ClamRussel wrote:This trade proposal reeks of Nelly all over again. Perhaps you're too young to have suffered that pain Farhan but no I wouldn't do it. Now if Lecavalier was just *about* to hit his prime then I'd possibly consider it but at this point its safe to say, while still a very good center, his prime years are behind him. Keep in mind, Barry Pederson was a true no.1 center.
1) Lecavlier is only 29 years old. He's not exactly young, but the guy still has LOTS of time to play pretty damn effectively. Guys like Sakic, Sundin, etc., etc. were all playing at the same level from 34-36 years of age. Even if Lecavlier doesn't get 105 points or whatever, he'd still be a HUGE addition if he could be a PPG player.
2) To the best of my knowledge, Lecavlier isn't suffering from any physical ailments (a la Naslund post 2005, a la Barry Pederson). With that in mind, can we really use the Neely/Pederson situation as a valid analogy?
3) Hodgson might be the next Dale Howerchuk, but it's not like Howerchuk was a major 1st line superstar (if I understand correctly....Howerchuk was before my time). Lecavlier however, is a bonafide major 1st line superstar.
4) People keep talking about how Hodgson would be a bargain due to his low salary. Here's my question. How long will the Canucks actually be able to REAP the benefits of a low-salaried Hodgson? Although Hodgson has tons of potential, it will still take him 1-2 years to really be at the level that we expect (meaning - he'll be about 19-20). At the age of 21, if I understand correctly, Hodgson will become a RFA......and will be entitled to what-could-be a huge salary raise.
5) Hodgson can be great.....but who knows what's in store for down the road? Who knows as to what our true assets will be by the time Hodgson gets really good (and in all likelihood, it will still take 1-2 years....and that's being optimistic)
For example - during the WCE era, we always heard comments such as, "boy - when the Sedin twins get REALLY good, the Canucks will be unbeatable since they'll be the perfect complement to Naslund-Morrison-Bertuzzi. We should be patient
Well - guess what? We WERE patient and the twins DID get really good. The problem however, was that the WCE were now in decline....and are overall gain amounted to nothing. It was a zero-sum game. Now don't get me wrong - I am happy that we kept the twins, but what if
we had traded the twins for IMMEDIATE help (either in the form of a more capable goaltender or a formidable center that could have anchored the 2nd line and been a better complement to the WCE at the time?).
The point I'm trying to make, is that if goes both ways......and the future is never guaranteed. Assets are always in constant and gradual re-arrangement.
2 years ago when the Canucks lost to the Ducks, a lot of us said, "Man.....if the Canucks had a reasonable offense and a semi-decent power play, we'd be legit. If Kesler keeps improving the way he does, he would really help take a load of the twins. Once we get Naslund and Morrison off the books, our salary will spent better in so many different ways and we'll get way more help!"
Fast forward to two years - and Kesler DID get much better (as did Burrows!
). The Canucks, under Gillis' regime, DID spend money quite wisely for the most part. However - for a wide variety of reasons, our defensive play wasn't at the level that it was a few years ago. Mitchell, Luongo, and Ohlund were all inferior to their selves from 2 years prior.
Take a look back to 1999.....when Canuck fans everywhere promised that we'd be cup contenders in a few years due to our new burgeoning core.
Between 1999 and 2005, how many playoff series did the Canucks win? (with the emergence of Naslund, Morrison, Bertuzzi, Cooke, Jovanovski, Ruutu, etc., etc.).
Couldn't one argue that sometimes, it's WISER to have a greater emphasis on the SHORT-TERM as opposed to the LONG TERM because in the SHORT TERM, a team has a much better "eye" for what their current needs are....and what needs to be addressed....while in the long term, even if a certain player develops, a team's strengths and weaknesses might be completely different anyways.