Jump to content


Photo

ACQUIRED: Patrick Eaves


  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

#51 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 08:36 AM

It does suck but he helped us get here.

 

But if this is as far as you go and part of the reason only only make it this far is because that guy is injured... is it really worth it?



#52 DucksScore

DucksScore

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,259 posts
  • Location:Laguna Niguel, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 09:43 AM

But if this is as far as you go and part of the reason only only make it this far is because that guy is injured... is it really worth it?


I like to look at it as Eaves has given us a shot at getting into the Finals. We are only one series win away. If we had this chance every year to win one series and we are in the Finals, I think I'd pay that price each and every year, but that's just me.

#53 HockeyHeaven

HockeyHeaven

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,598 posts
  • Location:Irvine, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 09:49 AM

 

But if this is as far as you go and part of the reason only only make it this far is because that guy is injured... is it really worth it?

 

You'd have to ask your crystal ball.



#54 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 10:10 AM

 

You'd have to ask your crystal ball.

 

Why?

 

DS answered the question. lets break it off into 2 questions.

 

Here we are, WCF, we traded now a 1st round pick for Eaves. Eaves is now injured and lets just say "Extremely Questionable" to return this season.

 

1) If Eaves cant play/help us the rest of the way (win or lose), was it worth giving up a 1st round pick for him?

2) If he cant play this series and we lose, was it worth giving up a 1st round pick for him?

 

Eaves outperformed what I thought he was capable of, but he got hurt, which is exactly what I was afraid of given his injury history. 

 

For me, its not worth it, especially if we lose. If we win and move onto the Cup finals, it moves into the questionable range for me because we are still playing without the guy we gave up a 1st round pick for (potentially). You win those whole freakin thing? Then it becomes worth it, I guess, but if you still arent playing with the guy...?



#55 DucksScore

DucksScore

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,259 posts
  • Location:Laguna Niguel, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 10:22 AM

Why?
 
DS answered the question. lets break it off into 2 questions.
 
Here we are, WCF, we traded now a 1st round pick for Eaves. Eaves is now injured and lets just say "Extremely Questionable" to return this season.
 
1) If Eaves cant play/help us the rest of the way (win or lose), was it worth giving up a 1st round pick for him?
2) If he cant play this series and we lose, was it worth giving up a 1st round pick for him?
 
Eaves outperformed what I thought he was capable of, but he got hurt, which is exactly what I was afraid of given his injury history. 
 
For me, its not worth it, especially if we lose. If we win and move onto the Cup finals, it moves into the questionable range for me because we are still playing without the guy we gave up a 1st round pick for (potentially). You win those whole freakin thing? Then it becomes worth it, I guess, but if you still arent playing with the guy...?


For me, I don't think Eaves' injury matters as this is hindsight thinking. Same with the "if we lose" question.

Using that line of reasoning, then every "rental" move that 15 GM's make would be deemed to have been not worth it and only the moves of the GM of the Cup winning team would be deemed "worth it".

BM took a risk and actually picked up a 30 goal scorer. I don't think a 1st was too much for that.

#56 Kariya9

Kariya9

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,057 posts

Posted 12 May 2017 - 10:22 AM

I'd rather be here with no first than not be here with a first so yes.

#57 DucksScore

DucksScore

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,259 posts
  • Location:Laguna Niguel, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 10:23 AM

I'd rather be here with no first than not be here without a first so yes.


This is exactly how I feel.

#58 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 10:26 AM

For me, I don't think Eaves' injury matters as this is hindsight thinking. Same with the "if we lose" question.

Using that line of reasoning, then every "rental" move that 15 GM's make would be deemed to have been not worth it and only the moves of the GM of the Cup winning team would be deemed "worth it".

BM took a risk and actually picked up a 30 goal scorer.

 

Exactly, most rentals arent worth it. Big factor in that is what did you give up. 

 

I get the risk/reward thing. It gives you a shot and might bite you in the ass. 

 

If Eaves cant go and we fall short of our goal, then the 1st wasnt worth it... for me. At the same time I can understand the argument that at least we are here and being at this point, with or without Eaves, we have a chance. A chance is better than no chance.



#59 DucksScore

DucksScore

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,259 posts
  • Location:Laguna Niguel, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 10:43 AM

 
Exactly, most rentals arent worth it. Big factor in that is what did you give up. 
 
I get the risk/reward thing. It gives you a shot and might bite you in the ass. 
 
If Eaves cant go and we fall short of our goal, then the 1st wasnt worth it... for me. At the same time I can understand the argument that at least we are here and being at this point, with or without Eaves, we have a chance. A chance is better than no chance.

Again for me his injury should have no bearing on the question of if it was worth it. Injuries are part of the risk of the game that no one can foresee and the GM bears no blame or responsibility for that.

If BM had acquired Crosby instead of Eaves as a rental for a 1st but he got injuried just like Eaves did, would you still say such a move was "not worth it" at this point?

