Proposal: Jets & Sens - Mark Stone

[bert]

Wow that's pretty bad for the Jets.


Little and Stone is close to a wash(edge to Stone for age) and you want to throw Connor in on top of that?



Yikes.

Little and stone is not remotely close to a wash whatsoever.

 

[Xspyrit]

Bryan Little+Drew Stafford+Kyle Connor

Mark Stone+<L D-Man>+<small Cap Dump>

Little + Stafford + Connor vs Stone + Borowiecki would be decent value wise BUT not interested because...

1) With Brassard/Turris/Pageau/Smith/Lazar/Kelly/Paul as depth center (+Brown and White coming up), Sens really don't need Little. Never heard that he could play Wing (and Little only has 2 years left on his deal)

2) We could use Stafford to replace MacArthur, but 4.35 is a bit expensive for a player of his caliber (luxury 3rd liner)

3) Connor is a great prospect and it is that he plays LW and Center so if he ends up as a #1C, the Sens would be happy with a Connor-Brown-White depth center as well as Turris/Brassard as 2 big assets to eventually trade. But the problem is Ottawa wants to enter a contention window as soon as possible and this trade just delays even more... Unless you think Connor could be as good as Stone as soon as this year?

4) Stone is an incredible player, a very rare kind that I'd prefer to keep unless you massively overpay (like Laine +)

little is better then stone alone good thing your not a gm

Ok, we should close this thread I think lol

 

[SpezDispenser]

You don't get Stone without giving up something you don't want to give up. Close the thread.

 

[Real Smart Sens Fan]

The offer is pretty good valuewise, but it doesn't work with our roster composition. Honestly, I think it would take Wheeler + Connor for Stone and a medium piece. Yes, Wheeler is similarly talented to Stone, but he's also 6 yrs older. Anyways, I don't think the Sens would agree to a deal that the Jets would consent to as well.

 

[JetsHomer]

Little and stone is not remotely close to a wash whatsoever.

You're right, the twoway 60 point center is better.

 

[SensNation613]

You're right, the twoway 60 point center is better.

At least you have an accurate username

 

[JetsHomer]

At least you have an accurate username

Over the past two seasons Little has 94 points in 127 games, a 61 point pace over 82 games.

Over that same time period Stone has 125 points in 155 games, a 66 point pace.

I'd take a 60 point twoway center over a 66 point winger, and I think most of hfboards would agree that centers hold more value than wingers.

You are really living up to your username forums user SensNation613

 

[Clamshells]

Over the past two seasons Little has 94 points in 127 games, a 61 point pace over 82 games.

Over that same time period Stone has 125 points in 155 games, a 66 point pace.

I'd take a 60 point twoway center over a 66 point winger, and I think most of hfboards would agree that centers hold more value than wingers.

You are really living up to your username forums user SensNation613

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2123639

More people would seem to disagree with you. It is, however, pretty close. From 30 to 70, I don't see a huge gap in the quality of these players.

 

[umwoz]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2123639

More people would seem to disagree with you. It is, however, pretty close. From 30 to 70, I don't see a huge gap in the quality of these players.

Using the polls section of HFBoards in an argument is the real life equivalent of citing Urban Dictionary. It's the dark shady area of the city that you should avoid at all costs.

 

[TheNewEra]

Over the past two seasons Little has 94 points in 127 games, a 61 point pace over 82 games.

Over that same time period Stone has 125 points in 155 games, a 66 point pace.

I'd take a 60 point twoway center over a 66 point winger, and I think most of hfboards would agree that centers hold more value than wingers.

You are really living up to your username forums user SensNation613

View attachment 91899

Oh look mark stone is a better offensive and defensive player

oh look mark stone has better future projections as well

but yeah you do you

 

[umwoz]

View attachment 91899

Oh look mark stone is a better offensive and defensive player

oh look mark stone has better future projections as well

but yeah you do you

However.... the difference between Mark Stone and Bryan Little is not Kyle Connor a blue chip prospect.

 

[Benjamin]

Over the past two seasons Little has 94 points in 127 games, a 61 point pace over 82 games.

Over that same time period Stone has 125 points in 155 games, a 66 point pace.

I'd take a 60 point twoway center over a 66 point winger, and I think most of hfboards would agree that centers hold more value than wingers.

You are really living up to your username forums user SensNation613

If your argument for Little being better his is defensive game, I question how much you know about and watch Stone.

 

[tacogeoff]

View attachment 91899

Oh look mark stone is a better offensive and defensive player

oh look mark stone has better future projections as well

but yeah you do you

Mark Stone > Little . Stone has more takeaways and Little has more faceoff wins. pretty much the only dispute here is C or W. I personally would take Stone in a heart beat as I believe him to be the better player BUT these two teams are not good trade partners and we do not need another Winger.

 

[internetdotcom]

If you want Stone (our best forward and second best player), a player we have no reason to trade and don't want to give up, expect to trade a similar player from your team, not a couple of far lesser assets. Especially since we are wanting to compete now, as evidenced by the Zibby - Brassard trade.

