All Bruins Trade Proposals/Rumours XI

[Fonzerelli]

Twice in your post you didn't just refer to his points, you used them to represent him as a player. I absolutely do believe that precludes an appreciation for whatever else that player brings.

I see. So my statement of fact that Hansen is a near 40 pt RW "precludes an appreciation for whatever else that player brings", and confirms that I'm "locked in on stats".

So what does that say about YOUR characterization of Goldobin as "just under a PPG in the AHL"

just under a PPG in the AHL is not entirely unproven

 

[Coach Parker]

I still like 2, whether it is by deadline or in off-season. Think he would be a great fit.

Still my favourite as well. Tonight the entire team besides him (same as Saturday) were playing like crap so he stepped up:



Captain leading by example and trying to turn the tide and show his teammates that he isn't going to take this lying down like most of them.

 

[Coach Parker]

Landeskog after the win against Buffalo 5-3 where he had 2G 1A. Watch that video:

1. How young he still is.
2. How he deflects praise and defers to the team.
3. How he turns it into a big night for his rookie goalie and praises him.
4. Deflects the negativity.

https://www.nhl.com/avalanche/video/landeskog-postgame-feb-25/t-277437098/c-49768403

 

[riverhawkey91]

I see. So my statement of fact that Hansen is a near 40 pt RW "precludes an appreciation for whatever else that player brings", and confirms that I'm "locked in on stats".

So what does that say about YOUR characterization of Goldobin as "just under a PPG in the AHL"

They're completely different situations.

We're talking about bringing someone (in this case Hansen) in to play that RW spot with Spooner and Vatrano. You argued they should have gone after Hansen and met that package because Hansen is a 40-pt RW and that's more than Hayes has, so he'd be better there. All I was saying is there's way more to it than that, and that management may have felt that all of what Hansen brings plus the package needed to get him made it not worth it.

You're absolutely right that I characterized Goldobin by his point totals this season. But we're not arguing whether he would be a good fit with Spooner/Vatrano, we're arguing whether he's a solid prospect or not. And point totals are certainly an aspect that reflects whether someone is a good prospect or not. Again, it doesn't mean they absolutely are, as with your Griffith reference, but it's an important part of whether someone can be a good player or not.

 

[The National]

Still my favourite as well. Tonight the entire team besides him (same as Saturday) were playing like crap so he stepped up:



Captain leading by example and trying to turn the tide and show his teammates that he isn't going to take this lying down like most of them.

Looks like the ideal Bruin to me, DS let's make it happen bud. Time to make a big trade we've waited long enough. Time to get the guy we all want.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Just looking through TSN's Trade Bait board
http://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hockey-s-trade-bait-list-1.203546

Looking at players with term, for playoffs now and moving forward. In order of rank on the TSn board

1.) Duchene - 6M X 2 yrs
2.) Landeskog - 5.5M X 4 yrs
3.) Flippula - 5M X 1 yr
4.) Shehan - 2M X 1 yr
5.) Kane - 5.25M X 1 yr
6.) Sobotka - 2.7M X 1 yr
7.) Fehr - 2M X 1yr
8.) Halak - 4.5M X 1 yr
9.) Perrault - 3M X 4 yrs
10) Craig Smith - 4.3M X 3 y
11) Gaborik - 4.9M X 4 yrs
12) Ryan Murphy - 1.2M X 1 yr
13) Eberle - 6M X 2 yrs

I want Landeskog and Sobotka.

Had zero interest in that POS Hansen, especially with a prospect like Goldobin going the other way. I have seen a few posts where people are saying the B's should make a move simply because they have the assets to do it. Pretty dumb if you ask me. I would rather hold onto the assets and try to make a deal in the offseason, if an impact player with term can't be acquired tomorrow.

 

[Fonzerelli]

We're talking about bringing someone (in this case Hansen) in to play that RW spot with Spooner and Vatrano. You argued they should have gone after Hansen and met that package because Hansen is a 40-pt RW and that's more than Hayes has, so he'd be better there. All I was saying is there's way more to it than that, and that management may have felt that all of what Hansen brings plus the package needed to get him made it not worth it.

