Matt Duchene was a good hockey eval? I could get behind not signing Turris being a good eval, trading him in an « all in » deal was a brutal eval. One of the worst in recent memory.

EK and MS were clearly penny pinching moves.
MD I don’t know, doesn’t look like he wanted to sign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h2owned

ijif

Registered User
Dec 20, 2018
741
723
I put (or meant to) a *with stone/Pageau ... I think Stone provided equal value this year at $9.5? My guess is his value tapers off never exceeding positive value and ending in the negative $1-4 / year average. Who knows ... at best I see him providing equal value (not positive) over the term.

Brannstrom our up negative value this year .. but probably $.2 ? Or so?

How exactly are you determining value?
 

Masked

(Super/star)
Apr 16, 2017
6,339
4,564
Parts unknown
Are you saying trading Turris +++ for Matt Duchene was a good hockey eval? I could get behind not signing Turris being a good eval, trading him in an « all in » deal was a brutal eval. One of the worst in recent memory.

If the Senators had not dropped to a lottery pick in 2018 and instead had been in the bottom half of the draft, the trade wouldn't have been a big deal. The only problem with the trade was the Senators giving up a top 4 pick, which was not expected at the time of the trade. That's the only thing of value the Senators lost in the trade.
 

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
And we can get "value" out of prospects and young players and also do nothing.

The goal is to win playoff games. I'd rather try to do that by overpaying for Mark Stone than by overpaying Nikita Zaitsev and Colin White while hoping Erik Brannstrom pans out.

The nature of hockey is very different from baseball. I don't think you can moneyball your way to a Cup.

And the value of a Mark Stone goes beyond the stats and analytics. I'd be much more confident in Lafreniere/Stutzle/Byfield, or whoever we draft, becoming a star if they played their first season or two with Stone. Look at what he did for Tkachuk. He wouldn't be where he is today if he didn't start his career on Stone's line or as his tenant.

Sure - but the choice isn’t overpay Mark Stone vs Colin White. White is a mistake too- I think I push that agenda enough.
 

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
The question that myself and many Sens fans have is whether or not the players that you included within the "good hockey evaluations" were left unsigned due to it being a good evaluation or for money reasons. Everything I have seen in the last few years leads me to believe that it's primarily money.

That’s a mistake - signing those contracts will only lead to further competitive problems and we lack the resources to buy our way out (like many teams do). Our out move is a 4 year tear down.
 

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
Are you saying trading Turris +++ for Matt Duchene was a good hockey eval? I could get behind not signing Turris being a good eval, trading him in an « all in » deal was a brutal eval. One of the worst in recent memory.

EK and MS were clearly penny pinching moves.
MD I don’t know, doesn’t look like he wanted to sign.

No. I’m saying that thank god we didn’t extend turris.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bileur

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
How exactly are you determining value?

Im open to input here - here’s what I think.

Ennis was paid $1 and played like a 2+ player. White was paid $4 and played like a $1 player. You can look at every player and basically determine their WAR/Salary. If you build a $75 payroll where every player is providing equal or positive value you will have a great team.

We were led by $12 million of Duc, Brady, Chabot, Ennis, brown, and Pageau. If you had 20 players giving that type of Value your team will be a cup contender.

Mae had about $40+ million of compete dead space. Part Engineered to meet the cap and partly woth Ryan, White , Z types.

I get we won’t always have Chabot / Brady playing as well as they do for $1 but the idea stands.
 

Bileur

Registered User
Jun 15, 2004
18,475
7,194
Ottawa
If the Senators had not dropped to a lottery pick in 2018 and instead had been in the bottom half of the draft, the trade wouldn't have been a big deal. The only problem with the trade was the Senators giving up a top 4 pick, which was not expected at the time of the trade. That's the only thing of value the Senators lost in the trade.

Projecting where the sens would finish is huge part of hockey eval. The semi finals run success was fun but was clearly not sustainable. That team got hot at the right time and got matchups against depleted opponents to move forward.

