Why they traded Hall (article)

[MoontoScott]

I made this exact point. The answer doesn't make any sense, something like he had to be traded to shake him up........

True but I also agree with one poster who said that you have to shake young people up a bit before they realize the scope of the problem. Sometimes "another talk" doesn't work.

Having said that, the fact remains that this is a poorly managed organization with very few leaders off the ice.

 

[BigFuzzyDice]

This article makes the trade look even worse.
Only shows how wounded Hall was from being traded...how much he wanted to be an Oiler.

Shero, basically said, "I'll give you a year to mourn, then it's time to accept your place as a Devil"

In New Jersey, Taylor Hall is far from old news

Quick Shifts: Devils' 'stern' talk gives us a better Taylor Hall - Sportsnet.ca

 

[CupofOil]

LOL, first I just find it funny when people take the time to go all the way back to find some one else post. To quote J.M. Keynes "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

I am a fan, I wanted to see it as a win. It did appear as a win last year. However, if you think about it long enough, and this year has forced me to. It was not. All the hockey writers who said it was a bad deal that the time were correct. I was wrong.

Fair enough but you did a complete 180 in one season so let me ask you this, if Hall has a bit of a down year next season the Devils miss the playoffs and Larsson bounces back to his play of 2 seasons ago and the Oilers do damage in the playoffs, are you going to change your mind again?

That's sort of my point about the fickle nature of fans. The trade was almost universally hated when it happened then all of a sudden a good portion of the fanbase was ok with the trade after one season and now it's looked at as one of the worst trades in NHL history a year after that. If the Oilers have a good season next year, is it an ok trade again?

 

[McGoMcD]

Fair enough but you did a complete 180 in one season so let me ask you this, if Hall has a bit of a down year next season the Devils miss the playoffs and Larsson bounces back to his play of 2 seasons ago and the Oilers do damage in the playoffs, are you going to change your mind again?

That's sort of my point about the fickle nature of fans. The trade was almost universally hated when it happened then all of a sudden a good portion of the fanbase was ok with the trade after one season and now it's looked at as one of the worst trades in NHL history a year after that. If the Oilers have a good season next year, is it an ok trade again?

To be 100% honest here is my exact trajectory after the trade. When I first heard it I didn't like it at all. I didn't mind trading Hall (and I was a Hall fan), but thought it made sense. But I din't like the return at all. The famous it's one for one line made me a bit ill. After a great year, and Hall getting hurt, I was on a high. I thought, you know after all that, we did win the trade. I don't think I was thinking that rationally. A year later I feel like it was a horrible deal.

The big thing I will say about the deal going forward though, which I didn't do this year, is I won't judge it on how well the team does. With great talent like McD and others I think this team will bounce back and win. I won't just give Larsson credit for that. I want to compare Hall vs Larsson team results aside. If Larsson plays great Defence, logs big minutes, puts up 30 some points and looks like a legit top paring D. The of course, I will acknowledge the deal once again was even. However, I just don't see any chance that happens. So yes, I might just change my mind again. I just really don't see that happening. I think Larsson will be what most hockey writers thought he was at the time of the trade, a decent 3-4 guy with limited up side. I am sure Hall will not have such a great year next, and probably get hurt again. However, he is still going to make this deal look terrible going forward.

I guess to answer your question exactly. I won't make the mistake again of judging the trade based on the oilers season. If they have a great season I am still going to look at Hall vs Larsson. If Larsson looks great, I'll admit I underestimated him. Just don't see that happening, but prove me wrong Larsson. I would love to be proven wrong.

 

[bone]

Is there any real evidence that these guys in Jersey gave it to Hall both barrels? Was this reported in the New Jersey media or other venues? I keep wondering what this "be a better person off the ice stuff" supposedly was?

I am not saying that these things didn't happen but where are these stories originating?

I love how they make it sound as if this article equals a 4 hours tongue lashing. I know when I want to tune into someone I go to a lounge, order dinner and beers before really laying into them. It's very effective.

All this proof they cling too amounts to a heart to heart "tough-love" type discussion between a GM and a player about what he needs to do to help get the team to the next level. The trade threat to me reads more about getting understanding as to whether Hall trusted him and whether he wants to be part of the solution for the team or not.

Someone should have done it in Edmonton before the trade, but no one did (or if they did, they didn't do it as well) and now NJ reaps the benefits.