Two things.

#1. Nowhere did I say that we should have gone after Hansen BECAUSE he was a 40 point winger. I NOTED that he was a near 40 point winger, but I didn't say that's WHY we should have got him. YOU assigned that inference to my post.

#2. You weren't saying there was more to it than that. The particular insulting part of your post was your own misguided assumption and then false assertion that I "completely disregard everything else about them" beyond their stats.

You follow up with a post defending your assumption because I referred to his stats twice in the same short post.

Well, I guess if a guy refers to a players stats multiple times in the same post, the logical assumption must be that he is "locked in on the stats of a guy and completely disregard everything else about them"

So what does that say about your posts on Ryan Spooner?

He had 11 pts in 23 games his first year, 18 in 29 his second and 49 in 80 last year, all while averaging ~15 mins a night on a Boston team where his style of play is discouraged and players like him are run out of town.

He is a lock for 45+ points on any team in the NHL.

Or Gabriel Landeskog?

Out of curiosity if you're still here, as an Avs fan, how do you view Landeskog in terms of future potential? He's consistently put up 20-25G/30-35A ...do you think that's a comfortable yearly expectation for him going forward, or do you think he has even more in the tank (i.e. 30G/40A) if he gets traded or the Avs improve significantly?.

Or maybe you are to locked in on consensus draft lists , which preclude you from appreciating other qualities a player like Trent Frederic may bring to the table

The problem for me is the pick makes no sense on any level.

It's obviously not a safe pick...you're taking a guy who was a depth guy on a U18 team. Most of those (do we all remember Caron?) don't ever pan out, whereas at least a guy like Debrusk was fairly safe to be a 3rd liner.

But it's not a swing for the fences pick like Senyshyn was either, because he doesn't look at all like he could have huge potential. Debrincat would have been the perfect version of that.

And it's not even like the Senyshyn reach because from what I can tell, no one seemed overly eager to take him anywhere close to us, so trading down would probably have been fine.

Just completely indefensible.

Anyways enough of that. Like I said. Don't put words in my mouth or presume to know the completeness of why I do or don't like a certain player. I'm not going to write an essay on every player I like or don't like. If you want to know why then ask, don't presume the door is open for you to fill in the blanks on my thought process.

Cheers!

 

[Budddy]

Just looking through TSN's Trade Bait board
http://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hockey-s-trade-bait-list-1.203546

Looking at players with term, for playoffs now and moving forward. In order of rank on the TSn board

1.) Duchene - 6M X 2 yrs
2.) Landeskog - 5.5M X 4 yrs
3.) Flippula - 5M X 1 yr
4.) Shehan - 2M X 1 yr
5.) Kane - 5.25M X 1 yr
6.) Sobotka - 2.7M X 1 yr
7.) Fehr - 2M X 1yr
8.) Halak - 4.5M X 1 yr
9.) Perrault - 3M X 4 yrs
10) Craig Smith - 4.3M X 3 yrs
11) Gaborik - 4.9M X 4 yrs
12) Ryan Murphy - 1.2M X 1 yr
13) Eberle - 6M X 2 yrs

Interesting. I think it would have meaning if a chart like this included what teams would potentially have to give up for these players..all speculation of course...may reduce fan expectations

 

[Jdavidev]

BecUse he's not doing anything to bridge the gap between the window of prospects, somewhere like 4-6 years away, to the window of guys like Bergeron, Chara, Krejci, Rask, etc. How do you tie these two groups together? That's the question. That's the issue.

Well, the thing is, he still has time to do that. It can happen in the offseason, or at next year's deadline, or the next offseason. It doesn't have to be now, or we're screwed in 4-5 years.

And sitting on his hands... he had to replenish a prospect pool. There was a large talent gap there before 2014-16 drafts. Previous trade talks have rumored to revolve around Pasta, Carlo, McAvoy because those are the guys that have shown high end talent (all non-starters) while the other guys are more like B to B+ prospects that need more time to mature, to be centerpieces to trades.

