Speculation: What Would You Give Up for Taylor Hall?

[Jame]

Voracek was a huge asset when he got traded. They essentially traded two top-10 picks to get Carter.

and the team that traded to top 10 assets to get Carter... regretted it.

I'm making the argument that it's not worth it to make deals with our top assets (myers, zads, reinhart, etc)

I am also making the argument that we have the depth in assets below that to still make a competitive offer by:

equating our 2015 1st (if it's outside the top 3) with having more value than the 8th overall in 2011.

to go along with additional 1sts and prospects that would be considered top 3 prospects on a lot of teams (Pysyk, Grigorenko, etc)

 

[Zip15]

Get off your high horse. Some of us actually want to build a team. Without getting into Hall's issues real or imagined. Building around a high end scoring winger is not the way to go and many feel this way. It colors their take on any trade proposals. Yes some have strong opinions about his alleged locker room issues. But many just don't want to sell the store (top dmen) for him, issues or not.

What if I don't think Tyler Myers is a "top defenseman?" Am I allowed think that, or is that blasphemy?

My turn to frame the issue: I want a goal-scorer and point producer in a scoring-starved system--one which seems well on its way to missing out on both of McEichel--in exchange for a guy I see being a year-and-a-half away from being the RHD on our 2nd pairing.

As for Hall's issues. I have no idea if they are real or not. And if they are real, if they are just overblown. Nor do you. So save us the sanctimonious dismissal of concerns some have. As if you would even know if they were real or not.

Where is your reprimand of people who are equally dismissive of my stance that the unsubstantiated rumors are unreliable? A principle that I believe is still widely accepted in society.

But at the end of the day many of the posters that don't want to trade for him base it on what they believe is important from a team building pov. So they have no interest in moving top 4 d-prospects with higher potential for him. You disagree I assume and thats fine.

That's fine, but I am permitted to disagree on the grounds that they are overrating our young players. Right now, it seems many believe it's going to be all rainbows and butterflies henceforth for Zads, Myers, et al.

 

[joshjull]

Wonder if EDM would go for this:

Zadorov
NYI 1st
STL 1st
Neuvirth/Enroth
Hodgson?

They get everything they need. A top D prospect. A goalie, two futures, and if they want, a center that can play on the 2nd line for them.

That might do it. Not sure they would want Hodgson though

 

[Paxon]

Speaking of Voracek at the time of the Carter trade, that's the sort of offensive winger I'd be looking to deal for, not a blockbuster trade for a Taylor Hall. A guy with a solid pedigree who's been productive for a couple years in the league. They don't come cheap but they could be had for the pieces you're willing to give up, and we have a ton of worthwhile pieces we'd be willing to give up. It's just a question of identifying the one who will continue on a positive trajectory. Hopefully our scouts do their jobs well.

A player who, while not certain to, has a chance of emerging as a high-end winger would do a lot to increase the odds that we will have dynamic scoring off the wing in the future. We have several prospects below the NHL stage, from AHLer Armia to OHLer Bailey, who also have that chance. Adding a guy who's acquitted himself well at the NHL stage would be a boon.

 

[Zip15]

and the team that traded to top 10 assets to get Carter... regretted it.

Because of how Carter acted when got to CBJ. Would LA have regretted it if they traded B. Schenn and Jack Johnson directly to PHI for Carter? I'm guessing not.

I'm making the argument that it's not worth it to make deals with our top assets (myers, zads, reinhart, etc)

I am also making the argument that we have the depth in assets below that to still make a competitive offer by:

equating our 2015 1st (if it's outside the top 3) with having more value than the 8th overall in 2011.

to go along with additional 1sts and prospects that would be considered top 3 prospects on a lot of teams (Pysyk, Grigorenko, etc)

Hey, if EDM is dumb enough to go for 5th overall this year + other non-premium assets, I'm all for it. But you have to consider their position. Another full rebuild is going to be hard to sell. I'd imagine they want at least one, and probably two, high-end roster-ready assets to replace the one premium asset they're selling off.

 

[FearTheBeard]

Show me their paces over the last 2 1/2 seasons. Are you suggesting Hall and Ennis are of the same ilk?

