Proposal: All Bruins trade rumors/proposals: 16/17 Part VIII

[LouJersey]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me when Gabriel Landeskog became Jamie Benn.

Or if were going retro, when he became Keith Tkachuk circa 1996.

Carlo is a second pairing defensive defenseman with little to no snarl. Maybe he grows into something really special or maybe he becomes the next Kyle McLaren.

I'm not even saying to trade him, or trade him for Landeskog but let's not act like he's something more than he is because he's been better than the garbage we've had back there collectively the past couple of seasons. Maybe he becomes Boychuk. I don't know but he's hardly untouchable IMO.

Benns first four-five years were a lot like Landos btw. Maybe he hasn't peaked

 

[riverhawkey91]

Benn had a season of 26 goals... 2 with 22... 1 with 12 which projects to be 24

So was Benn a 20 goal scorer when he was 24?

That is the argument against landeskog right? That he only has a few season with 26 or 22 goals? And in 40 games this year he had around 10 goals?

Isn't that the argument?

I think the anti landeskog crowd should not be pushing Jamie Benn as their poster child

To be fair, I think we all know the big thing that changed for Jamie Benn that year which caused him to take off like that.

I'm not sure it would be fair to expect a similar jump for Landeskog were he to come here, especially considering the probable decrease in TOI going from his team's star to just one of our top 6.

 

[Greek_physique]

Carlo is a second pairing defensive defenseman with little to no snarl. Maybe he grows into something really special or maybe he becomes the next Kyle McLaren.

I'm not even saying to trade him, or trade him for Landeskog but let's not act like he's something more than he is because he's been better than the garbage we've had back there collectively the past couple of seasons. Maybe he becomes Boychuk. I don't know but he's hardly untouchable IMO.

Benns first four-five years were a lot like Landos btw. Maybe he hasn't peaked

Couldn't agree more...Carlo has been an excellent surprise this year but he also plays with Chara who helps him a lot. Yes he still plays against the other teams top lines but he's struggled playing with Krug as well and I personally don't see him getting more thenews 15-20 points a year. I haven't seen anything to suggest he'd be a great 2 way dean.

Landeskog would make everyone forget about this kid. When Los Angeles traded for Carter and gave up on Johnson that was the best move they ever did.

 

[JoeIsAStud]

What if all he needs is a change of scenery to return to being a 25 goal scorer?

Honestly if the Price is something like some of the Rumors, and Boston gives up Carlo , a #1 and another couple of good prospects.

Landeskog being a 25 goal guy isn't good enough. He better be 30+ a season to be worth that type of package

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Honestly if the Price is something like some of the Rumors, and Boston gives up Carlo , a #1 and another couple of good prospects.

Landeskog being a 25 goal guy isn't good enough. He better be 30+ a season to be worth that type of package

Exactly!

 

[PB37]

Landeskog -- Krejci -- Pasta

A full year together; what do you guys think they would do?

Landeskog: 26-35-61

Krejci: 16-50-65

Pasta: 40-40-80


That would be my best guess. It would be a hell of a line to watch play.

 

[missingchicklet]

I'm amazed at how much the bar has been raised for what a 19/20 year old should be doing as a first/second pairing d-man on a mediocre team. Funny how a 24 yr old Landeskog is going to suddenly get better playing for a mediocre team, but a 19/20 year old kid on a mediocre team with a bevy of bottom pairing d-men is being diminished now. Yeah, he won't fill out and get stronger physically. He won't improve skill-wise or mentally. The leap he made in one year just to make the NHL team was significant. Are we really supposed to believe that he won't continue to improve at a decent pace? I get that some folks think Landeskog is some kind of panacea and will be awesome with the Bs. Landeskog is what he is -- a solid two-way forward with very good intangibles and a good compete level (I like his game fine). He's not, however, a great scorer or a gamebreaker. It's ludicrous how much some folks are discounting where Carlo is at this point in his very young career and not seeing the big picture. Carlo is being undervalued here by some folks and Landeskog is being perceived as something more than he actually is. The Bs do not have unlimited cap room and they do not have a lot of top-4 d-men. A trade that involves Carlo for Landeskog is shortsighted and not addressing team needs.

