Jan 25, 2017
Posts per Day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>PleaseBanMeForMyOwnGood</b></div><div>And there is the rub. When I say Manson isn't as good as you think he is, that doesn't mean I think he's a bad player, I have said the contrary many times. I<strong> just don't think he's a top pair defender</strong>, I think he can do an okay job of it if he has a top notch partner. I say that and you hear that I think he's bad and now you are hot under the collar and are pipping off on how good he is. This isn't a black and white scenario. There is a difference between being a top pair defenceman and a middle pair guy and both are good players. </div></div>
Are you dense? I have literally agreed with you on this multiple times. I've admitted that Manson is better suited for a top 4D role. What more do you need me to say?
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>PleaseBanMeForMyOwnGood</b></div><div>I think that you can get a good package for Manson, likely a 1st and a B prospect for sure. Of course some GM's may pay more, I don't see Dubas going nuts and trading one of our A defence prospects, a 1st and whatever else you think is fair, because he paid less than that for a better player in Muzzin last year. Please don't go off on Manson being better, he isn't and just because Muzzin is better, that doesn't mean Manson sucks, he just doesn't have the same tools that Muzzin has.</div></div>
If we agree that Liljegren has top 4 D upside and you class him as an A prospect, than Manson is worth A prospect + 1st. We literally traded a worst D-man in Montour for Guhle (prospect with top 4 D upside - an A prospect by your standard) + 1st. I mean is Liljegren > Guhle + 1st? I am talking pure value. No other considerations i.e. cap, age, etc. Just value is Liljegren > Guhle + 1st?
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>PleaseBanMeForMyOwnGood</b></div><div>But whatever, keep Manson, and don't rebuild, its working out great so far.</div></div>
Lol... I thought you didn't want Manson? Now we're ruining our rebuild because we won't trade him to you for a sub-par offer.
You're clearly conflating multiple arguments from multiple different people because I didn't say or suggest most of what you seem to have a problem with. This is the situation:
1. TOR fans suggest a trade of Manson + Sherwood <-----> Ceci + Barrie + Bracco + 2nd or Kaps + Ceci + Bracco + 2nd. Something like this. It's always Manson for something decent + TOR scraps + cap dump.
2. I counter the suggestion stating that "Manson to TOR would have one of Sandin or Liljegren coming back the other way".
3. TOR fans scoff at my suggestion claiming that "Sandin and Liljegren are worth more than Manson".
4. I argue that, whilst there are many reasons you wouldn't trade Sandin or Liljegren in a deal for Manson, value isn't one of those reasons.
That's it! That's the argument. I didn't say Manson is a top pairing D-man. I didn't say he's worth what a top pairing D-man should get. But, in terms of pure value, in a vacuum, where no other considerations are made, he's absolutely worth one of Liljegren or Sandin. You've got to accept that there is risk attached to both of those prospect, where as Manson is a proven commodity. If you are unwilling to do that (which is so classic TOR fan) then there is nothing further to discuss. I'd love to get a level-headed neutrals view point on this though.
P.S. If you'd asked me to trade Sam Steel back in 2016-17 after his 131 pt WHL season for a 2nd line C I'd have turned it down too. However, look at him now? Not exactly setting the league on fire is he? That's because progression isn't linear and prospects are going to hit hurdles that they either make it over or get stuck at. This is why good NHL players come with multiple high grade prospects and picks because prospects and picks have risk attached and, despite having good numbers and even passing the eye test, they may struggle with the transition to the NHL. This is pretty basic stuff. Oh... I forgot... TOR prospects = the best prospects with no risk attached. How dumb of me.