Not at all. Referring to the fact the poster I quoted said Hall is a scoring winger at the peak of his career, yet he's played a third of the season on the same pace as Ennis. Sure a small sample size, but you can't disregard the fact his production has dropped and his knee is still giving him problems

Yet Taylor Hall, who is the most proven of any of these players, is a dog's breakfast compared to our rising stars.

You're taking my quotes out of context and completely missing my point. I never said Taylor Hall was unproven. You were comparing him to an 8th overall draft pick, who I was referring to as unproven. If I'm choosing Nikita Zadorov or Oliver Kylington, Im taking Zadorov, and so are 30 NHL GM's

- he's not one dimensional

LOL, he's absolutely one-dimensional. Have you seen this guy in his own zone?

 

[Paxon]

- he's not one dimensional

If they mean one-dimensional as in he sucks a defense then yes, he's absolutely one-dimensional.

- all players are paid to put up points

All players are paid to play hockey. They get paid for all the things that entails to differing degrees, based on expected role, team need, organizational views, etc. Like all major sports leagues, there's a bias in favor of offense, but smart GM's know to put that bias in check.

- he put up 80 last year on a bad Edmonton team and he's two years younger then ennis

There's no doubt he's a productive offensive player. His production rate the year previous to last (lockout season) was even better than that of his 80 point season.

- we have no idea if Zadorov is going to be a top 2 D. He's a very good prospect.

True. If you look at the construction of our rebuild, though, Zadorov has an important role whether he's a top 2 D or a top 4 D. It seems pretty reasonable that he'll be a top 4 D. You can see just this season what a difference having Zadorov out there with Ristolainen, Myers, and a solid vet (Gorges) makes. Despite how some people may look at it, we don't have a surplus of the kind of defensemen you need to build a contending top 4. That doesn't mean we can't go out and acquire someone else, of course, but Zadorov's value to our organization has really jumped up with his good showing thus far this season.

- Two late firsts. The term "deep" draft gets thrown out a lot. Plus, we're stockpiled on prospects as is.

I agree fully here. While using those two firsts would likely net us at least one future NHL contributor with a fair chance of a good one, it's still just a chance. The greater chance is that they amount to players we'd have no problem moving in the future. There's definite value to these picks but that doesn't stop you from sealing a deal of this magnitude.

- Sure, Hodgson will go up. To what? A top six center/winger? Do you see the skating ability/defensive ability in him for that? I certainly don't.

Like the picks, I just don't see how anyone would let Hodgson stand in the way of such a deal. If we're acquiring Taylor Hall on top of what we have, I wouldn't even want him on the team. If you have Taylor Hall, Matt Moulson, Tyler Ennis, and Cody Hodgson out there on the ice then you're basically Edmonton. What we should want to accomplish in such a trade is to upgrade a one-dimensional player into one who's better in that one dimension. If we could manage to have Hodgson represent part of the package's value in such a trade that'd be ideal.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

What we should want to accomplish in such a trade is to upgrade a one-dimensional player into one who's better in that one dimension.

most reasonable thing said in a while

 

[FearTheBeard]

If they mean one-dimensional as in he sucks a defense then yes, he's absolutely one-dimensional.



All players are paid to play hockey. They get paid for all the things that entails to differing degrees, based on expected role, team need, organizational views, etc. Like all major sports leagues, there's a bias in favor of offense, but smart GM's know to put that bias in check.



There's no doubt he's a productive offensive player. His production rate the year previous to last (lockout season) was even better than that of his 80 point season.



True. If you look at the construction of our rebuild, though, Zadorov has an important role whether he's a top 2 D or a top 4 D. It seems pretty reasonable that he'll be a top 4 D. You can see just this season what a difference having Zadorov out there with Ristolainen, Myers, and a solid vet (Gorges) makes. Despite how some people may look at it, we don't have a surplus of the kind of defensemen you need to build a contending top 4. That doesn't mean we can't go out and acquire someone else, of course, but Zadorov's value to our organization has really jumped up with his good showing thus far this season.



I agree fully here. While using those two firsts would likely net us at least one future NHL contributor with a fair chance of a good one, it's still just a chance. The greater chance is that they amount to players we'd have no problem moving in the future. There's definite value to these picks but that doesn't stop you from sealing a deal of this magnitude.