 

[BigFuzzyDice]

To be 100% honest here is my exact trajectory after the trade. When I first heard it I didn't like it at all. I didn't mind trading Hall (and I was a Hall fan), but thought it made sense. But I din't like the return at all. The famous it's one for one line made me a bit ill. After a great year, and Hall getting hurt, I was on a high. I thought, you know after all that, we did win the trade. I don't think I was thinking that rationally. A year later I feel like it was a horrible deal.

The big thing I will say about the deal going forward though, which I didn't do this year, is I won't judge it on how well the team does. With great talent like McD and others I think this team will bounce back and win. I won't just give Larsson credit for that. I want to compare Hall vs Larsson team results aside. If Larsson plays great Defence, logs big minutes, puts up 30 some points and looks like a legit top paring D. The of course, I will acknowledge the deal once again was even. However, I just don't see any chance that happens. So yes, I might just change my mind again. I just really don't see that happening. I think Larsson will be what most hockey writers thought he was at the time of the trade, a decent 3-4 guy with limited up side. I am sure Hall will not have such a great year next, and probably get hurt again. However, he is still going to make this deal look terrible going forward.

I guess to answer your question exactly. I won't make the mistake again of judging the trade based on the oilers season. If they have a great season I am still going to look at Hall vs Larsson. If Larsson looks great, I'll admit I underestimated him. Just don't see that happening, but prove me wrong Larsson. I would love to be proven wrong.

Lars doesn't need to score goals to make the trade a win or at least a break even for the oil, His job description is preventing them. If he successfully stops goals being scored that otherwise would have been then he has accomplished what he needs to do and it is on the linemates to generate the offense. big minutes of shut down hard nosed hockey that sees him as a + player is in fact his job. For a player who does not generate a lot of offense the +/- stat is perfectly valid to help evaluate his effectiveness. All that and an extra two million in the bank.

 

[BigFuzzyDice]

I love how they make it sound as if this article equals a 4 hours tongue lashing. I know when I want to tune into someone I go to a lounge, order dinner and beers before really laying into them. It's very effective.

All this proof they cling too amounts to a heart to heart "tough-love" type discussion between a GM and a player about what he needs to do to help get the team to the next level. The trade threat to me reads more about getting understanding as to whether Hall trusted him and whether he wants to be part of the solution for the team or not.

meanwhile you reframe it that hall was a choir boy and shero went and had a hug fest with him

 

[bone]

meanwhile you reframe it that hall was a choir boy and shero went and had a hug fest with him

It says right in the first paragraph of one of those articles that the discussion happened in a lounge over dinner and beers, but it's me reframing. Good job there.

So you actually believe that 4-hour conversation in a lounge was a hard nose knock 'em sock 'em tongue lashing. Interesting. I don't think I've ever seen a person respond positively to that type of conversation in a public setting that's why I suspect it more likely went the way I suggest. Guaranteed there were hard words and messages, but I really doubt it was as you've envisioned it.

 

[McGoMcD]

Lars doesn't need to score goals to make the trade a win or at least a break even for the oil, His job description is preventing them. If he successfully stops goals being scored that otherwise would have been then he has accomplished what he needs to do and it is on the linemates to generate the offense. big minutes of shut down hard nosed hockey that sees him as a + player is in fact his job. For a player who does not generate a lot of offense the +/- stat is perfectly valid to help evaluate his effectiveness. All that and an extra two million in the bank.

sort off, I agree and disagree. The thing is he isn't a goalie. A goalie does not score period. If a Dman is good at breaking up plays and moving the puck out of his zone (his main job) he will get assists. Look at Vlasic in SJ he still gets 25-30 5 vs 5 points.

If Larsson gets no points, it means he isnt' that good at breaking up plays and getting the puck out. A certain amount of points will show up if he does his job correctly. Also as has been discussed a defenceman who shuts guys donw constantly only to turn the puck right back over to the other team is useless. A certain amount of offence is needed even of defensive defenceman.

This idea that Larsson can be out there 25 mins a night and put up 15 points and be effective is a myth.

Also, finally, he isn't even that amazing at preventing goals. This year in particular he looked flat footed way to often, guys were beating him and scoring. He really needs to work on his skating this summer IMO. Or he will be a 5-6 d man in no time. The NHL is getting very fast quickly, he needs to keep up.

