Grading the Timonen trade

[radoran]

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

 

You, as a Pens fan, believe that the Hawks gave up too much. And that's totally fair. Bully for you. Yay.

 

The Hawks don't believe they gave up too much. And that's totally fair. Bully for them. Yay.

 

Chicago won the Cup after the Timonen trade.

 

Good trade.

 

Pittsburgh lost the Cup after the Murray trade.

 

Bad trade.

 

SAME ASSETS. DIFFERENT RESULTS.

 

Different evaluations of the trade.

 

Q.E.D.

 

Me? If the Hawks had lost, I'd call it a bad trade.

 

As it is, I'm happy that Timonen (one of my favorite players even before coming to Philly) won a Cup. I'm happy that the Flyers got something in exchange for a player that was never going to be an important part of the team for them going forward. I'm happy that my fellow UVM alum Patrick Sharp got his third Cup.

 

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.)

 

None of that matters.

 

None of it.

 

What matters is the result.

 

And the result speaks for itself - and louder than anyone on here can possibly speak.

 

Again, if Chicago lost, I'd be right on board with saying they "lost" on the trade.

They didn't. They won.

 

Case, for me, closed.

 

YMMV

 

Sorry - but even with a Cup that year the Pens would LOVE to have those picks back.

 

I'll disagree on Chicago, too.  Those picks were wasted. They did not need to make that trade to win the Cup.

 

If a Cuminsky/vanRiemsdyk/Runblad turnover changes any of those one-goal games to the other result, it could change the outcome of the entire series.

 

There's a reason Q played Timonen in the last three games instead of the guys he chose in the first three games - no matter how much or how little. Because any mistake in five minutes of ice time or three minutes or even thirty seconds could have changed the outcome of the series.

 

And, again, 90% of the time "those picks" don't amount to anything. So what was really "wasted"?

 

I am impressed with your after the fact precognition, though.

 

No, wait. I'm not.

 

Hindsight is 20/20.

[B21]

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.

 

Roszival was playing 17+ minutes per game when he was hurt.  If he's healthy, Timonen is a scratch.  When the trade was made, everything I had read said that it was Rundblad's ice time that was in jeopardy, not Roszival's.

 

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

 

Really? Needed him to not play when the game was on the line?  That worth two 2nds?

 

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.

 

Not disputing that.  I just don't give up two 2nds for a 7th defenseman playing 5:00 per game and who the coach is afraid to put on the ice when the game matters most. That's my point.  I said from the beginning this was a high risk high reward trade and it ended up being not worth the risk. He barely played.

[radoran]

I said from the beginning this was a high risk high reward trade and it ended up being not worth the risk. He barely played.

 

But it was worth the reward.

 

Q.E.D.

 

[B21]

You, as a Pens fan, believe that the Hawks gave up too much. And that's totally fair. Bully for you. Yay.

 

Being a Pens fans has nothing to do with this. Timonen being one of your favorite players even pre-Flyers might.

 

Oddly, I'm giving credit to the Flyers.  But don't let imagined biases get in the way of things.

 

The Hawks don't believe they gave up too much. And that's totally fair. Bully for them. Yay.

 

Really? You spoke to Stan and Joel about this? We are really going down that road now?

 

Chicago won the Cup after the Timonen trade.

Good trade.

Pittsburgh lost the Cup after the Murray trade.

Bad trade.

 

Pittsburgh lost the Cup after the Hossa/Dupuis trade.  Bad trade?

 

Flyers missed the playoffs after the Mason trade. Bad trade?

 

As it is, I'm happy that Timonen (one of my favorite players even before coming to Philly) won a Cup. I'm happy that the Flyers got something in exchange for a player that was never going to be an important part of the team for them going forward. I'm happy that my fellow UVM alum Patrick Sharp got his third Cup.

 

I could not agree more except for the part about Patrick Sharp. Not a fan. 

 

None of that matters.

None of it.

What matters is the result.

And the result speaks for itself - and louder than anyone on here can possibly speak.

Again, if Chicago lost, I'd be right on board with saying they "lost" on the trade.

They didn't. They won.

 

If you want to analyze the trade in that very convenient bubble - sure. But you really have to look into the facts to see how unnecessary the trade was.  Certainly not worth what the Hawks gave up.  If the Pens win the Cup after the Ponikarovsky trade in spite of his 2 points and -6, is that a "good trade" just because they won the Cup?  Really now.

[JackStraw]

Roszival was playing 17+ minutes per game when he was hurt.  If he's healthy, Timonen is a scratch.  When the trade was made, everything I had read said that it was Rundblad's ice time that was in jeopardy, not Roszival's.

 

Third pair probably would have been Rosy/Timonen.

 

Really? Needed him to not play when the game was on the line?  That worth two 2nds?

 

No offense but you're just being deliberately obtuse. Needed him to take some minutes during the game. You agree that he's a better choice than Runblad? There's your answer.

 

I just don't give up two 2nds for a 7th defenseman playing 5:00 per game and who the coach is afraid to put on the ice when the game matters most.

