Proposal: MTL ad COL Blockbuster

[Drydenwasthebest]

You are giving the edge to MaxPac because he is older. Landeskog won the Calder, I don't remember Pacioretty winning the Calder. Kind of a ridiculous argument, don't you think? MaxPac is a pure goalscorer while Landeskog is a Power Forward, they don't play the same type of game so I don't think you can compare them the same way...but let's say we did, here are the results :

1st year pro - Landeskog 82GP 52PTS (19 yrs old)
1st year pro - Pacioretty 34GP 11PTS (20 yrs old)
2nd year pro - Landeskog 36GP 17PTS (20 yrs old)*lockout
2nd year pro - Pacioretty 52GP 14PTS (21 yrs old)
3rd year pro - Landeskog 81GP 65PTS (21 yrs old)
3rd year pro - Pacioretty 79GP 65PTS (22 yrs old)
4th year pro - Landeskog 82GP 59PTS (22 yrs old)
4th year pro - Pacioretty 44GP 39PTS (23 yrs old)*lockout
5th year pro - Landeskog 75GP 53PTS (23 yrs old)
5th year pro - Pacioretty 73GP 60PTS (24 yrs old)

Their first 5 years in the league are certainly very comparable but I'll take the kid who plays a power forward's game and is already very close to the goalscorer's totals...but that's just me.

Again, just comparing raw numbers without any context is the problem.

In his first season Landeskog had the opportunity to play top line minutes (18+ per game, with 191 pp minutes on the season) along with top 6 players. Pacioretty played 3rd line minutes (12+ per game with 49 pp minutes onn the season) with bottom 6 players.

The same thing is true in their 2nd seasons, respectively.

In their 3rd seasons, Pacioretty gets up to 15+ minutes per game and 90 minutes of PP time and starts an amazing career of carrying Desharnais around. He then gets his neck broken by Chara. Landeskog still had top 6 playing time, top 6 players, first line PP time, 18+ minutes per game, etc..

In their 4th respective seasons, they finally get numbers to compare. They both play 18 + top line minutes. They both get first pp unit playing time. They almost play the same number of games. Landeskog still has top 6 players worthy of the name, while Pacioretty carries Desharnais and an older Cole along for successful seasons. Suddenly, Pacioretty has more goals, more total points, and is playing better defensively.

Are you starting to understand what I meant in an earlier post about context?

So, right now, the trade does not make sense for the Habs, as they give up the actual better player. Tomorrow? It MIGHT work out that Landeskog becomes better. I want the definite right now over the
maybe of tomorrow. Our idiot GM sent away a maybe tomorrow for a right now in the Subban vs Weber trade, so we may as well stay the course and try to win, right now.

That is why the Habs say "no", and why context is important in any discussion about a player's value.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Context is important.

Colorado brought Landy in to play right away. The Habs usually bring their players along more slowly. Landeskog was given 18+ minutes per game starting in his rookie season. Pacioretty was only given 12+ minutes per game in his first 2 seasons and had such a horribly defence first oriented coach that he had to tell the Habs he would rather play in the minors than in the NHL on the 4th line. It is an organizational difference in philosophy. The Habs never play their rookies big minutes, where the Avs have done it with their top picks consistently over the time they have picked guys like Landeskog, Duchene, MacKinnon, etc... Look at the first full season the Habs finally allowed Pacioretty to play top line minutes (18+ per game). Suddenly he produces the same number of points as Landeskog, while scoring more goals. Ever since Pacioretty has been given the same opportunity to succeed as Landeskog, he has outproduced him.

In your comparison of raw numbers, you also conveniently leave out that Chara broke Pacioretty's neck in his 3rd season, slowing his development and point production down a bit in that season.

There are also the pathetic offensive line mates Pacioretty played with in his 1st 5 seasons to remember, along with defensive coaching that limited everything one could imagine. Don't you think having centers like a younger Stastny, an O'Reilly, and a Duchene to work with helped Landeskog a lot more than the LaPierre, Desharnais, Plekanec type of players Pacioretty started with?

How about the fact that Landeskog hit his best season and then declined over the next two, while Pacioretty either kept improving or maintained his previous excellence?

Where did you find the Selke votes they both received in their 1st 5 seasons? I could not find a comprehensive list that went back before 2014-2015. I would honestly appreciate a link, if you have one, please.

Finally, when considering a trade, you have to consider what you are giving up right now as well as what you might gain down the road. We would be giving up the better player right now in this trade. Could Landeskog improve and become better? Absolutely. He is terrific and has tons of talent. He might become better than Pacioretty is. Of course, he might not. There are no guarantees of anything, just ask the Oilers how great Yakupov worked out for them. So, looking at the FACT that the Habs are looking to compete for a Cup now, there is no way they trade the actual better player for a guy who is great and might become better in a year or two. Especially when that player would get stuck in Therrien's BS defence first system, something you and other Avs fans seem to state Landeskog has been playing in, thereby proving that he would NOT produce MORE points for our team than Pacioretty has.

