[Trade] F Taylor Hall to Devils for D Adam Larsson

[khay]

21 minutes ago, oldnews said:

 

First of all, your cherry picking did in fact do 'harm' to the 'analysis' of the player.

 

You claimed his possesson numbers are "terrible" - and that is highly misleading.

 

You can't look at corsi - and ignore his situational use - and claim to have come to some kind of analytical conclusion about his possession numbers.

Larsson's 30.5% is extremely low.  Edler as you point out was 29th, and yet a full 11.5% higher - a great deal higher actually.

Your Larsson vs Edler argument is not what I was referring to - I was referring to the misrepresentation of Larsson - and if you follow your logic to a conclusion, you're implying Edler's are likewise, terrible.

 

What people need to understand is that when a player is weighted so heavily in a defensive, hard minutes role, you have to counter balance the weight you assign their corsi.  A -3.5 relative corsi is actually outstanding in that context, when he's clearly playing far, far harder minutes than virtually his entire team (his partner being the exception).

 

So I think you're missing the relevent point here.  I'm not 'cherry picking', I'm simply cutting right to the point - a basic misrepresentation of Larsson's underlying numbers.

Edler, likewise, played hard minutes - and had a negative corsi.  If Larsson's possession numbers are "terrible", so are Elder's, but in neither case is that true.

So called "Analytics" people for the most part continue to fundamentally misunderstand the possession numbers of shutdown players.

If you look at a guy like Malhotra and judge him by his corsi, you could mistakenly think he was one of the worst possession players in the NHL, which was simply anything but the truth.  The plus/minus of shot attempts can be as or more misleading than the simple plus/minus statistic - and yet some 'analytics' is scarcely any more sophistocated than simple plus/minus - regardless of whether it's wrapped up in fancy stats terms like puck possession, shot suppression/generation.  That's mere jargon that is not a substitute from actual analysis - that needs to attempt to integrate all the factors/metrics it has - and then realize and acknowledge the serious limits they are still subject to.

 

 

Thanks for the detailed response.

 

Fair enough. I did use the word terrible and it is misleading. But at the same time his corsi is terrible. And yes, Edler's numbers are terrible too. But I don't think Edler is a terrible player. I guess I didn't make it clear but I do not believe that terrible corsi implies a terrible player. At the same time, I don't think Edler is an elite player because of his "terrible" corsi. You cannot use terrible corsi to say a player is terrible (sorry if I was misleading) but it can be used to argue that a player is not elite.

 

So, I guess what I am saying is:

 

1) If a player is elite, then he cannot have terrible corsi (equivalently, terrible corsi => player not elite)

2) Terrible corsi does not imply terrible player.

 

If you accept the above, then they provide justification for using corsi without context. And by the logic above, we can conclude that Larsson is not elite but cannot conclude that Larsson is terrible. That is the analytical conclusion that I have reached using corsi on Larsson. 

 

To further elaborate. For Malholtra, one can reach the conclusion from his corsi that he is not at the same level as say Kesler and Bergeron. But his low corsi doesn't say that he is a terrible player.

 

After thinking things over, I guess what you are saying is that Larsson is an elite shutdown defenceman. But what I mean by elite is a player that can be deployed in all situation. So you might have some trouble accepting the premises 1) and 2) above. 

 

But at the end of the day, I don't think an elite defenceman would be used primarily in a defensive role. Larsson at 30.5% ozone start is rather extreme and is a bit concerning. Maybe his offensive skills are really lacking to the point that the coach just doesn't want to send him out on offensive opportunities.

 

Anyhow, if I imagine a hypothetical situation where Doughty is deployed exactly as Larsson in LA, I think Doughty's corsi will still be over 50%. Of course, if Doughty is on NJ, then perhaps not... and that's where I agree that corsi needs to be looked at in some context because hockey is a team game and teammates have a huge effect on your corsi. 

 

I agree with the last point. It is important to state the limitation. I didn't feel the need to explicitly state the limitations of my use of corsi because what I said built on the premises 1) and 2), which was obvious to me but clearly not obvious to others. It's my fault for not clearly stating these premises.

 

And one thing that Corsi does offer over simple +/- is that is over a larger sample than a +/-. Goals are rare events whereas shots aren't. So randomness is bound to have less effect on a player's Corsi than +/-. If you are using it in a correct context, then there is no issue with people using this state for analyzing the players.

 

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, Odd. said:

Disagree with this completely.

Point no point.

[Butters Stoch]

Ahahahahah as a huge Oilers hater, this really made my day. 

 

I don't know how some people are even siding with Edmonton on this deal. I get that that EDM desperately needs to upgrade their defence and Larsson is a solid defenceman but when you trade Hall, you absolutely have to get a true elite defenceman in return. There is just no excuse for this.

[DeNiro]

1 minute ago, Butters Stoch said:

Ahahahahah as a huge Oilers hater, this really made my day. 

 

I don't know how some people are even siding with Edmonton on this deal. I get that that EDM desperately needs to upgrade their defence and Larsson is a solid defenceman but when you trade Hall, you absolutely have to get a true elite defenceman in return. There is just no excuse for this.

Yea I really thought if the day ever came that Hall was traded it would have been for a D-men like Jones, Hamonic, Barrie, or Faulk at least.

[AlwaysACanuckFan]

Halls reaction when the news  broke to him that he was traded....

 

And then there's Larssons reaction to the news....

[Honky Cat]

51 minutes ago, insomniac604 said:

Like I said it doesn't matter how the other picks play out. It matters how Hall vs Larsson plays out. At best, they will break even. Which won't be for years to come. At which point Hall is in his prime and is even better than now.

 

 

Ok...How's this...Oilers lost the trade....Chiarelli made his team better...I think thats what we're trying to say..

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

So today was a pretty busy day in the NHL. Lots to talk about. Unfortunately, today was also the day of my kids' "Sports Day" field trip and I took the day off to be a parent supervisor. And then my wife had to work late tonight helping a patient. So I was full-time daddy duties from wake up until bedtime. And I missed out on all the whole trade discussion.

 

Which brings me to this point (now that the kids are asleep).

 

I agree with the posters who say that Larsson is an excellent young defenseman and very underrated. 

 

But unlike some of the previous posters, I don't want to base my argument for Larsson value around his zone starts and quality of competition (at least as far as that relates to his Corsi).

 

Certainly these stats are informative in terms of usage. Coaches put their best defensive players out for defensive zone starts. Larsson is an excellent defensive player.

 

And coaches will try to match their best defenders against the opposition's best players. Larsson was one of New Jersey's best defenders.

 

But as far as those high defensive zone starts and high quality of competition numbers being meaningful in unpacking Larsson's Corsi stats, it's just not all that significant.

 

Neither zone starts nor quality of competition has much of a real impact on a player's possession stats. At least not over an entire season. On a shift-by-shift basis, absolutely. But when you add up all the shifts for a season, the significance fades to something almost negligible.

 

I know that sounds counterintuitive so here's some evidence for what I'm saying:

 

https://puckplusplus.com/2015/01/15/how-much-do-zone-starts-matter-i-maybe-not-as-much-as-we-thought/

http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/7/23/the-importance-of-quality-of-competition

http://xtrahockeystats.com/wordpress/?p=17

http://hockeyanalysis.com/2015/03/16/zone-starts-corsi-and-the-percentages/

http://hockeyanalysis.com/2015/03/21/zone-starts-and-impact-on-players-statistics/

http://hockeyanalysis.com/2014/12/13/zone-starts-dont-matter-much/

 

So at the very most, Larsson's usage might have negatively skewed his relative Corsi by maybe 3-4%. Not entirely insignificant, but not really enough to starting calling him a "good Corsi" player even when you adjust for usage. So strictly speaking to Corsi numbers, analysts like Yost are "correct" in saying that Larsson doesn't "move the needle" when he's on the ice.

 

But maybe this really doesn't matter very much.

 

That's going to sound like sacrilege. Corsi doesn't matter? Well, not exactly. It does matter. Just not as much as the "hero charts" crowd might like us to believe (especially when it comes to players like Larsson).

 

As long as Larsson's Corsi numbers are close to even (i.e.: not "moving the needle" if we are quoting Yost), I don't really think they're all that important. Certainly not enough to truly gauge this player's value or his potential impact on team success.

 

Larsson simply doesn't play a style that's going to really create a huge positive effect in any shots-based "possession" numbers.

 

And if I was going to try to find an informative stat for determining the value of a player like Larsson, I'd probably start with his usage, and then look at his results.

 

At his age and development stage, it's probably fair to look at numbers over the past two seasons (2014-16).

 

We know from his zone starts that he gets heavy defensive usage. So we know that his coaches think he's one of the best defenders on his team. Same goes for his quality of competition.

 

But what about the results?

 

First, I'll just say that while goal based metrics certainly aren't very informative in small samples, once you get to something greater than maybe one full season of play, they do give us some of the best "results" data available. So while shot based metrics are certainly more popular these days (for good reason in some cases), I think they are often overused, and that there might be more value in looking at goals when you're dealing with the larger samples. Especially since goals are more meaningful in determining W/L effects (again, so long as the samples are large enough that the goals are actually "meaningful"). If that all makes sense?

 

So, getting back on track, what were Larsson's results?

 

Over the past two seasons (from 2014/15 through 2015/16), among defensemen with >70GP, Larsson actually ranks #1 in the NHL in (lowest) GA60 at 1.52.

 

Hmm... interesting. Maybe he's just played in front of some great goaltending?

 

Let's try to account for that: Larsson's teammates average 2.15 GA60. Larsson has a GA60 of 1.52. So that's a -0.62 GA60RelTM. This means when Larsen's on the ice, his team gives up 0.62 LESS goals against per 60 minutes.

 

That's the 2nd best (GA60RelTM) in the NHL among all defensemen with >70 GP between 2014-16.

 

Now it's certainly true that Larsson doesn't really "move the needle" very much as far as creating offense. His team basically scores at the same rate with or without him. But as far as preventing goals against, Larsson appears to have been an absolute beast over the last 2 seasons. And if those numbers can continue, he might actually develop into one of this league's premiere defenders. 

 

And it should be noted that I used the word "defender" and not "defenseman" in the previous sentence. This isn't to say Larsson's not a good defenseman. Indeed, I believe he's a damn fine young Dman. But he probably just doesn't create the offense necessary to be considered a true #1D (and he likely never will). That's OK. He does look like he might very well be one of the league's best defenders and that's nothing to sneeze at.

 

Larsson's usage tells us that he's put on the ice to prevent goals. That's his primary focus.

 

And his results tell us two things (over the past two seasons): When he's on the ice, he gives up fewer goals against per minute (GA60) than any other defenseman (with >70GP). And his on-ice effect (relative to his teammates) in preventing goals against (GA60RelTM) is second best among NHL defensemen (with >70 GP)

 

Probably fair to say that adding that type of player (i.e.: a player that "moves the needle" significantly in preventing goals against) is going to really help the Edmonton Oilers.

 

Edmonton's problem isn't that they lack scoring. They've had have plenty of high-end scoring forwards for several years now (like Hall). But they give up more goals than they score (which means they simply lose more often than they win). They've just really lacked quality defenders (again note the use of "defender" and not "defenseman"--although the word probably doesn't matter much in this case since they've really been lacking in both).

 

And I wouldn't be surprised if the goals Larsson prevents actually adds more value for that team than what they've given up in the goals Hall can create.

 

That's kind of an interesting point of comparison so I think I'll look up some numbers:

 

2014-16 Taylor Hall: 2.70 GF60; 2.53 GA60; 1.88 TMGF60; 2.85 TMGA60; +0.82 GF60RelTM; -0.32 GA60RelTM; +11.9 GF%RelTM

2014-16 Adam Larsson: 1.71 GF60; 1.52 GA60; 1.79 TMGF60; 2.15 TMGA60; -0.08 GF60RelTM; -0.62 GA60RelTM; +7.4 GF%RelTM

 

This actually suggests Hall has "moved the needle" for his team, in terms of overall GF% relative to his teammates, more than Larsson has (over the past two seasons). Most of this GF% effect is on the strength of Hall's offense but (at least compared to his team) his defense has also been a (somewhat surprising) positive. Although I don't really think that's a function of him actually "defending" all that well but more that his teams needs to spend less time defending when Hall is on the ice. Nevertheless, the overall results might suggest that Hall is a more impactful player on the whole, in terms of creating the greater positive effect on GF%.

 

But when you look at that Oilers GA60 (from 2014 though 2016), whether it's the team rate of 2.85 or Hall's (on-ice) 2.53, it becomes very obvious what adding a high end defender could do for that team. Adding a player that can consistently prevent goals-against (if indeed Larsson can continue to do this) is simply going to have a huge effect. And while losing Hall's goals-for will hurt, the Oilers do have this kid named Connor MacDavid, who was second only to Hall in GF%RelTM and who, purely in terms of offence, already provides almost double the (on-ice) positive effect (GF60RelTM) that Hall did.

 

Also worth noting that none of the Oilers defensemen (from 2014/15 through 2015/16) "moved the needle" anywhere near as much as Larsson did.

 

The Oilers need defensemen that "defend" well and can prevent goals. They appear to have this in Larsson. Whether it was worth the price is always going to be debatable. But there's no question that if Larsson can live up to his potential, they'll have come a long way toward potentially solving their D problem. And they will have done so by dealing from a position of strength (their riches in top-level young forwards) to address a position of weakness (their lack of good "defending" defensemen).

 

On a straight player-to-player comparison, they probably "lost" this trade. But in terms of actually addressing team needs, they've arguably come out ahead in this transaction. And given the current trend in how much good, young, RH shot defensemen (especially ones on good contracts) are coveted around the league, this trade might actually be pretty close to fair value (in the current market anyway).

[Nave]

I don't understand why they traded Hall of all players, although I understand why they targeted Adam Larsson. 

[riffraff]

4 hours ago, Lulover88 said:

Sedin isnt dressing room cancer 

Source that Hall is?

[Green Building]

11 minutes ago, riffraff said:

Source that Hall is?

You could infer that years of Edmonton being garbage created a scenario where Hall becomes uncoachable, and that the problems began off the ice, with management, and trickled onto the ice, with Hall. Or Hall could be the one to take all the blame for his actions, whatever they may have been. It's nothing but tidbits, really, and I'd agree that 'locker room cancer' (a term overused almost everywhere) probably isn't the most accurate way to define him.  

 

Dreger is a fool sometimes (most times), and these words don't make Hall out to be 'locker room cancer" , but it provides a bit of insight toward the situation, even though he doesn't name his sources. The interview is from 2014.

 

“It’s not one player. It’s the collection of players that make up the sagging work ethic and lack of culture. But if you had to put a face on it, or a name to it, that name would be Taylor Hall.

“Taylor Hall, at least from a culture standpoint, in the room not on the ice, hasn’t been what they hoped he would be. So when [GM Craig] MacTavish looks into his crystal ball and sees what’s coming his way through trades, he’s gotta be looking at the trade deadline and then beyond that looking at the draft floor.

“Because if you’re moving a piece like Taylor Hall, and I believe Taylor Hall will be in play, then the rate of return is always going to be the best in the summer.

“I think it speaks from a willingness to adapt. I’m choosing my words carefully in saying that. I’m not in the room, so we gather information from the sources that we have, and my sense is that Taylor Hall has a pretty specific vision on how he sees he needs to play and maybe how he thinks the team should play, and he really isn’t open to change, and that’s a problem.

“MacTavish will have to see first hand that what I said is true. If you’re moving out a franchise player like Taylor Hall, you have to be damn certain if that’s the right move for the organization.”

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/taylor-hall-is-un-coachable--will-be-on-trade-block--report-000824459.html

 

 

[ice orca]

4 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

So today was a pretty busy day in the NHL. Lots to talk about. Unfortunately, today was also the day of my kids' "Sports Day" field trip and I took the day off to be a parent supervisor. And then my wife had to work late tonight helping a patient. So I was full-time daddy duties from wake up until bedtime. And I missed out on all the whole trade discussion.

 

Which brings me to this point (now that the kids are asleep).

 

I agree with the posters who say that Larsson is an excellent young defenseman and very underrated. 

 

But unlike some of the previous posters, I don't want to base my argument for Larsson value around his zone starts and quality of competition (at least as far as that relates to his Corsi).

 

Certainly these stats are informative in terms of usage. Coaches put their best defensive players out for defensive zone starts. Larsson is an excellent defensive player.

 

And coaches will try to match their best defenders against the opposition's best players. Larsson was one of New Jersey's best defenders.

 

But as far as those high defensive zone starts and high quality of competition numbers being meaningful in unpacking Larsson's Corsi stats, it's just not all that significant.

 

Neither zone starts nor quality of competition has much of a real impact on a player's possession stats. At least not over an entire season. On a shift-by-shift basis, absolutely. But when you add up all the shifts for a season, the significance fades to something almost negligible.

 

I know that sounds counterintuitive so here's some evidence for what I'm saying:

 

https://puckplusplus.com/2015/01/15/how-much-do-zone-starts-matter-i-maybe-not-as-much-as-we-thought/

http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/7/23/the-importance-of-quality-of-competition

http://xtrahockeystats.com/wordpress/?p=17

http://hockeyanalysis.com/2015/03/16/zone-starts-corsi-and-the-percentages/

http://hockeyanalysis.com/2015/03/21/zone-starts-and-impact-on-players-statistics/

http://hockeyanalysis.com/2014/12/13/zone-starts-dont-matter-much/

 

So at the very most, Larsson's usage might have negatively skewed his relative Corsi by maybe 3-4%. Not entirely insignificant, but not really enough to starting calling him a "good Corsi" player even when you adjust for usage. So strictly speaking to Corsi numbers, analysts like Yost are "correct" in saying that Larsson doesn't "move the needle" when he's on the ice.

 

But maybe this really doesn't matter very much.

 

That's going to sound like sacrilege. Corsi doesn't matter? Well, not exactly. It does matter. Just not as much as the "hero charts" crowd might like us to believe (especially when it comes to players like Larsson).

 

As long as Larsson's Corsi numbers are close to even (i.e.: not "moving the needle" if we are quoting Yost), I don't really think they're all that important. Certainly not enough to truly gauge this player's value or his potential impact on team success.

 

Larsson simply doesn't play a style that's going to really create a huge positive effect in any shots-based "possession" numbers.

 

And if I was going to try to find an informative stat for determining the value of a player like Larsson, I'd probably start with his usage, and then look at his results.

 

At his age and development stage, it's probably fair to look at numbers over the past two seasons (2014-16).

 

We know from his zone starts that he gets heavy defensive usage. So we know that his coaches think he's one of the best defenders on his team. Same goes for his quality of competition.

 

But what about the results?

 

First, I'll just say that while goal based metrics certainly aren't very informative in small samples, once you get to something greater than maybe one full season of play, they do give us some of the best "results" data available. So while shot based metrics are certainly more popular these days (for good reason in some cases), I think they are often overused, and that there might be more value in looking at goals when you're dealing with the larger samples. Especially since goals are more meaningful in determining W/L effects (again, so long as the samples are large enough that the goals are actually "meaningful"). If that all makes sense?

 

So, getting back on track, what were Larsson's results?

 

Over the past two seasons (from 2014/15 through 2015/16), among defensemen with >70GP, Larsson actually ranks #1 in the NHL in (lowest) GA60 at 1.52.

 

Hmm... interesting. Maybe he's just played in front of some great goaltending?

 

Let's try to account for that: Larsson's teammates average 2.15 GA60. Larsson has a GA60 of 1.52. So that's a -0.62 GA60RelTM. This means when Larsen's on the ice, his team gives up 0.62 LESS goals against per 60 minutes.

 

That's the 2nd best (GA60RelTM) in the NHL among all defensemen with >70 GP between 2014-16.

 

Now it's certainly true that Larsson doesn't really "move the needle" very much as far as creating offense. His team basically scores at the same rate with or without him. But as far as preventing goals against, Larsson appears to have been an absolute beast over the last 2 seasons. And if those numbers can continue, he might actually develop into one of this league's premiere defenders. 

 

And it should be noted that I used the word "defender" and not "defenseman" in the previous sentence. This isn't to say Larsson's not a good defenseman. Indeed, I believe he's a damn fine young Dman. But he probably just doesn't create the offense necessary to be considered a true #1D (and he likely never will). That's OK. He does look like he might very well be one of the league's best defenders and that's nothing to sneeze at.

 

Larsson's usage tells us that he's put on the ice to prevent goals. That's his primary focus.

 

And his results tell us two things (over the past two seasons): When he's on the ice, he gives up fewer goals against per minute (GA60) than any other defenseman (with >70GP). And his on-ice effect (relative to his teammates) in preventing goals against (GA60RelTM) is second best among NHL defensemen (with >70 GP)

 

Probably fair to say that adding that type of player (i.e.: a player that "moves the needle" significantly in preventing goals against) is going to really help the Edmonton Oilers.

 

Edmonton's problem isn't that they lack scoring. They've had have plenty of high-end scoring forwards for several years now (like Hall). But they give up more goals than they score (which means they simply lose more often than they win). They've just really lacked quality defenders (again note the use of "defender" and not "defenseman"--although the word probably doesn't matter much in this case since they've really been lacking in both).

 

And I wouldn't be surprised if the goals Larsson prevents actually adds more value for that team than what they've given up in the goals Hall can create.

 

That's kind of an interesting point of comparison so I think I'll look up some numbers:

 

2014-16 Taylor Hall: 2.70 GF60; 2.53 GA60; 1.88 TMGF60; 2.85 TMGA60; +0.82 GF60RelTM; -0.32 GA60RelTM; +11.9 GF%RelTM

2014-16 Adam Larsson: 1.71 GF60; 1.52 GA60; 1.79 TMGF60; 2.15 TMGA60; -0.08 GF60RelTM; -0.62 GA60RelTM; +7.4 GF%RelTM

 

This actually suggests Hall has "moved the needle" for his team, in terms of overall GF% relative to his teammates, more than Larsson has (over the past two seasons). Most of this GF% effect is on the strength of Hall's offense but (at least compared to his team) his defense has also been a (somewhat surprising) positive. Although I don't really think that's a function of him actually "defending" all that well but more that his teams needs to spend less time defending when Hall is on the ice. Nevertheless, the overall results might suggest that Hall is a more impactful player on the whole, in terms of creating the greater positive effect on GF%.

 

But when you look at that Oilers GA60 (from 2014 though 2016), whether it's the team rate of 2.85 or Hall's (on-ice) 2.53, it becomes very obvious what adding a high end defender could do for that team. Adding a player that can consistently prevent goals-against (if indeed Larsson can continue to do this) is simply going to have a huge effect. And while losing Hall's goals-for will hurt, the Oilers do have this kid named Connor MacDavid, who was second only to Hall in GF%RelTM and who, purely in terms of offence, already provides almost double the (on-ice) positive effect (GF60RelTM) that Hall did.

 

Also worth noting that none of the Oilers defensemen (from 2014/15 through 2015/16) "moved the needle" anywhere near as much as Larsson did.

 

The Oilers need defensemen that "defend" well and can prevent goals. They appear to have this in Larsson. Whether it was worth the price is always going to be debatable. But there's no question that if Larsson can live up to his potential, they'll have come a long way toward potentially solving their D problem. And they will have done so by dealing from a position of strength (their riches in top-level young forwards) to address a position of weakness (their lack of good "defending" defensemen).

 

On a straight player-to-player comparison, they probably "lost" this trade. But in terms of actually addressing team needs, they've arguably come out ahead in this transaction. And given the current trend in how much good, young, RH shot defensemen (especially ones on good contracts) are coveted around the league, this trade might actually be pretty close to fair value (in the current market anyway).

Great post, this is what the Oil have needed for the last few years. Also with Poolparty dropping into their lap and the big rumor of Lucic ending up there it probably allowed Chia to trade Hall. This is the type of trade that will take a couple of years to really evaluate, Larrson is also cost controlled for a few years as well.

[riffraff]

39 minutes ago, Green Building said:

You could infer that years of Edmonton being garbage created a scenario where Hall becomes uncoachable, and that the problems began off the ice, with management, and trickled onto the ice, with Hall. Or Hall could be the one to take all the blame for his actions, whatever they may have been. It's nothing but tidbits, really, and I'd agree that 'locker room cancer' (a term overused almost everywhere) probably isn't the most accurate way to define him.  

 

Dreger is a fool sometimes (most times), and these words don't make Hall out to be 'locker room cancer" , but it provides a bit of insight toward the situation, even though he doesn't name his sources. The interview is from 2014.

 

“It’s not one player. It’s the collection of players that make up the sagging work ethic and lack of culture. But if you had to put a face on it, or a name to it, that name would be Taylor Hall.

“Taylor Hall, at least from a culture standpoint, in the room not on the ice, hasn’t been what they hoped he would be. So when [GM Craig] MacTavish looks into his crystal ball and sees what’s coming his way through trades, he’s gotta be looking at the trade deadline and then beyond that looking at the draft floor.

“Because if you’re moving a piece like Taylor Hall, and I believe Taylor Hall will be in play, then the rate of return is always going to be the best in the summer.

“I think it speaks from a willingness to adapt. I’m choosing my words carefully in saying that. I’m not in the room, so we gather information from the sources that we have, and my sense is that Taylor Hall has a pretty specific vision on how he sees he needs to play and maybe how he thinks the team should play, and he really isn’t open to change, and that’s a problem.

“MacTavish will have to see first hand that what I said is true. If you’re moving out a franchise player like Taylor Hall, you have to be damn certain if that’s the right move for the organization.”