Also plus minus really depends on quality of comp, it was good no doubt, but Benning was also +5. I think Russel got more of the hard minutes this year.

 

[BigFuzzyDice]

It says right in the first paragraph of one of those articles that the discussion happened in a lounge over dinner and beers, but it's me reframing. Good job there.

So you actually believe that 4-hour conversation in a lounge was a hard nose knock 'em sock 'em tongue lashing. Interesting. I don't think I've ever seen a person respond positively to that type of conversation in a public setting that's why I suspect it more likely went the way I suggest. Guaranteed there were hard words and messages, but I really doubt it was as you've envisioned it.

you always take the guy you are about to ass kick out in public unless you want it to turn into a shouting match. It keeps tempers in check. Have you never actually dealt with interpersonal dynamics?

 

[bone]

you always take the guy you are about to ass kick out in public unless you want it to turn into a shouting match. It keeps tempers in check. Have you never actually dealt with interpersonal dynamics?

Correct, you do that, but you also don't attack them once you get them into that environment. You have a hard conversation with them where you try to get both parties into dialogue so that you can work together on a solution.

Edit to add-
Also that environment isn't meant to prevent violence (i.e. Shouting), it's about creating a safe environment as people will be more open to dialogue when they feel safe.

 

[BigFuzzyDice]

Correct, you do that, but you also don't attack them once you get them into that environment. You have a hard conversation with them where you try to get both parties into dialogue so that you can work together on a solution.

Edit to add-
Also that environment isn't meant to prevent violence (i.e. Shouting), it's about creating a safe environment as people will be more open to dialogue when they feel safe.

OMG so now you are debating the semantics of why they did the deal in a public place, and bringing safe spaces into the equation. Funny. noooo they didn't do it so hall would be mature and not let his emotions get in the way. they did it so everybody felt the love.... SMFH.

The fact remains. Hall was on the receiving end of some hard truths that forced him to reevaluate his attitude and performance. All the articles make that clear and leave little for debate.

 

[bone]

OMG so now you are debating the semantics of why they did the deal in a public place, and bringing safe spaces into the equation. Funny. noooo they didn't do it so hall would be mature and not let his emotions get in the way. they did it so everybody felt the love.... SMFH.

The fact remains. Hall was on the receiving end of some hard truths that forced him to reevaluate his attitude and performance. All the articles make that clear and leave little for debate.

No what I'm intending to debate is yours and HK97s claims that it was some kind verbal beat down and using the articles as your proof when the articles don't actually say it that way. It was your choice to question my understanding of interpersonal dynamics and said that it was in a public place to prevent an outburst rather than allow dialogue. But I guarantee that if your solution to improving employee performance is to take them to a restaurant, then verbally berate them for four hours and tell them that if they don't improve right away that you'll fire them. What you'll see is improved performance, while they start submitting resumes to other companies.

Second paragraph, I 100% agree with you there.

 

[BigFuzzyDice]

No what I'm intending to debate is yours and HK97s claims that it was some kind verbal beat down and using the articles as your proof when the articles don't actually say it that way. It was your choice to question my understanding of interpersonal dynamics and said that it was in a public place to prevent an outburst rather than allow dialogue. But I guarantee that if your solution to improving employee performance is to take them to a restaurant, then verbally berate them for four hours and tell them that if they don't improve right away that you'll fire them. What you'll see is improved performance, while they start submitting resumes to other companies.

Second paragraph, I 100% agree with you there.

great, But you are misinterpreting the threat of being traded as a verbal beat down in some way. It was a matter of fact question to him " do you want me to trade you" If in your mind you are the team mvp how would that question strike you? Nobody said they sat him down and pulled out the santas list of "things ya dun did wrong this year" now sit there and nod. The question having to be asked itself should be a come to jesus moment and I'm sure in evaluating the season the coaching staff was very to the point about what they liked and what they didn't

 

[MaxR11]

No what I'm intending to debate is yours and HK97s claims that it was some kind verbal beat down and using the articles as your proof when the articles don't actually say it that way. It was your choice to question my understanding of interpersonal dynamics and said that it was in a public place to prevent an outburst rather than allow dialogue. But I guarantee that if your solution to improving employee performance is to take them to a restaurant, then verbally berate them for four hours and tell them that if they don't improve right away that you'll fire them. What you'll see is improved performance, while they start submitting resumes to other companies.