Context is important to every hockey debate. Numbers in a vacuum are not enough. Compare apples to apples as best you can. Saying a player getting 6 less minutes per game produced less than the guy force fed top line minutes is worse offensively is being a bit disingenuous at best.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/selke.html

You can click on any year to see the voting results from that season.


And, I agree that context is important. Is comparing their first 5 years somehow worse than comparing the last 3, when Landeskog has been on a rebuilding team and Patches has been on a team that, by your own admission, is looking to compete for a Cup? That's debatable.

Is comparing what Patches has done since turning 25 a good "apples to apples" comparison to what Landeskog has done before turning 25?

And, if Landeskog was 2nd in team scoring 3 years ago, and 2 years ago , and last year, has his performance really declined, or is it a systemic issue with the team that caused his numbers to drop?

 

[KingTux]

So Pacioretty for Landeskog

Habs pov : Yes please

Colorado pov : No thank you

 

[Drydenwasthebest]

http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/selke.html

You can click on any year to see the voting results from that season.

I must be doing something wrong, I only get top 20 guys in earlier years... Thanks, though, for the link!

And, I agree that context is important. Is comparing their first 5 years somehow worse than comparing the last 3, when Landeskog has been on a rebuilding team and Patches has been on a team that, by your own admission, is looking to compete for a Cup? That's debatable.

Go and compare their head to head 4th years, then. Comparing their years where they play equivalent amounts of time, even if one is older, is more fair than comparing two players who are playing totally different amounts of time. Your assumption is that age is the final determination in regards to talent, but there are plenty of players who regress as time goes by, rather than improve. It is more fair to compare top line minutes to top line minutes, as opposed to comparing 18 minutes to 12 minutes with one getting almost 4 times the PP time. Again, though, it is why using their respective 4th years and beyond are helpful.

You are also over stating in the "compete for a Cup" aspect of my statement. The reason we CAN compete for a Cup right now is Price. With him, we compete for a Cup right now. Without him, we do not make the playoffs, it seems. However, even with Price, we still need someone to score goals. Right now, and for the last few seasons, that is Pacioretty. So, we need Patches and Price if we hope to have a chance to win a Cup.

Is comparing what Patches has done since turning 25 a good "apples to apples" comparison to what Landeskog has done before turning 25?

Yes, and no. Some players peak before 25, some after. No player will do better with 12 minutes per game when compared to another at 18 minutes per game with almost 4 times more PP time at the same position, though. For these two players, their 4th years are their best to compare. In doing we so, we see Pacioretty did better.

And, if Landeskog was 2nd in team scoring 3 years ago, and 2 years ago , and last year, has his performance really declined, or is it a systemic issue with the team that caused his numbers to drop?

Listen, I am not bashing Landeskog. He IS a great player. He IS younger than Pacioretty and has the potential to become better than Patches. I just do not see Landeskog improving over the last 2 seasons, overall. I also feel the Habs NEED the goalscoring of Patches more than they need what Landeskog brings to the ice. I have not been attacking Landeskog throughout this discussion. I am simply pointing out why the trade is not this insanely in favour of Montreal ludicrous trade that many seem to be indicating in this thread. I am stating why it is a trade the Habs should not do with their "win now" mentality. Thanks for a civil and fun discussion, so far...

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Listen, I am not bashing Landeskog. He IS a great player. He IS younger than Pacioretty and has the potential to become better than Patches. I just do not see Landeskog improving over the last 2 seasons, overall. I also feel the Habs NEED the goalscoring of Patches more than they need what Landeskog brings to the ice. I have not been attacking Landeskog throughout this discussion. I am simply pointing out why the trade is not this insanely in favour of Montreal ludicrous trade that many seem to be indicating in this thread. I am stating why it is a trade the Habs should not do with their "win now" mentality. Thanks for a civil and fun discussion, so far...

When you click the years in that list (far left column), it should give you everyone who received a vote for every award. I went back to 78-79 and see more than just the top 20. For more recent years, the votes are broken down to 1st/2nd/etc.


Comparing single years can be useful, but it still leaves a lot to be desired. For example, Landeskog's 5th year (last year), it appeared that he was struggling with a wrist injury for much of the year. It was never disclosed, and I can't prove it, but to my eye, he was favoring his left wrist for probably the first 30-40 games. Does that account for the 7 point difference between Patches' 6th season (his 5th was cut short by lockout) and Landeskog's 5th? Maybe, maybe not.

And, I agree that Price is the difference maker in Montreal. But, how many teams can compete for the Cup without their starting goalie? Is LA going to be a contender without Quick? Would NYR be a contender without Lundquist? Or the Caps without Holtby? The list of goalies that could be considered the single point of failure for their team is a long one.