Like the picks, I just don't see how anyone would let Hodgson stand in the way of such a deal. If we're acquiring Taylor Hall on top of what we have, I wouldn't even want him on the team. If you have Taylor Hall, Matt Moulson, Tyler Ennis, and Cody Hodgson out there on the ice then you're basically Edmonton. What we should want to accomplish in such a trade is to upgrade a one-dimensional player into one who's better in that one dimension. If we could manage to have Hodgson represent part of the package's value in such a trade that'd be ideal.

Theres no doubt Taylor Hall is a great player, and nobody is arguing he wouldn't benefit our team. However, he's not the player I, like others here, are ready to overpay for. Thats all we're saying. If we are going to spend our assets I'd like to spend them wisely, rather than recklessly throw whatever we've got at the wall to acquire a player with his own number of flaws.

 

[RefsIdeas]

If they mean one-dimensional as in he sucks a defense then yes, he's absolutely one-dimensional.



All players are paid to play hockey. They get paid for all the things that entails to differing degrees, based on expected role, team need, organizational views, etc. Like all major sports leagues, there's a bias in favor of offense, but smart GM's know to put that bias in check.



There's no doubt he's a productive offensive player. His production rate the year previous to last (lockout season) was even better than that of his 80 point season.



True. If you look at the construction of our rebuild, though, Zadorov has an important role whether he's a top 2 D or a top 4 D. It seems pretty reasonable that he'll be a top 4 D. You can see just this season what a difference having Zadorov out there with Ristolainen, Myers, and a solid vet (Gorges) makes. Despite how some people may look at it, we don't have a surplus of the kind of defensemen you need to build a contending top 4. That doesn't mean we can't go out and acquire someone else, of course, but Zadorov's value to our organization has really jumped up with his good showing thus far this season.



I agree fully here. While using those two firsts would likely net us at least one future NHL contributor with a fair chance of a good one, it's still just a chance. The greater chance is that they amount to players we'd have no problem moving in the future. There's definite value to these picks but that doesn't stop you from sealing a deal of this magnitude.



Like the picks, I just don't see how anyone would let Hodgson stand in the way of such a deal. If we're acquiring Taylor Hall on top of what we have, I wouldn't even want him on the team. If you have Taylor Hall, Matt Moulson, Tyler Ennis, and Cody Hodgson out there on the ice then you're basically Edmonton. What we should want to accomplish in such a trade is to upgrade a one-dimensional player into one who's better in that one dimension. If we could manage to have Hodgson represent part of the package's value in such a trade that'd be ideal.

All fair points. To the one-dimensional talk, I've heard/seen that his effort is always good in his own end, but he's not quite the best defensively.

Also, I'm not sure where you stand here. Would you pull the trigger on that trade proposal?

 

[Jame]

Because of how Carter acted when got to CBJ. Would LA have regretted it if they traded B. Schenn and Jack Johnson directly to PHI for Carter? I'm guessing not.

are you equating Schenn and Jack to Voracek and Couturier?

Hey, if EDM is dumb enough to go for 5th overall this year + other non-premium assets, I'm all for it. But you have to consider their position. Another full rebuild is going to be hard to sell. I'd imagine they want at least one, and probably two, high-end roster-ready assets to replace the one premium asset they're selling off.

It's not about whether they are dumb enough... it's about whether any other team is dumb enough to give up multiple building block type assets for 1 high value winger.

Regardless, Im not interested in what Edmonton wants. If there is a top end player on the trade market, we should assess that players value to what we are building, and the value of the assets we currently have.

There is no winger on the planet that Myers, Risto, Zads, Reinhart, Girgensons are in play for.

And as for your criticisms of other fans "certainty", you seem pretty certain that our current #1 defensemen, will be displaced by a youngster at some point.

I'm fairly confident that having both is a much better and safer long term approach.

You used to recognized that overrated value of 1 dimensional wingers...

 

[Paxon]

All fair points. To the one-dimensional talk, I've heard/seen that his effort is always good in his own end, but he's not quite the best defensively.