 

[BruinDust]

Carlo is a second pairing defensive defenseman with little to no snarl. Maybe he grows into something really special or maybe he becomes the next Kyle McLaren.

I'm not even saying to trade him, or trade him for Landeskog but let's not act like he's something more than he is because he's been better than the garbage we've had back there collectively the past couple of seasons. Maybe he becomes Boychuk. I don't know but he's hardly untouchable IMO.

Benns first four-five years were a lot like Landos btw. Maybe he hasn't peaked

I'm with you on that I don't see Carlo becoming this Norris trophy level guy.

I think he brings a fairly unique skill-set in today's game. A big, shut-down D-man with high-end skating ability, great reach, and the ability to make good reads and a solid first pass. His skating ability to me sets him apart from your typical defensive shut-down guy like a McQuaid or Kevan Miller. He may not play mean, but he does play physical, and he has room to add weight and strength to his frame. I can see down the road Carlo being an absolute beast when it comes to stopping guys one-on-one because of his reach and lateral mobility.

I also see him gaining more confidence in the offensive zone and with his shot. He does have velocity on his slapper, but he likely never becomes a puck-rushing guy.

I'm just saying some of the proposals for Landeskog are what I would expect to cough up for a bonifide franchise level Power Forward, where I see Landeskog a notch below that level.

A number of proposals to me have it right, a combination of 3 non-roster young assets/1st round picks. Perhaps you increase the value of those 3 assets if it means getting Colorado to take back Belesky's contract, but I still don't want to see any of those 3 assets be a current young roster player such as a Carlo or Vatrano who I also am very high on. Maybe that doesn't get it done and I am OK with that.

 

[BruinDust]

Benn had a season of 26 goals... 2 with 22... 1 with 12 which projects to be 24

So was Benn a 20 goal scorer when he was 24?

That is the argument against landeskog right? That he only has a few season with 26 or 22 goals? And in 40 games this year he had around 10 goals?

Isn't that the argument?

I think the anti landeskog crowd should not be pushing Jamie Benn as their poster child

Given some of your player comparisons I think the anti-Landeskog crowd can push whoever we want.

 

[RockLobster]

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 among everything else that he brings...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?

I think we can look at the 13-14 year as a template of a "peak year". So I'd say somewhere around 25+ goals and 35+ assists, and total around 65 points...during peak offensive years. Otherwise, I'd say that his consistency since entering the league shows him to be right around 55 points, and a minimum of 20 goals/30 assists.

That's my opinion on him. Plus, you can just tell he's a player that's BUILT for Playoff hockey. He's the type of player that teams love to have on their team in the Playoffs.

But...like I've already said, I'm a big fan, I'd rather keep him and not trade him.

 

[BruinDust]

Ohoh you won't be happy now

Jamie Benn turned 24 on in 2013... the same year he scored 12 goals and had 33 points

I am sure you didn't want to make this comparison

I don't give two you-know-whats Jamie Benn did at age 24. Completely inconsequential.

Every player's development curve is different, so who gives a crap what Benn did at that age.

Fact is, the proposals I've seen here for Landeskog would make you believe they are equivalent players here today, regardless of their ages.

 

[patty59]

I really don't know what the answer is. It's a tough decision. You have to figure out if you're scared of trading a Luke Schenn or Barret Jackman for Landeskog or maybe Carlo turns into something more than that. End of the day he's a contributing NHLER and if he's in the trade it shouldn't take too much more than him to get it donext.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

I don't give two you-know-whats Jamie Benn did at age 24. Completely inconsequential.

Every player's development curve is different, so who gives a crap what Benn did at that age.

Fact is, the proposals I've seen here for Landeskog would make you believe they are equivalent players here today, regardless of their ages.

