Proposal: Chicago - Toronto

[Confucius]

Didn't watch.

Anytime you can watch somebody who is the best in the world, you do it.

Even if the guy is a brick layer, if he was the best in the world, I'd watch him all day.

Paul Newman aka Cool hand Luke.

 

[tony d]

Marner's to important to Toronto for them to even consider this deal.

 

[hawksrule]

Anytime you can watch somebody who is the best in the world, you do it.

Even if the guy is a brick layer, if he was the best in the world, I'd watch him all day.

Paul Newman aka Cool hand Luke.

That's some philosophy.

 

[Mach85]

That's a non-sequitur. No one said a bad WJC = a bad NHL career. But that doesn't make it a positive, nor irrelevant.

"Electrifying when it counted." Given that Canada had an awful WJC and went out meekly, that's not Bobby Mac's most inspired work.

Well, when you're using it as the sole basis to doubt Marner's potential it is very relevant to the conversation and not a non-sequitor at all. If I (and Halla) showed that a bad WJC (and again, Marner's wasn't bad, but for the sake of this exercise) does not equal a bad NHL career (and there are many examples of this), then that means what you're using to predict Marner's trajectory is flawed. It doesn't get more relevant than that.

Canada's performance as a team has nothing to do with Marner's personally - that's a non-sequitor. Marner can't pick his teammates or be responsible for their effort level. Bob was asked to analyze players in the tourney on the radio. Just because you don't like what he said doesn't make it wrong. You have your opinion on Marner's tourney, I have mine. So far, I've provided stats and expert evidence backing up my position. You've provided nothing backing up yours.

 

[Kshahdoo]

Top9

Panarin - Mathews - Nylander
JVR - Bozak - Michalek
Komarov - Kadri - Soshnikov

vs

whatever they have right now.

That 1st line looks very sexy, btw.

 

[Big Easy]

Marner is 6 years younger and a whole lot cheaper for at least the next 3 years. And a hometown kid. Big part of the Future.

 

[Space Coyote]

Can't see why either team would want to make this trade.

Toronto is rebuilding for the future and Marner fits right in with their core of Matthews, Nylander, Rielly.

Chicago are contenders, they need Panarin more than a 19 year-old prospect who is probably a season or two away from having a significant impact on roster contending for another Stanley Cup. Having said I still wouldn't be surprised if Marner scored around 60ish points playing on stacked team like the Hawks around players like Toews and Kane.

 

[hawksrule]

Well, when you're using it as the sole basis to doubt Marner's potential it is very relevant to the conversation and not a non-sequitor at all. If I (and Halla) showed that a bad WJC (and again, Marner's wasn't bad, but for the sake of this exercise) does not equal a bad NHL career (and there are many examples of this), then that means what you're using to predict Marner's trajectory is flawed. It doesn't get more relevant than that.

Canada's performance as a team has nothing to do with Marner's personally - that's a non-sequitor. Marner can't pick his teammates or be responsible for their effort level. Bob was asked to analyze players in the tourney on the radio. Just because you don't like what he said doesn't make it wrong. You have your opinion on Marner's tourney, I have mine. So far, I've provided stats and expert evidence backing up my position. You've provided nothing backing up yours.

I didn't predict his trajectory, that's your strawman. I simply don't buy the narrative that he accomplished all he could last year when his biggest test against superior competition was a dud.

That others have had a bad WJC and good career is so irrelevant that I'm embarrassed for you that you keep saying this. It would only be relevant if I stated that no one with a bad WJC has a good career, which I of course didn't. You're tilting at windmills.

Marner's poor performance was due to his teammates effort level? What kind of pathetically lame excuse is that?

You can pontificate all you want, I'm the one who watched the games. [MOD] because box scores told you he did okay against Denmark and had one good period against Finland. Frankly, since you didn't watch, I don't respect your opinion on the subject, and your 'arguments' are zero percent convincing.

 

[Halla]

Top9

Panarin - Mathews - Nylander
JVR - Bozak - Michalek
Komarov - Kadri - Soshnikov

vs

whatever they have right now.

That 1st line looks very sexy, btw.

