Let's veto the Forsberg trade

VanIslander · Guru

RE: Let's veto the Forsberg trade

VanIslander · Guru

Sharks defeated Predators in 5 games in 2006
Sharks defeat Predators in 5 games in 2007

Trade veto would have been in the best interests of the team.

Predators now have nothing to show for the trade and the Flyers have Scottie Upshall (itself a huge gain), Ryan Parent, 1st and 3rd rounder.

Maybe the league shouldn't have vetoed the trade, but the Predators management sure should have. No this is NOT 'hindsight is 20/20'.... I have been saying it all along!!! there was a 1-in-100 chance for the lopsided trade to be even worth it, and desperate management made a desperate move.

OilersBrent · Senior Member

Forsberg was the Preds best player. He did all he could do. Players like Arnott and Kariya should be held responsible.

The Preds were one of the top 5 teams in the NHL this year. They had to make the move to add that extra player. They were iffy down the stretch and it cost them the division, which in the end killed them. Two 51 win teams in a round 1 series is crazy.

Hindsight is 20/20. If you told me they would lose first rd for sure, then yes of course the Forsberg trade would be useless. What if they made it to the conference or stanley cup finals and they lost because they DIDN'T make the move? Would it have been worth it for them with their insane prospect depth? No one knew what was going to happen and I still stand 100% behind the trade

Sabres · Guru

[QUOTE] No this is NOT 'hindsight is 20/20' [/QUOTE]

Thats exactly what it is..If the Preds had won the cup, which they could have..Forsberg would have been one of the main reasons..Obviously they didnt so it looks worse..But if they had, are you going to tell them they can't make the trade? No, they made a choice, took a risk..just because it didnt work out doesnt mean they didnt have the right to do it. WHich is in fact what the definition of hindsight is 20/20.

-- Edited by Sabres at 15:11, 2007-04-22

VanIslander · Guru

All trades for a UFA at the trade deadline (especially ones involving giving up huge assets) are judged by what happens subsequently.

TSN is keeping track of the deadline deals and comments already are out that the Brian Burke approach of not dealing at the deadline if the price is too steep might be a better approach: Because giving up good assets to get major UFAs didn't help the Thrashers, Islanders or Predators wil a single playoff round.

The deals were bad when they were made, and only against-the-odds salvation type of playoff performance would have justified a patently desperate and foolish move.

PHO · Senior Member

Yet, these TSN "hockey analysts" are the ones that were judging teams chances in the playoffs based on what they did on deadline day...this always makes me sick and makes me laugh. Just because a team doesn't make a trade, it does not mean they have no chance. I felt at deadline day that Anaheim was just fine as it was. The only issues they had during the season were when they were without the likes of Pronger, Niedermayer, Giguere (and at one point Pronger and Beauchemin). San Jose deals for Rivet, and they are declared Cup Champs (I know they subsequently got Guerin). Anyways, my rant is that I don't think that it's necessarily bad to overpay for a UFA on deadline day if you truly think that will put you over the top. In the case of the Predators, I liked the deal, and still do, even though they are out of the playoffs. Forsberg is the type of player that can push a team to the next level...but one player can't do it on his own. Unfortunately for the Preds, they were without Sullivan. Atlanta on the other hand made terrible moves, in my opinion. I watched alot of Thrasher games, and they needed alot more than Tkachuk and Zhitnik. They needed defensive help on the back-end. Deadline day reminds me of the off-season. Fans believe that their team HAS TO sign players, just so they can say they have, and give them false hope that their team is 10 times better than it was befre they overpaid for the UFA in July. Free agency is a big-time pay day for players, and teams act really dumb once July 1 hits, just like alot of teams act dumb once deadline day comes....again, not to say teams should never make moves, but alot of moves seem to be made "just because."

OilersBrent · Senior Member

VanIslander wrote:

All trades for a UFA at the trade deadline (especially ones involving giving up huge assets) are judged by what happens subsequently.

TSN is keeping track of the deadline deals and comments already are out that the Brian Burke approach of not dealing at the deadline if the price is too steep might be a better approach: Because giving up good assets to get major UFAs didn't help the Thrashers, Islanders or Predators wil a single playoff round.

The deals were bad when they were made, and only against-the-odds salvation type of playoff performance would have justified a patently desperate and foolish move.

You can't say that Brian Burke was right to not make any trades because they won one series. They were expected to win that series, whether they had aquired Bertuzzi, or Guerin or player X. If they lose a close series then maybe the critics will be out to get Burke because he didn't get that final piece to put them over the top.

As I said above, the Preds faced a team with 51 wins in the first round. Every game was close and that series easily could have gone either way. Forbserg was their best player, hands down. If I were a GM I would have made that deal in a second just because of how many better prospects Nashville still has.

