Speculation: Which players from likely 1st round exits should we target

[IPreferPi]

Not going to bark up the Yandle for Hertl tree myself

 

[rt]

Agreed, I think it's foolish to target players coming off unusually productive seasons and I sure as hell wouldn't give up Yandle for one!

The 40 goals is likely an anomaly, and one that can be attributed to ideal linemates in Thornton and Burns. That said, it's not as though he's not typically very productive. He's also got a 30g campaign, two 25g seasons, and a 20g season to add to that 40g season. His 16g in 48gms last season was 27g pace. Hell, as a rookie he had 14g in just 46 games. For 25g pace over 82. His sophomore season he had 19g. That's it. That's every NHL season he's ever played. That's .340 goals/game, or 28g over 82gms as an AVERAGE, and is a .74pts/game player over his entire career. This while being a RH C with a >55% FO%, who regularly contributes to the PK and is seen as a very good defensive forward.

It would not be wise to expect Joe Pavelski to score 40 goals in a season for us. I think it'd be absolutely perfectly reasonable to think he could score 25-30g while adding 30-35a while contributing to both specialty teams, serving as RHFO specialist, and fitting a Dave Tippett run team like a glove.

He's locked up for the next half decade, and will be only 34 years old when his contract expires.

Is that worth moving Yandle for? Maybe not. But to say "sure as hell wouldn't..." is a little heavy handed, I think. It should be at the very least an interesting idea to consider. Especially given our uncertain arrangement up front, and the versatility he brings to the table.

 

[IPreferPi]

Moving our leading scorer and assistant captain within the division carries quite a bit of risk. Yandle will probably thrive playing with the forward talent that San Jose can offer. However, we absolutely shouldn't sell Pavelski short. Likely won't be a PPG/40 goal scorer here, but 30 goal/60+ point seasons are definitely not out of the question, in addition to being a RH faceoff ace, providing Selke-caliber defense and enormous lineup versatility. Pavelski - Hanzal - Vermette would be an excellent trio to have at center.

Will Yandle for Pavelski happen? Probably not. But it's definitely something worth considering.

 

[letowskie]

Same here. Tyler Johnson or Palat look enticing, but I'm not sure if either come without enough risks to pull the trigger. I wonder if a Stone or Murphy + Korpi could bring in TyJo

Out of the playoff teams first round exits I think it's obvious that the Bolts, Stars and Avs desperately need more help on the blueline, especially with puck movers.. SJ really only needs that top pairing puck mover and the Blues...well I don't know how the Blues can't manage to get anything done.

Stone seems to be appealing to teams that lack D-depth, such as Edmon/Cal/TBL, etc; especially if they lack RHD with top-4 potential. I think that Stone+1st would probably be enough to base a deal around, TyJo would be a great addition, and something that could be worked out. But I think that others like Killorn, Panik, Connolly might be a little cheaper to get, since TyJo is already well established, and plays a position in higher demand right now.

 

[Sciamachy]

Moving our leading scorer and assistant captain within the division carries quite a bit of risk. Yandle will probably thrive playing with the forward talent that San Jose can offer. However, we absolutely shouldn't sell Pavelski short. Likely won't be a PPG/40 goal scorer here, but 30 goal/60+ point seasons are definitely not out of the question, in addition to being a RH faceoff ace, providing Selke-caliber defense and enormous lineup versatility. Pavelski - Hanzal - Vermette would be an excellent trio to have at center.

Will Yandle for Pavelski happen? Probably not. But it's definitely something worth considering.

2yrs of one dimensional Yandle coming off a relatively poor year won't get 5yrs of Pavelski coming off a career year. Sharks would want a lot more going back (both because we are in division, and they would likely be getting many offers) and that's what makes it so unpalatable. I do like Pavs a lot even with the misgivings I have about him being able to hold up through the entirety of his contract I think he would fit well here in the short-term. Just not at the cost it would come at after this season.

 

[IPreferPi]

2yrs of one dimensional Yandle coming off a relatively poor year won't get 5yrs of Pavelski coming off a career year. Sharks would want a lot more going back (both because we are in division, and they would likely be getting many offers) and that's what makes it so unpalatable. I do like Pavs a lot even with the misgivings I have about him being able to hold up through the entirety of his contract I think he would fit well here in the short-term. Just not at the cost it would come at after this season.