PLUS, there is the expansion draft in the offseason. I feel the biggest need for the need is Top 4 D, preferably a 1-2 LHD that can take over for Chara, but if they make a trade now, then CMiller will be exposed in the draft, or otherwise needs to be included in the trade. For the D, it will be best to wait until either right before the expansion draft, when they could take advantage of a team needing to move a D they can't protect (like ANA) or right after when they could move from a position of strength will Carlo and CMiller still on the roster.

Landeskog could also be had in the offseason, with expansion over and know what salary has been selected from the team (McQuaid or Beleskey or KMiller or not). Colorado is in no hurry, not like the Bruins prospects would be helpful for them now as opposed to then. For example, it could be someone else too. Point still stands, with the expansion draft, making a hockey trade is even more difficult than ever.

Also, to a point you made a few pages back, they don't need to wait until ALL the next wave of prospects are in their prime to be contenders. Some will need to hit their peek to be contenders, that's a given, but some could be 3rd liners or 2nd pairs, with the old core (March, Berg, Krug) at the top and Pasta, Carlo, McAvoy and Vatrano as part of the new core in their prime, JFK or Lauzon or Bjork or Debrusk or Gabrielle or Senyshyn filling in quality minutes lower down the roster. PLUS, there are several more drafts and free agency periods between now and then. And some of those B guys will step up and be more valuable in trades (some will flame out or hit a Chris Bourque wall).

Way too long story short, they don't need to make big moves NOW for that 3-4 years in the future team, and it is very difficult to manage trades anyways with Vegas. A rental might not be the worst idea. Maybe a Vrbata can bump Hayes down or out and that would be enough.

 

[riverhawkey91]

Two things.

#1. Nowhere did I say that we should have gone after Hansen BECAUSE he was a 40 point winger. I NOTED that he was a near 40 point winger, but I didn't say that's WHY we should have got him. YOU assigned that inference to my post.

#2. You weren't saying there was more to it than that. The particular insulting part of your post was your own misguided assumption and then false assertion that I "completely disregard everything else about them" beyond their stats.

You follow up with a post defending your assumption because I referred to his stats twice in the same short post.

Well, I guess if a guy refers to a players stats multiple times in the same post, the logical assumption must be that he is "locked in on the stats of a guy and completely disregard everything else about them"

EDIT


Anyways enough of that. Like I said. Don't put words in my mouth or presume to know the completeness of why I do or don't like a certain player. I'm not going to write an essay on every player I like or don't like. If you want to know why then ask, don't presume the door is open for you to fill in the blanks on my thought process.

You're right. You asked if we'd trade a particular package for a near "40-point RW" instead of saying "Hansen" and then said you wouldn't agree if anyone said no to that. I NOTED the 40 point RW part seemed to be an important characterization of Hansen to you and assumed it was a reason why you would have liked us to make that trade. Silly me.

I'm not sure how you can say I didn't say there's more to it than that when my original reply listed 4 different reasons why they might have declined pursuing a player like him despite his point totals. That's literally all I said...there are reasons why the Bruins might not have pursued that deal despite him being a 40-pt RW. Yet in all of this, prior to this discussion or since, you've never mentioned any other reason why the Bruins should have pursued him.

I really don't understand how any of that was insulting to you, but to each his own. The posts of mine you pulled up further show you didn't understand the point I was making at all, and I'm not sure I can make it much clearer, so we're at an impasse here.

For the record though,

seem
sēm/
verb

give the impression or sensation of being something or having a particular quality.

 

[Fonzerelli]

You didn't say that Hanson being a near 40 point guy was something I felt was an important ingredient in Hanson. That, I would've agreed with. It is important.

What you said, was that I was;

locked in on the stats of a guy and completely disregard everything else

And BTW, I know what SEEM means. I also know what ABSOLUTELY means.

Twice in your post you didn't just refer to his points, you used them to represent him as a player. I absolutely do believe that precludes an appreciation for whatever else that player brings.

Well I'm glad you've got it all figured out. Have a great week.

