Green Building Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 24 minutes ago, Ossi Vaananen said: Makes the Gudbranson trade and Juolevi pick that much sweeter. Defencemen are a rare commodity. I will never understand the people who poo-poo those moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustABandwagoner Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Is Larson a #1D? If he can be a #1 then maybe its not so bad... But damn Taylor Hall is expensive price to pay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFCanuck Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Thank god Dale Tallon isn't the GM of Florida and the new GM called us first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam126 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, oldnews said: Apollo would be proud of you two. Hutton this season had 25 Pts. in 75 games on a D core that was possibly the worst in the league. Larsson had 18 Pts. in 82 games on a D core that was way better. Granted, Larsson's defensive game is miles better, but Hutton has the potential to become a Top-4 OFD. That's Hutton's highest ceiling. Larsson's potential is top pairing, but franchise D-man is a pretty long stretch. Hutton and Larsson are the same age and have great potential, all we can do is wait and see. In terms of potential, I'm taking Larsson, but we have to work with what we have, and that is Ben Hutton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, shiznak said: If I remember correctly, in Larsson's first year they used him in strictly offensive situations, and he put up very underwhelming numbers. Maybe the NJ brass, just doesn't see his offensive upside, that high. So, he isn't used in offensive opportunities. If 18 pts in 65 games as a 19 year old with a hair over 50% offensive zone starts is your idea of 'underwhelming'... That was good enough to lead the Devils blueline in scoring. Last year he scored 24 pts in 64 games - in very similar, extremely hard shutdown minutes to what he played this year (38.5% ozone starts, very strong qualcomp) and had a relative corsi of -0.2.. People are trying too hard to make this an absolute guffah on the part of Edmonton. Hey, no one enjoys their failures more than I do. No one would love to see them frack up and sh!t the bed again. I'd absolutely love to see Benning own Chiarelli repeatedly and emphatically. But I can't pretend that Larsson is not one hell of a defenseman. I understand the CDC laugh track - it's to be expected - but what is an absolute fail is how literally oblivious some people are, who pass themselves off as "analytics" guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 15 minutes ago, oldnews said: Which one is he better than? Ovechkin or Jamie Benn? Shall we name some more? Ovie played RW last season. ...sure, name some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honky Cat Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 2 hours ago, theminister said: I would suspect this deal is in part their inability to get any value for Yak so they are keeping him. Maybe they could've traded Yak for that Weber guy....Yannick!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, TheRussianRocket. said: Ovie played RW last season. ...sure, name some more. Stamkos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 When I first heard Hall was moved I expected Shattenkirk to be the return. I won't dis Larsson, but in my opinion this does appear to be a bush move by Edmonton. Again, my opinion, Hall > Larsson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 1 minute ago, Green Building said: When I first heard Hall was moved I expected Shattenkirk to be the return. I won't dis Larsson, but in my opinion this does appear to be a bush move by Edmonton. Again, my opinion, Hall > Larsson Everyone's opinion actually lol. ...Oilers got schooled. However I think every team in the league knew Edmonton was desperate for defense so naturally, the price was raised on them. And the trade clearly shows.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honky Cat Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 6 minutes ago, DontMessMe said: Is Larson a #1D? If he can be a #1 then maybe its not so bad... But damn Taylor Hall is expensive price to pay He's a right hand D,..which probably makes him one of the most valuable commodities in the NHL these days.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combover Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 No draft pick throw ins benning take note it can be done. Oilers got fleeced must be a ex boston thing getting hosed on trades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustABandwagoner Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Just now, Honky Cat said: He's a right hand D,..which probably makes him one of the most valuable commodities in the NHL these days.. Why is a RHD so valuable? Is it because its rare or something? Gudbranson RHD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 8 minutes ago, Jam126 said: Hutton this season had 25 Pts. in 75 games on a D core that was possibly the worst in the league. Larsson had 18 Pts. in 82 games on a D core that was way better. Granted, Larsson's defensive game is miles better, but Hutton has the potential to become a Top-4 OFD. That's Hutton's highest ceiling. Larsson's potential is top pairing, but franchise D-man is a pretty long stretch. Hutton and Larsson are the same age and have great potential, all we can do is wait and see. In terms of potential, I'm taking Larsson, but we have to work with what we have, and that is Ben Hutton. Did you just say Hutton's ceiling is a top 4 dman? Who the heck are you? I say sky is the limit for that kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erkayloomeh Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Correct me if imnwrong but isnt hall quite a better player than larsen. In thought larsen was just an average d ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Spector Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 18 minutes ago, oldnews said: Apollo would be proud of you two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaramel MacKhiato Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Just shows the value of Juolevi vs Tkachuk. Top 6 forwards can be traded for pretty easily, it's the top 2 defender that drives a hard bargain. 5 years Juolevi will be more valuable then Dubois, Tkachuk, and Pulj, quote me on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, Jam126 said: Hutton this season had 25 Pts. in 75 games on a D core that was possibly the worst in the league. Larsson had 18 Pts. in 82 games on a D core that was way better. Granted, Larsson's defensive game is miles better, but Hutton has the potential to become a Top-4 OFD. That's Hutton's highest ceiling. Larsson's potential is top pairing, but franchise D-man is a pretty long stretch. Hutton and Larsson are the same age and have great potential, all we can do is wait and see. In terms of potential, I'm taking Larsson, but we have to work with what we have, and that is Ben Hutton. Don't get me wrong - I love Ben Hutton - absolutely love the guy - however, when you're comparing these two....Hutton had 23% higher offensive zone starts, he faced the 9th strongest quality of competition on the Canucks blueline!! - and his offensive production simply does not compare as well as you're suggesting. Larsson has averaged 21 pts per 82 over 274 NHL career games. His offensive potential is probably being underplayed around here, and he's heading off to play with McDavid et al. http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=30&s=13&f1=2015_s&f2=5v5&f4=D&f5=VAN&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67# I'm glad you like Hutton so much though. I'll always have a soft spot for fellow homers and won't argue his potential, which is sky high! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Just now, TheRussianRocket. said: Everyone's opinion actually lol. ...Oilers got schooled. However I think every team in the league knew Edmonton was desperate for defense so naturally, the price was raised on them. And the trade clearly shows.. Well, maybe most people, but obviously not everyone's. Chiarelli doesn't agree. I don't buy the "Edmonton desperation" factor as they haven't had defence for years and years spanning many regimes. To me, it's nothing but a display of simple incompetence. You know, what we've become accustomed to seeing out of Edmonton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Spector Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 13 minutes ago, Jam126 said: Hutton this season had 25 Pts. in 75 games on a D core that was possibly the worst in the league. Larsson had 18 Pts. in 82 games on a D core that was way better. Granted, Larsson's defensive game is miles better, but Hutton has the potential to become a Top-4 OFD. That's Hutton's highest ceiling. Larsson's potential is top pairing, but franchise D-man is a pretty long stretch. Hutton and Larsson are the same age and have great potential, all we can do is wait and see. In terms of potential, I'm taking Larsson, but we have to work with what we have, and that is Ben Hutton. The Canucks used a 5th round pick to get Hutton. The Oilers used a former #1 overall pick to get Larsson. Talk about a huge difference in asset management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.