Grading the Timonen trade

[B21]

Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't have. Given how close all of the games were there's no way to know for sure. They needed depth on the blue line, that's what he was acquired to provide. He was scratched the first three games of the finals, the Hawks were 1-2 in those games. He played the final three games, and the Hawks won them all. He did what they needed him to do, provide steady smart play in the defensive zone in a limited role. They could have scratched him in any of the final three games and played someone else, but they didn't. I doubt it was for sentimental reasons.

 

Fair point. Still not worth what they gave up.

[Podein25]

Neither do you. But my opinion at least has a tangible element to it. Look at the guy's minutes (or lack there of). Look how slow he looked. He was a healthy scratch in the Cup Finals!

Toews, Kane, Keith & Co. showing their appreciation was just that. You and a few others want to read into that as "proof" the guy made a difference. I take it for what it is which is an incredibly classy gesture on their part.

I'm not even arguing what a player like Timonen brings off the ice either. I never have. All I have said all along is this: If you are the Hawks with leadership out the wazoo with guys like Toews and Keith and a coach like Queneville, do you really need to give up a pair of 2nd round picks for everything Timonen brings?

The answer is no.

I'll get the love but the incessant need by you and others to justify the two picks is now bordering on madness. They guy was not worth the picks at this stage of his career. Certainly not on the ice. And the Hawks might be the last team in the league that needed what he brings off the ice.

Neither do I? Here's what I have on my side evidentiary-wise. The Hawks acquired Kimmo. Then they won.

The Bolts acquired Coburn. And lost.

That tells you most of what you need to know about the relative value of those two veteran players. Gimme Timonen, even an old one with blood clots recently in his legs, every time.

EDIT: #warrior

[radoran]

Look at the guy's minutes (or lack there of). Look how slow he looked. He was a healthy scratch in the Cup Finals!

 

Look at the fact that they won all three games he played after being scratched - in the Cup Finals!

 

I'll get the love but the incessant need by you and others to justify the two picks is now bordering on madness.

 

Fair point. Still not worth what they gave up.

 

For the Blackhawks, they won their third Cup in six years. I can guarantee you if the Pens won the Cup you wouldn't give a second thought to two late round seconds. Nor would any other Pens fan. Nor would any hockey fan if their team won the Championship.

 

Because when put up against winning the Cup the two late seconds don't matter.

 

To anyone.

 

And, do recall that I'm the one saying that the two picks really aren't worth that much and ridiculing the entire concept of the Flyers "winning the trade".

 

Carry on.

[flyercanuck]

Off the Hawks board at HF...all fans congratulating Kimmo and several mentioning that he played well for the short stints he put in. Not a single complaint about the picks...not one.

 

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1910903

[B21]

Neither do I? Here's what I have on my side evidentiary-wise. The Hawks acquired Kimmo. Then they won.

The Bolts acquired Coburn. And lost.

That tells you most of what you need to know about the relative value of those two veteran players. Gimme Timonen, even an old one with blood clots recently in his legs, every time.

 

 

And Coburn has what to do with this?

 

I said this before - the "yeah they won the Cup" argument to defend the trade is weak.  They traded for Antoine Vermette, too.  All he had was a pair of GWG in the SCF.

 

Post after post in this forum. "Old." "Slow." "Lost."  

 

Give those 8 minutes per game to whoever. The Hawks still win this. 

 

Nice addition. I buy all the reasons.  Gave up too much for him though.

 

Edit:  My bad. He played less than 5 minutes per game in Games 4-6.  3:39 in Game 6 in which they needed to clinch on home ice and avoid going back to Tampa for a Game 7. 

[radoran]

Not a single complaint about the picks...not one.

 

Remember the conditional pick the Pens gave up for Guerin when they won in 2009?

 

Remember what team actually took the pick?

 

Remember who was drafted with it?

 

Neither do they.

 

[B21]

For the Blackhawks, they won their third Cup in six years. I can guarantee you if the Pens won the Cup you wouldn't give a second thought to two late round seconds. Nor would any other Pens fan. Nor would any hockey fan if their team won the Championship.
 
Because when put up against winning the Cup the two late seconds don't matter.
 
To anyone.
 
And, do recall that I'm the one saying that the two picks really aren't worth that much and ridiculing the entire concept of the Flyers "winning the trade".
 

 

You do realize I said the same thing (might be in another thread)...that if I am a Hawks fan, I could care less.  From a strictly indifferent hockey perspective, the Hawks did not need to make that deal...certainly not for what turned out to be two 2nd round picks.

 

Look at the fact that they won all three games he played after being scratched - in the Cup Finals!

 

Yes, I'm sure his 5:46 in Game 4, his 5:05 in Game 5 and his 3:39 in Game 6 made all the difference.  Just enough time for Keith, Seabrook & Co. to get a swig of Gatorade. 