On top of the smoke and mirrors the previous season, the sens lost a top 4 defenseman who was arguably their second best and replaced him with (at best) a bottom pair guy.

Their best player / defenseman, who carried the team on that miracle run, was having a difficult time coming back from a career altering injury having also lost his long time defensive partner who carried a lot of the physical load.

Going all in at that time was a brutal hockey evaluation.
 

Hale The Villain

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2008
25,658
13,242
While I would obviously prefer Pulock I don't think the Isles will entertain trading him. They will try anything to make the space for him and Barzal.

Either way, if we don't want to take Boychuk I get that too but anything reasonable that brings Ho-Sang to Ottawa I'm down with.

I wouldn't do it if I were them either, but crazier things have happened.

If I were Dorion I'd offer to take on Ladd's contract in order to convince them to trade us Pulock.

Ladd also has a NTC but he's someone who might waive if it meant getting back to the NHL, as he spent most of last year in the AHL.

Ladd, Pulock for their 1st back or something like that. We need to take advantage of our cap situation.
 

DaveMatthew

Bring in Peter
Apr 13, 2005
14,507
13,180
Ott
Sure - but the choice isn’t overpay Mark Stone vs Colin White.

Sure it is.

Dorion is given a payroll parameter within which he has to work. I'd make the assumption (and I certainly hope) that how he allocates that payroll is 100% up to him, so long as he doesn't exceed the total amount he has to spend.

With any signing, trade-offs have to be made. Let's say Mark Stone told Dorion he wanted $10.5M/season to stay. At that point, one of the decisions Dorion would need to make is whether he wants to "overpay" Stone by ~2 million, if it means he has to save that $2 million somewhere else. That might be the difference between re-signing Colin White, or not.

Let's say Dorion has $20M to sign 5 players.

He could go: 10M + 3M + 3M + 2M + 2M. In this scenario, he could keep Stone but not White or Zaitsev.
Or he could go: 4M + 4M + 4M + 4M + 4M. In this scenario, he can't keep Stone but can sign White and Zaitsev.

So far Dorion has seemingly made the decision to not give any one star player "a lot" of money, but rather spread the money out across more, but lesser players. We'll see how it works out for him.

Unless of course, none of Stone, Duchene or Karlsson had any intention of every re-signing here, regardless of how much money they were offered, which would make the above moot and means we made moves out of necessity and not "shrewdness".
 
Last edited:

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
Sure it is.

Dorion is given a payroll parameter within which he has to work. I'd make the assumption (and I certainly hope) that how he allocates that payroll is 100% up to him, so long as he doesn't exceed the total amount he has to spend.

With any signing, trade-offs have to be made. Let's say Mark Stone told Dorion he wanted $10.5M/season to stay. At that point, one of the decisions Dorion would need to make is whether he wants to "overpay" Stone by ~2 million, if it means he has to save that $2 million somewhere else. That might be the difference between re-signing Colin White, or not.

So far Dorion has seemingly made the decision to not give any one star player "a lot" of money, but rather spread the money out across more, but lesser players. We'll see how it works out for him.

Unless of course, none of Stone, Duchene or Karlsson had any intention of every re-signing here, regardless of how much money they were offered, which would make the above moot.

I hear what you are saying ... I would have preferred PD to pass on Stone as you said and been a little more cautious with White... who cares if White sat out. We cannot crate a reputation for paying players $4.75 at his skill level before they deserve it
 

Masked

(Super/star)
Apr 16, 2017
6,339
4,564
Parts unknown
Projecting where the sens would finish is huge part of hockey eval. The semi finals run success was fun but was clearly not sustainable. That team got hot at the right time and got matchups against depleted opponents to move forward.

On top of the smoke and mirrors the previous season, the sens lost a top 4 defenseman who was arguably their second best and replaced him with (at best) a bottom pair guy.