 

Fair point. To me a couple late 2nd rounders (the second one being conditional) who can help your depth when you need him for the last serious Cup run you may make for a while seems ok. Giving up Voracek and the 8th overall for Carter, to me, is not ok (just to prove that there's no Flyers fan bias here). So that's the difference between a clearly bad trade (Columbus) and an ok trade (Chicago) in my opinion.

[B21]

If a Cuminsky/vanRiemsdyk/Runblad turnover changes any of those one-goal games to the other result, it could change the outcome of the entire series.

There's a reason Q played Timonen in the last three games instead of the guys he chose in the first three games - no matter how much or how little. Because any mistake in five minutes of ice time or three minutes or even thirty seconds could have changed the outcome of the series.

 

And I am sure that is what the Hawks had in mind when they gave up two 2nds....3:30 to 5:00 of mistake free hockey in Games 4-6.

 

If that is your argument, tell me why he didn't play Games 1-3?  Tell me why he was not on the ice at all in the 3rd if not to just give Keith/Seabrook a breather?

 

And, again, 90% of the time "those picks" don't amount to anything. So what was really "wasted"?

 

I am impressed with your after the fact precognition, though.

 

FC would disagree with you.  

 

Good call though - I think it was the day after the trade that I went on record of it being a win for the Flyers and too much for Timonen. Sorry my completely accurate assessment was a day late.

 

But don't let facts get in the way of some good smarm.  

[JackStraw]

And it really doesn't matter all that much HOW much he played. The playoffs are a grind. If you expect to go deep, even more of a grind. You need depth. Do you want depth that you already don't trust (i.e., Runblad) or depth that you believe you can trust (Timonen). If you're weighing risk vs reward of the trade then you have to consider the risk associated with playing Runblad for however many minutes you play Timonen. It's pretty obvious that Q considered that risk and went with the veteran guy. Considering that Runblad was a mid-first round draft pick fast approaching bust status,  not very surprising. However limited the minutes and the role.

[B21]

@JackStraw

 

Probably Roszival/Timonen.  Probably.  Though I don't think it's "obtuse" to question the "how much" and "when" Timonen played as far as analyzing the trade.  I simply don't think that you give up that much for a guy who you don't trust is a big spot.  You and @radoran can come back all you want with him playing in Games 4-6 over Rundblad.  But when I see minimal - I mean VERY minimal minutes - and no time when it matters most I can  sit here and buy the "this is why they brought him in" argument.

 

Giving up two 2nd round picks for 5:00 of ice time and 3 healthy scratches is not a good trade. if Quenneville trusted him as much as you want me to believe he would have been out there more.

[JackStraw]

@JackStraw

 

Probably Roszival/Timonen.  Probably.  Though I don't think it's "obtuse" to question the "how much" and "when" Timonen played as far as analyzing the trade.  I simply don't think that you give up that much for a guy who you don't trust is a big spot.  You and @radoran can come back all you want with him playing in Games 4-6 over Rundblad.  But when I see minimal - I mean VERY minimal minutes - and no time when it matters most I can  sit here and buy the "this is why they brought him in" argument.

 

Giving up two 2nd round picks for 5:00 of ice time and 3 healthy scratches is not a good trade. if Quenneville trusted him as much as you want me to believe he would have been out there more.

 

Well, you haven't convinced me that it was a bad trade. You have convinced me that you think it was a bad trade though, so there we are.

[murraycraven]

Well, you haven't convinced me that it was a bad trade. You have convinced me that you think it was a bad trade though, so there we are.

Agreed... Sorry but no matter who was on that 3rd paring they were not going to get a lot of ice time.

I think the argument is moot at this point... Haters gonna hate Jack but the best part is we really now know who is the greatest player in the world is - and he is not currently in the "burgh." Go back to the TOI stats and look at how the 1st and 2nd pairing vs the 3rd pairing... JQ relies on his horses....

[B21]

Well, you haven't convinced me that it was a bad trade. You have convinced me that you think it was a bad trade though, so there we are.

 

Mission accomplished. 

 

(Goes without saying - so I'll say it - you haven't convinced me it was a good trade. You have convinced me that you think it was a good trade though.)

[B21]

Agreed... Sorry but no matter who was on that 3rd paring they were not going to get a lot of ice time.

I think the argument is moot at this point... Haters gonna hate Jack but the best part is we really now know who is the greatest player in the world is - and he is not currently in the "burgh." Go back to the TOI stats and look at how the 1st and 2nd pairing vs the 3rd pairing... JQ relies on his horses....

 

So why even make the trade then? Two 2nds "just in case"?

 

I think the argument is moot at this point... Haters gonna hate Jack...

 

Because not liking the trade = hating Timonen?

 

Slobbers gonna slobber.

 

...but the best part is we really now know who is the greatest player in the world is - and he is not currently in the "burgh."

 

Relevant?  And here I was thinking you put the petulant child act away. Whoops.

 

Carry on.

[JackStraw]

the best part is we really now know who is the greatest player in the world is

 

We do... Duncan Keith. 

[flyercanuck]

@B21

 

Holy smokes...Polaris, step away from B21s computer.

[B21]

@B21

 

Holy smokes...Polaris, step away from B21s computer.

 

Ha!  Well done.  Just remember - I like Timonen.  Just not the trade. Plus @radoran is a fun guy to debate with. Jack? Not so much.

[Podein25]

 Jack? Not so much. 

 

 

Try arguing with his dog!

[JackStraw]

Try arguing with his dog!

 

You can't win. Trust me, I try every day.

[JackStraw]

Had to post this, great picture...

 

[sarsippius]

So is it safe now to give the Hawks an A?

Lmao!

Ferris, you knew what you were doing when you woke up this morning

[Polaris922]

Congrats to Timo for a great career. 

 

Congrats to the Hawks for their Cup win.

 

Kudos to the Hawks for embracing Timonen in the way that they did, and making his exit from the NHL an extremely classy one.  The Hawks franchise impressed me a lot this year, more for how they did things AROUND the game than ever.  This was no exception. 

 

 

(For Flyers fans that want to view the trade logically and with value in mind) 

 

Timonen played horribly in the playoffs, costing them in games earlier on, but not hurting them in the Cup games he played, so kudos to him for stepping up when it counted most.  The Hawks players really rallied for him at the end and that's out of respect for his career I'm sure. 

 

Philly wins this trade hands down.  To suggest otherwise is to allow emotion and favor to interfere with the facts and numbers that the game shows us.  The Flyers organization gets two shots at getting lucky in the second round, and Timonen gets his Cup.  Win for the Flyers.  Win for Timonen. 

 

The Hawks gave up potential for a veteran that was more a passenger on the winning train than anything else.  I agree with @B21 in that they would have won without him.  Timonen was at 5 minutes per game, with no stats to speak of but penalty minutes resulting in PPG against.  Game 5 vs Anaheim he went minus 2 when they upped his minutes to 8.

 

So though I am happy for Timonen, and congratulate him on a great career, the logical side of this conversation says Philly WON this trade. 

 

 

(For the Flyers fans that worship Timonen, think winning the Cup relegates anything you did to get there to unimportant, or that just can't think rationally)

 

Wow great trade for Chicago!  They won the Cup and that's all that matters!  This is the last year their franchise will be so strong until they rebuild with a draft around the huge salaries of Kane and Toews but so what?  If it weren't for this trade they wouldn't have done nearly so well!  They had Timonen's veteran presence just in case Toews or Keith weren't on point at any given time and I'm sure he kept the young Finn Teravainen on an even keel to maintain the way he'd been playing before Timonen got there!  BOTH teams won this trade and BOTH teams know it! 

 

Man I wish I were a Hawks or Flyers fan!  I'd just know my team had won no matter which one I loved!

 

 

In summary...  I would like to think I typed something to make EVERYONE happy.  But the reality is, you all read both, and now everyone can criticize my opinion no matter which side you're on.  I'm here to bring you all together in unity and harmony, after all... long live the peacemakers. 

[radoran]

*sigh*

 

Well, you haven't convinced me that it was a bad trade. You have convinced me that you think it was a bad trade though, so there we are.

 

Yeah. This.

[pilldoc]

@Polaris922

 

Talk about covering all your bases.   Great post...sums up everything I was gonna say.  Now I don't have too!

[jammer2]

  Kimo admittedly did not look great during the playoffs....but who knows what could have happened if a total green rookie was thrown into the fire in place of Kimo?  Kimo still had a nice veteran presence and respectable positioning. Many of the Hawks games were one goal wins, a key goal against when a rook is on the ice could have totally changed the face of the last couple series. As average as Kimo looked, he still had his smarts, which trumps a rookie who is playing scared any day of the week. To emphatically state the Hawks could have won without Kimo and a rookie or a inexperienced in his place.....with all those one goal games....that is iffy at best.

[Polaris922]

Kimo admittedly did not look great during the playoffs....but who knows what could have happened if a total green rookie was thrown into the fire in place of Kimo? Kimo still had a nice veteran presence and respectable positioning. Many of the Hawks games were one goal wins, a key goal against when a rook is on the ice could have totally changed the face of the last couple series. As average as Kimo looked, he still had his smarts, which trumps a rookie who is playing scared any day of the week. To emphatically state the Hawks could have won without Kimo and a rookie or a inexperienced in his place.....with all those one goal games....that is iffy at best.

Strongly disagree with iffy at best. How does a rookie do worse than costing the team a goal as Timonen did a few times? In 5 minutes of play per game? If you're going to crystal ball a rookie's play it could've also meant fewer one goal games and larger margins of victory. Can't do much worse than Timo's play up to the Cup Final.

Sorry, it's the devil in me...

[jammer2]

@Polaris922  Rookie's have a tendency to get burned in big playoff games, especially ones accustomed to AHL play that are thrown into the fire in a Conference or Stanley Cup final. I take Kimo at half steam over a green rookie any day. The Ducks and Bolts were not licking their chops every time Kimo went on the ice, which would have been the case had it not been for the Flyers trade. As it was, Johnny Oduja was playing with one arm for the entire finals. The Hawks were dangerously close to having things fall apart on the defensive side of the ledger. Trevor Van Riemsdyk looked out of place....one more rookie could have tipped the scales in the Bolts favour.