Jump to content

OK folks, let's step it up. If you could get a Lindros-like haul for EICHEL, would you?


Eleven

OK folks, let's step it up. If you could get a Lindros-like haul for EICHEL, would you?  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. OK folks, let's step it up. If you could get a Lindros-like haul for EICHEL, would you?

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      15


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Weave said:

Was Forsberg even as good as the other center on his team?  And was Sakic better than Lindros?

Boy, its close for me.  Lindros had every bit the impact on his team.  He didn’t have the depth of talent Colorado had.

 

To move Eichel I’d need to have a middle of the pack 1C, middle of the pack 2C, top 1/3 goalie, plus, plus coming back.  I cannot justify it as readily as I can a Dahlin trade, mostly because we are trading from a position of dearth and not a position of depth. 

I think In his prime, Forsberg was the best player in the world not named Dominik.

Lindros was close but wasn’t as smart, or as competitive. I’d take Eric over Joe, who were both fantastic.

Sakic over Forsberg was Canadian media/fandom creation IMO, just like Roy or Brodeur over Dom.

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Weave said:

Was Forsberg even as good as the other center on his team?  And was Sakic better than Lindros?

Boy, its close for me.  Lindros had every bit the impact on his team.  He didn’t have the depth of talent Colorado had.

It is close.  Sakic has longevity on his side.  At peak, I think I would take 1)Forsberg 2)Lindros 3)Sakic for a playoff run.

They are all pretty close though, all great.

Edited by Curt
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, no doubt, if I had any inkling of what Forsberg would become.   Hell, I’d take Forsberg straight up, in hindsight.

However, at the time of the trade, I only knew Forsberg was a “trending up” prospect.  So, no, after considerable thought.

In my fifty years, there are a handful of names at the top of any chart.   Lafleur, Dionne, Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, Crosby, Ovechkin, and perhaps Howe and Richard (they were old; I was young) who stand truly alone.

Forsberg is in the next group, and there are some crazy greats alongside him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what Eleven's twin brain-twisters are getting at is this question: should a bottom five franchise that hasn't made the playoffs since Obama's first term have any untouchables? Of course not. But it's that very history that makes us want to cling to any talent we have, even though that talent has not moved the needle a'tall in five and two years, respectively, toward any measure of team success.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I think what Eleven's twin brain-twisters are getting at is this question: should a bottom five franchise that hasn't made the playoffs since Obama's first term have any untouchables? Of course not. But it's that very history that makes us want to cling to any talent we have, even though that talent has not moved the needle a'tall in five and two years, respectively, toward any measure of team success.

That is interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I think what Eleven's twin brain-twisters are getting at is this question: should a bottom five franchise that hasn't made the playoffs since Obama's first term have any untouchables? Of course not. But it's that very history that makes us want to cling to any talent we have, even though that talent has not moved the needle a'tall in five and two years, respectively, toward any measure of team success.

Id disagree with the no untouchable statement as regardless of our results; you will not bring success by continuously cycling players through your franchise. Eichel and Dahlin would be my untouchables with our 1st being all but untouchable. The caveat being if we were offered McDavid for Eichel levels of ridiculous it would break said category. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I think what Eleven's twin brain-twisters are getting at is this question: should a bottom five franchise that hasn't made the playoffs since Obama's first term have any untouchables? Of course not. But it's that very history that makes us want to cling to any talent we have, even though that talent has not moved the needle a'tall in five and two years, respectively, toward any measure of team success.

If Gretzky wasn't untouchable then no player in history is untouchable. That's a boring question

Its not about clinging to Eichel for those of us that are opposed, it's that when we make a list of problems with this team, a Eichel ain't on it, and we'd rather fix the actual problems we've been pointing and screeching at for 3+ years straight now than add "find a 1C" to the list like it's the good old days of 2011-2015.

The sentiment of "we haven't done anything WITH the talent", which usually shows up in the offseason, is exactly what a couple of us went to war against when everyone else wanted us to think that Jason nailed the ROR trade. It'd be an interesting question if you ignored the many gaping holes around him staring us in the face for the 40 minutes of ice time he's not out there, and/or in goal, or if they didn't exist and we were still bad, but they're there and directly contributing to our horrific experiences over the last forever

Plus, moving the question to Eichel fundamentally makes it impossible to be a Lindros situation, Eichel's established NHL time is different asset-wise from the question marks that were/are prospect Lindros and young Dahlin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Id disagree with the no untouchable statement as regardless of our results; you will not bring success by continuously cycling players through your franchise. Eichel and Dahlin would be my untouchables with our 1st being all but untouchable. The caveat being if we were offered McDavid for Eichel levels of ridiculous it would break said category. 

Dude our first is about fifteen tiers of importance below Eichel and Dahlin. I'd call Cozens more untouchable than our first?

obviously you wait for the lottery before doing anything, but presuming we aren't drafting first, we should absolutely be dangling it for any help we can get. As enticing the idea of another grab bag of Mitts, Nylander, and Cozens is....why is it enticing lol

speaking of, holy cow, aren't we now at the point in Mitts development that we traded Nylander at? Man time flies 

Edited by Randall Flagg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fleshing out more why I'd consider a Dahlin trade but not an Eichel trade,

 

Jack already is, today, good enough at hockey, at one of the two or three most important and hardest to acquire positions, that we could win the cup as a team without upgrading that position. Further, he's an established veteran - his trade value is locked down, and it is more than likely to be a comparable player, or two lesser players, and so on. 

Dahlin still fits a bit of the Lindros mold. He had a mystical air around him, people spoke in hushed tones about Lidstrom comparables, best defenseman his age in a generation. People are aware of development curves for D, and see the teenage D scoring stats. This is the type of thing that creates potential for Lindros-like returns, usually from a specific type of franchise, in a place a team like San Jose is today. You can still ask the moon for Dahlin, and you'd be able to get back whatever type of asset you like from those specific teams. All while Dahlin has not passed the level of nice second pairing defenseman yet, in a position of team strength. It'd be smart to exploit that atmosphere around Dahlin to see what you could garner. It probably wouldn't be smart to move Jack for Barzal, Nelson, and Pelech or something, because everyone knows what he is. And they'd want that, don't get me wrong. But we are either making a lateral move, or downgrading something good enough for cups for a limited increase in value elsewhere, versus moving someone with the value to greatly impact roster holes, and NOT cutting out an established elite player at the game's most important position 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

If Gretzky wasn't untouchable then no player in history is untouchable. That's a boring question

Its not about clinging to Eichel for those of us that are opposed, it's that when we make a list of problems with this team, a Eichel ain't on it, and we'd rather fix the actual problems we've been pointing and screeching at for 3+ years straight now than add "find a 1C" to the list like it's the good old days of 2011-2015.

The sentiment of "we haven't done anything WITH the talent", which usually shows up in the offseason, is exactly what a couple of us went to war against when everyone else wanted us to think that Jason nailed the ROR trade. It'd be an interesting question if you ignored the many gaping holes around him staring us in the face for the 40 minutes of ice time he's not out there, and/or in goal, or if they didn't exist and we were still bad, but they're there and directly contributing to our horrific experiences over the last forever

Plus, moving the question to Eichel fundamentally makes it impossible to be a Lindros situation, Eichel's established NHL time is different asset-wise from the question marks that were/are prospect Lindros and young Dahlin

What if we could plug every hole (including 1C) by moving him?  And those holes would only get get plugged over the course of an additional 2+ seasons any other way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Weave said:

Was Forsberg even as good as the other center on his team?  And was Sakic better than Lindros?

Boy, its close for me.  Lindros had every bit the impact on his team.  He didn’t have the depth of talent Colorado had.

 

To move Eichel I’d need to have a middle of the pack 1C, middle of the pack 2C, top 1/3 goalie, plus, plus coming back.  I cannot justify it as readily as I can a Dahlin trade, mostly because we are trading from a position of dearth and not a position of depth. 

So you'd trade Eichel for ROR, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, and a top 1/3rd goalie (plus that plus stuff)....I just can't get there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dudacek said:

I think In his prime, Forsberg was the best player in the world not named Dominik.

Lindros was close but wasn’t as smart, or as competitive. I’d take Eric over Joe, who were both fantastic.

Sakic over Forsberg was Canadian media/fandom creation IMO, just like Roy or Brodeur over Dom.

Bah. Did you watch their playoff runs? Sakic was every bit as dominant as Forsberg when they both played, often more so. He was good enough to carry them to the cup even when Forsberg wasn't playing full time that year. I don't know that Forsberg could have done that. 

In 1996, Sakic had 34 points to Forsberg's 21. Same games played. Won the Smythe. 

Edited by Thorny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

Fleshing out more why I'd consider a Dahlin trade but not an Eichel trade,

 

Jack already is, today, good enough at hockey, at one of the two or three most important and hardest to acquire positions, that we could win the cup as a team without upgrading that position. Further, he's an established veteran - his trade value is locked down, and it is more than likely to be a comparable player, or two lesser players, and so on. 

Dahlin still fits a bit of the Lindros mold. He had a mystical air around him, people spoke in hushed tones about Lidstrom comparables, best defenseman his age in a generation. People are aware of development curves for D, and see the teenage D scoring stats. This is the type of thing that creates potential for Lindros-like returns, usually from a specific type of franchise, in a place a team like San Jose is today. You can still ask the moon for Dahlin, and you'd be able to get back whatever type of asset you like from those specific teams. All while Dahlin has not passed the level of nice second pairing defenseman yet, in a position of team strength. It'd be smart to exploit that atmosphere around Dahlin to see what you could garner. It probably wouldn't be smart to move Jack for Barzal, Nelson, and Pelech or something, because everyone knows what he is. And they'd want that, don't get me wrong. But we are either making a lateral move, or downgrading something good enough for cups for a limited increase in value elsewhere, versus moving someone with the value to greatly impact roster holes, and NOT cutting out an established elite player at the game's most important position 

I don't think our D is a position of strength anymore if Dahlin isn't in it. In fact, we are counting on further development from Dahlin to reach the point where it's a legit strength of our team. Dahlin was, by far, our best D man metrically last season. At 19. 

Ristolainen, McCabe, Montour, Miller, Jokijarju, Pilut is not a "strength" group. In fact it's probably mid pack or lower. 

Can you list an offer for Dahlin you'd not only accept, but think is likely to be garnered?

Edited by Thorny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

So you'd trade Eichel for ROR, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, and a top 1/3rd goalie (plus that plus stuff)....I just can't get there. 

I mentioned the holes that needed filling to justify it.  I also said I couldn't justify it readily because we are moving a postion of dearth. 

 

You're cranky about this *****.  Relax.  It's jsut anti-Covid banter.

Edited by Weave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Weave said:

I mentioned the holes that needed filling to justify it.  I also said I couldn't justify it readily because we are moving a postion of dearth. 

 

You're cranky about this *****.  Relax.  It's jsut anti-Covid banter.

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dudacek said:

I think In his prime, Forsberg was the best player in the world not named Dominik.

Lindros was close but wasn’t as smart, or as competitive. I’d take Eric over Joe, who were both fantastic.

Sakic over Forsberg was Canadian media/fandom creation IMO, just like Roy or Brodeur over Dom.

Please explain this. Joe Sakic is considered by most one of the best centers of all time. He’s 8th all-time in points, possesses the great wrist shot ever, and along with Yzerman is arguably the greatest leader of all time. Joe Sakic is a hockey treasure whereas Eric Lindros is a hockey what if. Forsberg did neat things, but he’s not Joe Sakic, not even close. 

Edited by #freejame
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, #freejame said:

Joe Sakic is one of the fifteen best players in hockey history and even that ranking is borderline insulting. I’m genuinely pained at his lack of appreciation in here. 

I mean I think it's debatable between him and Forsberg who was better, (I'd go with Joe), but to claim it's some sort of media creation that Sakic was the better player I don't think is fair. He was their heart and soul in those runs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Weave said:

Just the tone that I am perceiving in those replies.

I'm pedantic, when I type things like "So you're saying you'd", it almost always a legit clarification not some sort of *sigh, smirk, good grief, you're saying you'd ACTUALLY DO THAT?!!"* type spin. 

Edited by Thorny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I don't think our D is a position of strength anymore if Dahlin isn't in it. In fact, we are counting on further development from Dahlin to reach the point where it's a legit strength of our team. Dahlin was, by far, our best D man metrically last season. At 19. 

Ristolainen, McCabe, Montour, Miller, Jokijarju, Pilut is not a "strength" group. In fact it's probably mid pack or lower. 

Can you list an offer for Dahlin you'd not only accept, but think is likely to be garnered?

Without Dahlin, LD looks like McCabe, Pilut, then Montour playing his off hand.   ?

Doesnt look like a strength at that point.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Curt said:

Without Dahlin, LD looks like McCabe, Pilut, then Montour playing his off hand.   ?

Doesnt look like a strength at that point.

Scary. Dare I say it, as scary as our Cs after Eichel. At least Larsson is at the top of his field for his role. 

Dahlin is in fact underrated on this board, regardless of the fact of if (when) I'm personally overrating him prematurely, as I did with Eichel. 

He was on another level to the rest of our D-men statistically and we generally have him lumped in around our 2nd or 3rd best D man here. Of course it's still an opinion as to where he should be ranked but, I don't even think there's another D-man on our team even *close*. Jokijarju was the closest early on, but he tailed off a bit, and that was when Dahlin was slumping. 

Risto, McCabe and Montour were *actively bad* metrically. We're looking at Colin Miller and H. Jokijarju as his closest comparables, and there's a gap. 

I look at the type of player Eichel was at 19 (his first NHL season) and what he is now. Then remember that Dahlin's years at 18 and 19 were more impressive than Eichel's was at 19 relative to what you'd expect from the position/player at that age. And that for D it takes longer to even find their niche in this league. 

Development of course isn't guaranteed but I'd be absolutely terrified of trading him. It's much much more likely that not you are trading the best long term player in the deal. 

If I'm remembering correctly, Dahlin isn't even the dman Krueger had playing with Eichel when he had his way. Imagine how much better he'd look like with competent forwards in front of him, and that's now, at 19, before he's even developed. 

Edited by Thorny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Joe Sakic was a fantastic hockey player.   One of my all time favorites.  I would mention him and Forsberg in the same sentence.  One game, I take Forsberg.   If I lost the coin flip and got Sakic, I’d not lose a minute’s sleep.  Two greats.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...