 

[riverhawkey91]

You didn't say that Hanson being a near 40 point guy was an important ingredient in Hanson. That I would've agreed with. It is important. What you said, was that I was;



And BTW, I know what SEEM means. I also know what ABSOLUTELY means.



Well I'm glad you've got it all figured out. Have a great week.

You conveniently left the "seem" out of that first quote, which completely changes what I said...hence why I quoted the definition of it. But I entirely stand by the second quote.

 

[Fonzerelli]

It changes nothing. You have a 100 word post which makes 2 statistical references. Actually one statistical reference. And from this you summize , seemingly or otherwise, that I've "completely disregard everything else"

It must be nice to be so young and know everything about everything and everyone. That's a nifty gift you have.

Nailed the Frederic pick to. "completely indefensible"

Cheers!

 

[riverhawkey91]

It changes nothing. You have a 100 word post which makes 2 statistical references. Actually one statistical reference. And from this you summize , seemingly or otherwise, that I've "completely disregard everything else"

Again, it must be nice to be so young and know everything about everything and everyone. That's a nifty gift you have.

Nailed the Frederic pick to. "completely indefensible"

Cheers!

The "seem" changes everything. You got offended right off the bat because I "put words in your mouth" and told me not to "pretend I know what you're locked in on." I did neither. I quite literally said referring to Hansen directly as a 40-pt RW gives the impression that his point totals are the reason he would be a good fit as the Bruins 3RW, and then I listed a bunch of reason why management may not have felt that way and declined to make a trade.

Super classy bringing up that Frederic pick post to make fun of it though, since no one is ever wrong about picks or anything. Wally will take all these down as soon as he gets up and sees them anyways, but I hope anyone else who saw this all lost the same amount of respect for you as I did there.

 

[Fonzerelli]

Twice in your post you didn't just refer to his points, you used them to represent him as a player. I absolutely do believe that precludes an appreciation for whatever else that player brings.

I could've easily referred to him as a Danish RW, or a fan favorite RW, or an agitative RW, or a hard working RW. I could've chosen a dozen others. If I'd have used any of those adjectives would that "preclude me from appreciating whatever else he brings"? No. Of course not. I used the "near 40point" adjective in part as a counter point to an earlier post that called him a 30 point guy. But you go ahead and stand by your quote that ABSOLUTELY states I have preculded any appreciation for whatever else he brings because I chose that adjective.

Again, it must be nice to know it all

 

[riverhawkey91]

I could've easily referred to him as a Danish RW, or a fan favorite RW, or an agitative RW, or a hard working RW. If I'd have used any of those adjectives would that "preclude me from appreciating whatever else he brings"? No. Of course not. I used the "near 40point" adjective in part as a counter point to an earlier post that called him a 30 point guy. But you go ahead and stand by your quote that ABSOLUTELY states I have preculded any appreciation for whatever else he brings because I chose that adjective.

Again, it must be nice to know it all

As I said before, which you ignore every time...you didn't just REFER to his 40-pts. You literally defined him by those 40 pts:

You "stand pat" guys are telling us that you would rather hit the post season playing Hayes on our 3rd line than part with a B+ level prospect and a conditional 4th to aquire a near 40 point RW. If that's what you're saying then I don't understand you guys. Why be fans at all if all you want is mediocrity?

And in response, all I said was there are reasons not to pursue a guy like that despite his point totals. Not all 40-point RW's are the same, hence why I said you can't just refer to him as that.

edit - your "near 40 pt adjective" argument to dispute someone saying he was only a 30 pt scorer is complete BS. You took care of that in a post on the page before that. Don't insult me by trying to use that here, it had nothing to do with your post.

 

[Fonzerelli]

"Classy" went out the window on post 356 kid. You saw to that

 

[riverhawkey91]

"Classy" went out the window on post 356 kid. You saw to that

Yeah, me saying that something you said gave a certain impression and then disputing that is totally classless, absolutely on the same level as going back into my previous posts, finding one where I was wrong and bringing it up to make fun of it. How dare I stoop so low...

 

[Fonzerelli]

I did not literally define anyone.

It is your assertion that because I used that one characteristic of him as an adjective that I have somehow eliminated all of his other characteristics. In your words ...