Yeah and when we are finnally real good in 3-4 years Panarin will be 28-29 and Marner is probably better at 22-23. no thanks

Marner just made the leafs while panarin was undrafted playing beer league hockey at the same age

 

[Mach85]

I didn't predict his trajectory, that's your strawman. I simply don't buy the narrative that he accomplished all he could last year when his biggest test against superior competition was a dud.

That others have had a bad WJC and good career is so irrelevant that I'm embarrassed for you that you keep saying this. It would only be relevant if I stated that no one with a bad WJC has a good career, which I of course didn't. You're tilting at windmills.

Marner's poor performance was due to his teammates effort level? What kind of pathetically lame excuse is that?

You can pontificate all you want, I'm the one who watched the games. [MOD] because box scores told you he did okay against Denmark and had one good period against Finland. Frankly, since you didn't watch, I don't respect your opinion on the subject, and your 'arguments' are zero percent convincing.

Another strawman from you. How could I blame Marner's "poor" performance on his teammates when I've maintained all along Marner's performance was GOOD at the WJC? That is not logical. I mentioned quality of teammates in response to YOUR suggesting that Canada going out meekly means any praise of Marner is meaningless (i.e. he couldn't have had a good individual performance).

Your confirmation bias is astounding. First, you assume I'm a Leafs fan so you can accuse me of being a homer. Now, you construct this narrative of me not watching the games so you can disregard my opinion. Yet you've also conveniently ignored corroborrating expert analysis from Corey Pronman, who gets paid to analyze prospects. Yet this wasn't good enough for you, so I brought in a guy with perhaps the most credibility when it comes to junior hockey, Bob McKenzie. McKenzie is an independent reporter. Yet you slap him in the face by saying his work is just "platitudes." So that evidence is not good enough either. You're quite skilled at moving the goalposts.

Again, if you want to present any evidence supporting your claim that Marner was bad at the WJC beyond your own subjectivity, let's see it. The national hockey media, including perhaps the most respected authority on the WJCs, is in my camp. Until you have a counter to that, I don't think we have anything left to discuss.

 

[Halla]

I didn't predict his trajectory, that's your strawman. I simply don't buy the narrative that he accomplished all he could last year when his biggest test against superior competition was a dud.

That others have had a bad WJC and good career is so irrelevant that I'm embarrassed for you that you keep saying this. It would only be relevant if I stated that no one with a bad WJC has a good career, which I of course didn't. You're tilting at windmills.

Marner's poor performance was due to his teammates effort level? What kind of pathetically lame excuse is that?

You can pontificate all you want, I'm the one who watched the games. [MOD] because box scores told you he did okay against Denmark and had one good period against Finland. Frankly, since you didn't watch, I don't respect your opinion on the subject, and your 'arguments' are zero percent convincing.

172 pts in 78 games (reg. season/playoffs/mem. cup). but yeah keep pointing to those 5 games where he "only" got 4g,2a in as an 18 year old. Dylan Strome had the exact same stat line, which led the team.

the leafs have absolutely no interest in moving marner. 0. end thread

 

[Halla]

Another strawman from you. How could I blame Marner's "poor" performance on his teammates when I've maintained all along Marner's performance was GOOD at the WJC? That is not logical. I mentioned quality of teammates in response to YOUR suggesting that Canada going out meekly means any praise of Marner is meaningless (i.e. he couldn't have had a good individual performance).

Your confirmation bias is astounding. First, you assume I'm a Leafs fan so you can accuse me of being a homer. Now, you construct this narrative of me not watching the games so you can disregard my opinion. Yet you've also conveniently ignored corroborrating expert analysis from Corey Pronman, who gets paid to analyze prospects. Yet this wasn't good enough for you, so I brought in a guy with perhaps the most credibility when it comes to junior hockey, Bob McKenzie. McKenzie is an independent reporter. Yet you slap him in the face by saying his work is just "platitudes." You're quite skilled at moving the goalposts.

Again, if you want to present any evidence supporting your claim that Marner was bad at the WJC beyond your own subjectivity, let's see it. The national hockey media, including perhaps the most respected authority on the WJCs, is in my camp. Until you have a counter to that, I don't think we have anything left to discuss.

that just about settles it haha. wow

 

[hawksrule]

Another strawman from you. How could I blame Marner's "poor" performance on his teammates when I've maintained all along Marner's performance was GOOD at the WJC? That is not logical. I mentioned quality of teammates in response to YOUR suggesting that Canada going out meekly means any praise of Marner is meaningless (i.e. he couldn't have had a good individual performance).