Also, I'm not sure where you stand here. Would you pull the trigger on that trade proposal?

I'm not really interested in trading a package around Zadorov for Hall. I do, however, think in any deal for a coveted player assets like those 1st rounders and Hodgson shouldn't be viewed strictly as how much value they represent; we should keep in mind how little value they'd represent to us in the grand scheme.

After years of Darcy's shrewd but conservative trading everyone seems to feel the need to "win" the value of deals (plus it's general human nature). If you believe what you're acquiring is a core piece then the value of having that piece is greater than the cumulative value you might 'waste' in the deal. I just don't see Hall as necessary target at the cost he'd demand.

 

[Irving Zisman]

Yet Taylor Hall, who is the most proven of any of these players, is a dog's breakfast compared to our rising stars.

You're overrating our young players. No point in arguing further. We'll agree to disagree.

1-way scoring wingers are a dog's breakfast compared to Top Pairing defenseman. You suggested Myers as a piece you'd move for Hall, and then hid behind the 'but I never actually proposed it!' excuse.

Regardless of your perceived overvaluing of our young core pieces, which may be true to a point... You simply do not move future top-pairing D (Myers, Risto is close, Zads Clearly shows potential) and young, stud centers (Girgensons, which is another piece you suggested as the basis for a Hall deal) for the flashy first line winger.

The only exception I see to the rule, is a contending team who's CERTAIN that type of winger is their only missing piece, giving up such a core young positional player that hasn't quite established a key role.

 

[Zip15]

1-way scoring wingers are a dog's breakfast compared to Top Pairing defenseman. You suggested Myers as a piece you'd move for Hall, and then hid behind the 'but I never actually proposed it!' excuse.

You're conflating things. I was never proposing the Myers/Girgs + Zadorov/10th overall in 2015 (if that's where we end up somehow) + 3rd rounder deal as something I would or wouldn't do. Rather, that is what I see to be similar to the Voracek/Carter framework. But, if you're asking, I would do a deal around Myers + some of the good-not-great assets (Grigorenko, Pysyk, STL/NYI 1sts).

I'm not a believer that Myers will be a 1D or 2D over the long haul. I'm impressed by his recent play, but I've never doubted his play in stretches. While all young defensemen struggle with consistency, with few exceptions, I am still free to be of the opinion that I think Myers will struggle with that consistency. I think hockey sense is his biggest weakness, and that will hold him back, especially during a long playoff grind.

Regardless of our perceived overvaluing of our young core pieces, which may be true to a point... You simply do not move future top-pairing D (Myers, Risto is close, Zads Clearly shows potential) and young, stud centers (Girgensons, which is another piece you suggested as the basis for a Hall deal) for the flashy first line winger.

Again, I think you missed what I was saying about that proposal. I was simply saying that is similar to the Voracek/Carter framework. In any event, as I said above, I don't perceive Myers to be the long-term 1D of a winner. I hope that's Ristolainen, but we'll see. We'll see in time, but I have my doubts about Myers.

The only exception I see to the rule, is a contending team who's CERTAIN that type of winger is their only missing piece, giving up such a core young positional player that hasn't quite established a key role.

I don't value wingers that highly unless they're elite players, which I deem Hall to be. If I can trade a solid but not great defenseman plus a few non-premium assets for that elite player, I'll do it.

It seems our argument lies in the premises. If one of your base premises is that Myers is a long-term 1D on a top team, or that Zadorov will grow into a first-pairing role, I can understand the hesitancy to trade one for Hall. But, if you think Myers is a decent #3 on a top team, and you believe it's far too early to make any conclusions about Zadorov, then I don't think it's ever a bad idea to bring an elite player into your organization.

I'm concerned about where the goals are going to come from in this organization, especially if we don't get McEichel and we draft in the 5-7 range. We've done a good job of getting two-way players in here, but at some point I think we need a guy who can consistently score goals. And I don't mean this in the way Layne wants Richard and Art Ross winners. But I want to be great at both goal prevention and goal production.

 

[Mit Yarrum]

Dogs eat the same thing for breakfast, lunch, and dinner: dog food. What now?

 

[joshjull]

What if I don't think Tyler Myers is a "top defenseman?" Am I allowed think that, or is that blasphemy?

