How is it homeristic if i don’t want the player on my team?

What i’m doing is saying that he’s going to get a similar return to what everyone in his position before him has gotten. You’re saying what’s going to happen is going to be a complete 180 from the norm. This isn’t rocket science here pal. The sun is going to rise tomorrow. And if Scheifele is dealt, it will be for futures. Because duh.

If you take a glance at contracts, none of those examples are reasonable. There aren’t any examples from this century of a guy in scheifele’s position getting a top four d man in return. Its not a thing.

You're saying he will get a similar return, yet haven't provided an example of a similar situation. I'm not saying anything that means the trade will be a 180 turn from the norm. I'm saying there is no norm for Scheifele's situation, so we don't know what his return would be. So asking for an okay top 4 defenseman and a 1st probably isn't unreasonable.

We know a 1C is more valuable that a 2nd pairing RHD so there obviously needs to be an add to Carlo.

The main thing about this proposal isn't Abbott value though, it's about unneeded pieces. DeBrusk and Studnicka aren't desirable or wanted of Scheifele is moved.

You're also acting like Carlo is a stud top 4D, when he's not. He's an average second pairing guy. It's much easier to find a Carlo than a Scheifele.

Lindholm was already signed to a $4.85M AAV and coming off a season where he had 44 points in 81 GP, or a little more than half of what Scheifele has been doing the last 6 seasons. He cost 6.1% of a team's cap in 2018-19 at that price; it's obviously less than Schefiele costing 7.4% of a team's cap but it's not so far off that it's an insane comparison.

Stepan was coming off a 55 point season, and had 4x$6.5M left on his deal - meaning he actually took up 8.7% of a team's cap. Higher paid, worse production, and paired with Antti Raanta, brought back a guy who turned into a top 4 D within a year and a 1st rounder. Scheifele at a lower cap hit for shorter term and more production has to be worth something comparable to what Stepan pulled in.

Duchene is actually probably the best comp for Scheifele. He was traded with 2x$6M left on his contract (Scheif is at 2x$6.125M in a league with a higher cap now than in 2017-18), and was a guy who had only really sniffed being a PPG player *once* in his career to that point (70 pts in 71 GP in 2013-14). So - basically the same term and AAV as Scheifele, with less production. I'll give you that he probably made some of it up on defense, but it's not like he's Patrice Bergeron 2.0 - he's an okay defender at best.

So what did Duchene get back?

A 1st and 3rd rounder in 2019, a 2nd rounder in 2018, (#4 & #63, then #58 if you were wondering), PLUS the rights to Ottawa's 2017 1st rounder pick in Shane Bowers, a couple of fringe roster players in Andrew Hammond & Vladislav Kamenev, and a recently-debuted top 4 LD prospect named Sam Girard. Girard averaged a shade under 18 minutes per night as a 19-year-old with the Avs before becoming a perennial 20+ minute, top 4 D starting with his age-20 season.

That's literally a precedent for a very similar player with similar term getting back a top 4 D on his ELC, plus a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and a recent 1st round prospect. I think giving up Carlo & a 1st is a steal compared to that type of haul.

Well its just all of them. Look back at all top of the lineup guys that are traded. What do these deals have in common? They’re for futures. Lindholm - futures. Stone - futures. Jones - futures. Giroux - futures. Arvidsson - futures. Dvorak - futures. Trouba - futures. Miller - futures. I could waste time, or jsut say, “all of them.” That’s easier.

Thank you for proving my point. What did he get?

FUTURES.

No crap.

I mean, if you want to be the one out here that arguing Brandon Carlo getting paid $4.1M at 25 years old to put up negative possession numbers in 19:42 every night is more valuable than a kid on his ELC putting up 53% CF at 19 years old in a couple minutes less per night, then have fun dying on that hill. It's a bad argument.

Okay, I see. You're just upset that Carlo is in there. You would just prefer to see a strictly futures based deal. Now that is certainly possible and probably would get the Jets the highest value return.

First off, don’t care about possession numbers at all. They mean nothing for d men in my opinion.

Second off, you’re missing the point of this — big time. The conversation has never been about value. Its been about fit. The argument I’ve been making is that the team trading for Scheifele will be a team trying to contend. Teams trying to contend don’t take out a player from their top four in trade. Its just not a thing. What they give up is futures. So theres really two parts to the argument:
1. Logic. Contending teams aren’t trying to strip down their roster. Duh.
2. History and context. Every single piece of evidence we have from past trades indicate its going to be futures.