Your confirmation bias is astounding. First, you assume I'm a Leafs fan so you can accuse me of being a homer. Now, you construct this narrative of me not watching the games so you can disregard my opinion. Yet you've also conveniently ignored corroborrating expert analysis from Corey Pronman, who gets paid to analyze prospects. Yet this wasn't good enough for you, so I brought in a guy with perhaps the most credibility when it comes to junior hockey, Bob McKenzie. McKenzie is an independent reporter. Yet you slap him in the face by saying his work is just "platitudes." So that evidence is not good enough either. You're quite skilled at moving the goalposts.

Again, if you want to present any evidence supporting your claim that Marner was bad at the WJC beyond your own subjectivity, let's see it. The national hockey media, including perhaps the most respected authority on the WJCs, is in my camp. Until you have a counter to that, I don't think we have anything left to discuss.

No [MOD]. 'When it mattered most' is a funny way for Mckenzie to put it because team canada had no moments that mattered all that much. Bob's statement doesn't even contradict what i said - one good period against Finland when on the brink of elimination, and a mediocre tournament up to that point. Bob phrased it in a nicer way, but if your takeaway from his statement is that Marner had a strong tournament then you are very unskilled in deciphering nuance. If your homer glasses preclude you from engaging in honest discussion, I agree there's nothing left to discuss.

 

[Mach85]

No [MOD]. 'When it mattered most' is a funny way for Mckenzie to put it because team canada had no moments that mattered all that much. Bob's statement doesn't even contradict what i said - one good period against Finland when on the brink of elimination, and a mediocre tournament up to that point. Bob phrased it in a nicer way, but if your takeaway from his statement is that Marner had a strong tournament then you are very unskilled in deciphering nuance. If your homer glasses preclude you from engaging in honest discussion, I agree there's nothing left to discuss.

Pot, kettle, black. Again, I have not stated my team affiliation. That statement of Bob's is from a larger analysis - he in no way said Marner only had one good period. He said Marner got better every game and was a dynamic presence on the ice, by the time they played Finland he almost single-handedly willed them to victory. Again, present some evidence of your own or I'd say we're done here. Present something objective, attacking me personally is not an "argument."

 

[hawksrule]

Pot, kettle, black. Again, I have not stated my team affiliation. That statement of Bob's is from a larger analysis - can you tell me where it's from since you're so familiar with the context of it? He in no way said Marner only had one good period.

Larger analysis? What other pseudo-big moment was there for team canada other than its elimination game? Was his two points against Denmark a big moment? I have no idea what you're trying to say, and I don't think you do either.

 

[Mach85]

Larger analysis? What other pseudo-big moment was there for team canada other than its elimination game? Was his two points against Denmark a big moment? I have no idea what you're trying to say, and I don't think you do either.

You don't understand that Bob McKenzie had more than a sentence to say about Mitch Marner, i.e. he had a "larger analysis" about his performance? THAT'S what I said. You tried to minimize his words by saying he was talking about Marner performing well for "a period" against the Finns, and I said in his larger breakdown of Marner's tourney, he said he got better every game, was a dynamic presence on the ice, and almost single-handedly willed them to victory against Finland. That doesn't sound like a guy who flopped in his first taste of best-on-best competition to me...

 

[hawksrule]

You don't understand that Bob McKenzie had more than a sentence to say about Mitch Marner, i.e. he had a "larger analysis" about his performance? THAT'S what I said. You tried to minimize his words by saying he was talking about Marner performing well for "a period" against the Finns, and I said in his larger breakdown of Marner's tourney, he said he got better every game, was a dynamic presence on the ice, and almost single-handedly willed them to victory against Finland. That doesn't sound like a guy who flopped in his first taste of best-on-best competition to me...

Terrible game vs the USA. Game 3 against Switzerland zero points. Game 4 against Sweden 1 point in a blowout loss. Scoreless first two periods against Finland in game 5 as they're eliminated. That sounds like a flop for a guy who was supposed to be the best player on the team. Call it whatever you want to make yourself feel better. Maybe watch the games next time and you won't need to rely on other people's platitudes.