It's your opinion to think otherwise, but I think any GM that was in Poille's shoes would have done the same thing. The window of oppurtunity is very short now days and he had to go for it. If they lost because of no Forsberg then what do you do? "Don't worry, we have a few more prospects that may or may not help us get there again in a few years when our franchise goalie is that much older and Kariya, Sullivan and Arnott are all gone"

PHO · Senior Member

OilersBrent wrote:

VanIslander wrote:

All trades for a UFA at the trade deadline (especially ones involving giving up huge assets) are judged by what happens subsequently.

TSN is keeping track of the deadline deals and comments already are out that the Brian Burke approach of not dealing at the deadline if the price is too steep might be a better approach: Because giving up good assets to get major UFAs didn't help the Thrashers, Islanders or Predators wil a single playoff round.

The deals were bad when they were made, and only against-the-odds salvation type of playoff performance would have justified a patently desperate and foolish move.

You can't say that Brian Burke was right to not make any trades because they won one series. They were expected to win that series, whether they had aquired Bertuzzi, or Guerin or player X. If they lose a close series then maybe the critics will be out to get Burke because he didn't get that final piece to put them over the top.

As I said above, the Preds faced a team with 51 wins in the first round. Every game was close and that series easily could have gone either way. Forbserg was their best player, hands down. If I were a GM I would have made that deal in a second just because of how many better prospects Nashville still has.

It's your opinion to think otherwise, but I think any GM that was in Poille's shoes would have done the same thing. The window of oppurtunity is very short now days and he had to go for it. If they lost because of no Forsberg then what do you do? "Don't worry, we have a few more prospects that may or may not help us get there again in a few years when our franchise goalie is that much older and Kariya, Sullivan and Arnott are all gone"

I agree that the Preds getting Forsberg was a great move, regardless of the outcome of the series. Hindsight is 20/20.
However, I do think that Burke was right in not selling the farm for a Guerin or Bertuzzi, or whoever for that matter. If he could have gotten a player for that 1st rounder he traded O'Brien for, then that would've been great. But he can't force the other side to agree to a trade. And there is no way he should trade a Getzlaf or Perry or Penner for a Guerin, etc. Too much is put on deadline deals. But the Nashville one was a risk I would've taken.

OilersBrent · Senior Member

PHO wrote:

OilersBrent wrote:

VanIslander wrote:

All trades for a UFA at the trade deadline (especially ones involving giving up huge assets) are judged by what happens subsequently.

TSN is keeping track of the deadline deals and comments already are out that the Brian Burke approach of not dealing at the deadline if the price is too steep might be a better approach: Because giving up good assets to get major UFAs didn't help the Thrashers, Islanders or Predators wil a single playoff round.

The deals were bad when they were made, and only against-the-odds salvation type of playoff performance would have justified a patently desperate and foolish move.

You can't say that Brian Burke was right to not make any trades because they won one series. They were expected to win that series, whether they had aquired Bertuzzi, or Guerin or player X. If they lose a close series then maybe the critics will be out to get Burke because he didn't get that final piece to put them over the top.

As I said above, the Preds faced a team with 51 wins in the first round. Every game was close and that series easily could have gone either way. Forbserg was their best player, hands down. If I were a GM I would have made that deal in a second just because of how many better prospects Nashville still has.

It's your opinion to think otherwise, but I think any GM that was in Poille's shoes would have done the same thing. The window of oppurtunity is very short now days and he had to go for it. If they lost because of no Forsberg then what do you do? "Don't worry, we have a few more prospects that may or may not help us get there again in a few years when our franchise goalie is that much older and Kariya, Sullivan and Arnott are all gone"

I agree that the Preds getting Forsberg was a great move, regardless of the outcome of the series. Hindsight is 20/20.
However, I do think that Burke was right in not selling the farm for a Guerin or Bertuzzi, or whoever for that matter. If he could have gotten a player for that 1st rounder he traded O'Brien for, then that would've been great. But he can't force the other side to agree to a trade. And there is no way he should trade a Getzlaf or Perry or Penner for a Guerin, etc. Too much is put on deadline deals. But the Nashville one was a risk I would've taken.

I agree with that. Perry and Getzlaf are 2/3's of Anaheim's 2nd line. They are already making a big contribution to the team. On the other hand Upshall was struggling and Parent was far off. The draft picks mean very little especially in a weak draft.

While I would never have traded Perry, Getzlaf or Ryan for a rental player, I do think that Bertuzzi would have been a great fit for Anaheim's 2nd line. Too bad Florida was asking for so much when Burke talked to them. In the end Florida got every little in return.