I meant to say our top men (Myers, Risto Zads). I wasn't commenting on Myers one way or another outside of being one of our top dmen.

My turn to frame the issue: I want a goal-scorer and point producer in a scoring-starved system--one which seems well on its way to missing out on both of McEichel--in exchange for a guy I see being a year-and-a-half away from being the RHD on our 2nd pairing.

We are scoring starved because of our current center group not because of our lack of scoring wingers Hall doesn't address the center situation. Though he would obviously add offensive punch.

And the obvious attempt to belittle Myers by referring to him as a 2nd pairing dman. Well if Risto is so amazing he actually made Myers our 2nd pairing dman. In that context being on the 2nd pairing doesn't really seem like a bad thing. Plus I expect if Risto ever does surpass Myers, it will free up Myers to be an offensive dynamo. But we have a ways to go before Risto does pass him.

Where is your reprimand of people who are equally dismissive of my stance that the unsubstantiated rumors are unreliable? A principle that I believe is still widely accepted in society.

You are the driving force of that back and forth. If you simply let it go it would die.

That's fine, but I am permitted to disagree on the grounds that they are overrating our young players. Right now, it seems many believe it's going to be all rainbows and butterflies henceforth for Zads, Myers, et al.

Of course you can say posters are overrating our prospects.


Though If you feel they are overrated and one or more of them might not pan out. Then it makes even less sense to trade one for Hall. Because it would further cripple the defense going forward if you picked the wrong one. Only way to prevent that would be to have a crystal ball that can predict which one it is. Or not trade one right now.






My take on trading for Hall and the proposals that have been made in here. I've seen more than a few trade proposals that are fair value for Hall but not a good move for us from a team building pov. I'm more interested right now in building a strong defense and center group. I'm not undermining either position by moving current or potential future building blocks for a scoring winger. A position whose value is lower from a team building pov.


And I never understood this mentality some have of trying to belittle or dismiss Myers by saying he will eventually be a 2nd pairing dman. If that happens its only because Risto developed into a stud #1 dman. How is being 2nd fiddle to that an indictment of Myers or a reason to trade him? Are we only allowed one really good RHD? Or does it make more sense to keep both and build and excellent d-core around them? Something every Cup winning team needs?

 

[Irving Zisman]

You're conflating things. I was never proposing the Myers/Girgs + Zadorov/10th overall in 2015 (if that's where we end up somehow) + 3rd rounder deal as something I would or wouldn't do. Rather, that is what I see to be similar to the Voracek/Carter framework. But, if you're asking, I would do a deal around Myers + some of the good-not-great assets (Grigorenko, Pysyk, STL/NYI 1sts).

I'm not a believer that Myers will be a 1D or 2D over the long haul. I'm impressed by his recent play, but I've never doubted his play in stretches. While all young defensemen struggle with consistency, with few exceptions, I am still free to be of the opinion that I think Myers will struggle with that consistency. I think hockey sense is his biggest weakness, and that will hold him back, especially during a long playoff grind.



Again, I think you missed what I was saying about that proposal. I was simply saying that is similar to the Voracek/Carter framework. In any event, as I said above, I don't perceive Myers to be the long-term 1D of a winner. I hope that's Ristolainen, but we'll see. We'll see in time, but I have my doubts about Myers.



I don't value wingers that highly unless they're elite players, which I deem Hall to be. If I can trade a solid but not great defenseman plus a few non-premium assets for that elite player, I'll do it.

It seems our argument lies in the premises. If one of your base premises is that Myers is a long-term 1D on a top team, or that Zadorov will grow into a first-pairing role, I can understand the hesitancy to trade one for Hall. But, if you think Myers is a decent #3 on a top team, and you believe it's far too early to make any conclusions about Zadorov, then I don't think it's ever a bad idea to bring an elite player into your organization.

I'm concerned about where the goals are going to come from in this organization, especially if we don't get McEichel and we draft in the 5-7 range. We've done a good job of getting two-way players in here, but at some point I think we need a guy who can consistently score goals. And I don't mean this in the way Layne wants Richard and Art Ross winners. But I want to be great at both goal prevention and goal production.

