Toggle sidebar

Around the NHL: Part XIV - Hand Pass Edition

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Edge said:
I am confused.

So in theory, TDL moves are essentially lottery tickets where the jackpot is the only victory condition?

I mean wouldn’t that apply to any trade or free agent signing then?
Click to expand...

Well, it looks like the Gomez trade was a failure because we didn't win a cup with McDonagh
 
Seems everyone in here is on the same page in this debate except for one guy. This isn't 12 Angry Men, the group is probably right more often than not.

It's obvious the WPG trade was fine at the time. It didn't work out. It was hardly a bad move or loss for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Richards
FWIW I think the Hayes trade was absolutely a failure for Winnipeg.

They gave up a 1st in a good draft, and Lemieux for a guy who didn't play much in their only playoff series. I don't see how that can be looked at as a successful trade.

When they traded for Stastny, he got considerably more ice time than Hayes did, and was a regular contributor.

WPG decided that it was worth losing assets to acquire a player to only play 12 mins a game in the playoffs. They cut a 3rd of his ATOI and expected the same production. Thats a failure to me.

To be clear. I don't think it was a failure because Winnipeg lost in the first round. I think it was a failure because of their usage of Hayes Vs what they gave up for him.

The first round exit just magnifies the poor management
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Sides, Messrules11, egelband and 2 others
Dr Chin Richalds said:
FWIW I think the Hayes trade was absolutely a failure for Winnipeg.

They gave up a 1st in a good draft, and Lemieux for a guy who didn't play much in their only playoff series. I don't see how that can be looked at as a successful trade.

When they traded for Stastny, he got considerably more ice time than Hayes did, and was a regular contributor.

WPG decided that it was worth losing assets to acquire a player to only play 12 mins a game in the playoffs. They cut a 3rd of his ATOI and expected the same production. Thats a failure to me.

To be clear. I don't think it was a failure because Winnipeg lost in the first round. I think it was a failure because of their usage of Hayes Vs what they gave up for him.

The first round exit just magnifies the poor management
Click to expand...

All of these points are valid.

But I think the argument is more about teams that lose in the playoffs after making moves at the deadline, versus those who don't.

It doesn't automatically make a trade a failure if a team doesn't win the cup. For example, I wouldn't criticize CBJ's moves.

I do agree with your assessment of the Hayes trade though and it reminds me of how I felt about Yandle here. I didn't understand why we gave up so much for a guy that AV barely used. It's as if the GM and Coach weren't in contact prior to the trade.

I mean, Yandle was basically a third pairing PP specialist here. You would think that had AV told Sather/Gorton about that prior to the deal, they wouldn't have been willing to expend so much.

Same goes for Maurice's usage of Hayes.
 
bobbop said:
The Flyers want a center in the worst way to bump Patrick back to the third line. They think he was overmatched as a number two last year and needs more time to develop (official hint, this could happen to the Rangers in the future too) Hayes (who is a center in the worst way) slots in as a number two and if/when Patrick matures, he drops to a number three.

I just find it interesting that after the Flyers finally got out of cap hell (after how many years?) they seem to be headed back there soon.
Click to expand...

Interesting that this is the exact scenario why the Rangers didn't want to extend Hayes. Maybe, could the Flyers actually have a concern that Nolan never turns into 2C since there should be less "cap-taxing" means to insulate Patrick short term.
 
Dr Chin Richalds said:
FWIW I think the Hayes trade was absolutely a failure for Winnipeg.

They gave up a 1st in a good draft, and Lemieux for a guy who didn't play much in their only playoff series. I don't see how that can be looked at as a successful trade.

When they traded for Stastny, he got considerably more ice time than Hayes did, and was a regular contributor.

WPG decided that it was worth losing assets to acquire a player to only play 12 mins a game in the playoffs. They cut a 3rd of his ATOI and expected the same production. Thats a failure to me.

To be clear. I don't think it was a failure because Winnipeg lost in the first round. I think it was a failure because of their usage of Hayes Vs what they gave up for him.

The first round exit just magnifies the poor management
Click to expand...

Poor management or poor coaching?

The plan was for Jets to improve the roster with acquisition of Hayes in a similar way to acquisition of Stastny a year before. For whatever reason the team that was in WCF a year ago, got "organically" better with another year of staying together and was one of true contenders in the Conference didn't make it passed the 1st round. How does it make sense to call it a bad trade when GM improves the team? What would you say IF Jets stayed pat and didn't acquire Hayes? These same Jets fans would be calling for Chevy's head now anyway but instead would be saying that he failed to acquire Hayes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
kovazub94 said:
Poor management or poor coaching?

The plan was for Jets to improve the roster with acquisition of Hayes in a similar way to acquisition of Stastny a year before. For whatever reason the team that was in WCF a year ago, got "organically" better with another year of staying together and was one of true contenders in the Conference didn't make it passed the 1st round. How does it make sense to call it a bad trade when GM improves the team? What would you say IF Jets stayed pat and didn't acquire Hayes? These same Jets fans would be calling for Chevy's head now anyway but instead would be saying that he failed to acquire Hayes.
Click to expand...
Poor management, and poor coaching

If management acquired a player and knew he would be utilized poorly, its poor management

If management acquired a player and did not know he would be utilized poorly, thats bad communication, and therefore poor management.


I agree with your second point. They had to do something, but being under pressure to make a move does not excuse poor management.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Sides, Messrules11 and egelband
Dr Chin Richalds said:
Poor management, and poor coaching

If management acquired a player and knew he would be utilized poorly, its poor management

If management acquired a player and did not know he would be utilized poorly, thats bad communication, and therefore poor management.


I agree with your second point. They had to do something, but being under pressure to make a move does not excuse poor management.
Click to expand...

Yeah, everything started with the Big Bang (poor coaching reflects poorly on management).
 
Faceless said:
I mean, Yandle was basically a third pairing PP specialist here. You would think that had AV told Sather/Gorton about that prior to the deal, they wouldn't have been willing to expend so much.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I never thought the Yandle trade would amount to much....if I recall, it was really a knee-jerk reaction ....there were a lot of trades that deadline day (and day before if i recall correctly) and the Rangers had done pretty much nothing (traded Etem....)....no surprise AV used him as an after thought. (Personally, I never thought much of him in the desert or here.)
 
zephyr said:
To be honest, I never thought the Yandle trade would amount to much....if I recall, it was really a knee-jerk reaction ....there were a lot of trades that deadline day (and day before if i recall correctly) and the Rangers had done pretty much nothing (traded Etem....)....no surprise AV used him as an after thought. (Personally, I never thought much of him in the desert or here.)
Click to expand...
The trade went down early in the day the day before the deadline.
 
I think all trades are a bit of a gamble... but especially TDL ones... as someone mentioned above, the sample size after that trade for a strict rental is very small. A GM is gambling that the added player(s) will improve their chances. Still gotta play the games.

When and if you lose, the public will deify the GM regardless. WPG in this case seemed primed to go far without Hayes, they gambled a late (not anymore pick) and Lemiux and it didn't work out, but as we all know, when your window is open, you'll gamble those late 1st for a better chance at winning. As long as you dont trade 4 1st in a row :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom