Sens of Anarchy
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 65,277
- 49,909
well no one knows anything for certainCould be the next Hossa
People are panning the trade because supposedly no high end prospect came the other way, but how do we know Balcers won't become a top end player? He certainly seems to have the skill. That's the kind of call Dorion is paid to make.
What I like about Balcers
1 - seems to go faster with the puck then without it
2 - extremely goal hungry, the closer he gets to the blue paint the more desperate he gets
3 - boxy and strong on his skates, reminds me of the Russia scoring wingers like Sergei Samsonov
4 - No Fear
6 - wants to go forward with the puck all the time
5 - Great Name
well no one knows anything for certain
agreed, and he deserves flack if hes wrong.
Well. If he’s wrong I don’t like hearing excuses like “it’s hindsight now!” He’s wrong he’s wrong he’s paid to be rightNot that I care, but explain why there was so much flack BEFORE we know if he's right or wrong then. Really not my intention to defend Dorion or anything but I'm curious on what's the logic here. I was also super critical of the trade, but I didn't really crap on the return in itself because we have no idea what's in the cards when it's a futures package. I made the mistake to crap on the Turris trade back then but quickly I realized that it was purely emotional and non-founded. Most trades you have to wait and see.
All my experience through internet, I realized that there's 3 type of people really. The malcontents that will rate a movie 1/10 on IMBD because they didn't like it or were annoyed by something (plural, because they are natural malcontents), then you have those who will vote 10/10 because they really enjoyed the movie or those who will give that grade to compensate for the bunch of malcontents. Finally, there's normal people who will grade the movie accordingly to what they believe it deserves.
All that to say that many were giving Dorion a lot of flack for the trade before we could even know what happens, and the same goes for every trade. So, no matter what, flack will be given. I really don't think the "he deserves flack if hes wrong" statement holds anything in the reality of this board.
I disagree a bit. I judge trades on the return extracted at the time of the deal, with the knowledge available at that time. If hoff turns into an anchor and boedker goes lights out, im still not giving dorion credit for it. Same way i wont give scouting too much credit for drafting stone. If they had any clue what they had, they would have never risked letting him slide to the late rounds. They deserve some credit, for sure, but its not like they stretched and pulled him way higher than he was projected.Not that I care, but explain why there was so much flack BEFORE we know if he's right or wrong then. Really not my intention to defend Dorion or anything but I'm curious on what's the logic here. I was also super critical of the trade, but I didn't really crap on the return in itself because we have no idea what's in the cards when it's a futures package. I made the mistake to crap on the Turris trade back then but quickly I realized that it was purely emotional and non-founded. Most trades you have to wait and see.
All my experience through internet, I realized that there's 3 type of people really. The malcontents that will rate a movie 1/10 on IMBD because they didn't like it or were annoyed by something (plural, because they are natural malcontents), then you have those who will vote 10/10 because they really enjoyed the movie or those who will give that grade to compensate for the bunch of malcontents. Finally, there's normal people who will grade the movie accordingly to what they believe it deserves.
All that to say that many were giving Dorion a lot of flack for the trade before we could even know what happens, and the same goes for every trade. So, no matter what, flack will be given. I really don't think the "he deserves flack if hes wrong" statement holds anything in the reality of this board.
It also doesn’t help that the same people complaining that you judged the trade too early will complain when you judge the trade in a couple years if it doesn’t go their way lol.I disagree a bit. I judge trades on the return extracted at the time of the deal, with the knowledge available at that time. If hoff turns into an anchor and boedker goes lights out, im still not giving dorion credit for it. Same way i wont give scouting too much credit for drafting stone. If they had any clue what they had, they would have never risked letting him slide to the late rounds. They deserve some credit, for sure, but its not like they stretched and pulled him way higher than he was projected.
Common thinking is that sens left value on the table for the karl deal. That's hard to excuse, regardless of how the players turn out.
Well. If he’s wrong I don’t like hearing excuses like “it’s hindsight now!” He’s wrong he’s wrong he’s paid to be right
I disagree a bit. I judge trades on the return extracted at the time of the deal, with the knowledge available at that time. If hoff turns into an anchor and boedker goes lights out, im still not giving dorion credit for it. Same way i wont give scouting too much credit for drafting stone. If they had any clue what they had, they would have never risked letting him slide to the late rounds. They deserve some credit, for sure, but its not like they stretched and pulled him way higher than he was projected.
Common thinking is that sens left value on the table for the karl deal. That's hard to excuse, regardless of how the players turn out.
But that's the thing, when you look at a trade, you have to look at it both ways, when it happened and in hindsight, when we know what the end result is.
You said "he deserves flack if hes wrong", which is totally understandable (well, always depends how far criticism go, bashing and name dropping is ******ed) but the problem I was talking about is that he already got a lot of flack about it BEFORE we know if he was right or wrong. Which is what I am saying doesn't make sense.
Ok but that's also what I am saying. Of course, I cannot explain everything in every post. But yes, analyze the trade when it happens, then come back and judge it years later in "hindsight". Personally, "common thinking" doesn't mean much to me. If everybody was saying the earth was square, I would till not give a crap about "common thinking".
Considering the circumstances, which is trading Karlsson WITHOUT an extension in place (which should never happen with a player of this caliber), aka UFA in 1 year, the package is pretty decent.
- a 1st (that could still be relatively high next year, depending on what happens with the Sharks, an aging core, some players declining and Karlsson leaving could really hurt them)
- a 2nd (that will probably be high with the Panthers pick as they are not looking like they'll make the playoffs this year)
- Josh Norris : pretty impressive athlete for his age, he might not be a high end talent but I think he can become a key player (I'm expecting a White-level kind of impact). It's a bit like people who thought that Tkachuk wouldn't be that good.
- Rudolf Balcers : wildcard there, not sure what he can become but the trade return will be impacted heavily on what he becomes.
- Tierney : good 3rd line player (Pageau level, better offensively, but not as good defensively), will probably be traded before his contract expires so those assets will also part of the return
- DeMelo : he was not supposed to be worth much but he is a decent player, decently quiet, exactly the type I want on my 3rd pair instead of the Widemans, Boros and Harpurs of this world.
- And maybe another 1st/2nd round pick, but we'll have to wait and see for that.
In terms of known Sens assets, it would have been like a 1st, a 2nd, White, Chlapik, Pageau, Harpur and conditionals (think of their value before this team downfall 1 year ago). Imagine situations were opposite and the Sens gave up all that for 1 year of Brent Burns (let's say he was 28 y/o), "hoping" to extend him. The pressure would be high on the GM.
My beef is more :
- Karlsson should have been extended long-term, particularly if Hoffman was already gone.
- if he really had to be traded, trade him with an extension in place to get the best return possible.
- If the decision to "rebuild" was made before, why they didn't go with the Vegas offer last TD? Probably as intriguing as this one, if not more.
- You trade your best D-man, but don't get any top-4 D-man in return? What the hell? It's not like bottoming doesn't matter this year, because we don't even have our own first. They should have tried to compete and then rebuild AFTER THIS SEASON if it went really bad. Defense, coaching and goaltending should have been addressed. There's talent on this team but they are a discombobulated team with poor structure, weak goaltending and big holes on defense.
It also doesn’t help that the same people complaining that you judged the trade too early will complain when you judge the trade in a couple years if it doesn’t go their way lol.
The problem with your beef is that it requires Karlsson's cooperation
Extend him long term...he has to sign
Trade him with extension in place....other GMs were given opportunity to speak to the Karlsson camp but here again he'd need to sign