Well it depends. If the Sharks are going for an aggressive retool, if not rebuild, Pavelski could very well be on the block. But I agree, Yandle alone probably won't net Pavelski. But Yandle + Korpikoski+ might.

 

[BUX7PHX]

What about going after Burns instead of Pavelski in those deals? Obviously, we could drop a secondary player and replace with a pick, as I think Burns is of a slightly lower value than Pavelski.

Gets us a large body at RW who takes a lot of shots. Would be ideal to line him up on Ribeiro's right and have either Erat or Korpi on the LW...

Also, while a trade may be less likely within the division, I think the new playoff format actually opens up trades. We may have been less likely to send a valuable asset to a team like Colorado or Edmonton in the past, as it would have been likely to meet up with that team four teams in the year, plus the playoffs. Now, the only way that we could meet up with that team in the playoffs is if both the Coyotes and the other team made it to the West Conference Finals or if the Coyotes are either the #1 overall or #5 seed in division, and conversely, the exact team we traded our asset to finishes in either the #5 in division or #1 seed overall.

 

[IPreferPi]

Wouldn't be a fan of Yandle for Burns. And I don't see how we could afford Burns's 5.75M salary w/o moving Yandle.

 

[Sinurgy]

The 40 goals is likely an anomaly, and one that can be attributed to ideal linemates in Thornton and Burns. That said, it's not as though he's not typically very productive. He's also got a 30g campaign, two 25g seasons, and a 20g season to add to that 40g season. His 16g in 48gms last season was 27g pace. Hell, as a rookie he had 14g in just 46 games. For 25g pace over 82. His sophomore season he had 19g. That's it. That's every NHL season he's ever played. That's .340 goals/game, or 28g over 82gms as an AVERAGE, and is a .74pts/game player over his entire career. This while being a RH C with a >55% FO%, who regularly contributes to the PK and is seen as a very good defensive forward.

It would not be wise to expect Joe Pavelski to score 40 goals in a season for us. I think it'd be absolutely perfectly reasonable to think he could score 25-30g while adding 30-35a while contributing to both specialty teams, serving as RHFO specialist, and fitting a Dave Tippett run team like a glove.

He's locked up for the next half decade, and will be only 34 years old when his contract expires.

Is that worth moving Yandle for? Maybe not. But to say "sure as hell wouldn't..." is a little heavy handed, I think. It should be at the very least an interesting idea to consider. Especially given our uncertain arrangement up front, and the versatility he brings to the table.

I didn't mean to infer that Pavelski is chopped liver, as you just pointed out he absolutely is not. Like you said though, I highly doubt he touches 40 goals again and likely no where near a PPG again either. I too agree it's best to expect him to be in the 50-60pt range. The thing that gets me is that isn't that much more than Yandle despite Yandle being a defensemen. Not to mention could you imagine the points Yandle would put up on a team like the Sharks?! I honestly would not be surprised if he snuck into the 70's ala Karlsson. I guess I'm just not comfortable giving up an elite offensive defenseman for a 55pt winger let alone actually ADDING to the deal.

 

[Jakey53]

2yrs of one dimensional Yandle coming off a relatively poor year won't get 5yrs of Pavelski coming off a career year. Sharks would want a lot more going back (both because we are in division, and they would likely be getting many offers) and that's what makes it so unpalatable. I do like Pavs a lot even with the misgivings I have about him being able to hold up through the entirety of his contract I think he would fit well here in the short-term. Just not at the cost it would come at after this season.

Didn't DM and DT say they thought Yandle had his best year as a coyote?

 

[XX]

Didn't DM and DT say they thought Yandle had his best year as a coyote?

On the PP.

I still like the empty net goal excuse.

 

[IPreferPi]

On the PP.

Nope, they specifically said "best two way year of his career" ;-)

 

[Sciamachy]

Didn't DM and DT say they thought Yandle had his best year as a coyote?