 

Are you and @Podein25 really going to make a case that inserting him into the line-up made a difference in Games 4-6? Really?   

 

 

 

[ruxpin]

If  you ask me, Kimmo Timonen won the trade.

[B21]

Remember the conditional pick the Pens gave up for Guerin when they won in 2009?

 

Remember what team actually took the pick?

 

Remember who was drafted with it?

 

Neither do they.

 

 

Remember his 12 points in 17 regular season games and 14:14 average TOI?

 

Or his 15 points in 24 playoff games and 17:01 average TOI?

 

Then of course - there is all he brought to that team "off the ice". 

 

Oops.

[Podein25]

 They traded for Antoine Vermette, too.  All he had was a pair of GWG in the SCF.

 

 

I rest my case. He also won a shitload of faceoffs and not just against Paquette. He also did some other things that win hockey games.

 

I take it from your comments that you have very little appreciation for a number of aspects of the game that all add up to to playing winning hockey. Like I said, you'd make one helluva team mate. You'd probably be minus 100 and whine about ice time.

[B21]

I rest my case. He also won a shitload of faceoffs and not just against Paquette. He also did some other things that win hockey games.

 

I take it from your comments that you have very little appreciation for a number of aspects of the game that all add up to to playing winning hockey. Like I said, you'd make one helluva team mate. You'd probably be minus 100 and whine about ice time.

 

Thank you. Vermette actually made a difference. Maybe even put them over the top. GWG's tend to do that.

 

But you're right - a team coached by Joel Queneville, captained by Jonathan Toews and blessed with such veteran locker room leaders like Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook, Marion Hossa and Brad Richards and a few others (not to mention the experience they have had from the other two Cups they won) clearly needed to surrender a couple of 2nd round picks to add even more veteran leadership from a guy who never played on a Cup winner.

 

The on-ice argument has long been lost.

 

The off-ice argument gets sillier by the minute.

[radoran]

clearly needed to surrender a couple of 2nd round picks

 

Well, let's unpack this a bit.

 

The second pick was "conditional" - and started out as a fourth rounder.

 

If the Hawks don't get to the Final, they don't give up another second. They give up a 50+ pick and a fourth? third?

 

It's not like they came to the Flyers and gave up two seconds for Timonen right off the bat. The team had to accomplish something.

 

Clearly they were also not comfortable with Cuminsky, Runblad and van Riemsdyk as their "defensive depth" - and they dropped them after going down 2-1 in the Final.

 

Now we get back to the "worth" argument - and whether or not Chicago will "miss" the two seconds "for a team that has to value them more than any other at this point.."

 

In your opinion, it wasn't worth it. Which is fine. I don't believe I have accused you of "madness" or said that your argument is "silly."

 

I've simply said that, for Chicago, it was clearly worth it, even "for a team that has to value [late second round picks] more than any other at this point."

 

My opinion is clearly colored by the result - the Cup win. This wasn't trading a second and a conditional pick for Doug Murray and having the conditional pick turn into a second before being swept in the Conference Finals. This was a Cup win.

 

If they didn't win it, I think there's far more to worry about.

 

Like whether Dillon Heatherington and Noah Rod turn into actual NHL players.

[JackStraw]

The on-ice argument has long been lost

 

Lost by whom? If Timonen was of no use on the ice, then why was he on the ice in the last 3 games? Why were both Runblad and Roszival scratched while he played?

[B21]

Clearly they were also not comfortable with Cuminsky, Runblad and van Riemsdyk as their "defensive depth" - and they dropped them after going down 2-1 in the Final.

 

And played Timonen for a grand total of 3:39 in Game 6.  Did he even have a shift in the 3rd?  I don't recall seeing him.  

 

Now we get back to the "worth" argument - and whether or not Chicago will "miss" the two seconds "for a team that has to value them more than any other at this point.."
 
In your opinion, it wasn't worth it. Which is fine. I don't believe I have accused you of "madness" or said that your argument is "silly."
 
I've simply said that, for Chicago, it was clearly worth it, even "for a team that has to value [late second round picks] more than any other at this point."

 

Ah - but my opinion from the beginning was that it wasn't worth it.  Sure - for Chicago it was....when they made the deal.  If you are Chicago...knowing what you know now...are you going to trade a 2nd and 4th (let alone and 2nd & 2nd) for three healthy scratches and 3 games with sub-5:00 of ice time?  We both know the answer to that one.  What they gave up tells me Chicago was expecting more.  They didn't get it...but in the end, didn't need it.

 

Clearly they were not comfortable giving Timonen meaningful ice time as the playoffs wore on.

 

My opinion is clearly colored by the result - the Cup win. This wasn't trading a second and a conditional pick for Doug Murray and having the conditional pick turn into a second before being swept in the Conference Finals. This was a Cup win.