All fair points, and I think you've articulated them quite well.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on our perceived value of Myers and willingness to throw him into a deal for Hall. Although, I'd of course be willing to deal for him if the price is right.

 

[Jame]

I meant to say our top men (Myers, Risto Zads). I wasn't commenting on Myers one way or another outside of being one of our top dmen.



We are scoring starved because of our current center group not because of our lack of scoring wingers Hall doesn't address the center situation. Though he would obviously add offensive punch.

And the obvious attempt to belittle Myers by referring to him as a 2nd pairing damn. Well I can easily counter that with… Wow Risto is so amazing he actually made Myers our 2nd pairing dman. In that context being on the 2nd pairing doesn't really seem like a bad thing. Plus I expect if Risto ever does surpass Myers, it will free up Myers to be an offensive dynamo.



You are the driving force of that back and forth. If you simply let it go it would die.



Of course you can say posters are overrating our prospects.


Though If you feel they are overrated and one or more of them might not pan out. Then it makes even less sense to trade one for Hall. Because it would further cripple the defense going forward if you picked the wrong one. Only way to prevent that would be to have a crystal ball that can predict which one it is. Or not trade one right now.






My take on trading for Hall and the proposals that have been made in here. I've seen more than a few trade proposals that are fair value for Hall but not a good move for us from a team building pov. I'm more interested right now in building a strong defense and center group. I'm not undermining either position by moving current or potential future building blocks for a scoring winger. A position whose value is lower from a team building pov.


And I never understood this mentality some have of trying to belittle or dismiss Myers by saying he will eventually be a 2nd pairing dman. If that happens its only because Risto developed into a stud #1 dman. How is being 2nd fiddle to that an indictment of Myers or a reason to trade him? Are we only allowed one really good RHD? Or does it make more sense to keep both and build and excellent d-core around them? Something every Cup winning team needs?

why would you waiver on Zads then?

it's like you get it... and then at the end, you take a dump on it

edit: wow. super quick edit!

 

[La Cosa Nostra]

We have every right to be. Myers and Zads can be a shutdown top pairing in this league. Thats way more valuable alone than a scoring winger.
As for Zemgod I take him straight up everyday over Hall, let alone adding to him.

It's official, Girgensons has now become one of the most overrated players on this board.

Wouldn't trade Zemgus Girgensons.... For Taylor Hall. Are you serious? In what world is a 40-50 point two way second liner worth a ppg franchise winger? Not anyone outside of this board would rather have Girgensons over Hall. Girgensons is not elite and never will be. Hall is. I know Sabre fans love their hard working gritty lunch pail blue collar Buffalo type players but Hall is special. I'd gladly trade Girgensons and one of the 1sts for Hall.

 

[Dubi Doo]

Though If you feel they are overrated and one or more of them might not pan out. Then it makes even less sense to trade one for Hall. Because it would further cripple the defense going forward if you picked the wrong one. Only way to prevent that would be to have a crystal ball that can predict which one it is. Or not trade one right now.

This is a good point. How many defensemen are teenagers with number one potential performing as well as Zads and Risto. Not many. Of course the sample size is small, but it should make one more hesitant when dealing one of them. Both of them have developed at a wickedly fast pace over the course of a year.

 

[Jame]

It's official, Girgensons has now become one of the most overrated players on this board.

Wouldn't trade Zemgus Girgensons.... For Taylor Hall. Are you serious? In what world is a 40-50 point two way second liner worth a ppg franchise winger? Not anyone outside of this board would rather have Girgensons over Hall. Girgensons is not elite and never will be. Hall is. I know Sabre fans love their hard working gritty lunch pail blue collar Buffalo type players but Hall is special. I'd gladly trade Girgensons and one of the 1sts for Hall.

In the world of winning Stanley Cups

 

[ZeroPT*]

It's official, Girgensons has now become one of the most overrated players on this board.

Wouldn't trade Zemgus Girgensons.... For Taylor Hall. Are you serious? In what world is a 40-50 point two way second liner worth a ppg franchise winger? Not anyone outside of this board would rather have Girgensons over Hall. Girgensons is not elite and never will be. Hall is. I know Sabre fans love their hard working gritty lunch pail blue collar Buffalo type players but Hall is special. I'd gladly trade Girgensons and one of the 1sts for Hall.