Second paragraph, I 100% agree with you there.

i haven't done a thorough search but i know there were articles that wrote almost the same thing that had different harsher terms like "hall needed to be a better player on the ice and a better person off of it" (basically an exact quote). there were definitely articles that alluded to the meeting being a stern talk aka a bit of a scolding. obviously any article written about the meeting would not say shero lambasted hall and would spin it to a more pleasant "conversation". you really think shero and hynes or hall in the interview with the writer would divulge that it was nothing more than a pep talk? of course not.

i don't think they berated hall but probably told him some harsh truths and were upset about his performance last year.

 

[MaxR11]

sort off, I agree and disagree. The thing is he isn't a goalie. A goalie does not score period. If a Dman is good at breaking up plays and moving the puck out of his zone (his main job) he will get assists. Look at Vlasic in SJ he still gets 25-30 5 vs 5 points.

If Larsson gets no points, it means he isnt' that good at breaking up plays and getting the puck out. A certain amount of points will show up if he does his job correctly. Also as has been discussed a defenceman who shuts guys donw constantly only to turn the puck right back over to the other team is useless. A certain amount of offence is needed even of defensive defenceman.

This idea that Larsson can be out there 25 mins a night and put up 15 points and be effective is a myth.

Also, finally, he isn't even that amazing at preventing goals. This year in particular he looked flat footed way to often, guys were beating him and scoring. He really needs to work on his skating this summer IMO. Or he will be a 5-6 d man in no time. The NHL is getting very fast quickly, he needs to keep up.

Also plus minus really depends on quality of comp, it was good no doubt, but Benning was also +5. I think Russel got more of the hard minutes this year.

untrue about having to get points. jason smith was a key cog in the oil D and he was not a point producer. you can certainly break up plays and move the puck out effectively without getting points. depedns what lines you're going up against and what fwds are on the ice with you. so many factors. heck larsson might hit 33 points next year because of sheer luck that more of the plays he broke up and cleared wound up ending up in oilers goals after one or two touches. doesn't mean he would have played better than last year or this year. cannot look at points solely.

 

[bone]

great, But you are misinterpreting the threat of being traded as a verbal beat down in some way. It was a matter of fact question to him " do you want me to trade you" If in your mind you are the team mvp how would that question strike you? Nobody said they sat him down and pulled out the santas list of "things ya dun did wrong this year" now sit there and nod. The question having to be asked itself should be a come to jesus moment and I'm sure in evaluating the season the coaching staff was very to the point about what they liked and what they didn't

There we go. I think we've got common ground here now as I agree completely with the way this is said.

100% he got the talk that he needed. It's just unfortunate as Oiler fan it came from them instead of someone on the Oilers 2 years ago as this same conversation after year 1 with McDavid may have led to something beautiful, but now we'll never know and now it forces us to move forward with a good player, but lesser asset.

 

[MaxR11]

True but I also agree with one poster who said that you have to shake young people up a bit before they realize the scope of the problem. Sometimes "another talk" doesn't work.

Having said that, the fact remains that this is a poorly managed organization with very few leaders off the ice.

yup, did anyone, as a child listen the first time when scolded and changed his ways? usually it takes a number of times and something more drastic (in this case a trade and a four hour sit down with his new gm who in a round about way offered to ship him out if he didn't want to stay and buy in--- i don't know about you but that kind of thing would embarrass me to really buckle down and take a look in the mirror for good).

i also agree with your second paragraph. i'd say the overall leadership for the oil on and off ice are questionable.

 

[bucks_oil]

There we go. I think we've got common ground here now as I agree completely with the way this is said.

100% he got the talk that he needed. It's just unfortunate as Oiler fan it came from them instead of someone on the Oilers 2 years ago as this same conversation after year 1 with McDavid may have led to something beautiful, but now we'll never know and now it forces us to move forward with a good player, but lesser asset.

I'm disappointed he's gone too. I'm happy we have Larsson. I'm tired of going over fictional trade value. The deal that gets done is the value that matters.

But I don't for ONE second believe that he DIDN'T get that same type of talking to in Edmonton, probably after each season. Whether he was grown-up enough to actually listen and HEAR it is another question. It may well be the only time he was REALLY gonna hear it was after a life-shaking event... like a trade away from your buds.