 

Another trade I didn't like.  And like the 2015 Cup-winning Hawks, one I'm sure the Pens would love to have back. Of course, Murray actually....you know...played. 

 

The second pick was "conditional" - and started out as a fourth rounder.
 
If the Hawks don't get to the Final, they don't give up another second. They give up a 50+ pick and a fourth? third?
 
It's not like they came to the Flyers and gave up two seconds for Timonen right off the bat. The team had to accomplish something.

 

Well aware.  I thought a 2nd and 4th was too much.  A bad deal that was only going to get worse.  Again - I agree you don't care about the impact of the deal if you win the Cup but to me, that does not justify a bad trade that was clearly not needed.

[B21]

Lost by whom? If Timonen was of no use on the ice, then why was he on the ice in the last 3 games? Why were both Runblad and Roszival scratched while he played?

 

5:46. 5:05. 3:39. 

 

Roszival broke his ankle against the Wild.  If you want to use dressing over David Rundblad, be my guest.  

 

If he's so "useful", why 3:39 in the biggest game of the year?  A game that was scoreless for most of two periods and 1-0 until there was about 5:00 left?

 

I'm guessing not much if any of that 3:30 came in the 3rd. 

[B21]

Well, let's unpack this a bit.

 

Actually, I prefer to upack this a bit...

 

 

 

Remember the conditional pick the Pens gave up for Guerin when they won in 2009?

 

 

Did you really compare the conditional 4th that turned into a 3rd which the Pens gave up for Bill Guerin to the 2nd/4th that turned into a 2nd/2nd which the Hawks gave up for Timonen?

 

12 points in 17 regular season games and 14:14 average TOI...

15 points in 24 playoff games and 17:01 average TOI...

 

I'd put up Timonen's points if he had any.

 

And of course - Guerin re-signed.  Timonen re-tired. (Doesn't matter much other than to show who had what left in their proverbial tank.)

 

Do the Pens make that deal again? Now - do the Hawks?

 

Silly seems appropriate.   

[ruxpin]

I'm guessing not much if any of that 3:39 came in the 3rd. 

 

Even if it was ALL in the third that's a small mount.

[JackStraw]

If he's so "useful", why 3:39 in the biggest game of the year?  A game that was scoreless for most of two periods and 1-0 until there was about 5:00 left?

 

If Timonen was so useless, then why wasn't Runblad dressed? I'm fine with using Runblad btw. And I'd like to see your answer. Why was Timonen playing instead of other guys whoever they might be? Simple question, should be a simple answer right?

[radoran]

And like the 2015 Cup-winning Hawks, one I'm sure the Pens would love to have back.

 

Only because they lost the Cup. If they won the Cup, they wouldn't care.

 

Chicago won the Cup.

 

Are you really asserting that Chicago "would love to have" the trade back? Because I haven't heard/seen anything of the kind.

 

"He gives us some predictability and coverage in the D zone, strength in the puck area. I think he's smart, experienced and did a good job for us throughout the playoffs and gives him a chance to get in here in a moment - a big moment. I think that his reads, his positional awareness and his coverage in his own end will help him."

- Joel Quenneville, on Timonen before Game 4

[radoran]

Actually, I prefer to upack this a bit...

 

 

 

 

Did you really compare the conditional 4th that turned into a 3rd which the Pens gave up for Bill Guerin to the 2nd/4th that turned into a 2nd/2nd which the Hawks gave up for Timonen?

 

12 points in 17 regular season games and 14:14 average TOI...

15 points in 24 playoff games and 17:01 average TOI...

 

I'd put up Timonen's points if he had any.

 

And of course - Guerin re-signed.  Timonen re-tired. (Doesn't matter much other than to show who had what left in their proverbial tank.)

 

Do the Pens make that deal again? Now - do the Hawks?

 

Silly seems appropriate.   

 

No, I made a point about how trades can be seen differently based upon the results.

 

The obvious example - apples-to-apples in fact - is the Murray trade.

 

You assert the Pens "would love to have that back"

 

I assert that if they won the Cup, they wouldn't give a damn about the two 2nds.

 

Because they wouldn't.

 

And you wouldn't.

And Chicago doesn't.

[JackStraw]

Only because they lost the Cup. If they won the Cup, they wouldn't care.

 

Chicago won the Cup.

 

Are you really asserting that Chicago "would love to have" the trade back? Because I haven't heard/seen anything of the kind.

 

"He gives us some predictability and coverage in the D zone, strength in the puck area. I think he's smart, experienced and did a good job for us throughout the playoffs and gives him a chance to get in here in a moment - a big moment. I think that his reads, his positional awareness and his coverage in his own end will help him."