I would stop using arguments like... he's 24 and peaked... if you also want to argue each players curve is different. I throw out example because there's always exceptions and I want to be fair. I know it's not an exact science to predict development

I also like to be a student of the game. History can teach us. But you can't simply ignore history when it goes against you. You can't introduce Jamie Benn as an example to make your own point and then say you don't care when your examples blows up in your face

You called me out when I remembered Adam Oates and Igor Larinov being teammates and I had to plead mea culpa. My example proved my memory isn't foolproof

I think you wanted to prove 24 year old landeskog isn't 28 year old Jamie benn. Sadly you drew attention to the fact 24 year old landeskog is 24 year old Jamie benn

You have been arguing why would we expect a 24 year old kid to score more when he's 25, 26, 27... And then you threw out Jamie benn. Its ironic.

As for my comparisons I always invite anyone to offer their own... if they feel I'm prejudice or trying to be selective. I take pride in offering a balanced argument. I often admit when I'm wrong.

Hockey isn't a game that allows anyone to be right all the time. Even the guys being paid millions of dollars get these trades wrong half the time

Talent analysis by the scouts fails half the time... draft picks are wrong half the time... free agent signings are wrong half the time... deadline deals fail half the time

I think it's ok if us fans get it wrong half the time too. Your Jamie benn comparison works against your agenda to limit landeskog based on age

 

[riverhawkey91]

I think we can look at the 13-14 year as a template of a "peak year". So I'd say somewhere around 25+ goals and 35+ assists, and total around 65 points...during peak offensive years. Otherwise, I'd say that his consistency since entering the league shows him to be right around 55 points, and a minimum of 20 goals/30 assists.

That's my opinion on him. Plus, you can just tell he's a player that's BUILT for Playoff hockey. He's the type of player that teams love to have on their team in the Playoffs.

But...like I've already said, I'm a big fan, I'd rather keep him and not trade him.

Thank you for the insight. There's obviously been some debate around here with what exactly we might/should expect if he were to come here (with some saying he's already peaked, others saying he's capable of 75 pts) so it's definitely helpful to hear from someone who gets to watch him far more than the majority of us.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

...

Is part of the reason we have such a skewed or at the very least varied perspective on trade value because we deal our young scorers for such garbage packages?

Carlo, a first and another prospect is better than anything we got for Kessel, Thornton or Seguin. Or Hamilton for that matter.

 

[riverhawkey91]

...

Is part of the reason we have such a skewed or at the very least varied perspective on trade value because we deal our young scorers for such garbage packages?

Carlo, a first and another prospect is better than anything we got for Kessel, Thornton or Seguin. Or Hamilton for that matter.

Depending on the prospect, the value is almost exactly what we got for Hamilton...a first and 2 seconds (Carlo and JFK). The value we got in the Kessel trade (two top 10 picks and a second) would be greater than that package, wouldn't it?

edit - The issue was scouting more than getting the proper value in some of those cases. We lucked out and didn't have tough choices in the Seguin/Hamilton picks, but in the Thornton and Seguin trades, we failed to identify the players/prospects worth adding into the deal to maximize our return and ended up with junk. I think the early returns from the Hamilton deal look pretty good despite not getting great initial value for him.

 

[RockLobster]

Thank you for the insight. There's obviously been some debate around here with what exactly we might/should expect if he were to come here (with some saying he's already peaked, others saying he's capable of 75 pts) so it's definitely helpful to hear from someone who gets to watch him far more than the majority of us.

As a big fan of his, and someone who has seen just about every game of his in an Avalanche uniform...I don't think he is capable of 75 points. Like I said, peak offensive years around 65 points, MAYBE 70 in an absolutely perfect year (but I'm skeptical on that).

However, knowing Dom's reputation around here, I've already prepared myself for him to be traded

 

[Bruinfanatic]

...

Is part of the reason we have such a skewed or at the very least varied perspective on trade value because we deal our young scorers for such garbage packages?

Carlo, a first and another prospect is better than anything we got for Kessel, Thornton or Seguin. Or Hamilton for that matter.