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/taylor-hall-is-un-coachable--will-be-on-trade-block--report-000824459.html

 

 

Agreed I've heard the rumblings. My post was more relating to the term "room cancer" and as you said, it's a dirty title that has becom frivolously thrown around.

 

from what I saw of hall, he was a competitor most nights. When mcdavid came to to town he was put under halls watch - I believed they roomed together?  That has to mean something positive.

[LeanBeef]

Lots of unproven young d-men in Edmonton. 

 

Nurse, Larsson, Reinhart, Klefbom...

 

If they all reach their potential Edmonton will be looking really good.

[Mackcanuck]

[RUPERTKBD]

10 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Does this trade have parallels to any other trades people can think of?

 

Where a young star forward was traded for a late blooming D-man? And it actually ended up being a win for the team that got the D-man?

You don't have to "win" the trade, for it to make sense for your franchise. If it benefits both teams (which I believe this trade does) it's a good trade.

 

Scott Stevens for Brendan Shanahan comes to mind....

[Mustapha]

I really don't understand why people are freaking out. Lucic will effectively replace Hall and Larsson will help solidify the defense. Hockey is a team sport. Assuming Lucic signs, Edmonton improves.

 

There are people on here thinking that Hall should have fetched an 'elite' defenseman....you need to realize that nobody gives up elite defensemen for wingers. You want Shea Weber? Well you better be prepared to give up your best centreman or a gaggle of prospects.

[Mike Vanderhoek]

10 hours ago, Mustapha said:

I stand corrected on the numbers. However my argument still stands.

 

Players like Roman Josi and Jake Muzzin owe a lot to studs like Weber and Doughty. The mark of a true legend is the ability to make those around you better. 

 

I am gonna make a bold prediction - Roman Josi is going to take a step back this season. 

 

Norris voting is just a BS popularity contest anyway. Keith, Weber, Doughty. Those should be the nominees. The fact that guys like Subban and Karlsson have Norris trophies with those 3 still in the league speaks to the sheer lunacy of the voters.

Not a chance Josi takes a step back. This guy is a franchise dman himself.

 

PK may take some opportunity for production by Josi away but that's about it.

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

8 hours ago, insomniac604 said:

I agree with Hall's detriments. Combined with his style of play that often left him injured..

I would stop short at saying Hall was a detriment to his team. Perhaps so when he was out. But on the ice he was one of the best LWs in the NHL.

 

Obviously in NJ he will be THE GUY. But he was already so in Edmonton before McDavid came in.

 

Edmonton did not get better. They got better on defense. But what they gave up for that return was, in every mathematical way, a loss. The only argument is "intangibles" and I would say that Edmonton is one of the least qualified teams to calculate those reasonably. Otherwise they wouldn't be consistent losers with such high talent.

 

Larsson was initially compared to Hedman. But where Hedman grew, he stumbled. He had one "good" year sandwiched between mediocrity, being sent to the AHL and injuries.

 

Like I said, even if Larsson pans out to be who he was supposed to, this trade is - at best - even in spirit. But when you factor in that Larsson may take a couple years to get there, and Hall is already there poised to surpass it..

 

IDK. I can't justify not getting a pick.

Well honestly, if a pick would sway you then it can't be too far off.

 

If memory serves, Hedman was still considered somewhat disappointing at that age - pretty close paralells between the two.  Larsson is still improving, although a quality mentor would be a great idea.

 

 I think you are over-stating Larsson's struggles.  He's been the best D on a bad team since he was 18, and has gone to the finals.  He played a solid role on that team, which is something Hall has never sniffed.

 

You're saying that if Larsson pans out, the trade's even.  That's fine, isn't it?  Is it supposed to be a steal?  I mean, Edmonton is not in any position to fleece anybody.  They should be happy because they can easily live without Hall, but they can't live without Larsson.  I think that's how you evaluate trades, not in a vacuum. 

[EmilyM]

5 hours ago, AlwaysACanuckFan said:

Halls reaction when the news  broke to him that he was traded....

 

Nah, Taylor Hall was very disappointed to be traded. I believe he truly wanted to see the team come around and him to be a big part of it.

[iinatcc]

4 hours ago, NaveJoseph said:

I don't understand why they traded Hall of all players, although I understand why they targeted Adam Larsson. 

Maybe New Jersey would only do it if the it included Hall.

 

Though if I was The Oilers I would probably check with Carolina what would have been the asking price for Justin Faulk? Maybe Hall + RNH for Faulk + a player or non 1sr round pick would do it?