 

[Mach85]

Terrible game vs the USA. Game 3 against Switzerland zero points. Game 4 against Sweden 1 point in a blowout loss. Scoreless first two periods against Finland in game 5 as they're eliminated. That sounds like a flop for a guy who was supposed to be the best player on the team. Call it whatever you want to make yourself feel better. Maybe watch the games next time and you won't need to rely on other people's platitudes.

1 point against Sweden is PPG, and the performance of his teammates mean nothing about his individual performance. He almost single-handedly beat the Finns, it isn't his fault he was one of the few who came to play.

I don't see why it's so important to you to save face that you have to keep replying with personal attacks just to deflect from the fact that you haven't brought a shred of evidence to the table to support your opinion. Paid, independent, highly-respected journalists like Bob McKenzie, who are at the pinnacle of their field, disrespecting them by calling their work "platitudes" is also pretty telling.

[MOD]

 

[hawksrule]

1 point against Sweden is PPG, and the performance of his teammates mean nothing about his individual performance. He almost single-handedly beat the Finns, it isn't his fault he was one of the few who came to play.

I don't see why it's so important to you to save face that you have to keep replying with personal attacks just to deflect from the fact that you haven't brought a shred of evidence to the table to support your opinion. Paid, independent, highly-respected journalists like Bob McKenzie, who are at the pinnacle of their field, disrespecting them by calling their work "platitudes" is also pretty telling.
[MOD]

His 1 assist in a blowout loss to Sweden was tremendous. Great point. Absolutely dynamic. His no points against Switzerland was tremendous too.

[MOD]

 

[Dustin]

1 point against Sweden is PPG, and the performance of his teammates mean nothing about his individual performance. He almost single-handedly beat the Finns, it isn't his fault he was one of the few who came to play.

I don't see why it's so important to you to save face that you have to keep replying with personal attacks just to deflect from the fact that you haven't brought a shred of evidence to the table to support your opinion. Paid, independent, highly-respected journalists like Bob McKenzie, who are at the pinnacle of their field, disrespecting them by calling their work "platitudes" is also pretty telling.

[MOD]

It's rather obvious he has no actual evidence to prove whatever point he is trying to make. He keeps saying you didn't watch the tournament but I'm sure he didn't see any of Marners games in the playoffs or regular season. He claims that Marner was supposed to be the best player on the team but there was no lead up to that and that it was quite evident that the coaching staff were more than willing to give ice time to the players that they felt were playing best.

It looks to me that he knows little to nothing about Marner. Just because he believes that Marner should only be judged by a small tournament and that he believes that he did poorly in that tournament doesn't make any of it true.

That being said I still believe that this trade doesn't help either team. It may take Marner 3 years before he is performing on a level close to Panarin and that doesn't help with Chicago's window.

As for the Leafs, Marner will absolutely score more than 77 NHL points by the age of 25 so as far as value is concerned it is a no brainer for Toronto. Not even including Marners a hometown kid and is closer to the age of our core.

 

[hawksrule]

^ marner is "absolutely" a ppg player, i.e. one of the top scorers in the NHL. There you have it

 

[Mach85]

[MOD] it really doesn't make sense for either team. The Leafs, I've already touched on that. The Hawks, they should be trying to extend their current window as far as they can, and trading a 24-year-old near PPG-gamer is not the way to do that. If it were to go down, ignoring team needs, I don't think the Leafs would have to add. Getting a top 5 prospect in the game is a great return.

 

[X66]

Everyone knows why Toronto can't make this trade, yet people still keep on baiting lol.

 

[Dustin]

[MOD] it really doesn't make sense for either team. The Leafs, I've already touched on that. The Hawks, they should be trying to extend their current window as far as they can, and trading a 24-year-old near PPG-gamer is not the way to do that. If it were to go down, ignoring team needs, I don't think the Leafs would have to add. Getting a top 5 prospect in the game is a great return.

Agreed. Furthermore if I am Chicago I am most likely looking to move other players first. They have been relatively successful at moving out bottom 6 players and getting a good return on them. I mean teams aren't made in a vacuum and with St Louis Dallas and Nashville looking to be on the rise, Chicago should be basing their team strategies and personnel around beating those teams.

 

[Bubba88]

Toronto won't get a Chance for this trade. Bowman wouldn't do it.