Yes Defnetly some bad trades over the years.Sad part is all we have left to show for Kessel and Seguin is Hayes and Morrow..Lets not make another bad one Btruins.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

Depending on the prospect, the value is almost exactly what we got for Hamilton...a first and 2 seconds (Carlo and JFK). The value we got in the Kessel trade (two top 10 picks and a second) would be greater than that package, wouldn't it?

edit - The issue was scouting more than getting the proper value in some of those cases. We lucked out and didn't have tough choices in the Seguin/Hamilton picks, but in the Thornton and Seguin trades, we failed to identify the players/prospects worth adding into the deal to maximize our return and ended up with junk. I think the early returns from the Hamilton deal look pretty good despite not getting great initial value for him.

Picks. Are we giving them picks? I'd do a 1st and 2 2nds any day. Let's not pretend that Hamilton return was good. Seguin return was awful. Kessel return was lotto tickets that we lucked out on, then messed up (see previous trades) and Joe Thornton was an abysmal return. Just because we drafted well, doesn't mean the other teams reap the benefits. We better not be sending over an A+ package, while we have consistently accepted garbage in return. Why do we accept such crap packages?

 

[Pia8988]

Yes Defnetly some bad trades over the years.Sad part is all we have left to show for Kessel and Seguin is Hayes and Morrow..Lets not make another bad one Btruins.

and Senyshyn, JFK, and Lauzon. Or does the Dougie side of the Kessel trade not count?

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Depending on the prospect, the value is almost exactly what we got for Hamilton...a first and 2 seconds (Carlo and JFK). The value we got in the Kessel trade (two top 10 picks and a second) would be greater than that package, wouldn't it?

edit - The issue was scouting more than getting the proper value in some of those cases. We lucked out and didn't have tough choices in the Seguin/Hamilton picks, but in the Thornton and Seguin trades, we failed to identify the players/prospects worth adding into the deal to maximize our return and ended up with junk. I think the early returns from the Hamilton deal look pretty good despite not getting great initial value for him.

It's not the same. We got picks. Not a defenceman who's proven an ability to play tough NHL minutes at 20 years of age.

 

[mikeq672]

The dumb **** both "sides" are saying right now are killing this thread. So over the top to try and prove whatever point they are attempting to make.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Picks. Are we giving them picks? I'd do a 1st and 2 2nds any day. Let's not pretend that Hamilton return was good. Seguin return was awful. Kessel return was lotto tickets that we lucked out on, then messed up (see previous trades) and Joe Thornton was an abysmal return. Just because we drafted well, doesn't mean the other teams reap the benefits. We better not be sending over an A+ package, while we have consistently accepted garbage in return. Why do we accept such crap packages?

Precisely. If it was a matter of a first and two seconds for Landeskog, I don't think the debate would be near as divided as it is now.

 

[22Brad Park]

Carlo is a second pairing defensive defenseman with little to no snarl. Maybe he grows into something really special or maybe he becomes the next Kyle McLaren.

I'm not even saying to trade him, or trade him for Landeskog but let's not act like he's something more than he is because he's been better than the garbage we've had back there collectively the past couple of seasons. Maybe he becomes Boychuk. I don't know but he's hardly untouchable IMO.

Benns first four-five years were a lot like Landos btw. Maybe he hasn't peaked

I remember McLaren near decapitating Peter Zednik.Carlo is just a kid yet and is going to get wayyyy more confident and add lots of muscle. Your judging a kid who played most of year as a 19 yr old.You need to give him a couple years.lol.

 

[GloveSave1]

No matter how good you hope Landeskog to be, if your goal is to make the playoffs...I don't see how subtracting Carlo would make that possible. What are you talking about, going to a Morrow or something? I'm pretty sure the Bruins ehh D couldn't take that hit. We'd really need 5+ goals a night.

I can understand "considering it," although I'm personally against trading any young defenseman with top pair defensive potential who's shown flashes of it on the NHL level at 20 or whatever...I'd say that's literally the hardest thing to find, these days...and we've proven it for years...

But I would consider it a long term move/white flag only.