 

[MaxR11]

There we go. I think we've got common ground here now as I agree completely with the way this is said.

100% he got the talk that he needed. It's just unfortunate as Oiler fan it came from them instead of someone on the Oilers 2 years ago as this same conversation after year 1 with McDavid may have led to something beautiful, but now we'll never know and now it forces us to move forward with a good player, but lesser asset.

yes but i honestly don't think he has that epiphany if he didn't get traded. i think the trade was one of a few things that led him to finally get it. i think he would have been too comfortable here, felt to "invincible" and "untouchable" in his mindset and it would not have led to change. he needed to be humbled a bit with the trade. years of getting away with being a questionable teammate, playing the wrong way too often on the ice had led him to feel entitled to be that way. and he likely had katz's blessing and protection. in his mind he was untouchable. he even said himself that the trade was a complete shock to him.

 

[LaGu]

sort off, I agree and disagree. The thing is he isn't a goalie. A goalie does not score period. If a Dman is good at breaking up plays and moving the puck out of his zone (his main job) he will get assists. Look at Vlasic in SJ he still gets 25-30 5 vs 5 points.

If Larsson gets no points, it means he isnt' that good at breaking up plays and getting the puck out. A certain amount of points will show up if he does his job correctly. Also as has been discussed a defenceman who shuts guys donw constantly only to turn the puck right back over to the other team is useless. A certain amount of offence is needed even of defensive defenceman.

This idea that Larsson can be out there 25 mins a night and put up 15 points and be effective is a myth.

Also, finally, he isn't even that amazing at preventing goals. This year in particular he looked flat footed way to often, guys were beating him and scoring. He really needs to work on his skating this summer IMO. Or he will be a 5-6 d man in no time. The NHL is getting very fast quickly, he needs to keep up.

Also plus minus really depends on quality of comp, it was good no doubt, but Benning was also +5. I think Russel got more of the hard minutes this year.

Larsson is by no means an offensive D but he is great D who breaks up plays and logs big minutes. If by nothing else this shows from the fact that he is in fact top 60 in EV scoring over the last 4 season despite just coming of a really bad one (14/15-16/17 he was 50th).

The thing about scoring 30 pts on the year is that you need to either get PP time, or if you don't, you need to be top 10 in EV scoring amongst D. This isn't an excuse by the way, I said at the time of the trade and last year that I expect him to be a 30+ pts D but you need to find a way to get onto the PP to get there. Over the last 4 seasons there are only 3 D who have managed to be around 30 pts once without PP points (Manson, Braun, Niskanen).

Larsson had obvious issues during the first half, anyone seeing his skating and moving last year or any game this year after a longer break could see it. Looked like back issues to me but I never saw any confirmation on it (or I saw it and forgot about it).

Regarding him playing the toughest mins I don't even think that is in question. The measure of this is normally crappy for many reasons but watching the games he is there when things are rough if possible (unless the other team manages to line match against our weaker Ds, which happens a lot...). At the moment he is the rock of our D core imho, the stabilizing force. Add offense like that from Klefbom or Sekera last year and this group looks good.

Larsson is a decent #2 at worst, and a great #2 when on his game. Imho his two best seasons were 14/15 and 15/16, that is why I think he can take the next step here if he stays healthy and has a team performing at the very least average.

Anyway, here's to hope I guess.
30+ pts with around 25 mind sounds good to me for next season. If Hall goes Hart again it obviously won't change that much anyway.

 

[bone]

yes but i honestly don't think he has that epiphany if he didn't get traded. i think the trade was one of a few things that led him to finally get it. i think he would have been too comfortable here, felt to "invincible" and "untouchable" in his mindset and it would not have led to change. he needed to be humbled a bit with the trade. years of getting away with being a questionable teammate, playing the wrong way too often on the ice had led him to feel entitled to be that way. and he likely had katz's blessing and protection. in his mind he was untouchable. he even said himself that the trade was a complete shock to him.

Could be. What I'd have loved to have seen (and maybe it even happened) would have been Chiarelli having a similar meeting with him, after he had the trade in principle for Larsson, but before signing the paperwork. Conversation could have been along the lines of "the team needs a top 4 right handed defenseman, and a trade for one has been arranged, but you'd be the piece going the other way, convince me of why I shouldn't make the trade", but preferably stated better than I have done. If so, perhaps that would have had the same effect, but we'll never know, or maybe it did and he did a poor job of convincing him.