Again that line of reasoning would say unless you win a Cup all other trades are not worth it which would render even having a discussion about moves pointless IMO.

#60 Kariya9

Kariya9

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,057 posts

Posted 12 May 2017 - 10:46 AM

Again for me his injury should have no bearing on the question of if it was worth it. Injuries are part of the risk of the game that no one can foresee and the GM bears no blame or responsibility for that.

If BM had acquired Crosby instead of Eaves as a rental for a 1st but he got injuried just like Eaves did, would you still say such a move was "not worth it" at this point?

Again that line of reasoning would say unless you win a Cup all other trades are not worth it which would render even having a discussion about moves pointless IMO.

 

It just sucks that all of BM's trade deadline acquisitions seem to get hurt.  Almost every year.



#61 Kariya9

Kariya9

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,057 posts

Posted 12 May 2017 - 10:51 AM

We may be saying or looking at this differently. I think I'm looking at it more from the standpoint of when the move was made and I think you are looking at it solely if you would have made the trade with what you know now.

 

Oh no.  I agree with you.  I was just making a separate point that our TDL pickups seem to get hurt frequently. 



#62 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 10:51 AM

Injuries are part of the risk of the game. Ok sure. BUT we're talking about a player who had never played 82 games in his career and has extensive injury problems. Some would say there is a pattern. SOme might even say there are certain players who have a higher risk for injury than others. 

 

If you traded for Cogs, you'd expect he'd play every game. If you traded for a injury risk player, you'd probably expect him to get hurt. Thems the facts.



#63 DucksScore

DucksScore

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,259 posts
  • Location:Laguna Niguel, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 10:53 AM

Injuries are part of the risk of the game. Ok sure. BUT we're talking about a player who had never played 82 games in his career and has extensive injury problems. Some would say there is a pattern. SOme might even say there are certain players who have a higher risk for injury than others. 
 
If you traded for Cogs, you'd expect he'd play every game. If you traded for a injury risk player, you'd probably expect him to get hurt. Thems the facts.


We may be saying or looking at this differently. I think I'm looking at it more from the standpoint of when the move was made and I think you are looking at it solely if you would have made the trade with what you know now.

Either way I still think the 1st was worth it.

Oh no.  I agree with you.  I was just making a separate point that our TDL pickups seem to get hurt frequently. 


Oops, I thought I was responding to RGS. My mistake.

#64 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 10:54 AM

 

Oh no.  I agree with you.  I was just making a separate point that our TDL pickups seem to get hurt frequently. 

 

Looking back, should you have expected those players to get hurt, or no?



#65 Kariya9

Kariya9

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,057 posts

Posted 12 May 2017 - 10:54 AM

Injuries are part of the risk of the game. Ok sure. BUT we're talking about a player who had never played 82 games in his career and has extensive injury problems. Some would say there is a pattern. SOme might even say there are certain players who have a higher risk for injury than others. 

 

If you traded for Cogs, you'd expect he'd play every game. If you traded for a injury risk player, you'd probably expect him to get hurt. Thems the facts.

 

The injury risk was always there with Eaves.  No doubt. 


We may be saying or looking at this differently. I think I'm looking at it more from the standpoint of when the move was made and I think you are looking at it solely if you would have made the trade with what you know now.

Either way I still think the 1st was worth it.

Oops, I thought I was responding to RGS. My mistake.

 

My bad.  Should've figured that out.



#66 DucksScore

DucksScore

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,259 posts
  • Location:Laguna Niguel, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 10:55 AM

RGS, if it was Crosby or McDavid as a rental instead of Eaves and everything else was the same (injury to Crosby or McDavid and where we are now) would the 1st be worth it to you?

#67 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 11:03 AM

RGS, if it was Crosby instead of Eaves and everything else was the same (injury and where we are now) would the 1st be worth it to you?

 

Well, thats a bit of an unfair comparison, not only from a talent standpoint, but injury history and everything else that goes into it. 

 

If we would have given up a 3rd for Eaves instead of a 1st, its worth it. Price matters. When you are giving up a 1st, and you know the guy has injury history, and then he gets injured.... you kinda shoulda known.

THe risk for Crosby vs Eaves would be more worth it. The final outcome being the same, it wasnt worth it (if in fact Eaves is out fore the remainder of the postseason).

 

We paid a hefty price for a guy to come in and help us. Right now, hes not helping us.


Let me also just say, Ive loved Eaves. He played HUGE for us and I would love to have him back as long as the money is right. But you are buying damaged goods.

 

When I go grocery shopping, I look for the dented cans because they are cheaper. We paid for an un-dented can.



#68 mransr

mransr

    3rd Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 573 posts

Posted 12 May 2017 - 11:09 AM

I like how Eaves has played, and he was definitely a good addition, but having to give up a higher draft pick for him when he only played for about a half of one win in the second round series kind of sucks.