- Joel Quenneville, on Timonen before Game 4

 

Q, after game 6:

 

“Very happy for him.  Ups and down,” Quenneville said. “Thought he would give us some real predictability in the last three games here, settle our own team down in our own end. Played smart, simple.  Got a good stick, stayed strong in puck areas and gets to go out a champion, which is special for a great career.”

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/sports/flyers/For-ex-Flyer-Timonen-a-storybook-ending.html

 

And for that matter, Keith after game 6:

 

“It’s unbelievable how close the series was, how one little mistake can make the difference”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/sports/hockey/chicago-blackhawks-win-stanley-cup.html?ref=hockey

 

So if for no other reason than the fact that Timonen is not going to make many mistakes it makes sense to have him in the game over Runblad, who is mistake prone in his own end.

[B21]

If Timonen was so useless, then why wasn't Runblad dressed? I'm fine with using Runblad btw. And I'd like to see your answer. Why was Timonen playing instead of other guys whoever they might be? Simple question, should be a simple answer right?

 

Because Timonen is a slightly better option than Runblad?

 

My turn...

 

If Roszival is healthy, is Timonen playing?

If Timonen is so useful, why is he playing an embarrassing 3:39 and not sniffing the ice in the 3rd?

If Timonen is so useful, why was he scratched for the first 3 games and wound up in a rotation with Rundblad, TVR and Comiskey? If, as Duncan Keith noted, one little mistake can cost you, why was he not playing meaningful minutes in every game?

 

I don't want to knock the guy but you are leaving my choice to show that is was a bad trade.

[B21]

 

 

Are you really asserting that Chicago "would love to have" the trade back? Because I haven't heard/seen anything of the kind.

 

"He gives us some predictability and coverage in the D zone, strength in the puck area. I think he's smart, experienced and did a good job for us throughout the playoffs and gives him a chance to get in here in a moment - a big moment. I think that his reads, his positional awareness and his coverage in his own end will help him."

- Joel Quenneville, on Timonen before Game 4

 

Knowing they win the Cup with him playing minimal minutes throughout the entire post-season and almost nothing in the Finals? Absolutely.

 

Explain why Quenneville only played this "smart, experienced, predictable" defenseman for less than 5:00 per game, only 3:39 in the biggest game of the year and not at all in the 3rd period of Game 6 while nursing a 1-goal lead....when "smarts", "experience" and "predictability" matter most.  Hmm?

 

You can go by what the coach said.  I'll go by what he did.

 

(I'm going to assume he did not play in the 3rd until proven otherwise. As ruxpin pointed out, even all of his 3:39 in the 3rd isn't much.)

[B21]

No, I made a point about how trades can be seen differently based upon the results.

 

The obvious example - apples-to-apples in fact - is the Murray trade.

 

You assert the Pens "would love to have that back"

 

I assert that if they won the Cup, they wouldn't give a damn about the two 2nds.

 

Because they wouldn't.

 

And you wouldn't.

And Chicago doesn't.

 

Sorry - but even with a Cup that year the Pens would LOVE to have those picks back. I would love to have those picks back.  Winning the Cup will make a bad and useless trade more tolerable but it still doesn't change the fact that it was a bad/useless trade.  Nothing wrong with analyzing a trade in hindsight even if you get the result you wanted.  Of course, I'm not knocking the trade in hindsight...I've been knocking it from the day it was made.  I'll use my same example.  The Pens deal a 1st for Player A.  Two games after the trade, Player A is done for the year.  The Pens win the Cup anyway.  Do I regret that trade or do I not care  because I won the Cup?  The former every time seeing as how the trade was not needed.  Like the Timonen trade. 

[JackStraw]

Because Timonen is a slightly better option than Runblad?

 

Slightly better, much better, infinitely better... makes no difference. Q felt he was the better option. The same reason why any player on any team plays over any other player.

 

 

 

If Roszival is healthy, is Timonen playing?

 

I don't know. Roszival is pretty bad these days. Hawks fans seem to think he's garbage. When the trade was made most seemed to be looking forward to seeing less of him and Runblad.

 

 

 

If Timonen is so useful, why is he playing an embarrassing 3:39 and not sniffing the ice in the 3rd?

 

Because that's what Q needed him to do. Obvious, isn't it?

 

 

 

If Timonen is so useful, why was he scratched for the first 3 games and wound up in a rotation with Rundblad, TVR and Comiskey?

 

And I just turn that around and ask (again) why did he play the last three (all of which they won) while Runblad was scratched? Oh wait, we already answered that question. And that's the only question that really matters. Q played the guys he felt gave his team the best chance to win, period. It's not any more complicated than that.

 

 

 

I don't want to knock the guy but you are leaving my choice to show that is was a bad trade.

 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you certainly haven't shown me that it was a bad trade. They traded for him to help them win the Cup, this year. They won the Cup. Sounds ok to me (and I suspect, most other people).