Their best player / defenseman, who carried the team on that miracle run, was having a difficult time coming back from a career altering injury having also lost his long time defensive partner who carried a lot of the physical load.

Going all in at that time was a brutal hockey evaluation.

The team was on a 99 point pace at the time of the trade. And that's with Karlsson missing training camp and the first half dozen games. Upgrading Turris for Duchene should have improved the team.

Whining about the playoff run being not sustainable or depleted opponents doesn't turn the Senators from a fringe playoff team to a bottom dweller. While you can question whether or not the team would make the playoffs, no one except the most ardent Senators hater would have predicted them ending up 30th.
 

jhutter

Registered User
Dec 23, 2016
1,189
819
That’s a mistake - signing those contracts will only lead to further competitive problems and we lack the resources to buy our way out (like many teams do). Our out move is a 4 year tear down.

I'm not arguing that a max-term Duchene deal wouldn't have been a mistake, I'm disagreeing on the rationale behind not signing the deals you mentioned. You chalked it up as good player evaluation, whereas I chalked it up as an unwillingness to spend money. Again, retrospectively, I'm not disappointed that Duchene and Dzingel weren't retained, I just think that it happened for reasons beyond brilliant evaluation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ed Wood and Bileur

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,120
30,340
The team was on a 99 point pace at the time of the trade. And that's with Karlsson missing training camp and the first half dozen games. Upgrading Turris for Duchene should have improved the team.

Whining about the playoff run being not sustainable or depleted opponents doesn't turn the Senators from a fringe playoff team to a bottom dweller. While you can question whether or not the team would make the playoffs, no one except the most ardent Senators hater would have predicted them ending up 30th.
99 point pace at the time of the trade is a sorely lacking evaluation of the state of the team at the time of the trade.

First off, 14 game sample. Not exactly predictive enough to be banking on pace.

6 wins in those 14 games, and frankly the team looked bad in many of those games. The wheels were falling off.

I do agree that Duchene should have improved the team, but i don't think it was the area the team was most in need of improvement, nor was the timing particularly good. Like you said, karlsson missed camp and looked off, maybe hold off to see how he recovers before going all in? Maybe find him a better partner then Oduya?

Lots of people predicted Ottawa would miss the playoff. Not many were predicting them to be dead last, but many foresaw them struggling that year.
 

GrantLemons

Church of FYOUS
Feb 3, 2013
1,997
1,584
Ottawa, ON
The team was on a 99 point pace at the time of the trade

There's a reason experienced GM's don't do anything drastic until the 20 game mark (or even until after Christmas). Because at times whatever happens up until then is can be largely irrelevant and not a true reflection of the strength of the team.

Remember when Buffalo turned the corner with that 10 game ripper in November? Yea I barely do either because they were absolute dogshit the rest of the year. Citing points pace after 14 games is just an insanely weak argument for justifying a trade of that magnitude.
 

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
I'm not arguing that a max-term Duchene deal wouldn't have been a mistake, I'm disagreeing on the rationale behind not signing the deals you mentioned. You chalked it up as good player evaluation, whereas I chalked it up as an unwillingness to spend money. Again, retrospectively, I'm not disappointed that Duchene and Dzingel weren't retained, I just think that it happened for reasons beyond brilliant evaluation.

Ya ... I get that’s the popular belief. The 1000 pages of EK trade post wreak of that sentiment. The reality is it took about 6 months for J.Q fan to realize that the EK trade was way better than the idea of extending him for $11.5x8. SJ fell harder than we all thought but EK’s contract isn’t worth a 2ND pick.

My feeling is that about 95% of that sentiment is emotionally attached to their favourite player and unable to separate the value in a) the trade + b) not extending. We got great value out of EK up until he was 28 and we bettered ourselves by cutting the cord vs paying $90+ for what ever he can provide over the next few years and 4-5 years of UGGHHH.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->