Twice in your post you didn't just refer to his points, you used them to represent him as a player. I absolutely do believe that precludes an appreciation for whatever else that player brings.

That because I chose an impressive characteristic of his as an adjective "near 40 pt RW", that it closes my mind to any of his other characteristics. In your exact words, " I absolutely do believe that precludes an appreciation for whatever else that player brings."

These are your words, not mine.

I have a full and complete appreciation for Jannik Hansen as a multi-faceted, 3 dimensional player. The fact I didn't write an essay on him doesn't change this. The fact that I used a favorable quality as a quick adjective on a short 100 word post is just that. It doesn't literally define squat, nor does it preclude me from appreciating his other qualities.

The fact that you can't see how offensive your statement is speaks volumes about you. Not necessarily in a bad way, but it certainly underlines your youth and immaturity.

That's the last I'll speak on it. It's all good. Have a great week.

 

[HeartsAlive]

So we're what, 10,000 posts deep into the 2016-2017 string of trade proposal threads? They get locked after 1000ish posts and this is the eleventh, right?

I just want it to be over, so we can start the "here's how the Bruins screwed up the trade deadline thread" followed by "potential offseason trade proposals"

 

[Fonzerelli]

So we're what, 10,000 posts deep into the 2016-2017 string of trade proposal threads? They get locked after 1000ish posts and this is the eleventh, right?

I just want it to be over, so we can start the "here's how the Bruins screwed up the trade deadline thread" followed by "potential offseason trade proposals"

I don't think they will screw it up Headly. I have a good feeling about it. I like the fact they are "staying with the plan". I'm not exactly sure what the plan is, but I'm glad there is one and I'm glad it's a long term plan. I think if they stick with it, we'll be alright. I just hope and pray that plan includes playoffs. I'm really looking forward to Bruins hockey in the spring again.

 

[riverhawkey91]

I did not literally define anyone.

It is your assertion that because I used that one characteristic of him as an adjective that I have somehow eliminated all of his other characteristics. In your words ...



That because I chose an impressive characteristic of his as an adjective "near 40 pt RW", that it closes my mind to any of his other characteristics. In your exact words, " I absolutely do believe that precludes an appreciation for whatever else that player brings."

These are your words, not mine.

I have a full and complete appreciation for Jannik Hansen as a multi-faceted, 3 dimensional player. The fact I didn't write an essay on him doesn't change this. The fact that I used a favorable quality as a quick adjective on a short 100 word post is just that. It doesn't literally define squat, nor does it preclude me from appreciating his other qualities.

The fact that you can't see how offensive your statement is speaks volumes about you. Not necessarily in a bad way, but it certainly underlines your youth and immaturity.

That's the last I'll speak on it. It's all good. Have a great week.

Ah, I think I do see where some of the misunderstanding in that statement lies. That statement was not saying YOU don't appreciate the complete player that Hansen is. I've talked to you enough over the last year to know you probably do know plenty about him if you're talking about him. I was saying your post and the way you were referencing him doesn't accurately reflect him completely as a player, so it precludes the ability to recognize why the Bruins might not have pursued him. Again, you didn't say Hansen in that "stand pat" post....you said a 40 pt RW. The Bruins should absolutely pursue a 40-pt RW wing in my opinion...but not Hansen.

 

[Fonzerelli]

Yeah it's cool. We've had some good discussion over the past couple years and I hope that continues. I like your posts and I respect your opinion. I don't have any problem with any of your posts, including the Frederic one. If we all had the same opinion that would be no fun. I did feel like my opinion was under attack and I reacted to it by trying to show you how it was coming accross to me. That's all. It's all good though. No hard feelings whatsoever.

 

[SPLBRUIN]

Not asking Sweeney to make a lot of noise today but surely he can find someone at a reasonable cost to replace Hayes on the 3rd line, heck I would take Drew Stafford in a second over the lumbering ineffective Hayes.

 

[Fenway]

Because of high server demand as trade deadline approaches, avatars have been turned off temporally.

Thanks for understanding. ​