When you point out that Monahan has only played in 81 games the last two seasons (neither from injuries).
Do you feel like you somehow proved anything?
Value of: Malkin for Monahan
- Thread starter nhlfan9191
- Start date
When you point out that Monahan has only played in 81 games the last two seasons (neither from injuries).
Do you feel like you somehow proved anything?
K Fleur
Sacrifice
- Mar 28, 2014
- 15,866
- 26,808
That's the ****ing point.
When someone claims a player can't be a superstar because they haven't played a full season in 8 years (Smythe, Ross, and Hart trophies in that time frame) have they somehow proven anything? Other than their respective delusion that is.
Utilize the context clues, and your reading comprehension skills next time.
Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 77,006
- 21,735
You said he hasn't played like a superstar in 5 years. He clearly has, and now you're changing your position.
Now, that's a stupid position too, because it suggests that guys like Forsberg, Lemieux, and Orr weren't superstars because they took multiple "sic" days, but that's another argument.
You don't think his history of injuries is a concern especially now that he's 30?
He will be a shell of himself by the time he's 33/34.
Tavares91Stamkos91
Registered User
Calgary declines. Why would they want a 30 year old Malkin when they have a 21 year old #1/2C in Monahan? However, Pittsburgh does not even need Monahan and Calgary does not need Malkin.
KrisLetAngry
MrJukeBoy
It's really tough for me.
Malkin is better and we are win now mode.
But Monahan is 3 mill cheaper and younger.
Issue is malkin can play with scrubs and still score. Idk if Monahan can
K Fleur
Sacrifice
- Mar 28, 2014
- 15,866
- 26,808
I understand your need to change the argument because of how foolish it was for you to interject into something you did not understand in the first place. However this has zero to do with the claim that players can't be a superstar if they don't play a full season.
Also I don't give a **** about what your crystal ball told you Malkin will be at 34. What Malkin is as a 30 year old(or any point in his career really) is better than anything Monahan has shown yet.
And again. So what if he's better now. Calgary isn't winning the cup in the next two years. So we get maybe one year of prime Malkin in our cup window. After that I'll take 25 year old Monahan over 34 year old Malkin.
One year that it helps us and a thirty percent chance he's hurt in the playoffs.
It makes no sense for Calgary
- Jun 17, 2009
- 10,437
- 6,594
Chances are Malkin won't be able to produce at the clip he is at now, but saying he outright WILL decline and his contract will be detrimental is a pretty bold statement for a player of his pedigree. He's a generational talent, guys like that have a tendency to stick around longer, whether they have bad backs, knees, etc.
Seems like he's closer to Forsberg than he is Sakic. And that hurts me to say. Forsberg was my favorite player growing up.
Empoleon8771
Registered User
How are people trying to argue this makes sense for Pittsburgh? The Pens are a win now team, so they're trading Malkin for a worse player? Cap space is nice and all, but cap space is useless if you don't have anything to spend it on. The Pens don't have many valuable assets that they can trade and the FA market is totally empty right now. This trade obviously doesn't make any sense for Calgary, but I have no idea how people are saying the Pens would consider this. They have won 2 cups with Malkin, why are they going to trade him for a clear downgrade?
Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 77,006
- 21,735
Malkin's an elderly, shriveled up 30 year old who ain't good for nuthin' no more.
Not So Mighty
Enjoy your freedom, you wintertimer.
Pittsburgh says no because they JUST won a Cup. You don't go trading away one of your very, very, very best players when you just won the Cup a month or two ago. They have to believe they are completely capable of winning it again next year and/or the year after that. You do not trade an established elite #1 C talent while they're still cleaning up after the parade.
If Pitt had lost in the first or second round convincingly, yeah, maybe they think long and hard about this deal and just maybe they say yes.
Johnnybegood13
Registered User
- Jul 11, 2003
- 8,736
- 996
Superstars play threw injury's, Lemieux had cancer, Orr had torn ligaments in both knee's and at least Foppa didn't take weeks off with a hang nail as it turned out he had a severe case of bursa.
DearDiary
🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷
- Aug 29, 2010
- 15,203
- 12,550
hagelin1381
Registered User
K Fleur
Sacrifice
- Mar 28, 2014
- 15,866
- 26,808
Posts like this prove that there are many people who have no idea what the **** they are talking about when it pertains to Evgeni Malkin. Get a clue.
Last edited:
40 years old Selanne was as good as a 30 years old Selanne. Geno is 30 and has another 10 years of being the best or second best player in the NHL.
Sweetpotato
Registered User
Calgary keeps their youth, pens keep one of the top 5 players on earth while they contend.
This thread is great, its an ever receding pool of ignorance about a player lol every time a point is disproved, another equally ignorant comment is made and so on and so forth.
This thread is great, its an ever receding pool of ignorance about a player lol every time a point is disproved, another equally ignorant comment is made and so on and so forth.
CharlesHabsFan
Registered User
Oh boy... apparently the Subban - Weber trade has derailed general hockey judgement on HFBoards. 
In what world is Malkin not a superstar ? It's been pretty simple, he's been the 2nd best center in the league behind his own teammate. And how is 31 years old now the indicator that an elite player becomes useless / too old ? Boy wouldn't we be talking about Chelios if things happened like that... 20 to 30 = elite, best player in the world, huge potential. Hit 31 = crappiest player ever, should be bought out, best years obviously behind. Didn't Alex Kovalev hit his 2nd best ever year with the Canadiens while being 35 years old ?
Great for the Flames they have a huge young stud and they should surely hang on to him. The reason they say no is because they are clearly out of competition for the next few years so acquiring a high prime asset simply doesn't put them into contention whatsoever... Other than that, I can't see in any way that Calgary would say no to Malkin if they were into contention mode. If I compare to Galchenyuk, with all the potential he's got and all we project into him, I don't look back at all at trading him for Malkin.
Subban for Weber made much more sense since their value is much closer than that. They are both elite right now, established and greatly producing, so they could be considered just about equal. You could concede a slight advantage to Subban for the age factor, but clearly not more than that.
In what world is Malkin not a superstar ? It's been pretty simple, he's been the 2nd best center in the league behind his own teammate. And how is 31 years old now the indicator that an elite player becomes useless / too old ? Boy wouldn't we be talking about Chelios if things happened like that... 20 to 30 = elite, best player in the world, huge potential. Hit 31 = crappiest player ever, should be bought out, best years obviously behind. Didn't Alex Kovalev hit his 2nd best ever year with the Canadiens while being 35 years old ?
Great for the Flames they have a huge young stud and they should surely hang on to him. The reason they say no is because they are clearly out of competition for the next few years so acquiring a high prime asset simply doesn't put them into contention whatsoever... Other than that, I can't see in any way that Calgary would say no to Malkin if they were into contention mode. If I compare to Galchenyuk, with all the potential he's got and all we project into him, I don't look back at all at trading him for Malkin.
Subban for Weber made much more sense since their value is much closer than that. They are both elite right now, established and greatly producing, so they could be considered just about equal. You could concede a slight advantage to Subban for the age factor, but clearly not more than that.
I would keep the younger player with the lower contract. Not saying Monahan is better but Malkin is worn down and cost more and CGY already is close to cap
grewalwings
Registered User
Malkin is completely worth his contract, and is still playing elite hockey at his end. It can be easily argued that Monahan has a small chance of getting to the level of talent Malkin has but than again, he's younger and has a cheaper contract, obviously worth more right...