Would you trade Bergeron for Hall? I sure as hell wouldn't, but I want to know what you think.

 

[Irving Zisman]

I meant to say our top men (Myers, Risto Zads). I wasn't commenting on Myers one way or another outside of being one of our top dmen.



We are scoring starved because of our current center group not because of our lack of scoring wingers Hall doesn't address the center situation. Though he would obviously add offensive punch.

And the obvious attempt to belittle Myers by referring to him as a 2nd pairing dman. Well if Risto is so amazing he actually made Myers our 2nd pairing dman. In that context being on the 2nd pairing doesn't really seem like a bad thing. Plus I expect if Risto ever does surpass Myers, it will free up Myers to be an offensive dynamo. But we have a ways to go before Risto does pass him.



You are the driving force of that back and forth. If you simply let it go it would die.



Of course you can say posters are overrating our prospects.


Though If you feel they are overrated and one or more of them might not pan out. Then it makes even less sense to trade one for Hall. Because it would further cripple the defense going forward if you picked the wrong one. Only way to prevent that would be to have a crystal ball that can predict which one it is. Or not trade one right now.






My take on trading for Hall and the proposals that have been made in here. I've seen more than a few trade proposals that are fair value for Hall but not a good move for us from a team building pov. I'm more interested right now in building a strong defense and center group. I'm not undermining either position by moving current or potential future building blocks for a scoring winger. A position whose value is lower from a team building pov.


And I never understood this mentality some have of trying to belittle or dismiss Myers by saying he will eventually be a 2nd pairing dman. If that happens its only because Risto developed into a stud #1 dman. How is being 2nd fiddle to that an indictment of Myers or a reason to trade him? Are we only allowed one really good RHD? Or does it make more sense to keep both and build and excellent d-core around them? Something every Cup winning team needs?

I.e., the way to build a serious contender for a long, long time.

 

[Man of Principles]

It's official, Girgensons has now become one of the most overrated players on this board.

Wouldn't trade Zemgus Girgensons.... For Taylor Hall. Are you serious? In what world is a 40-50 point two way second liner worth a ppg franchise winger? Not anyone outside of this board would rather have Girgensons over Hall. Girgensons is not elite and never will be. Hall is. I know Sabre fans love their hard working gritty lunch pail blue collar Buffalo type players but Hall is special. I'd gladly trade Girgensons and one of the 1sts for Hall.

I wouldn't. Girgensons could very well be the 60 point all-situations beast we've needed since Drury signed with NYR. If you can't see the value in that during a playoff series, I don't know, man.

I think Hall is a fantastic offensive talent, but in the Eastern Conference Finals I want defensively responsible 2-way forwards. If Hall's not scoring then he's not bringing hardly anything to the table. Zemgus does many things.

 

[Paxon]

It's official, Girgensons has now become one of the most overrated players on this board.

Wouldn't trade Zemgus Girgensons.... For Taylor Hall. Are you serious? In what world is a 40-50 point two way second liner worth a ppg franchise winger? Not anyone outside of this board would rather have Girgensons over Hall. Girgensons is not elite and never will be. Hall is. I know Sabre fans love their hard working gritty lunch pail blue collar Buffalo type players but Hall is special. I'd gladly trade Girgensons and one of the 1sts for Hall.

Are we going to ignore how Girgensons' presence on the 1st line immediately turned he, Ennis, and Moulson into a unit that can actually compete and win games as the top line against other team's top lines. Now, obviously they aren't a playoff top line, but that doesn't change the fact that they're in that role going up against the tough competition. Defense is logically as important as offense, by the way. Any importance attached to scoring necessarily creates an equal importance on stopping scoring. For the sake of argument, let's say there is a player who scores 50 points and plays Selke-level defense every year. Saying that's not comparable to a one-way PPG player seems like B.S. to me.

Anyhow, I'm guessing all of the players mentioned would additional assets to land Hall, so if someone says they aren't trading a player for Hall that reads to me the same as saying "I'm not trading this player and a bunch of other value for Hall".