Maloney said it, which I took as just posturing/deflection. Regardless of whether he believes it or not, I don't believe that to be true and it would be up to other GM's to believe it if Yandle were looked at in a trade.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Maloney said it, which I took as just posturing/deflection. Regardless of whether he believes it or not, I don't believe that to be true and it would be up to other GM's to believe it if Yandle were looked at in a trade.

Precisely.

But I think that one could make the case he had to play more 2-way hockey b/c of how dismal our defense was at moments during the year, and inherently, playing more out of his comfort zone led to that comment. Even though some metrics may not paint that picture.

 

[XX]

Nope, they specifically said "best two way year of his career" ;-)

That's not saying much. And I disagree.

 

[IPreferPi]

That's not saying much. And I disagree.

Well of course you do.

I think Maloney saying that (and Tippett echoing the general sentiment) when Yandle obviously has a career worst -23 does mean a bit.

 

[CC96]

That's not saying much. And I disagree.

I'm with you on this one.

 

[rt]

I didn't mean to infer that Pavelski is chopped liver, as you just pointed out he absolutely is not. Like you said though, I highly doubt he touches 40 goals again and likely no where near a PPG again either. I too agree it's best to expect him to be in the 50-60pt range. The thing that gets me is that isn't that much more than Yandle despite Yandle being a defensemen. Not to mention could you imagine the points Yandle would put up on a team like the Sharks?! I honestly would not be surprised if he snuck into the 70's ala Karlsson. I guess I'm just not comfortable giving up an elite offensive defenseman for a 55pt winger let alone actually ADDING to the deal.

We mostly agree but don't call him a 55pt winger. That's a misrepresentation. He's a career .75ppg player with a career FO% over 55. He's a 60pt center. Right now we've got two 45pt Centers and 40pt center.

That not the end of it though. The appeal is his versatility and the options he provides.

 

[Sinurgy]

We mostly agree but don't call him a 55pt winger. That's a misrepresentation. He's a career .75ppg player with a career FO% over 55. He's a 60pt center. Right now we've got two 45pt Centers and 40pt center.

That not the end of it though. The appeal is his versatility and the options he provides.

Fair enough, I don't mean to devalue Pavelski, I'd just rather keep Yandle is all.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Would you take something like Berglund, a good prospect, and a late-first for Yandle?

 

[Sinurgy]

I would not, the only way I'd give up Yandle is for someone proven and elite at their position coming back.

 

[cobra427]

Fair enough, I don't mean to devalue Pavelski, I'd just rather keep Yandle is all.

I can see the sharks moving Pavelski because of the great year he just had, and they are so deep at the forward position. It makes sense for them to add the right D man while Pavelski's value is so high. I would be leery of trading for him and expecting the same production, as that has not proven out well when Milan Michalek or Bobby Ryan were moved from high powered offensive teams. I would not give up Yandle for him, and frankly, I think moving Yandle is a mistake anyway, he means too much for our team. San Jose and Colorado both faltered and part of their problem was a lack of PMD's...

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Fair enough, I don't mean to devalue Pavelski, I'd just rather keep Yandle is all.

I'd really like it if Maloney and Tippett tried him at forward.

 

[Sinurgy]

He has the offensive skills but I think his transition game is just too important not to have him on the backend. I know he had some real lapses this year, particularly after the Olympic break but still he's the engine that makes this offense go and with a more skilled set of forwards I think he'd be deadly.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

He has the offensive skills but I think his transition game is just too important not to have him on the backend. I know he had some real lapses this year, particularly after the Olympic break but still he's the engine that makes this offense go and with a more skilled set of forwards I think he'd be deadly.

I think "some real lapses" understates the issue quite dramatically. I love his offensive prowess but his defense is abominable. It's funny, because when Brian Burke's comments about him re: the Olympic team were made public, I was incensed... but then I paid more attention to Yandle's play, and Burke was 100% right.

To bring my digression back to the topic, I wonder how many other teams out there share Burke's appraisal. We all assume that Yandle, if GMDM were inclined to trade him (and I don't think he is unless someone offers him the world), would bring back a hefty return... but after his numbers this season and his glaringly-evident defensive lapses, is that still true?