I also agree that, if the Habs primarily need goal scoring from their 1LW, Patches is the better option for them. Landeskog is more likely to be 20g/40a, while Patches is more likely to be 35/25. That doesn't make one better, just makes them different. For the Avs, I'd rather have Landeskog on a line with MacKinnon than having Patches with MacKinnon.

And, I'm also not bashing Pacioretty. I think he's a very good player, and is in the upper echelon of goal scorers. But, just as the Habs don't have anyone to replace Patches' goal scoring, the Avs don't have anyone to replace Landeskog's physical, two way play. Adding another goal scorer, when we already have Duchene and MacKinnon, just doesn't make sense.

I think this is one of those cases when both teams say no, for completely different but equally justifiable reasons.

 

[SEALBound]

Avs say no thx.

I'd rather have Landy than Patches.

 

[Price is Wright]

What about Landeskog + Duchene for Pacioretty + Galchenyuk?

 

[Bender]

Again, just comparing raw numbers without any context is the problem.

In his first season Landeskog had the opportunity to play top line minutes (18+ per game, with 191 pp minutes on the season) along with top 6 players. Pacioretty played 3rd line minutes (12+ per game with 49 pp minutes onn the season) with bottom 6 players.

The same thing is true in their 2nd seasons, respectively.

In their 3rd seasons, Pacioretty gets up to 15+ minutes per game and 90 minutes of PP time and starts an amazing career of carrying Desharnais around. He then gets his neck broken by Chara. Landeskog still had top 6 playing time, top 6 players, first line PP time, 18+ minutes per game, etc..

In their 4th respective seasons, they finally get numbers to compare. They both play 18 + top line minutes. They both get first pp unit playing time. They almost play the same number of games. Landeskog still has top 6 players worthy of the name, while Pacioretty carries Desharnais and an older Cole along for successful seasons. Suddenly, Pacioretty has more goals, more total points, and is playing better defensively.

Are you starting to understand what I meant in an earlier post about context?

So, right now, the trade does not make sense for the Habs, as they give up the actual better player. Tomorrow? It MIGHT work out that Landeskog becomes better. I want the definite right now over the
maybe of tomorrow. Our idiot GM sent away a maybe tomorrow for a right now in the Subban vs Weber trade, so we may as well stay the course and try to win, right now.

That is why the Habs say "no", and why context is important in any discussion about a player's value.

LOL I'm comparing raw numbers because I figured that is YOUR argument, Landeskog brings more of what doesn't show up on the scoreboard than Pacioretty.

How about this for 'context'? How about you compare the seasons both those teams have had during those time periods and see who comes up on top? Which team had the best PowerPlay??? How many of those points did MaxPac get on that MTL PP vs 5-on-5?? (I'm certainly not going to go through all that to try an convince ONE person who, by all accounts, has got big giant homer goggles on but I'd be pretty surprised if it was Landeskog who came up with the favourable stats in any of those categories, since the Avs had had 1 playoff series since he entered the league - so according to all that, MaxPac has had the more ideal circumstances to actually produce vs Landeskog [most people actually realize this without having the need to explain it])

According to YOU...Pacioretty is the better player but that certainly doesn't make it fact. 95% of ALL fans in this thread agree that Landeskog > MaxPac but feel free to keep going because after all, only YOUR opinion matters apparently.

Avs fans and neutral fans are saying "no thank you" on the Avs behalf.

We prefer to keep our captain who is a huge part of the identity of our team. How is MaxPac for your team in that regard?

 

[strictlyrandy]

What about Landeskog + Duchene for Pacioretty + Galchenyuk?

What about absolutely not?

It makes zero sense for the Avs. Makes less sense for Montreal given they're taking back more cap.

Moves like this are lateral and do absolutely nothing for either team

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

What about Landeskog + Duchene for Pacioretty + Galchenyuk?

What's the point? The Avs aren't looking to dump any of their core players unless it's going to make the team better. This is lateral, at best.

On top of that, I have no idea how Montreal is going to fit an additional $5m of cap hit into less than $800k of cap space.

 

[covfefe]

Too many Habs fans fail to understand the concept of buy low sell high. Pacioretty is an extremely streaky player and is currently on a cold streak. So:

A) It's not the time to trade him, even if we were entertaining that possibility. Wait for one of his 8 goals in 10 games streaks if he is actually on the block

B) Colorado doesn't trade Landeskog for that package

C) Pacioretty is one of our only pure goal scorers - on a team that is completely incapable of scoring goals. We should not trade him, no matter how much you guys hate him having the C or thinking he 'doesn't care.' Who scores goals for us once he is gone? Galchenyuk, Radulov and Gallagher can't do it all...