 

[Hale The Villain]

However.... the difference between Mark Stone and Bryan Little is not Kyle Connor a blue chip prospect.

That's the proper argument to make. Whether the difference between Stone and Little is worth a high-end prospect, not whether Little is better than Stone. That's a losing argument if I've ever seen one.

I'd argue the difference between the two is worth Connor, given that Stone is an elite winger in the making on a steal of a contract, after which he is an RFA, while Little is 5 years older, more expensive, and is a UFA in 3 years. Value isn't too far off in the deal, but it doesn't make sense for the Sens with Turris and Brassard already in the organization.

 

[TheNewEra]

However.... the difference between Mark Stone and Bryan Little is not Kyle Connor a blue chip prospect.

ill be honest I don't know enough about Connor in terms of determining his upside

What the chart shows me (and don't kill me over this) is that little is in that above average range for a player (he has some holes in his game) whereas stone is in that elite range for a player. Generally, when trading for an elite player you need to overpay otherwise the conversation doesn't start, unless your montreal.

if you look at Mark Scheifele's hero chart as an example he holds an advantage over stone in terms of offence but stone holds an advantage over defence. In terms of a 1 for 1 swap that would make more sense but obviously winnipeg wouldn't want to do that.

 

[tacogeoff]

Over the past two seasons Little has 94 points in 127 games, a 61 point pace over 82 games.

Over that same time period Stone has 125 points in 155 games, a 66 point pace.

I'd take a 60 point twoway center over a 66 point winger, and I think most of hfboards would agree that centers hold more value than wingers.

You are really living up to your username forums user SensNation613

You forgot the defensive aspect.

Stone 226 puck takeaways in 2 seasons.
Little 45

that is huge. The man makes something out of nothing by playing stick checking defence and stealing pucks left and right from teams transitioning to offence and on the back check.

 

[umwoz]

That's the proper argument to make. Whether the difference between Stone and Little is worth a high-end prospect, not whether Little is better than Stone. That's a losing argument if I've ever seen one.

I'd argue the difference between the two is worth Connor, given that Stone is an elite winger in the making on a steal of a contract, after which he is an RFA, while Little is 5 years older, more expensive, and is a UFA in 3 years. Value isn't too far off but it doesn't make sense for the Sens with Turris and Brassard already in the organization.

Sens don't need Little. Jets aren't close enough to competing to mortgage future for a top winger.

Stone would be a great asset to have and I would never go as far as to say Little outvalues him, but I think we disagree on the value of Connor a fair bit.(not that it's a topic for this thread).

From my standpoint. There isn't a D in the Sens system that isn't from Sweden that you could add to Stone in order to pry Connor away WITH Little.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Sens don't need Little.

Stone would be a great asset to have and I would never go as far as to say Little outvalues him, but I think we disagree on the value of Connor a fair bit.(not that it's a topic for this thread).

From my standpoint. There isn't a D in the Sens system that isn't from Sweden that you could add to Stone in order to pry Connor away WITH Little.

Stone + Ceci/Chabot doesn't return Little + Connor for you?

Might be overrating Connor a bit, or underrating the value of a young top 4 defenseman.

 

[lomiller1]

View attachment 91899

Oh look mark stone is a better offensive and defensive player

Pretty small differences there, not enough to make up for the difference in value between a C and a W.

 

[Sureves]

This is one of those threads that is going to be a huge laugh 10 years from now.

Brian Little is not even relevant in a trade for Mark Stone. Like, inconsequential, irrelevant.

Mark Stone is by far the most underrated Senator on the roster.

 

[JetsHomer]

Pretty small differences there, not enough to make up for the difference in value between a C and a W.

Age and contract give Stone more valuable, but both these guys are probably going to similar impact next year.

 

[lomiller1]

You forgot the defensive aspect.

Stone 226 puck takeaways in 2 seasons.
Little 45

that is huge. The man makes something out of nothing by playing stick checking defence and stealing pucks left and right from teams transitioning to offence and on the back check.

Takeaways/giveaways are arguably a worse stats than +/-. It’s just too inconsistently collected and to vague to be meaningful. The vast majority of plays that result in possession changes never get tracked in any way.

 

[tacogeoff]

Takeaways/giveaways are arguably a worse stats than +/-. It’s just too inconsistently collected and to vague to be meaningful. The vast majority of plays that result in possession changes never get tracked in any way.

Ya. no. I watch both teams religiously. Stone destroys Little defensively and its not a worse stat than +/- when you watch stone break up plays and pick guys pockets like its no buddies business and turns the puck up ice or keeps the opposition pinned in their end. He is a tremendous talent and a much higher value than little. it is what it is.

 

[TheNewEra]

Pretty small differences there, not enough to make up for the difference in value between a C and a W.

really shot suppression is minor? possession is minor?

We have a more offensive forward who is also better at defence

i guess my definition of minor is something different but if any of your stats are close to that of a 4th liner then it isnt the best thing

if offence was the only difference, i can completely see the Center v Winger argument hold up, but its offence and defence. So yeah you can take your center ill take the better 200 foot forward