#69 DucksScore

DucksScore

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,259 posts
  • Location:Laguna Niguel, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 11:10 AM

 
Well, thats a bit of an unfair comparison, not only from a talent standpoint, but injury history and everything else that goes into it. 
 
If we would have given up a 3rd for Eaves instead of a 1st, its worth it. Price matters. When you are giving up a 1st, and you know the guy has injury history, and then he gets injured.... you kinda shoulda known.
THe risk for Crosby vs Eaves would be more worth it. The final outcome being the same, it wasnt worth it (if in fact Eaves is out fore the remainder of the postseason).
 
We paid a hefty price for a guy to come in and help us. Right now, hes not helping us.

Let me also just say, Ive loved Eaves. He played HUGE for us and I would love to have him back as long as the money is right. But you are buying damaged goods.
 
When I go grocery shopping, I look for the dented cans because they are cheaper. We paid for an un-dented can.


We also paid for a 30-goal scorer with a cheap-a** salary that we could fit within our cap.

I get the injury history part. But it does seem to me that you are saying that an injury trumps everything when it comes to evaluating whether the assets given were worth it or not. In other words, you are saying if a rental player gets injured then the assets given are never worth it. Is that what you are saying?

To me that seems to be an unfair assessment and looking at it completely in 20/20 hindsight.

#70 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 11:19 AM

We also paid for a 30-goal scorer with a cheap-a** salary that we could fit within our cap.

I get the injury history part. But it does seem to me that you are saying that an injury trumps everything when it comes to evaluating whether the assets given were worth it or not. In other words, you are saying if a rental player gets injured then the assets given are never worth it. Is that what you are saying?

To me that seems to be an unfair assessment and looking at it in 20/20 hindsight.

 

Well first off, we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight so why not?

 

Secondly, I wasnt thrilled with the Eaves trade mainly due to his injury history when it first happened.

 

And again, it also comes down to price. We paid, now, a 1st rounder for a guy who had a career year , was cheap and came with a whole hell of a lot of baggage. Price is too damn much. There is only 1 way for the price to not be too much, and thats the same thing as making the argument for paying Kesler and the twins what we are. If they win a Cup, then the prices dont matter.

 

Im not trying to take anything away from Eaves, but that pick turned into a 1st rounder a couple games after he went down, that sucks.



#71 DucksScore

DucksScore

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,259 posts
  • Location:Laguna Niguel, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 11:24 AM

Well first off, we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight so why not?
 
Secondly, I wasnt thrilled with the Eaves trade mainly due to his injury history when it first happened.
 
And again, it also comes down to price. We paid, now, a 1st rounder for a guy who had a career year , was cheap and came with a whole hell of a lot of baggage. Price is too damn much. There is only 1 way for the price to not be too much, and thats the same thing as making the argument for paying Kesler and the twins what we are. If they win a Cup, then the prices dont matter.
 
Im not trying to take anything away from Eaves, but that pick turned into a 1st rounder a couple games after he went down, that sucks.


I'm curious then, under what minimum circumstances going forward would you ever deem the 1st "worth it" for Eaves?

Would he have to return in this (or the next) series at some point? Would we have to advance to the Finals or would we have to outright win the Cup? Or would it have to be all of the above?

#72 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 11:30 AM

Under what circumstances going forward would you ever deem the 1st "worth it" for Eaves?

Would he have to return in this (or the next) series at some point? Would we have to advance to the Finals or would we have to outright win the Cup?

 

Good question.

 

Im torn. At the very least, he has to come back. If he doesnt come back, they'd have to win the Cup.

 

Everyting else inbetween is debatable.

 

I would have loved to see a stipulation int he deal that said he couldnt miss more than X-amount of consecutive games for it to become the 1st.



#73 DucksScore

DucksScore

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,259 posts
  • Location:Laguna Niguel, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 11:34 AM

 
Good question.
 
Im torn. At the very least, he has to come back. If he doesnt come back, they'd have to win the Cup.
 
Everyting else inbetween is debatable.
 
I would have loved to see a stipulation int he deal that said he couldnt miss more than X-amount of consecutive games for it to become the 1st.


I don't recall specifically but I thought that I saw that there was a % of playoff games played threshold that he had to surpass which he did (maybe it was 50%).

#74 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 11:40 AM

I don't recall specifically but I thought that I saw that there was a % of playoff games played threshold that he had to surpass which he did (maybe it was 50%).

 

As an injury prone guy, thats not good enough for me.  I mean, at least it was something but I would have like to see a clause where he couldnt miss more than 4 consecutive playoff games



#75 DucksScore

DucksScore

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,259 posts
  • Location:Laguna Niguel, CA

Posted 12 May 2017 - 11:48 AM

As an injury prone guy, thats not good enough for me.  I mean, at least it was something but I would have like to see a clause where he couldnt miss more than 4 consecutive playoff games


Do you know how many games he missed? I vaguely recall the tweet saying that he played 8 playoff games which would mean he missed games only 3 games (games 5-7 of the EDM series). Is that correct?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users