 

[Revelation]

Pacioretty is 1 million less on the cap for the next 3 years and Landeskog is a sexier name but not clearly better unless you pretend he has super intangibles over Pacioretty which haven't really manifested into anything. Pacioretty for me

If they cost the same I'd take Landeskog on age + duration of contract, but if you're trying to win in the next 3 years Patches.

 

[Miller Time]

Habs definintely pull the trigger on the OP... but doubt Sakic makes that kind of mistake.

 

[Bender]

Too many Habs fans fail to understand the concept of buy low sell high. Pacioretty is an extremely streaky player and is currently on a cold streak. So:

A) It's not the time to trade him, even if we were entertaining that possibility. Wait for one of his 8 goals in 10 games streaks if he is actually on the block

B) Colorado doesn't trade Landeskog for that package

C) Pacioretty is one of our only pure goal scorers - on a team that is completely incapable of scoring goals. We should not trade him, no matter how much you guys hate him having the C or thinking he 'doesn't care.' Who scores goals for us once he is gone? Galchenyuk, Radulov and Gallagher can't do it all...

I don't think NHL GMs would think of it that way with Pacioretty's track record. Even if he runs hot and cold, he's more than proven himself over the years. IF the habs made him available, there would be no shortage of suitors for sure with that contract.

 

[Makar Goes Fast]

What about Landeskog + Duchene for Pacioretty + Galchenyuk?

lol well
landy > patches
Dutchy > chucky


so this is very easy for colorado to decline.

 

[Jarey Curry]

***********

 

[bleuetbio]

Pacioretty is not on the trade block. Why would Montreal trade a 30+ goal scorer with a $4.5M cap hit (3 years left)?

Anyone think Bergevin might have been there to look at Dallas?

This... too much touch money these years, so like him or not, Pacman will stay till the end.

 

[Chacal667]

lol well
landy > patches
Dutchy > chucky


so this is very easy for colorado to decline.

what would be the + on a chucky for dutchy deal ?

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

what would be the + on a chucky for dutchy deal ?

If you want Duchene the offer needs to be something Sakic can't turn down.

Galchenyuk + Sergachev + ?

Anything less and it doesn't make sense for the Avs.

 

[Ivan13]

If you want Duchene the offer needs to be something Sakic can't turn down.

Galchenyuk + Sergachev + ?

Anything less and it doesn't make sense for the Avs.

Don't be absurd, if they offered those two for Duchene, he would already be on the plane to Montreal.

 

[RC51]

To take a page out of the Donald Trump playbook, I take everything I want you get NOTHING, now vote for ME.

 

[Drydenwasthebest]

When you click the years in that list (far left column), it should give you everyone who received a vote for every award. I went back to 78-79 and see more than just the top 20. For more recent years, the votes are broken down to 1st/2nd/etc.


Comparing single years can be useful, but it still leaves a lot to be desired. For example, Landeskog's 5th year (last year), it appeared that he was struggling with a wrist injury for much of the year. It was never disclosed, and I can't prove it, but to my eye, he was favoring his left wrist for probably the first 30-40 games. Does that account for the 7 point difference between Patches' 6th season (his 5th was cut short by lockout) and Landeskog's 5th? Maybe, maybe not.

And, I agree that Price is the difference maker in Montreal. But, how many teams can compete for the Cup without their starting goalie? Is LA going to be a contender without Quick? Would NYR be a contender without Lundquist? Or the Caps without Holtby? The list of goalies that could be considered the single point of failure for their team is a long one.

I also agree that, if the Habs primarily need goal scoring from their 1LW, Patches is the better option for them. Landeskog is more likely to be 20g/40a, while Patches is more likely to be 35/25. That doesn't make one better, just makes them different. For the Avs, I'd rather have Landeskog on a line with MacKinnon than having Patches with MacKinnon.

And, I'm also not bashing Pacioretty. I think he's a very good player, and is in the upper echelon of goal scorers. But, just as the Habs don't have anyone to replace Patches' goal scoring, the Avs don't have anyone to replace Landeskog's physical, two way play. Adding another goal scorer, when we already have Duchene and MacKinnon, just doesn't make sense.

I think this is one of those cases when both teams say no, for completely different but equally justifiable reasons.

I understand and agree with this post pretty much in its entirety. I do think that Washington can make the playoffs without Holtby, though...

 

[hockeyheadlines]

If you want Duchene the offer needs to be something Sakic can't turn down.

Galchenyuk + Sergachev + ?

Anything less and it doesn't make sense for the Avs.

Duchene isn't worth anything near your proposition.

 

[Benstheman]

Duchene isn't worth anything near your proposition.

Duchesne doesn't even worth more than Chucky.

 

[TeamRenzo]

Habs jump all over this deal, Avs laugh and hang up.