 

[MoontoScott]

yup, did anyone, as a child listen the first time when scolded and changed his ways? usually it takes a number of times and something more drastic (in this case a trade and a four hour sit down with his new gm who in a round about way offered to ship him out if he didn't want to stay and buy in--- i don't know about you but that kind of thing would embarrass me to really buckle down and take a look in the mirror for good).

i also agree with your second paragraph. i'd say the overall leadership for the oil on and off ice are questionable.

I think its impossible for anyone to know exactly what was said to Hall or by Hall in his years with the Oilers or the 2 seasons he has spent with the Devils.

The bigger picture has to be Oiler senior management with Hall being one piece of the puzzle. All kinds of pieces have been shipped out over the last 20 years only to fit nicely in some other organization's puzzle so the question is why doesn't our framework suffice for so many?

As it has been with the EE, we are hiring people who lack talent/character or possibly both.

 

[bucks_oil]

yes but i honestly don't think he has that epiphany if he didn't get traded. i think the trade was one of a few things that led him to finally get it. i think he would have been too comfortable here, felt to "invincible" and "untouchable" in his mindset and it would not have led to change. he needed to be humbled a bit with the trade. years of getting away with being a questionable teammate, playing the wrong way too often on the ice had led him to feel entitled to be that way. and he likely had katz's blessing and protection. in his mind he was untouchable. he even said himself that the trade was a complete shock to him.

I'm not sure this has to be a character assault even if you want to say they wanted him out. It doesn't need to be "oh Taylor was the problem".

The fact is we were losing... A LOT... for LONG TIME. It doesn't matter who you are... champion, lion-hearted, or lilly-livered... it's going to get to you. How you handle it can be productive for you and simultaneously negative from a leadership perspective. Or vice versa. What Hall needed to do to keep motivated as an individual vs what he needed to do as a leader may not have aligned.

I've been that guy in the trenches that lifted my guys up and out... on to success. Leadership

I've also been that guy in the trenches that moped, or was demotivated... or was too hard on my own guys... non-adaptive behavior.

The line between the two of those things can be very fine, subtle and not necessarily something you can expect anyone (especially a kid who's experienced only success) to find the right balance every time.

Even IF Hall needed a move because of attitude, and it is an IF, it 1) shouldn't come as any surprise given what he endured and 2) it shouldn't surprise anyone to see him re-emerge as a positive force and leader in a new environment. That's what comes with experience... and you AIN'T GOT IT at 22 years old.

 

[MaxR11]

I'm not sure this has to be a character assault even if you want to say they wanted him out. It doesn't need to be "oh Taylor was the problem".

The fact is we were losing... A LOT... for LONG TIME. It doesn't matter who you are... champion, lion-hearted, or lilly-livered... it's going to get to you. How you handle it can be productive for you and simultaneously negative from a leadership perspective. Or vice versa. What Hall needed to do to keep motivated as an individual vs what he needed to do as a leader may not have aligned.

I've been that guy in the trenches that lifted my guys up and out... on to success. Leadership

I've also been that guy in the trenches that moped, or was demotivated... or was too hard on my own guys... non-adaptive behavior.

The line between the two of those things can be very fine, subtle and not necessarily something you can expect anyone (especially a kid who's experienced only success) to find the right balance every time.

Even IF Hall needed a move because of attitude, and it is an IF, it 1) shouldn't come as any surprise given what he endured and 2) it shouldn't surprise anyone to see him re-emerge as a positive force and leader in a new environment. That's what comes with experience... and you AIN'T GOT IT at 22 years old.

fair post. and i'm sure all the losing and poor handling of the organization did partly affect his attitude and i highly agree the management is partly to blame. as one of the better players hall needed to handle that better but you're right he was young and there was not much veteran help. but the fact that guys like ference, scrivens klef etc torched the guy in the media tells me hall was definitely partly to blame... or at least the team tried to move in the right direction by trying to build a culture even with questionable talent and hall did not want to buy in.

i've only watched several games this year of the devils and i can see a whole bunch of "subtle" things hall is doing better. definitely better buy in as far as engaging in all three zones. making the right plays much more often and less stupid and selfish turnovers.

i think i even said at the time of the trade that i wouldn't be surprisd if hall changes as a player for the better in nj and become more professional.