Hawks
Second Liner
25%
Posts: 372
|
Post by Hawks on Sept 16, 2012 1:27:27 GMT -5
To Ducks:
Brent Burns Matt Carle 5th Round Waiver
To Bruins:
Patrick Marleau 1st Round Waiver
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Sept 16, 2012 12:28:07 GMT -5
This is such an unbelievably bad trade that I am holding off on updating the team rosters in hopes that it is just some sort of post-lockout trade joke intended to provide amusement.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler - Jets on Sept 16, 2012 14:47:36 GMT -5
I am glad someone else spoke up as well. Bruins win deal hands down.
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Sept 16, 2012 19:44:02 GMT -5
I agree to the deal.
Trades should be evaluated whether or not they improve someone's team. Anaheim's D is vastly better today than yesterday w 2 guys who are just entering their primes and are on their top PP units. Meanwhile he gives up a good pick and a 14 year veteran who has had declining stats the past three seasons. Ignoring the names, the deal is reasonable. I'm pretty sure Brad has been shopping Marleau for a while and if he was still one of the top players in the league, more GMs would've been asking about him.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Sept 17, 2012 3:55:56 GMT -5
I agree to the deal. Trades should be evaluated whether or not they improve someone's team. Anaheim's D is vastly better today than yesterday w 2 guys who are just entering their primes and are on their top PP units. Meanwhile he gives up a good pick and a 14 year veteran who has had declining stats the past three seasons. Ignoring the names, the deal is reasonable. I'm pretty sure Brad has been shopping Marleau for a while and if he was still one of the top players in the league, more GMs would've been asking about him. You are correct in saying that trades should be evaluated by whether or not they improve someone's team (even though this trade does not improve the Ducks). However, you are ignoring the fact that there are a multitude of ways a GM can improve his or her team (free agency, waiver draft, etc) and it is a collection of these parts in which the quality of a GM and his or her team should be evaluated. Brad is "forced" to make a terrible deal like this is because of waiver draft pick mismanagement and free agency inefficiency. He knew he was short on D when he selected Brian Elliott and Kris Versteeg in the 1st Round of the Waiver Draft and (an injured) Derek Roy in the 2nd (mediocre picks at best) when he could have had the likes of Tobias Enstrom and Michael Del Zotto. Or Mark Streit in the 3rd. Or Ehrhoff, Carlson in the 4th. All of which will put up similar/better numbers than Burns and Carle. And they could have been had for "free," while still holding on to Marleau. Additionally, even if Brad did want to blow off D in the waiver draft and overstock on forwards, he still could have picked up the likes of Kaberle, Zidlicky, Colaiacovo, etc off the waiver wire, who once again, if healthy, will put up similar stats to Burns and Carle. And once again could have been had for free while still keeping Marleau. Not to mention the 1st Round Waiver pick (where the likes of Enstrom, Ribiero are available). To put things into perspective, Matt Carle was drafted in the 5th Round of this year's waiver draft. So essentially the deal in question is a fringe keeper in Burns and a 5th Round Waiver Pick for Marleau (Top 25 fantasy player with our settings and would go in the 1st Round of any Waiver Draft) and an additional 1st Round Waiver pick. If Mark - Bruins goes and picks up any of the aforementioned available free agent D, he basically loses nothing from his team and acquires a top forward and a 1st Round Waiver Pick for free. Had I known an "old" Marleau (33) and a 1st were available for fodder, I would have been all over this deal. Sadly, I did not, whereas I think you are grossly exaggerating the extent to which the availability of Marleau was known. He would have been listed on the Ducks trade block had he been being "actively shopped." Which he was not. nafhl2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=buffalo&action=display&thread=132Given the circumstances, anybody who attempts to argue, with a straight face, and actualy believes the crap coming out of their own mouth, that this deal improves the Ducks is severely delusional. With that said, I will process the trade per usual. I was just making sure it wasn't some post lock-out shenanigans.
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Sept 17, 2012 9:37:00 GMT -5
Awful trade, seems Brad doesn't understand a few key elements to making a trade. Not only does he give up the best player but also a First Round Waiver pick. He doesn't even acquire a sure fire star keeper defenseman in this deal and he dealt with a manager who had a forced hand and still got bent over. Mark had seven rostered defensemen, Mark also had several on his farm, with McBain's farm eligibility running out. There was no way he was entering the season with that many defensemen on his roster and the others that may have been dropped were decent options, better than giving up what he did. What a putz.
|
|
Hawks
Second Liner
25%
Posts: 372
|
Post by Hawks on Sept 17, 2012 10:05:31 GMT -5
No doubt I backed myself into a corner by not solving my defensive shortcomings in the waiver draft... I wish I had. With that said, I don't regret moving a solid forward who has had steadily declining numbers over the past couple years for two dmen who I expect to put up better numbers than they have to date. The 1st round waiver was a stretch and I fought with Mark over that for quite some time.. When it boils down to it, my defensive situation is much better than it was a couple days ago. I don't think I "won" this deal by any means, but I backed out of the corner I was in. At the end of the day, I fielded a decent squad of dmen without giving up Sedin, Ryan, Hossa, or Kopitar (which were the only guys most gm's wanted to talk about). Only Carle's performance in Tampa (where he will have a larger role than he did in Philly, and Burns' performance this year will tell I suppose.
|
|