Conclusion. I think the sun is going to rise tomorrow, and i think if Scheifele gets dealt, it will be for futures.

How have you just gotten that? That’s been my argument literally the entire time.

I mean, you're dismissing the entire concept of a "hockey trade" where 2 hopeful contenders trade from areas of strength to fix a weakness. Boston needs more secondary scoring and has a strong defensive corps (I'd argue that while Carlo is definitely top 4, he is clearly the 4th best D on this team).

While we can argue whether they should've considered themselves contenders, the Flyers made a hockey trade last summer, trading a playmaker for a goalscorer in the Voracek-Atkinson trade.

When the Capitals wanted a power forward like Anthony Mantha, they sent a couple futures to make up for the value difference, sure, but they traded an established roster player in Jakub Vrana as well.

The Jets had been to the playoffs three years in a row when they traded Patrik Laine to a Columbus team with 4 consecutive playoff appearances and got back PLD.

The Blackhawks have been a fringe contender before going full rebuild this year, and before last season traded Brandon Saad for a top 4 D in Nikita Zadorov.

The perennially contending Penguins traded a top-6 winger in Patric Hornqvist to the up and coming (and now here) Florida Panthers for top 4 D Mike Matheson in the 2020 offseason.

And these are just the examples from the post-pandemic, flat cap world. I could go further back and talk about Kadri-for-Barrie, or Connor Brown for Cody Ceci, or the legendary "the trade is one for one" of Taylor Hall for Adam Larsson. So don't act like contenders trading roster players for other roster players is this completely unfounded, unbelievable thing that never happens in this league.

Carlo is clearly the third best d man on this team.

Hockey trades are ridiculously rare, so much so that its not really worth thinking about.

Not true. You're first reply to me in one of these two threads was whining about a deal of two players and a first in 3 drafts was great value. So, you definitely were not arguing that it would be a futures only deal then.

You were arguing that a poor value low end player value was fair and never mentioned anything about Boston not wanting to lose DeBrusk since he was a roster player.

Nah it wasn’t. Anything involving Carlo was a simple argument that teams don’t pick out of their top four to trade for a 29 year old center. It’s not a thing. That’s always been the argument.

I mean, I just pointed out 5 different "hockey trades" that have happened in the past 2 years - yes they're uncommon, but to say they're so "rare" that they're "really not worth thinking about" just sounds like you shutting down an argument solely because it doesn't fit your narrative.

As far as Carlo's spot on the team, I'd argue that McAvoy is definitively #1, Lindholm would be #2 if only for the assets devoted to him, and Grzelcyk is #3 based on both his better traditional production, and the more modern defensive metrics giving him a higher grade than Carlo this past year. If you really wanted to dive deep, there's a strong argument to made that Mike Reilly was more valuable in his 17 minutes every night than Carlo was in his 20, but I know that talking about anything beyond box score stats and "the eye test" is going to just go over your head.

You pointed out a bunch of struggling young players either on their ELC or just off it that were swapped (though, none of them were hockey trades), and some bad contract exchanges. Nothing that pertains to this.

Carlo is above grzelcyk. Watch one period of a bruins game rather than just saying, “metrics metrics metrics,” and you would get that.

There it is, "eye test"! I got bingo!!! All those bean counters going on and on about 'the Bruins having more shots for than shots given up while Grzelcyk is on the ice' and 'the Bruins give up more even strength goals with Carlo on the ice than with Grz" don't know anything because Carlo plays the game The Right Way, right??

They don’t know anything because they haven’t studied what they’re talking about. This isn’t hard dude.

This is actually interesting, and i think an example of what’s wrong with just looking at a number and thinking you know everything. It would seem really weird, given what you’ve said about shots or whatever that the bruins scratched grzelcyk in the playoffs, and carlo had a monster series. And also strange that their numbers are evidently so different, despite being the bruins d pair that spent the most minutes together this season. The good news for you is that i don’t think you actually have to watch any hockey to get to the bottom of this. When carlo and grzelcyk weren’t paired together, grzelcyk was most likely to be paired with arguably the best 5 on 5 d man in the league, and carlo was most likely to be paired with mike reilly. Wonder if that could change things.